The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) has been wrestling with the issue of women’s ordination for the past decade. The worldwide Anglican Communion has been actively wrestling with this issue for five decades. For a variety of complex reasons, some we will explore in this essay, the church has failed to resolve this issue. Some Anglican leaders insist that this lack of resolution on what they consider a “secondary” issue is the Anglican Way. They say that it is distinctively Anglican to allow latitude on non-essential issues. Of course, that position presupposes that it is indeed a secondary issue, and not an essential one. We will explore that idea in this essay, too. Indeed, the purpose of this essay is to follow the Anglican Way of “scripture, tradition, and reason” to see if resolution of this issue within the Anglican Way is possible. And, if so, to speculate about what that resolution might look like.
We will look narrowly at the issue of women’s ordination to the priesthood within ACNA.[1] We will not fully explicate the role of women in the church generally. I accept as a given that women and men are equal in important ways. Both women and men are created in the image of God. As Paul writes, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28) I also accept as given that people are not equally gifted. It is certain that some women would be far more capable of fulfilling the duties of the priesthood than many men who currently hold those roles. We will consider that issue later in our discussion.
But I also assert strongly that, however true that might be, it is – at best – incidentally relevant to this question. The goal of the church is not efficiency or effectiveness. It is faithfulness. So, said plainly and narrowly, we will attempt to answer this question: Is it faithful to scripture, tradition, and reason for women to be ordained as priests in the Anglican Church in North America? I further assert that of the three – scripture, tradition, and reason – scripture is by far the most important. However, we will begin our discussion with tradition, specifically: What has the church historically taught about women and holy orders?
Tradition: A Brief Historical Survey
The Anglican Church considers itself to be a part of an unbroken episcopate going back to the church’s founding in the first century AD. It is therefore reasonable and helpful to consider the teachings of the early church, the Roman and Eastern churches, as well as Anglican tradition, for guidance and precedent. While volumes have been written that explore history and circumstance, the “bottom line” is that both the Eastern Church and the Roman Catholic Church have consistently asserted that women can’t be priests. The Church Fathers were unanimous on a male-only clergy. Gerald McDermott summarizes their position: “Clement of Rome wrote at the end of the first century that the apostles gave orders that proven men should succeed them as bishops and hand this ministry on to other proven men. Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, and Cyrian held the same view.”[2]
A clear and relatively recent assertion came from Pope John Paul II. In 1994, Pope John Paul II declared,
Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32), I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful. (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).
It is hard to imagine a less ambiguous statement. However, despite this plain and unambiguous language, the church doubled down a year later when it ruled in October of 1995 that this teaching required more than mere acquiescence. It requires “definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2).”
These statements from the Vatican do not, of course, prove that women’s ordination is wrong. But it does prove that the Roman Church, with which Anglicanism shares the first 1500 years of its history, has been clear and consistent on women’s ordination. It’s also important to note a key phrase in John Paul II’s 1994 statement: “…the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women…”. The wording of this statement is significant. This statement makes not merely a canonical or even theological assertion. John Paul II is asserting that the church does not have the ability to redefine what it considers ontological reality. This statement asserts that ordaining women to the priesthood is not a matter of right vs. wrong, but of possibility vs. impossibility. It is also strikingly similar to the 2017 (and still current) ACNA position that there is no “scriptural warrant” for women’s ordination. (More about that below.)
We will return to this argument, which I shall call the “ontological argument,” repeatedly during this discussion. For now, I will simply note that this ontological argument is implied by the famous statement of Cardinal John O’Connor, who served as the Archbishop of New York from 1984 to 2000. He said, “We’ll have married priests when the Pope dies. We’ll have women priests when God dies.” The position of the Orthodox Church on this issue is essentially identical. Here’s an excerpt from the Orthodox Church in America’s website regarding the question of women’s ordination: “The Orthodox Church precludes the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopacy. It is a matter of Holy Tradition, as well as a vision of ministry as something not limited to the ordained priesthood.”
