Can I just make a correction? The web article at http://freespace.virgin.net/j.p.richardson/patron.html about John Gladwin becoming a patron of Changing Attitude was NOT a "press release" as stated above. It was simply an article which I wrote (I suppose it is a 'blog') for the CAM website, and the only notice drawn to it was the regular update e-mail that goes to members of the CAM website list (about 140).

Dave Walker gets it precisely right, as usual... ;-/

Dear John, you also stated that "Archbishop Rowan Williams is listed amongst the Trustees". Do you know it is him ? Simon says it is another Rowan Williams..

Andrew Goddard drew my attention to the Chelmsford Anglican Mainstream web site, where it was confidently stated that Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, had been a trustee of Changing Attitude. Andrew thought I should put the record straight before the misinformation created more problems for anyone - Rowan especially.

It is another example of the way in which totally false information finds its way into the public realm and then becomes accepted as truth. It may not be solely conservative evangelicals hostile to the inclusion of LGBT people in the Anglican Church who do this, but I know we repeatedly have misinformation published against us.

It should come as no surprise to anyone who thinks carefully about it that there might be two people with the name of Rowan Williams in the Church of England, and indeed there are. One of the them is the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other was at one time a trustee of Changing Attitude.

If John Richardson is not able to research his evidence and allegations more carefully, I am ready to assume that any other allegations or information published by Anglican Mainstream should be subject to suspicion.

I've noted the comment about "Archbishop Rowan Williams". Not being absolutely sure it is he, I've deleted that reference from the page. Thanks for the observation.

PS I can't see how the news that the Archbishop of Canterbury is a patron of Changing Attitude would qualify as 'hostile information' against that organization. I would have thought that, were it true, it would be something of a coup! It just might be construed as hostile against the Arhcbishop of Canterbury by some people (eg me), but surely the whole point is to have as big a list of 'big name' trustees and patrons as possible. Anyway, it was a mistake, and so Changing Attitude must sadly admit it is not 'the Rowan Williams' just as my namesake in this diocese has to admit sometimes he is not 'the John Richardson'. Anyone who seriously thinks everything on the CAM website is thereby suspect must have very odd expectations about truth and accuracy. "If in doubt, check it out" remains a good maxim for us all, and we sometimes rely on one another to correct our errors.

PPS There's a mistake on this page which was only corrected when I pointed out that the article referred to was not a "press release". Not sure what this means about how much else you can trust on this website. ;-)

Colin, I suspect that many people have drawn the natural assumption from your listing of trustees that the Rowan Williams listed is the same as the Archbishop. Given that it is a relatively unusual name you might have avoided any confusion (and trouble for the Archbishop) by finding some way to indicate that the two Rowan Williams are not one and the same. Given John Richardson's prompt response I hope you will withdraw your accusations of misinformation and admit that it is a pretty natural, honest mistake to make.

Andrew and John, I get things wrong along with everyone else, but I have learnt in the 10 years of Changing Attitude to attend as carefully as possible to what I read and listen as carefully as I can to what people really say.

First, Andrew, you refer to the elusive Rowan Williams as a patron, compounding the error. The Rowan Williams involved with Changing Attitude was a trustee. The said person's name changed during the time they were a patron, and we listed the name as recorded for the Charity Commissioners. We could indeed have made it clear that Rowan Williams without Rt Revd in front wasn't the (then) bishop of the same name, but I trusted people to know the difference.

John, I indeed took the 'hostile information' as being against the Archbishop of Canterbury. It would be awkward for him if he were discovered to have lent his authority and patronage to a group working for equality for LBGT Anglicans in terms of ordination and comitted sexual relationships. On the other hand, it might be appropriate for him to support a group working to facilitate the ability of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to contribute their voices to the listening process as Lambeth 1.10 and the Windsor Report have commmited the Anglican Communion to.

Patrons are invited because their names will hopefully communicate to other people that we are an organisation which can be trusted. They are not asked to sign up to a statement of conviction, though we do have one. They need to be in sympathy with our ethos and our style of work.

