I did not see the live webcast conducted by Katharine Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, but the AP religion writer Rachel Zoll reports that she is now urging her church to "roll back their support for gays -- at least for now -- so the denomination can keep its place in the world Anglican fellowship."
This confirms the worst fears that I have had about Schori in recent days. She accuses those who support social justice on this issue of being "impatient", calling such impatience an "idol". This is nonsense. Were slaves in 19th century America just being too "impatient" when they demanded their liberation? There is no compromise when it comes to the imperative for social justice, to include all of God's children within the greater community of faith. This is not a mere stalling tactic that she is advocating. To "stall" would mean moving neither forward nor backward. But apparently, if I understand this article correctly, she is now actively seeking to roll back progressive, inclusive gains in her church, in order to placate the reactionaries in the Anglican communion. And why? In the hopes that somehow at some distant point those who preach hatred, those whose intolerance of difference and dissent and inclusion, will suddenly reverse themselves and become beacons of inclusiveness? And what are those who are excluded supposed to do in the meantime? How many years should they expect to twiddle their thumbs and remain second class citizens in their church? To take away the promised land from someone who has been to the mountaintop is worse than not allowing them to the mountaintop at all. This is an insult, a slap in the face of gays and lesbians in her church, not to mention their progressive supporters.
The article reports
The Episcopal House of Bishops will take up the proposal for the first time at a closed-door meeting in March. Jefferts Schori said she was also trying to find a way that the House of Deputies, which represents clergy and lay people, could weigh in on the decision without calling a special convention, which would be expensive and time-consuming.I don't know much about Episcopal politics to know how these two representative bodies relate to what is required for a reversal in policy, or what the odds are that this would even take place. But this illustrates once again why "unity" over "principle" is often a very bad idea.