There seems to be a wilful inertia here, Simon.
The CEN covered the story well and recognised the importance of the new organisation and its foundation document. But the Church Times only whispered of its existence in passing.
The Official line may be something like this:
“Such gatherings were requested by ACC-13 Resolution 53, and were part of the Runcie plan for the future of the Communion.”
But, I think behind the scenes the concerns are genuine, for all know these “gatherings” were intended to be regional gatherings of all, not centers of disaffection and mechanisms of realignment.
Most observers, it seems, still cannot believe that the Anglican Communion is being parceled up and that the talking is over and the coup is a present reality not a future threat.
I suppose they are just hoping it will all go away. In Lambeth and the ACO they are counting the affirming emails and messages from bishops and saying it isn’t happening. But, as we have seen, this debate is far more visceral and the divisions far more formidable than the more gentle souls can deal with.
While at one level the “orthodox” appeared to have secured the isolation of ECUSA and Canada they also recognize that they have lost the battle within those churches. The “orthodox” are none too happy at the compromises they have made in getting thus far.
Their failure to see homosexuality defined as contrary to Divine Law in the Windsor Report and the openness to development allowed even though within newly defined constraints, puts them in a difficult position.
They are now trapped in a system which has declared the only anathema to be the persecution and diminishment of people based on their sexuality – hardly a place they want to be in the light of their statements and practice in some of their home countries.
I believe they have decided they cannot go on with this compromise; they have to occupy a place where their own definitive beliefs are expressed with certainty and without reservation.
Canterbury, so central to the thinking of many, has been swept away in their minds.
What is said and done at Alexandria in October will be crucial and possibly final – and the signs are not good for those who have so valiantly struggled to keep the Anglican Communion together.

I believe Martin Reynolds's analysis is right on target -- I don't believe I've ever said that before.

I wonder if our improved communications have served primarily to reveal to us the depth of our disagreements (reminiscent of the Babel Fish of "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" which performed perfectly accurate translations of all languages & was thus responsible for more wars).

It isn't just a question of compromise that has driven us to this point. Recently liberals seem increasing unwilling to make compromises to honour conservative's beliefs (which were and are formally those of much of Anglicanism), particularly on issues like gay equality (in the US) and women in leadership (in the UK).

People who want to obey the teachings of the NT are UNABLE to accept that homosexuality is not sinful. And people who take a traditionalist or a more literalist to the NT approach CANNOT accept women in church authority over them. Hello, are we hearing this!!

If provinces impose these, without making space for people who can't accept them, then there is no alternative but to seek separation. Hence the New Westminster bust-up a couple of years ago, the CT Six, and the strife within many dioceses in ECUSA.

However, I would point out that most would stay in a separate-but-adjacent ECUSA, with alternative episcopal oversight, if secure that they will be allowed to continue as faithful Anglicans without the threat of future interference. Probably a geographically overlapping province would be required.

If, on the other hand, the hierarchy just continues to demand submission, despite the admonishment of the rest of the Communion, the outcome is inevitable. I particularly liked this quote: "One of the great misconceptions has been the ridiculous assertion that those who REMAIN committed to the FAITH OF THE COMMUNION are somehow ‘dissidents.’" (my caps).

I'm hearing it very clearly, Dave.

But I don't see many of those people plucking their eyes out and cutting their hands off. I think they jolly well should, because otherwise it's not obeying the new testament or being very literalist; that is, unless they never sin.

Dave wrote: "If provinces impose these, without making space for people who can't accept them, then there is no alternative but to seek separation."

Well, since there really *is* no form of "making space" that would be acceptable* to a good many of the conservatives, we should part in peace. An amicable divorce is infinitely preferable to this unending rancor.

* My take is that only complete and utter renunciation would suffice here. (i.e. no "making space" for those of us who support the things conservatives object to)

We'll all meet again "on that beautiful shore" in time...

I agree David. I think a split would be a good idea - but this really isn't about the USA any more. It's far more about a definitive move towards an alternative communion. Makes sense to me.

