Rowan Williams to celebrate 'secret' LGBT communion service

The Clergy Consultation has managed to get the Archbishop of Canterbury to celebrate a communion service and give a talk on 'present realities and future possibilities for lesbians and gay men in the Church.' The consultation is a support organisation for male and female, lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgender clergy, religious, ordinands, seminarians and their partners. As we report, the meeting, so secret that the list of those attending was to be 'shredded once seen by the Archbishop', is on November 29 at St Peter's, Eaton Square where the Bishop of Salisbury's former chaplain, Nick Papadopulos, is the new Vicar. The meeting is being organised by Chris Newlands, chaplain to the Bishop of Chelmsford, and Christina Beardsley. It comes at a particularly sensitive time given that the Archbishop is travelling to the US this week to see what steps TEC bishops are taking in order to come in line with Windsor following the 2003 consecration of Gene Robinson, pictured.

The Bishop of Chelmsford, John Gladwin, is incidentally the bishop at the centre of the row over the ordination of Richard Woods in George Carey's old church in Dagenham. Briony Martin, one of those down to attend on 29 November, is part of Inclusive Church, which has today publicised a forthcoming 'Celebrating Diversity' event at Manchester Cathedral.

The Archbishop's fundamental liberal sympathies are well-known, thanks to his essay The Body's Grace. Recently it seemed as if he had changed sides for the sake of Church unity. This has been a cause of great distress and anger within the liberal and LGBT community, who had looked to his appointment to bring about the changes in the Church's culture on sexuality that they had longed for. They felt hurt and betrayed. The fact that he's agreed to celebrate the sacrament for leading members of the LGBT community, however, is a good indication of where the Archbishop's true sympathies still lie. It has to be a possibility now that he's given up on trying to prevent schism, and after this week will go back to pastoring the liberal catholic community that is his natural home. The welcome back of the prodigal archbishop might not be all that he hopes however. The LGBT community is furious at the secrecy conditions attached to the whole thing.

Where this leaves the unity of the Church of England remains to be seen. I can't see there being problems on the same scale as the US - a eucharistic celebration is not an ordination after all although both are sacraments. But Peter Akinola will surely now be looking for a priest here to become a CANA bishop for certain English parishes to look to for oversight. And Rowan Williams is seriously destabilised now for the end of the week.

My view is that if it fits with what he believes - and it surely fits with the 'inclusive Gospel' - he should celebrate the eucharist. But it was an error to both do it and then try to keep it secret. I understand he doesn't much like the Internet and prefers more old-fashioned methods of communication. So I guess he'd have no concept of the futility of even beginning to try to keep something like this secret, especially when the very community itself doesn't want it to be a secret. They even have a page on Facebook for goodness sake! Ok it's 'closed', but still. I can see why they're angry. With so many of them just having found the courage to 'come out', why should they give in to an Archbishop seeming to want to shove them back in?

Rev Richard Kirker, of LGCM, said: 'A eucharist, in secret? I don't think it is a good thing in many ways. The conditions of secrecy attacked to attending the consultation are quite at variance with the openness of his meetings with a panoply of anti-gay church leaders. We are astonished at the attempts to make the meeting clandestine when it would be far better to have this in the open. The fact that he wants to go there without anyone knowing he's going there makes it quite clear that he has an attitude towards the event that he doesn't have at any other meetings.' 

Hat-tip to the Church Society's evangelicals.org for this rather extraordinary piece of news. Here is what the Church Society's David Phillips is saying:

'It has come to light that the Archbishop of Canterbury will be leading a service of Holy Communion for a secretive group of what appear to be homosexual clergy.   The secretive nature and circumstances of the meeting suggest that they have something to hide.  Moreover as is well known there are clergy in the Church of England who have refused to give assurances that they are celibate and Bishops who, contrary to their own agreed policy, apparently refuse to ask for such assurances.

'The Archbishop might have defended the meeting with such a group on the grounds that he is engaged in a listening process.  However, by leading the communion service he is clearly doing far more than just listening.

'The meeting is with a group called The Clergy Consultation which says of  itself that it is “a confidential support organisation for male and female lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender clergy, religious, ordinands, seminarians and their partners.”  It has been involved with other homosexual groups in lobbying for the Church to accept homosexual practice.

'For the sake of the Archbishop they have asked their members to keep the meeting secret and not to report what is said at it.  The meeting is scheduled to be held on 29th November at St. Peter’s Church, Eaton Square, London and the Archbishop has apparently asked to know in advance who will be present.

'The recently appointed Co-Convenors are apparently Chris N and Christina B with the other Steering Committee members being given as Bryony M, Paul C, Richard C, Carole G, Charles B, John F, Irene C and Tim N.'

Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream said: 'It is understandable that the Archbishop of Canterbury would wish to express support and understanding for people who struggle with same-sex attraction. That is of course highly appropriate and many Christian churches and organisations do that. One assumes that the Archbishop will also meet with Living Waters, Redeemed Lives and Exodus Ministries to demonstrate his support and understanding for them also. However, to do this in the context of  a service of Holy Communion is much more problematic. A Holy Communion service includes confession and absolution of sins and is a very solemn and significant act. Christians are told to examine themselves carefully before identifying so closely with the death of the Lord Jesus for sin and his resurrection to new life. The teaching of the Bible, of the Anglican Communion and of the Church of England is that active same sex behaviour is contrary to the will of God for human behaviour.'

The Rev Jonathan Jennings, in Dr Williams' office, said: 'It should come as no surprise that the Archbishop is meeting pastorally with clergy and others affected by the current debates in the Church. Such encounters extend across the Church and right across the range of opinions found within the Church. Few of these encounters ever reach the public domain. That is exactly as it should be.'

Comments

[Huw Richardson]

And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, "This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them."
Luke 15:2

[Peter Farrington]

"My view is that if it fits with what he believes - and it surely fits with the 'inclusive Gospel' - he should celebrate the eucharist."

Surely the measure is whether it fits with Christian teaching, otherwise anything and everything is acceptable if people believe it.

It doesn't fit with orthodox Christian teaching though, and that is why +Rowan is trying to keep it secret.

This must seriously undermine his position and shows a degree of mis-judgement that must raise doubts about his ability to hold the Anglican Communion together.

Peter

[Peter Farrington]

Huw says...

And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, "This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them."

But Our Lord also said, go and sin no more. He did not form focus groups to support sinful lifestyles.

I would have no problem with a celibate priest who was dealing homosexual temptations in a spiritual manner. But the LBGT movement is not one of people struggling with temptations, as we all do, but one which has embraced sin as virtue.

For +Rowan to be associated with them is neither charitable nor wise since by his actions he is both failing to call sinners to repentance and is harming the fragile unity that still exists in the Anglican communion.

[Lawrence Budner]

This is odd. At my Episcopal parish in California, the location of a lesbian/gay meeting is sometimes not publicized out of fear of disruptions, but the existence of the meeting (and indeed its day and time) is never kept secret. The leaders of the group are openly gay, and secrecy is only kept so that people in the process of coming out can do so at their own pace. At least once a year there is an open meeting so that the rest of us can attend and be supportive.

I hope that the Clergy Consultation also has openly gay/lesbian members, and that coming out is one of its goals. If not, it's hard to imagine why the Archbishop should put his own authority on the line if the members of the Clergy Consultation won't take a similar risk.

[Antonio]

Mr Richardson:
You are right.
Perhaps what ++Williams is going to do is just to tell them to repent.
And that would explain his intentions to keep it in secrecy.

[Alan Marsh]

The fault, if any, lies with the organisers for the cloak-and-dagger style of their arrangements.

It is perfectly understandable that the Abp wishes to brief all concerned, and to do so in a pastoral rather than officious manner.

[name withheld]

It's not a matter of cloak and dagger but pastoral care and discretion. The Clergy Consultation is over 30 years old. It's existence is public and it has long been advertised in the Church of England Yearbook. Its primary purpose is pastoral support. Its membership is many and various - including celibates and (shock!) conservative evangelcals. We acknowledge that we are sinners but we have also been baptised into Christ, with repentence and faith, and so we are justified through the redeeming free and costly grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. We maintain confidentiality becase this sexulity stuff is a life or death issue for some of us - the hatred and condemnation we have received in the church (let alone anywhere else) is real and almost intolerable. Like now - when I feel betrayed and exploited by lobbyists and journalists of different persuasions - when all I long to do is heed the call of the one who loved me and died for me.
(rg writes: thank you for this. I am intrigued as to who you are of course. I am sorry you feel betrayed, particularly if I'm one of the journalists concerned. This is not a nice world sometimes. But your email persona seems a little self-denigrating - wouldn't that better describe what I do?)

