[Bainbridge]

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.

[PAR35]

I went back and quickly skimmed after reading your comment. Clear scripture which doesn't support his position is dismissed as 'opaque'. "The point here, however, is not that, in their opaqueness, the pertinent texts are irrelevant to the Church’s life. "

He doesn't deny that he is calling them opaque, just emphasising that that is not his primary point.

He needs to exercise his spiritual duties as head of the household, and tell his wife she needs to quit her job.