A recent debate with the most informed, (probably) most liberal member of the parish I serve as Rector leads me to ask the Covenant community if I am on track in my understanding of the ordination vow to “conform”/“be loyal.” Background: I’m in TEC (Upper SC).

My understanding of the accepted meaning of the oath follows.

First, the most direct vow is “obey your bishop” (BCP, 526). This is very direct and is usually invoked only in very serious circumstances. Even in liberal dioceses (Newark, LA, Washington DC, etc.), the bishops give fair latitude to conservative priests. For example, an anglo-catholic priest and church in DC wouldn’t be forced to have a woman priest as an assistant (even though women’s ordination is canonical now).

Then, the vow to “conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of TEC” (BCP, same page) is understood in terms of the question:  “Will you be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship *of Christ as this Church has received them*?” “Received” is a historical reference to the founding of TEC. Bishops-elect, post Revolution, went to England and Scotland seeking ordination and our first prayer book was reviewed with suggestions from the Church of England.

So “doctrine” is understood to mean, not the current teaching of the PB (for example) or even pronouncements by the General Convention, but the Nicene Creed and other doctrinal affirmations in the liturgies of the BCP (our only official theology book!).

“Discipline” is the latest version of the Canons plus the authority of the diocesan bishop. Thus, battles in GC over revisions of the Canons. The latest big one that was attempted (with Bishop Henderson on the Committee) was a proposed addition for the ecclesiastical discipline of lay people. It failed and they have given up on that effort.

“Worship” is covered by the rubrics of the BCP. We are not permitted to compose Sunday morning liturgies. Any occasional variations would need the Bishop’s express approval.

So, the conservative loyal opposition (loyal to their vows, to their bishop, and to this church-as-a-whole), stays in the church and argues against certain innovations. Part of the “charge” to an ordinand is “to take your share in the councils of the Church (BCP 531). So we go to Diocese Convention and General Convention and argue the points, based on the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them.”

My liberal member is not satisfied tat I am correct. Am I off track?

Jim Workman
Easley, SC

Jim, I think you are indeed correct. I’d be curious to know what aspect of your response remains unsatisfactory to the parishioner in question.

I think your analysis is probably one of the best I have read on this subject.

However, I do think that resolutions approved by GC and the Diocesan Convention would be a consideration under the “Discipline” part of the oath.

There was an official ruling in a disciplinary case (can’t remember which one) that unless a resolution specifies a specific course of action to be taken, it is not binding.  It would essentially have the force of something from the Lambeth Conference.

Even in liberal dioceses (Newark, LA, Washington DC, etc.), the bishops give fair latitude to conservative priests. For example, an anglo-catholic priest and church in DC wouldn’t be forced to have a woman priest as an assistant (even though women’s ordination is canonical now).

Got any particular DC parish in mind?

On a related note, though the current bishop has not tried such a thing with those rectors who are opposed to women in priest’s and bishop’s orders, the current rector of my parish obeyed the then-Diocesan bishop when he sent his Suffragan, a woman, to visit on the Diocesan’s behalf, and again when that Suffragan was made “Bishop pro tem” (a peculiar office unique to this diocese during a vacancy) and made a visitation.

A strong respect for the office of the bishop is necessary under such circumstances, without prejudice to its occupant, either in terms of sex or ideology.  Our rector did not believe he had the right to refuse a visitation under the circumstances, though he followed his conscience as to whether or not to accept the personal sacramental ministrations of the bishop.

As someone not opposed to women in holy orders serving under one who is, it is interesting observing how this works.  It has given me greater sympathy for the positions of those on both sides of the divide and disinclined me to take an activist approach.  My own stated position is that if a person has need of a woman in holy orders, there are many excellent deacons, priests, and at least two women bishops from which to choose in this diocese!  You will even see one or two in the pews or the pulpit at St. Paul’s from time to time, or leading a parish retreat.  I have great respect for the women in holy orders who feel free to be themselves with us, knowing fully that their sacramental ministrations would not be received by a significant segment of the parish.  It is quite a witness.

I am also quite clear that if the rector were to be hit by a bus and I were put in charge, I would not make any effort to change the status quo.  If change should come, it must come from the people led by the Spirit, not a priest led by ideology.  Not that I lack the Holy Spirit—it’s just that I believe whatever movement of the Spirit might be in me would need to be confirmed by a parallel movement in God’s people assembled in this place.  I would follow a Quaker Consensus model:  If just one person were firmly opposed, we wouldn’t change it.  If our Table is going to be open to all the Baptized, we can’t let the issue of who presides at that Table present a stumbling block to anyone opposed to women in priest’s or bishop’s orders, for whom we are a “safe space” in this diocese.  If anyone, on the other hand, is scandalized by a Table where only males are the celebrants, there are many fine alternatives in the DC Metropolitan Area.