[Tom Allen]

Is this really the shock horror news that journalists and conservatives would have us believe - all that has happened is that this Eucharist has come into the public domain - so so-called secrecy is to protect the participants rather than the Archbishop whose personal views are well-known not to have changed at all - what has changed along with his role is his choice of action. The Clergy Consultation has been public for years - and because of its commitment to discretion has enabled it to offer support to many clergy for whom "coming out" is not currently an option. As for repentance that is a matter of personal conscience ( I before God) not a matter for other human beings to project their hangups onto others. It is the attitudes of the self-styled Anglican Mainstream which makes this discretion necessary as they assume our Makers role as judge.

[Alan Marsh]

It is not a matter of "discretion". The Church of England does not allow private services behind locked doors. The moment someone does so, it is an invitation to the media to whip up this kind of froth.

An organisation which appears in the Church of England Yearbook has nothing to fear from holding a private meeting, following a service in church which anyone may attend. To bar people is simply to invite suspicion that you are doing something wrong.

Richard Kirker (who ought to know given his long involvement in LGCM) is quite right about this.

[Father Ron Smith]

Jesus also said - in the same context of his saying to the prostitute "Go and sin no more" -"Where are your accusers now, do they condemn you? NEITHER DO I!"

Jesus does not offer the condemnation that the Pharisees urged him to offer!

Does that say anything at all to the Pharisees of today!

[Huw Richardson]

Actually, Jesus is on record mostly as saying "repent" (and a number of other uncomfortable things) to the Pharisees.

[Tom Jackson]

"The Clergy Consultation is over 30 years old. It's existence is public and it has long been advertised in the Church of England Yearbook. Its primary purpose is pastoral support"

And, personally, I have no problem with homosexuals receiving 'pastoral support'. And when I stand before the one who loved me and died for me, if I find myself beside an homosexual, my embrace of that person would be no less sincere and all-encompassing than that I would give to anyone else who shares my faith and belief in Jesus Christ. We are all sinners before God.

But given the present understanding and information we have about homosexual behaviour, those who are involved in same-sex sexual relations cannot be involved in the administration and organisation of the Anglican Church at this time. Everything we understand from Christ's teaching, everything that - in the absence of guidance to the contrary - we perceive from our understand of our faith and beliefs, reinforces this view.

This decision by Rowan Williams is misguided because it emphasises the ambiguity of his personal position and, more importantly, of his role as head of the Anglican Communion. He should give very careful consideration to the impact this will have on his suitability to lead at this difficult time.

[Andrew Holden]

The response of people like Chris Sugden, effectively excommunicating homosexuals and their supporters, shows exactly why such a meeting would be held in secret. People who do not accept that "active same sex behaviour is contrary to the will of God for human behaviour" are still being actively persecuted rather than being listened to with respect, understandinig and sympathy. A 'practicing homosexual' (and, since the JJ debacle even those who have embraced celibacy) may not be a bishop in the Anglican or exercise a priestly ministry - and it won't be long before the reactionary 'mainstream types get their way and hound out of the church anyone who thinks that committed and loving sexual relations for homosexuals may possibly be appropriate.

I'm also sorry to see this usually honourable blog being used to further this reactionary trend - probably not what RG intended but surely the outcome one would expect.

Personally I very much regret that a definitive split of the Anglican Communion over this issue is getting closer and closer. I still believe that the wider beliefs of Anglicanism are far more important than this narrow issue of sexual morality. It is not +Rowan who is damaging our unity but those who would reject their christian brothers and sisters over an issue which is not central to out faith and one which requires positive understanding rather than negative intolerance.

[Peter Kirk]

Rowan seems to have been very clever in finding something which both wings of the church can agree on - in condemning him for holding this secret service!

[R.S.Newark]

Why not look to the Queen for direction, isn't the queen the true head and leader of the Anglican church?

[pendennis88]

Thank goodness he did not attempt to have a secret eucharist with any AMiA priests or bishops. That would have been too much.

[Stephen Roberts]

Ruth you go to the trouble of mentioning John Gladwin's affiliations, but sadly omit that Chris Sugden has much to gain from disruption in the AC, given that he is widely tipped to become the first CANA flying-bishop for England.

[Neal in Dallas]

Dear Andrew Holden,

You wrote: 'I still believe that the wider beliefs of Anglicanism are far more important than this narrow issue of sexual morality.'

I am curious as to what you would say are the 'wider beliefs of Anglicanism?'

[J Pearce]

An interesting Panorama program last night described the treatment of Muslims in this country who have converted to Christianity. Unsurprisingly, it detailed the persecution that former Muslims experience when becoming apostate. It pretty much confirmed exactly how dangerous and barbaric Islam is as an ideology (to the point where a high ranking UK Imam refused to condemn outright the death penalty for apostacy - another telling example of dissimulation). The idea, I think, was to at least show Christianity in a more positive light in comparison.

But it also highlighted some telling points about Christianity. Where we see various contributors on this thread singing the praises of "repentance" and crude references to "sinners", the program last night made the point that there is very little overt support avaliable to Muslims who convert to Christianity - the argument put forward was that, in effect, they were being "left to hang" by Church authorities. And yet, these are exactly the kind of people one would assume would be welcomed with open arms into the Christian Church. One was left with the impression that Christian leaders are embarrased by Muslim converts; they would prefer to maintain the pretence of a cordial relationship with the Muslim community, rather then embrace and support their own.

Which brings me to the issues in this thread and their relevance to the above documentary. I read a contributor above make the following statement:

"We maintain confidentiality becase this sexulity stuff is a life or death issue for some of us - the hatred and condemnation we have received in the church (let alone anywhere else) is real and almost intolerable."

And my first thought is : "so, really not that much difference between Christianity and Islam after all, then". And, really, what is the difference between the shunning and persecution of apostate Muslims in Islam - and the shunning and persecution of gay (Christian) people in Christianity? The answer is really quite obvious - there isn't one.

It strikes me just how painfully polite and remarkably mannered some Christians can be when they are essentially advocating the dehumanisation of a whole swathe of innocent people. Where the ABC see's a need to minister and support a perfectly normal group of law abiding, Church-attending Christians, others see nothing but medieval moral constructs, through which they rain down their intemperate judgement under the pretext of Biblical doctrine.

Intellectually hamstrung by their own inability to move beyond the conventional (read: conservative, right wing, neocon) Christian worldview, these are the same people who would most likely denigrate Islam for its lack of humanity. Yet here they are, behaving in preceisely the manner which we stereotype Muslims with.

It’s a shameful state of affairs when the allegedly "good" openly criticise the ABC for merely carrying out part of his mission. That he should be forced to carry out such work in supposed secret - essentially, he appears to be embarrased by it - reflects even more badly on the worrying slide into medievalist ideology being touted in certain Christian quarters.

[Tom Allen]

"The Church of England does not allow private services behind locked doors"

Since when? There has always been a distinction in the Anglican Church between public worship in a Parish Church, and the right of a priest to offer the Eucharist in other settings such as a conference, meeting or retreat where it is entirely appropriate for it to be restricted to those attending the event.

As for LGCM's views on the matter - they have always had a different view and role from The Consultation - and the latter has made possible ministries which would not have been possible by membership of LGCM with its more overt approach which includes criticising other groups which do share their approach and line.

[A Renegade Priest]

This obsession with sex is a "sickness unto death" for the Anglican "communion" OK, there are gay clergy and laity. They too, like all of us, are sinners in need of the grace of God. The Archbishop is to say Mass for them. So what!!! I hope that His Grace will also say a mass for pharisaical homophobic bigots, even though none of them would have the grace to attend and participate.

[Alan Marsh]

The Church of England has led the way in providing "flying bishops" for minorities, and is perfectly capable of creating its own without resort to other provinces.

If equal attention had been paid to the needs of minorities in the USA, we would not be in the present crisis.

[Alan Marsh]

You are quite wrong, Tom. A parish church is open to all who live in the parish. And that includes any service of Holy Communion, which is a public celebration, not a private rite. The right of any parishioner to attend is very well established in law.

No priest has any right to treat it as a "private" ceremony, for the sacrament belongs to the people of God, not to the clergy.

[Craig Goodrich]

Without judging the theological case for or against this event, an objective observer would have to say that it seems at this particular time to be at the very least monumentally impolitic. I'm willing, though, to give +++Rowan the benefit of a doubt, and I sincerely hope this mild tempest in a very small teapot doesn't distract us (or him) from the very real and difficult decisions that need to be made in the next couple of weeks.

************

Andrew opines, "... the wider beliefs of Anglicanism are far more important than this narrow issue of sexual morality."

Exodus 32, Revised ed:

And Moses said to Aaron, "Well, the calf is right out, but I guess the orgies are OK because the wider beliefs of Judaism are far more important than this narrow issue of sexual morality."

... this reading comes not from the LXX, but the MCMLXs ...

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

I cannot believe that the Jews are being blamed for the reaction to this story as well.

Shame on you, especially as the ABC himself has gone a long way to make amends for ACC and Synod attempts to boycott Israel, supported by many who also support the Bishop of Chelmsford.

When will Christians ever learn that the Scribes and the Pharisees were revolutionary liberals who did much to encourage learning and debate within the developing Jewish traditions from which Jesus learned a great deal and of which he was a part. Don't you understand rhetorical language when you read it?

