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.

Do gay bishops and primates exist?

I am utterly fed up with being talked about as if I don’t exist, by which I mean don’t exist authentically as a gay man as if I am mistaken in my awareness of my own identity. I am utterly sick and tired of having Genesis 2 (male and female he created them), Leviticus 18.22 (you must not lie with a man as with a woman) and Romans 1.27 (and men, giving up natural relations with women, too burn with lust for one another) quoted and thrown at me as defining me as a corrupt, inadequate Christian.

For 55 years I have known my identity and I have never wavered in knowing my identity despite the 55 years in which the church has tried to undermine, chip away at and denigrate my own self-knowledge and self-confidence. For 50 years I have been maturing in faith and prayer. The constantly corrosive narrative of doubt about LGBT identity, gay maturity, gay love, gay fidelity, in the Anglican Communion and other faith communities sickens me every day (and at times in my life, literally sickened me).

Archbishop Rowan’s inability to be crystal clear about the identity, Christian fidelity and integrity of my many hundreds of LGBT friends across the Communion, some of whom are friends we share, is both intolerable – and understandable. I understand why people have a different perspective on life and life’s priorities from me – I try to be a tolerant, generous, inclusive Anglican.

I want to try and explain something which I have found hard to think about and articulate clearly but which has come increasingly into focus. I had an incredibly valuable conversation with Andrew Goddard of Fulcrum yesterday in Pimlico where his wife Lis is now Vicar of St James-the-Less. Andrew and I first met some 10 years ago and we have continued to meet regularly and enjoy an extensive conversation in which we have both travelled a long way. Talking with Andrew, who is evangelical, orthodox and traditional in his own terms, has helped me learn about myself and explore my own theology, ethics and faith. We are nowhere as far apart now in our theology and thinking as we were ten years ago, but there are still important areas of difference. Our extended conversation offers an important model to the Anglican Communion, one that I have no doubt has the blessing of Archbishop Rowan.

Yesterday with Andrew, I was able to describe with more clarity than ever before why I have deep confidence in my awareness of my sexual identity, my faith and life with God, my prayerfulness and the integrity of my calling as a priest who is gay and partnered and does not have a vocation to celibacy. What is unusual about the conversation with Andrew is that I can tell him these things, a conservative Christian, with such freedom and clarity. Usually I am conscious of the need to be cautious, defensive and self-protective when engaging with less-generous people.

Let me try and take a next step in my thoughts (in my mind these things are all connected, but it doesn’t appear quite so obvious when I try and write them down).

On Thursday I attended the Westminster Media Forum Seminar on Reflecting Diversity – the LGBT Community and the Media. Another element in my thought process came into focus. Peter Tatchell talked about the double-standard of the BBC towards LGBT issues compared with black, Jewish or Moslem issues. The BBC still sometimes presents inappropriate gay stereotypes and interviews people with extremely homophobic views such as Stephen Green of Christian Voice ‘for the sake of balance’ who, if he represents anyone, represents a tiny minority on the extreme Christian fringe. Despite this, he was given a privileged role in Sunday Morning Live on BBC 1 last Sunday, having been flown to the Belfast studio when Sharon Fergusson and myself were confined to web cams at home.

When dealing with black or Jewish issues, the BBC does not wheel out neo-Nazis or anti-Semites to provide balance but in discussions about lesbian and gay issues uses Stephen Green, a homophobe. In the context of the BBC it is generally to be expected that zero tolerance will be given towards racism or prejudice against Jews and Moslems whereas in parts of the Christian community prejudice against Jews, Moslems and women, let alone LGBT people, is held to be appropriate and justified by scripture and tradition.

NO PREJUDICE which demeans or diminishes another human being created by God is tolerable in my reading of the New Testament and the teaching of Jesus Christ. The first and greatest commandment is to love God, neighbour and self. My goodness, doesn’t Christianity have a lot to learn about prejudice, abuse and intolerance.

