The Diocesan Arms Race
on 2024 ACNA diocesan growth
2024 ACNA Diocesan Growth
Holy Orders and the ACNA
I have updated the old Google spreadsheet which was originally sourced from Anglican Compass in 2018 about Holy Orders and diocesan statistics in the ACNA (this link will continue to refer to the current version):
In it you can find parochial report statistics from 2018-2024, and I will keep it updated year-to-year. If you note a typo, feel free to reach out; I am prone to those.
Here’s the snapshot; follow the link for breakdown by year:
A few notes for clarity: there might be many analyses to this, most especially with controversies about the so-called Dual Integrity dioceses purportedly or actually implementing policies against the traditional position. The data above can be read favorably by either side of the aisle, or pessimistically against the other. Whether these numbers are good or bad, I don’t have a ‘take’ on what that means year-to-year especially.
Here’s why:
History
The idea of a numbers race came about after the 2017 Victoria Statement. Before 2017, most of the soft-gerrymandering of diocesan growth was toned down because clergy and parishioners were told that the Holy Orders Task Force was going to produce a report. This is something the Episcopal church never did in the 1960s (when deaconesses were made deacons without reordination) or the 1970s (when those deacons were illegally ordained). And following the counsel of some, such as Bishop Arthur Vogel (a Nashotah professor and sub-dean), because the real problem was that it wasn’t done in proper order. Of these ordinations he said, “validity [of ordination] means ecclesiastical recognition.”,1 and so pushed for ecclesiastical recognition by the province: it was provincially authorized two years later. Validity in this use was administrative validity creating theological validity. This is the opposite of what those in ACNA were offered: a theological study that would create an institutional reality. If we only take the time to do the theological study then the issue will be resolved. So the ACNA went about a study of the issue where both positions could accurately articulate their respective position, and in a college of bishops—the protectors of the catholic tradition—implement that administrative reality.
Upon the completion of the ACNA Theological Task Force on Holy Orders study, there was some confusion about it presenting sides without a resolution. There was intentionally no precise conclusion drawn (or not2), so as to allow the bishops to resolve the position rather than a committee. It did, however, have clear recommendations.
The Task Force3 report says,
When the Task Force was formed in late 2012, Archbishop Robert Duncan charged us “to lead the College of Bishops in a discussion about the issue of women in holy orders.”
In light of this commission, we have provided the College with the information which we believe is necessary for an informed theological and scholarly discussion of this issue.
It is important to recognize that it was not our task to provide a solution to this controversy. Those who read our work with such an expectation will be disappointed. (p. 313)
The Task Force went on to recommend,
While the Task Force acknowledges that both perspectives on the issue of women’s ordination have anchored their opinions in accepted principles within the Anglican tradition, we advocate continued efforts toward closer unity on this issue. To be content with the current situation would be in violation of our Lord’s desire and prayer that his people be one. (p. 317, emphasis added)
And,
While Anglicans may disagree on a number of matters, the divisive nature of this particular issue, even in the best of circumstances, is an impediment to a unified sacramental ministry of our province. However, a precipitous decision, simply for the sake moving past this issue, would not reflect the love that is required by God’s people. Both positions on this issue cannot be right, but both positions are held by good and godly people. Work toward a resolution of this issue must move forward, but it should be done with patience and the leading of the Holy Spirit. (p. 318, emphasis added)
Following this report, the College of Bishops issued the following statement:4
Having gratefully received and thoroughly considered the five-year study by the Theological Task Force on Holy Orders, we acknowledge that there are differing principles of ecclesiology and hermeneutics that are acceptable within Anglicanism that may lead to divergent conclusions regarding women’s ordination to the priesthood. However, we also acknowledge that this practice is a recent innovation to Apostolic Tradition and Catholic Order. We agree that there is insufficient scriptural warrant to accept women’s ordination to the priesthood as standard practice throughout the Province. However, we continue to acknowledge that individual dioceses have constitutional authority to ordain women to the priesthood.5
In that statement, the College of Bishops moved the issue from a theological issue to a canonical one: there may not be scriptural warrant, but there is constitutional warrant. Again the institutional reality of the Episcopal church had some weight to validity. But then, when we note that the majority of bishops in the college is against a female presbyterate, and contrastingly a majority of membership of the laity reside in dioceses that are for it, we discover a constitutional improbability: to effect change, it must pass both. Which means that growth, not theology, becomes the agent for change: one must win by power: politicking.
