Tom Wright is unwilling to wait for the Covenant process. He (acting under the powers granted him by his appointment as super-apostle, I assume) has already declared the Episcopal Church out of the Anglican Communion, though he is willing to admit a few of our dioceses into the Communion if they adhere to the position he himself accepts.

This would split apart both of the North American Churches. Astoundingly, this appears to be no concern of his. He appears to think he has the right to force a split in two churches for which he has no jurisdictional power whatever.

He has also upped ++Rowan's level of insult to gay and lesbian persons by referring to their "sexual preferences." He has little or no concern for their human rights or status as civil persons under the law. We can look forward to more of the same or worse in "Tom Wright's Communion."

No, it is not a place I would want to be. His remarks are likely to drive all fair-minded, decent people out of "Tom Wright's Communion," not only in the US, but in the UK, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Brazil, and in many other places.

Isn't it time this overmighty prelate was brought to heel?

Rather refreshing, Wright comes right out of his closet, swinging. Is this the going Anglican center?

No Queer Folks in the communion, period. First track believers to the No Gays Line, please. Next to Rome, next to Orthodoxy, our brother exemplars? Muslim exemplars?

Second trackers, ... ah, whatever.

Rowan says, so, now Wright agrees. A whole lot of people, agree.

Wright takes little time and trouble to solidly dismiss queer folks as nothing but a negative cartoon, period. How quaint and silly that any person would or could have the entirely self-indulgent gall to value his or her queer feelings?

Nopers. Nope, no, no, no, no.

What queer folks have is a remarkable - ultimately trivial? - encounter with odd feelings. Religion will transform this matter into a terrible inner war of the self against the self; a war of the ungodly against the godly: harrying yet meaningless, all at the same time.

Queer stuff only matters when you fight against it. Otherwise, nothing there, no reliable conscience, no useful self-knowledge.

We can all presuppose: Not much good/deep humanity involved that would slow us all down in our legacy rush to traditional categorical condemnations.

This is a fine, fine, fine example of just how to Spin Doctor, oh yes.

Queer=Cheap Thrills. Period.

Ignore the real (daily life) love and commitment between two men or two women, often in violent contexts. Don't mention all that, explore, weigh, discern ... using the same best practice tools we use for straight stuff.

A close, personal encounter with any of those real queer folks surviving violence would risk leaving us queasy and pale. We'd come too close to the edges of our flat earthism?

No, much better to walk a shining high path, solidly presupposing that all queer stuff is – don't we all know? - Cheap? Silly? Evil? A high matter of tragic self-indulgence?

The conscience and self-knowledge of straight folks is solid gold. If a man/woman are drawn to one another, God may be at work, and a blessing may spill over on all of us.

Two queers? Sheesh, don't go there. Romans is clear, queer folks are cursed, just like Ham. (Read Jack Rogers)

Spin doctoring about how awful queer folks still are - especially when it comes to defining away? Queer conscience. Q Self Knowledge. Q Openness to receiving God's blessings, pretty much like straight folks.

I always find it hard to believe it when it is stated that Williams and Wright are 'friends'. The two are so different. Wright seems to be entirely without compassion and - as is repeated 'ad nauseam' in all possible contexts by all possible churchmanships - he's a rotten bishop with no sense whatsoever of his pastoral responsibilities. (I live in his diocese.) And would Williams want a friend like this? Wright's exegesis is characteristically patronising and bullying. Fortunately, he seems to have overreached himslef: it surely cannot do him any good to associate himself so publicly with this lot.

Oh gosh, I'm upset at Wright, for real. In one mighty presupposing swoop, he dismisses.

All gone?

Conscience (queer folks, allies). Self-knowledge (ditto). Empirical hypothesis testing which even tangentially supports viewing all that conscience and self-knowledge as competent or valid or positive.

Not testing reality, mind you. All - Just presupposed away - doesn't exist.

Really Wright you are going way too far.

I won't bar you from worshipping or whatever on the second track of Anglicanism; but you are mean and foolish to dismiss by presupposing away - so many good people and so much that is really real as queer folks live it, around us, among us.

Equally silly and misleading is Wright's challenge that we use scriptures and tradition to preach modern science. He knows in advance that we are reliving the history lessons of Galileo, and that the scriptures still describe or mention a flat earth with square corners.

Goodness sakes, Wright.

Could you really be any more self-serving, than to wish away queer folks, allies, science? Because you find them inconvenient to your negative revelation about queer folks?

Do not follow Wright off these high cliffs.

We know better than to try to read modern science, simplistically out of our scriptures or traditions. We will learn from the Galileo history.

Alas.

Wright's preaching does not bode well for the first trackers. Are they going to lock themselves away in a new Anglican Bubble World where only presuppositions are true or real?

Sounds like: Wished away, competent or good queer folks. Wished away, any allies who know, up close and personal. Wished away - any empirical data or models that have tested anything besides our very traditional yet very nasty negative presuppositions.

Is this airless set of bubble commitments our fate as potential first trackers?

I decline, as I cannot in good conscience - yes I know now that per Wright my conscience is trivial and cannot matter by his definitions - I cannot in good conscience join a new flat earth society such as is being proposed for first track Anglicans.

Alas.

We shall no doubt still cross paths, outside this fake-Anglican bubble world. When we talk over coffee, expect to hear positive and competent human things going on in my daily life, and yes, expect to hear that I weigh and valorize all that as part of God's blessings upon me and mine.

+Tom Wright significantly uses the word conversation early in his piece. Conversations with various colleagues, and my own deeper reflection on aspects of this subject matter, suggest to me that ++Rowan is taking conversation as a key idea, as a prototypical way of doing theology: too slow for many - but to my mind a key to understanding what the Archbishop of Canterbury is trying to do - and this seems to me to be what the covenant is about - safeguarding space for conversation.

The problem is that the Christian Church has often done its theology through conflict rather than conversation (this was the substance of a conversation earlier today) - and that reminds me of Alasdair MacIntrye and the idea of Tradition as an argument extended over time.

But, whether or not you think he is right, that is what our Archbishop seems to be trying to achieve.

Mr Tom says Not a word about border crossings by bishops in the US and Canada. Not a word about pastoral care for dioceses and parishes in the Church of England that may want to opt out of signing the Covenant. None of this "What's sauce for the goose...." foolishness.

He acknowledges that there may be partnered gay bishops and priests in the CofE, but stricter discipline is the answer. I wonder...does he exercise strict discipline in his own diocese? I've heard - Horrors! - that there may possibly be partnered gay priests in his very own Diocese of Durham. Is it OK as long as they stay in the closet?

"Isn't it time this overmighty prelate was brought to heel?"

Charlotte at 8:12, who will bring him to heel?

I noted on another TA discussion how the right-wing pretends that "gay" is entirely about sex; they don't want mention of gay to bring to mind relationships, love, community -- they want the term to flood the mind with dirty pictures (one particular dirty picture). Very useful for them. Stephen Bates puts it more elegantly in the Guardian column cited above:

'Churchmen may resent being assumed to be prurient but that, of course, is exactly what they are. Behind every civil partnership, in their mind's eye they picture what the couple get up to in bed together and seemingly nothing else. Is it the same with the heterosexual couples they marry? Companionship, mutual respect, friendship, platonic love seemingly count for nothing. It must be the sex, otherwise, what's not to bless? The Guardian's obituary of the American dancer Merce Cunningham this week carried the charming story of his life's partner John Cage being asked about the nature of their relationship. "Well," he said, "I do the cooking ... and Merce does the dishes." You get the impression that's not the sort of thing conservative evangelicals picture at all.'

Tom Wright thinks there is little chance of ECUSA embracing "the theology which underlies the Communion’s constant and often-repeated stance on sexual behaviour". There is equally little chance of a majority of the Church of England embracing it - bullied by ecclesiological blackmail into accepting the covenant, perhaps, but into accepting a conservative position on gay relationships? And still more, accepting the scriptural literalist theology that underpins it and the sawing away of human reason from the three-legged Anglican stool? No chance.

