Betrayed by the Church’s stance on gays

Ruth Gledhill, the Religion Correspondent of The Times, phoned me late yesterday afternoon and interviewed me at some length. The result is an article in today’s paper which pretty accurately reports what I said.

In the interests of total accuracy, ‘a close friend of the Archbishop’ is pushing it a bit, and I was in parish ministry for 17, not 15 years, 3 as a curate at St George’s Camberwell (where Geoffrey Beaumont and Canon Eric James had previously been incumbents) and 14 years at St Faith’s Wandsworth. I didn’t actually tell Ruth that Bishop Mervyn Stockwood knew I was gay. Lowly curates like me didn’t share that kind of information with Mervyn.

I grew up in Southwark Diocese and at the age of 22 became involved with the cathedral and diocesan networks. Southwark obviously had many gay priests then and still does, despite Bishop Tom Butler’s initial reign of terror, a period now thankfully in the past.

When I returned to Southwark from Cambridge to serve my title, two of the bishops were known to be gay and my post ordination training group (in my memory) was between one third to a half gay. The gay sub-set was divided in two – the camp, closeted, Anglo-catholics who sat clad in black in the back row, giggling, and ‘my’ set, those who were less ashamed of being gay and seemed more mature. There was a good support network in the diocese for those gay priests who wanted to engage with each other, reinforced by the twice-yearly meetings of the Clergy Consultation for gay priests convened by Malcolm Johnson.

I have to confess astonishment that at least one of the gay men I remember sitting in the back row is now married and a bishop in the Church of England, but that’s another story. Well, perhaps it isn’t another story but in truth, THE story. The story of what has happened in England in the 40 plus years since I first became involved with the wider diocese in Southwark.

Then to be gay was to be closeted. It was a widely known semi-open secret to those in the clergy networks, the deanery, POT, the bishops. Let’s list those who were my area bishops in the time I was there – Michael Marshall, Keith Sutton, Peter Selby and Martin Wharton. The diocesans were Mervyn Stockwood, Ronnie Bowlby, Roy Williamson and Tom Butler. I was out to all of them. Bishop Roy was hugely supportive at the time Changing Attitude was being formed. The others were all pastorally affirming.

And now? There are still affirming and supporting bishops, but they are in the closet. Some actively encourage their clergy to contract a Civil Partnership knowing that it is healthier and holier to be in a faithful, loving, committed relationship rather than footloose and cottage-or-sleezy-night-club free. There were and are many clergy in the Anglo-catholic black-cassocked, ‘Father knows best’, misogynistic sets in London and Southwark, Forward in Faith to the core, who lived deeply dishonest and unhealthy lives. And there are gay (or ex-gay) bishops, married, acceptable to the hierarchy and those who compile the potential bishop list.

I feel more angry this week than I have for a long time. Mature, intelligent, totally committed LGBT lay people and priests in the Church of England are totally fed up with the context in which they have to minister. They allow themselves to be compromised by church attitudes driven by conservatives, knowing that they could be more Christian, more true to God and themselves, more integrated and emotionally healthy, were they to give up parochial ministry. Sadly, many are doing just that and the church is achieving by a slow process of erosion a reduction in the percentage of LGBT clergy in ministry.

What would the Church of England be like without her LGBT clergy? She might lose at least 10% of those currently in post. She would lose many of her most dedicated, spiritual, reflective, pastoral clergy - and she would be left in the hands of the spineless or the tyrannical, the dishonest, the closeted, the unhealthy.

The crisis, and the outrage - continued

On her blog, Ruth Gledhill says “frankly, there seems little point in the Anglican Communion bothering to exist any more.” “To many Anglicans, embarrassed and ashamed by a Church that knows not which minority it stands up for or which tradition it is prepared or not to breach, the Catholic option must seem increasingly attractive.”

The Catholic option is no option for me. Changing Attitude isn’t about to capitulate to Rome nor to abandon our work for the full inclusion of LGBT people. The further the Communion moves towards judging and marginalising the Epsicopal Church of the USA on the one hand, and being held captive by the wholly unChristian homophobic, cruel and abusive anti-gay prejudices of the reactionary conservatives on the other, the more resolute I become to work and pray and fight for a Christian community which knows what mercy, justice, truth and above all, love, really require of us.

It’s so blindingly obvious that the love of two women is worthy of celebrating and the threat to execute or imprison two women or men who love each other must be condemned. Yet my church – MY CHURCH – dares to condemn one and remain silent about the other.

