I have had a growing sense of uneasiness that the "where we are now" option response to B033 has a potential for being the convention's response to the pain and problems that followed B033. It is such a "liberal" and so "Episcopalian" response. It is sincere in saying what we "all" believe. My fear, however, is that this "where we are" will move full inclusion really little to no distance forward, but will be "just enough" to invite another aggressive response from the "other side." Although we on the side of full inclusion seem to be trying to avoid an all out war, it seems that the "other side" has been preparing a preemptive and devastating strike.
B033 accomplished little to nothing. We had no more LGBT candidates move forwards in the process of elevation to the Episcopacy. We were, however, left with all the scars. ACNA happened. Extra-provincial Episcopal interventions happened. The attempts to extort commitments from TEC and to put it under disciplinary actions continued.
The recent meetings in the C of E show that the anti-inclusion persons are continuing to use the issue to push their own agenda forwards in an aggressive manner. Do we really believe that, should we make a "modest" response, they will respond "modestly" as well? "The last time" the schismatics had the bonfires all set and ready to go. B033 was passed; they lit the bonfire anyways. Who knows what "bonfire" or "bomb" is set and ready to be ignited when GC closes the door for another three years?
My fear this time is that we now have the momentum to really do something positive, but that we will, out of charity and a sense of trying to still "include" persons and groups who have no desire at all to be "included" in anything with us, take a "half measure." There "where we are now" option will move us no forward from the status quo. The "backlash" that is already likely set up to be let loose no matter what GC does, will not be moderated by our measure being a "half measure." We will, once again, get all the "badness" with none of the goodness. Already, some of us are getting the "jitters" because we fear that affirming the value of our (minority) LGBT brothers and sisters will harm more people than it helps if it impairs our ability to minister to the "poorest and the least." (We will save a few LGBT people, but will consign many more to poverty and death.-- a net "loss" on the "debit and credit" model of salvation and ministry). When the backlash comes (and it will), I fear that many of them will simply lose heart, choose to "cut their losses" and drop LGBT inclusion as a "lost cause" for now. The ongoing "process" that the "where we are" option will come to a halt.
So, what would I suggest? I believe that it is not the time for a half measure. I believe that we are going to get the same "backlash" no matter what we do. Let's make what we get out of it "worth it" by making a a clear and unequivocal statement for full inclusion. Agree?
Posts