Note that the word “precludes” brings us not just to the matter of “Holy Tradition” but also, once again, to considerations of ontology. That word essentially asserts that the ordination is not possible, even if it were desirable and even if no specific theological objections exist. The Orthodox Church hereby asserts that neither a desire nor a declaration that a thing is so can make it so. Again, one could make the assertion that this position is simply in error, but it is impossible to assert that the Orthodox Church – which with Roman Catholicism is one of the “three great streams” of Christianity – is now or has ever been ambiguous or inconsistent on this question.
One might argue: “Roman Catholic and Orthodox views are unconvincing because they have different visions of what ordination means. We are Protestant for a reason.” In the abstract, that’s a fair point. Protestants are Protestants precisely because of their disagreements with the Roman and Orthodox churches. However, women’s ordination was not one of those issues. Indeed, neither Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer, nor any of the Protestant Reformers affirmed women’s ordination. While the Reformers had many points of disagreement with the Orthodox and Roman churches (and with each other), they were unanimous on this issue.
That said, it is true that Protestantism, the third great stream of Christianity, is more difficult to categorize because of its fragmentation and diversity. But even in Protestantism, women’s ordination was completely unknown until the 19th century, when a few small Methodist denominations began ordaining women. Today, the United Methodist Church ordains women, but that practice did not start until well into the 20th century. The largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, does not ordain women. Neither does the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the second largest Lutheran denomination in the U.S.
For 19 of the past 20 centuries, all three of the major streams of Christianity have been unanimous regarding women’s ordination. Even in the 20th century, there remains near unanimity, though the growth in women’s ordination in the 20th and 21st centuries is undeniable. This brief survey of the history of women’s ordination brings us to an unmistakable and irrefutable conclusion: Women’s ordination is a recent innovation of the church, and the churches that ordain women remain a very small minority of the total number of churches in the world.
Anglican Tradition
But what about the history of women’s ordination in Anglicanism? Anglicanism – with 85 million adherents worldwide – is the largest tributary feeding the Protestant stream. For almost all of its history, the Anglican Church did not ordain women to the priesthood.
The first woman’s ordination came about due to extreme circumstances. The first woman Anglican priest was Li Tim-Oi. She was born in Hong Kong in 1907. Her parents were not Anglican, but they supported her education, a courageous and unusual position for that time and place. They sent her away to school. While away from home, she embraced the Christian faith and she was baptized in the Anglican Church, taking a new first name, Florence, from the famous nurse Florence Nightingale. While in her 20s, she received theological education at Canton Union Theological College, and she began to work full time for various Anglican churches in China and Macau. She was ordained a deaconess in 1941.
While she was in Macau, during World War II, the Japanese invaded and occupied Hong Kong. Macau had no resident Anglican priest. The occupation made it impossible for Anglican priests to travel there. The occupation also made it impossible for Li to return home to Hong Kong. Given these circumstances, her bishop, Ronald Hall, took the extraordinary step of allowing Li to celebrate the Eucharist. Bishop Hall explained to the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple:
I have given her permission to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. If I could reach her physically, I should ordain her priest rather than give her permission…. I’m not an advocate for the ordination of women. I am, however, determined that no prejudices should prevent the congregations committed to my care having the sacraments of the Church.
Archbishop Temple was progressive for his day, and he was privately sympathetic toward the idea of women’s ordination. However, he could also see the irregularity of this ordination. It was consistent neither with Anglican polity nor tradition, so he publicly opposed it.
When the war ended, Li discontinued her priestly duties. She did, however, continue her theological education and her work for the church. When Hong Kong ordained two further women priests (Joyce M. Bennett and Jane Hwang Hsien Yuen) in 1971, Li herself was officially recognized as a priest. Li, by then, was living in Canada and did not know she had been recognized as a priest until several years later. In 1984 she was at Westminster Abbey for a celebration of 40 years since her irregular ordination as priest. She died in 1992 in Toronto, where she had lived and taught for many years.
