Light Fuse, Stand Back

I wasn't going to say anything about the C of E's decision yesterday to allow female bishops, but the Missus recommended that I check out CNN's story on the matter. I did. And I feel I need to say something after all.

I'll skip all the mechanical graphs. Let's go, as the kids say, to the money quotes:

The theological debate over female bishops has centered on the question "What would Jesus do?"

Sigh... No, guys, there is no debate about that. What Jesus did is spelled out pretty clearly. What you mean is "What would we do if we were in Jesus' place? (Knowing, as we do, so much more about the way the world ought to work.)"

The traditionalists argued that bishops must be men, as were Jesus and his apostles.

Well, now. Why were all of Jesus' apostles men? Frankly, I dunno. And neither do you. Nor does anybody else. But there it is. But again, this gets back to the difference between "What Did Jesus Do?" and "What Do We Think Jesus Ought To Have Done?" And, of course, the traditionalist argument is actually based on the humility of recognizing that we have no business substituting our own judgment for His.

Retired Canon Alan Duke, a longtime supporter of women in church leadership posts, said those arguments "simply do not stack up."

Oh, I dunno. And note that "women in church leadership posts" language. Heck, I attend an extremely orthodox R.C. church and there are womens all over the place there, doing the Lawd's work in all kinds of ways. Much more, I would suspect, than most people who bloviate about "supporting women in church leadership posts".

Duke said that while Jesus named no female disciples, he used and valued woman in radical and different ways for his time.

Well, yeah.....And even a superficial understanding of the Gospels (such as, for example, mine) reveals that Jesus specialized in upsetting all kinds of accepted social conventions, not just with regard to sex, but also concerning birth, tribe, social standing, occupation and a whole host of other factors. But surely that argues against Jesus feeling compelled to stick to some particular contemporary social standard?

"He was hardly going to choose women and send them into a situation where they might have been in grave risk," Duke said.

Oh, so it was okay for Jesus to send Peter and the other Disciples into all kinds of hideous dangers at the hands of the Romans, the Jews and other hostile groups.....just because they were Men? Why, that Jesus fellah couldn't have been anything more than a sexist, chauvenist pig! Oh. Wait. Hang on......

Okay, let's get to what this is really all about......

Christina Rees, with the pro-women lobby Women and the Church, described what was at stake as "an acceptance by the Church of England of women on equal terms as men in the ordained ministries."

Bingo. This hasn't anything to do with theology, liturgy or the religious standards and practices derived therefrom. Instead, it has everything to do with modern social politics. As I said above, it is not a question of "What Would Jesus Do?" Instead, it is a question of "What Would We Do In Jesus' Place?" And even to my imperfect understanding of Faith, that is a very naughty question, indeed.