Here are a few more news articles. The press seems to have got it into their heads that the ordination of women is an issue. Bishop Don Harvey has been quite clear on the matter – until there is a consensus on the matter in the Anglican communion, ANiC will continue to ordain women.
That having been said, here are the articles:
I think the press rightly understands the fundamental integrity of these two issues much better than Donald Harvey does.
I’m sure he understands that point of view quite well. I’m equally sure he doesn’t agree.
(this is where I meant to make this comment, sorry for the slip)
This is just one more attempt by satan to confuse the ranks and cause divisions within the conservative body. We need to stay focused on the current issues.
Cranmer (#1), you’ve lost me. I only see one “issue” mentioned in the original post, and I don’t think the how the word integrity applies to it. Integrity is a quality that I hope is possessed by people on both sides of the argument. Members of the press who have regenerate hearts should be able to discern the spiritual principles underlying WO (one’s view and interpretation of Scripture, willingness to be obedient, etc.), but why would you think the press is more “right” to understand than Donald Harvey? Regardless, understanding and getting a story out to the public in an unbiased manner are often unrelated.
I think what he meant was that WO is just as unorthodox as same sex blessings. A view I don’t share, but I thought that is what was meant.
Recycle, I agree with you.
Warren,
The two issues that the press identifies are the objection to the blessing of same sex unions, and the ordination of women.
The integrity of the two issues is that the exact same sort of reasoning (that is the privileging of experience and the pressure to adopt to cultural norms over the clear teaching of scripture and the historic witness of the church)) which was used to bring in the O of W is now being used to advance the homosexual agenda.
This is not just my cranky position. Look at the brains behind the Network, Packer and Short, they are explicit in their objection to the O of W, for these very reasons.
Andrew Hutchison recognised this. Many times he said “We overruled the bible on the ordination of women why can;t we do so here”.
The notion of waiting until their is consensus before not doing something gets everything exactly backwards. Common sense, scripture, Church history, all say that you should not do something on which there is disagreement until their is consensus otherwise. This the approach that is getting TEC and ACC in trouble with the communion and we should be wary of following their lead.
What the Network is building towards is becoming the Anglican Church of Canada minus homosexuality, and I think that that is a fundamentally flawed position, and it will be a barrier for many Conservative Anglicans from joining.
I don’t see it as the same at all. It isn’t necessary to over rule the bible to ordain women – good biblical arguments for women’s leadership do exist (a book I’ve recommended a number of times on that subject is Why Not Women by Loren Cunningham and David Joel Hamilton). The same can simply not be said of same sex blessings.
Cranmer (#6), thank you for your thoughtful reply. We agree in many respects. I will not, however, given my understanding of Scripture, put WO and homosexuality in the same category. In the tradition I grew up in, would have placed infant baptism in the same category as WO and homosexuality. I believe these people made an error as well.
I am also frustrated with the inconsistency I have frequently witnessed on the part of those who firmly oppose WO (and I’m not specifically talking about Anglicans). Although they strive to uphold the “letter of the law” (as articulated by Paul), they often turn a blind eye to the “spirit of the law” for expediency. Although they may not allow a woman to be ordained in a technical sense, they will allow her to lead in many informal ways. This said, I appreciate that the failure of human beings to be consistent in their obedience to Christ and Scripture, does not change the final truth of God’s Word.
I would love to see a good biblical argument for WOs. So please do offer one. The thrust behind this innovation in mainline churches was purely on the grounds of woman’s equality. Scripture passages were then proof texted to support something that some in the church already wanted to do.
I am not a mysogynist and like to find ways for women to take appropriate leadership and pastoral roles within the church. But the New Testament does not endorse making women presbyters in any way shape or form and in fact explicitly argues against women in leadership roles.
Well, it took Cunningham and Hamilton 239 pages to make their case, so it would be a bit difficult to do that in the space of a blog comment. I didn’t say that I was capable of doing so, only that I had read good arguments. I suggest you get the book I recommended on interlibrary loan. I don’t necessarily think that the issue is fait accompli settled; I just think that it is an issue on which Christians of good conscience can agree to disagree.
How does the NT endorse the existence of presbyters at all? Deacons and Bishops, yes, but the concept of presbyter seems to be a later addition.
No presbyters are a NT concept. Do a word search of the NT, where you see elders employed, this is the word presbyter, from which we derive the english word priest. You see this repeatedly in ACTs, where Paul appoints elders (presbyters) in each of the churches on his journeys (Acts 11, 14, 15 for example).
