Depending on what your poison may be, the Church of England’s General Synod starting today could the most interesting or the most boring event in York this weekend. If you’re an Anglican you’ll probably be following quite closely because the whole thorny issue of women bishops is to be discussed and the meetings are held in the context of the gay priest, Jeffrey John, once again being rejected as a potential bishop. These two subjects make Anglicanism a hotbed of gossip, anger, and frustration.

To call the C of E a ‘broad church’ is, in fact, a bit of a misnomer. By today, it seems to me, it is a ‘factional church’ with many different parties holding a myriad of views. Put simply, however, there are some who favour women bishops and some who don’t. It probably isn’t fair to include the homosexual issue with the women priest issue – though try telling that to the gay clergy – but again there are broadly two camps, one in favour, the other against. And the Anglicans can either be very sensible and loving as they discuss these issues or they can descend into pure vitriol as evidenced by the comments section in this blog from the US.

So, if I were an Anglican, would I be in favour of having women bishops or not? The simple answer is ‘yes’. But there are, in my opinion, some far more fundamental issues to be looked at before one can discuss such a question.

First, it seems to me that the hierarchical nature of the church in its current form is quite far removed from the pattern of leadership seen in Scripture. There we have a picture of Jesus ‘who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped’. In the C of E the emphasis is unmistakably on hierarchy – with so many titles to get correct that I wouldn't be surprised if theological colleges had a whole module on t.he subject They’re not the only church to struggle with this one, of course. We may not have the grand titles in the newer churches, but the power still remains in the hands of the few.

Second, this emphasis on a professional caste of priests is, as I see it, also counter to the simplicity of the New Testament church. I accept it is only my interpretation, but I cannot find in the NT this emphasis on needing a special person to intercede between me and God. Rather, we are all priests – ordained and non-ordained, male and female. But this, too, is about power - for when a handful of people are able to claim a special priestly role they become extremely powerful.

Should the Church come to different conclusions to their current stance on these two issues the whole debate would be very different.

And then there is a final question that needs consideration – why do they not accept what the rest of us see, that they cannot agree on these issues and that it would be better for one faction to leave and form their own church? Many reasons would be given – all of them valid. But one reason I suspect – always to remain un-stated – is that to form a new, separate church would mean losing the status of being ‘established’ and therefore losing all the rights and privileges that go with it. And we're back to the point about power again.

The Church of England is one of the last remaining vestiges of Christendom in the UK and the time, surely, has come for it to be disestablished.

If you enjoed this post why not share it with others. Click on the bar below. Thanks.