Monday, 9 October 2006

Changing Attitude on Kigali

Changing Attitude England has published a lengthy response to the Kigali communiqué and The Road to Lambeth. Read it in full here.

The Kigali communiqué published at the conclusion of the Global South meeting and The Road to Windsor document have received widespread coverage and reaction. While many parts of the church are engaged in discussion about the impact of the communiqué on the future of the Anglican Communion, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Anglicans have been feeling deep anxiety and fear…

One gay Anglican commented this week about Archbishop Finlay, retired bishop of Toronto, who presided at the blessing of a lesbian couple and as a result had his licence to officiate at marriages suspended:

“As I’m sure many gay people do, I find this “debate” enormously painful. Painted, as it is, in such stark, uncompromising terms, and apparently so one-sided, it is easy to lapse into self-doubt, to question one’s decisions of the past. Archbishop Finlay has given hope and encouragement to me, and countless others, who might despair, and, God forbid, begin to loathe themselves again.”

This is the effect Global South attitudes have on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Anglicans. They create fear, anxiety, self-loathing…

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Monday, 9 October 2006 at 10:58am BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England
Comments

"This is the effect Global South attitudes have on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Anglicans. They create fear, anxiety, self-loathing…"

No longer LGBT Christians need agree with some angry and emotionally twisted Global South/Network hate mongerers by doing ANYTHING self-destructive and self-demeaning while thinking/saying to ourselves, "what's the use?"...it's now a more elightened (coming soon everywhere) era and a time for most of us on the OUTSIDE to remain calm and to remain steadfast Christians...no matter what. Continuing to love our Church while understanding our inability to change some of the other people and their hatefulness against us contributes to/is essence of our spiritual growth at the Cross.

Don't look/fall back into self-loathing no matter what *they* say or what *they* do...they still "know not what they do" and it becomes clearer everyday.

Lord hear my prayer

Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Monday, 9 October 2006 at 3:05pm BST

Regretably, if the laws proposed in Nigeria are passed, making it a criminal act to even talk about LGBT persons in a positibe manner, it won't be safe for Nigerian Anglican LGBT persons to come forward, to out themselves, in order to take part in a listening process. In fact, the current Nigerian laws regarding same sex orientation make it unsafe enough as it is. And since the Nigerian Anglican church is apparently supportive of these laws, there will be no way to make it safe to hold these conversations, no way to put faces on those faithful Christians in the Anglican Church of Nigeria who happen to be LGBT.
Lois Keen

Posted by: Lois Keen on Monday, 9 October 2006 at 3:24pm BST

Heres a thought. Howsabout Fulcrum leadership member Andrew Goddard coming right out and saying in a public forum like, maybe, the Church of England Newspaper, "This law is unChristian, and Archbishop Akinola's support for it an abomination". Might that not clear up some confusion about how 'open' Fulcrum are?

Posted by: JBE on Monday, 9 October 2006 at 4:41pm BST

Church leaders and most people in Nigerian society are already implementing the Bill against lesbian and gay people even though it has not been passed by the Government If that Bill is not stopped many LGBT Nigerians will have to go into exile. It not easy living in Nigeria as gay and when that deadly bill is passed into law it will become impossible.

Our Nigerian Anglican church is now spending its energies and resources to make outcast innocent loving children of God just because we are LGBTs.

What can one do to make them see reason when they claim to be hearing from God that it is right to divide the worldwide Anglican church and take control. The Nigerian Church is using gay issue to achieve its hidden agenda, which is to take control of the leadership of the Anglican communion from our colonial masters.

Posted by: Davis on Monday, 9 October 2006 at 5:14pm BST

My other comment would be that the rejection of GLBTs does not just harm the individuals themselves. It also harms their families - parents are called to reject their own children or to defy the church doctrine if they choose to love their children unconditionally. That same conflict between loving souls as they are made versus demanding they be more than what they are ripples into the broader community. Especially when the doctrine calls for silence and repression to protect the name of the church. It starts to parallel the indifference to pedophilia or predatory priests in the church ranks (which has only been resolved in many dioceses because once the threats of legal litigation (and loss of tithe revenues and assets) became real).

