Posted on 09/16/2006 7:42:24 PM PDT by sionnsar
So Elizabeth Kaeton's going all-in:
Do I have my preferences? You bet. Three, in fact, and one in particular, who I think will win - on the 5th ballot. But, I’ll admit to the "favorite of my heart," and I am unashamedly tossing my hat into the political campaign trail.
This is, after all, my blog. “Caveat lector.” (“Let the reader beware.”)
It is, of course, Michael Barlowe. I have been slowly, quietly suggesting to all of my LGBT sister and brother clergy to caste their first ballot for him.
Hold on, hold on. I know what you are saying. No, I’m not being “heterophobic.” Neither am I “heterosexually challenged.”
And, I’m not talking about throwing the entire election. I’m talking about FIRST BALLOT. What anyone does after that is up to their own spiritual discernment.
Here’s my thinking:
First: I am restricting my suggestion (and, it is only a suggestion) to LGBT clergy – not laity. Neither am I talking to our straight allies. I have made a quick assessment of the number of LGBT priests in this diocese. I don’t know the deacons well enough to know who’s who, much less their sexual orientation. Besides, a person’s sexual orientation is just not that big a deal here anymore – except, of course, when it is.
I’m told that there are approximately 265 canonically resident priests, 80 of whom are non-residential. I could be wrong (but not my much), but by my count, there are approximately 30 LGBT priests in the diocese – seven of whom are canonical but non-residential, and four of whom are retired. Even if all thirty voted (and all will most likely not), that’s hardly enough to elect Barlowe on the first ballot. Indeed, that’s not even a solid voting block.
More importantly, I’m told that there are 495 total registrations for the election on September 23, with “a handful more expected.” Of that number, there are 12 deacons and 160 presbyters. I’m not Louie Crew, and I can’t pretend to walk in his gold lame pumps, so I don’t have the statistics on how many are people of color, LGBT or the gender of the clergy registered to vote. But, well, you do the math.
This is not a scheme to elect Barlowe on the first ballot. It’s a political and spiritual statement of solidarity.
Next: The first ballot is always considered a ‘test’ (well, there’s another word for it, but it is a rather vulgar term associated with throwing dice and this is a ‘family blog,’ after all). I can only think of one election in the past 20 years of someone being elected on the first ballot – that was Tom Shaw in Massachusetts.
Finally: “All things being equal” – and of course, they are not, but especially so after B0 (hold your nose and vote) 33 – I am asking that, if folk feel that Barlowe did as well as I believe (and, I’m hearing he did) in the “Meet the Candidates” events, to consider voting for him on the first ballot – someone who would “otherwise be a solid candidate.”
It is precisely that “all things are not equal” that I am asking LGBT clergy to consider voting for Michael on the first ballot. That didn’t happen in the Diocese of California, where there are far more LGBT clergy than there are here in Newark. In fact, the LGBT candidates (and there were three), did not do well at all.
Many California clergy have said to me that they wished they had agreed to vote for at least one of the three LGBT candidates on the first ballot.
Why?
I thought you’d never ask.
First: Because Resolution B033 is evil. Why? Here’s why:
It was crafted in a desperate attempt to “comply” with the “invitation” (anybody else see the incongruity of that?) of the Windsor Report to “consider” a moratorium on the election of LGBT people to the episcopacy – after, of course, we “repented” of having duly elected Gene Robinson as bishop of NH.
Because, while the wording of B033 is vague – for all bishops with jurisdiction and all standing committees to ‘consider’ (there’s that word again) withholding approval of anyone whose ‘manner of life’ would pose a ‘challenge’ to the wider communion – its intention is clear. And, it is decidedly in violation of our canons which prohibit discrimination.
Which is precisely why it had to be so vague.
Which is why it is evil.
Someone has to stand up against evil and take a stand for justice. If we don’t stand up for ourselves, why should we expect anyone else to? If we don’t respect one of our own who has taken a deep risk for us and for the church, why should anyone else give us even a modicum of respect?
We need to send a message – a loud and clear message – that the journey into holy obedience of the particular vocation of this diocese will not be stopped. We must continue to call ourselves and the rest of the church – kicking and screaming, if necessary – into the awesome and daunting reality, with all of its implications for mission and ministry – of the unconditional love of God.
I believe with all my heart that if we are so emboldened to take this risk, others around the Episcopal Church as well as the Anglican Communion in its entirety, will also be able to find the courage to take a stand against the evil of worshiping the false god of unity over the baptismal promise of justice.
Finally, I believe all LGBT clergy should vote for Michael on the first ballot because the truth is this: you never know what the Holy Spirit will do with that act of courageous witness to our faith. Perhaps not in this diocese, but somewhere else in the Anglican Communion. Sometime. Soon.
So, that’s my contribution to the political campaign trail in this diocese. I prayerfully “invite” my LGBT sisters and brothers to “consider” this request – under which you have no obligation to “comply.” Of course, I can live with any of the other four candidates. In fact, I would be absolutely deliriously joyful if one of my top three candidates is elected, but I will work with and love our next bishop, no matter who happens to be elected.
Go for it, E. I'm not sure why B033 is evil since it was democratically approved and you liberals are always prattling on about the "democratic" polity of ECUSA. But hey, you're probably going to get run anyway so you might as well go out on your own terms. The sooner that happens, the sooner ECUSA can get on with its "mission" of being Universalists who dress funny.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.