Women's Ordination in the ACNA, Pt. II

On Anglican civics, the DFW letter, and appeals to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral

This essay isn’t a defense of WO either.

But it is (1) a detailed overview of the civic process by which the ACNA could amend their constitution to end it; (2) a critical response to the DFW’s recent reading of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, with a counter-reading; and (3) an exploration of the “validity” or “lawfulness” of WO in The 39 Articles which, obviously, it doesn’t address directly.

Note: A previously published version of this essay was not aware of the way that the authors of TAA clarified Declaration No. 8 on their FAQ page. This essay has been edited (a) to include that FAQ response and (b) to moderate my characterization of the authors’ understanding of civics.

---

By the end of June (ACNA College of Bishops Meeting, June 20-21; Provincial Council, June 22-23; Provincial Assembly, June 25-28), I expect that my posts will go back to their more basic, original content: “what I notice while reading the Bible.”

But since my reading of the Bible now has to do with my recently being made a priest, I’m going to keep commenting on the ongoing provincial conversation about Women’s Ordination (WO).

The Augustine Appeal (TAA) is not ignorant of American Anglican civics, but they believe that our bishops have a prior, “non-constrain[ed]” and “God-given authority” to “find a creative solution” to what they understand to be a problem, over and above the provincial constitution. Their eighth declaration:

8. We interpret the legal stipulations of our provincial constitution to be non-constraining of our Bishops in their stewardship and teaching of the Catholic Faith (ACNA Constitution, Art. X.1). Therefore, we are hopeful that the College of Bishops, led by the Holy Spirit and exercising their God-given authority, can find a creative solution to restore orthodoxy to Holy Orders prior to any constitutional amendment. 

The canon to which they refer (ACNA Constitution, Art. X.1) runs thusly:

The chief work of the College of Bishops shall be the propagation and defense of the Faith and Order of the Church, and in service as the visible sign and expression of the Unity of the Church.

Clarifying their understanding of Anglican civics, the authors of TAA have added this response on their FAQ page:

Can you clarify what is meant in Article 8 concerning the constitution and canons? 

We are simply asserting that the Bishops can do the right thing (vis-a-vis catholicity of orders) without being constitutionally forced to do the right thing. A robust constitution and faithful adherence thereto are essential and non-negotiable components of a healthy church. The constitution does not enjoin that the ACNA must permit women to the priesthood, therefore we are not advocating for any violation of the constitution. We are simply stating that a constitutional amendment is not the only way to attend to this issue. Moreover, the Constitution itself entrusts the Bishops with sufficient authority to resolve the issue of Orders apart from constitutional revision, since such ordering falls under the category of maintaining the Catholic Faith and Religion, as cited in the Article. It is worth noting that this is the exact method by which the Church of Latvia (an ecumenical partner of the ACNA) resolved this issue. 

If their letter is to succeed, it will require persuading the College of Bishops of the premise that the male-exclusive nature of the priesthood is an issue of “the propagation and defense of the Faith and Order of the Church,” and therefore fundamentally unconstrainable by the provincial constitution.

And, as I’m sure they know and acknowledge, it will also require, along the way, that the bishops to change the statement they made in their 2017 Vancouver Statement regarding WO:

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.

The authors of TAA disagree with the notion that “because we are a conciliar Church” that any movement toward male-exclusive ordination “would require the action of both Provincial Council and Provincial Assembly to be changed.”

Where do they get this idea? From among other places, Latvia.

Here’s a long version of the story, and here’s a short one. The Lutheran Church of Latvia began to ordain women in 1975, until a new Arcbishop placed a (temporary) moratorium on the practice in 1993. Despite some unsustained objections about procedure, 337 members of synod reached the requisite supermajority to officially amend their constitution, adding three words to Article 133: “any male candidate, who according to the regulations set by the ELCL is called by God and trained for the ministry, can seek ordination.”

Winking toward Latvia and being intentionally (though non-nefariously) vague, (at least some) TAA authors could imagine the ACNA following the same blueprint.

