Larry Morse has nailed it:  TEC is a woman’s church practicing a woman’s religion.

I think reactionary has it right.  We need a church that excludes women.  I think the Metropolitan Church of Christ has some all male parishes

So, was Alan Chambers (from the story below) invited to share HIS story as well?  Somehow, I don’t think so.

I don’t see that in the article. Are these comments from a different thread, placed here by mistake?
Ot if it is relevant, would you please “connect the dots”?

Sorry libraryjim, I meanst #1 and #2. I understand how your comment relates. And I agree with you that he should be part of those to be heard.

I am currently awaiting a facilitator from the Anglican Communion to come talk to me about my experience as an orthodox white guy in TEC.  I assume they will want to meet with me at Trinity or Neshotah House.

Aside from all the smart remarks above, I am glad that someone is finally doing something to facilitate the Listening Process called for in Lambeth 1998 1.10, and resolutions of previous Lambeths. I did go on the AC web site to read some of the statements from African provinces. I thnk they were empty and meaningless and made it very clear that they have no desire to listen to any gay or lesbian Christian in their provinces. One of them is the province about to ordain bishops—episcopi vagantes—for their forey into North America.

This may be a stupid question… But what are we listening to/for?  I thought that the purpose of the requested “listening” was to become sensitive to the needs of the homosexual community.  To consider how important it is to love and care for them as human beings and as Christians.  To not be “homophobic”. To treat them with dignity, not violence.  [which I agree should be our attitude and behavior]

But, it seems to me that their community wants us to listen till we agree.  I mean, once each side has voiced their opinions, over and over again, and neither side is convinced to change their view, what is the purpose of listening? 

At this point do we need a facilitator?  Do we need to panel groups to “listen”.

I am not being obnoxious, really, I must have missed the meaning of the listening process.  What is the goal?

#7 Bob.  Sorry to sound flippant.  My comments are related to a church which was once chartiable and open to all, and has now become the purveyor of lawsuits on the orthodox.  It makes me very sad.

RE: “I am glad that someone is finally doing something to facilitate the Listening Process called for in Lambeth 1998 1.10, and resolutions of previous Lambeths.”

Actually the “someone” who is “finally doing something” was George Carey back in the late 1990s.  As for instance, in this letter of 2000:

“Nevertheless, in many parts of the Communion, faithful Christians, some of whom are homosexual themselves, are seeking to engage the Church in a challenging reassessment of its teaching on human sexuality, because they have felt excluded from the Church for many years. I believe that it is wholly in the spirit of the resolution, and that is why the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA and I set up an international conversation between bishops of different views, an experiment which was so successful that it will meet again later this year. I have also sought to encourage such conversations more locally as well.”

Only thing is . . . it didn’t have the desired effect.  So now we are treated to multiple renditions of the “listening process” ad nauseum.

We will have the “listening process” until everyone agrees with ECUSA—and so no previous “listening process” is actually “valid” until we all agree with them.

It’s just amusing to watch all the tortuous prose, and furrowed progressive brows agonizing over the urgency of the “listening process” when we’ve had multiple versions of the “listening process” in the AC over at the least the last decade, and probably for much longer.

And Bob, there is no question this is a one-sided listening process.  Why are Canon Kearon and Fr. Grove not setting up forums for all sides of this issue to talk and listen to each other.  The only forums being set up are to allow GBLTs to vent about how mistreated they have been, which by the way is open to question by many, since no one has been able to show, since I’ve been watching, any mistreatment of any GLBT in TEC in my lifetime of 60 years.  Without all being in the room, “listening” is just “talking,” and that goes nowhere ... sort of like tree falling in forest makes a sound, but so what?  No one hears it.

#7 Bob from Boone, what ARE we supposed to be listening for?  Can you tell me more than I have already heard?  Discussion about someone’s difficulties is fine if the end result is a way forward to healing.  But to listen in order to “get it” is hardly listening.  No.  I think this is chapter 166 of the same old book.  Look, I’m truely sorry for those conflicted.  I would not have it so and have an offering that can, if used, make a difference:  Jesus the Christ.  This same Lord is available for healing just as he was in his own day.  Why don’t we have a “listening process” for Jesus?  How about that?  Because if you do listen, you will hear a message of healing not of affirming behavior that’s dangerous, death full and intrinsically disordered.  Sorry, Bob from Boone, but you’re just repeating the same old message not the old old story of salvation.

BfB, but haven’t you heard that ECUSA/TEC has spent decades (3 or 4 depending on the talking head) studying this issue.  Where were you and all the laity and the priests when this was being discussed ad nauseum in Adult Sunday Schools and Special Parish Meetings.  I’ve been in 5 Dioceses since 1982 and it has NEVER been discussed at any parish from South Carolina to Texas to Missouri.  It really is amusing to see “listening and discussion” ECUSA/TEC style… talk about non sequiters…......................

I don’t understand this “listening” thing. My parents, grand-parents, and great-grandparents, all talked to their parents about sex for five minutes and they remained married until the death of their spouse, had children and lead productive, happy lives. My nieces and nephews talked and listened about sex in school and church for years and they can’t keep a spouse for more than about 5 years - none of them.

I still say that if one talks to Satan long enough, you will succome.

DonGander

I was more than amused when I read the following great line in a WEATHER report about California. How apt to these conversations:

““The devil winds gave us the diva of drought,” he said.”

TEC is certainly in a drought and we surely have seen the devil winds. I’ll leave the “diva” part to your imaginations.

DonGander

I did go on the AC web site to read some of the statements from African provinces. I thnk they were empty and meaningless

Bob, why is this sort of “listening” OK for you, but not for the rest of us? It seems that “listening” only means reasserters should listen and ditch their beliefs.

“It seems that “listening” only means reasserters should listen and ditch their beliefs.”

That is my question…  As I understand the “issue” is settled.  The Primates met, discussed and decided that the issue is settled.  so the listening process is NOT to have a dialogue on the “merits”, but on how to get along together and “hear” each other.  Not to ignore the settled facts, continue with a practice and tell the other side that they need to “listen” to why it is ok for them to ignore the decision that is already settled.

I really don’t understand this whole process…  and I sit and wait, year after year to get this issue behind us…

To clarify my comment #1, the endless emphasis on “listening,” hiring “facilitators” to help the “listening process” on an issue as clearly settled by 5,000 years of theology as an issue can be is feminine psychobabble.  It is religious practice as psychotherapy, where all viewpoints are equally valid, the exception being any viewpoint that holds that some viewpoints are not valid.  This is precisely the sort of thing that clueless women and beta males gobble up on daytime TV.