Several things have confused me about the recent Anglican vote on the ordination of women bishops. They are as follows:
- Why do so many, unconnected to the Anglican Church, feel strongly one way or the other about this issue?
- Why do so many feel they have any cause or right to voice an opinion and, more to the point, for it to be heeded on matters within an institution to which they are otherwise entirely unconnected?
- Why did recourse to scripture feature so little on either side of the debate (irrespective of the side of the debate to which one falls)?
- Why are those in favour of female bishops so concerned with appearing ‘in-step’ with the feelings of the country when plethora of other views held, even within the liberal wing of the church, are out of step with modern British culture?
- Why are those against female bishops bothering to mount any sort of case when the argument, to all intents and purposes, was lost with the ordination of female vicars?
- Why do those against the move draw the line at ordaining women bishops? Is it not arbitrary to accept female vicars but not female bishops? If the issue is one of authority, why not accept the move and draw the line at Archbishop or the see of Canterbury itself?
- How can those against female bishops consistently assent to the Queen as head of the Church?