It was inevitable that comparisons would be drawn between the Philadelphia ordinations of women to the priesthood in 1974 and the 2000 Singapore consecrations of American priests as "missionary bishops" to the American church.

There are certain similarities. There are some contrasts too:

• The Philadelphia ordinations took place in the context of an era in which "civil disobedience" was regarded as a legitimate method for promoting social change: one broke the law, took the punishment, and thus raised awareness of the need to change the law. The active participants at Philadelphia were all disciplined by the church -- the women were inhibited and several lost their deacon jobs as a direct result; the bishops were censured by the House of Bishops; male clergy who invited Philadelphia ordinands to celebrate were brought to trial and officially reprimanded. In 1977, the women could only take up priestly duties in the church by participating in a "regularisation" service. Some of the women have continued to be outcast all these 25 years; only one is in full-time parish ministry. They knew dire things would happen, as nuclear protestors knew they were going to be arrested and put in prison. In fact, they thought they would be excommunicated. The courage was great, and the willingness to suffer the consequences. We will see how prepared the Singapore bishops are to suffer the consequences.

• The Philadelphia ordinands were all regularly ordained deacons who had gone through their diocesan ordination processes and would have been ordained priest except for their gender. It's possible one or both of the Singapore bishops went through search processes, were nominated in episcopal elections here, and turned down. But they were were not victims of an articulated official policy/rule requiring their exclusion. All but one of the nominees in every diocesan election are turned down.

• The Philadelphia ordinations were about changing our interpretation of one canon regarding ordination (did "men" mean "only men" or was it used in the generic sense to include women as well?). The Singapore consecrations turn our entire polity on its head. They challenge a multitude of canons, as well as the constitution, which establish that we are organized into dioceses, episcopal ministry is allocated on a geographical basis, and bishops do not meddle in the affairs of other dioceses. We also require the consents of the majority of standing committees and diocesan bishops before a consecration can take place, which obviously were not solicited for Rodgers and Murphy.

• The Philadelphia ordinations were about expanding the priesthood to include a class of people previously excluded. The Singapore consecrations are about asserting that most of us do not "believe that the authority of Scripture and the historic Creeds are central to our Faith, conduct and unity as Anglicans," so "the faithful" are to be rescued from among us. The subtext is that preserving the church requires excluding gay and lesbian people. The link between gender and sexuality is a strong one, and plays an important role in these developments.

So no, Philadelphia and Singapore are not the same.

God will carry the church through this trouble, as through so many before. Since we seem to be among God's instruments this time around, we need to read history carefully so as to avoid facile comparisons which often confuse the issues.

• Other items in this series
• Louie Crew's Anglican pages: http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/rel.html
• Louie Crew's home page: http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew
• Send mail to: lcrew@newark.rutgers.edu

Please sign my guestbook and view it.

Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.