Along with several other Anglican provinces, the CofE currently ordains women to the diaconate and priesthood. But when it began contemplating the consecration of women to the episcopate, traditionalists most notably FIF made clear that that change would render inadequate the current provisions for women priest opponents, which include a system of "flying" bishops (provincial episcopal visitors). With the advent of women bishops, they said, those theologically opposed to female ordination would be unable to remain even in impaired communion with the state Church as currently constituted.

In response to such concerns, then-Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey appointed Rochester Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali to lead a working party to stud y the theological and ecclesiastical implications of such a change and to make recommendations on how to deal with it so as to maintain the CofE's institutional unity.

In early January, following three years of study, the Rochester Commission issued its draft report. It does not recommend one solution, but instead gives a menu of possibilities ranging from making no provision for those who uphold the Church's traditional order, to the creation of a third province within t he CofE which would overlay the existing provinces of Canterbury and York, while having its own seminaries, parishes, dioceses, bishops and archbishop.

NATURALLY, the separate province option is drawing mixed reviews from across the theological and ideological spectrum of the English Church.

That revisionists should oppose it is not surprising: They worked long and hard to capture the institution and are loathe to see a significant part of it slipping from their grasp, particularly as there would be financial consequences to such an outcome.

Most revisionists would echo the judgment of Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement Communications Director Martin Reynolds, who deemed the separate province "a
schism in all but name....Would it have the right to change it structures or its legal framework? We believe it would lead to a real and lasting division."

What is more surprising, on the surface at least, is the disfavor of the Church Society, one of the oldest and best known of the CofE Evangelical associations. The group opposes women in the episcopate, but also opposes the third province option as too radical.

In the words of the Society's general secretary, David Phillips, it "looks like a halfway house to leaving altogether...We do not want to be marginalized in this separate organization." It is likely that the anxiety here stems from the fact that a very large percentage of the potential membership of this province would be drawn from the Catholic wing of the English Church, with whom the Church Society shares little apart from its convictions on moral issues.

The proposal is not likely to garner much support from the bench of bishops. However, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has indicated he could live with a third province arrangement, and the bishops would likely choose it over the prospect of an actual mass exodus from the institution which would include many of the C of E's most articulate and effective clerics. (When it first ordained women priests in 1994, the CofE lost over 400 clergy, mostly to Rome. A recent survey suggested that up to a quarter of current CofE clergy remain implacably opposed to women becoming bishops.)

There appears to be little enthusiasm for a re-tooling of the current system of flying bishops, since it is already disliked by the revisionist wing and, as noted, has already been declared by FIF to be unworkable as soon as women become bishops.

It is likely, then, that if the separate province option is adopted, it will be done reluctantly and grudgingly, to prevent an outward and visible fissure within the institution.

Sources included Anglican Communion News Service, The Guardian The Daily Telegraph (London)

END