Lambeth Diary: Gay Africans tell their stories

For today's story inThe Times go here. More detail below.

The video above shows extracts from a film, Voices of Witness Africa, made by Integrity USA featuring gay Africans from Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda telling their stories. Integrity wanted to bring them to the Lambeth Conference but most would have lost their jobs and hence ability to get visas if they had 'come out' of Africa in this way. So instead the lobby group sent a team headed by film editor Katie Sherrod, interviewed above, to Africa for two weeks to video their stories and bring them to Lambeth.

The result is an incredibly powerful and moving film which is to be sent to every one of the 880 bishops in the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion.

I was shown an exclusive preview of the film in St Stephen's Church Hall where this excluded community, including gay Bishop Gene Robinson, is hanging out during the Lambeth Conference. The hall, with its multitude of laptops, wires everywhere, splintering wooden floors and ramshackle tables and chairs, reminded me of nothing so much as an African mission post. Some excerpts from the film, which will be launched at the conference on Wednesday, are reproduced above.

The stories include a transgendered male-to-female Nigerian, a partnered lesbian activist in Uganda, a transgendered male-to-female Ugandan, a Kenyan who was abused along with his twin brother by an uncle, a gay Ugandan farmer, gay partners in Kenya who dream of having their union blessed and a gay Nigerian who was beaten badly simply for being gay.

Considering the penalties in Africa for being actively gay - in Uganda it carries a life sentence - these people must be applauded for their bravery.

There can be no doubt that the Anglican Communion is moving in the direction of inclusivity. With barely 100 conservative bishops here in Canterbury and 230 boycotting the conference, the conservative voice is unlikely to prevail.

Witness the sermon at the conference service at Canterbury cathedral this morning from Sri Lankan bishop Duleep de Chickera, who himself once boycotted Britain in a protest at our foreign policy towards his country. Anglican Mainstream has posted a text of the bishop's sermon. My own news story is now online. See also Rachel Zoll's story for AP.

'Here my sisters and brothers is an insight of what the church is called to be. an inclusive communion where there is space equally for everyone and anyone, regardless of colour, gender, sexual orientation, ability.  Unity in diversity is a cherished Anglican tradition a spirituality which we must reinforce in all humility for the sake of Christ and Christ's gospel.'

Take into account that the Bishop was invited by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, and so can be assumed to carry his imprimateur, this is a pretty significant indication of where the Communion is going. Tomorrow the Archbishops go into their 'indaba' groups. For what this actually means, you can read Rowan Williams' reflections on Indaba here .

The Archbishop's presidential address this evening can also be downloaded here . Here's a couple of pars as tasters:

We all know that we stand in the middle of one of the most severe challenges to have faced the Anglican family in its history.  But at the same time, we shouldn’t assume that this is the worst of times.  The very first Lambeth Conference met against the background of bitter controversy in Southern Africa and fierce disputes about who was a ‘proper’ bishop and who wasn’t.  And if we go back in Church history to the early centuries of the Christian community, we find once again the record of councils meeting in an atmosphere of some suspicion and fear, with people not being at all sure who was supposed to be in charge and who ought and ought not to be present.  We haven’t just invented church divisions in the last ten years or so; and there never was a golden age for the Anglican Communion or for the wider Church of God.

..........

It’s my conviction that the option to which we are being led is one whose keywords are of council and covenant.  It is the vision of an Anglicanism whose diversity is limited not by centralised control but by consent – consent based on a serious common assessment of the implications of local change.  How do we genuinely think together about diverse local challenges?  If we can find ways of answering this, we shall have discovered an Anglicanism in which prayerful consultation is routine and accepted and understood as part of what is entailed in belonging to a fellowship that is more than local.  The entire Church is present in every local church assembled around the Lord’s table.  Yet the local church alone is never the entire Church.  We are called to see this not as a circle to be squared but as an invitation to be more and more lovingly engaged with each other.

The photo at the top comes from BabyBlue. More photos are available from the conference organisers on Flickr.

(Integrity USA will present Voices of Witness Africa at 8pm on Wednesday July 23 in the Keynes College Room at Kent University, Canterbury as part of the Lambeth Conference fringe programme.)

Comments

[George Parr]

Oh what ARE we going to do with these tiresome homosexuals - (women, acerbic journalists, liberals, free-thinkers, rogue priests, social commentators and all others we can no longer control)?

They are absolutely RUINING our holy communion - (impression of ourselves, years of conscious self-fashioning, inflated feelings of self-worth, notions of academic superiority, distinct social classification, pompous moralising, heaven-bound composite, male power base, privileged governmental position, Aristotelian concept of Magnificence).

We must urgently seek to heal the wounds in the Anglican Church - (fire the Archbishops with immediate effect, salvage SOMETHING out of this mess, agree to differ without admitting anything, wage a pathetic war on secularism, or just silently withdraw with dignity).

There is absolutely NOTHING else that we can do apart from maintain urgent dialogue - (run screaming, become hippies, apply to Rome, engage some common sense, throw out the phobics, admit we got it wrong, treat women and diverse sexuality in the same way the rest of society does). Sorry? What was that last...?

Preacher Beekman gets away with it simply by wishing everyone a nice day. Why can't WE!!

[George Parr]

Arguably, since there is a considerable consensus on human rights issues, society demonstrates in many ways that it wishes to prevent those who wish to vilify others through age, race, sexuality or gender.

The Christian 'anti-homosexual agenda' has influenced society for centuries discriminating against and seeking to silence other human beings. It continues in an attenuated form through campaigning zealots like Mr Transformer-Smith who, appropriately, appears to set himself either aside or above the liberal mainstream.

[David Smith]

Mersey Mike:
'Its fairly simple, really, David. Just put forward a straightforward appeal for people to be treated fairly.'

I'm all for that, Mike.

The problem is - as both yours and my previous posts show - that the pro-homosex agenda goes way beyond this. It wants the complete silencing of any views different to its own, and by any means - no matter how dishonest or slanderous.

[George Parr]

Re David Smith:

1) Kirk and Madsen wrote on this subject nearly thirty years ago. The cultural context could not have been more different.

2) The passage in heavy type, outlining the supposed causes of homosexuality, do not take into account the science since 1980.

3) Since a significant percentage of the population, being gay and lesbian (or variants) were heavily marginalised and discrimated against up until the second half of the last century, these strategies are clearly designed to reduce guilt and address the problem. Whilst slow progress was evident by 1980 some sensible tactics were still required.