But perhaps the College will find Declaration No. 8 unconvincing, and so TAA’s hopes are going to have to take an amendment to achieve. In the spirit of Schoolhouse Rock (anyone?), and with the help of a series of essays by

Arlie Coles

, here’s a primer on how a bill becomes a law:

---

American Anglican Civics

First, I want to commend reading Coles’s essays, called “Church Civics: TEC vs. ACNA polity.” Just as it’s clarifying to read the United States’s founding documents in light of contemporary British political documents, it’s clarifying to understand the ways in which the ACNA has constituted itself differently to TEC.

While we wait to see whether the College of Bishops is persuaded by the TAA signatories to practice faithfulness to God by practicing civil disobedience to our constitution, here is an introduction to the civic system which they hope these bishops supersede:

Coles’s first essay explains how a “resolution” becomes an “act” in TEC and how the Provisional Council gets an “amendment” into the hands of the Provincial Assembly to “ratify.” Those interested in either undoing, halting, or pausing WO, as well as those concerned about any of those three things happening, should read this essay.

Her second essay explains how bishops become bishops, and what bishops are. Her third and fourth essays address the differences between the elections and offices of the Presiding Bishop (TEC) and the Archbishop (ACNA). Here are an over-general sketch of the differences:

The Presiding Bishop (TEC) is selected from among a slate of nominees put forward by the House of Deputies and vetted by the Joint Nominating Committee. The JNC is comprised of 5 bishops, 5 clergy, 5 lay, 2 young people (aged 16-23), and 3 more people chosen to make the JNC more culturally and geographically representative of TEC. He or she is selected by a simple majority of the House of Bishops and confirmed by a simple majority of the House of Bishops.

Once confirmed, the Presiding Bishop has a fairly general job. The PB has “lots of personal gravity and influence,” serves as the executive head of the House of Bishops, and makes pastoral visits to each of the 109 TEC dioceses over the course of their nine-year term.

The Archbishop’s (ACNA) job is a very different job. The process for his selection is not described in the Constitution, but is traditionally done by conclave. (What’s conclave like? Bp. Bill Atwood describes his experience here. Abp. Beach doesn’t: “We made a vow together before the Lord that we would be silent about our time in the Conclave.”)

Once he is chosen, he becomes the “metropolitan” of the Province. That is, not just a “leader” and a “pastor” who presides over one of two fairly equal Houses and visits each diocese, but the Province’s official head. The Archbishop chairs the (pretty small) Executive Committee, which sets the agenda for the Provincial Council. And unlike in TEC, every ACNA bishops vows “true and canonical obedience in all things lawful and honest to the Archbishop of the [ACNA]” (ACNA Constitution & Canons III.1.2; BCP, p. 499). The C&C invest the Archbishop with a small handful of other unilateral powers. For more, read Coles’s pieces.

---

How this will have to work

Whether the College of Bishops issues a moratorium or No, the end game will be the ratification of an amendment.

That amendment would be have to be “proposed” and “adopted” by the Provincial Council (PC) during their annual meeting, on June 22-23 of this year so that it can be heard at the next meeting of the Provincial Assembly (PA), on June 25-28. That would be quick, and it would require Abp. Foley Beach to make an enormous and surprising “lame duck” decision.

If the Provincial Council can’t get it together in the next two weeks, they’ll have to wait five years for the next meeting of the PA (June 2029) to put it on their agenda and to get it heard then.

But regardless of the timeline, this would be the voting requirement:

The PC, like the U.S. Senate, is composed of equal delegations from each of the 29 dioceses. A delegation includes four members—one bishop, one non-bishop clergy, and two lay people—totaling 116 people. To pass an amendment on to the PA for amendment would require a simple majority of (59) votes (although this number changes, of course, as the number of dioceses change).

The PA, like the U.S. House of Representatives, is composed of proportionate delegations based on average Sunday attendance (ASA). Those delegations include all a diocese’s active bishops (1-4), two clergy, two lay people, and then an additional clergyperson and additional lay person per additional full (not rounded, C&C I.2.3) 1,000 ASA reported in the diocese.

