I think the characterization that we've all gotten along just fine for fifteen years is an overstatement. We cannot always share the holy communion. When I consider moving from my home of 25 years, I look for Anglican churches in new areas. Those with female priests and rectors fall off my list of acceptable places to spend my last years. The point is that those who accept female priests consider this matter secondary, whereas those who cannot accept them find it very important. If there are truly "dual integrities," mentioning the matter cannot be "extreme and rude."

The Robinson rudeness as I see it was a matter of timing and breaking the social agreement on what to discuss. I happen to agree with Robinson in the same way as you have described (I would never join a church with a female rector). And walking out on him was certainly rude by those who disagreed with him... and their own timing was atrocious (disrespecting the Apostle to the Gentiles).

WO is a major controversial issue in the churches which is not going to go away. I will keep pointing out what the scriptures reveal, pro and con.

Well, there's the core of the problem. Robinson says there was no agreement to confine his remarks to critical race theory, and that if that had been the request, he would have declined the engagement.

The moderator would have been much better advised to have allowed Robinson to appear on the discussion panel, as scheduled, and to allow pointed questions from the audience. My rector was in attendance and was looking forward to a lively discussion. Without the cancelling, the whole thing would have blown over. Now, it's an explosion.

There is no way to reliably predict what would have happened... it could have been a true explosion.
Now it is merely a tempest in a teapot... something Calvin seems to repeatedly stir up by how he goes about doing what he does.
I keep looking for his stuffed tiger Hobbes.

Sorry. EVERYONE knew what he was going to speak to as he has talks about the SAME links in numerous addresses in numerous venues. Everyone knew and quite honestly, if you can't speak to each other without exploding when talking about CRT then you have problems. The world is ripe with it.

The conference was not about the views of Calvin Robinson (which he seems to have thought it was) and it was clearly not about Women's Ordination. His choice to make it about feminism was his alone and thus this would obviously offend many in attendance. Surely he knew this... and did not care. What does this say about him?

He never gave the conference authorities or his audience a heads up about his focus or purpose. What does this say about him?

If he had the authority of St. Paul or even an archbishop today, he would not need to warn anyone about what he was about to do. But he does not have this authority. What does this say about him?

Only God knows his heart. But his behavior tells me that he is a bit immature as a Christian and lacks wisdom. As I did myself at age 33.

It was about Rev. Robinsons views on CRT which is all connected. If they thought he'd only talk about the "black" aspect then they have a problem as they would think it's ok to speak about your own, but not their own "dual integrity"

(We) acknowledge that this practice is a recent innovation to Apostolic Tradition and Catholic Order" and "that there is insufficient scriptural warrant to accept women’s ordination to the priesthood as standard practice throughout the Province."

There was no rudeness. Read his article three times, have had a conversation with him, watched him in other venues and that's not his MO. He called out folks and their underwear got caught up in a tither.

The reality that he has not yet accepted the Holy Writ exceptions to women in authority tells us that he is simply in error. Pushing his error (however much Catholic tradition has also pushed it) in this venue with many ordained women present was indeed rude. Surely you can see this.

How about if a Catholic priest went to a Catholic conference and attacked their tradition of unmarried celibate priests? He would not be popular, would he? Even if he were correct, it would be the wrong venue indeed!

Don't You think that disinviting him in the middle of the event was a little extreme and rude?

Yes, it was.

Angel Bonilla,
It was too late to disinvite him as he had already said his piece (choosing to go off topic). He was not told to leave. He was merely not invited to join the final round table discussion... so he could not distract it and manipulate the agenda for his own personal purposes. Note that, despite the many complaints by those attending, he had not apologized for his error in breaking the agreed upon rules for the conference. He remained in denial of any such agreement.

His own talk was what was extreme and rude (unnecessarily critical of ACNA and those who are fully biblical regarding WO)... and the organizers were wise to limit his disrupting influence.

