If ever anyone wished to establish a case against women being appointed as bishops, the writing of The Rev Dr Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, interim principal of Durham University's Ustinov College in a recent blog would be sufficient.
Following protests from opponents of women bishops the House of Bishops decided latterly to allow an amendment which would provide for those parishes which did oppose to have oversight by an alternative (male) Bishop. This has upset the feminist lobby of which Miranda Holmes (I find it hard to accept the vain affectation of double barrelled names) is a leading campaigner.

In consequence she has accused the Church of England of being an "abusive institution" and questioned whether women should stay or flee.

She wrote in a blog post: "The question for women priests today is: do we stay with this abusive institution?
One of the reasons women's ordination is important is because women's current exclusion from the church hierarchy justifies and entrenches sexist attitudes which have very serious consequences for women around the world.
"Rape, sexual abuse, violence against women and women's political and economic subjugation are repeatedly justified on the basis that it is 'natural' and 'God-given' that women should be below men on some divine hierarchy."

To refer to rape and sexual abuse as being related to a decision of the Church of England to allow for those who object to the appointment of women as bishops to have alternative oversight, suggests not only intolerance so typical of those with liberal beliefs, but an imbalanced mind. If this woman teaches theology it is an horrendous thought. It is hard to conceive how anyone of supposed intelligence could make such an absurd remark.

The Church is poised to approve the appointment of women as bishops and many clergy and lay people are against this legislation. They do this on theological basis and are supported in the Orthodox Churches of Russia and Greece and the worldwide Roman Catholic Church all of which will break relations with the Anglican Church if this goes ahead. Some wiser minds see this more than anything as a reason not to support the legislation, and abuse of women would never enter their more sober minds. Perhaps supporters will announce the theological grounds for their support, in addition of course to the fact of ‘equality’.

If people like Miranda Holmes are convinced of their cause why object to others having a different view for which provision can be made, so as to accommodate both sides. Or is it a case I want my own way totally.