The last couple of weeks have seen some rather major changes to the role of women in government and church. Within 24 hours of the historic Synod vote in support of women bishops, five women will now be attending Cabinet meetings, some of them replacing the so-called ‘male, pale and stale’. Which is better for gender equality?

It’s no doubt a ‘good thing’ that so many women (if you can describe five as 'so many') are now in top positions in Government – more than at any other time during Cameron’s tenure. There’s a General Election in less than a year, though, and the Conservative Party knows it needs to broaden its appeal. I don’t want to join in the cries of 'tokenism' - the trouble with this oft trotted out line is that it is usually joined by the exhortation for appointments to be based on merit, which presupposes women don't have the merit to fulfil these roles – but there’s clearly more than an element of political calculation.

In contrast, the change in the Church of England is significant because it will result in a change to both Church and State law, which will allow women to reach top leadership positions in the Church of England. The Church has 'caught up', some might say, with the rest of society (although there have been accusations that the Church decided to 'catch up' of its own volition so Parliament wouldn't force it). The re-shuffle will last a year, the Synod’s decision will last centuries.

Whilst a lack of women in the Cabinet may be down to the Prime Minister's choice rather than law preventing it, there are still other underlying reasons for this absence, such as a general lack of women in politics, due to a PhD's worth of structural and cultural explanations such as good old patriarchy - all of which need more than just a change in law to address; and which might be the greater challenge.

What will the impact of these changes be? For government, will it result in wise and good governance? For the church, will it result in bringing the Kingdom of God about the earth? Whilst these may be the ultimate goals of the state and church, this does not preclude seeking equality for equality’s sake.  It isn't just for 'results' that women should have an equal place in society. It is for ensuring that the fundamental, equal worth of women, as made in the image of God, is recognised and not diminished. Whatever the respective motivations, there is still so far to go to make this equal worth a reality across the world. Each step does matter.

Other recent events serve to highlight the atrocities that women and girls face every day: Initiatives like the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict and the Girl Summit to free girls from female genital mutilation and forced marriage seem small steps in comparison to the scale of the problems, but this doesn’t diminish their importance. Small steps, even in what is a comparatively equal society, can serve as a reminder of what else needs to be done. In observing developments in Church and state we can be encouraged that previously unimaginable change can happen, and perhaps less cynical about motivations behind it.

In our own context, a real test of whether the vote in Synod reflects a deep change in public attitudes will be the media coverage of the first women bishop, and whether it will differ to the fashion show coverage of the new female Cabinet members. I can imagine it now:

"The Rt Rev and Rt Hon Bishop of London, Lucy Winkett, performed the Eucharist attired in a riskily above the ankle length alb, a red stole and a gaudily embroidered chasuble, but at least with minimal make up to reflect the solemnity of the sacrament..."

Rachel Aston is Social Policy Officer at Mothers' Union

Image by DFID from flickr.com under the Creative Commons Licence- UK Department for International Development