Time heals

Twenty years ago a Canadian priest was fired for being gay and in a relationship. In 1981 Jim Ferry went to his bishop expecting understanding and instead met a church court which expelled him from the ministry.

The Toronto Star reports that they are now to meet again in a ceremony of reconciliation.

For Finlay, now 74, the service is a “personal opportunity for me to express my regret” for Ferry’s suffering. “It was a very, very difficult time for both of us.”  ...

When Ferry informed Finlay of his circumstances, Finlay ordered him to end the relationship. Ferry refused. (The church accepted homosexual clergy, but only if they abstained from giving expression to that fact. In effect, if they lived a lie.) 

Finlay then issued a letter to be read at all Anglican parishes, outing Ferry and “inhibiting” him from performing pastoral duties. Effectively, the priest was fired, becoming, he said, “an outcast . . . and a ‘labelled’ outcast."

Under church procedures, Finlay brought charges against Ferry and, in early 1992, convened a rarely used “bishop’s court” to hear the case.

The court — which had origins in pre-Reformation England — concluded that Ferry’s only wrong was his disobedience to a superior.

As a penalty, Finlay withdrew the priest’s licence. ...

For both Finlay and Ferry, the past two decades have brought pain, anguish and humiliation. Ferry paid immediately and publicly. For 20 years, he felt cast out for the crime of “loving another human being deeply and intimately.”

all here.

Jim Ferry, right, and former archbishop Terence Finlay, left.
STEVE RUSSELL/TORONTO STAR

Reverend Jane Spahr

Credit: Reuters/Joe Mitchell

Reuters, San Francisco, February 21
Presbyterian Church Court uphold pastor's censure for gay weddings

A sharply divided high court of the U.S. Presbyterian Church on Tuesday upheld the ecclesiastical rebuke levied against a lesbian minister for performing same-sex weddings in California.

The decision affirming the censure of the Rev. Jane Spahr means that Presbyterian ministers continue to face church discipline for following their conscience in treating gay and lesbian couples the same as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage.

The case surrounding Spahr, a 69-year-old grandmother, highlights deep divisions within the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. and its 2 million members, as well as other mainstream Protestant denominations, over gay marriage as clergy are increasingly asked to bless such unions.

Spahr's lawyers estimate at least 10 percent of the Presbyterian Church's followers identify themselves as gay or lesbian.  more...

(Earlier articles: Feb 16 and Feb 17.)

Rev Spahr's reprimand now stands. But there are no further sanctions or restrictions on her. She continues to be a recognised minister within the Presbyterian Church. The court was split 9-6.

The article concludes,

The church last spring formally opened the ranks of its clergy to homosexuals in a move that triggered a schism in the denomination, prompting a group opposed to gay clergy to form a new church called the Evangelical Convent Order of Presbyterians.

Spahr was censured once before, in April 2008, for performing lesbian marriages in California and New York in 2004 and 2005, before gay marriage was legal in either state. But the commission later lifted that rebuke, finding then that Spahr did not violate Presbyterian law prohibiting homosexual marriage because church doctrine recognized no such thing.

A new dawn for gay people in the Church of England?

From Reuters Tue Feb 28, 2012

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.
Photograph: Andrew Winning/Reuters

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, spiritual head of the global Anglican communion, stepped on Tuesday into a row which is flaring at the U.N. Human Rights Council over the persecution of gays and lesbians.

Williams, who has faced strong opposition from parts of his own church especially in Africa for his stance on gays, did not directly refer to the current controversy at the Council, according to the text of a speech prepared for delivery at the Geneva-based World Council of Churches (WCC).

However, he said laws against sexual minorities were equivalent to racism, and warned that legal regulation of consensual sexual conduct "can be both unworkable and open to appalling abuse - intimidation and blackmail."

 Reuters is concerned with the developing stand-off in the UN with Pakistan, on behalf of the 57-nation Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC), opposed to the convening of the panel and refusing to accept any recommendations that it might issue.

How will Rowan's comments play with his friends in the Vatican?

More domestically, does this mean we will now see the removal of formal and informal barriers to homosexuals' participation in the Church of England? Is it possible that gay people can be full members of the Church?

Or will we have a justification of the Archbishop of Canterbury's expression of one set of views in an international forum (which are believed to be his personal views) - while continuing to endorse, support and enact attitudes 'equivalent to racism' in the Church of which he is head?

Bishop of Salisbury talks sense

Nick Holtam on his
consecration as Bishop of Salisbury

Wouldn't you like to be a fly on the wall at the next meeting of the House of Bishops?

Nick Holtam, Bishop of Salisbury, has been interviewed by Ruth Gledhill in the Times (behind the paywall).

He says,

"If the Anglican Covenant had been in existence, would we have had women priests? And I think the answer is no, because we would have had to take a much more cautious approach. Although its architects say it is not designed to exclude I can't but read it without concluding that it is intended to exclude groups and specifically the Episcopal Church and the Canadian Church and parts of the Church of England."

