I don't often comment on the news, but as a regular church-going Anglican I do feel that perhaps the General Synod is something that I ought to express my views about.

Issue 1 - The Consecration of Women Bishops

I'm all in favour of women priests, although I do allow that anyone who believes that the apostolic succession must be male and only male is entitled to that point of view, and is allowed to say "I personally am unwilling to receive the sacrament from a woman", and to choose which church to attend on this basis. I don't agree with them, but as long as holders of neither point of view make themselves objectionable to the the other then I think it should be possible to rub along together.

However, as far as the General Synod is concerned, the issue of women priests is no longer an issue - they have allowed women to be ordained for many years now. Therefore it must follow that if women priests are acceptable then so are women bishops. You would not have a rule which allowed women to train as doctors, but said that registrar was as high as they could climb. (Yes, I know that this was how it remained in practice for many years for the majority of women doctors, but surely nobody holds that up as a model of how things should be?) The question of women bishops should not be a question, and there should be nothing to debate.

Issue 2 - Gay Priests

Me, I'm pretty hot of sexual morality, and it is a source of irritation to me that friends who slept with their future husbands (and possibly a few others) before they were married are still happily married, while those who held out until the (first) wedding night are now on husband number 2 or even 3. Actually, I have put that wrong because it doesn't irritate me at all that any of my friends are happily married after 20, 30 or more years: it delights me.

Now, it seems to me that if I allow - albeit with a certain reluctance - that people can and do have sexual relations with a heterosexual partner outside the bonds of holy matrimony without incurring the wrath of God, it is unreasonable to deny homosexual men and women the same freedom.

Moreover it is undoubtedly true that a man or woman who commits adultery is hurting far more people than a man or woman in a loving relationship with somebody of the same sex, and is moreover breaking one of God's commandments. Although Judaic law does include injunctions against 'a man lying with another man as with a woman', it also includes a great many laws regarding the uncleanliness of women, what people should eat and not eat, what they should wear and not wear etc. - all of which Christians have happily ignored for two thousand years. Nor does such a law appear either in the ten commandments (which we believe were given directly by God) or in the teachings of Jesus. We also have to acknowledge that if God made us all, He made the gay as well as the straight.

So, while personally I would rather all people adhered to the precept of fidelity in marriage and celibacy outside marriage, those gay men and women who live in a faithful and loving relationship are doing nobody any harm - and surely it is the harm done by the betrayal of innocence or trust which is the real sin? I can therefore logically see no reason to object to gay Christians fulfilling their vocation within the priesthood and at the same time having a fulfilling relationship with the partner of their choice.

It doesn't altogether please me that I reach this conclusion. I may be old-fashioned, but my gut reaction remains that the sex act is primarily for the creation of babies, and that therefore sex - all sex - outside marriage should be resisted, but equally it seems to me that such matters are for the individual conscience rather than for hard and fast rules set down by other human beings who may well have no personal knowledge of the emotions involved.

Conclusion

I am not saying that either of these issues is unimportant, but we are living in the twenty-first century and there are far greater matters for the church to debate than these purely domestic issues.