And Dave ; clearly you wouldn't wish to allow the same latitude to those with opposite views to you, now, would you?

Dear Mike

If we can't agree I think it would be quite legitimate to separate (as amicably and respectfully as we can). Much better than having interminable clashes that achieve nothing but a waste of time and scarce resources..

The question is, of course, across which lines to make the break (presumably our "liberal" or "conservative" APPROACH to the authority of the bible.... that one would take some formulating!!), and how to distribute the "children", buildings, and funds/debts fairly.

What do you think "liberals" would think of creating two overlapping provinces in the UK (say one based on ACath/MCU, and one based on CEEC/FIF), with churches able to choose which one to join (and change their minds for a certain number of years) ? Maybe ECUSA could lead the way on this one ?

Lots of room for politicking of course..

"People who want to obey the teachings of the NT are UNABLE to accept that homosexuality is not sinful. And people who take a traditionalist or a more literalist to the NT approach CANNOT accept women in church authority over them. Hello, are we hearing this!!"

Dave, I object to the fatalistic *passivity* of these statements.

The people you describe above are CHOOSING to obey *not the NT itself* but a certain set of *conservative interpretations of it*. They are, at the same time, CHOOSING to reject other interpretations of the NT, by Christians who are every bit as *faithful* to the Biblical witness as they are.

If the Communion is split, it won't be by accident (and it sure as heck won't be by Act of God!). It will be the *choice* of those whose obedience to an opinion (pro-forma anti-gay/anti-woman interpretations) is greater than their love for their brothers and sisters (whose Anglican faith happens to lead them to a different way).

Dear J.C.

Yeah, everybody can continue to insist on their particular spin on the situation and you are entitled to yours. However, it does nothing to advance the dialog at this point. Quite simply, it's pointless--no one is listening any more: conservatives have their view of the situation and liberals have theirs, and "never the twain shall meet."

So, a proposal has been laid on the table by Dave in terms of how to make a split. In my opinion, that is (while not a more important question than who's right and who's wrong and why) more likely to be productive at this point. The interminable debates on the ultimate issues have produced nothing worth-while in terms of an agreement and are unlikely to do so. Why not focus on the areas (e.g., how to make an amicable separation) where some agreement may still be possible?

Steven

Dave, Steven, I have been in favour of a split for a long time now. I would emphasise, though, that I am lay. I think you will find that this view is held more by lay people than clergy, who I think may well feel thay have more, personally, to lose.

I don't think, though, that the split is likely to happen simply in one province - there are all sorts of possible permutations, and I think it may very much depend on what happens in Alexandria. Unfortunately, I think that the split will not be anything proactive within the CofE. Much more likely to be one group or another following what happens elsewhere.

As for the countless number of unsuitable, impossible to maintain church buildings which lie unused all week, sounds like a welcome role for either a developer or a bulldozer.

I think Dave's proposal probably is the way ahead - regrettably, because I am fairly sure a 'trial separation' will solidify into a divorce in 10 years. But how much more time, energy and money are we going to expend on this? In a generation the 'New Churches' will probably have surpassed English Anglicanism in numbers. Divisions within Presbyterianism and Lutheranism in the US have usually never healed. A liberal church without a conservative ballast would quickly become like Ecusa, and Anglicanism's claim to be but a branch of Western Catholicism would become increasingly meaningless. On the other hand, interesting recombinations with conservative Continuing groups would probably follow.

Mark wrote: "On the other hand, interesting recombinations with conservative Continuing groups would probably follow."

As would interesting recombinations of mainline Episcopalians, along with Methodists and (ELCA) Lutherans unburdened from their own "reasserters."

About those churches who "without a conservative ballast would quickly become like Ecusa" - well, I *love* my ECUSA parish as well as my national church, so sounds good to me :)

"conservative Continuing groups" are already hard at work in the UK - with a growing number of congregations. Soon there will be an Anglican Mission in England. AMiE, even. As Merseymike indicates there will be plenty of church buildings for them to use.

Is it inevitable? Really, really inevitable? Is there any way of calling a halt to it all, even at this late stage?