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Monday, 9 October 2006 at 5:48pm BST

I am not a gay or homosexual but a member of St, Andrews Anglican Church Bakana where Davis Mac-Iyalla and I ware confirmed by the Late Bishop Fubara. The Bishop confirmed more then forty members that day as communicants it was not only Davis. I think Canon Tunde and the church is using the wrong method on this issue of homosexuality. Everyone in bakana knows that Davis is gay and a committed Anglican.

Posted by: Iseal on Tuesday, 10 October 2006 at 10:44am BST

Forgive me but the church is not to set its doctrine to make any particular group feel good about itself.

Stop playing the victim - it does not get you anywhere.

As liberal Bishop Harries says, you have to make a case from scripture - tough when it consistently contradicts what you want but if you want to convince anyone apart from a small band of liberals, this is what is needed - a serious argument (not emotional blackmail)

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 10 October 2006 at 1:00pm BST

NP,
Jesus said, "I have come that they may have life".

When we preach welcome, we preach life. When we reject, exclude, vilify, and defame, we are not preaching life. Yet that is what Archbishop Akinola and the Church of Nigeria are preaching.
(and even if you believe that homosexual behavior is sinful, you can preach welcome and life).

And yes, we need to produce a serious scriptural and theological argument to justify moving to same-sex marriage. And I hope that my church (Canada) is moving in that direction with the St. Michael report. Simply asserting it as a matter of equal rights doesn't cut it.

Posted by: Jim Pratt on Tuesday, 10 October 2006 at 2:29pm BST

It is good to hear from Iseal, on the ground in Nigeria. This is what we need to hear, as much as possible. Good wishes.

Posted by: laurence roberts on Tuesday, 10 October 2006 at 5:28pm BST

NP. Please stop playing the victim and portraying others as being victims because that is your mindset.

The truth will get where it needs to go. The truth is not changed by slandering, hiding evidence, ignoring reality, double speak.

If the truth wasn't rising to the surface, we would not be seeing such preemptive attempts to dismantle and sabotage what is happening. The frantic behaviours reflects that the spiderweb of deception is being rent asunder by the force of truth. If the spider was not feeling insecure, it would be playing more covert strategies.

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Tuesday, 10 October 2006 at 6:56pm BST

Cheryl -the truth is that the dog is no longer happy to be emotionally blackmailed into letting itselfy wagged by the tail.

77m Anglicans worldwide have had the agenda set and forced by 0.7m in ECUSA - but they are tired of it and no longer fall silent at the false charge of bigotry etc - they are tired by too much emotional blackmail and particular agendas being pushed.

The big mission of the Anglican Church is compromised by ECUSA's attitudes and actions so most of the the 77m Anglicans in the world know they need to move on - even the ABC seems to know that now. This is the truth.

Posted by: NP on Wednesday, 11 October 2006 at 7:21am BST

It was indeed good to hear from Iseal, as Laurence has already said, and to have confirmation from a member of St Andrews Church Bakana that Davis Mac-Iyalla was confirmed by the late Bishop Fubara and that everyone in Bakana knows that Davis is gay and a committed Anglican. Canon Tunde denied both of these truths repeatedly, and has not really apologised for refusing to recognise Davis as a member of the church who was indeed known to be gay.

From a previous thread, Dave Rowett had posted right at the end:

"I do feel for Tunde, actually: as the communications bod for the archdiocese of Nigeria 'Tunde' doesn't exist as an independent entity, and whether his true feelings are those presented in public is irrecoverable.