And the same goes for all or significant parts of the churches in Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Southern Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Hong Kong and sundry outposts across the planet. So if that's Tom Wright's standard for remaining in communion with one another, we might as well get the divorce over and done with as quickly and painlessly as possible because a theologically diverse communion isn't going to turn into a pure Evangelical bastion, not overnight, not ever.

We queers have only ever been the public casus belli for the fundamentalists’ war on traditional Anglicanism – the real agenda has always been a more far reaching one of making the Anglican Communion a confessional, thoroughly Protestant, Evangelical church. I’m not sure if Rowan can see that or not. The fundies play a more cautious game in England and Wales where they’re in a fairly small minority. But here in Northern Ireland, it couldn’t be more obvious if they stuck a pink neon sign and glitter on it, even if they weren’t flying Jensen and Tay in and out of the country every other week.

One startling part of Rowan’s reflections that haven’t been much commented on is the obsession with maintaining a clear channel for doctrinal dialogue with ecumenical partners. Now, as the Orthodox and Protestant churches are well used to a bit of local variation and downright internecine feuding themselves, he’s clearly talking about Rome here. The nasty, cynical, political pro in me thinks he may be using that to encourage adherence from the squidgy centre of the communion that would run a mile from the Akinolas and Jensens of this world. But part of me thinks he may actually believe a historic step can be made with Benedict XVI. But that means repudiating women’s ordination and bringing traditionally Protestant churches like, er, Ireland (let alone Nigeria) along. Can’t see either happening.

Blessed Tom was Rowan's first appointment to the bench - in those somewhat less fraught days I challenged him at dinner over this extraordinary appointment.

I said that it was highly significant Carey had NOT given Wright a big hat and that Wright was a big mouth and something of a bully - Rowan prickled, and after pointing out he had not taken an oath of canonical obedience to me, opined that Wright was "someone I can work with".

This recent publicly posted attack from the Collective challenging just about everything and sticking the boot in for good measure - shows the probability that such an oath might have saved my erstwhile friend much humiliation.

The Collective has crashed and smashed into every attempt by the "Instruments" to bring a little calmness to the deliberations. And while claiming loyalty and devotion to some middle ground upon which only thy appear to stand they equip the reactionary schismatics with all the weaponry they can manufacture. Wright has bought deeply into his friend's Duncan's story.

Indeed there are no kind words for anyone, primates, ACC, ABC, Lambeth, JSC, ACO - they are all failures and need to conform to the mind of the Collective - resistance is futile!

And while it looks as if Rowan's assimilation moves on, so that people like me think he sounds quite alien, it is obvious that this process is all too slow for the hasty Collective who clearly find their plans thwarted when people are given time to think about what is happening. The big problem for them seem to be that the Joint Standing Committee has now seized power, and of course the JSC has people like the Primate TEC on it and so ....... in their view it's the lunatics running the asylum!

There seems in all this politicking to be some great dishonesty, the Lambeth stayaways are never going to sign a Covenant that gives authority to the JSC - and how could ACNA sign, the JSC would just demand that they obey the instructions and rejoin TEC!!

However, contrary to what Wright claims I see no problems to TEC signing the Covenant, none at all! Indeed I think they would be foolish not to be the first - Unless, of course, the frantic argument from the lads at the ACI starts to be believed, that is - TEC is not a hierarchical church and General Convention could not commit the diocese to the oversight of foreign prelates.

I see no real future for the Hive, they are destined to fall on their own arrogance, but Wright and his Borg are doing us all inestimable harm. As one of his own priests said to me today, "Tom might be just a tad worried if he asked his own diocese about gay priests and bishops, but of course that's one thing you can be SURE Tom won't do!"

Rowan, is it just possible sometimes I know better!

Grandmere (sans accent alas for my word processor) the rest of the bishops of the Church of England might do so if they chose, by publicly dissociating themselves from his fulminations. Alternatively (and much more typical of Establishment methods) they might pull him aside quietly and let him know how much his conduct offends... or simply cold-shoulder him from now on.

The Bishop of Durham continually does what the British call "attention-seeking," a behavior pattern very much disfavored there. He's the Princess Di of the shovel-hats. She didn't make many friends in Establishment either.

Oh goodness sake, I only wish RW were standing firmly and vigorously for big tent Anglican conversation. He's not, though I suppose he may leave some of his remarks open to a faked impression that he is, asking for conversations.

One fly in that interpretation ointment? Surely a precursor to any viable, productive conversation must simply be that all parties involved are ready to tell the truth, about everything that will be discussed. Themselves included.

Our case is clearly that we still prefer to dissemble and lie, about who the competent, gifted queer folks in Anglican church life are, and how much good they have and do and probably will, offer to all others. Our case is clearly that conservatives are not safely able to admit, how negatively they regard queer folks in every human domain; nor how distant and alienated they continue to be and feel, from any emerging sense of the warmth and the good that typically is lived out in many instances of modern queer folks lives in western democracies.

These two are pretty big truth telling failures, for starters.

So? We are guaranteed to have, either (A) an ineffective, unproductive talk, no matter how long we talk; and/or (B)our talks will devolve reliably into one party trying to deceive, manipulate, or strong arm other parties during our talk, all in the name of discussing?

A second fly in the ointment? Well, one measure of the positive potentials in any conversation across differences may surely be - who gets included, and on what level talking fields?

RW and many other talkers in Anglicanism right now, utterly fail on both grounds.

Finally, a third fly? In an extended talk that continues round after round after round - surely some or all of the parties will begin to do what they have talked about and agreed is the right thing to do. This nourishes and indeed enlightens long, long, long conversations.

Anglicans fail right now, on this third caveat, too. Rowan Williams can say high-minded things about safeguarding queer folks' dignity and safety all he wants; nothing is much being done on the global ground where it most matters, and certainly nothing that brandishes any global Anglican branding as an intentional Gospel Work and Witness.

Three big Anglican flunk outs, time to get real. Talk is already spirit in action - as the scriptures remind us in ancient near eastern passing.

This is Wright's comment that really struck me: "New Cross-Track ‘instruments’? In paragraph 24 he speaks of hoping and working for ‘the best kinds of shared networks and institutions of common interest that could be maintained as between different visions of the Anglican heritage’. What might these be? Clearly not the Lambeth Conference, the ACC and the Primates. They, we must assume, will be Track One institutions;" My question is why should we assume they will they be "Track 1" institutions? And would +Canterbury now be seen as a Track 1 institution, and if not, why not?

1} There has been a lot of concern about how conservative dioceses or parishes in a second-tier province can opt for the covenant. But it will also be necessary for dioceses and parishes in a standard province to opt for the gays allowed denomination.

2) It is not beyond imagining that the Episcopal Church might sign the covenant. Would they then automatically become first tier? It is also not beyond imagining that the Churches of England, Scotland, Wales, Canada, and Australia might not sign the covenant. Then what?

3) On the other hand, if membership in the top tier is self-selected by opting to sign the covenant, there will be a pressure to sign on even if half-heartedly for prestige reasons.

4) Bishop Wright is concerned, rightly in my opinion, that firm decisions be made immediately. But there exist no institutions or procedures for doing so. If I were Archbishop of Canterbury I would remove my province immediately from communion with all Anglican Communion churches then independently establish criteria for rejoining communion with them, diocese by diocese.

5) In the USA, there is no going back to a time of territorial diocesan or provincial borders with no border crossing. The mobile and networked American culture will not permit it. The Episcopal Church should accept that each alphabet-soup collegium of bishops is going to regard itself as a separate denomination and is going to evangelize accordingly.

If a bishop has to be a focus of unity, the Bishop of Durham isn't really up to the job, is he?

