The Dangerous Comforts of Centrism

Just read a blog that perfectly captures the dangerous comforts of Centrism in the United Methodist Connection. The author, Ben Gosden, analyzing the vote against the compromise option on the matter of homosexuality brought forth by 2 prominent pastors in the UM Connection (Adam Hamilton and Mike Slaughter) wrote:

"The issue was quickly polarized by: a) those who didn’t think it went far enough; and b) those who refuse to budge an inch in their resistance. There was enough grandstanding to go around. You could pick your flavor."

Classic centrism. "We must not take sides"  "Both parties need to share the blame" etc.

Except the information is not true. Please notice that I speak of information, not perception, as I think the perception, which is very common, is honest even if self-deceived.

There was no speech from the floor that said the compromise did not far enough. Instead, progressive voices supported the compromise, with their voices and votes just as they did in Fort Worth. The blogger continues:

"You could move to ask a question and let that question be asking for permission to stand with protestors in favor of inclusion. Or you could get worked up with the grandfathers of the resistance movement, Maxie Dunham and Eddie Fox."

The standing of the protestors and of some delegates with them (including myself) was in fact sending a message of full support to the compromise solution. Progressive voices in the church fully supported

Something similar happened in the discussions around divestment. The most often used phrase I heard from moderates in conversation was "We should not take sides between Israel and Palestine"

Not taking sides is certainly well-intentioned but it is primarily convenient. It allows us to feel good about ourselves as "peace-makers" without taking the risk of a position.

A good read of "Letter from Birnimgham Jail" is in order.