I would say with Hillel, a contemporary of Jesus: 'The essence of Judaism is to love your neighbour as yourself. That is the whole of Judaism: NOW GO AND LEARN'.

Unfortunately, many do not understand what love is about and have no intention of learning anything about it.

No wonder the Chief Rabbi has felt compelled to offer his most pessimistic analysis of the previous year to date, much against his will, I am sure.

But it does appear as if the Jews are being assailed from all sides: from the bigots who don't know their Hebrew Bible, to those in the universities who wish to censor debate and to those who would use violence to achieve their ends.

How about 'motes and beams'?

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear J Pearce,

Your comments re shunning and persecution of different classes in both religions is interesting but not the same thing, obviously. All affinity groups or whole nations have groups whose behavior they find objectionable. The difference is the degree of persecution.

Let you and I reason together. Let us pretend that we are fellow Jews. We are part of the family of Israel; we're both equal in rights and responsibilities. I do not share your sexual likes but that is your business. I do not want you to approach me as your beloved. Except for that, you're free to do as you wish. Our history and rule book, the Bible, frowns on that type of sexuality and, in ancient times, it carried severe penalties, not today.

It's wrong to state that I persecute you or even feel persecuted because I don't condone same sex relations. That also applies to the society you live in.

Why then compare Islam in ferocity to Christianity as it is today? Yes, there are Africans in official positions that want to show their adherence to the religion you taught them. Tell them you were only kidding and remove the Bible from their hands. Replace the book with, let's say, Time Out.

[Tom Allen]

Alan
Let's agree that public worship in an Anglican Parish Church at announced times is that - open to all.

But that is not what is happening here - this is not part of the regular pattern of public worship in this Parish Church.

It is no different than me deciding that I will start a newly elected Parochial Church Council's year in office with a Eucharist for the Church Council. I am not required to announce that to anyone other than the PCC members - I would not expect anyone else to turn up - and if they did I would expect them to recognise that this was a Eucharist offered for that particular group. I would of course have no particular reason for insisting on this because the PCC membership is public knowledge.

The only difference here(politically)is that the organisers sought to (p)reserve the anonymity of those present (for reasons explained)- it is only when it becomes public knowledge (and because of RWs presence that the charge of "secrecy" becomes relevant

If I had been the invited President no-one would have paid any attention, and no-one would have deemed it in "secret" and Ruth would not be writing about it - but exactly the same Eucharist would be celebrated by those present.

[Michael Stevens]

I applaud the ++Rowan for taking this stance, although it does put him in a difficult position.

This strange and sad obsession with sexual orientation should surely be left behind by now, along with those who support a 6,000 year-old earth and other Biblical inconsistencies with science.

I look forward to the Anglican Churches in New Zealand, the US and England providing Bishops for congregations in Nigeria and other gay-hating jurisdictions that can show them the message of Christ, not the message of ignorance, fear and bigotry.

[Alan Marsh]

Tom,

The issue is not whether the service is announced.

Every parishioner has a common law right, according to Dales's Law of the Parish Church, to attend the services in the parish church. There are no exceptions unless the building is already full of people.

The Holy Communion service above all should be open to everyone. To restrict attendance, let alone to make it a clandestine event, raises a host of objections, even if the celebrant is someone prominent. It does not belong to any one particular group and it is celebrated for its own sake, not as an adjunct to some more "important" business. Jesus died so that we might share in that Supper.

The idea of a parish church expresses this very well. It is a place in which all the people of the parish can come to receive what Jesus gave to them, and not even the clergy can lock them out.

The vicar of this church is personally responsible for the arrangements in question, and ought to know better.

[Andrew Holden]

The wider beliefs of Anglicanism I endorse are a committment to the tolerant and inclusive use of scripture, reason and tradition. We welcome into the church all those who wish to associate with this way of being church rather than tightly defining who can be in and who is out like some narrow sect. I'm even content that the 'anti-gays' in our church stay in as long as they try to engage in a tolerant way with our differences about this issue - but, in fact, it is they who are forcing division not the liberals. Well I can tolerate almost anything but intolerance!

Worst of all is this present drive to define the church as being only heterosexual - I see nothing in Anglican tradition or scripture to support such an intolerant and reactionary position. And don't start claiming 'we accept homosexuals so long as they are celibate' - try asking gay and lesbian christians how accepted they feel by that nonsense.

As for sexual morality I'm entirely supportive of those who wish to live in loving and committed life long relationships whatever their sexuality - and don't believe the Bible says anything to forbid them. Defining sexual morality positively in this way doesn't mean that 'anything goes' - promiscuous, abusive or predatory sexual behaviour can't be considered loving for anyone!

So actually an Anglican Moses might well have kept the calf (with some justification about it being a symbolic representation of Yahweh - after all even King David managed to include idols in his household)but I certainly think that the orgies would have been outlawed!

[Alan Marsh]

I think it was my contribution which confused the page: I hope that this correction will do the trick - apologies all round!

[Neal in Dallas]

Andrew, I appreciate your response.

A couple of comments.

First, your view of wider Anglican beliefs certainly accords with the American Episcopal view of inclusion and diversity as the mission of the church. As we have become more committed as a denomination in America to inclusion and diversity we have grown increasingly smaller. I suspect the same is true of the Church of England on your side of the pond.

Secondly, I wonder what is the standard for what comprises the 'wider beliefs of Anglicanism?' Are they wider because they are more inclusive and, essentially, standardless? Or are they wider because they are believed in a larger number of places by a larger number of people who call themselves Anglican? Or, are they wider because they seem to have a greater warrant in the intellectual history of Anglicanism coming from England?

Might it not be that the wider beliefs of Anglicanism are actually based on what the bishops have stated who gather at Lambeth every ten years and as interpreted (or re-affirmed) by the primates in their adoption of the Windsor Report?

Ultimately, it seems, we have to answer the question of who actually speaks authoritatively on behalf of what is truly Anglican. I fear that, in the name of openness and tolerance, we will discover that no one can actually speak for the church and what is truly Anglican. Or, as Edith Stein so pithily stated, "there is no there there."

[Neal in Dallas]

Andrew, I appreciate your response.

A couple of comments.

First, your view of wider Anglican beliefs certainly accords with the American Episcopal view of inclusion and diversity as the mission of the church. As we have become more committed as a denomination in America to inclusion and diversity we have grown increasingly smaller. I suspect the same is true of the Church of England on your side of the pond.

Secondly, I wonder what is the standard for what comprises the 'wider beliefs of Anglicanism?' Are they wider because they are more inclusive and, essentially, standardless? Or are they wider because they are believed in a larger number of places by a larger number of people who call themselves Anglican? Or, are they wider because they seem to have a greater warrant in the intellectual history of Anglicanism coming from England?

Might it not be that the wider beliefs of Anglicanism are actually based on what the bishops have stated who gather at Lambeth every ten years and as interpreted (or re-affirmed) by the primates in their adoption of the Windsor Report?

Ultimately, it seems, we have to answer the question of who actually speaks authoritatively on behalf of what is truly Anglican. I fear that, in the name of openness and tolerance, we will discover that no one can actually speak for the church and what is truly Anglican. Or, as Edith Stein so pithily stated, "there is no there there."

[David Smith]

J Pierce, you quote Name Withheld:
"We maintain confidentiality because this sexuality stuff is a life or death issue for some of us - the hatred and condemnation we have received in the church (let alone anywhere else) is real and almost intolerable."

You then say:
And my first thought is : "so, really not that much difference between Christianity and Islam after all, then".

MY first thought, 'J', is: Is there no limit to your desire and ability to tar the whole of 'Christianity' with a brush dipped in the reported actions and attitudes of an indeterminate number of people of unknown standing before the Christian God?

My second thought is: Why on earth can someone as sharp as you just not seem to draw this not very subtle distinction in his mind?

I and others have said to you many times before on this blog - and I say again: the fact from time to time some who call themselves Christians or 'Members of the Church of England' have shown hatred towards those who practise or advocate homosex does not of itself mean either that its 'founder' Jesus himself teaches people to do this, or even that this is a widespread attitude amongst true Christians at all.

We have also said many times that to think and say that you think something someone does is wrong does not mean that you have, of necessity to be inhumane towards that person at the same time.

On this particular thread there have been several posts that have expressed views both for and against both homosex and its supporters and critics. Perhaps your mind is still too rooted to its old rails to have noticed this, but the only ones that have come close to demonstrating personal animosity or hatred have been ones by critics of the critics of homosex, and not those by those who believe it is wrong.

No one who has become familiar, through this blog, with your views, could fail to know:
1. That you see nothing wrong with homosex, and think that anyone that disagrees with you is a monster.
2. That you think, in essence, that nothing good has ever come from Christianity, and that it and its claimed adherents should - in terms of speaking out or living their beliefs - all be put in a box so that they do not contaminate the rest of society.