There have been reports for some time that he is an intemperate man in private conversation about the Great Presenting Issue, but surely a bishop with such a very strict sense of biblical compliance would, at least after mature reflection, and in print, manage a little more of the Galatians 5:22-23 fruits of the spirit than we can pick out here.

Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance - what shall we give him out of 9 for this little piece?

1, for faith, faith in his own righteousness. Maybe 2 if we count him at his own estimation for goodness.

2 out of 9 is pretty bad.

I wonder if there will ever be stricter discipline for right wing bishops with serial divorces?

I think what the Wright and Williams pieces show is that the GAFCON/ FCA agenda is working. Fulcrum lost anywhere to go as a result of recent events, and now Wright has made his warmest remarks to the breakaway Anglican Church of North America, with the only condition that they accept picking off pro-Covenant dioceses and parishes inside The Episcopal Church. Well, of course ACNA will, as it intends to weaken TEC. Meanwhile Williams made his most anti-gay statement so far, thus also qualifying him for the GAFCON agenda (at least in terms of religious orthodoxy in their terms). Indeed, as some in GAFCON could see, the Covenant is useful for their agenda.

It surely now must be coming obvious that the one thing Anglicans who treasure their inheritance should do is oppose the Covenant, and a very important place to oppose the Covenant is in the Church of England. Oppose it by votes and by law, and then the people who value Anglicanism might just have saved it from these episcopal innovators.

"First, the church cannot sanction or bless same-sex unions. Second, since the ordained ministry carries a necessarily representative function for the life of the church, those who order their lives this way cannot fulfil this representative role – cannot, in other words, be ordained."
- Bishop Tom Wright -

in reiterating the ABC's statement about same-sex unions and the ordination of anyone in a same-sex partnership, Bishop Wright here continues the hypocritical stance some of the hierarchy of the Anglican Church on this issue. The fact that there are already gay clergy and bishops in the Church of England (as well as in the Roman Catholic Church) should require a less outright condemnation of such partnerships when, de facto, the ranks of the Church already contain such personages.

If the Bishop and the ABC are stating that 'from now onwards' there can be no ordination of active gays, then this means something only slightly different, which can only be discerned as 'partly hypocritical' - in the sense that the present status quo remains unchanged, but that no more ordinations of gays should take place.

The fact remains that those who are aware of the presence of actively homosexual clergy - prieste and deacons in the C.of E. and elsewhere - will take note of the unsatisfactory nature of the blanket condemnation of homosexuals by the Church both amongstthe clergy and in the congregation. One wonders what these statements from bishops in the Church will do to the morale of homosexuals who are committed to Christ and the Gospel.

Are these bishops seriously taking into account the fact that the Gospel cannot be compromised by turning a blind eye to what is really going on in the Church, where all around them the evidence is to the contrary? The story of the Emperor's New Clothes has nothing to compare with this sad revelation of double-standards in the Church.

Thank God for the honesty of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada for their brave stand on this issue of upholding standards of contemporary justice and integrity. At least they are credible

Tom Wright: "6. An aside at this point: some in TEC insist that their theological position has in fact been argued, and that the rest of the Communion is ignoring these arguments. As far as I can discern, there are two main arguments routinely used."

He then lists two arguments that while reasonable, do not outline the theology. Either he has not done his reading, or he chooses to avoid a direct response.

Stephen Bates is demonstrably wrong when he speaks of obsession, though he is repeating oft-recycled thoughts. How to prove that his perspective is wrong?-

Person A says 'The Church is obsessed with sexual issues, especially homosexuality.'. Person B says 'The Church is always obsessed with whatever the controversial issues of the day are, ie those where opinion is sharply divided and where much discussion is therefore necessary. There are some more important issues - but often they are less controversial, and therefore less in need of discussion.

How to show which person is right? Simply check and see if the discussion rates of the said issues have been the same in every age of church history. If they have been, that is because the church is obsessed with them. If they have not been, but rather rise and fall depending on how controversial/divisive they are at any given time, then the key issue is controversy-rating, not obsession.

Thus it is clear that person B is right.

What alternative is there, anyway? If anyone came to parliament, or to synod etc, and said 'I think we should not discuss the controversial issues', then this would be taken as a very strange point of view. The controversial issues are the very ones that should be discussed most, by definition.

It would also be a brave person that would deny that many controversies are essentially between what we want and what is good for us; or indeed between what our culture says and what an older, far more durable, far less mutable, far less culturally-solipsistic, far more international and far more historically aware Christian counter-culture says. What prevailing misunderstanding (divine right of kings; perpetual virginity of Mary; prosperity theology) has not had convincing sociological reasons behind it?

And in other news, The Quakers get a straightforward slot on the Today programme, where they respond gently to the question: "do you think the Yearly Meeting will bless gay marriage?" with a "Yes", with embellishing comments such as "seeking unity", the debate being "held in the light", and "embracing".

CofE, watch your back - the media may just have found a more enlightened road to understanding and mirroring Christian life. I sure hope that at some point, there is a media moratorium on reporting on the CofE, then perhaps some of its more inflated prelates might have the wind taken out of them.

Colin Coward speaks of LGBT people already being in ministry.

Why does he change the subject from 'Is it good' to 'is it happening?'. Not only (a) is it dishonest to change the subject without addressing the initial point, but also (b) no-one ever denied it was happening, otherwise why do we have these conversations at all? He knows very well that this is something that no-one needs to be informed about, and is therefore not relevant.

If things are to be justified on the basis that they happen, then burglaries, muggings, terrorist attacks and worse are also justified - these include things worse than the thing he is seeking to justify, but it is the same faulty principle on which their intended justification is based.

Martin Reynolds -- TY very much -- very fine indeed -- wasn't it someone here who suggested that he was going to move to Durham so he would never have to listen to NT Wright again?

Pluralist -- CAN the C of E sign a Covenant at all? I really don't see Commons going for it (IMHO).

Christopher S: I think the divine right of kings belongs exactly to the old immutable Christian culture standing against modern whims... at least that is how Louis XVIII & Charles X of France; Nicholas II of Russia and Wilhelm II of Germany saw it. And look what happened to them. The same fate, of being dethroned and cast aside, awaits the Church of England if its leaders don't rapidly wisen up and connect better with what's happening around them, I fear.

Establishment makes me queasy. That notwithstanding, here's my thoughts on defeating this in the Commons...

A debate in the Commons against ratification of the Covenant if already passed by General Synod will not be won easily.

Remember a significant number of MPs - disproportionately those with the most liberal views on homosexuality - simply do not vote on C of E issues because of some permutation of: they are atheists/Catholics/Muslims and don't think it's any of their business; they are opposed to establishment and don't think it's any of their business; they are Scottish/Welsh/N Irish and don't think it's any of their business. (Establishment really is a pile of old nonsense...)

Those of us who are covenant-sceptic will doubtless be arguing the line that this is a badly thought out and un-Anglican piece of legalism, which will subject queers in the British Isles to the views of homophobic bishops elsewhere and would have prevented the priestly ordination of women. But remember Rowan and those round him - including many erstwhile liberals who are politically well connected - will be saying oh, no, this doesn't behold us to anyone else's whim and is necessary to save the Communion from destruction. And poor Rowan, he's such a nice, clever, decent man and it's not his fault he's being barracked by all these terrible fundamentalists.

If it comes to Parliament it is not going to be an easy argument to win. It will be a very interesting test of Metrosexual Dave's sincerity if, as seems increasingly likely, he is Prime Minister by that point.

It would be much better if it were defeated in General Synod; that means those of us opposed to the covenant organising - ruthlessly, deploying every morally legitimate tactic in the book - to ensure there's an anti-covenant majority in at least one of the House of Laity or House of Clergy at the next English General Synod elections.

