This makes great theater, but the text should be read more carefully. All Christians ought to cultivate a lively fear of the deadly sin of lukewarmness, whenever and however it rears its head. In practice we have grown accustomed to it only as a rhetorical ploy -- something that make us malleable to "hot" preaching, but not fearful of abandoning our First Love.

What brings the text to my mind today is my growing awareness that political lukewarmness is increasingly being presented as a mandate in The Episcopal Church. It is the way out of our present crisis. Moderation increasingly is being promoted as an end in itself. The extremes that are being moderated are, on the Right, the claim that the Faith is something given and not subject to change or improvement by local culture. The counterpart on the Left is that the Faith is evolving, the Spirit still speaking, and culture part of the evolving incarnation of that Spirit.

The crisis involving human sexuality serves as a perfect illustration of this prophetic fork in the road. It is what the New Testament calls a crisis, from the Greek krisis, where every step from now on commits us to one path or the other. There is no middle way, no via media. There is no alternative route that is free of decisive consequence.

In recent years the Left has gotten unchallenged acclaim as the prophetic wing of the church, whereas the Right is lampooned as the Village Green Preservation Society. Ironically the present crisis will have the opposite effect: if the church as a whole shifts left over the question of sexuality, it will have abandoned any pretense of the prophetic and will have solidified for all time its role as handmaid of culture. It will henceforth be seen as "prophetic" only in having an intuitive sense of what the world is already saying and then restating it in Christian jargon. If the prophet upsets a few apple carts by going a half step ahead of the rest of the church, that will be taken as proof of the Spirit's affirmation.

The Episcopal Church at present is looking mainly for a way to have its cake and eat it -- to take a step without stepping down on any path. This is the position of the new middle in the Episcopal Church, those who claim to keep personal opinions about recent changes private, while encouraging one another to plow ahead with preaching the gospel and saving the world from catastrophe. It is an impossible task, as we are all being made fast aware. The church's actions of recent years are yielding consequences, and more are shortly to come. The role of the new moderates is to obscure this natural process of cause and effect. For example, ordaining Gene Robinson to the episcopate has been declared not to be a provocative action, and hence those who let themselves get provoked can be blamed for the subsequent division. The moderates have the task of providing the critical mass to this deception.

Moderates are called on to help redefine what it means to "tear the fabric of communion". If I smash you in the face with a shovel, that's nothing. But if you bleed and complain about it, that's causing division. The solution is to become a moderate: when more aggressive souls perform their typical provocative actions, don't react. Talk up the merits of getting along and staying together no matter what. Define this as the essence of keeping faith.

In Central Florida a recent gathering of clergy met to discuss the future of those who intend to stay in TEC regardless of what happens on September 30 in the House of Bishops. While the event was billed as a time of mutual sharing and encouragement, it became clear that there was an implied "us versus them" mentality driving the meeting. "They" were the twenty-something parishes that were purportedly planning to leave TEC and the diocese after October 1, whereas "we" are those who are honoring our ordination vows and remaining in TEC no matter what. The schismatic actions of the Twenty-something were detailed by leaders of the meeting -- in a perfectly even tempered way, mind you -- but the result was predictable: a growing sense of outrage toward this schismatic minority. The same leaders urged the gathered clergy to displace the dissidents, many of whom hold positions in the Standing Committee and Diocesan Council, at the upcoming Diocesan Convention.

Pressure is on in Central Florida, and probably most "conservative" dioceses, to move to the center on this and all issues that are potentially divisive. In other words, division itself is now the enemy. What was once called "diversity" has suddenly been resurrected as "conformity", and the objective seems to be to avoid the consequences of actions the church has already taken. Those who draw attention to the consequences have become the enemy. They are rocking the boat.

In our clergy listserv papers are being circulated by articulate writers applauding the merit of Anglican moderation, which is defined more and more as the refusal to be certain of anything. This is said to be balm for a world that is rife with division and conflict -- we might call it obfuscation as pastoral method. That, after all, is the genius of Anglicanism! Let's keep ourselves uncertain of everything that truly matters, and posture ourselves as open-minded, compassionate, urbane dolts, incapable of doing anything that could possibly pressure anyone to reach a decision, make a choice, or step out from the herd.

The bishops in New Orleans are trying to craft a cost free way forward for the Episcopal Church. This doesn't mean reversing their radical positions of the recent past. It means doing whatever they do in a way that appears vague, as if they were engaged in purposeful "conversation". Meanwhile attention shifts to those who are responding with some decisive action -- the secessionists on the right -- because their actions, however one views them, are the only thing that can be identified as "consequences". Hence the Right becomes the fall guy in the present crisis. It was the Left that ordained Gene Robinson, but it was the Right that reacted. The reaction is the terrible reality of division, and those who reacted are considered the cause. After all, they could have stood still as if nothing happened, but they chose not to.

Moderation is the place of escape, the proverbial tall grass into which timid souls flee, hoping to keep their personal opinions secret, forming a critical mass of zealots for the status-quo. They have something now they are not used to having -- a sense of moral rectitude. Doing nothing, standing still, looking out for one's own professional self-interest in the moment of crisis, passing the buck on what the Spirit might be saying to the churches, calling this pastoral sensitivity and claiming to do this out of faithfulness to a divine calling -- this is the lukewarming of the church. It has one practical purpose -- personal survival and the minimizing of personal losses.

The moderate position invariably defaults to the left. I am sure this is not intended. Moderates are not active conspirators -- that would require decisiveness and deliberateness, the very terrors moderates seek to avoid! However, they are quickly becoming willing accomplices, because increasingly they are aware that the failure to speak out against the sexual agenda is to speak for it. Moderates cry out in their defense that sex is not a primary faith issue. Saving the world is the primary issue. I won't bother arguing that. The question is, if the church can't be trusted to hold the line on trivial matters like sex, why would we expect it to stand tall on something important like saving the world -- unless we can reduce saving the world to raising nickels for the U.N.

The church is poised at a crossroad -- the New Testament definition of a crisis. The next step matters eternally and absolutely. At such a time the church's only concern seems to be to avoid taking any step for which it might be held accountable. It is willing to pass off the conservative wing as the fall guy, as if they had caused all the trouble. If only everyone would just get along as if nothing had happened, then for all intents and purposes nothing did happen.

This is a delicate task that moderates in the church are called to perform -- to uphold the illusion that all is well by stifling reaction of any sort, and to be willing to point the finger when someone steps out of line and states the obvious. I predict that this will become an intolerable burden before long. Many moderates will harden into overt supporters of the revisionist agenda. It will become clear that this is the price that needs to be paid. Others will simply become afraid of their own shadows and whither into hollow shells. None of these will come away feeling inspired or fulfilled. Perhaps this is the price one pays for survival.

It calls to mind another overused text: whoever would save his life will lose it.

---The Rev. Canon J. Gary L'Hommedieu is Canon for Pastoral Care at the Cathedral Church of St. Luke, Orlando, Florida, and a regular columnist for VirtueOnline.