TWO FACTORS, as I have argued on other occasions in New Directions, render the present arrangements in the Church of England for containing and sustaining the 'two integrities' unstable and impermanent. Both spring from the logic of the case for women's ordination, which makes further developments - the ordination of women bishops and the ending of the Act of Synod - inevitable (and, from the point of view of proponents, eminently desirable).
The factors involved are theological and ideological.
Theologically (or more properly, ecclesiologically) it is clear that Holy Orders cannot serve their primary function of expressing the unity of the Church and guaranteeing the reliability of the sacraments if they are allowed to be a matter of private judgement. At some stage, in order that he should fulfil his apostolic function and I my priestly role, to the glory of God and the edification of his Church, the bishop of Southwark (for the time being) and I will have to come to a common mind on who is a priest and who is not. It is simply not a matter, even in this post-modern world, upon which we can agree to differ indefinitely.
Ideologically it is clear that if women's ordination is a matter of natural justice, which over-rides and supersedes any scriptural word or precept to the contrary, then the injustice which I represent and incarnate should and must be expunged from the Church's life. The analogy (often made in the campaign by those in favour of women priests) is with slavery and its attendant racism. Right thinking people no longer suppose that such things are matters of indifference or negotiation.
"Broadly speaking, the Episcopal Church is in conflict with Scripture," said American presiding bishop, Frank Griswold in a profile published on Dec. 28, 1997 by Inquirer Magazine (the Sunday insert of The Philadelphia Inquirer). "The only way to justify it is to say, well, Jesus talks about the Spirit guiding the church and guiding believers and bringing to their awareness things they cannot deal with yet. So one would have to say that the mind of Christ operative in the church over time...has led the church to, in effect, contradict the words of the Gospels."
If the new presiding bishop speaks for the majority of supporters of women's ordination - and I have no reason at all to suppose that he does not - then clearly a decision of the Church, democratically taken, has precedence over scripture and the tradition. It follows that if I appeal to them against that decision, I appeal in vain. And what is more, by appealing to them I show only the depth of my own unregeneracy: I show only too clearly that I am impervious to the Spirit and closed to the Good News as it is unfolding in our generation.
Of course, Frank Griswold does not mean to exclude anyone - he frequently enough maintains that he wants to keep lines of communication open. But he can no more escape the logical consequences of the position he has taken than could Dr. Carey when he pronounced those who disagreed with him 'heretics'. A part of these good men genuinely dislikes what consistency demands of them (Dr Carey distanced himself from his own accusation immediately it had been made, and learnt a good deal about diplomacy in the process); but consistency will win in the end, and more ardent advocates of change than they will see that it does. Anyone who followed the arguments which resulted in the recent General Convention of ECUSA rendering approval of women's ordination mandatory for all who hold office in that church, will know how the land lies (or, as the Americans graphically put it, how the cookie crumbles).
Proposals for the establishment of a Free Province of the Anglican Communion in the British Isles, to provide space and security for those who oppose women's ordination, are an attempt to take into account the logic of the present situation and the inevitabilities which arise from it. I have argued, in two previous articles, that the proposals involve no ecclesiological novelties (certainly nothing so novel and unprecedented as women's ordination itself), and that with a fair wind and in a spirit of co-operation there are no insurmountable practical objections to such an arrangement. But what might be the benefits, and how can we work now for its achievement?
In the first place (and as the Act of Synod makes plain) the maintenance of variety and diversity on this and other major issues of doctrine is of itself desirable for the Church of England, both as the National Church and as the Mother Church of the Communion. For a position held by a majority of Anglican Provinces, and our two major ecumenical partners, to be outlawed among English Anglicans would be unspeakable folly. A course such as that taken by the churches of Canada and the United States (narrow and petty as it appears, even in their situation) is simply not open to the Church of England. Neither, as many have seen, is the notion of 'two integrities' (admirable though it may seem as a principle) sustainable within a single ecclesial body. No church can found its polity on an oxymoron.