The non-traditional position being faced with an episcopal minority, the resolution was that, in order to effect long-term change as much as prevent a prohibition of the innovation, the progressive diocese(s) would plant as many churches as possible, not just for the gospel, but increasing laity, thereby preventing constitutional change by the majority traditional bishops, and, if growing, then becoming a episcopal majority. Some dioceses have clergy, including soon-to-be bishops, who support the innovation at “all levels of the church.” It stands to reason that, when there is a constitutional change, depending on the party in power, the change will either further restrict the practice from the priesthood, or move to include a gender-neutral episcopate.6
Once numbers became the deciding factor, then spreadsheets like this began to circulate.7 The numbers activists became invested, and quickly, the intrigue and political infighting reminiscent of the General Convention era of The Episcopal Church began. Part of the reason why I also started tracking the numbers was that the language for the initial sheet was framed differently, and I was tired of the sheet being posted all over the internet with a '“see we’re winning” attitude, thereby continuing the campaign of numbers, power, and growth.
Appealing appeals
The traction (appeal?) of last year’s Augustine Appeal was that no constitutional change needs to be made: the collegiality of the Episcopacy is that, save for C4SO, which embedded language in its diocese and enforced in parish bylaws, nearly all dioceses can simply stop an aberrant practice. Numbers, sadly necessary, included 300 clergy (including myself) signing to show that, contrary to social media positioning and attempts at diocesan and provincial level to minimize the importance, this was a really big deal, and not just a passive opinion. Regrettably, the Augustine Appeal was purportedly never discussed among the College, much as it received attention on social media.
Further, the statement has been emphasized variously. For the pro-side: “individual dioceses have constitutional authority to ordain women” and “a recent innovation to Apostolic Tradition and Catholic Order” (innovation is good, right). for the traditional side, “there is insufficient scriptural warrant to accept women’s ordination to the priesthood as standard practice throughout the Province” seemed like a knock-out win. But contrary to what the Task Force explicitly warned against, it amounted to exactly that: the previous status quo, but now with a race to outnumber the opposition.
All that to say, because of this backdrop of moving from a theological study — have patience, we will do a study and figure it out — to a constitutional legislation matter rather than a bishop’s resolution, the 2017 resolution was a disappointment to all for the sake of continuing Always Forward as an institution, in spite of theological non-sustainability.
The Problem with the Diocesan Arms Race
One thing most folks forget—and I do, too—is that ASA, Membership, and Parishes are not a monolithic force. For example: there are many clergy or parishes in the Diocese of the South that are for a non-traditional position, but submit to their diocese’s traditional position. On the other side, there are clergy and parishes in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, for example, that continue hold a traditional position. And within a given parish, attendance does not remotely imply unified theology. These structures speak to administration, which is how the practice was introduced at the 1976 convention.
That said, it gets very complicated when a diocese that allows both positions begins to favor only one. C4SO, to my knowledge, is the only diocese that formally implemented this—recently, in 2023—requiring all clergy to accept sacramental ministrations of all licensed presbyters: including Holy Communion, Confession, etc. alongside a change in all parish bylaws to support this position. This shifted C4SO from what was first a church planting initiative, which truly embraced “both integrities.” The ultimate result made C4SO the antithesis of the Diocese of All Saints, which requires subscription to Forward in Faith to remain in good standing, a subscription now an impossibility in C4SO. While this may be called ‘foul’ by the traditional position, the ACNA canons say nothing of “Dual Integrity.”
Instead,
The Province shall make no canon abridging the authority of any member dioceses or networks (whether regional or affinity-based) and those dioceses banded together as jurisdictions with respect to its practice regarding the ordination of women to the diaconate or presbyterate. (Constitution, Article VIII, § 2)
This means that, since this is a federation more than a communion, change province-wide can happen at the diocesan level.
Which begs the question: what if the ACNA wanted to be in full communion with itself? If it were to become a Communion, then collective voices such as Fort Worth, the Diocese of All Saints, and the REC might be heeded on holding to what has always been (and what is ecumenically requisite for LCMS, Rome, Anglican Continuum, Union of Scranton). The Bishops at the provincial level—or GSFA/Gafcon at the global level—can establish a basis for communion that precludes the practice without a constitutional change. If there was some idea of what lies ahead—of some modest movement towards a resolution—then perhaps anxiety would decrease, and self-understanding towards a federation would become more clear. If there were a not just a de facto, functional federation, but a formal one,8 then ecumenical cooperation could continue across the federation without the underlying tensions of converting one side to the other.
