Bishop Chane of Washington:

http://www.edow.org/news/media/releases/2007/lambeth08.html

There is no point repeating ad nauseam that discussion must continue with those that have been flagrantly going against the teaching of the AC......Lambeth 1.10 stands and the revisionists have failed to convince many that on biblical grounds it should be over-turned.

I think that this effort to show even-handedness by not inviting Gene R. is not effective.

Surely the quarrel is not with Gene R. as an individual but with his consecration as bishop, that is, the quarrel is really with all those who consecrated him and approved his consecration. Making Gene R. himself the token scapegoat is arbitrary.

Also there is an asymmetry -- at least in common perception -- between his alleged offence, already a few years old, and the more recent church-breaking action of Minns and his consecrators (all of whom, too, should logically be disinvited), in that Gene R.'s offence resides massively in alleged private sexual activity whereas Minns' offence concerns primarily a public breach of church order.

I suppose Rowan W. can't disinvite KJS, or the entire HOB. Nor can he disinvite Akinola and co. The alternative way to show even-handedness would be to invite Minns as well.

Maybe the idea is to point up some parity between the two consacratees and thus get their consecrators to reconsider their attitudes.

Enough are convinced that Lambeth 1.10 does not "stand" other than a rushed plenary from a body with no legal standing of making anything approaching Church law or docttrine. And one thing the Archbishop says is about keeping people around the table and discussing. Which is why it would have been unsatisfactory but best to have invited everyone to Lambeth whatever they have done, whereas singling out individuals whilst allowing others to go is even less satisfactory.

But discussion is to continue, NP. Do you really think that RW is prepared to face the exclusion of a third of his own church?

I'm not sure how useful the 'listening process' is either, but you must realise that the views promoted in the 'Road to Lambeth' will not win majority support in the CofE? The CofE is not about to defy British law nor cause a severe internal split, as much as Reform or Anglican 'Mainstream' may want it to!

As church councils go, Lambeth 1998 falls short, clearly. First of all, nobody gathered that Lambeth together as a juridical body even if it was called into being like all the other Lambeth's to date as a prayerful and reflective one.

We lack just the exclusive juridical bodies, ACC aside, that Lambeth and the Primates Meeting is supposed in retrospect to be according to dubious conservative Anglican realignment thinking. Wishing, and talking loudly will not turn Lambeth or the Primates Meeting into that sort of council. And ACC has so far been about common mission, rather than policing Anglicanism and punishing provinces as such.

In addition, the history of Lambeth 1998 makes clear that Lord Carey and his conservative Anglican friends pulled a coup of sorts by rushing their conservative statement through at the last minute, apparently in significant fear of the working report which would have duly reported out an alternate sense of the meeting, opening even more doors and windows to LGBTQ believers. And calling for continued study?

LGBTQ believer and their friends in society or church life are not naughty three year olds who have been caught playing in the wet sandbox and forgotten to wash their hands before tea. They are prayerful, conscientious, educated adult citizens who have made heartfelt and informed -albeit often from non-conservative religious points of view - choices to follow Jesus of Nazareth.

How about a +Gene Robinson, Davis Maciyalla double bill sponsored by Changing Attitude in London at the same time as Lambeth? Perhaps some of the progressive Anglican bishops might find that a more interesting venue than listening to some archbishops torture logic to make it exclude while including, while others try bully the rest of the Communion into submission with heavy Bibles covered with spikes.

Father Joe,

"Also there is an asymmetry -- at least in common perception -- between his alleged offence, already a few years old, and the more recent church-breaking action of Minns and his consecrators (all of whom, too, should logically be disinvited), in that Gene R.'s offence resides massively in alleged private sexual activity whereas Minns' offence concerns primarily a public breach of church order."

Didn't the consecration of Gene Robinson constitute a breach of Church order? Wasn't/isn't there a restriction upon the consecration of a practicing same-sex orientated person?

Merseymike - I think the ABC knows he can carry the CofE liberals with him as he seeks to keep the AC together. You can see this in his handling of the JJohn affair. Then, if you look at Dromatine, TWR and Tanzania, his direction is very clear and even more so now VGR is not invited to Lambeth 08

But Lambeth 1.10 DOESN'T stand, does it, NP. It has never stood.

