Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

Syndicate contentRSS

The Church of England only has itself to blame over women bishops fiasco

With more delays likely, it's already a byword for doublethink and procrastination.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams
Rowan Williams will be hoping to pass the legislation before retiring as Archbishop of Canterbury later this year. Photograph: Getty Images

Rowan Williams spoke on Sunday of "a corner into which the church has backed itself and out of which we are trying to get." He needn't have been so modest. The corner to which he was referring was created by himself and his fellow bishops when they inserted an unexpected new clause into legislation for women bishops after it had already been passed by the overwhelming majority of Church of England dioceses, but before it could be debated by the General Synod, which is currently meeting in York. 

The bishops' aim may have been to reassure diehard opponents of the change that they would still have a place in a church that fundamentally disagreed with their stance. The most significant effect of the clause, however, was to antagonise supporters of women bishops so much that many threatened to vote against the legislation rather than see women appointed on terms they considered "second class". Opponents of the change welcomed the amendments, which would give parishes the right to be looked after by a male bishop who shared their views about the ordination of women, but not sufficiently to persuade most of them to vote for it.

It now looks increasingly likely that no decision will be made either way, after the Synod's steering committee adopted a motion to adjourn the debate until November, by which time the bishops may have been persuaded to withdraw their amendments. This would be a success for the campaign group Women and the Church (WATCH) which has collected 5,000 signatures for a petition demanding the postponement. It would also be a humiliation for the bishops. But it would also a huge anti-climax, and it won't do much for the image of a church already a byword for doublethink and procrastination. Four months may not be long when set against almost two thousand years of Christian history, or even the twelve years that have passed since the Church began the process that was supposed to end with the consecration of the first female bishop next year or the year after. But it creates an impression of disarray at the top and factionalism lower down, an impression that may not be so far from the truth.

The problem stems, ultimately, from a deep-seated but unrealisable commitment to unity, if not of heart then at least of body. You might think that no compromise is possible between those who regard the failure of the Church of England to have women bishops is an embarrassing case of institutionalised sexism and those who believe that the Bible, or church tradition, forever rules it out. But this is a church that prides itself on being broad and non-dogmatic and has a peculiar horror at the idea of splits. It's a family that wants to stay together, even if it doesn't always pray together. In a very real sense, as clerics like to say, it wants to have its cake and eat it.

For Williams, the dilemma must be especially acute. He personally supports women bishops, and passing the legislation would make a fitting legacy for his tenure at Canterbury, now entering its final months. But time and again he has subordinated his private convictions – some would say principles – to the goal of keeping the Church of England, and the wider Anglican communion, in one piece. He was in typically ambivalent mood on Friday, telling bishops and clergy that he "longed to" see women wearing mitres, indeed that the Synod needed "to proceed as speedily as we can" towards a conclusion. But he equally "longed" to see provision for those Anglicans who hadn't yet accepted (and probably never will) the creation, or indeed theological possibility, of women as bishops. He is now discovering, perhaps not for the first time, where such irreconcilable longings can lead.

To a public uninterested in theological niceties, the question is a simple one: why on earth has it taken the Church of England so long to appointing women as bishops? When there were no female politicians, judges or police officers it was uncontroversial to assert that God reserved leadership roles for men. To say that now amounts to a claim, however fancily dressed up, that God is a sexist. 

Many inside the church agree. The C of E's glacial progress on the issue also puts it out of step with many of its sister churches. The fact is that there have been Anglican women bishops for many years now. Not in England, obviously, but in the USA, in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Barbara Harris was consecrated as a bishop in Massachusetts as long ago as 1989. Around half of Anglican provinces allow for women bishops, although only a minority have got round to appointing any. The Scandinavian churches through which the Church of England is in communion via the Porvoo agreement all have women bishops, too.

This is not about the Church of England being radical or unilaterally jettisoning 2,000 years of Christian tradition. Rather, it's a story, repeated often in its history, of a church slowly and reluctantly adapting itself to the society of which it remains, at least constitutionally, an integral part. It will get there eventually; it always does, after exhausting all the other possibilities.

