|
Fulcrum Briefing on
'The Anti-Homosexuality Bill' in Uganda
 In the last few weeks, attention has been drawn to new legislation proposed in Uganda in the form of "The Anti-Homosexuality Bill". It proposes extreme measures supposedly to "establish a comprehensive consolidated legislation to protect the traditional family" and "aims at strengthening the nation's capacity to deal with emerging internal and external threats to the traditional heterosexual family". What follows seeks to provide a basic guide to the proposal (based on an online version of the text) and some of its background and to offer an evaluation of it in the light of Anglican teaching and suggestions as to how Anglicans elsewhere in the Communion might best respond.
Who is proposing the law?
It is important to realise that this is not currently government legislation and has yet to be properly debated in Parliament. It is a proposed Private Member's Bill from David Bahati, a member of the Ugandan Parliament, who has studied in Wales. Bahati would appear to be a committed Christian - he lists "Bible Reading" among his special interests on his Parliamentary profile. He has recently written in support of his bill in the Ugandan press.
It is, however, becoming clear that he is not a lone or minority voice. Not only do other MPs support its outlook (eg a woman MP recently in New Vision, a government newspaper), the bill does have significant government backing, especially from the Ethics and Integrity Minister Nsaba Buturo. As far back as July he was reported as announcing such a bill would come forward and was speaking out strongly against homosexuality. He has recently apparently held a press conference in support of the law of which it is reported: "The proposed law would "make Uganda a leader" in efforts against gay culture in Africa, Dr Buturo said. "On the issue of homosexuality, let them forget [about human rights]," he said. "The government has started
biting."
A sense of Buturo's views can also be gained from earlier reports in relation to the UN
and homosexuality, the
threat homosexuality poses to civilization, UNICEF
and sex education materials and judicial
overturning of adultery laws. He has also spoken out strongly in the
past against women wearing mini-skirts in
part because of their liability to cause traffic accidents. All these examples
highlight the quite different cultural context from Western liberalism and demonstrate
that homosexuality, though clearly the target here, is not the only cause of
concern to those supporting this bill.
It is reported that
Buturo is a committed member of the Church of Uganda and that he has been very supportive of the Ugandan church's stance in recent Anglican debates.
A more recent account of developments has appeared on a website which is following the legislation and Buturo closely. Given the powers granted to this minister under the proposed law (see below), there must be very serious concerns about how it will be implemented.
What is the current law?
The Penal Code Act already outlaws homosexual activity in Uganda with severe penalties. Section 145, headed "Unnatural offences", declares that "Any person who -(a) has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature; (b) has carnal knowledge of an animal; or (c) permits a male person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature, commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for life". The following section broadens this further to state that "Any person who attempts to commit any of the offences specified in section 145 commits a felony and is liable to imprisonment for seven years". In practice, however, prosecutions are apparently rare.
What is now proposed?
The Bill opens (Clause 1) with explicit definitions concerning the sexual organs and actions it seeks to control. It then defines "the offence of homosexuality" (Clause 2) in terms of men engaging in anal or oral sex or any person using "any object or sexual contraption to penetrate or stimulate sexual organ of a person of the same sex". It further states that the offence is committed whenever anyone "touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality". Conviction, as under the current penal code for actions "against the order of nature", makes someone liable to life imprisonment.
Even more shocking is the penalty for what is defined as "aggravated homosexuality" (Clause 3) which occurs where the offence is committed against a minor, someone in the offender's care or someone with a disability or where the offender is living with HIV, a serial offender or drugs their victim. Here anyone found guilty is
liable to the death penalty.
As under the penal code, any attempt to commit homosexualty could lead to seven years imprisonment while life imprisonment potentially awaits someone found guilty of attempting the new offence of aggravated homosexuality (Clause 4). Further clauses (Clauses 5 & 6) seek to protect and compensate "victims".
Part III creates a raft of new related offences. These relate to such matters as "aiding and abetting homosexuality" (Clause 7), "conspiracy to engage in homosexuality" (Clause 8), the use of threats or detention (Clauses 9 & 10) and the keeping of brothels (Clause 11). Any claim to have contracted a same-sex marriage is stated to be equivalent to committing the offence of homosexuality and so also liable to life imprisonment (Clause 12).
Clause 13 throws its net as wide as possible in a sweeping definition of "promotion of homosexuality". Conviction here could arise from any of a wide range of actions from homosexual pornography to simply offering premises or using electronic devices such as a mobile phone or the internet "for purposes of homosexuality or promoting
homosexuality". It will result in fines, prison sentences of 5-7 years and/or removal of legal status for organisations.
Finally, as a result of Clause 14, all persons of authority are required to police this law. Anyone with "power and control over other people because of your knowledge and official position", which explicitly includes "a person who exercises religious, political, economic or social authority", has to report within 24hrs if they become "aware of the commission of any offence under this Act". Failure to do so makes them liable to a fine or up to 3 years in prison.
Any Ugandan thinking they can escape by fleeing the country is caught by Clause 16 which applies the Act to offences outside Uganda while Clause 17 makes anyone charged under the Act liable to extradition. Where this new law violates existing international legal obligations those obligations are "null and void" and the Minister responsible for ethics and integrity (currently Nsaba Buturo quoted above) is authorised to "make regulations generally for better carrying out the provisions of this Act".
Why is this being proposed and how are Christians in Uganda responding?
At present the answers to these questions are not totally clear but the strong support for traditional Christian sexual ethics and the family means many Christians are likely to be supportive of seeking to encourage such behaviour including by passing laws with stringent penalties for violations. It is clear that the Minister for Ethics and Integrity (possibly representing a wider body of opinion) is concerned about perceived increasing social laxity in sexual morals and particularly about homosexuality which is understood only in such terms. There are also reports of increasing heterosexual and homosexual "defilement" (ie sexual abuse) in schools which is going unreported and unchallenged and this may explain some of the clauses in legislation (eg obligations to report certain offences and concerns for "victims") although it cannot justify its very narrow focus on homosexuality.
In relation to Anglican responses, Colin Coward has written on the Changing Attitude blog that "We have no evidence that the Church of Uganda or other member churches of ACNA or FoCA are directly involved in supporting the Uganda Bill". Other reports, however, have suggested a lot of sympathy with much of the Bill from Christian leaders although also criticism of its introduction of capital punishment and questions about the practicalities of implementing some of its measures.
There have also been suggestions that the recent work in Uganda of conservative Christian "ex-gay" and "pro-family" groups have helped create the atmosphere for the bill and enable it to gain a sympathetic hearing (concerns about a conservative Christian conference were raised at the time by some Christians as well as by those working for LGBT rights). One of the main people referred to in relation to this - Martin Ssempa (see also his blog and here for a critical set of reports about his work from a gay rights activist) who has worked for many years in Uganda in relation to HIV/AIDS - has strongly supported the bill. He has previously been linked to Rick Warren's church but it has now strongly distanced itself from him and Exodus International, the main 'ex-gay' movement which has had links
with Ssempa in Uganda, has given prominence to a call for him to renounce his support, suggesting that it too does not share his views on the legislation.
Is there Anglican teaching relevant to this proposed legislation?
When similar legislation was proposed in Nigeria, Andrew Goddard and Ephraim Radner wrote an article on Human Rights, Homosexuality & The Anglican Communion which addresses a number of key issues in some detail. Anglican moral teaching clearly views the sort
of conduct here classed as "the offence of homosexuality" as morally wrong but it says nothing about how secular law should view such an offence and the legal systems found across the Anglican Communion clearly vary on this. There
are, however, serious questions to be raised about this proposed legislation on the basis of Anglican moral teaching.
Lambeth I.10 in the same sentence that it rejects "homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture" called on "all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals".
If this legislation does not amount to the expression of (and an attempt to give legal embodiment to) an "irrational fear of homosexuals" then it is hard to imagine what would. It would also appear to make it impossible, especially given the requirements to report any offence, for Anglican clergy to "minister pastorally and sensitively" without being in breach of the law. As far back as 1978, the bishops of Lambeth stated that "While we reaffirm heterosexuality as the scriptural norm, we recognise the need for deep and dispassionate study of the question of homosexuality, which would take seriously both the teaching of Scripture and the results of scientific and medical research. The Church, recognising the need for pastoral concern for those who are homosexual, encourages dialogue with them". This was again reaffirmed in 1998 Lambeth I.10 - "We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ".
This proposed legislation clearly would create a legal environment which makes the fulfilment of these commitments even more difficult than it already is (perhaps impossible) for Anglicans in Uganda and could potentially lead to any participating in the Listening Process being viewed as guilty of "promotion of homosexuality". In 1988 the Lambeth Conference (Resolution 33) urged the Church "to speak out against...all governments who practice capital punishment, and encourages them to find alternative ways of sentencing offenders so that the divine dignity of every human being is respected and yet justice is pursued".
The proposed introduction of capital punishment for homosexual offences in this Bill must therefore be spoken against and it is encouraging that there are signs of this happening with Bishop Stanley Ntagali of Masindi-Kitara diocese and the Provincial Secretary reported as opposing this development (although their support for even life sentences signals how alarmingly different their perception of homosexual offences is from that in Western countries). Anglicans have repeatedly spoken against what is often labelled homophobia (see extended version of May 2006 Fulcrum Newsletter for details and discussion) with the Primates making clear that "in our discussion and assessment of the moral appropriateness of specific human behaviours, we continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people. The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us. We assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship".
This legislation, with its detailed concerns about "specific human behaviours", shows no awareness of this reality of "homosexual people" or of human "affections" and is thus fatally flawed from a Christian perspective. In focussing its alleged defence of the family on introducing such offences and severe penalties solely in relation to homosexuality it represents and encourages the victimisation and diminution of "human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex" which the Primates anathematized.
How should Anglicans outside Uganda respond?
Great care is always needed when engaging with the internal politics of a quite different culture and there can be significant misunderstandings, fuelled by reliance on Internet sources of often unknown reliability (what, for example, is one to make of the significance of recent blog reports of accusations of homosexuality against Christian leaders?) and pressure group lobbying by both Christians and non-Christians. Megaphone diplomacy is unlikely to prove of much value and it is also clear that anything perceived as "external threats to the traditional heterosexual family" within Uganda could actually lead to increased support for such legal developments. Already, in the UK, it is clear that those who are concerned about the proposed bill are following different strategies and Changing Attitude has expressed its unhappiness at the lack of response from Fulcrum and other evangelical groups and their unwillingness to agree to a proposed joint open letter. It is also the case that the Ugandan Church has in the past felt itself to be targeted by Anglican groups such as Integrity in the US working for GLBT rights and inclusion and this history will shape their response to comments from elsewhere in the Communion on matters relating to homosexuality.
However, unless we are to succumb to cultural relativism, the proposed legislation cannot simply be ignored given its apparent support from a leading government minister, its incompatibility with Anglican teaching, its undermining of Anglican ministry and mission, and the danger it represents to many Anglicans and others in Uganda who are likely to face prosecution should it become law. We need therefore to:
Pray for David Bahati (the Bill's sponsor) and the Minister for Ethics and Integrity (who is so supportive of it), for all those who will be involved in any Parliamentary discussion of it (due now in January 2010) and able to amend or defeat it, for all those who now feel even further threatened simply by its publication, and for all those in the Ugandan Church seeking to be faithful witnesses and salt and light in their country. Seek to understand more about what is happening and the wider context in Uganda eg most of us in this country would not know the answer to many, if any, of the following questions: (1) how likely is this to become law in its present form, what sort of amendments are realistically possibly, and what will happen if it does enter the statute book?, (2) how does it compare in terms of stringency and penalties to existing legislation in relation to other (hetero)sexual conduct viewed as wrong?, (3) what are the real social and criminal problems which it is a misguided attempt to address and how can they be better addressed? eg has there been a rise in sexual abuse of minors?, (4) is there any reason other than homophobic prejudice and scapegoating as to why the bill and signficant political leaders are particularly targeting homosexual people?, (5) how widespread are the attitudes the bill represents within Ugandan church and society and how can the Christians there and elsewhere in the Communion best reform that culture and its laws?, (6) how is the Church of Uganda ministering to GLBT people?, (7) what are the real threats to marriage and family life in Uganda that this bill claims to be responding to? Be in contact with those we know in the Ugandan church. Many evangelicals have strong ties with the church - Archbishop Henry Orombi did not attend the recent ACC meeting because he was attending a New Wine conference in the UK! - and a number of dioceses, theological colleges and other bodies also have strong links. The Anglican Church in North America also includes many who were, until its formation, part of the Church of Uganda. Through personal relationships such as these we can find out more about the proposed law and the challenges of ministry and mission to GLBT people in Uganda and encourage church leaders to oppose legislation which is contrary to Anglican and wider Christian teaching and fulfil the commitments of Lambeth Conferences in relation to Anglican responses to homosexual people.
Where can one keep informed about developments?
The legislation is now being widely discussed on the internet by both Christian and non-Christian groups. Among advocates for LGBT people in Uganda the main sources are Box Turtle Bulletin (who has followed "anti-gay" rhetoric and actions in Uganda closely) and the blog of a gay Ugandan. From those supportive of a traditional Christian stance on homosexuality the most important and best-informed reports so far discovered are those of the respected evangelical psychology professor Dr Warren Throckmorton (especially on his blog) and, more recently, Andrew Marin, whose Love Is An Orientation was recently reviewed on Fulcrum. Throckmorton has also started a Facebook group opposing the legislation which often has updates to developments. Among Ugandan press sources are New Vision (a government-owned newspaper), The Observer and the independent, anti-government Monitor (which has been very critical of the Ethics and Integrity Minister).
Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum
Forum Posts About This Article:
Posted by: NormanP
Thursday 22 November 2012 - 10:20pm
Just in time for Christmas, the Uganda Parliament might just manage to squeeze in the long delayed Anti-homosexuality Bill, possibly including the death penalty provision that brought about an international outcry a while ago (when the world wasn't quite so busy.)
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/11/16/51026
There is an Avaaz petition on the subject
http://www.avaaz.org/en/uganda_stop_gay_death_law/?biXwoab&v=1942
Posted by: nersenpaul
Tuesday 1 February 2011 - 08:01am
No doubt some feel free to dismiss the Ugandan police (as they know better sitting in England....) - but the police have reported a robbery that led to murder - tragic.....but before dismissing them, anybody seen any evidence to contradict them?
Posted by: NormanP
Monday 31 January 2011 - 10:10pm
A more encouraging statement from the Church of Uganda reported today, which the 'Daily Monitor' interprets as a rejection of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. (What is interesting is the Church's call for increased child protection: many people in Uganda regard homosexuality and pedophilia as the same thing, and the rumour that large numbers of schoolchildren were being 'recruited' was the spark that set off the demand for the bill in the first place.)
http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/858926/-/view/printVersion/-/j8i3qkz/-/index.html
"Daily Monitor Tuesday February 1, 2011
Anglicans say No to gays Bill
[Picture of Archbishop Luke Orombi]
Kampala/Mbarara
The country’s Anglicans yesterday added their voice against the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Like the Catholics before them, the Church of Uganda officially rejected the Bill.
They proposed that instead of the death penalty for gays who seduce boys - as the Bill put forward by Ndorwa West David Bahati demands – the law should be changed to ensure that vulnerable boys are properly protected.
Archbishop Luke Orombi, in his first public comments on the controversial Bill, however said they do not recognise homosexuality as “a human right”.
“The Church of Uganda believes that homosexual practice is incompatible with the Scripture,” the prelate said in a statement issued yesterday, citing a resolution of the 1998 Lambeth Conference in Britain.
He added: “At the same time, the Church of Uganda is committed at all levels to offer counseling, healing and prayer for people with homosexual disorientation, especially in our schools and other institutions of learning.”
“The Church is a safe place for individuals, who are confused about their sexuality or struggling with sexual brokenness, to seek help and healing. As a Church; we affirm the necessity of appropriate amendments within the existing legislation...”
Mr Bahati, who tabled the Bill last year, yesterday insisted in comments to Christians and pastors fellowshipping at Christian Life Church in Bwaise, a city suburb, that he is not giving up.
“As a Member of Parliament, I have a constitutional right to move a Private Member’s Bill and will not be shaken by any external forces because I have the support from within my country,” he said, adding: “Many Ugandans are behind me and we have to fight this battle jointly.”
However, the latest foray by Church of Uganda, which until last year played host and spiritual home for breakaway conformist American clerics/Anglicans disenchanted over acceptance of homosexuals in the Episcopal Church, deprives MP Bahati of the second biggest bloc after the Catholic Church here earlier raised objections to capital punishment embedded in the Bill.
According to Mr Bahati, the Bill seeks to legitimise marriage only as a union between a man and woman, penalise homosexuals, prohibit and or disown pro-gay treaties and freeze licensing of promoter organisations.
Some provisions of the Bill, including the death penalty for aggravated homosexuality, borderless jurisdiction and criminalisation of counseling of gays, have been criticised both locally and internationally, especially by human rights activists
US President Barack Obama, among other powerful western leaders, last week derided the Bill as “odious”, two months after President Museveni urged Parliament to go slow on it due to associated foreign policy sensitivity.
Sanctions plea
Yesterday’s statement sent to media houses by Church of Uganda’s Communications Director Amanda Onapito, specifically suggests changes to Sections 128-147 that variously touch on sexual-related offences such as indecent assault, homosexuality and defilement to ensure “proportionality” in sanctions.
“The ideal situation would be one where necessary amendment is made to existing legislation to also enumerate other sexual offences such as lesbianism and bestiality,” the statement, already endorsed by the House of Bishops, reads in part.
“This would not require a fresh Bill on homosexuality per se but rather an amendment to the existing provisions which would also change the title to something like: The Penal Code Unnatural Offences Amendment Bill.”
The Anglican Communion has in recent years stood on the edge of division on the issue of gays in the congregation with liberals backing their accommodation while conservatives detest the practice as “sinful and unbiblical”.
Church of Uganda has sided with the conformists, helping organise the 2008 Global Anglican Future Conference in Jerusalem after boycotting the Lambeth Conference in London over Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan William’s perceived tolerance of gays.
Meanwhile, a man in Isingiro District in western Uganda was remanded in custody after being accused of sodomising a 13-year-old boy.
The prosecution told the court that the 27-year-old had waylaid the boy as he returned from grazing goats and threatened to stab him before forcing him into sex against “the order of nature”.
The magistrate in Mbarara said the evidence in the file was “too scanty to proceed” and he adjourned the hearing."
Posted by: NormanP
Monday 31 January 2011 - 10:30am
There has been a year's gap in this thread. My attempt to join the new thread has confused the good folk who have to check this stuff, so that the correctionmessage left there doesn't make sense (and probably needs removing.) During this year the Anti-Homosexuality Bill has been considered by a Committee of Ugandan M.P's.
The news of David Kato's funeral was indeed shocking. Yesterday a timely article appeared in the 'Daily Monitor', which is a Kenyan publication . I didn't spot that it was actually carrying something the Church of Uganda issued a year ago. I found this statement, in its own way, more shocking than David Kato's murder.
"From 'Daily Monitor' 30.1.2011
Church of Uganda’s position on Homosexuality Bill
By Henry Luke Orombi
Posted Friday, February 12 2010 at 00:00
In Summary: Ensure that homosexual practice or the promotion of homosexual relations is not adopted as a human right.
The Church of Uganda associates itself with the concerns expressed in the Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009. However, instead of a completely a new Bill, the Church recommends a Bill that amends the Penal Code Act (Cap.120) addressing loopholes, in particular:
Protecting the vulnerabilities of the boy-child.
Proportionality in sentencing;
And, ensuring that sexual orientation is excluded as a protected human right.
Further, we recommend involvement of all stakeholders in the preparation of such a Bill in order to uphold Uganda’s values as they relate to human sexuality.
Church’s position on homosexuality
The Church of Uganda derives her mandate and authority from the canonical scriptures of the Old and New Testament, as the ultimate rule and standard of faith, given by inspiration of God and containing all things necessary from salvation. Her mission is to “fulfil Christ’s mission through holistic teaching, evangelism, discipleship and healing for healthy and godly nations.”
The Church’s position on human sexuality is consistent with its basis of faith and doctrine, and has been stated very clearly over the years as reflected in various documents. From a plain reading of Scripture, from a careful reading of Scripture, and from a critical reading of Scripture, homosexual practice has no place in God’s design of creation, the continuation of the human race through procreation, or His plan of redemption. Even natural law reveals that the very act of sexual intercourse is an experience of embracing the sexual “other”.
The Church of Uganda, therefore, believes that “Homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture” (Resolution 1.10, 1998 Lambeth Conference). At the same time, the Church of Uganda is committed at all levels to offer counselling, healing and prayer for people with homosexual disorientation, especially in our schools and other institutions of learning.
The Church is a safe place for individuals, who are confused about their sexuality or struggling with sexual brokenness, to seek help and healing.
The objective of the Bill
The Church of Uganda appreciates the spirit of the Bill’s objective of protecting the family, especially in light of a growing propaganda to influence younger people to accept homosexuality as a legitimate way of expressing human sexuality.
We particularly appreciate the objectives of the Bill which seek to: provide for marriage in Uganda as contracted only between a man and woman;
Prohibit and penalise homosexual behaviour and related practices in Uganda as they constitute a threat to the traditional family;
Prohibit ratification of any international treaties, conventions, protocols, agreements and declarations which are contrary or inconsistent with the provisions of the Act;
Prohibit the licensing of organisations which promote homosexuality.