Alan
Can you give any more details of such groups in the UK please?

There are numerous links on the Continuing Churches' web sites, ranging from the TAC (the largest) to various offshoots of offshoots. At the moment only the TAC has large numbers, but there are also growing numbers in a variety of Orthodox jurisdictions, whose congregations are fast growing.

Google will provide numerous links.

In addition there are well known rumours of the impending consecration of a London clergyman to represent one African province in England, which will certainly set a precedent if carried through.

Mark, ECUSA *IS* a branch (on a branch) of Western Catholicism. We "claim" our place in the Body of Christ because, by God's Grace, we *have* it.

The idea of "well, if we split, we can link-up w/ like-minded of other denominations" sounds like Either/Or thinking, in my mind. We need to reach out to *BOTH* like-minded others, and other-minded likes. That's why God gave us *two* hands. :-p

"Quite simply, it's pointless"

That's the wisdom of *the world*, Steven. I believe a Higher Authority is still ultimately in control!

I may, in fact, be bringing nothing more than my own "spin". If so, that's my own failing. I believe that *the Gospel* does "advance the dialogue", and if I'm not, it's only because I'm substituting my spin for it. Kyrie eleison!

Please keep comments on this thread related to CAPAC, or they will not be published.

None of the commentators here seems to have noted that a strong impetus to the formation of CAPAC are the moves by the leadership of the Epsicopal Church of Brazil to depose practically all the clergy in the Diocese of Recife, along with their bishop - a move that has virtually no parallel in the history of Anglicanism, as far as I know. The Primate of Brazil has confirmed this action. What do contributors to this site think of these actions? What do they mean? Do you think it justified and fair?
I imagine the claim about the possible consecration of a London clergyman has to do with rumours that Prebendary Millar, now retired from Holy Trinity Brompton, may become a bishop of the Chuch of Uganda. If this is true, he could become a rallying point and many largish evangelical-charismatic congregations in England and in Scotland. Is this 'the AMiE' alluded to?

So far there has been no boundary-crossing into England by other provinces of the Anglican Communion, but the trend of developments suggests that it may not be long before CAPA and CAPAC link arms, and start a mission in England - with or without Sandy Millar. Of course the same thing may happen if the CofE consecrates women as bishops without making adequate provisions for Evangelicals - episcopal oversight will be obtained from one source or another.

The pieces of the puzzle are falling into position. Re-alignment is coming. CAPAC will be part of it--and yes, J.C., I do believe that God is in control. As a matter of fact, I believe that it is His will that this split take place. This is hardly "worldly" thinking. 2 Cor. 6:17-18.

So what do you think the split will look like, Steven?

The present coup is not one that translates into a happy settlement of disagreements on the ground within Provinces.

The Communion is very diverse, and the depth of diversity is far greater than many Anglicans in the pews are aware of. The miracle of Anglicanism has always been that it contained people more “Catholic” than the Pope and more Protestant than Ian Paisley. For those, like me, who chose Anglicanism as a vehicle for their faith, this diversity is the “jewel in the crown” of our Church, this spiritual and theological untidiness its raison d’etre, not a problem waiting to be resolved.

This open diversity is a relatively modern development even if its roots are ancient. The development in theological diversity has been “officially” recognised from time to time. Archbishop William Temple, a firm traditional believer himself in such things as the Virgin Birth and the Physical Resurrection, wrote in the preface of a report of a 1922 Commission on Christian Doctrine: "I fully recognize the position of those who sincerely affirm the reality of our Lord's Incarnation without accepting one or both of these two events as actual historical occurrences, regarding the records rather as parables than as history, a presentation of spiritual truth in narrative form."

In this context the letter to bishop-elect Henderson from Archbishop Malango makes interesting reading.

The Windsor Report offered an uncomfortable way through the divisions over homosexuality, but as I note above, it leaves those who are unmovable on this issue in a difficult position. There was reluctance on behalf of conservatives to engage fully with Windsor but they subsequently warmed to Sections A & B while continuing to find many things in sections C & D not to their liking, particularly paragraph 146.

