“Inquisition.” When I think of what happened at General Conference this is the word that keeps getting stuck in my throat. Before this plan passed, our Judicial Council likened a part of the traditional plan to the establishment of an “inquisitional court.” This is, in part, why it was ruled unconstitutional before it passed.
Since General Conference, I’ve heard several responses from people who seemed to favor this plan but now are softening it with expressions of empathy and by giving voice to the acceptance of different perspectives. I applaud this effort, but have some questions. Is it a fresh wind of the Holy Spirit? Is it motivated by true contrition? Do backers of this plan believe that it went too far? Or, is this just a way to lure those deemed as heretical into a trap? Is it mere candy-coating, trying to make something seen as horrible by some sound nice? I truly hope that it is the former at play, but the latter questions must be addressed. Our common table must be approached with caution as long as the word “inquisition” hangs in the air.
In my local church I’ve had many conversations, some with people who have more traditional views and were wondering about why I was so grieved. After assuring them that I honor the living tradition of the church and respect traditional views within the whole body of Christ, I have tried to explain what passed. This plan was a move to achieve unity as uniformity. It moves us from unity in love to unity by law. This plan establishes strict mandatory penalties for anyone who violates restrictions only on this one issue. It requires persons to pledge oaths if they want to serve in certain leadership positions, again only around one issue. It takes accountability away from resident bishops and peers and puts it in the hands of a globally elected body to enforce the rules as mandated. And one more time, it was likened to an “inquisitional court.” It breaks my heart to say those words in association with the church I love.
After this explanation, I hear, “I’m not for that.” “That’s not who we are.” I am discovering many “traditional compatibilists” (and “progressive compatibilists”), to use a term that describes those who have particular personal leanings but still want to sit at the holy table with their friends who have different views and to find a way to be in ministry together. In other words, they want to practice being the body of Christ, which becomes the environment where we get to learn humility, patience, kindness, bearing one another in a love that does not insist on its own way, and maintaining the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4:1-6). This is messy and holy work.
After General Conference, a fire has been ignited in so many who want to work for inclusion and the sharing of God’s love for all. That is one outcome. Another is that much of the rhetoric, even from some who supported the traditional plan, sounds like the rhetoric behind the One Church Plan that received the majority of votes from U.S. delegates and was endorsed by 80% of our Bishops – calls for a higher unity, acknowledgement that we under a “big tent,” a desire to come together at the holy and open table where there is room for all. Is this a fresh wind of the Holy Spirit? I hope so. I still want to be a part of that.