4) Gradations of acceptance and nuances of popular introduction are sought because of heavy residual prejudice, violence and denigration.

5) It was therefore wise not to require instant support for homosexual practice but to advance a policy of anti-discrimination.

6) A cogent comparison is made with racism. A similar strategy applied; no direct confrontation or enforcement, but an introduction of cultural values and conciliation, achieved by many of the means suggested here.

7) With violence and discrimination so high, strong measures were needed, without which the whole process of integration, social change or human rights parity would have taken far longer.

8) Since the text describes gays as victims, which they undoubtedly are, Smith's use of heavy type seeks to present this as a device employed to elicit undeserved sympathy.

9) The choice of passages above and use of heavy type are clearly designed to influence thinking even though, ironically, Smith's own case relies on the denigration of such tactics.

Highlighting perceived subterfuge within this context is intended to present only a partial case, and to paint Kirk and Madsen in a bad light. Smith also ignores historical context which, in part, has led to the production of this book and he writes from a biased Christian perspective. If Kirk and Madsen were addressing only 'right wing' Christians, and it was generally accepted that these Christians were either representational or that they had any sort of case, Smith's obvious highlighting of the authors' politics might have meaning for right wing bigots. But, arguably, countering 'God's design' is not key to the ethos of the text, whereas countering long term discrimination certainly is.

Smith's catalogue of perceived 'stealth' and 'dishonesty' on the part of the authors merely describes a shift in how thinking gays and lesbians addressed their own sexuality. It also presented an opportunity for the empowerment of a minority through a collective. It includes thoughtful tactics to influence a culture which was very slow in accepting them. The text is as much about increasing self-worth as finding workable ways of seeking acceptance from the mainstream.

Smith again shows his hand and indicates that he is unprepared to accept some human beings because of their sexuality. For me, there is implied vehemence within his post, which surely calls into question whether or not he achieves any form of human balance in the counselling he offers homosexuals.

In quoting from Kirk and Madsen, he clearly believes that he will convince others of some sort of conspiracy which has a relevance. He implies that Andrew and others have been hoodwinked into accepting something they were unable accurately to assess for themselves. In doing so he draws a distinction between himself and others. Arguably, many here are dialecticians and I have to agree with Merseymike that Smith's divinely-inspired case for challenging the text he quotes merely reinforces his own prejudices in this respect. On the one hand he is fooling no-one, on the other in presenting this as evidence he has achieved yet another own goal.

[Christopher]

Well Andrew, after that Uriah-Heapish affirmation David Smith finally disagrees with your interpretation of Romans 1. No matter that your critique points to one of the strangest anomalies in the text, that their same-sex desire was executed as a PUNISHMENT, he fails to explain that. Instead he wishes the text away with a reference to the dogmatic normality of heterosexuality. Then he thinks he will bamboozle the rest of us with his homo version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Even if these two authors are 'activists' and did actually pen this as a serious contribution to the methodology of debate, so what? Does the conclusion that David Smith tries to get you to draw, make any sense - that the rest of us who disagree with him on this blog are employing such techniiques? We don't vilify him, as he puts it, because we think his arguments might otherwise be taken seriously. We disagree with him, often profoundly and may express our disagreement robustly. If it shows as irritation with him for his persistent avoidance of awkward questions and failure to engage with anyone honestly, that's because we don't buy his painting himself as the good guy. Nobody believes that. His anti-Catholic rants in the past have been almost more offensive than his homophobia, dualistically expressed as love for homosexualS/ hatred for homosexualITY. Some of us have not been afraid to say we think his self-righteous mission to convert gay people sounds very dodgy and his obsession with the subject indicates that there may be more to his motives than he wants us to see. He has been very shy to talk about what his industry actually entails or tell us how much he charges, except to say that certain nameless GPs (presumably sharing his belief in such practices of doubtful efficacity) have 'referred' patients to him, despite the fact that he has no recognised clinical qualification. To say that seems reprehensible and unprofessional conduct is hardly the same as villifying him.

[Kate]

Spot on Mike - he 'does the job' VERY effectively. Vile screeds of anti-homosexual propaganda 'cut and pasted' by David Smith and his one, albeit erstwhile 'admirer', the NOT lamented Jill, litter this site.

All 'them homos' (world-wide) engaged in a vast conspiracy to achieve world domination! WHERE have we heard it before? Ah yes... silly me. 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'. Same song, different scapegoats.

Clearly too, Andrew Holden, having undertaken the required years of theological study before and after ordination, is, in debating with the Chosen One, incapable of acceptable exegesis.

Indeed, along with all those who have fought (even died) for basic civil and human rights, he has been:

"completely taken in by the stealthy, almost wholly dishonest (but nonetheless deliberate, long-term, and effective) strategy of the leaders of the pro-homosex movement.."!!

Ummh ... when do the 'transports' start David?

[Merseymike]

Its fairly simple, really, David. Just put forward a straightforward appeal for people to be treated fairly. And yes, that means that beliefs such as yours be shown clearly for what they are - anti-gay homophobia. Generally, you do the job for us.

A member of the conservative Shadow cabinet celebrated his civil partnership in the UK over the weekend. It was attended by most of the leading lights in the Conservative party. Do you seriously think that the beliefs of conservative Christianity will hold away here?

[David Smith]

Andrew Holden:
‘David…Romans 1…talks about men and women 'abandoning' their natural attraction for a perverted attraction to that which is contrary to their nature. This can hardly apply to people to whom sexual attraction to their own sex is actually normal/natural.. ‘

Andrew, I know that you strongly disagree with many of my beliefs and positions on this and other topics. But thank you for always engaging with me and expressing your point of view robustly but without resorting to personal abuse. I appreciate this per se, but also because it means that the issues themselves get discussed productively and without, in the end, unproductive and time-wasting detours.

Now, I totally disagree with your reading, or, more accurately re-writing, of Romans 1.

The distinction that this chapter (and verses 26 and 27, in particular) clearly makes is not between those who engage in what is subjectively natural to them personally (whether heterosex or homosex) and what is not, but rather between heterosexual sex (which is right and natural in God’s created order) and sex between people of the same sex (which is always wrong and unnatural). To suggest otherwise is simply to imaginatively add to the text something that it does not say.

