Replies

What counts as “orthodox” in a collection of Christian groups that number in the dozens of thousands today? Certainly I would be loath to call myself “orthodox” in any definitive way. According to whose universal standard?

I quit reading at that point, and classed him as a liberal in self-denial.

Orthodoxy is defined by the scriptures. They are the universal standard.

You and I may have disagreements about what parts of the scriptures are saying, but anyone who willfully disregards the teachings of the scriptures is not orthodox in Christianity. For Anglicans, the secondary test for orthodoxy should be adherence to the 39 Articles. For other protestants, you can measure orthodoxy by adherence to their historic secondary standards: Westminster Confession, Belgic Confession, Canons of Dordt, etc.

It is generally safe to conclude that one who claims that Orthodoxy can't be defined is not.

" I quit reading at that point, and classed him as a liberal in self-denial."

Read the rest of it. Its worth the read and as anyone around these threads will tell you, I hardly qualify as a religious liberal, in denial or otherwise. I also qualify as "Orthodox" by most anyone's standards! :)

I read further. Perhaps the good minister is truly searching for the truth about the validity of ordaining women. However, I am struck by two things: the odd idea that he somehow just ended up in an Episcopal church, and never noticed that there was any controversy about females in the ministry. This is frankly preposterous as anyone having any interest in the modern American Anglican branch of Christianity could not have missed the conflict this has created. Secondly, his method of having to square everything on every front,(the catholic take, the protestant take,etc>) a rather dismissive mention of texts ( the silence of women in church) when his very obvious position is threatened. I find it rather bizarre that he would choose as his spiritual adviser one who belongs to a church that considers him a pale second, outside the "fullness of the truth". Although some might find his agonized analysis of how the church should come down on the question of women priests to be thorough, I think it was really a muddying of the waters. To be frank, I would have to go with what I would contend was a more straight forward approach: what has the Bible said about this, and the historical evidence that Jesus did not pick women for leadership.