Where do we go from here: Prospects for the 1976 Convention

by The Reverend Richard J. Anderson (see biography)

from The Ordination of Women: Pro and Con, pp. 154-172,
edited by Michael P.Hamilton and Nancy S.Montgomery, Morehouse Barlow Co, 1975.
Republished on our website with the necessary permissions.

Where do we go from here?

Here is where we are and what we are at any given moment. In the case of the Episcopal Church, the here in these months just prior to the 1976 General Convention is to a large extent polarization, confusion and turmoil. The denomination is a community sharply divided over the question of whether or not women should be ordained to the priesthood and episcopacy. Some say “yes,” for many different reasons. Others say “no,” for as many reasons. Furthermore, those who say “yes” are divided over the question of how ordination of women to the priesthood should become acceptable in the Episcopal Church.

Turmoil, confusion and polarization are not always bad or undesirable. Such conditions sometimes are pathways to better understanding, deeper feeling and needed self-evaluation. They are also signs of life, and signs of life are especially welcome in a church often thought to be lifeless—or almost lifeless.

Perhaps we are here in this state of confusion simply because the Episcopal Church is now facing the next step in a long process of change. No one can deny that the role of women in our part of the church has undergone massive change in the last twenty years. Two decades ago women were members of the “Women's Auxiliary” even though they had become full members of the community through baptism. Women were called an auxiliary and treated as an auxiliary. You don't have to be a very old Episcopalian to remember the days when females were not eligible to serve as deputies to General Convention, as delegates to diocesan conventions and, even in some cases, as voters at the annual business meetings of their local congregations. In the early 1950's the term “Women's Auxiliary” was officially dropped (too late, perhaps), and since that time women have slowly but surely stopped acting as an auxiliary to the Episcopal Church. During the past two decades of change for women in the church, the warning would occasionally be sounded that “the next thing you know women will want to be ordained to the priesthood.” No one seemed to take such comments too seriously, however. In the early 1960's, Dr. Cynthia Wedel commented informally that she could see no reason why women could not serve as Episcopal priests. No one became too excited. Her comment was attributed by some to the chance that her many Protestant ecumenical contacts might have caused her to wish for the Episcopal Church what she had observed (and had come perhaps to appreciate) in other denominations.

The ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopacy had been discussed both officially and informally by various groups in the Anglican Communion through the first years of the present century—even, in a few instances, prior to 1900. However, it was not until the 1970 General Convention in Houston, Texas, that most Episcopalians became really aware of ordination of women as a serious issue. There was great surprise—and more than a little shock—when the Houston meeting voted in favor of ordaining women to the diaconate, making them actual clerical collar-wearing clergy persons and eliminating the somewhat cloudy distinction between deacons and deaconesses that had been drawn prior to 1970. What was even more surprising, however, was the very close vote on the question of women in the priesthood and episcopacy. The whole issue came into a new perspective when the House of Bishops actually voted in favor of women priests and the narrow negative vote by priests and laypersons in the House of Deputies prevented the question from being settled. This was in 1970 before most of the church even knew it was up for serious consideration!

The narrow vote at the Houston General Convention served to heighten the enthusiasm of those who thought women should be priests and bishops. It served as a warning to those of opposite persuasion. The three years between the General Conventions of 1970 and 1973 were years when the lines were being clearly drawn between those who favored and those who opposed women in the priesthood. Lay and clergy deputies as well as bishops came to the 1973 General Convention in Louisville, Kentucky, as two opposing armies marching on to the field of battle. All during the Convention the words flew back and forth: serious, superficial, emotional, true, false, calm and concerned. When the vote was taken, the battle had ended in another narrow defeat for ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopacy. Things were further complicated by the Convention's voting procedure which meant that more individual deputies had voted “yes” than “no” on the question but since votes are counted by deputation rather than individually, a few more nays were recorded than “yeas.” The battle was over; the war was not.

Toward the end of 1973, most Episcopalians realized that the question of women priests and bishops was still a dominant issue in the church. Some were saying, of course, that “the church had spoken” in Louisville and the 1973 decision should be accepted as final. The hard-to-understand voting procedure, a vote favoring ordination of women by the House of Bishops (meeting apart from the General Convention) and the strong determination of women who had prepared to become priests and were seeking ordination kept the issue alive. Those favoring women in the priesthood and those opposed began to work on ways of influencing the deputies and bishops at the next General Convention, scheduled to be held in Minnesota in 1976.