The next step in my thoughts – how to tackle this institutionalised, incredibly powerful prejudice against LGBT people in Christianity? Dealing with it in the BBC or the Conservative party has been child’s play compared with the Church.
Every week I discover more and more about the corrupting effect of secrecy in the Church. This week I learnt something more about the dynamics of the Crown Nominations Commission and the appointment of bishops, having already blogged about gay Primates and gay Church of England bishops. On Thinking Anglicans, Bill Dilworth questioned whether there really are 3 gay Primates and Doug said he is interested to know if there is some secret list of Bishops and Primates who happen to be gay
.
Why can’t I name them? Why is the Church left guessing as to their identity? It is because of the hostility, aggression, prejudice and homophobia that is unleashed in the Anglican Communion when a gay or lesbian priest is elected as a bishop in the USA or enters the frame as a candidate in England. I put these numbers into the conversation because of the invisibility of gay Primates and bishops. Their invisibility is connected not only to the culture of institutionalised prejudice in the Anglican Communion but to deeply corrosive and corrupting culture of institutionalised secrecy and fear in the Church of England. This culture inhibits me from freely naming those bishops and Primates.

The culture of secrecy and dishonesty, the inability to be open and transparent and to communicate effectively affects Lambeth Palace, Church House, the Crown Nominations Commission, the Anglican Communion Office, General Synod, dioceses and parishes. It means that people either second-guess information or are left in ignorance. The culture is rampant and is corrupting the life of the Christian community. Every dimension of Church life is affected. People are intimidated by those who I might sometimes want to describe as prejudiced, loud mouthed bigots but whose self-image is as defenders of orthodoxy and tradition. They intimidate the ability of the Archbishop of Canterbury to speak and act freely and they intimidate me – but I have far less to lose.

At the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Jamaica in 2009 I was challenged by leading conservative campaigners to justify why I claimed in the plural that there are three gay Primates. It was the claim of gay Primates in the plural that offended them. They demanded that I prove it by naming them. I refused to tell them because I do not believe it is right to violate people’s privacy and ‘out’ anyone who prefers to remain in the closet.

So how do I know there are three gay Primates? I know one of them personally. I know who the others are and the fact that there are three was confirmed in a conversation in the departure lounge at the airport in Cairo as we were flying back to the UK. I am tempted to name the person, but that would place him or her in a very difficult position and I have no wish to do so. This is the effect of the culture of secrecy and intimidation. It inhibits me from writing freely out of respect for a Christian friend and ensures the invisibility of so many potential gay and lesbian Christian role models.

How do I know there are between 10 and 13 gay bishops in the Church of England? Some I know personally. Friends and colleagues of other bishops repeatedly confirm to me that their friend or colleague is gay. One of them, Peter Wheatley, Bishop of Edmonton, was named as gay and partnered in the national press when first appointed, repeated at the time of Jeffrey John’s trauma in Reading. Two were members of my post-ordination training group in Southwark. One I trained alongside in Cambridge. Some are married, most are single.

The teaching of the Church of England says that being gay is no bar to being appointed as a bishop, and that even being in a Civil Partnership is no bar so long as the relationship is celibate. We know that these Church of England rules cannot be applied as a result of the aggressively hostile campaign against Jeffrey John when he was nominated for Reading in 2003 and the more recent furore over the possibility that he was being considered for Southwark. Bishops who are gay know that were they to come out and talk about their sexuality they would become the focus of abuse and a campaign by conservatives to remove them There would also be an inappropriate focus on their sexuality which would follow them wherever they went. Some of the homophobes in the Church of England would set out to research their past, and I know that some of them have pasts they would prefer to keep hidden.

So the 3 gay Primates and the 10 to 13 gay CofE bishops remain invisible. I understand why they are so discrete. As I know from my own bitter experience, the consequences of being open and visible can be traumatic - hate letters, innuendo, loss of PTO or licence, unwanted attention and media interest. But until openly gay bishops are able to be appointed or until serving gay bishops can safely come out, the Church continues to live with a false reality and their experience and witness is unavailable to the Church. There are no role models (except in the USA), no bishops who can describe their experience or be interviewed by the media (except in the USA), none who can talk personally about their experience in the Primates Meeting, English House of Bishops, in General Synod or their own Diocesan Synod.