The words on my mind and my heart are ‘evil’ and ‘corrupt’. How has become it possible in the Anglican Communion to judge TEC because a lesbian in a loving faithful relationship has been elected bishop and not totally condemn the Bill in Uganda that proposes death and imprisonment for LGBT Ugandans? Our Communion has arrived at a point where it has utterly ungodly, false priorities.
Elements of the mind of the Anglican Communion are driving it to become evil and corrupt.

The term 'gracious restraint' used by the Archbishop had become a euphemism for maintaining a status quo of evil prejudice and unjust discrimination.
The silence on Uganda, on homophobia, the false judgements about colonialism, honest relationships, the use of scapegoating mechanisms, the pagan nature of much that passes for Christianity, all are scandals in our Communion.

Ruth Gledhill write that “one blog commenter yesterday suggested that the Archbishop, instead of asking “serious questions” about the election of Mary Glasspool, might like instead to appoint her as his representative to go and lobby the Ugandan Government. What a thrilling spectacle that would be to behold.”

The task for a minority, a remnant in the Anglican Communion, is now to pray and work to maintain a worshipping presence and Christian witness to our vision of God who champions the poor and despised and loves all of us infinitely, without prejudice, until the Kingdom comes. Radical, inclusive, just, loving, truthful Anglicanism isn’t going to die, but it is facing the challenge of a lifetime.

Lambeth criticises TEC lesbian bishop but fails to criticise Uganda bill - why?

The Archbishop of Canterbury has, with great speed, issued a statement on the election of Mary Glasspool in Los Angeles. The statement says:

“The election of Mary Glasspool by the Diocese of Los Angeles as suffragan bishop elect raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole.

“The process of selection however is only part complete. The election has to be confirmed, or could be rejected, by diocesan bishops and diocesan standing committees. That decision will have very important implications.

“The bishops of the Communion have collectively acknowledged that a period of gracious restraint in respect of actions which are contrary to the mind of the Communion is necessary if our bonds of mutual affection are to hold.”

Posts on this blog have been dominated by the Anti-homosexuality bill in Uganda for the last 5 weeks.

On 29 October, Giles Goddard and myself wrote to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York on behalf of Inclusive Church and Changing Attitude. We asked them to speak out against the proposed legislation and to argue for the protection of lesbian and gay people in Uganda in accordance with the resolutions of previous Lambeth Conferences.

We have not received any reply to the letters and as those following this blog will be aware, neither of the Archbishops has issued a statement condemning the Bill.

Contact with Lambeth Palace persuaded Ruth Gledhill that any comment “would almost certainly be seen as white-led colonialism of the worst possible kind, as a misguided attempt to impose western liberal values upon traditional African culture. It would not help the local Anglican Church.”

The Anglican Communion’s official stance means that it is committed to oppose the consecration of a partnered lesbian or gay bishop at all costs, but not to the execution or life imprisonment of a lesbian or gay person in Uganda nor imprisonment for 3 years of any family member, church member, priest or bishop who fails to denounce a known lesbian or gay person to the police within 24 hours.

This order of priorities is totally wrong and misguided. The Archbishop allows himself to be driven by conservative forces in the Communion who wish to cleanse and eradicate LGBT not just from epsicopal office but from any role in the church – no baptism, no confirmation, no communion, no membership of any congregation.

A reverse colonialism is at work, and very effectively at work, in which the place of LGBT people in the Church of England has been severely diminished over the past 11years, starting with Lambeth 1998. This becomes more and more intolerable for us in the UK, and utterly intolerable for LGBT Anglicans in Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Ghana and every part of the Communion where the church judges and condemns us.

This is made the more intolerable because those who identity with us in the counsels of the church and might counter the intense prejudice afflicting the Communion are constrained by the need to protect themselves and the corporate commitment to a policy which judges and condemns LGBT people but not States which propose the death penalty and life imprisonment.

The attitude towards the place of LGBT people in the Anglican Communion has become totally intolerable and raises new and challenging questions about the place of LGBT people in the Communion.

Thank God for the election of Rev Mary Glasspool and TEC's courage and honesty

An openly partnered lesbian priest, the Rev.Mary Glasspool, has been elected as a suffragan bishop in the Episcopal Church’s diocese of Los Angeles.

Immediate reactions on both sides were predictable. Rod Thomas from Reform in the UK said: ‘I feel deeply ashamed that this is happening in the Anglican Church.’ Canon Kendall Harmon ih the USA said: “The election represents an intransigent embrace of a pattern of life Christians throughout history and the world have rejected as against biblical teaching.”

