Just to clarify for those who may be confused by "interviews with John Richardson, a spokesperson for the Kenyan church, and Ruth Gledhill", I am not a spokesperson for the Kenyan church. (Try, "with John Richardson, with a spokesperson for the Kenyan church, and with ...".) The spokesperson referred to is Revd Tim Wambunya, vicar of Emmanuel Church, Hornsey Road, London and Chair of the Kenya Church Association UK. He has an article on the Fulcrum website.

Thank you John, I will amend.
That's what happens when you post quickly before going to church...
Of course, it never entered my head that anyone could mistake you for someone other than yourself :-)

Gledhill paints John Gladwin as on the extreme liberal left of the church and as naive. This is complete nonsense on both counts. She also describes the African position on homosexuality as if it is a cultural correlate of being African - but this is not true.The position of the Kenyan bishops is not a function of their being African but of being ultraconservative evangelicals, which is the dominant churchmanship of the leaders of the Kenyan and some other African churches. In those African countries where the Anglican churches are not dominated by such conservative evangelicalism a completely different approach is apparent.

"Feature on Kenya and Chelmsford, including interviews with John Richardson of Chelmsford Anglican Mainstream, with Tim Wambunya of the Kenya Church Association UK, and with Ruth Gledhill."

Haven't heard it yet, but---geez, what is this? A range of views from Right to Further Right?

Don't want to swipe at a colleague, but did anyone else think the pointed reference to the Faerie Queen was a tad inappropriate?

JC
The BBC did note that nobody was available to speak for Bishop John until he himself returns to the UK.

That certainly was a quick cut off of Ruth Gledhill at the end--was there a clear communication as to the time constraints of the interview?

I thought that Ruth's comment about "Extreme Liberals" was very true. They are, in my view, unable to see any legitimatacy in any beliefs that conflict with their own. The attitude and argumentation sounds like "war talk" rather than "speaking the truth in love".

Hence I get "homophobia" accusations - not because I "hate" or "fear" or am "irrational" but because I try to conduct my life according to Christian teachings based on the New Testament, and teach other people to [try to] do the same. But no-one is forced to be a Christian; church-goers aren't compelled to live up to Christian ideals; and there are liberal churches quite willing to "fully include" people who don't want to live to those standards!

Ms. Gledhill cannot yet discern that a whole spectrum of global human rights initiatives are not just the newest, clever form of western dominance and colonialism? Why not? Because in the cases at hand these human rights ideas are being applied to LGBTQ folks? - all over Europe, and even in Canada, parts of Australia, New Zealand, and even in parts of the good old rightwing religious U.S.A. Gee, what a curious blind spot for a religion journalist to exhibit. One rather imagines she cannot empathize with any of the lesbian journalists with whom she probably works from time to time. Alas. Human rights notions can only make sense for somebody like her, who is presumably straight. And orthodoxly religious to boot. Otherwise human rights ideas are a secular plot against orthodox believers? Against Africans (who have already suffered so much at the high-handedness of Anglos)?

The Anglican Mainstream spokesperson now seems to presume a similarly narrow, airless, collapsed conversation space. All the air possible simply must be defined as belonging exclusively to the straight conservative believers to whom God has presumably given all of it in the first place. Any LGBTQ invitation to listening which is not clearly hedged about with traditional church preliminaries which demean the LGBTQ citizens being invited to speak by defining them in profoundly negative ways before they have even opened their mouths (or minds, or hearts)- let alone any actual citizenship equalities and human rights practices - is now summarized as a matter which could simply endanger the souls of the faithful traditional believers. Rubbing shoulders with out gay folks is just that damning. Hmmm. If that isn't an innate claim to own all the world's oxygen, inside and outside of our churches, I have quite mistaken it.

Senator Joseph McCarthy's government commission against the communists in the 1950's practised this strategy of guilt by association, and polished it to a sort of high art form.

"In those African countries where the Anglican churches are not dominated by such conservative evangelicalism a completely different approach is apparent."

