When Delay Masquerades as Conversation
We've talked more than enough about ordaining women
by Gay Jennings
A resolution will come before General Convention this
summer asking for a "national conversation" to "promote, explore and develop ways to facilitate the ordination of women in every diocese and their full and
equal deployment throughout the church." This is to be
done with an eye towards a "day of dialogue and reflection" at the 2006 General Convention.
Does this mean we are going to talk in 2003
about whether to talk in 2006 about our abject and utter
failure to uphold the canons?
When did canons get a bad name? There seems
to be a breeze blowing through the church suggesting
that canons are repressive and represent an unyielding
approach to our lives as a community of faith. The Greek
word "kanon" means a ruler or a measure. Canon law
is the measure by which our actions--individual and
corporate--are to build the unity of the church.
Canons are not intended to legislate belief. Bishops, of course, may hold a particular theological view
on the ordination of women, and they have the freedom
to exercise conscience. They have not and will not be
required to ordain women. They have not and will not
be required to receive the sacramental ministries of
women. Furthermore, no parish is required to elect a
woman as rector.
Nor must any bishop violate his conscience or
resign. There always has been another way. In 1987,
the House of Bishops commended Bishop James W.
Montgomery of Chicago, saying, "He has been true to
his conscience in the matter of ordaining women, has
been faithful to his ordination vows, has upheld the canons of the church in his diocese and has safeguarded the
discipline of the church as well as its faith and unity."
The bishops affirmed his example as "an appropriate
model for bishops who cannot yet in conscience ordain
women.
"The bishops commended Montgomery because
he found a way for the consciences of all parties to be
honored by personally facilitating a process whereby
women could be ordained and serve within the diocese.
Bishops may be shielded from having to ordain a woman,
but they must not be allowed to penalize an entire diocese, its congregations, its clergy, its men, its women
and its children by preventing women from testing their
vocation in their own dioceses, by refusing to license
them, or by preventing parishes from calling them solely
on account of their sex. The individual conscience of a
bishop--and the individual consciences of members of
commissions on ministry and standing committees--
must not be used to prevent an entire diocese from what
is canonically allowed. Fair and consistent consideration
and treatment as provided by the canons should not be
an accident of geography.
In terms of more discussion and conversation,
there truly is nothing new under the sun--at least in
this case. The General Convention first appointed a committee to study the role of women 132 years ago (Joint
Commission on Reviving the Primitive Order of Deaconesses--1871).
We do not need another 132 years for discussion. In fact, we don't need another three.
Delay masquerading as conversation is unconscionable and cheap grace indeed.
The Rev. Gay C. Jennings served as canon to the
ordinary in the Diocese of Ohio until
March 31, 2003. She is associate director
of CREDO Institute Inc.a clergy wellness initiative