Some people are pleased to say that the position of women may be decided by us men here on Earth according to our own personal views, because there is nothing obviously stated about this in the Bible. Such people are either correct, in which case we should see positive proof of what they maintain in the Bible, or they are unorthodox, heretics and doing the work of Satan.

We see from the comments which are added to this article that many leading lights of VOL maintain that women's ordination is a lesser matter, despite implying that they do not actually support women's ordination. This is schizophrenic at the very least, as they do not bring to the party any argument that positively shows that this is how things are supposed to go, they simply refer to an absence of direct anathema against it, despite the centuries of Church and CofE practice.

The reason that we find nothing from Jesus or the apostles on this subject, and nor do we find anything absolutely specific in the law given to the Jews, is that the thing was decided even before this, in Eden when the consequences of the Fall were explained and imposed upon man. It is true that in the world to come there will be no more male or female, but we are not there yet, and we are still laboring under the consequences of the Fall. Genesis 3 is still part of the Bible, and therefore its consequences and what we can learn from it must be taken to be relevant for anyone who wishes to base their thinking on this subject on what is contained in the Bible.

From a sermon given in Vancouver, which I think explains this better than I could:

When God created mankind He made them into two dissimilar but harmonious parts, man and woman: Man, to whom all authority was given: Woman to be a helpmeet to man, and to rule with him, and inferior to him only as to full authority.
Was this merely because there could not very well be two heads, and, as Adam was created first, Eve must be junior, and, therefore subordinate?
This would seem very logical; but Almighty God has a far higher object in doing things than logic.
Everything that God created was to show forth the glory of God, and what He wanted to show mankind, as in a model, was His future and eternal purpose; Christ, the King and Supreme Ruler of all, with all authority and the Church, the Bride of Christ, ruling with Him, yet in subordination to Him; because it is unthinkable that any man or body of men can have all authority, which is only given to Christ.
So God created man as a type of Christ, with all the elements of authority on the one hand; and woman as a type of the Church, with all the elements of subordination on the other.
It is not a question of inherent superiority or inferiority of either man or woman. It is a question of each remaining in the place God has set each. Man could not be a true type of the Church. Woman could not be a true type of Christ. Individual superiority or inferiority has nothing to do with it.
Now, let us look at the effect of man and woman leaving the places God had set for them. Dear brethren, we see it was not only a question of doing something that God had forbidden; it was that and something more.
On the part of the woman, it was a despising of the marriage state. What did Adam know more than she as to whether or not a particular fruit was good to eat? Perhaps he did not, but she was deceived. There was more to it than that; and Adam saw it, because God had given him the wisdom. True it is, he also left his place of ruler and guide, and sinned equally with the woman.
What a lesson for us all, man and woman, to be faithful in the position God has set each! Though every one is responsible for his own acts, whether he or she acts or omits to act, yet God has given us Ministers to whom we can seek for His light and guidance, that we may be able to judge whether we should act or refrain from acting; so let us seek to them before deciding, that by the Holy Spirit we may obtain light and a right judgment of the matter.
It is only in Christian lands that woman has again been to a large extent freed and brought to the position God intended for her, of helpmeet to man and to the honour of man, not his slave.
The Church, through Christ’s teaching, has all along held this to be woman’s true position. Women are admitted to Holy Baptism like men; women are admitted to the Holy Communion like men; women are given blessing like men; only one thing is withheld, and that is authority, which was given to man. The exercise of ordinances in the Church requires a headship, an authority over the congregation and members, as Christ's representatives, Who is the Head; and the authority to ordain, to teach, to decide, remains with man.
There is an idea expressed that woman is the equal of man; that she has not yet the authority of man, but should have. But we have seen that God appointed that authority should rest with man, not with woman; and so it would seem as if the temptation in the Garden of Eden was again to be repeated: “Thou shalt not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden: Thou shalt not have the full authority which is given to man.” To take it will be a sin of disobedience, as in the case of Eve. But is this all? Is there not something behind this? Yes, there is.
We have seen Satan was envious, and tried to destroy mankind; and he partially accomplished his purpose. But there was one thing he did not take into account, because he did not know it. He does not know all things; and he did not know of God’s purpose to become man. God’s mighty work of becoming man was accomplished through woman, whom Satan had so cruelly deceived. And God was made man. Our Redeemer came, and by His life, death, and resurrection, has redeemed mankind from eternal death.
Now, Satan’s time is short; and he must do something desperate, and his scheme is none other than to make man as God.
We read in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (ii: 2 - 3) of the man of sin being revealed who sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
This man of sin can never be revealed so long as woman abides in her place of faithful subordination to man, because in so doing she testifies that Christ is the ruler; that man is not God, and she loves and obeys man, because he is the type to her of Christ; and she is the type to him of the Church, the faithful spouse of Christ.
To depart from this position is to open the flood gates of iniquity which will reveal the man of sin.
If, therefore, it is a sin of woman to depart from her covering, how much greater will it be the sin of man, if he allow her to do so?
What a mighty work for God and all creation are faithful women doing now and can do, by abiding in the place God has appointed for then and refusing to be tempted to take what God has forbidden.
So to men and women we say, Be patient unto the coming of the Lord, when the curse shall be done away, and when all shall receive their reward for all their faithful service; of man to woman, and woman to man, for the Lord’s sake.