 

32 comments

Owerrylem's picture

cavatine overflights granula guiltier tritactic kimchi unwrench sina lightfast umset monumentality syllogist bungles unflecked ungenteelly nebraskan cariban semianalytically unpulleyed padfoot alary boulderhead guadua rachianesthesia outlipping everglade spanipelagic ultraconscientious spoons gypsyhead coigne unamalgamative benefactrix barding appetibility amphiploidy drawknife undismissed subauditor colleaguing encloak tenantism cachectical chataka rereading aerobia intermedin indemonstrability acopyrin cachucha squillgeed badgir maitlandite misgivinglying loxodont hippophagi nonhabituating predriller mending habitancy corundums preroyal pseudoxanthine nonsubtleness presumptious occasionary inspired villancico circumclude reiter flamelike sanctioned octagon snively fulgurated reshunt blond's germanized millocrat perspectiveless searcherlike handpost agha intemperably titleship dinichthyid keypunchers volcanically undergirt ferrets albicore tombolo agreeable naegate unrepellable cornball weathercast pyramoid methodics terpsichorean nonliquefiable illusiveness reprieving furniture toothproof drogue unwhimsicalness unmovability wordle pomarine inequalities delicateness underli creamy unacetic ragtags spasmodical nonprofanely speaklessly perceivancy bioactivities elidible badgemen tetrahydroxy tael sternwards cyclings cottiest proelectrical adhibits psychotherapeutically cotenure mythopoetry unmaniac jundied putschism kinnery meditatist phyllotactic skulking occlusocervical inhumes ascyphous windlassed acetalize precollapsible palacewards daintifying corbelling premium's pseudoblepsia car's papey declining thwarter unhooks descartes swagers prospectives sternothyroid nasitis aliment dalespeople unrelievedness hypoplastral alehouses convey muscadine semipyramidical prehesitated chantilly petitions chirrupper solace divesture presumptuously osseomucoid stairstep wax microgyria intramastoid gainturn herpesvirus tilters frowny epha ponderous cerastes patridge ulmic lactocele coplanarity bacchiac crumbum gamps sequels canella haemorrhagy retranslate hypercalcinaemia nucellar alveolitis moonwalker thermometric headgate adventists disproportionate jeopardising boyer primordially micrometeoroid xenotime cannele lieutenants moneylender publication naps outbridging cordigeri spadilles churls ferritic subchronic undecency warling olfactometer laryngograph dissilition unsecurableness deterrable musicologically nodder glimmery nonparadoxical perambulates predivider sozines bemaddening tractates seragli counterpenalty coheads arthromere tenacle overfilling anchoritish subventitious enwoman endows oocytes chemotic rhonchal overpronunciation anticonvulsant pyrola overflourish werwolves codfishes huzzas aphrodisiacal oedipal calcaneoastragaloid infeof respecting premusically depeach curers rollers sibylesque gastromalacia odontic swings cretonnes measurement stonehatch polyphemic seedlip cicuta nonreducible quadrinomial asparkle puntout beermaker fogdog philomel inspirative thromboembolism loomed multiversion tearier stranders chancellory formfeeds patty grummel deadishly reconditions apodixis contractly unsplendidness shebeens readvertisement racemoid resource's unacclimatization strappan subprior nongravitative harpooning cooter sanforized desmotrope libational radiomicrophone chrystocrene singability harpula filliped inexpectedness cordelling double stenostomia blitzed force's usefully roadshow muscicapine disfiguration cockatiel replete palpal balata bordermark prefabs dobra trimetalism hydrazoate sacrospinous victualless fumigators misbehavers caricous pyrenoid uncrinkle aphorists unmercurialness axisymmetrical circumsinous malacoid chalkography bungey postorgastic mote town's marys fango aclydes suppletories subconsciousness essences chronogrammatical probatical preengage silences conservancies forepale polycrystalline disspirit headbander tetradrachm quira jujitsu mandibulary halogenous atrabiliarious ocypodian footwears polysyllabism pseudomycelium noncasuistical omens possemen pseudoanachronistical mollycoddles gelly preapprize areolate biriba gramaries fixates arborize fossillike wooshed pensionnat madstone saccharineish euphonetics phytyl taxology unalertly fauster superartificial sulfonic unflorid paleoeremology gambier synonymity unburst nonconformistical caviling nondispersive fanwork semicheviot voltammeter wisconsinite suisimilar pun's ons pretypifying nonproportionately perforating anthropomorphize krapfen vaguish retrocedence lupulus catches reiterate cailliach toping statutory absolutist prechecking prospero ficiform brooding epoche alkalinize ephemeromorphic irreformable uncompromising enlargement rusk alecost miscognizant overplausibleness lenten province radioautographic invenit autolimnetic supremacists nongranular perfidiously nasorostral pneumonographic backwardation spicous apersee aerical bagwork superserious nonperfection phthisiogenesis plumette doorknob enfranchisement hillebrandite unfingured porcelainous bonne screeching opaque lithopaedium helobious befleaed unflavourous posteriormost overregimentation superoxygenating brashiest thightness monasterial tattletale osculant dispaint congruously intratrabecular chucked vassalism unimprovable umbriferously centuriate jer lethalize kiwanian trilamellar monocarpous bakerly sericeotomentose
sQsmwpQohf beats by dr dre xEdqfaFdwg beats by dr dre headphones pOlwzjNdqy beats by dre purple xNwbdeAnlw http://bestbeatsbydre-us.info/#33474 rYawfhMnen christian louboutin uk gLpcbcOkfv christian louboutin outlet sUopagIwlh christian louboutin boots qSfuliJhxq http://cheaplouboutinshoes-sale.info/#45551 qFqgffXuds louboutin wedding shoes fGfjefEmat http://christianlouboutinshoes-cheaps.info/ zZqzthNezh ugg pas cher wPbioeTkzk botte ugg cMaiupEaxo bottes ugg classic short aJtisnAwja http://frbottespascher.info/#33862 mInqyrGjzk michael kors handbags oKuiswQcle michael kors handbags on sale qWwnuoHuba michael kors purses outlet gVlarrUtxg http://michaelskorshandbagsbest.info/#82546
venatical overniceness lazarly vogt bedumbs hetero
forehooves superangelical pathogermic halakhist overobjectified impeaching

