Church of England: Ban "Ex-Gay" Conversion Therapy

By far a minority of states in the United States - but nonetheless, a growing number - have banned fraudulent "ex-gay" conversion therapy for those under 18 years of age.  The practice has been a cash cow for the bogus "ministries" and "Christian counseling centers" who have  marketed the "ex-gay" "change programs."   Moreover, the myth that they have sought to maintain (namely, that sexual orientation is a choice) has long been used as a political weapon by Christofascists to oppose LGBT non-discrimination laws and ordinances.   I have been actively working to show how dangerous and fraudulent these programs are since 20013.  An article here looks at the take down of Michael Johnston, one of the leading "ex-gay" poster boys of the Christian Right.  Now, the Church of England is call for the fraudulent practice to be banned in the United Kingdom.  A piece in The Guardian looks at this surprising and most welcomed development.  Be assured that Tony Perkins of FRC, Victoria Cobb of The Family Foundation in Richmond, Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage and similar charlatans are likely shrieking at this news.  Here are excerpts from The Guardian:

The Church of England has called on the government to ban conversion therapy and has condemned the practice, which aims to change sexual orientation, as unethical and potentially harmful.

At the end of an emotional debate in which two members of the C of E synod described their experiences as spiritual abuse, the church’s governing body overwhelmingly backed a motion saying the practice had “no place in the modern world”.

Conversion therapy is usually described as an attempt to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Some churches in the C of E and other denominations have encouraged LGBT members to take part in prayer sessions and other activities to rid them of their “sin”.

Proposing the motion, Jayne Ozanne – who underwent conversion therapy resulting in two breakdowns and two spells in hospital – said conversion therapy was “abuse from which vulnerable adults need protecting”.

It was “discredited by the government, the NHS, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of General Practitioners and many other senior health care bodies,” she said.

Quoting from a statement issued earlier this year by the UK Council for Psychotherapy and other bodies, she said: “Exclusion, stigma and prejudice may precipitate mental health issues for any person subjected to these abuses.”

John Sentamu, the archbishop of York, said conversion therapy was “theologically unsound, so the sooner the practice of [it] is banned, I can sleep at night”.

Paul Bayes, the bishop of Liverpool, said LGBT orientation was neither a crime nor a sin. “We don’t need to engage people in healing therapy if they are not sick.”

Fenella Cannings-Jurd, a student at Durham university, said she found it hard to believe that “in 2017 we are seriously debating the pros and cons of conversion therapy”. It was “by and large” seen as a violation of basic human rights, she said.

The final vote, after a complicated series of amendments, was 298 to 74, with 26 abstentions. The motion had the backing of all three houses of the synod, the bishops, clergy and laity.

Speaking before the debate, Ozanne said she wanted the church to make a clear public statement. As the established church “we can encourage other denominations and faiths to consider their positions on this”, she said.

Conversion therapy was particularly prevalent in minority ethnic Pentecostal denominations, and in some extreme cases young people were sent back to their family’s country of origin for “corrective rape”.

"Corrective rape" - I suspect that Jesus would not have been an advocate of such batshitery and violent abuse.  I tried to "pray away the gay" for 37 years and I can assure you, it does NOT work.  Kudos to the Church of England.  Hopefully, more American denominations will follow the example and condemn this fraudulent practice which epitomizes right wing Christians' embrace of ignorance.

The Church of England - A Glimpse at Christianity's Future in America?

Survey after survey show that younger Americans - especially those under age 30 - are leaving organized religion, principally Christianity, in droves.  A large part of this exodus is the result of (i) the extreme anti-modernity/anti-science position of many denominations and (ii) the hypocrisy and homophobia of most Christian denominations (even within the ELCA every issue of the Lutheran has some Neanderthal ranting against the ELCA's acceptance of gays).  As bad as thing are now, it is likely that the exodus of the younger generations will only accelerate as the numbers of the "Nones" increase exponentially.  If one wants a  glimpse of where Christianity may be in America in the future, a look at the Church of England and its reactionary morality may be most informative.  Here are excerpts from a piece in Religion Dispatches:

At last. The Church of England’s General Synod has voted to allow women bishops. A disastrous failure to do so in 2012 preceded Rowan Williams’s departure as Archbishop, and led to huge public and political pressure to secure the “Yes” vote this time. It’s taken so long to get here (women were first ordained priests in 1994), and created such bad feeling, that the “victory” feels a bit hollow. The whole tale reveals a lot about the Church of England’s problems, and the position of religion in a liberal society.