Need for a Bill that amends existing laws
We affirm the need for a Bill in light of the existing loopholes in the current legislation, specifically sections 145-148 of the Penal Code Act (Cap 120), which do not explicitly address the other issues associated with homosexual practice such as procurement, recruitment and dissemination of literature. That notwithstanding, the ideal situation would be one where necessary amendment is made to existing legislation to also enumerate other sexual offences such as lesbianism and bestiality. This would not require a fresh bill on homosexuality per se but rather an amendment to the existing provisions which would also change the title to something like ‘The Penal Code Unnatural Offences Amendment Bill’.
Recommendation
As Parliament considers streamlining the existing legislation, we recommend that the following issues be taken into consideration:
Ensure that the law protects the confidentiality of medical, pastoral and counseling relationships, including those that disclose homosexual practice in accordance with the relevant professional codes of ethics.
Language that strengthens the existing Penal Code to protect the boy child, especially from homosexual exploitation; to prohibit lesbianism, bestiality, and other sexual perversions; and to prohibit procurement of material and promotion of homosexuality as normal or as an alternative lifestyle, be adopted.
Ensure that homosexual practice or the promotion of homosexual relations is not adopted as a human right.
Existing and future educational materials and programmes on gender identity and sex education are in compliance with the values and the laws of Uganda.
The involvement of additional stakeholders in the evaluation of the gaps in the existing legislation, including, but not limited to, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, its Department of Immigration and other relevant departments. "
Posted by: Deleted user 2286
Saturday 29 January 2011 - 07:38pm
Now a Reader of the Church of Uganda has desecrated his Funeral Service. I find the link beetween Evangelical religion and murder shocking.
(I'm rather old fashioned)
Posted by: NormanP
Thursday 27 January 2011 - 12:51pm
This issue is, sadly, still with us - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12295718 and http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/26/brenda-namigadde-deportation-fear-uganda
Two coincidences make me particularly sad. Firstly, the place where David Kato came from and where a number of gay people have been beaten to death, was Mukono. I taught there for a year in 1966/67 under a CMS scheme. Secondly, as it happens, 1967 was the year when homosexual activity was legalised in England. Christians in Britain have therefore had 40 years to understand that whatever their beliefs it is important to see the controversy over Uganda's anti-homosexual law as a human rights issue. In practice we and American Christians have sent very mixed messages which have been no help to the Ugandan churches in thinking through their own position.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Monday 4 January 2010 - 09:13am
Cyprian K Lwanga, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kampala, criticised the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill in his sermon at Rubaga Cathedral, 23rd December 2009 (Box Turtle Bulletin site, 24 December 2009).
Chris Sugden, executive secretary of Anglican Mainstream, has not criticised the Bill in his article 'Ugandan Church faces totalitarian liberal activism', Evangelicals Now January 2010 (Anglican Mainstream site, 17 December 2009).
Rick Warren, Pastor of Saddleback Church, criticised the Bill, in his video statement to Ugandan Church Leaders, see also 'Rick Warren Condemns Uganda's Anti-Gay Bill', by Howard Chua-Eoan, Time magazine, 10 December 2009.
The Fulcrum critique of the Bill is entitled, 'Fulcrum Briefing on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda', (Fulcrum, 3 November 2009).
Posted by: DavidW
Wednesday 9 December 2009 - 09:33am
I would like to thank wggrace for his last post which I think is excellent and I fully agree with. I believe it explains that there is such a difference of opinion and how wide and deep it is. What I would point out is most Christians see the promotion and defence of same sex relationships as a major departure from the faith once delivered, not just because of the disbelief of the passages about God's purposes and the condemnations, but the reasoning exposes further disbelief of other passages. And in addition, we have many who hold those views professing other established heresies such as pluralism when all the Biblical testimony claims there is no other God and no other salvation.
For me and for many, two different faiths.
Posted by: DavidW
Wednesday 9 December 2009 - 09:08am
To Roger Hurding,
Sorry but I see your argument merely as massive disbelief and denial.
Again you propose I have an interpretation of the scriptures, but I haven’t given an interpretation, all I have done is cite and quote them.
I see the condemnations as not cultural, they are spoken to the people of God so as not to do these things, at Sodom, at the time of the exodus, and during the cultures where else it existed, Greek and Roman at the time of Jesus; it is obvious this is not cultural but what the people of God do not do.
I could interpret the passages like others so that it doesn’t mean what it says, but I believe the word of God.
I would like to address again what you offered.
As to gang rape, the text doesn’t say this and says the men wanted to know (‘yada’) the men carnally. Lot pronounces this wicked and offers his virgin daughters instead. Your interpretation would imply gang rape of men is wicked but gang rape of women isn’t, but your view is based on faulty translation as well. You refer to 1 Cor 7 as Paul’s teaching, Galatians 1 tells us this isnt so much Paul’s teaching as he did not receive his revelation from man but from the risen Lord, don’t you believe that either? 1 Cor 7 mirrors the rest of the NT such as Matthew 19 where it is faithful marriage or celibacy. So what is your point exactly?
You said I cited Genesis 2 in defence of my view on marriage, no I did not, I cited it as God’s view on marriage because I believe it is the inspired word of God directly from God. The only way you could claim what you have said logically would be to assume when Jesus NT teaching repeats it in Matthew 19, Mark 10, Eph 5 etc that Jesus was lying when He claimed he spoke what He heard the Father say. John 14:10.
I am afraid even some of my gay and lesbian friends who do not agree with or believe the Bible at least recognise what it says.
Posted by: Tony
Tuesday 8 December 2009 - 10:35pm
DavidH -- you've been around long enough to know that the Leadership Team doesn't respond to such queries. I've read enough to know that there are pro-LGBT Christians *posting* here who regard themselves as Evangelicals; and my guess is that, given the official statements that the Fulcrum leaders sometimes like to quote almost as if they were papal encyclicals, they are 100% opposed to the ordination of LGBT Christians or their consecration as bishops, though I don't think that fulcrum ideology would exclude LGBT people living in partnerships from baptism or the Eucharist. But that's only what I think.
Posted by: wggrace
Tuesday 8 December 2009 - 03:41pm
I am reluctant to push my head above the parapet but I will give it a go. Homosexuality and views for and against it, seems to be the only game in town now.
I am very ‘conservative’ on this issue. When I read the scriptures I am genuinely bewildered that anyone can read them as commending or permitting homosexual acts or even claiming that there is any ambiguity in them. This I suspect is the failing of many conservatives. We simply cannot see what those of a more liberal persuasion claim to see. So appeals to change our views on this seem to be not only an appeal to change our views about homosexual activity but also an appeal to jettison any way of reading the scriptures that we can do with integrity. This is not to claim that others are reading the scriptures without integrity but it is to say that we do not how to do it that way ourselves. So the path to agreement between those of liberal (or less conservative) persuasion and conservatives like me is a difficult and thorny one, likely to scratch people on both sides of the question.
To give an example of how those of a more liberal persuasion have been known to read scripture that seems to me to be radically unconvincing, the declarations of affection David made concerning Jonathan was recently cited in this forum as an example of homosexual affection. Now we know that both David and Jonathan enjoyed full heterosexual activity. There is no explicit suggestion of any homosexual actrivity. So the only way that it seems that we can assume that there was is to assume that their friendship is homosexual is to assume that any close same sex relationship is sexual. This seems to be a huge leap quite at odds with my experience, quite at odds with the experience of many others. It is also a most distubing leap. If same sex relationships must be sexual, what other relationships must be sexual? Adult/children, parent/child, teacher/pupil, brother/sister? The assumption potentially sexualises all our relationships in what I deem to be a most destructive and corrupting way. Presumably most homosexuals do not extend the assumption in this way but if they do not neither should they make it in this case.
I suspect that few homosexuals would want to use this passage to support homosexual behaviour but I think they should acknowledge that when it is used in this way the effect is to antagonise the conservatives radically.
This leads me to highlight one area of disagreement between me and the ‘liberals’. If you were to ask me whether homosexuals would ‘go to heaven’, I would answer ‘no’. There are two reasons for this. First and in this context mundanely, I am suspicious of the language of ‘going to heaven’ as it seems to undermine the doctrine of the second coming and the resurrection of the dead. Second, and more pertinent to this debate, I do not believe that heterosexuals will ‘go to heaven’ either. If we find our identity in being homosexual or heterosexual, I think we are way off beam. The drive to finding our identity in our ‘sexuality’ is a peculiarly modern phenomenon. Previously we established our identity through family, occupation, land, tribe/nation. These criteria to identity are opposed to the individualism that permeates modernity. But all these criteria are losing their power as we become more individualistic. In this individualistic age, we find our identity in what is true of us as individuals and the most obvious criterion is our sexuality (I am told Foucault is very good on this). But we are Christians. As Christians, we did not find our identity in family or tribe. We are creatures of Galatians 3:28. We find our identity in Christ and thus not in our sexuality any more than in our tribe.
This in turn leads me to question the overwhelming focus in this forum on sexual issues. We really do seem to have lost our poise. Those of a liberal tendency sometimes cite the paucity of biblical texts that relate to homosexuality. This is something that cuts both ways. Clearly sex played a smaller part in the lives of those in biblical times than now. Sex used to be for fun and procreation. Now it has to function as the main carrier of identity and so we cannot but talk endlessly about it.
Posted by: DavidW
Tuesday 8 December 2009 - 03:19pm
To Hugh of Lincoln,
Not all all, I would say promoting and defending something which scripture condemns as disbelief and denial.
Posted by: Roger Hurding
Tuesday 8 December 2009 - 02:25pm
Brightmorningstar, you write, ‘One side of the argument quotes the word of God and the other has nothing to quote but merely states its systematic disbelief of what the relevant scriptures say and then claims both sides have an equal case.’
I don’t think you do the debate justice here. You say, ‘Throughout the Bible same sex relations are condemned as wicked, detestable and error, Genesis 19, Leviticus 18, 20, 1 Corinthians 6-7, 1 Timothy 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1. There is no countenance for same sex relations.’ It would be fairer to say, I suggest, that your interpretation of those texts is that, unequivocally, they say 'same sex relations are condemned as wicked, detestable and error'. Others of us, equally respecting of Scripture, see these texts as ambiguous in that each of them either has a specific culturally linked context or is not offering a general view of same-sex relating, eg gang rape in Genesis 19 and the outworkings of idolatry in Romans 1. To be true to the Bible the full context must be read.
Those of us with a high view of Scripture agree that its texts demonstrate the importance of marriage but not, I suggest, to the exclusion of all other human relationships. See, for example, Paul’s teaching on celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7 and the Book of Proverbs’ great emphasis on friendship. You cite Genesis 2, for example, in defence of your view on the primacy of marriage. Ontologically, such an emphasis does not inevitably exclude all other forms of human relating, eg. the call to celibacy is not included here. The silence of Genesis 2 and in Jesus’s teaching on matters relating to homosexuality should also be noted. If same-sex relationships are always sinful, as you argue, isn’t it strange that Jesus never seems to have mentioned the matter?
So let’s be fair, both sides of this debate, at least in the context of Fulcrum and other comparable groups, do their best to be faithful to Scripture.
Posted by: Dave
Tuesday 8 December 2009 - 01:16pm
Hugh,
what prompted your post of 8.24? There is a point to be made about different strands within Christianity which are often hard to define and merge or combine in complex ways. Other faiths are theologically and organizationally distinct. On some things they say the same thing which C S Lewis takes as evidence for natural law. On others they differ. On homosexuality, opposition is the traditional position of the monotheistic faiths. Both the Greek and Eastern viewpoint is generally more accepting. In drawing on these traditions we are inevitably acting as an editor or more likely responding to the editorship of others.
David
Posted by: Dave
Tuesday 8 December 2009 - 01:02pm
Tony says "Presumably fulcrum's evangelical centre doesn't include accepting evangelicals either." Will the leadership please clarify this.
David
Posted by: Hugh of Lincoln
Tuesday 8 December 2009 - 10:53am
"Throughout the Bible..." - BMS
Isn't this overstating things a little...?
Posted by: Hugh of Lincoln
Tuesday 8 December 2009 - 08:24am
Fancy labels - liberal, conservative, evangelical, catholic, charasmatic, atheist, secularist, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu - are just that, fancy labels.
No, we need to draw on the rich traditions of all the aforementioned to truly understand the mind of God.
The whole of the Letter of James, for instance, cannot be added to, or taken away from - as relevant to these times as it was in those.
Hugh
x
Posted by: DavidW
Tuesday 8 December 2009 - 08:16am
To Hugh of Lincoln,
You wrote “Such is the ambiguity of the Bible, it has to be accepted that neither side has made a convincing case based on Scripture alone”
Sorry but this simply isn’t the case, and such a statement simply leads to a total breakdown in communication. The scripture is totally convincing that same sex relations are error. Let me just reaffirm. Passages such as in Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Mark 10 and Ephesians 5 etc. describe how in the beginning God made male and female and it was for this reason a man shall be united with his wife and the two become one flesh. Throughout the Bible man and woman are countenanced. Throughout the Bible same sex relations are condemned as wicked, detestable and error, Genesis 19, Leviticus 18, 20, 1 Corinthians 6-7, 1 Timothy 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1. There is no countenance for same sex relations.
One side of the argument quotes the word of God and the other has nothing to quote but merely states its systematic disbelief of what the relevant scriptures say and then claims both sides have an equal case. The church is splitting because it probably doesn’t have such a level of disbelief and denial as on this issue.
Posted by: DavidR
Monday 7 December 2009 - 07:04pm
David H - in fact that sentence on the CA website does not claim to summarise the 'evangelical' view at all - that is your own addition and as such it is misleading. (and why do you assume it does?). It is a matter of fact that there is are highly conservative, aggressively anti positions on homosexuality - including some conservative evangelicals - that believe exactly what they say they do.
Posted by: Tony
Monday 7 December 2009 - 03:07pm
DavidH I also find Colin's language adversarial (his blog is part of his advocacy) and strong -- aggressive if you like, certainly polemical. And of course comments in Thinking Anglicans are often equally strong. But neither of those sites are asking particularly for a clarification of views. Even if they were, I don't see why the strong language of one 'side' should justify things that we evidently don't approve of on the other. I do think that the anthropology promoted among different kinds of evangelicals is understood and felt by LGBT Christians as cruel. So occasional attempts, like MattS's, to open more irenic kinds of communication are a surprise, and often -- it seems (see the other thread) -- frustrated. I suppose one of the fundamental differences is that so-called liberals are inclined to see other Christians of whatever tradition as still of the household of faith; and I think that has been the anglican way. At the conservative end of the spectrum other people's belief is always a matter of forensic investigation before it is acknowledged. Presumably fulcrum's evangelical centre doesn't include accepting evangelicals either.
Posted by: Dave
Monday 7 December 2009 - 12:58pm
Tony,
I find the language adopted by Changing attitude in their latest post which describes the evangelical view as the "wholly unChristian homophobic, cruel and abusive anti-gay prejudices of the reactionary conservatives" to be "adversarial and aggressive"
David
Posted by: MattS
Sunday 6 December 2009 - 07:50pm
Hugh,
I've also replied to you on the other thread.
Posted by: MattS
Sunday 6 December 2009 - 02:10pm
Tony,
I've replied to you on the other thread
Posted by: Tony
Sunday 6 December 2009 - 12:54am
MattS
I really don't doubt your sincerity, but the framework available here is pretty unattractive. Mostly the pro-gay view is thought by evangelicals to 'do violence' to the scriptures. (See DavidH's phrase elsewhere here.) So it's hard not to think that any view that isn't opposed to gay people in loving relationships will be considered unscriptural. The tone here is often adversarial and aggressive -- and it's not as though there aren't hundreds of published pages setting out the case as well as many long threads even here on fulcrum. The invitation to 'justify oneself' as a gay or lesbian Christian is peculiarly demeaning, when the response is likely to be inquisitorial. Still, the Changing Attitude website has a very big booklist from all sorts of perspectives. Accepting Evangelicals offers introductory thoughts from Roy Clements at http://www.acceptingevangelicals.org/think%20again.htm
Like lots of other people, I've found James Alison's books a real revelation (!): his Christian journey began as an evangelical though now he is an awkward Roman Catholic - _Faith Beyond Resentment_ & _On Being Liked_, for a start. If thinking about less literalist readings of the scriptures is of interest, then I got a huge amount out of Brueggemann's _Introduction to the Old Testament. Canon and Christian Imagination_. (Don't let the introductory 25 pp. put you off!)
I am still in some doubt about whether a forum like this is a good way to take this forward seriously. But there may be some other straight or gay but also evangelical contributors who would be willing to cover the ground.
Praying with friends tonight, we used an Iona affirmation: with the whole church: we believe that we are made in God's image, befriended by Christ, inspired by the Spirit. I'm grateful that we share that whether evangelical Christians or of other traditions. pax et bonum
Tony
Posted by: Hugh of Lincoln
Saturday 5 December 2009 - 10:08am
"We're not going to start justifying ourselves to you"
No, L. Roberts. I disagree with you. I too believe Matt is sincere. We do have to make a valid case (but so do they).
Such is the ambiguity of the Bible, it has to be accepted that neither side has made a convincing case based on Scripture alone. For those opposed to same-sex marriage, there would be absolutely no need for Lambeth Conference resolutions, Primates' Meeting communiques and the Anglican Covenant if the Scriptures were clear that this step was unbiblical. After all, there is no disagreement whatsovever amongst Christians that we should help the poor and needy: the Word of God as well as our own reasoning skills make this abundantly clear to us time after time.
In this instance, Hooker's Reason comes to the fore.
Posted by: MattS
Saturday 5 December 2009 - 09:23am
I think it would be a good idea to continue this discussion on the "Should evangelicals accept homosexual relationships" thread and leave this one for Uganda
Posted by: MattS
Saturday 5 December 2009 - 09:11am
Tony,
Nobody has to contribute to these threads- I choose to post here, and not somewhere else. If anyone out there wants to make their positive case to me, then I am open to be persuaded. The more ad hominem I hear, the more I think there is no positive case that doesn't entail me abandoning my religious beliefs or being completely inconsistent. I think you are probably right, by the way, that accepting homosexual relationships would entail quite a radical reinterpretation of biblical authority. Maybe that would be a fruitful way for this discussion to go forward.
L Roberts,
This will be the last time I respond to any of your posts, and I think it would be fair for me to tell you why. You clearly have a fundamentalistic (George W Bush) mindset which divides the world into good (those who agree with you) and evil (those who question you or opinions you hold). I'm not sure how far further engagement with you will help either of us.
I'm sure your posts are making you feel better, but they are probably advancing the gay rights cause among evangelicals about as much as Fred Phelps is advancing Christianity with gays. Maybe "Wise as serpents, gentle as doves" would maybe be a good verse for you to think about?
Posted by: DavidW
Saturday 5 December 2009 - 09:03am
To Colin Coward,
I gave some references in my post of Thursday 3 December 2009 - 08:53,. please look them up again if you missed them. I am certainly not going to exchange personal judgments and opinions with you, if your argument is baseless then we can’t debate.
Posted by: Tony
Saturday 5 December 2009 - 12:16am
dear all -- on Ship of Fools (a rather broader Christian forum than this one) there is a category called Dead Horses; and I think it's time this discussion was consigned to it. BMS (who seems to present as an avatar of Our Lord himself: see his/her reference to Revelation below) has a fairly narrow view of what the scriptures are, and one that a lot of 'evangelicals' probably don't share -- in particular the Affirming Evangelicals, but conceivably even some of the fulcrum FοΏΌhrer(innen) like Jody. But equally a Christian scholar such as Walter Brueggemann (sp?), who sees the Hebrew scriptures as conflicted and energetically dialectical, has a very high view of what the scriptures are for -- but not one that remotely matches the conservative line being pushed here. I know that the fulcrum forum is a place where people come to grind their axes, but if BMS wants to confront gay Christians why not ask Colin to put him/her in touch with some?
wishing you all a Holy Advent: pax et bonum
Tony
Posted by: Deleted user 974
Friday 4 December 2009 - 11:13pm
'To Hugh of Lincoln, and L Roberts,
First of all let me reply to question. I have some gay and lesbian friends and whilst they know my views, we are non the less quite good friends and they have acknowledged the fact that I have joined them for their birthday celebrations in gay bars and their civil partnerships when some other so called friends haven’t. The reason is they are not Christians and I am not to judge them. ' (BMS)
Thanks for letting me know. I'm glad it works for you and for them.
Posted by: Deleted user 974
Friday 4 December 2009 - 11:06pm
"Somebody has to make a convincing, positive and coherent case to evangelicals why we should accept homosexual relationships" - Matt
Matt - please yourself. We're not going to start justifying ourselves to you.
I'm not sure who you think you are.
Full of arrogant hubris.
Posted by: MattS
Friday 4 December 2009 - 10:55pm
Stuart,
It might be true that we're talking past one another, and like you I'm finding this whole conversation rather dull and would like to move on to other things. Somehow, though, I don't think the media and the gay rights lobby is going to allow the CofE (and particularly the CofE) to do that.
My request to hear a positive case is a sincere one. If there is one out there, I'd like to hear it, but I never have. The whole Christian and pro-gay position just seems incoherent to me. I'll try and get hold of The Body's Grace. I certainly hope it's better than Jeffrey John's "Permanent, Faithful, Stable".
Posted by: MattS
Friday 4 December 2009 - 10:38pm
Colin Coward,
Could you provide us with a reference of a reputable evangelical who argues that divorce is a "good thing", in the same way you think homosexual relationships are a "good thing"?
I notice you couldn't make a positive case but made the same negative points I talked about before, unfortunately rather proving my point.
Posted by: Colin Coward
Friday 4 December 2009 - 10:20pm
BMS, bless you too.
Please let us have a list of the dozen or so scriptures which clearly exclude and condemn same sex relations. More than 12, please, and demonstrate the clarity of their condemnation for us. If you cannot, then your stance towards scripture and homosexuality is merely that - a stance.
