Robert J. Page.
Professor of Theology
Colgate-Rochester/Bexley Hall/Crozer Theological Seminary
Rochester, New York
published in The St Luke’s Journal of Theology Vol XVIII no 4 1975
and reproduced here with the necessary permissions
A distinguished lay woman, now in her ninth decade, remarked of the ordination of women in the Episcopal Church, “It is right and it is inevitable. Our task is to help people accept it with as little unnecessary pain as possible.”(1) That observation cut through masses of verbiage and helped clear my head on the basic issue. It may serve to clear the ground and to indicate what I do and do not wish to address in the remarks which follow.
I
It is tempting to retrace the steps which have brought us to our present place in the discussion. That must be left to the historian with a cooler, more dispassionate eye than my own. There is a casual unplanned quality to the sequence of events; decisions by various seminaries to admit qualified women as degree candidates, a portion of the Lambeth Conference Report in 1968, a vote at the Houston Convention declaring deaconesses within the order of deacons, a growing number of qualified women convinced of their vocation and seeking holy orders. Robert Capon observed last fall that those wishing to exclude women from the priesthood should have drawn the line over ordination to the diaconate. Women are already in holy orders. (2) Richard Norris, historian that he is, takes the matter back to baptism. If females can be baptized, sex cannot be a necessary impediment to receiving the sacrament of holy orders.(3) Bishop Allin noted after the House of Bishops voted to affirm the principle of the ordination of women by nearly a three to one margin in October, 1974, that when the issue was raised at Lambeth in 1968 it had made him sick, whereas now he probably would have voted with the majority. (4) A great deal of ground has been covered in less than seven years! Increasingly one senses among opponents to women’s ordination that they feel they are adrift in a rising torrent of contrary conviction, that the time for sober discussion is past.
Turning to the discussions which have gone on in the Episcopal Church, it is possible to discern several distinct phases. My purpose is not to summarize those discussions but to note the direction in which they point and the situation in which we find ourselves. Initially discussion focused on whether there was evidence in the Bible and in the Christian tradition which counts decisively against ordaining qualified women to the priesthood and episcopate. Clearly the Bible reflects the subordination of women characteristic in Hebrew and Hellenistic cultures. The form in which the Incarnation took place was marked by all of the particularity so characteristic of the Biblical drama. It was quickly recognized by Christians to be folly and a stumbling block to unbelievers (1 Cor. 1:23). For the Word to have become incarnate in a female would doubtless have been culturally unintelligible, just as it would have been culturally unintelligible for a woman to have been one of the twelve apostles “seated on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” in the coming Kingdom. The cultural setting and eschatological imagery of the New Testament must not be confused with the gospel itself, however. Special attention must be directed to Jesus’ care and concern for the outcasts and the oppressed. Moreover, Jesus was exceptional in that he treated women as fully human, counting them among his close friends and followers. Under the impact of the gospel, St. Paul came to perceive that in Christ all the walls of separation which divide us, ethnic, “Jew nor Greek,” cultural and economic, “bond nor free,” and sexual, “male nor female,” are broken down. Christians are called to become part of a redeemed humanity, to be “one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). (5) Of church tradition the Lambeth Conference Report of 1968 observed, “If the ancient and medieval assumptions about the social role and inferior status of women are no longer accepted, the appeal to tradition is virtually reduced to the observation that there happens to be no precedent for ordaining women to be priests. The New Testament does not encourage Christians to think that nothing should be done for the first time.” (6) In my judgment the conclusion to the first phase of the discussion is clear and is increasingly being recognized, not least by those whose first inclinations pointed to another conclusion. Neither in Scripture nor tradition is there evidence which counts decisively against ordaining women.
