In the news today, the Anglican church in America has angered more traditional parts of the Anglican family by appointing a female bishop.

I can’t get excited about it, myself. As long as a bishop is a good bishop, I don’t particularly care what they keep inside their trousers – or what they do with it, before anyone asks. There are plenty of qualities a priest or bishop needs, and in both cases there are a few that aren’t particularly good: I don’t think the church has enough good clergy that it can afford to turn otherwise gifted leaders away, just because they haven’t got a “Y” chromosome.

I’ve met loads of really good priest, both male and female: I’ve also met a few I wasn’t so impressed by, although I have to say they were all men. I’ve never met a lady priest who didn’t seem to be fully up to the job, although I’m sure a few exist. The argument that priests have to be male because Jesus’s disciples were all male doesn’t hold much water – they were all practicing Jews as well, I think the Christian church might have a problem if we start insisting on that quality in our ordained leaders.

By the same token, I can’t get excited enough to join the throngs demanding the immediate appointment of female / gay / three-legged / Martian priests. Appoint them because they have a talent and a calling, not because they fit somebody’s stereotype.

Comments are closed.