A church which ordains women cannot be perfect before God, because the role of Christ and the role of the Church, the role of the husband and the role of the wife, are not honoured. In such a church divorce and remarriage will be allowed, marriage itself will be polluted, and there will be no defense against any perverted sexual practice, for God will leave her to the consequences of her iniquity. The final picture of the apostate church in the Revelations is that of a prostitute, one for whom marriage is of no importance.
Therefore beware, repent, and bear witness for the truth.

That extended quote is excellent... but I hate it when there is no author name or other valid reference identifying where it came from. I would like to be able to use it in the future without being accused of plagiarism, and the author should get full credit.

I'm afraid I don't have his name. I do state the names when I know them. I do know it was preached by a deacon, and I have a reprint dated 1975, but this was originally preached around 1910 at a guess.

I am weighing what David has said and what Gavin Ashenden has said on YouTube under the title "Cancelling Calvin Robinson: the American Anglican crisis as feminism takes truth & integrity hostage." I am concentrating on what Rev. Robinson said that led to the reaction. This dual integrity thing seems to be something which those who have abandoned traditional biblical moral in TEC used for awhile and their counterpart in the Church of England have used, e.g. let's walk together, which to me is like allowing somebody to keep saying the same thing (or doing the same thing) till I accept it with the underlying assumption that I will ultimately cave in. Who said, "The devil is in the procrastination"?

Fr. Calvin Robinson dared to expose the Achilles heel of the ACNA, and that cannot be tolerated.

The Emperor has no clothes here. They cannot have it both ways on this issue, and they'd rather shoot the messenger than admit their position is incoherent.

Shaughn,
Please put all of your own clothing back on. Your Oxford Movement slip is showing. If the scriptures reveal 'both ways on an issue' (see Romans 14 and all the women in authority positions revealed in the Bible) then we absolutely SHOULD have it both ways.

No one is shooting the messenger; in fact they allowed him to have his say (however much it offended many). They just limited his tractarian damage to the conference by not inviting him to the final round table discussion.

And then please read (on this thread) my extensive defense of ACNA's one integrity position... beginning with... "Here is a scripture-based and rational argument that ACNA leaders can provide regarding Women’s Ordination (WO) and the current situation which has unfortunately been called 'dual integrities'.”

It is very far from incoherent and it is very far from being unbiblical. It is just not consistent with Catholic tradition... which you obviously prefer over Holy Writ. But then much of Catholic tradition is inconsistent with the scriptures; this is easy to prove... and is the primary reason for the Reformation.

