Lisa Severine Nolland has written a second article for Anglican Mainstream about the ‘gayification’ of Greenbelt.Lisa returns to this ‘dreary’ topic, as she calls it, because Greenbelt hasn’t replied to her phone and email messages expressing concern about the presence of Bishop Gene Robinson, Paula Gooder, Robert Beckford, Giles Fraser and Dave Tomlinson, Journey MCC Birmingham and OuterSpace at Greenbelt and the showing of the film Priest.
Firstly, Lisa thinks expert, authoritative, orthodox, ex/post gay voices should be granted equal access, visibility and air time if those with an LGBT agenda are going to be handed the microphone. She says the decks have been stacked, disadvantaging the audience.
The problem with this argument for Anglican Mainstream is that leading figures such as Canon Chris Sugden and others not associated with Mainstream such as Peter Ould, and the experts from the USA that Mainstream import for their conferences don’t accept that there is any such thing as a gay identity. Gay people are heterosexuals who have been seduced and corrupted by secular culture and a bad relationship with their father. They can be returned to hetero-normativity by repentance, therapy and healing. If heterosexuality is normative and makes people happy, why is Lisa such an obsessively worried heterosexual?
The people who attend Greenbelt are intelligent, thoughtful Christians. They can choose which events to attend and use their God-given minds to assess whether what they hear is truthful to their experience of God’s creation. They are not stupid and vulnerable, as Lisa seems to imagine.
Secondly, Lisa’s knowledge of the history of marriage in the Christian and pre-Christian era is abysmal. She naively states that: ‘Over the millennia the Judaeo-Christian sexual ethic had insisted that sex remain within the context of mutually loving and giving, exclusive, until-death heterosexual marriage.’ Lisa has forgotten about polygamous relationships in the Old Testament, the inferior status of women in marriage until the modern era and the way in which the nature of marriage has constantly changed historically.
She next justifies divorce by referring to scripture. How dare she, when those in Mainstream quote proof texts at LGBT people. Jesus said definitive things about divorce. He said nothing about same-sex activity. I am not taking his silence to mean he approved. I take it that he saw no need to condemn men who had sex with men in the same way that he condemned divorce.
Lisa says sexual liberation, authenticity, exploration and autonomy are core parts of the LGBT agenda. I think she really means licentiousness and promiscuity. Some secular LGBT groups may advocate such a sexual ethic, as do many secular heterosexual groups. Changing Attitude emphatically does not. We advocate authenticity and the exploration of intimacy and love in fidelity to one partner for life.
Lisa asks whether Christian LGBT groups insist that their members keep all sexual relating within the perimeters of civil partnerships or gay ‘marriage’ (in countries where SSM is legal) and whether they insist that if one is not in such a relationship, then one must remain sexually chaste. She links to the Changing Attitude and Chicago Consultation web sites. Lisa, do heterosexual Christians follow your expectations? What does Anglican Mainstream’s research show – or is it only concerned with trying to expose the worst of LGBT experience? Is the dominant heterosexual culture setting an example of sexual restraint? No, it isn’t. We LGBT people may well be setting a better example and be more honest than those obsessed with sexual activity in Anglican Mainstream.
Lisa says it is LGBT culture that has set the trend and is profoundly influencing heterosexual culture. We are responsible for inspiring heterosexuals to abandon the ’no-sex-until-you-are-married-and-then-only-with your-spouse’ Christian ideal. Let’s blame the gays for all moral ills in society, shall we? Let’s make gays the scapegoats for the failure of idealised heterosexual Christian ethics. This is a scandalous argument for Lisa to make and verges on the evil of fascism – let’s scapegoat the Jews and the gays. There is indeed a loss of ethical values in our church. Falsely blaming a minority group provides one example.
Finally, Lisa believes that the LGBT agenda as articulated by such groups as Inclusive Church is either dissimulative or woefully ignorant and naive. Lisa introduces another of her pet obsessions at this point. She asks whether IC understands the full spectrum of what it is embracing and endorsing. What Lisa thinks IC and CA tacitly endorse are such ‘orientations’ as polyamory, sadomasochism, bondage and domination, zoophilia and paedophilia.
Reading Lisa’s false accusations makes me really angry. She claims the Christian moral high ground but repeatedly makes false claims and insinuations about Inclusive Church and Changing Attitude. Our Christian ethical position is utterly orthodox in reality. We believe in the highest ethical values for LGBT Christians. Let me answer Lisa’s final rhetorical question. No - individuals with these identities and corresponding lifestyles will not be encouraged to come out of their closets by IC or CA.