But do please try harder and more often to use that excellent mind and power of argument of yours to adduce more subtle and cogent arguments, with evidence if possible, in support of these particular views than just: (a) everyone who thinks homosex is wrong hates homosexuals, and (b) Christiantity is to be utterly condemned because some of its purported followers have sometimes done 'hateful' things.

As Alan Marsh and I have both just said on another thread, Islam's book - the Koran - teaches forcing one's beliefs and morals on others at sword-point; Christianity's book - the Bible - does not. This alone demonstrates that there is a world of difference between the two.

[David Smith]

Michael Stevens:
'I look forward to the Anglican Churches in New Zealand, the US and England providing Bishops for congregations in Nigeria and other gay-hating jurisdictions that can show them the message of Christ, not the message of ignorance, fear and bigotry.'

The message of Christ, Michael, was and is that all sex outside heterosexual marriage (including merely in a person's mind) is wrong.

If you care, also, to read (for example) Ruth's excellent interview, on the thread dated July 04 2007, with Nigeria's Archbishop Akinola you may begin to see how essentially crude and dishonest it is to level the accusation of 'gay-hater' at everyone who simply accepts, advocates, and tries to put into practise, His teaching in this area.

[Tom Allen]

Alan
Still not getting there yet but I will keep going. The question is not over the right to attend but the "obligation" to announce.

I am not aware that this service was deliberately planned as being a secret Eucharist - what has not been announced is who is attending or when it takes place.

RG herself uses "secret" in the headline - it is only those who had not been invited who describing it as "secret"

I am not disputing that any parishioner has the legal right to attend their Parish Church and also to marry etc but that is legal rather than a theological intent.

Theologically it is contrary to the first Eucharist where Jesus by the biblical account invited particular individuals rather than the crowd, and to early Church practice where and individual was only permitted to attend (not just recieve)the Eucharist after careful preparation - hence one of the origins of the season of Lent in prepartion for receiving at Easter. See Polyninius etc.

One thing for sure is that it isn't secret anymore - and it will be interesting to see how anyone intending to excercise their right as a parishioner proves that they are one, and what the Incumbent does about it to preserve the anonimity of those present. Perhaps they will move it from the Parish Church?

[Robert Ian Williams]

Jesus said, " Nothing I have said or done has been in secret."

[Alan Marsh]

Tom, I don't think it entirely appropriate to compare this event to the Last Supper, at which the apostles were commissioned to be the celebrants of a new covenant meal; or to the practice of the early Church where to be known as a Christian was to risk arrest and punishment. Nor is it appropriate today any more than it was then for the unbaptised to receive holy communion. These are all different issues.

The celebration of the Holy Communion is in itself an occasion of sufficient significance as to be entirely independent of any other agenda. And I mean both the agenda for a meeting of some kind, and a wider political agenda. It should not be used somehow to "validate" a campaign or be confined to campaigners. The Lord invites us all to His Supper: His, not ours.

My point at the beginning was that I do not object to the idea of inviting a group of people to come to a Communion service, in preparation for what follows. But when it is just item one on a private agenda, which is actually deeply controversial, organised by a group which is in dispute with the Church, it becomes an improper use of the eucharist, and it would be better to begin the meeting with prayers instead.

[Fool]

Jesus ate with the pharisaical homophobic bigots--they must be okay in the Book of Life.

[Andrew Holden]

David Smith:

"The message of Christ... was and is that all sex outside heterosexual marriage (including merely in a person's mind) is wrong."

If only it was that simple. Making this assertion directly to this context is, in fact, interpretation and extrapolation. We have no way of directly knowing exactly what Jesus might have said about gay people entering into loving and committed relationships and what place sex might have within those relationships.

What we are left with is having to offer our own interpretation of an ethical situation not dealt with at all in scripture and requiring some careful and sympathetic discrimination about what exactly is right and wrong in such a context. I see nothing in to suggest that Christ would have been as dismissive of committed same-sex relationships as you assert.

[Andrew Holden]

I don't think that the celebration of Communion in such a context is at all inappropriate. It isn't intended to validate the campaign but, contra those like Chris Sugden who would excommunicate gays and their sympathisers, to validate the campaigners as members of the body of Christ.

I think the point about the 'secrecy' is that it condemns not the people at the meeting but their persecutors who make them feel that such secrecy is necessary.

[J Pearce]

David,

You appear to be indulging in hyperbole again. Lets look at the facts - a contributor to this thread (not me), has outlined their personal experience as "hatred and condemnation..in the church…is real and almost intolerable". I merely used an analogy with Islamic attitudes towards apostates, in which Christian converts have also suffered hatred and condemnation from their own community. Watch the Panorama program. As Emanuel pointed out, they are not the same issues - but I would argue that essentially, they both reflect upon the intolerance and fear at the core of both Christianity and Islam (the "rotteness in the state of Denmark").

Your accusations are redundant - of course not ALL Christians are homophobes, given that the aforementioned contributor is both Christan AND gay! But I would argue that there is systemic and institutional homophobia within the corporate body of Anglicanism as a whole (and most certainly within RC). The evidence for this is apparent in the internecine arguing that persists between conservative and liberal Christians on this very blog, which reflects the wider schism within the communion.

In my opinion, it simply isn't good enough to say "I love my fellow man, even if he is gay - but I draw the line at him becoming a Bishop/having a civil partnership*/whatever". This fudging and prevaricating is symptomatic of a deeper inability to assign fundamental respect and value to the lives of homosexuals, simply because of their sexual preferences. And lets be honest David, your attitude towards homosexuals has been that they are somehow "broken" as people and need "spiritual repair". Not a little patronising and demeaning, I would venture.

If there isn't a problem, why did the ABC do his thing in attempted secret?

In response to your and Emanuels points about comparisons with Islam, whilst I have a deep distrust of Islam and I acknowledge that on the surface, Christianity projects a much more benign façade, on an ideological level, I see that both religions share many unsavoury, divisive and frankly dehumanising attitudes. Both are "death cults" in their own way - Islam and its scorched earth policy towards infidels and Christianity, with its ultimate belief that we're on this Earth to suffer and only through death/armageddon, we will be saved. They hardly promote a positive view of life, do they?

At this point in history, Christianity appears less "ferocious" than Islam, granted. But that has not always been the case. And if events in Nigeria are a foretaste of things to come from conservative Christians, who is to say that it will not be the case again?

* I have to laugh (ironically) at the conservative Christian attitude towards homosexual partnerships. We keep reading that a fundamental value of Christianity is to keep sex within said partnership. What could be more relevant to Christian behaviour than two people engaging in a legally binding agreement to stay partners?!

[Alan Marsh]

"We have no way of directly knowing exactly what Jesus might have said about gay people entering into loving and committed relationships and what place sex might have within those relationships."

On the contrary, Jesus said, "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it". Mt 5.17.

When Jesus was asked for his interpretations of the Law, he took a stricter view than that prevailing among his questioners. Since the Law prohibits homosexual conduct of any kind, there can be no doubt what Jesus would have said about the question posed here.

[Alan Marsh]

"I think the point about the 'secrecy' is that it condemns not the people at the meeting but their persecutors who make them feel that such secrecy is necessary."

Such secrecy is only necessary in asserting a victim status. But in all the long years of this debate since the Wolfenden Report, I have never heard of any evidence to suggest that a church meeting of this kind is in any danger whatsoever, and Richard Kirker's comments (above) indicate a saner approach to such an issue.

[Alan Marsh]

JPearce, just a few inconvenient facts for your attention.

A civil partnership does not require any form of ceremony, as it is "an entirely secular process" concerned with the provision of certain legal rights (which incidentally are denied to various other relationships).

There is no commitment to sexual fidelity, love or even care for one another.

Attempts have been made by the Society of Registration Officers to provide a form of words which mimic civil marriage. This is available where a ceremony is permitted by the registrar. A religious service is expressly forbidden.

This ceremony is totally removed from what Christians understand to be marriage. You can see an example of this at:

http://pinkproducts.co.uk/civilpartnershipceremony.htm

Your comments simply reveal that you have no comprehension of what the Church understands marriage to be.

[David Smith]

J Pierce:
' ..of course not ALL Christians are homophobes.. '

You make some good points in this post, 'J'. But since you can see the above, and since there is absolutely nothing in the New Testament that teaches either hatred of or phobia towards those who practise homosex, PLEASE STOP laying these attitudes at the door of Christianity, as a belief system.

By all means say 'some supposed Christians' or 'some members of the Roman Catholic or Anglican Churches' exhibit them. Just don't keep extending this to Christianity in general.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

To J Pearce,

I thoroughly reject "death cults".

Israel, the people, and their way of looking at God, Judaism, have always preferred life over death. Ironically, that may be Israel's weakness or flaw in this world since people who look for heavenly rewards ( sitting with Jesus, 77 virgins) are willing to commit mass murder or suicide for a higher reward. What's your price,dinner with Elton John :)?

Does homosexuality merit being the center of discussion in a "religion" column? For it's our relationship with a higher level (God)that is the reason we're here at this blog. Social and political questions may be put here but they rank at a lower level. Do you rank a religion well depending on its lack of standards?