On the first point. thank you for the reccomendation, I hae made no less than 10 books and countless articles in favour, and have never found any of their arguments compelling. None of them deal directly with the key passages concerning women in leadership in the church. So i doubt I will order this book.
But continuing to play the devils advocate, how would you respond to someone who said, “this book, by so and so, makes a compelling argument for same sex blessings. I can;t summarize it, but you should read it.” Obviously you would not find that satisfactory. You would want them to consider the plain teaching of the word of God. God does give direct teaching on this question through his word, and I don;t think that a Christian of any conscience can agree to disagree with that plain teaching.
Cranmer (#11), thank you for shifting the discussion back to Scripture. Now I have a question for you. What hermeneutic do you use in arriving at the conclusion that WO and homosexuality belong in the same category of error/sin, as you strongly imply in #6? Methinks you have created a straw man (as many Anglo-Catholics seem wont to do) and that you will have a more difficult task than Kate.
I didn’t know that elder=presbyter.
None of them deal directly with the key passages concerning women in leadership in the church. So i doubt I will order this book.
This one actually does deal with every key passage, directly, in detail.
this book, by so and so, makes a compelling argument for same sex blessings. I can;t summarize it, but you should read it.
I might not buy it, but I would read it, if only to refute it.
And now for something to help orient all of us:
Hey guys, I really do think you have allowed this by-subject take the focus off of the situation as of right now. We do not need that and we indeed need more prayer for our displaced parishes and abused parishes, some of which right now are led by Female Priests who have had the courage to stand up for the Holy Bible and for their particular congregations.
I think for now that splitting hairs over an issue that does not come close to SSB in being an issue (my opinion) and allowing it to remove our focus from our present day challenges is wrong.
The issue of WO has been said by Bishop Don as a non-issue and that has been accepted by the Common Cause Partners for this time. ‘Nuff Said.
Blessings all,
You’re right, Gerry. Point taken.
Dear Gerry,
I could not disagree with you more. The Substance of the the debate is that SSbs are not God’s will. He has revealed his will in his word, and the vast majority of his church has interpreted that word in a uniform way for 2 millenia of Christianity.
this is the exact same for the ordination of women. Bishop Don, who is wonderful, is not a theologian, his pronouncement does not just determine that the issue is settled like some sort of majesterium. And the common cause partners are not in agreement with this question.
I think it was extraordinarily arrogant and foolish for Bp. Harvey to make a pronouncement on the issue. He should have left it alone and said once we have a few more things settled we will need to have a debate on this question.
this is an issue which a vast number of Canadian Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals will not get past, and it will cause furhter divsion.
the real test to the witness of these women in orders is if they would be willing to allow Essentials to debate the issue and humbly resign their orders if the decision is made that God did not intend women to be presbyters.
this is not a bysubject, this is acritical issue which calls to question the integrity of conservative anglicans by the vast majority of the church.
Fianlly, Kate, I suspect you woudl hit a point where you would no longer read every book to refute it. I have hit that point. I would rather deal directly with the plain teaching of scripture.
So. How is it you feel we can dispense with Paul’s clear teaching in these passages.
1 Cor 13, 34-35
1 tim 2 : 11-14
Note especially that in 1st timothy paul’s reasoning, much like romans 1 aare not based on specific cultural events, but rather on the universal spiritual state of women.
And the common cause partners are not in agreement with this question.
The very fact that the partnership exists indicates that the common cause partnership doesn’t think it is a first order issue.
I think for now that splitting hairs over an issue that does not come close to SSB in being an issue (my opinion) and allowing it to remove our focus from our present day challenges is wrong.
I agree with Gerry. Enough said.
Added later for clarity: This comment is my personal opinion only and in no way reflects any official policy of ANiC or Essentials – please see the disclaimer. In case anybody is wondering.
I would like to add that the whole notion of the ordination of women is officially in a process of reception in the Anglican Communion. I expect that it will be evaluated and reevaluated over time. I also expect that it will take at least another 50 years to work its way through the process.
I’m not quite decided either way, but I’ve attended several services where a woman has presided and preached where the Holy Spirit was present. I’ve also attended services where a liberal male priest has presided which felt as dead as cordwood.