And your hero, the Prince Bishop of Abuja, is one of the leaders in defying Lambeth 1.10 in that he has refused to listen in any way to the experience of homosexual persons - which, whether you are prepared to admit the truth or not, was an integral part of the resolution.

Please spare us the desperate repetition that you believe Lambeth 1.10 is authoritative. Quite apart from the juridical weakness of your argument (Lambeth has no such authority), you really don't believe it's authoritative anyway.

NP wrote: "Lambeth 1.10 stands and the revisionists have failed to convince many that on biblical grounds it should be over-turned."

Perahps NP is under the misimpression that the Angel Moroni, or some other imagined spirit, appeared to the bishops assembled at Lambeth, and gave them gold tablets, inscribed with a new heavenly message, further defining the Christian Church.

However, I do not accept the Book of Mormon, and I certainly reject NP's wish to redefine the Anglican Church.

Neither Joseph Smith, nor NP, are true prophets, and Lambeth is not even close to being the equivalent of the Council of Nicea.

Fantastic idea, counterlight.
If we all start contributing now, Changing Attitude might have enough funds to sponsor Davis in 2008.

John:

I have to disagree about the nature of VGR's "offense" (your term not mine): It is very public, and ongoing. I say this without intending to weigh it in any other way against the "offenses" of others that you cite.

Steven

PS-It will be interesting to see how this plays out. From a "votes" standpoint, TEC will lose whether it comes or not, but the GS could only lose if it boycotts. The winner or loser in terms of who determines the AC future could well be determined by this one question.

The TEC is in the process of being gradually muscled out of the AC (despite Rowan's foot dragging), and without it, the liberal position faces the same process elsewhere. However, a withdrawal by the GS at this point would leave liberals largely in control of the field. Hmmm. Liberals should probably be praying for the GS to leave in a huff. But then, they probably know that. /s

well Malcolm et al - I was simply listening to the liberal ABC who says that Lambeth 1.10 represents the "mind of the communion"

NP, most reappraisers don't care about the "mind of the Communion" since they are the minority there. In their polity, democracy is only valid if they carry the votes. That's why decisions at TEC General Conventions are honored, but decisions in local parishes or decisions made by the collective primates are worthless in their eyes.

Steven - the Anglican Communion without the liberals (including the USA, Canada, England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Europe and South Africa) would be diminished, impoverished - and ignored.

I don't see how that would help anyone. Unless you think that the Anglican Communion is such a basket case that oblivion would be a relief. I don't think the Archbishop of Canterbury or a majority of Primates are quite there yet.

As a member of the House of Lords, I presume that Rowan knows exactly what it means to talk about "the mind" of an organization. Parliamentary bodies have a process called a "mind of the House" resolution which sets forth the considered opinion of the body. However, such a resolution has no legislative efect.

Rather like a Lambeth resolution, really.

I have no doubt that 1.10 represents the mind of the Communion. It still has no legislative authority despite your increasingly desperate attempts to claim it does.

But perhaps you and your friend in Abuja might have the integrity to acknowledge that the mind of the Communion also stressed the importance of actually listening to homosexuals - which Abuja at least blatantly refuses to do.

Your baseless claims that 1.10 is authoritative would be more credible (if still misguided) were you and the Prince Bishop of Abuja to submit yourselves to the resolution as well - by listening like the resolution says.

>>>Please spare us the desperate repetition that you believe Lambeth 1.10 is authoritative.

If you forbid NP desperate repetitions, he will have nothing to contribute.

"There is no point repeating ad nauseam that discussion must continue with those that have been flagrantly going against the teaching of the AC......Lambeth 1.10 stands and the revisionists have failed to convince many that on biblical grounds it should be over-turned."

Well, NP, I guess that's the last we'll hear from you, then! Have a good life!

NP "was simply listening to the liberal ABC who says that Lambeth 1.10 represents the "mind of the communion".

But that is the w h o l e of Lambeth 1998 1:10, NP, not just part of it.

Only as whole it can be "the mind" of the Communion (in 1998 ;=).

Cut in half it is nothing - and your hero of Abuja is the first to cut it in half.