The people in local congregations that Changing Attitude engages with hate (and I mean, really hate) the way in which Anglican Mainstream repeatedly links zoophilia, paedophilia, etc with LGBT identity. Members of our church think Anglican Mainstream behaves in a way that is totally unfair and irresponsible.
In her third article on Greenbelt, Lisa Nolland asks whether Christian Aid, Church Urban Fund, YMCA or the Church Times would be happy to be associated with an event which had as one of its associates the BNP. Her argument sinks to the depths at this point, associating Christian LGBT groups with the tactics and beliefs of the BNP. She repeats the lie that LGBT advocacy groups will be present at Greenbelt. They will not. LGBT individuals will be present and so will groups ministering to LGBT people. Lisa’s argument is exclusive and fascist. She doesn’t think any group representing or ministering to LGBT people should be welcome at Greenbelt. If we let the gays in, she implies, we might as well let the BNP in. The idea is deeply offensive to Changing Attitude.
Anglican Mainstream is an organisation on the fringe of the Church of England, ready to jump ship if it doesn’t get its own way. It is allied with groups like ACNA and FCAUK which do have a schismatic agenda, unlike Changing Attitude. They claim The Episcopal Church is schismatic when in reality Mainstream is one of the groups actively planning schism.
Anglican Mainstream is dishonest, negative and plays to the very worst in the human psyche by attempting to poison people’s hearts and minds against LGBT people. They are doing incalculable damage to Christian witness and ministry in this country.
Posts
Pt 1Over ten years ago I chose to leave the gay movement. I was a student at University and my lecturer proclaimed that Simon LeVay had "proven" that homosexuality is inborn. What she did not say, and the pro-gay movement refuses to admit, was that this is what the science does not say - that there were problems in LeVay's work and that it has not been repeated. Similar issues exist with the proclamations on genetics by Hamer and others. Even Prof Michael King's study into twins only shows that where on identical twin is gay the chance of the other one being gay is 10%. Tied to this is the continued claim of the gay movement of homosexuals being 10% of the population when statistics show it to be less that 3%.
ReplyDeleteThen we have the issues of male homosexual sex being biologically unnatural (the anus is not designed for penetration), that where homosexuality is found in non-humans it is generally linked with disability.
As someone who spent many years of their life in the gay movement my experience is that pro-gay groups are either niave or choose to be ignorant of the depth of issues in the gay lifestyle. They choose to use the fidelity, monogmany and faithfullness, while not admitting that research - even by progay sociologists - has shown these to have different meanings between heterosexual and homosexual partners. Faithful when studying heterosexual relationships means one partner, with homosexual relationships it is less than 10 partners. Within studies of sexuality a diferent moral crieria has to be used when looking at gay couples, both male and female, than when looking at heterosexual couples. That in America and the Netherlands groups like the Men Boy Love groups have equal status within the Pride movement to the point where pro-paedophila political groups are allowed to stand in National elections. If groups campaigning to see an inclusive church do not recognise these elements and more (such as the wide variety of sado-masochistic elements within the gay community which are represented at Pride events) and are willing to include them in their campaigns then they are hypocrytical and choosing to present a false face of what is really going on in the homosexual community. It is interesting that the pro-gay groups are worried about the BNP issue when Dr Nolland quotes a gay researcher and activist about the links between the gay movement and facism.
Pt 2 As to the "gay identity" - this is a false identity. While people do not choose to be gay the choose to identify themself with a movement - that of the gay movement. If we fail to difer, as the pro-gay groups appear to do, between homosexual feelings and the wide varieties of activities that can be chosen then we fail to do justice to the issues that make up the homosexual debate. Yet to do this may make our arguements more palitable if we want people to accept homosexuality as "normal". By not telling people about the whole realm of BDSM, water sports, rimming, fisting, man-boy love, and even the deliberate seduction of straight men for kicks then we deliberatly hide the full issue and reality of the homosexual world from the public. Even Channel 4 chose to engage with a lot of this reality when it made the series Queer As Folk - yet the pro-gay Christian movement hides from this.
ReplyDeleteIs this why groups like Changing Attitude must attack Dr Nolland? Because they do not want people to know how high and wide and deep the gay lifestyle is and do not want people to know? Or is it that they are unwilling to be inclusive and support BDSM practices in the Church - yet!