This is from a recent interview with Packer:
“PACKER: My hope is that the ordination of women will never bring about church division. This is not a part of the gospel, it is a secondary issue rather than a primary one and I would hope that an amicable arrangement, not to everyone’s full satisfaction, but a workable arrangement, can be arranged that have differed historically can come together. It is hoped that 10 splinter bodies will come together in the Common Cause diocese.”
Also, while the SSB issue inevitably takes centre stage, what has become very clear over the years is that our diocese and perhaps to a lesser extent the whole ACoC, practice not a different expression of Christianity, but an entirely different religion. There is no reason for us to stay.
But even as a secondary issue it is a wrong one. And we should seek to be faithful to the clear teaching fo scriptrue and the clear teaching fo the church in secondary issues none the less.
Good grief ! Not this elephant again! I’ve missed all the fun!
But I will say that this issue needs to be resolved soon. Meanwhile we will just have to keep cleaning up the living room carpet. LOL
Personally I’m happy enough for this to be debated – HERE. Let’s not spill out into other threads, eh? Actually it’s nice to see this debated in a civil way, often you can get to about post 6 before the insults fly!
#17 I don’t think we can dispense with Paul’s teaching. Nor am I personally prepared to debate the issue. The book I recommended to you constructs a convincing argument based on Greek words and translations. I understand the book, and find it convincing, but I don’t read Greek, and do not feel competent to reproduce the argument in my own words. I also really don’t think it is as huge an issue as you make out; the people for whom WO is a make or break issue have largely already left for the ACCC. Those who remain with ANiC in Canada seem to be largely those who are content to agree to disagree, as long as their consciences are protected (and it has been promised that they will be).
#17
#21
Cranmer, you seem the be the one most desirous of pusuing the discussion on WO, yet the least willing to make your own position clear. What is your response to to my question in #12?
Several years ago, my wife and I attended a conservative evangelical church for three years that had an unambiguous stance on the role of women. Ordaining women was out of the question and they also applied Paul’s other teachings concerning the the role in a very literal fashion (many women wore head coverings, etc.). I didn’t agree with their position, but I could respect them for their consistency. The pastor/leaders of this church were not strident about their position, however, and did not try to push away those who believed there was a culture context to Paul’s teaching and that women could play a greater role in leading the church today. I know that these same men would never dream of putting same-sex blessings in the same category as WO, and damning them as both as equally contrary to God’s will. They use a different hermeneutic than you, which leads me back to #12.
Dear Warren,
I do not put WO in the same category aas SSbs, I think Dr. Packer is right when he says it isa secondary issues. That being said, I think the arguments for WO and the way in which it has been brought in, are exactly the same as the arguments for SSbs, and the way in which it is being brought in.
So I am not sure if this answers your question. I am opposed to WO, on the grounds that it is in contradiciotn with the clear teaching of scripture, and the historic witness fo the church. And I think the Network is falling into exactly the same kind of error that the rest of the ACC is falling into when they promote without any discussion or debate.
And Kate, I really think you need to be careful. Look over your last entry and imagine it was from a friend who was in favour of SSbs, it would sound exactly the same. If you are going to be in the position of contradicting the plain teaching of scripture, you need to know your stuff.
And to this point none of you have dealt with the clear passages I posted yesterday.
“I think the press rightly understands the fundamental integrity of these two issues much better than Donald Harvey does.” I think you are right but I believe in gentle persuasion. One thing about the debate here is that the Network is given some idea of the serious misgivings some of us have in that we feel the Network is still on a slippery slope. It’s a rather difficult opinion poll but it’s all we have and I would rather think people are listening. I would point out that I have many friends who are women clergy in the ACoC and most of them do an incredible job. Usually much better than men. But that’s another story. http://www.acahome.org/submenu/docs/cslewis.htm
#26 Truly, I don’t see the same thing you see. You seem determined to draw me into this discussion, and I am equally determined to stay out of it. I do wonder what you do with Priscilla (who taught Apollos, along with her husband), and Phoebe, who was a deacon. Is Paul contradicting himself here?
You’ve said that the arguments for ssb are exactly the same as for WO. I recommend a book that has sound scriptural arguments for women in leadership, and you refuse to read it. I really don’t know what more I can say. I am not a leader in the Essentials movement, I am simply an editor on the blog. If I was one of the decision makers, you might have a point about “knowing my stuff”, but I’m not. I have read enough, and spoken with enough people I respect in order to form an opinion on the matter; however, I am not a good debater, and I am particularly gun shy on this topic because I have been involved in discussions about it on other boards that turned very nasty very quickly. In sum, I agree with Gerry, and really don’t want to spend time arguing about second order issues when we have so many first order issues to think about. First things first.
