Women Bishops

I am going to be controversial regarding yesterday's 'No' vote for women bishops in the Church of England. I don't think it's a bad thing. Before you decide not to read my blog any more, bear with me while I explain.

The legislation the synod voted on allowed parish churches which did not want a woman bishop to have oversight of their church to request another bishop who, naturally, would be male. So, if this legislation had been passed, there would automatically be inequality in the episcopacy of the Church of England. Is it right that a church should be able to ask for another bishop based on their sex? There is no precedence, as far as I am aware, for an individual congregation to request another bishop because the one they have they don't like. They just have to get on with it. So why should women be treated as second class bishops? Could a church ask for a female bishop if they did not like their male one? I don't think so.

I know I'm being a little naive as the majority of the CofE wanted this legislation to go ahead. If I were in that synod, I think I would have voted against the legislation, due to it allowing inequality in the episcopacy. And, if I was in favour of bishops (which, given I'm a Presbyterian, I'm not really) I would not object to them being male or female (funnily enough).

Though I can understand this is a bitter blow for many, many people in the CofE, and it may be more than 10 years until this legislation can be taken to the general synod again, perhaps the delay will allow women to become bishops on equal terms with men when it finally goes through? I say this sincerely and hopefully.

As a wee aside, I wonder why the congregations who object to women as bishops did not oppose the Queen? After all, she is the head of their church.