A few reactions.

1) Central to what the bishops have is to keep us in conversation. Loss of that conversation could delay justice, I think, for those in Malawi and Pakistan. This is part of the pragmatism. Pragmatism isn't a perjorative.

2) No doubt discrimination against female clergy still exists in many if not most parishes, even those who profess and truly believe they do not. At the same time looking at mere numbers is not enough because female clergy are different from male clergy in their preferences and interests. And of married clergy, the female clergy are more likely be in a two wage-earner household. When such a household moves so that one take an attractive offer the other usually sacrifices.

It is difficult, therefore, to say we have evidence of discrimination. And we don't to have the claims that it exists brushed away but saying the numbers can be explained away.

Rather, I would have us say to skeptics let's assume that because we are doing something new there is discrimination. Like you imply I would have us start at the parish level - where there is local knowledge - and ask ourselves how discrimination might be manifesting itself.

3) I find it hard to see how one could expect that every Episcopal church he or she enters would have someone to identify with. Some Episcopal churches are diverse and choose to be and attract people who like it, but others are not. Sometimes this is because the local community is not diverse. Sometimes this is because the local community is diverse but large enough that it can support many Episcopal churches appealing to a variety of tastes. Most black Episcopal churches exist either because of segregation in the larger community or because the members like being together, not because they have been made to feel uncomfortable attending a predominantly white church.

4) Using the "power of the purse" and withholding money from your dioces is exactly what Greg Griffiths at Standing Firm in Faith called for after the bishops issued their Response. Is this company we want to keep?

Deirdre, amen and amen!

I think I've been hoping beyond hope that the bishops would do something profound and prophetic at this meeting because I am so weary of all this turmoil. But in retrospect I know that my hope was without reason, and that as you say the bishops have done all that they could to to preserve unity. Whether unity in this case is the highest good is debatable, but keeping people at the table for the conversation is laudable.

I pray that my lgbt, bisexual and transgendered sisters and brothers will not vote to leave with their feet or their purse strings because the loss of their witness would leave an greatly impoverished church. And I echo you call to "take our witness –the angry patient tired but joyous witness of presence—as the church in the world to proclaim the incredible tireless love of God who guards truth forever and who always, always, always, executes justice for the oppressed."

--Kris Lewis

To the first commenter re your point number two: I am troubled by you assumption that female clergy are more likely to be part of a two-wage earner household and more likely to be the ones to take the lesser position and the conclusion that numbers then don't tell us about discrimination. The fact that women ARE often the trailing spouses with the lesser positions could indicate discrimination.

Nor do I accept, without further evidence the claim that "female clergy are different from male clergy in their preferences and interests." Because the female clergy I know (myself included) want to be considered for positions on equal footing with our male counterparts, without regard to our marital or family status.

--Kris Lewis

This is an excellent statement by Deirdre Good on the many hypocrisies of this denomination! Divide and conquer, alas, seems to be the order of the day. I too am troubled by the unquestioned assumptions about what clergy who happen to be women and also may happen to be married are about. Seems to me that people want to be able to excel but that the institution or rather the people who hire cannot get past these silly gender categories. Same-sex couples, likewise, could use community support in order to excel as members of the larger church and nonchurch community. But the recent nonsense from this denomination says that the gender of partners is more important than the quality of love. By refusing to offer blessings of same-sex couples, the institution is saying that GLBTs are second-class citizens who should, ideally, remain celibate. Sex-discordant couples can marry and divorce as many times as they want. This denomination can't bring itself to marry same-sex couples, so why would a same-sex couple bother with it? And why would single same-sexers bother with an institution that still seems to think that sex "before marriage" is unacceptable?

If this is a conversation then I want something else. My impression is that many GLBTs are like my husband and me and are already voting with their feet, however painful it is to distance oneself from one's cultural references. I would be tempted to go on and say that leaving may sometimes be the faithful response to an institution which has failed to live up to its ideals. But I won't go into those aporias.

I jokingly say that I was never really a feminist until I had a wife and daughters--but I never saw so much of the discrimination until it was happening to my family...

And, John, just to address your point 2, my wife was recently turned down for a clergy job for which she was eminently qualified because the interviewers decided that I *might* apply for out-of-state jobs *sometime* in the next few years.

Not only is that not just---I don't think it's legal, either...

You may think it's difficult to find evidence of discrimination but I've seen my wife compare interview notes with male clergy colleagues and you'd realize just how easy it is to find.