(The following was previously posted as a comment to the Essentials news release of February 29th on women’s ordination – hence the quotes below. It really was intended to address what I see as inconsistencies in that release, rather than to comment on women’s ordination itself. However, Kate has explained that it would be preferable to make my comments to this thread instead, and so I am reposting as requested.)
The press release twice uses the phrase “global and historic Anglican teaching and orthodoxy”.
So the Southern Cone does not “currently” practice women’s ordination. Why use the word “currently” unless to imply that this view could be changed in future? And if that’s the case, how would that happen within the context of “historic Anglican teaching” that will be passed on “intact and unaltered, to future generations”?
And what of these different rules on women’s ordination for South American and North American churches? Isn’t that a violation of the concept of “global” teaching and orthodoxy? And how does the Southern Cone decide which deviations from historic teaching can be allowed based on conscience (e.g. women’s ordination) and which cannot (e.g. same-sex blessings)?
With respect to the female priests who are currently licensed under Bishop Harvey, isn’t it fair to say that they are only priests because of the liberal Anglicans in past decades who dared to challenge “global and historic Anglican teaching and orthodoxy”?
And just in case anyone thought that this press release would put the issue to bed, check out the discussion which has arisen on Virtue Online since they posted the press release yesterday.
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7842
Anyone who thinks that women’s ordination will not be an issue over the longer term within the global Anglican orthodox community, is dreaming in colour.
I thought there was general agreement that WO is a secondary issue. I also thought that, being a secondary issue, it means that people can simultaneously disagree and co-exist in the same fellowship
So I really can’t see the problem. Yes, we can continue to discuss the validity of WO, but if we end up disagreeing, it isn’t a communion breaking item. In fact, depending on what day it is, I sometimes find that I disagree with myself on whether we should have lady priests.
So I find it difficult to get my knickers is a twist about it.
I suspect this thread will soon drop off the radar screen and go the way of all blog posts, but I will try and give it a little shot of life. I have a question for those who feel strongly that WO should not be countenanced under any circumstance. What stance do you take regarding: (1) Paul’s instruction concerning the qualities and gifts to be possessed by elders and deacons; and (2) divorce and remarriage? Are you as consistent in your application of Scripture in these two areas as you imply you are regarding WO? I think these issues are more tightly linked to WO than is SSB.
For the record (and because I often shoot my mouth off around here), I’m opposed to WO; but I view it as a secondary issue and not one worth separating over. I can relate to what David said in #30.
Finally, thank you Cranmer for your response in #26. Your answer was helpful.
Dear Kate,
I am so dissapointed. After hearing you opine for nearly a year now on all sorts of topics. I thought you would be able to do much better than this. I asked you to deal with two straight forward texts where Paul deals with WO. And you have not touched them.
You clearly don;t know anything about this issue, yet you presume to state that it is not an important issue. It is nto even clear to me that you know how to read the bible. There has certainly been no evidence of it.
Essentials had the potential to be so much more. Yet it is filled with a bunch of fundies whose only concern is homosexuality. This is the reason Essentials has shrunk in recent years from a very diverse group of anglicans counting many thousand in number to a very small and small minded group today. Whereas you have tried to make it clear you don;t speak for essentials, you are the blog host, you comment at will.
PLease take down this blog because it is awful. It represents the most thoughtless type of mod evangelical fundiness.
Dear Cranmer,
Thank you for your ever so charitable opinion. I am puzzled as to how you could have been hearing my opinion for a year, as I’ve only been on the blog for a couple of months.
I think we’ll leave the blog up though, as we’ve had much more positive feedback than negative.
thank you for once again not dealing with the question.
Are you not mrs. falstaff that comments on many othe blogs?
Cranmer, so it took to comment #32 for this to turn sour – better than #6, but still.
It seems to me that if Kate does not want to comment on WO, then fair enough. Let it be, there are others who will debate the issues.
We have had a number of agent provocateurs on this blog, unsurprisingly I guess. I’d like to be able to understand that you are not amongst their number, but with comments like the one above, I am not so sure. If you want to return to the topic, please do.