A Break With Tradition: The Philadelphia Eleven
In part because of Archbishop Temple’s opposition to Li’s ordination, a position at least publicly shared by his successors, no other women were ordained in the Anglican Communion for nearly thirty years. The first ordination of women in the United States was also irregular, and it took place 50 years ago, on June 28, 1974. In an event not sanctioned by the denomination, eleven women were ordained as priests in Philadelphia. The ordination of these women, dubbed “The Philadelphia Eleven,” forced the hand of the Episcopal Church’s leadership in the United States, and within a few years their ordination was “regularized,” and the ordination of other women quickly followed.
But these actions also created a decades-long rift in the Episcopal Church. Bishops took sides in the debate. Other changes in the Episcopal Church quickly followed. Within a decade of the first women’s ordination, the Episcopal Church was ordaining openly gay men and women. Fast-forward another decade, gay men and women were consecrated as bishops. As conservatives fled the Episcopal Church literally by the millions, progressives took over the seats of power and the leadership of key Episcopal institutions. These developments made space for heterodox and even heretical teachers. Well-known Episcopal clergy, such as John Spong, were teaching that the Resurrection was not a literal, physical, historical event – in clear opposition to settled Christian dogma.
These events are well remembered by many in ACNA. Many people in ACNA today were combatants in these fights. That is why some Anglicans have such a visceral, almost Pavlovian, reaction to the notion of women’s ordination. It was the opening chapter of what for many was a horror story, a tragedy. Many fear it will take ACNA down a path, put it on a slippery slope, that they never want to be on again. Those who favor women’s ordination have a duty to take that narrative into account. It is real, recent, and relevant history, and it has many lessons to teach us. Anglicans who favor women’s ordination also have an obligation to meaningfully deal with the consistent witness of the church for more than 1900 years regarding women’s ordination. It is arrogant, what C.S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery,” to say that we are simply smarter, better informed, or more enlightened than our predecessors. Anyone who has read Augustine, Aquinas, and Athanasius would find the argument that today’s theologians are smarter to be – to put it mildly – unconvincing.
It is possible that they were simply wrong, as history has proven them to be on some issues, but to dismiss this history as irrelevant to the current discussion is neither wise, intellectually honest, nor consistent with the Anglican way of using scripture, tradition, and reason as our guides. On the other hand, those opposed to women’s ordination based on their experience in The Episcopal Church also have a duty to acknowledge that they may be reacting out of trauma and grief, and they, too, may not be acting out of the highest and best principles of scripture, tradition, and reason.
Further, those opposed to women’s ordination should take special care not to succumb to logical fallacy. It is true that since the ordination of women by the Episcopal Church in the 1970s, it has moved rapidly through liberalism and into heterodoxy and even heresy. But that correlation does not prove causation. Post hoc, ergo prompter hoc (“after this, therefore because of this”) is a logical fallacy easy to make in such circumstances. Therefore, to make this “slippery slope” argument requires rigorous proof of causation, and not mere correlation. But it is a correlation worth noting.
Reason: A Brief Survey of ACNA’s Teaching on Women and Holy Orders
Neither ACNA nor GAFCON (Global Anglican Fellowship Conference, the global network of which ACNA is a member) has resolved the issue of women’s ordination, but that does not mean they have been wholly silent on the issue either. In September 2017, GAFCON published “A Report on the Task Force on Women in The Episcopate.”[3] That task force became necessary because many of the provinces in the worldwide Anglican communion already ordain women, and the possibility of consecrating one of these women as bishop was becoming increasingly likely. The Task Force concluded: It is our prime recommendation that the provinces of GAFCON should retain the historic practice of the consecration only of men as bishops until and unless a strong consensus to change emerges after prayer, consultation and continued study of Scripture among the GAFCON fellowship.