Consequently it is not worth the paper it's written on.

John asked: "Didn't the consecration of Gene Robinson constitute a breach of Church order?

Wasn't/isn't there a restriction upon the consecration of a practicing same-sex orientated person?"

As per above. The realignment camp was very much opposed to this consecration having sought a re-defining "issue" for a couple of decades since the ordination or women, but there was no such actual Church order.

And that's a big part of the trouble.

Had there been such an order - for or against - things would have been much easier to manage.

Also, with the ABC's letter accompanying the invitations, we (= you) have returned to square 1:

Lambeth conferences are not Synods of the Church and do not make descisions.

Malcolm
I don't think "Mind of the House" is such a widespread legislative concept as you suggest. A quick Google search on the phrase turns up *only* references to resolutions of the ECUSA House of Bishops. But I would be happy to be corrected on this point.

badman said,
"the Anglican Communion without the liberals (including the USA, Canada, England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Europe and South Africa) would be diminished, impoverished - and ignored."

I'd argue that the TEC - as currently run by the liberals - is being increasingly ignored by Americans.

Let's face it, EVERYONE has ignored the entirety of Lambeth 1:10, as it is so blatantly contradictory.

It pays lip service to gays by declaring, "We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons".

However, at no point since the resolution was passed have the powers that be "listened to the experience of homosexual persons" when making important decisions concerning the ministry of gay people and their faithful relationships - the Windsor Report, Dromantine, Dar Es Salaam et al are proof of that.

Gene Robinson's exclusion, as a corollary of Windsor, increases my suspicion of the integrity of the Listening Process.

Surely, after a decade of further harassment, isn't it time the Communion examined the reality of institutionalised homophobia, and scrapped Lambeth 1:10 and the Windsor Process on the basis that they are so intrinsically unethical?

Are any other bishops going to boycott Lambeth in solidarity with Gene Robinson? You'd sort of hope that at least a few would, ideally a few CofE ones.

The term is used in Commonwealth Parliaments at least, and I am aware of "mind of the Commons" resolutions in Canada.

That said, it is Parliamentary minutiae. I suspect +Rowan would be aware of it because he is a) a bright lad and b) a member of such a body.

Fair enough, though, that the term is likely to be obscure to anyone who isn't a follower of such minutiae.

However, it still does not justify the argument which NP keeps harping on that a) 1.10 is authoritative and all Anglicans are required to submit to it and b) that he and the Prince Bishop of Abuja should get to discard anything within that authoritative piece that doesn't suit their fancy.

This is a tad off topic, but related to many similar discussions. There's an absolutely fascinating discussion (and a very long one) of many of the issues that pertain to this topic on:
http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=145
It's probably worthy of a post of its own.

I'm sure ++Canterbury's intention was to sweep all the unpleasantness and conflict under the carpet by keeping away a few pesky problematic bishops.
In the case of +Robinson, when ++Williams snubbed him, ++Canterbury might as well have dressed +Gene up in sequins, downed the houselights, and shown a spotlight on him. It looks like (as of this moment) that +Robinson will be going in some sort of diminished capacity as a "guest". When he steps off the plane at Heathrow, he will be a star. He will be the one that everyone stares at and talks about. He may even upstage Her Majesty at the tea ceremony, whether he's there or not.
And I still think it would be great to see Davis Maciyalla go with him to share the starshine.

Come on, Hugh. Just because someone believes homosexual activity to be sinful doesn't make him/her a homophobe. It just means the action is sinful in their understanding.

Lambeth 1.10 and Windsor are faithful and ethical in the understanding of many learned and faithful Anglicans. They are not so in your view and many others. We simply have two irronconcilable truth claims. Your view is trying to change the teachings of this church, and that effectively takes my church from me, and requires me to leave to find the theology that was in this church and brought me to know Jesus as my savior. Why is that ethical and just, to take that away from millions like me?

Chris says "NP, most reappraisers don't care about the "mind of the Communion" since they are the minority there. "

Really??
TWR, Tanzania, VGR's exclusion from Lambeth 08......seems like what you think is a minority is getting its way despite the liberal ABC "leading" the process.