It sounds to me, from what you write here and elsewhere as a whole, as if you are among those who have been completely taken in by the stealthy, almost wholly dishonest (but nonetheless deliberate, long-term, and effective) strategy of the leaders of the pro-homosex movement - not only to win over ‘straights’ to the cause of homosex, but also to silence all opposition from those who think it’s not part of God’s design.

One of the places where this strategy is best set out is in the writings in the 1980’s of two American homosexual men, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. I am going to quote it here at some length because I think that you and others may find it revealing, and because I think it will explain and expose the true nature of, and agenda behind, many of the hostile and derogatory tactics adopted and posts written (whether in knowledge of being a part of this agenda or not) by certain pro-homosex posters on this blog against people like me, who have said – without personal vitriol of any kind - no more essentially than that they believe homosex is wrong:

“EIGHT PRACTICAL PRINCIPLES FOR THE PERSUASION OF STRAIGHTS

1. Don’t just express yourself: Communicate!

Communication, then, not self-expression, is the basis of a mass-media campaign. To achieve it, every public message in the campaign should be the direct result of gays having put themselves in the public’s binding high-button shoes and asked: If I were straight and felt the hostility most straights feel towards gays, what would it take to get me to change my anti-gay feeling? In other words, don’t start by determining what you most wish to tell straights: START BY DETERMINING WHAT THEY MOST NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU.

2. Appeal to the skeptics.

Ambivalent Skeptics [the undecided middle] are our most promising target. If we can win them over, produce a major realignment solidly in favour of gay rights, THE INTRANSIGENTS [THE HARD-LINE ANTI-GAYS] (like the racists of twenty years ago) WILL EVENTUALLY BE EFFECTIVELY SILENCED by both law and polite society. Our friends, on the other hand, will be emboldened to support our interests more aggressively.

3. Keep talking.

The fastest way to convince straights that homosexuality is commonplace is to get a lot of people talking about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open, frank talk makes gayness SEEM less furtive, alien, and sinful: more aboveboard. Constant talk BUILDS THE IMPRESSION that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizeable bloc – the most modern, up-to-date citizens – accept or even practise homosexuality…The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome…In the early stages of the campaign, THE PUBLIC SHOULD NOT BE SHOCKED AND REPELLED BY PREMATURE EXPOSURE TO HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOUR ITSELF. Instead, the IMAGERY OF SEX PER SE SHOULD BE DOWNPLAYED, and the issue of gay rights reduced, as far as possible, to an abstract social question.

4. Keep the message focused.

The movement should eagerly ally itself with large, mainstream groups that can actually advance our interests (e.g. the Democratic Party, the National Organisation for Women, or the Presbyterian Church). But even then we should DEMAND to see some major public demonstration of their commitment to our cause before we rush to commit to theirs.

5. Portray gays as victims of circumstance and oppression, not as aggressive challengers.

In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be PORTRAYED AS VICTIMS IN NEED OF PROTECTION so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. If gays present themselves instead as a strong and arrogant tribe promoting a defiantly non-conformist lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that warrants resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our gay pride publicly to such an extent that we undermine OUR VICTIM IMAGE..

An effective media campaign would make use of symbols and spokespersons that…induce the straight majority to lower its guard…Persons featured in the media campaign should be wholesome and admirable by straight standards, and completely unexceptional in appearance..

The public SHOULD BE PERSUADED THAT GAYS ARE VICTIMS OF CIRCUMSTANCE, that they no more chose their sexual orientation than they did, say, their height, skin color, talents, or limitations. (We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay – EVEN THOUGH SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FOR MOST HUMANS, SEEMS TO BE THE PRODUCT OF A COMPLEX INTERACTION BETWEEN INNATE PREDISPOSITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS DURING CHILDHOOD AND EARLY ADOLESCENCE)…Straights MUST BE TAUGHT that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is for others to heterosexual: wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it. And since no choice is involved, gayness can be no more blameworthy than straightness.

6. Give potential protectors a just cause.

Few straight women, and fewer straight men, will be bold enough to defend homosexuality per se. Most would rather attach their awakened protective impulse to some principle of justice or law, some general desire for consistent and fair treatment in society. Thus OUR CAMPAIGN SHOULD NOT DEMAND EXPLICIT SUPPORT FOR HOMOSEXUAL PRACTISES, BUT SHOULD INSTEAD TAKE ANTIDISCRIMINATION AS ITS THEME. Fundamental freedoms…basic fairness and decency toward all of humanity – these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign.

7. Make gays look good.

In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights, you have to portray him as Everyman. To hasten…the conversion of straights, strongly favourable images of gays must be set before the public. The campaign SHOULD PAINT gay man and lesbians as superior – veritable pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know, this trick is so old it creaks.

8. Make victimizers look bad.

The objective is to make homohating beliefs and actions look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from them…We also intend, BY THIS TACTIC, TO MAKE THE VERY EXPRESSION OF HOMOHATRED SO DISCREDITABLE THAT EVEN THE INTRANSIGENTS WILL EVENTUALLY BE SILENCED IN PUBLIC – much as rabid racists and anti-Semites are today.

The best way to make homohatred look bad is TO VILIFY those who victimize gays…In TV and print, images of victimizers can be combined with those of the gay victims by a method propagandists call the ‘bracket technique’…The effect is devastating. Etc. etc.”

Recognise any of these principles being put into practise, Andrew, in what you have seen and heard - over the years; on this blog; or in this very thread?

[George Parr]

David, various faiths have been writing prescriptions for 'what is good for us' since time immemorial. Their representatives are awarded high profile coverage, some sponsored by us. It has become very obvious since around the middle of the last century that thinly-disguised authoritarianism has been serving those who back up their systems of control with guilt amid groundless calls for repentance - very little of which is 'good for us ' at all in actual fact.

'Choosing' to discriminate between fellow human beings, within a society that itself is seeking to become more egalitarian, is a deeply unattractive aspect of faith groups. No amount of divine justification, itself balancing precariously in thin air, will absolve the 'holy' perpetrators.

How can advancing degrees of fairness and tolerance to those who have been ignored or marginalised, simply through gender or sexuality, be labelled as totalitarian? It's the law of inversion isn't it? The low ratio of dissent over these issues belies it. 'Traditionalists' appear to be pursuing their own self-reverential agenda - painting themselves as dysfunctional bigots in the process.

[David Cohen]

That's exactly the problem for you, George.

"Choice = discrimination" according to your view.