You didn't write the Bible, thank goodness, but you write as if you alone have an authoritative understanding of what God has revealed through the Bible. I don't believe you do.
For the record, I too am alive in Christ and count myself dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus - same verse in Romans. I am a new creation in Christ - isn't it wonderful that we are both equally Chistians, living the truth in the Church?
Oh, and when you have time - those more than a dozen verses, please.
Posted by: Simon Morden
Friday 4 December 2009 - 09:53pm
The question for you, Brightmorningstar (and others), is that if you see homosexual acts as a crime, and quote the Bible to support your view, why do you then go against the Biblical punishment for such a crime?
When you say "why should this sin be punished more severely than any other sin particulalry sexual immorailty such as adultery?", someone else could legitimately agree with you and use your words to support legislation that adultery ought to carry that penalty too.
Like most here, I can make the case for sex being best expressed inside a life-long monogamous relationship. But I am not alone in believing that ethic should be embraced by homosexual couples as well - what a shame us straights are making it so damn difficult for them.
Posted by: DavidW
Friday 4 December 2009 - 09:22pm
To Colin Coward,
Thank you for your reply. In the face of a dozen or so scriptures which clearly exclude and condemn same sex relations, you have yet to offer any scripture or reasoning to support what you propose. This is of course because there is none as what you propose is contrary to what the scriptures say. I fail to see how you can attribute the word of God, as cited and quoted, as somehow my version, as though I wrote the Bible!
“With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness.” - James 3:9
For the record, when I accepted Jesus Christ as Lord, I died and became alive in Christ. “In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. “ - Romans 6:11
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" 2 Coriunthians 5:17
Bless you
Posted by: Colin Coward
Friday 4 December 2009 - 06:32pm
MattS wrote: Somebody has to make a convincing, positive and coherent case to evangelicals why we should accept homosexual relationships and not other forms of loving, consensual and non-married sexual relationships. So far, I'm not hearing one. And this has to be done in a way which takes the authority of scripture seriously. Why? Because as Christians we don't see ourselves as at liberty to throw the teaching of Jesus, including his definition of marriage, under the bus.
Why are evangelicals a special case, MattS? In fact, they are not, because I know many evangelicals who disagree with you and welcome lesbian and gay people in loving same-sex relationships. Perhaps you mean to identify a different category - conservative evangelicals, perhaps? Do you and all conservative evangelicals take a consistent position on Jesus' and St Paul's teaching on divorce and the role of women in church? When I read a totaolly, 100% consistent attitude on divorce and women, you will have the right on what the Bible says about me.
BMS wrote:
You wrote ‘the teaching of the church when it has been wrong’, yet even I have on this post presented the word of God on the issue which shows same sex relations are detestable to God and error. The Anglican Communion decided on this with Lambeth 1.10. Clearly your view is in error and your view is disobedient to both God’s purposes and the church. By the way I am a confirmed and practicing member of an Anglican church.
At present your whole argument of same sex relations is not only scripturally baseless but contrary to scripture, and why most of the Church recognise this as major departure and disbelief from core Christian belief.
BMS, thanks for the hyperbole in your writings. I simply disagree with you and I would rather be a healthy homosexual than a half-alive person who has been forced to conform to your version of the word of God and what the Anglican Communion has decided. I am not clearly in error and I am anything but disobedient to God's purposes, but I am happy for you to live in conformity to your own version of Christianity.
Posted by: Stuart
Friday 4 December 2009 - 04:37pm
MattS may be right to say that the way this thread is going is typical. As usual we all seem to be talking past each other.
At either end of this debate there are people who, on one side, reject scripture and, on the other, people who are straightforwardly homophobic. In between, however, are people who hold to the authority of scripture but who interpret it differently - to forbid or to allow same gender relations - and people with different views on how this relates to church order (MattS, if you are looking for a serious reading of scripture allowing for same gender relations, "The Body's Grace" by Rowan Williams would be a good place to start - and he is also a good example of those who believe that the Bible allows such relations, but that church order constrains his freedom to act according to that belief).
To the point of this thread being "typical", I must confess I've rather drifted away from reading posts on this forum because after a time all we seem to be doing is repeating the same comments past each other over, and over, and over. Maybe this serves a valuable social function by keeping us all off the streets where we might annoy the regular populace, but I do wonder if there is any way to get this debate out of its perpetual rut - other than the predictable response from each side that the other should just accept they're totally wrong and everything would then be fine.
Any thoughts? Or is it more fun to just keep on shouting past each other?
Posted by: Hugh of Lincoln
Friday 4 December 2009 - 02:02pm
"Somebody has to make a convincing, positive and coherent case to evangelicals why we should accept homosexual relationships" - Matt
Okay then, here's a start:
Jonah 3 v. 9: " Perhaps God will change his mind..."
If God made up the rules in the first place, then s/he is perfectly at liberty to modify/alter/change/adapt/undo/reverse any of them as s/he so chooses, that's if we accept the premise in the first place that God had certain fixed views about things and didn't allow for a change of mind at a later time.
We are, after all made in her/his image, and it is a particularly human trait to change one's mind about things (and indeed for a certain gender a prerogative, we are told ;)
Posted by: nersenpaul
Friday 4 December 2009 - 01:57pm
BMS - you seem surprised by some posts but please note that anyone can post, regardless of beliefs - and some are not Christians or Anglicans but offer their suggestions for the CofE nevertheless.....very "helpful", or maybe not. What is said in the forum is not necessarily in line with Anglican let alone CofE evangelical thinking....quite often, it seems most posts are not from CofE evangelicals but from "liberals" (even if some taking a "liberal" line insist that they are evangelicals)......in the end, the forum represents nobody. The Fulcrum statements are much more important in seeing where "open" CofE evangelicals stand (not "liberal" but perhaps more loyal to the institution and accepting of its faults than "conservatives")
(ps not sure your chosen forum name is appropriate....not really your title to use, is it?)
Posted by: DavidW
Friday 4 December 2009 - 09:46am
Thank you Stuart for the link. The intentions for the law are all good and in line with God's purposes for man and woman and children, however the punishments are very severe, why should this sin be punished more severely than any other sin particulalry sexual immorailty such as adultery? In my view if as Christians we are not to judge the world our prayer is that people committing same sex acts would come to know repentance through Christ than be punished in these ways.
Posted by: MattS
Friday 4 December 2009 - 09:42am
This way this thread is going seems to be typical. The revisionists tell us we've got the interpretation wrong (but it doesn't matter anyway because the bible has no authority on this matter). Negative points are made (non-sequitors like slavery, women, etc,) but no positive case is put forward.
Somebody has to make a convincing, positive and coherent case to evangelicals why we should accept homosexual relationships and not other forms of loving, consensual and non-married sexual relationships. So far, I'm not hearing one. And this has to be done in a way which takes the authority of scripture seriously. Why? Because as Christians we don't see ourselves as at liberty to throw the teaching of Jesus, including his definition of marriage, under the bus.
At least Changing Attitude try to be consistent on this one...They think one-night stands can mediate grace. That is consistent with their view of sexual ethics, unfortunately inconsistent with their Christianity.
Posted by: DavidW
Friday 4 December 2009 - 09:35am
To Pluralist,
Your thinking seems directly contrary to Jesus Christ’s NT teaching. Believers and followers of Christ, His disciples, according to Christ, are those who have faith in Him and seek to do what He taught. ie John 14-15. He said to love Him and remain in Him is to do what He teaches. To actively promote a sin described in His teaching is not seeking to do what He taught.
Galatians 6 describes how brothers in Christ should restore each other from sin, 1 Corinthians 5 describes how those who are wilfully sexually immoral and merely call themselves brothers should not be associated with, but loved as those in the world. See also Matthew 18:17. So brothers are those who can be restored from siun and error. 2 Timothy 3 teaches that all scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching and correcting each other.
Salvation through Christ isnt a club as you put it, Christ dies so that all who believe may believe and have life in abundance and to the full. Righteousness in found in Christ, if we could be righteous on our own Jesus would not have been needed. Therefore those who put their faith hope and trust in Christ have righteousness and purity through Christ. Not sure what the entry criteria are for what you describe as a club. Romans 3:22, righteousness or purity is found in Christ, see also 1 Corinthians 1:30 and 1 Peter 3:18
To Colin Coward,
You wrote ‘the teaching of the church when it has been wrong’, yet even I have on this post presented the word of God on the issue which shows same sex relations are detestable to God and error. The Anglican Communion decided on this with Lambeth 1.10. Clearly your view is in error and your view is disobedient to both God’s purposes and the church. By the way I am a confirmed and practicing member of an Anglican church.
At present your whole argument of same sex relations is not only scripturally baseless but contrary to scripture, and why most of the Church recognise this as major departure and disbelief from core Christian belief.
Posted by: nersenpaul
Friday 4 December 2009 - 07:35am
Hugh - first you suggest consigning certain passages to some dustbin, now you say you do not need to do that because you have difficulty finding them.....not the strongest arguments ..... have you read of "True Union in the Body" (by Andrew Goddard and Peter Walker) ?
Posted by: Hugh of Lincoln
Friday 4 December 2009 - 12:05am
"If people feel they are being lectured by their erstwhile rulers, it could be counter-productive". - Stuart
The problem is that it was these very same erstwhile rulers who gave them this draconian legislation in the first place (and are still doing so if we count the American fundies), not to mention the many white non-African bishops who voted for Lambeth 1:10 in 1998 and who prevented its repeal in 2008.
Posted by: Dave
Friday 4 December 2009 - 12:04am
Colin,
My point is that you are in no position to criticise Brightmorningstar for opposing Church of England teaching when this is precisely what you do.
David
Posted by: Hugh of Lincoln
Thursday 3 December 2009 - 10:46pm
David, more time has elapsed since the Synod vote, than between it and the 1967 Act, and we've had civil partnerships and a whole raft of equality legislation and initiatives in the last five years or so. Official C of E teaching is way out of date. Of course, ecclesiastical time is generally slower than society as a whole, but this doesn't excuse the Church from taking action more swiftly (as with its tardiness over Abolition).
Nersen, I don't literally need to consign any passages to the dustbin as they are so darned hard to find anyway ;)
I think many in Accepting Evangelicals would probably agree with me!
Posted by: Deleted user 974
Thursday 3 December 2009 - 09:47pm
'Church of England Teaching'? Don't make me laugh ! Capital T too very hopeful or what a cheek.
The C of E has no 'teaching' but a series of possibilities --and that goes for almost anything you care to mention.Homosexuality seems unique in that the CofE has or purports to have 'Teaching' but this is pure BS*. Here too there are just various opinions, and the long established practice of many / most bishops to get along with their gay clergy or at least 'look the other way' while receiving often sterling service from people who often commit to the most deprived areas where few ministers with partners and kids would wish to stay long -- if at all.
* BS / b-llox
Thank you to all the lesbian and gay ministers and congregants would not go amiss once in a while
Posted by: Colin Coward
Thursday 3 December 2009 - 08:57pm
David H, yes, of course I am rejecting rejecting Church of Engladn teaching. I follow in a long line of prophetic people, saints and sinners, who have rejected the teaching of the Church when it has been wrong. The Church is wrong in its teaching about lesbian and gay people and one day, soon, it will change its official attitude.
Posted by: Stuart
Thursday 3 December 2009 - 08:18pm
Ruth Gledhill has an account that Rowan Williams is working intensively behind the scenes on this:
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2009/12/archbishop-of-canterbury-in-intensive-efforts-to-combat-ugandan-antigay-death-law.html
Personally, that makes sense - if you actually want to do something about the proposed law, what matters is what will be effective in dealing with it, rather than getting yourself on TV to talk about it.
I don't know Uganda particularly well, but I used to live elsewhere in Africa and would suggest that for us in the West, the UK especially, our post-colonial legacy creates a need for sensitivity in communication. If people feel they are being lectured by their erstwhile rulers, it could be counter-productive.
Posted by: Deleted user 1222
Thursday 3 December 2009 - 06:39pm
It is a strange logic. A person can be friends, and can minister to you and you to them, if gay and a declared non-Christian, but as soon as they are Christian, and thus deemed anti-biblical, and calling themselves 'your brother', they are to be shunned.
This is the argument about purity and pollution. As long as someone is outside the club, they can be diverse and different, but as soon as they are inside the club, a whole set of rules is read out. Good job I'm outside the club, though I'm not sure I'd want to be really 'friends' - truly friends, what being friends means - with people who have such a rigid view that puts the words of an ancient book above the humanity and conscience of people whose only crime is to love.
Posted by: DavidW
Thursday 3 December 2009 - 04:59pm
To Colin Coward,
You say you disagree with my interpretation of scripture, but I haven’t given any interpretation, what I cited and quoted was the scripture itself. It would seem therefore that you disagree with God's word.
Lambeth 1.10 acknowledges what the word of God says, whatever is contrary to God's word is error, call it what you wish.
If you have some scriptures from the Holy Bible to offer to the debate to substantiate that same sex relations aren’t error and detestable, please offer it.
Posted by: DavidW
Thursday 3 December 2009 - 04:46pm
To Junius,
Well it wasn’t what I said exactly, as I referred to what the scriptures I cited said. I didn’t write the Biblical testimony. In what way do you wish to dispute what the passages say? All of them? There are many more that countenance man and woman together in marriage.
If the Bible is a fallible collection of texts, then how do you tell if it is not all false?
To Mark Bennet,
The dictionary definitions of crime I can see include not only law breaking but unjust and disgraceful acts, therefore I think it is perfectly possible to justify it by scripture in such a way, law breaking from the OT ie. Lev 18, and disgraceful as in detestable, and indecent and error in the NT ie. Romans 1.
And I am referring to what the scriptures says according to what the NIV and NKJV versions for example say, perversion or error respectively.
To David H,
I use ‘Brightmorningstar’ as in Revelation.
Revelation 22:16 “"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."
Posted by: Junius
Thursday 3 December 2009 - 03:44pm
What Colin and Hugh said.
Posted by: nersenpaul
Thursday 3 December 2009 - 03:18pm
Hugh - posting on an evangelical site re consigning any part of scripture to dustbins is not going to convince many but it is remarkably honest....... so often, a few people try to square the circle and say that while scripture says "do not do x" it means that "x" is good and holy and pleasing to God....at least you are honest, with your dustbin and bible redacted to suit your tastes.
Posted by: Dave
Thursday 3 December 2009 - 02:43pm
Colin,
You are also opposing Church of England Teaching. Synod passed a resolution in 1987 which states that:
That this Synod affirms that the biblical and traditional teaching on chastity and fidelity in personal relationships in a response to, and expression of, God's love for each one of us, and in particular affirms:
1. that sexual intercourse is an act of total commitment which belongs properly within a permanent married relationship;
2. that fornication and adultery are sins against this ideal, and are to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion;
3. that homosexual genital acts also fall short of this ideal, and are likewise to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion;
4. that all Christians are called to be exemplary in all spheres of morality, including sexual morality; and that holiness of life is particularly required of Christian leaders.'
David
Posted by: Hugh of Lincoln
Thursday 3 December 2009 - 12:05pm
BMS, it is clear that you are very supportive of your gay friends on a personal level.
What we are talking about here is Church policy. As a representative of the Faith amongst your non-believing friends, are they not being deprived of the Word of God - the vast majority of which is strikingly relevant for our times: think of Isaiah, Daniel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Micah, Job, Jonah, the Wisdom literature, Revelation, the parables of Jesus...
Wouldn't it be better to consign the tiny number of supposedly homophobic passages to the dustbin along with those concerning slaves, concubines and acts of genocide, or at least wince when we occasionally hear them in passing in Church and regard them as relevant to tribal societies over two millenia ago and not modern societies of the 21st C, so that the most important messages of God's saving purposes for the world can be heard?
If we are going to start quoting specific passages of the Bible, than I could retort by quoting from 2 Samuel 1 v. 26: "Jonathan, by your dying I too am stricken, I am desolate for you, Jonathan my brother. Very dear you were to me, your love more wonderful to me than the love of a woman. " Hardly the most convincing justification for denying gays our God-given right to loving relationships...
Posted by: Colin Coward
Thursday 3 December 2009 - 11:56am
Brightmorningstar, I am a Christian, I am ordained, I have permission to officiate from my bishop, which means I am recognised by the church. I disagree with your interpretation of scripture about lesbian and gay relationships, which will come as no surprise. My interpretation has as much integrity and authority as yours, we disagree and we would dispute interpretations, but they both have their own authority.
The bishops of the Church of England supported the decriminalisation of homosexualty in the 1950's, which resulted in actual decriminalisation in 1967 in the Sexual Offences Act following the Wolfenden report published in 1957. Christianity and the Bible do not support the criminalisation of homosexuality and you are opposing Church of England teaching, BSM.
Jeremy Pemberton is right, the Anglican Communion has committed itelf to support the decriminalisation of homosexuality in every state where it still exists. I know I am acting as a revisionist in my re-reading of Lambeth 1.10 and the Windsor Report, but the Dromantine Communique is even more categorical in setting out what the Anglican Communion's teaching is:
we continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people. The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us. We assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship
Posted by: Dave
Thursday 3 December 2009 - 11:45am
Brightmorningstar,
Why the name. The morning star is of course Venus as the bringer of morning light. The Latin for this astronomical phenomenon is Lucifer. It is used in Isaiah 14:12 as a title for Satan or a Babylonian ruler (I think) and scribed to Jesus in 2 Peter and Revelation. It has also been applied to Mary and John Wycliffe.
The role Fulcrum has found for itself is stated on http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/centre.cfm?menuopt=1 This includes the statement "In the much-contested area of sexual ethics this means that the proper context for sexual expression is the union of a man and a woman in marriage. We will participate in debates on issues in sexual ethics arising today in the life of the Church and we identify as key references the CofE document Issues in Human Sexuality and Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference and True Union (a document shared with the Anglican Primates' Meeting, Brazil 2003)." You will find many posts in the Forum from those who make no claim to be Open Evangelicals.
Mark,
You criticise the use of the criminal law to impose Christian behaviour on non-Christians.How does this relate to Christian activism areas such as assisted suicide, research on foetuses and abortion? The Christian moral tradition helps bring clarity in such areas as the just war and unintended consequences.
Junius,
If you don't accept the Bible except when it suits you where do you get your view of Jesus from? On what basis do you decide which parts of scripture to accept or reject?
Is not BMS correct to say "There is no countenance for same sex relations in the Bible" ? If so where?
David
Posted by: Mark Bennet
Thursday 3 December 2009 - 09:47am
Brightmorningstar
I have two problems with what you have posted, taken on its own terms.
You describe homosexual acts as 'criminal in God's eyes' which I think is not justified by scripture, mixes categories and is rhetorically and ethically dangerous.
You implicitly advocate the use of the criminal law to compel non-Christians (and Christians who disagree with you) to act according to (your interpretation of) the Christian faith - this is something Jesus never did, for example.
Posted by: Junius
Thursday 3 December 2009 - 09:42am
Brightmorningstar says: 'there is no point in replying by disputing what the passages I have cited actually say'.
Well, there you are then. We just accept what BMS says, and we don't try to see if they might acutually be about something else, and we don't ask the question whether, even if they are as transparent as all that, they might not apply to prsent circumstances. If there's no point in disputing, there's no point in a discussion blog. We can all fold our tents and move on.
For myself, I don't think they say what BMS says they say, and even if they did, I wouldn't feel obliged to accept them, the Bible, after all, being a fallible collection of texts.
By the way, am I alone in thinking that to adopt the name Brightmorningstar is the about the same as calling yourself 'Messiah' or 'the Christ' as a blog handle?
Posted by: DavidW
Thursday 3 December 2009 - 08:53am
Thank you for your responses Is this not a Christian site? I don’t expect to come to a Christian site, post what is scripturally true and receive ad hominem and threat.
To Hugh of Lincoln, and L Roberts,
First of all let me reply to question. I have some gay and lesbian friends and whilst they know my views, we are non the less quite good friends and they have acknowledged the fact that I have joined them for their birthday celebrations in gay bars and their civil partnerships when some other so called friends haven’t. The reason is they are not Christians and I am not to judge them.
Now to your points
Even non-believers admit that there is no consensus of agreement that there is any proof of homosexuality being inborn, see the APA's recent statement.
Let me clarify then the word of God concerning same -sex sexual relationships
Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, affirm God’s creation purpose, which excludes same sex relations, that in the beginning God made them male and female; it was for this reason that a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh. The Bride and Bridegroom are how Jesus and His church are described. Jesus NT teaching offers celibacy as the alternative ie Matt 19, and for example 1 Corinthians 7.
Same sex relations are condemned throughout the Bible as error and detestable to God, Gen 19, Lev 18, 20, 1 Cor 6, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1.
Now I shall be blunt and to the point if I may. There is no countenance for same sex relations in the Bible so there is no point in replying by disputing what the passages I have cited actually say; that to me and most people in the world that is simply disbelief and denial to such an extent that it is splitting denominations, ministries and churches.
Just to add, I try and bless and serve my gay and lesbian friends and in turn they do indeed bless and serve me, that’s what friendship is meant to be, but as I said I am not to judge the non believer.
I will leave this thought with you. Galatians 6 teaches believers to restore brothers gently when caught in sin, brothers are therefore those who can be restored. 1 Corinthians 5 teaches believers not to judge the sexually immoral in the world but to disassociate from those who wilfully persist in sexual immorality and call themselves brothers.
Posted by: Dave
Thursday 3 December 2009 - 12:26am
There is nothing in BrightMorningStar's post to suggest that he is homophobic if that means he has an irrational fear of gays. All his post reveals is a mainline interpretation of scripture. It is however worrying when L Roberts wants to hand him over to the thought police.
David
Posted by: Deleted user 974
Wednesday 2 December 2009 - 10:31pm
Furthermore, I think 'Brightmorningstar's posts are probably illegal ...
