A STATEMENT ON CONSCIENCE
Prepared by the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops

The decision of General Convention to authorize the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate has raised anew problems of the Christian’s obligations in cases of conscience.

(1) For those either opposed to this decision, unable genuinely to affirm it or unable to accept it, the problems arise in a special form. Are such persons to regard themselves as disloyal Episcopalians or to be regarded by others as disloyal if they do not implement or participate in implementing that decision?

(a) It may be claimed that they are bound by the canon (III.9.1) because the suggestions of a conscience clause was by many felt unnecessary at Minneapolis. Yet much of the discussion at that time centered around protecting a bishop’s conscience, and it was asserted that a bishop cannot be forced to ordain anyone. Now, however, it has become more clear that the issues involve clergy and lay persons, not just bishops. Furthermore, the bishop’s possible involvement includes more than only the matter of ordaining or not ordaining. Those who are opposed to such ordinations or are uneasy about their rightness require greater assurance of respect for conscience.

(b) It is oversimplifying to demand obedience to the canon just as one does for every other canon. This particular issue involves judgment on matters of deepest theological import, such as one’s interpretation of Scripture and the authority of Scripture, the nature and force of Tradition, as well as the nature of the Church and of the Anglican Communion. The issue is much more clearly subject to problems of conscience than, for example, a canon on the Church Pension Fund or the number of joint commissions.

(c) The meaning of a law involves not only the wording of the legislation, but also the intent of the legislation. Did General Convention intend (1) to make certain that dioceses prepared to ordain women were assured that they had the approval of the Episcopal Church in going ahead or (2) to require such action even by dioceses not yet prepared to act nor persuaded that they could rightly do so? By the nature of the case absolute proof is impossible, but majority opinion would seem to support the first understanding. At any rate there are adequate grounds for seeing at least sufficient doubt about the intent of the legislation, so as to inhibit insistence that women priests be accepted by all and at once.

(d) The basic Anglican position has been to insist upon that which is clearly discerned from Scripture interpreted by the Tradition of the undivided Church, and enlightened by Spirit-guided reason, while refraining from the imposition of that which cannot be so demonstrated. Some would claim that Scripture and Tradition forbid the ordination of women, but General Convention did not accept that assertion. Yet many believe the rightness of such ordinations has not from these basic sources been clearly demonstrated. One is not a disloyal Anglican if he or she abstains from implementing the decision or continues to be convinced it was in error.

(2) Those convinced of the rightness of the ordination of women are spared the particular problem of conscience just sketched. They may, however, when they find themselves in the minority in a diocese or parish, be made to feel much the same way. The action of General Convention and even some of the points listed above can reassure them. Yet they are faced, as are those of opposing views, with the burden of living in this Communion at a time when Episcopalians disagree on matters of great importance.

How as Christians do we deal with such circumstances?

(3) For all persons wrestling with the implications of these decisions, the following observations may be helpful:

(a) We respect the conscience of others, neither despising nor condemning those whose convictions differ from our own. St. Paul was sensitive to a grave matter of conscience when he said, concerning meats offered to idols, “The man who eats must not hold in contempt the man who does not, and he who does not eat must not pass judgment on the man who does; for God has accepted him.” (Rom. 14: 3).

(b) We avoid any kind of pressure which might lead a fellow Christian to contravene his or her conscience; for it is evil for anyone to do what is believed to be wrong, whether that belief be right or mistaken (Rom. 14:20). Every Christian has a charge to perceive and prevent any wrong pressure, but since episcopacy serves as the principal ministerial symbol and means of unity in the church, a bishop has a special responsibility. Such pressures as social ostracism, black-listing for diocesan positions, threats of denying consideration for another post, the displeasure of superiors, and so on may lead to an offense against conscience which is an offense against Christ. (I Cor. 8:12).

(c) We seek an informed conscience for ourselves and for others. The gift of true discrimination in moral decisions is an object of prayer for the Christian (Phil. 1:10), and we dare not assume that our first opinion is the final answer. A vital part of this desire for an informed conscience is a willingness to seek that corporate understanding of the Faith which is possible only for the Church as a whole (Eph. 3:18).

(d) We hold fast to the Anglican tradition which seeks to distinguish between what is required or not required of believers. Anglican comprehensiveness is not just trying to be gentlemen, not weak so-called “tolerance,” and certainly not numbers-seeking. Rather it is this distinction between what must be believed by a Christian and what cannot be clearly demonstrated from basic Christian sources, together with the awareness that the Spirit leads the Church into further penetration of the Truth (John 14:26, 16:13). Since Jesus Christ is the Truth, there can be no adding to the Truth, but there Is a promise of deepened understanding of that Truth as the Spirit guides the Church. it is tempting to cry to others as to ourselves, “The Church -- love it or leave it.” Yet to say it hastily assumes that we already know fully what it is, much less what the Church will be like when brought at last to “nothing less than the full stature of Christ” (Eph. 4:13). Leaving this Communion or forcing others to leave interferes with the process of searching together for that fuller penetration of the truth.
(e) We need the precious gift of patience. St. Paul was rather confident of his theological insight and was not a very permissive man by nature. He could write, however, “Let us then keep to this way of thinking, those of us who are mature. If there is any point on which you think differently, this also God will make plain to you.” (Phil. 3:15).

(f) We need to trust that our fellow Christians are indeed seeking the truth, even if we feel they could find it faster by just asking us. Yet even when it is hard to trust in their seeking, we still may trust in the power of the Spirit to enlighten us all. For we do have our Lord’s promise that “the Holy Spirit will guide us into all Truth.”

(4) In the light of all this and in keeping with our intention at Minneapolis, we affirm that no Bishop, Priest, Deacon or Lay Person should be coerced or penalized in any manner nor suffer any canonical disabilities as a result of his or her conscientious objection to or support of the 65th General Convention’s action with regard to the ordination of women to the priesthood or episcopate.

The Committee on Theology
The Bishop of Ohio, chairman
The Bishop of West Missouri
The Bishop of California
The Bishop of Quincy
The Bishop of Western North Carolina
The Bishop of Massachusetts
The Bishop of Western Massachusetts
The Bishop of Eau Claire
The Bishop of Kentucky
The Bishop of Southern Ohio