A few in the church, however, came to the conclusion sometime after the Louisville General Convention that a three-year wait was too much to ask. The Very Rev. Edward G. Harris, dean of Philadelphia Divinity School (since merged with the Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, to form the Episcopal Divinity School) issued a public statement calling for a bishop (or bishops) to ordain women to the priesthood at once. Others tested the acceptance of women priests by American congregations by inviting the Reverend Jane Hwang Hsien Yuen, the validity of whose ordination by Bishop Gilbert Baker had not been challenged within her Province of Hong Kong, to visit the United States. She celebrated the Eucharist (her first celebration outside Hong Kong incidentally) at the Church of the Epiphany, Washington, D.C. on May 4, 1975 and again later in other parts of the country. No public objections to these services were made.

Talk of ordination within the United States became action in July, 1974 when three retired bishops ordained eleven women deacons to the priesthood in the Church of the Advocate, Philadelphia. Bishops Daniel Corrigan, Edward Welles and Robert DeWitt had been asked to refrain from going through with the ordination by Presiding Bishop John M. Allin and by Bishop Lyman C. Ogilby of the Diocese of Pennsylvania. (A fourth bishop—José Antonio Ramos of Costa Rica—was a participant in the ordination service but he later said he had “performed no episcopal acts.”) The seven women deacons had been urged by their respective diocese, bishops not to participate in the ordination rite. After July 29, 1974, the Episcopal Church had still another question to deal with: whether or not the women actually had been ordained to the priesthood and (assuming the ordination rite was valid: whether or not it was right for them to have achieved the priestly office in this manner. The Philadelphia ordination service was brought to the attention of the Episcopal Church and the world through overwhelming electronic and print media coverage (it's usually hard to find good headline copy in July!); it was later judged the religious news writers' top' story of the year.

If those who planned the Philadelphia ordination wanted to bring the question of women's ordination to the priesthood to center stage throughout the entire Episcopal Church, they achieved their purpose. Ordination of women in general and the Philadelphia ordinations in particular became the subject of sermons, articles, arguments, editorials, “godly admonitions” and “pastoral letters” from El Cajon to Augusta. The question was discussed openly at conferences and conventions and behind the scenes just about everyplace two or three Episcopalians gathered together. There has been talk about the “theological issues,” and the “emotional issues,” and the “pastoral issues” involved in ordaining women to the priesthood and episcopacy. In some cases, Episcopalians who had traditionally been in opposite camps on questions of liturgy and theological interpretation suddenly found themselves on the same side in dealing with this new issue that became quickly the church's major topic of 1974.

The events following the Philadelphia ordination service have received such wide publicity that most Episcopalians who care one way or another already know them. The House of Bishops gathered for a special meeting in Chicago less than a month after the July 29 Philadelphia ordinations. Bishops Corrigan, DeWitt, Welles and Ramos were given an opportunity to explain to their brother bishops why they had done what they had done on July 29 in Philadelphia. In summary, their reasons were simply a decision to follow what their consciences told them they should do rather than to follow what they admitted they knew the church rules to be. Bishop Corrigan told the bishops he knew he would probably “catch hell” for what he had done. After mulling the matter over and hearing theological presentations from members of its Committee on Theology, the House of Bishops issued a statement decrying the fact that the three retired bishops acted “in violation of the collegiality of the House of Bishops as well as the legislative process” of the church and expressing the bishops' conviction that “the necessary conditions for valid ordination to the priesthood were not fulfilled” on July 29.

Four recognized Anglican theologians later disputed the decision of the House of Bishops. At the request of the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Diocese of Rochester, the Reverend Richard A. Norris, Jr., of General Theological Seminary, the Reverend Eugene R. Fairweather of the University of Toronto, the Reverend James E. Griffiss of Nashotah House and the Reverend Albert T. Mollegen of Virginia Seminary issued a report saying the Philadelphia ordinations were “valid but irregular.”(1)

The theologians claimed that “what took place in Philadelphia was an unratified ordination, which may, without any form of re-ordination be authorized or recognized.”