Posted by: Deleted user 974
Wednesday 2 December 2009 - 10:29pm
'Brightmorningstar' seems something of a misnomer given the dark cruel totaly unacceptable Homophobia you have expressed here. But I'm not a bit disheartened -- in fact it doesnt seem to effect me --it was and then the Grace of God came gently whooshing in.
But I usually witness against all expressions of anti-gay sentiment in and out of season no matter how I'm feeling.
Btw how do you get on with your lesbian and gay family members neighbours and colleagues ? Or do they just keep schstum around you ?
Posted by: Hugh of Lincoln
Wednesday 2 December 2009 - 07:57pm
BMS
Why did God make some people gay / left-handed / red-headed / musical /artistic / tall ...?
Posted by: DavidW
Wednesday 2 December 2009 - 02:29pm
The state of course has believers and non-believers, I think we should be trying to reach both the governement and the non-believer with the truth, that same sex relations are sinful and against God's purposes and to forgive and not punish people so severely as is proposed here. But the idea of decriminalising what is a criminal act in God's eyes will rpobably only end up encouraging people to think its ok.
Posted by: DavidW
Wednesday 2 December 2009 - 02:20pm
There are two issues here. The state of Uganda isnt the church, not everyone acknowledges the truth, so the Christian view would be against punishing people and condemning them, ours is to set an example of forgiveness. On the other hand as same sex relationships are sinful and contrary to God's purposes, I dont see how Christians can want it decriminalised either, that would likely just encourage people to think it is ok.
Surely as Christians we would want to reach the government and the non believer equally with the truth of Jesus Christ?
Posted by: Dave
Wednesday 2 December 2009 - 11:22am
Jeremy,
Colin Coward has written at length on Lambeth 1.10 and Windsor. I would say that Windsor gives no new teaching on homosexuality. All it does is summarise the previous debate and history to explain the then current conflict in the church. Lambeth 1.10 puts the churches acceptance of gays on the same footing as that of others whose practices are incompatible with scripture. A Jesus who accepts prostitutes, publicans and tax collectors has no problem with gingers. Colin's reading uses the pastoral sensitivity of the document to undermine its moral force.
David
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Wednesday 2 December 2009 - 09:45am
Hugh -
it has occirred to me that while protesting against the Anti-Homosexuality Bill is good - and certainly necessary, we should in fact be lobbying for changes to the law in places where homosexuality is illegal to see it decriminalised.
Though on Lambeth 1:10 I like Colin Coward's rather "Tract 90" reading of recent Anglican pronouncements to produce a strongly pro gay rights argument.
http://changingattitude-england.blogspot.com/2009/11/anglican-communion-is-committed-to.html
Jeremy
Posted by: Hugh of Lincoln
Wednesday 2 December 2009 - 01:11am
The problem for the bishops in quoting from any of the Primates Meeting declarations to denounce the Ugandan Bill will be that they don't have the de facto juridical force of Lambeth 1:10 which is, primarily, about the condemnation of homosexual practice. The Bill can be interpreted as a rigid enforcement of the latter.
If the bishops are serious about gay rights in Africa, they will revisit Lambeth 1:10. Unfortunately, this can only take place in 2018, which will by then be far too late.
Posted by: Deleted user 1222
Tuesday 1 December 2009 - 03:27pm
A contribution to this issue from me has appeared at the Daily Episcopalian in the context of the Archbishop of Canterbury's speech on 19 November at the Gregorian Pontifical University.
Posted by: nersenpaul
Friday 27 November 2009 - 03:49pm
Hi Colin Your reply re Davis is somewhat ambiguous..... are you saying the accusations made about Davis' behaviour (on a tour of the US with TEC people) are false? The accusations came from a person who would be a supporter of CA and certainly not Virtue, so they are not trying to discredit your cause - but are you saying that person lied about Davis' behaviour?
Posted by: Colin Coward
Friday 27 November 2009 - 01:58pm
David, I have seen David Virtue's latest attempt to discredit Davis Mac-Iyalla and the work of Changing Attitude in England and Nigeria.
Yes it is true that Changing Attitude has reported incidents of violence towards gays in Nigeria, violence that has sometimes been incited by Anglicans.
No, it is not true that we claim the violence was incited by orthodox Anglicans.
No, it is not true that these claims have been proven false.
No, it is not true that Davis Mac-Iyalla was exposed as a homosexual predator while touring seminaries in the US.
Yes, it is true that Davis was criticised by the person who had organised his visit to the USA. That person expected to control Davis and use him to his own ends, and when this strategy failed, he turned on Davis and made accusations about him
So some of what David Virtue writes is true and some of what David has written is untrue.
Posted by: Deleted user 974
Thursday 26 November 2009 - 08:44pm
oh for pity's sake what is a 'homosexual predator' ? We are all predetary according to some of you, and certainly Virue on Line lacks virtue. Lacks modesty and is not ashamed to peddle lies and things that no Christian should engage in.
Heterosexuals who--by the way-run the world --such a beautful achievement of continence and love and truth --- have created an enviroement of mind-blowing exploitation and fragmentation-- embattled men and women v. each other --the collateral damge this 'sex war' wreaks on their children, family break-up, abandonment of children. Child sex abuse within families, emotional abuse, phsyical abuse. Unstable short term, serial relationships.
Do you recognise the picture of the society you have created ?
I, for one, have spent my professional life picking up the (/ your) pieces. Come to think of it, have had to deal with quite a bit of fall-out of such disfunction within my own family of origin, too.
So please don't lecture the gay and lesbian minority about decency and continence.
Has it NEVER occured to you that gay communities, groups and organisations might have something to share with YOU, to your temporal and perhaps eternal benefit ? Let alone all the community groups, hospitals, charities, churches, families, friendship and neighbourhood networks that are serviced by lesbian and gay individuals in so many and various ways. Hadn't you (let yourself) notice ?
We really don't bite (very often !)
Posted by: Dave
Thursday 26 November 2009 - 07:12pm
Colin,
David Virtue writes that "Now let us be clear that two Western pan-Anglican gay groups - Integrity USA and Changing Attitude (UK) -- have made repeated allegations about violence towards gays in Nigeria (incited they say by orthodox Anglicans) that have proven false. One of their leaders, Davis Mac-Iyalla, a Nigerian Anglican Gay activist, was exposed as a homosexual predator while touring seminaries in the US. He was roundly condemned by his pro-gay minder for his bad behavior." http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11604 Can this be true ?
David
Posted by: Colin Coward
Saturday 21 November 2009 - 04:11pm
David, I willingly apologise to you for the mistakes I have made and the misunderstandings I have perpetrated. If I come across as unreasonable when I post here, that's because I am angry, angry with the leaders of a country, Uganda, which seeks to further criminalise lesbian and gay citizens, adding the death penalty and making life impossible for anyone who is lesbian or gay, plus their families, friends and pastors and anyone who has a lesbian or gay friend. This is an intolerable situation and I am very angry, righteously angry about it. This is a gross injustice and it is being commited with the collusion and support of Christians. There is only one position for Christians to take in the context of this legislation, the position taken by the bishops of the Church of England in 1967, and that is to support the decriminalisation of homosexuality.
Posted by: Dave
Saturday 21 November 2009 - 10:05am
Colin,
I tried to reply to your previous post in a reasonable manner because I thought you had calmed down and were now prepared to look at matters in a reasonable way. I fear that your posts and those from Jeremy Pemberton may have been amalgamated in my mind. If the accusation of bullying is harsh I apologise. I do consider the repeated requests that I subscribe to a form of words not my own to be aggressive.
You do not know may views beyond what I have posted, yet you choose to demonise me saying that my "Christian witness cannot be trusted" and that I seem to believe that "Christians should support the imprisonment of gay and lesbian people and those members of their families and friends and churches who fail to inform on them. ... David wants a church akin to a police state with no recognition given to the dignity and status of LGBT people in society." and previously "David H. has just offered a perfect example of the way in which lies, myths, falsehoods and rumours abound in the debate about human sexuality, myths whihc make me very, very, very angry indeed" On your blog you describe Tom Wright as dangerous and of the Catholic bishops of America you say "I feel incredible rage reading the Catholic Bishops Pastoral Letter and want to write words which are appropriate to the ignorance and prejudice of the bishops but not appropriate to the blog. Oh boy, do we have a lot of work to do to change church attitudes. Sad that those who should be holy and wise are the purveyors of homophobic and dangerous teaching." I find this style of polemic deplorable.
I find Peter Ould's analysis of you letter convincing. I am not twisting anything, I am merely subjecting your statements to a proper analysis.
The point is that if you reject the primary point of Lambeth 1998 1:10, you have no moral authority to claim that others shou8ld pay any attention to the other clauses.
I never said the legislation was perfect. I said that appropriate reservations have been expressed by Exodus International and the Church of Uganda. If it was not clear, I also support the reservations implied in the Fulcrum statement.
"Christian leaders should comment" Some have. The idea that ALL Christian leaders should comment is without foundation. There are many greater problems and injustices in the world and no one can comment on everything.
There is no separate Windsor principle on this matter. The Windsor report makes no recommendation on homosexuality. It simply summarises the decision already made and views expressed in the communion.
The issues of same-sex marriage, gay bishops and cross boarder interventions are at present tearing the communion apart. If they are not dealt with there will be no Anglican voice to speak on anything. Resolving these issues is a matter of priority.
You owe me an apology, go on surprise me!
David
Posted by: Colin Coward
Friday 20 November 2009 - 02:52pm
David H., am not bullying you, I asked if you agreed with the statement. I did not demand that agree with it and I am not disingenuous. I did not imply that those who dont agree are somehow bigoted and uncaring. You have a major problem because you twist and distort my meaning all the time. Your words and your Christian witness cannot be trusted.
I pick and choose which clauses of Lambeth 1998 1:10 I accept, I agree, and I have never claimed otherwise. Everyone picks and chooses because the various clauses are incompatible with each other.
The legislation is not complex at all for those of us who are lesbian or gay. If it it covers a number of offences, some of which should be subject to legal penalities, then the Bill needs to be redrafted and the sections which put the lives and safety of LGBT people at risk and put their families, friends, bishops, pristes and pastors at risk of imprisonment should be abandoned. This isn't difficult.
The Fulcrum statement is on the whole good, but if something is wrong, and against Anglican policy, then anyone has a right to comment and Christian leaders SHOULD comment. Ugandan (and Nigerian) Primates and bishops should be told that they are breaking the fundmental principles of Lambeth 1.10 and Windsor. They do not hesitate to challenge western bishops when they think they have failed to adhere to Lambeth 1.10.
You question the veracity of information coming from gay propaganda groups. I would call them gay advocacy groups. It seems that David is the only person following this thread who believes that Christians should support the imprisonment of gay and lesbian people and those members of their families and friends and churches who fail to inform on them. It would seem that David wants a church akin to a police state with no recognition given to the dignity and status of LGBT people in society. I hope to God David really is alone and unrepresentative of Fulcrum opinion.
Posted by: nersenpaul
Friday 20 November 2009 - 11:42am
Hi Colin - what about the silence of TEC? Are you, like me, surprised by that?
Posted by: Dave
Thursday 19 November 2009 - 06:45pm
Colin,
I will not be bullied into accepting your statement. It is entirely disingenuous for you to demand that I agree with your statement (and to imply that those who dont are somehow bigoted and uncaring) as it contains a reference to Lambeth 1998 1:10, when you seem to want to pick and choose which clauses of that resolution to accept. ( as Peter Ould might have put it). This piece of legislation is a matter of some complexity. It covers a number of offences some of which should be abhorrent to us all. The Fulcrum statement rightly pointed out the dangers of western outsiders interfering in this matter. When trying to consider the matter further, I am concerned at the poor quality of the information available. Jeremy criticises New Vision, but other information comes from Gay propaganda groups whose veracity must also be open to question. All I will say is that the Exodus International response is the sort of repose I would expect from thoughtful Christians as is the interim statement from the Church of Uganda.
David
Posted by: Colin Coward
Thursday 19 November 2009 - 02:37pm
David H, unlike Laurence, I'm not giving up, though I'm sorely tempted to. I apologise for having made my argument difficult for you to follow. I am sorry you found the poor quality recording difficult to follow. Somewhere I read George Ounda recorded in print saying what he said verbally in the TV interview but I was unable to relocate it. I am sorry that I was unable to remember things I had previously written. Yes, I used the word 'denounce'.
This thread is about Uganda's proposed anti-homosexuality bill. Lesbian and gay people suffer abuse, persection and violence in Uganda. I believe that Christians should oppose the Anti-Homosexuality Bill and anything which allows people to demonise lesbian and gay people and fails to welcome us into the Church as as full and equal members of Christ's body because the Bill opposes the commitments made by the Archbishop and Bishops in Lambeth 1.10 and the Windsor Report. Do you agree with that statement, David H?
Posted by: Deleted user 2165
Wednesday 18 November 2009 - 08:58pm
David H. - I give up. Happy now?
Posted by: Dave
Wednesday 18 November 2009 - 12:16am
Colin,
In your post of 12 November 8:55 you say you followed George Oundo's advice in the New Vison article. No such advice was given. Your latest post reveals that you were thinking of an item on youtube. Is it any wonder that I find your argument difficult to follow? Incidentally I could not hear the invitation but I found much of the poor quality recording difficult to follow and I am quite willing to believe it is there.
David
Posted by: Dave
Tuesday 17 November 2009 - 11:59pm
Colin,
You accuse me of not paying enough attention to your words but you cannot even remember what you wrote (15 November 1.57). You said "and the failure of every Anglican bishop and leader to denounce the Ugandan Bill as contrary to Anglican teaching." Denounce is your word and that sounds like a denouncement to me. You wrote requesting help, but when you did not get the replies you hoped for you wrote - "Archbishops and Bishops have been devastatingly silent so far. Last Friday we emailed the leadership teams of Fulcrum, Reform, Anglican Mainstream and the Church Society. asking them if they would join Changing Attitude and Inclusive Church in signing an open letter to the Archbishops of Canterbury, York and Uganda and the Bishops of Guildford, Winchester and Sodor and Man about the proposed anti-homosexual legislation. We hoped that despite our differences we are all committed to oppose anything which further criminalizes LGBT people or puts them at risk of violence rather than legislating for their protection. We did not receive a single reply from the 40 people emailed." (CA blog 30 Oct) Another denouncement. I do not ask for an apology. Your request for an apology is childish as is your personal attack on me, made knowing that I am unable to respond.
David
Posted by: Colin Coward
Tuesday 17 November 2009 - 02:08pm
David H., I can’t begin to imagine what views you might hold about me that you would express freely but for Fulcrum’s censorship policy. There is threat, menace and a terrifyingly un-Christian attitude in what you post, plus the hiddenness of your identity. What is there to hide, David?
You are wrong about both Archbishops. The request (not demand, that’s your mindset) that Archbishops and bishops oppose (not denounce, again, that’s your word) is not unreasonable, and all the organisations and Archbishops we wrote to have responded directly or in one case, indirectly. The only three not to have responded are the bishops whose dioceses are linked with Uganda, though I know that one of them is taking action.
Changing Attitude is interested in God, the Church, salvation, justice, truth, love, AND the full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the Anglican Communion. That is the prime reason for our presence in the Church. We share with the Archbishops a care for the many issues of significance to the Church.
Do you believe, David W that threats of death and life imprisonment in Uganda for people who are lesbian or gay are of no significance to the Church or our Archbishops? You are totally wrong. Do you think that the Anglican Communion should not concern itself about the safety, security and spiritual welfare of lesbian and gay people, things which are threatened by this Bill?
My purpose in posting the quotations which you say are gay activists attacking anyone they disagree with, and in particular, attacking George Oundo’s conversion and testimony, was to respond to a suggestion made by George himself in his interview posted at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_u0SsSV24. Google my name, said George/Georgina, and see what comes up. So I did, and this is what came up. George’s own testimony led to these quotations.
I am still waiting for you to apologise to me, David H.
Posted by: Dave
Tuesday 17 November 2009 - 01:43pm
Laurence C
You know nothing about me of attitude to gay people. I accept the traditional moral teaching of the church and scripture. The people I do not like are gay activists who throw around loaded terms because they cannot accept that there is a reasoned moral case against their behaviour, disrupt synod and religious services. I have in mind in particular Peter Tachell whose headline grabbing antics disgust me.
Jeremy
I am not sure that a truly independent newspaper exists anywhere. The report in New Vision is substantive evidence of gay culture in Uganda. Do you agree?
I only know Colin Coward from his blog. I found his attack on Tom Wright as dangerous in August ridiculous and his repeated attacks on conservatives distasteful.
I do not really expect CA to be interested in rest of the world. My objection is to Colin Coward's attempt to dictate what other Christian groups and Christian leaders should do when he does not follow his own advice. If regards himself as a Christian leader, he has a responsibility to speak out on Zimbabwe, Sudan, child labour etc., etc. by his own standards. I do not expect him to, I am pointing out how unreasonable his demands are. The truth is that there are probably dozens of issues more deserving of Rowan Williams comment than the situation in Uganda.
I will not comment further on the proposed legislation until the Church in Uganda has finalised it's response.
I thought you had decided not to respond to my comments so why the change of heart?
David
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Tuesday 17 November 2009 - 11:43am
David
First things first. I was responding to your rather aggressive little comment about New Vision (chiding me for "accusing" them of being something you thought they weren't). I think the truth is that they are majority government owned and therefore not likely to be truly independent. Do you agree?
Do you know Colin Coward? Or only what you read on the CA blog? Your post infers that you would like to say less pleasant things about him than you so far have. I wonder why? If you know him and dislike him then that would be something that would be personal to you, and you wouldn't presumably want to blog about it here. If it is because of his public persona perhaps you could reflect on why you have such a strong personal reaction to someone else's views that you would like to attack him personally.
Your comment about the CA blog is a bit daft, if you don't mind my saying. CA is a pressure group; it is entirely about
WORKING FOR GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL & TRANSGENDER AFFIRMATION WITHIN THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION
so it hardly makes any sense to say that it focuses precisely and persistently on what it says it is there for. I don't suppose that Colin of any of the CA trustees think that what CA is about is the only thing that matters in life, or even in the church. But when on CA business, then of course the focus is on the thing that it is about. What, as Maria would say, is so fearsome about that?
Arguments from silence are dangerous things. Why the Archbishop of York is not saying anything is not something that you or I can know the answer to. It is what it is. I regret it - you think it is a good example. I am glad that Exodus International have seen fit to publish something (at last): http://www.exodusinternational.org/content/view/1007/37/. It is a "right, but for the wrong reasons" response in my view - but perhaps it will help you who clearly thinks that homosexuality, if "practised", is somehow "wrong".
But neither of us is an archbishop with the particular considerations of his office that might make him more or less likely to say something on this or that public matter. So I ask my question to you again: do you have anything to say that might be interpreted as decent about the awfulness of this Ugandan proposal?
Jeremy
Posted by: Dave
Tuesday 17 November 2009 - 10:00am
Colin,
I have been looking at you post of 12 November at 8.55pm. You now say that these quotes do not represent your views so I am not sure of their purpose or what you are trying to say. We start in Sebaspace with AfroGay. This opinionated rant is an information free zone. Boris Dittrich confirms the earlier part of George Oundo's testimony. Box Turtle has nothing to disprove his testimony but makes an insinuation about money. Sexual Minorities Uganda has Mr Langa in its sights. All I see is gay activists attacking anyone they disagree with. There is no evidence that George Oundo's conversion is not genuine and his testimony is not sincere.
David
Posted by: Deleted user 2165
Tuesday 17 November 2009 - 09:21am
You really don't like gay people at all, do you, David H. ? I wonder why.
Posted by: Dave
Monday 16 November 2009 - 11:58pm
Jeremy,
As censorship exists not only in Uganda but also in Fulcrum, I am unable to express freely my views on Colin Coward. I will follow the good example of John Sentamu who it is safe to assume does understand the Ugandan situation and not comment the proposed legislation. I believe that a study of the subjects that Rowan Williams has chosen to comment on see http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/119 puts your campaign into perspective and show why the demand that every Anglican bishop and leader to denounce the Ugandan Bill is unreasonable. Reviewing the Changing Attitude blog, I get the distinct impression that that they are only interested in matters affecting their own constituency. Our Archbishops have a far more balanced concern for the world and have identified many issues of far greater significance.
David
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Monday 16 November 2009 - 06:42pm
David -
Try looking at http://www.cpj.org/2009/02/attacks-on-the-press-in-2008-uganda.php. The Committee to Protect Journalists was founded in 1981 as an independent nonprofit organisation. I would take seriously what they write as they don't really have an axe to grind. I am not surprised the New Vision's website tells you and me that they have editorial independence. However, the holding company that owns the newspaper is 53% owned by the government. If you know Africaa you will understand that no government there would bother holding a majority stake in a paper for the good of its health - they will want a return on that, and Museveni is pretty determined to get that seventh mandate. Freedom of the press is a relative thing.
Now we have dealt with that little snip from you - I wonder if you are going to be man enough to apologise to Colin Coward and to say anything that might be interpreted as decent about the awfulness of this Ugandan proposal. Or is that hoping too much?
Jeremy
Posted by: Dave
Monday 16 November 2009 - 05:06pm
Jeremy,
You accuse New Vision of being a government controlled newspaper. Their website states that they have financial autonomy and editorial independence.Do you have any evidence to the contrary? http://www.newvision.co.ug/V/ In any case the same story appeared on All Africa.com http://allafrica.com/stories/200903240111.html so can you accept that the allegations were made?
David
Posted by: Dave
Sunday 15 November 2009 - 05:47pm
David,
I was trying to find some common ground with Colin Coward, but obviously failed.