Nor does he think it is his role, as the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks is his, to 'sublimate' his views to the views of the Church:

"Part of responsible leadership is having the vision, the sight, to see that's where I want to go."

he told the Times.

Oh, and by the way, he believes there is 'no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual unions.'

No wonder the Archbishops didn't want him when the Diocese of Southwark was being considered.

Time to be a grown up church

Diarmaid MacCulloch, 

Professor of the History of the Church, 

in the Theology Faculty, 

St Cross College, Oxford

Compulsory celibacy is wrong and damaging for all clergy – straight or gay

Not everyone called to the priesthood is also called to celibacy

So says Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch in The Guardian. (Further Guardian comment here.)

It's not rocket science - as my continually exasperated Latin teacher used reiterate. It's just common sense.  All our understanding of humanity, spiritual guidance, pastoral care and psychology, our understanding of groups and politics says the same thing: a falsehood at its heart corrupts everything.

This particular falsehood - that there are no gay clergy in the Church of England and, if there should be any, then they're all celibate - is so blatantly untrue as to be obvious to anyone. 

Perhaps the Church of England is so used to living with internal contradiction, wilful blindness and avoidance of what's right in front of its face that it can maintain this duplicity without batting an eyelid.

But I would much rather have a grown-up church. One that takes sin seriously in all its forms: sexual, relationship, financial, political and otherwise. One that recognises human frailty not only in our visible failings but also in our inordinate desires to be in the right and to bend other people to our conception of what they ought to believe and do. And I'd hope for a church too that looks for, even evokes, the maturity which comes from the continual process of understanding, forgiveness and acceptance of both self and others. 

I believe that we are both loved and judged by God. Love is a capacity which, however inadequately, humanity shares with God though it can sometimes seem to be in short supply. But, sadly, we are often all too keen to take the task of judging other people off God's shoulders. Any organization needs rules: but if it is to thrive than it must remember that rules are made for people, not people for the rules.

On the other hand, I never did learn Latin.

So who leaked the Jeffrey John papers?

Martin Reynolds

Martin Reynolds has a different and authentic sounding analysis of the Jeffrey John affair - or rather the way the story was leaked, spun and misconstrued.  See the comments section of the Thinking Anglicans report of press coverage.

In Colin Coward's view

It seems clear that it was a conservative member of the Southwark CNC, hostile to the candidacy of a gay priest and a man married to a divorcee, who revealed that Jeffrey John and Nicholas Holtam were on the shortlist in an attempt to sabotage the appointment of either.

No names there, then.

And Coward's conclusion seems incontrovertable:

Changing Attitude’s view [is] that senior officials in the Church are attempting to prevent any progress that might result in a change in attitude and practice in the church. They are blocking appointments, inhibiting discussion, overruling General Synod’s right to determine policy and ensuring slow to no progress in reviewing House of Bishops’ policy.

In this catalogue the legal opinion on the appointment of gay bishops is a key document. But a legal opinion is only an opinion. Those acting in the capacity of trustees must take seriously such advice as they are given. They are also entitled to seek another opinion, were they so minded.

But until any such opinion is tested in the courts it remains only advice. It may be persuasive but it is not definitive.

Civil Partnerships in the Church of England?

From Inclusive Church:

A limited survey by the LGB&T Anglican Coalition has already revealed that almost 100 Church of England churches would want to explore registering their buildings to offer Civil Partnerships if the Church of England would allow it.

All here.

Jeffrey John story largely speculation?

Jim Naughton at Episcopal Cafe has a different story to Sunday's headlines.

I admit, I'm disappointed. I had thought that legal action might force the Church to revise its practice. But I also wish to keep the record straight, so to speak.

Jeffrey John

Naughton cites Andrew Brown's (Correction: Sam Brown's) article in The Guardian. Though this hedges its bets (with a very cautious opening paragraph and, later, 'News of John's apparent decision to challenge his employers') nonetheless it does seem to rest on the presumption that John is preparing to sue.

In The Independent Jerome Taylor goes over the same ground, pointing out that no-one is happy. Neither conservatives nor liberals like the compromise the Church is trying to pursue. The Archbishop of Canterbury and other leaders know its a precarious position to try to hold and would not want put it at the top of the agenda by a law suit.

But some liberals believe now is precisely the time for them to force the issue. "We are determined to campaign for full equality right now," says Colin Coward, director of Changing Attitude, the most prolific, pro-gay lobby within the Church. "There is no sense of urgency among Church leaders. But the Church is sick, it needs to be fixed right away."

The Independent also has a leader article:

The office of a bishop is weighty in the Church. Charged with acting as a focus of unity and with upholding doctrine, the post is supposed to be prayerfully accepted rather than actively sought, which is why reports that the Dean of St Albans may sue the Church of England for discrimination over its refusal to make him a bishop will have shocked the Anglican hierarchy to its core.

