Glenn+ and Brian+,

Why are the decision made during the spirit of an age now past inherently better or worse than the decision made during the spirit of the present age?  Why is permitting women to serve in the various lay offices of the church a captiulation?  Why isn't allow children to serve as acolytes not a capitualtion to 18th century notions?  Why isn't allowing women to serve on the altar guild a capitulation to 19th century notions?  Why isn't the notion of even having lay readers, acolytes, and an altar guild a capitulation to high medieval notions?  Heck, why do we even have vestries which, in their present make up, are an invention of the Enlightenment?

Seeing that we are a church once governed by Elizabeth I, Queen Mary, Queen Anne, (and in England by) Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II the idea of women bearing authority within the Church should come as no surprise!  And women have been lectors in the Church of England for nearly a hundred years now.

Frankly, I've found some of the language used about women here to be shocking.  It appears that women are permitted to function within their traditional domestic roles (cooking, cleaning, and caring) within the church but not elsewhere.  Is this truly the opinion of some here?  And must we resort of medieval clericalism in order to defend that practice?

As for vestries, my own experience, were I to use it as a guide, would lead to me to restrict it from men!  Fortunately, I leave it to clergy in Ecusa to trump canons and customary with their own experience.

Hrumph!

Mark+