[J Pearce]

"Your comments simply reveal that you have no comprehension of what the Church understands marriage to be."

And your comments, Alan, reveal that the Church has no comprehension whatsoever of what modern western society expects from a partnership of any kind - the idealised, cloud cuckoo land demands of Christian marriage being, as they are, totally anathema to human nature, totally incompatible with the stresses and demands of modern life today and totally divorced from everyday reality.

A microcosm of Christianity as a whole, in effect.

[Andrew Holden]

Alan,

As you well know it is a debated point about what the Law forbids and how far any prohibition extends. There is also a debate to be had about whether any prohibition actually applies to us, in perhaps a different context, today. We've had that debate on lots of other issues and relaxed prohibitions to our own advantage.

You may well belong to a church that forbids its members not to wear clothes of mixed fibres or to eat shellfish and doesn't allow its members to divorce or remarry. Most of us are in churches like the Anglican church where such things are usually reinterpreted according to the law of love.

As to the secrecy thing, for myself I think that Richard Kirker's view is probably right and there is nothing wrong with being open about this meeting - but then neither he, nor I, are particularly afraid that we might not get our next church appointment as a result of people finding out us! Neverthless the present move by conservatives and their African alliance to restructure the Anglican Church as some kind of fundamentalist sect should make anyone who holds more inclusive views about the church rather anxious about the future.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"By all means say 'some supposed Christians' or 'some members of the Roman Catholic or Anglican Churches' exhibit them [anti-homo attitudes]. Just don't keep extending this to Christianity in general".
- David Smith, 20 SEP 2007, 22:22:15

Mr Smith, when will you wake up and realise that Mr Pearce has an agenda to defend and promote? He is a crusader waging a war, and his war effort is directed towards the elimination of all religious belief, including your version of Christianity. For this purpose, he has adopted the tactics of the atheists: seize on the bizarre and exceptional, and use the Goebbels technique to make it look the norm and the standard. In short, it may be a lie, but if he tells it frequently enough and loudly enough, eventually a lot of people will believe it.
Can you understand this, Mr Smith?
Your opponent is a ranting troll, and you are feeding him with the only thing that keeps his tirade alive - your response to his post.
For the sake of all Christians, Mr Smith, you, me and everyone else, ignore him, totally.

[David Smith]

J Pierce:
' ..your comments, Alan, reveal that the Church has no comprehension whatsoever of what modern western society expects from a partnership of any kind - the idealised, cloud cuckoo land demands of Christian marriage being, as they are, totally anathema to human nature, totally incompatible with the stresses and demands of modern life today and totally divorced from everyday reality.'

So, ‘J’, broadening this out, what you are advocating, in other words, is that God should jolly well let the stresses and strains of 'modern life' get to Him too; adapt Himself to the mess this world is increasingly getting itself into; and get Himself into the same mess Himself?

Is that right?

[J Pearce]

David,

"..there is absolutely nothing in the New Testament that teaches either hatred of or phobia towards those who practise homosex, PLEASE STOP laying these attitudes at the door of Christianity, as a belief system."

Then why the impending schism in the Anglican communion? Why Akinola? Why TEC? Many contributors (yourself included) keep on referring to the Bible as the sole source of authority on moral matters within Christianity. Essentially, the general idea is that the Bible IS Christianity. So why do we keep hearing all these essentially anti-gay statements from various commentators, who use the Bible as the source and justification of their beliefs?

For example, Tom J (although professing an admirable personal attitude on the subject) says this above:

"...those who are involved in same-sex sexual relations cannot be involved in the administration and organisation of the Anglican Church at this time...Everything we understand from Christ's teaching…reinforces this view."

As far as I can see, David, you can't have it both ways - either the Bible (i.e. the source of Christianity as it is understood today) condemns homosexuality (which I would label as homophobia) - or it doesn't, and the fundamentally de-humanising policies promoted by Akinola et al are as un-Christian as it can get.

Personally, I think this is the crux of the conundrum for liberal Christians. They can see just how intolerant and divisive the doctrines based on the Bible have become and how they are fundamentally incompatible with modern, humanist attitudes. But in the end, they are forced to come back to it as the touchstone of their beliefs. Which is why we see good people like Tom J (and I guess the ABC) agonising over the dichotomy between Biblical -inspired doctrines (and their enforcement through Christian dogma) and the clearly obvious requirement of being a rational, intelligent human to regard ones fellow man (and woman) as an equal and treat them as such.

You should do what the Scientologists do - disregard the awkward bits that get you into trouble and simply pretend thay never existed in the first place :-)

[Alan Marsh]

JPearce, unspecified expectations about "partnerships" are no substitute for marriage, which provides stability for husband and wife, children, the wider family and society at large.

It is what the great majority still seek, and much social breakdown can be traced to the decline of stable marriage in the last century.

Civil partnerships - especially if properly extended to all who wish to protect legal rights - may be of benefit to some, in the terms in which they are designed by law - but they do not constitute marriage and ought not to be made to mimic marriage, for they can never do so.

[Jennifer Adams]

Geoffrey Smith's appeal to David Smith to shut up and not respond to J Pearce isn't because he is a troll. It is because they between them (otherwise true believers at each other's throats on all other matters) haven't a coherent response between them.

As fantasists they should be allowed their fantasies in private if it gives them consolation. But when their fantasies impinge on and harm the lives of others it is they who should shut up.

The government has just issued a paper http://www.teachers.gov.uk/_doc/11911/HOMOPHOBIC%20BULLYING.pdf

Why do we have bullying in schools? It is because of religiously inspired homophobia exuded into society and justified by a handful of texts from a primitive age.

[Alan Marsh]

Andrew, I have heard these claims many times, but it is not reasonable to argue that Jesus took a view of this matter which was radically different from the Law without any indication that he actually did so. What we do have are numerous statements in which he reinforced the teaching of the Law in matters of sexual ethics.

Unfortunately it is convenient for those who wish to revise the New Testament to ignore completely the context in which Jesus lived and taught, which is precisely the world of what is called the Old Testament. If you cut the Old Testament out of your bible, you can never comprehend Jesus, for whom it WAS the Scriptures.

The evidence in fact suggests that he was a conservative expositor of the Law in whose eyes all forms of sexual activity outside marriage were to be regarded as sinful fornication. It is not necessary to seek an explicit statement from him on this matter, since the Law was perfectly certain where homosexual conduct was concerned.

When put to the test he refused to condemn an adulterer, but this was also accompanied by the injunction, "Go, and sin no more."

The test was also designed to trap him into instigating an illegal stoning, for which he could be reported to the authorities. That must be taken into account in assessing his response to the zealots, who were looking for ways to silence him.

It becomes clear in the early documents of the Church in the New Testament that the dietary laws were no longer held to be obligatory for Christians. But if you seek to rely on this part of the New Testament, you also have to reckon with a very clear reiteration of the prohibition on homosexuality in Romans, which try as they might, revisionists have failed to spin out of existence.

Those who are trying to alter the Church to conform to secular ethics are doomed to fail if they appeal to the Bible as authority for their attempt. It is more honest to admit, as one contributor above has suggested, that you do not accept the authority of the bible or the church's understanding of it.

[J Pearce]

Dave,

Pertaining to your last post, bypassing the inherent sexism in your assumptions (sexism! Another hoary old prejudice in religious circles!), I would say that any omnipotent, omniscient, creator-of-the-universe type of being wouldn't have the slightest interest whatsoever in the behaviours of a bunch of constantly fighting, barely-evolved apes inhabiting the surface of a muddy rock, at the arse end of a particularly dull galaxy, orbiting within a rather uninspiring part of (cough) His universe.

To assume the human race is somehow the apple of (cough) His unswerving gaze, is, frankly, a folly of spectacularly vainglorious proportions. I would venture that to make such an assumption merely reflects the vanity and the untrammelled ego of the claimant? As a wise man once said, we all make God in our own image...

[Tom Jackson]

You have made reference, J Pearce to my 'agonising' where the subject of homosexuality relative to my faith is concerned.

Now, I have no wish to continue the debate, especially since I find italics particularly unsettling to read but I think you are taking somewhat of a liberty to interpret my thoughts in such a way.

Homosexuality is not normal behaviour. Given the information currently available, sex activity between people of the same sex is abnormal. I have no doubts or problem with that and until such time as we understand homosexuality in the context of the normality of heterosexual behaviour, while I would vigorously oppose any persecution of homosexuals, their involvement in areas such as the administration and organisation of the Church must be severely limited.

This in itself does not represent a 'de-humanising' policy but in the present situation ensures that the body on which we rely to a large degree to represent and protect our faith is not subject to possible disruption and distortion.

If those within the Anglican community hold strong views to the contrary and cannot accept the majority decision, then it is time to move on and for them to disassociate themselves from the main body of Anglicans.

