The Episcopalians today put to rest the rumor they revered God's Word

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Nevada Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori became the first woman elected to lead a church in the global Anglican Communion when she was picked Sunday to be the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church. It was another groundbreaking and controversial move for a denomination that consecrated Anglicanism's first openly gay bishop just three years ago.

Standing before cheering delegates to Episcopal General Convention, Jefferts Schori said she was "awed and honored and deeply privileged to be elected." Outgoing Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold was at her side as she was introduced after closed-door balloting.

The choice of Jefferts Schori may worsen — and could even splinter — the already difficult relations between the American denomination and its fellow Anglicans. Episcopalians have been sparring with many in the other 37 Anglican provinces over homosexuality, but a female leader adds a new layer of complexity to the already troubled relationship.

Only two other Anglican provinces — New Zealand and Canada — have female bishops, although a handful of other provinces allow women to serve in the post.

Still, there are many Anglican leaders who believe women should not even be priests. Those opposed to female clergy often cite the unbroken tradition of male priesthood in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions, and in the Anglican Communion until about 30 years ago.

At the General Convention where Jefferts Schori was elected, delegates have been debating whether to appease Anglican leaders by agreeing to temporarily stop ordaining gay bishops.

In 2003, the Americans shocked the Anglican world by electing the first openly gay bishop — V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. Placing a female bishop at the head of the denomination may further anger conservatives overseas and within the U.S. church. And Jefferts Schori voted to confirm Robinson.
Full Article

The PCUSA already was Apostate. But still...

UPDATE (another)

Episcopalians refuse affirmation of Christ

COLUMBUS, OHIO (6/20/06)-The House of Deputies of the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church today overwhelmingly refused to even consider a resolution that affirmed Jesus Christ as the "only name by which any person may be saved."
Full article

What trash. Note they emphatically deny Scripture:

This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:11-12)

I am thankful these apostles of their father the devil (John 8:44) are now more open with their hatred for God. It makes it so much easier to warn the faithful. I mean, if this isn't the outright denail of denials, what is?

1 Corinthians 11 and Headcoverings

Below is from a post of mine taken from the Puritainboard. I don't suspect many will or wish to respond so I thought I'd bring it over here:

Headcoverings and the RPNA's position paper

1 Corinthians 11:2-16

This topic has been coming up often in my circles of interest. I see the strength of the arguments on both sides of the debate (viewed as cultural practice to the Corinthians OR to be practiced by all churches for all times as part of proper worship).

The RPNA (the Reformed Presbytery in North America) has an "Official Presbyterial Paper" found here.

Many that take the "cultural" position refer to the washing of the feet and holy kiss practices for support of their view that head coverings are cultural. Even this position paper mentions them here.

Words in italics are from the paper regarding foot washing and a holy kiss:

…Although the Lord authorized his disciples to wash the feet of others, as an appropriate act in their cultural context, we do not believe that in our society we are presently under an obligation to practice that specific cultural custom. We recognize there is a moral principle (of selfless service) that stands behind that cultural practice which we must continue to exemplify in our lives as Christ’s ministers and disciples. The Lord here illustrates the moral duty incumbent upon all who rule in His Church to be the greatest servants of all in caring for others. The actual practice of foot washing had cultural significance to those living in the ancient world, but it has no real significance to those living in the Western world of the twenty-first century. Perhaps our closest cultural equivalent to foot washing presently is offering refreshments and hospitality to guests who visit in our homes.

But we also acknowledge that we are not universally bound to the alterable, cultural custom of foot washing, but rather to the unalterable, moral principle of service. So likewise, we acknowledge that men and women are not universally bound to the alterable, cultural custom of uncovering and covering their heads, but rather to the unalterable, moral principle of lawful male headship under Christ and respectful female submission in the Lord within the assemblies of the Church.

But there is something that continually comes to my mind when hearing this particular line of argumentation. In the 2 cases of foot washing and holy kissing, the paper acknowledges a cultural “replacement” (so to speak) sign or practice that signifies the moral principal being taught. “…our closest cultural equivalent to foot washing presently is offering refreshments and hospitality to guests who visit in our homes.” Agreed. This is a cultural custom, in modern times, which is the same in principle to foot washing during Apostolic times.

Likewise, a holy kiss today “…would likely be a holy handshake or perhaps a holy embrace…Again, we do not understand that we are bound by this specific cultural custom, although we would understand that the moral principle (of Christian love) that lies behind that practice does in fact continue as an obligation. So likewise, we acknowledge that men and women are not universally bound to the alterable, cultural custom of uncovering and covering their heads, but rather to the unalterable, moral principle of lawful authority and submission within the Church. Like the foot washing example, I agree.

But here is my question: What visible, tangible practice or custom is done today to signify the moral principle of lawful male headship under Christ and respectful female submission in the Lord within the assemblies of the Church? What has “replaced” the head covering?

We know what has “replaced” the foot washing and holy kiss custom as mentioned above. (note: I don’t mean “replaced” to be taken negatively). But what has replaced the head covering custom?

How would one, Christian or otherwise, observe the biblical practice of a visible sign of authority over the woman? If it is not a covering (because of our culture) then what is it? Or, what should it be? It seems to me that when the Apostle calls for a visible sign of authority or power upon the (woman’s) head, he is mandating that it ought to be immediately apparent to the observer of the rightful order of things.

My questions can be compacted into one: What modern day, culturally specific custom is expressing this absolute moral principle of submission and authority in the Church?