Could You Please Be More Ex... ahem... I Mean Inclusive???

The following is a resolution to be considered in the Diocese of Virginia:

"R-1 Affirmation of General Convention 2003

Whereas, General Convention 2003 affirmed the right of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgenderpersons to be ordained and/or consecrated; and

Whereas, Justice demands a fair and open society; and

Whereas, The Episcopal Church has always been a discovering community appreciate of new learning; and

Whereas, Individuals have no choice with regard to sexual orientation; and

Whereas, The time has come to affirm the true identity of the Episcopal Church in America;

therefore be it

Resolved, That any dissidents remove themselves from church roles and clergy renounce their ministries and bishops resign and that the Church move forward as an open, tolerant and accepting community, grateful for the action of General Convention 2003; and be it further

Resolved, That General Convention 2006 reaffirm the actions of General Convention 2003, and that experimental liturgies of union be practiced through the whole Church.

Submitted by

The Rev. A. Patrick L. Prest"

I guess I should just quit, huh? Let me tell you, most people in the Episcopal Church don't have the amount of candor that Mr. Prest has about their underlying fascism. They want to have an "inclusive" church of their own making, but what it really amounts to is a church in which all are included, with the exception of people who believe the Christian Faith. What this makes for is a pagan society of friends, so to speak, who share surprisingly similar worldviews. Let me be clear - this is not a church by any standard whatsoever. But, Mr. Prest (I don't have any compulsion to use his title) states "Individuals have no choice with regard to sexual orientation..." as if it were an undeniable dogma. Believe it as he may, it is a dubious assertion by the standards of the Faith as well as the standards of science. There is, as of yet, no scientific proof of his assertion. But, he further confuses ontology and volition. To him, simply because someone is of a certain type of being, an according action is acceptable. But let me turn this around. Would he approve of me, an avowed heterosexual male having indiscrete homosexual relations, contrary to my "orientation"? I don't think he would. The main reason is that he has confused highly what it means to be with what it means to act upon that being. Of course, this is what sin is all about. We sin because we fail to understand our relation to God. Further, we are at the heart sinful creatures, but this does not excuse further sin simply because of the Doctrine of Original Sin. In short, who we are does not imply that a certain behavior is necessary, or even acceptable.

Further, he confuses egalitarian "rights" (which some might argue don't even exist, i.e. MacIntyre) with theological "rightness." In fact, a theological understanding of "right" merely includes that which is proper according to the natural law, and if we are to accept the above, no one has a "right" to exercise any action simply because it is a part of their self-understanding. Thus, he has made up for himself a vision of the Church which he seeks to impose upon all, a vision which is entirely outside the realm of practical reason and filled with inconsistency. Thus, he does not desire an inclusive church at all, but rather one which is exclusively sectarian, secular, and irrelevant. If we look to the underlying assumptions of this resolution, we see this underlying motivation and at its heart is something which is quite destructive indeed.