What a bunch of poppycock! He compares abandonment of the Trinity (which is established in the Creeds) w/ the consecration of a person in a committed same-sex relationship (which, last I checked, wasn’t). He says of Gene Robinson and Frank Griswold, “both the comments made . . . have not really been an interpretation of Scripture. It is an abandonment of Scripture.” Um, is the former ABC now claiming his own infallibility? It sure sounds like it (although later he says “they find other ways to interpret it” : which is it?).
Carey then has the cojones to claim “it demeans women for an argument for the ordination of women to be an extrapolation for practicing homosexuality.” That’s funny, I could have sworn that those in opposition to Robinson were, worldwide, overwhelmingly coterminous w/ those in opposition to the ordination of women. Certainly, those who have been proponents the longest for women’s ordination, are also among those most in favor of Robinson’s consecration (e.g. Rt. Rev. Barbara Harris).
It all comes back to Carey & Co. attempting to claim sole possession of Scripture. Those who disagree w/ him are never going to concede Scripture in this way. Never. It’s our Bible too. When Carey says “There is no way in which you can bend the text. It can go only in one direction, which is directly against this form of sexuality,” I respond: the Bible says nothing about “homosexuality”—-but lots in favor of covenant faithfulness, and how “the last shall be first.” Dr. Carey, it is you, Sir, who is “bending the text.”
Re: the New Westminster story—-what’s with the headline? Protecting church assets from those who would steal them is hardly “locking out dissenters.”
I have the full interview up on my blog.