Until the culture of fear and secrecy in the Church of England changes, the bigotry is challenged and our Church becomes a place which is free from prejudice against LGBT people, the Episcopal Church will remain the only place where LGBT people can come out and be elected as bishops. I’m tempted to start a new campaign. The culture of secrecy, intimidation and abuse in the Church of England has got to be challenged, undermined and changed.

Colin Coward

Changing Attitude needs all the help we can get to further our campaign to change Anglican attitudes. To contribute to our work by becoming a supporter, please click here; or to make a donation click here.

TUCKED AWAY BEHIND THE PAY WALL ...

of The Times is an extensive interview with Archbishop Rowan, recorded just prior to the recent visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the United Kingdom. Many items were covered, apparently, but it is the Archbishop’s remarks about gay bishops that have been extensively reported and commented on.

According to the summaries I have seen, Archbishop Rowan acknowledged that it is acceptable, according to Scripture and Tradition, for someone who is gay to be ordained as a bishop, but not for them to enter into a same-sex relationship. They must, he contends, be celibate and remain so.

This is very much the line taken by Issues in Human Sexuality (1991) with regard to the clergy as a whole, but clerical celibacy has never been an expectation in Anglicanism, indeed, from the days of Archbishop Cranmer and his – initially ‘secret’ - wife, the reverse is true, and it seems very strange that Anglicans should be advocating this particular option at a time when, according to recent polls, priestly celibacy, a requirement of the Roman Catholic priesthood, is being questioned, for various reasons, by the laity of that Church.

According to the summaries I have read so far the Archbishop bases his argument on Tradition, but the tradition – or traditions – within the Church, especially the Church of England, about same-sex relationships have been extremely varied. A study (such as Peter Coleman’s Christian Attitudes to Homosexuality) of the relevant texts, be they biblical or ecclesiastical, will, almost inevitably, give the impression that the Church has taken a mainly negative view of homosexuality, but beyond and around these texts has been the pastoral practice of clergy and congregations, which has often, in past years at least, been welcoming and friendly to gay people. Indeed, whatever the number of gay people as a percentage of the total population, http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2010/09/25/archbishop-there-is-no-incontrovertible-evidence-that-gays-are-born-that-way/ it is well-known that the priesthood, certainly in twentieth century England, has been a gay-friendly profession, and hence the significant number of gay clergy.

The support given by Archbishop Michael Ramsey, and other bishops in the House of Lords, which led to the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967 is itself part of the Anglican tradition, and while it may be argued that they were only keen to end the scandal of police entrapment, and were not advocating homosexual equality, this piece of our history is a reminder that, since then, we have been in an entirely new situation as regards same-sex relationships, rendering it insufficient simply to invoke Scripture and Tradition – except in the broadest sense of loving fidelity. The emergence of gay couples and families has presented the Church with a novel situation (though there are historical examples of same-sex covenants of friendship) which is not properly addressed by simply restating the Christian ideal of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, unless perhaps, behind that, there has been an intuition, never actually stated but almost implicit, that marriage might provide a model for same-sex couples as well.

However, let us accept, for a moment, the idea that a gay person called to be a bishop must be celibate; why then, we may ask, was it not possible in 2003 for Dr Jeffrey John to be consecrated as Bishop of Reading, given that he was known to be celibate at that time? The interviewer asked this question and in answering it Archbishop Rowan apologised for the episode, but, as I recall, the objection to Dr John was not that he was sexually active, it was that he had advocated, in contradiction to ‘the Tradition’, Christian partnerships that were ‘permanent, faithful and stable’. His preferment to the episcopate was quashed on the basis of his teaching something other than the official party line on this matter, a test of religious orthodoxy that has become even more stringent since then, in that every ordinand, as well as every bishop in the Church Of England, is required to ‘submit’ to the teaching on homosexuality contained in the ‘discussion document’ Issues in Human Sexuality, a step that has made the Church of England, in spite of repeated denials, institutionally homophobic, and that is completely contrary to the spirit of intellectual freedom and enquiry that has, hitherto, been one of Anglicanism’s most prized traditions.

