And what diocese are you from, Ed?" It's the inevitable question when clergy from different jurisdictions gather.

"San Joaquin," I reply with some hesitation, already anticipating the reaction.

"Oh," my companion says. Then, after an awkward silence: "I'm sorry."

As a matter of fact, I'm not sorry at all. We are an immense diocese geographically - about the same square mileage as the state of Iowa - but small numerically. I've spent the majority of my ministry in large, urban dioceses, and San Joaquin has come to me as a gift. Spread out as we are in California, clergy nonetheless know one another. We don't fade into the woodwork. No one is anonymous.

I am especially grateful for the ministry of my bishop, the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield. He is a thoughtful pastor, a loving friend, a mentor in the ways of the Spirit. While we disagree about some issues - and especially about the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate - I honor his conscience. He is a man of integrity, obedient to Jesus Christ as he discerns his will, loving and honest to those with whom he disagrees.

Thus recommendations of the Committee for Dialogue on Canon III.8.1 [TLC, July 30] trouble me deeply. While their stated aim is inclusion, they will have the effect of showing Bishop Schofield and the other three non-ordaining bishops to the door of the church and inviting them to leave.

My support for Bishop Schofield - despite disagreeing with him on ordination of women - arises in part from my own pilgrimage on the issue. I have not always favored the ordination of women. Had I served as a deputy to the 1976 General Convention, I would have voted No. During the late '70s and early '80s I moved gradually from opposition to agnosticism to affirmation. The key for me was (and is) biblical theology. I needed to be convinced that the mind of God as revealed in scripture points to the inclusion of women in presbyteral and episcopal ministry. At first I focused on texts which seem to limit the participation of women - especially 1 Tim. 2:12 and 1 Cor. 14:33-36 - as well as on the admittedly negative observation that Jesus chose no female apostles. I tended to ignore women whose ministry, while undefined, had a priestly character: especially St. Mary Magdalene (the first preacher of the Resurrection) and the Blessed Virgin Mary, Christ-bearer.

In the end, it was an understanding of baptism and its relation to ministry which led me to affirm the ordination of women. "As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:27-28). For a long time I said: But that's about baptism, not ministry. Then I came to see that because it's about baptism, it is about ministry. All ministry, lay and ordained, is a subcategory of baptism. Presbyterate and episcopate are particular expressions of our baptismal anointing. Baptized persons, male and female, whose faith and life conform to scriptural standards, are suitable candidates to discern a call to any ministry in Christ's church.

My decision to affirm the ordination of women found symbolic expression in the early 1980s when I invited a woman priest to celebrate the Eucharist in my former parish. (This was in the Diocese of Los Angeles.) About the same time, a woman deacon friend asked me to preach at her ordination to the priesthood. Together these were outward signs of a gentle and Spirit-led journey. I have been blessed by the ministry of women clergy colleagues and look forward to the day when we can serve together in the Diocese of San Joaquin.

In the end, I realize I was able to say Yes to the ordination of women in large part because I had the freedom to say No. My pilgrimage was precisely that: a journey in faith, not under compulsion, open to the prompting of the Holy Spirit. At no time did I have to say Yes. And so my Yes, long as it was in coming, rose from a free and joyous heart.

The church as a whole, I believe, needs to be granted that same freedom; and this is where the Committee for Dialogue proposals fall short. "Sex alone shall not be a factor in Ecclesiastical Authority's determination of whether such a person [a priest seeking admission by letter dimissory into a new diocese] is a duly qualified priest," says the fourth of the proposed canonical revisions. But in fact four diocesan bishops are convinced that only males can be validly ordained to the priesthood. I happen to think they're wrong. But their convictions stem from deeply-held theological positions concerning the nature of ministry: positions held, even now, by half of our Communion. The Anglican modus operandi, if I may so put it, is to let these things work themselves out under the gentle guidance of the Holy Spirit.

To be sure, the committee's proposals are accompanied by a non-canonical resolution which declardes that no one "shall be denied access to the ordination process, postulancy, candidacy, ordination, license to officiate in a diocese, a call to a cure in a diocese or letters dimissory solely on account of their theological views on the ordination of women." But there's a mixed message here. Inclusion is recommended regarding conscience. Indeed, the resolution adds a warning: "Every person who exercises a ministry as a leader and trustee in this church is obliged to obey and implement the canon law of this church." The end result of the committee's proposals is to exclude what has become in our church a despised minority viewpoint.

The House of Bishops, at its meeting Sept. 22-28, will be asked by the Rt. Rev. Robert Rowley, Bishop of Northwestern Pennsylvania and chair of the Committee for Dialogue, to vote on the following resolution: "It is the mind of this House that Canon III.8.1 is mandatory in all dioceses of this church." And so the bishops will participate in something of a "straw poll" in the preparation for the real thing in Philadelphia.

What happens at the meeting, I believe, will help to determine the final outcome in 1997. My plea to our sisters and brothers in the House of Bishops is that they defeat this "mind of the House" resolution, and in so doing make it clear that for Anglican Christians there must be another way.

St. Paul, dealing with a different matter of conscience (whether Christians should eat meat - a small issue now, but highly divisive then) gives us a general principle. "Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another ... Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ welcomed you, to the glory of God" (Rom. 14:13;15:7).

The New Testament is teaching us to allow the Spirit to guide the process. Our job is to give the Spirit space to work. How? By affirming those with whom we disagree; by avoiding the temptation to stand in the Lord's place as judge; above all, by extending the same welcome which Jesus himself has given to us. Jesus Christ is Lord of the church. In his time and in his way he will accomplish his purposes. He always has and he always will. Let us, therefore, carry on the difficult, painful - but Spirit-filled - work of welcoming one another for his sake. o