Hmmmm .... John Richardson's failure to check if this Rowan Williams was the Archbishop of Canterbury was, considering the mischief that is being wrought at this time, "either naive or perfidious in the extreme" .....

Colin, he is not Right, just Most of the time .....

'The said person's name changed during the time they were a patron.'

Colin, is this Rowan Williams male or female? (I knew a girl called Rowan once.)You could have indicated that with a 'Mr' or 'Ms', or maybe used his/her middle initials, the way things are done stateside ('Michael J. Fox', 'George W. Bush') to distinguish otherwise same names.
What did you seriously expect people to think if you listed a 'Rowan Williams' on your Anglican website? I understand there is an Anglican priest over in London called George Bush, but I don't think confusion would arise over that!

Can I opt for perfidious? It sounds better than naive in the extreme.

Probably my final thought on the matter, but ... supposing in my article about +John Gladwin's patronage of CA I'd just put at the end "Rowan Williams is listed as a Trustee"? I wonder what conclusion readers would have drawn. It would have been completely accurate - indeed, it would have been simply what is says on the CA website. In the total context, however, might it not have been just a tad confusing on my part? A small amendment on the CA website (eg to Mr if appropriate) might actually be helpful to others who might make the same mistake as me. PS On the naive/perfidious scale, I'd rather be compared to 'Ming the Merciless' than 'Frank Spencer'.

But given that neither John or Andrew believe that people who hold views similar to those of Changing Attitude should be part of the church anyway, why should they be seen as anything other than hostile?

Colin Coward wrote: "First, Andrew, you refer to the elusive Rowan Williams as a patron, compounding the error."

I'm not denying that I may have done so, but I can't recall doing so. Could you let me know where and when I've referred to Rowan Williams as a patron of Changing Attitude? If not I'll assume it was an honest mistake.

I would have thought Changing Attitude having the Most Revd Dr Rowan Williams as a trustee was as unlikely as the George Bush, priest in London, also being President of the USA.

It didn't occur to me that the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is a very busy man, would be confused with someone who is a trustee of Changing Attitude.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has been very clear about his commitment to the teaching of the church as expressed in 'Issues', 1.10 and Windsor and if he were really a trustee of Changing Attitude, this would have become a major news story, and possibly a scandal, some years ago.

We do not live 'Stateside' here, but for the benefit of everyone, Ms Rowan Williams resigned as a trustee in 2005 and John's article was inacurate for not one but two reasons.

If the Archbishop of Canterbury had been a trustee, what would that mean for him and for the Church of England and for her LGBT members? Good news or bad news?

I wonder what kind of story Anglican Mainstream would be publishing about +Rowan if he were found to be a trustee of Changing Attiude?

Isn't one of the other real stories here (beyond the critical effect this is having on the Chelmsford/Kenya relationship) the truth that the Church of England is similar to the Anglican churches of the USA and Canada. We have bishops who are prepared to be visibly supportive of the dignity of LGBT people and recognise that our place in the Church is not simply to be the object of Church reports and a 'listening process' but to be granted equal dignity and equality with heterosexuals.

The difficulty for the Rowan Williams who lives in Lambeth Palace (for whom I have a lot of sympathy) and the problem for members of Anglican Mainstream, is that the CofE has some mainstream diocesan bishops who are as gay-friendly as many in ECUSA - and why not, my friends?

I think the important thing is to be "above reproach" and CA have been correct to clarify there are two people sharing the same name; so that ABC is not unknowingly co-opted by propagandists.