The logical outcome of which is to deny choice, in a system which becomes progressively totalitarian, because it thinks it knows what is good for us.

[George Parr]

Essentialism regarding the Christian understanding of sexuality seems to me unlikely within a human context - it's a choice. David Cohen can use various distinguishing terms, pretending that ethical differences exist between 'secular' and 'religious' etc. But few would agree that normative sexual activity is something wholly defined or restricted by dogma, or ideologies - although Mr Cohen is of course equally free to apply dogmatic principles to the way he lives his life.

The problem is that life does not neatly fit the narrow behavioural definitions that some Christians apply to its regulation. There is no black and white mode of human existence, with circumstance an abstract annoyance that can be swiched on or off.

Discriminating against others who do not share his point of view is another matter however.

[David Cohen]

"Where does enjoying a varied and robust sex life end and promiscuity begin?"

The definition for Christians is perfectly simple: the only place for sexual experience is within Christian marriage.

Mr Parr is free to think and act otherwise in his secular society. Christians have a very different understanding of sexuality.

[George Parr]

Andrew, the ongoing debate over this issue precisely centres on whether or not variations in sexuality describe a natural human condition. If so, the furor and prejudice surrounding the way gays and lesbians have been regarded as evil hedonists, or ungodly sinners able to exercise choice, can be seen as misplaced.

Ideally (I use the word advisedly...) it might then be relegated to a misunderstanding by both biblical literalists and the ancients they are quoting, although I agree that for some its relevance might not impact on dogmatic views.

Non-consensual sex, or sexual contact that is abusive, harmful or predatory form part of a different issue. Promiscuity is a life-choice isn't it, with those defining it as morally wrong identifying themselves with more than a hint of prejudice and control? Is it 'most'?

Where does enjoying a varied and robust sex life end and promiscuity begin? Is it a question of responsibility, or a subjective judgment made in isolation?

[andrew holden]

"Given the wealth of biological science surrounding this issue, which includes studies of genetic tendencies or provides evidence supporting the theory that sexuality is defined in the womb, residual religious discrimination appears to be stubbornly long."

I think that the nurture/nature debate is actually irrelevant anyway. The real question is whether or not sexuality is a 'given' of the human condition. Leopards don't change their spots and people don't change their sexuality. Alleged proof of 'transformation' is actually explained by some people being bi-sexual or just plain confused.

Once the giveness of sexuality is accepted the moral questions devolve to the same ones that everyone faces. Sexuality should be a beneficial and positive part of human nature for recreation, for relational nurturing and for procreation. Of course it doesn't have to be all these things at the same time (unless you are a devout and obedient Roman Catholic) otherwise I would have had to give up sex years ago when I had a vasectomy!

Morally most agree that the negative limits to sexual activity are defined by concepts of hurt to self and others. Sex that is abusive, non-consensual, predatory or promiscous is recognised as being wrong by most people, irrespective of religion or moral philosophy.

[George Parr]

Given the wealth of biological science surrounding this issue, which includes studies of genetic tendencies or provides evidence supporting the theory that sexuality is defined in the womb, residual religious discrimination appears to be stubbornly long.

At what point are biased religious commentators going to concede that the wide spectrum of human sexuality represents 'normality'?

It is destructive and pointless to demonise a large section of the community, gay, lesbian, bi-sexual (or variations and gradations) because they do not conform to a woefully limited and ancient Christian heterosexual perspective.

Those claiming that any deviation from heterosexuality constitutes 'sinning' or is a result of possession by devils or other fictional nonsense appear to be willingly embracing prejudice. They present as obsessed by their own constructed identities and are using selected biblical texts as an excuse.

This blinkered view seems to be as much a fear of change as religious bias, or an unwillingness to concede that a modicum of dubiety might exist over their position.
It may also be that homophobia represents a degree of learnt behaviour that these unrelenting people remain comfortable with.

In the continual fictive battle that some Christians propose exists between God and Satan, to fixate upon likely targets allows a degree of self-justification; allying gays and lesbians with evil, conveniently throws their own magnificent piety into stark relief.

[Christopher]

"Unjust and vicious accusation of those who simply disagree with you, particularly on the rights and wrongs of homosex, is something that I will not simply sit by and let go limitlessly."

That's the nub of it, isn't it 'homosex' 'particularly'? I think you have just admitted it is you David, not Kate, who is obsessed with the subject. Religious homophobia may often be a smoke-screen for some inner darkness, but what is certain is that it is seriously damaging to the safety and well-being of gay people. It treats them as pariahs and makes them doubt that they too are children of God - and Desmond Tutu has said this must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy. It encourages gay-bashing and gives comfort and apparent justification to the evil-doers. Stephen Green has admitted that the fascist thugs of the BNP had taken to copying his anti-gay tactics.

Kate has grasped Jesus's message better than you it seems, and as a loving and caring mother she is right that bigotry should be challenged at every turn, whether it is yours, or the hateful Iris Robinson's or Stephen Green's.

[Christopher]

"Unjust and vicious accusation of those who simply disagree with you, particularly on the rights and wrongs of homosex, is something that I will not simply sit by and let go limitlessly."

That's the nub of it, isn't it 'homosex' 'particularly'? I think you have just admitted it is you David, not Kate, who is obsessed with the subject. Religious homophobia may often be a smoke-screen for some inner darkness, but what is certain is that it is seriously damaging to the safety and well-being of gay people. It treats them as pariahs and makes them doubt that they too are children of God - and Desmond Tutu has said this must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy. It encourages gay-bashing and gives comfort and apparent justification to the evil-doers. Stephen Green has admitted that the fascist thugs of the BNP had taken to copying his anti-gay tactics.

Kate has grasped Jesus's message better than you it seems, and as a loving and caring mother she is right that bigotry should be challenged at every turn, whether it is yours, or the hateful Iris Robinson's or Stephen Green's.

[Julie]

"Unjust and vicious accusation of those who simply disagree with you, particularly on the rights and wrongs of homosex, is something that I will not simply sit by and let go limitlessly."

That's the nub of it, isn't it 'homosex' 'particularly'? I think you have just admitted it is you David, not Kate, who is obsessed with the subject. Religious homophobia may often be a smoke-screen for some inner darkness, but what is certain is that it is seriously damaging to the safety and well-being of gay people. It treats them as pariahs and makes them doubt that they too are children of God - and Desmond Tutu has said this must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy. It encourages gay-bashing and gives comfort and apparent justification to the evil-doers. Stephen Green has admitted that the fascist thugs of the BNP had taken to copying his anti-gay tactics.

