Eclectic Amateur

Via Dale Price (thanks, Dale!), here is Diogenes dissecting the Looking Glass world of Episcopalian ‘dialogue’:

We see this ruse all too often in the culture wars. Traditional practices are assailed, not directly, but by non-stop pleas for dialogue. The engines of dialogue are designed to favor the innovator — no one, after all, says “I think we should begin a conversation about why things should stay as they are” — whence dialogue begets diversity begets innovation, and presto! the need for dialogue vanishes. “I wish we could stop talking about this.”

Remember the push for women’s ordination — first priestly, then episcopal — within ECUSA? In the years preceding the capitulations the cant phrase was “Can we talk?” Dialogue was essential. Waverers were assured that the questions were not going away and to decline the debate was simply to put off the day of reckoning. Well, the innovators got what they wanted. Do you hear any of them today asking the Church to re-visit the question, to continue the dialogue about whether the restriction of the priesthood to men is not, after all, the will of God? Of course not. The change has been effected, the pawl has clicked in, there’s no going back, and therefore — as Bishop Gene would insist — nothing to talk about.

Read the whole thing. The rachet effect is real.

I’m going to rant a bit. Diogenes quotes V. Gene +Robinson in a Times interview:

“I wish we could stop talking about this and start talking about the gospel again. My diocese may be the only diocese in the Anglican Communion that is not obsessed with sex. We spend almost no time on it. There is this amazing disconnection between my diocese and the rest of the world. We talk about Anglicanism and witness to the rest of the world.”

If you’re so not obsessed with sex, why are you in England talking about it?

Bishop Robinson recently visited Britain as a guest of Changing Attitude, a group trying to raise awareness about gays in the Church.

And, either +Robinson is (a) entirely ignorant of those he slanders, or (b) a bald-faced liar when he trashes ++Akinola and other Anglican leaders for ignoring the Gospel by being obsessed about sex. Or perhaps (c) is looking at the world through lavender-colored glasses, through which he sees that Everyone Else Is Obessed About Sex. (Can we say “projection,” anyone?)

In fact, I’ll offer this as a followup to Zach’s Iron Law of Dialogue (Dialogue means ‘you talk, we’ll act.’). Zach’s Iron Law of Root Causes (Any and all theological dialogue can and will be dismissed as “you’re just obsessed with gay sex, get over it.”)

Why am I so torqued at +Robinson’s slander (yes, it is slander)? Because we just had a number of people from my parish attend the Hope and a Future conference in Pittsburgh. The report (borne out in how energized the attendees are regarding this) is that the focus was precisely on proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus, Good News to a broken world. We will be renewing and expanding our efforts to evangelize and to help the poor.

It’s not all about gay sex. No matter what the non-sex-obsessed, I-don’t-want-to-be-known-as-the-gay-bishop “look at me, I’m a gay bishop!” says. If he wants “justice” so badly, he can start speaking justly regarding those he opposes. Look in the mirror, Gene. On second thought, maybe you should stop looking so much into the mirror. It’s Not All About You.