I had a Zoom call with Bert Waggoner to discuss his time as Vineyard USA National Director. Bert served as the National Director of Vineyard USA from 2000 to 2013. Bert led the National Board of Directors through the process of passing the 2006 Resolution empowering women to all levels of leadership in Vineyard USA.

Rose:  I asked a few women to help me with questions. Younger women especially want to know why you did not make marriage-headship part of the resolution.

Bert: The same reason I would give for a number of other issues. There are so many big issues underlying this. The objective I had at that point was to open the door and provide a place for those that were already on the way. So, for us to go back and to deal with the whole thing, we are talking about philosophically, we are talking about theologically; we’re talking about where the Movement is now in terms of its development, its self-identification. So, there were a lot of those issues.

Headship in marriage is one of the issues we could have looked at but had we done so, we would have gotten to the point where we didn’t accomplish anything. It wasn’t as though there was a particular person here that this was a big issue for; instead, it was that we were trying to deal with how women can lead and make sure they have the freedom that is theirs.

Rose: What, if anything, would you do anything differently?

Bert: This points back to where the relationships were with me. I had just been the national director for a few hours when I got the letter from a church where the husband had died, and his wife wrote me a letter asking if she could be ordained. I was new. I was addressing very difficult issues. The issue of women in ministry, was a hot item. It caused a lot of pushback. The timing on my part, I preferred to be able to prepare more for it, but instead, it was dropped in on us, and maybe the Lord knew I would put it off and put it off, so it just dropped in. So the first meeting I had after becoming National Director, this was the topic we had to deal with.

Rose: Where was the weight with the National Board, were most for or against the resolution?

Bert: It seemed to me it was equally divided.

Rose: When you passed the resolution, were there those on the Board who still disagreed?

Bert: This was the problem of not having the relationship with the guys I needed because they were given assignments. This is stated in the resolution. They were given books to read. I presented them with a two 1/2-inch binder full of material. I had read sixty to seventy books myself in addition to what I had read through the years. They were supposed to get with their area leaders to talk with them and go through all materials, but some of them were too busy to do it. I got messages back that that didn’t happen with some of them. Of course, some regions were more hard-core complementarian than others, but still, the Board didn’t take a hold of it, they didn’t do all the reading themselves, so in that regard, I don’t think we did as much preparation as we needed.

Rose: What went better than you thought and what didn’t go so great?

Bert: Actually, we only had one negative person on the Board at the end. He voted for it to say we got 100% vote. So in that regard, I was surprised that we had that many that were affirming, but we had had hours and hours of discussion on it. I think they had the opportunity to make some changes in their thinking.

Rose: What was the response from the Movement?

Bert: We probably lost a dozen churches through the process. With the intensity of the feelings throughout the process, I thought it would be many more. In general, I was satisfied. But now I see, and through talking to people, I see a lot more was going on than I understood at the time. I know now that there was strong opposition that I wasn’t aware of then.

Rose: As you think about this time, what rises to the surface over and over again?

Bert: The thing that rises to the surface for me is that Vineyard has no theological moorings and no real philosophical moorings. As stated in the paper, I wrote on Diversity. I wrote this is us; the one thing we have in common is our experience of the Spirit, the dynamic of the Kingdom, and giving ourselves to the message of the Kingdom. These types of issues lead toward resolution, but we needed more time to work through them. I take first of all thinking about the epistemological issue. I think this is huge in an organization, especially when the majority of people were raised in an evangelical or fundamentalist church. With its what I see as a binary in faith, that is Father and Son, and if there is a third, it’s the Holy Book. They were raised in an environment that taught and read the bible and had the doctrine of perspicuity, clear, self-defining, and all those things. Those fallacies destroy the message of the gospel and the entire scriptures. If I were just taking the issue of epistemology, it is still quite pervasive in foundationalism. By that, I mean a belief that ultimately is based upon reason, that you’ve got to find an absolute. It’s the same thing as modernism and its approach to interpretation. What concerns me about that, what I would say most particularly, is I don’t see how you can have a foundationalist interpretation and epistemology and have the work of the Holy Spirit. Because it’s all about rationalism, taking things that are dead and trying to bring life out of them. When I came in as National Director, Todd had laid some foundations as he wrestled with issues of postmodernism. We were at a place where we could address that issue, but I don’t think you can have true fellowship around the word of God wrestling with these issues if you are stuck in modernism. You’re not going to be really that given to the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and certainly, it will hinder your interpretation of the scriptures. Most other movements in the history of the Church had a particular theology they were trying to protect. That wasn’t the most significant problem; the problem was all of us were taking the scriptures, but we were finding a lot of differences, and many of us were rejecting the basic premise that the rest were using to interpret, so that is problematic.