Well, possibly, maybe not. But the leader does point out the contradiction of being a state church whilst also trying to avoid the application of the state's legislation. Now disestablishment really would shock the hierarchy.

Naughton's piece has a quote from a different Andrew Brown article in The Guardian to the one cited above. This sets out why John cannot win.

Last year the Church of England published a legal opinion that makes it quite clear that it believes it is legal to discriminate against John, not because he is gay, since he is also celibate, but because he is not in the least bit ashamed of being gay. That is what sticks in the craw of the conservative evangelicals who oppose him. They have moved on from supposing that it is absolutely wrong to be gay. They now believe that it is OK to be gay providing that you are very unhappy about it.

Guardian journalist, Andrew Brown

... the real point is found in the apparently balanced statements of disagreement. "It is clear that a significant number of Anglicans, on grounds of strongly held religious conviction, believe that a Christian leader should not entire into a civil partnership, even if celibate … it is equally clear that many other Anglicans believe it is appropriate that clergy who are gay by orientation entire into civil partnerships." [from the legal opinion on the appointment of gay bishops, para. 26.]

This formulation gives the game away. It is only conservative evangelical opinion which is described as "strongly held religious conviction". The liberals merely "believe it is appropriate", with the implication that their beliefs on this are not religious at all.

This kind of nonsense was dealt with decades ago where women priests were concerned. What needs saying, loud and clear, is that the case for liberalism here is every bit as religious, and as theologically informed, as the case for the conservatives.

Exactly. Liberals are too nice and that is mistaken for a lack of strength of conviction, a lack of passion, and insufficient willingness to clarify fudges. 

Jeffrey John to sue the Church of England

The Very Rev Jeffrey John,
Dean of St Albans

[Update here - a less straightforward story, it seems.]

I think the Sunday Times and the Mail both had this story but, except behind the paywall, the Mail got online first:

'I'll sue Church of England if it bars me from being bishop,' says gay dean

The Very Rev Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans, has instructed an eminent employment lawyer to complain to Church officials after being rejected for the role of Bishop of Southwark.

It's a very interesting move and I'm happy to bet that the CofE will settle out of court rather than face a full hearing. 

The court will, I suspect, have regard to two issues. The first is that of discrimination. Second, the extent to which the Church has followed its own rules. 

Inevitably this touches on the clash between the desire of (some in) the Church to place its structural prejudices in front of human rights. 

However the view that there is no bar to the preferment of gay people who are celibate was recently set out in a formal legal opinion by William Fittal (Guardian article, the opinion - pdf). It will also do John's case no harm that a memo by Colin Slee was later prepared (and leaked) setting out the appalling manner in which the appointment committee was conducted.

Slee said of the meeting: "We had two very horrible days in which I would say both archbishops behaved very badly. The meeting was not a fair consideration at all; they were intent on wrecking both Jeffrey John and Nick Holtam equally, despite the fact that their CVs were startlingly in an entirely different and better league than the other two candidates …

I would guess that the CofE will be liable for considerable damages. 

Assuming John wins his case, whether in the tribunal or outside it, the question then will be: would the Church prefer to keep barring gay people from posts and keep paying compensation, or will it change its recruitment process to ensure that (at least celibate) gay people are not discriminated against?

We shall see.

(Pink News and the Guardian also picked up the story. And I nearly missed MadPriest.)

What do we get if we get the Covenant?

Apologies that the papers under discussion here are somewhat dated. I am grateful to my colleague Leonardo Ricardo for drawing my attention to the paper from the Province of South Asia which (with so much else) I had missed.


I blog it now because it continues to be relevant: the terms of signing the Covenant seen from Singapore are not the terms seen from where I sit.

Michael Burrows, Bishop of Cashel and Ossory,
and promoter of the Covenant  in Ireland

Ireland subscribes
In May the Church of Ireland "subscribed" to the Covenant.

In doing so the Irish intended to subordinate the Covenant to the Church in Ireland; they were not willing to subordinate the Church to the Covenant (Press Release). Were they conning themselves? Mark Harris pointed out that they didn't really have the option: the only choice on the table was - take it or leave it.

But was something else going on? Did the Irish (or, at least, those in the know) believe that once the Covenant was in place all that would happen would be another round of negotiations?

To put it another way: what do we get if we get the Covenant?

Here the Church of South East Asia (wiki) has been very helpful.

A history of the Covenant
Their Preamble to the Letter of Accession (also May 2011) set out a history of how the Covenant was created. It stresses the significance of conservative Provinces in the creation of the document dating back to the Second South-to-South Encounter Kuala Lumpur Statement in 1997.