In its more recent phase discussion has turned to inquiring whether there are decisive reasons for admitting qualified women to all orders of ministry. The discussion has been carried on from a variety of perspectives, cultural, psychological, historical, and canonical as well as theological. Since many of the discussants are present among us and some have submitted papers for our deliberation, it would be imprudent to attempt a survey or summary. Moreover, any summary must await the volume of essays being prepared for publication by the faculty of the General Seminary. Several points may be noted briefly, however. If in the first century A.D. it was culturally inconceivable that Jesus and the twelve apostles be other than males, in the last decades of the 20th century it is culturally inconceivable that women be barred from the ordained ministry by reason of their sex. Both the New Testament and the Church Fathers are clear that the Word is united with human, not simply male, nature. We will not discern the full range of the humanity Jesus reveals, unless and until women take their rightful place within the representative priesthood. If Mary could be hailed as Theotokos, God-bearer, who is seriously to argue that a woman by virtue of being female, cannot mediate the presence and gracious reconciling purpose of God to and for the church? For some of us impressive evidence comes from a group not so well represented, namely those able dedicated women who are presenting themselves for ordination in growing numbers. It seems to me likely that God is answering our repeated prayers for the renewal of the church and its ministry in ways quite surprising and unexpected for many Episcopalians. There are indeed impressive reasons for the ordination of women and their weight is being felt with increasing urgency.
Many have moved to a third phase of the discussion which inquires when this church will bring its practice into line with its best informed theological and moral reflection on this issue. Others among us have concluded that there are now women priests in the Anglican Communion, in Hong Kong and, since Philadelphia, in the Episcopal Church. For some the issue is simply that of recognizing what has already taken place. Those who are seriously engaged in the discussion find themselves in one of the above noted phases of the debate, puzzled that many do not see what seems so obvious to them and annoyed that still others seem so certain about matters that as yet seem unclear and unresolved. I confess that for me the answer to the question when is still the Minnesota Convention but I am finding increasing difficulty countering the arguments of those who insist that the time is now and the task is to recognize what has taken place among us. Considerations of church order are important and impressive. Even more weighty are the requirements of justice and humanity.
II
At the time, the service in Philadelphia last July deeply distressed many in the church. Much initial reaction was sadness mixed with outrage. How could they? How dare they? It seemed a needless and reckless breach of order and discipline. Some feared that it would provoke a backlash of damaging proportions which might well defeat affirmative action by the next General Convention. It was not surprising that no bishop having jurisdiction found it possible to take part in the ordination. I felt deeply involved for several of my former students were among the ordinands and large numbers of people whom I respected were in the congregation.
At the time I felt I could not attend in good conscience, a decision I have since regretted.
Two factors led me to take a careful second look at the Philadelphia event. One was the report of the service itself by people whose judgment I have come to respect. Second, and more important, was the reaction of the House of Bishops and the August 15 statement declaring the ordination of eleven women deacons to the priesthood both “invalid” (i.e., that the especially appointed conditions constituting the sacrament were not duly and intentionally fulfilled), and “wrong” in the judgment of the overwhelming majority of the bishops present in Chicago.(7) It is regrettable that the Theology Committee of the House saw fit to reaffirm the substance of the statement at its October meeting. It is reassuring to note that the House as a whole seems not to have taken action on that report while later voting to ask “qualified theologians and other appropriate consultants” to assist the Theology Committee and the House in dealing with issues of major importance. (8) Returning to the Chicago meeting, it was that reaction and statement which moved many decisively from observers to participants in the struggle. The struggle, incidentally, is not against the bishops but against the pervasive effects of institutional sexism which are present at every level of the church’s life and work. That sexism is all the more demonic because it often works at the unconscious level in devoted well-intentioned people and institutions, even in the House of Bishops.