Also in September of 2017, ACNA’s college of bishops met in Vancouver, British Columbia. One of the items of business at that meeting was the discussion of a report from the Theological Task Force on Holy Orders. The College of Bishops issued a statement[4] acknowledging the challenges presented by the issue and pointing out the obstacles still in the way of resolving that issue. The “bottom line” of that statement follows:
It was agreed that each Diocese and Jurisdiction has the freedom, responsibility, and authority to study Holy Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition of the Church, and to seek the mind of Christ in determining its own convictions and practices concerning the ordination of women to the diaconate and the priesthood. It was also unanimously agreed that women will not be consecrated as bishops in the Anglican Church in North America. These positions are established within our Constitution and Canons and, because we are a conciliar Church, would require the action of both Provincial Council and Provincial Assembly to be changed.
So, women’s ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood is allowed, at the discretion of the diocesan bishop, but women bishops are not allowed. It is hard to understand – whether you are “pro” or “con” on the issue of women’s ordination – how an allowance for women priests but a ban on women bishops is biblically or logically coherent. Both sides should object to such a stopgap position that places the negotiated language of a constitution over scripture, tradition, and reason. The statement goes on to say what we have already established:
We also acknowledge that this practice [women’s ordination] is a recent innovation to Apostolic Tradition and Catholic Order. We agree that there is insufficient scriptural warrant to accept women’s ordination to the priesthood as standard practice throughout the Province. However, we continue to acknowledge that individual dioceses have constitutional authority to ordain women to the priesthood.
This 2017 statement is, as of this writing in 2025, the current position of ACNA. However, this statement caused frustration on both sides of the women’s ordination divide. It explicitly acknowledges “insufficient scriptural warrant” or historical justification for women’s ordination, but it nonetheless continues to allow it. This statement also acknowledges that current canon law cannot prevent it.
It is therefore no surprise that the result has been a patchwork of policies, depending on the diocese. As of 2023, a narrow majority of the dioceses in ACNA do not ordain women to the priesthood. However, those that do ordain women are among the largest dioceses in the province. The result is that most North American Anglicans live in dioceses that ordain women.[5] These include the non-geographical diocese Church for the Sake of Others, or C4SO. A single diocese (the Diocese of the Carolinas) ordains women but enjoins them from the senior pastor role. We might consider this lone diocese an anomaly, an outlier. However, it’s worth noting that this policy was established under the bishopric of Steve Wood, who is now the archbishop of ACNA.
It is easy to see how such a situation can cause confusion and frustration. Those who find no warrant for women’s ordination (which is ACNA’s official position, per the 2017 statement), are dismayed that the ordination of women proceeds apace. This condition also raises serious questions about whether current canon law is adequate to protect against extrabiblical innovations. They also raise other objections to the current canonical regimen, which allows women to go “bishop shopping” in order to find a diocese that will ordain her. The existence of C4SO, a non-geographical diocese that ordains women, essentially regularizes women’s ordination throughout the province (or so many maintain). On the other hand, given the current inconsistencies, those in favor of women’s ordination can reasonably make a case for hypocrisy and favoritism: The official policy of the church and the reality of its practice are clearly misaligned. Women who want to become priests in ACNA can effectively do so, and do so anywhere in North America, but it’s harder than for male aspirants.
To return to an idea introduced above: Some are saying that this tension itself is the “Anglican Way.” It is the tension that exists while living in the frontier between “being and becoming.” They say it develops the peculiarly Anglican ability to hold together the “both/and.” For some, this is not a problem to be solved, but an Anglican distinctive to celebrate. It is the via media, not a squishy “middle way,” but a conscientious “higher way.”
The problems with defining the current issue in this way are various:
- For one, it assumes that the ontological issues surrounding women’s ordination do not, in fact, elevate this issue beyond a secondary one to a primary one.
- Secondly, given the polity of ACNA, it ensures that women’s ordination will continue – with speed bumps, perhaps, but with few if any roadblocks. In short: not to decide is to decide.
