What will the pattern of the Anglican Communion look like in 10 years time?

The Anglican Communion is being reconfigured at the moment. We who campaign for the full inclusion of LGBT people fear that in 10 years time we might find ourselves marginalised and excluded.

The narrative of those conservative Anglican bodies and individuals opposed to the full inclusion of LGBT people claim that it is the Episcopal Church that has ‘walked apart’. In practice, the groups that have walked apart and distanced themselves from the Anglican Communion are those which have failed to participate in the Councils of the Church – the Lambeth Conference, Primates Meeting and Anglican Consultative Council. There is a growing and, to me, bewildering array of these bodies and alliances – ACNA, Global South, GAFCON, FCA, ACI, CANA, AMiA, etc. These are also the groups which refuse to act on the parts of Lambeth 1.10 and the Windsor Report which advocate listening to and the pastoral care of LGBT people. The multiplicity of groups also shows dramatically that those who edge towards schism are unable to agree an alternative identity or strategy between themselves.

Strategies for dealing with the dynamic
People in favour of full inclusion advocate a range of strategies that might be adopted in response to this dynamic. Many ideas are posted in the comments on Thinking Anglicans. Let’s take a look at some of them:

• Form a new diocese of the Episcopal Church in England. This would need to create local churches where the pro-inclusion people could worship with the like-minded. I can’t see it happening and it isn’t what I want. Devizes already has 3 Anglican churches, one evangelical, one opposed to the ordination of women, one striving to be open and fully-inclusive. I want to be worshipping in a Church of England parish church that is properly Anglican in ethos – that’s the challenge, a challenge that my Rector is totally committed to engage with, as are the majority of the congregation.
• Create our own, alternative ‘liberal’ Anglican Communion, parallel with the conservative bodies. If the Church of England is a part of a liberal realignment, then the campaign for full inclusion will have been successful. If the Church of England is not a part of this new alignment, then it will be yet another schismatic Anglican Church and at the moment, that is most certainly not what Changing Attitude is campaigning for.
• Encourage TEC to withdraw from the Instruments of Communion and continue with its own polity in – isolation? That would be to throw another bone to the conservative forces (as +Rowan has repeatedly done, which may or may not turn out to have been a good strategy). The lesson is that the bones never satisfy them, of course. They will continue to scheme and chew away at any liberal, inclusive presence in the Church wherever they find it, CofE or Canada, Australia or South Africa, until they (in their fantasy) have destroyed everything which is against their reading of the Word of God.
• Campaign for a vote against the Anglican Covenant by the Church of England. For this to be effective, practical action must be taken now to canvass, lobby and persuade members of every diocesan synod to vote against when it is tabled for debate to ensure that a majority of dioceses vote NO before it returns to General Synod.
• With GAFCON withdrawing from the Primates Meeting and many Provinces not having attended the last Lambeth Conference, why shouldn’t those Provinces remaining fully committed to the Communion, including the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada and the Church of England, sign the Covenant and work with the other Provinces who sign to reconfigure it to reflect Anglican polity more properly, deleting Section 4 entirely. Such a strategy is uncertain of success and is very unlikely to happen.
• Other individuals have moved out of the Church of England, either abandoning the Church entirely or their membership of a local congregation or moving into a different denomination – the Unitarian Church in the case of Adrian Worsfold, the Metropolitan Community Church for some LGBT Anglicans. Yet others continue to worship both in their parish church and with another congregation where they find a more open ethos and/or a deeper spirituality.

In 20 years time?
The outcome I fear most is that the mainstream denominations will have successfully opposed the full inclusion of LGBT people in 20 years time, and will have moved in the opposite direction, barely tolerating us, excluding us from ministry at every level and treating us as ‘intrinsically disordered’. Those LGBT people living in societies which have legislated for equality will by then, if they have any sense of self-worth, abandoned the Church.

A less extreme outcome would see a fragmentation of denominations, schisms and realignments into churches with either a conservative, reactionary ethos or a radical, inclusive ethos. This may well turn out to be the least-worst and only practicable outcome.

There is a third possibility. The global community is slowly, painfully slowly, being educated into knowing that LGBT people are present in every culture and every community. This largely secular movement will impact on faith communities everywhere, destabilizing their ability to deny the real presence of LGBT people WITHIN their own communities. Other signs give hope for a third possible outcome. The attitudes of the Primates who are announcing unilaterally the policy of their Provinces do not consult their bishops and priests and do not represent the views of their people. It’s impossible to know what their people really think because deference to those in authority inhibits their ability to think and speak freely - just ask Michael Kimindu in Kenya or Bishop Ssenyonjo in Uganda. Global South Provinces in the next 10 to 20 years may well change as the culture changes around them and this generation of leaders retires and lose influence.

One comment on Thinking Anglicans describes GAFCON as having no shame, capable of doing anything to further their ends, failing to stay true even to their own principles - demanding orthodoxy yet violating church order, lacking of integrity, plotting and planning, characterized by machinations.

Strategies for achieving change
How can those of us who are faithful to God and the Spirit and to the ethos of the Anglican Communion counter the conservative movement whilst maintaining our own ethos and without adopting their ruthless, unscrupulous tactics? I think the challenge is almost impossible, were it not for my faith that conservative, reactionary forces do not have unique access to the flow of God’s creative presence in the world and from my perspective, are actively working against the flow of the Spirit.

Changing Attitude is totally committed to full inclusion of all the baptized, including all LGBT people, in every Province of the Anglican Communion, and to the Anglican ethos of scripture, tradition and reason. We have demonstrated our commitment by being the only pro-inclusion group to have been present at the Lambeth Conferences in 1998 and 2008, every meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council since Nottingham in 2005 and Primates meetings since Dar Es Salaam in 2007.