The CofE remains the largest religious constituency in Britain, with a third of the population still calling themselves Anglican. But whether we look at church attendance, adherence, or baptism and funerals, decline is sharp. For those aged over-60 Anglican is the majority identity; for each younger generation it’s increasingly a minority identity. Only about five percent of young people now call themselves Anglican.

There are many reasons for this, but one is a church hierarchy which has fallen out of step with the moral convictions of its members. Since the 1980s the latter have been getting more liberal on moral matters, and more committed to freedom and equality, while the former have been travelling in the opposite direction. 

My surveys of Anglican beliefs and values show just how much the “values gap” between leaders and people has widened with every generation. Only 1% of Anglican churchgoers now say they rely on their religious leaders when seeking guidance and making decisions. When it comes to the two most controversial contemporary moral debates—on same-sex marriage and assisted dying—a majority of Anglicans are now in favour, whereas their leaders are united in opposition.

A similar gap has long been evident between the Church’s official teachings and its members’ views about women clergy. A mere 11% of Anglicans and 8% of the general population say that they approve of their church’s policies on women.

[C]hurch leaders have stalled on the ordination of women because of their deference to two small but vocal minority parties within the CofE: Anglo-Catholics at one end of the ecclesiological spectrum, and the conservative evangelicals at the other. Together they represent less than 15% of Anglicans.

When I ask young people who have a negative attitude to the CofE why they hold that opinion the most common reason is that the Church is sexist and homophobic.

There’s a popular argument that illiberal forms of religion do better than liberal forms, even in liberal societies. I don’t believe it’s that clear-cut. It’s true that religious authorities have taken a “post-liberal” turn since the 1970s, but the growing rise of “no religion,” first in Europe and then the USA, is in part a reaction against this. The idea that your average Anglican in Britain yearns for “stricter” religion is demonstrably false. They would, however, have preferred a church which was more responsive to their moral convictions, and better able to accommodate the diversity of their views.

To date, the Catholic Church in America and the Southern Baptist Convention to name just two denominations seemingly are Hell bent to follow the Church of England's downward spiral.  Becoming denominations of the elderly and experiencing growth only in backward, uneducated regions of the world such as Africa don't hold out promises of long term denominational survival.

Church of England to Launch Campaign Against Anti-Gay Bullying

In a move that will likely cause the anti-gay elements in the Anglican Communion to go berserk - especially in the corrupt, lunatic churches in Africa - the Church of England is launching a campaign to oppose anti-gay bullying.   I can just imagine the flying spittle and convulsions racking the church hierarchy in Uganda and Nigeria.  Interestingly, one of the justifications for the campaign cited by the Archbishop of Canterbury is the change in societal attitudes towards homosexuality.  In short, society has changed and the Church of England needs to face this reality.  It's obviously, not the type of enlightened views one can expect from the Christofascists and GOP base in America.  Here are some story excerpts from the New York Times:

The archbishop of Canterbury has announced a campaign to stamp out antigay bullying in Church of England schools, acknowledging that attitudes toward sexuality have changed. The archbishop, the Most Rev. Justin Welby, spiritual leader of the world’s Anglican Communion, stressed that the Church of England was not changing its teaching on gay relationships, but that it would be “absurd and impossible” to ignore shifting cultural attitudes. He told the opening of the General Synod of the Church of England that “the majority of the population rightly detests homophobic behavior.” 

A BBC News commentator described the move as follows:

Justin Welby's speech was partly exhortation, partly stark warning, to a Church floundering in a society undergoing rapid social and cultural change. 

He spelt out the Church's predicament in dealing with sexuality as the clearest example. He cited the debate over gay marriage in the House of Lords and the way his own opposition to the legislation had been "utterly overwhelmed".

The implication was that Anglicans must be ready to take risks and reimagine how the Church's teaching could be applied to a radically different world.

In some ways it was a bleak assessment - Anglicans had lost trust in each other, they sometimes faced "noticeable hostility", and lived in a society where fewer people, particularly young people, thought of themselves as Christian. 

Archbishop Welby was preparing the Church to take the sort of journey it instinctively wants to spread over decades or centuries, in a few years. To ignore the need, he insisted, would be both "impossible and absurd".