As someone who has appeared on the BBC Big Question and been interviewed on BBC Radio about homosexuality I am open to taking part in debates - if groups like Changing Attidue and Inclusive Church are willing to. But then we must remember that Changing Attiude want the provision for protection for churches under law concerning hate speach to be removed and that Giles Fraser, of Inclusive Church and a speaker at Greenbelt, applauded Maria Eagle at a recent conference when she refered to the Evangelical Alliance as a extremeist group - so an open debate may not be as helpful to them as they want.
I am confused by the concern that 'Changing Attitudes' is not telling th world about some of the more seedier aspect of Homosexuality... Are you suggesting that there aren't seedy aspects of heterosexuality? You seem to be suggesting that because these some people engage in the practices listed then this is the fault or responsibility of the whole community and 'Changing Attitudes'... Is that the case. given I am heterosexual am i responsible for the existence of dogging, rape, bondage etc... This element of your argument to my mind doesn't make sesnse?
ReplyDeleteAdam - the issue is that these parts are actually recognised by groups such as the Pride festival organisers worldwide as mainstream homosexual behaviour. CA chooses to ignore this and not talk about or campaign for their acceptance in the Church. Let's put this in a real measure that you may be able to understand. Man boy love (consexual sexual activity between an adult and a child of the same sex) is a recognised part of the homosexual community and a recognised sexual preference with legal protection under Senate law in the US. In the UK new laws are coming in concering vetting and barring for the protection of children. If we take the position that CA is claiming to have but allow it to cover all homosexual behaviour then the news laws concerning the Vetting and Barring Scheme and the CRB could be seen as a breach of their human rights. After all the sex was consensual on both sides so it "can't be a sin" (to quote Sharon Ferguson) can it? Will CA stand up and campaign for this type of behaviour? After all elememnts of this already attend London Pride and other similar events in the UK and even have a political party in the Netherlands. If you go and look on the Terrence Higgins Trust website you will find advice on fisting, bdsm, electrosex and other sexual behaviours - advice payed for by Government grants and accepted as mainstream sexual behaviour by the UKs leading HIV charity. So why are CA and similar groups avoiding these issues and not campaigning for them to be accepted in the Church?
ReplyDeleteThey also choose to ignore the fact that other than Dean Jeffrey John who speaks of faithfullness in homosexual realtionships as having one sexual and emotional partner faithfullness is seen in the homosexual community (both male and female) as having one long partner but if I need some sexual enjoyment from someone else then that is fine. In fact for research purposes the standard for homosexual faithfullness is 10 or less partners over 6 months. As a heterosexual wouldn't it be nice to say to your partner that you were faithful because you haven't passed the 10 in six months ratio? Yet that is exactly what a homosexual expects. It is time for honesty within the progay groups to come out and stop using terms like faithfullness and state whether this is an exclusive single partner or not.
Adam - may I point this statement out to you from the side bar: Changing Attitude is ambitiously working for the full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the Church of England and the international Anglican Communion This must then mean the full inclusion of Man Boy Love, BDSM and other activities in the Church. If not CA needs to either change their statement or actually come out and start campainging for these issues to have their own liturgies and for the legal protection of those involved with Man Boy Love from the Vetting and Barring Scheme. I am calling for CA to do what it claims and am pointing out the hypocracy of their statements if they do not do so, as such my statements in my first two posts should be read in the light of what CA claims to do. If as a heterosexual you claim to campaign fot the legal protection of sexual activity betwen consenting adults then yes you are responsible for making sure you support such activity as dogging (not rape as it is not betwen consenting adult). If not you are then as hypocrytical as those who claim to support gay sex between consenting adults - but then those who support the Men Boy Love arguement want a removal of the age of consent (is this why some groups want the age of consenting sex lowered to 14 or less or even removed totally?). Not nice words but need to be said. As someone who came from the gay life style and am now heterosexual the only sex I support is that between heterosexual marriage partners.
ReplyDeletePaedophilia is not the same thing as being gay or lesbian.
ReplyDeleteIf there is someone responsible, I suggest that person remove the comments.