Those downvoting here reveal their own Catholic proclivities. I am happy to invite anyone to debate the issue with me according to the scriptures. Downvotes tend to reveal an inability (and thus an unwillingness) to do so.

I think that I know what you mean by "Catholic tradition," i. e. Oxford Movement borrowings from contemporary Roman Catholicism or resurrecting practices and doctrine from the pre-Reformational Church in England, but may I suggest that opposition to women clergy would not be catholic by the (5th century) Vincentian definition of catholic, i. e. "that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all." Woman deacons did exist at one time. And, yes, other positions in the Roman Catholic Church would not be catholic by that definition as well.

Agree. But I must also remind our readers that the ideal of the Vincentian canon never has actually existed. That is, never have there been doctrines in the churches that have been "believed everywhere, always, and by all." The Apostles' and Nicene Creeds come as close to it as we can find in the early Church, and even then, the Great East-West Schism around 1000 AD was partially due to disagreement regarding the (scripture valid) Filioque addition to the Nicene Creed.

My use of "Catholic tradition" is rather general (there have been so many errors traditionalized in the RCC), but certainly it is associated here with hyper-clericalism and misogyny. Anglo-Catholics are more attracted to these things than are evangelicals; the latter tend to see scripture as far more authoritative for the Church than any human ecclesiastic or theological traditions.

Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke not received and not believed by all Christians? I must admit when it comes to the 23 other N.T. books, all of them were not always received. The Old Testament, at least the Masoretic textual part of it, not always believed by all? Thought occurred, though, God's words should not be dependent on human receptivity.

Yes, not all Christian leaders in even orthodox Anglican churches have accepted all the books in the Bible as God-inspired. These differences in perspective are much more broadly true when it comes to interpretation. The most highly trained theologians and church leaders (infamously) disagree on many points. This was even the case with the early church fathers.

I would submit that virtually every church (flock) has its share of goats and wolves in sheep's clothing within the congregation; true agreement is not going to happen. Additionally, because of denominational/family background bias and because of different degrees of spiritual development, this problem is not going to go away prior to the Lord's return in glory. Vincent's 'canon' will remain only an ideal until the Eschaton.

You would be heretical if you don't believe the Bible even the ACNA states so.

(We) acknowledge that this practice is a recent innovation to Apostolic Tradition and Catholic Order" and "that there is insufficient scriptural warrant to accept women’s ordination to the priesthood as standard practice throughout the Province."

"As a standard practice", Lew. It is NOT a standard practice throughout ACNA now and I trust that it never will be.

This statement, however, is actually in error in terms "scriptural warrant," as I have made clear on this thread. As for Catholic Order... when we use it to mean what the faith became after the Apostles were gone, the RCC was itself in error (and still is in error) on many points. Need I list them?

Because of the exceptions to the rule (of no women in authority over men) found in the scriptures, it cannot be a first order Law. It is merely about polity (church organization) and not about sin. Therefore, although I have my own opinion about it (i.e., WO is foolishness), it is not a deal-breaker for me and is a secondary (Romans 14) kind of issue.

What exceptions to the rule can be found in Holy Writ you may be asking? The answer is an easy one: Deborah the Judge in the OT, and women in both OT and NT who God gave the highest spiritual gift of all… prophecy… which is defined as God speaking directly in first person through the person with the gift… which means the highest authority of all! And this was God’s doing, not any decision by the Church. Of course, we can add NT deaconesses and the "women of influence" who aided Paul's spread of the gospel.

In quoting Job 10:15 as well as Shakepeare’s Hamlet, the first ACNA bishop Bob Duncan has recently opined, “WO, WO, woe is me!” (This is flagrant satire of course.)

Every orthodox Anglican knows about 'the elephant in the ACNA living room' -- and it is a controversy that will not go away throughout Anglicanism as well as in most Protestant denominations. Although ACNA is protected by the canon rule that no women can be a bishop and there are at least two levels of male authority/headship (bishop and archbishop) over every priest, it must be admitted that the liberty given to dioceses with regard to whether or not to ordain women presbyters is most definitely ACNA's one clear departure from traditional Anglican orthodoxy.