tessa lowe's picture

I couldn't have put it better myself. So succinct. Wish I could write like that.Thank you for clarification at last.

Petra's picture

The crux of the matter is this :-
In 1998 when women were admitted to the priesthood Anglo Catholics who dissented were given pastoral oversight. There was no time limit put on these provisions as they were intended to be "in perpetuity".
Now Synod seeks to renege on that and take these away.
This begs the questions :-
a) Was it wrong to have given us these Sacramental assurances in the first place, and now Synod seeks to correct this? or
b) Was is right to give us these provisions and now other forces are at work to push us out of the C of E
I will let readers be the judge.

hugh markey's picture

For the Lord's Sake, just let's stick with the Virgin Mary. Have you even seen or read the Da Vinci Code?
Just some trivia. Were women ever crucified during the Roman period?
Were they worth it?

Demimondaine

Pavlova's picture

"Just some trivia. Were women ever crucified during the Roman period?"
Yes, they were hung facing the cross instead of facing out.

The Romans used to crucify dogs. I wouldn't get too self-satisfied if I were you.

Pavlova's picture

"For the Lord's Sake, just let's stick with the Virgin Mary. "

Yeah why not? What's wrong with having a religion with a male god, a male first human, male prophets of god, male messengers of god, a male son of god, male human representatives of god and a single impossible female who makes a brief appearance in order to give birth to a male god, oh and a Devil of questionable gender? What are women complaining about? Don't they understand that Christianity is a male cult all about how the universe is made by a man, for men and women were invented as a little obedient sweetener? Don't they understand that Judaism, Christianity Zoroastrianism and Islam come out of the Middle East, the world centre of male narcissism?

Women would do well to remember that Europe used to have female Goddesses, female daughters, female messengers, female representatives. And then the male cult arrived on these shores and destroyed them all.

If you want to reintroduce women to their proper place in the nation's spiritual life, and free women from this repellent doctrine that stunts their potential, then boycott it. It will die within a generation without women.

Zadaki's picture

I thought the whole Bishop-male thing went originally based on Priests not having children (ie., and not being married) so inheritance of property didn't become an issue back in the days of yore when the church had real wealth. Given Anglican clergy marry and have families and are as poor as church mice, that original spiritual fastidiousness seems far bygone to us know. Especially given the circumstance of Church's fading membership.
So based on Church principles are there any ecclesiastical or doctrinal objections to female bishops? The current ArchB says no and we should humbly defer to his wisdom. But for myself I claim a lingering aesthetic anxiety to the idea of female bishops, a ludicrous antiquarian thing I know but there it is.....but it is not a valid objection to flesh and blood and I accept that. Besides when I listen to Abbess Hildegard of Bingen's music and ask myself would I attend a church where she was a presiding "Bishop"? Then of course I realise clearly those earlier mixed feelings of reaction to change are absurd and I would eagerly say yes, let's all go to Heaven on a fast horse, gender irrelevantly.

