The splitting point

The anti-homosexual agenda started in the 1998 Lambeth Conference now bears its full bitter fruit.

We see that the Archbishop of Canterbury is unable to bear witness against pure evil - the proposed anti-homosexuality bill which includes the death penalty for some 'offences' and imposes threat of imprisonment on any who fail to 'inform' on a homosexual - do we not recognise Stalinism made manifest?

Very little evidence of Lambeth 1.10 Anglicans having any ability to recognise what's happening and speak out.

Oh it's very sensitive. It's complicated. It's cultural.

I imagine there were people who said the same about slavery, apartheid, other forms of absolutism.

I'm not in favour of 'x' but if I speak out it might be counter productive. I'm changing things quietly from the inside - yeah right. How very comfortable, how very Anglican, how very hypocrtical.

Well we can all relax now because the game is well and truly up and we can see what there - what's really always been there. And has been there from the beginning.

Either the Anglican church (C of E and its colonial derivatives in whatever formation they find themselves) believe in human rights and human rights advocacy or they don't. And they either believe in the humanity and personhood of LGBT people or they don't.

Well now we know they don't. Or at least not sufficiently enough to stop a lynching.

It comes into clear relief as the Archbishop of Canterbury has made a vaguely threatening statement about the Diocese of Los Angeles appointing a highly qualified bishop who is a lesbian.

It's in sharp relief with his refusal to make any pronouncement with regard to Uganda even though there is well established Anglican teaching on human rights. Oh but they didn't really mean that bit (I'm sure they felt warm and fuzzy when they passed such resolutions and felt a tinge of smug superiority), least not when LGBT people are in the firing line of the religious right empowered - that is to say with the ability to make their nightmare fantasies part of the law of a country.

So I think it's pretty clear what anti-gay Anglicanism really stands for and I am at least thankful for that. It is for the rest of us to speak out, if we can find it in ourselves to do so.

And it is therefore imperative that the election of Cannon Mary Glasspool be given the necessary consents for her consecration to proceed.

Recent stuff from Churches

Quite a lot of recent development worthy not note.

Firstly a while back (month of July) the American Episcopal Church (TEC-The Episcopal Church) held its 3 yearly General Convention. This gathering passed a number of pro LGBT resolutions appearing (at least) to overturn the moratorium on appointing gay bishops and starting the process of collecting materials used for same sex partnerships.

This generated a certain frisson in some parts which has tended to overshadow the main event somewhat. Notably Bishop of Durham Tom Wright's paper on important, objectionable and intellectually unsustainable comments by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

More recently the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) voted a number of pro gay resolutions at its 2 yearly Churchwide Assembly. This included provision for clergy in same sex relationships and provision for blessing of same sex relationships whilst making provision for people opposed to the move.

This is decidedly a "big deal" for a number of reasons. ELCA is a fairly big denomination in the US and is in communion with TEC (while the Anglican Churches in the UK - England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland are in Communion with churches such as the Lutheran Church of Sweden).

It's in this context that the Modern Church People's Union (MCU) published a paper savaging the contributions of Rowan Williams and Tom Wright. I intend to have my own say on Rowan William's interesting musings because I think there's more to this than meets the eye.

In any case ELCA shows that TEC and the Canadian Anglicans are not alone in their theological developments as regards issues of sexual orientation. Rather pointless now to refer to a universally held traditional consensus on sexuality given it's not universal and is no longer a consensus, merely customary and majoritarian (and not even in all Provinces).

Pastoral letter from Bishop Andrus regarding same sex marriage in California

I am indebted as ever to Thinking Anglicans for this and thought it so important I reproduce fully below:

Web link

Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,I welcome the ruling of the California Supreme Court affirming the fundamental right of all people to marry. I am writing to you now to recommend a path to use this decision to strengthen our support of our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered sisters and brothers, and our continued witness to God’s inclusive love.

Clergy and lay leaders in the diocese have been working for the rights of LGBT people and for their full inclusion in our Church for more than forty years. Today, we continue to walk a journey that includes:

• Bringing the witness of our LGBT sisters and brothers to this summer’s Lambeth Conference,
  
• Combating a ballot initiative this November that will attempt to take away
  the rights recently recognized by the California Supreme Court,
  
• Providing leadership at next summer's General Convention to bring our marriage practices and theology in line with our fundamental baptismal
  theology.

For far too long the onus has fallen on marginalized people to bear the burden of inequalities that exist within the Church, and the decision by our state’s Supreme Court has given us the opportunity to level the playing field.

To that end, the Diocese of California seeks to provide, by advocacy and example, a way forward for The Episcopal Church so that the marriage of same-sex couples will be a part of our official marriage rites, without distinction.

Although The Episcopal Church does not have canonical rites for same-sex marriage, it is our goal that all couples be treated equally by the Church, as they are equally loved by God.

I therefore provide you with the following pastoral guidelines:

I urge you to encourage all couples, regardless of orientation, to follow the pattern of first being married in a secular service and then being blessed in The Episcopal Church. I will publicly urge all couples to follow this pattern.

For now, the three rites approved for trial use under the pastoral direction of the bishop, adopted by resolution at the 2007 Diocesan Convention (see appendix), should be commended to all couples (again, regardless of orientation) to bless secular marriages.

All marriages should be performed by someone in one of the secular categories set forth in California Family Code, section 400 (see appendix), noting that any person in the state of California can be deputized to perform civil marriages. The proper sphere for Episcopal clergy is the blessing portion of the marriage.

The understanding of The Episcopal Church currently is that blessings are an extension of the pastoral office of the bishop. I ask that you continue to inform me of all same-sex blessings.

Couples who have been married under the auspices of the California Supreme Court ruling must have the same pre-marriage counseling as that required of any couple seeking marriage or blessing of marriage in The Episcopal Church. This should be understood as an offering of the Church’s support for marriage.

I urge Episcopalians, clergy and lay, to volunteer as Deputy Marriage Commissioners. There are over 4,000 civil same-sex marriages planned in a short period of time in the city of San Francisco alone and the city is asking for help in meeting demand. I intend to volunteer for this at my earliest opportunity. This would be one sign of affirmation for the Supreme Court ruling from our diocese. By city requirement, clergy will not be allowed to wear collars when presiding at secular marriages. (For more information about how to be deputized, see the attached appendix.)

All people receiving blessings of civil marriages in the Diocese of California are free to use the same degree of publicity (e.g., newspaper notices).These are interim measures as the Diocese of California and The Episcopal Church continue our journey in the context of this prophetic opportunity provided by the California Supreme Court’s ruling. I have already initiated a process to arrive at a more studied, permanent answer for Episcopal clergy presiding at same-sex marriages in this diocese. That process includes the formation of a panel of diocesan clergy to make recommendations about how to move toward equality of marriage rites for all people. These recommendations will be discussed across the diocese resulting in an official diocesan policy.

In the coming days, I will publicly state my opposition to the initiative to overturn the Supreme Court ruling. The Diocese of California will publish advertising around June 17 celebrating the Supreme Court ruling and inviting same-sex couples to our churches for pre-marital counseling and nourishment in communities of faith. As always, I welcome your wisdom, your insights and your input on these matters, and I continue in my commitment to work for a Church that sees all of God’s children through the same eyes that God does.

A positive report about the Archbishop of Canterbury

In a recent post I reported on a number of people syaing very uncharitable things about the current Archbishop of Canterbury and said I would write something positive as soon as someone was willing to put forward a positive opinion.

Well I'm not sure this counts but it's kind of positive and there's a good report of it on the Ekklesia website titled Archbishop of Canterbury says churches must be 'safe' for gays.

There is also further discussion on the Thinking Anglicans (is there any other kind?) website.

Some of the quotes are quite interesting as he appears to say that apart from churches being safe places for "gay and lesbian people" he also appears to both criticise certain Provinces who are actively in support of oppressive measures, notably in Nigeria, although he underlines the presence of hate crimes even in Western countries.

His support for the "proper liberties [freedom of association, assembly and expression perhaps?] of homosexual people" is clearly very important. You can see his statement here.

Here's a chunk of the statement (I underlined some bits):

“ The commitments of the Communion are not only to certain theological positions on the question of sexual ethics but also to a manifest and credible respect for the proper liberties of homosexual people, a commitment again set out in successive Lambeth Conference Resolutions over many decades. I share the concerns expressed about situations where the Church is seen to be underwriting social or legal attitudes which threaten these proper liberties. It is impossible to read this report without being aware that in many places – including Western countries with supposedly ‘liberal’ attitudes – hate crimes against homosexual people have increased in recent years and have taken horrifying and disturbing forms."

Just timed right for the release of the Yogyakarta principles - let's hope he's willing to sign up.

And while on the subject of the Yogyakarta principles I was pleased to see this article on the Comment is free (Guardian) site - Righting wrongs with some interesting discussion of how in previous UN debates countries who do not exactly have a shining record of human rights managed to block and vote down the Brazilian resolution on sexual orientation.

Ongoing turmoil in the Anglican Communion

Lots of things going on there and there's quite a pace to it all. I am only blogging about it here because some of it is very important and significant - other blogs give a more 'blow by blow' account.

Notably this excerpt as a resolution of The Episcopal Church (TEC - the American 'Anglicans'):

"We proclaim the Gospel of what God has done and is doing in Christ, of the dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion, and peace. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave or free. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including women, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué is distressingly silent on this subject. And, contrary to the way the Anglican Communion Network and the American Anglican Council have represented us, we proclaim a Gospel that welcomes diversity of thought and encourages free and open theological debate as a way of seeking God's truth. If that means that others reject us and communion with us, as some have already done, we must with great regret and sorrow accept their decision."

This quote is very significant and it's well worth reading it out loud a few times to get its full impact. (I am indebted to a variety of sources notably Ruth Gledhill and Andrew Sullivan for drawing attention to this passage, plus I added emphasis to some bits).

The full text of the resolutions carried can be found here.

The main decision by the US bishops is to decline the 'gracious offer' of the Primates meeting at Dar es Salaam recently to set up a committee to jointly run the US Episcopal Church (in effect and I am simplifying here as this isn't a blog destined to church experts).

The Telegraph has an interesting blog which reacts to this by slamming the Archbishop of Canterbury here, concluding with:

"For almost his entire period in office, the treacle-voiced Welsh Primate with the Fu Manchu eyebrows has been bending over backwards to appease people whose views he privately abhors.

I thought Rowan Williams was going to be the finest Archbishop of Canterbury for decades. Instead, he has been a disappointment on every level – even in his own area of expertise, theology.

He does not put his foot in it as often as his predecessor, George Carey – but, then, you can’t commit a gaffe if nobody has a bloody clue what you’re talking about. He is obviously afraid that he will go down in history as the Archbishop on whose watch the Anglican Communion fell into schism.

But that’s not how I, and many other people, will remember him. For us, he will always be the Archbishop who laid down his friend for his life."

I might blog a more positive view of the Archbishop of Canterbury later - when I find someone who's prepared to go public with one.

For excellent ongoing coverage of the ins and outs of the slow Anglican schism your best bet is Thinking Anglicans which has frequent updates from both sides of the divide and some interesting comment threads.

For a view of the Conservative side of things I recommend taking a look at Titusonenine (T19) - but be warned its like entering a parrallel Conservative and not very friendly world.

For the UK there is always the commically named 'Anglican Mainstream' which is actually on the extremist fringes of debate (just take a moment to look through their 'related links' section). Anglican Mainstream is something we should all be aware of. Forget Christian Voice, The Christian Insitute, CARE or even the Evangelical Alliance (which I think is trying to be more moderate these days),it's Anglican Mainstream that is at the heart of the political religious right in the UK (along with the Lawyers Christian Fellowship of course - who organised the Prayer Vigil outside Parliament - though it seems that they got other groups to do the publicity for this).

Anglican Mainstream is also the main proponent in the UK of the largely discredited ex-gay movement. It's obvious that are using the ex-gay movement as a battering ram to oppose LGBT equality in the political sphere, though as I have pointed out elsewhere the idea that "innate and immutable" characteristics are the only reason or justification for civil rights protections is not sustainable - even for areas such as race where such a restriction appears to have actually been introduced from within the US debates over desegregation and the racism that was rife within the US at that time.