For the last ten years or so pious and righteous Anglicans, led by various writers from the Global South, have asked, "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" This is the King James Version translation of the Hebrew of Amos 3:3.
The series of rhetorical questions in Amos 3:3-6 can all be answered with a "No!" So the bible believing, uniting, seriously Anglican crowd has grabbed on to this passage as a righteous basis for not walking together with some people, namely people they call revisionists. Or more concretely, on this basis The Church of Uganda will not "walk with" The Episcopal Church, or certain people determine not to walk with, say, you or me. No matter that almost every translation of this verse since the KJV has been remarkably variant from it, the KJV is what is touted and they stick to it.
The NRSV and the New American Standard Bible read, "Do two (men) walk together unless they have made an appointment?" The KJV is not too far off if one simply added a few words, " Can two walk together, except they be agreed in doing so? The addition of those two words makes the question not about the two being in agreement, but about their willingness to walk together. The difference: "We can't walk together because we don't agree." "We can walk together because we agree to do so." The first ends up being about purity. The second is about engaging.
In the first there is no listening across division, in the second there is every possibility. For those who believe the King James Version is the be all and end all of translations, the Word of God plainly written, there is marginally a case for refusing to hang out with the impure. And some New Testament comments will support that, including this gem from 2 Corinthians 6:14, "Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness?"
On the other hand, Jesus was criticized because he was seen in the company of sinners and responded, "“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.” (Matt 9:12 -13) So there are some grounds from Our Lord to precisely hang out with unbelievers, people we don't agree with, etc.
Those who refuse to walk with those with whom they disagree, who parse it out and determine that they are believers and we miserable liberal, Western, post-modern, culture worshipers, are unbelievers, are of course not phased by the mere possibilities that they have misread Amos, and perhaps they have not. But don't you bet on it.
More importantly, of course, if that's their story and they are sticking to it, then the Listening Process is not part of the solution to the fractures in the Anglican Communion.
It may be fine for all of us who are willing to disagree, but walk together, but not for the fabulous and the pure. Nope. Amos 3.3 says, "Can two walk together, except they are agreed?" and they know the answer is "No." They are not listening. For the Bible tells them so.
How much longer must we put up with this stuff?