Letter to the editor: Scripture, reinterpreted to benefit me, not you ?

Notes: "Re: 'Essentials not the sole authors of this schism' (February [2008] 'Anglican Journal'). The piece by Rev. Catherine Sider Hamilton and Rev. F. Dean Mercer on the nature of the Essentials Network schism is somewhat baffling. For 2,000 years the church had no ordained women. When Canadians began debating it, the counter arguments were that Scripture was against it, tradition was against it, and liturgically a woman cannot represent Christ in the eucharistic sacrifice. The majority of the world's Anglicans still do not ordain women. Yet we have an ordained woman (and I suppose her priesthood, by the way) claiming that the same kind of scriptural interpretation that allows her to minister in what she believes God is calling her to do, may not be used to grant inclusion to gay people, who are equally convinced of God's love for them and His call to them. I find her position paradoxical. Is this case where Scripture can be reinterpreted if it benefits me, but not if it benefits you ?" [Text of entire article.]

Subjects: Essentials Movement; Homosexuality - Religious aspects - Anglican Church of Canada; Homosexuality - Biblical teaching; Ordination of women - Anglican Church of Canada; Ordination of women - Biblical teaching; Bible - Criticism, interpretation, etc. - Anglican Church of Canada; Hamilton, Catherine Sider