Dear Right Reverend Fathers in Christ,
The creation of the Anglican Church in North America was a momentous event by our Lord Jesus Christ. He called and created a united body of His Church to address, rebuke, and refute the erroneous and heretical doctrines of the Episcopal Church and abroad. Our union constitutionally necessitated an agreement to disagree as to women ordained as presbyters and deacons, but firmly agreed women are ineligible to serve as bishop. (See Archbishop Authorizes A Theological Task Force On Holy Orders, para. 1, Oct. 20, 2012). This agreement to disagree was regrettably termed, “dual integrities.” This phrase is disingenuous and an oxymoron, as the College of Bishops united under common agreement that a task force would be created to evaluate this critical source of disunity within this body of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
As you recall, the College received the Task Force Report and unanimously responded with a joint statement. Therefore, you can understand my pause for concern that a bishop has publicly stated, “The Anglican Church in North America, and the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina, and I, as bishop, are deeply committed to the idea that both those who favor women’s ordination, and those who oppose it, do so in fidelity to scripture and are both welcomed and valued in our common life” (emphasis added). This is confusing and incorrect as it relates to our Province. Further confusion has been created as another bishop has united behind this misstatement.
Unanimously the College held 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.” As the Presiding Bishop for the Reformed Episcopal Church noted regarding this section of the joint statement, “These comments negate the notion that both practices have an equal ‘dual integrity.’ As the report concludes, ‘Both positions cannot be right.’ The College of Bishops upheld this viewpoint.” Despite the innovative nature of women’s ordination, the College recognized the canonical reality in the joint statement: “However, we continue to acknowledge that individual dioceses have constitutional authority to ordain women to the priesthood.”
This clear statement was attacked by those who hold a variety of opinions from the day it was released because it did not constitutionally settle the matter, nor could it do so without an amendment properly brought and passed by the Provincial Assembly. However, the bishop’s recent statement causes further confusion by stating the Province is “deeply committed to the idea that both those who favor women’s ordination, and those who oppose it, do so in fidelity to scripture and are both welcomed and valued in our common life.” The College of Bishop’s unanimous statement demonstrates “insufficient scriptural warrant” for one to promote this innovation with fidelity to the Holy Scriptures.
Unfortunately, contravention exists in the following statement: “I, as your bishop, believe that the ordination of women comports with the teaching of scripture, most importantly, and is not ruled out by the tradition of the church” (emphasis added). This runs contrary to the College’s unanimous statement that women’s ordination “is a recent innovation to the Apostolic Tradition and Catholic Order” therefore by definition it cannot be supported and is precisely ruled out by “the tradition of the church” (emphasis added). This Province is bound to uphold the faith once delivered, whether Holy Scripture or Apostolic tradition, thereby requiring rejection of innovation: “brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15, Authorized Version).
My dear fathers in Christ, we took an oath to uphold the Scriptures, to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of Christ as this Church has received them, to teach and exhort wholesome doctrine, to withstand and convince those who contradict it, and to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word. This erroneous misstatement needs more than clarification; we as a Province need true unity in conformance with the Holy Scriptures, Apostolic Tradition, and Catholic Order. We are united by Christ and to each other by His Spirit. Through His Holy Spirit, we assented to, and also framed our Constitution with, seven Fundamental Declarations. These Fundamental Declarations bound us not only to the Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition but also to the Catholic Order received in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer with Ordinal attached and in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. The Jerusalem Declaration, bound within our 2019 Book of Common Prayer, and assented to by our Province, echoes these Fundamental Declarations, specifically stating, “We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.” My point is simply this: our Anglican Formularies neither recognize nor authorize women in ordained ministry, and these Formularies are our standards in addition to the Scriptures and tradition. If we identify ourselves as Anglicans through the Fundamental Declarations and Jerusalem Declaration, yet either ignore them or only follow them in part, then are we truly Anglicans?
Allowing an innovation of the late 20th Century will lead to innovations in the 21st Century. Therefore, let us seek true unity with one another. The Scriptures admonish us, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3, Authorized Version). Furthermore, our Savior tells us, “let your ‘yes’ be ‘yes’ and your ‘no,’ ‘no.’” (Matthew 5:37, New King James Version). I see the time for unity has never been clearer as we face an ever-growing and ever-hostile world that does not understand the role of God’s image-bearers as male and female. This Province cannot continue to allow confusion in teaching the faithful, where laity and inquirers alike could receive two different teachings depending upon their geography, oftentimes dependent upon which parish they attend within the same town. This is a repetition of the false unity and error of the Canterbury-led Anglican Communion.
