By Jessica Geen, Pink News

In an exclusive interview with PinkNews.co.uk, Stonewall chief executive Ben Summerskill discusses gay marriage, the ‘cancer’ of homophobic bullying and the future of the charity.

The gay rights movement celebrates two landmark anniversaries this summer. One is the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots in New York; the other is the 20th year since Stonewall, the UK gay rights charity, was founded.

Section 28, which banned discussion of homosexuality in schools, has been lifted, along with the ban on openly gay military personnel. Civil partnerships, heralded as virtually identical to marriages, are now legal and the age of consent for gays and straights has been equalised.

So then, some may ask, what is the point of Stonewall? Ben Summerskill too hopes to see a day when the charity can be dismantled, which he believes could be within the next 20 years.

"When I arrived at Stonewall six years ago, we did do a legislative plan which involved 12 years more work and actually we have almost completed that with the arrival of the new Equality Bill which will mean we have legislative protections in every single area," he said.

"But we’re still very mindful indeed that changing the wider world is critically important and so our challenge for the next 20 years, which we hope will be the last 20 years of our existence, our challenge for next 20 years is to try and make those legislative developments meaningful across right across the whole of the public sphere."

Notably, Stonewall does little work abroad compared with those at the other end of the gay spectrum such as Peter Tatchell, who frequently champions the rights of those in eastern Europe and middle-eastern countries.

However, Summerskill rejects this criticism: "We do international influencing and we lobby on all sorts of issues but we are also very cautious of being one of those charities, which says slightly piously, ‘we do everything’. ‘Whatever you want, we’ll campaign on it’, and then finds five or ten years down the road, that they haven’t really achieved very much anywhere."

He said: "We are very alive to the fact that at the end of the day, even though we have about 30,000 active supporters, at the end of the day, our resources are limited. So we currently will continue to focus on Britain and when we see the levels of homophobic bullying in primary schools, we know they need tackling."

He also disagreed with the view that Stonewall should represent trans people, saying that for many charities, it was simply a case of ‘popping the T on [to LGB]‘, rather than actually working for trans rights.

He said: "We are committed to doing stuff as professionally as we can. There are some really complex issues, like medicalisation, that quite often people in gay organisations have no idea about. And we do think those issues are important enough to be supported and funded separately and we’ve helped to develop and deliver a number of income streams to help. Like when the Department of Health said they wanted to fund some research into gay and trans people’s health, we warned that’s not actually good enough, these are two very different areas."

"We recognise it’s not an easy add-on that can be done in a very glib way and I do think that’s the approach some of these organisations take."

Another criticism often levelled at the organisation is its acceptance of civil partnerships as opposed to marriage, something some critics have described as "sexual apartheid".

"Well, the issue on marriage is that again, there are a lot of vocal supporters, but the thing they’ve always focused on is actually the real rights and entitlements. As I said, we know there are quite a lot of gay and lesbian people who wouldn’t want marriage, and some have explicitly said so. I think Antony Sher [the gay actor and playwright] gave an interview a while back where he said ‘If it was marriage, I wouldn’t want it. It recognises what’s special about me and my partner.’ And we know there are lots of lesbians who actually don’t want marriage."

When questioned about those who do want gay marriage, Summerskill said: "Well, someone people do and they’re perfectly entitled to express their views. We are one of many, many organisations but at the end of the day, in terms of our priorities, what we’ve always focused on, is absolutely practical hard outcomes which make a real difference to people’s lives … The reality is half the population already call civil partnerships marriage anyway."

"It’s one of Stonewall’s ways of working. We’re always more interested in things that make a real, practical difference to people’s lives than perhaps just an intellectual and academic name. And my own view is that civil partnerships have been quite a remarkable piece of what used to be called in the old days ‘political education’

"We can never go back to the days when I was young, even just 30 years ago, when MPs would stand up in parliament and say ‘Well I don’t know anyone whose homosexual’. Forty million people are getting a tax return that acknowledges that laws for gay people exist in long term relationships, they’re actually kind of learning something that they wouldn’t if all you had to do was ticked a ‘married’ box. They would have continued being able to be in denial."