The perception take Christians are anti-gay and filled with hypocrisy and hate are leading factors in the younger generations decision to walk away from institutional religion.  Welby seems to recognize this reality and want to move to address it.  It is a stark contrast from the Roman Catholic Church which seem set to continue its anti-gay jihad.

 

British House of Lords Approves Gay Marriage by 2 to 1 Vote

There had been fears by some that the British House of Lords might at least temporarily derail the marriage equality bill passed last month by the House of Commons.  Such fears turned out to be unfounded.  The often conservative peers of the realm voted two to one to approve gay marriage legislation.  Needless to say the religious extremists are blowing a gasket and spewing gallons of spittle.  One can only wonder if the U.S. Supreme Court justices are paying any attention.  Here are highlights from BBC News:

The House of Lords spent two days debating the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, with many members voicing their concerns.  But it rejected an amendment aimed at wrecking the bill by 242 votes, moving it a step closer to becoming law.

The BBC's Norman Smith said plans were on course for the first same-sex weddings to take place next summer.  The bill would allow couples, who can currently form civil partnerships, to marry.

If it passes into law, religious organisations would have to "opt in" if they wished to offer gay weddings, except the Church of England and Church in Wales, which would be banned in law from doing so.

Peers were allowed a free vote on the amendment, tabled by crossbench peer Lord Dear, which would effectively have wrecked the government's plans. It was defeated by 390 votes to 148.

The plans, which the government wants to come into force in July next year, passed through the Commons last month with a 205 majority.

But religious bodies, including the Church of England, and many Conservative activists have raised concerns. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, was among those who spoke against the proposal in the Lords.

France recently held its first same-sex marriage while the Scottish government has confirmed it will introduce its own bill shortly.

UK: Bill Introduced to Allow Gay Rpyals and Their Children to Be Heirs to Throne

The contrast between the United Kingdom and America continues to be striking when the issue is gay marriage.  While Barack Obama has stated that he supports same sex marriage, no legislation has been introduced for the passage of nationwide gay marriage.  In contrast, in the UK, the conservative Tory Party is pushing marriage legislation.  As for self-style American conservatives and Christofascists - and their political whores in the Republican Party - nothing less that perpetual second class status for LGBT citizens will suffice.  Into this striking dichotomy, a bill have been introduced in Parliament that would allow gay royals to ascend to the throne as well as their children born of same sex unions.  One can just imagine the shrieks and sheets of spittle that must be emanating from the Catholic Church leadership and their anti-gay allies in the Church of England in Britain.  Here are highlights from Pink News on the legislative development:

Parliament is due to pass legislation shortly to allow for the first child of Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge and Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge to rule as monarch regardless of whether they are a boy or a girl. Now Labour MP Paul Flynn is gathering support for an amendment that will extend the protection to include the eventuality that the child is gay or lesbian.

If accepted, the change to the law could lead to the reign of an openly gay or lesbian king or queen and for their same-sex partner to be recognised as consort. Any children born to the couple through artificial insemination or surrogacy would succeed to the throne so long as the couple are in a same-sex marriage or civil partnership. Current inheritance laws mean that if the couple had a child through adoption, they would not join the line of succession for the throne and it is not clear MPs would seek to change this.

In order to secure a full debate, the amendment needs to be accepted by John Bercow, the speaker of the House of Commons, almost certain as he is a strong supporter of LGBT rights. It is expected to have the support of many Labour, Liberal Democrats and most Conservatives that back David Cameron’s plans to introduce same-sex marriage.

The amendment would be to a law that as well as making inheritance gender neutral, will allow future royal babies to marry Catholics if they wish although the royal must remain in the Church of England.

British Conservatives Lead Charge for Gay Marriage

Marriage and the stability, commitment increased security it brings for children that it underscores are conservative values - at least if these social goods are separated from religious extremism driven by chosen ignorance, self-enriching demagogues and whore like politicians who are only too happy to subvert such true conservative values for perceived short term political gain. Indeed, in my view, the far right of America's professional Christian class and far too many Republican politicians make the nastiest of whores look virtuous. In contrast, conservatives in the United Kingdom - outside of the hate and ignorance peddling Catholic bishops and some of their counterparts in the Church of England - seem to understand that affording marriage rights for all committed couples upholds social stability and what are true conservative values. The Washington Post looks at the night and day difference between true conservatives and the modern day witch trial like elements that have taken over conservatism in America. Here are highlights:

Americans watching the latest push for social change in Britain might feel as if they had stepped into an alternate political universe: Here, the Conservatives are leading the charge for same-sex marriage.

