The Internet is a place of escape. We interact with disembodied people we don't know, we stereotype and oversimplify, and we type things we would probably never say to a person's face. This is neither right nor good, but this is the Age of the Internet. It is the downside to the most powerful tool ever invented. It is the side effect of being more connected than ever.
It has been odd lately, then, to see familiar names mentioned and matters discussed to which I am privy. It has been frustrating and sobering to see people online speaking ill about people I know "in real life." I'm not used to being "in the know." I have felt obliged to defend, clarify, and debunk to the best of my ability across different platforms, groups, and posts. It is out of this place, and out of my own current state of mind and heart, that this article arises. Here are a seven thoughts on WO and the ADGL.
1) There are good people on both sides. I have interacted with clergy and laity on both sides of this position, and most people are just trying to do what they think is right. They are rarely activists, and they defend their positions from Scripture. Very few, if any, are casting aside Scripture in the name of either tradition or progress.
2) Stereotyping is always easier, but rarely fair or Godly. It is unfair to paint proponents of WO as woke or progressive. It is also unfair to view proponents of the traditional position as sexists or chauvinists. Such binary thinking is rarely helpful, gracious, or accurate. To some degree, all we can do is take people at their word and then watch the fruit.
3) Proponents of WO do need to recognize that they are the innovators. In every debate, the burden of proof falls on one party or the other. Those who support the ordination of women need to enter these conversations with the awareness that they are trying to change the universal position of the Church throughout the world and throughout the centuries. This does not automatically make them wrong, but they need to appreciate this dynamic.
4) They also need to recognize that WO has often been a gateway issue. If is naive to view proponents of WO as woke or progressive, it is just as naive to think you can separate WO from other sexual and gender issues of the 20th Century. Supporting WO may not automatically imply being soft on LGBTQ issues, etc., but these things have often been linked. I'm not saying that the slope is always slippery, but it has been at times in the past, and it's only fair to recognize that. Those who oppose WO should not be viewed as paranoid or hateful when they point this out.
5) This issue isn't about making people feel good; it's about what the Bible says. No matter what side of this issue we occupy, we must be clear about the rules of engagement. We cannot make decisions based on whether or not people feel supported or empowered. We make decisions based on God's Word. We can have genuine disagreements over what God's Word says, but we must agree on our standard for making such decisions. Feelings, empowerment, and personal fulfillment must not decide who can be ordained, regardless of gender. We should always be respectful and loving of course, but empathy should not dictate policy or theology. Does God's Word support or forbid WO? That's the only question that matters.
6) This is an important, even fundamental, issue. Agreeing to disagree is purportedly a hallmark of Anglicanism. We agree on the fundamentals, but we live together in peace and respect regarding adiaphora. We should be surprised, however, that WO has been such a contentious issue. One's view on this issue, of course, reveals other, deeper commitments, but who is eligible to be in leadership would seem to be a basic question for any group. I don't know how long the ADGL or the ACNA can go on without making more decisive statements on this issue. Dual integrities (or dual convictions, as it is sometimes described) is really the permissive position. Put us all out of our misery and simply acknowledge that the ACNA is pro-WO!
7) This issue exposes the Episcopal system. As I sat in the sanctuary at Malone University, listening to the respectful discussion that preceded the vote for our bishop coadjutor, I was reminded of why I am, deep down in my soul, presbyterian. No man (or woman) should be granted this much power. No individual man (or woman) should exert this amount of influence on any group of churches. Chris Klukas is, I believe, a good and Godly man, and I believe he will lead the ADGL well, but no single person should ultimately decide who is (or is not) ordained. That WO has been such a decisive issue in determining episcopal elections throughout the ACNA demonstrates that too much power has been concentrated in that role.
In closing, I want to reiterate that I have great respect for our Bishop Ordinary, Mark Engel, our Bishop Coadjutor Elect, Chris Klukas, and our Bishop Suffragan, Allen Kanneppel. I also have great love and respect for my fellow clergy in the ADGL, regardless of their views on WO. I don't want to pretend that recent events and issues like WO are unimportant, but I do hope we can have more measured, respectful dialogue online as we navigate. Ultimately, this is the system we have, and we each have to decide if we are willing to operate within it.
Comments
Post a Comment