Definitions

There is so much energy surround the General Assembly's vote on Recommendation Five, replete with over-the-top rhetoric on the left and schism-in-the-making on the right. One thing I have missed is the definition of terms in the gay ordination debate. The biggest one may be "inclusion". The fulcrum of the dialogue--if one can attach such a gracious label--is over inclusion of gays and lesbians. But the question I haven't heard asked (and perhaps I just missed it) is: Does inclusion necessitate leadership? In other words, can a person be included in an organization without having access to its leadership structure? My gut reaction is to say, "Yes". Are our children not included because they aren't allowed positions of spiritual leadership? What about those who are simply too stressed out, for whatever reasons, to take on the mantle of leadership? Are they wholly excluded? I think that the fault of the conservatives is that they do not take seriously how unwelcome members of the homosexual community have been made. I think that the fault of the liberals is to assume that the situation is demarcated in stark either-or terms: Either we get leadership posts, or the church is bigoted and exclusive. Neither position is helpful or correct, and both positions would have benefited from a rigorous conversation on the terms.