"Anglican leaders from Africa say the actions of American and Canadian churches in electing an openly gay bishop and blessing same-sex unions has led to them being "ridiculed" in their home countries."

And yet I am reminded of the following:

"...you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved." (Matt. 10:22, Mark 13:13)

"Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake." (Matt. 24:9, Luke 21:17)

And these people are worried that they will be RIDICULED?

"Endless debate on sexuality ‘is exposing Anglicans to ridicule as the Gay Church’."

And this is a bad thing because....?

If we aren't being exposed to ridicule, we're probably not proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I don't think that people who say (overtly or covertly) that "God hates fags" should be excluded from the Church. But I do think they should be expected to repent.

I see that this meme has popped up again:

'The question for many is "Whether the Bible transforms the culture or the culture transforms the Bible."'

Anyone for whom that is a question has not thought carefully about the issue. In the first place, culture clearly transformed the Bible in the process of the Bible's own development, in the identification of El and Yahweh, in the development of monotheism, in the imagery of angels, in the identification of Hebrew _hokma_ with Greek _sophia_ and _logos_, et cetera. Culture transformed the Bible in the development of doctrine, e.g. in the adoption of the consciously unbiblical _homoousios_ at Nicea. Culture has regularly transformed the Bible when the Bible conflicted with what people know to be true--as for example in the general rejection by the classical world of the Bible's depiction of a flat earth, or, more recently, in the adoption of heliocentrism. And culture has certainly transformed the Bible in abandoning the idea that all Africans are under the curse of Ham, and the idea that women must not in any context exercise authority over men (as John Knox argued against Queen Mary I).

Moreover--and this is a key element--culture transforms the Bible precisely in identifying those areas in which culture cannot be allowed to transform the Bible. Even taking the biblical verses about homosexuality on the face value which conservatives want to give them, those verses do not carry some sort of annotation which says "these texts are to be treated differently from those implying a flat earth, the acceptability of slavery, and a plurality of gods." It is only the culture, in its understanding of sexuality, which marks off these verses as "untransformable"--as for example this week, when someone posted on T19, answering Pierre Whalon, a note that GLBTs are not the same as women, blacks, Tutsis or Hutus. That statement is a cultural touchstone for transforming the Bible, and as such, it is subject to scrutiny on higher biblical principles, such as justice.

It is certainly depressing to read the comments from Archbishop Anis. The hordes and swarms of gay activists are not so huge as Anis suggests, according to Jim Naughton.

His complaint about the overwhelming gay presence is ironic.

I can remember discussions about the 'threat' of integration when I was much younger, with one of the racist themes being, "If you let in one of them [Blacks] the rest will crowd in and pretty soon there won't BE any white people to integrate with!"

The other, superficially less poisonous commment, was "Well, it's only the pushy ones who keep demanding things. The good Negroes are quiet and polite and know their place."

So I guess the gay presence at the conference doesn't know its place and is so pushy as to appear to be ubiquitous.

GOOD!

How odd. Gay and Lesbian people "were all over the place"...they were even "where we eat"...they had "newsletters and literature"...egads, queers, homosexuals ARE running everywhere, in and out, round a'bout RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME...Guess what Bishop Anis? We've always been here and we're not going anywhere...your words sound desperate, threatened, fearful...perhaps you ought get acquainted with Gods reality and stop hanging out with the GAFCON excluding folk...you'll like REALITY if you try it...the world around you populated with ALL of Gods children is the place to "be"...adjusting will just take some getting used to...you'll find us and Gods REALITY wherever you are, wherever you go, wherever you eat...don't be afraid of us, we are like you.

+Mouneer Anis said in the Global South Anglican : “I can only wonder if during the coming two days we will truly be able to do something about these unresolved issues.”

In 2 days?!?! Entirely un-realistic.

How about contemplating the long-time approach of the Desert Fathers? Questioning the suppositions taken for granted?