The Chicago statement struck me last summer and strikes me now as utterly inadequate on theological, moral, and pastoral grounds. Deans Guthrie, Harris, and Rockwell have written and circulated “A Personal Report on the (Chicago) Meeting . . . And Some Reflections on Process and Theology.” They conclude that an argument for irregularity was incorporated into an argument for invalidity on the grounds of intention. Frans Jozef van Beeck, S.J. was quoted at the Chicago meeting by Bishop Vogel, and subsequently has written a paper “Invalid or Merely Irregular? Comments by a Reluctant Witness.” (9) With impressive yet genial learning he concludes “that the Philadelphia ordinations were irregular; that they were true ordinations; that there is a good case for considering them not only true but also de facto valid . . . i.e. recognized by the Church; that they must at least be considered recognizable.” At the request of the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Diocese of Rochester, Professors Fairweather, Griffiss, Mollegen, and Norris, submitted “A Report on the Validity of the Philadelphia Ordinations.” That report concludes:”It is our conviction that the proper verdict on the ordinations performed in Philadelphia last July is that (in traditional terminology) they were valid but irregular ….what took place in Philadelphia was an unratified ordination, which may, without any form of re-ordination, be ‘authorized’ or ‘recognized.’ ” The statement continues, “While recognition does not constitute validity but presupposes it, authorization alone can clarify the practical ambiguity of those irregularly ordained. Until such recognition is given, the persons ordained remain priests for the Episcopal Church; but they are not priests of the Episcopal Church.” (10)
I have cited the above-mentioned documents not because I wish to be drawn into the discussions of validity and irregularity but rather to indicate that scholars with great learning and subtlety have pointed out the inadequacy of the Chicago statement. Since the fourth century declarations of invalidity have settled little other than the dispositions of those making them and have proved signally ineffective in healing divisions within the church. The Chicago declaration will no more settle the issues than did Leo XIII’s Bull in 1896 declaring all Anglican orders “totally null and utterly void.”
III
In their statement dated July 20th, the Philadelphia Eleven wrote, “We know this ordination to be irregular. We believe it to be valid and right.”(11) The words “valid” and “right” were seized upon at the Chicago meeting. Its conclusion, simply stated, was “No! Invalid and wrong!” Turning now to reasons why I believe that action to be lacking in pastoral sensitivity, I venture to suggest that the weakness of the Chicago declaration is rooted in a misunderstanding of the word “valid” as it was used by the women in their public statement.
The meeting of the bishops was hastily summoned. Those present were angry and frustrated. I believe they misinterpreted the situation which faced them. One of the bishops observed that the issue was not orders but Order. Others took up that slogan and Order became the focal concern. The bishops felt their authority was being threatened, individually and collectively. They responded to the perceived threat with massive overkill. The situation was rather like a flock of birds appearing on a radar screen and triggering a full-scale missile barrage. The report of the Theology Committee was made verbally. There was no opportunity to read and comment upon a prepared text. There seems to have been little disposition to deal with first-hand reports of the Philadelphia service and its moral significance. The report seized upon the word “valid” in the statement of the women and proceeded to interpret it on narrow and technical grounds.
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language lists the following meanings of the word valid: 1) “sound; just; well founded .. . 2) producing the desired result; effective … 3) having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative . . .” and 4) “legally sound, effective or binding; having legal force sustainable in law.” In common usage one or several of the first three uses is usually meant. It seems likely that that was the meaning intended in the July 20th letter, addressed as it was to a fairly wide audience. At the same time it is important to observe that those taking part in the service took pains to make it clear that they intended to “do as the church does” in ordination. The service was according to the Book of Common Prayer, conducted by duly consecrated bishops in good standing, at the sacred hour of 11:00 a.m. In Chicago the bishops focused upon the more restricted legal and technical usage of the word valid. The result was semantic confusion and utter lack of communication. A lay woman remarked, “The bishops shat upon the women. There was no pastoral concern.” One of the Philadelphia Eleven has written to me, “There was a heightened sense of hypocrisy. For the most part I have been treated cordially. At Chicago I felt like a criminal, unwise, unmannerly, unclean, unwanted; it was awful!” Numerous groups of church people have passed statements or resolutions upholding the “validity” of the Philadelphia ordinations. The meaning of such statements is clearly not legal or juridical but political, pastoral, and moral. They have judged the action of the bishops to be narrow, legalistic, and insensitive. They have sought, however inadequately, to make up what was lacking.
