Pay back is Hell.
I am in no mood to play nice. The objections to Mary Glasspool's election are, almost by their own argument, Donatism.
The supporting the Covenant is condoning Donatism.
On a fundamental level, on it's own merits, their argument is wrong. This "restraint" argument is wrong, again as a matter of unvarnished orthodoxy. The ACC communique is a monument to casuistry and sophistry in it's attempts to not sound Donatistic. +Howe, Harmon+, and the rest are arguing from a weak position. If they were more likely to turn to a hyper moralistic bigot like Pelagius it might make more sence. But they lay claim to Agustin of Hippo, the theologian who defined the doctrine of grace and expanded it to denounce the loathsome theology of Donatus and the rest.
The "inclusiveness" argument is the other half of this equation, or at least a continuation of the expansive ideas of Grace, but it doesn't directly push back, and that is why they continue to play word games claim some specious doctrinal high ground.
I'm tired of playing nice.
I'm sick of being apologetic.
I say we call them out for what they are.