Judge defines a change in attitudes – wakey-wakey time for the Church

At Bristol County Court, Judge Rutherford has ruled that the Christian owners of a hotel who refused to allow a gay couple a double room acted unlawfully. He said that, in the past 50 years, social attitudes in Britain had changed and it was inevitable that laws would "cut across" some people's beliefs. He awarded each of them £1,800 each in damages. He said:

"It is a very clear example of how social attitudes have changed over the years for it is not so very long ago that these beliefs of the defendants would have been those accepted as normal by society at large. Now it is the other way around."

The Bull’s, owners of he hotel, discriminated not only against lesbian and gay couples but against heterosexual couples who chose not to marry but live as a couple. If they had refused a heterosexual couple a double room, would the couple also have won a case of discrimination? How many hotels and B&B’s are there in the UK which would refuse to let unmarried straight couples occupy a double room?

The last 10 years have seen a transformation in social attitudes to LGBT people as the judge said. Views that were normal a decade or two ago are now seen as unacceptable and illegal. One of the places where such prejudice is still acceptable is in certain areas of some Christian denominations.

The Christian Institute and Anglican Mainstream will claim that such views are not prejudiced, are held with integrity, and are what all Christians believe. They are wrong. Most Christians in the UK have overcome their prejudice about same-sex relationships. It is a minority who are holding the Church of England (in particular) to ransom. General Synod and the House of Bishops are constrained by the undue influence of conservative lobby groups and the strongly held views of a small number of leaders elsewhere in the Communion. They are doing untold to damage to Christian witness and ministry in this country.

UK social attitudes towards LGBT people have changed dramatically in my lifetime, and the attitudes of the majority of Christians have changed as well. Their faith is not determined by a fundamentalist or literal reading of the Bible but by a relationship with God which is nurtured by an experience of love, truth and justice.

Will the Church learn anything from this judgement? I hope to God the answer is yes, but sadly, I think business will continue as usual. The Christian Institute will maintain that Christians are being subjected to discrimination. So am I, a gay Christian man, along with many of my friends.

The institutional Church will continue to allow itself to be intimidated by those holding what they claim are traditional Christian views which enable them to maintain a culture of prejudice, dishonesty, abuse and corruption in the Church. It’s time for change, bishops and Archbishops and members of General Synod. You are out of touch with the majority of people in this country, with the majority of Christians and with people’s awareness of God. People know the church is peddling a lie about God. That’s why they’ve deserted the Church in droves. God is about the outrageous, creative, infinite possibilities of holy love, not about policing adult sleeping arrangements in a Cornish hotel.

Colin Coward

Please support our work to overcome prejudice and discrimination in the Church by becoming a supporter of Changing Attitude or sending a donation.

Anglican Covenant – dangerous progress in Synod? Or GAFCON statement – dangerous threat withdraws?

Archbishop Rowan began his presidential address to Synod in Church House last week by referring to a sermon preached by John Wesley on 'The Catholic Spirit' which opened with a text from II Kings 10.15: 'He greeted him and said, "Is your heart true to mine, as my heart is to yours?" Jehonadab replied, "Yes." "If so," Jehu said, "Give me your hand."'

Rowan urged Synod to surprise those who are looking on by demonstrating their loyalty to each other: 'Is your heart true to mine?' Loyalty grows and flourishes when we spend time together exploring God who has brought us together - if our hearts are true to each other, different things become possible, Rowan said.

Being true to each other, in our hearts, is to me obvious and fundamental to our Christian life and witness. Heart truth is important to the life of General Synod, the Church of England, the Anglican Communion, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Anglicans. Is the Anglican Covenant going to lead us into more heart truth?

GAFCON/FCA statement
As Rowan was delivering his address a statement was released by a group of Anglican leaders under the GAFCON/FCA banner, a statement which had been written at least two weeks earlier. The statement is almost, but not quite, a declaration of independence from Canterbury.

Those issuing the statement declare that they will no longer maintain an illusion of normalcy and will join other Primates from the Global South in absenting themselves from the next Primates’ meeting to be held in Ireland.

They further declare that the current text of the Anglican Covenant is fatally flawed and so support for it is no longer appropriate.

They plan to expand their ministry through other Anglican Provinces taking the ‘theological clarity’ of the Jerusalem Declaration as a solid foundation on which to engage with other Anglicans - those who affirm Biblical theological foundations of what Anglicans have always believed and practiced. They invite people in England ‘to re-affirm what they have always believed in Anglicanism by adopting the Jerusalem Declaration as a statement of their own faith and join with us in partnership in working to win the world to Christ’.

The statement rejects the Anglican Covenant, the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates’ meeting, the Anglican Communion as at present constituted and swathes of Anglican history, experience and tradition. I might describe it as both audacious and abusive – audacious in its rejection of truth and abusive to issue it deliberately at the same moment as the Archbishop of Canterbury is asking in an adult way for Christian hearts to be true to one another and loyal to God.

The Anglican Covenant
In his address, the Archbishop of Canterbury said:

“it is an illusion to think that without some changes the Communion will carry on as usual, and a greater illusion to think that the Church of England can somehow derail the entire process. The unpalatable fact is that certain decisions in any province affect all. We may think they shouldn't, but they simply do. If we ignore this, we ignore what is already a real danger, the piece-by-piece dissolution of the Communion and the emergence of new structures in which relation to the Church of England and the See of Canterbury are likely not to figure significantly.”

The GAFCON/FCA leaders had already decided to derail the process and begun the dissolution of the Communion by setting out to create new structures which will exclude the Church of England and the See of Canterbury. Rowan, your words to Synod were taken to heart by those present, Synod members and those like me in the public gallery. Of course it is right to expect us to relate in ways that are mature, loyal, exploring God together, hearts true to each other. What then of the GAFCON leaders – are you going to ask them to behave in an equally mature way? That won’t be easy since they are already going to absent themselves from your presence.
The Archbishop continued to address the Covenant and the whole paragraph is worth quoting in full:

“The Covenant offers the possibility of a voluntary promise to consult. And it also recognises that even after consultation there may still be disagreement, that such disagreement may result in rupture of some aspects of communion, and that this needs to be managed in a careful and orderly way. Now the risk and reality of such rupture is already there, make no mistake. The question is whether we are able to make an intelligent decision about how we deal with it. To say yes to the Covenant is not to tie our hands. But it is to recognise that we have the option of tying our hands if we judge, after consultation, that the divisive effects of some steps are too costly. The question is how far we feel able to go in making our decisions in such a way as to keep the trust of our fellow-Anglicans in other contexts. If we decide that this is not the kind of relationship we want with other Anglicans, well and good. But it has consequences. Whatever happens, with or without the Covenant, the Communion will not simply stay the same. Historic allegiances cannot be taken for granted. They will survive and develop only if we can build up durable and adult bonds of fellowship.”

Managing it in a careful and orderly way has already been made impossible by the arrogant and aggressive actions of the GAFCON leaders, supported by a minority of members of General Synod. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to deal with the challenges of covenant and communion in an intelligent, relational, heart to heart way when people are acting so abusively. Changing Attitude is committed to adult behaviour, but the temptation to infantile responses is strong when Communion leaders act in infantile ways themselves.

