Women can wear dresses too, says CofE

The CofE is to allow women bishops. Excellent.

The saddest part of the Beeb's report is the line "although supporters were celebrating a breakthrough, some traditionalists had left the synod chamber in tears." Well, of course, and that was the teeth-grittingly inevitable bit that had to come. This was not going to happen without a lot of people feeling that the church they love has slapped them in the face. Sadly, the nature of that love is not the fully-featured bi-directional give and take of a proper loving relationship. It's the love of a stalker for their victim; of Mrs Van Hopper for the future second Mrs De Winter; of Michael Corleone for his family. It's a love that says "I give you so much because I love you, now you must respect that love and do exactly what I say or else you don't love me in return." In any such relationship, for the secondary partner to have a future they can can only tear themselves away, maybe in tears themselves, knowing that any damage caused is only by the first partner refusing to let go and is not their fault.

Don't let the door hit you as you process out in all your finery.

I remain utterly baffled why anyone who would consider conversion to Catholicism over this issue isn't a Catholic already. What does the future hold in the eyes of these people from Planet Trad? Especially the ones with wives and kids? I'll tell you. Palpatine Benedict will regard them as used goods and his open arms of welcome will at the same time usher them into a securely guarded enclave of the church behind several firewalls where they will be second-class citizens forever more, but they won't mind, because like the denizens of Hell in CS Lewis's The Great Divorce, they are in a fool's paradise of their own making. And because the most important thing to them is the absence of women bishops, they will never notice.

On Planet Trad, the whole Reformation was just friends agreeing to disagree; Martin Luther's Thesis no. 1 was "women clergy now!" while the other 94 were just nitpicking over details; Bloody Mary would have been Lovely Mary if only Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer hadn't insisted on such dangerously liberal issues as letting women read the Bible in English. (Thankfully they will admit that more sophisticated avenues of dialogue have evolved since those days.) Whereas in the fantasy world that I live in, the whole ministry of Jesus Christ might be seen as instituting the salvation of all humankind in a manner equally applicable to every nation and every society of every part of the world in every era of history (and that includes the utterly unimaginable future), in actual fact it was to set up an exclusive, male-dominated, highly ritualised church based heavily upon the rites and practices of an extinct pagan empire.

I don't have a theology degree but I'm suspecting the divine purposes ran deeper than that.

So, three cheers for the synod, and just don't get me started on Jeffrey John.

Will they wear trousers?

In my third year at university a group of us went to the SCM (Student Christian Movement / Slightly Christian Marxists) Annual Conference in Aberystwyth. I know I enjoyed it though I only remember the bad bits. I remember a programme item on 'Post-Christians', led by two young women who were the first and last self-described post-Christians I've met, and quite possibly the only two ever. Their intent was to take the morality of Jesus without all the embarrassing supernatural stuff and apply it in the modern, real world in which we live. No different from any other morally natured atheist, in short, and claiming it as an actual movement struck me then, and now, as a complete waste of time. Philip Pullman has summed it up so much better in his notion of the Republic of Heaven.

And then – oh dear, oh dear – and then there was the last plenary meeting. Plans were made for a final service to close off the proceedings. Some women raised an objection: would it be communion? And would the communion be given by a man? Because, at that stage of the church’s history, there was no way they were going to kneel before a man.

Hmm.

First of all, this was in the innocent days before T. Pratchett had invented Nanny Ogg and so her aphorism: " stand before your god, bow before your king, kneel before your husband" sadly wouldn't have occurred to anyone. A logical answer was that communion should also be administered by a woman. "But the Catholics can't take communion from a woman!" they cried. "Actually, we don't mind," said the Catholics. "Yes you do, stop rocking the boat," said those determined to make of it an issue. And so on. At one point a woman was in tears, declaring, "my partner and I are being forced out for the church and we're damned if we'll let it happen here too."

At one point someone was told, in short, to put a sock in it and stop upsetting people. His response were four words that should never, ever come out of the mouth of a follower of the Servant King: "no, why should I?"

In short it was a fairly typical SCM get-together, nice people determined to live nicely without any of that tedious Biblical guidance stuff, and I forget how it was resolved. If it ever was. I had never had a problem with the idea of ordaining women, ever; in fact it was already something that other Protestant denominations had been doing for years if not decades and longer. But that was the first time I realised how deep the feelings ran in the C of E. A mere seven years later (and nearly 2000 years later than it should have been) the Anglican church started ordaining women as priests and now – hallelujah! – they can become bishops too.

And there's the ones who don't like this and are threatening to leave the church ...

Previously my attitude to such has been "Goodbye, then!" But recently the Lord in his wisdom has drawn to my attention 1 Corinthians 10:23-33:

"Everything is permissible" – but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible" – but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."

If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake – the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God – even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

The take-home message there is: don't stand on your rights, however right your rights may be. Other people are more important. One of the biggest problems of the pro-women's ordination in the past was that too many approached it as a right to be demanded, not a calling to serve. And that goes for some of my colleagues in Aberystwyth, too, which was one reason they were singularly failing to make any kind of progress. There's a danger of doing it again here.

Let's be straight – those who for whatever reason don't believe women should be bishops are just plain wrong, simple as that. There should be women bishops. I welcome women bishops.

There may be situations where a woman bishop is not advisable - say, running a diocese in a Muslim area? But that is an obstacle to overcome, a challenge, not a reason for an outright ban. Still, tempting as it is to dismiss the contras as a bunch of fuddy duddy misogynists with psychological hangups about women in authority, they are also hurting human beings and the hurt needs to be addressed.

I've no idea how but I'm sure the Archdruid is working on it.

Entirely on topic is this cartoon from Matt.

Not really on topic, but not entirely off it either, is this from punditkitchen.com.