The strategy of pro-inclusion groups has to be to oppose the Covenant if there is any possibility that it will be used to inhibit progress towards overturning Christian prejudice against LGBT people. Our strategy also has to be positive, committed to building relationships with bishops and Primates across Provincial boundaries and with the Instruments of Communion, being present and not abandoning territory to conservatives, working out what practical action we can take which will make a real difference to the outcome. I’m not an idealistic dreamer (well, not only). I am also always looking for the practical strategies that are going to affect outcomes favourably for us.

Say No to the Covenant has to be more than an internet campaign. Say yes to LGBT people has to be more than saying no to the Covenant or strategising for our own schismatic body. And however we campaign, we have to do it in a more Christian, Bible-centred, holy way than those who wish to suppress us.

Colin Coward

To enable us to continue to campaign for the full inclusion of LGBT people in every Province of the Anglican Communion, please become a supporter of Changing Attitude or donate to our work

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.

Bishop Gene Robinson to retire in 2013

Bishop Gene Robinson has announced his plan to retire as Bishop of New Hampshire in January 2013 when he will be 65 to give the diocese enough time to elect a new bishop. He will be retiring when he is 7 years below the mandatory retirement age for Episcopal bishops of 72. He made the announcement at the end of his diocesan annual convention and gave, as reasons for his early departure, the toll taken on him and on the diocese having been at the centre of international controversy.

He said: "Death threats, and the now-worldwide controversy surrounding your election of me as bishop, have been a constant strain, not just on me, but on my beloved husband, Mark, who has faithfully stood with me every minute of the last seven years, and in some ways, you. While I believe that these attitudes, mostly outside the diocese, have not distracted me from my service to you, I would be less than honest if I didn't say that they have certainly added a burden and certain anxiety to my episcopate."

I first met Bishop Gene at the General Convention of the Episcopal Church held in Minneapolis in 2003. The pressure on him was already intense and the Convention was marked by false rumours about him, designed to influence approval of his election. He retreated to a protected space leaving others to navigate the media and the conservative storm opposing his election.

In 2005 he came to England for the first time as bishop to address Changing Attitude’s 10th Anniversary Service at St Martin-in-the-Fields. He received a prolonged standing ovation and, as he said in his announcement yesterday, made "the case for God and for God's church – either to those who have never known God's unimaginable love, or to those who have been ill-treated, in the name of a judgmental God, and who have left the church."

Riazat Butt of the Guardian phoned me for a comment at 10 this morning, catching me as I was about to leave for the 10.30 Communion at St John’s Devizes. When I first read the news, I felt sad that he will be retiring. He has made visible for tens of thousands of LGBT Anglicans the reality that we are present in every Province of the Communion, in every congregation, many of us ordained, some bishops and primates. He won’t retire into invisibility and by 2013 further lesbian or gay bishops bishops may have been elected to join Mary Glasspool.

Bishop Gene’s election in 2003 did indeed transform the landscape, and he has had to lie with the responsibility for, and consequences of, that transformation. At last we had somebody as a bishop who was fully visible and embodied the quality of life so many of us long for, a committed, faithful and loving relationship as a Christian.

He has borne the cost as an iconic figure on behalf of LGBT Anglicans. But his visible presence is the tip of an iceberg. There are many thousands, if not tens of thousands, of LGBT Anglicans who experience stress, anxiety, pressure, depression and at the extreme, suicidal feelings. I know that this is true from the Changing Attitude England network and from friends and colleagues in the Church of England.

Increasingly, I know it to be true in Africa and across the Anglican Communion. A young gay Kenyan Anglican told me yesterday that he “is living in great stigmatization due to my sexual orientation. I don’t want anyone to know. Please help me and keep my secrets close. Thank you for that understanding. I have disclosed to you so much more than I have ever done to anyone else.”

It is people like this lonely, desperate, isolated gay Kenyan, who longs for the kind of loving relationship enjoyed by Gene and Mark, that Gene has been an icon for. He has, thanks goodness, had Mark beside him, a diocese which took him to his heart, and a personal resourcefulness and spirituality. Most Africans have none of these resources beyond a deep commitment to their faith and to Jesus the Christ.

One conservative response to Bishop Gene’s announcement has been to accuse him of playing the victim card. After 7 years of abuse and vilification by primates, bishops and conservative pressure groups in the Anglican Communion, I might have hoped that some Christian love and wisdom might have begun to surface by now, but no, the evil and lies and misrepresentation of truth continues. Riazat reports that s spokesman for the Global Anglican Future Conference, Gafcon, said the "agonising dispute" over homosexuality was not about the New Hampshire bishop "personally". Now I wonder who might have made such a disingenuous statement?

Colin Coward

To help us continue and develop our commitment to the full inclusion of LGBT people in the Church of England and of the Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion, please become a supporter of Changing Attitude England or make a donation.

Moderating and deleting inappropriate behaviour by Primates and bishops in the Anglican Communion

‘Anonymous’ continues to post comments to this blog. I have to read them to decide whether to post or bin them. It’s tedious. Sometimes I contemplate posting the less offensive in a spirit of openness and generosity, but think again. Tolerance and generosity are admirable qualities. But why would readers of a blog dedicated to the full inclusion of LGBT people in the Anglican Communion want to read counter arguments about statistics proving that gay relationships don’t last and gay men die 10 years earlier than heterosexuals or that discriminating against homosexuality is more humane than affirming something that is mutually self-destructive? You see, I knew you didn’t want to read this!

