You know, since the Church of England has had female priests for a long time, I had some strange notion that they were one of the more progressive sects of popular Christianity in this country, and strangely enough, I’m not sure they’re not still, but when you have a voting system that makes as little sense as theirs, nothing’s going to get changed.
What do I mean?
There are three houses that voted, two of them got a majority for the decision to allow female bishops, and the other got more yeses than nos but not enough to count as a majority. Now, if this made sense, the side with the most votes would win, or the side with the most houses behind it would win, or the side which had more yes than no votes in every single house would win…
You’d think, but it’s pretty hard to change something like that, even in the UK’s official church, one that contributes 20 bishops to the House of Lords.
Not that my old church, the Roman Catholics are doing much better on this front, the Pope doesn’t seem to have thought about women priests much, never mind women bishops, but he’s got a lot of problems on his hands anyway with the terrible reputation that he earned after ‘that’ scandal.
The outcry at this decision however, might mean that, ironically enough, the decision not to allow women bishops might make it clear that such a decision should definitely be made.
Why a church with female priests can’t just extend gender equality to all levels of hierarchy is frankly baffling; once you’ve got over the archaic notion that men are natural leaders and women are natural followers you would think that extending that motion would be something that can be done with the blink of an eye.