Rather than make this part of the response commentary on my previous posting, I will give it emphasis by creating a new one here.

One of the tools of the true schismatic is the accusation of schism leveled at those who leave the fellowship into which he  has introduced false doctrine or practice. The accused are frequently those sensitive to the charge of sundering the Body of Christ, who will go to very great lengths to avoid even the appearance of it.  I have found such people frequently lack the ability or the will to think clearly about the nature of change in a church, so to identify a schism from which they, in leaving the church that accuses them, are in fact abandoning the real schism to rejoin the greater Church from which their group has departed by its innovation.

The ordination of women is a good case in point. It does not take any sophistication to ascertain that (1) it is not a historical practice of the Church, Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox, but only of a few outlying sects, (2) in the modern context it continues to be a practice of a few outlying sects, of a liberal Protestantism far gone in doctrinal decay even before the introduction of the innovation, and of liberalizing Evangelicalism and, (3) it divides the churches (i.e., creates schism) even more than they presently are on the basis of a novel teaching about the nature of the presbyter’s office. These observations can easily be made prior to consideration of biblical or theological explanations of why the change should or should not be made.

I believe that clear perception of the three points above should more than suffice to show that those who ordain women are schismatics, and consequently one must, to reject the schism, leave it to rejoin those who have not adopted it.  But in many people’s minds a fog sets in here.  Instead of concentrating on the main and obvious points, they, for weak and insufficient reasons, remain in the schismatic fellowship, where engines that generate and perpetuate the fog are kept working as long as it is needed to keep them from leaving their pews.

My experience of this miasma includes a much-beloved bishop standing up and proclaiming in tears that “schism is worse than heresy,” which meant he was content to let the wolves devour his flock since killing them was cruel to animals. It also implied that those who wanted to remove the sheep from the slaughter-pen were bad shepherds, while he, who just wanted everybody to be Nice, was a good one.  One must play the man and say to hell with all that. Part of that includes tossing off those who, to draw people into a labyrinth of confusion, want to identify clarity with simplicity.