Gay couples in Britain won the right to civil partnerships in 2004, which granted them nearly the same legal status as married heterosexual couples while avoiding the controversial use of the word “marriage.” But Prime Minister David Cameron and his Conservative-led coalition have launched a historic drive to grant gay men and lesbians the option of also entering into civil marriages, touching off a surprisingly fierce uproar in largely progressive Britain and fueling a rebellion on the right as the party comes under heavy fire from traditional allies in the British clergy.

Yet challenging tradition appears to be exactly Cameron’s point. The proposal, put forward this month despite the lack of a strong clamor for marriage within Britain’s gay community, is nevertheless emerging as the cornerstone of a bid by the 45-year-old prime minister and other young leaders on the right here to redefine what it means to be a modern Conservative.

“I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative,” Cameron said in a recent landmark speech on the issue. “I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.”

[S]trategists see Cameron’s decision to champion the gay marriage cause as an attempt to seize the mantle of progressive change from the left and broaden the Conservative Party’s appeal among an increasingly key voting group: young urbanites.

There are at least 12 openly gay members of Parliament from the Conservative Party, more than all other British political parties combined.

What prompted the shift? “We lost three elections, in 1997, 2001 and 2005,” said Margot James, former vice chairman of the Conservative Party and an openly gay member of Parliament.

“The electorate was not seeing us as a viable alternative in a modern world. But David Cameron came along and changed all that. This is a different Conservative Party now, one that is fully in favor of equal rights. I think the Republicans could learn a lot from us in how to appeal to the center, without whose votes a party cannot hope to win.”

Cameron, a Christian and married father of three whose position on same-sex marriage gradually evolved since winning the party’s leadership in 2005, is calling gay marriage a matter of basic human rights. He is also making a pitch to uneasy religious conservatives, suggesting that the institution of marriage will reinforce traditional values of commitment and monogamy within the gay community.

The terms of political debate here remain different than in the United States, where the Republican Party base contains a highly influential religious right whose views on social issues are considered extreme even among many British Conservatives.

By offering the proposal, Cameron has put his party out in front of even many gay advocates here who had seen other issues, such as stiffer penalties for hate crimes, as higher priorities. . . . “This is more of David Cameron trying to drag the Conservatives kicking and screaming into the modern world,” said Ben Bradshaw, a ranking Labor lawmaker who in 1997 became one of Britain’s first openly gay members of Parliament. “Of course, we’ll support it, but this is pure politics on their part.

[S]aid Ewan Watson, 37, a London-based lawyer who is in a same-sex relationship. “For some of us, having marriage is huge. It’s a statement that we really are equal, and we won’t be as long as they segregate us from the word ‘marriage.’ ”

So while David Cameron works to drag the British conservatives into the modern world, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and a plethora of members of the GOP strive to drag America back into the Dark Ages. One can only hope that as the aging bigots and Christofascists in the GOP base die off, the GOP is setting itself up for a harsh day of reckoning with younger voters.

What Do Barack Obama and Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams Have in Common?

Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams (pictured at right), has brought a shit storm upon himself with the decision to block the appointment of Dr Jeffrey John, the dean of St Albans and a gay cleric, as bishop of Southwark. Throughout the ongoing civil war within the Church of England over gays and gay clergy, Williams - like Barack Obama - has shown himself to be devoid of leadership and instead a follower who keeps hoping that somehow the rest of the Church will solve the issues that he fails to take leadership over. Also, like when Obama assumed the presidency, there were great hopes when Williams assumed the position as Archbishop of Canterbury - hopes that have been dashed just as Obama has failed to fulfil his campaign promises. Both men demonstrate that a refusal to lead when in a leadership position can have disastrous consequences and, indeed, often creates a larger mess than would have been the case if strong leadership had been exercise. Well reasoned and well delivered speeches do not make up for lack of action and an unwillingness to do the right thing. The Guardian has coverage on the latest furor Williams has brought about by not being a strong leader. Here are highlights:
*
Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, is embroiled in a new crisis within the Church of England over the decision to block the appointment of a gay cleric as bishop of Southwark.
*
Liberals and mainstream Anglicans are furious that the archbishop has once more failed to exert any leadership over mutinous forces threatening to split the church over the sensitive issue of homosexuality.
*
Dr Jeffrey John, the dean of St Albans, was in the running for the senior position at Southwark until his name was leaked, enabling conservative clerics to stop the appointment. An embattled Williams has now launched an inquiry at Lambeth Palace to find out who divulged the name .
*
The revival of the row over the place of gays in the clergy comes as Williams confronts the Church of England's next great divisive row at the start of this weekend's general synod in York: over whether female clergy can become bishops – a dispute that threatens to split the church in another direction and which he is desperately trying to head off with delaying tactics.
*
John's supporters called for David Cameron to demonstrate his gay-friendly credentials by overruling the Crown Nominations Commission and insisting that John's name be considered further. They accused the archbishop of betraying his old friend a second time.
*
One senior cleric said: "The time of reckoning has come for Rowan.
. . . Many are dismayed by his constant capitulation to the fringe noisemakers. "He could recover some credibility if he went mitre in hand to the PM and asked him to intervene and use his constitutional prerogative to consider the second name, whoever that is, and then to reject both if he so chooses."
*
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former Anglican cleric, who is also gay, said: "I have long supported the election of bishops. If the clergy and people of a diocese want a gay bishop they should be able to vote for one, in which case Jeffrey John would have been archbishop of Canterbury by now. There are not many men who combine his spiritual depth and insight. The way things are conducted now does not do the church any favours." Downing Street sources suggested, however, that the prime minister was unlikely to intervene.