"what we want and what is good for us;"

Christopher, why don't you be more specific? What dire evil do you fear befalling the world if we ask God's blessing on life long monogamous gay relationships? In what ways do you fear that the blessing of faithful lifelong relationships will not be "good"?

Give thanks that the See of Durham no longer maintains a standing army!
Columba Gilliss

What hit me right between the eyes was Tom Wright's assertion that "...the Christian notion of personal identity has NEVER before been supposed to be rooted in desires of whatever sort." According to much of medieval theology the root base of our identity as human is that we are created to DESIRE - that our true end and our beginning as human is our desire for God. That desire is part of our createdness is central to e.g. the thought of St Augustine, in which desire is God's call to us to be in union with him. That we desire tells us that God is present to us before we even find him, prevenient grace. (I suspect Wright would not want to go here because Augustine was influenced by neoplatonic ideas in which Eros lies at the heart of what is REAL. Nevertheless it is there in Scripture too - e.g. Ps 42, 'Like as the hart desireth the water brooks so longeth my sould after thee O God.') Rather than trashing desire we could well do with a theological re-examination of it. Yes desire can be orientated to what is destructive and away from God. But then that is a problem for all of us, not just if we happen to be homosexual. As Chrsitians we believe in the possibility of grace. Afterall, as far as I can understand it in the traditional understanding of Christian marriage the desire of the one for the other can embrace within it our desire for God and for union with him. It is that which makes marriage 'holy'. I see no reason why same sex desire in a loving and covenated relationship cannot equally be 'holy'. By dismissing desire as not part of the Christian tradition of what makes us human Tom Wright betrays a woeful ignorance of that tradition. (Look too at the mystics, e.g. Teresa of Avila, who used the imagery of sexual desire to describe the life of contemplation and prayer.) Bp Wright is incorrect, for we are our desires. By dismissing desire he merely begs the question of how desire can be sanctified and made holy. It's little wonder, given his rejection of desire as constitutive of human being, that he can write in such an inhuman manner in relation to his bothers and siters who are gay and lesbian.

Charlotte, the CoE bishops can shun their prima donna Bishop Wright, but will they?

And, as Prior Aelred reminds us, what about Parliament having to weigh in?

Martin Reynolds: "As one of his own priests said to me today, 'Tom might be just a tad worried if he asked his own diocese about gay priests and bishops, but of course that's one thing you can be SURE Tom won't do!'"

I shake my head. It's the hypocrisy that is mind-boggling to me.

June Butler

"But will they?" I hear you, Grandmere sans accent. Yet perhaps the bishops and clergy of the Church of England, who allow +Wright and +Nazir-Ali to speak for and be the public face of the Church of England, should count the costs of keeping quiet.

In his latest missive, +Wright claims to speak for ++Rowan. Is that all right with the rest of the bishops in the Church of England? Do they all agree with what +Wright says? Silence gives consent. Or are they too frightened by the nastier, bullying sort of evangelicals to speak up for themselves? ("Anything for a quiet life" - is that it?)

I wish they would learn by the sad example of TEC, my own church. We allowed our own bullies and prima donnas free rein for years, and of course all it did was make the bullying and acting out nastier and worse. Duncan and Iker and their ilk should have been reined in years ago; look at the results of failing to do so in time.

Now there's an ongoing mess in the C of E Diocese of Southwark, created by the schismatic maneuvering of evangelicals there. It's all part of the rise of FCA-UK, which has been created by the same people who targeted our church. Is this what the bishops want in the Church of England? Do they want it in their own dioceses? +Colin Slee is targeted now but other will follow.

So bishops and clergy of the C of E, might it not be time to rein in the bullying evangelicals, the borderline, dance-up-to-the-line schismatics, the prima donnas, attention-seekers, and Princess Dianas of the Church? Every time one of them opens his mouth, a hundred decent people turn away in disgust from the Church of England: Because most people in England now are unchurched, and all they know of the C of E is +Wright's hot-headed, homophobic bullying, and +Nazir-Ali's BNP-style rants, and the furious shouting of a few dozen red-faced old men who refuse to allow women leadership roles in church. And yes, it is a disgusting spectacle.

I should mention (by the way) that +Wright's piece had to be rewritten for him by the Anglican Communion Institute, after its initial publication. They have published their "corrected" (and now, I assume, fully party-line) version on their website.

Does Wright ever get tired of pontificating?

From Tom Wright's statement: "First, the supposed modern and scientific discovery of a personal ‘identity’ characterised by sexual preference, which then generates a set of ‘rights’."

Bishop Wright demonstrates for us what it is like to assume that a reputation for biblical scholarship and the office of bishop endows one with the "right" to offer commentary on the subject of homosexuality, same sex attraction, and same sex love, about which the bishop seems to know almost nothing.

It should be unnecessary, in the twenty-first century, for the scientific community to remind Christian bishops, or other religious functionaries, of the need to acquaint themselves with the basic facts about which they offer religous interpretation. Tom Wright writes about "theology" in the context of his obvious lack of knowledge on the subject of physiologic differences between homosexual persons and others, and the extensive literature in the social sciences about the nature and formation of homosexual identity. He actually writes about "the supposed modern and scientific discovery of a personal 'identity'" etc. This studied ignorance, ("supposed scientific...") is not becoming and lends an air of casual indifference to reality, and to the real lives of people, many of whom suffer as a result of that ignorance.

What could move a scholar of Wright's previously demonstrated erudition to wander blithely into this academic minefield, altoghter unarmed with any actual knowledge? The answer to this question is obvious. When one reads that Wright counsels celibacy and self sacrifice to LGBT persons and compares this, on an equal basis, to the need for Christian heterosexuals to resist temptation in order to remain faithful to their spouses; when one reads Wright reducing the love of same sex spouses to "behavior", "instincts", etc. it is clear that Wright is animated by prejudice. Anytime a person of Wright's intelligence makes a comparison that is transparently unequal, the inescapable conclusion is that such a person is blinded by prejudice. What a waste of intellectual gifts! Perhaps, LGBT persons in his diocese could offer Bishop Wright the opportunity for dialogue with them. But, finally, it is Bishop's Wright 's responsibility to study and learn the scientific facts that he intends to opine about, and, as a person purporting to be a pastor, to reach out to LGBT persons in his diocese and in the Church to engage in real dialogue.

But we need not take too much time regretting the waste of Wright's intellectual powers. The far more important issue, morally, is the needs of LGBT persons, their spouses, and their families for dignity, respect, and the whole hearted support of the Church.

"(i) First, the supposed modern and scientific discovery of a personal ‘identity’ characterised by sexual preference, which then generates a set of ‘rights’."

"Without entering into discussion of the scientific evidence, it must be said that the Christian notion of personal identity has never before been supposed to be rooted in desires of whatever sort. Indeed, desires are routinely brought under the constraints of ‘being in Christ’. This quite new notion of an ‘identity’ found not only within oneself but within one’s emotional and physical desires needs to be articulated on the basis of scripture and tradition, and this to my mind has not been done."

Has Bishop Wright read the Bible?

"It is not good for the man to be alone".

"O trust in the Lord, wait patiently on Him, and He will grant you your heart's desire".

"Therefore will a man leave father and mother and cleave to his wife"

The Song of Songs, in toto.

The sexual love of a man for a woman is basic to human identity in the Bible (and as Jefferts-Schori points out, for gays the love of man for man and woman for woman has a similar vocational significance).

For Bishop Wright gays are not "we" but "they", objects to be discussed in terms of "scientific evidence" of whether or not their sexuality is an orientation or a "preference". His insensitivity is shocking not because it is uncommon, but because he is a bishop and because he cannot stop talking about something where he really has nothing to teach and much to learn.

Well-said, alaninlondon.

Either we're ALL Creatures-of-Desire (and homo-/hetero-desires have to be evaluated on the same basis, for ill OR Good!), or NONE of us are.

