Read it all.
I think the term “listening process” was very ill advised from a traditionalist perspective as the gay and lesbian organizations see the world from a decidingly feminine perspective. During my dating years (inlcuding my now wife) I came to the conclusion that when a woman says “you are not listening to me” she is likely becoming frustrated that you are not “agreeing” with her. I concluded that there was an assumption on their part that if one is listening to their position surely they will accept it. It then becomes very frustrating for them when one is listening intently but strongly disagreeing with what is being heard.
The collary is the liberal criticism (canard) of conservatives being closed minded. One can consider new ideas and reject them without being closed to the posibility of positive change.
Two thoughts; first note that rather than projecting an honest disagreement on a point of principal, the writer instead attempts to discredit Lord Carey. Second, the current Archbishop of caterbury is assumed to have great power in choosing who to invite to Lambeth, and it is also assumed he will use that power to support the writer’s position.
The writer points out that Abp Carey
would not support episcopal ordinations that flouted our unity. For that reason, Carey indicated he could not recognize the AMiA bishops consecrated in Singapore in January of that year.
yet then complains when Carey points out that
It is not too much to say that everything has changed in the Anglican Communion as a result of the consecration of Gene Robinson.
Seems to me that Robinson’s consecration flouted Anglican unity at least as much as the AMiA consecrations.
All this is true, but it’s not hard to see how revisionists may feel the tide has turned against them in unforeseen and perhaps treacherous ways. Perhaps history will record that George Carey’s trumpet sounded no clearer on this note than on the C of E’s rather more important, much-heralded but shamefully invisible “decade of evangelism” (the what? you may rightly say. Check it out: Lambeth 1988).
#3 “Seems to me that Robinsonâ€™s consecration flouted Anglican unity at least as much as the AMiA consecrations.”
In fact, there really is no comparison.
Robinson’s consecration ran a bus through the middle of gospel unity, destroying it.
AMiA consecrations were neutral to gospel unity, or perhaps even positive since they upheld unity with those who uphold the gospel.
#3, my point was not to deny that things have changed in the Anglican Communion. Most certainly, the consecration of +Gene Robinson changed all sorts of things. My point was that the hyperbole of saying that “everything” has changed is neither true nor helpful.
#6 I think you’re wrong. I’m disagreeing.
Gospel unity was all but destroyed by the Robinson consecration. There are whole parts of the Communion no longer in communion with TEC.