The Anglican Church in North America is a house divided on the question of women’s ordination. It has been this way since its inception. I think early on, the assumption was that the opponents of women’s ordination would surely fade away or reluctantly get on board once they saw the inevitable dynamism and growth of those parishes and dioceses who do ordain women. This hasn’t really played out that way, though. Recently, a lot of interest in Anglicanism has come from people interested in the history of Anglicanism. The formularies are being discussed more now than perhaps any time in the last 100 years. All of that talk about an “ancient faith” worked. People want to know the history now! This has brought new energy to the historic position on ordination.

And that means that the stalemate has continued. Some members of the ACNA are perfectly happy with that. They are ok with the status quo. But others, on both sides, feel that this is an untenable long-term relationship. We usually see this debate reignite when there are elections to provincial church office. Archbishop Wood, now described by many as symbol of the dreaded patriarchy, was originally selected precisely because he was seen as a “consensus” candidate. He would ordain women to the office of the presbyterate, but he would not consent to their being made rectors. He could support women’s ordination while also arguing that he was a “complementarian.” He would ordain women, even making them priests, but on the condition that they would always be relatively subordinate to a male priest. I myself am skeptical that this position actually satisfied as many people as it claimed to, but that was the argument. It was an attempt at compromise and unity.

The latest controversy over this same topic is over the cancellation of a planned conference on sexism and empowering women. This conference was going to feature several ACNA clergy and bishops, and it was also going to promote a book called Safe Church. That book was the problem. Apparently, it argued that declining to ordain women is, in and of itself– by its very nature– sexist and abusive. That is a problem for the ACNA because at least half of its dioceses and bishops would, by that logic, be sexists and abusers. Once this was sufficiently noticed, the conference was cancelled. You can listen and read more about it here and here.

I want to argue that, while I am glad the event was cancelled, the argument of the book is important to be known and discussed. Indeed, I believe that many (perhaps all?) arguments for the ordination of women to church office assume this same basic position. I do not mean that all proponents of women’s ordination would make that argument, at least not in that way. But I do think the basic argument for the ordination of women logically entails that those who would oppose women’s ordination are acting unjustly and committing a moral wrong against women who aspire towards ordination. Further, I believe that egalitarians view the historic position of male headship within the marriage bond and in the logic of holy orders to be unsettling, controversial, and ultimately unacceptable for a Christian. To them, it is abusive.

While I do not want people to embrace their strongest passions and simply unload on one another (restraint and charitable discourse is good!), I do think that we should all commit to speaking honestly about our actual convictions and goals on this matter. There is no other fair way for a church to have this kind of debate.

And I will add one more point. I would love to be wrong here. If there are alternative ways to argue for women’s ordination, I would like to see them.

Let me use a test case to make all of this easier to see. The Thirty Nine Articles of Religion state that the Two Books of Homilies “contain a godly and wholesome doctrine” (Art. 35). One of these homilies is “Of the State of Matrimony.” It lays out the historic Anglican perspective on marriage, and especially the duties of the husband and the wife. When you read it alongside the Form of Solemnization of Matrimony in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, you can see that they reflect a common understanding of marriage and spousal duties. In fact, the marriage service in the BCP calls for a sermon to be preached which declares “the duties of man and wife.” If the minister does not preach his own, then the BCP provides one for him to use.

When we read “Of the State of Matrimony” we see the very important grounds for marriage, why God instituted the ordinance. There is also, perhaps surprising to modern readers, a direct rebuke and condemnation of spousal abuse. No doubt practical and relevant for the time (and for ours as well!), this homily states that for a husband to beat his wife is “the greatest shame that can be.” The homily calls husbands to love their wives, as their own bodies and as Christ the loved the church.

But the homily also presents a pretty obviously hierarchical model of the marriage relationship. The preacher instructs wives that, “they relinquish the liberty of their owne rule.” To the husband it is said, “thou art therefore made the ruler and head over her.” These are not incidental remarks of a peculiar time and place. They are integral to the understanding of marriage. After all, in the marriage rite itself, the wife will promise to “obey” her husband.

I draw attention to this in order to ask people to admit their true feelings on this matter. I am not asking you to use the exact same language or to forego prudential rhetorical framing. I do think pastors will need to help people understand what is being said and what isn’t being said. But, still, do you think this is the correct teaching on husbands and wives? And more, do you think it is an acceptable and allowable position for ministers to teach the people under their charge?

Moving from the Books of Homilies and the Marriage Rite in the BCP, let’s also look at the Ordinal. In the Form and Manner of Making of Deacons, this vow is asked:

Will you apply all your diligence to frame and fashion your own lives, and the lives of your families, according to the doctrine of Christ; and to make both yourselves and them, as much as in you lieth, wholesome examples of the flock of Christ?

This question directly implies that the candidate does have some authority over the lives of their families and that how they use this reflects upon their qualification for the office of deacon. It is drawing from 1 Timothy 3:8-13, which says that in addition to qualifications for deacons, the deacons’ wives, children, and “houses” must meet certain qualifications. The deacon is also told that he must rule well at home. The form for ordaining priests has this same qualification, and the Ordinal explicitly states that if deacons “well behave themselves in this inferior office,” then “they may be found worthy to be called unto the higher ministries in thy Church.”

The logic being invoked here is that domestic life is something of a training ground and credentialing mark for ecclesiastical office. Ecclesiastical office is more than the domestic role, to be sure. There are extra qualifications, and it must be granted by the church. But the Ordinal still clearly assumes certain truths about the candidate’s domestic arrangement. Some of these are prerequisites to ordination. If we read our formularies as consistent with one another, then the standard being set forth is that it is men who are to be ordained, and the proper use of their domestic “rule” is a relevant mark of qualification (or disqualification). The hierarchy involved in holy orders is a hierarchy which is grounded in an even more basic hierarchy, the “rule” found in marriage. My own diocese has stated “The basic form and role relationships established in the home (cf. Eph. 5:22ff.; Col. 3:18-21, see above) have a carryover into the Church: the priests are to the rest of the Church as the husband/father is to the wife/children in the family” (Women in Holy Orders: A Response, pg. 79). This is the common teaching of the Anglican formularies, and it is the majority teaching of all of the Christian Church until the 20th century. I believe that it is also the teaching of the Word of God.

And so, my question. Can someone who believes that the Bible positively teaches that women should be ordained to holy orders really allow those who hold the historic position, the position of the Anglican formularies, to teach and act upon that position without simultaneously needing to accuse them of abuse or misogyny? Is it possible, in the egalitarian view, to not allow for the ordination of women but to also appropriately “center their voices” and have a safe and welcome environment?

If the answer is no, then we need to hear it. The conversation needs it. And if the answer is no, then the experiment in “dual integrities” is shown to be impossible. If the answer is yes, that both positions can happily coexist in a single communion, and that neither party is necessarily engaging in abuse, then the conversation certainly needs to hear that answer, as well as someone to fully explain it.

And if we don’t want to answer this question, then we should also understand that we don’t want to have the conversation.