WO remains a problem and also a new prayer book. I am fully sympathetic with ACNA and would like to see an new North American provence. I hope this turns out to be more than a geographical cure.

WO is the rock upon which the ship of ACNA will founder.  It should have been decided from the outset.  It is certainly a first-order issue to many of us.

But then, Evan, ACNA almost certainly wouldn’t have got Pittsburgh.

I think the point about women’s ordination in TEC is that it was a secular mandate, like gay ordination, looking for both blessing and a place to triumph…and in the end a trojan horse bringing in both cases assumptions that served to undermine historic Christianity.

ACNA needs to not repeat the mistakes of the past, meaning to not allow itself to be victimized by a secular agenda, but rather in subjection to scripture and tradition to decide on theological grounds what its determination will be on this and a whole range of issues.

So we need to slow it down, reorder the arguments to fit theological and biblical, not secular, categories, and wait upon the Holy Spirit, so we don’t just become the Episcopal Church reincarnate.

That would have been a tragedy, Jeremy, but better that, than to have this ticking timebomb in our midst.  It won’t go away, and there will be a reckoning.

Oh, I’m inclined to agree with you, as it happens. And, of course, it’s not confined to North America; how can you ultimately relate to the Province of Kenya, if WO is a first order issue?

Jeremy,
On a personal basis, with parishes and dioceses that ordain women, I simply don’t attend services where a female will be the celebrant.  In provinces where there are purported women bishops, things become more difficult as absent direct knowledge, their presence casts doubt on the validity of the orders of all priests and deacons in the province whose ordination came afterward.

I think the AB of ACNA will eventually go along with no WO: he already has compromised on women Bishops (much to the chagrin of some Pittsburgh priests) and will no doubt argue for unity he must do so.  He is too political to have this fight in the ACNA

Prophecy is always dangerous, Eugene, but from what I’ve seen of ++Bob, I think you’re mistaken.

Pittsburgh is already a non-geographic diocese in large measure because it’s taken in parishes that ‘cannot’ join the Anglo-Catholic jurisdictions, and the Archbishop has always been very loyal to those who have been loyal to him, and that includes the women priests whom he’s ordained.

What a successor might do is another matter.

How’s it goin everyone? Ive been reading T19 for a while now and finally decided to join, so go easy on me

I’ve got mixed feelings of where WO will go. Part of me thinks that ++Duncan will get rid of it bc he’s seen what it can do and knows there are quite a few (majority perhaps?) that do not agree with it. For instance, Christ Church-Plano near where I live belongs to the Dio. of Pittsburgh cause it chose to ordain women. But he might not decide to get rid of it, only time will tell. I hope it gets settled cause I know it causes unrest and it is a first order issue for some of us. Does anyone think that it will be talked about at the next GAFCON meetups in 2012/2013?

I hope that those of you that do not believe in ordaining women to the priesthood will make every effort to win your fellow Anglicans to your point of view, by winsome words and earnest prayer. I think this will be a long battle, but we must never lose sight of this goal, to convince our fellow orthodox Anglicans that the church should not ordain women to the priesthood.

That even goes for our brethren in some African provinces. They are an example to us all in terms of sacrificial witness and godly living, but we still need to bring them to acknowledge this part of the Lord’s whole doctrine.

“Duncan hopes that the ACNA will serve as a bastion for orthodoxy in North America, and provided some indicators he found encouraging. For example, in spite of property lawsuits, the ACNA grew from 706 to 952 congregations during its first 18 months, and of the nearly 250 new churches, at least 130 were new church plants.”

That is encouraging. May the Lord keep expanding His kingdom.

RE: “I think the AB of ACNA will eventually go along with no WO . . . “

I don’t think so.

From a practical perspective you’d then have 1) a split in ACNA with those who are firmly committed to WO departing and 2) loss of any prospect of pro-WO dioceses/parishes/entities joining ACNA—not to mention that any changes in the canons involves a time delay in effective date so that parishes can then depart ACNA [and remember, they get to keep their property unless they’re in a diocese currently undergoing a lawsuit from TEC].

The folks currently in ACNA are willing to put up with the current situation already—why somebody would jeopardize that arrangement in order to divide and make smaller ACNA I cannot imagine.

RE: “it is a first order issue for some of us. . . . “

Yikes.  How can it be a first order issue for those who chose to join ACNA?  Obviously that makes no sense. 

No, the people for whom this was a first order issue were those—like the APA—who honorably chose not to join ACNA precisely because this is a first order issue for them.

The argument for a split just won’t work, Sarah.  I think we’ve learned not to make the mistakes that the folks in TEC made, and we’re not about to go there.  The argument for WO to the priesthood won’t work in our diocese, and there will be no change in our policy.  Bishop-elect Menees has publicly stated that he will continue +John-David Schofield’s policy of not ordaining women to the priesthood, as I’m sure you know.  I suspect, too, that WO will go by the board in our province, though the process will no doubt not happen overnight.

RE: “The argument for a split just won’t work, Sarah.”

I didn’t make an argument for a split.  I merely pointed out what *would* happen when people who are conscientiously and ardently supportive of WO depart when the arrangement they agreed to is broken.

I suspect that most anti-WOers don’t really know a whole lot of pro-WO evangelicals.  I do.  I know these people.  They are deeply committed and they certainly will not be a part of an entity that does not allow the practice at least in dioceses that agree.

RE: “I think we’ve learned not to make the mistakes that the folks in TEC made, and we’re not about to go there.”

Right—and one of the mistakes TEC made was to attempt to *force* one side in the WO debate to capitulate.  That would be a big mistake of ACNAs too.

RE: “The argument for WO to the priesthood won’t work in our diocese, and there will be no change in our policy.”

Agreed. 

RE: “I suspect, too, that WO will go by the board in our province, though the process will no doubt not happen overnight.”

I think not, but I’ll certainly watch with interest in the coming decades.

Well said, MichaelA, in #11.

++Duncan is beginning the third year of his five year term.  He has already said that he will step aside after his term is up.  Three quarters of the bishops presently seated in the ACNA House of Bishops do not ordain women as a matter of doctrine and the next ACNA archbishop will be chosen by them from among their ranks.  ++Duncan’s successor will very likely be an archbishop who does not ordain women.  He might be willing to abide by the current “two integrities” model espoused by ++Duncan, but I don’t think he’ll go out of his way to champion the cause of women priests the way ++Duncan has done. 

If it turns out that WO must be actively promoted to ensure its survival in the ACNA, I wonder how long it can last without intentional support from both the archbishop and a super-majority of ACNA bishops.  I suppose the ACNA could eventually end up with a non-geographical ACNA diocese or two comprised exclusively of parishes with women priests and those for whom supporting WO is a first order issue.