The House of Bishops statement was not sufficient for at least four of its members. On August 29, 1974, Bishops Stanley Atkins of Eau Claire, Wisconsin, William Brady of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, Charles T. Gaskell of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Albert W. Hillestad of Springfield, Illinois, filed letters of accusation with Presiding Bishop Allin. They charged that the four accused bishops (DeWitt, Welles, Corrigan and Ramos) had not been invited by the Bishop of Pennsylvania to act in his diocese on July 29, that the eleven deacons had not been recommended for the priesthood by the standing committees of their respective dioceses, that their diocesan bishops had not given their approval, and that the deacons were women.

When Presiding Bishop Allin received the charges against the four bishops, he appointed a panel of three bishops—Christoph Keller, Jr., of Arkansas; Hal R. Gross, suffragan of Oregon; and John T. Walker, suffragan of Washington, D.C.—to determine whether the charges, if proved, would constitute a violation of the canons. Reaching an affirmative decision, the panel chose a ten-member Board of Inquiry to investigate the charges and determine whether the bishops should stand trial. The board met in December, 1974, and in February and March, 1975, with the four accused bishops appearing at the February meeting. On March 26, 1975, the Board reported that, since it had found “the core of the controversy” to be doctrinal, it had “no jurisdiction” and that the “proper forum” for dealing with the charges would be the House of Bishops. In cases where doctrinal charges are filed against bishops, a two-thirds consent by the qualified voting members of the House of Bishops is necessary for the charges to be sent to a court of bishops for a trial.

While the Board of Inquiry and the House of Bishops were pondering what to do, several throughout the church decided not to heed the bishops' August 15 request that “all concerned wait upon and abide” by whatever action the General Convention would take in 1976. Dean Harris and others were saying publicly that it was not up to General Convention to decide the issue because women could serve as priests under the existing canons. More women deacons were urged to seek immediate ordination to the priesthood and congregations were urged to invite such women to celebrate the Eucharist. Women have acted as celebrants or principal celebrants at celebrations of the Holy Eucharist at an ecumenical service in New York's Riverside Church, in Rochester, N.Y., Washington D.C., and Oberlin, Ohio.

Charges were brought locally against the Reverend L.Peter Beebe, rector of Christ Church, Oberlin, and the Reverend William A. Wendt, rector of St. Stephen and the Incarnation Parish in Washington, D.C., for inviting women to be celebrants.

On June 5, 1975, Father Wendt was served a judgment of the Ecclesiastical Court of the Diocese of Washington declaring him guilty of disobeying Bishop William F. Creighton in allowing the Reverend Allison Cheek to function as a priest in his parish. The judgement followed a three day trial at St. Columba's Church, Washington, during which the priest had denied the charges brought against him by eighteen of his fellow clergy.

Father Wendt told the court he had been authorized to invite Mrs. Cheek to celebrate by the vestry and people of his parish, that he had acted in good conscience and in “glad obedience to the will of God as he perceives same.”(2) The judges decided him to to be guilty, however, since Bishop Creighton's admonition against the invitation to Mrs. Cheek was clearly stated in a letter and also implied in discussions prior to the service. Two of the judges dissented from the declaration of guilt, on the grounds that the Philadelphia ordinations, including that of the Reverend Allison Cheek, were valid and that, therefore, Bishop Creighton was in error in forbidding her celebration at St. Stephen's. The entire court urged Bishop Creighton merely to “admonish the accused,” and to “forbid him to permit any person whose ordination is not in conformity with the canons of the church to exercise his or her ministry in his parish.” Father Wendt said at the conclusion of the trial he might appeal the decision. He has since done so and has announced that the Reverend Allison Cheek will actually join the staff of St. Stephen's.

The Reverend Mr. Beebe also was found guilty; an admonishment was recommended and he announced he would continue to invite women celebrants to his parish.

A sidelight in the Wendt trial was the charge of contempt of court levied against Presiding Bishop John M. Allin who refused to obey a subpoena to appear at the trial to give testimony.

