Thoughtful writing from two perspectives

I've run across a couple of decent essays in the last few days. They don't have much to do with each other, except that they both articulate their positions well. I commend both.

First, from two senior bishops in the Church of England, is a response to Cardinal Kasper, who told the English House of Bishops in a recent address that they should not proceed to ordain women as bishops, lest they damage ecumenical relations. This charge is summarily dealt with (i.e. the pope declared in 1896 that Anglican holy orders are "absolutely null and utterly void" so how much more damaged can we be?), and then they move on to a careful exposition of why women bishops are OK, even with 2000 years of tradition. Here's a choice excerpt:

Faced with Rome's charge that Anglican innovations might make a projected unity more difficult, even those in the Vatican most concerned with patrolling the boundaries must recognise that to many Anglicans it seems that this charge could be levelled the other way round. The dogmas relating to the papacy (1870) and to Mary (1950) remain real obstacles for many who find it difficult to recognise them as developments in any sense from scripture and the tenets of the early church, and the recent work of ARCIC has not managed to find a pathway to help the churches travel together in these areas. The 'filioque' clause in the Creed is to this day regarded by Eastern Orthodox Christians as an unwarranted Roman addition to the creed of the universal church. Anglicans will naturally ask by what criteria Rome claims the right to introduce potentially divisive innovations in some areas, while advising Anglicans against developing the practice, rather than altering the doctrine of the church, in others. In what sense would ordaining women to the episcopate alter the doctrine of the church?

In a completely different vein, this brief essay by Bishop Iker of Forth Worth (and possible superhero?) summarizes the reasons why he has asked for alternative primatial oversight. If you are of a liberal persuasion and you haven't heard the conservative viewpoint on these issues, Iker's essay is a good, brief insight into at least one conservative position.

We realize that the Archbishop of Canterbury has a limited sphere in which to maneuver. We do not seek the impossible. We ask for some pastoral strategy whereby we might come under his primatial oversight and pastoral care (or that of another appointed by him) until such time as the primates’ meeting and the other instruments of unity of the Communion are enabled to consider our predicament and offer us help and protection. We cannot believe that because we are in a minority in this church we can be required to receive and endorse, in the person of the Presiding Bishop, a ministry which we have heretofore consistently, courteously and legitimately refused, and which is neither legitimate nor welcome in the greater part of the Communion.