+Mouneer Anis said: “I have some doubts but I would have loved to go back to my people with good news of progress towards truly resolving our crisis and that we still all continue to uphold the mind of the Church as expressed in the Lambeth ’98 Resolution 1;10 which reaffirmed the historic teaching of the Church.”

That is the error involved. It might be possible to “endorse” something ready-made in 2 days, but *unresolved issues* require a whole lot more for it not to be the fast-food variety and ultimately useless.

Also, the Lambeth 1998 resolution is part of “the problem”, it is n o t “the historic teaching of the Church*, quite the contrary, it’s late modern anti Modern and in itself an *unresolved issue*, an Error (dating from 1966/1978 inverting a Millennium of actual – if academic – teaching). It cannot become *the solution*, if such be.

Seems the Egyptian Presiding Bishop, Mouneer Anis, has put his foot in it again. Even the press had problems following his latest press statement - apparently (in line with some other Global South Statements) dictated by someone else - Reverend Doctor Sugden, perhaps, on this occasion?. And why was Sugden granted special reporting rights at the Lambeth Conference?

In view of Mouneer's ingnorance of the realities of the homo-heterosexual arguments, he did not acquit himself well before the reporters in his latest foray. For instance: his statement to a few of the reporters "We are not homophobic at all" might genuinely be contested - if only by his remarks about the Americans stacking the Conference with gay apologists.

Why, on earth, considering his close affiliation with the Global South and GAFCON, did he gain such credibility with the ABC - to the extent, for goodness sake, that he can now speak for the Windsor Continuation Group? He is more of a liability than Drexel Gomez.

Sooo....the first round of colonization was OK, because it brought conservative rules which suited local opinion but the second round is bad, because it does not? Is it the fact or process of colonization that's the problem or the ideas that such intervention brings with it? Or does he resent now his locality having been duped in the first place, given the sons of the sons of the sons of missionaries have developed different ways of thinking, whereas his locality has not allowed itself to be challenged by the world, since it actually prefers being tied to the apron strings to being truly independent? This is the crisis of every child caught between the nostalgia for comforts of the home, the threat of the world 'out there' and the realization that its mother is not just its mother, but an adult human being that enjoys and finds natural expression also in adult proclivities: "I still want you mum, as long as you go back to being only what I selectively remember, otherwise, I am going to leave home!'

This is a plain refusal to grow up, a clinging to infantile thinking, and a petulance that is worth nothing more than the temper tantrum of a two-year old: it's certainly not worth the AC's taking such petulance as the starting point for a therapy that will seek to put the rest of the adults back into nappies so that they can 'commune' with their confused offspring.

The smoke of hypocrisy is in the air again. Gays are being treated as an embarrassment; there are more important issues, we are told. But why then have the bishops not being able to address those more important issues with any passion? And why have they obsessed about Gene Robinson ad nauseam? The bishops may agree on burying their heads like ostriches - a rather miserable to all these years of fretting.

To 4 May 1535+ may I suggest that "society" be substituted with "spirit"? God acknowledges and moves with rightousness, whether that be found in young or old, male or female, Jew or gentile, secular or religous...

Thanks Pat for those biblical passages. My "value add" is to recall Matthew 10:25 "It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household!"

Since 1922, Episcopalians have supported the ministries of the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East through the annual Good Friday Offering. This year, Bishop Anis can kiss my contribution to this fund goodbye. Maybe it’s time that lesbians and gays in the Episcopal Church (and elsewhere) withhold funds from homophobic individuals and groups.

"the liberalisation of the Western Church is seen as leading to sexual licence"

But, of course, if you had bothered to listen, you would know this is not the case. And what are we to say of people who, supposedly have listened, supposedly care and have compassion, yet who not only instinctively feel that to be associated with gay people is justification for ridicule, but don't even understand what it means about them that they see no reason not to say so in public. For them, to be gay is something to be ashamed of, and that means that, in their eyes, we are simply shameless. The link between gay and shame is solid. They cannot conceive of how someone could not be ashamed of being gay. Tell me again how you have "listened, but aren't convinced".