***

Tom seemingly wants to go to Abuja, Rowan to Rome. Vaya con Dios, to both of them!

We have this kid in the choir. His name is Rory, perhaps it's spelled Rowry. Anyhow, being the red-headed younger sibling of another chorister, he's prone to being a little too sensitive, moody and feisty. He's not too big, which makes the fight in him worse. But he's much more peaceful now. He's learned a trick, if you hang around the bullies in the choir, nobody will mess with you.

True story.

I understand that the Bishopric of Durham carries rank and precedence among Bishops, after Canterbury and York. Is this anything more than historical tradition? Does it give the incumbent any exceptional power or control?

His comments appear to claim an authority which one would not expect from just any bishop in a church full of bishops.

If this is an ignorant question, please forgive an American living on the left coast!

Wow Mr Shell, reading your post this time was like strapping into one of the really high-low, really fast, twisty roller coaster rides down at the amusement park.

I'm at an age when I sidestep riding along with the rest of the family; unless I'm sure my health insurance is all paid up and coverage is applicable. Then sometimes I risk it.

So, let's do the leaps and turns in slow-mo?

Strap in, step one. What we are strapped into? Well, some going presupposition that a conservative questioner's frame/context always categorically trumps all. Hmmm, okay, maybe.

But why doesn't some alternative questioner frame/presuppositions get equal time, fair consideration from conservatives? Why not hypothesis test both frames, using best practice empirical methods of research? Oh well.

Once the cons question has been answered, then the progressive speaker may bring up a related but different question?

Hmmm, okay, maybe. Let' see your case, then.

The cons question was, is it good to have honest gay clergy? Colin Cs answer was, Sure - just look at the significant number of gay clergy who already exist, doing good ministry.

You then quickly accuse CC of bad faith, plus dollops of manipulation. Oops I just got lost in the conservative thickets. Say again, why decent-effective ministering gay clergy are not part of the evidence that tells us, having them around is good? While we're at this topic, why isn't the fact that we have plenty (just plenty) of decent, good queer folks also around, part of the evidence that tells us they are good, too?

Aw shucks, like the New England farmer joke: Well I could give you tourists some directions to
Lewiston all right; but truth is, you folks can't get there from here in that there auto you're drivin.

Launching the Cleansing of Ordained Ministry in the CofE .

From Tom Wright's statement: "Second, since the ordained ministry carries a necessarily representative function for the life of the church, those who order their lives this way cannot fulfil this representative role – cannot, in other words, be ordained. This is perhaps the strongest statement that the ABC has yet made of the Church’s position, and it should be noted carefully that he refers to the whole ordained ministry, i.e. deacons and priests and not just bishops."

If Tom Wright and the ABC are at all honest or serious about their statements, may I now expect that Rowan Williams and Tom Wright will begin the orderly process of cleansing the ordained ministry of the CofE from the taint of persons in same sex love relationships? In all of Bishop Wright's remarkable recommendations as to how he and the ABC might begin the process of dissolving the Anglican Communion and reinventing it into an explicitly homophobic Church (one wonders why they bother since the Roman Catholic Church already exists), the good bishop fails to offer any suggestions as to how he will go about the process of removing persons in same sex loving relationships from the ordained ministry in the CofE and preventing any such persons from ever being ordained again. However, from the tenor of his other remarks, I have some suggestions that might suit the good bishop well.

Recommendations for the Cleansing of the CofE from Disordered Desires and Homosexual Behaviour Among the Clergy.

Without further ado, here they are: 1. Bishop Wright will empanel a group of trusted heterosexual priests in the Diocese of Durham whose task it will be to identify homosexuals and lesbians in the ordained ministry in his diocese who are in same sex loving relationships.

2. Once identified, the bishop will decide whether to offer to these clergy , on a case by case basis, the option of repudiating their sinful relationships and so called "spouses" so that they may remain in good standing in his diocese, or dismiss them through some applicable disciplinary procedure.

3. Issue an order forbidding the meeting of homosexual "couples" and the meetings of their organizations in the churches and agencies of his diocese, since the diocese cannot be used to advance the cause of sin.

3. Meanwhile, luminaries among the trusted heterosexual clergy will draw up resolutions to present to the General Synod to accomplish the following:

a. To provide clear language stating that a clegy person who is found to be in a same sex love relationship will suffer dismissal from their clergy position; this will include bishops and those whose same sex loving relationships exist alongside their opposite sex marriages.

b. To notify prospective ordinands that they may not apply to seminaries or expect to be approved for ordination in the CofE if they are now or may be in the future a party to a same sex loving relationship.

c. To use psychological instruments to identify susceptible homosexual persons among current and prospective ordinands, so that they can be "counseled" and weeded out of the ordination process.

d. To establish church sponosored homes for current and prospective clergy persons who wish the assistance of Jesus Christ in removing from them their homosexual "urges" and, perhaps, miraculously transforming them into heterosexuals, or at least into deeply repressed and unloving homosexuals.

e. To provide a plan for the collapse of certain institutions and areas of ministry due to the lack of clergy.

f. To provide clear language for the disciplining and, as needed, the dismissal of clergy who undertake to "bless" same sex unions. This would include bishops who permit such "blessings".

Unless I see RW and Tom Wright making a clear start at doing these things, I will understand that they are just engaging in their usual high- sounding efforts to marginalize and exclude LGBT persons, their families, and those who love and provide pastoral support for them.

Note to Andrew:
Durham is second most senior bishop in the northern province -i.e. York.
The second most senior bishop in the southern province - i.e. Canterbury - is London and the third is Winchester.
these five make up the five most senior dioceses in the two provinces that make up the C of E.
I think (correct me if I am wrong) that they get more money for being old and senior - but not much, the differentials are not great.

Bishop Wright's Strategy for Schism:

"Those within TEC who sign it" (the Covenant) "need appropriate Communion recognition and relatedness – if bishops, a Primatial relationship, if parishes or individuals, an episcopal relationship".

1. According to Wright if any TEC bishops sign the Covenant before the General Convention of TEC gets to act on it, those bishops must be provided a primate with authority over them. Who does this? The ABC? The Primates Council? In any event, such TEC bishops would be liable for deposition for abandoning the communion of The Episcopal Church, just as were Bishops Schofield, Duncan, Iker, etc. I expect that their standing committees, if they voted to support the decisions of these bishops, would be dissolved; interim bishops would be appointed and new standing committees would be elected. All of this would be likely to take place IF the bishops signing were to come under the authority of a bishop in another Church. This is not a threat. Bishop Wright might imagine that he can make up the rules as he goes along, assuming for the ABC an authority that he has never had. TEC on the other hand must abide by its Constitution and Canons which do not permit one of our bishops to be under the jurisdiction of a Primate in another Church.

2. Rectors in TEC who sign the Covenant before the General Convention gets to act on it are to be provided with a "new bishop", perhaps appointed by the ABC. According the Constitution and Canons of TEC such rectors would be deposed from TEC, as having abandoned the communion of The Episcopal Church.

Does Wright, or perhaps the ABC imagine that the General Convention will "co-operate" in this carving up of our Church by foreign prelates in the furtherance of prelatial homophobia by "agreeing" to any such arrangement? Are you all smoking something in those episcopal palaces over there in the UK?

"...of dissolving the Anglican Communion and reinventing it into an explicitly homophobic Church (one wonders why they bother since the Roman Catholic Church already exists)..."

Well, it *would* improve ecumenical relations with the RCC (among other groups) if all of us icky gay people disappeared.

Andrew, traditionally, Durham was a politically powerful Bishopric, but that changed with other changes in the (unwritten) constitution. In the 20th century, it became the custom, with a few exceptions, like John Habgood, for the Bishop to be a theologian, with holders such as Lightfoot, Westcott, Michael Ramsey, David Jenkins. The tradition of having a theologian as the Bishop was broken in 1994 with the appointment of Michael Turnbull, and has not yet been revived.
It is an interesting, if sad, footnote in history, in the light of current controversies, that Tom Wright's predecessor, Michael Turnbull, became bishop, despite being charged with an act of gross indecency with a farm worker in a public lavatory in 1968.