I find the historical narrative largely persuasive when seen through conservative glasses,  The story is predicated on the "unscriptural practices in some parts of the Church" and the providential way the 'crisis' enabled the diverse churches of the global south to create a shared identity and structures of consultation

It's not the whole story. (1) It omits contributions from England and other western sources. (2) The Archbishop of Canterbury is mentioned twice (outside quotations): to restate an instruction given to him by the Primates and, second, to disapprove a decision he made. It would seem that the future of Covenanted Anglicanism does not accord primacy to the Archbishop, his heirs and successors. (3) It ignores the listening process that was also agreed at Lambeth 1998. (4) It also leaves the impression that 'border crossing' followed, rather than preceded, the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson.

(l-r) Bishop Albert Vun, Diocese of Sabah)
Bishop John Chew, Diocese of Singapore
Bishop Bolly Lapok, Diocese of Kiching
 Bishop Ng Moon Heng, Diocese of West Malaysia

But for those global south churches which wish to remain within the Anglican Communion it is a persuasive and legitimating account.

The terms of accession

The Preamble "also outlines the raison d'être for the Church of the Province of South East Asia’s agreement to sign the Anglican Communion Covenant.":

Churches that accede to the Anglican Communion Covenant need to subject their common life to the reforming and transforming work of the Holy Spirit, so that the Communion may be built up until all “reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4: 13). The Anglican Communion should adopt more uniform processes in the election and appointment of bishops, to ensure that such processes are not held hostage to local politics and to parochial understandings of the episcopal office.

For the Province of South East Asia, therefore, it is perfectly clear that the Covenant does indeed subordinate provinces to its provisions. Local church order must be changed to fit the programme.

Furthermore:

our accession to the Anglican Communion Covenant is based on the following understanding:
(a) that those who accede to the Anglican Communion Covenant will unequivocally abide by Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10 in its spirit and intent;
(b) that those Provinces and Dioceses whose actions violate Lambeth Resolution 1.10 as well as subsequent Primates Communiqué statements that have placed a moratorium on the consecration of gay bishops and the authorization and implementation of public rites for the blessing of same sex unions, are expected to rescind their actions, and bring their public doctrine and practice in line with Lambeth 1.10, before acceding to the Anglican Communion Covenant; and
(c) that Churches that accede to the Anglican Communion Covenant should bear authentic witness to the orthodox faith by an unequivocal commitment to the standards of moral and ethical holiness as set by Biblical norms in all aspects of their communal life. (Mt 19:4-6; Rom 1:21-32; 1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:16-26; Eph 5:3-14; Col 3:5-14; 1 Thess 4:3-12; 2 Tim 3:1-5; Heb 13:1-5; 1 Pet 4:1-11; 2 Pet 2:13-22; Jude v18-21; Rev 18:1-8).
(d) that the Primates Meeting, being responsible for Faith and Order, should be the body to oversee the Anglican Communion Covenant in its implementation (Anglican Communion Covenant Section 3.1.4.IV and South-to-South Encounter, Fourth Trumpet, 21).

Thus they sign the Covenant with one pen and with another write: everyone else must meet the demands of South East Asia.

Martin Reynolds (last comment at TA) also noted that, as part of the National Council of Churches of Singapore, the Anglican Church sought to criminalise lesbianism for the first time in the country's history and to sustain harsh punishments for gay men. There is nothing irenic in this Provinces' Covenant.

So what does it mean to sign the Covenant?
Clearly the Church of Ireland either signed a different Covenant, or it must withdraw its decision if these are the terms, or it expects the Covenant to be merely a staging post to further negotiations.

What would the Church of England be signing up to if it voted in favour?

What is the point of a treaty if we all think we're signing up to different things?

Airbrushing gay people out of the church

Lesley, of Lesley's blog, has posted another account to a Church's response to the possibility someone was gay:

Homophobia is alive and well in UK churches

Though, to be fair (as some of the comments point out), not in all UK Churches. 

Absent, but not gone

Henry Orombi in the company of the commandments. (Church Times)



The Archbishop of Uganda, Henry Orombi, has not resigned from the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion (SCAC) despite earlier reports that he had.

He merely said "I stand with my brother Primate, Bishop Mouneer Anis, in his courageous decision to resign from the Standing Committee," (Episcopal Life, which seems to have first announced that Orombi had resigned). In this sentence 'stand' should not be read as 'walk'.

What he has done is to send a 3 page letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, copied to 'Primates, Moderators, and Members of the Standing Committee of the ACC' available here (pdf).

In it he reminds Rowan (though, in fact, telling everyone except Rowan who already knows) that he hasn't been to a meeting of the SCAC since he was elected for 'principled reasons'.

(Incidentally this raises other questionr of representation of the Primates on SCAC - can they vote someone off mid-term on the grounds on non-attendance?)

His grounds are

1. He stands by the Primates' Communique after their meeting in Dar Es Salaam.
2. Members of TEC - including the Presiding Bishop who, just like Orombi, was elected by the Primates - are part of the SCAC and clearly will not vote for their own exclusion (I paraphrase, see below).
3. The leadership of the Anglican Communion Office have subverted powers which properly belong to the Primates. In particular it has been cut out of the 'Windsor process' (to which he objects in any case) and that process has been given to the SCAC.
4. The SCAC has appropriated powers to itself that neither the Primates nor the Lambeth Conference have approved.
5. The issue of homosexuality, and the standing of homosexuals in the church, is a matter of faith and order and these properly belong to bishops - and the Lambeth Conference devloved such issues to the Primates (1998, Resolution III.6)
6. And now the SCAC is to be given authority over Covenant discipline - all highly irregular.