For those interested, here is some of the most recent data on ASA and WO. Notably, based on these 2022 numbers, the 17 dioceses that do not ordain women to the priesthood would receive 50 additional delegates (25 clergy + 25 lay), whereas the 11 dioceses that do ordain women to the priesthood would receive 76 additional delegates (38 clergy + 38 lay).

In order to be ratified, an amendment passed by the PC has to receive an affirmative vote from a two-thirds supermajority of the PA. Based on these attendance numbers alone, it doesn’t look likely that the Non-WO party will get their amendment passed. So what are they hoping will happen, procedurally speaking? A number of things would help their cause:

1. Non-WO bishops to speak more frankly and persuasively to their brother bishops who are WO. Those bishops, if so persuaded, could inspire change at the diocesan level, or at least stack their delegation with Non-WO voting clergy and laity.

2. Non-WO clergy and laity within WO or Dual Integrity dioceses could seek to get onto their diocesan delegations, whether to the PC or to the PA. Campaigning, which can often be smarmy, can also be sincere. Get after it, fellas.

3. Get more delegates by getting more people to go to church. Here are a couple of really interesting numbers:

   1. The (WO) Diocese of the Southwest reported an ASA of 994. Six more people per Sunday (312 total more butts-in-seats over 52 weeks) would have given them two more delegates to the PA. The (WO) Diocese of the Great Lakes reported an ASA of 1,949—just 51 weekly members shy of two more PA delegates.

   2. The (Non-WO) Diocese of Fort Worth, like several other dioceses, has lots of members that don’t go to church. They reported 8,987 members, but an ASA of only 3,818. That’s an attendance rate of 42.5%. On the WO side, only 8,353 of the 18,007 members of the Diocese of South Carolina (46.4%) showed up.

The data shows that more people go to WO churches in the ACNA, and the consequence is that they get more delegates. And despite the facts that the Archbishop (like the College of Bishops) has more authority than TEC’s Presiding Bishop, and the PC (which is 75% clergy) is the only body which may propose new legislation, amendments remain a democratic process.

If the authors of TAA do not succeed in persuading the College of Bishops to circumvent the constitutional amendment process, they’re going to have to put their energy into three other efforts: (a) persuading present or future PC/PA delegates; (b) becoming the kinds of people chosen to join PC/PA delegations; and (c) simply getting more people to go to your dioceses’ churches. They may cry foul play (cf. “We believe that the unresolved issue of women’s ordination to the priesthood imperils the mission of our Province”), but legislation remains a steep numbers game, and you’ve got to keep running the race to win the prize.

---

Appealing to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral

Three days ago, on June 4th, the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Fort Worth (DFW) published a unanimous resolution, signed by its president, The Rev. Timothy M. Matkin, “calling for full communion within the [ACNA].”

Practically, they are calling for the realization of this goal “through the bishops implementing a moratorium on the ordination of women to the priesthood until such time as the college of bishops can come to a common mind on the theology of the practice.”

Here’s what DFW means: “Full communion necessitates the interchangeability of clergy and sacraments from bishop to bishop and diocese to diocese. Without the mutual recognition of orders, there can be no communicatio in sacris.” And later: “The practical problem of the ordination of women is that we have some churches and altars where this sacrament of the Supper of the Lord is not recognized as true and valid throughout the province, bringing up the question: Can we even consider ourselves a church, by definition, as long as this is the case?”

The resolution appeals to the 1886 Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral as a mediating document, referring to No. 3 of the four “inherent parts of [the] sacred deposit” which are “essential to the restoration of unity among the divided branches of Christendom.” In the words of the Resolution:

Number 3 is “The two Sacraments,--Baptism and the Supper of the Lord,--ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s words of institution and of the elements ordained by him.”

By referring to “Number 3,” the DFW means that “the consecration of the Holy Eucharist requires a validly ordained priest,” by which they both (a) acknowledge that at “some churches and altars… this sacrament… is not recognized as true and valid” and (b) implicitly communicate their position that a woman ordained to the priesthood in the ACNA is not “a validly ordained priest.”