Southwark failure damages Church of England

LGBT Anglican Coalition Press Release 8 May 2010

Both recent meetings of the Crown Nominations Commission to choose a new
bishop for the Diocese of Southwark have been the subject of serious leaks
to a newspaper. This has resulted in huge personal pain and distress for
one candidate, Dr Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans, for the second time in
seven years. It is particularly outrageous that some senior church
officials have suggested the leaks were engineered by supporters of Dr
John, rather than by those opposed to his nomination.

It has brought the Church of England into even further disrepute with the
general public, who will regard it rightly or wrongly, as another
example of the blatant homophobia that exists in the Church.

Once again the Church has failed to act with courage. The whole Commission
must be held responsible for this, regardless of whether the source of the
leak was an elected member, an ex-officio member, or one of the staff in
attendance at what is supposed to be a totally confidential meeting.

It is essential that a thorough independent enquiry be held immediately to
determine who was responsible. There should also be an urgent review of
the process of appointing bishops, as the present arrangements are not fit
for purpose, and an open and transparent procedure is clearly necessary.


Notes for Editors

1. The Anglican Coalition is here to provide UK-based Christian LGBT
organisations with opportunities to create resources for the Anglican
community and to develop a shared voice for the full acceptance of LGBT
people in the Anglican Communion.

2. The Coalition members are:

Accepting Evangelicals www.acceptingevangelicals.org
Changing Attitude www.changingattitude.org.uk
The Clergy Consultation www.clergyconsultation.org
Courage www.courage.org.uk
The Evangelical Fellowship for Lesbian and Gay Christians www.eflgc.org.uk
Inclusive Church www.inclusivechurch2.net
The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement lgcm.org.uk
The Sibyls www.sibyls.co.uk

3. For more information contact:
Revd Canon Giles Goddard 07762 373 674 or Simon Sarmiento 07906 445695
or the LGBT Anglican Coalition Website www.lgbtac.org.uk

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

Jeffrey John will not be the next Bishop of Southwark

Jonathan Wynne-Jones has ‘revealed’ in the Telegraph that Jeffrey John is not to be nominated as the next Bishop of Southwark. Neither, so I am told, will Nick Holtham, Vicar of St Martin-in-the-Fields, be nominated.

This is painfully disappointing news for Jeffrey, who has lived through a week in which his identity and reputation have been pored over, analysed and attacked once again by conservative forces in the church in a way which I can only describe as poisonous. Those who claim the moral and ethical high ground in the church behave in ways which are scandalous and unchristian.

Anglican Mainstream deliberately left a link to the lecture that Dr Jeffrey John gave to the Post Lambeth 1998 Affirming Catholicism Conference entitled “The Church and Homosexuality : Post-Lambeth Reflections” at the top of their home page until this evening, when it suddenly disappeared, its work done.

How was Jonathan able to leak the news? Because someone on the Crown Nomination Commission for the Southwark appointment ignored the absolute confidentiality of the group and deliberately leaked information about yesterday’s meeting to a conservative hostile to Jeffrey and LGBT people in the church. That person, for a second time, passed the information to Jonathan Wynne-Jones - one of the non-voting members, perhaps?

Conservative Evangelicals are ruthless in their determination to win total control of the church, even if in the process, they destroy the Church of England’s ability to communicate the gospel to the nation, and destroy the unity of the Anglican Communion, by whatever unprincipled, destructive means possible.

Archbishop Rowan was apparently so furious about the first leak that he unilaterally vetoed Jeffrey’s name, betraying his friend for a second time and handing an apparent victory to the conservatives who seem to be successfully controlling him. Archbishop Rowan would have directed his anger in a more healthy direction if he had targetted the people inside and outside the Commission who have deliberately sabotaged its work.

Jonathan lists a number of reasons why this is bad news. I think he omits far more important reasons why it is bad news. It is a capitulation to forces within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion which represent a reactionary attitude to scripture and a negative attitude towards the glory, goodness and infinite variety and beauty of God’s creation.

It communicates an image of the church and Christianity to our nation in which we are perceived to be bigoted, prejudiced, narrow-minded and lacking in the primary Christian virtue of love.

It may be the final opportunity to nominate Jeffrey to a diocese and it may be the last opportunity the Archbishop of Canterbury has to appoint an openly gay person as a bishop, but that isn’t what matters tonight, because the Church of England still has closeted gay bishops and an increasing number of open and partnered LGBT priests.