The Nassau Covenant of Understanding is careful only to endorse the theological understanding of the Windsor Report contained in sections A & B. and not to endorse its findings and recommendations.

In a sense they are saying “We agree with your theology – but we can’t see how you came to these conclusions from it!”

The conservative view was expressed by Professor O’Donovan in the immediate aftermath of the Windsor Report’s publication - it was not satisfactory but it was “the only poker game in town”. It was a considerable achievement for the Anglican Communion Office to appear to be holding all the cards, but now it would seem another deck is being shuffled in the South and who knows who will join the new table or how the cards will fall.

The main players in the Global South are obviously still considering their options, but Peter Akinola’s challenge to the Church of England over its response to Civil Partnerships gives us more than a hint of his intention to claim the moral leadership of the new grouping forming around the Nassau Covenant. This will be their Church within a Church and the intention is to test just how successful he is at replacing Canterbury as the chief spokesman for Anglicanism.

The script has already been written and published, we thank the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England for birthing us and guiding us, but we have come of age! The sub-script is also clear: the Church of England is compromised and the gospel they pedal is tainted by old age and weakness, we are young, fresh and burgeoning – we are the future. The King may not be dead, but he is toothless and helpless, so Long Live the Healthy Strong and Vibrant King.

Peter Akinola has repeated the fact that his Anglicanism doesn’t need Canterbury almost as many times as he has said he doesn’t want to be the Archbishop of Canterbury.

It was always expected that the American conservatives would hold the Global South Primates in check, persuading them to move forward within the existing structures hoping to see that they would gain recognition within the Communion as a Second Province within America. That has not come, and the processes that have been put in place, such as the Panel of Reference are too Byzantine and slow to deal with the crisis of the age of instant communication.

The alphabet soup of American division has found clear allies, but the Global South Primates cannot act with the decisiveness they wish while constrained within the existing structures. They see the American conservatives may be bogged down in bitter internecine struggles for years and legal battles for decades. So my view is that their timescale is much shorter and the plan more decisive. It will not offer American conservatives an answer to their divisions or help with who owns the spoils, in fact it will exacerbate matters – but it will offer a more robust external leadership and will see in a matter of a year or so, two (possibly more?) Anglican Communions emerging.

The Primates of CAPA meet in late September. I expect there will be some invited guests as they put the final touches to their plans for their meeting in Alexandria the following month.

I think it is a perhaps little futile to speculate on how WE would manage the split and make it an amicable one – the players in this game are hardly likely to listen even if some of them do read TA! What those of us who do not have an obvious split in their Provinces are going to have to consider is how we are going to manage when the fallout finally hits us.

David Huff wrote: "Mark wrote: "On the other hand, interesting recombinations with conservative Continuing groups would probably follow." As would interesting recombinations of mainline Episcopalians, along with Methodists and (ELCA) Lutherans unburdened from their own "reasserters."
About those churches who "without a conservative ballast would quickly become like Ecusa" - well, I *love* my ECUSA parish as well as my national church, so sounds good to me :)"

Dear David, It's nice to see we might be able to agree on something! (Though it is sad that it is only on the possible necessity for a separation!!)

Do you think ECUSA would ever be willing to let the "Network of Confessing Dioceses and Parishes" go in peace - keeping their episcopal and clergy orders, the buildings they use and the ECUSA organisations they run... including a proportionate share of the national churches assets (and liabilities) ?

Dear Alan, The CofE's own hierarchy were considering inviting CAPA in, it wasn't a "rumour". Sandy Millar himself reported that he was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, whether he would be willing to be a "flying Bishop" attached to Uganda! There are several reports on the web; here is one:

http://www.churchsociety.org/news/2004/news_2004-09-07_BishopMillar.htm

In my opinion that would be a poor solution, because it would give the message that evangelical/conservative is a foreign thing. If the liberal heirarchies are really going to honour evangelicals and conservatives, then that has to be as *UK (or US) evangelicals and conservatives* not some apparent offshoot of another culture!

A proper solution based on separation should include overlapping geographical dioceses (which effectively happens with FiF Bishops in the UK already) and parallel national provinces.

