But Smith identifies women's ordination as the first and most significant existential challenge to the ACNA, and what he wrote contributed to the flurry of public online letters that the bishops of the ACNA received (here and here) leading up to the June meeting to elect a new archbishop. At one point Smith suggests that the differences over women's ordination are so irreconcilable they could portend a divorce:
"If ACNA permanently bans women's ordination, what happens to the women who have already been ordained, and their churches? There will have to be some sort of disaffiliation process that is fair and equitable. If ACNA opens the door to women's ordination in all dioceses many--including the 300 signers of the "Augustine Appeal"--will conclude that ACNA has left the path of biblical orthodoxy. It seems many of them would leave if that happens."
Can we take a step back and recognize the need for earnest and honest prayer, study, and conversation together? Some leaders have said that nothing short of the laicization of women who are already ordained will satisfy them. But is this really an equitable path mentioned by Smith? To laicize women clergy in our own movement who helped form the ACNA--founders and heroes like the Rev. Canon Dr. Alison Barfoot, The Rev Canon Mary Hays, the Rev Dr. Travis Boline and so many more who were as faithful and sacrificial as any others in the formation of the ACNA? Laicizing them would be a grievous affront to their legacies and ordained ministries. Likewise, there are so many leaders who share deeply held, conscientious objections to the ordination of women to the presbyterate on the basis of scripture and tradition. How can we afford to lose these defenders of the Bible and the Great Tradition? It is no wonder that those like Smith see the province as being at an impasse.

So how do we make sense of this so-called impasse? How do we pray through this and also maintain our unity?
I appeal to the ACNA Holy Orders Task Force Final Report in their concluding "Case for Anglican Unity":
"[Within the ACNA we have] discovered at least four "families" of ecclesiologies (Anglo-Catholic, Reformed Evangelical, Revivalist Evangelical, and Charismatic]. However, we have not discovered Scriptural texts that positively require any of these models to the exclusion of others...Therefore we are uneasy about commending any one of these ecclesiologies as the only legitimate option for Anglicans...Ecclesiologies as '1.1 Order' issues could very well fracture the Anglican Church in North America, and indeed in the worldwide Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans..." (emphasis added, at 245).
The theology of the Church (aka "ecclesiology") is the necessary foundation for any discussion of ordained ministry in the Church (aka "Holy Orders"). Bishop Kevin Allen (retired, Cascadia) was one of the three bishops on the Holy Orders Task Force. Recently he wrote me, "within the Holy Orders Task Force Report are the sections on an Anglican Hermeneutic for reading and interpreting Holy Scriptures and a beginning work on Anglican Ecclesiology in the ACNA. If the College of Bishops continues to further develop and teach on these two subjects, it will have a profound effect on the unity and order of the ACNA."

In fact, the Holy Orders Task Force Report was very limited. It was not commissioned to resolve the issue of Women's Ordination! It was commissioned for two narrow purposes: to develop resources for understanding (1) how we read and interpret the Bible on such issues as Holy Orders in the Church and (2) how we understand the nature of the church and ordained ministry. (Report at 6, 9) With regards to how we read and understand the Bible, the Task Force concluded that "Our interpretation of Scripture should be done in a spirit of love and humility, with prayer and diligence, in recognition of and delight in the diversity of our global fellowship. While allowing freedom in secondary issues, we are called together to seek the mind of Christ in divisive issues." (Report at 16) With regard to how we understand the nature of the church and ordained ministry, the Task Force agreed that deeper discussions among the bishops about the nature of the church, the sacraments, and ordained ministry "will lead toward fruitful discussion beyond the usual impasse that comes from debates about the ordination of women." (at 9)

In other words, a truly conciliar, biblically faithful conversation among our bishops on all of the questions necessary to a decision on women's ordination has only just begun. What would such a conciliar and biblically-faithful conversation among our bishops look like?