His remedy is to restore power and authority to the Primates. Even their meetings, he says, have been subverted by the officers of the Anglican Communion Office as their secretariat.

He also wishes to exclude TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada from that Primates meeting.

Orombi describes TEC as 'gross violators of Biblical Truth' and states that TEC and the ACoC 'are proceeding with unbiblical practices that contradict the faith of Anglicanism.'

For Ormobi (and I think most of GAFCON) judgement day has passed: from his perspective TEC and the ACoC have already stepped outside the Christian pale, have done so of their own informed volition, and all that remains is frustration at the lack of institutional mechanisms to expel them formally. That was the view of Maurice Sinclair and Drexel Gomez in 2002.

===============

Well, I largely agree with Orombi's organizational analysis - though not about the Primates. The SCAC is a cuckoo in the nest. It has usurped authority already and has, inevitably, reduced the authority of all the other Instruments of Unity.

What Orombi's attitudes and (in)actions also show - as I have argued from the beginning of the Covenant process - is that creating a central executive body to govern the Communion will not resolve any dispute. It will provide new channels for campaigning, new people to be lobbied, and a new location of decision-making which those in contention across the Communion will all try to capture.

The Primates would not all share the sacraments in Das es Salaam. Why should anyone think that the members of different body would do so? Elections to membership of the SCAC - or any other such body - merely replicate pre-existing divisions and carry differences and antagonisms into a small room.

Surely, well I would have thought, surely the goal should have been to enlarge the space of Anglicanism, not to reduce it - to make more room for difference and cultural specificity and theological debate, not to try to cram volatile material into an even smaller container.

I don't know if Orombi's letter will make much difference. That (a) he should have to put this in writing, (b) he has to circulate it widely, (c) it should be made public, and (d) he describes not only the sidelining of his preferred option (Primatial power) but also his personal feelings of being sidelined - are all signs of weakness.

Under such circumstances there are normally just two options: to play a long game to get back into a position of power and influence or to pick up the ball and go find some other game.

Homophobia in Africa a compassionate view to counter the infamous Nolbert Kunonga

From: ANGLICAN-INFORMATION Recently we have observed an apparent tide of homophobia sweeping parts of Africa. Web traffic reports that the traditionally conservative African social ethos has been stirred up aggressively by conservative North American evangelists. ‘Sex and gender’ American cultural wars of the kind currently troubling the Anglican Communion are being exported into Africa.

Hats off to Bishops Gandiya, Bakare, Chama and Mwamba!

Such intrusions into Africa have been eagerly taken up by renegade ‘Archbishop’ Nolbert Kunonga, a Zimbabwean bishop who broke away from the Church of the Province of Central Africa in 2008. He has repeatedly accused the Central African Bishops of being gay, pro-gay or variations on this theme as an excuse for his actions against Anglican Christians of the Diocese of Harare. Kunonga, a sometime protégé of former Archbishop Bernard Malango, has been closely implicated in numerous acts of terror and violence against worshippers. Kunonga has been instrumental in resisting both Bishops Sebastian Bakare and latterly Bishop Chad Gandiya in their efforts to oversee the Diocese of Harare.

ANGLICAN-INFORMATION have received a letter, parts of which we publish below, that shows a rather more compassionate and reflective view from within the Diocese of Harare. Reflecting the current febrile atmosphere we have withheld the names of the senders for their own security.

Hats off to Bishop Chad Gandiya!
Please publish this article for the benefit of faithful Anglicans in Harare:
‘The downfall of the former Bishop of Harare, Nolbert Kunonga, was a result of his dinosaur mentality, by which he has remained trapped in the past. Today’s Church needs progressive bishops who are in step with the changing world, where human rights are respected and observed without reservation. Time and culture continue to transform the face of the earth, as humankind becomes more civilized and liberation from the mindset of the middle ages continues. Kunonga has been a cause of immense pain because of unaccommodating thinking, which has seen many leave the Anglican Church, even before the present crisis, for churches where the human nature is better comprehended in line with a transforming world of science.

Sexual preference, or homosexuality is not a sin as Kunonga would like to have people believe. This is a condition over which no one has any control, a genetically motivated behaviour. We are profoundly grateful for the emergence of such progressive bishops such as our beloved Bishop Chad Gandiya, who realize that homosexuality is not simply a scourge of darkness. This reality has remained suppressed because of backward and unreasonable bishops such as Kunonga. Such people are concealed behind conservatism, and offer utterly nonsensical words such as orthodoxy when they mean a particular view of sexuality.

