The Washington National Cathedral stands atop Mt. St. Albans, the highest point in Washington, D.C. The medieval style cathedral is one of the last to be built anywhere in the world--construction of it began early this century and still is not completed. Impressive in its massive size, majesty, and overwhelming grandeur, the cathedral, like its ancient counter-parts in Europe, speaks of the church’s unchanging traditions, unswerving authority, and resolute power. Through its presence this is what the cathedral told the medieval peasant about the church. And that is why those denominations who trace their roots to the Reformation stopped building or worshiping in cathedrals.
The Episcopal Church still feels at home within cathedrals. To be sure, they are few, and within that denomination flow many fresh and unsettling currents of Christian witness. Yet it is still a church of tradition, hierarchy, and ecclesiastical power. It feels at home in its Washington National Cathedral.
At the very center of that cathedral, beneath the main sanctuary, and between its four massive foundational pillars, is the chapel of St. Joseph of Arimathea. On January 10, 1976, the Right Reverend William F. Creighton, Episcopal Bishop of Washington, entered that chapel to pronounce a sentence on the Rev. William A. Wendt, rector of St. Stephen and the Incarnation Episcopal Church in Washington D.C.
Rev. Wendt is in the tradition of those many priests who have believed, at critical points, that they would rather trust the knowledge of God’s will discerned directly, or within their own congregation, rather than have it mediated through a hierarchy of bishops. Wendt has long demonstrated a willingness to depart from tradition. His ministry has been characterized by continually innovative liturgical practices; worship at St. Stephen’s has long been noted for its distinctive and creative experiences of celebration. More than that, the church rests in a neighborhood which includes many poor and black people. Some time ago, Wendt’s church decided that they didn’t have need for one of their buildings, so they simply gave it to the poor of the neighborhood.
It was not unpredictable, then, for Wendt to have invited Rev. Alison Cheek, one of the women ordained as priests in the Episcopal Church but whose ordination is regarded as invalid by others, to celebrate the eucharist at St. Stephen’s. Alison Cheek was one of eleven women ordained on July 29, 1974, in Philadelphia as priests in the Episcopal Church in an “irregular” procedure. This action was taken after the House of Bishops in the Episcopal Church had voted in favor of a clarifying amendment to the canon affirming the ordination of women, but the House of Deputies had defeated the issue because of voting procedures despite the majority present who favored women’s ordination.
The validity of the priesthood of these women has been a subject of much debate since then. In August 1974, the House of Bishops adopted a resolution stating an opinion that these ordinations were not valid. But many others, including church historians and some in the present church hierarchy, argue otherwise, stating that nothing in the canons specifically prohibits the ordination of women.
In the proscribed Episcopal service of ordination, the word “he” is used referring to the person being ordained. While many reject general attempts to change the use of the masculine pronoun by saying that it has a generic meaning, applying to both sexes, in this case, the argument against the ordination of women rests on the contention that “he” means only male.
When Bishop Creighton learned that Father Wendt intended to have Rev. Alison Cheek celebrate communion at St. Stephen’s, he asked and required Wendt, as his Bishop, not to proceed. But in what one of the judges who found Wendt guilty termed an act of “evangelical disobedience,” Wendt allowed Rev. Alison Cheek to celebrate communion there on November 14, 1974.
The Episcopal Church has a formal legal mechanism for enforcing church discipline--ecclesiastical courts. Charges were brought against Wendt by other priests in the Diocese on the basis that Wendt had been disobedient to his Bishop, not following Bishop Creighton’s “godly admonition” concerning this matter. The charge was brought on the grounds of disobedience, rather than on the validity of Alison Cheek’s ordination, because that would probably not have been won; the case for simple disobedience seemed more clear-cut and legally sustainable.
The ecclesiastical court was convened on April 30, 1975. Wendt’s defense centered on the contention that he acted in “good conscience” as informed by the Word of God, and that his ordination vows compelled him to do so.
On June 5 the court found Wendt guilty of disobeying his Bishop by a verdict of 3-2. The minority of two judges who found Wendt innocent based their position on the opinion that Alison Cheek was a valid priest when she celebrated communion, and not still a deacon as was assumed by Bishop Creighton in his admonition to Wendt.
Wendt appealed the court’s verdict. But on December 9, 1975 the appellate court of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington upheld the verdict of the lower ecclesiastical court by a vote of 4 to 3. The four voting to uphold the verdict were all men--three priests and a lawyer; the three voting against the verdict were all women.
Father Wendt continued during this time in acts obedient to his conscience, but disobedient to his Bishop. On September 7, 1975, four other women were ordained as priests in the Episcopal Church in a service at St. Stephen’s, raising to 15 the number of women ordained as Episcopal priests, but not recognized officially by the Episcopal Church. Then, on October 12, Rev. Alison Cheek, who has a contract from St. Stephen’s to serve part-time as a priest for that congregation, again celebrated communion there.
Wendt had disobeyed the admonition of Bishop Creighton. The sentence set forth by the court was that Wendt be admonished for his disobedience to his Bishop’s admonition, and be forbidden from allowing any person whose ordination is in question from exercising his or her ministry at St. Stephen’s. According to the canons of the Episcopal Church, Bishop Creighton had the power to pronounce the sentence arrived at by the court, or else to lessen it.