Hi Dr Dan Fee
I think the framework of your comment encapsulates the situation as I see it. Namely, you join those who see the two main options as 'conservative' and 'progressive'. There are any number of errors in that perspective:
(1) In debate, the key disjunction is, by definition, the one between accurate and inaccurate.
(2) If you think the two main options are thinking everything old is good and everything new is good, I am amazed. It is perfectly obvious that, of the things that are good, some will be old, some new, and some in between. Anyone who holds either of the aforementioned positions would be the last person one would listen to in debate.
(3) The idea that being good equates to being old (or to being new) sounds suspiciously like it has psychological, not rational, roots.

We all know that there are plenty of decent folks around. And we all know that they all have strengths. And we all know that they all have weaknesses. How can the fact that decent folks have weaknesses be opccasion for surprise? Quite the contrary: that is something that is true of *all* decent folks.

I am slightly dismayed that you warm to the designation 'queer'. One would normally be concerned for someone who *liked* being called things like that.

You made an excellent point on another post about caring professions. Of course, we need stats, but my own very subjective straw poll does not go against your impression. I always imagined this has something to do with sublimation. Those who are not pouring their energies into marriage will have a correspondingly larger amount to pour into friendships, vocations, the lives of the young/needy etc.. Some people simply enjoy the company of their own gender more.

The anti-academic bias of modern life has got to the extent that parliamentarians can think they have the right to vote for things like the killing of unborn babies without a shred of specialist knowledge, and without answering even one of the hundreds of counter-arguments that exist. People are promoted not according to their knowledge (which is a characteristic that will bring scepticism about company ethos, sharp business practice etc.) but according to their
ambition, ability to play the game, money-making potential, charm, often even manipulative ability.

Why do I make this point? Because at least the church should stand against that pattern. With the sole expection of the ABC (to whom he concedes nothing in scholarly rank), Bp Wright is head and shoulders above the rest of the bench as a scholar of international reputation. I inhabit NT studies and there is scarcely a more quoted writer internationally among scholars of all persuasions, nor one who has come up with more original thinking that deserves to be taken seriously. The idea is that -as a penalty for this - he is to be ranked below those who do inhabit the bench is irrational discrimination against the so-called over-qualified.

The employment implications of Dr. Williams 'reflections' are not a laughing matter for the Clergy of the Church of England, especially those who have, in good faith and with the assurances offered by the House of Bishops, exercised their legal right to enter into Civil Partnerships. Those many men and women must, even as I write, be considering where they stand and how their Diocesan Bishops will respond. And even if their Diocesan Bishop is not exercised by Dr Williams' 'reflections', surely what he has published could be employed by any member of the Church of England to act against a cleric, who has entered a Civil Partnership, using the Clergy Discipline Measure.

Dr. Williams also seems to abandoned the distinction, which he once used, between 'practising' and 'non-practising' partnerships. By practising' we presume he means 'sexually active' and in particular 'genital sexual activity'. Although we would find it ludicrous to apply these distinctions to heterosexual couples who have contracted Civil Marriages, they would seem to be have been key distinctions in the recent past within the Church of England.

Dear Karen-
The critical point is your writing of a physiological basis for homosexual feelings and/or activity.

I must press you on this, because you write not only from the persepctive that such a basis is evidenced (which may be true to a limited extent) but also that it is so secure a scientific finding that the rest is silence and debate is not needed.

And yet you give no chapter and verse. Bald assertion plus lack of documentation equals what?

Clearly any responsible approach to this question tries to get the gist of the common findings of all or most related studies. Obviously genetics and environment are not two totally separate entities anyway; but one must clearly begin by giving reasons for why one thinks genetics has a particular percentage-influence and why environment has another particular percentage-influence.

C Shell (1)

Ah Mr Shell, you surely are among the spin doctor talents of our conservative Anglican school, so far as your posts here read.

Surprise.

I agree with your idea that the deeply useful distinction is between accurate and inaccurate - or vividly, what I would like to call, Tested True, and Flat Earth. I like those terms for two reasons. One, the images are more vivid which often helps me think - in cognitive style (see research) I am a sharpener not a leveller. Thus I often heighten contrasts or data a bit to see them more clearly. This could go off the rails, just as say, levelling could; so I keep an eye on my cognitive habits. Two, Tested Truth connotes empirical hypothesis testing which is lovely to me, just because we can often test our hypotheses, especially the most disputed ones and/or the ones with greatest negative-positive application to real people. Ditto, Flat Earth connotes the Galileo story, which I believe is profoundly relevant in numerous ways to the changes we are having in our views of queer folks.

A correction? My view is NOT, new = true, good. Old = bad, false. I think you state me, backwards. I have a new, changed view of queer folks, because research shows how it is true. Not, it's new and changed, so it's true. Why don't we see about empirical hypothesis testing of both old and new frames, all frames?

Gee, Mr. Shell. Do you ever ask yourself, how you constantly mistake in reading posts here?

So far as old goes, I think a great number of old understandings - (about productivity, relationships, generativity, beauty, truth, goodness, religious discipleship) - all apply to queer folks, just about as these old things apply to straight folks.

Again, an error? When will people stop saying that changed thinkers are throwing out all of the old, categorically? Indeed, nearly every single changed thinker then goes on, to see how the huge amount of remaining old positive stuff applies, suddenly, to those pesky queer folks.

I doubt that you will follow up, but for other interested folks, a brief summary of the psyc sides of our changes, the research, can be found on the internet.

Look at the bibliography cited as access to the real research studies published.

At: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

More, later if I can manage.

Dear Christopher,

Let's begin with my vantage point. I am a priest in TEC. I am persuaded by my understanding of the Gospel of Jesus that incorporation of the marginalized (and specifically LBGTI persons) into the Body of Christ, and advocacy for justice for them are mandates of Jesus' practice and teaching. I read the Gospels from the perspective of the marginalized. I am further called by my Baptismal Vows and the Baptismal Covenant of TEC to the same position.

I hold a master's degree in psychiatric and mental health nursing. I provide counseling for LGBTI persons, and especially for transgender persons. Finally, I am an XY female, (Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome) so I have first hand knowledge of genetic and hormonal factors in forming gender identity and sexual orientation, and I know too much about the horrors of being the object of discrimination.

I have been reluctant to respond to your postings since you have demonstrated such a clearly negative view of homosexuality, and you have incorrectly presented the results of the research study that you alluded to (The Australian Twins Study).

The vast scientifc literature on the subject of sexual orientation, development of personal identity, gender identity, etc., is readily available on the internet,and in various scientific journals. You may email me at revkarenm@msn.com and I will provide a list of the major journals that you might want to look at.

The results of the last thirty years of research lead to these conclusions: there are several significant differences between the brain structures of homosexual persons and those of heterosexual persons; hormone levels and functions are different between the same groups; evidence is mounting that homosexuality and transsexualism are x-linked recessive traits with genetic and prenatal hormonal components; and there is a role for childhhood and adolescent environmental factors in the development of a secure identity for LGBTI persons.

I think it is very important for commentators, and especially for bishops to avoid looking foolish and discrediting themselves by using unscientific language such as "urges", "desires", "instincts", etc. Demonizing homosexuality is about as smart as demonizing diabetes or left handedness (there is a significant correlation between homosexuality and left handedness).

But all of this will not do much for you or Bishop Wright if you have made up your minds that LGBTI persons are "disordered" or that they are somehow "bad". What I would recommend for you, above all, is that you spend time with us, and with our families. We come at these matters firstly, as human beings and as Christians. It is the quality of our love for each other that is most important.

