Community Forum

So, today we had a Community Forum at Seabury. Oh boy, where to begin? I guess I'll start with what such a thing is for you non-seminary/Seabury (read 'sane') people out there. Once a quarter, we have this thing called a Community Forum, which takes place during the Eucharist and lunch hours. We begin by having the Liturgy of the Word and then, in place of the sermon and lunch hour, have the forum followed by coming back together for Holy Communion before dismissing for our 1pm classes. Topics range far and wide; today's topic was "Dialogue Surrounding the Gene Robinson Consecration".

The format that this "dialogue" took was very interesting I thought. Panelists were shown a series of b/w photos (the subjects of which were numerous) beforehand and asked to select one that they felt best portrayed their feelings regarding the issue. They began by showing us the photo they selected and telling us why. When each of the five panelists had done this, they sat down at a table in the center and had a discussion that seemed a little halting in its beginning, while the rest of us watched. Only two of the panelists were really of any interest to me; the other three waxed eloquently, but it was the same rhetoric I'm used to hearing at Seabury on this issue. After their discussion we were asked to turn to our neighbor and evaluate what we had seen take place.

My first reaction was immediately not who was on the panel, but who was not. It was a trap akin to a landmine. There wasn't a one of them up there that would have voted against Gene Robinson. So naturally, I wondered where the more conservative/centrist voices were. I know we have a few at Seabury, myself included. Well, then I thought, what if they had asked me to serve on the panel? I would have told them, "Certainly not." That would be like asking me to step on said landmine. On the one hand I risk lying to myself and everyone else there, but saving my friendships. Or, on the other hand, disclosing my real feelings and risk losing friendships which are important to me. Not to mention I would, as would any other conservative panelist, have been thoroughly questioned and asked to explain myself by people far more knowledgable than me. Thus, the trap. So, it was really less of a dialogue and more of a group back-patting session (my initial phrase here was less PC).

Someone else raised the point that there were no conservative voices heard and the response given was just what I outlined above. In the gallery format in which we found ourselves, asking conservative classmates to be panelists would be asking them to step on a bouncing betty, bringing damage all around. So, why have such a dialogue in such a format where it is not safe for people to talk? When asked this question, the facilitator was quick to come to the defense of his project and said this was just a demonstration of a skill we could take with us out of the parish. Well then don't use a volatile, personal issue in a gallery format to teach said skill!! Damn! If your purpose is didactic, the subject matter is irrevalent. Have a forum where people take opposing viewpoints on the beating of puppy dogs (a ridiculous topic which carries no real weight as no one would seriously consider such an act appropriate) and teach your skill that way, but don't try to do both at once. I think a lot of people reacted in this way other than me, judging from some of the comments from the peanut gallery. The whole thing was just incredibly frustrating and I feel sorry for the panelists because they were just doing what they were asked to do. I think the real trouble was that the planning committee just tried to do too much with one thing and it backfired. But it left me feeling sour. The picture I picked for myself on the way out was the one with the lone, empty bench on top of a mountain looking out over the valley.

-R