Alternatively, if the blog is indeed so awful, perhaps you might find another more to your taste?
Blessings,
Peter
I’m sure Cranmer will continue to be drawn, whether he posts or not, like a moth to a flame. Likely he will continue to post under some other moniker. Then maybe he can take a stab at my questions (#31). He at least made some thought provoking comments (for me anyway) before baring his fangs and erecting his straw men.
Peter,
the trouble is that Kate keeps commenting on WO. She keeps saying how it isn;t a big issue. Again and again she suggests that it is not like ssbs, and shoudl not divide us. Yet she has clearly demonstrated, that she really doesn;t understand the issue, so how can she possibly dismiss it as not important.
Warren,
you seem very sweet, but not terribly bright. It is clear you don;t know what it means to construct a straw man, s please stop accusing me of it.
This is the toruble with Essentials, the issue of homosexuality is the only one which is important and it must be important for everyone. There is a whole swath of problmes in the church and by simply attacking this one, Essentials reveals that it is not fundamentally a theological issue or a biblical one, but rather it is just that they don;t like homosexuality.
Cranmer,
I think Kate sort of declared she was bowing out of the discussion at #28. Sometimes a blog forum is simply not the best place to discuss this kind of thing thoughtfully. As you articulated well in your response in #32.
Regarding not understanding an issue, you are rather adequately demonstrating that regarding Essentials. This particular accusation has been beaten to death, a number of times. Kendall Harmon explains it quite well here: http://www.anglicandecision.org/ , in the Iceberg video. Suffice to say, homosexual practise and the blessing thereof is simply the presenting issue, the part of the iceberg that can be seen and therefore gets the press. There is plenty more under the water, and that under-the-water part is what is the first-order issue. I’d encourage you to watch the video.
Sweet?? Dang, I was hoping for at least stupid fundie. I’ll try to keep my dim bulb glowing, though.
You’re probably right about straw men, Cranmer. You have maligned several people in this thread who aren’t here to defend themselves, but you haven’t necessarily grossly misrepresented their position (other than implicitly by suggesting that all Essentials members are fundies who are concerned only about homosexuality). My bad.
I would remind everyone of the blog rules:
No, this is not going to be a list of tons of rules. You are free to comment on blog entries, dissenting from other opinions if you so desire. However, I would ask that disagreement is kept respectful. In that context, pointlessly negative sniping or ad-hominems will probably be deleted.
Thank you!
Kate, you’re right as usual. I think I’ll give myself a time out.
Perhaps it would be in the best interest of all, including Cranmer, that this thread cease to go on. It has become intolerable and when we start name calling, it is time to give it up.
Mr. Cranmer or whatever gender you are, I really would suggest that you contact St. John’s Shaughnessy in Vancouver and ask that they send you a copy of a DVD called “Crossroads – St. John’s and the Anglican Realignment”, it will fully inform you and bring you into a much better understanding, then you can discuss this situation with informed intelligence.
You can email and request a copy by going to:
DVD@stjohnsshaughnessy.org
or phone (604) 731-4966
Blessings,
Gerry
Sorry Gerry, I have to weigh in for a moment. Cranmer, you crossed a line at #32 and you owe Kate an apology for the insult. Regarding the text that you have brought up I will make brief comment.
First I want to say that I am uncertain about WO. My desire is to remain faithful to the teaching of the Bible, and I find it difficult in this matter to see clearly. The reason I have uncertain is simply because of the passage in 1 Corinthians. Paul gives instructions for how women ought to pray and prophecy in public worship meetings (1 Cor 11:2-16). There are some parts of the passage which are not completely clear, but it seems clear that Paul is instruction women about the how of prophesying and praying in a worship service. I do not think that it is a great leap to equate prophecy as Paul is using it with preaching (at least functionally, but I won’t get into that now).