Doug
Thank you, separate post follows shortly. Please save comments on this document for that post.

ooops - sorry - I misread Chris' statement.....but he makes an interesting point nonetheless....so, Chris why not leave the Communion to those who do care about it and stock ripping it apart?

Badman:

The diminishing Western liberal wing of the Church is already largely ignored, particularly in the U.S. On the other hand, the GS Churches are booming, encompass many 10s of millions of people, are definitely not ignored where they are located, and are certainly not being ignored--given the current brouhaha--in the West either.

However, I don't think there will ever not be a U.S., English, etc. presence in the AC, though it might not be the anglican bodies currently in place in those locales.

Steven

Harvard man wrote: “Just because someone believes homosexual activity to be sinful doesn't make him/her a homophobe. It just means the action is sinful in their understanding.”

I suggest you spin that to your local ambulance team, or emergency hospital – and see who will get hit on the head ;=)

"Sinful" is carelessly applied in this case, harvard man.

What's sinful about two people of the same sex falling in love, and wanting to share a life together? What does this threaten?

Oh, yes, I forgot, it's about certain "unnatural" sexual acts. It shows how sex-obsessed the whole debate has become on the right, while ordinary same-sex couples concern themselves with the banal practicalities of daily life.

Gene Robinson has been singled out as representing a more serious category of sinfulness than any of the other bishops who were invited. Can you imagine what it must feel like to be dumped with a Mugabe supporter, just because you are gay? Such action would justify an employment tribunal in any other sector in the UK.

As to your point about theology. Well I don't see anything resembling Lambeth 1:10 in the Common Book of Prayer, any of the Hymn books, or the Lectionary - a good cross-section of "Anglicanism" I would have thought. I can barely recall a handful of sermons which even remotely touched on the subject and I've never heard the 'texts of terror' being read out in church.

Thanks, Hugh. You did a fine job validating my point. Your claim to truth and mine cannot be reconciled.

And sex outside of Christian marriage is considered sinful in most Christian teaching, as you know. That you disagree with that doesn't change the teaching.

It is not about the sex act, but about our ordering our world in our view vs a Godly view. As I understand it, same sex sexual activity is outside that Godly view. You disagree. I am ok with you having your own opinion, but not with you changing the practices of my church to bless something that it has traditionally taught is unholy.

That doesn't mean I can't love, cherish and support my gay friends (and I have many). I have to live with trying to reconcile a biblical truth and my friends whom I love, who are gay. I pray and work towards a better understanding of this daily, trusting God to bring some clarity.

Can you please understand that, if I believe same sex attraction is a broken state, a form of original sin, that accepting it as 'ok' is the most cruel thing I could do? If I believe our God can make all things whole, including this, then asking for him to do so for all my friends' broken conditions is my most loving expression.

You must have amazing friends, harvardman. If any of my "friends" told me that they believed my love was an expression of original sin and that my condition was broken (more than theirs as fellow human beings), I would certainly question how they truly love, cherish and support me.

True friendship implies the deep acceptance of the other as a whole human being, not charitable yet judgmental "love".

Could you imagine that through your friends God is trying to bring you the clarity that this love is not actually wrong?

Presumably, most of the time, harvard man, you keep your opinions to yourself in company with your gay friends, or they tell you to perhaps after a "thank you very much but no thanks."

harvard man, just suppose one of your gay friends wanted to enter into a civil union and have a church blessing.

What would you do then? Would you decline the invitation to the ceremony on the basis that your friend was going against your view of the church's practices and teachings? Or would you decide that friendship was more important and turn up?

"For the love of God is broader
Than the measure of man's mind;
And the heart of the Eternal
Is most wonderfully kind.
But we make his love too narrow
By false limits of our own;
And we magnify his strictness
With a zeal he will not own."

F W Faber 1814-63

Harvard Man, have you noticed how often you use the phrase, "my church"?

"I am ok with you having your own opinion, but not with you changing the practices of my church to bless something that it has traditionally taught is unholy."

harvard man: ignoring the patronizing nature of the first part of your statement [so you won't burn me at the stake? Thanks!], the more important second part is FACTUALLY INCORRECT. There is NO "traditional teaching" regarding same-sex marriage, much LESS that such supposed church teaching declares it "unholy"!