The Synod motion moved by the Bishop of Bristol, Michael Hill, asked ‘That the draft Act of Synod adopting the Anglican Communion Covenant be considered.’ It was passed by a large majority and will now be sent to the dioceses for discussion. The Church of England did not, last week, adopt the Anglican Covenant, as some have asserted. England is continuing to discuss the Covenant and explore our differences of opinion.
In Rowan’s words, the Covenant offers the possibility of a voluntary promise to consult ... and disagreements need to be managed in a careful and orderly way.

“It does not invent a new orthodoxy or a new system of doctrinal policing or a centralised authority, quite explicitly declaring that it does not seek to override any province's canonical autonomy. After such a number of discussions and revisions, it is dispiriting to see the Covenant still being represented as a tool of exclusion and tyranny.”

Those of us who are anxious about the effects of the Covenant on progress towards the full inclusion in the Body of Christ of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are yet to be convinced that it is not possible to use it in a tyrannical and exclusionary way. If the GAFCON Primates (with others) have already decided to leave the Anglican Communion then there is not only less anxiety about the Covenant being used in a punitive way, there is no longer any real need for a Covenant at all.

Same-sex unions
Earlier in his address, the Archbishop had talked about the Communion’s approach to the ‘still bitterly divisive issue’ of same-sex unions.

He said:

“The need for some thoughtful engagement that will help us understand how people who read the same Bible and share the same baptism can come to strongly diverse conclusions is getting more urgent, because I sense that in the last few years the debate on sexuality has not really moved much.”

“And if we are not to be purely tribal about this, we need the chance for some sort of discussion that is not dominated by the need to make an instant decision or to react to developments and pressures elsewhere.”

Leaders and supporters of Changing Attitude are among those who have engaged in patient and thoughtful theological discussion in many different contexts and with a wide variety of opinions. We are committed to continuing conversation and exploration but the patience of many LGBT Anglicans is being tested to the extreme. We are living with an understanding of our own integrity in Christ which means that we deliberately ignore the guidelines adopted by the Church – Issues in Human Sexuality, Lambeth 1.10 and the House of Bishops’ pastoral statement on Civil Partnerships. The conversation and exploration can continue within the Church but we have already moved beyond.

Rowan asked for the help of Synod in working with him to create an ambience where better understanding may happen, taking the debate forward without the pressure of feeling we have some single and all-important decision to make. He pointed to the success of the 'Continuing Indaba' project in creating many such spaces for face-to- face discussion across cultures, considering a wide range of actually and potentially divisive matters. It has, he said, been pursued with heroic energy and imagination by many people of profoundly diverse convictions in the Communion and needs prayer and support.

We LGBT people in the UK and North America have personal security and legal protections which enable us to pursue our goals in the Communion with confidence, engaging openly with the Church. In other, socially conservative parts of the Communion, homophobia and prejudice in Church and society mean that open conversation is impossible and LGBT people remain invisible.

I am increasingly concerned about their safety and security and their inability to live spiritually, with integrity, in relationship with other Christians, when Anglican leadership in Nigerian, Uganda, Kenya and elsewhere equivocates about or actively supports punitive legislation. They need an active campaign for freedom and justice now, not at a time to suit the patient theological discussions within the Communion.

Susan Russell on her blog An Inch at a Time displays a Get out of the covenant free card and has her own take on what happened last week. Now that the folks the Anglican covenant was designed to keep at the table have turned their noses up at it, she says, it seems that sacrificing the vocations and relationships of the LGBT baptized on the altar of Anglican Unity becomes redundant at best and throwing out historic Anglican comprehensivness in response to hysteric Anglican politics becomes ridiculous at least.

The Episcopal Church instead of studying the Anglican Covenant that's already failed to hold the Communion together needs instead to be studying how to create something that will bring us together. “Like maybe focusing on the values that unite us rather than the issues that divide us. Like building a church for the 21st century that worries about who will COME if we proclaim the Good News of God available to all rather than who might LEAVE if we include everybody.”

Will sending the Anglican Covenant to be discussed in the dioceses have a negative effect regarding progress for LGBT people or does the statement from the GAFCON leaders have a beneficial effect which far outweighs any potential negative from the Covenant?

Colin Coward

To enable us to maintain a relational, principled, heart-true campaign for LGBT people in the Anglican Communion, please become a supporter of Changing Attitude or donate to our work.

Two cheers for Bishop Stephen Platten

Stephen Platten, Bishop of Wakefield, in an article in the Church Times last Friday has come out in support of a renewed listening, real listening, to the voices of LGBT people in LGCM and Changing Attitude. He says the Church of God and not just the Church of England should take a lead in encouraging real listening which allows for the possibility of a change of heart if not, he says, our own moral outlook.

The article was received enthusiastically by the trustees of Changing Attitude who met over the weekend in Tadcaster and they wanted me to blog about it, post an article on the web site and write to Bishop Stephen and the Church Times - and I will do all those things, starting here.

Having re-read the article, I want to be more critical, especially since bishop Stephen wants the Church universal to take a lead in ‘real’ listening. My first message back to Bishop Stephen is that it’s a bit rich to ask the Church to take a lead in ‘real’ listening. The Church is so far behind secular society which having undertaken a process of 'real listening' has mostly dealt with the ethical, moral, emotional and legal dimensions of homophobia and has already transformed the landscape for LGBT people. It is primarily in the church, and in particular pockets of society, in football, in schools that homophobia continues.

Bishop Stephen says the Church is not unlike our culture in which there are a variety of views with both calls for equality and rampant homophobia. I do not meet rampant homophobia in society, but in the church I meet an all-persuasive prejudice which has a rampantly homophobic effect. Try getting appointed to a new post in the church if you are in a civil partnership or recommending to a lesbian, gay or transgender seeker a church in which you can confidently guarantee they are going to receive a prejudice–free welcome. Changing Attitude has just 30 churches out of 10,000 listed in our Welcoming and Open scheme.

Perhaps the Church serves a purpose as a place where all this can be discussed, says Bishop Stephen, though he admits it would need to bring people together to claim to be that place. ‘All this’ is discussed freely in pubs and bars and cafes, homes and offices across the country. It’s in the Church that people have the greatest difficulty discussing human sexuality freely and openly. In my own church, which in a comment on a previous post a member denies is homophobic, I am told that it’s better for me not to constantly talk about being gay but keep it quiet. It isn’t something I talk about or preach about, but simply being there with my partner is too much for some of the congregtion – that’s homophobia, Frances.

Bishop Stephen thinks stereotypes would break down if Christians simply sat down with gay people, whether active, single, in committed relationships or not. I’m not so sure. For starters, outside the Church it’s immaterial whether gay people are active, single or in a committed relationship. The Church agenda is not society’s agenda. The moral and ethical attitude of the Church to gay relationships is not relevant and won’t be until the Church overcomes it’s institutionalized homophobia. Then people might attend to what the Church has to say about the ethics of gay relationships.

Bishop Stephen wonders when most diocesan synods last sought a presentation from gay Christians about their life in Christ or dioceses last held day conferences on sexuality and faith. The trustees of Changing Attitude wondered whether there was any chance of the newly elected General Synod passing legislation which might change the two most pressing issues for LGBT Anglicans – equality in selection and training for ministry and in clergy appointments and the blessing of gay relationships in church.