David
Posted by: Colin Coward
Sunday 15 November 2009 - 01:37pm
David H. wrote:
"OK Colin, I missed the quotes. It is however reasonable to assume that you give credence to these statements. The Pope got into trouble some time ago with the Muslims over a quotation so perhaps I am in good company."
David, I have no idea whether you are in good company with the Pope. I do know that I would not assume that because someone quotes another person verbatim, it means that they agree with everything the person has written. It is not reasonable to assume I give credence to the statements.
You are simply adding fuel to various prejudices I carry about conservative evangelicals, including "OK Colin, I missed the quotes." Is that what counts for an apology in your world? Changing Attitude tries to follow more fundamental Christian values of love, truth, honesty and integrity, whatever some may think about the presence of LGBT lay people, priests and bishops in our church, and the failure of every Anglican bishop and leader to denounce the Ugandan Bill as contrary to Anglican teaching.
Posted by: DavidR
Sunday 15 November 2009 - 09:56am
David H, you continue to surprise. One moment you are arguing how the Romish innovations of the 1928 Prayer Book fatally misled the 'protestant Church of England'. Next moment we discover that your guiding example for standards of Christian behaviour, truthful speech and confession of error is the Pope.
Posted by: Dave
Saturday 14 November 2009 - 11:00pm
OK Colin, I missed the quotes. It is however reasonable to assume that you give credence to these statements. The Pope got into trouble some time ago with the Muslims over a quotation so perhaps I am in good company.
David
Posted by: Colin Coward
Saturday 14 November 2009 - 02:20pm
David H. has just offered a perfect example of the way in which lies, myths, falsehoods and rumours abound in the debate about human sexuality, myths whihc make me very, very, very angry indeed. David in his last post says:
"Colin, You say "I know for a fact that no such pedophile ring exists in Uganda" How can you KNOW such a thing."
I did not write that, it was a quotation posted from afrogay.blogspot. I will be generous to you David, and assume that you didn't read the post carefully and have made a mistake in attributing the words to me. You need to apologise.
I do not know whether paedophile rings exist in Uganda. I do not even know from personal experience whether abuse of children and young people is present in Uganda, but reports suggest that it happens. I do know that lesbian and gay people suffer abuse, persection and violence in Uganda, and I believe that Christians should oppose the Bill and the anything which allows people to demonise lesbian and gay people and fails to welcome us into the Church as as full and equal members of Christ's body.
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Friday 13 November 2009 - 01:30pm
Rowan Williams has been criticised by some for his silence. I am pleased to tell you all that I have had a reply to a letter that I wrote him about this matter. The contents are not for publication, but it was encouraging to hear from him and that the letter was signed personally by him.
Posted by: Dave
Friday 13 November 2009 - 11:38am
Colin,
You say "I know for a fact that no such pedophile ring exists in Uganda" How can you KNOW such a thing. Form my perspective Archbishop Orombi and the Church of Uganda which I know something about is a far more reliable source of information on what is actually happening in Uganda than you unnamed and unknown friends. Your suggestion that Mr Landa planted them in the local gay community in the first place as part of a plan to undermine gays and lesbians in Uganda is without foundation and resorting to such tactics discredits you.
David
Posted by: Colin Coward
Thursday 12 November 2009 - 08:55pm
I followed George Oundo's advice in the New Vison article link posted by David H. - I googled his/her name and read some of the articles which appeared. I post a selection below, some written by people who know George/Gerogina. Who to believe? Gay activists, Gerogina, or Christian pastors?
http://afrogay.blogspot.com/2009/03/george-georgina-oundo-takes-low-road.html
“Why am I so trenchant about this? Because I know for a fact that no such pedophile ring exists in Uganda. I also know that anyone with just a little bit of sense wouldn't use Georgina in the manner he claims he was used. For one thing, Georgina was/is far too flamboyantly sissie, far too affectedly effeminate that it was usually an embarrassment to keep his company because his carry-ons were too outrageous in an inwardly looking country like Uganda.”
http://www.borisdittrich.nl/hrw.html?item_id=37
“Victor Mukasa, IGLHRC’s program associate for East Africa – himself a target of a police raid in 2005 and repeated harassment by some media in Uganda – said that “the illegal detentions of Georgina and Brenda make one thing abundantly clear – speaking out for LGBT rights is a risky business in Uganda.”
"According to the two activists, the police entered their home and confiscated magazines and books dealing with issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. At the Nabweru station, officers took their cell phones and copied down the names found in them. The officers questioned Oundo and Kiiza about other people the police accused of being homosexuals. The two said that the police repeatedly beat them with a baton during interrogation and denied them food.”
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/tag/george-oundo
http://www.sexualminoritiesuganda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57:when-christians-condemn-gods-children-during-the-easter-season&catid=3:newsflash&Itemid=55
“It is Holy Saturday, today, the final day of Holy Week and of Lent - "a period of spiritual preparation for Easter which typically involves fasting, penance and prayer". Besides fasting, penance and prayer, the Lent period in Uganda this year has been characterised by something else: virulent gay-bashing.
“This is a project that has been, and is still being, championed by "serious" Christians such as Mr Stephen "Heterosexual" Langa of the Family Life Network and Pastor Martin "Heterosexual" Ssempa of Makerere Community Church. And yet we are all, in our 'sinning' difference, God's children! What happened to tolerance and understanding as cherished values in Christ's church and civilised society in general?
“Well, homosexuality is illegal in Uganda. That much, even if nonsensical, is clear. What is not clear is Mr Langa's bigoted behaviour and how he goes about displaying it. He seems to have unilaterally declared 2009 the Year of Homophobia in Uganda. He spent much of March parading several men (and why no women?) who claimed they are reformed homosexuals. Good for them.
“But here are some questions. Where did Mr Langa find these eight-plus men, led by George "Georgina" Oundo? What attracted these men to Mr Langa and not Archbishop Luke Orombi, for example? Had he all along known them to be gay? Or had he planted them in the local gay community in the first place as part of a plan to undermine gays and lesbians in Uganda? Do the police have any reason to not look closely into the activities of the Family Life Network?
“More disturbing are the allegations that the men, especially Georgina Oundo and Emma Matovu, are making. They say they were engaged in "recruiting" school children into homosexuality using money from the immoral Western world. Fine.
“But enticing minors into sexual activity, any sexual activity, is illegal as well. So why are the Georginas not reporting this matter to the police? Why do they report to Mr Langa's little outfit? If they do not know about the rights of children, surely, Mr Langa knows. Why does he then not encourage them to report these things to the police?”
Posted by: Colin Coward
Thursday 12 November 2009 - 07:45pm
It's been a few days since I logged in here and read the more recent posts, and in particular the comments from David H. The New Vison report about George Oundo confessing that he recruited schoolchildren into homosexuality is not sufficient to support the claim that this is taking place in schools across Uganda. I have seen no other evidence in support of the claim. Until further evidence is supplied, I will continue to accept the evidence of my gay friends in Uganda, who tell me to ignore the claims. I trust them, in the same way that I trust my LGBT friends in the UK.
Your take on the 1928 Prayer Book, which is also inaccurate, suggests that you read evidence with a mindset that is closed, and unable to accept the accuracy and truth of historical facts or the witness of other authorities - LGBT people in Uganda in the case of this thread.
David, there is only one possible stance for Christians to take about the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, and that is to oppose it and persuade Anglicans in Uganda to oppose it because it opposes the commitments made by the Archbishop and Bishops in Lambeth 1.10 and the Windsor Report.
Posted by: Junius
Thursday 12 November 2009 - 09:14am
David, my laughter was at the supposed authority of Archdeacon Mayhew. Who he? I have searched for references to him and can't find any except the one you quote.
You also say that Parliament saved the Protestent Church of England from the enormities of the 1928 Prayer Book. How, exactly? It was in widespread use for forty years, before liturgical reform in the 1960s accepted all its major changes. I remember its being used. Do you? Actually (whisper it secretly) I have used it myself. As far as I know, there are still parishes which more or less use it today, calling it the 'Interim Rite'.
The failure of Parliament to regulate the worship of the Church of England by rejecting the 1928 Prayer Book was one of the factors in bringing in synodical government.
Posted by: Junius
Thursday 12 November 2009 - 08:11am
Please accept my profound apologies for digressing. I realise it was a very serious offence, and I hope that the Thread Police will let me off with a caution this time.
Posted by: John Martin
Wednesday 11 November 2009 - 09:34pm
Hey Folks. As fascinating as the issue of the 1928 Prayer Book is, a gentle reminder: that aint what this thread is about. There is a lot to say about the 1928 and the role of evangelicals and Parliament opposing it, but if you want to discuss it please start another thread.
Posted by: Dave
Wednesday 11 November 2009 - 07:25pm
Junius,
You may laugh, but the fact remains that parliament saved the protestant Church of England from Convocation which was acting against the will of the people to violate the historic foundation of the chuch.
David
Posted by: Junius
Wednesday 11 November 2009 - 04:57pm
Archdeacon Mayhew? Ho ho ho.
Posted by: Deleted user 974
Wednesday 11 November 2009 - 04:18pm
Some simple folk used that book to help them PRAY. They found little portions of Scripture to read and pray pn too. They knew nothing of the politics. They didnt know their prayer must first be authorised by Parliament.
Did the Lord decline touch them with Blessing ?
Posted by: Dave
Wednesday 11 November 2009 - 01:16pm
The better view is that of Archdeacon Mayhew who wrote:
"after the rejection of the Prayer Book Revision in 1928 by Parliament, the bishops authorized or permitted the use of the book within their dioceses, but since they had no power to supersede Parliament, they themselves became law breakers as no bishop or any other citizen has power to reverse Parliament's decision" in "The Church of England" (1958)
David
Posted by: Deleted user 2165
Wednesday 11 November 2009 - 11:03am
Silence update :
I have just spoken to the Archbishop of Canterbury's Press Officer who informed me "I don't know where we stand on this. Nothing has been said at the moment".
Posted by: Junius
Tuesday 10 November 2009 - 08:16pm
David, please try to read posts before replying to them. I made it quite cleat that 1928 was never authorised by Parliament, but its widespread use was based on the huge approval it gained in Convocation, not just being 'winked at' by a few bishops. If you had bothered to follow the link I gave you you would have seen that its approval, after being rejected by the Commons, was by a vote of the bishops giving a majority of 23 to 4. Indeed, as I remember well, it was pretty much the standard use until Series One came along, which was much the same thing. I never said that it was legally approved, indeed I said it wasn't.
Posted by: Mark Bennet
Tuesday 10 November 2009 - 08:13pm
Please excuse my deviation from the important topic of the thread.
David H
Your liturgical history, or interpretation of it, seems to me to be rather at variance with fact. The Church of England Website states:
"In July 1929 the Archbishop of Canterbury moved a resolution in the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury which stated that 'in the present emergency and until other order be taken', in view of the approval given by the Convocations to 'the proposals for deviations from and additions to the Book of 1662, as set forth in the Book of 1928', the bishops could not 'regard as inconsistent with loyalty to the principles of the Church of England the use of such additions or deviations as fall within the limits of these proposals'. The resolution was passed by 23 votes to 4.
In 1966 most of the 1928 services were legally authorized for use in public worship - some in amended form - as the First Series of Alternative Services."
Which is how I'd understood it to be - not just 'winked at by some bishops', you see, but effectively approved for use in the Province of Canterbury by a significant majority of the bishops, and also one of the foundations on which subsequent liturgical reform in the Church of England has been built. The 1928 book is a significant part of the tradition of the Church of England - you will find ideas first tried in 1927/8 still in use in many of the services we have today.
The Prayer Book Crisis also underpins much of the 20th Century revision of the decisoon-making structures of the Church. It would be more accurate to say "in defiance of the authority of Parliament over the Church of England" rather than "in defiance of the authority of the Monarch". The crisis was over who had authority to approve the liturgy, and there was a stand-off, which led eventually to the formation of the General Synod.
There will be historians and liturgists who will know all about this better than I do. I suggest any further discussion of the point belongs on a separate thread.
Posted by: Deleted user 974
Tuesday 10 November 2009 - 07:02pm
Recruitment ? To be frank, the recruiting is carried on by the heterosexual mainstream majority, in various ways. And unashamedly.
And quite aggresssively in the past in Britain and still is in less enlightend jurisdictions. The evidence for that is completely clear
for all to see.
But maybe y o u feel that is perfectly fine ?
Posted by: Dave
Tuesday 10 November 2009 - 06:58pm
Junius,
The 1928 Prayer book was never approved for use in the Church of England. It is true that it's illegal use was winked at by some bishops in defiance of the authority of the monarch. This does not make it part of the true tradition of the Church of England but merely shows what a poor state the was in at the time and still is.
David
Posted by: Junius
Tuesday 10 November 2009 - 05:03pm
Ah, the insidious deceit of a half-truth, how unpleasant it is. The 1928 Prayer Book was, as you say, rejected by Parliament, David, but overwhelmingly accepted for use by Convocation, because the bishops could not 'regard as inconsistent with loyalty to the principles of the Church of England the use of such additions or deviations as fall within the limits of these proposals'. It was the standard form in many churches for over 40 years, before it was adopted as the basis for liturgical reform in the 1960s.
See: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/worship/liturgy/1928
Posted by: Dave
Tuesday 10 November 2009 - 01:16pm
Jeremy,
You refer to "never evidenced assertion about "recruitment" ". I give you some evidence. Of course this is not perfect but it is evidence. The report appears in a well respected newspaper. If we are to consider the statements of the gayuganda blog, this must also be taken seriously.
I apologise if I did not make myself clear but my point is that it is simply unbalanced to keep going on about this proposed legislation if you do not blog about other human rights violations.
The Ugandan church is ministering the gospel in a difficult situation a great deal more effectively than the CofE. They deserve our admiration and support.
David
Posted by: Dave
Tuesday 10 November 2009 - 12:00pm
Colin Coward,
You refer to the Anglican tradition of the 1928 Prayer Book. Now I thought that was rejected by parliament and represents a Romanising tendancy which is not an authentic Anglican tradition.
David
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Monday 9 November 2009 - 11:14pm
David - I point out that you are not asking the first sensible question about your offered source - and you respond with personal attack. You know nothing about me - nor my views except for those that I reveal on here. I have made a fuss about this one because it is clearly a grotesque abuse of human rights that deserves attention (IMHO). You have no idea of the work I have done in the DRCongo, nor of the Zimbabwean asylum seekers I have welcomed into my home, nor of my membership of Amnesty International. Egregious personalised attacks are a stupid game to play. I shall not be responding to you again
Posted by: Dave
Monday 9 November 2009 - 06:39pm
Jeremy,
Have you any evidence3 for YOUR allegations. You seem to believe anything you read on a gay blog and repeat it without attribution. The use of the word notorious of anyone this propaganda machine does not like is a give away. You repeat yourself so much I can no longer see if you have anything new to say
I might take your concern for human rights seriously if you showed any interest in anyone other than gays. The suffering of the people of Zimbabwe for example. If you are so against the death penalty, why are you not criticising the USA?
David
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Monday 9 November 2009 - 07:48am
David -
Is that it? Evidence? One article in a government controlled newspaper (how reliable and objective will they be?) in which a declared "ex-gay" decides he wants to turn the spotlight on someone else. This "appearance" was at the notorious Hotel Triangle Conference - and if there is any truth in it it is a story of someone having been sexually abused as a minor and now admitting to a history of pedophile sexual abuse himself - which is both tragic and horrible. He makes fairly specific allegations of having been paid and having training abroad - but produces no evidence of this. It all sounds like a conspriacy to corrupt and to engage in pedophile behaviour. If it were true then you have expecteed arrests, expulsions of International Human Rights Organisations, a trial, something! - to be done.
Oundo says that homosexuality is being spread (as if it were a disease that you could catch - which it isn't) by International Human Rights Organisations. None named, no evidence presented, just a vague hearsay kind of slander against the work of shadowy outfits. Why isn't he specific? Because he can't be. There has been no case brought against any "International Human Rights Organisation" in Uganda for running such a dreadful operation in the eight months since this accusation was voiced - why? It is only reasonable to assume because there is no evidence to present to a court.
My conclusion - that he is a unreliable witness, who now wants to paint himself as a victim to his new mentors. I am not saying that there is no truth in what he says, but I should think that his own history of being abused - which may be true - and what goes on in the boarding schools of Uganda (no doubt a fair amount of situational homosexuality in single-sex boarding schools) has been fluffed up into an International Conspriacy for political reasons. This testimony deserves forensic examination - not swallowing whole! The real irony is that the report says that Oundo only got released fropm his own captivity for "recruiting homosexuals" after the intervention of Human Rights Watch.
This isn't evidence - this is sensationalist populist journalism stirring up public feeling against LGBT people. It is the sort of thing that here would be called "gutter press". It goes for the visceral "gays and our children" connection to get parents worked up - nothing like confusing homosexuality and pedophilia to get people concerned.
Come on David - you are simply repeating unfounded slanders - don't be so credulous. You wouldn't treat this sort of unsubstantiated nonsense with any seriousness if it were published here - where are your critical faculties? This and all the rest of the hate-whipping up by ex-gays, church leaders, MPS, has been abetted by evangelical Christians from abroad standing by giving silent approbation (Don Schmeirer, Scott Lively in this case - the Exodus International Board really wriggled with embarrassment when they found out what had happened at that conference) - I repeat, it is shameful and contemptible.
Posted by: Dave
Sunday 8 November 2009 - 11:25pm
Evidence of the recruitment of young people by homosexual organisations may be found in the testimony of George Oundo as reported on New Vision http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/12/675619
David
Posted by: Colin Coward
Sunday 8 November 2009 - 02:13pm
David H. says:
The Church of Uganda has clarified a number of points including its opposition to the death penalty. http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=17395#more-17395. This does not deserve sort of derision that it has been treated with by Changing Attitude.
David, the Church of Uganda has said it upholds the sanctity of life and cannot support the death penalty. It is upholding a resolution passed at a previous Lambeth Conference. I welcome this commitment.
I deride their use of the phrase 'people with homosexual disorientation' which is newly-minted, deeply offensive to me and held in derision by gay Ugandans.
The statement says the Church is a safe place for individuals who are confused about their sexuality or struggling with sexual brokenness. It does not say the Church is a safe place for those who are gay or lesbian, and gay and lesbian Ugandans are stating clearly that the Church is indeed, an unsafe place for them. (I am not so naive as to not realise that the reality of gay identity is being denied by some Christians - those of us who are gay disagree.)
The statement repeats the accusation by Archbishop Orombi that rumours that homosexual recruiting in schools and among young people are true and the practice is more widespread than originally thought. I have never seen any evidence to support this accusation. I have never, ever met a gay African who has tried to 'recruit' a heterosexual man into homosexual activity. I have many reports of homosexual men who are married and continue to engage in sex with other men. This is a far more harmful activity for all concerned, wives and children included.
Archbishop Orombi might be derided for making these claims were not the accusation a deliberate item of disinformation.
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Saturday 7 November 2009 - 07:03pm
David -
the derision you object to is the voice of a Ugandan. I think it is very instructive for us to listen to such voices, which are usually drowned out by the imperious tones of the Ugandan church leadership asssuring us of the safety and care of the churches. I don't think, reading the testimony of gay Ugandans that they believe a word of it. I wonder why not?
Opposing the death penalty is the least we can expect from the Church of Uganda. But do they also oppose life sentences for homosexuals?The criminalisation of homosexuality with such severe penalties is something that is in their law as it stands at present - and which the provisions of both Lambeth and the Windsor report say that we and they should be opposing wherever they are found. Do they oppose the ridiculous notion that "touching" can be evidence of homosexual intent (in Africa? Where it is common for men to hold hands all the time? - what an opportunity for vindictive accusations!)? Do they oppose the ghastly proposed law that makes it a duty on anyone who knows of someone who is homosexual having to report them to the police within 24 hours or face a prison term themselves? How can anyone get any help, support or understanding in the face of such a requirement?
The interim statement confuses predatory pedophile behaviour with that of adult consenting people, and lumps the two together. Why? The statement also repeats the oft made but never evidenced assertion about "recruitment" - which usually accuses homosexuals from the West (well-funded) of setting out to corrupt Uganda's youth (back to the pedophilia theme again). Where is the evidence of this?. It is a very serious charge - and a very persistent myth. I know of no homosexuals who would do other than condemn outright such a thing if it were shown to be true. But, I repeat, where is the evidence? If the Archbishop is being told that this is going on, then it deserves investigation. But accusations of this happening are a long way from it being the case. A responsible churchman would want to investigate this most carefully, and present the findings of an inquiry. It seems to me that the way this myth is repeated can only be read as part of peddling a story of homosexual wickedness that is designed to stir up popular feeling against this very oppressed community. I think that is contemptible in anyone, and doubly so in a senior churchman.
Posted by: Dave
Saturday 7 November 2009 - 12:23pm
The Church of Uganda has clarified a number of points including its opposition to the death penalty. http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=17395#more-17395. This does not deserve sort of derision that it has been treated with by Changing Attitude.
David
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Friday 6 November 2009 - 01:25pm
There is a very interesting podcast on this subject from the Canadian Broadcasting Coproration. You can find it here:
http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/current_20091027_22128.mp3
Contributors include Gayuganda (the Ugandan blogger) who sends his responses by email as he is too afraid to speak live, Julius Kagwa from Sexual Minorities Uganda, and Monica Mbaru of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. Ms Mbaru's view is that Churches have contributed to the heightened atmosphere of homophobia in Uganda - but also that they are to a large extent manipulated by politicians who want a distraction ahead of elections next year.
There is also an interview with Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family, who claims close links between this shadowy fundamentalist US organisation which is behind the National Prayer Breakfast, and Yoweri Museveni, the Ugandan president, and the organisors of the March 2009 conference in Kampala that was the start of the present anti-gay drive. How much his assertions can be trusted I don't know.