Kate has grasped Jesus's message better than you it seems, and as a loving and caring mother she is right that bigotry should be challenged at every turn, whether it is yours, or the hateful Iris Robinson's or Stephen Green's.

[Merseymike]

Given David Smith's so-called 'ministry', I think that hatred is a pretty easy conclusion to come to.

Essentially, you either value gay and lesbian relationships and view them as the moral equivalent of heterosexual relationships, or you don;t. And if you don't, then I think homophobic and prejudiced are simply descriptors.

[David Smith]

Kate:
'David Smith - mean-spirited obsession with me serves no purpose. I am not the TOPIC of this thread.

You are more to be PITIED than laughed at.'

I should say that 'mean-spirited obsession' with ME is precisely what YOU exhibit in your last post about me.

I made just one point - about your liberal use of the word 'hater' to describe almost anyone who thinks homosex is wrong. In response you spew out a catalogue of negative falsehoods about me.

You seem to interpret absolutely everything I do or say in a bad light, and then proceed to tell everyone about this at some length.

For example, if I don't blog for a while I've 'skulked away'. A couple of posts after I return, I then become a 'paranoid stalker'.

So just who is making who the topic of this thread? It seems I have only to be here for you to begin to make me this.

I've lost count of the number of times I've said to you that if you don't want to attract negative posts from me, just stop the unfounded, unsupported, slanderous, hateful personal abuse against me and other people.

Unjust and vicious accusation of those who simply disagree with you, particularly on the rights and wrongs of homosex, is something that I will not simply sit by and let go limitlessly.

Why, I really do wonder, is it so hard for someone with your undoubted powers of comprehension to take this on board?

[George Parr]

But David Smith, so far, is unable to demonstrate, in any way, how a multiplicity of arguments, from Christians and others supporting the rights of gays and lesbians have been sucessfully 'countered', or how or why they have 'failed'.

He has been unable to demonstrate a credible formula in support of his unlikely 'ministry' to change human sexuality from one state to another. He claims he consults and receives divine instruction, which is unproven and unfeasible.

Possibly in an attempt to silence vociferous critics, he related a case study from a homosexual who had allegedly received counselling from him, which he claimed was successful. The 'counselling' took four hours. In doing so he caused others to question his ethics regarding confidentiality.

He appears to have no recognised qualifications. If he has he has not to my knowledge listed them.

He ranks amongst the few who regard gay and lesbian sexuality as a sin; learnt behaviour, which is a manifestation of evil and which through the acceptance of divine intervention can be changed. In his case, if I understand Mr Smith correctly this involves submitting to an undisclosed and varying formula prescribed by him, through God.

He claims that recognised but unspecified agencies send guilty and unhappy homosexuals to him, a subject upon which he does not enlarge.

He has claimed, I believe that his silence on these matters is brought about by sundry organisations such as Stonewall who have an interest in protecting gay and lesbian people from discrimination.

He may be well-meaning, but some people appear to take the view that the process he describes is bizarre, unethical, wildly optimistic and a judgmental statement regarding the worth of some human beings.

[Kate]

David Smith - mean-spirited obsession with me serves no purpose. I am not the TOPIC of this thread.

You are more to be PITIED than laughed at.

[David Smith]

Kate:
'Kate-hate' is a staple of the David Smith...mendacity...perfect example of the paranoid 'stalker' in action...a proven faker. A man who has...betrayed...confidentiality. A man who skulks away...Comprehension...is not a DSmith strong point...nothing there, other than over-wheening ego and a desperate 'need' for attention...etc etc'

I have already said of Kate's use of the H(hate)-word: Anyone who has followed this blog for any length of time will know that, when (or perhaps I should say since) all the other 'arguments' of those either involved in or supportive of homosex have been countered and so failed, this is now the only tactic they have left to resort to.

But there is, of course, another trusty instrument of last resort for such people: gratuitous, unsupported personal abuse.

[Kate]

Thank you Andrew: I WAS making a general statement on the tenor of the debate - as have others.

I then dealt (in a separate paragraph) with one example of immoderate personal outrage which (from my reading) objected to the 'right' of gay Africans to be 'heard'.

I hope you are correct in surmising people might be more courteous if debating face-to-face. I fear I doubt that.

It is both distressing and shocking, to witness, not only deeply held personal convictions, but also the traditional and honourable role of the Anglican foundation, trashed. Trashed by a vocal minority in the western church who claim spiritual superiority and self-anointed authority.

Trashed and 'revised' by foreign prelates elevated to leadership in cultures far removed from the influence and thinking of such as Richard Hooker, Frederick Denison Maurice, William Temple, Kenneth Kirk.

These names in themselves are a stirring example of what we have always been, and are, the VIA MEDIA. The 'reform' revisionists show by crude denigration only disrespect. Anglicanism is neither a fundamentalist creed, nor is it ruled by the absolute legalistic dogma favoured by Rome.

The complexity of Anglicanism's chosen role is that it could and has, embraced both and more. I see it as a rather unwieldy, congregation of individual churches and cultures which claim historical connections with the original Church of England.

No quarter is given to the grief this display of bad faith and selfish ambition has caused in the bewildered faithful. While the media has a field-day, people, at least in those contented congregations in Ireland and England with whom I have contact, ask: what in the Name of God is happening; who are these people?

WHO indeed? The 'bums on seats' obsession - figures in the millions issued by Global South - is tantamount to theatre management. Numbers in Africa are just that. Are we to change our faith to accommodate numbers? Numbers who generally have no concept of the meaning of the foundation to which they now lay claim.

Western Anglicans are aware that, unlike Rome, each province affiliated to the English Church has been granted cultural or territorial autonomy. Each is self-governing.

Those who complain they are merely exercising that autonomy in usurping the mother Church and 'expelling' its Episcopalian affiliate are guilty of casuistry. Anglicanism has no international juridical authority but they are trying to impose precisely that based on their own assumption of authority and numbers.

It is an abuse of the symbolic 'communion' by a rag-bag of fundamentalists on one hand and, on the other, authoritarians who seek the heavy hand of Roman dominance.

[andrew holden]

"This is the first sentence of "Kate's" post:
"The hatred here is palpable." Go back and read more carefully." "

I did. My initial assumption was that Kate was speaking generally about the thread. Careful reading still suggests that this is indeed the case - though I can understand, since Kate immediately turns her focus onto Julia's posts, why she might think she is the tatget of the remark.

