So I usually feel like there’s a "gentleman’s agreement" around WO on twitter, particularly with ACNA folks (maybe with a little sniping), but that seems to be on hold. Tish also provides an excellent case study in how pro-WO folks present the argument (at the moment). A thread:

The pro-WO argument currently works like this: present anti-WO figures as misogynists, bring up some revisionist "history," and then inject enough uncertainty into scripture to say "Who knows??" or "We know what Paul *really* meant" ^

Also accompanying this is what I call "the sauce" which is some extra theology the pro-WO author throws in to make it salient. The sauce changes every few years because it gets decimated pretty quickly, but includes things like Witt’s social trinitarianism. ^

First, the misogyny. Sure, various divines have said stuff that sounds terrible in our modern context, but they’re never the real focus of opposition to WO, which is staying within what the apostles handed down and scripture. ^

The truth is that since the Patristic Age the exact same passages of scripture have been cited for opposing WO that we use today, and arguing anything else is an intentional distraction designed to prey on modern sensibilities. ^

Then there’s the revisionist "history." This is the stuff that bugs me the most, because honestly it’s all so laughable. I’m guessing Tish is largely citing Gary Macy here, but stuff like the "five woman bishops" or "Martia the presbyter" are literally fairy tales. ^

Macy’s "bishops" are pulled from brief one liners in things like an Irish folk tale about a drunk ordination, a broken mosaic with "episcopae" written on it, and the story about a married bishop who God kills for having sex with his "little bishop" (his wife). Hardly serious. ^

And Tish’s "preacher/pastor" Martia the Presbyter? All we know about Martia is from a single line of graffiti found saying that "Martia the presbytera made the offering together with Olybrius and Nepos." That’s it. Graffiti. ^

There’s other silly examples like these, but they hold no water. Go read Geofferey Kirk if you’re curious. ^

On the other hand, there is vast evidence that women were not ordained, even to the diaconate, in the early church. The Didascalia, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, Eusebius, The Apostolic Church Order (found all over the East), The Synod of Nimes, ^

The Apostolic Constitutions…I can go on and on.

Only a conspiracy theorist would believe in a massive, millenia-long cover-up. ^

And then Holy Scripture. Sure, go crazy and use obscure lexicography to make the passages unstable, or claim that Paul was making a "contextual proscription" (based on what evidence again?), but why not do that to everything? ^

Attempting to massage "clobber passages," as Tish wants to do, is exclusively a matter of weakening scripture. You don't like gay marriage? Well cool, because you do now you bigot. ^

Also: don't forget that the argument for WO has changed every 10 years or so, since it has to adapt whenever traditionalists mount an offense. ^

P.P.S. go read @MattColvin47's review of Witt's book. It's great: northamanglican.com/review-of-icon…

And don't listen to philosopher theologians on this, kids. ^