Does he really go along with the radical ecclesiology that implies, "Everybody before us, including Jesus Christ, were sexists, and therefore apostates"?
? And here's the other thing. Bp Sentamu testified against gay marriage because he said "I don’t want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time." He has also spoken out against IVF in the past, warning against the dangers of practices which involve “doing away with the father.” So he seems to be one who is at least open to the idea that being a man or a woman is significant and consequential (as opposed to the people with the radical gender agenda, who want to make male-or-female insignificant and inconsequential.)
Anglicans generally don't, as far as I know, share the Catholic and Orthodox sense that a "hermeneutic of continuity" is important. They don't have unbroken Apostolic succession, and it doesn't seem to bother them. But I still am disappointed that Bp Sentamu would want to say that the the gender-benders are right, and 2,000 years of historic Christianity are wrong.
“They don’t have unbroken Apostolic succession, and it doesn’t seem to bother them.”
I’ve had a few high-type Anglicans on FR tell me that they consider that they do, whether Catholics or Orthodox buy it or not. So as far as I know it probably matters to some conservative-type Anglicans. I would hazard that’s why at least some don’t wan’t the bishopess thing even over the priestess thing, it would end the line(as they understand it) if a few generations of male bishops happen to only priestessfy/bishopfy women.
Freegards