Rose: Do you regret not making a move to mutuality a requirement for all the churches?

Bert: That’s an interesting question because I have a deep conviction that we need authentic people who deal honestly with the intellectual questions they have. The idea, like the former denomination I was in, is that certain doctrines had to be stated in certain ways. We’ve seen that on the issue of inerrancy and so on. I have a problem with pressuring people to believe something that they have not come to the conclusion that it is correct. It creates a fundamental problem in the personality and division of the personality, and this is where the Vineyard is. It’s really still in the place where it’s trying to define who it really is. In that, we have to agree with those things we will let go of and those that are essential to our identity.

Regarding the question, I didn’t feel like we could have just come down and said, now, this is the position you have to take. We probably would have lost about 70% of the churches then. I think that was the percentage of those who would be on the fundamentalist side of these things. So because of that and my resistance to exercising power and saying, you’ve got to do this, I wrote the paper on Diversity, hoping and praying we would learn to live together despite our differences. But that would mean we would be expressing love towards those we disagree with and not sitting back and cutting one another. In hindsight, I would have been a wise leader to have split the organization because it doesn’t look like it worked. I have thought about it. We should have said, hey, we’re brothers and sisters, but we don’t really agree on this issue, and it seems to be almost next to salvation in terms of importance of belief, and so if that’s the case, we need to go our different ways. Divide the assets, deal with the issues, and start something else. Divide it rather than running some people off and them having nothing.

I really am a progressive theologically. The reason I am a progressive and the reason I was in the Vineyard are both based on the same reason: I came into the Vineyard because of the focus on the Kingdom of God. I focus on women being free because of the Kingdom of God. I focus on progression, development theologically, and other ways, and in terms of even interpreting scripture (so much passion in his voice as he says this) in light of the coming Kingdom, not just things of the past. I came into this because Todd had introduced the idea, and I liked the idea. I loved that he was bringing in Brian McLaren and Gordon Fee in this same way of thinking, and others. Not because I agreed with them all of the time, but because they were taking seriously, the work of the Holy Spirit. The fact that things are going to change and new things are going to come (passion again), so much so that we might not recognize it when it comes initially. If there’s going to be work of the Holy Spirit, there is going to be deconstruction in culture, because culture is a brick wall that you can’t tear down unless there’s an earthquake that hits it. God is not going to be stopped in advancing his purposes of His Kingdom in the world by our petty arguments. The Holy Spirit is at work; the Holy Spirit is going to help us understand that in scripture. I came into the Vineyard because of that focus on the Kingdom; it puts it into the future. Jesus says that when the Spirit comes, He will lead you into new truth.

Rose: For many of us leading congregations at the time, it was not a disputable matter. It was a matter of justice. We, too, believe the trajectory of the Kingdom is equality for all. Women and men working side by side, the work that Christ did on the cross set us free from hierarchical relationships. We are to be a sign, agent, and witness to this Kingdom. So as a woman leader at the time and since, who has mentored many, many women in the Vineyard, I can’t tell you how many stories I have heard in the past sixteen years of women still having to navigate around a complementarian pastor, area leader, or regional leader! So many times in tears, by the way they are treated, by being overlooked over and over again for leadership. I wonder what would have happened if you had split over this issue?

Bert: It’s interesting because one of the high officials in the Vineyard recommended in a board meeting that we divide into three different groups. At the time, I wasn’t in favor in favor but (chuckling) I think he was right. We’ve got to get into a position where we have built authentic community; of course, that was the other part. I wanted authentic community. A community where we could have our differences and really love one another, and I place that in the work of the Holy Spirit and the dynamic of the Kingdom. But it didn’t work as well as I had hoped.

