On Tuesday's BBC Breakfast I was struck when a young lady chaplain said 'The C of E is not a democracy: it's a family', meaning that Synod doesn't decide things by simple majority vote but according to the needs of each member. It's not relevant that 'traditionalists' (I dislike the way that word is said) are a minority; they are members of the family and must be loved and listened to attentively. My parents made decisions for me when I was a child because I didn't know better than they did (occasionally I still don't). Traditionalists are not children; they are often learned in theology. I may disagree with their opinion on whether or not my sex disqualifies me from the priesthood but their view doesn't disqualify them from membership of the Church family.
The Church doesn't (shouldn't) Move With The Times. I've always hoped it would move with the Spirit. It doesn't need to be - in fact it absolutely <i>isn't</i> - 'relevant' (BBC broadcasting, I'm looking at you here) in a material society, because it doesn't (shouldn't) hold the same values as that society. I don't often see the promotion of unselfish love in secular media; mostly I see encouragement to buy rubbish I don't need. 'Go, sell all your possessions and follow me' doesn't fit there.
So I don't think that Church policy should be influenced by what is important to people in any given era. It has been so influenced in the past, often not for the benefit of the poor, widows or orphans, and sometimes for the benefit of political warmongers. As a woman myself I know that a woman can be just as good at the tasks a priest does - for instance caring for the poor and visiting the sick and prisoners - as a man can be. That is irrelevant to those who believe that a woman simply cannot have the heavenly authority to administer the Body and Blood of Christ or do any of the other things that separate a priest from a community worker.
Even Dr Rowan (whom I hold in high esteem) talked about the Church not being in line with what 'the wider public' wants. If the chief aim of his office is the survival of the Church of England as an institution then fitting in with the current trends of the surrounding unbelieving society is a very important goal for him. But Jesus didn't fit into his surrounding society. When I think about 21st-century Britain and first-century Judea as described in the New Testament I see many similarities. Jesus tells rich people off for ignoring the poor and spends time with people no one else bothers with; the Apostles tell disciples they should keep working and not be a burden on others.
The Church cannot lead its members credibly if it is clearly already following behind social trends. In this situation it is instead the society which is leading, and if the two are not distinct people will continue to cut out the middle-man and just follow society, with no reference to God or Jesus's teaching.
I'm not on the 'side' of traditionalist members, by the way. Since the C of E decided to ordain women the ordination of female bishops has been an inevitability - a large part of the reason why more Catholic priests left the Anglican church in the '90s rather than hang on until they would be subject to one. I know that it is very painful to leave a church that has been more like a family, but if this development is so wholly against one's belief for the right direction of the Church then one must consider whether one cannot in conscience continue to represent the institution as visibly as clergy and committed lay members must.
