Not being ACNA, I'm obviously just a bystander, but I've been watching the internal debate for the last few years & I have come to conclusion that it's actually larger than ACNA & resolution (both in ACNA & other spaces) requires examining underlying categories & definitions.
The debate among baptists on whether women can teach/preach a mixed group is akin to ACNA debate--not because teaching is the same as ordination--but b/c both are wrestling with more fundamental questions about identity as sexed beings.
And it's my sense that THOSE foundations are radically underdeveloped, at best, & massively inaccurate, at worst. How can we answer what men & women are called to do if we don't understand image bearers embodied as male & female in the first place?
What's fascinating about the ACNA debate, I think, is the extent to which it reveals differences in folks' categories, especially degree to which larger sexuality debate is tied to defining maleness & femaleness. (STAY WITH ME... this is going to take a minute.)
While ACNA is formed in response to TEC's inclusive, folks w/in the ACNA embrace traditional, historical vision of marriage for *different* reasons. Those differences don't go away just b/c you can all agree that same-sex relationships should not be sanctioned.
How you get to a practice is just as important as everyone arriving at the same practice. And not everyone came to the decision via the same reasoning--as is the case in many other conservative spaces.
That's why we see debate in PCA over ReVoice & even dissenting *conservative* voices over the Nashville Statement. It's not about affirming heterosexual marriage or celibacy. These are fights about underlying categories of human identity, embodied sexuality, & vocation.
Back to ACNA. Here you have a group that forms in opposition to affirming LGBTQ relationships & ostensibly agrees to disagree about women's ordination, but... they can't. And they can't b/c for some, these were never separate Qs.
Obviously, sexuality & gender intersect & it's hard to discuss one w/out touching on the other. But what I think might be clouding all these debates is the degree to which we rely on sexuality to *define* maleness & femaleness.
If the sexual dynamic btwn men & women is the primary way you understand what it means to be male & female, then you will naturally affirm heterosexuality--not simply as a social good--but as part of *personal* identity.
IOW, the dynamic btwn men & women, the ways in which they (dare I say) "complement" each other, the ways one is not like the other, becomes *the* basis for understanding male & female vocation in the world.
What would help clarify all of these debates, I believe, is a an understanding of sexed humanity that does not position another human being (even in opposition) as primary source of identity & calling. We need to set the foundations right.
We need to understand the degree to which we have built our definitions of what it means to be male & female on "husband" & "wife" rather than "son" & "daughter" of God.
IOW, when we think of ourselves as male & female in the world, we must understand that we are neighboring or parallel sexes--both emerging from the same Father. We are male & female offspring, brothers & sisters, w/ similar traits & characteristics b/c we share the same Father.
We are not the same. Our embodied vocations call us to different things. But my womanhood is not fulfilled by becoming unlike a man, by understanding myself in opposition to my brothers. My womanhood is fulfilled by growing up into Christ in my sexed humanity.
What's that mean for women's ordination in the ACNA? Or the debate in PCA? Or in the SBC?
Simply this: Deeper Qs of human identity, embodied life, & vocation are obscuring the Qs of practice. Those categories must be resolved first. If they aren't, lasting peace is impossible.
Simply this: Deeper Qs of human identity, embodied life, & vocation are obscuring the Qs of practice. Those categories must be resolved first. If they aren't, lasting peace is impossible.