We concluded that there is almost zero chance of this happening in the current quinquennium. When General Synod or the House of Bishops finally get around to a homophobic-free discussion and attitude it will be totally irrelevant to LGBT people whose place in society was transformed by the legislative changes introduced by the last government.

The trustees were taken by Bishop Stephen’s use of the phrase ‘human flourishing’ in his last paragraph. The gospel, he says, obliges us to build a healthy society which is both sensitive to all and responsible in deriving a moral code that promotes human flourishing, and that’s not how it feels at the moment for lesbian and gay people. Actually, for many it does feel as if that’s what our society promotes – it’s the Church that doesn’t.

Can we now expect Bishop Stephen himself to take a lead by persuading the House of Bishops to listen directly to the experience of LGBT people in an open way that allows for a real possibility of a change of heart, and will he consult the LGBT Anglican Coalition, which includes both LGCM and Changing Attitude, to hear our proposals for legislation which we would like General Synod to pass?

Colin Coward

Changing Attitude needs your help to get the Church to listen accurately to LGBT people and to pursue our campaign to change to church. Please become a supporter or make a donation.

The appointment of bishops – interviews introduced – is this news?

Behind the scenes all sorts of conversations are taking place amongst those of us dreaming of and working for a Church of England and Anglican Communion in which justice is done, women and LGBT people fully included, and where decisions are made in an adult way in an open process and communicated with clarity. At present in England a culture of secrecy predominates.

The LGBT Anglican Coalition is working creatively in relationship with Inclusive Church and Thinking Anglicans. The focus of our work is varied but there is a great capacity to be generous towards each other and to share dreams, ideas and strategies. We are, at heart, a fellowship of Christians, Anglicans, some with big egos, some with very practical skills, who enjoy working towards a common goal in the context of warm friendship.

That’s an introduction to yet another example of the way in which the Church of England works. It raises further questions about the culture of the Church and the way changes are made and communicated, reinforcing my belief that the whole system needs a dramatic and radical change of ethos. Information about change slides unwillingly into the public arena and often comes to light by sheer chance.

Thanks to Simon Sarmiento and Peter Owen at Thinking Anglicans I’ve learnt a bit more about the processes of the Crown Nominations Commission (CNC).

Simon wondered if I had been referring to Jeffrey John and Southwark in a previous post. Jeffrey certainly knew he had been nominated, says Simon, because everybody nominated nowadays is asked to supply documentation to the commission. Starting last week with the Bradford meeting, those still remaining on the list for the second CNC meeting are asked to attend the CNC for interview. So they definitely know they have been nominated.

I wondered how widespread the knowledge about the change in interviewing practice that started with Bradford is. And I wondered what inadequacies are still in the system.

Peter says he’s not aware that there has been any formal announcement about interviews being introduced. Isn’t it surprising that such a significant change which affects the appointment of new bishops has happened without people really knowing? Those attending interviews will know and the members of the CNC will know. But the current version of the guide to the process (Briefing for Members of Vacancy in See Committees) prepared by the Archbishops' Appointments Secretary that you can download here is dated November 2009 and makes no mention of interviews.

Peter spoke to a member of the CNC who thinks people were told at July's General Synod but Peter (who was there) doesn't recall hearing anything. He says it could have been in a GS Misc paper or a notice that wasn't given to the press; it being somewhat hit or miss which papers are given to the press or put online. The first he knew that interviews had actually started was when he happened to see it mentioned on the Salisbury diocesan website when he was looking for something else.

This whole process highlights what is so wrong about the way the Church of England functions and the way bishops come to be. At present they are nominated, which may or may not be better than being appointed. A committee which meets in secret recommends the nomination following consultation. But the process is not transparent. Bishops are not elected as in the Episcopal Church, and the TEC process is such a novelty for the CofE and the rest Communion that few are aware that in the USA bishops are ELECTED – and meet real, ordinary people in the diocese first, so that the opinions and experience of the people of the diocese can be taken into account.

There are advantages and disadvantages, just as there were when diocesans appointed suffragans with a greater degree of freedom and Prime Ministers were able to impose their will on the process of diocesan appointments. At least back then we got some bishops with strong characters and personalities – but we also got the mavericks.

The second thing that is clearly wrong is the lack of transparency in making changes in the process of appointing bishops. Most of the changes being made in CNC procedures follow from recommendations made in the 2001 Perry report, although the report didn’t think interviews were a good idea. The Church, each diocese, those of us for whom the appointment of bishops matters a lot – women, LGBT clergy and others – need to know when the system has changed and why and how, because it can work to our very serious disadvantage as many supporters of CA have and are finding to their cost.

I wonder who is being best served by the current process. Is it the wider church, the people of the diocese, or is it, as I suspect, those who function within the system with a mindset that needs to control the process and the information that is made available publicly.

Colin Coward

Work with us to change church systems and attitudes: become a supporter of Changing Attitude by clicking here or make a donation here.

Marriage equality for LGBT people

Tony Baldry MP, the Second Church Estates Commission spoke on Saturday morning in the General Synod debate about women in the episcopacy. It will be his task to steer the legislation through the House of Commons. He said the equality agenda now played strongly across all parties, and the difficult task of steering through the legislation would be impossible “if there is a scintilla of a suggestion that women bishops are in some way second-class bishops”.

On Saturday afternoon Robert Key, the former MP for Salisbury, spoke following the vote against the Archbishops’ amendment, when a number of speakers asked for the debate to be suspended until Monday or for a 10 minute break, to enable people to recover emotionally from the trauma of the loss. Robert effectively told Synod to grow up, behave like adults and get on with it (which Synod did, though some found behaving more like adults rather difficult).

Both Tony Baldry and Robert Key were criticised following their speeches. They were told in a very forthright manner that parliament wasn’t going to be allowed to dictate to the church as to what it should believe or who it should ordain. Church knew better than Parliament the will and mind of God.

What I found most disturbing was the passion and length of applause from Synod following the criticism. I was frightened by the arrogant, self-satisfied tone of righteousness and absolute rightness that was present. It felt as if the majority of Synod were applauding, though I didn’t think to look and check how many were actually clapping.

Tomorrow afternoon I’m attending the discussion about the next stage for civil partnerships at the Home Office at the invitation of Lynne Featherstone MP, the Minister for Equalities. Clearly, many members of General Synod would be critical of this initiative for a variety reasons, not least of which would be that they think God speaks and acts through General Synod and not through government initiatives, especially in relationship to gay marriage.

Last week, I said that I expect to meet people with far more understanding of the place of LGBT people in the Kingdom of God than many of those Christians who hold such strong views about homosexuality. I think that tomorrow, God is much more likely to be breaking into our lives and breaking out of the traps the church sets for God. It’s the dynamic which James Alison describes in Broken Hearts and New Creations and Raising Abel (both books which I wholeheartedly recommend!).

The government is grasping what the church cannot and what LGBT people often are afraid to grasp – the nettle of absolutely equality in marriage. Marriage is not a heterosexual institution and lesbian and gay people are not in a different category from straight people, nor are we unworthy of marriage.

The government is helping many of us, lesbian, gay, heterosexual, bisexual, transgender, evangelical, catholic, Christian, agnostic, atheist, see something about the nature of marriage which we have found difficult to recognise.