ReplyDeleteUnlike Anglican Mainstream, which doesn't allow people to post comments, Changing Attitude's policy is to engage with all strands of opinion in the church. We don't censor comments on the blog though we will remove language and comments that are offensive. We could remove Phelim's comments, Goran, but they reveal how obsessed some Christians are about human sexuality and lesbian and gay sexuality in particular. Phelim's comments are a window into his soul, a soul which clearly spends a lot of time thinking about and researching the more recherche corners of human sexual activity. Changing Attitude is a Christian organisation with a strong Christian sexual ethic. We don't need to explain ourselves to people like Phelim, nor defend ourselves, because we are deeply confident in the fidelity and holiness of our lives.
ReplyDeleteColin - please define fidelity. Do you agree with Dean Jeffrey John that a relationship must be with one person or do you take the wider and more common attitude that fidelity is more about having one main partner but if you have needs that can be met by another that is fine. Unless you arewilling to define these terms then you are using words and allowing people to read into them what they want. Also will you answer the question - in your statement "full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the Church of England and the international Anglican Communion" does this include the less public parts of the gay lifestyle such as man boy love? Just actually do something that you avaoid and say yes or no? It is qute simple or are you afraid to go on record (or as it you put it not explain ourselves to people like Phelim). Guess what Colin - I speak out as an EXGAY. If I seem to speak a lot about sexual behaviour I am only relecting back to groups like CA what THEY TALK ABOUT and what is on TV. As a counsellor, I deal with a lot more than just sexual activity. As an ex-employee of SPCK I deal a lot with the outfall of what has happened in the last three years. Your unwillingness to deal with the challenges I place before you, and the challenges put by Dr Nolland, show more your willingness to hide the truth about what the gay life style is, a lifestyle I lived and was an active member of, and your hiding behind words than what you attempt to dismiss as soul which clearly spends a lot of time thinking about and researching the more recherche corners of human sexual activity.
ReplyDeleteGoran - why remove my comments? What is so offensive about reminding people the reality of what the whole gay lifestyle covers and questioning the pro-gay Christian groups groups as to whether they cater for these people? What is wrong about proclaiming what science says (as I did on the BBC Big Question on July 5th)? Guess what, I am going to keep pushing these questions until I get an answer. Unlike some people who have commented I am for the truth and will carrying on speaking and take the risk of upsetting people like yourself. If I can show people what the gay community tries to hide by speaking of my own experiences I will.
Merseymike - I agree that paedophilia and homosexuality are not the same and if you read my posts you will know that I actually mention other forms of sexual behaviour. But the man boy love movement is a recognised part of the gay pride movement, especially in the US, have a recognised political party in the Netherlands and is growing in popularity in the UK. It already has legal protection in the US. As PART of the spectrum of homosexual activity I am asking whether CA in its camaigning for the fulll inclusion of homosexuality are willing to stand for the rights of this group? Contrary to what Mr Coward is saying I am not focussing on sex, I am asking for clarification of the position of CA on issues and for his definition of certain words. The fact that Mr Coward is not willing to answer these questions raises questions as to his motivations of not answering them.
ReplyDeletePhelim demands that Changing Attitude explains what we mean when we use the word fidelity. We have defined our position before and I am happy to repeat where we stand. Phelim, you can read what you want into our position. I am clear where we stand. We mean faithfulness to one person in a lifelong relationship. Phelim is going to keep pushing his questions until he gets an answer. Phelim doesn’t trust Changing Attitude.
ReplyDeletePhelim says Changing Attitude talks a lot about sexual behaviour. Phelim, your posts show that it is you who talk obsessively about sexual behaviour. You say we are unwilling to go on record. Our statement means exactly what it says, we are working “for the full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the Church of England and the international Anglican Communion.” We have nothing, and I repeat, NOTHING to do with paedophilia, sado-masochism or any of the other activities which you describe. We are dealing with adult, non-abusive, loving behaviour.
Phelim spent many years of his life in ‘the gay movement’. He was an active member. He says he came out of the gay lifestyle and is now an ex-gay heterosexual. Or is he? Was Phelim genuinely gay, as the ex-gay appellation indicates? Phelim’s words suggest that he is a heterosexual who for some reason engaged for many years in the gay movement and then withdrew from it. But he never was gay. Phelim cannot therefore understand the experience of a gay man like me who knew at the age of 11 that my sexual identity was different and a given and have always lived as a Christian and followed Christian teaching and ethical values.
