Should women be allowed to be bishops?
That was the burning question of the day.
I must say that the new archbishop has tried to start off in his role as a clear and decisive leader. The bishops and clergy have done their duty and voted with him. One has to wonder whether they did this secure in their confidence that the pious laity would come to the rescue by failing to support the change quite enough.
Sure enough they have! They got the answer wrong and didn't reach the majority needed to allow the election of women bishops.
I thought my colleague's reply to my humorous taunt was reasonable and representative of the general view. If someone who was not even ordained ten years ago can become Archbishop of Canterbury today, why should women who have worked for a lifetime in the church be barred from higher office?
I would go a bit further. Should an organisation that benefits from being the established church and has a woman as its (notional) head, also be allowed to be exempt from the law of the country? It is a matter of reciprocity. England has to accept that its laws are affected by an unelected and unrepresentative but influential minority - the bishops of the Church of England.
Now it is time for the church to have the laws of the land enforced upon it, in return.
One of those laws requires equality. Nobody else is exempt from this.
Let's disestablish the church and have a secular government!
Small question: As the new decisive leader has failed so quickly, should he resign his position and get a good settlement and pension to compensate him? This works for other public officials, after all!
Related post: C of E in a pickle