Note that WO is common among both 'orthodox' Global South and GACON provinces, but acceptance of the LGBTQ+ agenda is uniformly rejected. In terms of morality and consistent teaching from scripture, the two issues cannot be validly compared. There are a number of exceptions to the 'rule' of no women in authority in the scriptures... without rebuke or criticism. However, there are no exceptions in either OT or NT to the condemnation of homosexual activity as being an egregious sin.

To which I merely quote you: 'Ordination (WO) and the current situation which has unfortunately been called “dual integrities” (nomenclature which has been rightly criticized as oxymoronic)'

John,
As I have explained, the "dual integrities" designation is not entirely accurate. ACNA does not have two integrities at all... but only one... based on reliance upon the authority of Holy Writ.

When some legalistic types (like Robinson) do not want to examine the whole counsel of God in the scriptures (note the exceptions to the rule of no women in authority which can be found in the Bible) but choose to rely more upon Catholic Church tradition, it will always cause disputes in Anglicanism. And certainly it will cause Reformed (Article XX) Anglicans like myself to stand up and "contend for the faith once and for all delivered"--- meaning the faith as it was when these words were written by Jude, and not what the churches became in Rome, Constantinople, and Alexandria over the next millennium due to the influence of Roman and Greek culture. For example, except for the blatant error in deifying Mary, the Romans and Greeks were misogynist, as were most cultures in those days.

That is the nature of the issue. Either a woman can be a priest, or she can't. Recognizing them in some dioceses but not others is an absurdity and deeply unjust to the women who take on that role, whether in error theologically or not.

With the diaconate, there isn't sufficient scriptural evidence that women served in the same office as men. We get one line in Romans about Phoebe, but its meaning is ambiguous. The Vulgate translates it as "in the ministry," which the KJV, the Douay-Rheims, and the Geneva Bible keep. The NKJV uses "servant." The RSV uses "deaconess," a distinct ministry.

The only translations on Biblehub that render it as "deacon" are the NIV, the NLT, God's Word Translation (whatever that is), and the NRSV. The NIV is simply not in good company here. Heck, even Luther's German Bible renders it "am Deinste," for "in the services," , and he uses different terms in Acts and the Pastoral letters.

The proposed interpretation for Phoebe, therefore, is at best a recent innovation. More likely, it's just a wrong one.

Paul later describes the office of deacon in the pastoral letters, and he very clearly assigns the office to men. The seven deacons appointed in Acts are men.

To say that scripture allows women to serve as deacons requires interpreting and translating it differently than anyone ever did before mid-20th century--again, placing it in the questionable company of many other innovations.

But suppose we humor that interpretation and say, "Yes, women can serve as deacons in the same capacity that men do."

Paul uses parallel language in the Pastoral letters for both deacon and bishop. It follows logically that if a woman can be a deacon in the same capacity that Paul describes for men, then she can serve as a bishop.

Such an interpretation requires ignoring everything else Paul says about women in the Church, but it is otherwise a more consistent interpretation than what ACNA currently practices, especially in light of their study on the subject.

David's reference to GHW Bush is of little comfort: shortly after Bush said "Not gonna do it," he did it, raising taxes through an Omnibus Reconciliation Act in 1990.

In Rom 16.1 διάκονον is used. In 1 Timothy 3.8-12, διακόνους and διάκονοι are used. Of course in biblical versions sponsored by churches that abandoned the holy orders of bishop, priest, and deacon long ago, it is not surprising other meanings would be given to the words.

Roy,

Yep. Those are different forms of the same word. -on is an accusative singular ending. -ous is accusative plural, and -oi is nominative plural.