To reiterate, I do not agonise over that situation. I trust in God to resolve the matter in time and reveal to us why some people feel sexual attraction to those of their own gender. And until that happens, we protect what is obviously normal relations between men and women, we teach that to our children and we also ensure that compassion, toleration and respect is shown to those who - for whatever reason - act differently.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"But when their fantasies impinge on and harm the lives of others it is they who should shut up".
- Jennifer Adams, 21 SEP 2007, 15:20:55

Sounds like a quotation from an ancient Roman. Those guys sure knew how to shut up those pesky Christians. They built the Colosseum for that.

[Jennifer Adams]

"Homosexuality is not normal behaviour. Given the information currently available, sex activity between people of the same sex is abnormal."

This is a most stupid comment from someone who seems unable to understand that for homosexual people acting out heterosexual sex would be abnormal. What is your source for saying this?

It is part of the normal distributoin of sexuality that some people find themselves drawn to their own sex. It is not a choice. It is not an illness. It is part of the way things are in the natural world across species, including our own.

Pious nonsense from someone who pretends to be so sympathetic to people who find they are gay but all the time is mouthing subliminal prejudice sickens me for its smug ignorance and self righteousness. It deserves to be exposed for its duplicitous nastiness.

[Jennifer Adams]

"Civil partnerships - especially if properly extended to all who wish to protect legal rights - may be of benefit to some, in the terms in which they are designed by law - but they do not constitute marriage and ought not to be made to mimic marriage, for they can never do so."

yawn! yawn! Who is this boring, pompous little man?

[J Pearce]

Alan,

Can you not see that your definition of “marriage” is simply a societal construct? I would argue that “social breakdown” could just as easily be attributed to the development of the industrial society and the fact that traditional “Christian” marriage norms simply were not able to cope with the demands of an industrial/post-industrial culture.

Put another way – if Christian marriage was all its cracked up to be, why have we seen such high divorce rates?

There have been numerous societies which have prospered using “non-Christian” models of familial constructs. It is worth noting that once Christian missionaries converted said societies to the “Christian” model, said societies suffered from all the usual malaises – alcoholism, drug dependency, delinquency etc.

Surely there cannot be a causal link between forcing an indigenous culture into an alien ideology and the breakdown of said cultures structure…? In my eyes, Christianity has a lot to answer for destroying the lives of numerous innocent people, I’m afraid.

I think the problem is, Alan, is that you define “marriage” in simplistic cultural and religious specific terms. The fact that you cannot allow for other models of stable familial structure speaks volumes about the inherent arrogance and imperialistic attitude at the heart of your religious belief. The world doesn’t begin and end with the Bible, I’m afraid.

[J Pearce]

Tom,

My apologies for the presumption.

I would, however, be interested to know your definition of “abnormal”.

For example, would calling myself a “Lib Dem” be classified as abnormal, given that statistically, only a minority of the population admit to supporting them?

According to a certain interpretation of your defintions, if I vote Lib Dem, then I must be excluded from any involvement from the Church.

How do you think God is going to resolve that…?

:-)

[Alan Marsh]

JPearce, first you say that the Christian idea of marriage is only a "societal construct" but then you go on to blame the Bible for Christian teaching about marriage!

Before you dig any deeper holes for yourself, I suggest you take a look at the preface to the wedding service in a Book of Common Prayer, to find a definition of what Christians actually believe marriage to be, rather than what you imagine Christians think about it.

You will find it is a very broad definition which embraces many cultures, in which the basis of marriage is a permanent and exclusive commitment of one man and one woman for life, with the possibility of children and the provision for them of a stable family life.

Once this ideal is undermined by a society which emphasises instead fleeting relationships, sexual freedom, self-gratification, the exploitation of sex commercially, multiple partners, unnatural sex, and so on and so on, many people no longer see marriage as a desirable arrangement. That is why the divorce rate has risen and why fewer people get married.

The consequences have been appalling, and largely suffered by children, to whom all this sexual liberty means nothing. They want and need mother and father and a stable home, not the lifestyle of the glossy magazines and the media.

It is deeply disturbing for a child to experience the break up of their parents' marriage, to have to form relationships with their parents' new spouse and their children.

In many cases there is no father at all, because there is no sense of responsibility for children on the part of many young men who simply leave their former girlfriend to bring up their offspring. Both she and the children are the victims of this culture.

I see no evidence that our society is better off without marriage as understood by Christians, and every reason to hold it up as a way of life which brings great benefits both to those who are married, and above all to their children.

[Richard Williams]

Firstly, Ruth Gledhill's article is factually incorrect when she asserts that ordination is a sacrament. "There are two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say Baptism, and the Supper of our Lord"(Article 25 of the 39 Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church).
Secondly, perhaps someone could explain to this Non-Conformist how the Administration of Holy Communion/The Lord's Supper can be "transformed" into a "Eucharist offered for a particular group"? I cannot imagine what this means but it certainly seems to smack of Roman Catholicism to me.
Lastly, how sad it is to see churchmen arguing in public and seemingly indifferent to God's Word clearly revealed in Holy Scripture and nowhere else. In this life "All fall short of the glory of God" - including those saved by Grace - and nobody should be "casting stones" at anyone else. The "sensus plenior" (plain or principal meaning) of God's inspired inerrant word is clear for all and it must be said that homosexuality is clearly (another) sin in the eyes of God. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone!

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Re the comments here, the facts are that

1. Homosexuality is abnormal behavior

2. The Hebrew Bible is the historical record of Israel's meeting with God and a blueprint to our culture. Homosexuality is frowned upon. The most practical reason is that the nation will disappear if this behavior becomes widespread.

3. Israel accepted God's reality thorugh Abraham ( Heb. for Father of the people)and we were the first.
Unfortunately for those who dislike us, you're stuck with Jew as God ( Jesus)and our ways if you insist on incorporating our book into yours.

[Alan Marsh]

Emanuel, thank you. It is entirely impossible to understand Jesus and his teaching in isolation from Israel and the first Testament.

It is also therefore entirely irrational for Christians to be at enmity with the heirs of Abraham, without being at enmity with oneself.

[Jennifer Adams]

Both Richard Williams and Emanuel Appel are guilty of deliberately peddling an anachronism.

Nowhere does the Bible contain in Hebrew or Greek an equivalent of the 19th-century neologism 'homosexuality', with all that word conveighs in the current state of knowledge about human sexuality.

Modern translators of the Bible use the word deceitfully 'to bring the Bible up to date' while all the time pretending that they believe "God's inspired inerrant [unchanging?] word is clear for all".

[Jennifer Adams]

"The most practical reason is that the nation will disappear if this behavior becomes widespread."

This was probably true as part of the practical reason why the compilers of Leviticus included a prohibition against wasting seed in man-on-man sex. (Woman-on-woman sex doesn't get a mention because the ancient Israelites thought like the Greeks that children were created entirely from men and women were merely the seed bed.)

But by the practical logic of the ancient need to increase population, in an overpopulated world shouldn't homosexuality now be encouraged?

[Tom Jackson]

Apology accepted, J Pearce, and in answer to your reasonable request for my understanding of the 'abnormal', I once noted a response to a similar question which was revealing.

Something is abnormal if it is used for a purpose for which it was not designed.

In other words, using a suitcase to transport clothes on holiday is normal but using it as a receptacle to grow tomatoes is abnormal.

The Oxford dictionary defines 'abnormal' as 'exceptional, irregular; deviating from type'. I think this is applicable in the context of homosexuality (although I prefer the reference to the suitcase!)

Is it abnormal to be a LibDem? I tread very carefully when bringing politics (and particularly, politicians) into any debate. After over 40 years of observing and monitoring the subject as an ordinary citizen, I am happy to place my faith and beliefs in God rather than in those charged with governing us - supposedly with our best interests at heart!

The questions about homosexuality are not about being in a minority. It is a judgement call based upon what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. Being a LibDem may place you in a minority group but it is acceptable because it does not result in a level of offence or inherent rejection by a significant majority of those people who are not in that minority.

I don't believe, J Pearce, that you are taking these alternative positions for purely mischievous reasons but you have to accept that speaking generally, as human beings, homosexual behaviour produces an abhorrent reaction in normal heterosexuals.

This is labelled 'homophobia' by those who seek to outlaw such a reaction in an attempt to prevent or distort what is a natural response but this manipulation by minority activists cannot change the unease which many of us feel when public displays of homosexual behaviour are witnessed.

And, from a religious perspective, whatever arguments may rage about Christian teaching on the issue, this primeval instinct, deeply rooted within the essence of our being, which recognises the normality of relations between a man and a woman, rejects any deviation as abnormal.

[Tom Jackson]

"It is part of the normal distribution of sexuality that some people find themselves drawn to their own sex.".

I get the feeling, Jennifer, that judging the ferociousness of your attack on my comment, it would be impossible to convince you that I am neither 'stupid', 'pious', 'prejudiced, 'smug'. 'self-righteous', 'duplicitous' or 'nasty'. If you read some of my earlier comments in this blog over a long period of time and my admissions about myself as a ordinary guy, I believe there is little to support your attack.