James Alison asks whether:

“Our sexual desire is something in need of a process of humanisation so that it can be part of a relationship of bodily presence to another, tending to build the partner up, enrich and delight them as well as care for them, tend to them and be stretched into age and death alongside them ... a process of bodily involvement with another that we have found ourselves being sucked into being given a self we did not know, but rejoice to see as something we are becoming, something holy.”

God is present in potential everywhere, contrary to the idea about God held by a significant number of General Synod members. God works unseen and unacknowledged in the lives of every human being, and can mysteriously draw us together through love into relationships and encounters which can themselves become processes of transformation, growth and change.

Thanks to those of you who responded to last week’s blog and made the point so forcibly to me. I will be arguing for full equality at tomorrow’s meeting. I have no doubt that full equality is what God knows is right and proper for all people, and that includes lesbian and gay Christians.

Colin Coward

General Synod and women bishops - is the Holy Spirit calling the church to adulthood?

My laptop expired yesterday before I was able to blog. Initially I felt depressed and began to panic - how could I get online, and what was I going to do here at Synod if I couldn't report on events as they unfolded? Then I told myself to calm down and that it wasn't the end of the world. Maybe it was God's way of telling me that I wasn't here to blog but simply to be present, alongside my friends on General Synod for whom the next 2 days were going to be stressful and momentous.

Thanks to my partner's laptop, I am at last able to come online and read reactions to yesterday's debate, having attended the Eucharist in the Minster this morning and a WATCH meeting at lunchtime. The effect on me of my laptop crashing is not to be compared in scale with the effect of yesterday's vote on those who either oppose outright the opening of the episcopate to women or can live with it only if a woman-bishop-free space is created for them on their terms.

I think there is a similarity in my emotional reaction, however, with those who were distressed by yesterday's vote. Thirty minutes after my laptop crashed, I was able to pause, engage my adult self, and say, okay, this is where I am, deal with this present reality. I calmed down and resumed life without laptop.

Yesterday afternoon, some Synod members began to have Anglican tantrums, wanting to terminate the debate until they felt better, walking out when this was refused, discussing how they might overturn the decision when the debate resumes on Monday and issuing threats, yet again, about schism, money and splits. Anglican Mainstream reports that senior Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical leaders met yesterday evening to request an urgent meeting with both Archbishops to discuss the matter before Synod resumes on Monday morning. How to overturn the decision was the substance of their meeting.

Anglican Mainstream also claims the amendment was lost on a "procedural device" (their phrase and inverted commas) of requiring a two-thirds vote in all three houses, the clergy voting 50-50 and thus defeating the amendment. Firstly, it wasn't split 50-50, the clergy vote was 85 for, 90 against with 5 abstentions. The vote could have been taken by Synod in its entirety, in which case the amendment would have passed, but it had voted for a vote by Houses. An earlier crucial vote two years ago on women in the episcopate legislation was taken by synod, not by houses, and on that occasion ensured that progress was made. The Holy Spirit seems to be telling Synod in subtle ways to get on with it.

The Archbishops are understandably distressed that their amendment was lost. It was their baby. But they were trying in some way to reinstate provisions for those opposed which have been most thoroughly explored over the past two years and rejected.

My take on yesterday's vote is this. The Holy Spirit is guiding the Church of England into adulthood, to maturity as the Body of Christ. Yesterday she said, once again, Grow Up! It is time to welcome women into the episcopate. I call you friends, adult friends.

All sides in the debate now have painful emotions to work through. Those in favour of women in the episcopate feel somewhat guilty at the pain they have induced in others. But that doesn't mean you need to capitulate to emotional immaturity or blackmail on either side. Be generous, grow up, hold your nerve and vote for what in your heart you believe to be right.

I, of course, have a personal interest in this. I am in favour of the inclusion of women at every level of church ministry. One day General Synod will be asked to vote on the place of LGBT people in the Church of England in respect of Civil Partnerships and the ordination of those with partners. It will need a very mature, emotionally confident group of people on Synod to achieve a positive, pro-gay vote.

Yesterday's vote has laid another foundation stone. I believe members of Synod, Archbishops, bishops, priests and laity, will digest what has happened. Some will continue to feel hurt and in their inner world, feel marginalized or rejected. Others will reflect and adjust to the apparently new environment in which they find themselves. If we are not able to grow and change we will remain a church addicted to immature emotional attachments, to the idealised past and to the tyranny of the child which lurks in each of us.

Colin Coward

Driving to General Synod immersed in the infinite love of God

I should be packing my bags and the Changing Attitude materials for our stand at General Synod in preparation for the drive north at 11am, but blogging is addictive. The blog received 2,500 hits yesterday and nearly 3,000 on Tuesday when the gay Ugandan story was posted.

I was sitting outside my house at 6.50 this morning drinking my second mug of Darjeeling when the Guardian arrived with the headline ‘'Williams under siege over gay bishop veto'. I read the articles by Stephen Bates, Riazat Butt and Andrew Brown and then said the morning office and settled to meditate. For 35 minutes I was more fully present than any morning this week, resting in awareness of the rich diversity and beauty around me and the infinite goodness and love of God flowing through creation, ever present in the reality which is God. I’d previously read this morning’s lectionary passage from 2 Corinthians 4:

It is not ourselves we proclaim; we proclaim Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’s sake. For the God who said, ‘Out of darkness light shall shine,’ has caused his light to shine in our hearts, the light which is knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

This is a deep reality for me as I pray and meditate each morning. It is a deep reality for many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Christians who know in the depths of their hearts and souls the light that shines and the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. We are here and now living into the deepest faith and a profound experience of the presence of God. We are not leaving God and we know that God will never abandon us nor any other beings in creation. Talks of splits in the church is, at this level of deep contemplation and prayer, irrelevant, because we know that nothing can separate us from the love of God.

It is in awareness of these deepest realities that I will drive to York and a meeting of General Synod which takes place when the Church of England faces intense media scrutiny yet again over its attitude to women and gays. My prayers are for a decision in Synod which grants the potential in legislation for full equality in the episcopate for women.

My heart was unsettled as I went to sleep last night. My friend Andrew Goddard had emailed, taken aback by my Wednesday blog blaming evangelicals for leaking information from the Crown Nominations Commission. We had sat in the sun in Andrew’s garden in Bristol last Friday, talking mostly about scapegoating. I’ve just read Raising Abel by James Alison.

Andrew commented that I might be fuelling suspicions and speculating in unhelpful ways about who in the Church of England could be to blame, leading to scapegoating kicking in again in powerful ways whether against Rowan or Jeffrey John or Colin Slee or Chris Sugden or whoever.

I take Andrew’s reflection very seriously. I am committed to a path in which I believe that Jesus’ death and resurrection opened the capacity for us to cease scapegoating each other and stop projecting our fear and blame onto other groups. Only, absolutely only, when we cease to do this, do we have the potential to stop the rot and live with others into the Kingdom of God.

Time to pack! I can do no better than sign off with the final sentence from the email Andrew Goddard sent me as I was writing:

Trust that in midst of a pretty traumatic Synod you and all there - especially Rowan! - will continue to know God's loving presence and peace.