On the positive side, Fr Ron Smith writes: “The election [of] an openly gay- partnered cleric is symptomatic of the maturity of TEC, in its determination to outlaw a culture of homophobia and misogyny within its Church family. Thank God for the fact that TEC's gay clergy are willing to be honest about their sexuality. Would that other Anglican Churches were able to be so free from an institutionalised culture of hypocrisy.”

What will be the impact of her election on the Anglican Communion? Too early to say because consent has to be given by the bishops and standing committees of the Episcopal Church's other 108 dioceses. Her ordination to the episcopate is set to take place on May 15, 2010 with the Episcopal Church's Presiding Bishop, the Most Rev Katharine Jefferts Schori, due to officiate.

Her election might not be given approval. That would be the end of the story, for the moment, but another election will inevitably occur and the consecration of a second partnered lesbian or gay bishop will happen one day.

If Mary Glasspool’s election is confirmed and she is consecrated bishop there will be renewed pressure from conservative Provinces, coalitions and lobby groups to marginalize the Episcopal Church or seek to evict her from the Communion.

This would temporarily satisfy conservatives who would then claim a victory for what they maintain is traditional, orthodox Christianity. This is not an unchanging tradition nor an orthodoxy which lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Anglicans and our supporters wish to respect or maintain.

Exclusion of the Epsicopal Church (TEC) would be hailed as a further step on the road to eradicating the presence of LGBT people from the Communion. The exclusion of TEC with all her energy, gifts and prophetic vision would be a huge loss to the Communion. Exclusion would be a devastating blow to those of us working for the full inclusion of LGBT people, the majority of whom in the Communion live isolated, lonely lives and for whom Gene Robinson’s election was an incredibly powerful sign that God loves us and there is a place for us in the Communion and the Kingdom. Diane Bruce’s election reinforces that message.

The failure to confirm her election or the possible eviction of TEC from the Communion if her election is confirmed, would do nothing to change present reality. There are LGBT people baptized, confirmed, ordained, single, partnered, worshipping and ministering in every Province and every diocese of our Communion.

Ruth Gledhill says Archbishop of Canterbury in 'intensive' efforts to combat Ugandan Anti-homosexuality bill

Ruth Gledhill, writing in Friday’s Times about the silence of the Archbishop of Canterbury in regards to the Ugandan Anti-homosexuality bill, says that she has been told by Lambeth Palace: 'It has been made clear to us, as indeed to others, that attempts to publicly influence either the local church or political opinion in Uganda would be divisive and counter productive. Our contacts, at both national and diocesan level, with the local church will therefore remain intensive but private.'

There is method in the silence, she says. It can taken for granted that Archbishop Rowan is against the draconian new law but speaking out publicly to this effect could have the opposite effect to that intended. Ruth Gledhill says “It would almost certainly be seen as white-led colonialism of the worst possible kind, as a misguided attempt to impose western liberal values upon traditional African culture. It would not help the local Anglican Church, which has yet to come out on either side. But we can assume that the word 'intensive' in his statement today indicates that he is as distressed as the 2,000 who have signed a petition against it.”

It might be seen in the way Ruth describes, but it isn’t seen in that way by those in western churches who believe that the church is sinful when it fails to protect and defend the lives and integrity of LGBT people, and believe this because the Primates and bishops have agreed this to be the policy of the Anglican Communion. It isn’t seen in the way Ruth describes by gug and the other lesbian and gay Ugandans who have access to the internet and have made their views known.

Gug, the blogging gay Ugandan, says it isn’t a lot to ask the Archbishop, who is safely outside Uganda, to state with clarity what the Church of England’s position is and what the documents of the Anglican Communion state.

The Anglican Church of Uganda is extremely, violently homophobic, says gug. They were initially very, very supportive of the bill until the international outcry from other churches and groups made them reconsider. Now they don’t have an ‘official’ position, which is in reality, says gug, a “double faced hypocrisy and a lie.” Pressure from Canada and mounting pressure from sister churches in England and the US checked their murderous Christian brothers and sisters in Uganda. Gug has no doubt that they support the bill wholeheartedly and cites the nasty sermon from the Bishop of Karamoja as proof.

I think Ruth Gledhill has been sold (and bought) a pup. The status of lesbian and gay clergy and readers in England has become steadily worse in the last two decades, in total contrast to progress made in secular society. But the problems experienced here in a church which is spineless in its failure to honour the ministry of LGBT people is nothing compared with the status of LGBT Ugandans.

