Saturday, December 15, 2007

Michael Hopkins weighs in ...

Be sure to read Michael's excellent piece, "The Archbishop's Credibility Gap and the Destruction of Anglicanism." Here's a quote and a question:

I have supported our bishops’ attendance despite Bishop Robinson’s lack of an invitation because I felt it was and is important that we “be at the table.”

I still lean in that direction, but I also think it is important that someone play “devil’s advocate” here. What if the table is in itself so distorted that nothing good can come of it? What if the table is, by design, not credible. And it is clearly not given that despite three previous Conference’s promise to listen to the experience of lesbian and gay persons, there is no evidence whatsoever that the next Conference intends to do so.

If nothing else, the one person who could be there as an active participant in such a listening process from the side of gay and lesbian persons is not being allowed to participate. If our bishops’ are to go to the Conference are they willing in no uncertain terms, to protest strongly this state of affairs and state that they will do everything in their power to see that the conversation happens at the Conference?

1 comment:

Matty H. said...

The Archbishop excludes Bishop Robinson as an "Instrument of Unity". Christian unity depends on charity and hospitality. Without these virtues it is simply exclusion and cronyism. Our bishops should send +Gene to knock at the gate as our single representitive, saving all the travel funds to go toward the MGD goals. If after saying "peace be to this house" he is turned away, we should all knock the dust off our own sandals.