On perceptions of Stonewall being a charity for middle-class white men, he said: "I think its always true that charities can be characterised as middle-class and white, and that’s something you have to work on, to actually demonstrate the reality is different. When I got here six years ago, our staff was 35 per cent women and that is now 52 per cent. It’s the same with trustees and we also have nearly 20 per cent of our staff who are ethnic minority and the same amount who are disabled."

Responding to the historic perception that Stonewall is traditionally a Labour-sympathising organisation, Summerskill said he had never asked any Stonewall employee their political affiliation, adding: "I voluntarily adhered to the bit of the civil service code which prevents any senior civil servants from expressing any party political preference in public."

Many believe the next government will be Conservative but a recent survey of PinkNews.co.uk readers found that only 37 per cent believed the party has changed its views on gay issues. When asked about the possibility the party may attempt to turn back the clock on gay rights, Summerskill said: "I think we would say you actually have to continue to be vigilant regardless of who’s in power and you could have a government of all sorts of complexions that suddenly thought kicking one minority group or another might be a good thing to do.

"And I think we have to remind all politicians of the risk they pose to themselves. Without a shadow of a doubt, one the reasons I think Conservatives have moved is probably less to do with recognising that there are whatever it is, 2.8 million gay electors, which is nevertheless quite a big group of people, I think what they’ve realised is that if they twitch every time the word gay is mentioned, actually most people under 40 in this country now think ‘Why are you so excited and why do you keep banging on about sex?’

"I think the Conservatives would be very unwise to even contemplate going back to where they might have been in the 1980s. But certainly the impression I’ve had with members of the shadow cabinet recently suggests they’re well aware of that risk."

Summerskill welcomed the appointment of Conservative John Bercow to the position of Speaker, saying he was "confident that Bercow will take the under-representation of gay people in the House of Commons seriously".

He added: "John Bercow is right, he recognises it’s ridiculous and its not only ridiculous, it’s a disgrace that in 2009 there is one lesbian out of 13,00 legislators in the Houses of Parliament. Even though there is a handful of gay men, they’re still massively under-represented and it is one arena where it just isn’t good enough for parties, and certainly the Liberal Democrats, to say, as they have done in the past, there might be people who are lesbian and gay who are not out."

"I have no problem with those who are not out but the simple fact is you cannot stand up in the House of Commons and speak with the lived experience of being lesbian or gay if you’re not actually able to say ‘By the way, the reason I know this is so important is because I’m a lesbian myself’."

On Stonewall’s financial position in the current recession, Summerskill is positive, pointing to a new six-figure sponsorship arrangement with a financial services firm organised in the 24 hours before the interview.

He said: "Clearly some of our supporters have been stretched, but on the other hand, there are two things I would say. One is that some of the businesses that have developed work with us, such as Credit Suisse, Barclays and Goldman Sachs, are business that have actually weathered the recession quite well and we would conclude that’s because, and they recognise this, that doing work around equality and supporting the very, very best staff regardless of background, is actually a way of being more commercially successful. Clearly we will be under some pressure, although as yet we have not seen a significant fall in income.

"In the current financial year, eight per cent of our funding is probably coming from the public purse in one way or another but it’s certainly not an amount which would cause anyone to think we were influencable.

"Five years ago we had £11,000 of reserves. We’ve now got £1.5m. It does mean we’re protected against a serious recession and that’s not a question of protecting us or protecting staff, it’s a question of protecting the work Stonewall does."

For the foreseeable future, that work will focus on schools, Summerskill says.

"One of the biggest challenges we face is to get the cancer of homophobic bullying out of the schools. We saw from the case of Michael Causer last summer in Liverpool who was stamped to death. He wasn’t stamped to death by someone who went to school in the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s. He was killed in a homophobic attack by someone who went to school in the last five years in this country."

