Blaming the Holy Spirit in ACNA

So many things on which I could post and so little time!  But I am prepared enough for my lecture later this week that I can sneak in a post on the latest from Emily McGowin, Canon Theologian of the ACNA Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others (C4SO).

She writes vigorously in defense of women’s ordination.  I concede she argues well . . . until this near the end “on the subject of theological method”:

Does the apparent work of the Holy Spirit in setting apart and empowering women for priestly ministry today—not just in the West, but in regions all over the world—have something to contribute to the discussion? Certainly, experience alone cannot be normative within the Anglican tradition, but can it be permitted a seat at the theological “table”?

Ah, yes. Blaming the Holy Spirit for one’s pet innovations. The Holy Spirit has brought about women’s ordination.  Right.

I am amazed that McGowin would make this argument.  Does she not remember that making one’s innovations a work of the Holy Spirit is “the theological method” of apostate bodies, including The Episcopal Church from which The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) fled?  Does she not remember that this is the very method used by those who push any number of ungodly innovations and enormities in the organized church?

Or at least I thought we in ACNA fled from this LibChurch “theological method.”

Really, being as sloppy as apostates in theological reasoning and exalting that even is a more alarming problem in ACNA than women’s ordination.

But the two usually go hand in hand, do they not?