I find the arguments against bishops, priests, and deacons to be mostly hollow; certainly by the time Ignatius of Antioch was writing, he recognized three distinct orders, and he was writing either just after the canonical texts were written or while they were still being written, depending on which dates you fancy. Not ordaining women as deacons isn't an especially Catholic thing; Southern Baptists, Missouri Synod Lutherans, and PCA Presbyterians don't, either, and they are emphatically not Catholic.

Father Casey, I try to be of open mind in regard to WO. When I see a woman bishop, priest, or deacon, it makes me feel ill at ease. However, could it be the work of the Holy Spirit just as abolition had been in the past? (Slavery is in the Bible and was accepted by Christians for a long time.) Fr. Robinson's point that the recent changes were the effect of a secular cause, i.e. the feminist movement, seems hard to deny also. Keeping up with the Jones's latest secular acquisition seems to be acquiescing to secular norm, but, too, it may be viewed, I suppose, as a Christian response. What Jesus must think of all this commotion, when there are more important tasks pending! Are we the Pharisee or the publican in temple?

Roy,

I think it is good to sit in that tension. As a military chaplain, I work with chaplains from other denominations regularly, including female chaplains from endorsers that allow them. It is, I think, a unique organ in Christ's Body. At any rate, women's ordination manifests from several deeper root issues than that one, and it's those root issues that should be the focus. My approach there is to choose carefully when and how to influence.

If it helps, consider Uzzah's example from 1 Samuel. He wasn't a Levite, touched the ark as it was teetering, and was struck dead. While God isn't in the habit of striking Christians dead these days, I think we can still extrapolate that accurately determining who is and who isn't a priest is a matter of importance.

So what do we make of Peter's clear opinion that the priesthood is made up of ALL believers? Neither Jesus (nor Paul nor Peter) promoted the idea of the formation of a prestigious ruling priesthood caste. Bottom line: Roman Catholic tradition does not get to define who is a priest and who is not. Nor do you (or I) have that authority. As for me, I would trust Jesus and Peter over Irenaeus any day.

We can argue about the Greek word which became what we call deacons, and we can hypothesize about what the first women deacons’ roles actually were as defined by their churches (unlikely to rule over men), but what we cannot doubt is that it was God Himself who chose to give women the highest spiritual gift of all (at least after those of an Apostle, according Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:27-31):. "Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts."

Women Prophets in the Old Testament
The label “prophetess” or “woman prophet” (něbī’āh) is attributed to five women in the Old Testament: Miriam (Exod. 15:20), Deborah (Judg. 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chron. 34:22), Noadiah (Neh. 6:14), and “the prophetess” (Isa. 8:3, unnamed). Its significance is clear. Miriam claims the Lord “has spoken” through her (Num. 12:2). Deborah says to Barak: “Look, the Lord, the God of Israel, has commanded” (Judg. 4:6). Huldah similarly uses the prophetic introductory formula: “Thus says the Lord God of Israel…” (2 Kings 22:15). Scripture, then, describes a prophet (whether male or female) as someone through whom God speaks directly to his people.

Women Prophets in the New Testament
Luke presents Anna as a “woman prophet” (prophētis), which is the same Greek word the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, uses to translate the Hebrew něbī’āh (Luke 2:36). Like the prophet Simeon who is paired with her (2:25–27), Anna is led by the Holy Spirit to speak about Jesus “to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem” (2:38). The masculine gender of the signifiers describing her intended audience suggests Anna prophesies to both men and women.
Luke’s depiction of Anna as a prophet anticipates Pentecost, when Mary the mother of Jesus and other women prophesy (Acts 1:14; 2:17). Luke makes another link between Anna and early Christian women prophets when he introduces Philip’s daughters as “virgins who prophesy” (Acts 21:8-9):. The next day we left and came to Caesarea; and we went into the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the seven, and stayed with him. He had four unmarried daughters who had the gift of prophecy. (Acts 21:8b-9)

In Revelation, specifically in the letter to Thyatira (Rev. 2:18–29), Jesus criticizes a woman who calls herself a woman prophet— the same word Luke uses for Anna— for “teaching and deceiving my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols” (v. 20). The woman is clearly a leader in the church of Thyatira. But is she a genuine prophet?