One of the biggest challenges for Stonewall now, he said, is changing hearts and minds rather than laws, something likely to be far more difficult.

 

Read more...

By Rev. Dr. Philip Turner, ACI

Chief among the claims now made by The Episcopal Church (TEC) is that it is an inclusive church that is open to a variety of opinions and practices. This self-definition is an updated version of the traditional claim that Anglicanism represents a via media between extremes of one sort or another—Catholic/Protestant, liberal/conservative, modern/traditional, etc. The simple fact is, however, that the policies and actions of the progressive leadership of The Episcopal Church have exposed the false nature of these claims, at least as in so far as they are applied to TEC.

The false nature of the claim is easy to see. The logic used by progressive Episcopalians to explain and justify TEC’s “inclusive” agenda is in point of fact necessarily “exclusive” of contrary opinion. How so? The standard justification for the inclusive agenda is almost without exception stated in terms of justice. That is, behind efforts to change church practice in respect of the blessing of unions between persons of the same gender and the ordination in persons in faithful and permanent same sex unions is a firm belief that the rights of these brothers and sisters in the Lord are being violated by antiquated church practice—a practice that rests upon misinformation, fear, and prejudice. “It’s a justice issue” is a statement made again and again, and it is made in a way that is meant to end all argument and cast aspersions on the moral state of anyone defending a contrary opinion.

In the minds of progressive Episcopalians, to acquiesce in matters of injustice and to allow ignorance, fear, and prejudice to go unopposed is a betrayal of what to their mind is central to the Gospel message. Jesus in fact came “to preach good news to the poor…to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind and to set at liberty those who are oppressed…” (Lk. 4:18) The mission of the church in each age is to follow Jesus in this ministry.

One or another version of the progressive view summarized above has been stated repeatedly by none other than our Presiding Bishop, and it appears repeatedly on liberal blogs like Preludium and Episcopal Café. Indeed, claims that the Gospel is, almost without remainder, one of inclusive justice appears now to be beyond question in the minds of TEC’s leadership. The problem is many Episcopalians are made quite uneasy by a version of the Gospel that does not in all ways cohere with the one they received through Baptism and from the larger Anglican Communion. It seems to them that the Gospel of inclusion ironically excludes them.

In response to questions and objections that reflect this discomfort progressive Episcopalians might seek to reduce anxiety and blur the exclusive rather than inclusive logic now regnant among them by pointing to the actions of General Convention when a decision was taken to ordain women. A “conscience clause” was inserted into the legislation that allowed bishops to refuse women entry into these orders. So progressives might suggest that this action shows The Episcopal Church under their leadership to be indeed a broad and pluralistic church. They might say such a thing and even on occasion act upon it. However, the life of the conscience clause proved to be relatively short, and as a result at least two Episcopal Bishops have felt it necessary to lead their diocese out of The Episcopal Church. The reason given for this reversal of policy was “It’s a matter of justice!” Progressive logic in reality precludes allowance for any significant length of time for diversity in respect to the matters that lie at the heart of their agenda.

The very logic of the progressive position at best allows only for temporary measures of expediency designed to provide space and time to establish just practices without unduly disturbing the broad membership of the church. Time and space must be given for those slow of step to “catch up.” Nevertheless, those not in agreement with the progressive agenda of inclusion, after observing the present scene, will see the actions of progressive Episcopalians as shaped by a combination of a principled commitment to the justice agenda that can allow no compromise, and a pragmatic set of tactics designed to buy time and so make sure that they have sufficient power to enforce (as soon as expedient) what they hold to be the requirements of justice.