The former bishop Kunonga, or better, the disgraced and defrocked clergyman he is, deserves the present desertion by most, if not all, the faithful because he continues to profess archaic ideas of a long dead world. Homosexuals and lesbians exist as a fact, and caring bishops such as Chad Gandiya, should continue to hold high the flag of human rights. With our beloved Chad Gandiya at the helm of the Anglican Church, Zimbabwe will at last be free from an oppressive mentality and experience growth in a free society.

Hats off to Bishop Chad Gandiya, who joins other luminaries such as bishops Sebastian Bakare, Albert Chama and Trevor Mwamba who have openly resisted the persecution of gay and lesbian people’.

Want to have your say?

Comment below or
visit our companion blogsite: http://anglican-information.blogspot.com

.

Meanwhile, in Nigeria

The House of Representatives, Nigeria

Homosexuality is a 'moral and social holocaust' which threatens the 'continued existence of this nation' and brings 'disastrous consequences to mankind' - according to the Anglican Church (Nigeria).

From Gay Community News:

The House of Representatives in Nigeria has voted unanimously in favour of a new legislation banning same-sex marriage.

The bill "prohibits marriage between persons of same gender, solemnisation of same and other matters related therewith."

Representatives said that both Islam and Christianity, the prominent religions in Nigeria, condemn homosexual acts.

Pink News says:

Changing Attitudes Nigeria (CAN), an Anglican Church pressure group on LGBT rights, attacked a bill that would ban same-sex marriage and imprison anyone associated with promoting gay rights.

Davis Mac-Iyalla, head of Changing Attitudes Nigeria, warned that acceptance of the bill would see vast numbers of Nigerians fleeing to other countries to escape persecution.

"Already we are seeing an increase in homophobic behaviour and attacks, because people feel they can get away with it. The climate is already becoming intolerable", said Mac-Iyalla.

"Unless the government tones down its language and cancels the bill, we are going to see a flood of refugees as people flee for their lives," he warned.

...
But Emmanuel Onwubiko, a senior commissioner at Nigeria's Human Rights Commission told the BBC:

"Supporters of the same-sex marriage in Nigeria don't know what they are saying. As far as we are concerned, gay marriage is not allowed in Africa.

"If South Africa want to do it, that is their business. It is not Nigerian to by gay, let alone going ahead to legally get married as gay and even live as a family with adopted children.

It's completely alien to our culture," he added.

Colin Coward has written a letter (here, but not yet on his blog) arguing against the legislation partly because 'Very few Nigerian LGBT activists are free to speak out in a country which already has repressive anti-gay legislation on the statute book'.

But there were protests (This day):

Homosexuals yesterday stormed the National Assembly to protest over a bill which seeks to prohibit same sex marriages in Nigeria.

The group, comprising young males and females, said they were opposed to the bill because the United Nations charter on Human Rights guaranteed them freedom of association and freedom to sexual orientation, all of which the proposed law will deny them.

The protest was countered by a group of religious leaders who were in attendance at a public hearing organised by the House of Representatives Joint Committee on Human Rights, Women Affairs and Justice.

...

Rashidi Williams, leader of the Queer Alliance, one of the homosexual groups at the forefront of the agitation, said his group was opposed to all forms of discrimination against homosexuality in Nigeria, arguing that homosexuality was a private decision which does not in anyway affect the right of others who are not homosexuals.

...

“We believe that we are created by God and do not wish to be discriminated against, we seek your help and appeal to you all to lay this bill aside. We ask that the House of Representatives and our lawmakers work with us to understand the concept of sexuality and sexual orientation through our experiences and not create laws that punish us needlessly,’’ he said.

And this is what the church says:

Many of the legislators and religious leaders at the event were shocked to see young people openly identifying with an idea considered as sacrilegious and satanic.

In a presentation by the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), the church said “same sex marriage is out to foist on the world a false sense of the family, which will bring disastrous consequences to mankind.”

According to the clerics, same sex marriage ”apart from being ungodly, was unscriptural, unnatural, unprofitable, unhealthy, un-cultural, un-African and un-Nigerian. It is a perversion, a deviation and an aberration that is capable of engendering moral and social holocaust in this country. Outlawing it is to ensure the continued existence of this nation.”

===========

When the rhetoric grows this loud and bombastic the only question that remains is: what are they tring to hide?


.

US Lutherans to ordain partnered gays and lesbians?

From the Christian Century

A blue-ribbon panel has recommended that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America lift its ban on partnered gay and lesbian clergy, but only after the church agrees in principle on gay relationships and agrees to respect the consciences of those who dissent.

A majority of the 15-member Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality believes that "it is possible to devise guidelines and policies that would allow . . . some flexibility" in its ordination standards.

The 4.7-million-member ELCA currently allows gay or lesbian clergy who pledge to be celibate; partnered or sexually active homosexual clergy are technically not allowed in ELCA pulpits, though some buck the rules without punishment.