The evolution of Anglican ecclesiology over the past decades, however, and the emergence of provinces 'autonomous' in this and other matters, has provided a neat solution. By taking that option seriously we embrace a uniquely Anglican answer to a uniquely Anglican problem. We affirm, in a public and generous way, the openness and inclusivity about which 'liberal' Anglican leaders talk so much, and do so little. (Indeed, the establishment of a free province might be said to make honest men of Frank Griswold and George Carey, whose protestations of tolerance can ultimately be realised in no other way.)
But the safeguarding of the precious Anglican heritage of inclusivity is not the only benefit of a free province. For those who enter it there is also the chance of escape from the inexorable in-flow of secular liberalism. No one who has observed the progress of the Anglican Churches of North America, or developments within and on the fringes of the Porvoo Communion, can be in any doubt about what lies ahead for the Church of England. Whilst it is not inevitable that English Anglicanism will adopt North American eccentricities wholesale, the chances of further radical developments are high.
No church can - or should want to - live in isolation from contemporary culture. But dialogue does not mean capitulation. To the major questions of the day, 'no' is sometimes the answer. Change need not be the only constant. A free province would be an opportunity, not simply on the issue of women priests, to get off the escalator and reassess the relationship of Anglican tradition to contemporary secular culture. Dis-establishment might be a necessary tool in that reassessment; for, as we see from the churches of the Porvoo Communion, in areas such as abortion, euthanasia and marriage discipline, it is the tendency of State Churches to baptise the status quo.
I believe that much can, and should be done to secure the benefits of a free province here and now - before constitutional changes are possible or necessary.
First we need to begin, among parishes which have voted Resolutions A, B and C, to create a distinctive pastoral and catechetical ethos. A National Pastoral Conference of clergy should be called to discuss and agree policy among all the PEV parishes on moral and doctrinal issues affecting us. Together with our bishops we should prepare and authorise common catechetical documents for use in preparation for baptism, confirmation and marriage. We should expand our present provision of post-ordination training for younger clergy and initiate in-service training for others. We need agreed courses for readers and for those chosen to be extraordinary ministers of the sacrament. We should put our preordination training programme and conferences on a more permanent basis and a firmer financial footing. The National Pastoral Conference should also approve lay training courses for use in the parish and establish 'mission teams' to work in areas of special need and at the request of the parish priest.
All this would set forward the mission of the Church in our parishes, and - just as importantly - create an identifiable ethos and sense of belonging. The aim should be to create a fellowship of parishes, nation-wide, which are outward-looking and interdependent, confident in what they teach and what they stand for. In the phrase adopted by the Episcopal Synod of America, we need to be serious about 'being the church'; and to do so we need to provide for ourselves all those facilities and services which, in the dioceses of the Church of England, are generally in the hands of the liberal establishment.
Another pressing need is to conduct an audit of the assets and resources of our parishes. It is often said that a free province would founder simply because it was not financially viable; and that indeed might prove to be the case. But we should not assume so without first making a business-like assessment of property, assets and stewardship potential. This could be arranged through the National Pastoral Conference and the bishops, in a co-operative and user-friendly way.
Teams of experts, clergy and lay, involving lawyers, surveyors and architects, should be made available as a resource to parishes to advise on maximising income from and use of property, and to stimulate giving at every level. As the contributions of the Church Commissioners to the stipends of the clergy dwindle to vanishing point, such a policy is prudent both in the short and the long term - it will ensure the survival of our parishes within the present system and their viability outside it.
The ordination of women was achieved by its proponents as a result of years of careful preparation and diligent work. We do not have as much time; but we have already achieved a great deal. The PEV system, whilst not ideal, and considerably short of what we demanded (and need) is a firm basis on which to work. We need now to resolve to use it to the utmost in the creation of a free province de facto if not de jure; one which is ready, in every aspect of its corporate life, for the kairos, which will assuredly come, when what is implicit in the present liberal programme can no longer be hidden or denied.
Geoffrey Kirk is Vicar of St. Stephen's, Lewisham in the diocese of Southwark.