Bishop Allin, who was in Toronto during part of the trial, told the Canadian Churchman the Washington proceeding was “an inter-diocesan affair” since the issue concerned whether or not Father Wendt disobeyed his bishop and that he had no right to go into that diocese and comment on the situation.

“Every diocese in a real sense is a jurisdiction unto itself,” said the Presiding Bishop, adding that he had “no jurisdiction certainly in terms of discipline over dioceses and other bishops.”

The court had determined Bishop Allin an expert witness because he had presided over the meeting of the House of Bishops, but he claimed “the presiding officer over a meeting is not the source of expert testimony.”

A group of clergy and laity in the Diocese of Connecticut gave some thought to bringing formal charges against the Presiding Bishop, but they later decided not to proceed. Father Wendt, at the conclusion of his trial, said he was surprised that the Court's final statement made no mention of the charges against the Presiding Bishop. He said he thought some action against Bishop Allin might yet be taken.

Mrs. Cheek was not the only one of the Philadelphia ordinands to accept an invitation to celebrate the Eucharist. The Reverend Carter Heyward, one of the women ordained in Philadelphia, said she is “very open to celebrating the Eucharist anywhere.... depending on the congregation and the spirit of the request.” Episcopal Divinity School has hired the Reverend Ms. Heyward and the Reverend Suzanne Hiatt to serve as faculty members, recognizing them as priests, thereby causing a flurry of protest from alumni and others throughout the church. On April 1, 1975, Bishop William F. Creighton of Washington, D.C., said he had “decided not to ordain any persons to the priesthood until the General Convention acts with regard to the Ordination of women.” Bishop John H. Burt of Ohio said he would resign if the Minnesota Convention fails to approve women priests. Organizations and informal groups were springing up throughout the church in the wake of the controversy, most notably the National Coalition of Women's Ordination to the Priesthood and the Episcopate (pro) and the Committee for the Apostolic Ministry (con). And in Washington, D.C., Mr. and Mrs. William Claire insisted that their son, Mark Andrew, be baptized by a “woman priest to signify that he is being welcomed into a truly open church.”

In addition to these domestic matters, mention must be made of the June 1975 action of the neighboring Anglican Church in Canada authorizing the ordination of women. It was of great importance and increased the intensity of concern of bath parties to the ongoing debate.

Where do we go from here?

To be sure, it is hard to predict what the final destination of such a rocky path might be. We know pretty well where we will not wind up: in the security and bliss of a time unmarked by the current controversy over ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopacy. The Episcopal Church will never be the same again.

Some have fixed on the 1976 General Convention as a possible end to the controversy, or at least a source of some direction and guidance for dealing better with the whole issue. The House of Bishops, for example, has urged that the ordination of women to the priesthood be considered again at the Minnesota meeting with the implied hope that some decision might be reached there that would settle the question one way or another. As the Convention draws closer, however, it appears more and more likely that the issue will not be settled in Minneapolis-St. Paul. There will be debate, discussion, persuasion, pressure, demonstrations, theological ponderings, emotional outbursts and all the rest, but hardly a decision that could come close to being a solution for the controversy.

It is interesting to note that persons with a variety of viewpoints have already decided in advance not to let any General Convention decision influence their prior and prejudged thinking about ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopacy. As has already been noted, Dean Edward Harris and others have claimed that women priests and bishops are a possibility under existing church canons, hence General Convention action is not needed. And the Executive Committee of the American Church Union issued a January, 1975, statement claiming, “we do not recognize the competence, or authority of either the House of Bishops, of General Convention, or Synods of separate dioceses to change the subject of Holy Orders from exclusively male to include females.”