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Friday 6 November 2009 - 12:42pm
And now Anglican Mainstream...
"Reports are circulating about proposed ‘anti-homosexual legislation’ in Uganda. Anglican Mainstream UK is in touch with senior church leaders in Uganda to ascertain what lies behind these reports and what should be the appropriate response from Christians in this country."
Posted by: Colin Coward
Friday 6 November 2009 - 08:26am
I fully agree with Paul Nersen - yes, "the good news is that the same mind of the Communion is never going to condone the legislation in question." And I agree that a principled stance against the proposed legislation is what matters most.
And I am very happy to warmly welcome Peter Ould's opposition to the legislation, and had already publicly welcomed Andrew's paper, have seen an earlier draft. It is a very well researched,valuable contribution from Fulcrum. I have also welcomed Rod Thomas's response on behalf of Reform.
Susan Russell and myself are both in email contact with David Virtue of VirtueOnline who has been in contact with Archbishop Henry Orombi, who is 'on the road'. David promises that we will hear when he receives a response from the Archbishop to the question we put - "When is he going to start meeting the 'real' needs of the LGBT baptised people in his flock who are subjected to violence and imprisonment because of their sexual identity on top of the starvation, poverty and lack of water faced by Ugandans.
It is difficult for all of us to move beyond the assumptions about other people's motives and the accusations that fly around the Communion and refocus on what we share in common - our faith in Christ and our worship of God. It's hard to do this so long as homosexual people are judged as being less faithful followers of Christ than others, and won't be resolved until the church relaxes its attitude towards us.
Posted by: nersenpaul
Friday 6 November 2009 - 08:04am
There are different traditions in the CofE and the AC, some much more virbant and attractive to Brits than others and some much more recognisable than others as Anglican in terms of acceptance of the 39 Articles, but, as the ABC has made clear, to his credit as he has in the past sought to persuade it to change, there is a "mind of the Communion" - its stance is not unclear.......that is why he, not a member of Reform or AM, calls for a Covenant which upholds that mind of the Communion in order to build unity in the CofE and AC. Even if a revisionist view were "traditional", it is still not the "mind of the Communion" today.... that is the ABC's public assessment, anyway, and I don't think he has any axe to grind but he is concerned to build unity - that requires respect for the mind of the Communion.
Re this thread, the good news is that the same mind of the Communion is never going to condone the legislation in question. I just hope campaigns in a former colonial power do not make it hard for Anglicans in the country concerned to argue against the proposals by making them easy to dismiss as influenced by particular political movements in the AC - getting a strong and effective local Anglican response to the issue is more important than a group in another country getting its campaign supported..... that is why I think it is such a shame the support of Goddard and Ould has not been warmly welcomed by CA, even if they have not signed a particular letter...........in fact, look below....Andrew Carey came out very strongly against the legislation - looking at the response he has got below, I shudder to think what would have happened if he were not unequivocally against the prosposed legislation..... a principled stance against the proposed legislation is what matters most, right??
Posted by: Andrew Carey
Thursday 5 November 2009 - 10:58pm
Colin, on one point we can agree - that the Windsor Report and many other Anglican sources - completely rule out any acceptance of the Ugandan proposals. I may come back on some of the points you make, but it's late now.
Posted by: Colin Coward
Thursday 5 November 2009 - 10:22pm
Let me add one more brief comment - the debate about homosexuality in the Anglicn Communion is deeply personal, it is about my identity as a human being and as a Christian. It is about my personal essence. I, Colin Coward, along with tens of thousands of lesbian, gay, biseuxal and transgender Christians have been in the firing line for over 10 years, and it is very personal.
Posted by: Colin Coward
Thursday 5 November 2009 - 10:19pm
Andrew, what the church has been doing all along, in the east as well as the west, in Africa as well as North America, is creating a multiplicity of traditions. Why do you put the phrase 'beastly newcomers' in my mouth? I don't think you're beastly anything, nor do I think one tradition has precedence over another. Many strands of Christianity which claim to be authentic to the tradition today are nothing of the sort.
You and I, me a gay Christian, you a divorced one, both break with some people's version of the tradition. We are not in the same boat, but certainly in similar boats. Jesus had more to say about divorce than homosexuality, however, and I'm not writing that to make a cheap point, but because it's true. I am unhappy when groups or individuals award themselves the label 'traditional' with the implication that others are less traditional. How do you interpret Jesus' teaching about divorce, Andrew? Christianity has many, many strands of tradition, and I am part of an authentic strand, and in that sense I am also 'traditional'.
You are indeed irritable, and of course words and meanings are important, and you are misusing my own words. I am not selectively interpreting the Windsor Report. The Windsor Report is very clear: "... any demonising of homosexual persons, or their ill treatment, is totally against Christian charity and basic principles of pastoral care. We urge provinces to be pro-active in ... its care for and attitude towards persons of homosexual orientation."
The meaning of those words is plain to me. The Church of Uganda must - must oppose the Anti-Homosexuality Bill if is to observe the plain meaning of the Windsor Report.
Posted by: Deleted user 974
Thursday 5 November 2009 - 08:44pm
'...For obvious reasons I don't talk about personal things online - it's simply not the place to do it. ...'
So let's have no more 'discussion' of the personal lives of gay people.
Careless talk (still) costs lives - in Uganda and the many jurisdictions that (still) imprison and execute gay people -
though I do understand it's nothing personal.
Posted by: Andrew Carey
Thursday 5 November 2009 - 08:23pm
For obvious reasons I don't talk about personal things online - it's simply not the place to do it. Junius you can 'get personal' as often as you want but I won't be drawn. Second, try and follow the thread before you comment. I used the term 'traditionalist' as a descriptive term for the organisations that Colin Coward contacted about the Open Letter, a term which Colin then used to describe himself. I wouldn't particularly use it for myself, having a bit of the charismatic in my background.
Posted by: Junius
Thursday 5 November 2009 - 07:34pm
I'm sorry, but this has to be personal. Andrew is claiming to be a 'traditionalist' and to be faithful to scripture, and accusing other people of making up new interpretations to suit themselves. Yet, he has lived some of his life in the spotlight of his family, and he knows perfectly well that his family's history of remarriage after divorce is in the public domain. So where does he want to draw the line between innovation and tradition, and who gives him the right the draw that line so that what he wants is the right side of it and what he doesn't want is the wrong side?
Posted by: Andrew Carey
Thursday 5 November 2009 - 06:38pm
Colin, the tactics are clear. You've been here all along and we're the beastly newcomers. It's not a matter of changing the church's teaching, just facing the church up to what it's been doing all along. Just don't expect me to buy it. It's so 1960s.
No, I don't need to withdraw my accusation. In fact, I'll make one further one. Your interpretation of the Windsor Report is also so selective, that you are making it mean what you want it to mean.
I'm sorry that this gets me irritable, but words and their meanings are important. Just don't get me started on your interpretation of words in the Bible.
Posted by: Colin Coward
Thursday 5 November 2009 - 04:30pm
Dear Andrew,
I am an adherent to the tradition in which I was nurtured, in the church where I was baptised and confirmed, an Anglo-catholic church using the 1928 Prayer Book within a tradition which I understood to be Anglican. Was I wrong, 50 years ago? I am still living in the church in that same tradition - an 'Honest to God', 'South Bank', radical tradition. This also is Anglican. Those who claim to be traditionalist are simply conforming to their particular branch of the very wide, complex Anglican tradition, and I object to being labelled 'an advocate of major changes to tradition' unless that applies to a desire for honesty in the church about what it was doing 50 years and 100 years ago, but discretely. Yes, I want radical change in the dishonesty in the Communion about the presence of LGBT lay people and gay Primates, bishops, priests, deacons and Readers.
I also object, and strongly object, to being accused of claiming that Lambeth 1.10 means what I want it to mean, and you need to withdraw your accusation. I want to focus attention on specific clauses in 1.10. Everyone does, because Lambeth 1.10 in internally in conflict. I am also discovering that when the bishops committed themselves to Lambeth 1.10, they committed themselves to give a far more positive place to the pastoral care and protection of LGBT people in the church. I have lived through 11 years of denial that this is one aspect of what the bishops did in that foul debate which resulted in 1.10. I am not making 1.10 mean what I want it to mean.
Posted by: Junius
Thursday 5 November 2009 - 04:29pm
Hi Colin, like you, I am a traditionalist, and I don't intend to let Andrew Carey tell me what a traditionalist means. I support ordination of women and of partnered gay people. This is entirely in line with anglican tradition of not being tied to the spirit of a single age (the 16th or 17th century depending on whether you are a member of Reform or FinF, picking and mixing from the Westminster Confession or the Council of Trent) but interpreting the Gospel in the light of modern scholarship. Words do, of course, have meaning, but meaning is independent of Andrew Carey's diktat.
Posted by: Andrew Carey
Thursday 5 November 2009 - 04:12pm
Jeremy, the claim that certain types of speech, and argument lead into violence have the overtones of legal 'incitement'. And there is a climate of victimhood today that seeks to ban certain types of speech which may merely cause offence to others.
My point is however, that the question you ask is pointless. You can't prove a link between reasonable civil discourse and mindless thuggery unless you have 'incitement'. It's a 'when did you stop beating your wife?' kind of question.
Posted by: Andrew Carey
Thursday 5 November 2009 - 03:52pm
Hi Colin,
Thankyou for your response to my questions about your approach to the open letter. My questions were not 'conspiracy theory'. I'm sure your intentions were sincere. Underlying my suspicious questions is the fact that conflict and crisis is written into the DNA of organisations like yours and Anglican Mainstream. Under these circumstances it's very difficult to avoid polemic and pointscoring. And of course, I'm just as guilty as anyone, and heartily sick of it all.
You're welcome to appropriate the term 'traditionalist' if you want. All you have to do is redefine its common usage from 'an 'adherent to tradition', to an 'advocate of major changes to that tradition'. And why stop there? You can have 'evangelical', 'conservative'. I'll throw in 'fundamentalist' for free.
I note of course, that you've recently made the claim that Lambeth 1.10 means what you want it to mean. Do words have any meaning, at all?
Posted by: Colin Coward
Thursday 5 November 2009 - 02:34pm
Andrew Carey wrote:
"However I do have my doubts about the sincerity of Changing Atittude etc in enlisting the support of evangelical and traditionalist organisations behind this open letter. Was this a manipulative attempt to shame Reform, Anglican Mainstream, or a constructive and collaborative discussion about the possibility of joint action? Was the 'open letter' already written or were its contents on the table for discussion? Were any friendly phone calls made, or was this just a face-off by email?"
Lawrence has already responded. Let me add my own comments.
One Changing Attitude trustee was critical of the decision to send the open letter only to these 4 organisations. He thought it could be intepreted as Andrew suggests - a manipulative attempt to shame. It was genuinely a desire to encourage Primates and bishops to respond by sending a joint letter. If alterations to the text had been suggested, then of course they would have been considered, by all potential signatories. Those originally suggested as signatories was a smaller number and I added to it. I assumed that the Inclusive Church signature covered all groups covered by IC.
No friendly phone calls were made, but it wasn't a face-off by email. I can see what is in Andrew's mind - some kind of conspiracy theory. CA/IC might have handled it better, and we apologise if our approach lacked something, but we knew that communicating the message to Uganda would be stronger if the letter was signed by groups covering a wide-range of perspectives, including conservative evangelical. I don't accept Andrew's label of traditionalist. I am an Anglican traditionalist, but my tradition is different.
I'm grateful to have received a positive email from Rev Rod Thomas, the Chairman of Reform, saying that as a result of the email, they are now corresponding with the Archbishop of Uganda. I have not yet heard from Anglican Mainstream or the Church Society.
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Thursday 5 November 2009 - 02:12pm
Andrew -
I am not threatening anyone's freedom of speech. I am simply asking what are the consequences of people speaking the way they do. Your response seems to imply that I shouldn't ask the question. So do you want to censor me? And whose freedom to speak is then under threat?
Posted by: Andrew Carey
Thursday 5 November 2009 - 11:16am
Jeremy Pemberton wrote: "My point is this, and it is a generic one not limited to Uganda, and it has an application to our own context in Britain, AND it is a genuine question. While there may be all kinds of people on this forum and other places like it who are able to distinguish between issues of human rights which we would all hope to agree on and theological posiitions over which we might disagree wholeheartedly, does the effect of whaat I might call the double-minded conservative position (pro-human rights, anti-acceptance of gay people and relationships) have the unintended consequence of simply strengthening homophobia among people who are looking for sources of authority to buttress their own position? For if you strengthen homophobia then you also increase the likelihood that some people will act on it in very unpleasant ways."
It's this sort of thinking that increasingly threatens freedom of speech. You might as well say that Frank Field's call for 'balanced migration' leads to violent racism. or that there is a connection between Forward in Faith's support for an all-male priesthood and domestic violence. You might also say that vegetarianism leads to animal rights extremism. There's always a distinction between civil discourse and violent thuggery and bullying.
Posted by: Simon Morden
Thursday 5 November 2009 - 09:52am
"As a human being, as a Christian, as an Anglican, I unequivocally condemn the proposed Ugandan anti-homosexuality bill."
Surely saying anything else leaves a statement open to misinterpretation, the suggestion of crossed fingers behind the caveats and the importation of unconnected agenda?
Lest anyone thinks I'm pointing the finger at Andrew Goddard, the CA statement is fairly loaded, too. Keep it simple, comrades.
Posted by: nersenpaul
Wednesday 4 November 2009 - 07:56pm
Hello Jeremy - all I was getting at was that people here might not have been too happy if groups from other countries were commenting on our legislation (but, as I said, I am not saying we should not speak out.....we must - and people are) I am disappointed, Jeremy, that you have not given much of a welcome to the statements of Ould and now Goddard which agree with you in opposing the proposed legislation in question. We are standing together on this.
Laurence C - all groups invited may not have signed up to a CA's letter but people are still opposing the legislation (in private and public)...... is that not encouraging and positive and what really matters?
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Wednesday 4 November 2009 - 07:16pm
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-GB
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
Andrew Carey’s comments have set me thinking.
Can I raise an ancilliary point that I think probably will require teasing out in a different context? There is a well-documented connection between some of the more extreme anti-gay activists in Uganda (notably Uganda Family Life Network's Pastor Stephen Langa) and Exodus International's Don Schmierer, who with Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively appeared at the now notorious March 2009 conference at the Hotel Triangle in Kampala. Langa used material by Richard Cohen (Coming out Straight: Understanding and Healing Homosexuality) in his presentation, which tried to make a very direct link between homosexuality and pedophilia. See YouTube for the clip. This conference called for the laws against homosexuality in Uganda to be "strengthened" - though as we know they already included the possibility of life imprisonment. There then followed an ‘outing’ campaign in the tabloid newspaper The Red Pepper, which included some pastors accusing other pastors of being gay. As BoxTurtle Bulletin reported in May this year:
The first round in this pastor-against-pastor conflict was fired soon after George Oundo claimed to have been saved and became an immediate “ex-gay” in Pastor Martin Ssempa’s Makerere Community Church in Kampala. Oundo’s “salvation” occurred sometime after he went sought money from Uganda’s fledgling LGBT rights organzation, Sexual Minorities Uganda. Apparently snubbed by the LGBT community, Oundo found a savior in Ssempa and Pastor Stephen Langa, director of Kampala-based Family Life Network.
Ssempa had led several anti-gay campaigns in the past, but this time he appears to be taking a back seat to Langa, who organized a news conference featuring Oundo. It was at that news conference where Oundo named a popular Catholic priest, Fr. Anthony Musaala, as a homosexual. Musaala, whose Charismatic Renewal Movement has a huge youth following, just happens to be a longtime rival of Ssempa.
And more, much more, like this. And now this proposed law. You get the picture.
My point is this, and it is a generic one not limited to Uganda, and it has an application to our own context in Britain, AND it is a genuine question. While there may be all kinds of people on this forum and other places like it who are able to distinguish between issues of human rights which we would all hope to agree on and theological posiitions over which we might disagree wholeheartedly, does the effect of whaat I might call the double-minded conservative position (pro-human rights, anti-acceptance of gay people and relationships) have the unintended consequence of simply strengthening homophobia among people who are looking for sources of authority to buttress their own position? For if you strengthen homophobia then you also increase the likelihood that some people will act on it in very unpleasant ways.
Posted by: Deleted user 2165
Wednesday 4 November 2009 - 06:54pm
In response to Andrew Carey:
"However I do have my doubts about the sincerity of Changing Atittude etc in enlisting the support of evangelical and traditionalist organisations behind this open letter. Was this a manipulative attempt to shame Reform, Anglican Mainstream, or a constructive and collaborative discussion about the possibility of joint action? Was the 'open letter' already written or were its contents on the table for discussion? Were any friendly phone calls made, or was this just a face-off by email?"
I am an atheist and a gay man partnered to a gay priest in the clergy of England. I knew nothing about the Church of England until I met my parttner last year. In order to understand the issues confronting my partner's church I have 'lurked' on the Fulcrum, Thinking Anglicans, Inclusive Church, Changing Attitude and Anglican Mainstream websites/blogs and posted on them from time to time. I am a passing acquaintance of Colin Coward's (more of a 'friend of a friend').
It occcured to me a couple of weeks ago (it now seems somewhat naively) that for the various factions within the Anglican Communion on opposing sides of the gay clergy/bishops controversy would surely be able to stand together on the human rights issue facing Ugandan LGBT people. My partner emailed Colin Coward with my suggestion - he thought it was a good idea and followed it through. Although I cannot speak for Colin, there was no question that the intended outcome was for the various groups to sign a mutually agreed wording for the ultimate benefit of LGBT people in Uganda. My original thought was that this would carry more weight than if only gay single-interest groups signed up to it. My genuine belief is that there was no intent whatsoever to manipulate Anglican Mainstream et al or 'name and shame' them.
As an outsider I can only add that what little respect I had for the leadership of the Church of England and some of its members prior to this has now evaporated entirely. Reading the mean-spirited comments of a minority of posters on this site has left me quite spiritually sickened. I am unable to grasp how any Christian group can fail to agree on what is, to this atheist at least, a perfectly simple question of speaking out against something that is profoundly wrong.
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Wednesday 4 November 2009 - 06:27pm
Nersen - I am not quite with you here: Is it a protest because everyone who was in a civil partnership should have been executed or suffer life imprisonment, or because everyone who was not in one should have been executed or suffer life imprisonment?
Posted by: Ken Petrie
Wednesday 4 November 2009 - 06:09pm
I would like place on record that I disapprove of this bill. However, I do not wish to do anything which might endanger my brothers and sisters in Africa or in Islamic countries.
If I am to protest against anything, it is the loud-mouthed sloganising which obstructs true debate and allows bills like this to be proposed and get serious consideration. Sadly, all sides on all issues seem to use far too much of that tactic. I conclude they are more interested in getting their own way than finding the truth.
Christians need to oppose such a selfish approach to truth-seeking.
Posted by: Mark Bennet
Wednesday 4 November 2009 - 04:59pm
Jeremy
Again I see part of your point. BUT
I do think you have to recognise the reality of some of the internal church politics here. A collective statement including some of the groups which have been in the forefront of organising it may play very well here in the West - but there will be people in Uganda who take every oppotunity to dismiss it as decadent western liberalism, and will point to the associated groups and say - see its those same old liberal groups again, and their misguided friends and allies.
I think Fulcrum and other groups, which have not been closely associated with this issue in the past, have a moral duty to say: NO: This isn't western liberalism, it is our common Christian Faith - this isn't a liberal agenda, it is Biblical justice and loving our neighbour - it isn't a liberal agenda, it is what the whole Church agreed. But with this moral duty comes another - to speak in a manner which is likely to be heard. To me, frankly, the discussion of who does what here in England is rather secondary - I want to see effective influence brought to bear to reduce to a minimum the chance of this evil law being enacted, and to persuade Christians that they should not be associated with this or anything like it.
Posted by: Andrew Carey
Wednesday 4 November 2009 - 03:26pm
I'm with Jeremy Pemberton on this one despite taking an opposing theological view on human sexuality. Although I find Andrew's paper to be characteristically thoughtful, there is room for two types of protest to co-exist here. Firstly, the loudest possible megaphone diplomacy to let the Ugandan authorities know that the rest of the world is watching, condemning inhumanity and monitoring the plight of lesbians and gay men in the country (the fact that the world is known to be watching is sometimes the only form of protection that the persecuted have). Secondly, quiet use of pressure on Ugandan church leaders. The two forms of protest go hand-in-hand. While it's true that evangelicals with their links to the Ugandan Church are more likely to have success with quiet diplomacy, they should also be as loud as possible about the utter outrageousness and inhumanity of the proposed legislation. Furthermore, if church leaders support such legislation, as they did in the case of Nigeria, evangelical leaders should move to distance themselves from that support.
I realise that Ugandans are likely to see any form of outside protest as a form of colonialism, but we can't opt out of basic human rights just because of post-colonial guilt.
However I do have my doubts about the sincerity of Changing Atittude etc in enlisting the support of evangelical and traditionalist organisations behind this open letter. Was this a manipulative attempt to shame Reform, Anglican Mainstream, or a constructive and collaborative discussion about the possibility of joint action? Was the 'open letter' already written or were its contents on the table for discussion? Were any friendly phone calls made, or was this just a face-off by email?
Posted by: nersenpaul
Wednesday 4 November 2009 - 02:57pm
Jeremy - would you have welcomed a coordinated comment from organisations in other countries on UK legislation re civil partnerships?