The prophet Jeremiah makes personal holiness and purity a litmus test for genuine prophecy (Jer. 23:9–40). Jesus, similarly, advises His disciples to expose false prophets by drawing attention to their behavior (Matt. 7:15–23). Unfortunately, the character and behavior of the woman from Thyatira did not meet the litmus test of a genuine prophet. Yet what is often missed is that Jesus does not attack the woman for being a leader, but for being an immoral one and a teacher of falsehoods.
https://www.cbeinternationa...

Talking about the role of women even liturgically, where some seem to distinguish the early deacon-servicer from today's deacon-sacrament minister-and-homilist, no one seems to object when women distribute the bread and wine at Holy Communion or when they take it to the incapacitated nor to object when women are invited to speak on some subject from the pulpit. When deacons baptize, they do something which laity may do in an emergency. Today's acolytes may be male or female. Yes, conceded, a male celebrant would seem to have more similarity to Jesus at the Last Supper, or a male bishop more similarity to Jesus, the Good Shephard, but would or does Jesus take it to that level to exclude women celebrants? Technically, presbyter and congregation are all celebrants.

Yes, and according to Peter, all believers are part of the priesthood.

There is a big difference between a 'priesthood of all believers' and 'every Christian is priest'.

John,
Oh yes? That sounds like a very disingenuous, slip-sliding away from Peter's point, which is similar to Jesus' points in Mark 10:42-44 and Matthew 23:5-12 and perhaps even to Paul's point in Galatians 3:23-29. There is no encouragement at all in the NT for the development of a separate ruling priesthood caste.

You keep talking about authority (women must not have authority over men) and ruling others. Fine, but I am taling about priests in their role of absolving, blessing and consecrating. The verses you point out are not about absolving, blessing and consecrating.

Again John you show evidence that you depend upon RC traditions (and not Holy Writ) for your points. There is nothing (nothing!) in the New Testament about a separate priesthood such that only these priests have the power and authority to absolve, bless, and consecrate. This spiritual authority (only for ordained priests) was invented by the power hungry bishops who took advantage of the fact that the Apostles (who did have divine authority) were no longer around. If only they could do these things (and other ritualistic essentials) it would make them very important indeed. At least John Chrysostom got it right: "The desire to rule is the mother of all heresy."

Shaughn,
You wrote: "Either a woman can be a priest, or she can't."

Much depends on how you define "priest." If you use Peter's definition of the priesthood as being of ALL believers, then of course women can and are priests (1 Peter 2:4-5, 9). And so am I, even though I was not ritually 'ordained' in any church. IF you go Roman Catholic, then by tradition, WO is verboten and misogyny is OK (except for deifying Mary). Everyone knows this.

However (as I responded to Lew Ricker), as for Catholic order and tradition... when we use it to mean what the faith became after the Apostles were gone, the RCC was itself in error (and still is in error) on many points. Need I list them? No traditions of men (which of course are fallible) can have more authority than Holy Writ (which is infallible). If opponents of WO refuse to examine the scriptural exceptions, then we have nothing to talk about because they do not even believe God's Holy Word written.

Because of the visible exceptions to the rule (of no women in authority over men) found in the scriptures, it cannot be a first order Law. It is merely about polity (church organization) and not about sin and not about salvation. Therefore, although I have my own opinion about it (i.e., WO is foolishness), it is not a deal-breaker for me and remains a secondary (Romans 14) kind of issue.

