I n a recent letter to The Living Church, a question was raised about the "doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church." The 1979 ordinal vow says, "I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church" (BCP 1979, page 526). The writer suggested that this constitutes something of a moving target.

I was ordained prior to the 1979 ordinal. Under the previous ordinal, every priest took rather different vows:

1. Are you persuaded that the holy scriptures contain all doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined, out of the said scriptures, to instruct the people committed to your charge; and to teach nothing, as necessary to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the scripture?

2. Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the doctrine and sacraments, and the discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this church hath received the same, according to the commandments of God; so that you may teach the people committed to your cure and charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same?

3. Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's word; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your cures, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given?

4. Will you reverently obey your bishop, and other chief ministers, who, according to the canons of the church, may have the charge and government over you; following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions, and submitting yourselves to their godly judgments?

These are not the only vows taken at the examination; these are the most critical to my critique. They are markedly different from the new vows. In the new vows, there is no equivalent to No. 3 above. This vow, taken with the first, is a vow to maintain biblical doctrine. Vow No. 2 above is to follow the general councils of the church in their understanding of and promulgation of biblical doctrine. The last vow may be taken to modify the above vows, but it was never considered possible that a bishop would act or teach contrary to the first two vows.

I want to assert that we have, by the omission of the assertion that this is God's church, now replaced God's authority with that of bishops. The vows of a bishop (BCP page 517 ff.) have vestiges of the priestly vows of 1928, and necessarily add vows particular to a bishop. In the BCP, page 517, at the examination of a bishop, it reads You are called to guard the faith, unity and discipline of the Church. It continues in the interrogatory on page 518: As a chief priest and pastor, will you encourage and support all baptized people in their gifts and ministries, nourish them from the riches of God's grace, pray for them without ceasing, and celebrate with them the sacraments of our redemption? The next question continues, Will you guard the faith, unity and discipline of the Church?

We face a terrible situation in which bishops, and conventions, espouse doctrines and advocate actions that appear to be contrary to both scripture and general council. I do trust that no one would elevate a General Convention to the authoritative level of these general councils. We appear to prize unity above truth. In the name of unity I am asked to set aside truth and my vows: "And are you determined, out of the said scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge; and to teach nothing, as necessary to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the scripture?" and "Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's word?" Where does this put those of us whose vows included the above commitments? What do we do when bishops do not honor these vows taken prior to 1979?

This is God's church. Doctrine surely cannot be simply what a bishop or bishops decide it is to be (especially when they are in a minority within the worldwide Anglican Communion.) Nor can a bishop using a conscience clause simply exclude persons who teach and preach biblical theology that may be "divisive" in terms of moral behavior. Doctrine cannot be set aside for the sake of unity else we become unitarian universalists, theists at best. There can be no unity if doctrine is simply the common mind of the prevailing majority. This makes the prevailing majority simply a tyranny that edges out Christ as the true head of the church.

Ordination vows are important. It becomes cultic if those vows are made simply to a bishop. These vows are made to God. Priests should be doctrinal apologists and advocates of the church, just as much as bishops. Educated and inspired lay persons should be encouraged in this role. This is the historic protection against tyrannical and monarchical predatory bishops. May God defend us if we retreat to the status of claque to the episcopacy! This is God's church, and the bishops' it is not.

The Rev. Ian Montgomery is rector of St. Thomas' Church, Neenah/ Menasha, Wis.