The campaign against the full inclusion of LGBT people in the Communion was launched in Kuala Lumpur in 1997. I arrived at the Lambeth Conference in 1998 feeling positive and optimistic, have been invited by Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane of Cape Town to make a presentation (with others) to the section dealing with human sexuality. We were denied, and spent the next three weeks trying to get a hearing from whoever would listen to us. Kuala Lumpur had already achieved its goal – demonize homosexuals – from which the attempted exorcism of Richard Kirker was a natural outcome. The plenary debate was a coup for the rabid, anti-gay conservative mob (for that is what they felt like) presided over by George Carey, then Archbishop, as if they represented normal Christian behaviour and attitudes.

We were thrown onto the defensive. Meanwhile, civil society in the UK began to work it’s way swiftly towards accepting LGBT people as full members of society, educated by a government which placed equality high on the agenda. We LGBT Christians lived in a state of confusion between a progressive state and a regressive Church. Let’s put it bluntly – the Church became an insecure, hostile, negative, homophobic, abusive place for LGBT people, driving gay Christians back into the closet. Conservatives set out to deliberately to attack us, eroding our faith and spirituality in the process.

Some of their tactics, as I commented in yesterday’s blog, have been abusive and infantile. We were having to defend ourselves against this background of anti-gay rhetoric to which was added a campaign to marginalize not just us, but any church, Province, Primate or bishop who supported us.

An extraordinary, dangerous change took place. Ideas about human sexuality and models of behaviour which find legitimacy in the Bible became accepted as appropriate in the Anglican Communion when they were being recognised in the secular world as prejudiced, homophobic and wrong.

Laws were introduced in the UK to protect the rights and dignity of LGBT people. In the church our rights and dignity have been and are under constant attack. In the USA, where equality for LGBT people is still being campaigned for, supporters of LGBT equality in the Episcopal Church have argued their case in the Communion and American society with force and clarity, and been repeatedly attacked for doing so.

In the ‘tolerant’ ‘broad’ Church of England we have been far more passive. I think we failed to recognise abusive, intolerant, infantile behaviour for what it is when conservatives have repeatedly behaved in this way.

The Archbishop of Canterbury found himself enmeshed in this dynamic following Gene Robinson’s election and the vitriolic campaign against Jeffrey John led by members of General Synod. The Archbishop has been treated by other Primates and bishops in the most abusive, unchristian, infantile way sometimes. +Rowan is a Christian leader of immense dignity, emotional and intellectual maturity, wisdom, grace, tenderness and love and has endured unbearable pain and anguish for most of the eight years he has been Archbishop. We, LGBT people, have added to the tension, by simply being who we are, wanting to be recognised appropriately and arguing accordingly.

We LGBT Christian advocates allowed the conservatives to distract our attention, pushing us onto the defensive, having to develop counter-arguments to their anti-gay rhetoric. I’m trying to look at the picture in a different way now. Conservatives have focused Church attention on disagreements about human sexuality, basing their arguments on particular interpretations of scripture, tradition and reason. There are other interpretations, as many theologians have articulated, the Archbishop of Canterbury among them.

Enmeshed in these arguments, played out in mini-dramas in ACC Nottingham and Jamaica, Primates in Dromantine, Dar Es Salaam and Alexandria, Lambeth ’98, the offices of Lambeth Palace and the Anglican Communion, GAFCON, FoCA, CANA, ACNA etc., we have been unable to focus proper attention on the abusive, immature, manipulative behaviour of many of the participants in these dramas.

It has happened many, many times, but Bishop David Anderson’s advice to conservative Anglican Primates treat the next Primates’ meeting as a battleground at which they can scheme to outflank the Presiding Bishop and the Archbishop of Canterbury is a prime example and Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini’s reference to homosexuality as being ‘moral genocide’ another.

We will never, never come to a mature understanding of human sexuality and the place of LGBT people in society and church while bishops and Primates behave like this. They are setting an appalling, unchristian example before our Church, our Provinces and our congregations. Theirs is a disgraceful example of leadership, authority, power and spirituality.

I see this behaviour being acted out at General Synod debates on women in the episcopate, in the schismatic church bodies in North America and in the attitude towards LGBT people expressed by the majority of African Primates.

The Anglican Communion is faced with a huge challenge. How can the key decision making bodies, the Anglican Consultative Council, the Primates meeting and the Lambeth Conference (were the conservatives to attend) make considered, theologically competent, emotionally mature, adult decisions, when some of the participants are not able to act in a mature, adult way?

The comments posted by ‘anonymous’ may be given credence in the worlds of North American schismatics, English misogynists and African Provinces where concepts of sexual difference are novel, but at least I can moderate them and delete them when they are inappropriate. It’s not so easy to moderate and delete inappropriate behaviour from the Anglican Communion.

Colin Coward

Please help us to instill mature patterns of adult behaviour in the Anglican Communion by becoming a supporter of Changing Attitude or by making a donation.

The Christian behaviour of Primates - do we expect appropriate or abusive, adult or infantile?

Should we expect senior Anglican leaders to behave in a mature, adult, non-abusive way? I raise the question as a result of reports ahead of the next Primates meeting to be held in Dublin in February.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has invited all the Primates, including the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Dr Katherine Jefferts Schori. The Archbishop of the Indian Ocean, the Most Revd Ian Ernest has already confirmed that he will not attend the next Primates’ Meeting because the US Presiding Bishop will be present. He wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury in the summer urging him to exclude her from future Primates’ Meetings and telling the Archbishop that he will not attend if his conditions are not fulfilled.

