In 1988, the 69th General Convention amended Canon III.11 to provide for the ordination of "local" priests. This resulted in two different classes of priests, those ordained under the usual canon (III.7) and those ordained as priests to serve local communities. Renumbered as Canon III.9, the new regulation was designed to provide "the sacraments and pastoral ministrations of the church" to communities which are "small, isolated, remote, or distinct in respect of ethnic composition, language or culture."

As often happens, the results fell short of the goal. While some priests ordained under Canon 9 may be ministering on isolated Indian reservations, many are serving as unpaid clergy in a variety of situations. This canon has resulted in a group of second-class priests.

Local canon priests are not restricted in the functions of ministry. Rather, the modification formalized the old practice of "reading for orders." Priests ordained under the canon are restricted to working in the diocese that ordained them. Since they cannot freely look for work and, in most instances, cannot work for pay, they are often seen as real assets by a denomination in need of clergy for small churches without funds. Today clergy ordained under Canon 9 are used as interims or even pastors in small parishes and as assistants in larger parishes and parish clusters.

To see how others felt about the situation, I took an informal email survey of 20 Episcopal dioceses. The results were interesting. First, I discovered that diocesan offices are incredibly helpful. Anyone who has ever done a survey knows that even a 10-percent response is great. Nearly every office I contacted responded to my email. Second, while only one diocese had a procedure for transition from Canon 9 to Canon 7 (return to seminary for a full master of divinity degree) most are very interested in the subject.

Most dioceses that offered comments saw the problem as a difference in education. If you compare the two canons, it appears that anyone who can actually read the Bible and who can find page 323 in the prayer book can get ordained. This is not the case. Today local priests are almost always better prepared than the canon requires.

As is true of many things in our church, there is no one standard for education of priests. Even Canon 7 does not require seminary attendance. According to the Office for Ministry Development, over the 10-year period from 1988 to 1997, only 69 percent of Episcopal priests were educated for three years in an accredited Episcopal seminary. Others varying amounts of formal and informal training in a number of different settings.

To confuse the issue further, there is no clear difference between the type of education and the category of priest. There are priests who "read for orders" working as paid parish rectors and there are priests with masters' degrees in theology working as unpaid local clergy.

The current practice needs to change for several reasons. First, it is bad psychology. Like it or not, we live in a society that measures value in financial terms. Something that is free cannot possibly be as valuable as something that costs money. If our church doesn't have a seminary-trained priest, we are somehow less valuable or less worthy than our neighbor churches.

Second, the use of unpaid clergy has a detrimental effect on giving. Today personnel costs are the number one item on most church budgets. If the priest is working for free, parishioners are less likely to see the need for real financial sacrifice.

Third, and most important, ordaining under two different canons is bad theology. We claim to have only one order of priests. When the status of a priest is changed from Canon 9 to Canon 7, that priest is not re-ordained. But the result of the current system is that we have a group of priests who are deprived of some of the privileges enjoyed by other priests. We know from experience with civil rights issues that when it comes to privilege, different is never equal.

What can be done about this problem? The solution is simple: remove Canon 9 from Title III of the canons. Section 5 of Canon 7 clearly lists the subjects in which a priest must show proficiency. As a church that understands the importance of interpreting scripture and considering tradition when making decisions, we should expect that all our priests have that expertise.

Canon 7 has a number of safeguards to ensure that priests are well educated. The canon requires examination in several different ways and endorsement by "the theological school or from those under whose direction the Candidate has been pursuing studies" (Canon 7, section 7d). These procedures should provide all necessary safeguards to protect an unsuspecting congregation from the ministrations of an ignorant priest.

If we are concerned about the quality of alternative education for clergy, we can encourage seminaries and graduate schools to offer more part-time and distance-learning programs. Today the most remote areas of the country are accessible by Internet and most of our seminaries are at least considering the possibilities of part-time education.

Our church is further blessed with procedures to protect congregations from poorly prepared clergy. Unlike other denominations, our priests are not assigned to a congregation. Clergy are called by a vestry. Qualifications are examined, references are checked. We have bishops and deployment officers to oversee the process. If a diocese wants only clergy with master of divinity degrees, it has that right. Rather than barring certain clergy from the marketplace, let's leave the process to the good sense of God's people.

The Rev. Michael Simon resides in Wheeling, W.Va., where he is spiritual care coordinator at Valley Hospice and priest at St. Paul's Church.