Yet another reason to disestablish as soon as possible.

Mr. Cameron is of course free to express an opinion as a communicant member of the Church of England, but he should endeavor to keep that opinion separate from his office as prime minister. Some of his cabinet members don’t sound so greatly different from their Labour predecessors when they utter veiled threats about the Church of England’s lack of compliance with equal rights legislation.

And if, as he suggested, the Church’s processes need to be respected, what reason to demand that it “get with the programme?”

“Mr Cameron said the Church needed a “sharp prod”. “They need to get on with it and get with the programme,” he added.”

Corrected:
“Mr Cameron said the Church needed a “sharp prog”. “They need to get on with it and get with the programme,” he added.” 

The current “prog” not being sharp enough apparently and political subservience expected of the newly-appointed “prog” perhaps?

In his offical capacity as PM, perhaps Mr Cameron might offer his advice on WO to Rome and to Mecca. I’m sure they would want to know what he thinks.

Get with the program?  This from the man who conjured gay marriage out of the air without mentioning it in the election campaign?  Whose own government’s Home Office cannot bring itself to tell us the number of people who have written in to object?  It seems to me that with its processes of consultation and respect for those who cannot get on board, the Church of England has far more credibility than he does.

Hmmm, Mr. Cameron already has a lot of critics. Perhaps this attempt to bully the Church will rouse more support and defense of Her.

Valid coments above about Mr Cameron.  Especially Fr. Tee’s comment at #4 is right on point.

Cameron in the meantime has sent a clear signal that Parliament will wring its hands and whine, but it won’t intervene:

During Prime Minister’s Questions Labour MP Ben Bradshaw asked David Cameron what parliament could do to “ensure that the overwhelming will of members of the Church of England, and of this country, is respected”.

Mr Cameron responded: “I’ll certainly look carefully at what he says. What I would say, though, is the Church has its own processes and own elections, hard for some of us to understand and we have to respect individual institutions and the decisions they make.”

As an aside, Mr Bradshaw’s comment about the “overwhelming will of members of the Church of England” is simply ignorant.  A large number of clergy and members of the Church of England belong to congregations which do not permit the ministry of women priests, and have absolutely no use for women bishops. 

These orthodox Anglicans don’t have representation in General Synod proportional to their numbers.  But I expect many of the liberals in Synod who voted against this measure do understand their numbers and importance, and the consequences if they are pushed too far.

Actually, this makes a lot of sense. David Cameron has made it clear that he seeks to transform English conservatism into something socially progressive. And he’s indicated his interest in ‘helping the churches’ ‘progress’ on the issue of gay marriage.

The prospect of CoE delaying women bishops or ending up with provisions for ‘social conservatives’ on this issues would go against his desire to transform English churches (particularly the established one) into something more uniformly socially progressive.