Should the 1976 General Convention vote against changing church rules to permit ordination of women priests and bishops, it is fairly easy to predict some of the results. The eleven women who claim priestly orders as a result of the July 29 ordination in Philadelphia will probably receive—and accept—many more invitations to celebrate the Holy Eucharist. It is even possible that one or more of them might accept a call to become rector of an Episcopal parish, defying any canonical authority the diocesean bishop might have to veto such a call. A negative vote in Minnesota might move one or more diocesan bishops to “regularize” the ordinations of some of the women ordained in Philadelphia and cause more bishops to go ahead and ordain more women to the priesthood, authorizing them to function as priests in the local diocese as well. Bishop Robert Spears of Rochester, N.Y., has said he believes the Reverend Merrill Bittner—one of those ordained in Philadelphia—to be a validly ordained Episcopal priest but Bishop Spears has said the General Convention must state its position on the ordination of women (he didn't say what that position should be) before he can allow her to function as a priest in the Diocese of Rochester. The members of a theological commission appointed in December, 1974, by Bishop Spears to study the Reverend Ms. Bittner's orders said they agreed unanimously that she is a validly ordained priest, and the Standing Committee of the diocese voted 6 to 2 to recommend to Bishop Spears a correction of the irregularity of her ordination. Were General Convention to vote against having females in the priesthood, it does not seem likely that the Philadelphia eleven or their supporters would leave the Episcopal Church. They would, probably, continue to do what they have been doing for the past few months. How much longer their statements, celebrations of the Eucharist, election as rectors, etc., would continue to be news or of vital interest in the church is another question.

If, on the other hand, the General Convention approves canonical changes authorizing women to be priests and bishops, the often-hinted-at question of schism in the church will most likely have to be dealt with. Since most bishops now favor such a change, it is reasonable to assume a goodly number of women would be ordained shortly after the General Convention. The Philadelphia eleven would be accepted as priests by their own bishops and the thorny question of what to do about Bishops Corrigan, DeWitt, Welles and Ramos would quite likely be forgotten—if it hasn't been already. Such General Convention action would bounce the ball right back into the court of the American Church Union and other groups who have been talking about the possibility of schism even though denying they advocate such a step. The January, 1975, statement by the ACU Executive Committee says a Convention decision to permit women priests and bishops would “represent a breach of Catholic Faith and Order within our church” and as such would be schismatic. In other words, the Episcopal Church would be putting itself into a schismatic relationship with the “historic Catholic Church of the ages.” The same implications are contained in a “Call to Anglican Rededication” issued to the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in Canada by several organizations and publications. The call says, “We beseech the Church's leaders to draw back from a course which, if continued, can only divide the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in Canada and separate them from the Apostolic Church.”

No one likes to proclaim the need for schism in the church, especially in this era of ecumenical progress. No one likes even to talk much about it. But since it is a possibility lying just beneath the surface in considering how the ordination of women issue might affect the Episcopal Church, it might be well to consider briefly the whole possibility of schism. Remembering Christ's wish that “they all may be one,” we always see schism in a negative context. It's wrong when an individual leaves the church, for example. It causes the church (usually the local rector and other leaders) great distress. Because the individual knows this, his strongest weapon in fighting back against aspects of the church which disgust him is to walk away. Here the individual is playing on our natural distaste for schism. To a lesser degree, we employ a form of schism that falls short of formally breaking our ties. An individual will sometimes just stop participating in the life of his local congregation. Or the local congregation will elect not to participate in the life of the diocese or regional church unit. It's simply our way of saying we don't like what is going on, we have lost confidence in leadership or (if we're more serious) we don't feel the direction being taken is compatible with what we perceive the teachings of Jesus to be.

Schism is very much a part of the history of the church. Indeed, the Anglican Communion is in existence as a result of a schismatic development in the Catholic Church. It is probable that no one dislikes schism so much that he would be content to say we should have been willing to continue such practices as simony and indulgences just to avoid fracturing the structure of the institutional church. A case, in fact, can be made for claiming the Holy Spirit has used schism as one of his tools in times past to correct certain abuses in the church, to reform the church, and to insure its validity as the extension into all ages of Christ's incarnation. We are not claiming that schism is a good thing or a desirable function. We are, however, maintaining that sometimes it is a necessary device and the only means to an end. As a possibility for the Episcopal Church as a way of handling the question of women in the priesthood and episcopacy, schism is getting a great deal of behind-the-scenes consideration. We should not be afraid to talk about it openly.

