This view clearly and forcefully put forward in the article, invites comment. In summary:

Although every Liberal Catholic is free to accept the opinion or beliefs of another -this is in part what liberal in the name of the church implies- the view given in the article seems to draw on a higher authority that leaves little room for one’s own opinion or belief.

The evidence that the New Testament and early church fathers provide, indicate that women functioned as dynamic leaders of the early Christian movement; they were deacons, missionaries and apostles. The gospels relate that Jesus had women followers as well as men, and treated women as equals. It was also women who were the first to bear witness to his resurrection. Thus in early Christian communities women appear to have functioned practically identically to men. From other sources -notably the Gnostic gospels- it was a woman, Maria Magdalena, who was closest to Jesus Christ, in love and understanding him, which disturbed the other, male disciples, Peter in particular. Also, there was the leadership of independent women Gnostic and heretical groups. Women in these groups are said to have baptised and celebrated the Eucharist. Some Gnostic groups also allowed women to serve as priests. A tenth century bishop wrote in several traits that in the ancient church, women were ordained just like men, were leaders of communities, were called elders (presbyterae) and fulfilled the duties of preaching, directing and teaching. But soon women, under the pressure of the prevailing social structure, became subservient to men, leading to a church solely dominated by male servants of Christ. This may not have happened had it occurred today in our Western society, which clearly is moving away from that of male dominance.

In the New Testament scripture, in quotations from non-canonical gospels and other early traditions, in the non-canonical gospels found later in fragments or as a whole -notably the Nag Hammadi Gnostic library- considering all this evidence, nothing in the Jesus Christ ministry -his teaching, his life, his deeds- suggests that he was concerned to found a church, let alone indicate forms of worship or liturgy. The Lords payer, included in the Liberal Catholic Liturgy of the Mass as optional, though not cherished by all Liberal Catholics, might be an exception. Liturgy grew out of the original Jewish context, in a great variety of forms in the course of centuries, reflecting the theological insights, based on religious experiences. This also applies to the liturgy of The Liberal Catholic Church: It was solidly based on the liturgy of the Roman Catholic church as it was in the beginning of the last century, with under-standably- clear Anglican influences. That liturgy was revised by our -not immortal- founding bishops. Christianity of course is rooted in history and in continuing tradition and in forms of worship. It is generally believed that this continuing human process of Christian tradition is inspired or guided by the Holy Spirit to work in the Church as a whole, not limited to selected individuals, although different views exist with respect to this guidance (e.g. the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church). In addition, our church states on the back cover of The Liberal Catholic, its international magazine, that: The Liberal Catholic Church is a ceremonial church; adhering to a ritual that is believed to be the closest as is humanly possible to the original form as the Lord Christ had wanted it to be. However, the above evidence leads one to believe that Jesus Christ did not show any concern for forms of ritual or worship, nor did he indicate how he had wanted a ritual to be. His ministry was concerned with much more essential things than liturgy. How then can such a claim be made if no evidence is available of such an original liturgical form? Furthermore, how can one maintain that the living Christ pays attention to liturgy, even approves the liturgy revised by our founding bishops, a view expressed on several occasions and in various Liberal Catholic publications (for example, "…the liturgical and ecclesiastical path which, we are assured by bishop Leadbeater, has the approval of the Lord (or Christ) himself…", in Never, Now, or Not Yet, T.W. Haney, The Liberal Catholic, vol 67 (1999), no2, p 19)?

As far as I know, no other church denomination has dared to claim this; they may at most refer to the Holy Spirit, and express hope that the Spirit will inspire them in their denomination. Is it then in our church alone -numerically insignificant as The Liberal Catholic Church might seem– that the inspiration through the Holy Spirit seems to follow a wholly different path –for example on a liturgy which also includes the role of women- than appeared originally 2000 years ago?

If we consider what one of the leading bishops puts forward as authoritative, drawing upon his own inspiration -which as I understand it, is never conclusive, neither ignores human responsibility- nothing would remain for us other than to await the moment that the Lord reveals in what way the development of the liturgy should take place.