- Thirdly, because the official policy of ACNA acknowledges that there is no “scriptural warrant” for women’s ordination, yet the practice is that women are being freely ordained, the net effect is a drop in confidence in ACNA’s polity, leadership, and commitment to biblical authority.
Such erosion of confidence is potentially fatal for any organization, particularly a young denomination.
Reason: The Augustine Appeal
This simmering crisis in confidence has boiled over in various ways. A recent example occurred on May 26, 2024, when a document called “The Augustine Appeal”[6] appeared on the North American Anglican, a socially and theologically conservative publication. The Augustine Appeal asserts that the “unresolved issue of women’s ordination to the priesthood imperils the mission of our Province.” It also expresses hope that the College of Bishops will find “a creative solution to restore orthodoxy” and institute a male-only priesthood. The appeal affirms the “inherent dignity and equality of women,” but asserts that any view of ministry that ignores sexual differences “opposes God’s created order.”
The appeal has been signed by more than 300 ACNA clergy. These 300 represent only about 15 percent of the total number of ordained ACNA clergy in the United States. However, signatories come from 27 of ACNA’s 29 dioceses. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many more would have signed, but refrained, primarily for one of two reasons. First, several told me that they believed they were “men under authority” and did not want to take a public position that was contrary to their own bishop. Secondly, some feared unwanted conflict or retribution within their own parish or diocese.
A few days after The Augustine Appeal was posted, a new resolution was published on the same Anglican site, this time by an elected group representing the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (ACNA). The diocese asserts that, according to Religion News Service, “when it joined ACNA in 2009, it did so only provisionally, given the ordination of women in parts of the denomination. Now, it wants to be in ‘full communion,’ — but to make that possible, it says ACNA must come to a consensus on women’s ordination.”
The Fort Worth statement went on to say:
(W)e call upon the college of bishops, under the leadership of the next archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America, to agree to a moratorium on the practice of the ordination of women in order to facilitate full communion throughout the province as we come to a common mind on this issue.
The Diocese of Fort Worth resolution echoes the Augustine Appeals’ argument that women’s ordination is a first-order issue that “imperils” the denomination. The Diocese argues that women’s ordination can affect the validity of the Eucharist, and the grace bestowed via the sacrament.
A Primary or Secondary Issue?
Those who favor women’s ordination make the argument that it is possible to do so and remain thoroughly orthodox, thoroughly biblical. They argue that women’s ordination is a “secondary issue” and does not impact essential issues, including the doctrine of salvation. As Anglican priest Hannah King told RNS, “It’s a settled issue that this is an option for Orthodox, Anglican churches in the fellowship that we’re a part of.” However, declaring it a “settled issue” does not make it so. In fact, one of the unavoidable conclusions of our discussion so far is that whatever else you might say about women’s ordination in ACNA, you cannot honestly say that it is a settled issue. Religion News Service further reported, “King said in reference to the widespread practice of ordaining female priests in GAFCON, which has characterized women’s ordination as a ‘secondary issue’.”
But is that true? The answer is, again verifiably, no. The only way to answer that question is to agree on what is a “secondary issue” and what is an essential issue. That agreement does not exist. To restate the obvious: The 2017 ACNA statement and the 2024 Augustine Appeal, whether one agrees with them or not, are prima facie evidence that this issue is not a “settled question” nor does it assert or present a consensus that it is either a primary or secondary issue.
So, where does that leave us? It should leave us cautious and humble. It, at a minimum, leaves us with a 21st-century version of “Pascal’s Wager.” Pascal famously said that if there was no God, then believing in one did no permanent spiritual harm. But if there is a God, not believing in Him would result in catastrophic harm for the unbeliever. Pascal’s conclusion: the safe bet was to believe in God. To analogize: If a male-exclusive priesthood is a primary issue, to sanction women’s ordination would dangerously imperil the mission of the church as well as the spiritual lives of those in the church. That is not to say that there would be no consequences for maintaining a male-exclusive priesthood if it is a secondary issue. There would be, especially for those women who aspire to the priesthood. But the consequences for the universal church are far less grave.