I urge you, as the College of Bishops, to lead by calling upon the amending of our Constitution and Canons. I implore you, as a Province, to lead by calling upon our partners in GAFCON and the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches to do the same. I beg you, as bishops and overseers under the good Shepherd and great Overseer of our souls – Christ our Lord – to lead by enacting the statement unanimously endorsed, by covenanting together as a College to refrain from further ordination of women, and by immediately resurrecting the order of deaconesses.
Providentially, the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul fell within this week. I say “providentially” because the collect for this feast is an anchor and a reminder to keep the same faith that St. Paul imparted to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. May each of us, especially this sinner, prayerfully live the collect for the feast: O God, who, through the preaching of the blessed apostle Saint Paul, hast caused the light of gospel to shine throughout the world: Grant, we beseech thee, that we, having his wonderful conversion in remembrance, may show forth our thankfulness unto thee for the same, by following the holy doctrine which he taught, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Author’s Note: This was submitted to my Bishop, the ordinary of the Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy, for his consideration and was published with his permission.
'An Open Letter to the College of Bishops' have 19 comments
January 26, 2024 @ 4:37 pm PWH
Thank you for sending this letter to the proper authorities, and for publishing it here. You are saying nothing except the truth of the Scriptures backed by the statements of the College of Bishops in their unanimous statement. This issue has been tolerated, divisive as it is, within the ACNA because some people did not wish to offend others, but, as you say, it has been stated (politely) that there is “insufficient Scriptural warrant”. When an ACNA bishop comes out and says that there IS such warrant, he MUST be called out. I am glad that you and others are doing so. Things are only going to get more unpleasant, but we know that the Lord has this development in His hands and will bring to pass what HE wants.
January 26, 2024 @ 5:20 pm Marissa Burt
Why leave off the first portion of the statement the bishops’ made in 2017, specifically “we acknowledge that there are differing principles of ecclesiology and hermeneutics that are acceptable within Anglicanism that may lead to divergent conclusions regarding women’s ordination to the priesthood”?
Probably best to include the entire statement in full:
“Having gratefully received and thoroughly considered the five-year study by the Theological Task Force on Holy Orders, we acknowledge that there are differing principles of ecclesiology and hermeneutics that are acceptable within Anglicanism that may lead to divergent conclusions regarding women’s ordination to the priesthood. However, we also acknowledge that this practice 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.”
Personally, I believe the bishops when they say in the preamble that they prayerfully gathered and agreed to mutual submission on this.
Perhaps instead of presuming otherwise, we might consider how best to do (regardless of personal preference re: WO), we undertake the task they laid before us:
“As a College of Bishops, we confess that our Province has failed to affirm adequately the ministry of all Christians as the basic agents of the work of the Gospel. We have not effectively discipled and equipped all Christians, male and especially female, lay and ordained, to fulfill their callings and ministries in the work of God’s kingdom. We repent of this and commit to work earnestly toward a far greater release of the whole Church to her God-given mission.”
January 27, 2024 @ 12:07 pm Seth
Marissa,
The bishops should repent for having allowed WO in the first place, and they should work to heal the gaping wound they’ve allowed to fester for over a decade. The cure will be severe and painful, but it must be performed: laicize all women that have been ordered as priests and deacons, amend the constitution and canons to never again allow the ordination of women to Holy Orders, and (re-)establish the order of deaconess. Anything less than these actions of repentance from the bishops is effectively apostasy from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church – a Church that has never ordained women to any of the three Holy Orders for nearly 2,000 years on the basis of both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition.
January 27, 2024 @ 3:05 pm Marissa Burt
Seth,
I disagree with you on multiple counts, including that the church has not ever ordained women. As much as we see the Holy Orders in Scripture (which I don’t think is very robustly outlined) we see women occupying them in the Scriptures. There is also evidence women occupied other ordained offices throughout church history (eg EO ordained deaconesses well into the 8th or 9th century, sacred art, etc), but I can understand how this would not be compelling for those who prioritize tradition.