*Editor's note*
As the Church Society link to the article from The Times, just one year ago, does not work, here is the correct URL for original article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-1249083,00.html
Incidentally, the Times story does not contain any quote from Mr Millar; and the whole rumour has disappeared off the radar.

I've got this horrible image in my mind that within the next five to ten years towns will have a confusing choice of (for UK for example) CofE Anglican Churches and CofE Anglican Continuing Churches: in the eyes of observers, all almost identical (the 'reasserters' having managed to 'claim' their buildings et al for themselves somehow) not only in the buildings, but also the liturgy, worship, basic theology etc., apart from one being a bit more 'strict' and 'old fashioned' and 'bible literalist', and the other being a bit more 'wishy-washy'.

Is this sort of thing that the US reasserters want in their towns (minus the CofE bit of course)? Have I got that right?

I can't think of much that is more embarassing and ridiculous for the church. Non-Christians are going to look at us and shake their heads, 'Jeez, these Christians just can't get along, can they'. And any prospective seeker is going to be wondering (more than they already do) where the hell to go for fear of choosing the wrong church and ending up there.

This is really going to be a great advert for the faith, this is. People will be lining up to accept Christ into their lives. Not.

I'm overwhelmed with a sense of the selfishness and arrogance of all those people who are trying to engineer splits and walk away from their brothers and sisters just because they think and act a bit differently. Get Jesus, yes, but then get a life (ie, stop zoning in on and defining yourself by how you disagree with other Christians). More than that: LOVE YOUR ENEMY. Embrace them, share bread with them, sit and laugh with them, give them your seat, accept them, love them dammit. And we are not even enemies! If one brother can't love his siblings, he needs to leave home and get a new life, and not expect to annex the garage and convert it into a bachelor pad and claim that he is the REAL family. That's just tragic. Once he's got over himself and had his hissy fit, he's welcome to come back home.

God forgive and have mercy on us all and help the seekers who will be faced with this mess for decades to come.

Dave puts his finger on the issue. CAPAC does offer a way ahead to the end of the warfare but it should be resolved fairly and not with a legacy of bitterness. When a divorce becomes inevitable, however the blame is distributed, an equitable distribution of property and custody have to be arranged. Congregations that want to leave (or feel compelled to go) have contributed for years to the buildings and other assets of parishes, and they have some claim in natural justice. It is hard to avoid the impression that the parlous financial state of many dioceses is making bishops dig their heels in. They know who the milch cows are and they don't want to lose them.

Interesting scenario, Martin.

I suppose, for those of us in the UK: it may be a question of how many decide to switch to the new Communion.

I wouldn't have thought a huge number, but certainly churches clustered around Reform, and their fellow-travellers. Can't see FiF going there, somehow. Too evo.

The remaining Provinces are very unlikely to want to discipline USA/Canada further, and the CofE itself may be far more open to change shorn of their cons-evo wing.

I do wonder how Sydney and ConsEvoUSA will be able to handle not being Top Dog. Unless, of course, the strings are being pulled from elsewhere and Akinola is but a willing puppet?

Matt ; ideally, yes, but if the choice is between the institutionalised homophobia we currently have, and a split which allows change, then I'd have to opt for the latter.

If there was an ability to mutually accept each others position, then we wouldn't have reached this stage.

Dave wrote:
"Do you think ECUSA would ever be willing to let the "Network of Confessing Dioceses and Parishes" go in peace - keeping their episcopal and clergy orders,"

Yep.

"..the buildings they use and the ECUSA organisations they run... including a proportionate share of the national churches assets (and liabilities) ?"