Phelim must have been deeply traumatised if he is genuinely a heterosexual man now who indulged himself in the gay movement for so many years. I am curious as to the reasons why he voluntarily did this, knowing he was really straight. But then Phelim says he is unhappy with his sexuality which I take to mean that he is really gay but has suppressed his gay desires to conform to what he believes is church teaching about Christian marriage and sexual ethics. Phelim wants to live a Biblical life and deal with issues to become heterosexual.
Phelim’s confusion is common to those gay men who seek healing through the organisations supported by Anglican Mainstream. He exhibits the obsessions and confusion which Changing Attitude repeatedly encounters in the heterosexual advocates of the ex-gay movements and those who engage in their programmes.
Phelim is as ignorant about heterosexual activity as he is about gay male sexual activity (he never refers to lesbians). Heterosexuals engage in sexual activity which Phelim would consider unnatural.
Phelim, please identify the research evidence that supports your claim that where homosexuality is found in non-humans it is generally linked with disability. This claim by Phelim is offensive not only to LGBT people but even more offensive to those who live with disabilities.
Changing Attitude is a Christian organisation and we uphold Christian ethical values. Monogamy and fidelity mean the same for us as for heterosexual Christians. Faithful for life means exactly what it says for Changing Attitude.
Phelim’s comments, although disturbing, are helpful in revealing yet again the obsessions and confusion of those who seek to deal with their unwanted same-sex attractions by seeking out those movements offering the false hope of healing. If some people want to avail themselves of ex-gay movements they are free to do so. Readers of Phelim’s comments will judge for themselves the authenticity of the claims and accusations he makes.
Colin I was gay and am not now. Also please explain to me what the accusations are? I have asked for clarity on one point, which you have given so thank you. But what about the other point. Guess what Colin - I do refer to lesbians. I refer to male and female homosexuals? What are female homosexuals if they are not Lesbians? As to the scientific research where homosexuality is linked in non-humans to disability - in most cases homosexual activity can be traced to non-functioning sense of smell or similar issues. What is offensive about that? If the truth is offensive then ban the truth. And yes I can give links and will be posting a very long comment which will give you report after report which undermines the idea that homosexuality is natural. May I also mention that Bailey or the Bailey and Pritchard twins studies, a major pro-gay activist, believes that homosexuality is a genetic dysfunction. If you want to look up the scientific research I can give it to you. This is why I chose to start to walk away from a lifestyle I was actually happy with - because of the lies about science.
ReplyDeleteFact 1 - there is no evidence for homosexuality being genetic. Dean Hamer states this as does Francis Collins ex-head of the human genome project. Dean Hamer has also been involved with research that shows no genetic link.
Fact 2 - Simon Le Vay found no evidence for homosexuality being caused by brain dysfunction. In fact both LeVay and the editor of the magazine which published LeVay's study came out in both speak of the fact that the differences in the brain in homosexual men may be caused by homosexuality not the cause of.
Fact 3 - there are cultures where homosexuality does not exist, and other cultures where our Western form of homosexuality is at odds to their homosexual practice, evidence that supports the psychological argument for homosexual behaviour being something other than inborn.
As to my story Colin - I recognised that I was gay when I was 10. I lived the next 10 years of my life with what was to all intents and purposes a secret, though when I went for help for suicidal depression I was encouraged to get a boyfriend as that is all that was wrong with me according to the doctor. I cam out at 21 which was the legal age at the time. I then got involved with the gay lifestyle including some of the activities I talked about. I even had an HIV test because of my experiences and activities Parallel to this I started getting help from a counsellor who was willing to deal with me as a human being not someone who was internalised homophobic. As I dealt with them, without actually going through any ex-gay therapy which you appear to be confused about, my same-sex desires started to vanish. I didn't notice this at first and carried on being involved with the things I was doing. I still can't look at a specific point where I was healed. All I can say is that I have had no sexual desires for a man for nearly 10 years.
ReplyDeleteWhat worries me is that this testimony is offensive to you (it is the work of the devil to attack someone testimony as it is such a weapon for God's glory). That you have the prejudice and hatred of people with my type of story to attack rather than engage with debate. yes I went from gay bdsm to straight and am still amazed as to what has happened. 17 years ago I was gay and even stood emotionally where the protesters outside the Sex and the City conference did - now I have a very different story. and attitude which came about through engaging with the scientific, anthropological and psychological evidence rather than the newspaper headlines. You judge my story without hearing in and thereby act with the same prejudice you accuse Anglican Mainstream of having
It also worries me that you hide from the issue of sexual activity. You claim that people like me are "obsessed with them" while acting as if they disgust you. Sorry but you do not convince me - neither do your claims about monogany as a Biblical standard for gays. Why? I was part of the lifestyle and know that unprotected sex with multiple partners is the norm for "Christians" who are gay. You may wish to promote this ideal as existing but for over 99% of these people it is only words. Through this you dodge the other issue of wording, rather like a politician. You probably have my email if you want to get in touch to hear more of my story.