The only African Province that is not on the same page as Kenya is South Africa. Africa - sub saharan - was mostly evangelised either USPG or CMS. The latter is clearly Evangelical and the former is Anglo Catholic. A good example of a province evangelised by both is Tanzania. The point I am making in reply to the above comment is that this is not an issue simply among conservative evangelicals. The Global South has a united front apart from the province of South Africa which generally is more in tune with western values and relativism. The more theologicallly conservative Anglicans in that country are more likely to be part of the other Anglican (not in communion with Canterbury) Church.

My suggestion is that another reason be sought for the unity of the Global South be found instead of simply labelling "it" as Evangelical opposition. Evangelicals are opposed to the innovative agenda that is tearing apart the communion but they/we are not alone. Could it be that this innovative agenda is simply wrong and NOT a movement of the Holy Spirit as is claimed.

I am buoyed by the knowledge that while in ECUSA I am part of a dissenting minority I am part of a majority in the Anglican Communion. Dare I suggest the the Africans might be right and the churches of the "West" are lost in their devotion to the Spirit of the Age? Vilification of the Evangelical Anglicans of Africa does not achieve anything but manifest the hubris of the "West."

Dave

You are right to point out the problems of broad brush stereotyping. One of the risks in such discussions is over-generalisations. There is also a problem when an extreme group poses as representing an entire camp, leading to the whole camp becomes tarred with the same brush.

You have rightly pointed out that there is a risk of calling people "homophobic" who are merely trying to stay true to their interpretation of scripture. The difficulty, is that camp also includes homophobics who hide behind the more gentle souls.

On the other extreme, I have seen some incredibly misogynistic and/or predatory homosexuals hide within "liberal" camps.

One of the problems with an "all or nothing" is that members of the two extremes will often "egg on" debates so that their more sinister behaviours are not more closely examined and addressed. Predatory behaviour is not limited to men or homosexuals (there are also predatory women and heterosexuals). Sociopathic high-control freaks who will readily waive human rights and dignity in pursuit of their self-interests is not restricted to homophobics, e.g. we see the same patterns in "ethnic cleansing" and "assimilation".

Similarly, the overgeneralisation applies beyond the homosexuality debate. For example, many Christians are tired of being told that being a Christian means you don't care about the environment (because Jesus is going to replace it with a new heaven and earth). On the latter, I can't help thinkig that we are dealing with spoilt school children who presume that if they break or lose their "brand name" school shoes that their parents will automatically replace them with the "appropriate" footwear commensurate to their importance.

drdanfee has a rather rosy view of "human rights" which simply does not stand up to scrutiny. In the UK even the prime minister is expressing muted regrets for the consequences of the human rights culture which he introduced to the UK constitution. As it takes ever tighter hold on our society, it actually constricts freedom of thought as well as speech, and hinders the application of justice by hamstringing the courts, who are progressively disabled from administering the law.

There is no reason why journalists such as Ruth Gledhill should empathise with the lesbian journalists who drdanfee assumes are working as her colleagues at The Times, any more than she should empathise with members of the Labour Party or the BNP, simply because an oppressive human rights regime, demanding not only egalitarianism but silence, is being imposed in Britain, Canada, the US and other failing western societies.

Some of us including Miss Gledhill prefer to believe in the Christian faith rather than the discredited human rights agenda of certain elements within New Labour.

'Vilification of the Evangelical Anglicans of Africa does not achieve anything but manifest the hubris of the "West."'

So why vilify anyone? I'm very happy to acknowledge that those I disagree with on homosexuality (ie. they're agin it) are arguing from geneuinely held theological principle. Why not acknowledge also that whose of us who do not see homosexual practice as a sin are doing the same,rather than merely following 'western values and relativism'.

I suppose the danger would be that if the vilifiers on either side were to do that, they'd have to listen seriously to their opponents

Yes, basic notions of human rights can be done badly. Human rights (like any paradigm or approach or strategy) can unfortunately be used, mainly to control or dominate people, locally or even globally. This sad feature of human leadership and institutions in no way undermines the merit of those human rights ideas. I see no good reason to presume ahead of time, that if only we can find the right set of absolute and final and eternal ideas, we shall never have to take a look at how we are using our best (and our worst) against our neighbor. As if. If the price of citizenship in a democracy is constant vigilance, ditto in doubles for the price of Christian liberty when we follow Jesus as Lord. I am not so busy reciting the Nicene Creed that I cannot hear the storm trooper boots, fallling on our Anglican stairs, as it were. The lesson for which we do not wish now rises to instruct us: A totalitarian church is just as evil as a totalitarian state. No more, but not much less, either.