Colin Coward - on the road to York

General Synod members plan to flout ruling that ACNA clergy cannot exercise ministry in the UK

Christianity Today reports that so-called ‘orthodox’ Anglicans in North America are inviting priests in the Church of England to make a show of solidarity by taking part in a clergy exchange (or swap as they charmingly describe it). The exchange is being proposed following the consecration of Bishop Mary Glasspool last Saturday.

The Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) has said the clergy exchange would be an opportunity for Church of England parishes and clergy to express their solidarity and friendship with ACNA churches. Participating clergy will serve the pulpit for a period of three to four weeks in January and July or August next year. This was expressly forbidden in a motion passed by General Synod last February.

Synod debated Lorna Ashwoth’s motion expressing the wish to be in communion with ACNA. An amendment was rejected that expressed "our desire that in the interim, the orders of ACNA clergy be recognised and accepted by the Archbishops subject to their satisfaction as to such clergy being of good standing, enabling them to exercise their ordained ministry in this country, according to the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967”. The final text recognised the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family and invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.

The letter of invitation to Church of England clergy has been sent jointly by Paul Perkin, Chair of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in the UK and Ireland and Secretary Chris Sugden. The letter says: “Institutionally the CofE seems to be sitting on the fence. The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the consecration of Mary Glasspool in TEC is 'regrettable'; yet the CofE has not fully embraced ACNA. An important contribution at this stage will be for parishes and clergy to express solidarity and friendship with clergy and parishes in ACNA.”

Chris Sugden and Paul Perkin have been disloyal to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England in their quest for an orthodoxy and tradition which is not Anglican. They are both members of General Synod.

Chris Sugden and Paul Perkin’s letter to C of E clergy invites them to disobey the rule which expressly does not allow ACNA clergy to exercise ministry in parishes in this country. Anglican Mainstream and ACNA want a free-for-all in the Anglican Communion, having advocated the crossing of Provincial boundaries for some years, and now telling priests to ignore the will of General Synod.

I happily ignore the will of General Synod as expressed in Tony Higton’s 1987 motion and of the House of Bishops as expressed in ‘Issues in Human Sexuality’ and the House of Bishops’ pastoral statement on civil partnerships, but I am not a member of General Synod.

Changing Attitude’s goals and bishop's changing attitudes

Changing Attitude’s goals are: “The day when the Anglican Ccommunion fully accepts, welcomes and offers equality of opportunity to LGBT people, including the blessing of same-sex relationships in church and the training, ordination and preferment of LGBT clergy and lay ministers.”

The goal in England will only be achieved incrementally, and even in the Episcopal Church, a full welcome and equality of opportunity for LGBT people will not be achieved universally. If I’m reading the runes correctly, however, in England there are signs of real change in the House of Bishops and practical changes are being achieved thanks to the work of individuals, secular groups like Stonewall and faith communities with a greater commitment to LGBT inclusion than the Church of England. Lord Alli’s amendment is an important development.

Martin Wharton, Newcastle and Richard Harries, retired bishop of Oxford and patron of CA both voted in favour of the amendment while David James, Bradford, voted against, as would Michael Scott-Joynt if he had been present.

The English House of Bishop’s voting pattern in the Lords and in General Synod is revealing. In the vote on clergy pensions at General Synod the majority of bishops, 12, voted in favour: Ian Brackley, Dorking; Richard Frith, Hull; James Jones, Liverpool; John Packer, Ripon and Leeds; Paul Butler, Southwell and Nottingham; Anthony Priddis, Hereford; John Pritchard, Oxford; Geoffrey Rowell, Europe; John Saxbee, Lincoln; John Sentamu, York; Timothy Thornton, Truro; Rowan Williams, Canterbury. Two bishops voted against: Robert Paterson, Sodor and Mann and Nicholas Reade, Blackburn, and three abstained: Christopher Cocksworth, Coventry; John Goddard, Burnley; James Newcombe, Carlisle.

At the end of January, bishops in the Lords voted for Lady O’Cathain’s amendments to counter the Government’s attempt to reword the law governing church employment. York, London, Winchester, Durham, Chichester, Exeter, Liverpool, and Hereford all voted for Lady O’Cathain and against the Government, as did Lord Carey. Lord Harries voted against Lady O’Cathain and for the Government’s amendment.

The voting patterns help build a picture of where the sympathy of individual bishops lies and more significantly shows that, as I’ve said before, the House no longer feels constrained to maintain a common mind about issues affecting LGBT people. It is still true that it’s much easier for retired bishops to vote according to their conscience than serving bishops.

Conservatives are not happy about these developments. Ruth Gledhill interviewed the Right Rev Michael Scott Joynt, Bishop of Winchester after the vote in favour of Lord Alli’s amendment. He told her that 'Having thought about it a great deal since the committee stage, I regret enormously the vote last night. I think it will make for a great many difficulties. There are two I am particularly concerned about. Notwithstanding the bland words of a number of individuals, some of whom surprise me, I believe it does further fudge the line between civil partnerships and marriage. That is shown by some newspapers which simply speak of gay marriages in church. The second thing is, I believe that it will open, not the Church of England but individual clergy, to charges of discrimination if they solemnise marriages as they all do but refuse to host civil partnership signings in their churches. Unless the Government does something explicit about this, I believe that is the next step.'

The Bishop of Winchester radically disagrees with other members of the bench of bishops in the Lords and in the House of Bishops. According to an opinion poll conducted by Populus and published by The Times in June last year 61% of the British public believe that same-sex couples should be able to have a civil marriage. Bishops like Michael Scott-Joynt hold a principled in accordance with their own biblical and theological views. They are, however, dramatically at variance with the majority in UK society. The majority doesn’t make it right – except that other bishops agree with the majority and are now prepared to vote accordingly.

The Evangelical Alliance issued a statement calling on the Government to guarantee that churches will genuinely be free to choose whether or not to hold civil partnerships without risk of future anti-discrimination lawsuits following the amendment to the Civil Partnerships Act whilst acknowledging that the change to the Civil Partnerships Act is in keeping with the important principle of religious freedom. That’s an important development which genuinely creates more space for LGBT people in what has usually been a body with very judgmental attitudes to LGBT people.

The Christian Institute and Christian Concern for our Nation both claimed conspiracy theory as a reason for Lord Alli’s amendment being passed. The Christian Institute blamed a rare break in normal procedure allowing the sitting to continue late into the night to allow the Bill to receive its entire Report Stage in one day which led to Lord Alli’s amendment being reached when scores of Peers who would have voted against it were not in the House. I’m not sure who these scores of Peers are, but certainly even if every bishop had been there and voted against the amendment, it would still have been carried.

Andrea Williams, Director of CCFON, was upset about the amendment and said: “What took place … is nothing short of outrageous and all who care about democracy should be alarmed at the proceedings. At the end of January, Baroness Royall for the Government stated that: ‘Any change can therefore be brought only after proper and careful consideration of these issues’. Was this statement deliberately deceitful, or do the Government believe that last night’s debate constituted the ‘proper and careful consideration’ of the issues? The amendment was debated for less than an hour and was voted through literally at the eleventh hour, taking everybody by surprise. To have such a significant change in the law—a change to another piece of legislation no less—take place at the end of the Equality Bill’s passing, without any real debate or consultation, and at such an hour that most Peers were not even in the House, is a disgrace and a clear manipulation of the system.”

