From the BBC:

The Bishop of Lewes has been criticised for comparing the debate over the ordination of women bishops to the outbreak of World War II.

The Rt Rev Wallace Benn told a Church conference of Anglicans that he felt there was “real serious warfare just around the corner”.

The bishop said the Church of England into which he had been ordained was “not the same Church today”.

Supporters of women’s ordination said the bishop’s views were “demeaning”.

Speaking at the Reform conference of conservative Anglicans in Hoddesdon, Hertfordshire, the bishop said: “I’m about to use an analogy, and I use it quite deliberately and carefully.

“I feel very much increasingly that we’re in January of 1939.

“What we must not do is create a phoney war, but we need to be aware that there is real serious warfare just around the corner.”

Christina Rees, of Women and the Church (Watch), said the bishop’s views were “demeaning”.

Whatever one’s view of the legitimacy of women bishops, the above comment from Christina Rees is at least useful for the light it sheds on how liberals think: they don’t. Whether Ms. Rees finds opposition to lady bishops demeaning or not is beside the point. The truth is, there are two factions at war with each other in the worldwide Anglican Church. One holds to the orthodoxy of 2000 years of Christian understanding, the other wants to adopt innovations that – the orthodox would claim – make the Church less than Christian.

For all of Rowan Williams’ Hegalian finagling, the two factions can’t coexist within the same organisation: they are diametrically opposed to one another. Lady bishops are the tip of the iceberg; the Anglican Communion is already at war with itself and Christina Rees along, with her cohorts, should open her demeaned eyes and recognise that what Rev. Wallace said is true. It is going to get much worse.

At its synod, the Church of England voted not to allow a provision to grant alternative male oversight to clergy and parishes who believe a woman should not serve as a bishop.

I have always been ambivalent about the legitimacy of women bishops: I think there are good arguments on both sides. That being said, it seems to me inconsistent to allow women priests but disallow women bishops. So, although I have reservations, I find myself not completely averse to either women priests or bishops.

But is this really about women being called by God to serve as priests and bishops? I don’t think so: if it were we wouldn’t need a campaign:

Christina Rees, of Women and the Church, which campaigns in favour of women bishops, said: “We have already tried our best to keep everyone in [the church] and to increase the level of communion between those who hold different views on women’s ministry.

None of the recent battles at the CofE synod focussed much on God’s calling: the big thing is the battle for Equality – a secular notion that is the antithesis of Christian service, sacrifice, dying to self, humility, placing others high than oneself and carrying one’s cross. Not that I am much good at any of those things either – but then I’m not mounting a campaign to further their antipode.

One thing that rules out all these ladies for bishop is – they are too eager to become one: that should disqualify anyone.

Other than ambition, lust for power and vanity, I can’t imagine why anyone would want to be a bishop. I know of very few bishops who are sufficiently unpretentious to be taken at all seriously: better to become a barmaid, they occasionally make sense.

Kingsley Amis, in his Advice to a Writer, restores proportion to the office of bishop and archbishop. Ladies, take note.  It even has a Canadian ending:

That time you heard the archbishop fart
You did quite right to say.
And should the ploughboy turn up gold
The news would make our day.
But when the ploughboy farts henceforth
Forget about it, eh?