Schism would, of course, create a multitude of problems and a host of troubles for the Episcopal Church. Other denominations, more familiar with schismatic activity than we, could probably tell us things in this area that we ought to know. For example, there would be continual disagreement about which party is truly the schismatic party. The charge has already been made that if General Convention were to approve ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopacy, General Convention would be acting as a schismatic body with regard to the rest of the Catholic Church. (An answer to this might be formed around the thought that the Catholic Church is already divided into several schismatic camps by disagreement over orders, theology, sacramental unity, etc. Would another schism make all that much difference?) Undoubtedly, there are many, however, who would say that those denying their institutional unity with the General Convention because of any act of that Convention would in fact be the schismatic party. This debate would be virtually unending. A fracture in institutional unity would also create problems over pension benefits, property ownership, financial endowments and a host of other areas. Some would no doubt view a church, divided by a formal schism over any issue, as a weak and somewhat ineffective church and there might be a seeking of Christian community and leadership elsewhere.

Schism is unpleasant but it is possible. We should not use it lightly as a weapon or threat in an attempt to coerce others. Also, we should not be afraid to think about it honestly and openly. Schismatics usually see their efforts as the will of God in just about every instance. Historians, however, are able to put schism into a different perspective and can see more clearly the faults as well as any gains achieved because of schism.

In thinking about the relationship between any decision on the ordination of women to the priesthood and schism in the church, it is important to consider also how any decision about this issue might affect the Episcopal Church ecumenically.

At a January, 1975, meeting, the Episcopal Church's Joint Commission on Ecumenical Relations decided not to try to forecast exactly what the result would be with regard to ecumenical relations if the Episcopal Church were to approve the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate. Because the Episcopal Church is engaged in serious ecumenical negotiations with Protestant denominations (most of which recognize women in their ordained ministries) and the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communions (which allow no women to be ordained), the JCER “impossible forecast” is easy to understand. The important question here is how much we as an independent communion of the Christian Church are willing to allow ecumenical hopes and desires to dictate how we handle what we perceive our needs and problems to be. Some say we should do what we think is best for us right now and let the ecumenical “chips fall where they may.” Others say we should give more serious consideration to the ecumenical consequences of any act we take. We are, however, caught in the middle because if we reenforce our belief in an all male priesthood it is bound to have some effect particularly on the Protestants and, if we approve women priests and bishops, the Roman Catholics and Orthodox would no doubt feel more distant from us than at present. Some, however, are raising the real question of just how far along we actually are in ecumenical progress on both sides of the fence, wondering how much ecumenical concerns should affect what we do. No one, though, has suggested that we ignore completely the ecumenical dimension of what we are doing in the matter of women priests and bishops as well as in our dealing with other issues before us.

Where do we go from here? While it is important to speculate about this, we know it is a question we can't answer, for questions of the future can't be answered in the present. It is important, though, for us to be conscious constantly that there is a future before us, that we are going somewhere, and to do what we can to prepare for what lies ahead.

Where do we go from here? We has always been an important word for Episcopalians. We are a we Church! We often mention such claims as being “one of the American denominations that has not been split in two over political or social issues,” even though we know how close we have come to such divisions on several occasions. We are a Church of Bishops and in the office of bishop we see a unity not only with Christ and his apostles but also with our fellow Christians in other places. We is important to us in spite of the fact that the word is being rejected by some as the first word in a revised version of the Nicene Creed. Our we includes Catholics (some of whom think the whole Episcopal Church is Catholic), Protestants (some of whom think the whole Episcopal Church is Protestant), liberals, conservatives and a host of others with various theologies and spiritualities. We have been chided about this by those who belong to communions of stricter confessional statements and, sometimes, we are uncomfortable when we realize how true their charges are. But at the same time we are pleased that the we that is the Episcopal Church is broad enough to include so many of God's creatures. In our house there are many, many mansions!

We are a church of unity. We are also a church of argument, debate, tension and many other divisive qualities. For years, we have scrapped openly and privately over liturgical matters, the correct number of sacraments, whether or not Presbyterians and Methodists might receive communion at our altars—you have your own list! But in spite of all this, we have had unity. All the people in a given area have been represented at a single diocesan convention. The same bishop is greeted as Chief Pastor in all the parishes of his jurisdiction, despite the fact there might be inner strife over whether or not he wears a miter. When the General Convention meets every three years, it is representative of all of those Catholics, Protestants, liberals, conservatives and others who make up the Episcopal Church.