Extreme conservatives don’t like what is happening. I hope and pray that bishops who support the full inclusion of LGBT people and welcome those in Civil Partnerships will hold their nerve, strengthen their back bones, and continue for vote in accordance with changing attitudes.

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Presidential Address – Jean Mayland, Changing Attitude Patron and Trustee responds

Changing Attitude patrons and trustees hold a spectrum of opinions about the stance we should take in response to the Anglican Covenant and the strategic attitude towards the process of changing Communion attitudes towards LGBT people. The Revd Jean Mayland, retired Church Life Secretary for CTBI holds a more hawkish position than me and reacted more negatively to the Archbishop’s Presidential Address. She is pictured below on the Modern Churchperson's Union stall at Lambeth 2008. Her response follows.


The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Presidential Address - a personal response

I first heard accounts of the Address as I drove home from York and felt very angry. I read the analysis of the speech by Ruth Gledhill in ‘The Times’ and read the text of the address through twice. I am still angry and I will try to define why.

I think it is because the Archbishop rebukes everyone else but never seems to acknowledge his own responsibility or failure of leadership. The only positive aspect is that he makes a half hearted apology to gay and lesbian people.

But first, the issue of women bishops and those of us who are campaigning for it. The Archbishop accuses us of not listening and just pushing our own demands.

I made my first speech in Church Assembly on the ordination of women in 1967 when I was 31. I listened to Dr Demant who told us that we only wanted to be priests because we were jealous of men as we did not have a penis. We wanted one too, aparently! I am now 73 and I have been listening to our opponents from both ends of the ecclesiastical spectrum for over 40 years! What a time in the wilderness. As well as listening we have been discussing and arguing and working and debating on and on and on and they never change - in fact Forward in Faith and Reform have become more and more rigid in their stance.

How dare that man tell me to listen! He came in at the end of the process and did not listen himself!

In his address the Archbishop accused us of jeopardising the current situation by insisting on provision just on our terms. He also says that what we hear is the rest of the Church saying, ‘Of course we want you – but exclusively on our terms, not yours’; which translates in the ears of many as ‘We don’t actually want you at all’.

I actually do not hear the Church saying this about women - the great majority of the Church wants us. It is the Archbishops who give us the impression that they are not listening to us and that we are expendable and of little value. We have asked for terms which place proper value of women and will not harm the church.

We oppose ‘Flying Bishops’ because they have entrenched opposition, supported the bullying of women and marred the catholic nature of the Church. We have never defended privilege or our own 'rights’. We have made demands which the majority of the church and those in secular society who have an interest at all, can see are just, fair and moderate. I do not think that over the years WATCH has campaigned in any way of which we should be ashamed .We have tried to be 'wise as serpents' but we have also tried to be 'harmless as doves.'

Gay and Lesbian People

The Archbishop in his address did give a sort of half hearted apology to gay and lesbian people and yet at the same time he defended the opposition of the Church in the House of Lords to the Equality Bill .He argues that the Bishops in the Lords were arguing for Religious Freedom. When one remembers the real struggle for religious freedom that took place in the Communist countries in Soviet times, then he does not have a clue. Anyway what was the religious freedom he was arguing for? It is freedom for the Church to discriminate against women and against gay and lesbian people. He says the discrimination against the latter was a small exception - but it means that gay ‘would be clergy’ living in a faithful partnership cannot be ordained - or if they do many of them live in fear. It means that they and lay people can be denied jobs if homophobic church members oppose them.

Behind this is the demand that clergy and church lay workers in civil partnerships should be celibate. Why? Celibacy in the Church of England has always been a vocation and not a matter of compulsion. Faithful commitment should be supported and not condemned and gay people have as much right to enjoy the God given gift of sex as straight people. The Bishops also made serious demands about transgender people that showed complete lack of understanding and care. Only the Bishop of Chichester wavered a bit and showed a bit of care and said it was very complicated.

Why should the Church seek an exemption from the Equality Bill so that it can exclude people in this way? When I worked at Churches Together in Britain and Ireland (CTBI) the first discussion papers about bringing the legislation concerning different marginalised groups together were published and they struck me as caring and concerned and Christ-like.

Now I am ashamed and angry that the Church seeks exemption. What about Genesis in and even Paul about no Jew or Gentile etc?

The Covenant

The situation became even worse when the Archbishop moved on to the issue of the Covenant which he praised and desired. This would create a two tiered Anglican Communion and would be an instrument for the oppression of gay and lesbian people.

I assume that Nigeria - homophobic, anti women, allowing and even supporting violence against women (but of course very Biblically based!!!!) would be in the top tier and the USA – open, liberal, caring, mission conscious, generous but very suspect because of its Biblical criticism and gay clergy would be in the bottom tier.

The other quite amusing thing (one either laughs or cries) is that I am sure the Archbishop assumes England will be in the top tier. What would then happen if the General Synod decides that we should have women bishops, ordain practising gay men and women and bless civil partnerships? Do we then go down to level two? The province of Canterbury a second class Anglican Province – at last one can laugh rather than scream.

Jean Mayland

General Synod approves pension parity for Civil Partnerships

At the conclusion of an extremely good debate in which every speaker voiced unprecedented approval for Civil Partnerships, in a vote by Houses, Synod approved Mark Bratton’s motion unaltered by the amendments proposed by the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds and by Philip Giddings. The voting figures were Bishops, for 12, against 2, abstentions 3, Clergy for 97, against 23, abstentions 10, Laity for 78, against 59, abstentions 9.

The motion read:

That this Synod request the Archbishops’ Council and the Church of England Pensions Board to bring forward changes to the rules governing the clergy pension scheme in order to go beyond the requirements of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and provide for pension benefits to be paid to the surviving civil partners of deceased clergy on the same basis as they are currently paid to surviving spouses.

To be honest, I’m astonished. This isn’t the result I expected. The cumulative effects of the week at Synod from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s apology and very strong comments about the Uganda Bill in his Presidential Address on Tuesday to the Church of Uganda’s decision not to support the Anti-homosexuality Bill to this afternoon’s debate suggest significant movement in the Church of England’s attitude to homosexuality. In the period since gay Tuesday two years ago, the Church seems to have changed its attitude even more radically in understanding the issues of generosity and inclusion which affect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

The big issues of equality and inclusion still have to be faced – real quality for LGBT clergy and lay ministers and the celebration of Civil Partnerships in church – but unless I am very mistaken, our church is learning and changing and this is a cause of real thanksgiving and celebration.

The amendments would, from Ripon and Leeds, have offered hardship grants rather than pension equality and from Philip Giddings, have extended equality to any qualifying relative living as a member of the deceased’s household for more than 5 years. Both amendments were lost, the first by 110 to 154, the second on a show of hands.

Giles Goddard was called first in the debate and in a confident maiden speech, said that this was about justice, generosity and care. Stephen Coles declared that he had a strong interest at the beginning of his speech and John Saxbee, Bishop of Lincoln, added strong support.