"Can you please understand that, if I believe same sex attraction is a broken state, a form of original sin, that accepting it as 'ok' is the most cruel thing I could do?"

No. Any legitimately *Christian* belief comes with a self-limiting HUMILITY, that accepts that one could be wrong. That you fail to do so---that you persistently set yourself OVER AND ABOVE your (so-called) "gay friends"---only betrays that, far from fleeing your own "broken state" your own "form of original sin", you are *revelling* in it.

You need to repent, harvard man, but instead of me haranging you about it---which is unlikely to do your soul any good, and certainly won't help *my* sinful soul!---better still is for you to remain in the same undivided Episcopal Church and LEARN FROM your LGBT brothers&sisters (who will *inspire* you to repent). [Of course, I could be wrong *g*]

I just love this blog. Post an opposing view, and it's all talking at me. Not sure I hear any 'listening' going on, re: perhaps I can hold a different view and be respected for that while in disagreement.

I am as broken, if not moreso, than any other man/woman I meet. And thankful for Jesus' grace in saving me from that sinful state, even while I'm still a mess. Same sex attraction is just one of many broken states, in my understanding. You see it differently, and I appreciate that. But asking the church (the one I am a member of and as such 'mine' in that sense) to change its teaching on same sex behavior requires sanctioning something I (and much of the Communion) understand as sinful. Can you understand why that seems wrong to me? And incredibly difficult to take this position with friends I love, if pressed to disclose my feelings?

No, I typically don't disclose and am generally not asked. I love them, enjoy their company and feel this sentiment is mutual. They know I am a Christian and may guess my beliefs, but that does not preclude me from loving them and accepting them, even if not accepting their behavior, does it?

JCF, you are so right re: my need to repent of my own sinfulness. But does this mean I'm to endorse my friends actions if they are counter to my understanding of how we are called to live by Jesus? How is that faithful to the Jesus who has saved me from my own sin? Do I sit in judgement? No, that's not my place, but it is my place to love them and accept them, if not their actions. And sex outside of Christian marriage is the traditional teaching of which I speak.

Round and round we go on this, on this blog and in our church. This is our cross to bear, for now. But let us do so lovingly and with understanding and respect.

Harvardman,
if you didn't want us to engage with your views, why post them?
I did listen and comment on your original post, so did JCF and JPM.
Maybe you'd like to repay the compliment and answer the points made?

You're welcome to your view, I just don't happen to share it. And I find some of it very hurtful.
Sex outside marriage is sinful? Well, then accept that we love as fully as you do, and allow us to marry.

As for your comment that your friends know you as Christian and therefore are likely to know your views: What does that make me? Not a Christian? Or just one who holds a different view? It's my church too!

You see, I can live in disagreement with my fellow Christians, but in your case I sense such a weighty judgement against me, that I cannot see the love, understanding and respect you claim to have for those who do not agree with you.
Are you asking for something from me you're not willing to give in return?

And Harvard Man, how would you purport reconciliation with scripture and your beliefs, once it is determined by science than LGBT sexuality is genetic in nature, and can be classed at least a naturally occurring derivation?

I will buy the argument that God intends us to us what we are given properly, and not to the detriment of others. Can't you see this?

Homosexual relationships are probably sinful, if they are abusive, jealous-riddened, manipulative and hurtful. However, I believe that true loving relationships of such are not. Why do you engage scripture into a sweeping fallacy?

choirboy,

well, scripture doesn't seem fallacious to me on this issue. Sorry we disagree, but trust we can do so in a respectful way.

Erika, I am sorry you interpret my comments as judgemental. I have tried to say that I see myself as a sinful mess, no different from you. I can and do love my brothers and sisters in Christ, when we agree and when we don't. Sometimes seems more Christian when we don't, and have to live with it.

I ask you both: what is the point of this dialogue? Have we not demonstrated over the years that these two positions are irreconcilable? I acknowledge your position is heartfelt and geniune, even if I cannot reconcile it to my understanding of God's plan. I hope you can do the same, and see that I (and some of my fellow traditional types) can hold our position prayerful, respectfully and loving of those that disagree.