Others have drawn the same general assumption - but I think such generalisations are problematic in a blog where appearances can be so deceptive. Would we really be so rude to each other if we were debating face to face?

[Kate]

Dear George Parr:

Another 'resurrection' of the dead-alive. Wonderful how any topic which includes reference to homosexuality re-energises Dave & Geoff. The infallible duo.

Kate-hate' is a staple of the David Smith, carefully nurtured, swamp of mendacity. Were it to change to 'Kate-approval' I would understand myself to have lost all integrity and intelligence.

This is a perfect example of the paranoid 'stalker' in action. A perfect example of the isolation of a proven faker. A man who has, in his own postings, betrayed the paramount obligation of counselling - confidentiality. A man who skulks away when the evidence against him is overwhelming.

My post to Julia had, of course, little to do with the rights and wrongs of homosexuality but of Anglicanism as via media; of provinces as autonomous, and of the disgraceful exhibition of rage and rudeness that the presence of TEC at Lambeth has invoked.

Comprehension, as we have proved so many times, is not a DSmith strong point - I suggest you ignore yet more tedious attempts at unsustainable pedantry; unsustainable because it is long proven there is no substance to the Transformer. There is nothing there, other than over-wheening ego and a desperate 'need' for attention.

If, in the midst of Anglican trauma, anyone reading this is interested in the veracity or even the opinions, of David Smith - Super Christian and Transformer of homosexual orientation in a matter of hours(!!), check out ANY thread on homosexuality and note the chief perpetrator of the "H-lie ... tactic of last resort."

[George Parr]

Dear Mr Smith, I am wholly unconcerned about whether or not you reply to my posts. I regard your comments about what I write with complete indifference. Your tone suggests to me that to receive some sort of reply from you is the unstated craving of all contributors.

You, predictably, have addressed the packaging and not the content, from which I presume that you have no evidence whatsoever to support your assertion that the arguments of others over unbridled dsicrimination towards gays and lesbians have been countered and as a result have failed.

Perhaps 'hate' was too strong a word and should be seen as rhetorical, albeit I believe that you have often used it in the past to describe wrongly my own attitude, during exchanges over this issue.

In seeking to drum up support for your unorthodox stance you equally pop up 'bang on cue' to denigrate Kate's posts, seemingly in an attempt to achieve some sort of bond with the few who challenge her views. In stark contrast to your own these unfailingly display logic, understanding and common sense, despite her passionate and therefore robust delivery.

Your allies are few Mr Smith, because your position is self-reverential, has little relevance within a contemporary cultural context and unfortunately is an advertisement for exactly what you stand for.

[David Smith]

Humane-itas/George Parr:
'So, Kate-hating appears to be another feature of our resident transformer's repertoire.. '

Well done, Hugh/George, bang on cue.

In this very first sentence of your post, far from actually proving me wrong about Kate or yourself, you obligingly and boomingly underline the very point I made to Julia about the H-lie being the tactic of last resort of the pro-homosex lobby.

As I have said to you on another thread, start your posts to me with something other than an oft-repeated untruth about me (or in this case two untruths) and I may then consider actually reading them through and responding to them.

[Julia]

Selective reading, Matt? This is the first sentence of "Kate's" post:
"The hatred here is palpable." Go back and read more carefully.

Merseymike: Where did I express "bigotry?" Please quote anything I've said that attacks GLBTs. And, sorry, saying that one is tired of this issue taking up all of the church's time and attention isn't "bigotry."

Loved your message, though, which translates into "agree with me or you're a bigot." Where's the "tolerance" and "inclusion," huh? Thanks for showing us how clearly intolerant your side is.

[David Cohen]

That's a deeply racist point of view, Dr Homfray. How does it play in PC polytechnic-land?

[Malcolm+]

"Christians around the world are being attacked and killed because of what TEC has done . . ."

Since Ruth doesn't like us to use a certain three-letter word beginning with "L," I offer some alternatives.

"Tripe."

"Crap."

"Hokum."

"Hornswoggle."

"Bovine excrement."

"Canard."

"S***e."

Probably enough for now.

[Kate]

Oh and Julia! Ever heard of inversion? You know - the offender blaming the victim e.g. the 7/7 bombers blamed the British government for their actions.

Julia writes: "TEC's actions and VGR's incessant touring and speaking engagements have put the homosexuals in increased danger, as well???"

a) The retarded lout who seeks out and attacks homosexuals has never heard of TEC.

b) The language of difference, discrimination and 'sin' reported in the media is certainly NOT coming from TEC.

[Kate]

Julia: "Christians around the world are being attacked and killed because of what TEC has done"

Pardon me? Do you posit this as a rational statement? Or just something else you 'think' but do not 'believe'?

That you choose to condemn without reading my full text is, of course, entirely up to you. I did mention something about a deficit of good manners. Anger is no excuse for rudeness.

However, had you read, you might have learned something - about the altruism of TEC; about my empathy of being ambushed by a disability; about the frustration of those who did not seek this debate but have had it thrust upon them.

You accuse me of distortion whilst all I have done is carefully read the text. Your 'text' Julia - your own words. These are what I responded to. If you object to the word 'believe' then substitute the word 'think'. You conveyed your thoughts on the page. What you 'think' is clearly stated. In good faith, one accepts that what you state you 'think' is what you 'believe'.

But maybe not, since you now state - and presumably 'think' - but (hopefully) don't 'believe', that TEC is responsible for "Christians around the world being attacked and killed"!

[Merseymike]

So, Julia, simple answer - accept gay and lesbian equality, and the issue is no longer on the agenda. Of course we are not - ever - going to let bigotry like yours rule the day.

And as for this nonsense about people being killed elesewhere - rubbish, and you know it. Fundamentalist Muslims in places like the Sudan aren't suddenly going to stop killing Christians. That happens because two nasty, fundamentalist religions are part of an ongoing war in an ungovernable, corrupt country run by vagabonds with religious badges on.

Get real. Nearly all African countries are undemocratic basket-cases and have no right to lecture anyone else about governance. People are getting murdered in Sudan because Sudanese people like murdering one another. Stop looking for other soutces of blame

[Matt]

Here here Kate! Also, at no point do I remember you or Andrew using the H-word (as Julia put it).