Further, DFW finds the issue of WO to be a “first order issue in the Church,” and their position to be “[truth] revealed from heaven.” They “strongly affirm” and “celebrate” the role of women in “ministry and leadership” as “essential to our mission [etc.],” but WO to be an “innovation in faith and order” and an “[impairment] of communion.”

---

I don’t know what “my” response is, but I do want to play defense attorney for a moment. And in order to do it, I’d offer two points in response:

1. The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral can also be read in favor of WO.

Look again at “inherent part” Number 3: “The two Sacraments,--Baptism and the Supper of the Lord,--ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s words of institution and of the elements ordained by him.”

Each of the two sacraments has two essential aspects:

1. unfailing use of Christ’s words of institution

2. unfailing use of the elements ordained by him

Does not a Eucharist celebrated by a lawfully ordained woman, which uses both Christ’s words of institution and the elements of bread and wine meet these requirements?

The reception and use of the four points of the Quadrilateral are complex. For an introduction, read this 1996 paper by priest and theologian, Robert Slocum. It shows, among other things, the ways in which the agenda of the Quadrilateral’s author—TEC House of Deputies leader, William Reed Huntington—differed from the more general agenda of the bishops who adopted it. Huntington’s goals, oversimplified, were (a) to develop a more ecumenical alternative to “The 39 Articles” (T39A); and (b) to strip Anglicanism of England’s “picturesque costume,” thereby facilitating in America “the only fair trial [the Anglican principle] has ever had.”

Discerning authorial intent seems to be the wrong move. And discerning conciliar reception history doesn’t seem to be the goal of the signatories of TAA. Citing one of its lines as a defeater of WO is negligent of the fact that TEC still makes use of the Quadrilateral.

The DFW doesn’t do this. I’m just making the point that it’s not so simple as quoting the Quadrilateral.

The Pro-WO reading of the Quadrilateral would cite an earlier declaration by the House of Bishops in their (1886) adoption of Huntington’s Quadrilateral: “that in all things of human ordering or human choice… the Church is ready… to forego all preferences of her own.”

The Pro-WO reading of the Quadrilateral could respond to the DFW by appealing to them, in the spirit of full communion, “to forego all preferences of her own” and to adopt the constitutional position of their province by opening her churches and altars to the women who have been lawfully ordained therein.

This is the real disagreement. The Non-WO position asserts that the principle of sex-restriction is, in the words of the DFW, “[a truth] revealed from heaven.” The WO position is not persuaded by that claim. Is sex-restriction instituted by God, or is it an issue of human ordering? That, I believe our constituents are showing us, is an important theological question for a conciliar church to address. What will our bishops do?

2. The DFW has not adequately defended their positions that women’s ordinations are invalid, or that women-celebrated Eucharists are de facto invalid.

How do you define validity?

That’s another point of disagreement that I don’t have the chops to resolve. What I’ll do, rather, is express my doubt about these claims about invalidity based on my reading of T39A.

T39A, to be fair, does not have the issue of WO in view. It addresses quite different issues. Still, here’s how it could be read to bear on the questions of the validity of women’s orders and of women-celebrated Eucharists. I don’t expect to persuade any DFW rectors of this reading, but I offer it nonetheless. I’ll quote and comment on the article I think are relevant:

Article 19: Of the Church

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

Due administration is not broadly “biblical,” but narrowly “according to Christ’s ordinance.” Is the biblical argument for Christ’s exclusion of women from the priesthood (a) an argument from silence? (b) an argument from the principle that Christ upholds Torah and male governance and male priesthood are Torah? (c) an argument that Christ is the “Word” spoken by Paul in his instructions to Timothy?

Demonstrate that Christ himself instituted a male priesthood, and then you have an argument. I would argue that Christ instituted no priests—that apostles are not the first priesthood, but the symbolic recapitulations of the patriarchs, only one of whom had priests come from his line.

Article 23: Of Ministering in the Congregation

It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord's vineyard.

There’s an important distinction here in the words “lawfully called and sent.” Are there women in the ACNA who have been ordained to the priesthood according to the canons of their diocese, and “chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the Congregation”?