Harvardman,
We could both hold our positions prayerfully and respectfully and loving those that disagree.
And I keep repeating that I have no problem worshipping side by side with everyone who calls themselves Christian.

My problem comes when people believe they are better sinners than I am. Otherwise - why the need to split the church into "my church" and the others? Why set yourselves up as those who uphold truth and are more worthy, against those of us who deny truth and continue living in deliberate sin?

Unless that kind of understanding changes and people develop a GENUINE respect for different views (which implies the possibility that ones own view may be incomplete), "respect" and "loving" are just idle words.

So I ask again - are you asking more of me than you are willing to give yourself?

Erika says "And I keep repeating that I have no problem worshipping side by side with everyone who calls themselves Christian."

I am sure you would not be able to accept some people who claim that title for themselves despite their beliefs and actions, Erika.....but anyway, we have been told very clearly that not all who call themselves Christians, are genuine - and we have been told repeatedly in the Bible not to compromise with or accomodate such people, as I am sure you know (eg letters to Timothy and many other places)

Havardman: "well, scripture doesn't seem fallacious to me on this issue. Sorry we disagree, but trust we can do so in a respectful way."

I did not say that scripture is fallacious. Read my last statement again. It is our use of it that leading to falsehoods about the human population.

Many are holding judgement over others when it is clear that there is much to be learned of God's creation. Using scripture to fortify personally held beliefs and superstitions is a form of blasphemy. I think the history of a town eighteen miles northeast of your alma mater (Salem) should prove over time how very wrong you are.

Our positions probably are irreconcilable, if one puts precedent of their interpretation of scripture over scientific evidence.

Sorry if my attitude is not as charitable, but it is my bretheren that you are trying to exclude, judge and insult, and I resent it being done under the guise of knowing more than our Creator.

choirboy says "Sorry... but it is my bretheren that you are trying to exclude, judge and insult, and I resent it being done under the guise of knowing more than our Creator."

So, your solution is to ignore the revealed will of your creator?

NP,
"So, your solution is to ignore the revealed will of your creator?"

Leaving selective bible quoting aside, you have so far failed to make a convincing scriptural case for your view that our creator would create people who are innately distined to sin unless they deny themselves the life and love the majority takes for granted.

Erika - is that why people who believe what I believe the Bible teaches are being asked to repent or exit the AC??

(oh, no - that is not happening.....maybe it is not my case which is not convincing and based on rejecting scripture where it conflicts with what people want to do anyway?)

NP,
as I said, you have to make a convincing scriptural case for there being 2 classes of people, one intrinsically in the wrong unless they deny themselves a wholesome life.

BTW NP, did you get round to responding over your take on the antisemitism of GJ? Sorry if I missed it.

Erika - my case is very convincing - it is simply based on scripture. You are the one who has the difficulty of making the case that "do not" means "do"

Mynster - no space here to answer you plus it is off topic....so I referred you to Prof Don Carson's excellent John commentary.

Thankyou NP: don't have a copy, but SBL seems to regard it as 'fundamentalist', so it no doubt fudges the issue.

NP,
If your case is so convincing, please share it with us.
I have never tried to make a case that "do not" means "do", that is in your imagination.

I have always argued that "do not" have abusive and unequal sex has nothing to do with stable loving relationships.

You believe it does, so you will have to prove it. Scriptural evidence rather than polemic, please.

"Erika - is that why people who believe what I believe the Bible teaches are being asked to repent or exit the AC??"

Who precisely is asking you to repent or exit the AC, NP? No-one! Absolutely no-one! This is a text-book example of a prime tactic of the Fundamentalist Right - which is itself demanding, in spades, that all those to whom it is opposed "repent or exit the AC" - namely smearing their opponents, falsely accusing them of using the very tactics they themselves are up to their armpits in, thereby, they hope, diverting attention from their own machinations.

A tactic with a pedigree that goes straight back to Hitler and Stalin, NP.

NP said: "my case is very convincing"

In other words, "If you don't believe him, just ask him."

Erika - if you are seriously asking, you can find the case made fully at www.robgagnon.net (not possible to repeat it all here in a 400 word limited blog)

Lapin - not sure where you are getting all this stuff on right-wing tactics.....I am a Labour voter, fyi! And.....it is no tactic to say - as the liberal ABC says - that Lambeth 1.10 is clearly the mind of the communion.

