The Rev. John Keble (1792-1866), priest in the Church of England, wrote that the church in his day appeared:

"... so unsatisfactory, so miserably poor and meagre, so unlike the glorious vision ... of the one Catholic Apostolic Church ... Eden will not escape from this state of decay by going elsewhere, though they may shut their eyes to the reality of it. Rather, whatever our position be in the Church, since God Almighty has assigned it to us for our trial, shall we not accept it and make the best of it, in humble confidence that according to our faith it will be to us? (On Eucharistical Adoration, p. 174).

Keble's message, I believe, is that schism is worse than heresy. I wonder whether that message resonates with us. Is it relevant to our church today?

In response, many of us might not relate to Keble's proposition. Many would wonder, given today's enlightened and inclusive church, what could possibly drive people to schism. Many believe and rejoice that the church is not decaying but thriving, and thriving principally because of the healthy embrace of many points of view. Some would question the very notion of heresy, a notion which seems vaguely medieval, wondering whether it should hold any meaning among today's loving, compassionate, and inclusive Christian community.

On the other hand, there are those among us who would respond differently to Keble. Many perceive the church's current climate as striking at the very heart of Anglican polity, and would be led to argue that schism might not always be unthinkable, especially given the shocking way that they perceive the business of the church being conducted. Some would say that escape must be sought from a church that, in their view, is offering goal-directed politics and emphasizing social relevance over doctrinal considerations, and that runs roughshod over "recognized theological positions," if not in word, then certainly in deed.

Can such positions find common ground? Where is the middle road, the classical Anglican via media?

All of us must acknowledge our profound debt to the historical church councils that argued against and attacked the many heretical views of their ages. In so doing, these councils handed down to us the very Christian doctrines to which we cling, such basic tenets as the Trinity, the recognition that Jesus is true God and true man, and the confession that our Lord was truly resurrected from the dead. We owe deep and abiding thanks to those who guarded and preserved orthodoxy, for without it, we would not have the Christian faith, but instead something else entirely, which C.S. Lewis called "that old wraith Natural Religion" (God on the Dock, p. 92).

In the same breath, we must acknowledge our responsibility to be open and to be willing to incorporate many rich and different views to keep the church relevant, age to age. Our Anglican tradition has a long history of trying to keep the Christian witness current, and we must continue to embrace eagerly this our heritage of changing with the times. As far back as the 17th century, the church acknowledged, in the preface to the 1662 prayer book, that:

"... we find, that ... since the Reformation, the Church, upon just and weighty considerations her thereunto moving, hath yielded to make alterations in some particulars, as in their respective times were thought convenient."

The via media between guarding orthodoxy and maintaining currency and inclusion lies in recognizing the proper relationship of social relevance to doctrine: the former must ever be subordinate to the latter. The 1662 BCP goes on to say:

"Yet so .. the main Body and Essentials of it ... do yet stand firm and unshaken, notwithstanding all the vain attempts . . . made against it by such men as are given to change and have ... a greater regard to their own private fancies and interests, than to that duty they owe to the public."

In these excerpts from the prayer book, the church fathers were speaking of the church's liturgy, but their points correspond perfectly with the question at hand. They are telling us that orthodoxy must never be sacrificed on the altar of social relevance.

Unfortunately, societal relevance so often reigns supreme, despite the fact that although the church is in the world, it is not of it. The manner in which the church has gone about making ordination of women mandatory throughout the length and breadth of our ostensibly diverse church is indicative of this fundamental problem.

With the passage of the mandatory canon, several bishops have been steamrolled by the overwhelming forces who have successfully managed to define this matter as a "justice issue," effectively removing it from the doctrinal realm, to which it clearly belongs. These besieged bishops, whose theological opposition to women's priestly ordination was well known when their elections were approved by the church, now find themselves de facto no longer the chief pastors of their flocks, despite the weak language appended to the canon, which seeks to ameliorate this clear assault on Anglican polity.

Going father back, we find again this pattern of action when we examine our church's original decision to define the priestly ordination of women as a "justice issue," not a doctrinal matter. Flying in the face of the whole of Catholic Christendom, our branch of the Catholic and Apostolic Church unilaterally proceeded at flank speed, in spite of the obvious lack of doctrinal consensus. Doesn't the catholic faith, by definition, require that broad-based doctrinal consensus be hammered out before canonical edicts are promulgated and enforced? Ends, all too often, have been justifying our means.

I hasten to add that these arguments of mine do not argue for or against any aspect of the priestly ordination of women. They argue that we are going about resolving these questions in a fundamentally unsound way. Indeed, there are several current issues that fit into this mold, and I am arguing that, regardless of our individual stances, we should all be deeply troubled by our church's trendy habit of defining doctrinal questions as "justice issues." All of us, as Anglicans, whether we agree or disagree with the sundry hot-button issues of the moment, should be outraged whenever doctrinal matters are simply labeled something else and are consequently fast-tracked into canon law. This is not the Anglican way.

The church, the ship upon the sea, strives to sail safely through the tempest, to the "restoration of all people to unity with God and each other in Christ," as the catechism teaches us. Without sound navigation, the ship founders on the rocks; without sound doctrine, so goes the church. David Holcombe is a member of St. Andrew's Church, Greenville, S.C.