British House of Lords Votes for Church Civil Partnership Ceremonies

In yet another illustration of how rapidly the United Kingdom - the source of the USA's legal tradition - save for in Louisiana where the French Civil Code prevails - is diverging from the still religiously dominated laws of the USA. The new legislation will allow denominations that want to grant church ceremonies the right to do so - something that should always have been the case in my view. It is to me a sad commentary as to how far the USA has fallen from being a light of freedom to the world - particularly in states like Virginia where the Christian Taliban hold sway and true religious freedom is a joke. Here are some highlights from the Times of London:
*
The House of Lords voted to lift the ban on civil partnership ceremonies in churches and other religious premises last night. Peers voted by 95 to 21 - a majority of 74 - to lift the ban which previously prevented gays and lesbians from getting “married” in such places.
*
In a letter to The Times ten days ago, senior bishops including the Bishop of Salisbury and the Dean of Southwark expressed their support for the amendment, which was tabled by gay Labour peer Lord Alli.
*
The move will result in an amendment to the Equalities Bill which would allow, though not compel, religious organisations to host civil partnerships. Religious language would also be permitted within the ceremonies.
*
The law would allow ceremonies only among denominations who endorse gay marriage. The Quakers have already campaigned for the change in legislation, and Unitarians and liberal Jews have also already shown their support for the amendment.
*
Ben Summerskill, Chief Executive of the gay rights campaigning group Stonewall, said that he was “absolutely delighted” with the result. He told The Times: “This was a very important issue of religious freedom because it was quite wrong in our view for the Church of England to be attempting to bully smaller denominations into not celebrating the lifelong relationships of gay people who have very strong religious faith.”
*

I wish Barack Obama would take a note from this development and stop allowing his "personal religious beliefs" to hurt the equal rights of LGBT Americans.

Wingnut Anglicans Meet With Inquisition to Work Against Gay Marriage and Women Bishops

UPDATE: The Daily Telegraph is now reporting that the Church of England looks set for a damaging split last night after its ruling body agreed to press ahead with the introduction of women bishops without any compromise measures for opponents of the controversial move. This part of the story really makes me sick:

*

After six hour of emotional debate, one bishop broke down in tears saying he was ashamed of the church for ignoring the deeply felt wishes of traditionalists.

*
Would this bishop also condone slavery if a certain percentage of lunatics felt strongly about it? I cannot imagine being reduced to tears because no one would accommodate my desire to marginalize women and deny that they are spiritual equals to men. What the f*ck is wrong with these people?

*

The Daily Mail and other papers are reporting that ultraconservative members of the Church of England hierarchy have had secret meetings with representatives of the Vatican. Specifically, representatives of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a/k/a the Inquisition. Sadly, instead of meeting to discuss ways to feed the hungry, cloth and house the poor or how to bring medical care to those without it, these "Godly Christians" are meeting in secret to discuss ways to thwart gays from achieving marriage equality and to devise a way to keep those pesky females from achieving the rank of bishops. What would Jesus say? Nothing good I suspect given his reported response to the Pharisees who likewise seemed more concerned about suppressing others and patting themselves on the back for being so much better than others. In many ways these anti-female homophobes and the fossilized leadership of the Roman catholic Church deserve one another. Here are some story highlights:

*

Senior Church of England bishops have held secret talks with Vatican officials over the crisis issue of homosexual priests and women bishops in the Anglican Communion. The bishops met senior advisers of Pope Benedict XVI to discuss the controversial topic, the Sunday Telegraph reported.