Reform, Anglican Mainstream, Stand Firm, VirtueOnline and the other conservative forces in the church don’t seem to understand that God simply calls LGBT into faith and ministry and we find ways of inhabiting space in the church in which, despite the painful attacks and scandalous dishonesty, remains a place in which we can live into the Kingdom of God, creating by our presence and example, a church which is in the process of welcoming all, saints and sinners, redeemed and in need of redemption, all on the way to a holy transformation.

Tonight, the church stinks. Tomorrow in the dawn light, it will become glorious again for this gay priest and for my many, many friends, gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, lay, ordained, bishops and archbishops, for whom it is our glorious home. There is nothing, not even betrayal by a member of the Crown Nominations Commission, that can ever separate us from the infinite love of God in Jesus Christ.

Colin Coward

Uganda missing gay man found beheaded in a farm latrine while the CofE worries about Jeffrey John

I have just finished a live discussion on Premier Radio with Chris Sugden about the possibility of Jeffrey John being recommended for Southwark by the Crown Nomination Commission meeting this afternoon.

Chris said ‘so what’ in response to me when I said that his appointment would be good in that it would bring honesty and integrity to the church and a role model not only for LGBT people but for our families, friends, colleagues and congregations. It would also be a landmark in those parts of the Communion where hostility to LGBT people is dominant.

News from Uganda which surfaced today highlights why change in church teaching and practice towards homosexuality is imperative and urgent.

A search for a missing pro-gay priest, the Rev Henry Kayizzi Nsubuga, who disappeared almost two and half weeks ago after delivering a scathing speech at St. Paul's Church, Kanyanya supporting homosexuality in Uganda, led the joint search team of Integrity Uganda and Namirembe Diocese to the severed head of another person. The head was found in a pit latrine on the farm of Badru Kiggundu, the Electoral Commission Chairman, in Makindye Sabagabo, Wakiso District.

Judith Nabakooba, a police spokesperson, identified the head as that of Pasikali Kashusbe, one of the workers on Kigggundu’s farm and a member of Integrity Uganda. Pasikali and his partner Abbey are youth workers with Integrity Uganda charged with the responsibility of mobilising young LGBT people in activities which build community capacity to face up to the challenge of homophobia, especially in the area of attitude change and care through drama and sports activities.

According to the police, a mutilated torso which was earlier in the week discovered in Kabuuma Zone, about half a kilometre away from Kiggundu’s farm was probably Pasikali’s The torso was described as belonging to a young man and had no genitals.

Pasikali went missing over three and half weeks ago when the country was celebrating Uganda Martyrs Day. All efforts by his partner Abbey and other family members to find him had been fruitless.

Bishop Christopher Senyonjo, Chairperson of Integrity Uganda lamented the murder of this young man as ‘absurd’ adding that, ‘clearly, the values of tolerance and social inclusion are sadly being sacrificed on the altar of state ignorance, ineptness and good old colonial stupidity’.

Homosexual acts are criminalized in Uganda under a sodomy law inherited from British colonial times, although punishments were substantially strengthened in 1990. Uganda government officials have regularly threatened and harassed lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Ugandans. In October 2004, James Nsaba Buturo, the country’s information minister at the time, ordered police to investigate and “take appropriate action against” a gay association allegedly organized at Uganda’s Makerere University.

State-owned media have repeatedly called for stronger measures against homosexual conduct. On July 6, 2005, an article in the government-owned New Vision newspaper urged authorities to crack down on homosexuality, saying, “The police should visit the holes mentioned in the press, spy on the perverts, arrest and prosecute them”.

The climax of state inspired homophobia was in Mr. Bahati’s draft legislation called the Anti Homosexual Bill which if enacted would broaden the criminalisation of homosexuality by introducing the death penalty to people who have homosexual relations. Until then, there seems to be a new form of state fanaticism leveled against sexual minorities in Uganda -of missing LGBTI peoples who are picked by plain clothed security and found beheaded in latrines.