Phelim, there is such confusion in your comments. Changing Attitude does not speak for all LGBT people, any more than Anglican Mainstream speaks for all heterosexual people. We speak for ourselves, committed Christians who believe in monogamy and fidelity. It doesn't invalidate our position whether or not many other LGBT people do or do not not also hold those values. And there isn't a 'gay lifestyle' any more than there is a single straight lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteIt also doesn't make any difference whether or not homosexuality is caused by genetic, social or other factors. The fact of the matter is, there is evidence that for a large proportion of gay men and women, becoming heterosexual is simply not a viable option. This is accepted as fact by the vast majority of professional bodies in North America and Western Europe, so you don't have to be Peter Tatchell to get your head round that one.
The question for me is how we as LGBT people can live out our lives in a creative, constructive, godly way, and whether or not having a same-sex relationship can be compatible with that. The BIble is for me absolutely critical in answering that question, just as in all moral and ethical issues. But mainstream evangelicalism has changed its mind on the earth being flat, evolution, divorce, contraception, and increasingly women in leadership, all of which evangelicals previously felt the Bible was very clear on. You're clearly very short-sighted if you think that reason and experience have played no part in Biblical interpretation for evangelicals.
To make out that this issue is completely different, so different in fact, that you're prepared to exclude a whole sector of society from our churches, strikes me as a rather unreasonable position, not to mention rather hateful.
Even if I am hopelessly deluded to believe that it's OK to be gay, surely I'm much more likely to realise that from within the bosom of my church congregation, than if rejected and excluded?
But what's properly odd, is that It seems you think thinking the 'right thing' about the gay issue is critical to being a proper Christian. From my lifetime of attending evangelical churches, I thought that ALL had sinned and fallen short, that NOTHING could separate us from the love of God, and that it was faith in Jesus which was the crucial thing? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick on that one?
Alex - Changing Attitudes is aptly named: it can change attitudes but not truth! You are right that ALL HAVE SINNED but homosexuality is consistantly a sin and Jesus call us to sin no more. As such the truth is it is IMPOSSIBLE TO LIVE A GODLY LIFE AS A PRACTICING HOMOSEXUAL unless we do mental gymnastics with the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts as well as the science and the psychology. As to my question about CA's attiotudes and who they speak for, you seem to be confused as to what I am actually saying and asking. I asked for clarity on what CA meant on fidelity and faithfullness. My experience is that while people use these terms they usually mean something diferent from the heterosexual version, and even when they do not it is often an ideal to appease the straight majority. As to the issue of certain sexual behaviours within the homosexual lifestyle and whether CA will campaign on their behalf - CA claims to be ambitiously working for the full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the Church of England and the international Anglican communion. All I have asked for is clarity as to whether this includes man boy love and other homosexual preferences. If not then CA's statement is false.
ReplyDeletePhelim - after seeing you on TV and reading this may I suggest you see a PR guru! Maybe that's why Anglican Mainstream don't allow comments - with friends like you...
ReplyDeleteJames - I don't need a PR Guru. I know speaking the scientific truth upsets people and I can guess why. They don't want to hear it because it undermines the propoganda put out by CA and others. In fact an independent PR guru and a number of psychiatrists have told me I did better on the TV than the pro-gay voices. Even with their slick media setup I would have thought they could do better in a non-Scripted debate.
ReplyDeleteAlso AM is not a blog, it is a news service and has posted views it may not always agree with. AM also covers such groups as New Wine and Reform as well as many other bodies across the evangelical spectrum, for Colin Coward to try and dismiss it as a minority voice. The fact that they could help fill Westminster Central Hall a few weeks ago shows the power of the mainstream voice.
But has anyone, except me and a few others, compared Mr Coward's statement about sexual ethics which is in direct conflict with the Sexual Ethics publication on the CA website. Is this a case of political maneuvering?