Render unto Caesar

I don't really approve of the General Synod. It all smacks of democracy, and though this will not stop me from attempting to get into it in later life, I just don't think democracy is the right method for resolving theological issues. I'm not suggesting it should run on some kind of monarchical principle - we know where that leads - but there are limits. These kind of decisions of the church and for the church need to be cut loose from the court of popular opinion and rooted in doctrine and doctrine alone. In the furore over the decisions of the Synod about women bishops and the protest over homosexual clergy (to form FOCA, who astonishly don't have a website) one could be forgiven if one missed this.

And these are all doctrinal issues. One could see them as liturgical, but the principle of Lex Orandi, Lex credendi takes care of that. Incidententally, I read No Alternative the other day and though dated (and not a little mad), it makes this point forcefully. And interestingly no-one is making the argument that these are liturgical changes, which is a small blessing I suppose.

However, what is being claimed is that this is somehow an issue about equality or justice and that the church must conform with the social, political and effectively legal structure of the country that it lives in. Those who advocate women bishops stress fairness and the importance of presenting a modern face to the world, but this simply isn't true; these aren't primarily relevant. They are not irrelevant: acting in a way comensurate with the society one works in may be necessary to, for example, preach the gospel, but it is not a priori a Christian requirement. In some societies, we would rather hope that Christians didn't conform, but rather challenged their masters. They don't always do it; nor would I.

Equally, the secular authority is welcome to - in effect - 'persecute' the religions within its borders. The UK could apply equality legislation to religions. In some ways, it logically should. Christians (and Muslims And Jews etc) would have a choice of confessing, to be martyrs for their faith, or lapsing either into a more congenial version of their faith or out of it entirely. But in that case, the Christian decision is one of doctrine against external force; its internal position must not be dictated by these arguments.

At the root of all this are doctrinal disputes. Women bishops are opposed because of the apostolic succession; homosexuality in priests because of a number of biblical and patristic writings. Their proponents reject that ecclesiological interpretation and are less keen on Leviticus and, er, Paul. They don't (or shouldn't) agree with the doctrinal bits, but then go placing equality legislation above it.

Let me end this by stressing that I am supportive of the involvement of the laity in the life of church - I am one in - in favour of women bishops and of homosexual clergy. However, it is not my decision to make (though I can leave the church if I became angered by it all), and my position, though I am doubtless influenced by secular context, is rooted in doctrine, not made on secular or external grounds.

And he that does so? Well, let him be anathema.