The Rev Erich Kasirye, General Secretary, Integrity Uganda, said:

‘Pasikali and his partner Abbey joined Integrity Uganda in June 2007 and during the last three years, Integrity Uganda has seen an increase in coordination and harmonisation of youth activities. Pasikali emphasized the promotion of the concept of care across the continuum through the formation of voluntary home care groups for young LGBTIs who continue to live in fear. He will be greatly missed by the entire LGBTI fraternity’.

Integrity Uganda has declared today, Monday 5th July as day of mourning for countless many LGBTI people who continue to go missing in the name of state homophobia and a requiem mass will be held at 2pm. Pasikali will be laid to rest at his ancestral home in Ikumba sub-county of Kabale district in Mbarara Region on Tuesday 6th July 2010 at 4pm.

Pasikali’s death is tragic, and stands as a reason why the Anglican Communion must change its teaching on homosexuality. There is no reason why the consciences of those who oppose the full inclusion of LGBT people should be allow to inhibit change in the church. The prevention of torture and murder of any individual must always be the first priority, ensuring that all citizens and Christians can live in an environment of love, security and affirmation.

The longer the argument about avoiding splits and schism in the church continues in the face of the horrendous legislation proposed in Uganda and the murder of LGBT people in the UK and the USA as well as Uganda and other African countries, the more insistent becomes the call for change in the church, NOW. We are committed to radical change in the Anglican Communion. Now is the time to become a supporter of changing attitude, working together with groups in the UK, North America, Africa, Australia and New Zealand to achieve change which is holy, just and timely.

Colin Coward

The new paradigm unfolds on Radio 4 between Chris Sugden and Giles Fraser!

John Humphrys introduced this morning’s discussion on the Radio 4 Today programme by saying that the Archbishop of Canterbury apparently wants the new bishop of Southwark to “be Jeffrey John who is openly gay.”

Neither of the Canons, Chris Sugden and Giles Fraser, contested this opening statement. Does it have the ring of truth about it, therefore – is +Rowan himself now supporting the nomination of Jeffrey to Southwark?

Since the news broke on the Telegraph website on Saturday, the story has gained significant momentum. Whatever the truth, the outcome of the nominations process is becoming an iconic moment in the progress towards the recognition of the full Christian integrity of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people as members of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. It may become a moment of even greater transformation or another temporary set-back on the journey towards the inevitable outcome of radically changed attitudes.

The person specification drawn up by the diocese of Southwark says they are looking for someone willing to honour the ministry of lesbian and gay clergy. Despite this, Chris said there are several reasons why Jeffrey should not be appointed bishop of Southwark:

He is in a registered civil partnership, which the Church of England does not believe is the equivalent of marriage. (He referred, irrelevantly, to Lyn Featherstone’s written parliamentary reply of last week which makes it clear that there is a large push that Civil Partnerships should be able to be held in religious settings and recognised as the equivalent of marriage.)

Jeffrey was in an active gay relationship and is now said to be celibate and that is fine and one takes that at face value, he said. (Chris subtly implied that Jeffrey might not in truth be celibate, resting his argument on the idea that Jeffrey is unsuited because he was once in an active gay relationship. This would bar any person who had been involved in any kind of sexual relationship prior to marriage from being selected as a bishop.)

Chris then introduced the argument that if someone in high office was said to be fiddling the money, they would be thought ineligible for such office. (John Humphrys, somewhat outraged by this comparison, pointed out that Jeffrey isn’t breaking any laws. Ah, but he is breaking law of church, said Chris, the teaching of the church and the Anglican Communion that active homosexual practice is forbidden.)

The logic of Chris’s arguments is that +Rowan should not have been appointed Archbishop because he had previously written ‘The Body’s Grace’ in which he advocated ideas about human sexuality contrary to the ‘official teaching of the church’.

Giles Frazer told Chris it was outrageous to compare fiddling expenses with the way people love each other and that such love has to be honoured and respected. Chris chose not to respond to Giles, referring instead to wider issues, the three archbishops who have resigned from the standing committee of the Anglican Communion. He said the Archbishop of Canterbury would be acting against his own moratorium were he to support Jeffrey’s nomination.