*

The group of conservative bishops are said to have expressed dismay at the liberal direction of the Church of England and their fears for its future. They met members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which was headed by the Pope before he was elected Pontiff in 2005, it was said. The meeting was reportedly part of an attempt to build closer ties with the Roman Catholic Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury was not told of the talks, it was reported.

*

Up to 600 clergy have written to Dr Williams warning that they might leave the Church if safeguards such as dioceses for opponents of women bishops are not set up. The Sunday Telegraph reported that in a separate development, three diocesan bishops of the Church of England have written to Dr Williams supporting the threat and another has said he is preparing to leave the Church. The letter from the Bishops of Chichester, Blackburn and Europe - seen by The Sunday Telegraph - argues that traditionalist clergy will not be able to 'maintain an honoured place' in the Church without sufficient legislation.

*

The Rt Rev Kieran Conry, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Arundel and Brighton, said: 'A number of Church of England bishops are looking at the options open to them should things go wrong at the Lambeth Conference.'

Neanderthals in Anglican Communion Not Just Anti-Gay

As if the controversy over gay clergy being fueled by knuckle draggers in the developing world - e.g., homophobe, Peter Akinola of Nigeria - is not bad enough, some of these assh*les in the Church of England are also anti-women. It's the Anglican version of keep them barefoot and pregnant. While I was only a member of the Episcopal Church for roughly a year and may not have standing to comment on another denomination, I view it as very sad that the rational element within the Church of England and the larger Anglican Communion are allowing themselves to be whip sawed by the worse elements within the Church who seem more focused more on who they hate and/or want to keep subjugated as opposed to preaching the Gospel and caring for those in need. I truly wish they'd tell the reactionaries in the Church of England (as well as Akinola and company) to go to Hell, literally and figuratively. The man is a monster, as are a number of his fellow African archbishops and bishops. My advice is to cast them adrift and have the western/moderate segment of the Communion keep its money and utilize it in non-wingnut areas. True, it may not be the most Christian thing to do, but eventually it might lead to an overthrow of the reactionary/Akinola crowd. Here are some highlights from the Independent on the increasing strife:

*

Divisions appeared to widen yesterday between senior Church of England clergy on opposite sides of the debate over the consecration of women bishops, as the issue dominated the agenda at the General Synod.

*

Traditionalists point to the Bible for justification. They say that since Jesus chose an all-male band of apostles as his first leaders, he must have seen the job as suitable only for men. Others simply protest that the Church of England would be going back on its founding principles. For a new generation of women in the church, however, the wait has already been too long.

*

The Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin of Hackney, east London, was one of many female clergy who were concerned about the delay. "In 1994, when I was ordained in the priesthood, I remember a sense of excitement," she said. "I also remember the sense of overwhelming sadness etched on the faces of the women in their 70s who had served the Church over all their lives and were never allowed to exercise that ministry – and the great loss to the Church [that resulted].

*

A related editorial piece in the paper sets out a number of my thoughts on not only the infighting within the Anglican Communion, but also for denominations like my own Evangelical Lutheran Church where there seems to be far too much pandering to the unloving hater crowd. If one is a true Christian, the hallmark of your faith should not be who you hate and loath as is the case with the James Dobson and Peter Akinola crowd, but rather love of God and love of neighbor. Too much is being yielded to those who have no love of anyone except themselves (and power and money). Maintaining unity at the price of casting aside what is morally right is simply wrong headed in my opinion. Here are some highlights from the editorial:

*

The Church of England is fundamentally a theological peace treaty. As the Reformation plunged continental Europe into an ideological bloodbath, with Catholics and Protestants murdering each other by the million, England created a church that made the most remarkable claim for itself: both Catholic and Protestant. Sick of religious warfare, it invented the original big tent philosophy. Those of widely different philosophies could kneel together and worship God through the appropriately named Book of Common Prayer.