To Cheryl Va.--Yes, I quite agree that all the developments I listed are the work of the Spirit, God using the elements of culture to reveal Godself; the point with respect to this fatuous formula, though, is that they show us that the Bible has always been subject to the culture around it. (Of course, I suppose a conservative would argue that it is the Spirit which tells us that GLBTs are in a separate category from all the other cases in which the Church has applied the culture to the Scripture.) I'm reminded of a place in _On The Literal Meaning of Genesis_ where St. Augustine says (arguing _against_ a fundamentalist reading of the creation story) 'if we tell people things they know not to be true as we discuss these ordinary matters, how can we expect them to believe us when we preach the Resurrection?'

It's dawning on me...not the NEW DAY (which is lovely in my part of Latin America) but the understanding that Bishop Anis and his crowd are simply, and almost exclusively, mouthpieces for puritan zealots...how in the world can many of the educated Bishops be so lacking in Common Sense? I'm afraid the "First Amongst Equals" has established a standard for fogging up REALITY with wishful thinking, punishing tactics as he constructs a culture, at Lambeth, of DON'T LOOK BACK (but simply close-your-eyes/ears and validate l.l0 as being authentic and unblemished trash).

Get real, get honest, stop the selective thinking/beliving before you harm even more Anglican/Christians in the name of perpetuating lies.

Kurt, I couldn't agree more. Maybe I'll send my contribution to something else.

As for Annis, he was a spokesMAN for the usual ghost writers. Must have been to much to memorize. A few weeks ago I had to give a presentation, from memory, for a group project. Although I had an outline, it was still tough. Imagine that Anis had no outline in front of him, It's almost impossible (especially when their not your words).

I wish my church wasn't involved in the kind of attitudes that brings this kind of thing to pass. I also wish that this kind of attack got the same kind of coverage that Anthony Walker got when he was murdered for being black in the same town. Different minorities are more fashionably oppressed?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7539072.stm

Victim of homophobic attack dies

A Merseyside man who was critically injured in what police have described as a homophobic hate attack has died.
Michael Causer, 18, was attacked on Tarbock Road in Huyton on 25 July.
He suffered serious head injuries and was taken to Whiston Hospital before being transferred to Walton neurology centre where he underwent surgery.
Two Huyton men aged 19 and 18 have been charged with grievous bodily harm. A 19-year-old man from Huyton has been charged with witness intimidation.
Police are appealing for anyone with information about the attack, which happened at about 1100 BST, to get in touch.

This is tragic JF. Thanks for drawing our attention to it.
And thank you forpointing out the devastating moral of this story, for the C of E, and the Anglican Communion ---and for us all.

'I wish my church wasn't involved in the kind of attitudes that brings this kind of thing to pass. I also wish that this kind of attack got the same kind of coverage that Anthony Walker got when he was murdered for being black in the same town. Different minorities are more fashionably oppressed?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7539072.stm

Victim of homophobic attack dies

A Merseyside man who was critically injured in what police have described as a homophobic hate attack has died.
Michael Causer, 18, was attacked on Tarbock Road in Huyton on 25 July.
He suffered serious head injuries and was taken to Whiston Hospital before being transferred to Walton neurology centre where he underwent surgery.
Two Huyton men aged 19 and 18 have been charged with grievous bodily harm. A 19-year-old man from Huyton has been charged with witness intimidation.
Police are appealing for anyone with information about the attack, which happened at about 1100 BST, to get in touch. '

Posted by: JF on Saturday, 2 August 2008 at 10:57pm BST

WILL these bishops, top and listen ?

Do they even care ? IF so, how will they SHOW it ? !

I wish we could hear more of the experience and wisdom of bishop Roy Schreech of Truro diocese.

“No idea” consecration of gay bishop would cause such a stir

How many times were they warned by the rest of the Communion before November 2003? Are the US bishops all autistic, or just unspeakably arrogant? Cue Tom Wright....

JF, given how riddled with PC today's UK police undoubtedly are, I'd take with a pinch of salt the claim that this attack was really 'homophobic'. The brief BBC report offers no evidence of this at all. Even if it were, the fact this kind of attack made the news attests to its happy rarity.