No analogy is perfect, even one from so venerable a source as Pascal. This analogy in no way excuses us from settling this question rightly. We should, and if the right answer to this question is that the church should ordain women, we should do so forthwith. But while the question remains unsettled, as it now plainly is, we should – again – proceed with humility and caution.
What Does Scripture Say?
At last, we come to the most important consideration, and that is what Holy Scripture teaches on this subject. In considering Scripture, we should note that while Jewish rabbis did not allow women to study with them, Jesus did. He praised Mary (the sister of Martha) for sitting at his feet while he taught. Yet, as Gerald McDermott notes,
Despite the revolutionary ways in which Jesus treated women, he showed no interest in naming a woman to be among his apostles. Nor to be one of the seventy he sent out to evangelize. We moderns think his student Mary or even his mother would have been fine candidates for the apostolate, but Jesus showed not a scintilla of concern for this. And when Judas’s betrayal brought the number down to eleven, the remaining leaders quickly sought a man to replace him. There is no sign whatever that they would have considered a woman.[7]
It is fair to argue here that the biblical account may have been descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, it is telling us what happened, not necessarily what should have happened. However, such a reading diminishes the agency of Jesus Himself in this account. To argue that Jesus failed to do something that he should have done is to strongly imply that Jesus sinned.[8] Paul is more explicit in his letter to Timothy. He writes, “I do not permit a woman to…have authority over men…. A bishop must be the husband of one wife…. Let deacons be the husband of one wife.” (I Tim. 2:12; 3:1-2; 3:12) McDermott points out that a bishop “at this point in the New Testament church, [is] he who presides over the Eucharist.”[9]
So, a plain reading of this text would lead us to this conclusion: Paul is saying that women may not be deacons, priests, or bishops. But is a plain reading adequate, and is this conclusion consistent with the “full counsel” of scripture? To help answer these questions, we should look first at the definition of the word “deacon.”
I turn again to McDermott for succinct guidance: “The word diakonos is used twenty-eight times in the New Testament, and in all but three instances it is the generic term for ‘servant’ or ‘helper’ (e.g., Rom 15:8; Gal 2:17; I Thess 3:2; Col 1:7, 23, 25; 4:7; Eph 3:7; 6:21; I Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6; 11:15, 23; 1 Tim 4:6; Titus 1:9). Only in Phil 1:1 and I Timothy 3 where it is used in association with episcopos (overseer/bishop) is it undoubtedly ‘deacon.'”
In short, the Bible refers clearly to the office of deacon only three times. Two of those three times gender is not discussed, but in the third instance (1 Timothy 3) Paul explicitly says that a deacon should be a man. However, in the same spirit of caution and humility I mentioned above, those who oppose women’s ordination must acknowledge that in at least a few instances, the use of the word diakonos is ambiguous. One of those instances is in reference to Phoebe (Rom 16:1-2).
Dan Doriani, who himself opposes women’s ordination, nonetheless acknowledges this ambiguity: “Paul commended Phoebe, a “servant” (NIV, ESV) or “deaconess” (RSV) of the church…. It is hard to tell which is correct; even complementarian scholars are divided. But the phrase “servant [or deacon] of the church” suggests that Phoebe had a recognized role in her local congregation. Clearly, Paul urges the Romans to receive Phoebe with honor….”[10] Of course, such ambiguous passages must be interpreted in the context of the full biblical narrative. Therefore, even with this ambiguity noted, it seems fair to say that the preponderance of evidence we have from Scripture and tradition leads us to the reasonable conclusion that neither sanctions women’s ordination. However, before we leave this discussion completely, we need to look more closely at an issue that we have alluded to, but we have not fully unpacked, and that is the notion of biblical ontology.