Will the church split (yet again)?
John Humphries was excited by the danger of a split in the church. It’s already split internationally, said Giles, but there’s no chance the Church of England would split because it is almost of one mind on the issue.

Giles reminded us that there will be lots of threats and huffing and puffing and that there are maverick figures out there. Chris Sugden referred to one - Ray Skinner, the Rector of Morden, who with others will not take the oath of canonical obedience to the bishop and would seek alternative Episcopal Oversight unless the new bishop keeps and teaches New Testament standards. This is part of the Anglican Mainstream fantasy - that it is legally possible in England to declare UDI from your bishop and diocese – it isn’t. The threat of blackmail is also being touted again, the withholding of parish quota with the claim that they could bankrupt the diocese. Why would any Christian wish to issue such threats against their brothers and sisters in the faith?

The appointment of Jeffrey John would be a radically transforming moment in the life of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion.

It would begin to heal many of the wounds which the church is inflicting on her lesbian and gay members:

It would send a message to LGBT people across the Communion that the ‘mother church’ is not abandoning them to the evils and prejudices of their own societies and of those Christian leaders who advocate violence against LGBT people.

It would reduce the isolation felt by the Episcopal Church and show for the first time that their commitment to justice and truth is shared, albeit to a lesser extent, by the Church of England.

Above all, it would help to usher in God’s new paradigm for church and creation, in which old, dualistic ideas are being overturned by (to quote James Alison) “God who is brilliantly alive, totally without violence, in no way circumscribed by death, who has revealed himself as loving humanity by giving himself to us to allow us to live outside, and beyond the culture of death.” The perception that God is love is absolutely incompatible with any perception of God as involved in violence, separation, anger or exclusion.

Colin Coward

Too good to be true? – Dr Jeffrey John the candidate most favoured by the CNC for Southwark

A report by Jonathan Wynne-Jones in tomorrow’s Sunday Telegraph maintains that Jeffrey John, the Dean of St Albans, is understood to be the favoured candidate as next Bishop of Southwark.

If this is true, then it would be with the knowledge and approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury who chairs the Crown Nominations Commission meetings.

Such a move, says Jonathan, threatens to provoke a damaging split in the Church of England (what, another one?) and would trigger a civil war between liberals and conservatives and exacerbate existing divisions within the Anglican Communion.

The report says David Cameron has already been made aware that Dr John is on the shortlist and is understood to be supportive of the appointment as it would reinforce the Conservative Party's drive to shake off its "nasty party" image.

Jonathan used to work for the Church of England Newspaper, which doesn’t necessarily explain why he commits the gross error of claiming that Dr John was consecrated as Bishop of Reading before Dr Williams forced him to resign.

More accurately, Jonathan writes that Dr Williams and Dr John Sentamu (also a member of the commission), will face fierce criticism from the conservative wing of the Church if they allow Dr John to become a bishop. Apparently neither archbishop blocked his name at the commission's last meeting.

I came across the report in a link on Anglican Mainstream’s web site just after I’d completed the Radio 5 live interview with Chris Sugden. How astonishing, I thought.

Jonathan reminds us that Jeffrey is an openly-homosexual cleric and a hugely divisive figure in the church. I guess this language and hyperbole appeals to Telegraph readers.

The Telegraph sees the appointment, if it is made, as a major victory for the pro-gay lobby in the Church of England that could shatter the Archbishop's hopes of maintaining the fragile unity which currently exists in the Church.

If true, then the implications are huge. The Church of England would gain a bishop of immense intelligence and passion. LGBT Anglicans would gain renewed confidence that the Church of England retains a capacity to be (cautiously) radical, inclusive, broad and generous. It would signal a dramatic change of direction in the Communion. Further resignations by conservative members of the Primates meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Anglican Communion Standing Committee might be expected.

The balance of power between conservative and radical groups in the Communion might change dramatically given such a huge reversal following the successful campaign by those claiming to be traditional in blocking Jeffrey John’s appointment in 2003. England might at last be able to stand with our Episcopal Church friends in being honest about the numbers of LGBT deacons, priests and lay people (and bishops) who lead exemplary Christian lives in the service of the gospel.

Colin Coward (trying to contain his excitement)