Presenting the Archbishop of Canterbury with conditions about your attendance at the Primates meeting is inappropriate. If the Archbishop has invited the Presiding Bishop and she is attending, whatever the difference of opinion in the Communion, Primates should be gracious and generous enough in their pattern of Christian life to attend. Ian Ernest issues threats and is trying to manipulate the Archbishop and it isn’t mature behaviour.

Global South Primates in general are apparently meeting later this month to discuss whether they will boycott Dublin, refusing en masse to attend.

The Rt Revd David Anderson, a suffragan bishop within the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, urges a different course of action in a letter which can be read here.

He encourages conservative bishops to attend and advises them that if Dr Jefferts Schori is there, they should either shut her out of the room or remove “by force of numbers” the Presiding Bishop of the American Episcopal Church (not physically, he says, but by either voting her off the ‘island’, or recessing to another room and not letting her in). Male power in action – how gallant.

The action proposed by Bishop David Anderson is infantile. If Dr Williams objects to this action he says, the meeting could go ahead in a separate room without the Archbishop. When my outraged infant considers what action I might dream of taking in response to something that has made me angry, I quickly see it for what it is and dismiss it, turning to a more adult course of action. Not so Bishop David Anderson.

He writes that without the orthodox Primates in attendance it could be a dangerous meeting, giving opinion and credence to teachings and beliefs that are not representative of orthodox Anglicanism. He doesn’t believe staying home from the field of battle helps win a war over the truth and nature of Christianity within Anglicanism.

As he contemplates a meeting of the Primates of the Anglican Communion, he sees war, a battle, something dangerous.

What’s more important – that partnered lesbian and gay people who chose as adults to express their love sexually in a relationship should be excluded from the Communion unless they change their behaviour and cease having sex, or that those who are responsible for the pastoral, moral and theological life of the Communion should model mature, adult, appropriate Christian behaviour?

For 7 years I have observed those Anglican leaders who claim to be orthodox acting and speaking in ways that are immature, sometimes infantile and abusive. My personal opinion as a gay Christian is that the behaviour of this group is doing far more damage to the Church than I am doing in expressing love for my partner.

Colin Coward

To enable us to report from the Primates’ meeting in Dublin, please resource our work by becoming a supporter of Changing Attitude or by making 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.

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.

Conservative evangelicals threaten to split church, defy bishops and withdraw financial support

Western societies have learnt a great deal in the past century about the way human beings behave and construct themselves in social systems. We have learnt about our capacity for self-delusion and how easy it is for individuals and groups of people to ally themselves with a cause which history reveals to be a gross error.

We in the west have learnt that equality for minority groups in society has to be worked and campaigned for positively. This is not simply a question of human rights but of justice for those children of God who are marginalised and abused by the majority because of perceived differences. This is prejudice. Minority groups pursuing a prejudiced agenda are now driving a wedge into the Anglican Communion.

Andrew Brown speculates that the leak about Jeffrey John came not from the liberals but from conservative evangelicals. It is the conservatives who are spoiling for a fight, he says.

‘They’ have been spoiling for fights since 1997 when they began to organise their campaign against homosexuality which resulted in the Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10. ‘They’ have waged a determined, aggressive campaign against homosexuality in general and against particular individuals for the past 13 years.

‘They’ claim to represent the majority of people in the Anglican Communion. The people they claim to represent have never been formally asked about their views on homosexuality and have certainly never exercised a democratic vote.

In England a minority held the church to ransom when Jeffrey John was appointed to Reading and are attempting to do the same again now his name is in the frame for Southwark. They are doing it by issuing threats to split the church, seek alternative Episcopal oversight, withdraw financial support and deny canonical obedience to bishops they refuse to acknowledge or respect.

This is how conservative evangelicals are reacting to the news about Jeffrey John and Southwark and I don’t recognise the issuing of threats as Christian. It is abusive behaviour. I could quote Biblical passages to support my claim but their abuse includes dishonest and selective use of Scripture.

Reform warns that the church could split if Jeffrey John is made bishop of Southwark. Paul Dawson said it would cause very serious damage within the Church of England and precipitate the sort of split that has happened in America. This threat comes from small conservative groups and individuals in the Church of England, but the threat is real.

Anglican Mainstream, represented by Chris Sugden, say a number of clergy and parishes would not take the oath of canonical obedience to the bishop and would seek alternative episcopal oversight elsewhere. What has happened in America will happen here.

Ray Skinner, rector of Morden in the diocese of Southwark, says there will be a formal divide. He claims there are two groups already within the Church of England, Inclusive Church and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans.

He claims that both are linking with other Anglican provinces. A Reform spokesman says that to appoint Jeffrey would send a very clear signal that the diocese of Southwark wants to walk in a different direction to the Church of England's doctrine. Both statements are lies, though I’m not sure Ray or the spokesman realise they are telling lies.

Inclusive Church and Changing Attitude have both developed strong relationships with bishops and primates in different parts of the Anglican Communion. These relationships strengthen our commitment to our unity in Christ as Christians first and Anglicans second. We are not and never will threaten to split the Communion.

Reform and Anglican Mainstream are threatening the church in various ways, one of which is to split from the Church of Anglican and form alliances with other groups who oppose truth and justice for LGBT and want to replace allegiance to Canterbury with a new, independent Anglican body.

A small group of conservative parishes in Southwark have been agitating for independence for some time now, causing bishop Tom Butler a great deal of distress. I know that some of the priests in no way represent the majority in their congregations.

The shocking thing about this whole campaign in the Anglican Communion is that a few self-appointed, media savvy men are holding the church to ransom and seeking to destroy its unity and fellowship in Christ.

