Mr. Webber writes, “On the other hand, there are churches unable to hear because their minds already are made up.”

Actually, the Anglican Communion’s mind is already made up, as the Lambeth Bishops under consideration in the article made clear.  Mr. Webber and his co-religionists in ECUSA have labored – in large part, successfully, I would say – to obscure the reality of the “listening process.” The fact is, the “listening process” called for by Lambeth in 1998 and the process of the same name touted by revisionists aren’t the same thing. Revisionists think the process is to involve groveling before sympathetic gay individuals and, presumably, realizing what a travesty is being visited on their sexual freedom by Christianity.

The real thing is quite different. “Listening process” must be read in the context of Lambeth 1.10’s clear reaffirmation of Christian moral teaching. Note what comes immediately before mention of listening:

recognises that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God’s transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ; [emphasis mine]

Clearly, what is recognized is that, while we are all sinners, many exhibiting this particular sin are so deeply dedicated to and invested in it that special thought is necessary as to how to provide them pastoral care. The purpose of that care, as the above section makes clear, is to transform their lives and order their relationships as God wishes, the latter of which is clearly set out in the rest of the resolution.

There is no foundation in Lambeth 1.10 for the fanciful notion that we’ll talk this all out until everybody agrees with the Episcopalians.

I generally concur.  To underscore the problem:

“There is legislation in Nigeria, which the church supports banning “same-sex unions, all homosexual acts and the formation of any gay groups.” That makes listening more than a little difficult!

Well, it is certainly clear that the author’s mind is made up.  His starting point is that there is no listening unless there is a negotiation with a pressure group as to innovation.  One-on-one pastoral response that affirms Lambeth 1.10 does not qualify as listening in his mind.

Phil has said it well. There is no listening process. We will process no more! Just say no to processing.

How can there be a listening process when we only think we speak the same language?  English/British, American, Australians so often us the same words with entirely different meanings.  Add to that, the situation that I find all too often when revisionists and orthodox speak in the US, they may use the same word with utterly different meanings.

What about listening to the ex-gay folk?  On the revisionist side they will not admit that they exist!

Hardly common language as there are wildly different presuppositions.

Ideally we should be formed in Scripture and thus have a Biblical language and usage in common.  However in those place in the church where the Bible has been either abandoned or is never found in the pews we have lost - IMHO in the US churches - any possibility of common language.

Sadly I believe that +++Rowan assumes a common and biblically formed basis of understanding and that is just not so when dealing with some of our revisionist folk.  I find the latter especially true of Episcopal bishops who seem to have not only their own language but reserve the right to change word meanings at their whim and fancy.  (In the same way they use/misuse the canons, but that is off subject!)

Ian Montgomery +

When we add England and Australia to the mix, we no longer have sports in common, but we do still speak English. But what do we have in common with Anglicans in Myanmar and the Congo?

Christ? Some of us value Him a bit more highly than sports or a common language. Or even sexuality.

But what do we have in common with Anglicans in Myanmar and the Congo?

I am teaching this year at Trinity School for Ministry and have had the happy pleasure of getting to know students who have been from Kenya, Uganda, Sudan, Egypt, Singapore, and other southern hemisphere nations.  Archbishop Mouneer Anis from Egypt addressed our chapel before addressing the House of Bishops.  The school has entered into a partnership with the newly founded Alexandria School of Theology in Egypt, and several of the faculty spent part of the interterm this winter teaching and studying in Egypt and other parts of Africa.  Our New Testament and Missions Professor and Dean of Students, Grant LeMarquand and his wife, Wendy, who is a medical doctor, regularly make trips to Africa.  TSM has a yearly conference for Sudanese pastors.

There are certainly times when I have been struck by the differences between myself and our visiting students.  Some of the differences make me smile, for instance when I was asked in October, whether it got any colder than this.  Some of the differences challenge my own sense of privilege--as when we received regular reports on the situation in Kenya from one of our students in chapel, and we included Kenya in our prayers, and when another proudly showed photographs of a daughter who had just been born, but whom he would not see for many months because he studies here while his wife and family are half way across the world.

I am sometimes amazed at the resilience and determination of students whose first language is not English, and who learn Hebrew and Greek taught in English.

What I have found that I have most in common with these students, in addition to basic common humanity, is a common faith in Christ, a commitment to historic creedal Christianity, a love for the Bible, and a love for the church.

A year ago, I lived in the diocese of CT, as does Christopher Webber.  Oddly, at that time, I found I had much less in common with most of what passes for Episcopalianism in my former diocese, and with those who practice it, than I do with the African and Asian students here.  When I attended diocesan Convention in CT, I was conscious of being a member of an unpopular and disapproved of minority group in the diocese.  Those who know something of my history and the parish I attended know that at one point, communication broke down completely between us and the bishop.

At TSM, we are united by something more important than a common language and culture.

Webber fails to note numbers in his little essay.  Perhaps because the numbers involved clearly put the lie to the importance of the miscreants wrecking the Anglican Communion over their agenda being foisted onto the whole.  But, then again, those who have listened know that, so who’s the audience he’s pandering to, I wonder?  Why it can only be the miniscule number who are foisting, can’t it?

At the heart of it all lies TEC’s empire-building. Insane resolutions on slave reparations will pass GC. The PC of “listening” is a given, but make no mistake, TEC’s upper tier has EMPIRE in mind.  No? Then TEC should immediately grant autonomy to all its reaches outside of the nation of the United States.  Give to the support of overseas and foreign diocese, but grant them their truest autonomy. Empire not in mind? Then how can a Church with “2.4 million” members (ASA of -800,000) move and shape 68 million other Anglicans? Who gave such power? Oh, sorry, it was taken by force of dollars and threat of dollars - power - coercion - called “Empire”.
Remember that the next time “listening” and “reconciliation” are urged. It’s hollow. Empty. And a lie.

How we even say that English is our common language in TEC?  One nearby parish is making a major effort at outreach to the Latino community in their neighborhood.  Are the neighbors supposed to only come speaking English? For someone who apparently prides himself on being inclusive, Webber cuts a lot of people out of the mix right here in our own country.

I would also add that all TEC affiliates south of Texas and Florida ought to rethink their affiliation because English is not and will not be the common point with them either.  I guess everyone needs to learn English so they can listen to TEC.

#8 Choir Stall:
If current economic trends continue, no one will want the dollar, which might end TEC’s power to communicate without listening.

What good comments above!

I can only ask of Mr. Webber;

Did Eve not listen long enough?

Don