Dr. Alice C. LinsleyA recent brouhaha in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) emerged when a young Anglican priest from Great Britian was asked to address a conference of Anglicans gathered in South Carolina on Saturday, January 20th.
Both Marxism and Feminism are based on a false perception of universal struggle between two groups. In Marxism the conflict is between those wealthy who control the means of production (factories) and the natural resources (mines, oil, etc.) and the workers who often have little political clout (this is before the time of unions). Marx wanted the workers of the world to unite and take control of the factories and mines, if necessary, by violent means.
In Feminism, the conflict is between men and women. Feminists argue that men hold all the power, and that patriarchy is a means of oppression of women. They pose this as a universal conflict, but it is not. Anthropologically, it is easy to pop this bubble. Anthropologists have never found a single absolute patriarchy. Social structures are always more gender balanced than the Feminists would have us believe.
The abusive behavior of drunken Noah toward his sons has a parallel in the abusive behavior of drunken Lot toward his daughters.
The "mother's house" and the "father's house" had distinct obligations of equal value in the Hebrew social structure.
Both males and females are portrayed positively and negatively in the Bible. Both kill. Both promote lies. Both complain. Abraham complains to God about not having a proper heir. Jonah complains about the repentance of the Ninevites and the heat. Sarah complains about Hagar and Ishmael. Rebekah complains about her daughters-in-law.
At the presentation of Jesus in the Temple His identity as Messiah is affirmed by the priest Simeon and by the prophetess Anna.
Jesus restored the widow of Nain's deceased son to his mother (Lk. 7:11-17). Jesus restored Jairus' deceased daughter to her father (Mk. 5:21-43).
The late Dr. J. I. Packer wrote, “Jesus is the second man, the last Adam, our great high priest and sacrifice, our prophet, priest, and king (not prophetess, priestess, and queen), and he is all this precisely in his maleness. To minimize the maleness shows a degree of failure to grasp the space-time reality and redemptive significance of the incarnation.” (J. I. Packer, “Introduction,” in Man, Woman and Priesthood, ed. James Tolhurst, Gracewing, 1989, p. 13).
"... the truce which has been called on the question of women in the priesthood as a condition for bringing into being the new Anglican bodies in North America seems to me more than a bit like the truce over slavery that was required to bring the United States of America into being. But the latter truce could not hold, and neither can the former. Eventually, the disagreement must be sorted out, and that almost certainly means that the battle must be joined. And when that happens, then the great gulf between Evangelicals and Catholics on the nature and number, the origin and efficacy of the sacraments will once again be a church-dividing gulf."
"The primary category mistake of most Anglicans seems to be a refusal to accept the Principle of Non-Contradiction. For example, either sodomy is a grave sin or the foundation of a sacrament, but it can’t be both. Or, either it is possible that women have the capacity to receive presbyteral and episcopal ordination or they do not, but it can’t be both. Let’s forgot for a moment the authority of Apostolic Tradition which every Catholic must believe is an intrinsic part of the Gospel (no sola Scriptura for us), when a foundational principle of right reason like Non-Contradiction is routinely denied in practice if not in theory, then the only thing left is raw will to power."