That's a bit stickier. In theory, "yes." But I wonder if something will have to be worked out like they did at Christ Church Episcopal in Kansas City, for example. In that case, a very conservative church left the diocese, assumed the remaining mortgage debt on their buildings, and agreed to pay the diocese for their share of the property over something like 10 years. I gather that it was a compromise for both sides. The church didn't just get to walk away with diocesan property, but the diocese didn't really get what the property was worth on the open market. There's an article in their local paper about it at: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/11069141.htm

(Simon, I hope this is somewhat related - as I assume issues about how a separation would be handled could relate, even if rather tangentially :)

Oh, and to add to my comments above, I think it only decent that clergy who leave be given their fair, vested share from the Church Pension fund (not that this is a controversial position, but just stated "for the record" :)

Matt:

You lament the fact that a split will confuse seekers and others observing the Christian faith. Isn't this a bit like worrying about closing the barn door after the cow has left? Christendom has been fissioning for a thousand years. Protestantism (always divided and dividing) has been spawning new denominations at a furious pace over the last century. This doesn't make it any better, but at least what is happening isn't a novelty to the world or believers. I can't speak to what this split will mean in the UK; however, in the U.S., I don't believe it will evoke more than a brief and limited response from anyone outside of ECUSA. Frankly, Anglicans are only a small part of the religious scene over here and getting smaller all the time. I also don't believe there will be any "brand" confusion--the two sides are very eager to distinguish themselves from each other.

Merseymike:

You've probably had other people answer your question better than I could have. However, I will say this about a post-split church in the U.S.A. (and it could be true in the UK as well)--the real question is which part will thrive and grow in the future. The current church is dying. The future doesn't belong to the side that gets the most goodies out of the current split, but to the side that reverses (or at least halts) the death of the 1st World Anglican Church.

Steven

The split, though, looks as if it will mean that many provinces no longer look to Canterbury - its not just an American debate.

Merseymike:

Very true. I was looking at it from a national rather than a transnational level. However, I believe the same thing to be basically true at a transnational level--the future of Anglicanism will belong to those who bring it growth in numbers and cultural influence. Will a new alignment including COE, ECUSA and other 1st world Anglican churches grow or continue to decline until it is largely irrelevant? Will a new alignment including third world churches and conservative 1st world Anglican groups grow in influence as well as numbers? I am betting on the latter; however, I would be glad to get your thoughts on the matter.

Steven

Haven't a clue, Steven. In Europe, conservative Christianity has a very limited audience and I would perceive that as appealing only to those who want the simplistic and outdated certainties it has to offer. There is certainly a huge interest in spirituality, but I think the Church has been the last place that many look, and at least a liberal Church which does not constantly feel the need to compromise with conservatives will be able to fulfil a distinctive role.

Though I think the days of large scale attendance on Sundays are gone forever. Its very different here, than in the USA. Growth in numbers may simply mean more people choosing to relate in one way or another to what the church is doing. That will lead to greater influence.

Dear Matt, I do agree that it is incredibly sad that there seems to be no possible resolution regarding the "liberal" / "conservative" thing. CAPAC is a response to what is, in effect, oppression of "conservatives" by liberal dioceses and provinces (see latest persecution of the evangelicals in Recife, Brazil). This hardly brings glory to God in the eyes of the world!

The trouble is, I think, that "diversity" was always intended for non-essentials. Toleration of "diversity" on essentials has lead to division (I mean the actual truth of the Creeds and the souvereign authority of Scripture).

CAPAC Christians would be recognizably Christian to the first century church... Faith in the historical Christ and life under the authority of the teachings of Christ, the Apostles etc.

Would they have recognised ECUSA's liberals beliefs and practices ?.. I don't think so !

But, Dave, liberals are being persecuted by conservatives - as you have explained, to you, we arenot even Christians.

The only solution is to split, because essentially, we have different belief systems.

And what was considered Christian to the first century church is of the utmost irrelevance. This is the 21st century. Countries nearer the first century in outlook may well be more receptive to first-century style religion!

Dear Mike, I would quite sympathise with a CAPAC type response if multiple liberal clergy were being defrocked, liberal churches were having their buildings requisitioned, etc etc... But I don't think that this is actually happening - can you name anywhere ?

ps I don't think that liberal christians are not Christians. Nor do I think that all "conservatives" are necessarily Christians.. Whether you are a Christian depends on whether you believe and trust in Christ, whether you turn to Him as Saviour and Lord, and whether you reject sin the world and the devil.