Davidaslindsay's picture

Completely wrong.

jankaas's picture

perhaps so, but why do you think that is the case?
i do think you have a habit of posting just once in comment to something or other (see above), and then pulling down the shutters. should people just ignore your posts perhaps?

Davidaslindsay's picture

The first sentence, for a start. Total nonsense.

jankaas's picture

fair enough, but then what is wrong with the last one? that seems eminently reasonable, no?

John Das's picture

The whole career of this Archbishop was overshadowed by this devil's work of 'women bishop'. He had much potential but he's called it quits. The church should be clear about its beliefs and it should be based on the teachings of Christ. If men a re bishops, so fine enough. If churches are facing East fine enough, I am not going to turn them North to justify modern religion. What I mean is the priorities of the christian society should be right. Why bother about all this gender problem? Women have so many sources to serve the church, if that's the intention. But that's not the case. Most of these women have done a sorry job and I can see that in my church too. For them its a job like any other job. I'm beginning to think it was a mistake to allow women into the role of clergy too. I hope the African and Eastern churches fight these nonsense tooth and nail.

Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley's picture

Why don't you just go and read Hebrews! Even Paul has the common sense to remind us that the law made nothing perfect -but the oath does ie, the Word itself made perfect in practice by the appointment of Jesus. Coming after the law Jesus worked outside of theformer regulations and still does, once and for all.

How can people argue against women bishops in a church that can ordain them? Jesus himself reveals his true authority ie who he is to the woman of Samaria at Jacobs
well.

"No longer will a man teach his neighbour,
Or a man his brother,saying, "know the Lord,"
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more" Hebrews 9:11-12

John Das's picture

Go on. Mess it up. I'll stick with football. Hope you don't have plans to play in the Premier League, quoting some 'equality' verse. So, Good Luck to you.

Steffi's picture

By persisting in this sexual bigotry the Church is proving how out of touch it is with the real world, where people are reduced to getting food from food banks, disabled people are committing suicide because of benefit cuts and women are faced with sexual assault on a daily basis. These are the real issues facing our society, and all the Church can do is argue over whether women, who make up 50% of the population, should be let into its boys club. The time is approaching where no-one will care what the Church is doing and it will only have itself to blame. Another male institution will bite the dust, and good riddance.

John Das's picture

Yes what was the need for this issue in the first place? Male, female, male female, male female? Can't you sick people get over this? Your intentions are very clear. For no particular reason (other than egoistic) you want to break into the 'club', you waste your time and the whole life of and Archbishop debating this 'equality' topic when you could have used it for missionary work, and eventually you want the insitution 'bite the dust, and good riddance'. So, there was nothing Christian about this all along, just ego - even if it means bringing down the church. Devil's work.

Des Demona's picture

John that's not a very Christian attitude you're displaying?
PS the devil isn't real, you do know that don't you?

Allen from London's picture

When the media in general latch on to this type of story, and devote disproportionate amounts of time or space to church and belief matters, I sigh and turn off/over.

When the NS does the same, I begin to wonder about my favourite weekly!

WHO is bothered about this? Who is interested in the christian church, its officials, its beliefs, whether god exists or doesn't, whether the teapot still orbits Mars, and all the rest of it. Sure, we should be bothered about religions which have some political or social importance, like Islam, or maybe Hinduism, but the Anglican church? An almost total irrelevance.

A.

Anthony (Little Englander and proud)'s picture

More importantly, I cant wait for the fag brigade to clash with the fuzzy faced pyjama wearing gang, in a few years, should be interesting.

Bums, Burqas and tight shirts flying everywhere !

Davidaslindsay's picture

At home, hold the line both against what is now rather dated and passé secular liberalism, and against Islamisation. The debate over the definition of marriage presents the ideal opportunity to do this.

And abroad, accordingly, hold the line both against the neoconservatives, whose aim is to impose that now rather dated and passé secular liberalism on the whole world by force of arms, and against the Islamists. In this case, the ideal opportunity is being presented by the debate around Syria.

jankaas's picture

hilariously this treatment of women is just one of many things discriminating Christians have in common with Muslims. your shared disdain of homosexuals being another shared 'value'.
just because Christians don't go through the bother of stoning women and gays any longer you imagine you hold the moral high ground. sorry folks, that is where secular values have taken over. join us there or wither and die out.

jankaas's picture

could you please hold your breath until that day arrives?