(that is not to say we ought not to comment - Andrew's comments and conclusion are very helpful.....maybe a more helpful contribution in the situation itself than some of the accusations thrown around by others)
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Wednesday 4 November 2009 - 12:52pm
Normal
0
false
false
false
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
Thank you to Andrew Goddard for his usual careful work. However, (you knew there was going to be a however) I think it is lukewarm and mealy-mouthed and ultimately very disappointing.
Both and Andrew and Simon Cawdell have used the term megaphone diplomacy. I think this is an inappropriate term to describe a voice of protest. Andrew makes perfectly clear the heinousness of this frightful proposal, but then shuffles away from suggesting that anyone should protest against it, and implies that there are complex cultural forces at work, that it is hard to understand another culture, that we have to be careful and so on and so forth.
He does not in this case produce any evidence of complex cultural niceties that ought to make us shy of addressing very directly the wrongness and inhumaneness of what is proposed. He does not produce a shred of evidence to suggest that protest is likely to make LGBT people's lives in Uganda more dangerous than they already are. In fact he neglects to highlight the voices of LGBT Ugandans themselves - who are grateful for the international protest (take, for example, Gayuganda's comment on the Warren Throckmorton guest column in the Uganda Independent - Just saw this article. It speaks for itself, saying what needs to be said, in words that most Ugandans will understand, and using imagery that they will relate too. Well done, Warren. You remind me of what it was like, believing in Christ.) If you want a sense of the cultural and political hinterland which this is lying in front of, then read Sylvia Tamale’s Why anti-gay Bill should worry us, where she writes
Politicians find that homosexuals are a great scapegoat or red herring to divert attention to more pressing issues that affect the ordinary Ugandan such as unemployment, corruption, poor health facilities, reform of electoral laws and so forth. If we are to be absolutely honest with ourselves, we should ask whether there are not more pressing issues of moral violation in other areas such as domestic violence, torture and corruption. None of these areas have specific laws outlawing their practice. That is where the likes of Hon. Bahati should expend their energies.
The rhetoric of anti-gay Ugandan politicians and clergy routinely cites the defence of the family – but without explaining why the existence and tolerance of a small minority of consenting homosexual adults is going to threaten it; the recruitment of young people into a gay lifestyle by well-funded NGOs – but there is not a shred of evidence that I have seen that these NGOs exist, nor yet that there is any campaign of recruitment going on; the assumption that homosexuality is both chosen and unnatural – without ever beginning to address the complex and at least equivocal questions about the aetiology of this phenomenon. Anti-gay speakers like to confuse pederasty, sexual violence and homosexuality, which have no necessary connection – so that no one can express any sympathy for the one lest you seem to be condoning the others.
The legal basis for the persecution of LGBT people which exists already in Uganda is the Penal Code Act. It is a colonial piece of legislation dating from 15th June 1950. If you read it, it is clearly designed in many of its provisions to make the management of Uganda possible by a small number of colonialists and their agents. It is 59 years old. It is grotesquely out of date. As the American Embassy public affairs officer Joann Lockard said about this new proposal:
If adopted, a bill further criminalising homosexuality would constitute a significant step backwards for the protection of human rights in Uganda. We urge states to take all necessary measures to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests, or detention.
They are therefore calling not only for the rejection of the proposed legislation, but also for the repeal of the existing provision.
All of this softly, softly Fulcrum approach is the politics of the comfortable. Andrew’s approach is to want to hear more from Ugandans - but which ones? Anti-gay ones? Or LGBT ones? Who is under attack here? The trouble is that the Church of Uganda, with which we have such strong relationships in so many parts of the Church of England, is fairly clearly institutionally homophobic. Its bishops support life imprisonment for homosexuality, and supported all of this proposed law except the death penalty. Polite conversations with our brothers and sisters in Uganda will have them telling us how homosexuality is not part of their culture. But it is. It always has been. Homosexuality is no more a European import than being human. It may take a social shape that is influenced by the West, but that is all. A good number of African cultures have had clear and definite places for homosexual activity and even homosexual people as a part of their social systems (blacksmiths among the Dogon for instance). So how about some polite conversations with LGBT Anglicans in Uganda? (Yet again, Andrew, you fall in this paper into the Christians/LGBT people dichotomy – many LGBT people are Christians and don’t need to be missionised – they are alongside us in ministry and mission).
We don't need to know any more about this law to make clear, reasonable, and proportionate protest against it. What we do need to do is to see the wood for the trees. This proposed law invites us to reflect more deeply than perhaps we have, in all of our convoluted ecclesial wranglings over ‘issues in human sexuality’ (what mealy-mouthedness is there!), upon a very basic question: who is my neighbour? This is precisely an issue that takes us back – in our now globalised world – to the question on the anti-slavery medallion: Am I not a man and a brother?
If this were race, gender, ethnicity, disability, you name it – I don’t think we would be half so mealy-mouthed. But sex makes fools of us. Minority sexual attraction, and the possibility of loving in a way that I find the thought of disturbing, unattractive, or repulsive, clouds our better judgement. To take my two questions above in reverse order. LGBT people in Uganda are our brothers and our sisters, and they need listening to and defending. They are our neighbours. The authorities, the law, the church are all arrayed against them. So whose side are we supposed to be on?
Posted by: Dave
Wednesday 4 November 2009 - 11:57am
Does the proposed legislation improve the situation for the average homosexual. It reduces the potential penalty from life imprisonment to seven years? The legislation seems aimed at "aggravated homosexuality". This includes offences which require a severe penalty such as wilfully infecting people with a deadly disease. Is the offence of running a brothel limited to a homosexual brothel. It is difficult to comment on this legislation without a more rounded understanding of the Ugandan criminal justice system. Are the penalties maximum or mandatory? How are they likely to be applied in practice. What other offences have the death penalty attached to them. Has anyone complained about those?
David
Posted by: pete hobson
Wednesday 4 November 2009 - 12:24am
I've been reading the thread with interest and waiting for the fulcrum comment, so am very glad to see it, and not disappointed either. In its sanity and comprehensiveness it reminds me why I'm mostly very happy to be fully signed up supporter of Fulcrum. The proposed legislation is indeed iniquitous and seems motivated by homophobia. It should be opposed by anyone in a position to do so. I am not fully convinced what sort of a position to do so people like me are in, but if my voice of opposition is helpful then please add it to any Fulcrum list!
Posted by: Simon Cawdell
Tuesday 3 November 2009 - 10:38pm
The Fulcrum briefing on this subject is now online, here. Our thanks to Andrew Goddard for his work on it, and to all who have helped contribute.
Posted by: nersenpaul
Tuesday 3 November 2009 - 01:40pm
Hi Jeremy - what matters most - that people to oppose the legislation (as Ould does) or is it more important that people back particular campaigns against the legislation? Ould is against the legislation....do you welcome his voice against it?
If effectiveness in getting Anglicans in the country concerned talking to their politicians about the proposed legislation is the main priority, I wonder about the counterproductiveness of UK groups campaigning and giving (or not giving) deadlines for people to respond to their campaign or face being named and shamed .... is this the most effective way of opposing the legislation or might the ABC and others talking privately to their counterparts have achieved more? Is it not going to be tough for an Archbishop to make a case when his opponents can now easily claim he is promoting the views of a campaigning group in another country? I wonder if all the campaigning and naming and shaming is weakening the influence of Anglicans against the legislation in the country concerned. (I say this on the basis that I trust the ABC and others are not silent on important issues when talking to counterparts....it does matter that something is said but I want it said in the most effective way possible - because the issue is much more important than the AC politics and any campaigning group)
Posted by: Deleted user 1222
Tuesday 3 November 2009 - 11:53am
The proper position for Changing Attitude should be to oppose the whole Lambeth resolution thing throughout. That is to say, there is no worldwide Anglican Church, and no body that speaks for all or indeed any of its Churches. It is a loose Communion, and so what it a group of bishops get together. Now it may be that the result of this Covenant process is that some sort of speaking from the centre gets written in somewhere to voluntary agreements, but that isn't passed yet and may never be as other events take hold - like the Pope's Finger and the evangelical ability to snatch defeat out of victory. Plus people are now seeing that this Covenant is not something to argue over, that it can be made inclusive, but that in order to be inclusive it has to be rejected - and the same ought to be over the football played regarding Lambeth 1:10. And this is a comment from an outside looking in who takes his own advice (!).
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Tuesday 3 November 2009 - 09:46am
Unsurprisingly I don't agree with you, Nersen- I think Peter Ould's contribution is mean-spirited and partisan.
This is not an issue about ecclesial politics for once - it is an attempt to invite people to affirm what are some fairly basic human rights which ought to be obvious to any decent right-thinking human being. Why do you and he want to turn it into point-scoring? Lambeth offers fulsome support for what CA are proposing and what they have written. And the letter explicitly states that differences are acknowledged between the invited parties over other aspects of the question. What a pity that you have to behave this way all the time.
Posted by: nersenpaul
Tuesday 3 November 2009 - 07:40am
Excellent contribution from Peter Ould.... . I hope Fulcrum leaders will make their own statement but will not be signing any public letters which may not actually help to influence anyone in a positive way with regard to the important issue at stake (given the issue is very much more important than AC politics)
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Tuesday 3 November 2009 - 06:18am
Pm - it was me. There are all kinds of NFP organisations in the US that make a living campaigning in and around these issues. The linkages/rivalries/dependencies are interesting to say the least...
Posted by: Pageantmaster
Monday 2 November 2009 - 10:30pm
Junius - apologies I think I had Jeremy in mind. Penelope Lively I seemed to have missed off my childhood reading list which looks like a pity - I see she got going in her writing in 1970 by which time I was into science fiction.
Posted by: Junius
Monday 2 November 2009 - 10:08pm
Pageantmaster, are you confusing me with someone else? I've never heard of Lively or Throckmorton, though I used to enjoy Penelope Lively's excellent stories for children, but I think she's someone else entirely. do you want to check your references?
Posted by: Pageantmaster
Monday 2 November 2009 - 08:30pm
Junius - Oh my - you are right there is quite a bit of history with these two gentlemen, Lively and Throckmorton:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Throckmorton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Lively
..well, according to Wikipedia, which I gather is always right. There also seems to be a link into the Californian Measure 9 issues. There is clearly a lot going on here below the surface, the principals appear to be American activists of one sort or another.
Posted by: Pageantmaster
Monday 2 November 2009 - 08:09pm
Colin Coward - welcome and thank you for responding. Perhaps you will engage if and when you have time.
Junius - I know nothing of Scott Lively and have never heard of him before today, other than noting his comment on the history of Dr Throckmorton and himself on the Throckmorton Crosswalk article I linked, and Dr. T's conversion from a promoter of the ex-gay movement to an opponent. Frankly it sounds as if there is clearly a lot of animus and quite a bit of history there - comment #2:
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11610162/
btw I see Peter Ould has comment to add:
http://www.peter-ould.net/2009/11/01/ugandas-anti-homosexuality-bill/
http://www.peter-ould.net/2009/11/02/why-i-cant-sign-the-changing-attitude-letter/
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Monday 2 November 2009 - 07:15pm
Pageantmaster -
fancy you finding something by Scott Lively - holocaust revisionist - who blames the whole thing on homosexuals (see The Pink Swastika) - he is really one of the nastier things to reside in the woodshed. I am afraid you will have to find someone with better credentials to blacken Dr T's name to have it taken seriously.
Posted by: Colin Coward
Monday 2 November 2009 - 06:33pm
Pageantmaster asked:
"If you are responding to points made here why not post them here where they can be part of the conversation?"
The answer - because the Changing Attitude blog is where I am setting out my thoughts and I would rather people engaged in a conversation with me there, than here - self-interest, I know. I've only just joined the Fulcrum site and I need time to reflect on my engagement here - it's a question of time, and I use my time to write blogs rather than engaging in discussions elsewhere.
Posted by: Pageantmaster
Monday 2 November 2009 - 05:45pm
Junius:
"quiet diplomacy is for diplomats. And good on them. But the rest of us need to raise our voices and speak out more. It is a well known fact that bishops, MPs, and large corporations are indeed sensitive to the kinds of postbag that they get."
Quiet diplomacy is also for Archbishops. You and I are entitled to raise our voices and speak out. However the target of this campaign is not us, but the Archbishops and Primates, my point is that we should not try to manage everything for them and give them the opportunity to try "quiet diplomacy" if that is what they deem most productive. I am not yet entirely convinced that the best way for people to get a hearing from the Ugandan legislature is to send them a letter under the banner of Changing Attitude, but what do I know.
I have to say that I am increasingly concerned with the disconnect between the effort to draw attention to a private members bill by a Ugandan MP, which is quite rightly drawing criticism, and the use of that in a wider campaign by activists, including apparently Throckmorton to discredit others both in the ex-gay movement, US Christianity and the Anglican Church in Uganda. Is it the case that things are to be used in support of the activism, irrespective of who gets hurt or pays the cost? I am beginning to smell a rat.
Posted by: Simon Cawdell
Monday 2 November 2009 - 05:22pm
Colin, Thank you for your gracious post below. We had meant to keep you in the loop earlier than happened, but the timing didn't work out as it should. As said earlier on the forum we will be posting Andrew's briefing before long.
Posted by: Pageantmaster
Monday 2 November 2009 - 04:40pm
Colin Coward,
"I will respond to other points made here, about whether Fulcrum or Anglican Primates or bishops should be addressing the Bill in a post on the Changing Attitude blog."
If you are responding to points made here why not post them here where they can be part of the conversation?
Posted by: Junius
Monday 2 November 2009 - 04:36pm
nersen, the burden of omniscience must be a very heavy one for you to bear. Not only do you know what the demographic effects of Nick Griffin's appearance on QT was, but you also know what Rowan Williams thinks about the law in Uganda, and you know what we all think about it who post at Fulcrum, and you know how Bishop Jefferts Schori is spending her days. Please could you give me a tip for the numbers for next Saturday's Lottery, or the 3.30 at Newmarket?
Posted by: nersenpaul
Monday 2 November 2009 - 04:01pm
Nobody can seriously doubt what the ABC's attitude will be to the proposed law in question.......similar to all of us (I guess) round here. But if he makes a statement (under political pressure or because he has been planning to do so anyway) saying what everyone already knows he thinks, will those who demand that he makes such a statement give the same respect that they want shown to his view on this issue to his views on other matters where they may ignore him sometimes e.g. when the ABC calls for actions across the AC and in the CofE which show real respect for the mind of the Communion on other issues?
So, Fulcrum is about to publish (something helpful, no doubt).....has TEC's PB issued a statement? I guess she may be quite busy with her property lawyers these days ...that might explain her delay.
Posted by: Pageantmaster
Monday 2 November 2009 - 04:01pm
Well, this is sounding more complicated:
1. Saddleback have issued a denial of involvement with this ex gay group:
http://www.loveisanorientation.com/2009/update-on-uganda/
2. There is this posted which suggests that Dr Throckmorton is considerably more of an activist than at first appeared:
scottdlively
11/1/2009 8:20 PM
I'm getting tired seeing my name dragged through the muck by Warren Throckmorton. This man gained a reputation in evangelical circles by working to help homosexuals recover from their dysfunction. He has switched sides on the issue and now aggressively attacks opponents of homosexuality (to the glee of hard-core "gay" apologists) without revealing his abandonment of Biblical authority to the Christian public. My positions are clearly stated at my website www.defendthefamily.com and are firmly rooted in Scripture and fact. This and associated articles are a gross misrepresentation of me and my work. I do not now and have never supported incarceration for homosexuals and was in Uganda to advocate for treatment of homosexuals as an alternative to inacrceration, similar to what benefited me when arrested for drunk driving years ago in my pre-Christian days. I don't support the harsh law as currently proposed. Throckmorton, however, refuses even to affirm that homosexuality is wrong.
from here:
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11610162/
3. It looks as if this is a private members bill in Uganda rather than a government bill so it is not clear what prospects it would actually have. People on the ground may know more.
What does it all mean? - no doubt there is more to come out, so to speak.
Posted by: Colin Coward
Monday 2 November 2009 - 12:49pm
I’ve only just been registered on this site, hence the delay in posting a reply.
Simon, it would have made a big difference, given the friendships between Changing Attitude and Fulcrum members, if my email had been acknowledged and someone had told me that a briefing paper was being prepared. Andrew Goddard’s email arrived at 4pm, and your comment here was posted at 6.34pm, both on Saturday, over 1 week since I sent my email. It looks to me as if you only responded when I made the email and lack of response public. You were already being asked on this thread to respond to the Ugandan Bill but no member of the Fulcrum team responded to Jeremy’s initial post or the subsequent messages.
I would genuinely like to thank Andrew Goddard (and the Fulcrum team) for sending me a draft copy of the Fulcrum briefing Paper on the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill. It is a thorough and well-researched paper which will be a valuable addition to the information available.
I also owe an apology to Fulcrum for having said that in my original email to the four groups sent on 23 October I had asked them to reply by Tuesday 27 October. This was the day agreed between Giles and myself, by when, if we hadn’t received replies, we would make the open letter public. I didn’t put the date in the email and I accept I was wrong in claiming I had.
I will respond to other points made here, about whether Fulcrum or Anglican Primates or bishops should be addressing the Bill in a post on the Changing Attitude blog.
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Monday 2 November 2009 - 12:15pm
Pageantmaster
quiet diplomacy is for diplomats. And good on them. But the rest of us need to raise our voices and speak out more. It is a well known fact that bishops, MPs, and large corporations are indeed sensitive to the kinds of postbag that they get.
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Monday 2 November 2009 - 12:14pm
David H
What is bullying about what Colin Coward did? He invited a range of organisations to join in writing publicly to Archbishops about a matter of public concern. This is something that people do every day - look at the letters page of the Times. Apparently not one of his 40 emails was answered within a week - which I think is pretty discourteous - and he then made that fact public knowledge.
I had already encouraged people on here to express a view about it - and after a week of near silence it started to get some traction. Otherrs expressed the view that Fulcrum should engage officially with this and lo and behold, they are doing.
I really think it is utterly unfair of you to try and dump on Colin.
Posted by: Pageantmaster
Monday 2 November 2009 - 11:33am
Also Jeremy, I think it is naive to think that quiet diplomacy does not go on and yield results, both in international relations and church affairs. Regularly however one sees what appear to be promising meetings or contacts cut short when one side or another launches a public denunciation or lists what they are going to demand of the other side before the meeting.
That is why the breakthroughs in the Middle East have taken place in meetings in places like Oslo, away from cameras and without outside interference, where people can say what they want knowing that it will not be used against them publicly and they can make their views known to each other in an unconfrontational way. People can also 'lean' on parties in private without this being seen as an affront to personal or national pride which a public comment would give rise to.
Blogs however do have their place, and an increasingly powerful one, something which also denotes a heavy responsibility in what one says on them.
Posted by: Dave
Monday 2 November 2009 - 11:08am
There are too many problems in the world for an individual Christian to be involved in them all. Even a Christian organisation must be selective. Fulcrum has not been involved in international politics, aid issues or human rights to any great extent. If Fulcrum is to become more involved an alliance with Tear Fund ( if not already implicit in Elaine Storkey's dual role) and support for the Barnabas Fund would be more appropriate responses. I am disappointed at Colin Cowards attempt to bully evangelical organisations. If we were to take up every piece of undesirable legislation in the world our normal discussions would be drowned out. I certainty want no part in a campaign to demonise Henry Orombi as a replacement for Peter Akinola.
David
Posted by: Pageantmaster
Monday 2 November 2009 - 10:40am
Hello Jeremy
I am not sure that I disagree with your conclusion:
"The internet has changed the world for ever. Everyone can publish, comment, and engage with all kinds of issues all around the globe. You may not like it, and would prefer a world where we all meekly waited to be told the answers by our elders and betters. I don't regret its passing at all - all kinds of abuses used to go by undiscovered for ages, all because no one spoke out and thought that someone else would be taking notice. They weren't. Silence and deference did not save lives. This isn't a car, and we aren't children. So a little pressure now, a few voices raised, and something may be done."
I am hardly someone to complain about the internet having changed things or to wish that we were told what to think by our elders and betters. I do say what I think and what I think about my elders and betters actions. No cap-doffer I.
However there is a difference between you and I making our views known on this thread or elsewhere on the one hand and on the other demanding that particular bodies and Archbishops sign up to this or that action or letter. Where, as in this case, peoples' lives may be on the line, Christians and gay people, and our actions may be used by others against Christians in Uganda and neighboring countries, perhaps we should be circumspect and grant out leaders a clear hand to deal with things as they consider best, given the information they have from the ground and soundings is probably better than ours.
Also wild accusations [which I have heard being made] are being bandied around: that the ex-gay organisation is behind lobbying for this change in the law; that American Christians are responsible for it; and that part or our church is actively encouraging it.
For my part I have read Throckmorton's reports, believe what is reported to be the text of the draft law changes to be true, and have not suggested that he is a gay activist or doubted his credentials.
My point is make representations and give your own opinion by all means, but that it is important to get the facts right, be careful of wild accusations about this or that group and their involvement or to try to limit the hand of those who are charged with dealing with Communion matters, and that includes claiming that they are either ignoring it or indifferent. We may not hear for some time what they are up to. If they are being discreet it may be for a reason, knowing that lives may be at risk, not in the English suburbs but far away in places and situations we may not envisage.
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Monday 2 November 2009 - 07:05am
Pageantmaster
too many ifs and buts.
1. The text of the proposed law in on the web
http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/anti-homosexuality-bill-2009.pdf
There is no doubt at all about what it intends.
