Ms. Anderson writes diplomatically but forcefully to suggest that the Panel of Reference's judgment, with respect to an appeal from the Diocese of Fort Worth concerning its right not to allow women in its ordination process, reflects serious misunderstanding both of the polity of TEC--how it is self-governed--and also of the nature of the decisions made in 1977 and 1997 by the General Convention, making the acceptance of women's ordination mandatory in all dioceses of TEC. She asks for reassessment of the Panel's judgment because it is based, she holds, on a false understanding of how TEC functions.

The Panel's judgment stated that the diocese of Fort Worth is justified in its ordination policy, which, while being for males only internally, does make provision externally for women candidates to proceed via the neighboring diocese of Dallas.

In order to appreciate this most serious difference of approach and of judgment between the leadership of TEC and the Panel, we must be fully aware of the Anglican doctrine of Reception.

This was created in 1988 by the Lambeth Conference and refined by The Eames Commission in the 1990s. To avoid schism in the Anglican Communion of Churches, the doctrine of Reception became the means of stating the integrity of both positions--in favor and against the ordination of women--and also of the means of holding both camps together. By this doctrine, dioceses and provinces receive the ordination of women but not as an absolutely fixed and final ministry. That is, its introduction is to be accompanied by discernment and testing. Those who do not hold to it are to be treated with full respect. And only after a long period of time--no one is sure how long--there will either be full reception or full rejection of this innovation. In the process of discernment everyone is to treat each other with full respect and neither side is to seek to eliminate the other.

The Panel read the canon law of TEC of 1997 as requiring all the American Church to reject this doctrine of Reception so that there would be no place in TEC where women were not admitted to the ordination process; that is, admitted on the basis that there is no question but that their admission is full and final. Thus the Panel effectively decided that TEC had rejected in practice the doctrine of Reception, which it rightly presumed all Provinces had accepted by their votes for it in the Lambeth Conference of 1988. Further, the Panel was not aware of any occasion when the TEC had stated publicly and officially that it did not accept the conciliar decision and conciliar doctrine of Reception set forth by the Instruments of Unity of the Anglican Communion of Churches.

The Letter of Ms Anderson presumes the absolute and final authority of the General Convention and that this cannot be overridden by any external authority. In effect it rejects any form of Interdependency because everything must be decided internally by the General Convention. It rejects the doctrine of Reception because it has not been received and approved by General Convention. Further, and importantly, the Letter shows just how important is the full exercise of women's rights in TEC and that this, as a pertinent example of the progressive agenda, is of more importance than being in good relations with provinces of the Anglican Communion.

Let us be clear. If TEC really and truly desired to be a full and cooperative member of the Anglican Communion, then it would not deliberately walk out of step with a doctrine and policy, officially agreed by all, that allows the more conservative dioceses to maintain the traditional doctrine of the ordination of men only. And to put it simply, this is the same spirit displayed in the refusal by TEC to listen to the godly advice of leaders within the Anglican Communion concerning the consecration of V. Gene Robinson. There seems to be absolutely no sign that the present leadership of two women in the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies intends to do a U-turn. It appears intent on walking away from the rest of the Communion, and doing so proudly.

---The Rev. Dr. Peter Toon is president of the Prayer Book Society of the USA. 1 800 PBS 1928. Dr. Toon can be reached by e-mail at ThomasCranmer2000@yahoo.com He wrote this article while a guest of the Anglican Mission in America in Jacksonville, Florida for VirtueOnline.

END