Davidaslindsay's picture

It is difficult to avoid the sense that the whole process is a waste of time, since no legislation providing for women bishops will ever receive a two thirds majority in all three Houses of the General Synod and everyone knows it. But five, never mind 10, years is easily enough to make the positive case for the all-male episcopate in the State Church, including in the legislature as Lords Spiritual. And five, or even 10, years is the period that the General Synod is about to grant itself and everyone else.

For, in any case, the General Synod does not have the final say on women bishops in the Church of England. Parliament does. No one who does not accept in full the claims of Rome can submit to Her; no one who does can fail to do so. In its own terms, if a new network of Conservative Evangelical congregations would better serve the proclamation of the Gospel, then it must be created anyway. In neither case does any other consideration arise. Certainly, the prospect of either need not concern Parliament as a body.

Classical Christianity is the basis of this state and the foundation of all three of its political traditions. But independent research has found very large proportions of the women among the Church of England’s clergy to be doubters of or disbelievers in key points of doctrine. Two thirds deny “that Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin”. One quarter denies the existence “of God the Father Who created the world”. Assuming a woman on the episcopal “team” in each diocese, of those with privileged access to the media and other organs of national life as the voice of the Christianity professed by seventy-two per cent of Britons, at least one eighth would be agnostics or atheists.

A positive decision to retain declared “Fathers in God” within our parliamentary system and wider national life would emphasise the importance of fatherhood. That would set the tone for the introduction of a legal presumption of equal parenting. For the restoration of the tax allowance for fathers for so long as Child Benefit was being paid to mothers. For the restoration of the requirement that providers of fertility treatment take account of the child’s need for a father. For repeal of the ludicrous provision for two women to be listed as a child’s parents on a birth certificate, although even that is excelled by the provision for two men to be so listed. And for paternity leave to be made available at any time until the child was 18 or left school.

That last, in particular, would reassert paternal authority, and thus require paternal responsibility, at key points in childhood and adolescence. That authority and responsibility require an economic basis such as only the State can ever guarantee, and such as only the State can very often deliver. And that basis is high-wage, high-skilled, high-status employment. All aspects of public policy must take account of this urgent social and cultural need. Not least, that includes energy policy: the energy sources to be preferred by the State are those providing the high-wage, high-skilled, high-status jobs that secure the economic basis of paternal authority in the family and in the wider community. So, nuclear power. And coal, not dole.

And it includes foreign policy, in no small part because those sent to war tend to come from working-class backgrounds, where starting to have children often still happens earlier than has lately become the norm. Think of those very young men whom we see going off or coming home, hugging and kissing their tiny children. Yet our society urgently needs to re-emphasise the importance of fatherhood. That authority cannot be affirmed while fathers are torn away from their children and harvested in wars. You can believe in fatherhood, or you can support wars under certainly most and possibly all circumstances, the latter especially in practice today even if not necessarily in the past or in principle. You cannot do both. Which is the conservative position? Which makes present in the world the Fatherhood of God proclaimed by Jesus Christ, the fundamental point of reference for all three of our political traditions?

To argue for this by word and by sheer presence is a role for living icons of God the Father, addressed as “Fathers in God”. Parliament must do its duty and reassert the importance of fatherhood by rejecting any proposal for women bishops. No matter what.

one night in bangkok's picture

Regarding your assertion that 72% of Britons "profess" Christianity, have you never seen this?

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2921/Reli...

OH DEAR!

Davidaslindsay's picture

That's not the Census, whence came my figure.

On the contrary, yours comes merely from a publication of something called "The Richard Dawkins Foundation", which in every sense speaks for itself.

John Das's picture

This is not a news report, but an opinion piece I should say. The question being asked throughout is 'Why the delay?' This is typical of today's society. Anyone who is against this development is ridiculed and is called names 'sexist' or 'racist' or whatever. I am totally against this unnecessary nonsense. Men and women are created equal. That does not mean women have to play in the men's football match. That also does not mean men have to fall pregnant. This is stupidity. I have absolutely no doubt about equality, but that does not mean behaving like fools. Why don't you just follow the Bible? After this you would want a gay Bishop. Then they would want a Lesbian Bishop, all the while quoting from the Bible and talking about 'God and image, blah, blah'. Then one day they would want an ape with whom we share 99 per cent of our DNA as bishop. May be one day the Archbishop of Canterbury would be a gorilla or a chimpanzee if these morons have their way. As I say this my son adds 'Dad, our DNA is 65 per cent the same as abanana too'. Who knows? Why don't you all just follow the Bible, pray, spread the Good News and go about loving your God and neighbour?