Dear Christopher and friends,

Another thought belatedly occured to me. It is still morning here in L.A., and I am not a morning person. You ought to see me at nine o'clock Mass.

My thought is this: do I need to know the physiological versus environmental differences between the races before I decide that racial discrimination is wrong? I think that in the "developed" countries of the western world, we are approaching such a consensus on the subject of equality and inclusion for LGBTI persons. The fact that this is further advanced in the general society than it is in the Churches speaks to the average age of church members, to the glacial slowness of our decision making processes, and to the function of the Churches as bastions of traditional social order.

In any event, it is not pretty when young non-religious people reject the Churches for what they regard as outdated and immoral prejudice.

"In any event, it is not pretty when young non-religious people reject the Churches for what they regard as outdated and immoral prejudice."

Did you read that Chris and Ed? Did that ring loud in your ears? Because you can pontificate, dogmatize and scream bloody hell about us LGBT people in the role of the church all you want, but what will you do to convince the next generation otherwise???? What do you offer as an explanation? What will you do to survive? Do you really think that your actions and recalcitrant arguments on this blogsight turn this reality around?

Karen+,

Thank you for demonstrating, once again, not only that "the personal is political", it's *theological* too. God bless!

Karen+ hear hear !+

Your analyses are great ! So encouraging and enlightening. I could read and read you. I bet even at 9 mass you are on the ball !

Hi Dan-
I would never dream of saying that you held any such eccentric view as 'old = bad, new=good'. My point was a quite different one: namely, that anyone -whatever their personal views- who writes as though conservative and progressive are the 2 main alternatives is thereby elevating extremism (probably psychologically-based extremism at that) and relegating nuance. And yet many or most people do write as though this were the case. I agree it is the case 'on the ground' (i.e. most people tend at present to classify as one or the other) - but that simply increases the determination of scholars only (or at least in the first instance) to listen to those who can be more nuanced and realise that something's being old or new is morally neutral. It is surprising how rare that very simple realisation is in our modern world (but that makes our task easier, since we only need to listen to those who have had the realisation, ie comparatively few people). But this is nothing new: Chesterton and Lewis pointed out the same fallacy in their own times.

Thankyou for the lead. I hope it is not wholly a psychological database, since the types of worldview adopted by psychologists are often incompatible with the Christian one, and the proportion of Christians among psychologists is therefore in danger of suffering.

Hi Dan-
Now, having been expecting something larger I find you recommended a single review article. It gave cursory treatment to around seven groundbreaking studies, mostly of a date since which our knowledge has greatly increased. the 1957 study was on a very small sample, not that we should necessarily dispute its findings. Several of the key issues (biological naturalness of certain practices; rates of susceptibility to certain diseases -and a couple of others I have in mind) are not touched on. The bias is psychological and therefore less objective than it would be if it were physiological. But in any case I have for years been able to have access to the findings of far greater numbers of articles simply by, e.g., consulting Gagnon 2001.
When you speak of 'the *real* research studies published' do you mean all others are imaginary? or fake?

Hi Karen-
You're writing as though I have no access to the findings in question. Hardly- in this age, we all have access to it, though new leads are always welcome. Hang it all, it was I who was the participant who insisted that we base our discussions on research findings and nothing less solid. The situation is, rather, that the current state of play in research is so very far from endorsing for example, the oft-repeated 'homosexuality is like red hair or righthandedness' idea that an explanation is needed for why, in the face of identical twins studies, rural/urban and college/non-college studies, such things should go on being repeated.

You mentioned that you thought I made an error in citing the Australian twins study. Someone else said the same thing and it turned out that they were the one in error, having confused two articles both associated with Bailey. If I misrepresented any facts, which facts did I misrepresent? Thanks.
It is very surprising that you should view the opinions of the young as clearly more important than those of the old. *If* either of the two is more important, then logically it is going to be those of the old, since they have been around longer and are liable to have more average wisdom. And don't people normally imbibe from their surrounding culture?
You speak of 'making up one's mind'. I never make up my mind - any conclusions I have are (a) directly evidence-derived and (b) provisional, and the same goes for all honest people.
Regarding the general picture you present, I agree with some of it already. I would want to press you on what you personally think are the proportional importances of genetics and environment. Or we can email if you prefer.

"I am slightly dismayed that you warm to the designation 'queer'. One would normally be concerned for someone who *liked* being called things like that."

Christopher, gay people have been using the word "queer" for quite some time. I think we started reclaiming it in the 1980s, actually. It has worked. Queer is now no longer the slur it once was, and one finds "queer studies" programs and all sorts of "queer" things. It is also useful, because it includes all whose innate sexuality does not conform to the heterosexual norm. So transgendered people, bisexuals, intergendered, all are "queer" because they are not what you people define as "normal". Now, Karen has already taken you to task for your "scientific" dissembling, and offered you references would you but accept her offer. I refer you back to her post in which she quite clearly proves her direct knowledge of the issues. In contrast, your ignorance of the recent political history of this word is startling in someone who presumes to opine on these issues with an air of authority. I would have expected you to at the very least understand this linguistic issue, it is quite old. That you don't is yet more evidence of your ignorance of homosexuality. If you are so out of the loop that you are unaware of a lingusitic usage that has long been commonplace in gay circles, one has to ask what credibility you have to speak to this issue at all.

"Bp Wright is head and shoulders above the rest of the bench as a scholar of international reputation."

He might well be, Christopher, in the area of Evangelical Anglican theology. But the his lack of understanding of the reality of homosexuality is clear in his language. If one is going to consider the theological ramifications of something, one has to understand what that something actually is. And that's the issue with you conservatives: it isn't that you want to keep US out of the Church, you want to keep out whatever it is you think gay people are, and you vehemently refuse to acknowledge that what we are and what you think we are are two completely different things. Your need to conflate the bogeyman of your imaginations with the reality of who we are is so great that you will go to incredible lengths to so , and end up looking ridiculous in the process.

Hi Ford-
You are wrong about three things:
(1) NT Wright is primarily a NT scholar and only secondarily a theologian. His international reputation is certainly not something that belongs to 'evangelical' circles or to 'anglican' circles. It belongs to all NT circles, to circles in general, internationally. Honest scholarship obviously rejects closed 'circles' anyway: it aims to be a relatively objective, international, boundariless enterprise.

(2) Karen's offer: Having jumped to conclusions ('would you but accept': presumably written without the slightest knowledge of whether I would or not - but see my previous comment) I have of course accepted Karen's offer, as I will always accept anyone's, though rejected her mistake about the history of our discussion of the two stages of Bailey's identical twins project.

(3) 'Queer': Another non-evenhanded instance, alas, of your jumping to incorrect conclusions. You know very well I am not unaware (as who can be?) of this particular use of the word 'queer'. The point I made - as you'll see above - was a different one: namely, why would one claim with open arms a somewhat derogatory word in the first place? I.e. I am speaking about the initial embracing of this word by the gay community, not about anything subsequent to that.

You could easily eliminate this high proliferation of unevidenced assumptions. Son't you realise that people are going to correlate them with a high proliferation of bias?

Gee Mr Shell you are marvelous - taking me to task for allegedly clinging to polarized, categorical presuppositions while you say that you are all about empirical hypothesis testing, scholarship, and nuance.

Then later in the same post, connoting alleged research topics which are dear to, say, Paul Cameron (whose research was poor enough, and skewed enough, to get him kicked out of the APA).

Then you really top it off with the cherry on top, disclosing in passing that you concluded how empirical frames and methods and world views associated with being a modern psychologist are innately daft, compared to being your sort of Christian believer.

Okay, Shell. I'm speechless. But not really.