St. Paul might’ve managed to be all things to all people, after all, but St. Paul’s, K Street isn’t.

I did have St. Paul’s K Street in mind. I remember the Bishop pro-tem situation. Is it still the case that the diocese would not try to force the Rector (or Vestry) to accept a female assistant priest?

If so, I think I’m correct that the vow of loyalty does not mean bowing even to a canonical standard in some cases.

So, is this anecdotal evidence that the Bishop of Washington grants that the vow doesn’t cover this new canon?

This is a technical question, but I’ll give my take on it:  The canons of the diocese give considerable power to the Vestry in matters relating to clergy, including the fact that assistants must be elected by the Vestry (nominated by the Rector, if there is one) and approved by the Bishop.  The Bishop could refuse to accept any candidate elected by the Vestry on whatever grounds, but as I read the canons, cannot refuse a Vestry’s appointment of an approved Supply Priest (from a list the Diocese keeps of pre-approved people) as a stop-gap measure in the case of a stalemate.  The Bishop is within his rights not to accept any candidate, but cannot impose any candidate under the diocesan canons.

Hence, any Rector and/or Vestry that refused to call a cleric of the Bishop’s liking would not be disobeying the Bishop, since the Bishop has no canonical right to command that a parish call any particular cleric.  The most the Bishop can do is block a particular candidate from taking up a call in a parish, and in such an instance, the Rector and/or Vestry would be compelled to obey by not calling anyone.

The fact that the national canons (as I understand it) mandate equal access for women in holy orders in all dioceses does not mean that the bishops of those dioceses may impose any particular woman on any particular parish, though the power to do so varies according to diocesan canon.  The same holds for any cleric, male, female, straight, gay, conservative, liberal, etc…Vestries are within their rights not to call anyone in the case of a stalemate and to fill the gap with supply clergy to their liking indefinitely and this does not constitute disobedience to the Bishop’s rightful authority.

I admit that even as an openly gay Episcopalian, I am on occassion very tempted to cross the river Tiber and trade in my Anglo-Catholic digs for Traditional Catholic ones. But then again, even as a layperson I remind myself that I am an Anglican and that I’ve made very solemn promises before my Bishop at Confirmation and believe that even laypeople have an obligation to be loyal to their Bishop. So Fr. Jim, I think that you are quite on track on your assessment of the oath of loyalty taken by Priests. Although, I agree with Dave that Diocesan Canon and Resolutions also have the full force of discipline if a specific course of action is prescribed.

        I’m very fortunate that my Rector / Dean is easy to deal with and thankful that he often shepherds me back off the bridge to Rome when I get upset about something.

I have thought about that, Ian, because my partner is a Roman Catholic (even though he usually attends Mass @ an Episcopal parish now-a-days). He is an odd case: He is extremely loyal to Rome, but has no qualms with disagreeing with them when he feels they are in error (which is rather often since the election of the current Pope), and he likes to go to Mass at an Episcopal parish (even though he will not receive the Eucharist from an Episcopal Priest). I have always told him that he’s really an Episcopalian but just doesn’t know it yet.

But in the end, I could not swim the Tiber because I could not honestly affirm the questions asked of me at the time of Confirmation. I believe I would be, as someone on this forum once said, trading one set of problems for another.In other words,  as moderates and conservatives, we have “issues” with certain “revisions” in TEC. I have even more issues with the “revisions” of the Church of Rome.

David, your partner is typical of many American Roman Catholics, for whom group identity and dissent are not contradictory, though often in tension.  There’s a sense among many RCs that the Roman Church is the only “real” Church and that all others are pale imitators or disgruntled children—or in the case of Episcopalians, both!  The question a lot of RCs who are unhappy with some of the official dogmas of the Church ask themselves when considering leaving is, “Where else would I go?  Where else has the fullness of what it means to me to be Church?”  It’s a different set of questions and does not assume that one chooses one’s church based on how much that church’s teaching or ethos or liturgy aligns with one’s own private opinions or personal spirituality or aesthetic sensibilities. 