In Anglican Conciliarism and in the development of the Covenantal Structures of the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans (Cairo Covenant 2019, Section 3), the following steps many Anglicans observe when faced with resolving a difficult and controversial issue are outlined:
o Create a Bishops Commission on Doctrine, Faith, and Order to receive difficult and controversial issues before the Church;
o Bring the issue to a Doctrine, Faith, and Order Commission of the House of Bishops for study and take no further action pending that study (no "facts on the ground");
o The Doctrine, Faith, and Order Commission invites qualified clergy, lay theologians, and other specialists from across the Church to help them develop a Report to the bishops;
o The bishops take substantial time to review, discuss, debate and come to a conclusion in as unanimous a manner as possible or defer to later action until such a supermajority consensus is achieved (just as it was in the Ecumenical Councils of the Church);
o During this process, the Commission and the House of Bishops will consult the Great Tradition of the Church (including the church fathers and church councils) in their interpretation and application of the Bible to the issue at hand;
o In recognition of their communion with other biblically faithful Anglicans (such as the majority of Anglicans in GAFCON and GFSA, the bishops submit their decision for comments, revisions, questions, and approval by other biblically faithful Global Anglicans;
o The bishops refer their conclusions in a form they have submitted "and not otherwise," with supporting materials to the Standing Committee/Executive Board of the Provincial Synod (the central legislative body of the Province) for their approval. If they approve the form of the bishops' conclusions on the issue, the Standing Committee will then send the conclusions of the bishops in a form submitted by them "and not otherwise" (a) first to every diocese in the province for their review and approval, and then to the Provincial Synod, or (b) directly to the Provincial Synod for ratification by representatives of the whole Church (bishops, clergy and laity) since what touches all must be decided by all-- or to send back to the Standing Committee and the bishops for further work.

This is the process that we will find in Anglican Churches like Nigeria, Southeast Asia, Ireland, Australia, and elsewhere, supported by the Principles of Canon Law Common to the Churches of the Anglican Communion, The GSFA Cairo Covenant (Section 3), and my book, Anglican Conciliarism (at pp. 58-65, 156-160).

There is nothing preventing the archbishop and ACNA College of Bishops from following this Anglican conciliar process in addressing Women's Ordination. It will require the College to restructure the way it does its business so that there can be a conclave-like gathering at least once a year to address such difficult and controversial issues. This is what the Roman Catholic Conference of Bishops appears to do as needed in North America. It will also involve the participation of gifted and qualified lay and clergy theologians and specialists as non-voting but fully contributing members. It will require the preparation of teaching/catechetical materials for the whole church to receive the decision of the bishops. But all of this 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 will also require time, patience, prayer, and diligence in a spirit of mutual humility and love. There are so many unanswered questions that must be addressed in the process. What is the nature of the sacraments and sacramental communion (especially Baptism and Holy Communion) administered by Presbyters? Do we have a sufficient overlap of the four "families of ecclesiologies" to enable the definition of sacraments and sacramental communion? When the principles of interpreting the Bible articulated by the Task Force for all ACNA Anglicans have been followed, how do we resolve differences in interpretation and application of relevant scriptures to Women's Ordination? What is the role of the Church Fathers, the Great Tradition, and the Bible itself in resolving those differences? What does the Bible and the Great Tradition have to say about "faithful reception" of a new teaching? If not in Holy Orders, what theology of leadership for women must we commend and support among all the families of ecclesiologies?

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. Pray for those who will help them. And while we are praying, let's remember the Task Force's case for unity around this issue:
o We all appeal to the same authorities: Holy Scripture, the 39 Articles, and the 1662 BCP and its Ordinal;
o We all share the same story: "not merely the great Biblical story, but the particular Anglican story of fellowship and struggle over the last 500 years"
o The difficult task of holding four different ecclesiologies in tension with each other together "is worth attempting, in the service of a fully Biblical Christianity";
o We all recognize the need for unity in the face of the neo-pagan North American mission field. "Divide and conquer is the devil's strategy"; and finally,

We all need each other. Each of our traditions compensates in some ways for arguable deficiencies in others. Or, to put it another way, what will we gain if we win our position on Women's Ordination, and lose our Christ-formed humility and love?