I HAVE never understood the opposition to female bishops, but perhaps someone who doesn’t go to church should keep their nose out. Then again, keeping your nose out doesn’t get you far as a columnist.

Just imagine if other bodies still put up barriers dictating that women could only rise to a certain level. In my own industry, for instance, a parallel might be that a woman could be a deputy editor but not an editor.

Then there is politics, in which the top job went to a woman a while back, although no other female prime minister has yet to follow Margaret Thatcher. Whether or not there are enough women MPs and government ministers is a matter of continuing debate, with many women believing they are in too much of a minority (and women in the Lib Dems possibly wishing that their party took a less ‘hands-on’ approach to women).

Anyway, back to female bishops.

A report in The Guardian newspaper at the weekend listed Vivienne Faull, the Dean of York, as one of two women who have been promoted within the Church as far as the law allows. The story referred to Mrs Faull as “the least controversial candidate” to eventually become a bishop.

Interviewed in The Press in August 2012, shortly before her official arrival at York Minster, Mrs Faull said that women would be allowed to be bishops in time. She acknowledged the theological doubts held by some, but pointed out that women were not “children of a lesser God” and could represent humankind as fully as men. As it happened, the opponents to female bishops scored a narrow victory a short time later, placing a further block on such advancement.

The fact that the Church of England is still having this debate is enough to put some people off the church altogether. But even an atheist passing by the open church door, as it were, has to admit that the church does good work too, notably in raising the profile of poverty, say, and helping establish food-banks. Mind you, that’s another matter of contention, with plenty of people denying that poverty exists at all, as letters to this newspaper continue to testify.

 

• LETTER writer Martin Smith rarely sends friendly comments in my direction. Last Saturday he suggested that my column be rechristened “Julian’s anti-Tory rant”.

Well, fair enough – up to a point. If you write a column, you can expect to have rotten fruit tossed in your direction.

While it is true that this column has indulged in Tory-phobic outbursts down the years, last week’s column was not an anti-Tory rant; it was an anti-fracking rant. There’s an important difference.

The Tory angle only arose because David Cameron has elevated himself as Mr Fracking. Much uncertainty still surrounds fracking – enough, certainly, to undermine Mr Cameron’s hasty enthusiasm for what could be an environmentally hazardous process.

As for thinking that life was ‘nicer’ during the Blair years, a further accusation levelled at me, the point, I think, was that life felt that way to some of us for a short time – and then everything fell apart.

 

• LOOK where writing to your local newspaper can get you. You may have read that a UKIP councillor has been forced to resign after blaming storms and floods on the legalisation of gay marriage.

Well, it transpires that David Silvester, a Henley town councillor, initially expressed these views in a letter to his local paper, saying that the Prime Minister had “arrogantly acted against the Gospel”.

Ah, one of those sort of letters. All newspapers receive them. It might be kinder not to print, but where would the fun be in that?

As for blaming the Prime Minister for the weather, even this column wouldn’t go quite that far.

• MONDAY’S Press carried a story in which the local Lib Dems called for Illuminating York to be free again, as last autumn’s paid-for events saw a shortfall.

Well, that’s one Lib-Dem suggestion I will happily support. I’ve been to every display so far – including the Vic Reeves debacle – and the big, free illuminations work the best, showing the city in a new and striking light.

They should be brought back in a twinkle.