The Archbishop of Canterbury was strongly affirming of LGBT people in his Presidential Address before offering a profound apology. He said:

The debate over the status and vocational possibilities of LGBT people in the Church is not helped by ignoring the existing facts, which include many regular worshippers of gay or lesbian orientation and many sacrificial and exemplary priests who share this orientation. There are ways of speaking about the question that seem to ignore these human realities or to undervalue them; I have been criticised for doing just this, and I am profoundly sorry for the carelessness that could give such an impression.

He also expressed repugnance at the infamous legislation being discussed in Uganda and in comments about the Anglican Communion, said:

“There is an undoubted good in the independence of local provinces, and there is an undoubted good in the fact that some provinces are increasingly patient, compassionate and thankful in respect of the experience and ministry of gay and lesbian people – entirely in accord with what the Lambeth Conferences and Primates' statements have said.”

It wasn’t all good news, but throughout this week at Synod, there has been much stronger recognition of the reality of LGBT lives and ministries in our Church and for that, I am quietly thankful to God.

Lorna Ashworth’s motion about the Anglican Church in North America

Suffragan Bishop David Anderson, President and CEO of the American Anglican Council based in Atlanta, has been present at General Synod this week and I’ve enjoyed two lengthy conversations with him. We had met previously at TEC General Conventions and ACC meetings. I start with David because we had a genuinely easy conversation, but I want to write about the distortion of reality which characterises the conservative reporting of events.

Bishop David was here with the four ACNA leaders who spoke at a fringe meeting organised by Anglican Mainstream on Tuesday lunchtime. I was present at the meeting, illicitly because the Bishop of Winchester who chaired said at the beginning (looking directly at me, I thought), this meeting is open only to members of General Synod, asking anyone else present to leave. I remained in my seat, waiting to be named. I’m sorry, bishop, for having ignored your request.

The four speakers at the meeting representing the Anglican Church in North America were Bishop Donald Harvey, Mrs. Cynthia Brust, Dr. Michael Howell, and the Rev. Dr. Tory Baucum. They were confident and convincing in their presentations and any one not knowing better would have been convinced by what they said. Speakers from The Episcopal Church would have been equally passionate and convincing. That’s what North Americans are like.

Yesterday I met one of the BBC reporters covering Synod. What they said isn’t true, he commented, having visited both TEC and ACNA parishes. ACNA distorts statistics to their advantage and are riven with tensions and disagreements. ACNA is an unstable network. This is very different from the idealised picture presented on Tuesday of a network which is modelling Anglican breadth and inclusiveness with far more success than we in the Church of England have ever been able to achieve.

Could their picture be true? Let’s look at the way conservative groups, including ACNA itself, are reporting yesterday’s debate on Lorna Ashworth’s Private Member’s Motion.

The Anglican Mainstream headline is ‘ACNA a member of the Anglican Family says Church of England General Synod’.

David Virtue headlines his article: ‘ACNA recognised in spirited debate by Church of England Synod’.

The ACNA website reports: ‘General Synod affirms Anglican Church in North America’.

The Bishop of Bristol’s amendment does none of the above. It recognises and affirms the desire of ACNA to remain in the Anglican family; it does not recognise ACNA nor say ACNA is a member of the Anglican family nor affirms ACNA.

The conservative reports reveal their desperation to be recognised as members of the Anglican family and the lengths to which they will go to convince themselves by totally distorting the truth. This is a repeated characteristic of conservative groupings.

Comments on the Stand Firm web site reinforce this inability to tell the truth. Baby Blue, who has generously acknowledged me in the past, writes that “the Church of England recognizes the ACNA. We are not ‘schismatics.’” Sorry, but no, the Church of England did not do that yesterday. Baby Blue claims it is brilliant and changes the whole conversation because ACNA remain Anglicans in the eyes of the Church of England. I think she and other commentators are grasping at straws. Many of those asking questions at the fringe meeting on Tuesday were critical of what they had heard. The first questioner asked whether those on the panel were all in denial about what is happening in North America. Another asked whether they were saying the Episcopal Church is not now part of the Anglican Communion, such was the distorted impression they created. Cynthia Brust pointedly refused to answer the question.

Still on Patrol’s analysis on Stand Firm started with the thought that “the C of E passed something expressing generally positive sentiments toward ACNA which probably infuriated the Presiding Heretic which by definition is a good thing.” This kind of abuse towards the Presiding Bishop and The Episcopal Church is characteristic of the attitudes held by conservatives and revealed by Stand Firm and VirtueOnline. They are not Christian. They are poisonous.

The debate itself was brutally interrupted by a malfunction of the electronic voting system which caused a long hiatus while arrangements were made to vote through the lobby doors. It was a mess in the middle of a debate was something of a mess, avoiding the underlying issues and the ultimate need for Christians to be reconciled with each other.

I asked Bishop David Anderson where he thought ACNA and TEC would be in North America in 10 or 20 years. He had no idea. If we are not working towards a reconciliation and reintegration of churches and ministries, then we are failing to pursue fundamental Christian ideals. At the same time, I affirm that Changing Attitude can envisage nothing other than a fully inclusive Church in which the ministries of women and LGBT people are fully integrated into the life of the Church.

At the moment, there is a visceral hatred of women priests and bishops and a loathing of gay people in ministry among certain groups and networks. Thank goodness for John Ward, lay member for the Diocese of London, who brought personal reality into yesterday’s debate when he spoke to his amendment. We are talking about people who have left and walked away from the Communion, he said. He talked of his 14 year relationship with the man who is now his Civil Partner and linked the gay issue and Gene Robinson’s ordination with those he cannot affirm because they have split over the issue. He asked permission to withdraw his amendment and received the warmest applause of the afternoon for his honesty and generosity.

At the moment, all groups in North America are finding it impossibly difficult to be honest and generous towards each other. My conversations with David Anderson told me that we can be friends and acknowledge each other’s humanity, but only when we set aside differences over gender and sexuality. One-to-one we can do that, but in the arena of Church politics and structures it is at present impossible. People prefer to carry their prejudices, projections and demands for a Communion that excludes certain categories of people.

It isn’t difficult for Changing Attitude to stand firm with those who want women and gay people fully included in our Communion. It’s much more difficult to work and pray for an outcome in which present divisions are reconciled and all are united in one Communion. It is a dream which we have to try and turn into reality. We must refuse to be corrupted by the distortions of reality which characterise conservative campaign strategy.

Four wasted decades - the Anglican inability to engage with homosexuality

There is a thread running through the Anglican Communion’s engagement with homosexuality that I find curious - the inability to grasp the nettle despite tentative initiatives over 4 decades. I’m interested in the history of the Anglican Communion’s failure to grasp the nettle and wonder if there are lessons to be learnt.

In 2005 The Episcopal Church produced a response to the request made in the Windsor Report 2004 that the church explains how a person living in a same gender union may be eligible to lead the flock of Christ. TEC presented ‘To Set Our Hope on Christ’ (TSOHOC) to the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Nottingham in 2005. I attended the presentation. Since then the report seems largely to have been forgotten but I recently re-read it.

A long appendix outlines the historical development of beliefs and policies regarding sexuality in the Episcopal Church, USA. It was at the General Convention in 1967, two years before the Stonewall riots of 1969 (the key event that led to the modern gay rights movement), that a resolution was passed instructing the Executive Council to 1) Initiate studies to express Christian attitudes with respect to ... homosexuality; and 2) Develop an educational program designed to communicate such attitudes to the Church at large.