If formalized, Forward in Faith North America in concert with the UK iteration could be the basis for one communion structure within the federation, preserving the catholic charism among its constituent dioceses. On the other side, as C4SO has declared that all within its structure that all—laity, parishes, postulants, and clergy—must recognize the institutional status of its innovative sacraments, irrespective of theology,9 it might also declare impaired communion against those who exclude, and form a communion with like-minded geographies such as the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic.
Either way, once the basis for intercommunion is clear, then various jurisdictions and dioceses can self-sort whether such a federation is an appropriate match to its sacramental use. Some may self-sort by way of change on their previously held policy. For example, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia had wrestled with this issue, first allowing for innovatory practice, but later turning to the traditional position. This has continued to be a notable example of the possibility, given time and theological study, of returning to tradition after innovation.
On what basis is Unity?
As the ACNA continues to have administrative crises, the theological issue of women’s ordination will continue escalate in causing problems in the desire for unity — the question is what is that basis for unity? with the greater Anglican Communion? The Global South? The Catholic Tradition?
May the same College that can quicky investigate contentious procedural claims, so also come to a more sustainable solution, and let lay and clergy, parishes and dioceses adjust to the mind of the ACNA accordingly. May they do so swiftly as tensions continue and trust tested; but as for us, perhaps this from Bishop Chip Edgar,
So, if you find yourself wanting to do something, I ask that you continue to pray—for God’s wisdom, clarity, and grace—for all parties involved, even those whom you might not trust, at every level, as we seek to navigate this situation.
“Bishop Iker stated: ‘It is interesting to note that when Archbishop Robert Duncan appointed the Task Force, he charged them with doing a study of the issue of women in holy orders, but instructed them not to come to a conclusion or to make any recommendation as to how to resolve the debate.’ As the chair of the Task Force, Bishop David Hicks has confirmed to me in writing, with willingness for me to quote him publicly, that no such instruction was ever given. It was never my leadership style to begin with the conclusion, except that the Lord wanted us together and wanted us to focus on mission. Far from what my long-time friend averred, my instruction to the Theological Task Force on Holy Orders was that they do the theological study that was promised at the foundation of the Province so we might better understand how to move forward.“ — Bishop Robert Duncan
As has been noted with recent College of Bishop’s statements, without a roll sheet, this may be unanimous of those present for the final draft.
Note that this term, used in the Anglican Communion for both gender and sexuality issues is Reception. Bishop Robert Duncan, arguably the originator of the “Dual Integrity” language (not found in ACNA constitution and canons), has said:
"My own support for women in holy orders is well known. Global Anglicanism has said that there are, in fact “two integrities” here, both arguable from Holy Scripture, and – to employ Hooker’s method — less so from Tradition. I am convinced that an honest century of reception will sort this one out. I am also persuaded that our God has challenged us to deal with this issue, either because He does intend to bless this new understanding or because He has it in mind that we Anglicans will best find ourselves again in the institutional and relational charity it will require of us as a dynamic and faithful Anglicanism re-emerges."
to which the late Fr Peter Toon (Prayer Book Society president) said,
In practice Reception works as a means of advancing the ordination of women without the theological controversy that such an innovation would normally cause. In 100 years, if there is still an Anglican Communion, it will be long past the process of reception, for women as priests and bishops will be universally accepted—and in part because the so-called process of Reception has provided the cover for the advancement of this innovatory ministry. Where can you find anyone who really believes that the process of reception can possible lead to the abandonment of the ordaining of women? The doctrine is designed to lead to one conclusion even though its vocabulary and rhetoric suggest otherwise.
Source: https://pbs1928.blogspot.com/2006/11/bishop-duncan-on-ordaining-women.html
The initial sheet for diocesan practices on ordination was composed and circulated in c. 2019 by Joshua Steele, at the time a priest in C4SO and editor of Anglican Compass, was one of the chief promoters controversial letter on Anti-Racism, and of the Dear Gay Anglicans Letter.
This was done before, FACA, prior to ACNA’s 2009 formation with constituent members in the Reformed Episcopal Church, Anglican Church in America (now ACC), Anglican Province of America (likely to become ACC), Diocese of the Holy Cross (now ACC), Anglican Mission in the Americas (traditional on ordination prior to 2009’s Consecration of Todd Hunter/ACiA formation), Episcopal Missionary Church.
These bifurcated roughly over willingness to work with innovative dioceses-to-be in the Common Cause Parnership, rather than churchmanship (AMiA and REC are very different). Note that EMC enjoys full communion with traditional parts of ACNA while being separate from the innovative.
This history is important. Since a federation has been attempted before, and therefore can be learned from, rather than repeating outcomes. The Continuum did so with Joint Synods in the aftermath of the jurisdictional cacophony of of the late 20th century.