For right now, I think protection for the minority opposition is what should be maintained. I'll admit, though, that I would only see it as a temporary truce until that minority is back in a position to reimpose the Scriptural standard.
John: How have I led you to believe that I think otherwise? However, surely you must acknowledge that our theological opponents would concur with your above comment, 'We exist on Revelation, Scripture and the Councils' and yet arrive at a different conclusion than you? I agree with you, that women have no liturgical position to play, but ours is a minority position. I can realise that, and also believe that maintaining the unity is vital. It is better to have safeguards and try to win out through the superior witness of sound scriptural argument than cause schism, imho.
Disturbing report for us Traditionalists: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...sitive-Discrimination-to-Select-Women-Bishops Edit: To be fair, there is a lot of attempted positive discrimination for female leaders. It hardly ever works. Most women simply don't want to be social leaders. However, religious leadership seams to appeal to them more than political or economic leadership.
I think the definition of a liberal, if you look up "liberal (religion)" in the Oxford English dictionary, will be: Liberal (adj.): synonymous with immoral. Dishonest. Heretic. These people have a vile unscriptural, anti-Christian hatred of our lord, our religion, our church, and all of our beliefs.
I couldn't agree with you more. It's why I try to be as reactionary as I can. That was only half-sarcastic. Edit: Every time a liberal yells for tolerance or equality, it's a trap. Look at homosexual marriage: Ten years ago, they were saying it would not affect us Christians or our Churches at all. Now, if we don't bake their wedding cakes, take their pictures, and adopt out children to them, we are fined or driven from business.