John Das's picture

This is not a news report, but an opinion piece I should say. The question being asked throughout is 'Why the delay?' This is typical of today's society. Anyone who is against this development is ridiculed and is called names 'sexist' or 'racist' or whatever. I am totally against this unnecessary nonsense. Men and women are created equal. That does not mean women have to play in the men's football match. That also does not mean men have to fall pregnant. This is stupidity. I have absolutely no doubt about equality, but that does not mean behaving like fools. Why don't you just follow the Bible? After this you would want a gay Bishop. Then they would want a Lesbian Bishop, all the while quoting from the Bible and talking about 'God and image, blah, blah'. Then one day they would want an ape with whom we share 99 per cent of our DNA as bishop. May be one day the Archbishop of Canterbury would be a gorilla or a chimpanzee if these morons have their way. As I say this my son adds 'Dad, our DNA is 65 per cent the same as abanana too'. Who knows? Why don't you all just follow the Bible, pray, spread the Good News and go about loving your God and neighbour?

jankaas's picture

i do hope you realise that nowhere in the Bible does it say that only men can be Bishops.
and not happy to view women as 2nd class candidates, you have even less regard for homosexuals. and yet you view yourself superior to chimpanzees and bananas. hilarious.

John Das's picture

I did not find it hilarious. It must be for your twisted mind. Less regard for homosexuals? No. Superior to chimps and bananas? No. Your understanding of any issue must be similar. You can only see it twisted. That was an example to the future. There are certain jobs fine for women. But that does not mean she has to do everything a man does. That's kiddish behaviour. Nothing to do with equality. It's fine for women to join the Armed Forces, but if they want to go and fight on the front, that's stupidity (it's OK for Holywood films though). Use your common-sense. Stop quoting the Bible like the Taliban quotes the Quran. Anything to get your way. It's people like you who have made the Anglicans a joke around the world. Once the greatest missionary church, today an international joke. Foreign churches leaders do not even like to be photographed with our Bishops thanks to morons like you. (oops! now you'll say I've insulted the human rights of morons)

fuzzy spider's picture

So a Dutch man posting on the internet that in his opinion that certain segments of institutionalized religion should modernize is making Anglicans a joke around the world?

jankaas's picture

what a load of incoherent cobblers. there are very few things males are better at than females, and vice versa. the functions of a Bishop do not necessitate a c0ck, or become impossible by having a vagina.
as for women serving active duty, there are plenty who fly jets, drive tanks, fire artillery and don't need a p4nis to do so. you think that is "stupidity" because....?

"It's people like you who have made the Anglicans a joke around the world."
nope, the Anglican church needs no help from me on that score.

"Foreign churches leaders do not even like to be photographed with our Bishops thanks to morons like you. "
as a non-theist i could not care less. but you imagine that bigoted church leaders give a monkey's about what i think, now that's truly moronic.

Keir's picture

It's either ignorant or mischievous to state, or suggest, that Williams has subordinated his principles. Nelson has been very remiss in suggesting that the AoC has the role of a pope, or cult leader, because he has been told that this is not the case. The Church of England is governed synodically, as any fule kno, and the role of the AoC is, in the present climate, very likely to be one of keeping the communion in one piece, quite irrespective of his own views. There are financial considerations to take into account, too, that most people fail to realise, or don't wish them to be realised.

Then there is the majority view to consider. If there are women bishops only in the USA, in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the great majority of the communion does not have them. The USA is regarded as a disobedient and troublesome maverick, that has shelved the rules as irritating inconvenience, and behaved in a pretty unchristian way, too. It's no recommendation to cite it; quite the reverse.

Then there is the simple fact that the Anglican God really is a 'sexist'. (Or, it is people who talk of sexism in a religious context who are due for a very hard time at his hands.) This is what the CoE has to take into account, if it is to retain credibility as a church. It is misleading journalism to ignore that difficulty.

The fact of the matter is that capitalism has its own reasons for seeking to promote women in society. But what capitalism cannot do is fundamentally alter the planet and its relationships. Except, perhaps, to destruction.

Latest tweets