Faced with such abusive and destructive behaviour, it is sometimes difficult to maintain Christian charity and not respond in kind. I was being so careful to maintain my composure during the Premier Radio interview with Chris Sugden yesterday that I was lost for words at the end and had no idea what to say. Changing Attitude continues to be committed to achieving full equality for LGBT people in the Anglican Communion and committed to the Communion as a Christian body which has always respected difference and diversity.

Thank goodness for God, who is not going to be phased as we vulnerable human beings are, by the vainglorious threats of a minority who are spoiling for a fight.

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

The full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Christians is the most serious threat to the life of the Communion says Kenneth Kearon

Canon Kenneth Kearon met the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council on Friday and told them that in removing Episcopal Church members from some Anglican Communion ecumenical dialogues “the aim has not been to get at the Episcopal Church, but to find room for others to remain as well as enabling as full a participation as possible for the Episcopal Church within the communion.”

He said the church ought to have known that it would face sanctions when Mary Glasspool was ordained as the church’s second openly gay, partnered bishop. Asked about incursions by other provinces of the Communion he said such ongoing breaches of the moratorium on incursions do not rise to the same level of departure from the faith and order of the Communion as does the full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Christians.

There you have it. We LGBT people are the problem that needs to be dealt with. With my brothers and sisters in North America, Africa, South America and Asia, I am the problem. My sexuality is the element that needs to be contained and suppressed by the Communion because I threaten its life.

Dr Rowan Williams, Canon Kenneth Kearon and conservative theologians, commentators and pressure groups are now united in having identified the single problem causing distress to the Communion and have focussed the problem on the Episcopal Church, it’s actions, theology and praxis. It’s an easy solution to pin all the blame on the actions of the Episcopal Church in consecrating two bishops who are in committed relationships with same-sex partners.

I want to broaden the scenario. It’s too easy to narrow the focus of blame. Historically, the failure started following the Lambeth Conference of 1978 when no action was taken on Resolution 10 and was repeated in 1988 when no action followed the passing of Resolution 64. It is the failure of the Communion to engage with the issue of homosexuality that is the precursor of the present problems.

My self-interest in wanting to survive as a gay Christian in a church that is becoming increasingly hostile to my presence holds that the guilt and responsibility for where we are now and the dynamics in relation to the Episcopal Church can be laid elsewhere. Why didn’t the Communion respond in 1987 and 1988? Were the powers-that-be too afraid to deal with homosexuality?

Much, much more critically, why was nothing done in the 7 years following Lambeth 1998 and the passing of Resolution 1.10? No Communion-wide response was started until Kenneth Kearon was in post as Secretary General. Those 7 years were critical and left a vacuum in which conservatives pursued a campaign against gays in the church and TEC elected Gene Robinson.

Blaming the Episcopal Church for breaking the rules now ignores, to my great distress, the abhorrent attitudes and behaviour towards LGBT people manifest in many Anglican Provinces and leaders. It is this that really outrages and incenses me and why I think the Communion is getting the debate so horribly wrong. Attention is focussed on rule-breaking by TEC but fails to hold Provinces, church leaders, bishops and primates to account for the bigotry and intolerance of LGBT people they express in the name of Christianity.

So we continue down the fateful path outlined by the Windsor Report and the Anglican Covenant, driven by conservative forces on the ground of upholding the plain meaning of the Bible, the unchallengeable historic teaching of the church and the unexamined prejudices of Christianity and human societies against LGBT people, sacrificing LGBT lives in the process.

In the shadow of the Anglican obsession with homosexuality are tens of thousands of people, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, who live as I lived in the 60s and 70s, in the closet, in hiding from parents and families, friends and peer groups, work colleagues, congregations and priests, in fear and sometimes with self-loathing. I talk with people across the globe every day who sometimes patiently, sometimes in an agonised outpouring of anguish, describe their lives to me.

And I know, calming myself down, that Continuing Indaba is being progressed, laying the foundations for a process of education through shared experience that will eventually lead to change.

But that does not exempt church leaders now from the charge of being so obsessed with this issue, with tradition and orthodox teaching, with judging and condemning a church which openly ordains partnered gay men and lesbians and blesses loving same-sex relationships, with imposing sanctions, that they lose sight of the sinful behaviour of the church in colluding with violence, oppression and injustice against an innocent, vulnerable minority. We are an easy target for bigots.

I know I am one of the few voices crying in a wilderness but what is happening in the Communion is an outrage. Technically, the Episcopal Church has broken specific rules in contravention of the moratoria. I can see that it’s easy to issue a guilty charge as the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Secretary General have done. I can see where this is leading and I’m frightened, not only for the safety of LGBT people but for the future of Christ-like witness in our Communion.

It’s much easier to issue sanctions against TEC than it is against Provinces who have transgressed the moratoria on boundary crossing. It’s not quite so easy to gather the evidence. It’s much easier to blame TEC than to challenge the behaviour of Nicholas Okoh, the Primate of Nigeria, who is waging a fight against homosexuality and called for Nigeria to withdraw from the UN because of its support for homosexuality. Isn’t this a contravention of the Windsor Report? But not of the three moratoria, so not actionable in the way consecrating a lesbian or gay bishop is.

Homosexuality has been made the defining issue by conservatives, not women priests or bishops, not polygamy, divorce or abortion, not abusive behaviour, power or corruption, not the survival of our planet, but the love people of the same sex have for each other, deemed by the majority in our Communion to be deviant and bringing the church into disrepute.