Errr...oh, we are only called insulting names and told that we shouldn't be in the church altogether, with the intent to make that Church law ( read Akinol's statements). And how about all the gay priests who have been dismissed over the years? Those who have been disciplined recently have left their church and declared that they are not prepared to serve their Bishop. They have left their church.

Oh, and that definition of Christian is a conservative one....

Dear Mike, CAPAC is there because Provinces and Bishops are making up their own religion and rules! And pushing out people who want to stay with Christianity (as originally revealed,reasonably interpreted), and so reject the Bishop's purported authority to make such changes.

My definition of Christian is the CofE's own liturgy from baptism: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/worship/liturgy/commonworship/texts/initiation/baptism.html

"In baptism, God calls us out of darkness into his marvellous light. To follow Christ means dying to sin and rising to new life with him. Therefore I ask:

Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?
I reject them.

Do you renounce the deceit and corruption of evil?
I renounce them.

Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour?
I repent of them.

Do you turn to Christ as Saviour?
I turn to Christ.

Do you submit to Christ as Lord?
I submit to Christ.

Do you come to Christ, the way, the truth and the life?
I come to Christ.

Christ claims you for his own. Receive the sign of his cross..."

I've sincerely repented of all sins including, at times over the last fifteen years when I was persuaded to do so by the attractive 'rule-book' approach to the Bible and conservative interpretation of scripture and tradition, my homosexuality.

In common with most homosexual people who have been through this process of demonizing an aspect of their psychological make up, I was driven into a state of misery and despair - living in a purgatory of self-loathing, fear and anxiety about being condemned by God, to whom I sought to be near with all of my perverted heart.

When it is said or implied that, as a 'sin', homosexuality should be 'died to' as in: 'dying to sin and rising to new life with him' and that otherwise a person's homosexuality would 'separate us from God and neighbour', it is really asking a homosexual person to kill an intrinsic part of his/her psychological identity.

Yes, we are called to deny ourselves, but are we called to cripple ourselves emotionally and psychologically for the law?

Are heterosexual christians asked to 'kill' any fundamental aspects of their psychological make-up? Or at least forced to go their lives without the basic human need/drive for intimacy and love for fear of hell?

The CAPAC declaration ought to be brave enough to state its position more clearly:

We declare
'A commitment to the primacy of Scripture' regardless of the psychological, emotional and spiritual anguish, suffering and disease that commitment might cause; regardless of the victimisation it might foster in the world; the broken families; the murders; the suicides. In the face of all this, and despite the testimony of countless homosexual people, and the vast majority of modern psychological/scientific understanding, we maintain this commitment by calling upon homosexual people to renounce homosexuality and be celibate - even though heterosexual people are not called to make such sacrifices in order to be accepted by God.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God is 'FAIR', and there are NO passages that record Him being merciful to homosexual people.

We reassert that: Because of our 'commitment to the primacy of Scripture', even though Christ died for all and we are saved by the Grace of God through FAITH in Christ Jesus, homosexual people who refuse to live a life of celibacy, are DENIED THAT GRACE - they, by their actions put themselves outside of the saving love of God.'

Why doesn't CAPAC say what it means? Why doesn't the Alpha course put it that way either?

I thought the truth set people free.

Dear Matt

CAPAC members may think that homosexuality is incompatible with Scripture, but that doesn't mean that people who perceive themselves to be homosexual shouldn't be treated with compassion.. or ignorance of the strong emotional basis of "sexuality".. or elevating homosexual sin above all the other sexual sins as a block to God's grace.

I went to a University in the '70s where the Student Union had a very positive policy towards homosexuality.. GaySoc was strong, and the (evangelical) Christian Union was BANNED from booking Student Union rooms (as a group, not as individuals) and from receiving SU support, because it would not officially declare support for homosexuality.

Of the two gay men I knew (vaguely) at Univ, one was openly gay, "active"... and committed suicide. The other became (and still is) an evangelical believer, and lives a celibate life..

Too small a sample I know, but I think the whole debate (and psychology) is much more complex than how you typified it!