The “traditionalists” have the following choices, at least:
- Less like Saul on the road to Damascus and more like Nicodemus
Those, for whom “tradition” is three-quarters or more of the cup, can come to see, through the light of right reason, enough of the justice and rightness in the witness of ‘gay marriage’ that they come round to the viewpoint that the situation might be as much an opportunity as crisis, that they would rather not miss the opportunity to express and build an ethic concerning gays and lesbians who want to pledge themselves, an ethic that has pedagogical aspects that resonate more fully with the Spirit of Christ and, increasingly, in the wider Communion, than does the scripturally indefensible status quo. - The either/or: Too Much Like Pharaoh?
"Traditionalists" can continue to reject blessing homosexual unions outright. It is known that the stiffest reed breaks in the wind, so in some ways this is the most risky.
There is a risk of heartfelt division as doctrine appears to be ‘ideally aligned’ contrary the simple, honest experience of the faithful.
There is a risk that such a stance will further radicalize and mobilize those who might otherwise be co-opted or welcomed, even if conditionally. For those who respect tradition, such mobilization is deeply serious (or should be considered as such, I think). Anyone who fails to see this is living in a yesteryear.
There is a risk that such a stance will weaken temporal government, rather than strengthen it.
Strong emotions on a topic, whether they are examined or unexamined, do not necessarily imply centrality of that topic to the mission of the Church. Put another way, why is the tradition the critical witness at this time? I will just remark that, the early Church Fathers co-opted many of the Pagan traditions, rather than distance themselves. This wasn’t done in order to become Pagans! There is a rich tradition to draw from, and any true consideration has to look at whether this era might be precisely the time to be clever, thorough, and light footed, not heavy handed. - The Wisdom of Solomon
They can find a middle-way, any number of hybrids, all of which I haven’t figured out yet.
One of them might be something like developing two tracks, one working on ‘the problem’ as a hypothetical. For example: IF, and only IF, we were to develop a gay marriage ethic, from our perspective, this is what needs to be included and why. The attitude that might foster this approach, as much as I can imagine it, is that it is better to spread what influence one has widely, than to limit it.
The “radicals” have the following choices, at least:
Those for whom “Spirit” is at least two-thirds of the cup, the choices are in some ways easier, but far harder to execute.
- Move forward with the “traditionalists”
A good in itself, this is nevertheless a hard road, since it involves doing the hard work of witness, outreach, and persuasion. These tasks are made more difficult by weak organizational structures and mostly contingent support for this approach (some do not support it all, most likely).
From a rhetorical perspective, it can be difficult to finesse, because hard-core ‘rejectionists’ among the “traditionalists” may be active in their opposition, which calls for a response, even though a larger group of “traditionalists” may yet be ‘open’, if cautious. In other words, how do people of good faith carry on a sustained, legitimate elucidation process, when some on both sides have prejudged it, either by words or actions? - Move forward without the “traditionalists”
While this might prove necessary, it is not wisely done out of spite or tit-for-tat (that’s an obvious temptation to be resisted, I think). Sidestepping should be done in response, if and when it is clear that the “traditionalists” are active or inveterate opponents, not seekers in common.
What’s more, “traditionalists” have their “natural” place in the balance of politics. They have skills and talents to bring to bear. Too much unity can be a bad thing, if they are left behind, wholesale, leading to formulations that might prove weak in implementation, vetted without as much rigour as they might be because of unchecked enthusiasm or a ‘herd mentality’. A combined effort to propagate a new ethic is undoubtedly best, rather than to bifurcate.
At a minimum, “radicals” would do well to develop a “conservative” wing of their own, an internal accountability office, so to speak. With so much time and energy historically focused by them on the myriad objections of the “traditionalists”, it stands to reason that there is a risk that too little attention might be simultaneously spent rounding out and creating a wizened view of all that needs to be considered. In other words, taking what precautions one may against the ‘law of unintended consequences’. The temptation is to move forward quickly and unprepared, if you break a huge resistance point.
Whatever the case, the two sub-options are, (a), to move forward with something quite close to a 'traditionally' understood concept of marriage or, (b), to move forward with something quite new. - Wait for the next generations
For a number of reasons, this may be not quite the "hope" it seems, to some. I'll save space and time here by deferring this part of the analysis.
There are not too many points of departure that are likely to yield bridging principles. Here is an issue, for both sides to discuss, that may cut through some of the dogmatic difficulties: “What do you think are the risks to civil society from sexual relations?” I used to think that it was mainly quid pro quo sexuality, but now I’m less sure that is really all of it.
I like that question, for a number of reasons, not the least of which it offers a re-orientation to both sides and it puts some popular formulations into a broader analytical framework. I just leave what I have in mind unexplained, for now, for obvious reasons.
[next up (or next-next-up): Would gay marriage change gay culture?]