We are not the most serious threat to the life of the Communion, we are not in any way a threat but a gift and blessing.

Thabo Makgoba and Katharine Jefferts Schori model the possibility of creative dialogue at the USPG Conference

The USPG Conference has provided a remarkable opportunity to hear Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and Archbishop Thabo Makgoba deliver the two keynote addresses and to hear them interact as members of the discussion panel on Wednesday evening.

Bishop Katherine used her address to outline an ethos for mission and then to describe the history and polity of the Episcopal Church in some detail. In response to a question from me, she outlined how the church’s response to slavery 200 years ago laid the foundations of a commitment to justice and equality in the church which has led to the development over 50 years of a radically inclusive policy towards LGBT people.

Archbishop Thabo used his address to talk in detail about the Church of Southeran Africa, the Anglican Communion and the effect of the Episcopal Church’s polity. Andrew commented on Thinking Anglicans, Archbishop Thabo is being what Archbishop Rowan is trying (and failing) to be - an honest broker dedicated to maintaining the unity of the Communion as far as possible and wasn’t afraid to talk directly to Presiding Bishop Katharine in his address.

The Primate of Brazil, the Most Revd Mauricio Andrade and the Rt Revd Dr Jo Seoka are also here together with participants from Ghana, Zimbabwe, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.

If there are Global South Primates ruthlessly determined to split the Communion over the issue of human sexuality, then nothing is going to divert them from their chosen path. But despite their continued aggressive rhetoric and the poison spewed by Stand Firm and VirtueOnline in the USA, the split still hasn’t occurred. Having listened to Archbishop Thabo in a 90 minute interest group this morning and asked him detailed questions, I have no doubt that he has the capacity to engage with other Global South Primates and remind them that they are not the sole representatives of Global South attitudes.

The Province of Southern Africa continues to be divided in its attitude to LGBT people, but Archbishop Thabo described how the church is engaging with difference in a creative and constructive way. The Province is setting a model example not only for the rest of Africa but for the whole Communion. There is clearly more openness and honesty and respect for difference in South Africa than in the Church of England.

Primate Katherine and Archbishop Thabo have restored my confidence in the possibility of the Communion weathering the current storm and emerging with changing attitudes inspired with a more radical commitment to the Christian gospel.

What the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Secretary General should really be doing

The old, patriarchal paradigm of power, authority and control continues to exert its influence over some leaders of the Anglican Communion as they respond to the presence of LGBT people and the campaign waged by the self-proclaimed majority against our full inclusion.

In his Pentecost letter the Archbishop of Canterbury proposes that members of provinces that are in breach of the three moratoria requested by the Instruments of the Communion should no longer participate in the formal ecumenical dialogues in which the Anglican Communion is engaged. The Secretary General of the Anglican Communion, Canon Kenneth Kearon, has written selectively to the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada and to Greg Venables of the Southern Cone.

The Rt Rev Martyn Minns is among those who might have been expected to be sent a letter but hasn’t. He told the Living Church that the primates, “never agreed that there’s a moral equivalence between what they see as an attempt to change the Anglican Communion’s teaching and a provision for temporary pastoral care.”

Moral inequality is the name of the game for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Secretary General. They have been selective in their exclusions. They demonstrate their inability to respond with Christian love, courage, wisdom and compassion to the campaign being fought by adherents of the old paradigm who want to marginalise at best and dehumanise at worst LGBT people.

What should the Archbishop and Secretary General be doing?
They should witness to the violence perpetrated against LGBT people. The anti-homosexuality Bills in Nigeria and Uganda are actively supported by Christians. Millions of LGBT Africans live in fear, intimidated by extreme rhetoric, vilified and attacked. In England, gay men continue to be murdered in homophobic attacks.

What should they be doing?
They should be opposing Anglican leaders and forces in the Communion which claim to respect LGBT people whilst advocating actions and doctrines which diminish us and reinforce prejudice and hatred against us. They should denounce every homophobic statement made by Anglican Primates, bishops, leaders and teachers, at the risk of being accused of colonialism.

What should they be doing?
They should be seeking to change the mind of the Communion expressed in the clauses of Lambeth 1.10 which fail to grant full respect, dignity and equality to LGBT people, to our loving, faithful relationships and our welcome to every level of ministry in the church.

What should they be doing?
They should be faithful to their own Christian integrity, challenging the use of passages from the Bible to maintain prejudice against LGBT people. The Archbishop and the Secretary General are at heart “revisionists” (the pejorative term used to demean pro-LGBT campaigners). They should revise all church teaching which scapegoats LGBT people and corrupts the gospel which teaches the goodness and glory of humanity as sexual beings created in love by God.

What should they be doing?
They should respect The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada in their commitment to model justice and love for all people who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. They should come out of their closets and state openly that the Church of England ordains, often knowingly, partnered LGBT people. Many bishops actively encourage clergy to contract a Civil Partnership and by implication, support the blessing of lesbian and gay relationships.

What should they be doing?
They should be supporting the eradication of homophobia and prejudice against LGBT people in the Anglican Communion instead of supporting punitive sanctions and colluding with those who advocate prejudice. If this is to be the effect of the Anglican Covenant, then the Covenant will be a further instrument of prejudice and intolerance and Changing Attitude says NO to the Covenant.

This morning I’m driving to Swanwick to take part in the 2010 USPG conference ‘Witnessing to Christ Today”. The principal speakers are the Most Revd Katherine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church and the Most Revd Thabo Makgoba, Archbishop of Cape Town. I expect to hear two people who speak truthfully from their own hearts and proclaim a gospel of justice and love in the name of Jesus Christ, a gospel which fully includes, respects and protects lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Colin Coward
Director of Changing Attitude England

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.