All agree that the issue of whether or not women should be ordained to the priesthood and episcopacy is perhaps the most serious issue to tax the unity—yes, the very strong unity—of the Episcopal Church in many years. It might be too strong a test for the we that is the Episcopal Church—some have said so and said so quite clearly. On the other hand, our commitment to each other and to what we have shared and loved in common for so many years might still withstand the test. There is the chance, after all, that we will come through this time of crisis as a different church—a somewhat wiser church—but, yet, as one church.

Where do we go from here?

As we noted at the beginning of this chapter, turmoil and confusion indicate life. Life is usually indicative of movement. We are a church that is moving someplace—going somewhere—because we are a part of that stream of living water called life that threads itself through all the history of God's creation. Turmoil, confusion and disagreement can always, of course, be a prelude to disaster. The state the Episcopal Church is in over the question of ordaining women to the priesthood and episcopacy might be the first signs that the church is coming apart at the seams, that its days are numbered. This note is being sounded quite loudly in many quarters.

The note that is not being sounded loudly enough, unfortunately, is the note of hope. When we are confused we can only find a way out of our confusion by taking stock of our situation. Being in turmoil leads us to look for the roots and causes of the turmoil. Our present state might cause us to do some thinking and praying of a sort that we might have been neglecting. For example, priesthood and ordination have been talked about quite a bit in the Episcopal Church. But we have taken priesthood for granted, too, and have not given serious study to ministry and the whole question of who is to be set apart (ordained) for special responsibilities and functions in the Christian community—and why. Certainly, one good thing that has come out of our division over the women's ordination question is a renewed interest in the study of priesthood and ministry. Whatever else may happen as a result of our dealing with this issue, there is an excellent chance that we will know more about these subjects than ever before—knowledge we have long needed.

And so we look ahead, continuing in our turmoil, hoping God will guide and direct the Church we love into reaching a decision that will allow us to get on with our real business of mission. While it is good for us to be studying and pondering priesthood and ministry, it is, perhaps, very bad for us to be devoting such a great amount of our energy and resources toward the solution of one issue while other matters go neglected.

The big question, though, is not so much that we want to reach a decision but how that decision will be accepted (or not accepted) once it is made. It all boils down to how willing, I, as an individual Episcopal Church member, might be to accept a decision about which I have serious question.

Can I live, and participate, and give, and grow in a church that is out of step with my thinking and convictions about priesthood?

When should I fight for what I believe is right and when should I yield to the will of others, particularly if they outnumber me?

What shall I do if I can't stay loyal to the teachings of the Episcopal Church? Change or leave?

These are hard questions. But they are the inevitable questions that will have to be faced by some no matter what sort of decision is reached about women priests and bishops.

They are questions that deserve some advance consideration.

NOTES

1. A Report on the Validity of the Philadelphia Ordinations, The Rev. Richard A. Norris, Jr., The Rev. Eugene R. Fairweather, The Rev. J.E. Griffiss and the Rev. Albert T. Mollegen, January 15,1975. See Appendix

2. Ecclesiastical Court of the Diocese of Washington, The Board of Presenters v. The Rev. William A. Wendt, St. Columba's Church, Washington, D.C., April 30-May 2, 1975.

Biography

The Reverend Richard J. Anderson has recently been appointed associate for Development and Stewardship for the Episcopal Church. He served from 1972 to 1975 as the administrative assistant to the Bishop of Western New York. Prominent in the field of religious communications, Father Anderson was editor of the newspaper of the Diocese of Western New York, Episcopal Churchfacts, from 1969 to 1975.

A native of Iowa City, Iowa, Father Anderson took his Bachelor of Arts degree at San Diego State College in California and his Bachelor of Divinity degree at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley. He holds a Master's degree in Sacred Theology from the Dubuque, Iowa Theological Seminary and has done graduate work at Iowa State University, Wartburg Seminary, and the Aquinas Institute of Theology.

Before coming to New York in 1969, Father Anderson served on the Diocesan Council in Iowa and was chairman of the Division of Evangelism and the Department of Christian Education. From 1965 to 1969 he was rector of St. John's Church in Dubuque, Iowa and from 1969 to 1972 he was rector of Grace Church in Buffalo, New York.

In addition to his other editorial work, he was a member of the press staff at the 1970 General Convention and editor of the General Convention Daily in 1973.

Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!