I don't know the Anglican church well enough to speak for Bishops, I do happen to know a few conservative female priests in the Episcopal church and the Anglican church of Canada.

I think it is a mistake for evangelical Christians to conflate the issue of women's ordination with other issues such as homosexuality and other issues. For instance, many pentecostal churches have been ordaining women for nearly a century and they are in no danger of waffling on homosexuality. My own small evangelical denomination has been ordaining women for three decades, and we are nowhere close to changing policy on human sexuality.

The problem with female pastors is that allowing it is a clear renunciation of Scripture's clear command that eldership and pastoral responsibility in the church are for men only. I suppose there can be female pastors if their pastoral role is that of pastoring women, having no teaching or disciplinary authority over men in the church. But even that I get wary of as the biblical order, and the history of covenantal order in the Bible does assign a leadership role to men within family and covenant community, and this stems from before the Fall, when everything was good and sin had not marred human relationships.

Bottom line, compromise on a clear mandate of Scripture, the whole teaching and preaching authority of the local church will totter and eventually fall.

I'm so tired of men deciding what women can and cannot do.

Has anyone asked the women in the church what they think?

The issue of the ordination of women to the position of pastor (or priest or bishop) may seem trivial to some. However, it is a watershed issue within Christianity. It boils down to following doctrines clearly delineated in the Bible - "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." 1 Tim. 2:12 - or choosing to circumvent them for the sake of adapting to cultural pressures, in this case feminism.

The fact that some denominations have been ordaining women for nearly a century does not change or diminish or invalidate the teachings of the Bible. Even if these denominations are not "waffling on homosexuality" they are arguably giving implicit, if not explicit, legitimacy to those denominations that are.

I agree with Matt. Having been raised in the Church of the Nazarene, which has ordained women (and refused to ordain known homosexuals) since its founding in 1908, I find your (Tim's) question more than a bit leading. The fact that mainline denominations have tied women's ordination to human rights rather than to spiritual calling does not negate the calling. Any issue that is based on human rights rather than spiritual giftedness and calling is going to attract more liberals than conservatives at first. Having joined TEC four years ago, my concern is that women in ministry who uphold the Virgin Birth, the exclusiveness of Christ for salvation and the bodily Resurrection (and yes, there are many women who believe and preach all of these) will continue to be pilloried by the Left for their theological beliefs and by the Right for being "liberal" enough to actually pursue their calling. I have not yet heard anyone imply that since many male bishops are liberal, males therefore should not be bishops.

My mother tells me that when I was a baby, I would sit in my high-chair and eat every part of my toast except for the crust, which I threw on the floor. When she would tell me not to throw my crust on the floor, I apparently would look at her, pick up my crust, and defiantly drop it on the floor anyway. In some ways, this isn't too far off from the current situation in the Anglican Church. The Anglican church in Africa has been told to stop ordaining bishops in America, and TEC has been told to stop ordaining homosexual bishops. The problem is that both sides still throw their crust on the floor. Regardless of whether ordaining women is that much of a polarizing issue, the already existing tension doesn't exactly pave the way for cooperation.

Ah. So if there are no 'truly conservative' women priests, there are no good women priests? Or am I simply being as ungenerous toward Mr. Morgan as he is to the notion that the Episcopal Church might honestly and faithfully struggle with matters of sex, God, and discipleship?

I am not a member of the Christian church but even if I were I could not help finding the discussion over the ordination of women totally ridiculous. Are we to believe that spiritual leadership is dependent on the shape of a person's genitals? The traditionalists claim that this is a theological matter and not a gender issue, but if that were the case, theology - which should be concerned with absolute and non-temporal truths - would be demonstrably trivial and constrained by historical cultural norms. Any responsible spiritual leader today must see the world and human potential as inclusive and not patriarchal. The vast majority of non-believers can only scratch their heads in puzzlement over the anachronistic views of the diehards. This will certainly prove no good for the future of Christianity, but then we humanists have no problem with that!

God designed the world to grow. God designed people to grow. It is entirely possible to honor and live the message of Jesus as given to us in scripture without forever following a model of 1st century Mediterranean/1st century Middle Eastern cultural and social norms.

I doubt very much that the Savior would want America behaving like the Saudis or the Taliban - who, after all, are just following their 7th century scriptural models.

I notice that people tend to hold to the parts of scripture that support what they already think, or what they prefer. Those who hold to Timothy so dearly seldom also demand that their wives and mothers and sisters and daughters shave their heads or cover their hair in church. Or that they withdraw from the choir so as to be silent in church. They pick the parts of scripture that they prefer. Nor do they often quote Paul when he writes that, "...in Christ there is no male or female..." They omit the parts of scripture that contradict what they prefer.

It's a recognizable inclination, I think - we're all pretty human!

I think the wisest thing to do is to hold first to the most important message Jesus had for us: to love God, and to love each other. Everything that gets in the way of that is really just our own personal way of looking at things - something we all probably ought to watch out for.

People who quote the Bible saying that women cannot be ministers are guilty of prooftexting, of taking passages out of their context. It's simply bad Bible study. No matter the issue, you must always, always put the verse into the context of the paragraph, chapter, and book overall and look at it in the light of what Paul and others were addressing in the culture of the time. Then, you can clearly see what applies today and what was specific to that time.

Although I am unhappy with female ministers it's not because of any scriptural reason, but because when the church first began ordaining women there was an unhealthy rush by some to "get done" and be better than the men. I know that there must be many godly women called to the ministry and I thank the Lord that thay have followed His call upon their lives, however the number of men is diminishing and we must pray that they too will respond to the call of God upon their lives to be faithful ministers for the Kingdom.
If the church is, as we have been taught, a picture of the family of God then we need mothers and fathers in the faith to teach the Lord's children. Is this too simple to ask? Only one proviso is needed as far as I can see since we see plenty of instances in both Old and New Testaments of Female leaders both politically and Spirituall ( Deborah, Miriam,etc) that is ,a definite calling from God not a desire for greatness!

Speaking as someone who has regularly attended evangelical church of England churches for a number of years. I have to say that despite my initial concerns because of my understanding of Paul's letters in scripture. I now have completely changed my mind.
Firstly Paul was writing to people in the context of their situation.
Women in the 21 century are very different which frankly has been to the benefit to us all. To begin with women in modern society have a lot less children. Therefore they do not need a system in place that protected set roles in society like they did. Ie we have schools ect.

However more importantly is the way in which a lot of men have been leading church is now beginning to be challenged in the UK. To begin with we a starting to see a focus on children again. Who since the 60's in the UK have been becoming more and more scarce in church. And for good reason. The teaching in Sunday in most church has not been a priority of the church leaders. And since 1 in 4 of us made the decision to become Christians before we were 11 this has had a disastrous effect of the church in England.

So please consider the fruit before you condemn what GOD is doing