Bishop of Gloucester tells the truth about the Episcopal Church

The bishop of Gloucester, Michael Perham, addressed his clergy just prior to the ordination of Mary Glasspool. In it he made an unusually strong, affirmative statement about the Episcopal Church which is worth a headline. He said:

The Episcopal Church is so thoroughly Anglican that to describe it as something less than Anglican seems to be sheer foolishness and immensely hurtful. The Episcopal Church talks about its Anglican roots, its Anglican ethos, its Anglican distinctiveness a good deal more than many members of the Church of England who hardly have the rest of the Communion on their radar. The American Church has a vibrant sacramental theology, a deep liturgical tradition, real attention to the Bible, a concern for church polity and order, and an approach to decision making that honours scripture, tradition and reason. We must do everything to stay with them and they with us. These are our spiritual sisters and brothers as much as any in the world. It would be heart-breaking if our communion with them were impaired.

Bishop Michael’s comments about describing the Episcopal Church as something less than Anglican being sheer foolishness and immensely hurtful is an astonishing criticism of other member of the House of Bishops. Too many have bought the wicked lies spread about the Episcopal Church by those now gathered in ACNA and supported in England by Anglican Mainstream and in the USA by Stand Firm and VirtueOnline, where destructive poison drips from people’s comments.

Several English bishops have repeatedly attacked the Episcopal Church, denigrated its mission and ministry and demanded that it repent of its action in ordaining Bishop Gene Robinson and be excluded from the Instruments of Communion. Bishop Michael’s truth-telling needs to extend to direct criticism of other bishops at a meeting of the House in an ideal world.

Tobias Haller is an Episcopal priest who can be relied on to tell the truth accurately and comment perceptively. He notes that the usual suspects from the Anglican Right are atwitter with comments about further rifts or tears in the Anglican Communion, accusations that the Episcopal Church has now walked apart in some formal way from that Communion, and that it certainly can't in good conscience sign on to the Anglican Covenant.

Tobias says it is important to remember that any "rift" or "tear" is not a rift between the Anglican Communion and some entity not a part (or no longer a part, as Anglican Mainstream and others would have it) of the Communion. No one has "walked apart" from the rest of the Anglican Communion, except perhaps those portions of it, such as Nigeria and parts of GAFCON / FoCA, who have chosen actually to reject the See of Canterbury as a focal point for gathering the Anglican episcopate for consultation, or who have established separatist outposts within the confines of other Anglican jurisdictions, declaring they are out of communion with the larger body.

The Windsor Report contains recommendations that the provinces have yet to endorse or act upon in a definitive way — and that includes TEC as well as ACNA, both of whom have taken actions contrary to the wishes expressed in Windsor.

Colin Coward

Lesbian bishop proves that liberals have won the battle over gay clergy

This is the headline to an article by Jonathan Wynne-Jones in Saturday’s Daily Telegraph. Jonathan says the most telling thing about Mary Glasspool’s consecration is the lack of reaction to it. This is in stark contrast to the headlines greeting Gene Robinson’s consecration and the furious, angry reaction from Anglican conservatives. Back then:

“African bishops condemned his consecration as “demonic” and evangelicals in the Church of England warned that it would cause an irreparable split.”

Mary’s consecration will barely register on the news agendas of most countries, demonstrating more clearly that the liberals have won the battle over the place of gay clergy in the Church, says Jonathan. Life has gone on and the repeated threats that there are now two separate Anglican Communions, the Episcopal Church is no longer Christian, and that we are irreparably split. The threats have come to nothing.

Peter Jensen, the Archbishop of Sydney, says: “With the election of the Reverend Mary Glasspool … the Anglican Communion reaches another decisive moment.” Yet another decisive moment – and, says Jonathan, another yellow card but never a red.

In his manifesto, Bishop Jack Spong wrote: “The battle is over. The victory has been won. There is no reasonable doubt as to what the final outcome of this struggle will be. Homosexual people will be accepted as equal, full human beings, who have a legitimate claim on every right that both church and society have to offer any of us. Homosexual marriages will become legal, recognized by the state and pronounced holy by the church.” Jonathan says he’s right.

It isn’t simply that the storm that erupted at the time of Gene Robinson’s election is blowing itself out. In the 7 years since Bishop Gene’s election and consecration, global dynamics in relation to human sexuality have changed dramatically while the Anglican Communion has continued to obsess itself with the rights and wrongs of being gay.

In an article in today’s Times, Ruth Gledhill says the infighting over homosexuality means that for the 77 million Anglicans worldwide, more important than the Resurrection, the Crucifixion, the Virgin Birth and the Trinity is what one person does in bed with another. The lines of Christian belief, in the Anglican world at least, have been redrawn around a battle over gay rights that, in the secular world, ended years ago.

What Ruth says is true in the UK and other liberal western democracies but not in Africa and many other parts of the world. But in other countries, change is happening and it is change in a liberal direction – the failure of the Ugandan Bill is symbolic of the old order trying to destroy nascent LGBT movements and voices and failing. The failure will be repeated across Africa and groups expand and become more visible, the anti-homosexual culture will be changed.

Ruth says that many of the thousands of young people who never go to church in the UK but who are nominally baptised Anglicans cannot remember a time when sodomy was a criminal offence. If the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives can form some sort of coalition in Britain, surely the liberals and conservatives in the Christian world can bring new leadership to the Anglican morass. They must put their differences behind them, for the sake of God, themselves and the common good.