We see now how some conservative believers are urging a strict conformity upon us – either as Anglicans, or even completely as Christians. Those brothers and sisters now claim that our strict conformity is such a powerful witness to truth that we cannot avoid foregoing it as a core religious value and commitment.

The new conservatives just happen to use our cherished storehouse of Christian ideas and ideals in service of their campaigns to control and dominate everybody. They talk down to all sorts of people. They talk badly of all sorts of other people. So far their list of people defined exclusively as targets, enemies, or strangers includes: alternate believers, unbelievers, people of other faiths. I don’t know what this sort of narrative will look like in retrospect, but it does not indeed sound - to my mind and heart and soul – like the gospel. In my heart and mind and body and soul, Jesus is still standing, to declare that God – God – yes it bears repeating, God – has sent him to liberate the prisoners from their chains, to heal the blind and crippled, to proclaim the acceptable day of the Lord (which turns out to be rather something like an Old Testament Year of Jubilee in some respects). If I have ever heard a human rights sermon in my life so far, this sermon of the New Testament Jesus would surely be on the human rights list. Indeed, my human rights is partly based on gospel witness, historically and culturally and theologically speaking. Is the New Testament's Good Shepherd seeking out the lost sheep caught in the brambles in the storm, only to shear its wool for the marketplace and slaughter it for the meat markets when all are safely returned to the fold? That is the church agenda for LGBTQ folks at the moment. They simply do not actually exist in the conservative mind or heart or spirit as themselves, but only as the negative basic religious traditions define them.

I think Jesus' sermon got the ancient crowd so riled they tried to carry Jesus out of the synagogue and throw him off a cliff for preaching heresy, just as the Old Testament more or less commands them to do, in God’s voice. There is a strict, conformed reading of scripture for you.

To pledge Jesus is Lord, then, in no way involves the strict conformity, control, and domination that new conservatives are now claiming is innate, a sheer essence of us hearing the real good news. Alas. Lord have mercy.

drdanfee wrote: "The Anglican Mainstream spokesperson now seems to presume a similarly narrow, airless, collapsed conversation space. All the air possible simply must be defined as belonging exclusively to the straight conservative believers to whom God has presumably given all of it in the first place.... . Rubbing shoulders with out gay folks is just that damning...."

Dear drdanfee, you will probably be peplexed to learn that there are "gay" supporters of Anglican Mainstream, even of the ultra-conservative "Reform" network.. They disagree with you on what life options conform with true Christian principles and teachings!

I expect your first reaction is likely to be to dismiss them as deceived, oppressed or unecessarily "suffering".. but maybe it is just plain devotion to Christ, and self-denial - to which we are all called in different ways..

Again the question of rejection of the teaching of the bible. An absolutist position based on claims of being true to the teaching of the bible must be done 100% correctly lest one discredits one's position. So the bible is clear on usury, the sabbath, and providing hospitality to the alien and the afflicted.

Thus Christians who do not use credit cards, pay superannuation, take out home loans, participate in transactions pertaining to charging interest, nor contribute to organisations that use this form of usery, nor tolerate such prostitution within their parishes may make an argument based on rejection of biblical teaching. That leaves probably the Amish and a few similar sects free to make this assertion without being seen as being hypocrites.

For the rest, it is the brave or foolish soul that casts the first stone. 1 John 1:8-10 "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his Word has no place in our lives."

If his Word has no place in our lives because we are hypocrites, then we can not use the Word of the bible to justify our hypocrisy.

Please limit comments on this thread to the subject matter of the article, namely:

the Kenya/Chelmsford story
the interview of the Bp of New Hampshire
and the BBC's coverage thereof.

In line with this, I have unpublished several comments from yesterday that in retrospect I should not have approved. My apologies to all concerned.