I have sympathy for men whose vacations were interrupted to deal with a matter that seemed to threaten order and discipline within the church. Action was taken under the threat of a presentment and trial of some members of the House by others. The bishops acted hastily to guard the order and discipline of the church they had been charged to preserve. 1 have sympathy also for those who acted in Philadelphia and share their surprise and rage at such an inadequate response. As I noted earlier it was the Chicago response which focused for me the issue of institutional sexism in the Episcopal Church and moved me from observer to active participant in the struggle against it. I hope and trust that time and reflection may lead many of the bishops to conclude that they overestimated the threat to order and gravely underestimated the personal dedication, theological conviction, and moral imperative which led members of this church in significant numbers to act as they did in Philadelphia. To date, the leadership of the Episcopal Church has shown distressing unawareness of the depth of the problem and the seriousness of the July 29 effort.
IV
A great deal has been written about the Philadelphia event. Like many of you my files are bulging and I am suffering from an information overload. Surprising is the fact that there has been little discussion of the moral dimensions of the event. Everyone agrees that the service was irregular; that canons were deliberately disobeyed; that ordination vows of obedience to one’s bishop and to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church were disregarded. Those taking part knew that they were inviting anger, ridicule, efforts to trivialize their intent and to destroy their future in the church they sought to serve. The disobedience was deliberate and intentional. And it was carried through by ordained persons, bishops and deacons in the presence of hundreds of priests and lay persons who likewise participated. For a great many that ended the moral discussion. Disobedience to lawful authority which one had freely acknowledged and the breach of solemn vows undertaken before God and the church was judged to be wrong in intention and consequences. Such persons were deemed wilful and disobedient. They might be forgiven, yes, but only after discipline and evidence of a change of heart.
All of the principals in the ordination service were aware of the above considerations. Each of them had carefully weighed his or her moral responsibilities and the consequence of acting as each did. All were mature Christians educated in the faith and practice of the church. They chose deliberately to break canons they perceived as unjust. In doing so they insisted that their action was “right,” and an act of “obedience to the Lordship of Christ, our response to the sovereignty of His Spirit for the Church.”(12) The women appealed to conscience and their sense of “our vocation—God’s irresistible will for us now.” In the conflict of obligations and loyalties, the appeal was beyond the authority of the church, its canons and its leadership, to justice, to conscience, and to the will of God. It is distressing that this aspect of the situation has received so little discussion.
The issue of moral justice can, I believe, be stated simply in response to Dorothy Sayers’ question “Are Women Human?” If one answers yes, then it is patently unjust that women be denied full participation in the Christian church, including service in all orders of its ordained ministry. Secular society has come to recognize that discrimination based upon race or sex is unjust and intolerable. The church is slow to recognize the obvious. In this instance law and order have been allowed to place justice in its service. A subordinate principle has subverted the principle it exists to serve. Justice delayed is justice denied. Not to act on behalf of the oppressed is to act against them. In Philadelphia and thereafter eleven women and their supporters gave notice to the Episcopal Church that in the name of justice they would no longer agree to discrimination and to their oppression. Justice properly overrides considerations of order even in the orderly Episcopal Church.
A related issue is the role and function of canon law in the church. It belongs to positive human law rather than natural law. It is subject to constant amendment and revision as the times and occasions require. It always follows upon rather than precedes the ongoing practice of the community just as lex orandi lex credendi, that is, prayer and practice precede and are the matrix out of which belief and, subsequently, canon law emerge. Its role is regulative rather than prescriptive, functional rather than normative. It exists to serve justice and order rather than to take their place. For these reasons an unjust law need not be obeyed and is not binding on the informed conscience. At the same time respect for the need for law and order dictate that one submit to the consequences of acts of civil or ecclesiastical disobedience.