The leaders of the Church of England are complicit with the Archbishop and bishops of the Church of Uganda. The trustees of Changing Attitude are united in condemning Lambeth Palace for having said nothing about the Bill, a Bill which in our view Anglican leaders have no alternative but to condemn and oppose. If the Ugandan Church is unable to accept Anglican teaching in this matter then they need to be shown how wrong they are. If it is acceptable for the Episcopal Church to be reprimanded when it is judged to have failed to observe Anglican Communion policy, surely it is even more critical to condemn the Bill in Uganda (which isn’t directly Church of Uganda policy) and to engage ‘intensely’ with the church there and with clarity tell them that they are outside Anglican polity.

If it is safe to tell the Americans when they are deemed to be failing in their duty, why isn’t it safe to tell the Ugandans, when something so evil is proposed? Or is the election and consecration of a gay bishop really thought to be more evil than the life imprisonment or execution of someone who is gay? Is this imposing 'western liberal values' on 'traditional African culture'?

False African and European myths about same sex attraction

Anengiyefa, African born but now resident in London, has written from his own experience about the myths of the origin of same sex attraction in Africa. He has given me permission to re-post his blog in full, for which I am very grateful – you can read the original and consult the rest of his blog here http://thingsifeelstronglyabout.blogspot.com/

We hear repeatedly from African Christian leaders about homosexuality being a western import. It is part of the argument being advanced in support of the Anti-homosexuality Bill in Uganda. African gay men testify that it is a lie. Anglican Primates and bishops in Africa repeat lies in support of their allegations about homosexuality. I repeat – they tell lies – and the lies are repeated by men who are heterosexual, many of whom know perfectly well that same-sex activity is common among adolescent African men and is not unknown among adults, including Christians and priests.

The deliberate lies have to stop. They are told in order to fuel prejudice and homophobia. They are corrupting Christianity and the health and unity of the Anglican Communion far more than the presence of lesbian and gay lay people, priests and bishops in our church. They are a scandal in our Communion. They must be challenged every time they are repeated.

Here is Anengifyia’s blog:

I am a mythical being, I don't exist

Among Africans generally, same sex attraction has been a myth. It has been as much the subject of whispered conversation or gossip, as it has been talked about in absolutist, loud, angry condemning tones, usually from the pulpit, but also in the media and even in social situations. There has been an overwhelming leaning towards intolerance and there appears not to have been until recently, a moderate middle ground. Outbursts of "This is an abomination!", "Our people don't do that!", "We will never accept this!", are familiar reactions. Sometimes, homosexual behaviour among Africans is blamed upon the "white man". Our continent's leaders have even publicly declared that homosexuality does not exist among Africans. Declarations such as, "There are no homosexuals in Nigeria", or "They have been corrupted by Europeans," are common.

I heard all of this as a young person growing up in Africa, while knowing that at no time in my young life had I interacted with anyone from Europe to the extent that he would have had the opportunity to impart his sexuality on me, if at all that was possible. The only Europeans I met were those who I ran into at the supermarket, or by chance at the swimming pool at a place we called 'The Club', sort of like a country club, which was a relic of the old colonial administration. The Club was originally intended to cater for the frolics of that administration's large number of expatriates, for whom a posting to Africa was supposed to mean a life of comfort and luxury. After independence from Britain The Club remained in existence, but it was now the domain of big-wig Africans in top government positions and their expatriate friends in the private sector, more particularly the petroleum industry; expatriates who still saw Nigeria as a veritable gold mine. Then there were those Europeans who were fellow passengers on the very occasional flight in an aeroplane. As a youngster my movements were so tightly controlled and my parents so strict, that I simply had no opportunity to stray into the hands of a predatory African to be 'corrupted', much less a European. And not even if I had actually desired to be 'corrupted' and had actively sought it. (I use the term 'European' loosely, to include every person of Eurasian ancestry).

I heard these things being said and I knew they were wrong. But I had no way of pointing out to people that they could not be correct, because here I was among them, feeling same-sex attraction, having never even once been intimate with a European. This caused me sometimes to be upset and there was a strong temptation to be negative about my same-sex feelings. There are many gay men who unfortunately succumb to this temptation; self-loathing, sadly, is commonplace among gay people. But I refused to be negative. I knew categorically that I did not ask for the feelings that I had, and that I had had them for as long as I had been sexually aware, which would take me back to when I was about seven years old. I was attracted to the boys more than I was attracted to the girls at school. I liked the girls too, but I liked the boys better. There was nothing to it. I was not influenced or taught, nor was I "corrupted". And I was never ashamed of it, despite all the negativity that surrounded it in the conversations that I heard. Indeed it is in being true to my feelings that I believe I have remained pure, by staying the same-gender loving man that I was intended to be. In other words, I would in fact have become "corrupted" had I sought to become a pretend-heterosexual man, while knowing deep down inside that in actuality this is not who I am. I am fortunate that I did not experience to a great degree that psychological and emotional turmoil many gay men go through, as they progress through their teenage years into adulthood. I was always sure of who I was, but the downside was that I found myself in a very lonely place, since there were hardly any others that I knew socially who shared the same sexual feelings, and it was impossible to share these feelings with most of my peers at the time..

