However, the Fathers are also consistently against ordaining women as priests, but world Anglicanism has accepted that this innovation is within an Anglican reading of Scripture. If we accept one innovation, why not the other. If the answer is that one innovation grosses out some people, and the other doesn't, then the innovation of same-sex unions IS compatible with classical Anglicanism, and a lot of the Anglican Communion needs to get over itself. If the ordination of women is not acceptable, than Anglicanism has failed and we all need to become RC or Orthodox, because clearly Tradition must be completely unchanging if we are to remain faithful Christians in our current culture. If the Anglican Communion is right that being a woman priest is OK but being a priest in a same sex union is not, what distinguishes the two innovations? Proponents of both have produced readings of Scripture in support of their positions, despite the traditional Scriptural prohibitions of both. What makes pro-woman-priest readings of scripture less esigetical then pro-gay ones?
Thoughts? I could really use some help with my current discernment process. I hope this post doesn't just lead to a flame war- if it does I will delete the whole thing.