A Biblical Ontology
Christian apologist and Anglican churchman C.S. Lewis addressed the issue of women’s ordination in his famous 1948 essay “Priestesses in the Church?”[11] It is fair enough to say that Lewis opposed women’s ordination. But it would probably be more accurate to say that Lewis did not think “priestesses” were possible without changing the essential nature of Christianity. To ordain women to the priesthood would be to turn Christianity into some other religion. Lewis did not argue his point (if “argue” is even the right word for this interesting essay) from scripture, tradition, or reason – at least not directly. Instead, he went upstream from all three, to issues of ontology and epistemology – though such big words are nowhere to be found in his essay.
Lewis began his essay with a humorous excerpt from Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice:
“I should like Balls infinitely better,” said Caroline Bingley, “if they were carried on in a different manner … It would surely be much more rational if conversation instead of dancing made the order of the day.”
“Much more rational, I dare say,” replied her brother, “but it would not be near so much like a Ball.”
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, Lewis’s point is that a Ball ceases to be a Ball without dancing, even if we persist in calling it a Ball. So too (Lewis asserts by analogy) a priest ceases to be a priest if he is not male, assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. He goes on to make his analogy explicit:
I have every respect for those who wish women to be priestesses. I think they are sincere and pious and sensible people. Indeed, in a way they are too sensible. That is where my dissent from them resembles Bingley’s dissent from his sister. I am tempted to say that the proposed arrangement would make us much more rational “but not near so much like a Church.”
Lewis returns to what I am calling the “ontological argument.” To us, a priest is primarily a representative, a double representative, who represents us to God and God to us. God Himself has explicitly revealed how He wishes to be represented. To refute God’s will in this matter would be to replace God’s will with our own. We would be as God. All of these matters are why Lewis considers the issue of priestesses in the church to be not a secondary issue, but a primary one, because it refutes the way the Sovereign has chosen to represent himself in the world. It replaces God’s order with our own. Early in his essay, he says that his concerns were “theoretical,” and in 1948 they were. The church was clear on the issue of women’s ordination. Nonetheless, Lewis asserts, his theoretical thought experiment leads him to one conclusion: “Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired…or else…inspired [but] arbitrary and unessential….”
In other words, to accept that the male imagery is arbitrary is either to deny the inspiration of scripture or simply to disobey or ignore it. Neither choice should be tolerable to the orthodox Christian. Lewis goes on to say that the interchangeability of the sexes is a “legal fiction” that might have practical applications in the workplace and elsewhere but undermines the deeper realities of the Christian faith. He asserts:
It may be a useful legal fiction. But in church we turn our back on fictions. One of the ends for which sex was created was to symbolize to us the hidden things of God. One of the functions of human marriage is to express the nature of the union between Christ and the Church. We have no authority to take the living and semitive figures which God has painted on the canvas of our nature and shift them about as if they were mere geometrical figures.
Lewis admits that not all of this is strictly logical or practical. He asserts: “This is what common sense will call mystical. Exactly. The Church claims to be the bearer of a revelation. If that claim is false, then we want not to make priestesses but to abolish priests.”
J.I. Packer makes many of the same points in a 1991 essay for Christianity Today.[12] Packer’s essay considers both prudential and ontological concerns and is worth a careful read, but I focus here on his likewise unmistakable conclusion:
I am as emphatically for women’s ministry as I am against turning women into substitute men by making presbyters of them. To confine women to domestic and menial roles when God has gifted them for ministry and leadership would be Spirit-quenching, beyond doubt. Gifts are given to be used, and when God-given gifts lie fallow, whether in men or in women, the church suffers. However, by envisaging a presbyterate of manly men, the New Testament indicates that the truest womanly ministry will be distinct from this.
In short, ontological considerations come down to these two questions: What is a man, and what is a priest? If a priest is a representation of Christ, which the church has consistently taught, then we must take seriously the fact that God has chosen to reveal Himself to us as male. No matter how gifted and well-suited a woman might be for a vast array of ministry activities, the role of priest is a role that – for reasons that might remain a mystery this side of eternity – is simply not possible for a woman to fulfill. This conclusion has been the consistent teaching of not just the Anglican Church, but all forms of Christianity, for two millennia.
