Debate and the Rhetoric of Justice

I was recently involved in what might be described as an open forum on the issue of supporting the blessing of same sex unions in the Episcopal Church. The conversation was polite and avoided the raw emotionality of such conversations held immediately after General Convention 2003. This is to be lauded. And yet, there were some dynamics at work that give me both pause and a sense of loss and grief.

First I note the loss of the conservative voice in the discussion. Several factors are at play here. First, the stronger conservative voice has already left. In our diocese we have seen of late a series of retirements among the more vocal clergy, as well as flight among the “reasserters” both clergy and lay from such forums or from the Episcopal Church itself. Those who remain, the ones generally labeled the “moderate” conservative voice are largely silent except for supporting procedural decisions that would mitigate the rate of speed of the decided leftward shift. They are defeated and disheartened. No one stood and offered any reasoned critique of the radical shift that is underway in understanding the sacraments and human sexuality from the traditional Christian position. There is a weariness at spitting into the wind. The “mod-cons” are now just holding on as night falls. At best, the clergy among them have become “Anglo-congregationalists” hoping to get a few good years in before they retire. Others are considering leaving for one of the few remaining conservative dioceses left in the country (church statistician Kirk Hadaway counts eleven of them).

Yet another more disturbing factor in the debate has emerged that has chilling ramifications. As the primary proponent of same sex unions opined we could talk about the bible, but when it gets down to it we will just disagree. That part of the conversation is over. So the rhetoric of justice then became the way to speak of why we needed to move ahead now, replete with references to MLK and “justice deferred is justice denied.” The debate assumed a priori that same sex unions (presumably meaning marriage) was the just thing to do. No one has even attempted to show that within the context of sacramental theology that marriage is a basic human right, the denial of which constitutes a fundamental injustice. Or even define the meaning of justice, for that matter. (Alastair MacIntyre, where are you now that we need you?) Is it rationally defensible to equate, say, compulsory racial segregation with defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman?

Be that as it may, framing the issue of one of justice a priori has the effect of silencing debate. The opponents of gay marriage are in this light not only wrong, but immoral. We are unjust. The rhetoric of justice defines us as being in the same category to one degree or another with Bull Connor or the Raj in the days of Gandhi. There can be no dialogue with such folk as us.

At best we can be tolerated, like an old racist uncle, allowed at family gatherings and pitied for being benighted and bereft of enlightenment. But not allowed to spend too much time with the children, lest the contagion of bigotry be spread. (And there have been times that I have been publicly called a bigot and treated like just such a proverbial uncle.)

So, in short, it is over. Night has fallen.