Right and left-wing tactics, NP - I also cite Stalin. The point I made - which you completely ignore - is that your "infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me" front ("people who believe what I believe the Bible teaches are being asked to repent or exit the AC") is utterly untrue and attempts to deflect attention from the wing of the AC which is in reality demanding - and demanding vociferously - that its opponents repent or walk.

The "right wing" reference is to ecclesiastical, not secular politics.

"Labour" or "Blairite"? There's a big difference.

"robgagnon"

Oh my,NP! You are actually looking for support to someone who vociferously defends his right to incite other people to kill me! Now that's comforting! Or did you not realize that every time some spittle flecked fundie in the US goes on an anti-gay rampage, the rate of gay bashing goes way up? Most of those who kill us will at some point try to claim they have done God service. Gagnon? Please!

I do not hope for the oppression of anyone, and do not take this as in any way meant as intimidation or threat, I wouldn't dream of doing such a thing, but maybe if you lived with the fear that all gay people grow up with, you'd understand the need to restrict people's ability to incite others to violence. If those on the right who spent so much time policing the way their "enemies" disobeyed Lambeth and TWR put their energy into listening to us, they would understand better how their actions can hurt and even kill us. They might even find ways of spreading the Gospel to us. But, since they believe the "listening process" is some nefarious way of getting them to change their minds on homosexuality, they didn't even bother, with the result they now feel put upon when told they can't do things that may well lead to our deaths. Gee. Poor darlings!

Ford - RG is not inciting violence - surely he should not be ignored or silenced because some nutters do terrible things?

NP
"RG is not inciting violence - surely he should not be ignored or silenced because some nutters do terrible things?"

Umm, there is a responsibility to weigh all likely outcomes of a course of action, no? The (UK) Daily Mail is a past master at legitimising racism and the like by saying things which are 'only expressing an opinion' but which the editorial team knows darn well will have the desired effect further down the food chain.

If I say something critical about the African Church, I have to weigh it carefully incase it encourages racist attitudes even in my own congregation. Gagnon can't duck responsibility any more than I can.

but Mynster / Ford - are you actually accusing RG of directly encouraging violence??

"surely he should not be ignored or silenced because some nutters do terrible things?"

Absolutely not, but he should be called to task for not being more prudent in how he speaks. If he knows, as surely someone with his "credentials" in gay issues ought, that intemperate speech on his part can cost lives, he has a Christian responsibility to change his behaviour, not trump up some paranoid accusations about an attack on freedom of speech which is calculated to make fearful people circle the wagons against the savage hoards of unbelievers they believe to be out there slavering for their blood. Why, NP, why do you think that it is somehow a furthering of the Kingdom of God to speak in the most hurtful, judgemental, selfrighteous manner about others and then claim somesort of oppression when they respond angrily to that? Are you so starved for martyrdom? Can you not see it is your behaviour far more than your message that is the problem? And don't quote how much of an ever shrinking catch you Evos are able to entrap as some sort of proof of effectiveness. If it were even true, Turnbull wouldn't have claimed 95% of Britain were going to Hell.

Just as an addition to Ford's comment - the Church of Scotland assembly is (according to the Church Times) discussing the Christian church's temptation to portray itself as somehow 'persecuted' in these islands, and the nonsensical, distorted, offensive argument that it is.

"but Mynster / Ford - are you actually accusing RG of directly encouraging violence??"

No, I am accusing him of being such a self-righteous Pharisee that he truly doesn't care if his behaviour incites violence or not, he may even secretly wish it, though all hearts are open to God, not me. "And Saul approved of his murder". I am accusing him of manipulating fearful people into thinking that the new Roman Soldiers are just outside the door waiting to drag them off to the modern equivalent of the Collosseum, thereby building fear based support for his agenda. I am accusing him of putting himself above others. I can't prove that he is using dubious research, I haven't read enough of his stuff, but I have spoken to others, scientific people, who would be very leery of his "science". I think someone in the church with a scientific background should do a scientific assessment of his work and sources, especially since, appallingly, the Church used some of his writings in coming up with its latest statement on gay people.