*

Two things have undermined this vision: the British Empire and the internet. In the days of the Empire, missionaries from the English church made faith our most successful export. Global Christianity mushroomed in the 20th century, with Anglicanism leading the way. There are now 77 million Anglicans. But what did not get exported was the very idea of Anglicanism as a peace treaty. Transplanted into different soil, Anglicanism grew hotter and more ideological, re-exposing deep theological fissures between believers that the C of E had agreed to set aside for the greater good. With the growth in communications technology, these differences could no longer be hidden.

*
Liberals were horrified to discover that some Anglicans were little more than fundamentalists in vestments; conservatives were horrified to discover that some Anglicans had gone native with secular humanism. Gay sex started it all. And the more the headlines rolled in, the more the cracks widened.

*
In fact, the fight over homosexuality exposed a darker side to the English reticence to confront difference head-on. We all knew there were loads of gay vicars; we all knew there were many gay bishops too – but it was a form of knowledge communicated in nods, winks and church code. But the spirit of "don't ask, don't tell" kept many of them stuck in the church closet. It took an American bishop first to be open about having a partner of the same sex. Gene Robinson's crime was his honesty. Likewise, the idea that the gay "marriage" that recently took place in St Bartholomew's church was a first is simply not the case. There have been hundreds of such weddings. It's just that they have been – and what a very English word this is – discreet.

*

But all that is over. The conservatives have decided that they can exploit the deep homophobia of many African Christians in order to stage a coup for the soul of the church. Suddenly, we are once again fighting the unresolved battles of the Reformation, with narrow-minded puritans seeking to impose their joyless and claustrophobic world-view on the rest of the church. The newly formed Federation of Confessing Anglicans (Foca) is seeking bridgeheads in wealthy evangelical parishes and the English ecclesiological peace treaty lies in tatters.

*

All eyes now turn to Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Is there anything he can do about these Focas? His track record isn't all that encouraging. Time and again, the Archbishop has given in to conservative ultimatums in the search for unity. And all that happens is that they come back for more. . . . But the current crisis needs him to care more about the condition of the Church of England. The open space that is the traditional mark of the English church is being undermined by a determined minority of well-funded extremists. It is time for him to fight back.

Psychiatrists Warn Church of England to Reject Reparative Therapy

Ex-Gay Watch is reporting (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/11/psychiatrists-warn-church-of-england-to-reject-reparative-therapy/) that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has warned Anglicans in the United Kingdom that therapy to change sexual orientation is based on unproven methods and can cause severe damage. Having spent a great deal of time studying the so-called "cure" programs and reports on their effectiveness (or more precisely, the lack of any such effectiveness), one would think that this would be a no-brainer. Sadly, Christianists never care about what is medically true. It's all about pushing their agenda to force everyone to live by their religious views. Here are highlights from Ex-Gay Watch:

The report, which also addresses the nature of gay and lesbian relationships, the origins of homosexuality, and the mental health of gay men and women, concludes by urging Anglicans to accept gays and lesbians fully into the life of the Church:

[There] is no scientific or rational reason for treating LGB people any differently to their heterosexual counterparts. People are happiest and are likely to reach their potential when they are able to integrate the various aspects of the self as fully as possible. Socially inclusive, nonjudgemental attitudes to LGB people who attend places of worship or who are religious leaders themselves will have positive consequences for LGB people as well as for the wider society in which they live.

The full report to the Church of England can be viewed here: http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/temp/CoEsplisteningspexercisespSIGspsubmissionsp311007.pdf

Floods are Judgment on Society, say Bishops

Apparently some bishops in the Church of England have borrowed some of the Kool-Aid so widely consumed in Evangelical Christian circles in this country:

The floods that have devastated swathes of the country are God's judgment on the immorality and greed of modern society, according to senior Church of England bishops. One diocesan bishop has even claimed that laws that have undermined marriage, including the introduction of pro-gay legislation, have provoked God to act by sending the storms that have left thousands of people homeless. While those who have been affected by the storms are innocent victims, the bishops argue controversially that the flooding is a result of Western civilisation's decision to ignore biblical teaching.

"In the Bible, institutional power is referred to as 'the beast', which sets itself up to control people and their morals. Our government has been playing the role of God in saying that people are free to act as they want," he said, adding that the introduction of recent pro-gay laws highlighted its determination to undermine marriage.

Increasingly, when I see suspect "institutional power," the imminent danger is the institutional church that has set itself up to control people and their morals. The civil laws of a nation should be seeking to govern only civil legal rights, not the morals and/or religious beliefs of the citizens. These bishops are obviously falling into the theocratic mind set of the Christianists in the USA.