[Julia]

Oh, and Kate, I stopped reading your diatribe when you stated what I BELIEVE. You haven't a clue.

The only "belief" statements I have made are these:

1. That I'm tired of my church going to the mat for homosexuals and no other group; and

2. That I am concerned about violence against ALL people.

You have absolutely no right or standing to attribute any other "belief statements" to me.

[Julia]

"Julia: you do no credit to your own case by trying to oppress others in the process."

Please point out where I am "oppressing" anyone. By saying that there are other groups and issues that deserve the church's time? I see. So, "oppression" equals the church not giving homosexuals 100 percent of its attention, then? Or maybe "oppression" is saying that one abhors ALL violence against human beings? Please enlighten.

As for your and Kate's charges that it's the conservatives who won't stop speaking about this and move on, please tell me if conservative Bishop Martyn Minns, who was also not invited to Lambeth, has set up a sideshow in Canterbury? Is he joining VGR on the sidelines to whine and blog about his hurt feelings? Are his brother bishops holding receptions so that other bishops can "meet" him? Are his brother bishops trying to get him admitted to the Conference?

This is what my supposed bishops are doing, how they're spending their time, outside of the scheduled events. Ah, and when they're not attending "Integrity" events, too.

And, yet, you have the audacity to claim it's the conservatives who won't let the issue rest? Christians around the world are being attacked and killed because of what TEC has done and yet we're supposed to ignore all of that and focus on the homosexuals only? Astounding. Hasn't it occurred to you that TEC's actions and VGR's incessant touring and speaking engagements have put the homosexuals in increased danger, as well??? Yet, TEC won't own up to ANY responsibility.

[Kate]

Julia: "Typical hyperbole, trying to seize upon me and my words to twist them and make them say what YOU want."

Dear me - you are clearly a very angry lady. NO Julia, I did not 'twist' your words, there is no need. I read the post several times in order to clarify precisely your objections.

My conclusion - you believe:

a) gay African members of the Anglican Communion, being (for some) in 'a state of sin', have no right to a public forum! Or

b) that their persecution is less valid than, e.g. a disability or heterosexual persecution.

So, I merely responded (albeit robustly) to a clearly articulated but irrational 'rant'. Two wrongs do not make anything 'right'. Torture is torture, rape is rape, whether the victim is hetro- or homosexual.

In my understanding of Christ's teachings, we cannot make distinctions such as yours, on any grounds - human suffering is just that.

However, having suffered 'disability' for the past two years, I empathise and am conscious that one can be cantankerous as a result.

Nonetheless, I still do not grasp the nebulous 'connection'. Is it the fault of gay members of your church that you have experienced hurt and abandonment?

I doubt it. The majority of gay men of my acquaintance are more likely to assist ladies 'in distress' than the public in general.

Perhaps I've been lucky, both in those I know, and in the location (Ireland). The past six months have seen people (literally) 'rush' to assist me and shuffle up so I can sit at the end and accommodate the crutches.

Finally, you ask: "Where is the TEC concern for other marginalized people? Why aren't they commissioning documentaries ... why are they pretending ..."

Apart from your own personal experience in one church - where is the evidence that TEC are uncaring of 'other marginalized people'?

Even at a distance, but with American relations, I am aware of the Episcopal Disability Network and The National Organisation on Disability. I also know that TEC congregations DO have a very positive profile on homelessness and foreign aid.

None of that strikes me as a Communion obsessed with homosexuality but one aware of the needs of the marginalised, INCLUDING homosexuals.

Perhaps having 'given the dog a bad name', too many seek to 'hang' it? Perhaps TEC has been forced into a 'corner' whereby it is constantly being required to defend what SHOULD be accepted as a decision taken under their historical RIGHT of AUTONOMY.

I do not accept that TEC is responsible for this hateful drama. The present hysteria has been fomented by those who do not accept provincial autonomy OR Anglicanism as a via media; those who insist either on evangelical literalism or Roman dogma and claim the right of invasion and theft.

Further, as an Irish Anglican, I would question the motive of any 'foreign' Primate seeking to overthrow the legitimate, elected Primate of any autonomous province. Where will the ambitious target next? For rest assured, the successes in TEC will only embolden those intent on reverse colonisation.

Indeed, it is clear from the witterings of the not-so-courageous 'ANON' that the so-called 'reform tendency' is already about its 'divide and rule' mischief in my own communion.

Many of us are sick listening to the whinging and vicious bigotry. Let nasty, exclusive bullies - most of whom need a lesson in manners - start their own church or, join one more fitted to their closed minds; let those who hanker after Rome swim the Tiber. Better a clean sweep.

[Malcolm+]

It is a curious revisionism to claim that it is North American liberals demanding that the entire Communion focus its entire attention on homosexuality.

Sorry, Julia, but it is the "conservatives" who have decided that homosexulaity is the only issue.

[andrew holden]

David, I'm not trying to undermine the obvious place of heterosexual marriage in scripture. That heterosexuality is the dominant norm and is acknowledged as such is clear throughout the Bible text but this is not at all threatened by the existence of diversity within human sexuality.

What the Bible writers don't seem to have understood is that for some people, albeit a minority, it is 'normal' to be attracted to their own sex. So Romans 1, for example, talks about men and women 'abandoning' their natural attraction for a perverted attraction to that which is contrary to their nature. This can hardly apply to people to whom sexual attraction to their own sex is actually normal/natural - for them the sin would be to go against their own nature and have sex with the opposite sex (something you appear, if I have not misunderstood you, to encourage?).

The modern understanding of sexuality as being 'given' or 'natural' (and the nature/nurture debate is irrelevant to this) is therefore not even addressed here by Paul or in other similar Biblical texts.

I still think that the lack of clarity in scripture, and the absence of anything directly relevant from Jesus himself, is a fatal flaw in the conservative case.

[George Parr]

So, Kate-hating appears to be another feature of our resident transformer's repertoire of holy obsessions. And what evidence do you have D Smith which underpins your assertion that "all other arguments...supportive of homosex have been countered and so failed"? This is fanciful nonsense designed for recruiting purposes isn't it? A vain hope to establish a consensual view with somebody?

For months if not years, your attempts here to defend the indefensible 'Christian' practice of discrimination over sexuality and gender have ended in flames. Only a fool would declare victory for literalism or those who denigrate lesbians and gays under such circumstances. A spectrum of contributors including many Christians have torn your auto-didactic 'methodology' to shreds, as unmeasured, unworkable and unlikely.

