Ja: Husband and wife

THE ANGLICAN Church in Jamaica and the Cayman Islands announced at its 134th annual synod last week that it will sever ties with the dioceses in North America, which have consecrated homosexual bishops.

Additionally, the synod voted affirmatively for the election of women as bishops in the Jamaican church, adopted two resolutions aimed at what has been described as 'gender correctness', and voted to establish a Diocesan AIDS Committee aimed at sensitising the faithful about the deadly disease.
...
"The Jamaica Church, like others, has announced that it will have no communion with the Diocese of New Hampshire in the United States of America and the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada, both of which have consecrated homosexual bishops," the church said in a news release yesterday.

The move came after the Lord Bishop of Jamaica Reverend Alfred Reid told the synod that 'a state of impaired communion' now exists in the Anglican Church because of the ordination of confessed homosexuals to the priesthood.
...
On the contentious issue of the election of women bishops, the synod made it clear that the local church intends to give its approval and support when the matter comes up to be resolved by the worldwide Anglican communion.

Currently, only three provinces of the Communion ­ New Zealand, America and Canada already have women bishops. In 2000, the church's general synod voted to begin 'further theological studies' on the episcopate in order to prepare for debate on the issue.

If the ordination of women didn't impair the communion, why should the consecration of homosexual bishops? It's a sort of six of one and half a dozen of the other type of thing. For, if a church is going to act without regard to Scripture's authority, there's not much point in picking and choosing where it will abide by the same.

If a bishop must be the husband of one wife, isn't the Anglican communion discriminating against homosexuals by refusing further communion with the New Hampshire and New Westminster dioceses? I mean, by the Pauline standard for bishops, a female "bishop" is allowed to have a wife as long as the "bishop's" the one who wears the pants in the relationship. Yet, a homosexual man may not be a bishop merely because a man cannot be a "wife" cuz that word is reserved for women. Oh, but a woman can't be a husband either, even with a strap-on. Well, really, now. It's a fine day when the Church decides to pursue "gender correctness" rather than the Word.