The Lutherans have been moving slowly and carefully towards a more accepting position for some time (see past post). This is not a done deal, not least because of cumbersome decision making processes, and there will undoubtedly be opposition, some of it vehement. There will probably be some splits and defections.

Nonetheless it is in itself a step towards the recognition of gay and lesbian people as fully human within full membership of God's church. It is a steps away from the 'don't ask, don't tell' duplicity that pervades much clerical life.

One day there will be no need to hide your loved ones away.

In the mean time there is a lot more thinking and debating to do:

In order to lift restrictions on gay clergy, the assembly must approve each of the following resolutions before the next can be considered:

• That the ECLA is committed to allowing congregations and synods to recognize and support "lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships."
• That the ELCA is committed to finding a way for people in such relationships to serve as clergy in the church.
• That the ELCA agrees to "respect the bound consciences" of church members who disagree on the issue.
• That the ELCA agrees to remove the blanket ban on partnered gay clergy.

Task Force leaders said the church must deal with underlying issues—how it feels about gay relationships and the lack of consensus in the church—before it can amend its rules.

.

Homosexual clergy: a little local matter

Twin sets of Lutherans waiting for the reccommendation in 2007

Lutherans weigh making gay clergy a local decision


Associated Press

A task force of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America recommended that course Thursday in a long-awaited report on ministry standards. The panel, however, said the church needs to clarify a number of questions before overhauling its gay clergy policy.

The report, issued at the same time as a broader church social statement on human sexuality, seeks balance on an issue dividing many Protestant churches. Both documents will be considered in August in Minneapolis at the biannual convention of the 4.7-million member denomination.

"At this point, there is no consensus in the church," said the Rev. Peter Strommen of Prior Lake, Minn., chairman of the 15-member task force on sexuality. "The question ends up being, 'How are we going to live together in that absence of consensus?'

"This ought not to be church-dividing, even if there are strong differences."

Church members on both sides of the issue, however, were dissatisfied with the proposal. Conservatives called it a rejection of Scripture and an advocate for gay clergy said some of the elements take "a step backward."

Gays and lesbians can now serve as clergy in the ELCA if they remain celibate, although some congregations have challenged the system and hired pastors in gay relationships. Heterosexual clergy and professional lay workers are to abstain from sex outside marriage.

Between August 2006 and July 2007 Pastor Bradley Schmeling of St. John Lutheran Church in Atlanta was tried before the church's disciplinary processes for his committed relationship with Rev. Darin Easler. The congregation of the church stood in solidarity with Pastor Schmeling and full details of the events of the trial are still on the church's website. Bradley Schmeling was eventually "removed from the ELCA roster". Nonetheless he remains in post and the bishop at the time, and his successor, have not pursued him further.

It is expected, hoped, that he will be the last to face such discipline.

In November 2007 the local option was the route chosen by Norway's state Lutheran Church. Here.

There's little comfort in knowing it's not just Anglicans torn apart in the culture wars. I hope they make a better fist of it than we've managed to date. If they want a covenant we've got a spare they can have.

The perils of legalism

Bishop Johnson meets the people at Runnymede

It seems that the Diocese of Toronto has

agreed to allow pastoral services of prayer and blessing for same-sex couples, but will not authorize sacramental rites for the blessing of same-sex unions or gay marriages.

George Conger has the story here (see my earlier post). Ephraim Radner, who lives in Toronto, is not pleased.

“It is hard to escape the fact that the process you have now set in motion — one that involves public proposals, discussions, synodical actions, and all dealing with a way of ordering a particular ‘pastoral response’ that involves episcopal oversight and particular permissions, following directives that involve the nature of prayers – cannot avoid being seen as one of ecclesial ‘authorization’ of liturgical matters surrounding same-sex unions,” he said.

Dr Radner, one of the leaders of the Anglican Communion Institute, and a member of Anglican Covenant Design Group, said the new policy ran contrary to the wider mind of the Communion. While the bishops may have believed they were only giving a structure to a an arrangement for “private prayers”, the “very process you are following” calls for “formal, episcopal, diocesan, public, liturgical prayers of blessing.”

It would not be “very difficult indeed to make the case and persuade others” that what Toronto had now done violated the Lambeth Conference moratorium and [had] was in opposition to the “concerns of many Anglicans around the world.”

(The last paragraph is gobbledegook in the original, of course. Presumed corrections in red.)


If you - or the Covenant, or the common canon law project - take a legalistic approach to matters of conflict and division then hair splitting is precisely what you will get. There are no rules that cannot be sliced up or that need no further interpretation.



If the rule says you may not authorize Rites of Blessing for Same Sex unions you can expect someone to challenge the defintion of each term: this is a political game, not a juridical one. It will eventually work its way out according to majority opinion and not through legal judgements. Thus Bishop Johnson's 'year-long consultation' is not merely cover for his actions but an alternative process to that of the father-knows-best conservatives.