Jonathan and Ruth both recognise a reality which at present eludes many conservative Anglicans, obsessed with fighting, in Africa, what they believe is a demonic anti-Christian manifestation. In the UK, conservatives have been holding the church to ransom over LGBT people and women bishops.

The outcome will be a great challenge to the beliefs of many who have understood themselves to be faithful, orthodox, committed Christians and Anglicans. Whilst trying to be open and generous to them, I also have no doubt that a church with women bishops and open, partnered, LGBT priests and bishops, is where God has been leading us for many years.

Colin Coward

Mary Glasspool’s consecration is a moment to celebrate God’s inclusive, transforming, radical love

Together with Diane Bruce, Mary Glasspool was consecrated bishop suffragan in the Diocese of Los Angeles yesterday. The Anglican Communion now has an open, partnered lesbian as a bishop as well as an open, partnered gay man.

The service at the Long Beach Arena was themed 'Rejoice!', lasted three-hour hours and was attended by 3,000 clergy and laity, family and friends, civic, ecumenical and other guests. Los Angeles' rich diversity was represented in song and dance by a mosaic of varying races, ethnicities, ages, genders, and sexual orientations.

In a sermon interrupted by applause and laughter, Bishop Jon Bruno Bruno paid tribute to the historical occasion, recalling how he had once protested women's ordination, and now would be serving with two women bishops. He said: "The world's transformed only if we turn to each and every one of our brothers and sisters and see the face of Christ superimposed on them. The ones we disagree with the most are the ones we're obligated to share our lives and teach the most."

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori served as chief consecrator and about 30 bishops, including the Rt. Rev. Martin DeJesus Barahona of El Salvador, retired Ugandan bishop Christopher Senyonjo and bishop Gene Robinson attended the service.

The consecration service was disrupted briefly by a man and a young boy who held up a sign and a bible and shouted anti-gay comments. Applause erupted when someone in the congregation yelled back: "We're praying for you."

Members of Westboro’ Baptist Church protested outside holding placards. Referring to them and to the disruption inside, bishop Bruno said, "They don't understand the inclusive nature of the Episcopal Church."

Conservative groups in Ireland including Reform issued a statement saying many Christians will share their sorrow and see Mary Glasspool’s consecration as a defiant rejection of pleas for restraint and as a rejection of the pattern of holiness of life called for in Scripture and endorsed by believers over the centuries, elevating to senior church leadership a person whose lifestyle is contrary to the will of God revealed in Scripture.

The claim the ordination shows a deliberate disregard for other members of the Anglican family and suggests that TEC does not greatly value unity within Anglicanism. They express support for the many people within The Episcopal Church who feel alienated and hurt.

Dr Philip Giddings and Canon Dr Chris Sugden issued a statement on behalf of Anglican Mainstream. They repeat their oft-made statement that the consecration shows that TEC has now explicitly decided to walk apart from most of the rest of the Communion.

They think it should result in three consequences:
• TEC withdrawing, or being excluded from the Anglican Communion's representative bodies.
• A way must be found to enable those orthodox Anglicans who remain within TEC to continue in fellowship with the Churches of the worldwide Communion.
• The Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) should now be recognized an authentic Anglican Church within the Communion.

The BBC reported that the ordination is likely to increase the turmoil in the Anglican Communion, coming despite warnings from the Archbishop of Canterbury that it would deepen an already bitter dispute on sexuality. He had urged the American Church not to proceed with the ordination, warning that it would further alienate traditionalists who believe active homosexuality to be a sin. The latest ordination is likely to accelerate the gradual marginalisation of the Episcopal Church within a two-tier Communion and increase tensions between Anglicans elsewhere.

All the negative comments about Mary Glasspool’s consecration made above can be looked at the other way round, from the perspective of those of us who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered and all who experience God’s love as inclusive and unbounded and follow a path of grace and not law.

It always astonishes me (not true, it no longer does) that conservative evangelicals who claim to be the true holders of authentic biblical Christian faith are obsessed with law and quite unable to follow the teaching of Paul, let alone the teaching of Jesus.

Bishop Jon Bruno said the protestors don’t understand the inclusive nature of the Episcopal Church. The Anglican leaders campaigning against the full inclusion, ever, of LGBT people in the church have a different theology from me. The true division in the church is between people and cultures which are re-learning from many sources the essence of Jesus’ teaching about God’s utterly gratuitous gift of love in creation and those who have adopted a legal understanding of God’s relationship with creation (simplifying drastically).

The majority in the Communion have agreed on a course of action in the Windsor Report which puts the Episcopal Church in the dock. I think the majority are wrong, not primarily because they are mistaken about God’s attitude to human sexuality but because they are wrong about Jesus and God’s relationship with us that Jesus reveals.

Far from Mary Glasspool’s consecration being a rejection of the pattern of holiness of life called for in Scripture as the Irish claim, I think that what the Episcopal Church is doing is actively living and modeling a scriptural pattern of holiness. TEC not only values the unity of the Anglican Communion but more importantly, values true discipleship in following the gospel of Jesus the Christ.

TEC is not walking apart from the rest of the Communion as Anglican Mainstream claim, the Anglican Communion is walking away from the Gospel of infinite and intimate love, tender and transforming love, sacrificial and life-giving. The consequences which Mainstream identify are irrelevant to those of us following a Christian path which I readily admit is dramatically different from the majority of Christian denominations.

Personal experience has taught me that the majority path is inherently abusive and corrupt and the continuing scandal of the abuse of children and young people in the Catholic Church is showing all who have eyes to see and ears to hear what happens when institutions follow false gospels – they become institutionally abusive and blind to love and truth.

Colin Coward