A third consideration is the principle that the informed conscience must always be obeyed. Conscience and the will of God override the obligation of obedience to lawful authority. One may point out the dangerous character of action contrary to lawful authority. One may implore the other to consider that he or she may be mistaken. One may remind the other of the obligation to inform one’s conscience and to test various spirits. In the end obedience to conscience, and to the right as God gives one to see the right, overrides all other rational and moral criteria.
“We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). This Protestant principle sends shivers down the backs of those who stand for institutional order. Yet it is the dynamic force which enables the church to confound its critics by its capacity for reform and renewal.
The fact that conscientious, morally serious persons engaged in an act of ecclesiastical disobedience cannot be ignored or treated simply as reckless, willful disobedience. To do so is to ignore the responsibility and selfhood of those who acted in this manner. It is oppressive and dehumanizing. One cannot probe all of the motives which lead a person to a given action. To ignore the stated intentionality of a thoughtful responsible moral action is unjust and alienating. It produces separation and disorder rather than healing and reconciliation. One of the tragedies of the period after the Philadelphia ordinations is that this is precisely what has taken place. Serious moral reflection is sorely needed if alienation is to be overcome by reconciliation. For the Christian church the way of reconciliation is by grace through faith. The law is not set aside but fulfilled in love. Such considerations, admittedly brief and fragmentary, are offered as a starting point for the moral reflection we clearly need on the way toward reconciliation.
In writing of their sense of vocation, the Philadelphia Eleven referred to “God’s irresistible will for us now.” I stumbled over the word “irresistible” until I recalled a passage in William Temple’s Nature, Man and God in which he discusses the place of authority in religion. “Consciousness of authority and submission to it is the very heart of true religion,” Temple notes. He continues:
This authority actually presents itself to the individual in two ways: in the well-proved and attested religious traditions of his community; and in personal experience of the divine as calling, sustaining, judging. If there is any divergence between these two authorities, there is always an initial presumption in favour of the tradition, for it represents the deposit of innumerable individual apprehensions; none the less, it must be remembered that it is by fresh individual apprehensions that the tradition has been developed, and to reject the new intimation may be, not the supression of a human aberration, but the quenching of the divine spirit; and where the individual apprehension is sufficiently vivid, it may be found in practice irresistible.(13)
It is to such an apprehension that the women ordained in Philadelphia direct our attention. They acted as they had to act. That action demands a degree of attention and serious reflection it has not yet received. Behind the action are the persons. If this paper leads some of us to take them with renewed seriousness, it will have achieved its purpose.
NOTES
1. Mrs. Harper Sibley at a meeting of the Committee for the Whole Ministry of the Church, Diocese of Rochester, March 29, 1974.
2. In a lecture at Bexley Hall, Rochester, N.Y., October 31, 1974, marking the 150th anniversary of that school.
3. The issue of whether a woman is able to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders is carefully discussed in “A Report on the Validity of the Philadelphia Ordinations” prepared by Professors Fairweather, Griffiss, Mollegen and Norris for the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Diocese of Rochester, January 15, 1975. Cf.section 10 of that report.
4. Reported in The Episcopalian 139, no. 11 (November, 1974).
5. See Krister Stendahl, The Bible and The Role of Women (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), pp. 25ff.
6. The Lambeth Conference 1968, Resolutions and Reports (New York: Seabury Press, 1968), p. 106.
7. The Episcopalian 139, no. 9 (September, 1974).
8). The Episcopalian 139, no. 12 (December, 1974).
9. Journal of Ecumenical Studies 11 (1974):381-399.
10. Section 14 of the Report. Available from The Episcopal Diocese of Rochester, 935 East Avenue, Rochester, N.Y. 14607.
11. The Episcopalian 139, no. 9 (September, 1974).
12.The Episcopalian 139, no. 9 (September, 1974).
13. William Temple, Nature, Man and God (New York: Macmillan, 1949), p. 344.