One of the biggest problems I have with this definitive take is that it dismisses countless corners of the Church across time, culture, and history that do not operate by Anglican formularies, Holy Orders, etc. I appreciate the Anglican Tradition, but I do not think we have an exclusive corner on Christ’s Church or that the standards of scrupulosity inherent in the fervor of your statement are attainable for the Church as a whole. I don’t mean to say that we can’t hold strong convictions – and I respect the consciences of my brothers in particular who are against WO – but I do not think this is a matter of apostasy on either side.
If you’d like to converse more on this, I’m happy to, but I have a sense your mind is made up.
February 8, 2024 @ 4:11 am Petros
No where is scripture were women ordained to the office of presbyter and bishop. Deaconess was a lay ministry position, it should be brought back. The church did not ordain women to these offices in it 2,000 year history. As Anglicans we do hear from other traditions: The RC and the EO both reject the practice. Confessional Lutherans and confessional reform reject it. Even most Baptist who don’t have a sacramental system reject it.
January 26, 2024 @ 6:59 pm Fr, Alan L Heatherington
Courageous, Biblical and needful. When we crack these doors, we are opening ourselves to the very hypocrisy and apostacy of Lambeth and TEC. Do we offend some by holding a hard line? So has the Church of Jesus Christ offended those who depart from the true faith throughout our history. “Innovation” is a thinly disguised cloak for departure from Scripture, tradition and reason. “Accommodation” is a circumlocution for “compromise.”
January 26, 2024 @ 11:02 pm Briane Turley
I am confused. It is my understanding that ACNA views Holy Order non-sacramentally, or something akin to a license to preach. In 2017 an ACNA bishop declared my ordinations as Deacon and Presbyter nullified and “dissolved,” after I sought transfer to an Anglo-Catholic diocese. Even as an Episcopal priest, I was under the impression that only God could nullify my character as a priest and that a bishop could, at worst, inhibit a priest with whom he disagreed. With such a low view of ordination in tow, why shouldn’t ACNA license/ordain women pastors?
January 29, 2024 @ 10:54 am Tyler
“why shouldn’t ACNA license/ordain women pastors?”
Brother, does the bible allow for the ordination of women, yes or no? That’s the question, and the answer is no.
“But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.” Matt. 13:36
February 2, 2024 @ 7:05 am Rhonda Merrick
I don’t think the bishops of ACNA have a very united view of what Holy orders are. It depends on the bishop, how catholic or low-church Protestant he is.
January 27, 2024 @ 1:10 am Ay
A MATTER OF CONFLICTS OF ROLES, FUNCTIONS AND INTERESTS IN A FAMILY/CHURCH
I must confess there are confusions everywhere even sometimes within a family, Church/Diocese
A typical African Man will say “It is only in a dysfunctional community /home that a Woman (wife) takes the role of a Man (husband) and be said to have been successful in doing so”
Secondly, when a child takes the role of his/her parents and he/she is applauded for even doing better than the parents, that says a lot about the failure of such parents
Having said these, I think there are specific roles and functions every member of a family is expected to play in the family and if ahead without confusion and conflict of interests, the result will be a functional and enviable family and this is also applicable to the Church (Rom. 12:4-8). Even in the theology of the “Priesthood of all believers” (1 Pet. 2:9 ) we have the ecclesiastical Priesthood. This means there are roles and functions for everyone to play as every member of the family will not be the Father or take his roles
If “a recent innovation” which has not scriptural backing will be accepted and allowed in a family / Church in every century, there will come a time in which roles and functions will become a thing of the past in the Family/Church
As part of the confusion in the Communion, permit me to ask this question and I sincerely need clarification
Where or what is the place of ” REASON” as part of the tripod (Scripture, Tradition, and Reason) in which the Anglican Communion stands if “recent innovation” without cultural backing of this type will not continue to have its place in the Coomunion going forward?
Will “REASON” not continue to give room for such a thing?
Here is my submission as I continue to use my Family/Church analogy. The Woman (wife) has her God-given roles/functions to fulfill in the family / Church for the family/ Church to remain what it is without her being the Man(husband/ ordain Priest ) in the family/ Church
These roles and functions are required of her to be who God has made her to be in the Family/Church for a family / Church to bear her true meaning otherwise in a subsequent time more ” recent innovation” without scriptural backing will call God’s institutions what is not
January 27, 2024 @ 1:20 am Adam
Fr. Andrew, I am concerned that you seem to be presenting the College of Bishops’ statement as applying to the ordination of women in all orders, when in fact it addresses only the priesthood. The diaconate is not addressed in the statement.