This admixture of principle and pragmatism is clearly evident in the course of action now being followed in respect to the internal governance of The Episcopal Church and in respect to its relations with other provinces of the Anglican Communion. The domestic agenda is to centralize power in the Office of the Presiding Bishop and the Executive Council and in so doing locate the dioceses of TEC as units subordinate to General Convention, the Executive Council, and the Office of the Presiding Bishop. This argument is precisely that being made by the Office of the Presiding Bishop in the present litigation in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. It is also a strategy abundantly obvious in the use now being made of the “Abandonment Canon.” These moves are in the one case unconstitutional and in the other un-canonical. Both open the way to enforce conformity in respect to justice issues TEC’s progressive leadership deem central to the Gospel.

Domestically, progressive Episcopalians seek more centralized authority, particularly in the Office of the Presiding Bishop. Internationally, however, they plead for pluralism in the form of a polycentric communion that allows for wide variations in belief and practice. It is on this level that they still plead for pluralism, but not, in any credible sense, on a domestic level. The plea for pluralism on an international level is but a tactic to protect moves toward centralization and uniformity domestically.

Despite the fact that there is a logical contradiction in arguing for increased centralism on the one hand and increased diversity on the other, this strategy was clearly evident at the recent meeting of The Anglican Consultative Council where TEC’s representatives sought to derail the fourth section of the draft covenant that provides for consequences if Provinces act in ways other members of the Communion believe not in accord with Christian belief and practice. Nevertheless, given the logic of a Gospel of justice, one can only view TEC’s pleading for pluralism as tactical—a prudential adjustment until such time as TEC has accrued sufficient power within the councils of the Communion to gain acceptance, or at least tolerance, of its views about these matters of justice.

For the moment I will leave aside the many problems that attach to TEC’s press for a polycentric communion. It is enough to say that their argument will work only if communion excludes common belief and practice but focuses instead on cooperation in good works and mutual aid. (Though even here, because of conflicting theological commitments, “good works” can be construed quite differently) Of more immediate importance is the logic of inclusive justice. The logic of inclusion employed by progressive Episcopalians excludes meaningful opposition from the start.

This exclusion is of such importance that it must not go unchallenged. It is a matter that concerns all Episcopalians. Exclusion of meaningful opposition in respect to the matters now before The Episcopal Church in the end will produce a niche church rather than a catholic church. Progressive claims to inclusivity are in fact false. The logic of their position drives relentlessly toward an increasingly constricted identity. The question progressive Episcopalians must answer is why members of the Episcopal Church that do not share their views ought to think otherwise. To put the issue more directly, progressive Episcopalians need to show the membership of their church and the rest of the Anglican Communion why their position does not end in an exclusive form of church life rather than a diverse one. This observation leads to a direct question. The question is what reason can be given from the point of view of progressive Episcopalians to a traditional Anglican for being a member of The Episcopal Church. I certainly have my own reasons and have stated them on many occasions. But progressive Episcopalians have claimed something that both their words and actions belie, and it seems only right for them to confront and explain this inconsistency to the rest of us.

 

Read more...

[More]
Read more...

By George Pitcher, Telegraph.co.uk

The liberal elite that runs the corporation now has a chance to reflect the public mood, says George Pitcher.

The most telling comment to emerge from the biggest exercise in audience research ever conducted by the BBC didn’t come from the sort of viewer or listener you would expect to be disgusted by foul and profane language from our national broadcaster – a major, say, or a matron of a certain age. Instead, it came from a young man in his twenties. "I swear when I’m in the pub with my mates," he said. "But I’d never swear in front of my mum. I’d hate it if the BBC just gave up on the idea that you don’t swear in certain situations."

Doubtless it can get fairly "edgy" down the pub when the boys are in. This is a quality that the BBC has put at the heart of its public-service remit, as it has pushed the envelope of public taste. But I’m prepared to bet my licence fee that this young man wouldn’t team up with one of his mates to leave obscene messages on the phone of an elderly man about the sexual proclivities of his granddaughter.

Such an instinct among the young, not just for what is morally right and wrong on the big issues but also for what amounts to simple good manners, may have come as something of a surprise to Mark Thompson, the BBC’s director-general, and his senior producers. They have been called in by the BBC Trust and told to clean up their act, even after the 9pm watershed.