What struck me re-reading the report is that nothing happened as a result of the resolution. The report, says TSOHOC, was probably referred to staff, since there is no mention of a follow-up study, a bare mention of homosexuality in the 1970 General Convention Journal, and a cryptic entry in the minutes of a House of Bishops meeting in 1972. Integrity was founded in 1974 and General Convention dealt substantively with homosexuality for the first time in 1976, nine years after the 1967 resolution.

The Windsor Report Appendix Three reprints resolution 10 from the Lambeth Conference 1978 and Resolution 64 from 1988. Resolution 10 ‘recognised the need for deep and dispassionate study of the question of homosexuality ...’ Unlike TSOHOC, the Windsor Report doesn’t say what happened in the decade following Lambeth 1978 nor Lambeth 1988. Does the silence mean that nothing at all happened? As far as I’m aware, no action was initiated in relation to homosexuality. Resolution 10 also addressed marriage and family life, broken marriages, abortion and genetic engineering. Were they deaslt with? Who was responsible for the failure to initiate action on Resolutions 10 and 64 recommendations about homosexuality – the Anglican Communion Office?

In the 1950s Church of England bishops were among those who advocated for reform of the law in relation to homosexuality which resulted in the 1967 Act. There was a confidence in arguing for decriminalisation, at the same time upholding ‘traditional church teaching’. The confidence exhibited then has evaporated over the following five decades. Why – what happened?

Post Stonewall 1969 LGBT people became more articulate and visible and more confident in arguing and campaigning for change. We were pretty much invisible in the 1950s and yet the Church of England was well-aware that homosexuality was an internal as much as an external issue.

Why did General Convention take 9 years to respond and the Anglican Communion 20 years - by which time forces of opposition had time to organise, with Tony Higton’s 1987 General Synod motion and the 1997 Kuala Lumpur Statement.

Was it simply that those who were responsible for initiating action were incompetent, or was it a failure of nerve, a fear of engaging with homosexuality, prejudice, lack of confidence? I would love to hear from someone who was at Lambeth 1987 or 1988 or working for the Anglican Communion Office then. Even more curious, how did those resolutions get onto the agenda in the first place? If there was enough confidence to table the resolutions, why the inability to take action after Lambeth? Now, we can only speculate how different the landscape might be today if the Communion had started deep and dispassionate study in 1978.

What is the Communion avoiding now? The most strident voices in the Communion are either demonising homosexuality or trying to marginalize the pro-gay Christian experience by presenting ex-gay ministries as the solution. The majority in the Communion would like to be persuaded that there is no such reality as homosexuality, no gay gene to prove that I exist in my gay identity. What a contrast with Church of England bishops in the 1950s. At least they were under no illusion as to the reality of homosexuality and the effect on a minority group of criminalizing sexual activity.

It has been left to the secular realm and to a minority of courageous Provinces and Christians to maintain the campaign not just for equality but at the moment for the very survival of LGBT lives in Africa. Christians who dare to make the case for LGBT people and exemplify mature, adult gay experience and ideals are vilified.

So what lesson can we draw from five decades of Anglican history? Never, never let the Communion forget that the Body of Christ includes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Never, never allow the church off the hook, never let the church escape judgment for its prejudice towards LGBT people. Never lose faith in Christ, whose unconditional love embraces all of us.

Changing Attitude at General Synod in York

Changing Attitude is present at the July meeting of General Synod at the University of York. Four volunteers have joined Colin Coward, Director or Changing Attitude England. CA has a display in the exhibition area of Synod. We are here to network and engage with members of Synod, those who are Changing Attitude supporters, those who are supportive of the full inclusion of LGBT people and those who oppose our full inclusion in the church.

On Friday evening we welcomed members at both entrances to the Synod meeting hall with the Changing Attitude banners and leaflets handed to synod members telling two stories, one of a lesbian and the other of a gay couple, all committed Christians, one couple committed evangelicals, who have been deeply wounded by the church’s refusal to bless their relationships.

The new CA banner is based on the Stonewall campaign of 2008 and reads ‘Some Christians are gay. Get over it!’ The banner was welcomed enthusiastically by many Synod members. Those who disagree with our presence walk past and refuse to take a leaflet. They are, of course, the people who would most benefit from reading the testimonies, supporters of FOCUK.

Leading UK conservative bishops and Synod members support schismatic Canadians

Three evangelical bodies in the Church of England have sent a letter of greeting to Bishop Donald Harvey and letters in support of St John’s Shaughnessy.

The Venerable Michael Lawson writes as Chairman of the Church of England Evangelical Council and on their behalf. The letter says the CEEC are deeply conscious that the bishop is a genuine and authentic part of the Anglican Communion, and equally that he offers orthodox ministry. He is, says the letter, facing an atrocious ordeal.

The Steering Group of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in UK and Ireland which includes Bishop Michael Nazir Ali of Rochester and Canon Dr Chris Sugden and Mrs Sarah Finch, both members of General Synod have written to St John’s expressing wholehearted support in this time of great difficulty and shock and sadness that such an action be taken against them at St John’s.

The FoCA letter says they have grave concerns regarding the diocese of New Westminster’s departure from orthodox Christian teaching - which is held by the majority of the Anglican communion.

Dr Philip Giddings, Convenor, Canon Dr Chris Sugden (again), Executive Secretary and Bishop Wallace Benn of Lewes, Trustee wrote to St John’s Shaughnessy on behalf of Anglican Mainstream’s Steering Committee.

They say they recognize in St John’s the marks of authentic Anglican identity, faith and practice and send a message of solidarity, encouragement and support in prayer as the parish enters the judicial process to enable them to continue to use the property and resources that God has entrusted to them in the service of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and for the good of all the people of Vancouver.

There is a challenge in the letters to those who think they are the true members of the Anglican Communion, starting at the top with the Archbishop of Canterbury, including the majority of bishops and parishes in the UK, the majority of Provinces in the Anglican Communion and filtering down to all those LGBT people and supportive heterosexuals who believe they are thoroughly orthodox, genuine, authentic and serving the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The implication is that supporters of Changing Attitude and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Anglicans who reject Lambeth 1.10 and the moratoria on ordinations and blessings are not orthodox or genuine. That is an arrogant implication.

The bishops and General Synod members who have signed are themselves undermining the Windsor Report and the moratoria on cross-provincial interventions.

The three groups are writing in support of a bishop and parish acting in defiance of their own diocesan bishop who is in good standing with his own Province and within the Anglican Communion. Unlike many of the Global South bishops, Bishop Michael Ingham attended the Lambeth conference and has been unwaveringly faithful.

The launch of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans on July 6 in London is the next step in a carefully planned strategy to introduce schism to the United Kingdom.

Almost certainly some of those signing these letters wish to see schismatic bishops in England leading schismatic parishes, and all because LGBT Anglicans in the UK want their loving relationships to be affirmed by the church.

Numbers are always important for these people. They claim that those attending Gafcon 2008 represented some 40 million Anglicans world-wide, 70% of the total active membership of 55 million.

Well, this is another grandiose, arrogant claim. If all that they claim is true, then they will eventually replace the present Anglican Communion with their new FoCA model. Time will tell.