A Modest Proposal for a Way Forward for ACNA
So, to use the words of the Gospel of Luke: “How now shall we then live?” Is there a way forward that will allow those on both sides of this issue to move forward together, without schism, while maintaining a clear conscience before God?
I think the answer to that question is “yes,” but it will not be easy. Here are a few final observations and recommendations:
- Continuing to allow this decision to be made by the diocesan bishop is de facto a decision in favor of women’s ordination for the province. Claims that this position is “The Anglican Way” or are a via media are disingenuous. Given the reality of a non-geographic diocese and current demographics, the trend toward women being ordained to Holy Orders is inexorable. Not to decide is to decide, and it is to impose that decision on the province in a way that lacks transparency, usurps Anglican polity, and undermines the confidence in provincial leadership.
- Non-geographical dioceses had their place in the early days of ACNA, but they have become an impediment to the peace, purity, and unity of the province. They allow women who seek ordination to go “bishop shopping.” The gradual phasing out of non-geographical dioceses would return ACNA to “regular order” and bring it in line with historical Anglican polity. It would also encourage diocesan bishops with opposing positions into real dialogue, aimed at finding common ground on this issue.
- Any permanent solution would require an amendment to the ACNA constitution, which requires two-thirds vote of the provincial assembly. The next provincial assembly will take place in 2029. This is more than enough time to generate a consensus position that would win a two-third majority, and it would settle the question once and for all.
- A failure to resolve this question by then would cause many clergy and lay people to conclude that the status quo is the permanent position of the ACNA. That conclusion could lead to a crisis for the province, a crisis that – if we act now – is entirely avoidable.
Notes
- A non-Anglican who might be listening in to this family discussion, or perhaps even an Anglican who has had his faith formed in non-Anglican traditions, which includes an expansive understanding of the “priesthood of all believers,” might well question or reject ACNA’s understanding of Holy Orders altogether. However, this paper accepts as given the Anglican understanding of Holy Orders as spelled out in the 39 Articles of Religion: deacon, priest, and bishop. ↑
- Deep Anglicanism: A Brief Guide, Second Edition by Gerald R. McDermott, Nashotah House Press, 2024. P. 264. ↑
- https://www.gafcon.org/resources/a-report-on-the-gafcon-task-force-on-women-in-the-episcopate ↑
- https://anglicanchurch.net/college-of-bishops-statement-on-the-ordination-of-women/ ↑
- To be specific, as of 2023, approximately half of those in average Sunday attendance in ACNA is in a diocese that ordain women. The rough breakdown is as follows: 17 thousand in dioceses that do not ordain women as deacons or priests, 23 thousand in dioceses that ordain women as deacons but not priests, and 42 thousand that ordain women to the priesthood. ↑
- “Holy Orders in the ACNA: A Public Appeal to the College of Bishops of the ACNA,” by The Editors, North American Anglican, May 26, 2024. ↑
- Deep Anglicanism: A Brief Guide, Second Edition by Gerald R. McDermott, Nashotah House Press, 2024. Page 262. ↑
- I would add, as an aside and supplement to the section above, that the example of Jesus here also illustrates the importance and difficulty of differentiating between “primary” and “secondary” issues. What at first might appear to be a secondary issue is in fact an affront to the doctrine of the sinlessness of Jesus and even the divinity of Christ, which are essential doctrines of the Christian faith. ↑
- Ibid., 262. ↑
- Women and Ministry: What the Bible Teaches by Dan Doriani, Crossway, 2003. P. 31. ↑
- Originally published under the title “Notes on the Way,” in Time and Tide, Vol. XXIX (August 14, 1948), it was subsequently reprinted with the above title in the posthumous God in the Dock book, published by Wiilliam B. Erdmanns, Grand Rapids, MI (1970). You can find that essay online here. ↑
- “Let’s Stop Making Women Presbyters,” Christianity Today, Feb. 11, 1991. ↑
