This is still infuriating me, even though I shouldn’t be surprised. Why do efforts by churches to be ‘inclusive’ always limit their tolerance by deferring to ‘traditional’ perspectives? Why is the line drawn always drawn around ‘traditional orientations to gender & sexuality? https://twitter.com/britishquakers/status/1199371278899204096
Why can’t efforts to be inclusive and genuinely diverse not be brave enough to include people at the same table who hold a different position from the heteronormative conventional one?
Imagine if the things we got worked up about when sharing a table with others were whether they supported exploitative labour, invested in fossil fuels, or failed to condemn acts of cruelty? And what if - brace yourselves - we sat down anyway and actually talked?!
There is little more dispiriting than an establishment more interested in sustaining its own boundaries than genuinely addressing issues of human import.
You can follow @mathewjguest.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: