I found this letter floating in cyberspace and throughly enjoyed it, so I have posted it here. Dr. Pitt approaches the Archbishop of Canterbury with more grace than I would have, and yet she gets her point across.

Stand Firm | Text Of Dr. Deborah Pitt’s Reply To Archbishop Rowan Williams.

Your Grace, Thank you for your letter of 28.09.00., and for your frankness about your views on Homosexuality and how you reached them. The topic is a huge and diverse one with many ramifications, and has given me quite a bit of food for thought. ..Your letter was very gracious, and I hope the tone of my letter is not affected by the anxiety your views caused me.

I was interested to read that your interest in the subject was piqued by contact with homosexual professing Christians who were grappling with the morality of the matter. My own perspective has come about largely from personal contacts also, through my work as a medical doctor in both general practice and more recently Psychiatry, and having worked on both sides of the Atlantic. Yes, it is rubbing shoulders with the people personally affected by moral dilemmas that causes one to question and study one’s own presuppositions and the orthodox Christian teaching; with regard to the latter it appears that we both started from the same place...

You used the term ‘homosexual by instinct or nature’, and you make a distinction between homosexual acts done by heterosexuals and those done by those who are exclusively homosexual, the latter being authentic in some way and the former not. I do not know whether the Bible makes such a distinction, but I do not think scientific investigation has yielded precise distinctions about the behaviours or personality traits of these two groups. Scientific research on any behaviour, especially sexual behaviour, is extremely difficult to do accurately. ...

The Biblical yardstick for sexual behaviour is, I think, the Creation story, in which I trust you and I both believe, either literally or as Myth. It talks of God creating Man and Woman, of the difficulties between them and the introduction of Sin into their relationship and the consequences thereof... Dr. Edward Norman stated in one of his ‘meditations’ (The Times, I think) that homosexuality appears to be a gift from God, ‘an involuntary condition; it is how some are made’. But God does not seem to have told us how that gift should be exercised. What parameters, what constraints? There are certainly lots of constraints given us for control of our other sexual, or aggressive or acquisitive instincts. Why has God not endorsed such behaviour by giving instruction? Why was there no marriage law for such? But there is nothing, no positive endorsement for this trait or behaviour. I think it is dangerous to conclude other than from the Bible that God endorses homosexual behaviour, loving or not....

I agree, the Church has shifted her stance on several matters. The examples you gave, the admissibility of contraception and the rightness of lending money at interest, provoked some wry thoughts. The latter has led to the rise of capitalism and the widespread pursuit of wealth and gain and to the rampant exploitation of the world’s resources. I have heard that the Amazon rain forest is likely to be the next victim of this rampant greed. The Anglican Church is caught up in this same mechanism, as are we all to some extent. ... Personal debts have risen dramatically and there are more illegitimate births than ever. There is an accompanying tendency to throw money, or birth control pills or morning after pills, at the problems of society that arise, rather than address the deeper issues of personal responsibility and adequate education and warnings. The darkness can never overcome the light. But if we whom Christ called the light of the world cannot ensure that the light burns on, then it will go out. And the light, the prophetic voice of the Church calling people back to God’s standards no matter how unpopular that voice, seems to get dimmer.

Truly, God loves all sinners; perhaps the greatest sinners are the ones He has the most compassion for, for they have lost so much. But we live in a fallen world, so He gave us first the Ten Commandments for, amongst other things, our protection, I believe, and second of all Christ for our redemption.

So, has the Anglican Church been wrong, as you surmise, Archbishop Rowan, about Homosexuality all these years? No, I don’t think so. I accept that your conclusions have been reached in a spirit of honest and compassionate enquiry. The idea that the ethics of homosexual relations should be no different from those of heterosexuals, i.e. exclusively faithful or lifelong, is an attractive and plausible one. I am afraid I have not read any of the books (perhaps I should read them) which promote the idea that such relationships are equal qualitatively to heterosexual ones. I don’t see how they can be if there is no possibility of children; how can they be anything but inferior, at least in scope?

Archbishop Rowan, I have written far more than I originally intended....You have shared your thoughts frankly with me, and I appreciate the spirit of goodwill with which you have written...

Yours sincerely

Deborah Pitt

Note: Dr Pitt was an Anglican at the time of this correspondence but has since left the Church in Wales and is now a member of an evangelical free church.)

The gay clergyman whose abortive appointment as Bishop of Reading came close to splitting the Church of England could soon become Britain’s first openly gay diocesan bishop.

Dr Jeffrey John, the Dean of St Albans, who two years ago celebrated a civil partnership ceremony with another priest, is to be nominated as Bishop of Bangor in North Wales.

Liberals welcomed the news, but conservatives gave warning that it would aggravate the tensions over sexuality that are threatening to rend the Anglican Communion in two and revive the rancour that followed the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson in New Hampshire in the US five years ago. Since then, the 38 provinces of the Church have agreed to observe a moratorium on such consecrations.

Several candidates are likely to be nominated for the Bangor post, but Dr John has the support of senior figures in the Church in Wales, according to informed sources. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, whose authority does not extend beyond England, would have no power to prevent such an appointment.

<!--
function pictureGalleryPopup(pubUrl,articleId) {
var newWin = window.open(pubUrl+'template/2.0-0/element/pictureGalleryPopup.jsp?id='+articleId+'&&offset=0&&sectionName=Faith','mywindow','menubar=0,resizable=0,width=615,height=655');
}
//-->

The Church in Wales is no longer part of the established Anglican Church in Britain and has a tradition of liberal catholicism. In addition, it prefers its senior clergy to speak Welsh — which Dr John does. Of the six dioceses, Bangor is vacant and St Asaph is to become vacant soon when the present incumbent retires. The Dean of St David’s, the Very Rev John Wyn Evans, was elected the new Bishop of St David’s yesterday.

As at St David’s, the main requirement in Bangor and St Asaph is that new bishops be good pastors. Dr John meets this and is also a noted theologian. He has proved himself a success at St Albans, where the congregation has thrived under his leadership.

The election comes at a difficult time for Dr Williams, who got through the recent Lambeth Conference in Canterbury without schism.

Days afterwards The Times published correspondence between the Archbishop and Dr Deborah Pitt, a psychiatrist, in which he said that active gay sexual relationships could be comparable with marriage.

In the letters, written nearly eight years ago but not previously released, Dr Williams spoke of how Dr John’s writings in support of gay relationships had influenced profoundly his own liberal thinking on the issue.

Dr Williams forced Dr John to stand down after he was nominated as Bishop of Reading in the Oxford diocese in 2003 in the face of a conservative backlash against his appointment.

Despite his civil partnership with the Rev Grant Holmes, Dr John is celibate. But conservatives oppose his elevation because he has written persuasively in support of a new scriptural understanding of homosexuality.

The governing body of the Church in Wales turned down a proposal for women bishops recently, but the Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan, is a known liberal who is on record as saying that he would be willing to consecrate Britain’s first gay bishop. In an interview on the eve of the Lambeth Conference in July, Dr Morgan said that, if his fellow bishops in Wales voted for a homosexual priest to be consecrated bishop, he would have no objections in principle.

The See of Bangor became vacant when the Right Rev Anthony Crockett, a respected liberal, died of cancer in June. Dr Morgan will take initial soundings when members of the college for Bangor meet for preliminary discussions next week. The formal election will take place in October, at a highly secret three-day lock-in at the historic cathedral in Bangor. There are more than 40 members of the college, including 6 from each diocese and 12 from Bangor. Each member can nominate as many candidates as they wish. Dr John will not be nominated formally until the members are closeted behind the locked doors of the cathedral. The nominations are confidential.

He would then only become bishop if a two-thirds majority of the college agreed. If elected, he would have 28 days to accept the offer before the appointment was confirmed by a specially convened Sacred Synod. In spite of the liberal majority in Bangor, the breakdown of the electoral college means that the final outcome would be close. Dr John was put forward as Bishop of Monmouth four years ago, but did not secure enough votes for a two-thirds majority.

Members of the Church in Wales may be anxious not to exacerbate existing tensions over the issue. A senior source close to the election told The Times: “One member of the college is going to put Jeffrey John’s name forward. It will be a very close thing.”

Another Church in Wales insider said: “He has a good pastoral record. He might well be considered.”

The Rev Giles Fraser, Vicar of St Mary’s Putney, a friend of Dr John and founder of the Inclusive Church lobby that champions the gay cause, said: “Jeffrey John would make an absolutely splendid bishop. This is not before time. This is a man who does not contravene the guidelines on human sexuality at all.”

But in a joint statement, Canon Chris Sugden and Philip Giddings, of Anglican Mainstream, the conservative lobby set up in response to Dr John’s appointment to Reading, said: “If he is being nominated to a Welsh episcopate, the obstacles remain the same as to his previous candidacies for senior appointments.”

|| Rowan Williams, What Study the Past? The Quest for the Historical Church

1. Applying for a one-year art course at Staffordshire University.

2. Turning twenty, and visiting Monkey Forest with Vicky and her friend David from Cambridge. Vicky gave me a photo box, a set of pencils and a beautiful toy monkey that looks like Rowan Williams. I also got plenty of other art supplies, £15 worth of book vouchers and a raspberry pavlova cake.

3. Staying in a caravan in Snowdonia.

4. Climbing some of the way up Snowdon and taking these photos (I am particularly impressed by the courage/stupidity of the rowan tree that decided to grow in the middle of a waterfall.)

Description: a miniature waterfall on mount Snowdon.

Description: a beautiful tangle of roots, grass and moss

Description: Ferns growing around a minature waterfall

Description: the aforementioned brave/stupid Rowan tree.

5. Drawing and getting a sheezyart site to put my drawings on.

6. Reading the amazing Lion boy trilogy by Zizou Corder.

7. Re-reading Wuthering Heights.

8. Struggling to memorise the formation of Ancient Greek participles.

9. Translating chunks of Sallust.

10. Protesting against the fact that there is not international treaty to control the sale of arms, even though over 1,000 people are killed by arms every day, there is one gun for every ten people on the planet and 12 billion bullets are produced every year.

11. Spending a small fortune in a bookshop in Porthmadog.

12. Walking along beaches.

13.Realising that life perhaps isn't so bad after all.

In a recent interview with Richard Dawkins on the channel 4 program called "The Genius of Charles Darwin" ( first broadcast on the 18th of August 2008 ) he stated his deist beliefs. This means he barely even qualifies as a Christian!

Richard Dawkins

Do you see god as having any role in the evolutionary process?

Rowan Williams

For me God is the power or the intelligence that shapes the whole of that process, as creator. Gods act is the beginning of all creation.

Richard Dawkins

By setting up the laws of physics in the first place in which context evolution takes place?

Rowan Williams

Unfolds within that.

Richard Dawkins

What about intervening during the course of evolution?

Rowan Williams

I find that that rather suggests that God couldn't have made a very good job of making the laws of physics in the first place if he constantly needs to be adjusting the system, adjusting the works.

This is very definitely not the theistic view you would expect from a man in his position.

Britain’s Lord Chief Justice, Nicholas Phillips, addressed the East London Muslim Centre (ELMC) last month, regarding Islamic law, termed sharia, as practiced on the island.
“In February this year, I chaired a lecture given by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Royal Courts of Justice on the topic of Civil and Religious Law in England,” said the Lord Chief Justice, the highest legal authority in Britain. (The Archbishop of Canterbury, in turn, is the highest religious authority in Britain.) “It was, I believe, not clearly understood by all, and certainly not by sections of the media which represented the Archbishop as suggesting the possibility that Muslims in this country might be governed by their own system of Sharia law(...)
“A point that the Archbishop was making was that it was possible for individuals voluntarily to conduct their lives in accordance with Sharia principles without this being in conflict with the rights guaranteed by our law.”
Nicholas Phillips has been condemned from many Islamophobic quarters, as was the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, before him,
Be that as it may, the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales are of greater significance to the Muslim, and also Christian, community at large, as his words spell out a message of tolerance; a tolerance which is equally upheld in the legal realm of Islam.
Muslim jurists say the same.
The scholars of Islamic law have similar messages to the two British officials regarding non-Muslims living in an Islamic realm.
Islam is the founder of democracy; its legal system instituted laws of religious tolerance from the outset, in the 7th century C.E. Europe began to do so only as far back as 1951 when the European Convention on Human Rights guaranteed religious freedom.
Lord Chief Justice Phillips states, “In 2006 the Equality Act extended the prohibition against discrimination on the ground of religion or belief to cover other areas such as the provision of goods, facilities and services, the letting of premises and the provision of education.(...)
“British law has, comparatively recently, reached a stage of development in which a high premium is placed not merely on liberty, but on equality of all who live in this ‘country. That law is secular. It does not attempt to enforce the standards of behaviour that the Christian religion or any other religion expects. It is perhaps founded on one ethical principle that the Christian religion shares with most, if not all, other religions and that is that one should love one’s neighbour.”
Law of the Land.
For the majority of his ELMC lecture “Equality Before the Law,” Lord Chief Justice Phillips dealt with the origins of British law in what could be taken as a detailed plea for the understanding and respect of the law of the land.
Similarly, Abul Hasan al Quduri in his work Al Mukhtasar al Quduri, the most respected book of Islamic jurisprudence, laid down the principles of law derived from Holy Qur’an and the practice of the Holy Last Messenger Muhammad, peace be upon him, in the 9th century C.E. In regards to non-Muslims living in a Muslim state, tolerance is required by Muslims; on the other hand, respect by non-Muslims for the rule of law is also requested. Under the category “Good character and respect for fundamental rights,”  al Quduri states, “A Muslim is supposed to deal with people kindly and justly, unless they are open enemies to Islam and/or Muslims. Allah does not prohibit you from being kind and just to those who have not fought you on account of religion, nor expelled you from your homes.” [Holy Quran, 60: 8] (...) Hence, traits such as truthfulness, justice, kindness, and honesty should be part of the Muslim’s character whether he is dealing with Muslims or non-Muslims. (...)
“Generally, when one has entered their [non-Muslim] lands under a peaceful agreement, he is expected to abide by common standards of decency as long as it does not violate any injuctions of Islam [usury is an example of a such a violation]. (...)
“A Muslim is supposed to respect the human rights, not only of Muslims, but even of non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state. According to a tradition of the Holy Last Messenger, peace be upon him, severe warning is reported for violating the property or lives of non-Muslim residents,” up until the violator [eventually] being condemned to Hellfire.
The Chief Justice concluded his speech with a request for the Muslims to become part of the British legal system and assist in assuring fair treatment of all people in the U.K.
His request hearkens a legal point made by El Sheikh Mubarik Ali Shah Gilani in his discourse on Sura Yusuf, which relates the story of the Holy Messenger Joseph, peace be upon him, in the Holy Quran. Nabi Yusuf, peace be upon him, became the Treasurer and Minister of Agriculture in Egypt, under the realm of a non-Muslim pharoah named Raiyaan, who had not caused problems for the believers living in his country. “Muslims and non-Muslims should join hands with the government and run the country if the government is benevolent to Muslims and not oppressive. There are clear injunctions regarding this,” said El Sheikh Gilani.
Contrary to popular opinion, and distorted extremism on both sides, there is no such thing as an uprising in Islam against the non-Muslim state in which Muslims are living; just as it would be improper for non-Muslims living in a Muslim land to rebel against the rule of law there. Mutual respect is what is encouraged. If the government is one tolerant to all faiths, such a wrong stance is against human decency and religious principles of gratitude.
Therefore, Muslims are expected to follow the Holy Qur’an in all matters, and stay away from those who, in their denial of the scholars of Islamic law and the principals of international secular law as well, have likened themselves to anarchists.

Rowan Williams on the precipice by James Horn, exhibited at the New Wine Gallery 2008

towardsapoorartwork

On August 7, 2008, The Times of London, on its front page, reported that Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, 

believes that gay sexual relationships can "reflect the love of God" in a way that is comparable to marriage.

The key issue, for Williams, is lifelong sexual fidelity to a partner, not orientation. He expressed his personal views thus:

I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might . . . reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness.

As for the biblical passages that seem to condemn homosexual sex, Rowan interprets them as prohibitions against promiscuity, and addressed, not to people who are born gay, but:

to heterosexuals looking for sexual variety in their experience.

The title reference is easy; dust was everywhere after the towers fell.  In the book's last pages, however, Williams reveals the other reason for choosing the title: the story of the woman accused of adultery in John 7.53-8.11.  I'm trying to watch myself, here.  I've already written about 30 pages on this passage for a final paper, and the general public likely is not terribly interested in that.  But, it connects to Williams' reflections on September 11.

What would be different today, Williams wonders, if the United States (Bush) had reacted differently?  We can play this game forever, with every situation in the world, if we so desire, but that isn't Williams' point.  He advocates "breathing spaces," chances for us to slow down.  Breathing spaces are "about trying to act so that someting might possibly change, as opposed to acting so as to persuade ourselves that we're not powerless." 

In the Johannine story, Jesus pauses, bends down, and writes on the ground before responding to the woman's accusors.  Some scholars argue Jesus was buying himself time to formulate a response.  I argue that the writing on the ground was not to buy time for divnity, but rather to buy time for humanity.  Williams writes:

"When the accusation is made, Jesus at first makes no reply but writes with his finger on the ground.  What on earth is he doing?  …  He hesitates.  He does not draw a line, fix an interpretation, tell the woman who she is and what her fate should be.  He allows a moment, a longish moment, in which people are given time to see themselves differently precisely because he refuses to make the sense they want.  When he lifts his head, there is both judgment and release … Writing in the dust … tries to hold that moment for a little longer, long enough for some of our demons to walk away." 

 Williams' book is a good read on a personal level, however.  My consistent attempts to incorporate "breathing space" into my responses and reactions has made me a better leader, a better friend, and a better teacher.

* FTG has written a few books herself, including Back to the Well and Encounters with Jesus: Studies in the Gospel of John.  Both books are brilliant, accessible, and highly recommended.

On July 25th Michael 'Mikey' Causer was attacked at a party and then had his head literally beaten in in the street outside. He suffered terrible head injuries merely for being gay and on August 2nd he died of them. Of course the mainstream media has barely noticed - after all it's safe and easy being gay these days. We have gay marriage in all but name, we have gay equality legislation covering the provision of goods and services, gay adoption, in short near-full equality before the law, so this must just be an exception, right? Pride marches in London have become mere spectacles for straight tourists, and marketing opportunities rather than political statements that we are defiantly gay, reminding those who still hate us that we are everywhere, that we look like them, work with them and are related to them. Yet in a neighbourhood famous for the murder of Anthony Walker, also different from the local white, straight, working class norm, Mikey was 18 and gay, out and proud of it. Iris Robinson would have seen him as an abomination and offered him therapy, yet surely the only abominations here were homophobia and murder?

And where does such hatred come from? Well these people may offer a clue:

Lord Tebbit, a leading right winger in the 1980s who has been an outspoken opponent of equality, told the Daily Mail:

"Every statistic shows that children grow up more likely to do well in school, stay out of trouble, and have a happier life if they have both a male and female role model.

"Too often we look at these things from the point of view of the adult rather than the child. I think that adoption by homosexual couples is unsatisfactory for the child.

"What homosexual people choose to do under their duvets is up to them, but the example they set to children is of interest to society as a whole."

Homophobe Norman Tebbit, once Margaret Thatcher's right hand man, speaking perhaps with more coded hate, but still making it clear his belief that being gay is unacceptable and somehow (without showing how) dangerous for children to be exposed to. He's wrong of course - every statistic and piece of research shows the exact opposite - that it's the quality of the parenting, be it a heterosexual or gay couple or single person, which determines a child's success. He may be as much a raving loon as ever, but (as he his acutely aware) he still speaks for many and legitimises their bigotry. Then there's the Archbishop of Canterbury, resolutely punishing gay Christians for the homophobia of their fellows:

Rowan Williams said practices in certain US and Canadian dioceses were threatening the unity of the Anglican communion.

"If North American churches do not accept the need for a moratoria [on same sex blessings and the consecration of gay clergy] we are no further forward. We continue to be in grave peril," he said.

Williams has tried to cover himself in recent days, by revealing that as an individual he remains extremely liberal, and indeed supportive of gay people and gay partnerships. Yet as Archbishop of Canterbury he's now completely ignoring Bishop Gene Robinson and siding with gay haters like Archbishop Peter Akinola. Which position do you think sends out the louder message?

What about the Vatican?

Quoting from a key document on Anglican and Catholic relations he (Walter Cardinal Kasper) said: "Homosexuality is a disordered behaviour. The activity must be condemned; the traditional approach to homosexuality is comprehensive ... A clear declaration about this theme must come from the Anglican Communion."

It's accepted by the mainstream of society that homosexuality is not a disordered behaviour. Every major psychological organisation has accepted this for decades now, and although politics in the West is a more recent convert, most Western politicians (many increasingly gay themselves) now agree too and are including gay people under the banner of diversity and equality. Yet as Gene Robinson said the other week, it is the Church which remains most effective at determining hearts and minds, and the Vatican desperately wants all Christians to believe that being gay makes you not quite human. Well that belief has consequences.

Not all politicians are supporters of the diversity agenda however, and there remain exceptions who consider their religion trumps their secular commitment to equality. Iris Robinson, MP & MLP, keen 'defender' of the faith, is stidently keen to make sure that we know that gay people are worse than murderers and child abusers. She too may come across as a complete loon to most, but in her position of responsibility (after all she's an elected representative) she's also representing and legitimising the beliefs of a significant minority. She hasn't been removed as chair of Stormont's Health Committee and hasn't been censured by her boss (and husband) Peter, a failure which sends out a message at least the equal of hers.

Anti-gay hate doesn't come from nowhere - it's transmitted. Outrage! and the Queer Youth Network issued a joint press release, offering perhaps a deeper analysis of the origins of the hate which killed Michael (and Anthony):

"Anthony Walker and Michael Causer and their families were not only victims of Racism and Homophobia, they had their lives destroyed by something that is ravaging every aspect of our society. Sadly the events in Huyton over the past few days is proof that young people from our poorest, most marginalised sections of society are the victims regardless of the cause. It's also to remember that the perpetrators themselves along with their families."

"I understand there a number of high profile campaigns such as Stonewall's much publicised 'Education for All' that receive a great deal of public and private sector funding as well as income generated from delivering training to tackle the issue of homophobic bullying, but are they working?" their impact is still limited to a handful schools and tend to be dominated by London based organisations and politicians who have jumped on the Homophobic Bullying 'Bandwagon' for their own gain." (Pauline Ellis) concluded.

"I would like to see Sir Ian McKellen other high profile campaigners who opened people's eyes to intolerance in the past such as Michael Cashman, Angela Eagle and Lord Waheed Ali to reach out to working class communities and talk to young people in the street." "In the 1990's they bravely fought against the biggest concern facing LGBT Youth at the time - Section 28, a threat written on paper. People began to think twice about attacking us. Today's threat is written very clearly, in blood. Fighting violence carried out in the name of homophobia is now a matter of life or death."

Whilst it would be a mistake to say that murderous homophobia and racism only breed in poor and deprived communities, there's no denying that the area itself has terrible social problems, of which the Walker and Causer killings are a symptom.

It's also a question I've wondered for some time - can a political lobbying organisation, already hugely successful in changing the law, succeed in changing attitudes as well? Stonewall has come across at a distance and up close, as a middle class organisation, staffed by professional middle class people, without a huge incentive (or ability) to reach out across the social classes and races. It was why Ian McKellen's appearances with Bishop Gene Robinson a few weeks ago came across as so important - each framed their respective roles in an overall strategy for changing laws and minds (it was notably Robinson who could change minds). Well they too have to put their money where their mouth is and turn this nascent alliance into something which can bring about results.

The police have now added:

"Michael and those charged with the offences against him and those currently on bail were known to each other and had been together in a house in Biglands Drive, Huyton during the course of Thursday evening and Friday morning.

"The initial assault upon Michael took place within this house.

"The incident was reported to police and ambulance at 11am on Friday 25 July 2008 when Michael was admitted to Whiston Hospital with serious head injuries.

"Contrary to speculation, I can confirm that this was not a random attack of a young gay man walking in Knowsley."

While the minority rights organisations celebrate their marketing successes, whilst singly failing to change attitudes where it counts, and the Churches wring their hands about homosexuality in their own institutions, young people are being murdered. Apathy made Mikey Causer's murder happen and I don't see anyone lifting a finger to change it - politicians, Churches, lobbyists and community organisations need to start working together - the DNA database, CCTV, 42 days' detention without charge, RIPA legislation and prohibitions on the ordination of out gay clergy are political smokescreens, while genuinely vulnerable people like Mikey get no real protection from the real threats at all.

Three men remain mystifyingly free on bail, in a country whose national media remains resolutely disinterested, and whose gay community remains unaware. Pauline Ellis reminds us all:

"It's very easy for the increasingly comfortable and apathetic gay community to blame working class youths for this latest attack, but having partnership rights and a few extra equality laws is not an excuse to abandon the ongoing fight for gay liberation."

Thinking of switching to Arminianism from Calvinism? Here are some reasons to remain a Calvinist. And they answer the question, Just what is Open Theism? And of course, expresses some concern about it.

This blogger answers the caution suggested concerning the Gedaliah seal.

Ben Witherington speaks about what unites the Bible.

Along with GCM and many more, we just shake our heads those in Europe that would twist scriptures to support homosexuality. Of course with Archbishop Rowan Williams saying that gay relationships are comparable to marriage, one as to wonder just how bad Europe is getting?

And speaking of the Scriptures, here is an article from an Catholic Apologist dealing with Sola Scriptura. Not to pick on the Protestants, but just where do you think they got the Trinity?

Think God is ineffable?

Looking for some info on bible translations? Since the Bible is at times compared with bread, what about an actual comparison? And for the record, I love sourdough.

I am sure, given the current state of Hollywood, that this series from across the pond will soon see it's way over here.

And more on marriage in Saudi Arabia. And since we are in the Muslim world, let us consider if Allah is the father of Jesus.

Nice article on how Hindus see Christ. Just because they recognize a 'divine' does in no way save them.

John Hobbins helps us to read the Book of Proverbs.

Did you know that Japan is a lost tribe of Israel? Seriously. Watch the videos.

Saturday as Sunset begins the 9th of Av, which is one of the most solemn fast days for the Jews, commerating a lost list of tragedies. Here is a letter from a Rabbi.

Here is a review concerning Richard Dawkins' God Delusion.

And we end this week witha  video that I am sure will raise some eyebrows... but you know, if you can show me in Scripture that the KJV is the only bible to use, then I will discard every one that is not KJV.

In American politics, the term "liberal" is used to refer to folks who support homosexual unions, abortion; often, "liberals" are for higher taxes, more government involvement in social programs, and perhaps, a little less war. "Conservatives," on the other hand, are simply the opposite of this, right? This is pretty much it! Sure, you have some people bouncing back and forth on various issues, and whatever issue "matters most" to you is where you'll cast your vote. I think here of many Christians who are stridently pro-life, but who really want to "help" the poor or who don't really love the war.