PS, the point of linking to the site was to dig deeper into the research referenced. Yes, Hooker's test was old, 1950's. So what? Methodologically, we have a solid careful test of (A) whether our available psychiatric-psychological assessment could actually find the alleged intrinsic disorder innate to being queer (per dominant 1950s theory); plus (B) whether experienced-trained clinicians could sort one subject group's protocols from the other. Since Hooker was using standardized individual clinical assessment measures, she did not need a huge number of subjects to do a statistically viable test. Clinicians of the era routinely believed, the Rorshach Projective was so deep, so accurate that they could readily distinguish the healthy (heterosexuals) from even the subtle disordered and frankly disordered (homosexuals).

The going theory of that day was much like our own. No capable, functioning queer folks possibly could exist by definition, period.

The empirical answer to (A) and (B), null hypothesis accepted, theory disconfirmed.

State of the art now? Well, the models that posit that sexual orientation variance always means unhealthy human personality-behavior are pretty much, Flat Earth. Now our models nearly all have dropped sexual orientation variance as a negative, marker or cause. Health data, good behavior citizenship data have corrected the models.

You gloss and dismiss Hooker as if the change were not, precisely in the details of her method, as well as her findings; and as if her pioneering best practice example had not strongly shifted later research. Hooker leads right to all the later studies summarized by Gonsiorek. Dig deep into all that, then find ways to gloss it all away and dismiss it, because as you preach - being a Christian is incompatible with being a modern empirically-based psychologist?

Hi Dr Dan-
It is certainly not the case that being a Christian is incompatible with being an empirically-based psychologist.

Quite the reverse. That is why I constantly bang the empirical drum, and castigate the ideological drum. Thankfully our discussion has therefore now become more empirically based.

My point was a different one, and a not-totally-scientific one (though I have dim memories of some actual research having been done into this matter). Namely: depending on what subjects one has studied and what milieux one has inhabited, one is, in my very-small-scale observation, significantly more or less likely to be Christian.

At university, for example, there were a lot of natural-scientist and mathematician Christians but very few politics-students. Most other subjects also had a trend, including psychology (a negative trend). The only megatrend I could discern was that the study of big-scale real-world realities made one more likely to be Christian, and the study of humans and their words and the idea that society's doings were what life is all about made one less likely. In other words: broaden your mind.

I was also disturbed by research into psychoanalysts and agony aunts that showed that they were actually less likely than average to have successful marriages. Which either made them singularly ill-equipped for their present job or brought the job itself into question. But again this would need to be verified since I have not touched on the topic for over 20 years.

I suppose the main point is that I would not think of making up my mind on the basis of such a small handful of studies, since I always like to have *all* the studies known to me in my purview, not a selection, let alone a hand-picked selection that all point the same way. The more studies a source refers to, the more interesting that source will be to me. The four criteria I use are: (1) how recent? (2) how large-scale? (3) how representative is the sample? (4) how far do findings match up with the general picture that emerges from the totality of studies on the same topic?

Kinsey, as you know, needs to be treated with caution: not only would his own proclivities and orientation make him liable to be biased, but he must have been indifferent to the child abuse that wouold necessarily have taken place for him to get some of his data in the first place. And that is something appalling.

Hi Dan-
There is something in your comment that none of us should approve: namely, the reference to 'alleged research topics'. There is nothing that is debarred from being a topic for research (unless by the communists or other people opposed to the principle of free enquiry). Or if you meant that the things in question have not ever been researched, then again that is untrue; and if it were true, one ought to wonder why.

I hope you will not put words ('Cameron' for example) in my mouth and deal only with what I do say.

We need an even playing field. People will always excuse this or that survey that's too-small or too-primitive-methodologically or too-skewed-in-its-sample or too-comparatively-eccentric-in-results. I consider all surveys useful and positive. The ones that are more useful and positive than the others will be the ones that fulfil these four criteria best.

Christopher,
(1) This comment has nothing to do with what I said. My point was that homosexuality is clearly outside his sphere of expertise, and he has not educated himself about it. Because of this, he is making pronouncements about people when he has no understanding of them. That has nothing to do with whether he is a theologian rather than a scholar, nor with whether he is "Anglican" or belongs to the wider Church. If he doesn't know what he's talking about, he shouldn't talk about it. He knows a lot about the NT, so let him talk about the NT. He knows nothing about homosexuals, so he should shut up about us till he does.

"(2) Karen's offer: Having jumped to conclusions ('would you but accept':"

It is a subjunctive. I have no idea if you will read what she suggests, though I suspect you will,hence my use of that mood.

"3) 'Queer': I am speaking about the initial embracing of this word by the gay community, not about anything subsequent to that."

And I explained why the word was initially embraced by the gay community. If you did not know why people would want to be addressed using a term that has been derogatory in the past, I assumed you did not know why gay people wanted to be called by a term that has been used derogatorily in the past. I explained it to you. I also expressed surprise that someone who so publically expresses himself about gay people the way you do would not know such a history. Now you claim you do know the history. Well, if you already know why gay people began using the word "queer", why would you wonder why we would want to use the word?

"The only megatrend I could discern was that the study of big-scale real-world realities made one more likely to be Christian, and the study of humans and their words and the idea that society's doings were what life is all about made one less likely."

I trust you can see the fallacy in this, it isn't hard to spot.

Ford, this is what I was trying to say before.

The problem with "traditionalists," is that they live in a sort of autistic self-conversation. Remaining in that self-defined world is the only way they can maintain their "empirical" evidence.

They speak only to themselves.

Hi Mark Brunson-
Having disposed of 'traditionalists', how do you regard eclectic truth-seekers and people who are thoroughly opposed to both traditionalism and progressivism as philosophical bases of any coherence whatever?

Hi Ford-
-No, the fallacy escapes me: pls elaborate. Surely the bigger one's horizons are the more one is in line with the truth.
-I can't find anywhere where you explain the rationale of anyone's embracing a negative term. When I was growing up homosexuals would exchange information in toilets (you will argue they were driven to it) but again the same question arose: in a world full of positive and pleasant things, why gravitate to something so unpleasant?
-'would you but' - yes it's a subjunctive but I took the force of the 'but' [= 'only'] to be 'you only have to take one easy step, so why is it that you don't?'.

And, my point is proven by Shell, himself. Thank you.

Christopher, if you don't understand what it means to deprive a word of its derogatory connotations by using it of one'sself or one's group in defiance of those who would give it derogatory connotations, I can't help you. And the fallacy in your argument is called, I believe, post hoc ergo propter hoc.

"The only megatrend I could discern was that the study of big-scale real-world realities made one more likely to be Christian, and the study of humans and their words and the idea that society's doings were what life is all about made one less likely."

It could just as easily be that those who find the Christian Gospel attractive are attracted to certain academic disciplines. You certainly don't give any data to suggest otherwise, but you didn't really have room, I guess.

Hi Mark-
The quest for wit is brilliant in its own place, but it is not to be confused with the quest for truth.

Hi Ford-
Don't you think it is almost certain that there is 2way traffic. Christians will be attracted to certain subjects and vocations (e.g., caring ones) and less attracted to others (which is why we end up being run by such a godless media, financial sector, parliament and all other sectors that set such low store by integrity). But equally the worldview you imbibe from your chosen subject is going to be amenable or not to Christianity. The tragedy is that most college and university subjects are so partial and (comparatively) small-world, with their own in-talk and closed frames of reference. The classic example is the way psychologists often treat 'is it normal?' as the only relevant question, when in fact it is only one of them, and a moprality-free one at that. Certainly in my own subdiscipline the best most ground-breaking work has been done by those who have studied other subjects as well (Bauckham history, Goulder economics, many classics, etc.).

Of course 'post hoc=propter hoc' is a fallacy in a formal sense; yet *everything* that is propter is also going to be post, so there is a substantially better than even chance, on average, that any given 'post' reality will be a 'propter' factor. Particularly so in cases where the 'post' reality in question is an *immediately-post* reality that comes into being at the precise juncture predicted. What are the chances of that?