In this regard, I am personally envious of the sort of cohesion Rome has in its cultural DNA, that many of its most liberal and most conservative members stick with the Church through thick and thin, not out of loyalty to the teachings or the Magisterium, or the Pope so much as out of a sense that there is no other Church that’s as much of a Church as Rome is.  This is why Vatican II could happen without the Roman Church breaking into pieces.

So while theologically your partner may be an Episcopalian, ecclesiologically he is Roman through-and-through. 

I often think of John 6:66-68 as reflecting well this sort of ecclesiological cohesion:  When Jesus’ teaching led to a schism amongst his disciples, John tells us, “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.  Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?  Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.”

When times get tough for many Roman Catholics, they look around at the alternatives, and can’t imagine that there’s anything else to go to that wouldn’t somehow be turning their backs on what it means to be members of The Church.  It would be like turning their backs on Jesus himself, since the Church is the Body of Christ.

“In this regard, I am personally envious of the sort of cohesion Rome has in its cultural DNA, that many of its most liberal and most conservative members stick with the Church through thick and thin”

Me too, Fr. Humphrey, me too.

I feel that way about The Episcopal Church, but fully realize that those feelings are probably not reflective of the majority of other Episcopalians.

...those feelings are probably not reflective of the majority of other Episcopalians.

This is an understatement, to say the least!

In a nutshell, this is the concern behind my entire project (which I’ve been calling “Conflict Ecclesiology”):  How do you teach people that to be a member of the Church means committing to each other through thick and thin, and that this commitment isn’t just for the sake of being nice but is actually necessary for discernment and mission?

This is also why I hope that any Covenant will be “catechetical” in nature.  A Covenant, if it is to do any good, must teach local churches what it means to be The Church.

I think the greatest failure of Western Christianity in all its factions is the failure to know what it means to be The Church.  We know what it means to be groups of like-minded individuals who voluntarily associate to accomplish mutually-agreed upon goals…until we disagree over something or stop liking each other.  But we don’t know what it means to commit to each other in Christ for the sake of giving ourselves entirely over to God’s Kingdom, the that-for-the-sake-of-which the Church exists in the first place.

NH+

P.S. “Kingdom” here is shorthand for abiding in the love and truth of God that brings justice and peace in the here-and-now, converts our hearts from following in the way of sin and death, emboldens us to preach the Gospel of salvation, and brings us into deeper communion with the divine life of the Trinity, both now and unto the ages of ages…

You are right, Fr. Humphrey.

When I wrote that, I didn’t stop to realize just how much of an understatement that really was

Yes, and as this sorry conflict festers, I have become more and more convinced that this failure to learn what it means to be the Church together is at the (hardened) heart of those things that keep us as an institution from being more faithful disciples in mission and good stewards of the resources entrusted to us.

In my glummer moods, I doubt that true discipleship is possible at all without a robust ecclesiology that does not allow conflict to hinder the sort of deep commitment necessary for common discernment and mission.  In this regard, folks on all sides of the presenting issues are failing to walk the way of the Cross.  I myself struggle to maintain a penitent, soft-hearted attitude towards those on all sides with whom I am in conflict, remembering that my communion in Christ with them goes even deeper than what I think or feel about someone.  After all, we are not our own.  We were bought with a price and chosen by Christ before we chose him.  But it is in the choosing of Christ that we learn how to be his disciples, and in hardening our hearts toward each other, we refuse to see others as Christ sees all of us.  I cannot express how sad and tragic this is.  And it has always been thus, it seems…

One of these days, maybe we’ll learn what it means to follow Jesus.  One of my Lenten prayers is, “Make me a Christian, Lord.  Isn’t it about time I started following you?”

I’ve been leading a Lenten study on classic Christian writings.  Next week we’ll be looking at Bonhoeffer’s Cost of Discipleship.  Here’s some food for thought from him that I believe has some bearing on the subject:

Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession.  Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

I agree, Fr. Humphrey. It is indeed hard to maintain a soft-hearted attitude. I often fail to “see others as Christ sees us”. I pray God to forgive me for that.

I find comfort (as +Robinson has often said) that even though we may disagree, we are on the same road as the opposition, “we are both going to heaven”. Personally, I have a hard time understanding why there are those who insist on focusing entirely on the parts we disagree on, at the expense of ignoring (and sometimes refusing to even acknowledge) the manifold points of unity among the parties in the Anglican conflict.

As Christians, I have a sense of communion with all followers of Christ, whether they be Baptists, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, etc. Even though some try to deny that communion, that does not take away from the fact of it’s existance.