"I don't think that people who say (overtly or covertly) that "God hates fags" should be excluded from the Church. But I do think they should be expected to repent."

Bill, God hates ALL sinners unless and until he redeems them in Christ. In that sense, he doesn't pick on gays.

Cutting off financial support to ministries in Jerusalem punishes the wrong people - and hands a propaganda victory to the far right.

"Bill, God hates ALL sinners unless and until he redeems them in Christ."

This is perilously close to blasphemy. I have no idea if you are being sarcastic or not, but I truly hope you are. Nevertheless, there are many Christians who believe exactly this. It's revolting.

“Bill, God hates ALL sinners unless and until he redeems them in Christ. In that sense, he doesn't pick on gays.”-Dan Baynes

Another example of evangelical garbage “theology”.

"I'd take with a pinch of salt the claim that this attack was really 'homophobic'."

You know, Dan, this idea among conservatives that any report of anti-gay violence is exaggerated or somehow blown out of proportion as a result of some sort of political correctness run amok is not only frustrating to us, but it reduces the validity of arguments you make. It reveals ignorance of our lives and implies a desire to remain in that ignorance. In the words of a local satirical song, you seem to be saying "Don't tell me the truth, don't make me see." I appreciate that your ignorance of our lives has left you with nothing but stereotypes, but you don't do much to educate yourself if you treat reports of gay bashing as false till proven otherwise. The bigger question is why is it so easy, perhaps even necessary, for you to do that? Do you feel so attacked by heathen liberal society that you think people are lying to you about this? Do you think the "homosexualist agenda" is so pervasive that even the police lie on our behalf to make us look, falsely, like poor oppressed victims? Why? But, then again, you actually think God hates people before they repent. I might not agree with much Evangelical theology on this, but even there I do not see the idea that God hates sinners. And I certainly don't see it in the Gospel, nor in the New Testament. Even if you subscribe to the idea of "total deptavity" you still have to acknowledge that it is God's love for His Creation that causes Him to inspire in the sinner the desire to repent, do you not? This kind of thing is a radical departure from the Gospel, innovative and, frankly, wrong. I can't help but wonder what diocese you are from.

" there are more important issues, we are told. But why then have the bishops not being able to address those more important issues with any passion?"

There are more important issues is a bit like an abusing priest saying to his wife that they should both help the deserving poor instead of her constantly complaining about him beating her up.

We are not comparing like with like and creating false priorities!

Reading Ford's response to Dan, a question comes to mind:

Does Dan realize that the attitude he takes toward reports of attacks on homosexuals is exactly the attitude that society took regarding rape for hundreds of years? That it was up to the victim to prove she wasn't lying or that she hadn't "asked for it"?

"That it was up to the victim to prove she wasn't lying or that she hadn't "asked for it"?"

But gay people always ask for it. We ask for it by being gay. Indeed, as we have seen stated on these pages, being gay is such a horrible thing for some people that 5 years in jail for those who merely support us is considered merciful and "a good compromise". One gets no answer when one asks what a reasonable punishment for homosexuality would be, if 5 years is a good compromise. It's the rationale behind the "homosexual panic" defence. What I am is so horrible that a good normal heterosexual is justified in being so paniced by my existence that he is justified in murdering me. All he has to do is say I made a pass at him, whether or not I did, and the insult to his manhood is so great that murder is acceptable. I often wonder what the response would be if a woman became so paniced by a man's unwanted advances that she kicked him to death. I rather doubt she'd get off with it.

Dan

I live locally, know people who confirm that this is what the attack was. I also know that the police here on Merseyside range in their politcal correctness, but that if they say that it is homophobic, it is extremely unlikely that they are making that up. And just because it is rare, doesn't mean that the permanent, every day prejudice that exists up here doesn't make life hell for anyone who is openly gay. Instead, most gay people have to hide their sexuality. Sadly, black people find it harder to hide their skin. And would you say that when Anthony Walker was murdered, it was nothing to worry about - just an isolated incident?