And that immediately hits another core area of dispute: can the church move with the general opinion of its people? Or must the church conform to the specific opinions of its leaders? It is, of course, a false choice. Both leadership and the assent of the led are necessary in the faithful management of change and continuity.








.

Toronto tiptoes towards blessing gay couples

Bishop of Toronto Colin Johnson, Anglican Journal

The Canadian Anglican Journal reports that the Diocese of Toronto is proposing to take formal steps which will permit a 'limited number' of parishes to bless gay couples.

The bishops of the diocese of Toronto are proposing that “a limited number of parishes” be given episcopal permission to offer prayers and blessing “but not the nuptial blessing” to same-sex couples “in stable, long-term, committed relationships.”

The bishops, who outlined their proposal at a Jan. 29 meeting of the diocesan council, said they plan to conduct an extensive consultation process and would present the guidelines for implementing the proposal at the diocese’s synods in May and in November. A bishop’s commission will be formed to formulate the guidelines.

This seems to be as close as the Diocese can get without breaching national recommendations. In a different approach the diocesan synods in Ottawa, Montreal, Niagara and Huron have asked their bishops to allow civilly-married gay couples, where either or both are baptised, to receive a church blessing with an appropriate rite.

Like the US the Canadian church is following public opinion and, also like the US, many of the most conservative have left the Church, thus easing the brakes on change.

In 2007 the General Synod agreed that same-sex blessings were “not in conflict” with core church doctrine but denied the authority of dioceses to offer them. Remember the 1970s (1977?) vote of the English General Synod that there were no theological objections to ordaining women, though they didn't want to do anything about it. The time will come.

It may (I say tentatively) be that the schism in the US (with or without GAFCON) has also released the international contraints on action.

I begin to think, perhaps, maybe, that the Communion could have passed the high point of its recent fever and, though still weak and in need of nursing, the patient will not die, nor even lose too many limbs.


.

Less gay sex in seminary

From Pantagraph.com

A Vatican office that evaluated U.S. Roman Catholic
seminaries says the schools have made improvements in halting what they call
"homosexual behavior" among students.

The Vatican also says seminaries are doing well in teaching about
celibacy and are generally effective in screening candidates for the
priesthood.

The Vatican ordered the seminary review in response to the clergy sex abuse
crisis to see whether the schools had contributed to the problem.

The Vatican also directed evaluators to look for "evidence of
homosexuality" in the schools.

================

So how do they know? How did they establish a baseline of homosexual activity in order to make the comparison? For that matter, how do they define homosexual activity in the first place? Do they keep stats by differing categories?

I just ask.


.

Partnered gay priest to be ordained

Right Reverend Robert O'Neill Bishop of Colorado

Partnered gay priest to be ordained in Colorado
From the Denver Post

Ending several years of restraint by the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado in ordaining openly gay and partnered priests, Bishop Robert O'Neill will ordain Mary Catherine Volland, along with three others, to the priesthood at St. John's Cathedral on Saturday.

Volland, a longtime resident of Colorado and partnered lesbian, was a
candidate for ordination in the Diocese of Minnesota, but has been called to
serve as an assistant priest at St. Thomas Episcopal Church in Denver, said
Beckett Stokes, spokeswoman for the 30,000-member Colorado Diocese.

Despite nationwide controversy that has splintered Episcopalians, the
church does ordain gay and lesbian priests. The bishop has the option of
deploying them to Colorado congregations when it makes sense, Stokes said.
Several Colorado congregations are served by gay priests.

O'Neill, who previously had suspended gay ordination out of sensitivity
for church factions strongly opposed to it, is choosing to decide these matters
on "a case-by-case basis," Stokes said.

============

It will, of course, be one more twig on the fire, reinforcing the anatagonism of those already opposed to gay people being treated as fully members of the church. So be it.

As the North American schism takes legal shape (and as most seem to be unable to take the church properties with them) so the tears in the communion grow wider. It'll all be done this year, according to the Church Times, but I wonder. The whole thing has been such a long, slow ripping apart that it's almost impossible to say the schism happened on this day and everything was different after it. My prediction is that, during this year, the divide will grow wider - and after that there will still be a lot more schisming to do.

The Covenant may force the issue. I anticipate the next draft will be published around the Primates' Meeting next month (and, incidentally, General Synod will get a chance to debate the version before last). As the Covenant was seen as a means of expelling TEC now it may well come to be a test of faith that could keep the GAFCONites out. That is, having lost the war the conservatives find their weapon turned against them - it is a remarkably common phenomenon of theological warfare that the aggressors find themselves looking at the wrong end of weapons they themselves chose.

If so, it could make implementing the Covenant more likely: if some Provinces depart the communion citing the ineffectiveness of the Covenant as reason (or, more likely, as the final reason) then the momentum of the Covenant could be such that those who remain must sign.

I wonder who will attend the Primates' Meeting. If they all go it will tell the outside world nothing. If certain Primates absent themselves it will embody the division.


.