The only Anglican Communion province that has released a statement is the Church of Uganda, whose primate ++Stanley Ntagali welcomed the vote. Uganda’s canons allow for women bishops but none has yet been elected.

Forward in Faith North America expressed its deep sorrow that “this action heightens the level of difficulty for Anglicans during this period of reception, by placing more barriers before those who are seeking to live under and promote the historic priesthood and episcopate.” Moreover, this emphasis on the autonomy of the local church or province ” has usurped the authority and unity of Ecumenical consensus and the Church catholic.” They conclude that the only way to address “the ecclesial deficit of our Communion is through the historic tools of Conciliar discernment.”

Responses from the various Protestant groups in the UK (Methodist, Reformed andBaptist) were uniformly positive. The Catholic Bishops of England and Wales note that the Church of England’s decision “sadly places a further obstacle on the path to this unity between us” but they remain committed to continued dialogue.

The Russian Orthodox Church was “alarmed and disappointed to learn about the decision of the Church of England to admit women to the episcopate, since the centuries-old relationships between our two Churches had shown possibilities for the Orthodox to recognize the existence of apostolic succession in Anglicanism.” That possibility has now come to a definitive end since “the introduction of female bishops has eliminated even a theoretical possibility for the Orthodox to recognize the existence of apostolic succession in the Anglican hierarchy.” The Church of England has jettisoned two thousand years of apostolic teaching and tradition for a bowl of secular pottage: “It was not a theological necessity or issues of church practice that determined the decision of the General Synod of the Church of England, but an effort to comply with the secular idea of gender equality in all spheres of life and the increasing role of women in the British society.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury anticipated that the decision would not sit well with a number of ecumenical partners, so he released a letter attempting to explain what General Synod did in terms they would understand. He reminds them that “our common witness to the Gospel is of more importance than ever”and that common witness can best be undertaken by having a common mission wherever there is “conflict in… our world, acute poverty, unemployment and an influx of oppressed people driven away from their own countries and seeking refuge elsewhere.” He concludes by reminding them that “we need each other, as we, as churches empowered by the Holy Spirit, rise to the challenge and proclaim the good news of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and strive for closer fellowship and greater unity.” No word yet on how his letter has been received.
Secular responses were highly positive, stating simply that it’s about time the church got with the program.

These have been several thoughtful commentaries that have come out. The first, by Dale Mateson addresses the issue of acculturation and the church. The concept of “local adaptation” is built into the DNA of Anglicanism. But at what point does adaptation to a particular cultural context in order to make the Gospel more accessible become cultural capitulation by taking on aspects of the ambient society that are antithetical to the Gospel? Mateson agrees with Metropolitan Hilarion that the Church of England has refashioned the Christian faith to fully reflect the modern humanist ideal of gender equality. For the Church of England to have compromised itself so completely with the world is indeed a bridge too far.

By the way, one of the very best presentations on Anglicanism and acculturation is a talk given by Bp. Michael Nazir-ali at the 2013 Forward in Faith Assembly. He defines the concept of local adaptation as the “translatability of the Christian faith” into different cultural contexts by “rendering of the Good News of J C into the idiom, the thought forms, even the world view of different cultures, different ages, different peoples” withoutcompromising the core essence of apostolic faith. This is an absolute must for understanding what the Church of England is doing.

Mary Ann Mueller of Virtueonline (www.virtueonline.org) argues that the Church of England is playing with fire and will likely get burned. It will follow the path of the Anglican Church of Canada and TEC and experience a sharp decline in membership accompanied by dwindling financial resources. For a church already struggling through a two decade decline following the introduction of women priests in 1992, having women priests will likely only accelerate the process. Mueller also provides a concise history of women’s ordination in the Anglican Communion and has a very handy update on the current status of which provinces ordain women deacons, priests and bishops and which do not. She concludes by looking specifically at developments in the Episcopal Church, now that it has a female Presiding Bishop.

Finally, Ephraim Radner discusses what women bishops means for church unity. Obviously, it will bring the Church of England closer to progressive Protestant groups such as the Methodists in the UK, but it will also distance it from the Catholics and Orthodox. Radner is unashamedly in favor of women’s ordination at all levels, but he admits that the track record thus far for women bishops in North America hasn’t been impressive and he is concerned that period of reception may be coming to an end with a new trend towards rejecting both women priests and bishops in the ACNA and also in the Province of Central Africa:

Within North America, churches like the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), that have separated from the Episcopal and Canadian churches, are moving in a direction that may well prohibit women’s ordination altogether. The already-existing divide between these groups and Canterbury is likely to widen, and the press for alternative churches in England itself will gain steam. On the other hand, ordained women in ACNA and in other evangelical churches may well decide that their own vocations are better pursued back within Church of England-related Anglican churches, and one may see a strengthening of conservative female leadership there. Certainly, it has been one of the sorrier aspects of North American Anglicanism that leading ordained women have been so roundly and predictably revisionist. It remains to be seen if the Church of England’s future women bishops can overcome this now engrained perception.

There will likely be much more to come.