What exceptions to the rule can be found in Holy Writ you may be asking? The answer is an easy one: Deborah the Judge in the OT, and women in both OT and NT who God gave the highest spiritual gift of all… prophecy… which is defined as God speaking directly in first person through the person with the gift… which means the highest authority of all. God Himself! And this gifting was entirely God’s doing and not accomplished by any decision of the Church. Of course, we can add NT deaconesses and the "women of influence" who aided Paul's spread of the gospel to the list of women in authority. They were indeed exceptions... but they also provide a clear divine precedent for such exceptions... such as ACNA has allowed.

And as to your original question, there are levels priestly function, some having authority over men and some not. Paul did not say women could not be priests (in all of his writings he did not even discuss a priesthood), he only said that in his churches he did not allow women to have authority over men, including teaching. But he did not call it sin or heresy; he did not call it "preaching another gospel" as he did about other more blatant errors in the churches.

The question I raise in protest is this: Where exactly should we draw the line?
I agree with ACNA that only males should be allowed in the episcopate, and I also say that this should include Rectors as well (because rectors have much congregational authority... over both men and deacons within their sphere of operations).
But even this is not a deal-breaker because it is a secondary polity issue.

Where to draw the line? To be practical, it would seem to be state of affairs now in the ACNA an GAFCON. Let WO be accepted in parishes and dioceses in which the general membership seems to be tolerant of it. Even GAFCON applies exceptions, e.g. the few women bishops ordained in Africa. The fault of TEC, Canada, and Church of England in regard to WO may have been not letting it be where accepted, as first stated, but trying to impose it on everyone afterward, i.e. forcing it.

Yes, TEC, Canada, and CofE took the WO issue to another level, into what I consider blatant heresy by their consecrating women bishops and imposing this practice upon the entire province. Hence I expect the next ABC in England will be a woman, following TEC's past Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Schori into the role of their province's top leader.

I do wish people weigh expected results. Would it turn away or turn off more people than it would draw more people? David has pointed out in the past attendance losses that may result from introduction of WO at the parish level. Jesus said to "go and make disciples of all nations," not create impediments.

Good point.

Here is what I found about "Deaconess":

Deaconess

Samuel Macauley Jackson, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Volume III: Chamier –Draendorf, Funk and Wagnalls Company, New York (1909), page 374

I. In the Apostolic Age: The function dates from the earliest period of the Church, though the technical term in the feminine form, “deaconess” (Gk. diakonissa; Lat. diaconissa, diacona), does not occur till a later period. Phoebe was a deaconess in the church of Cenchrea, the masculine form, diakonos, being applied to her (Rom. xvi. 1; transl. “servant” in Eng. versions). The women whose names are given in Rom. xvi. 12 were probably of the same class. It is not probable that there was a distinct order of deaconesses in the Apostolic Church in the modern sense. Nevertheless, Paul’s mode of referring to Phoebe implies that she was recognized at Cenchrea and by himself as having a special work and authority. It is possible that deaconesses are referred to in I Tim. iii. 11. If so, they were distinguished from the “widows” (I Tim. v. 3-16), who were not to be enrolled in that class till they had reached sixty years of age. From the earliest times the need must have been felt of a special class of women who should devote themselves to Christian service at times of baptism, visit the parts of the houses set aside for females, and perform other duties. While Phoebe is the only person in the New Testament distinctly called a deaconess, there are indications, as in the case of Dorcas (Acts ix. 36) and other cases, that woman’s service was held in high esteem by the Church and had a distinctive character.

Right. I have no issue with deaconesses as an office with a distinctive character. My jurisdiction has them, even. The key question is whether it's the same office as the one to which men are called. I don't think there's strong scriptural support for that interpretation, and neither did anyone else, Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical, Broad Church, Latitudinarian, or whatever other faction you like, until the 20th century.

In agreement with you, I would much prefer gender-separated offices and functions, because men and women are (duh!) different in abilities and gifts associated with their divinely assigned roles in life and in the Church. I am fine with women being ordained, just not ordained to the same roles as men or with the same level of authority. The Bible is abundantly clear: men are to be the leaders, women the helpers. However it does not take a genius to figure out that sometimes helping requires some leading.