'Tunde the priest' may be a different person from 'Tunde the servant of diocesan policy', and if I were in his position I'm not sure, even if I did have misgivings about what the archdiocese was up to, that I'd have the nerve to put my own livelihood on the line, in the knowledge that someone else would come along and do what was wanted by them at the top. There are victims of CHurch policy in all sorts of places...."

Dave expressed a generosity of mind and motive to Tunde which had been escaping me. I am still annoyed that Davis was unfairly attacked and my honour feels satisfied when people like Iseal confirm that everything Davis has told me is shown to be true, and Tunde wrong. I own an apology to Tunde for wanting to change him and for sometimes thinking him my enemy in the journey of faith.

But Tunde does bear the responsibility of representing the policy and strategy of his Church. This brings us into conflict, which is not where I want to be. Nothing is resolved when we allow ourselves to be polarised, and start to see the other as 'enemy' of our faith/ideas/integrity. God as God is too often left out of these threads. God who changed all human reality through the life, death, resurrection and ascension of his Son Jesus Christ.

My reality and identity have already been changed by God's generous initiative. It isn't my (or Davis's) sexuality that is the problem for God. It is the part of us that continues to resist God's gentle, tender, patient, loving call to me to relate more openly, trustingly and deeply.

Posted by: Colin Coward on Wednesday, 11 October 2006 at 9:42am BST

Thanks for this post Colin, calling us, I feel, to the one thing needful.

Came acrosss this lovely miidle Welsh 'couplet'--it is so moving.I feel it is saying in the 13th century what you are calling us to, in the 21st. .

Ym myrn yn nhyno yn ynysedd mor ymhob ffordd ydd eler Rhag Crist *gwyn nid oes ynialedd?
On every hill, in every valley, in the islands of the sea, everyway one goes, from the *holy Christ there is no escape.

* Blessed

Posted by: laurence roberts on Wednesday, 11 October 2006 at 12:46pm BST

NP

A few comments:

1. The scriptural passages on which you rest your case deal with sexual perversion, i.e. what is unnatural. In this context, it is, of course, unnatural and damaging (sinful) for a heterosexual man to sleep with another man but it is equally unnatural for a gay man to force himself to sleep with a woman and to engage in an act that, if he does not find it repellent, finds it empty and spiritless. To accept this argument, of course, you have to accept that being gay is not a choice but ontological and this you may not be prepared to do. However, in rejecting it you would be rejecting a growing body of science evidence and the experiences of gay people.

2. Am I alone in believing that God continues to reveal Himself to His world in many ways including science and that it is incumbent upon His church to continuously reinterpret scripture in the light of this on-going revelation? Psychology, and Human Sexuality, have been legitimate fields of study in the
West for many years and have led us, among other things, to a new understanding of homosexuality. If we fail to take account of this new knowledge and understanding are we not, in a sense, blinding ourselves to The Truth?

3. You argue that 0.7 million is a very small percentage of 77 million and should not be allowed to “force the agenda”. In so many words, you’re arguing that “truth” should be determined by the majority. This, it seems to me, is rather like saying that we should disregard Einstein’s Theory of Relativity until the majority of the world’s population understand it, including me.

Posted by: Andrew on Wednesday, 11 October 2006 at 3:07pm BST

NP

Shades of the American Civil Revolution here? The dog worried about the wagging of the tail?

Since the Civil Revolution spearheaded the ending of black slavery in America, then I cheer on a repeat performance!

My honour does not stand on victory, my honour stands on fighting for justice. God will determine the outcomes and I will trust God to wield truth and justice as and when it is pleasing to Him. In the meantime, the only thing we take to heaven is our conscience.

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Wednesday, 11 October 2006 at 8:53pm BST

Andrew - minorities can be wrong too.


Cheryl - this is not about equal-rights. It is about consistent, faithful interpretation of the Bible. Many of the abuses you mention in various posts come from people ignoring the Bible and justifying their positions to suit themselves - we must not be like that

Posted by: NP on Thursday, 12 October 2006 at 8:32am BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.