William Stringfellow, one of Wendt’s defense lawyers, contended that the sentence given by the court was not constitutional because of changes in the Episcopal Church’s canon made in 1967 which ruled out the giving of an admonishment as a possible sentence for such an act of disobedience. Wendt’s defense also urged that sentencing be delayed by Bishop Creighton until the General Convention of the Episcopal Church this October, when the matter of women’s ordination will be considered, and also when Wendt will appeal his case by asking that a special Court of Review, provided by the Church Constitution, be established.
Stringfellow’s statement ended, how ever, with a plea to move altogether beyond these legal entanglements by a simple gesture on the part of Bishop Creighton. He said to him:
“In a moment good Father Wendt (that is how the courts named him) will stand before you to be sentenced. In the name of Christ, whom, even now, we await eagerly as the Judge of the living and dead, will you say this to him:
"'William Wendt, the ecclesiastical courts of this Diocese have found that you have offended my authority as your Bishop. If that be so, I forgive you.'"
But Bishop Creighton was not so inclined:
“I can readily accept innovation within the Church and for the sake of the Church, but not in defiance of the Church.”
Concern for preserving the structures was foremost in his mind. He imposed the sentence in an effort to protect the institutional power and authority of the church.
In Wendt’s defense on the day of sentencing it was stated that his “sole guilt consisted in affirming the true mission of the church.” But in the view of Bishop Creighton, guilt lay in Wendt’s failure to place ecclesiastical authority above his understanding of the church’s mission.
Bishop Creighton was not veiling opposition to the ordination of women behind a stated concern for orderly process. He has stated and worked for the ordination of women as priests in the Episcopal Church but has believed that action should simply await the General Convention. The Right Reverend Creighton has further asserted that in his view, the canon does not prohibit the ordination of women, and that he would be prepared to ordain women into the priesthood after the General Convention even if it does not adopt a clarifying amendment to the canon in favor of women’s ordination. But he will not do so before that time. This prompted Edward Bou, Wendt’s other lawyer, to argue against sentencing on the simple grounds that justice delayed is justice denied.
Forty-six other priests could have charges brought before them by their Bishops on the same grounds as Wendt, but have not been so chastised. Why did Bishop Creighton take such an extreme step? In part, it would seem, out of concern for his own power. As is so often the case, concern for maintaining institutional authority becomes linked with protecting one’s personal investment in those structures of power. In that sense, Creighton’s move made political sense. While favoring women’s ordination, he demonstrated to the whole denomination that he will not hesitate in administering discipline to any who act beyond the limits of the church’s dictates. So he has protected all his flanks.
Nevertheless, Creighton has risked losing one of the Episcopal Church’s more creative rectors and parishes. Wendt’s congregation is wholly supportive of him; it was their vestry, after all, who hired Alison Cheek to serve as one of their priests. In effect, Creighton told Wendt that if he disobeys him again, permitting a woman (“any person whose ordination is not in conformity with the canons of the Church”) to exercise her ministry at St. Stephen’s, Wendt will face another trial which could end his ministry of more than two decades in the Episcopal Church. But that move could prompt the whole congregation to leave the denomination.
After the sentencing, Wendt made clear how his future action would not be a matter of individual choice, but one involving the people of St. Stephen’s: “I am a servant of my congregation.”
He told the Bishop he could never promise to forbid the ministry within his parish of those whose ordination is in question before General Convention. Yet, privately there seemed to be an openness to some reconciling compromise if the position of those women already ordained as priests could be protected. For the next three months, discussions and reflection will replace any controversial actions at St. Stephen’s.
When Alison Cheek was asked what she thought the rationale for the Church’s action in sentencing Wendt was, she replied, “Sexism and fear.”
Perhaps it was also the protecting of its power. Hierarchy demands obedience, by definition; discerning the will of God by an ecclesiastical hierarchy can easily degenerate into the protection of the institutional church’s worldly self-interest.
The issue of women’s ordination in the Episcopal Church has become compounded with deeper questions concerning the patterns of authority and hierarchy in the church. Some would argue that might be a tactical mistake for those who believe in the full access of women to all expressions of the church’s ministry. But others will say that at heart, this is what the issue truly is--when must individual or congregational discernment of God’s will be surrendered to the self- protective prerogatives of an institutionalized church? Particularly if one believes, as Stringfellow has contended elsewhere, that the institutional church is numbered biblically with the “powers and principalities” of this age, then it becomes difficult to hear the word of its earthly patriarchs as though it were the Lord’s.
So the cathedral still stands. Its foundational pillars were firmly defended by Bishop Creighton, even while other laborers continued to complete this edifice that overlooks the nation’s capital.
Meanwhile, women ordained as priests quietly celebrate the eucharist in homes throughout Washington while priests like Father Wendt ponder whether to allow that sacrament to be celebrated by those same priests in full view of their Bishop, who condemns such an action now but promises to condone it later.
Wes Michaelson was on the editorial staff at Sojourners when this article appeared.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!