The fact is we had a movement that existed by virtue of the fact of signs and wonders. My focus was to broaden where we dealt with issues of justice, and there is still a lot of resistance to that idea even today. People recently got upset with me because of my focus on social justice. Listening to you talk about where you speak about this was an issue of justice for you and others; I was not as strong on that back then as I am now, and I regret that. It may have caused me to make some other decisions.

Rose: Did many who were against the resolution change their minds, and did any who opposed you, ever apologize?

Bert: Some did, and a few did apologize. This brings me to another issue, the Trinity; Binatarians rather than Trinitarians because they do not recognize the Holy Spirit or create a hierarchy that ultimately diminishes the person of the Son and the Holy Spirit. I don’t know how people do that, but it’s prevalent in complementarian circles.

I thought the message on community if we continued to focus on it and get people reading books, like Volf’s book, Exclusion and Embrace, we could realize it’s not just about healing the sick. It is also about healing the body of Christ and bringing healing to society by being salt and light. I felt like, quite often, many were more interested in having the claims of healing than they did in being the people of God. That’s probably an over-judgment of them. I hope it is.

Rose: Is the Diversity paper online anywhere I can access it?

Bert: I can send it to you. It was taken down (from Vineyard USA). It encouraged us to love one another despite our difference, and it’s one of the most important things I did as the national director.

Rose: Has your view of women in ministry evolved since the resolution was passed? You said you would view it now more as a justice issue.

Bert: I would deal with it much more in terms as a work of the Spirit as being progressive. Could we possibly say that Mary, Priscilla, Junia, and others were the first fruits of the work of the Spirit in the Church? They had moved into leadership as a foretelling of what was coming in the future as the Spirit led and directed. So I would have emphasized this much more. Not so much debating on scriptural interpretation only but on the issues of epistemology, ontology, and hermeneutics because the Movement will have to deal with those things; it is flying blind right now, it’s flying blind.

Rose: This many years later, what still grieves you?

Bert: The big thing is I still don’t see that we’ve made the turn. I think we have far too small a number of women pastoring now. It’s not just that, but you will be around, and you will hear the stories told and the references to women who are so pejorative and down-putting. There is still a lot of thinking that the woman is made for the husband’s satisfaction, which is sad. It’s not uncommon for a group of guys to get together, the jokes and things about women it’s still there, and it grieves me.

Rose: What do you think was your biggest win as National Director?

Bert: I have been talking about the negative side of the resolution, but it was a pretty big thing. I still have people come to me and say that the focus on community had found a place in their hearts. They give me thanks for having led in those issues. There are times, and there are days when I don’t think I did anything. I wonder why in the world I did it. But, you have to leave it in the hands of the Lord. The most significant point is you look back and see the fruit there, and you thank God for the fruit you see.

Rose: Recently, I listened to a podcast with Nancy Beach and her daughter, Samantha. They talked about the reports on folks not going to Church, deconstruction, etc. Samantha spoke about friends her age that want to know what Christianity has to say about our current issues like immigration, racial oppression, greed, etc. Their point was if the Church is silent on these issues, young people especially see the Church as irrelevant. I remember you trying to have us think in Kingdom terms, looking through the lens of the Kingdom about current events, and I saw you get in a lot of trouble for voicing the issues. People did not want you to bring up these issues.

Bert: On the issue of immigration, I got covered up with horrible letters full of racism. Not all of them were Vineyard people, thank God, but there were considerable letters from Vineyard folk. The issue on the environment, of course, Tri Robinson was writing and speaking on that issue. But on the immigration issue, I spoke in Washington DC on it and got a lot of pushback.

Closing Thoughts

As Bert is self-reflecting in this interview about his impact, I want to say a few things about my experience as a woman leader. First, I so appreciate he was willing to take this on early in his leadership. Second, I hope every woman and man serving in the Vineyard understands the courage it took for Bert to lead through this issue. Not only the case of women in ministry but the other issues of our day needing a response from a Kingdom perspective that he was trying to bring. I hope you will join me in thanking him for his faithful service to the Vineyard and beyond. 

You can read Bert’s paper on Diversity here.