2. That evangelical American ex-gay activists were in Uganda in March this year at a conference which has had very negative consequences is a matter of fact. See reports here
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2009/03/bizarre-anti-gay-conference-begins-in-uganda/
http://wthrockmorton.com/2009/03/02/ugandas-strange-ex-gay-conference/
Throckmorton's point is that while no one has (to my knowledge) alleged that any American evangelicals have put the Ugandans up to this, there is a clear link - he tells it here in a good piece. Warren Throckmorton is no gay activist by the way either before we start doubting his credentials:
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11610162/
3. The persecution of Christians, particularly by Muslims, whose own religion tells them that there is no compulsion in Islam, is plain wrong. There are no new plans to make it a criminal and capital offence, as far as I am aware. That is the point in this case - various points of law are to be gathered together, strengthened, and reinforced. New categories of crime are to be introduced.
4. I think you are too sanguine about trusting the competence of leaders. Frankly, these days any leader worth his or her salt keeps their constituency aware of what they are up to if they want to keep their support. The least they can do is tell us that work is going on and that they are aware of the situation - but so far there is only silence.
The internet has changed the world for ever. Everyone can publish, comment, and engage with all kinds of issues all around the globe. You may not like it, and would prefer a world where we all meekly waited to be told the answers by our elders and betters. I don't regret its passing at all - all kinds of abuses used to go by undiscovered for ages, all because no one spoke out and thought that someone else would be taking notice. They weren't. Silence and deference did not save lives. This isn't a car, and we aren't children. So a little pressure now, a few voices raised, and something may be done.
Posted by: Pageantmaster
Sunday 1 November 2009 - 11:08pm
A couple of points to add to what I wrote earlier which was my opinion that it is wrong to criminalise consensual homosexual behaviour or even just being homosexual, if that is what this law is addressing:
1. People are saying that the ABC, ABY, PB of TEC, Fulcrum and for some unestablished reason American Christians must make public statements or sign up to particular things. Further some are making as far as I can see the unestablished allegation that American Christians have somehow been putting African legislators up to this dreadful act.
2. Christians in Africa and elsewhere are being viciously persecuted ranging from discrimination in jobs through to murder in a world-wide pattern. For example:
Nigeria:
http://dynamic.csw.org.uk/article.asp?t=press&id=894
http://dynamic.csw.org.uk/article.asp?t=press&id=903
Sudan:
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/16045
Pakistan:
http://dynamic.csw.org.uk/article.asp?t=press&id=892
North Korea:
http://dynamic.csw.org.uk/article.asp?t=press&id=889&search=
And so it goes on: China, Vietnam, Myanmar, Colombia, Uganda, Kenya, Egypt, India, Iraq, Iran, North Africa and on and on:
http://www.csw.org.uk/indepth/home.htm
http://barnabasfund.org/UK/News/Prayer-Focus-Update/
3. Our Archbishops, Rowan and John are not exactly wallflowers when it comes to speaking out, neither is the PB of TEC nor any of the other Primates. In Uganda, Kenya and elsewhere in Eastern, Western and Northern Africa there is a battle going on for influence between Christians and Wahabi funded Islam. AB John has spoken out strongly in Zimbabwe where our church is also being persecuted.
4. With their direct contacts in the countries concerned it is just possible that they have a better knowledge of what is going on and feel for the likely effect of any action they take than we do, whether it is you, I or four blokes with a website in St Albans who have linked this thread. That includes the likely effect that any private or public pronouncement by them will have for good or ill in dealing with this issue, and the judgement whether public criticism rather than private lobbying is likely to be more productive, given the people being dealt with. If they feel it is helpful to make a public pronouncement it is unlikely that they will hold back from doing so. If they are not, there may well be very good reasons why they are trying less public representations.
5. I do believe that having been given the authority we should trust our leaders to get on with the job which given past performance it is likely that they are doing in this case. We are not in a position to second-guess them, and in my view they should be allowed to get on with the job. If at the end of the day one disagrees with what they have done, once one knows the facts, by all means criticise, but in the meantime back them and trust them to make the right decisions.
6. It is tempting to back-seat drive, but at the end of the day, you or I are not going to pay the price of getting it wrong; others will, probably with their lives.
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Sunday 1 November 2009 - 10:51pm
Ian - I think you will have to get over your disappointment.
1. I raised this issue. I am not from a single-issue organisation - I have been posting on Fulcrum for a very long time. I don't see any reason why I shouldn't raise the Ugandan bill - and I was astonished though not surprised that it attracted (initially) very little interest. This is a matter that does materially affect Anglicans in Uganda - who are, what, 40% of the population? And what is so precious about Fulcrum that it can't co-operate with another organisation (even if they are single issue) in a matter which is very much one of general interest to Anglicans in Britain and Uganda (remembering that there are significant numbers of Ugandan-origin Anglicans here in Britain).
2. I want the issue raised and responded to everywhere - most of all by those who have most influence - the ABC and other English bishops. So far there is a deafening silence. Why? I am pleased to see that Andrew Marin and Warren Throckmorton are starting to agitate in the US over this one - not least because it was American Evangelicals in the shape of Exodus and other people who went to Uganda and whose ex-gay conference earlier this year inflamed anti-gay sentiment and spread the idea that homosexual inclination was chosen and could and would be spread by "proselytising" homosexuals. I see too that Rick Warren and Saddleback have disowned any connection with the poisonous Martin Ssempa. The Throckmorton/Marin Facebook group is on http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=198541255168
3. I think it is entirely appropriate that the energy of the web should be harnessed in defence of the human rights of people who are a very oppressed minority. People who hate homosexuals harness it the whole time. We can disagree about what position we may take about human sexuality in the church - but how about uniting in speaking up for justice and liberty? It will cost you and me nothing - it could change someone else's life for the good.
4. Are you really telling me that you think that on cultural grounds the criminalisation of homosexuality and the imposition of life sentences (let's forget the capital sentence for a moment) for being homosexual is right and just? The speech of the Secretary of the Anglican Synod - sent at Orombi's behest - spoke of wanting to see life sentences. I think that is shameful.
5. Your point 5: Is there a law in Uganda that can see you locked up just for being heterosexual? And can see your family locked up for not informing on you for being a het? I hope you can see how ridiculous and disproportionate your point is. Of course - there may be severe penalties for heterosexual sexual violence, or underage sex or whatever - and the same no doubt should apply to coercive or violent homosexual behaviour - but I very much doubt that there are any just for being heterosexual.
6. Anglicans bishops at Lambeth 1988 spoke of their opposition to the death penalty. Where are the voices speaking out against this kind of "justice"? - I was pleased to read of one Ugandan Anglican bishop suggesting this week that this provision should not be enacted. I hope that there would be voices raised suggesting the end of such dreadful penalties for any crimes in Uganda.
7. In any event - it is surely dangerous to suggest that bad laws should be connived at simply on the grounds that you don't think they are going to be enforced. I daresay some people in Germany in the 1930s thought that. They were wrong.
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Sunday 1 November 2009 - 07:47pm
Graham - this is good to hear and I look forward to reading whatever it is.
A general point about ways of going about things, in response to the megaphone diplomacy/softly, softly issue. I think that these kinds of approaches used to have some traction - when communication wasn't instant, and the whole of everything was not done all over the blogosphere. It also tended to be conducted by men in private, on the basis of a chap knowing a chap and all that kind of thing. It was the way the Tory party chose leaders - or got rid of them.
Well, I don't think it will do any more. I acknowledge that the new way does mean that the rather Anglican instinct - not at all a bad one, in fact rather pastoral - to have quiet words with people about things, is, where matters of public interest and policy are concerned, something that looks dodgy. Justice and righteousness now have to be seen to be done.
In this instance, surely a prompt email of acknowldgement to Colin C of his message, with the information that the new material that was coming out and, as Graham has said, the acknowledgement that the proposed bill is very concerning, would have spared some blushes.
Proponents of some very unsavoury positions do not hesitate to do it all in the full glare of publicity. Nicer people have to get used to the idea that this is the way the world works now.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Sunday 1 November 2009 - 04:34pm
Fulcrum, following on from some private communications, will be publishing an article on this appalling Ugandan bill soon.
The following articles give some further background:
Andrew Marin, 'Ugandan Anti-Homosexual Bill', Love is an Orientation site, 30 October 2009
Warren Throckmorton, 'Uganda: The other shoe drops', Warren Throckmorton site, 14 October 2009
'Text of the Ugandan Anti Homosexuality Bill', Warren Throckmorton site, October 2009
Warren Throckmorton, 'Should American Christians Care about Gays in Uganda?', Crosswalk site, October 2009
The following article mentions another very worrying development:
'Kenya launches gay survey while homosexuality remains illegal' by Xan Rice, The Guardian, 29 October 2009.
Posted by: Mark Bennet
Sunday 1 November 2009 - 02:26pm
I can see the point of pressing for urgency in the response to this situation - this gives a sense of shock etc and righteous anger.
However, Fulcrum is likely to have a number of links with evangelical groups/people in Uganda (the Archbishop of York likewise) - it may be that these channels of communication can be deployed effectively: I'd rather that influence were used effectively to change things, than there were lots of sound and fury signifying nothing.
It is all too easy to assume that people who seem to be saying nothing are actually doing nothing. This is not necessarily the case, and sometimes the saying can get in the way of the doing.
Posted by: James Laz
Sunday 1 November 2009 - 01:04pm
I think the delay is sounding rather hollow and have a lot of sympathy for those who have pointed out the need for urgency.
Half term is over - time for a robust statement please.
Posted by: Junius
Sunday 1 November 2009 - 08:25am
Marginal asks: 'Fulcrum is better than this - isn't it?'
Looks like the answer to the question is 'no'.
Speaking of 'megaphone diplomacy' is the usual shorthand for 'we don't want to get involved, so we'll call the people who do "loudmouths".'
It's an undignified scramble for the moral highground. But in this case the moral highground is already occupied by people who have issued their condemnations.
Posted by: Marginal
Saturday 31 October 2009 - 09:26pm
Simon Cawdell, on behalf of Fulcrum, said:
"We have throughout the week taken time to do a significant amount of independent research"
What, in relation to the facts of the matter, did you feel was so in doubt that "a significant amount of independent research" - was required?
Simon Cawdell said:
"The issue is important, but given legislative timetables not immediate"
The same would apply to, for example, to TEC general convention resolutions which established principles, but authorised nothing specific. In relation to such matters of no immediate impact, Fulcrum was able to respond within a day. What's different here?
Simon Cawdell said:
"we have circulated a private and detailed briefing paper to a number of people for comment and correction whilst we continue to explore the best way of ensuring right is done"
In the face of a proposal that legitimises prejudicial, judicial murder, such a bureaucratic response is chilling. How long does it take to say "no" to something that is obviously, abhorrently wrong?
Fulcrum's community is - in the main - generous, courageous and active. So Fulcrum's obfuscation and delay in this current matter is shocking. Fulcrum is better than this - isn't it?
Posted by: Simon Cawdell
Saturday 31 October 2009 - 06:34pm
I think I need to correct the misconception that Fulcrum is doing nothing. We have in fact replied to Colin Coward, though not before he published his comment elsewhere. We have throughout the week taken time to do a significant amount of independent research on the position and consult amongst ourselves as to the best way to address the issue. It is worth remembering that the leadership team works as a body, and the week in question has been a half term in which many of us have been away. The issue is important, but given legislative timetables not immediate, and we have circulated a private and detailed briefing paper to a number of people for comment and correction whilst we continue to explore the best way of ensuring right is done. Megaphone diplomacy is not always the most effective tool in this.
Posted by: User 2062
Saturday 31 October 2009 - 05:56pm
Agreed. I think Fulcrum should sign this letter.
Posted by: George Day
Saturday 31 October 2009 - 10:51am
I would like to add my support to Tony's request to Graham et al on behalf of Fulcrum to join in signing this open letter.
Posted by: Tony
Saturday 31 October 2009 - 01:15am
Thanks for your points, Jeremy. I just read Thinking Anglicans where Simon Sarmiento has posted a statement from Colin Coward of Changing Attitude. He concludes with the following, which seems to me to be a shameful reflection on what Fulcrum stands for (despite its apparent softly softly approach to LGBT people): Bishop Graham, Jody, Andrew Goddard, PLEASE rectify this situation:
"Last Friday we [Colin Coward and Giles Goddard of Inclusive Church] emailed the leadership teams of Fulcrum, Reform, Anglican Mainstream and the Church Society. asking them if they would join Changing Attitude and Inclusive Church in signing an open letter to the Archbishops of Canterbury, York and Uganda and the Bishops of Guildford, Winchester and Sodor and Man about the proposed anti-homosexual legislation. We hoped that despite our differences we are all committed to oppose anything which further criminalizes LGBT people or puts them at risk of violence rather than legislating for their protection. We did not receive a single reply from the 40 people emailed…"
NOT A SINGLE REPLY.
Tony
Posted by: nersenpaul
Friday 30 October 2009 - 06:05pm
Hi Jeremy - it would not take much....I have said before in this forum that I support civil partnerships in that they give inheritance and pension rights to people who should have them (although, sadly, two brothers or sisters sharing a house were not given those rights - the govt was asked but making provision for such people was not seen as a matter of justice for some unfathomable reason). I am completely for human rights and free speech too (not so popular with the politically correct set!) ...... but on this thread, I find it strange that people are outraged about the ABC not saying what they want him to say but do not mention others, eg TEC's PB being silent.... I guess they are both doing their day jobs and could spend hours commenting on various govt's policies to which they object.... I don't like the politics behind demanding the ABC condemns things..... it is not as if his views are in any doubt (if they were in doubt, then asking for clarification would make sense)
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Friday 30 October 2009 - 04:47pm
One or two comments.
1. This is a matter of international human rights - as a look at the reports from those kind of organisations will tell. Christians used to be ready to support such things, and still are in many cases - apartheid, the plight of Palestinians and so forth. Just because the intended victims of such unjust and cruel laws are LGBT people about whom a lot of evangelical anglicans in this country feel rather conflicted should make no difference at all.
2. The point about Uganda and "interfering" - the campaign is and ought to be about our making representations as Anglicans to Anglicans. It is for them to make their own representations to their governmant. But it is particularly our responsibility to make these views known to the Church of Uganda - why? Because it was English Anglicans who began the evangelisation of the country (with Roman Catholic missionaries) and - through the CMS - has had a consistent and very influential role in the development and support of that church's own growth and expansions since. It is clear from inter-anglican meetings for the last twenty years that what is going on in Uganda is something that no Anglican ought to be supporting.
Nersen is right - the PB should say something. But there are a few TEC dioceses that have an individual relationship with one Ugandan diocese only. The dioceses of Winchester and Bristol between them have partner relationships with almost all the Ugandan dioceses. The depth of the English involvement with the C of U is far greater than the connection of the Americans.
3. The most deafening silence is from the Archbishops. From Rowan - because both the supporting dioceses are in his province, and he is head of the Communion. From Sentamu - because he is a Ugandan lawyer.
4. The report on Thinking Anglicans tells us via Ugandan links that the MP sponsoring and writing the proposed legislation didn't bother to consult the police before so doing. Also that there were no prosecutions for the offence in the last two years of stats published. also that there were respresentations to their parliament by religious leaders (unnamed) who asked for the proposed death penalty to be dropped. I wonder who they were?
5. Nersen - what would it take for you to say something positive in support of the human rights of LGBT people?
Posted by: Pageantmaster
Friday 30 October 2009 - 12:11pm
Ugandan laws are a matter for that country, but if this report is correct I do not agree with the criminalising of consenting homosexual conduct. I hope the Church in Uganda will make its position known. Whether public interference from abroad will help or hinder this is hard to tell, sometimes it can produce an adverse reaction.
Posted by: MattS
Friday 30 October 2009 - 12:00pm
The details of the law look indefensible. I think that's why there hasn't been much response, because it's not a controversial issue. Also, I'm not sure we can do much about it. Homosexuality is not socially acceptable in Africa so not many people are sympathetic towards them. I guess all Anglicans in the west can do is question the attitudes of our African brothers through the relationships we have. In the west, we also tolerate or are at least desensitised to different forms of ungodliness because it is part of our culture- which means we also need our African brothers and sisters to show us our blind spots in return.
Posted by: nersenpaul
Friday 30 October 2009 - 07:49am
....what about the PB of TEC? Silence from TEC too.....pehaps they do not comment in public on every foreign law with which they disagree
Posted by: Tony
Friday 30 October 2009 - 12:22am
Well, Laurence, I guess that fulcrum's silence or otherwise won't make much difference to what the Ugandan bishops have decided to support. But I am disappointed to the point of despair by ++Rowan's silence. (even if the Pope has been a bit of a distraction of late: you should see some of the German press on *that* particular demarche -- it's quite a change being in a proper protestant country that has just elected a woman Bishop in Margot Kaessmann to preside over it!)
Come on bishop Graham -- it's not too late! The TA reports suggest that this terrible legislation in Uganda is the direct result of US evangelical influence. It may not be too late to redress the balance. peace and blessing Tony
Posted by: Deleted user 2165
Thursday 29 October 2009 - 05:15pm
Very little response to this thread - I would be very interested to see the views of regular contributors to Fulcrum. I do hope that ABC's current silence on the issue merely precedes a statement condemning this proposed legislation. Surely this is a human rights issue where opponents on the question of gay clergy/bishops could stand together?
Posted by: Roger Hurding
Wednesday 21 October 2009 - 11:12am
Thank you Jeremy for drawing our attention to these outrageous laws. Following your advice, I have written to the Bishop of Bristol along the lines you suggest.
Posted by: Blair
Tuesday 20 October 2009 - 10:18pm
Hello all,
just to add a little to your post Jeremy - if you go to Box Turtle Bulletin's website, they have full coverage and a list of Ugandan state officials' contact details, plus a sample letter. Here's the link:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/10/19/15774
in friendship, Blair
PS it was good to meet you at Greenbelt, Jeremy, if very briefly (don't blame you if you've forgotten who I am!)
Posted by: Celinda
Tuesday 20 October 2009 - 07:12pm
I checked Stand Firm (conservative blog in US) to see if there was any comment and couldn't find any. Have not
checked Titus One 9. As it reads, I'm quite shocked. I don't know how the Anglican dioceses in Uganda have reacted to the proposed law. I do know that in the past, one reason some of the African churches give for being so insistent that the Anglican Communion world wide, including TEC (the US province) not condone the behavior is fear of the secular arm in their various countries, and also fear of Islamic institutions, which have tried to discredit Christian institutions for a number of reasons, including what they see as sexual permissiveness.
Posted by: Deleted user 1543
Tuesday 20 October 2009 - 07:18am
I wonder if Fulcrumites are up to speed on this and what do you think about it? The text of this proposed new law was introduced into the Ugandan parliament last week. Among other things it proposes to:
Reaffirm the lifetime sentence currently provided upon conviction of homosexuality, and extends the definition from sexual activity to merely “touch[ing] another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality."
Create a new category of “aggravated homosexuality” which provides for the death penalty for “repeat offenders” and for cases where the individual is HIV-positive.
Criminalizes all speech and peaceful assembly for those who advocate on behalf of LGBT citizens in Uganda with fines and imprisonment of between five and seven years.
Criminalizes the act of obtaining a same-sex marriage abroad with lifetime imprisonment.
Adds a clause which forces friends or family members to report LGBT persons to police within 24-hours of learning about that individual’s homosexuality or face fines or imprisonment of up to three years.
Adds an extra-territorial and extradition provisions, allowing Uganda to prosecute LGBT Ugandans living abroad.
Normal
0
false
false
false
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
Alongside this punitive proposed legislation, the Government, through Minister of Information James Nsaba Butoro, and state-controlled media, has conducted a campaign of vilification against Uganda’s LGBT community. There have been numerous reports of raids, beatings, an outing campaign in the press and so forth. Some of this anti-gay feeling has been stirred up by clergy, notably Pastor Martin Ssempa of the Makekere University Community Church, who has said that homosexual conduct is “a criminal against the laws of nature”, and added, “there should be no rights granted to homosexuals in this country”.
Normal
0
false
false
false
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
Anglican bishops have passed many resolutions calling for care, respect and protection for all people. Lambeth 1988 33:3b) urges the church to speak out against capital punishment, and Lambeth 1998 1:10d) commits the bishops to condemning the irrational fear of homosexuals.
If, like me you would like to see the Ugandan Anglican Church make a stand against this (rather than uttering the kind of anti-gay rhetoric that can only encourage such attitudes and actions) then please be in touch. I have a list of all the Anglican dioceses who are linked with Uganda and an email to these bishops asking them to write to his brother bishop in Uganda might help some very beleagred people in Uganda. The critical dioceses in this country are Winchester and Bristol - between them they are linked to nearly all the Ugandan dioceses.
Add your comments on the Fulcrum Forum
|
|
Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill
Commons Report and Third Reading Briefing. CofE Website, 19 May 2013
19 May 2013
Tory rebellion on amendment to grant civil partnerships to heterosexual couples will 'cost οΎ£4bn and take two years' Guardian Online, 19 May 2013
19 May 2013
Top public schools have put it in their curricula and David Cameron has even set out to measure it, now churches are embarking on a drive to teach happiness to the nation. Telegraph 18 May 2013
18 May 2013
WORSHIP
1. The bells of the Church of St.Peter and St.Paul, Tonbridge in Kent- BBC Radio 4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01shqss
2. Whit Sunday Worship from Emmanuel Church Didsbury - BBC Radio 4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes...
Bowman
Thanks for the kind comments. It wasn't my specific intention to cast new light on "kephale", especially as I really am no expert at all on Greek (or on any of this, to be honest). Before getting carried away, it's probably best for me to say I think the e...
It has always struck me as worse than perverse that I attended church for decades but only encountered basic useful tested instruction about how to live with these curious minds we have in a course I took at Harvard. After all, you can't easily open a Bible at a random page that does not, as ...
John Martin reviews Andrew Goddard's timely memoire of the Archiepiscopate of Rowan Williams
Andrew Goddard offers a positive assessment of the recent FAOC document
A comment on the most controversial funeral of the century.......
|
