I have little profound to add to what has been already said about this weekend’s Church of England Synod and its approval of women bishops with little provision for objectors. (And, no, I haven’t been ignoring the subject. I’ve been in one of my unsharp times. Anything I would have written would have been scarcely worth the electrons, much less my readers’ attention.)
However, I am again provoked by how uninclusive the inclusive crowd gets when they think they have the power to do so. Objectors did not ask to stop women bishops. They, along with the Archbishops of Canterbury and York for God’s sake, only asked that those who cannot faithfully submit to women bishops be given adequate provision. And I am glad to note a majority of Synod agreed to that. The Archbishops’ effort was shot down only among the clergy, and that by only five votes.
But not only does the inclusive crowd oppose provision for those who cannot ride on the inclusive train, they dare to call it a “compromise” when they get their way. That’s the word WATCH used to describe what transpired. Compromise? I guess if I’m mugged and the mugger beats me with a baseball bat but does not shoot me, I should be thankful for compromise. The way of Libchurchers with the English language astounds.
On a happier note: again, a majority of Synod did vote for provision for objectors. As the Anglican Curmudgeon, among others, notes, that gives hope to stop this particular inclusive train altogether:
All may not yet be lost. After the measure comes back from the dioceses, it will have to pass each House of the General Synod by a two-thirds majority in order to become law, and that is a tall order.
Thus the irony is that the so far successful scorched parish strategy of the inclusive crowd in the Church of England may delay their precious women bishops for years.