Two articles have raised in my mind is when is one a "conscientious objector" or a "sinful heretic"? http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_060525kenya.shtml gives a summary of the issues and how GLBT tolerant John Gladwin has been deprived the chance to even talk to in Kenya. This raises questions about the viability of the "Covenant for Unity" as alluded to the in the latest Church Newspaper: http://www.churchnewspaper.com/news.php?read=on&number_key=5821&title=Covenant%20hope%20for%20unity

One thing that the Covenant for Unity will need to address if it is to be viable, is what happens to those who are or seek to be hospitable towards GLBTs but are in absolutist "we will be judged as sinners and damned in hell" if we tolerate such people or allow women a teaching voice? At present the perfect sola scripture interpretation of those people who would be "conscientious objectors" and set up alternative "pure" communion within tolerant dioceses would not allow such alternative communion within their own dioceses lest they burn in hell for sheltering the unrepentant sinners.

So where do we go and to whom do we appeal under the proposed "Covenant of Unity"?

'The difficulty for the Rowan Williams who lives in Lambeth Palace (for whom I have a lot of sympathy) and the problem for members of Anglican Mainstream, is that the CofE has some mainstream diocesan bishops who are as gay-friendly as many in ECUSA - and why not, my friends?'

I know the English are obessed with class, but what does 'mainstream diocesan' mean in England? Are some dioceses (or bishops) 'mainstream' and others 'tributaries'?
And what is wrong with it? Nothing - if you want to see the same kind of schisms that have rent ECUSA and ACC. Sadly, I think that is the goal of CA: to see disobedience to the Church's teaching and the clear voice of Lambeth 110.1, TWR and the Dromantine communique institutionalized by the drip-drip approach, as it has been on the other side of the Atlantic. However, the Church in Africa won't be fooled.

Peter,

I was just trying to reclaim the word mainstream from a fringe group in the Church - Anglican Mainstream. That's a naughty statement, but members of Anglican Mainstream are no more mainstream than supporters of Changing Attitude, and certainly not more mainstream than ALL the members of our House of Bishops. There is no such thing as a mainstream Anglican who is closer to the centre than everyone else. Anglicanism isn't like that, is it, and I want to rescue the Church from its lurch towards partisan extremism as much as I want to advocate the full inclusion of LGBT people.

I don't want to see schims in the Church of England. I don't see that ECUSA and ACC are 'rent apart' by schism at the moment. ECUSA in particular is dealing with strongly opposed views, but not yet in schism. I always suspect those who use extreme language and imagery as wanting to provoke the very thing they claim others are creating.

Changing Attitude does not accept Lambeth 1.10 and Windsor as the final mind of the Church. Neither is legally binding. They are the mind of the Church as presently expressed, and it is legitimate for Anglicans, lay, ordained and episcopal to engage in a process of further discernment, as the Church has done over slavery, race and gender.

I am not fooled either, by those who claim to hold the moral high ground by accusing someone like me of failing to abide by the whole of Lambeth 1.10. Those you propose as being obedient to 1.10 are similarly partial in their obedience, some stating dogmatically that they will not engage in any process of listening to homosexual people.

There are no people standing on pure, moral high ground when it comes to observing all the clauses of Lambeth 1.10 - none.

Colin Coward wrote: "We have bishops who are prepared to be visibly supportive of the dignity of LGBT people and recognise that our place in the Church is not simply to be the object of Church reports and a 'listening process' but to be granted equal dignity and equality with heterosexuals."

Dear Colin, EVERYONE is entitled to be treated with respect, even conservatives. But that doesn't mean that everything people desire to do is worthy of "inclusion" - especially in a religion or religious organisation.

Christianity as received by the Church is a "revealed" religion - with a historical Founder, authoritative Scriptures, and 2000 years of history. I think that the Church in Kenya, and Britain, has a right to base the faith and conduct it teaches, and organisational/behavioural codes it runs itself by, on Christian principles and Scriptures - not just on "Equal dignity and equality". "Equal dignity and equality" is just one part if the equation... otherwise you would have to approve of [adult] incest, polygamy, polyamorous sexual relationships and any other sexual orientation, or sexual behaviour people felt attracted to !

You might disagree strongly with what we believe and teach, but you are not compelled to either join or to remain a member. It is purely a matter of choice for everyone - including me and you!