And Here Comes the Proof

Months ago, reviewing the constitution of the new schismatic "Anglican" organization ACNA, we pointed out that it permitted women to serve as priests but not, apparently, bishops.  This, we suggested, was a compromise between "traditionalists" who didn't like women or gays, and those who merely didn't like gays.  (The scare quotes here are used to mock the idea of an Anglicanism that turns its back on canonically regular bishops and diocesan boundaries.  Or an Anglicanism without gay priests.)

More recently, our friend Pastor Joelle, commenting on the developments of CORE (they had a big, heavily publicized meeting at which they decided to ... do nothing, really) suggested that the development of a gay-free Lutheran church (if, again, they ever get around to it) might not bode well for ordained women in the ranks of same.  And we heartily agreed.

And here comes, if not proof, then powerful evidence:  The Church of England, which began to ordain women fairly recently and which as yet has no female bishops, is considering steps to remove certain powers from those female bishops, when and if any are ever enthroned.

Here's a useful quotation:

While Anglicans in the United States, Canada and Australia already have women bishops, conservatives in many other parts of the Communion strongly oppose them. They say there is nothing in the Bible or church history to support women bishops.

Well, yes, they would say that.  They always say that, about everything.  There's nothing in the Bible or church history to support church organs, either, apart from the fact that they're beautiful and some churches have them.  Whereas the Scriptures take a pretty firm anti-tattoo line, suggesting that Navy men should be excluded from the priesthood, if not excommunicated altogether.  (S0 there, late John Cardinal O'Connor).

Anyhoo.  None of our business what the CofE does, really.  Nor the Lutheran schismatics.  But were we a woman, and a priest, we would certainly avoid joining either.