Certainly.

Elsewhere in Christendom, perhaps even in the ACNA—I do not know—have their been women who have had their ordinations fast-tracked for all sorts of illegitimate reasons?

Certainly.

But we can’t conflate the two situations. Unless you take “lawfully” to refer to the implicit ordinances of God which are not articulated in the C&C, you have to acknowledge the lawful ordination of women, even if you don’t think it should be happening. That’s what happens, for example, in the dual integrity diocese in which I am currently licensed and ministering. One of our bishops has said, on record, that he does not believe that ordaining women to the priesthood is a good idea, but he recognizes their “lawful” ordinations anyway.

Article 25: Of the Sacraments

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

Lots of words in this one, but no outright defeaters.

This article surfaces the notion that the sacraments are the “effectual signs of grace” that should make us very serious about whom we ordain to the (celebrating) priesthood. This motivates the DFW (explicitly) and (I imagine also) the TAA signatories.

Article 26: Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments.

Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men. Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed.

This article distinguishes between “good” and “evil” ministers and does not, therefore, directly address our question.

I actually think that the Pro-WO appeals to this article are bad. For those who say, “So maybe women are evil. Don’t worry—you still get your grace.” No, I think this is simply a different question and that to invoke this article is to invoke a red herring.

Article 28: Of the Lord’s Supper

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

As with Article 25, I only quote this article to point out that there’s nothing much here either for or against the sex of the celebrant.

Article 29: Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper.

The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

I have not hear this article used in this way, but I can imagine a Non-WO parishioner thinking that, to partake in a women-celebrated Eucharist would be to betray the faith, to fail to partake in Christ, and to eat rather to their own condemnation.

To that person, I would assure them, via Article 26, not to worry about their own wickedness, but to attribute wickedness, if they must, to the celebrant. But even Non-WO clergy don’t go quite this far.

The Rev. Dr. Greg Peters, a priest in the REC, says this:

If women cannot be priests then they are unable to “do” these dominical, salvific sacraments. They are not, then, offering grace and salvation to God’s people but empty, graceless copies of the real thing. They are offering, even promising, something that they, in fact, cannot provide. And what’s at stake? Salvation!

The issue is not that participating in a woman-celebrated Eucharist redounds to condemnation, but that it doesn’t redound to celebration. This at least offers the parishioner the right to boycott such a celebration. The woman celebrant is not doing bad; she just isn’t doing good—that is, she isn’t doing… anything.

Is this enough to permit the conscience of a DFW parishioner to “wager” their participation, so long as they make sure they also have access to a male-celebrated Eucharist?

I’ll add, too, that this concern assumes the post-13th century understanding of Holy Orders: that a priest ordained in one community is a priest for the worldwide Church. Again, this may be what Jesus wanted, but Jesus didn’t get it until the Fourth Lateran Council.

Article 36: Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers

The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering: neither hath it any thing, that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the forenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same Rites; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.

What is this book?

“There was no Ordinal in the first English Prayer Book (1549), but ‘The Form and Manner of Making and Consecrating of Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons’ was published in 1550.” Read the rest of the explanation here.

We don’t use a separate ordinal anymore, let alone that ordinal. Our ordinal is now simply a part of our BCP. And this article seems straightforwardly to support the validity of the orders lawfully received by women in the ACNA. At the very least, it finally defines “lawfully.” Read again: “Whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book… or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same Rites; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.”

Burden of proof seems to be on the “Their orders are not valid” party.

And it’s worth resting the response here: Based on Article 37 of T39A, and the decidedly (2017) conciliar nature of the ACNA, all women ordained by our bishops and books are “lawfully” and “validly” ordained, whether or not they should have been. This may not salve the concerns of the DFW, but it may at least contradict them. It suggests taking the opposite lesson from the Quadrilateral and, for the sake of Church unity, opening their churches and altars to lawfully-ordained women.

Revoking orders seems flatly wrong.

The “moratorium” for which they are calling is another question, and I don’t know yet what are the canonical grounds for calling one of those or into which office(s) that power is invested.