Over the years I have come to realise that there are many other gay Africans. We have remained hidden because our society has been firm in its intolerance towards us. But I am convinced that this intolerance is borne entirely from the lack of information concerning homosexuality among Africans. And this is where we come in, me and many others like me who through our blogs have sought to tell our story more honestly, clearly and persuasively than ever before. The result that we see of this huge unprecedented amount of information about homosexuality in Africans being put into the public domain, is that among my generation of Africans and younger, there is a greater awareness of the fact that gay Africans are real flesh and blood human beings, who are entitled to live their lives happily just as everyone else. I see the beginnings of a shift in opinion, a shift that becomes apparent when we hear respected African people publicly voicing moderate opinions, and calling for restraint and caution when gay people have been maliciously vituperated in the media, as in Kenya and in Uganda recently. Times are changing and I am positive that this story will have a happy ending. I just hope that I am still around when that ending does come.

Uganda - the Archbishops’ dilemma

At 07.20 this morning, having said the morning office from Jim Cotter’s ‘Into the Silence’, I gazed through my east-facing window before closing my eyes to meditate. The dawn light was gentle and delicate and I imagined the infinite, tender love of God, flowing through creation and through my own body, God’s love and energy, goodness and wisdom. I sat in my awareness for half an hour and then prayed, for gug in Uganda, Archbishops +Rowan and +John, the work of Changing Attitude, the supporters, diocesan groups, trustees and patrons, for the people I was in conversation with yesterday and those I will meet today. I prayed for my conflicting emotions about the church, her leaders, and the needs of LGBT Christians across the Communion.

I recognize the dilemma faced by `the powers that be' in Lambeth and Bishopthorpe. Brenda Harrison commented to me this morning: “It's the same dilemma often faced by the Foreign Office when there is public clamour for action which takes no account of what the FO might be doing behind the scenes.” But she added: “I'm not too sympathetic. The FO just get on with it, it's time the Ecclesiastical Powers did the same without being so sensitive.”

I experience similar dilemmas. I feel for people who are conflicted in their roles, especially between what the interior self knows and feels and the role demanded from the public self. In my time of contemplation and prayer every morning, I open myself to God’s place in my heart and my place in the heart of God’s creation, and in there and from there, live through the day with its ambivalent demands. I know I am not alone.

Changing Attitude has a responsibility to keep the plight of our Ugandan brothers and sisters in the public eye - if that discomfits the Powers, so be it. Keeping Uganda in the frame and keeping the pressure on those who will determine the future of the Bill is critical for LGBT people in Uganda.

It is also critical for us here in the UK and for our place in the church. As the hierarchy maintains silence in response to Anglican sensitivities so as not to upset African primates and bishops, they send an unfortunate message to UK society. UK Anglicans appear to be tolerating the proposed Bill. I know that isn’t true, and Bishop Mike Hill’s response is proof that it isn’t true. I am assured that representations are being made to people in Uganda who can offer the best advice and wisdom to try and ensure that the Church of Uganda restrains herself from wholehearted support for the Bill at worst, and at best, might even offer a critical response based on Anglican policy and teaching.

UK Anglicans are trying to find a way to live with integrity in our church, honouring our loving relationships by contracting Civil Partnerships when and where possible. This is a huge dilemma for those who are ordained or licensed. We should honour our love, follow the Christian call to fidelity, and register. But for those subject to a bishop’s license the alternatives are to register and keep it secret or tell the bishop and risk your future in the church. Many priests facing this dilemma contact Changing Attitude.

None of us, however, are confronted with the dilemma facing gug and others in Uganda: “I lived deeply in the closet for a long time. Now, the door is barely open, but I may be forced back. Back to denying myself.”

But as he says: “This is no longer about me or Uganda. This is about humanity. This is about being human. I don’t like the fact that it is my country drawn up in defiance on its sovereign right to kill and imprison me for my sexuality- but it is a hugely wider battle, of a people, a minority against a majority that chooses to believe weird, lurid rumours of xenophobia and the ‘wicked other’ to persecute some of its own people. And many gay people, all over the world are joining hands in solidarity.”