At long last we laity can read The Holy Orders Task Force Final Report. In what was (I believe) my first post on this Task Force back in 2013, I quoted this comment from the Titus One Nine blog:
I would suspect that ACNA’s leadership knows exactly how the theological report (if fairly done) will come out. Indeed, pretty much any minimally informed person will know how this report will come out: there are good arguments pro and con, and there is no clear resolution. Therefore, ACNA will continue its current practice as it is the best possible solution to a theologically incoherent problem. In this way, the non-WO activists can be partially mollified, or at least, they can no longer complain about the lack of any theological study. And at the same time, ACNA can continue on its current policy but on a stronger footing.
That comment has guided my thinking on this Task Force throughout and the Task Force has not disappointed.
Where things go now is impossible to predict. I have heard chatter that the College of Bishops strongly leans toward ending women’s ordination and grandfathering in those already ordained. The pro-WO bishops would have the option of sub-jurisdictional status. However, such a move would require a two-thirds vote of the Provincial Assembly. I have no way of knowing if this is possible or not, particularly with the addition of the Diocese of South Carolina. Has anyone counted potential votes? And what happens if the folks voting for the historical position lose the vote in the Provincial Assembly after the House of Bishops has voted in favor of the historical position?
Although the leadership of the denomination seems to think it wise for “discussion” to keep on going over this issue, leaving it perpetually unresolved is like not treating an open wound. In the end, what would be the harm in the two camps going their separate ways? Think of it as the Jeroboam Option.