Well, everyone, ya just can't make this stuff up. The current Provincial head of the Southern Cone, just happens to be the bishop of Uruguay and they want to ordain women. Certainly a just cause. In point of fact, their provincial constitution "supposedly" allows for churches to expressly do this. My initial reaction is to say, What the ????
Then good sense and an eye toward connecting the dots takes over and I calm down and things look different.
First, the Province of the Southern Cone was just this month "punished" for their cross border excursions.
Second, the provincial head IS the Bishop of Uruguay. He wants to "break away" from the province and find a home some place else?
Third, the issue is women's ordination??? The very reason why some of the diocese in TEC fled to the Southern Cone. Certainly John David Schofield and Jack Iker.
The diocese of Uruguay -- does it have a parliamentary style of governance similar to TEC? Probably not, but I do not know.
What happens if Uruguay is picked up by the Diocese of San Joaquin or by TEC? NOW we have the cross border excursion problem and they (Southern Cone) would point out very quickly that they are doing nothing more than what we are doing. Still, the dust settles and TEC has the issue of full inclusion which lots of folks including the Southern Cone don't like.
What happens if we do not pick up Uruguay? A bishop, in good conscience could still ordain women. Bishops in TEC did it years ago, why not the Bishop of Uruguay? What then? Greg Vulnerable has to sit on it and rotate? Right?
No, I propose we let them stew in their own juices for a while. Uruguay can still do what they want to do without aid from us -- at least for the time being.