To be clear, I understand your position as being opposed to women in all orders, and I don’t wish to debate that. I just want to make sure the statement from the College of Bishops is understood correctly.
January 27, 2024 @ 8:59 am J
See the second to last paragraph “refrain from further ordination of women, and by immediately resurrecting the order of deaconesses”
January 27, 2024 @ 5:16 am Gerry T. Neal
The words “recent innovation” say it all. There is no such thing as a recent innovation “to” the Apostolic Tradition. If it us a recent innovation it is “away from” the Apostolic Tradition, the “faith once delivered unto the saints” and must be condemned. If it is not a move away from the Apostolic Tradition then it must be implicit within the original deposit of faith. For example, when the Apistles received the faith at first the words “consubstantial” or “homoousuos” were not used. The idea they represent was implicit in the faith as originally received but it took the good part of four centuries to hammer down the definition of “ousia” and “substantia” in reference to the Being of God, His Divine essence and Godhead, that homoousios/cobsubstantial could be used in the Creed with the meaning with which orthodox Christians understand them. That the Persons of the Trinity are numerically one in essence is plain in the New Testament, however, so the concept was there all along. Women’s ordination is not like this. The argument has been made that the New Testament establishes a direction or movement that points teleologically to women’s argument. Jesus, according to this argument, treated women in a way that was closer to sexual egalitarianism than the culture If His day permitted setting some sort of precedent for the Church moving even further in that direction as the culture does. The problem with that is that the New Testament is quite explicit in opposition to this particular move, the general cultural shift towards sexual egalitarianism is rooted in anti-Christian liberal and Marxist ideas, and the decades since women’s ordination was introduced have shown that it leads to further departure from the Scriptural truth of Apostolic Tradition. That Jesus’ treatment of women has egalitarianism as its ultimate telos is a highly dubious assertion. That further apostasy is the telos in women’s ordination seems quite evident.
January 27, 2024 @ 10:39 am Sudduth Rea Cummings
I’m grateful for the clarity and wisdom of this article. It accords with my understanding of doctrine reagrading the issue of ordinations.
January 29, 2024 @ 9:10 am Fr. Justin Clemente
Fr. Andrew:
Amen, and thank you for posting this to our College of Bishops. I welcome the fact that Calvin\’s address has opened this discussion up in a wider way. In my experience in the ACNA, there is far too much silence and far too little teaching around Holy Orders. For some dioceses (DOMA is an example), this issue is all but a done deal. The ship needs to be turned around at a provincial level for the ACNA to stay healthy and move toward greater unity in our confessions of the Faith. As I\’ve often said, right now we\’re trading short-term gains for long-term losses. Dual Integrities simply can\’t be maintained – pragmatically or theologically. We need bold, loving leadership from the top (which our bishops have given us on other issues, but not here). May God bless and lead our Fathers in God into the same.
January 29, 2024 @ 1:31 pm Sudduth Rea Cummings
Granted that ACNA is tempted to duplicate the “big tent” approach that proved to be the undoing of TEC, shouldn’t it resist that temptation? Unless there is a desire to repeat the errors of the past, would it not behoove our leadership to steer a clear route to the Biblical and historical threefold order of male only bishops, priests and deacons?
January 29, 2024 @ 1:32 pm Sudduth Rea Cummings
All the above comments regarding ordination are interesting and cover the spectrum of Anglican thought. Granted that ACNA is tempted to duplicate the “big tent” approach that proved to be the undoing of TEC, shouldn’t it resist that temptation? Unless there is a desire to repeat the errors of the past, would it not behoove our leadership to steer a clear route to the Biblical and historical threefold order of male only bishops, priests and deacons?
February 1, 2024 @ 3:31 pm Hugh
Yes, very silly indeed!
Hence, dioceses (made up of bishops, priests, et. al.)
have \”constitutional authority\” to carry out \”a recent innovation to Apostolic Tradition and Catholic Order,\”
which suffers from \”insufficient scriptural warrant to… [adopt as] standard practice throughout the Province\”???\”
February 1, 2024 @ 3:33 pm Hugh
Yes, very silly indeed!
Hence, dioceses (made up of bishops, priests, et. al.)
have ”constitutional authority” to carry out ”a recent innovation to Apostolic Tradition and Catholic Order,”
which suffers from ”insufficient scriptural warrant to… [adopt as] standard practice throughout the Province”??”