Briefcase: Priestesses in Plano

Now that all three parts of Fr. Hollister's analysis of the Plano Paper on Women's Ordination (entitled: Men, Women, Ministry, and the Mission of God) have been posted, I think it best to provide one link that carries individual links to each of the three parts. This is for convenience, like carrying a briefcase.

Part I
http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2009/10/priestesses-in-plano-part-i.html

Part II
http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2009/10/priestesses-in-plano-part-ii.html

Part III
http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2009/10/priestesses-in-plano-part-iii.html

Fr. Hollister's lengthy critique has required close study of a very unpleasant subject. It is necessary. No matter how many times the advocates of the Women's Ordination innovation come up with their arguments, they always say these same things over and over, no matter how differently they arrange their case each time. This critique has, in effect, answered everything that came before it, and likely answers all that may come in the future.

As we have noted several times, their argument is not only similar to arguments in favor of same sex "blessings" and consecration of actively practicing homosexual bishops; they present the exact same arguments. In the past, I have referred to the gravity of logic, and said this:

"The fact is, once the 'ordination' of women was accepted, the movement to bless same sex unions was inevitable. The arguments for Homosexualism are not merely similar to the arguments for women's 'ordination.' Rather, they are the exact same arguments. The blessing of same sex unions, practiced now throughout the official Canterbury Communion, is performed as a church rite by sincerely lusting couples under the direction of clergypersons of both sexes and all genders, to be as close to the semblance of marriage as the Law of each state, province or nation makes possible. In short, it imitates the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and does so on the newly understood basis that the sex of a person has no significance in a sacrament. If Shirley and Maggie can be 'ordained' they can also be married [to each other], and so can Adam and Steve.

"The 'conservatives' among the Anglicans have failed to understand the gravity of logic. It works the same way as this illustration. If I stand at the top of a thirty-foot hill with a big round rubber ball, and decide to roll the ball only ten feet down the hill and no farther, like it or not, the ball will roll the entire thirty feet to the bottom before it stops after rolling even farther still. It does not matter that I intended only to roll it ten feet. Once I let go, gravity will take the ball the whole way. This is how a premise works in relation to logic. Once you let go of the ball, that is, once you state or merely accept a premise, the gravity of logic will take over. Perhaps you only meant to let women be priests, but not to let the premise take its own logical course to the final end. However, the premise itself is subject to the gravity of logic, and must keep rolling until you are 'blessing' Adam and Steve in the imitation sacrament of Unholy Unmatrimony. Those who want to argue that this was not inevitable have two problems facing them: First, we predicted this would happen, and second, it has."

"It is significant that in their paper, the Plano Three (Fr. David Roseberry, Rector of Christ Church Plano, Texas, along with one Fr. Clint Kerley and one Toby Eisenberg) have even gone as far as to use the same smaller arguments in detail that have been standard fare in arguments for same sex "blessings." In their paper they wrote: "Indeed, such arguments based on what is implied in Scripture and on one’s own experience and reasoning were used to justify American slavery, even though Christians universally reject the idea of slavery today...'[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God ... it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation ...'" quoting (of all people) Jefferson Davis, President of the CSA. Both Fr. Hollister and I refuted this point. *

The most frightening aspect of this is the degree to which they agree with the same sex "Blessing" advocates, the whole time considering themselves orthodox for no greater reason than their rejection of this newer innovation. In attacking an old worn out idea, namely advocacy of slavery by abuse of Biblical texts, they have carelessly presented that idea as quite possibly a genuinely Biblical one; and as generally accepted in ages past. In fact, it was neither (indeed, it was the Christian Abolitionists who quoted Scripture to great effect). In so doing, they actually criticize the Bible itself, implying that it is morally deficient in one issue, and therefore may be irrelevant in another. What is more, they do not know that they have made the same argument as Louie Crew and the supporters of Gene Robinson and of "blessing" same sex unions.

That is one detail, and I could cite here many other examples scattered throughout their paper. The logic of their position requires that we reject the clear meaning and teaching of Scripture, as understood everywhere and always by the Church, provided only that we may use some concocted theory about priorities as an excuse. They have released this premise, and cannot stop it from rolling the whole way to the bottom.
_________
*The actual commandment in the Bible forbids slavery, inasmuch as the obvious meaning rules out any tolerance for treating people as property. Deuteronomy 23:15,16 makes this absolutely clear, so clear as to be unmistakable: "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him." If the fleeing servant's master has no claim, it means any servant had the freedom to quit his position; and that means no servant was ever to be treated as property (and there is, of course, no contrary commandment anywhere in the Bible). Although some translations use the word "slave" for עבד (ebed), it is not at all correct; the word means "servant," and in no way implies that such a person has become property. New Testament texts that teach Christian slaves how to live in the reality of their position were addressing real life in the pagan empire of ancient Rome, and cannot be used as an endorsement of that pagan system.