Can you spot the mistake? It’s in this story about parishes and dioceses that have split from the Episcopal Church since the ordination of a practicing homosexual as bishop of New Hampshire in 2003:
“They say the Episcopal leadership defines Scripture on modern rather than eternal standards, and they take exception to the ordination of female clergy, the full acceptance of gays and lesbians and what they see as reduced importance in the role of Jesus for a believer’s redemption.”
One could debate the squishy language about the “full acceptance of gays and lesbians.” Arguably, one can fully accept gays and lesbians and still uphold traditional Christian teachings about fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness — for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.
But the indisputable problem with the story, I think involves the claim that “they” (breakaway Episcopalians) “take exception to the ordination of female clergy.” That will come as a surprise to the ordained Episcopal women who have left the Episcopal Church in the past five years to protest its policies.
Yes, some of the people leaving the Episcopal Church oppose women’s ordination. But many (perhaps a majority of those exiting) actually support women’s ordination.
You won’t see this error, I’m guessing, in any of the stories by The Washington Times’ Julia Duin.
(Click here to read the rest of the story from today’s Post.)