In response to your questioning of the basis on which I make my observations, I would only question the basis on which you believe homosexuality is a 'normal distribution of sexuality'? I am not aware of any evidence to support the 'normality' expressed in this conclusion.

In contributing to a debate such as this, in a blog such as this, personally attacking another contributor is hardly a means of adding weight and substance to your comment.

[Jennifer Adams]

You are using the term abnormal pejoratively to make a judgement on people who do not have the sexual orientation you think they should have and can only express physical love with a member of their own sex, but otherwise do no harm to you. Terms like 'unnatural' and 'against the order of nature' might also be employed, if your fit-for-purpose argument is pressed home. Nothing can be called unnatural if people do it; it is unnatural to put your elbow in your ear - you can't - but would you think it unnatural for a man to put his penis into his wife's mouth? It is not fulfilling the purpose for which the parts were 'intended', surely? Similarly do you wear glasses, false teeth? Has anyone you know had a body-part transplant? None of this is natural - indeed in your use of the term these things could actually be called abnormal. The normal course of events is for your teeth to fall out once they rot. After we have reached the age at which we should have delivered our DNA nature takes no further interest in maintaining us. Isn't it entirely abnormal for humans to intervene against nature to prolong our survival? I can think of things like vaccinations, blood tranfusions which are hardly 'normal'. The truth is that not much of like is normal any longer.

If I was ferocious I apologise. You probably are a decent man. But I wonder why religious people who say they are heterosexual feel they have a licence to prescribe for other people of whose life they disapprove (I don't mean only their activities but their very existence because it doesn't fit into their worldview) - and then to think it is okay to use wounding expressions like 'abnormal' when talking about them.

[Mike Homfray]

Gay sexuality is perfectly normal for those who are gay by orientation.

And civil partnership is legally, virtually identical to civil marriage. Alan seems to be under the illusion that most people in the UK undergo the sort of Christian sacramental marriage he prefers. They don't. And that's not what the law reflects either.

basically, we see on this thread yet more conservative frustration that arguments in society are not going their way.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Jennifer,

Re homosexuality and other topics, I'm not peddling an anachronism but putting forth the classic Jewish position re sexuality. Yes, I can go into the various rule chapters and quote verses but I won't. Let us say that Israel traditionally upheld normal family life for a variety of reasons.

On a gut level, Jews have a poor sense of aesthetics. The Greeks who conquered us for a while gave us a good view of it and we hated it.

"Aesthetics" is not the sense of proportion in Doric or Ionic columns but the "beautiful youth" and his muscles. It revolted us. Doubly upsetting was the realization that there were renegades among us who copied these Greek poofs or, let us say, some of Israel realized where their true sexuality lay. It was not good.

What is good for the Greek is not good for the Jew.

[J Pearce]

Tom,

I don't disagree with your perception that some people find homosexuality distatsteful (it is far too scattergun to say that all heterosexual people find it so). I don't think it is acceptable to legislate to force people to think a certain way, in issues like these it should be down to a matter of individual choice.

But the problem is systemic, not individual. The Church institutionalises and perpetuates this "distaste". It teaches that homosexuality is perjoratively wrong and that personal opinions on the matter are to be superceded by ancient dogma. This is, by any other description, institutionalised homophobia! The Church is wilfully perpetuating prejudice against homosexuals as an institution. And it uses its power as an institution to manipulate both the individual and the body politic.

While it is perfectly acceptable for you to say to me that you, as an individual, find homosexuality problematic (but you do not act on that belief in a detrimental manner), is it acceptable for the Church as a whole to promulgate a prejudice against an entire section of otherwise innocent, law abiding members of society? And is acceptable for that institution to structurally reinforce that prejudice by denying homosexuals the opportunity to engage in society in the same manner that you would expect to be able to do?

The problem for westernised Christians is that mainstream society is moving to the position where it is no longer accpetable to institutionalise prejudice against a group of innocent people, based on little more than ancient religious doctrine (a move which, ironically, could be credited in part to the birth of the anti-slavery movement). Outside of Christianity, you no longer have any moral force behind your arguments. Christianity has essentially lost the argument over homosexuality in wider society. Hence this retreat into fallacious propoganda whenever the argument is played out - Christians who embrace their dogma wholeheartedly wheel out the usual canards of being "victimised" by some faceless, slavishly PC gay mafia - a statement of laughable hyperbole and a conscious form of dissimulation to avoid the real issue of human rights (which Christian dogma would essentially deny to homosexuals).

The truth is, gay rights organisations are winning the moral arguments in the wider crucible of public opinion and - crucially - with the lawmakers of this country. Not necessarily with showy, in-your-face stunts, but with reasoned moral argument. All this, despite the fact that many "normal" people would agree with your assertion that they personally find the idea of gay sex uncomfortable. As usual, Christians totally underestimate the capacity for people to hold a personal opinion but uphold an essentially contradictory wider moral principle.

Christian dogma on homosexuality has been rumbled, Tom. People are intelligent enough to ask obvious questions, such as "why are Christians so hung up on homosexuality and hell bent on forcing it as an issue, when they so conveniently neglect other equally important moral issues?". This obsession by Christians with one, small aspect of human sexuality is beginning to look faintly ridiculous.

[J Pearce]

Re: this side argument about what is "abnormal" or not. Homosexuality is "abnormal" ONLY in the sense that body parts used for procreation are not being used for procreation. Rather, they are being used for pleasure. And from the gay persepctive, they aren't trying to procreate when they engage in sexual behaviour anyway. Which short circuits the "its biologically abnormal" argument entirely, because if we to extend this argument to other aspects of human behaviour, we can immediately label football as "abnormal"!

As Jennifer points out above, the use of the term "abnormal" to describe homosexuality is done in purely perjorative terms, that is, it is an accusation made solely to demean and dehumanise the person engaging in the act. What is fact, is that homosexual behaviour has been part of the human condition for at least as long as records have existed. From a purely Darwinian standpoint, it has not impeded human progress (the population keeps rising but the percentage of homosexuals within the population stays relatively stable) and it is quite historically obvious that a majority heterosexual population can coexist easily with a minority homosexual one.

There are, therefore, no biological objections to homosexuality as such. The moral objections (sexual promiscuity) are applicable across the entire spectrum of human sexual orientation and not just confined to homosexuality - and the advent of civil partnerships voids the traditional Christian accusation of "sex without marriage" - and that’s even before we acknowledge that many gay people live lifelong commited partners anyway [NB - we'll ignore the usual Christian canard about their being "only" one form of marital partnership that works, because we know this claim to be utterly without foundation anyway].

This leaves us with the core Christian objection to homosexuality - unadulterated, irrational prejudice. While this is unavoidable at an individual level, the question that has to be asked is whether it is acceptable at the institutional and societal level. Should a corporate body such as the Church be allowed to peddle irrational prejudice such as institutionalised homophobia, in a democratic society where tolerance and freedom are given such high priorities?

(Note - for "irrational prejudice", read "interpretations of the Bible").

[Tom Jackson]

If you are familiar, Jennifer, with previous discussions that have taken place in this blog on the subject of homosexuality, you should be aware that no judgement is being made on my part where same-sex sexual activity is concerned.

Although I am correct in using the term 'abnormal' in describing homosexual behaviour, given the information currently available as to the reason why people of the same sex select each other as sexual partners, we simply do not know if homosexuality is, to quote you, 'against the order of nature'. It has been said before in discussion, 'the jury is still out' and there are those who believe environmental and social factors during vulnerable adolescence may still have a significant influence on determining one's sexual orientation.

You may see this from an individual's perspective. I respect that and have a great deal of sympathy for that perspective. My comments are not designed to wound anyone but this is not just about individuals.

It is about the desire to approve homosexuality as normal and where this issue is concerned, to allow homosexuals to assume positions of authority and responsibility in the Church, to ignore the deep understanding that many of us have that this would be against the teaching of Christ.

It is possible, if your analysis of homosexual activity and inclination is correct, that at some time in the future information will become available that will result in a re-think of this attitude. But, at this time, the Church has no alternative but to act according to our understanding of Christian beliefs.

Where normality is concerned, it is true that body-plant transplant is not natural or normal but most of us can see a difference in acceptability between a child receiving a donor heart and, to paraphrase another part of your comment, one man putting his penis in another man's mouth, (even more so if other orifices are involved).

Now, why is that? Why is one example of abnormal behaviour acceptable (transplanting a heart from one person who has no further use for it to another in order to prolong their life) and the other example, unacceptable (and I apologise if that reference proved too graphic for some contributors).

Is it just because the Christian Church instructs us to find homosexuality unacceptable, as J Pearce would have us believe? Or does the Christian teaching simply reinforce a response that is deeply ingrained within our being, within our psyche?

Think about paedophilia (and in no way am I suggesting there is any proven link between homosexuality and paedophiles per se).

Most of us accept paedophilia is abnormal. We don't understand why someone becomes a paedophile and it is generally understood that it is not a form of behaviour that is readily controlled or eliminated by the individual.