My point in all of this is simply to recognize that we are constantly trying to make life less complex, ultimately so that we can control it, so that we can control others, and so that we can control the outcome of history. We desperately want a black-and-white world, where there are good guys and bad guys, where what is right and what is wrong is always clear and obvious. I can already hear the Christian cries against a culture of "relativism," but to me this doesn't make much sense. Give me a break, there was no golden age, no time when morality wasn't already up for grabs.

I do confess that I use the terms liberal and conservative, at times. Just as a caveat I do think the terms can be used rightly as long as terminology is clear, though they should be used sparingly. I think, for instance, it is perfectly appropriate to use the word "Liberalism" to denote the philosophy that undergirds free-market capitalism and many modern democracies. Used in this sense, it is not inherently pejorative, but simply descriptive, and in this case, the term "conservative" would not usually be used to describe opposing positions.

So, are the terms useful at all? What and who is a liberal or a conservative? Can we move beyond name-calling and reducing complex issues into oversimplified camps?

Correspondence between an evangelical Christian and Rowan Williams has been uncovered which reveals his support for gay marriage.

The letters were written in 2000 and 2001, when Dr Williams was the Archbishop of Wales, and confirm his liberal stance on homosexuality.

He stated in his correspondence with Deborah Pitt, an evangelical who lived in his then-Archdiocese, that parts of the Bible relating to homosexual acts are not aimed at people who are born gay but "heterosexuals looking for sexual variety in their experience."

"I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness,” read one letter, quoted in The Times.

Archbishop Williams quoted the theologian Jeffrey John to back his position.

In 2003 Dr John was asked to stand down from his appointment as Bishop of Reading by Dr Williams, by then Archbishop of Canterbury, after conservative Anglicans objected to the fact that he was in a gay relationship.

Under House of Bishops guidelines, clerics are allowed to enter into a civil partnership as long as they are not engaging in sexual relations.

Lambeth Palace, when asked for a comment on the letters to Ms Pitt, quoted a recent interview in which the Archbishop said:

"When I teach as a bishop I teach what the Church teaches. In controverted areas it is my responsibility to teach what the Church has said and why."

The ordination of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as Bishop of New Hampshire, was the catalyst for the ongoing crisis in the Anglican communion over gay issues.

At an event in Edinburgh last night Bishop Robinson said he felt personally "disrespected" by the way the Archbishop of Canterbury ignored his letters and banished him from a meeting of Anglican leaders.

"He is no longer the Rowan we once knew. I don't know how he sleeps at night," said Bishop Robinson.

At the conclusion of the Lambeth Conference last week Dr Williams said the "pieces are on the board" for a settlement.

The conference, held once every ten years, is a meeting of the leaders of the Church from around the world.

This year more than 200 bishops boycotted the event.

He also called on American churches not to elect any more gay bishops.

In a sermon on the final day of the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury, Dr Williams said: "In these days together we have not overcome our problems or reinvented our structures: that will still take time."

But despite there still being "many questions" on the issue, a Covenant to bind the Communion together is needed, he said: "We may not have put an end to all our problems - but the pieces are on the board."

The Covenant could mean churches with new gay bishops could be expelled from the Anglican Communion.

In a reference to the bishops who refused to attend the Conference Dr Williams said: "In the months ahead it will be important to invite those absent from Lambeth to be involved in these next stages."

He added that the Communion must not just be "an association of polite friends," rather, it must "embrace deeper and more solid ways of recognising and trusting each other."

While this might come as something of a shocker to those who only know about this story via the media, for anyone who has followed Williams (extremely impressive and profound) theological career/writings this was abundantly clear:

However, in an exchange of letters with an evangelical Christian, written eight years ago when he was Archbishop of Wales, he described his belief that biblical passages criticising homosexual sex were not aimed at people who were gay by nature.

He argued that scriptural prohibitions were addressed to heterosexuals looking for sexual variety. He wrote: “I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness.” Dr Williams described his view as his “definitive conclusion” reached after 20 years of study and prayer.

Williams is one of a very small handful (less than 5) of the most theologically learned and subtle to ever hold the chair of the Archbishopric of Canterbury.  He clearly sees his role as Archbishop as to upheld the traditional teaching against homosexuality while clearly himself thinks otherwise.  Among the many shames and sadnesses of this whole whatever going on in the Anglican Communion is that Williams' depth is lost.  He is busy putting out fires and being a ecclesial bureaucrat and its a loss to the whole Communion particularly in its difficulties in articulating a clear interpretation of the gospel fro a postmodern pluralistic world. 

[And yes if you get the picture on your computer right you are seeing a picture of the spiritual head of the Anglican Communion and Paris Hilton in adjoning posts].

Rowan Williams believes that gay sexual relationships can “reflect the love of God” in a way that is comparable to marriage, The Times has learnt.

Gay partnerships pose the same ethical questions as those between men and women, and the key issue for Christians is that they are faithful and lifelong, he believes.

Dr Williams is known to be personally liberal on the issue but the strength of his views, revealed in private correspondence shown to The Times, will astonish his critics.

In fifty years, all the current controversy over gay people vis a vis Christendom will seem so silly in hindsight. Condemning gay people truly is our generation's "condoning slavery."

Gay partnerships pose the same ethical questions as those between men and women, and the key issue for Christians is that they are faithful and lifelong, he believes.

Dr Williams is known to be personally liberal on the issue but the strength of his views, revealed in private correspondence shown to The Times, will astonish his critics.

The news threatens to reopenbitter divisions over ordaining gay priests, which pushed the Anglican Communion towards a split.

However, in an exchange of letters with an evangelical Christian, written eight years ago when he was Archbishop of Wales, he described his belief that biblical passages criticising homosexual sex were not aimed at people who were gay by nature.

He argued that scriptural prohibitions were addressed to heterosexuals looking for sexual variety. He wrote: “I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness.” Dr Williams described his view as his “definitive conclusion” reached after 20 years of study and prayer. He drew a distinction between his own beliefs as a theologian and his position as a church leader, for which he had to take account of the traditionalist view.

The letters, written in the autumn of 2000 and 2001, were exchanged with Deborah Pitt, a psychiatrist and evangelical Christian living in his former archdiocese in South Wales, who had written challenging him on the issue.

In reply, he described how his view began to change from that of opposing gay relationships in 1980. His mind became “unsettled” by contact as a university teacher with Christian students who believed that the Bible forbade promiscuity rather than gay sex.

Dr Williams, who was ordained a priest in 1978, became a lecturer at Cambridge two years later and was appointed Dean of Clare College in 1984.

He told Dr Pitt that by the end of the 1980s he had “definitely come to the conclusion” that the Bible did not denounce faithful relationships between people who happened to be gay.

He cited two academics as pivotal in influencing his view. One of them was Jeffrey John, the celibate homosexual whom he later forced not to become Bishop of Reading after an outcry from conservatives.

In his 1989 essay The Body’s Grace, Dr Williams argued that the Church’s acceptance of contraception meant that it acknowledged the validity of nonprocreative sex. This could be taken as a green light for gay sex.

Liberals have been bitterly disappointed that a man whom they regarded as chosen to advance their agenda has instead abided by the traditionalist consensus of the majority.

In the correspondence Dr Williams wrote of his regret that the issue had become “very much politicised” and was treated by many as “the sole or primary marker of Christian orthodoxy”.

Asked to comment yesterday, Lambeth Palace quoted a recent interview in which the Archbishop said: “When I teach as a bishop I teach what the Church teaches. In controverted areas it is my responsibility to teach what the Church has said and why.”

While there are several polls indicating UK Muslims favour the introduction of Sharia Law, others suggest that:

Our survey was made easier by Muslim debate over the Williams affair. The overwhelming majority of our sample — we estimate a minimum of 65% — brusquely repudiated the imposition of Shari'a in Britain and even expressed resentment at the interference of individuals like the archbishop in British Muslim affairs.

Henry Orombi in The Times: "In every case, homosexual practice is considered sinful - something that breaks our relationship with God and harms our wellbeing. It is something for which one should repent and seek forgiveness and healing, which God is ever ready to do. Not only is Scripture to be taken seriously, but it is to be obeyed, because God intends for us things far better than we could ask or imagine." "The Church cannot heal this crisis of betrayal", 1st August 2008

MCC Manchester about a Ugandan refugee: "Prossy had been forced into an engagement when her family discovered her relationship with the girlfriend she met at university. Both women were marched two miles naked to the police station, where they were locked up." - Prossy Kakooza Must Stay!

Henry Orombi about Prossy Kakooza: "Simply saying that the Christian faith that we practice, which was brought from the West, by the way, taught us what biblically sexuality is. We’ve embraced that faith, we are practicing that faith, and moving away from that faith would be a contradiction to what we have inherited. First of all our communities will not accept them because they will want to let them know that if that is your orientation you can come back to life." GAFCON, 23rd June 2008

Jesus Christ: " ‘I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’ - ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn’t help you?’ - Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Most assuredly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn’t do it to one of the least of these, you didn’t do it to me.’" - Matthew 25, 43-45

Henry Orombi in The Times: "How can we go to Holy Communion, sit in Bible study groups, and share meals together, pretending that everything is OK?, that we are still in fellowship with the persistent violators of biblical teaching and of Lambeth resolutions?
The Bible says: “Can two walk together unless they are agreed?” The Archbishop of Canterbury has asked us to “wait for each other”. But how is it possible when we are not travelling in the same direction?" "The Church cannot heal this crisis of betrayal", 1st August 2008

MCC Manchester: "[Prossy] was violently raped by police officers who taunted her with derogatory comments like ‘’we’ll show you what you’re missing’’ and ‘’you’re only this way because you haven’t met a real man’’. She was also scalded on her thighs with hot meat skewers." - Prossy Kakooza Must Stay!

Henry Orombi about Prossy Kakooza: "It’s a possibility there. We believe there is a possibility culturally. Secondly, we believe there is a possibility according to Christian faith. And we believe that, that God can bring you back when you have gone out of what is supposed to be intended by God. Now there is a complement in believing there is transformation, there is restoration, that makes us stand on the word of God which can bring change to people, as it has done to us over a period of time." GAFCON, 23rd June 2008

Jesus Christ: " ‘...for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’" - Matthew 25, 35-36

Henry Orombi in The Times: "The Church of Uganda takes its Anglican identity and the future hope of the global Anglican Communion very seriously. We love the Lord Jesus Christ, and we love the Anglican Communion. Lord, have mercy upon us. "

MCC Manchester: "Prossy was eventually taken out of prison after her father bribed the guards. Her family had decided they would sacrifice her instead, believing this would ‘’take the curse away from the family’’. Whilst her family were making arrangements to slaughter her, Prossy managed to flee to the United Kingdom to seek asylum." - Prossy Kakooza Must Stay!

Henry Orombi about Prossy Kakooza: "I would not believe a thing like that is done in the public knowledge of the people of Uganda because the gay people who are Ugandans are citizens of the country and we would cherish the fact that we would want to send it our people. For some of those things probably you get information in England and we may not even get information, I don’t know how they get their information." GAFCON, 23rd June 2008

Jesus Christ: “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.” Luke 6, 37-38

Ruth Gledhill, the Times' religious reporter, writes of Henry Orombi's open letter to the Times: "it will accuse the Archbishop of Canterbury of a betrayal at the very deepest level. ..... Nor is the absence of Uganda, Nigeria and other Global South churches a sign that they want to leave the Communion. Far from it. It is a sign of how much they care that it endures. Read it all ....it is strong stuff!" Nowhere in her blog about this message by Orombi does she reference Orombi's opinion that if a lesbian is marched naked through the streets, tortured, raped, and threatened with murder, that's just fine.

At the 1998 Lambeth conference the resolution on Human Sexuality contained a number of profoundly contradictory statements:

- "in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage"

- "We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ."

- "cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;"

- "while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals"

The first and the third of these resolutions agree with each other and with Henry Orombi's position: lesbians, gays, and bisexuals are inferior, unwelcome as Christians, unloved by God, who have the choice as inferior Christians of forcing themselves into card marriages or remaining celibate: they can't be accepted as fully equal members of the Anglican Communion. God is a homophobic God. Orombi evidently has no fear that, at the gates of Heaven, he will be greeted by Jesus with the question: "When you saw Me marched naked through the streets, imprisoned, tortured, raped, why did you did not look after me?" - because he has confidence that Prossy Kazooka, and her fellow victims in Uganda and elsewhere, are not included in Jesus's apparently inclusive statement: "I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." Orombi can be sure that God is a homophobic God, who always has the (unspoken) clarification: "Except for queers."

The second resolution contradicts the first and third: if you believe that your God is not a homophobic God, regardless of sexual orientation, then you cannot engage in the kind of spiritual apartheid that is required to deny lesbians and gays - and some bisexuals - a religious marriage, ordination if that's where you're called.

And the fourth part of the resolution that I've quoted here, is the key to the muddle. Orombi and other homophobic Christians, whether they attended Lambeth or boycotted it, argue that at the centre of Christianity is homophobia - this comes before everything else. Orombi argues that for the Anglicans of New Hampshire to ordain as bishop a gay man who was honest and open about his sexual orientation was to "plunge the Anglican Communion into a crisis" that “tore the very fabric of our communion at its deepest level”.

If we are to believe the Lambeth record of 1998, Orombi and others came away from it believing that the resolution to "minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation" meant that anyone of the sexual orientations that God hates ought to be imprisoned, tortured, raped, and if necessary killed, because it was possible that, under enough abuse, they might manage to escape being murdered for their sexual orientation by managing to fake heterosexuality. Presumably this is "irrespective of sexual orientation" in Orombi's view because he would want anyone - irrespective of their sexual orientation - to be abused as Prossy Kazooka and her lover were abused (her partner is, as far as Prossy has been able to discover, still suffering within the Ugandan prison system) if they were to "practice" homosexuality.

Other bishops came away believing that regardless of what it might say in selected quotes from the Epistles written in the 1st century CE, or early Jewish legislation written 1450 BCE, the Lambeth conference had resolved that "all our people [should] minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals" and "We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ."

Who was right?

Well, I'm an atheist. If Rowan Williams and Henry Orombi declare that the God they believe in is a homophobic God, who am I to argue? I don't believe in any God. There are things I like about Christianity - but if Christians declare that homophobia is central to their faith, all I properly care about is that they should not be allowed to exercise their faith by being actively homophobic towards LGB people... including their own children.

The cost of having an entirely and consistently homophobic sect, which supports itself by laws and penalties and promotes a homophobic society and culture, is that it claims many of the lives of the children born to that sect and culture, who happen to be LGB. Growing up knowing that you are that evil, that sinful, that appalling, drives many young people to suicide. The survivors - who learn to repress themselves, to disguise their real feelings, to pretend to all the world - may live and die unmarried, or force themselves into deeply unhappy marriages. Their parents may never know how miserable and lonely and isolated their LGB children are, nor why their marriages seem fundamentally flawed: but at least they won't be required to condemn their own children to torture and death, only to risk some of their children committing suicide.

But if the children know that outside the world of their parents' religion, there is a secular world in which LGB people exist and live happy, normal lives with partners, children, families: that there are other Christian sects which argue that being LGB doesn't mean God hates you - then their children may be happier, but their parents are more likely to be unhappy. And as normal human beings, the parents are more likely to care for their own happiness than that of their children. Hence the opposition, of course, among most homophobically religious people, to equal civil and human rights for LGB people: hard, exceedingly hard, to keep your lesbian, gay, and bisexual children as isolated and alone and convinced that they are by nature evil people whom God hates and condemns - when they can see for themselves that their parents' God is not the only moral force in the world. That's why I care, atheist or not: an adult does have a right to choose to be miserable in their own way, to believe if they wish in a God that hates them - even to believe in a God that hates others, so long as they don't themselves carry out God's punishments on the people they believe God hates. But no child deserves to live like that: no child deserves that kind of unremitting psychological abuse from their parents without any hope of escape. Children deserve to grow up with hope and self-love and joy and hope that their lives will be better than their abusive parents will for them.

(And yes, I do know that homophobic parents often have no notion that they are inflicting psychological abuse on their children, because it never occurs to them to think that one of their children could be one of the disgusting, offensive, inferior, evil people whom they feel free to verbally abuse and humiliate and condemn to hell.)

So, returning to the question: who was right? And ignoring for the time being the effects on the outer world:

Well, Orombi could be right. Maybe the Abrahamic God is a homophobic God. Maybe these Christians are genuinely interpreting their Scripture the way it's supposed to be interpreted, and homophobia really is the central tenet of Christianity. Who am I, an atheist, to say?

As an atheistical believer in human rights and civil rights and generally trying to be good to other people because I think that's the right thing to do, I prefer the Christianity advocated by Gene Robinson and Desmond Tutu: "If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God." (BBC, 18th November 2007) It does appear to be closer to the Christianity I was taught as a child, and when I pick and choose which passages from the New Testament or the Old I like the best, the bits which encourage obsession with and condemnation of other people's sexual behaviour are not among them: I like the upholding of kindness and generosity and truth and love better in a religion than I do the upholding of the belief that God so profoundly cares that George Takei and Brad Altman love each other passionately and intend to wed each other that God intends to send them both to hell for it.

But here's what Rowan Williams says "traditional believers" who hold by a homophobic God will hope have been heard: "‘What we seek to do in our context is faithfully to pass on what you passed on to us — Holy Scripture, apostolic ministry, sacramental discipline. But what are we to think when all these things seem to be questioned and even overturned? We want to be pastorally caring to all, to be 'inclusive' as you like to say. We want to welcome everyone. Yet the gospel and the faith you passed on to us tell us that some kinds of behaviour and relationship are not blessed by God. Our love and our welcome are unreal if we don’t truthfully let others know what has shaped and directed our lives — so along with welcome, we must still challenge people to change their ways. We don’t see why welcoming the gay or lesbian person with love must mean blessing what they do in the Church’s name or accepting them for ordination whatever their lifestyle. We seek to love them — and, all right, we don’t always make a good job of it : but we can’t just say that there is nothing to challenge. Isn’t it like the dilemma of the early Church — welcoming soldiers, yet seeking to get them to lay down their arms?" - (Second Presidential Address to the Lambeth Conference 2008, 29th July 2008)

What Rowan Williams is missing (he does also attempt to speak for the "not so traditional believer", too) is that while Orombi and his fellow homophobic Christians always claim they're being "welcoming" and that their condemnation of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals is done "lovingly", the reality is more brutal: the reality is Prossy Kazooka and thousands of others, humiliated, abused, beaten, raped, tortured, murdered, while homophobic Christians look on with approval and with certainty that such treatment is what their Jesus Christ wants done. Still speaking for the homophobic believers, he points out (as Orombi also pointed out in his statement about Prossy Kazooka at GAFCON), that: "‘But please remember also that — while you may say that what you do needn’t affect us — your decisions make a vast difference to us. In this world of instant communication, our neighbours know what you do, and they see us as sharing the responsibility. Imagine what that means where those neighbours are passionately traditional Christians — and what it means for our own members, who will be drawn to leave us for a “safer”, more orthodox church. Imagine what it means when those neighbours are non-Christians, delighted to find a stick to beat us with. Imagine what it is to be known as the ‘gay church’ in a context where that spells real contempt and danger."

Yes. I agree. If Henry Orombi had reacted to the news (which he claimed was news to him) that lesbians and gay men in Uganda are living under threat from their homophobic government and the homophobic Abrahamic religions of Uganda with an outspoken condemnation of violence, or any kind of upholding of the right of lesbian, gay, and bisexual Ugandans to be let alone to live and love as they choose, Orombi would have been in deep trouble when he got home, not only with his co-religionists but with the Ugandan government. Should we then be charitable towards poor Orombi, perhaps wonder if he was forced by social pressure to conceal his true views?

Not according to Rowan Williams: "Don’t misunderstand us. We’re not looking for safety and comfort. Some of us know quite a lot about carrying the cross. But when that cross is laid on us by fellow-Christians, it’s quite a lot harder to bear. Don’t be too surprised if some of us want to be at a distance from you — or if we want to support minorities in your midst who seem to us to be suffering."

Well, (cite), according to the 2002 Census, the religions in Uganda are: Roman Catholic 41.9%, Protestant 42% (Anglican 35.9%, Pentecostal 4.6%, Seventh Day Adventist 1.5%), Muslim 12.1%, other 3.1%, none 0.9%. So the cross that (we are to suppose) of being forced to appear to be a "gay church" - at least, a non-homophobic church - is being laid on poor Orombi by fellow-Christians: not by the Anglicans who ordained Gene Robinson or who ordained other honest and gay clerics, or who bless the marriages of same-sex couples: but by Orombi's fellow Christians in Uganda, who believe that the Abrahamic God is a homophobic God.

Yet I think Rowan Williams here means that the love, respect, and charity shown towards Gene Robinson is the "cross" which Orombi and others are being forced to bear: that for them, being around people who are not actively homophobic is slow, unbearable torture. Unlike their God, faced with the prospect of being slowly tortured to death - of having done to them what was done to Prossy Kazooka and to others like her - they cannot pray, faced with the torture of associating with LGB people, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me; nevertheless, not what I desire, but what you desire” - because they believe in a homophobic God: they believe that what God desires is to see Prossy Kazooka stripped naked, abused, raped, tortured, and killed if she won't quit being a lesbian. If Rowan Williams will not acknowledge the violent hatred of the homophobic wing of his church, he cannot claim to speak for them.

What Rowan Williams wants - what he says when he "speaks for" the not-so-traditional, not-so-homophobic believer - is to welcome LGB people into his church - but only halfway. Not to admit that lesbian, gay, and bisexual Christians are the equals in religion of heterosexual Christians. Not to respect loving, faithful, and committed relationships regardless of sexual orientation. And above all, to presume that God so hates and abominates all LGB Christians that no LGB Christian who is honest and open about their sexual orientation can possibly feel any valid calling to priesthood or bishopric.

And this - thank you for bearing with me so patiently and so long - is what I think is the lesson that can be drawn from Lambeth for people who are not Christian or who are not Anglican. The resolutions of 1998 were a compromise that would work only if LGB Anglicans were grateful and humble enough to be allowed to crouch on the floor and eat the crumbs thrown to them like dogs: it would not work if, having risen to their feet, they were not then whipped from the Church for their presumption in thinking that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus" could apply to them (Galatians, 3:29) - they had forgotten what is claimed as the eternal, unspoken, permanent central fact of Christianity: except for queers.

But equality doesn't work like that. You cannot welcome someone as an equal - which is what the 1998 Lambeth conference resolved to do - and then say "but you have to sit on the floor and not expect us to treat you as if you were really our equal" - people will not accept that kind of treatment. Either you must keep your unequals under permanent, terrible, restraint - accepting that this means they will die young, die lonely, die miserable, convinced only that God hates them and that all their co-religionists despise them - but if you let them get up, let them have even a little self-respect and self-love and self-belief, if you let go of the death and hellfire threats -

- then sooner or later, you have to deal with them as full equals. You will have to invite them all the way in or watch them walk away. If some of the people already there then leave, grumbling and complaining that they don't expect to have to share with those kind of people, you have only the choice of asking those not actively bigoted to pretend they still are, and asking the objects of their bigotry to always behave as if they considered themselves inferior, and begging the bigots to come back and promising that their inferiors won't try to get up anymore -

- and no: this won't work. You must either institute the kind of repressive regime that drives the LGB people in your group to escape or suicide or lifelong lie, and accept this means that many people will lose their children, one way or another: or accept equality. All the way. No halfway measures.

People will not be grateful forever for merely not being subject to abuse: unless people are subjected to continuous and unremitting abuse that never allows them to think that perhaps they do not deserve it, once that level of abuse is lifted, they will start to feel they deserve more than merely the experience of not being abused.

People are never content to stand in the doorway forever: either they will be allowed in, or they walk away.

Zum Abschluss gekommen sind die Diskussionen und Spannungen damit allerdings nicht. Bischof Charles Jenkins von der US-Diözese Louisiana formulierte es so: "Am besten, wir alle behalten unsere Wanderstiefel noch an!" - Für Christinnen und Christen, die sich auf dem Weg der Nachfolge befinden, und ergo immer auf dem Weg, m.E. nicht das schlechteste Motto.

Jetzt soll ein so genannter "Covenant" - ein Grundlagenvertrag - ausgearbeitet werden, auf den sich alle 38 Mitgliedskirchen der Anglikanischen Gemeinschaft einigen. Darin wird wohl auch geregelt werden, wo die Kirchen Einigkeit haben müssen, und in welchen Bereichen sie als Ortskirche auch anders entscheiden können, als andere Mitgliedskirchen. Der Grundsatz des Kirchenvaters Augustinus von Hippo (354-430) könnte diesem Covenant hier eigentlich als Präambel vorangestellt werden: "Im Notwendigen Einheit. Im Zweifel die Freiheit. In allem die Liebe." - Für's erste gelten allerdings jetzt einige (unverbindliche) Moratorien, an die sich alle Gliedkirchen halten sollen (vgl. "Anglikanische Glaubenskongregation & Moratorien als Lösung?").

Erfreulicherweise scheint auch der in einem Gastbeitrag der britschen Times ausgeführte Vorschlag des Ugandischen Erzbischofs Henry Luke Orombi (der die Konferenz zusammen mit weiteren rund 200 konservativ-traditionalistischen Bischöfen boykottiert hatte - vgl. dazu auch: "Droht Spaltung bei den Anglikanern?") gar nicht erst auf den Tisch gekommen zu sein, der es als Relikt des Kolonialismus kritisierte, dass das Ehrenoberhaupt der Anglikanischen Kirche von der Königin von England ernannt werde; für eine Neugestaltung der inneranglikanischen Struktur verwies er dabei auf die Struktur in der römisch-katholischen Kirche, in der ja sogar der Papst von den Kardinälen gewählt würde - das klang schon fast so, als wolle er in Richtung Klerikalisierung marschieren und so eine Art Anglikanischen Papst einführen, gewählt von der Bischofs-Versammlung der Anglikanischen Weltgemeinschaft.

Die anglikanische Kirche hat eine prinzipiell bischöflich-synodale Struktur. Und das ist auch gut so. Wenn man überhaupt etwas an der Ernennung des Erzbischofs von Canterbury ändern sollte - worüber ja durchaus nachzudenken wäre - dann sollte es vielleicht in Richtung einer stärkeren synodalen Einbindung der Kirche von England in die Wahl gehen. Da der Erzbischof von Canterbury lediglich ein "Primus inter pares" (erster unter gleichen) ist, und nicht die Machtvollkommenheit eines römischen Papstes besitzt, ist m.E. eine Wahl durch die gesamten anglikanische Weltgemeinschaft, und erst recht durch den exklusiven Kreis der Bischöfinnen und Bischöfe, nicht notwendig.

Aber ich habe wenig Sorge, dass die Wanderung der Anglikanischen Kirchen in eine hierarchische Klerikalisierung führt, sondern vertraue fest darauf, dass sie am bischöflich-synodalen Prinzip festhalten.

Foto: Jim Higham - Quelle: www.flickr.de