Synod's choice

I'm trying to summon up enough enthusiasm to write about last weekend's Church of England synod and what their decisions about ordaining women as bishops mean.  But in a way everything seems to have been said.  The synod have probably made the best of a not terribly good job, and decided to risk offending traditionalists so much that they leave the C of E, in return for giving women bishops, when they finally appear, the same status as men.

Of course it will be very sad if this decision causes people to leave the church.  Jesus taught us to pray for unity among Christians, and it's hard to be unified- or even to pray for unity- when you are caught up in a bitter struggle the meaning of Biblical texts.  Perhaps, some say, we should compromise for the sake of unity- that both sides should compromise as far as they can, out of love for each other and for God, out of grace, to prevent a damaging split.  That, if I am correct, is what the amendment proposed by the archbishops of Canterbury and York was an attempt to do, an attempt to salve the consciences of those who feel they cannot submit to a woman's authority; so that while those in favour would accept that another, male, bishop would care for the traditionalists, the traditionalists would recognise the validity of women bishops in principal.

But there are other considerations.  It has been said, with much truth, that the church exists for the benefit of non-members (admittedly it often doesn't seem like that's the case!).  Obviously a an organisation that is constantly arguing with itself isn't showing a very good image to outsiders.  But then neither is an organisation that, from most outsiders and indeed most insiders' point of view, is still practicing sexism. 

Obviously I'm not saying that the church (any church, not just the C of E) should just give in to society's pressures and accept society's values.  That would leave us with no integrity.  But if we want the church to be an active, outward looking community, we need to show that every member is valued.  That means weighing up the choice of offending some of your membership, or looking increasingly old fashioned, irrelevant and unpalatable to those outside (and a large number within).  It's not a choice to make lightly, or without much prayer, and I think synod have been thinking and praying about this for a long time.  No one should be going into that kind of debate wanting to cause trouble or make things nasty, any sort of split should cause sorrow on both sides.  But perhaps to agree to disagree, and not to rule out the possibility of working together in the future, is a better solution than to continue to argue, which can be more divisive.

Of course, probably a better option is to accept, gracefully, the arrangements that the synod has agreed on. But given that the media much prefer a story about disagreement than about acceptance and co-operation, I doubt we'll hear so much about the parishes and people who do just that.  The church (perhaps because as a friend of mine said; "the more liberal people are, the more likely they are to feel the opposition should have a say, and less likely to make absolutist remarks.") isn't great at presenting the positive story.  But I look forward to when the first women bishops are ordained, and hope that it will be celebrated as the milestone it deserves to be.