That part seems clear enough, however, Paul does go on to talk about women being silent, that is to refrain from interrupting a service with questions (1 Cor 14:34,35) and that they are not permitted to have authority over a man (1 Tim2:11-14). I do not believe that the Bible is full of contradictions. The problem here is that my mind is not able to see clearly or understand full (it actually is a problem we all have since we are human and all – no insult intended). It seems to me, that I have great difficulty conceiving of how a woman can pray in a public worship service and preach while remaining silent. I would also think that prophecy or preaching carries some weight of authority. As I said at the beginning, I am not settled on the issue. I think that the move in the western church for WO was largely motivated by social acceptance rather then Biblical faithfulness, which bugs me to be honest. I am not totally convinced that WO is biblical, but I’m also not completely convinced that simply saying women can not be ordained is quite enough either. I hope I have brought fog to whatever clarity you thought you once had.
your fellow unworthy servant in Christ,
Brian DeVisser
Pastor, Kanata Lakes Fellowship
Not to bring this thread back to life after two days of quiet… but seeing a post by Brian jolted me – I had been curious about Kanata Lakes Fellowship. How is that coming along? One thing that I am very excited about, in all of this trouble, is the potential for planting new churches.
Also, I have a couple of comments about the WO discussion. They are in response to something that Kate brought up, but I am not asking her to continue discussing them – it just raised a point that I wanted to mention again, that might be helpful.
There are, most certainly, very good biblical grounds for the ministry of women in the church, in various positions of leadership. Historical reasons as well. If someone is looking at this question from a purely Protestant/Evangelical perspective, I can understand completely why someone would come to the conclusion that ordination of women is right, pure and simple. (Thus, although I haven’t read the book Kate has recommended, and I’m not entirely sure whether it is strictly approaching it from the Protestant perspective, I am not disputing the basic point. I accept it.)
However, Anglicans have traditionally understood ordained ministry, not simply as a generic manifestation of Christian leadership (the idea that a “minister” is just like a lay person, only a trained professional), but as encompassing various “orders” of ministry: bishop (overseer), presbyter (a translation of elder, contracted to “priest” in English), and deacon. Affirming the value of the ministry of women, or of any particular person, does not necessarily say anything about the nature of these orders, or whether any person (or group of persons) should be ordained to them.
In other words, Evangelical will argue that since Scripture says many positive things about the leadership and ministry of women, then it is natural that we should ordain them. And within their theology of ministry *they are absolutely right*. Ordination, within this theology, is simply the formal licensing of a professional Christian leader, who is ontologically the same as a lay person, who has no particular sacramental task. Why not women? Indeed…
This is a completely different issue, one that strikes at the heart of how Anglicans understand the nature of the ordained ministry, and the structure of the Church. It has nothing to do with whether it is appropriate for women to serve “in the ministry”. It’s about the nature of specific types of ministry. There are many gifts, but the same Spirit, the same Lord.
Consequently, I think that this is a tremendous discussion to have when launching a new church body. It is a first order for many people, and there are many people within the Network and Common Cause who really wish that those outside of those groups could be part of it. And for many who are inside, this has been a difficult question of conscience.
Respect for theological opinion, and someone’s conscience is important. But people do not simply want their private opinions respected (meaning that they should remain private). They want to be able to teach the faith, as they understand it. They want to pass this on to their children.
If I were a priest in the Network, I would want to be able to preach (not all the time or anything) about the sacraments, about the nature of Holy Orders, and I would have no choice other than to tell my congregation what I believed was the truth.
I stand somewhere in the middle. I do see this as a first order issue, but yet – at the same time – I would like to see a way for both sides to co-operate, and work within one structure. It saddens me that some traditionalist Anglicans are able to work together more easily with Baptists than with other Anglicans. But we have to be able to discuss such things, to have a serious dialogue (without name calling or insults, but a hearty and spirited discussion nonetheless).
Yours in Christ,
Michael David
Just to confirm – the book I recommended indeed is written from a protestant evangelical perspective.
(without name calling or insults, but a hearty and spirited discussion nonetheless).
I have yet to see an internet discussion of WO that hasn’t devolved into insults and name calling. I really wonder why that is.
I know I’m breaking my self-imposed silence, but the position of the major evangelical denominations concerning WO may not be clearly understood here (I’ll try not to offer any editorial comments). Generally speaking, most evangelical denominations in Canada and the US do not permit the ordination of women (The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest evangelical denomination in the US, takes a firm stance against it), or have only done so in a very limited way. I suspect this can be readily verified on the Internet. Mainline churches (Anglican, Lutheran, United Church, Presbyterian, etc.) have been more open to WO over recent decades.
Well, I thought Cranmer was so eager to discuss this. It’s been over a week, I wonder where he went?
Unless you use an RSS feed (which most people probably do not), threads tend to get forgotten once they have moved off the main page.
Perhaps. Considering how vehement he was, though, I’m surprised he hasn’t checked back.