Take the Slack Out of the Lines: An Addendum to Canon Ashey’s “Turning the Church into the Winds”

I was heartened to see the Rev. Canon Phil Ashey’s series of articles which respond to and build upon Warren Cole Smith’s assessment of the existential challenges affecting the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). I was particularly interested in his second installment: Turning the Church into the Winds: Church Discipline, Canon Law, and Women’s Ordination. Thankfully, Ashey acknowledges Smith’s main concern that there are truly existential crises in the ACNA which must be addressed head-on if we desire this humble barque of Christ’s Church to keep sailing. As Ashey says, we must turn the ship into the wind.

However, heading into the wind means nothing if your lines are slack. Isaiah warns the people of Israel that their “ship’s tackle hangs slack; it cannot hold the base of its mast firmly, nor spread out the sail” (Is 33:23). When heading into the wind, the boat must tack in order to stay on course. To do so is a delicate procedure that when done improperly – either with slack lines or a hesitant hand on the tiller – leaves the boat “in irons.” A boat caught in irons is stalled facing into the wind; it is unable to move and has no drive from its sails. It is dead in the water. Often the only way to get out of irons is to go backwards, regain the wind, and try again. This is what Ashey hopes to avoid. He writes: “This is a work worth doing, and doing well. Rather than writing off those with whom we disagree, pray that our bishops will do this good work.”

To this, I heartily agree. There are many other Anglican jurisdictions (not to mention Apostolic Churches) with traditional understandings of Holy Orders where I could find a home without contention on this issue; however, I believe the ACNA has a unique calling and purpose to reach North America with the transforming love of Jesus Christ. I believe this ship is worth sailing in. Yet, if we don’t keep our rigging tight, if we don’t heave in on our lines before we tack, we will luff the sails, get caught in irons, and be forced to heave about.

To continue the seafaring analogy (I hope you will forgive an old sailor); the ACNA is changing tack. The position on Dual-Integrities (or “local option” as Ashey refers to it) concerning Women’s Ordination – which was undoubtedly a necessary compromise at the formation of the Province – has run its course. Ashey acknowledges this and offers a succinct and workable solution to swing the jib around in a conciliar way which is reflective of our Anglican heritage and ecclesiology. In many ways, Ashey’s recommendation demonstrates the wisdom in the (often uncharitably interpreted) thesis of the Augustine Appeal that “the legal stipulations of our provincial constitution [are] non-constraining of our Bishops in their stewardship and teaching of the Catholic Faith.”

As Ashey notes: “There is nothing preventing the archbishop and ACNA College of Bishops from following this Anglican conciliar process in addressing Women’s Ordination…[T]his work is exactly within the authority our Bishops have been given and cannot delegate away—to guard the faith and order of the Church.” It is precisely this sort of episcopal authority and responsibility for which the Augustine Appeal advocates.

But here I would like to offer an addendum to Ashey’s proposal in order that we not luff our sails and get caught in irons. Before the long, hard, and prayerful work that Ashey proposes can begin, we must keep our lines taut. To that end, I would humbly encourage our College of Bishops to agree to a mutual moratorium on the ordination of women to the presbyterate.

Why a moratorium?

Because it is a charitable compromise. Compromise is a dirty word in our current climate, but without it we will swing the jib without warning and someone will get hurt or even inadvertently get knocked overboard.

Ashey is absolutely right – there are godly and heroic women in Holy Orders who have given their lives’ work to this Province. Whatever is ultimately decided, their sacrifice ought to be honored and cherished. A moratorium allows them to continue functioning fully within their spheres of canonical authority. Although often seen as a “victory” for those who advocate for a traditional understanding of Holy Orders, a moratorium is by no means a victory – as I see it. Either way, the kingdom of God isn’t built on compassionless victories, or as Ashey writes: “what will we gain if we win our position on Women’s Ordination, and lose our Christ-formed humility and love?” Rather than seeking the laicization of women priests, a moratorium necessitates granting the sacrifice of those godly women who have faithfully served this church and allows them to keep their vocation in the midst of this contention.

But a moratorium is also clearly a compromise for those proponents of Women’s Ordination. They must set aside their canonical prerogative for the well-being of the whole. There is no dispute concerning whether or not each Bishop is allowed to determine for himself whether or not he will ordain a woman (Article IV.2); but as St. Paul commends, even if we do not personally understand a practice to be sinful, we still ought to refrain from it if it would harm a fellow brother or sister for whom Christ died (1 Corinthians 8:9–13).

Ashey commends – following the Task Force on Holy Orders – that we “recognize the need for unity in the face of the neo-pagan North American mission field.” If I may, an argument for gospel unity that does not ground that unity in the objective and unchanging truth of the gospel is no different than the argument made by The Episcopal Church. Refusing to accept dual-integrities on Holy Matrimony is hypocritical if we accept the same dual-integrity on Holy Order. Only a moratorium can keep us from hypocrisy. It will keep tension on the lines – both sides will feel the pressure to resolve the issue. Moreover, it prevents the issue from growing more and more intractable – which it does with the ordination of each new female presbyter.

A personal conclusion:

I am the father of three young daughters. Our culture has completely lost any ability to coherently teach them what it means to be a woman. As such, my wife and I are obligated to do so within our home and, Lord willing, within the parish. Unfortunately, however, our Church also has lost its ability to distinguish between men and women in her ordained ministry. We have lost sight of the beautiful and unique charism that God has bestowed upon His daughters. Instead, we have told them that to have any vocational value in His eyes they need to look like His sons. How can I raise my daughters well in the midst of this? How do I teach them with conviction when the Church lacks any conviction on this issue? More acutely, when my daughter tells me: “Daddy, when I grow up, I want to be a priest just like you.” How do I respond? If in the affirmative, I deny my convictions; if in the negative, what about the women she sees serving at the altar within her own province? If for no other reason, we ought to arrive at a definitive resolution for the sake of the young daughters of our parishes growing up wanting to know where God is calling them.

For all intents and purposes, we are already in irons. Either we will take the slack out of our lines and pray that God may allow us to change tack without losing to the wind, or we will end up running with the wind. In order to sail into the wind, we need to keep tension on our lines – and tension requires each side to pull taut. Without a moratorium to maintain this tension, I fear that we will simply allow the wind of the zeitgeist to fill our sails.