Given the revolution and liberalisation of sexual attitudes throughout a wide range of sexual activity since the 1960's (when I was an hormone-plagued adolescent), how come we still think paedophilia is unacceptable? What mechanism do we employ to decide what our attitude should be?

Exactly the same as described above. We know paedophilia is wrong from all sorts of perspective. It is a judgement call based on morality, experience, acceptability etc. etc. Homosexuality is not so clear-cut but resistance and rejection of accepting such activity as 'normal' is based in similar decision-making process.

[Tom Jackson]

"But the problem is systemic, not individual. "

This is basically, J Pearce, where we will never reach agreement. You always maintain that the Church as an institution is the aggressive initiator of any sense of abnormality where homosexuality is concerned where I would take a position where the Church's teaching primarily reflects that deep rooted sense in the majority of us that homosexuality is abhorrent.

In fact, as with so many other issues, the Church could not support such a perspective were it not for this primeval element in our psyche that rejects behaviour such as homosexuality.

Are homosexual organisations winning the moral argument where public opinion is concerned? They are certainly influencing lawmakers for the time being. But, for example, in the past minority Islamic groups have exerted a greater proportional influence in our country than their numbers would suggest as appropriate.

But, in the same way that the country is wakening up to consequences of allowing misuse of civil rights legislation where minority religious groups are concerned, who is to say that a similar outcome does not await the homosexual lobby? Repeal of the European Convention on Human Rights legislation is certainly a possible development in the not too distant future.

Your last point regarding Christians 'hung up on homosexuality ' at the expense of other important issues I have some sympathy with. I would like to see Christian leaders far more active and influential over many of the moral issues that allow suffering and abuse throughout the UK and the world.

But without being flippant, this situation is like trying to maintain order and direction in a well-established golf club where some members have decided that instead of playing the game with standard golf-clubs, it is now acceptable to bring in polo ponies on which to play 18 holes. The golf club members are soon aware that to allow such a development would not just ruin their golf course but the changes to the rules of play would completely disrupt and undermine the basis on which the club was formed.

Once the situation within the Anglican communion is resolved, I would certainly expect the energy and effort that has been shown where the homosexual issue is concerned, to be directed at tackling human suffering and persecution in our country and in our world.

[Jennifer Adams]

Emanuel Appel, I believe we are talking at cross purposes. My objection is to you and others claiming that the God 'plainly' condemns the whole phenomenon of homosexuality as we understand it, in the Hebrew phrase in Leviticus - ve-et-za-kar lo tish-kab mish-keb-e ish-ah to-e-vah hiv. A word for word translation is 'Male, not, you will rape (as) the raping (plural of persons) of a woman, error, it is', or 'Thou shall not rape a man as those who rape a woman, it is a error'. The Hebrew word 'sha-kab' a lot of times means rape when it is translated 'to lie with'. The Greek word 'arsenokoite' is also unclear but most unlikely to mean what we mean by 'homosexual'.

As for the classic Jewish position on sexuality, I leave that to the rabbis who in the liberal and reformed wings, at least, the vast majority, have concluded that the Bible is not against the loving relationships of ordinary same-sex people; it is fairly clear that the ancients meant something quite different and abusive than ordinary consensual same-sex relations.

[Alan Marsh]

As I don't suppose you have ever been married, Mr Homfray, you may not be aware that the commitment entered into by the couple in a civil marriage is very different indeed from the arrangements made for people to enter civil partnerships.

What the civil law expects in civil marriage is a commitment of one man and one woman to each other for life, to the exclusion of others. It does not use explicitly Christian language because it is a civil ceremony, but that is what happens, and those who use it do so because this is what they understand as marriage. Words, and particularly vows, convey meaning.

Although the government has gone out of its way to mimic civil marriage in its provision of legal partnerships, and in the rights which they confer, it has not provided the same form of words, and indeed no ceremony is necessary at the signing of a civil partnership, although it is permissible at the discretion of the registrar.

The legislation explicitly prohibits any religious ceremony at such an event. It does not require there to be any emotional or sexual relationship between the civil partners, or any commitment to be faithful to each other. They are not required to live in the same household or even in the same country. And most important of all it can not be a procreative relationship when the partners are of the same sex.

Those who like to imagine that it is somehow "marriage" will of course blur the sharp distinctions made by state and church, with "wedding" ceremonies and celebrations, and mimic married life.

But it is not marriage, which requires the union of male and female, according to Christian understanding and in the expectation also of the very many people who are not Christians but view this (as indeed it is) the appropriate context in which to live and to bring children into the world.

[Tom Jackson]

The "population keeps rising but the percentage of homosexuals within the population stays relatively stable".

I assume you have a source reference for this statement, J Pearce? Or are you being mischievous after all!

And " it is quite historically obvious that a majority heterosexual population can coexist easily with a minority homosexual one".

No argument there, J Pearce, provided, that is, the minority doesn't try to advance their behaviour as being normal, on a par with heterosexuals, expecting acknowledgement and recognition as such.

[Andrew Holden]

Who cares whethers something is normal or not? Being a Christian in the UK is not normal! What matters is whether something is acceptable to society - and that decision has largely been made. Beyond that there is an ethical discussion to be had about whether something is right or not.

Most western societies, and indeed most western people, are accepting and tolerant of homosexual behaviour so long as it is not abusive or predatorial. Whether homosexuality is natural, normal, genetic or environmental, part of the range of human sexuality or some sort of defect or handicap is all irrelevant. If sexuality can't be changed (or 'cured') then the thing that matters most is the question of how homosexual people behave - and why should the ethical questions have different answers according to sexuality? They shouldn't!

So sex is for grown-ups in loving and committed (non-abusive) relationships irrespective of sexual orientation. End of story? I wish......

[J Pearce]

Tom,

After some reasoned arguments, its disappointing to read your final statement:

"No argument there, J Pearce, provided, that is, the minority doesn't try to advance their behaviour as being normal, on a par with heterosexuals, expecting acknowledgement and recognition as such."

This comments validates every criticism I have levelled at religious prejudice above. Its sad (but not entirely surprising) to read a Christian make such a stereotypically denigrating statement. It would have been more accurate if you had appended "from Christians" to the sentence, though.

All this comment does is reinforce the increasingly recognised view that Christianity is, at heart, as deeply divisive and intolerant as, say, Islam. The façade may be more pleasant, but underneath, the same festering prejudices bubble away, looking for some innocent scapegoat to victimise.

Yesterday it was African slaves and Jews. Today its homosexuals. I wonder who it'll be tomorrow?

[Andrew Holden]

Alan, what exactly would you say, then, to *Christian* same-sex couples who want to enter into a loving and committed relationship, akin to marriage (though they probably don't care what it's actually called) and even (God forbid) might want to raise children within it?

It seems to me that that they are seeking something very like marriage as a *holy* context for their relationship precisely because they are trying to faithfuly honour Christ in their lives.

I guess you might say "go and sin no more!" but I guess they would say in response "Amen!".

[Tom Jackson]

"This comments validates every criticism I have levelled at religious prejudice above."

I can see, from your perspective J Pearce, that may appear so.

But, my observation merely records the fact that, historically, homosexuals have not sought to raise their profile to a level as acknowledged and accepted as heterosexuals.

Maybe this is the reason why, historically, 'a majority heterosexual population can coexist easily with a minority homosexual one'?

[Alan Marsh]

Andrew, whatever anyone wants to call such a relationship, it is not marriage, as it precludes procreation. The Christian faith (which we are discussing in this blog, not the mores of JPearce's secular world) is rooted firmly in the Bible, in which the only form of sexual union which is blessed is that of man and woman, after the pattern described in Genesis. Same sex union is contrary to the teaching of both Old and New Testaments as a form of disobedience to God - in other words, it is sinful.

Those who wish to honour Christ faithfully all have equal access to the Scriptures, and their meaning is equally well-known. Anyone who chooses in conscience to take a different view is free to do so, but can not expect the Church to bless and normalise something which is manifestly contrary to the word of God.

Tom,

What is the problem with homosexuals raising their profile to a level as acknowledged and accepted as human beings?

Christian dogma dehumanises gay people. Fact. (although no doubt this will raise howls of protestation and then the usual fudges about "loving the sinner but hating the sin" - which is the most conniving, gutless cop-out phrase I have ever encountered, a master class in double-speak a Muslim would be proud of).

I do not believe it is acceptable to dehumanise gays in the way that Christianity does, especially given the context of previous moral crimes carried out in the name of Christ, where various peoples have been dehumanised and then subjected to manifest horrors. You've got form, as they say.

We live in a society where all law-abiding people are regarded as equal and allowed to engage in society on an equal basis. Christianity would (and does) deny specific groups the right to do so - actively campaining in certain circumstances - based on a belief that certain legal sexual acts between consenting adults (and by extension, the actors involved) are "wrong" (or "abnormal", or "sinful", or "disordered", or whatever perjorative term happens to be in vogue). Looked at ob