Some people would not recognise human compassion if it jumped up and bit their pious arses. This forum has demonstrated the utter frivolity and shamefaced bias perpetrated by some claiming godliness. It endorses a form of worship in which some are more equal than others. But make no mistake, these highly personal and draconian attitudes towards other people are deeply unattractive, and are leaving those who cling on to such views very isolated and exposed.

[David Smith]

Andrew Holden:
'If God really meant to outlaw same-sex genital activity he doesn't appear to have made himself that clear in the only book that Christians treat as authoritative...I'd therefore like to see the same degree of compassion used to interpret the far less clear scriptural statements about same-sex genital activity - none of them, in fact, from Jesus himself.'

Andrew, you have got to be kidding!

From the Genesis 1 and 2 concept of one-flesh union between (and only between) A MAN and A WOMAN through to Romans 1, the Bible is glaringly clear. Exclusively heterosexual sex is a key element of the created order itself - on a par with things like gravity. This is just one possible reason why Jesus did not specifically refer to homosex - along with the many other kinds of glaringly clear sin that he did not specifically list or repeat verbatim.

Do please tell us how you personally interpret Romans 1, for example, as being 'not clear' on this issue!

[Dr. Mike Homfray]

Julia: you do no credit to your own case by trying to oppress others in the process.

There are plenty of other issues to be worried about, agreed - so, tell you what. You and all the other conservatives shut up about gay issues, let TEC do what they wish, and I am sure that there would then be far less time spent on the issue. The only reason it is an issue at all is because of conservatives like yourself who think your bigoted and outdated traditions are more important than respect and equality for gay and lesbian people. Perhaps if conservatives started mounting vicious campaigns about other groups, then you may see videos being made about them in order to counteract such nastiness.

[David Smith]

Julia:
'--From Kate

Typical hyperbole, trying to seize upon me and my words to twist them and make them say what YOU want...You simply WANT to interpret it as "hatred" because it helps your cause. You and others of your ilk have no compunction that tossing out the H-word against those who aren't marching about with you is insulting and degrading.'

Spot on, Julia.

Anyone who has followed this blog for any length of time will know that, when (or perhaps I should say since) all the other 'arguments' of those either involved in or supportive of homosex have been countered and so failed, this is now the only tactic they have left to resort to.

It is good to see that you are so wise to it.

[Jeremy Taylor]

I wonder why the film is no longer accessible here!! I was baptized in the Anglican Church and became an Episcoplaian after my move to America. The more I have learned about our shared consciousness, the more I have examined our commonality. The more I recognize that it is our relationship to nature that defines our humanity, the less I am at home in institutions that underscore our differences, relying on dogma and the self righteousness of certainty as their guide, not our shared humanity.

[Michael Stevens]

Wow! The venom spewing forth here!
Just because some gay people in Africa tell their stories?
Dominus vobiscum

[Harold Babcock]

Can any heterosexual person remember the day the "chose" to be straight? Could you be converted to homosexuality by three weeks of therapy? And why do the "orthodox" continually mislabel sexual orientation as a "lifestyle?" Did the Catholic Church finally change its position on Galileo? Did the Anglican Church finally divest itself of its slaves and join the Abolitinists? Every progressive who ever took an unpopular stand on principle was at first ridiculed by conservatives - until the unpopular stand became orthodoxy.

[Julia]

"The hatred here is palpable. How dare African gays be allowed 'a voice'! How dare the they expect equality under the law! How dare those despised (inclusive) AMERICANS facilitate such outrageous expectations.

Unfortunately, the subtext of Julia's sentiments is more revealing that her lamentations - persecuted gay men (torture, beatings, prison) are unworthy of Anglican concern. Something to do with 'unclean' in the eyes of the 'righteous' perhaps."

--From Kate

Typical hyperbole, trying to seize upon me and my words to twist them and make them say what YOU want. So there can be no confusion (or further misappropriation), I will respond.

Any rational person would sense the utter frustration apparent in my words. You simply WANT to interpret it as "hatred" because it helps your cause. You and others of your ilk have no compunction that tossing out the H-word against those who aren't marching about with you is insulting and degrading.

That my bishops (yes, I belong to TEC) would thoroughly neglect every other concern of the church to manipulate and likely stage a coup over ONE ISSUE does a disservice to the whole church. That other issues and individuals are not given the time of day, let alone any pastoral concern is disgraceful. They are supposed to represent us all with equal care and concern. They do not. They do and say next to nothing about rampant violence against general populations, sexual abuse, human trafficking, and gang rape, let alone discrimination against people in their own church.

I abhor brutality committed against ALL human beings. TEC is selective. You have to be GLBT to get their attention and rouse their activism. If TEC committed one-tenth of its energies and attention to other social issues that it has given to the GLBTs, we might be able to make a huge difference in this world. Instead, it will go so far as to destroy the church over one, very small constituency and turn a blind eye to every other sort of injustice and suffering.

And you don't have a problem with that? You don't question it? Perhaps a personal anecdote might help. Before becoming disabled, I was a licensed lay reader. I loved my ministry. However, I can no longer walk without assistance and, thus, cannot walk in procession carrying the lectionary. I indicated being very willing to read if accommodation could be made. Nope, tough luck. I am no longer of use to this church. There is something very wrong with a church that can't accommodate disabled people in something simple but is very willing to destroy a several hundred year old communion and demand that teachings change to accommodate and bless homosexual practice.

So, again, I ask: Where is the TEC concern for other marginalized people? Why aren't they commissioning documentaries about the plight of other groups? And why are they pretending that ALL members of TEC are as militant about homosexuality as they are, caring about nothing else?

[KM]

Shame on you. What a disgusting piece.
Listening to the unheard voices, the silenced sufferers in our church. Jesus wouldn't have had any of it, you know. He'd have been in the synagogue with the Pharisees discussing the best way to persecute/reform/drive out the homosexuals.

[Fr Mark]

Well said, Kate and Andrew. I find myself wondering more and more why all these biblical absolutists aren't already in some more hard-line churches?

We, the C of E, are the church that has been "liberal" for centuries now, so why on earth is there anger, or, indeed, surprise, that many of us are trying to approach sexuality and gender issues in a reasonable, rather than a heretic-burning way? I don't think you can know much about the C of E's history if you are disappointed at the way we are now.