The survey, of 2,700 people aged 11 and over, revealed sufficient concern about swearing and gratuitous sex on BBC programmes for the trust to demand an overhaul of editorial policy. Offensive language before 10pm will now be permissible only in "exceptional" circumstances.

The findings and their consequences are a bitter blow to the self-satisfied habitués of the BBC. These are media managers who were formed in the liberal heyday of the Seventies, when, frankly, we were all busy undermining the fuddy-duddy mores of Lord Reith’s generation – liberal central-casting had given us John Cleese in a bowler hat, to laugh and point at those stuffy standards. Dangerously, they grew up to believe that the cultural experiments of their youth had established a social continuum of vulgarity. Bluntly, BBC execs became as embarrassing as all middle-aged men and women who think they are still down with the kids.

Imagine their surprise, a generation later, to discover that the society they seek to entertain and inform is somewhat bored and mildly embarrassed by their potty-mouth infantilism. The salons of Broadcasting House must today be sombre and bleak places, as top programmers in linen suits stroke wispy beards and stare forlornly at schedules that need to be filled with something more demanding than profanity and sex. Some harder work is called for.

The turning point – what we might call the watershed moment – came when Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross abused the veteran actor Andrew Sachs and his granddaughter on-air. A contemporary history of the BBC will show that this was when being right-on became a turn-off.

Some viewers vented their anger at the Ross/Brand affair by demanding that the licence fee be abolished and the BBC broken up. The still-smouldering embers of this resentment will have been fanned by revelations this week that the BBC’s management ran up a champagne bill for its "celebrities", on our tab, of £48,000.

But the BBC’s new audience research is revealing: most of us don’t want the BBC to go; we just want it to behave. Or, rather, we want to stop it being abused, as we would want to see an elderly and respected relative treated properly. Viewers and listeners said the corporation should be upholding standards in British broadcasting, but instead had stooped to the level of its commercial rivals.

It’s perhaps out of date to apply the affectionate soubriquet "Auntie" to the BBC, reminiscent as it is of more genteel times. Nevertheless, it is as if an old aunt has fallen among ageing hippies, bemused by their strange language and alternative habits. The young man from the pub, in particular, and the audience research more generally, suggest that we consider the BBC worth rescuing. Come on, Auntie, it’s time to go home.

This redemptive attitude says much about what we Britons expect from our national institutions. Like errant members of the family, we’ll cut them off, say we’ll have nothing more to do with them, even say we despise them – but, deep down, we will continue to cherish them.

Our relationship with the BBC is just such a complex, love-hate affair. There’s Ross and Brand and Chris Moyles, explicit border-line rape on Holby Blue and the lazy bloke-fest that is Mock the Week. Perhaps worst of all, there’s Moneybox and Quote Unquote.

But then there are Radios 3 and 4, I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue, the World Service, Gardeners’ Question Time, QI and Gavin Hewitt in any world trouble spot we want him to be at a moment’s notice.

We are bound to ask the question: what would we do if the BBC wasn’t there? And, just as the House of Commons has recently been revealed as an open sewer from which we recoil, but is yet our vital legislature, we might acknowledge that the BBC shapes the way we live as much as it is shaped by us.

There is a public desire to be led by our established institutions, while holding them to account. In that context, our state broadcaster is not unlike our established Church. There is a vestige of spiritual hunger for the Church of England to play a role in shaping the life of the nation and a frustration when it fails to deliver.

The furious initial urge is to dispose of it, but in more rational moments we will concede that it’s worth saving, so long as it works properly. We won’t always treasure it, but we’re motivated by a sense of the truth that we don’t know what we’ve got until it’s gone.

So it seems to be with the BBC. It is meant both to reflect and to mould the character of the nation. Some will claim dolefully that it does reflect our national life: nasty and brutish. But this wake-up call from the BBC’s subscribers, as well as the policy response to it, offers some hope.

Last year, Mr Thompson gave a speech at an event organised by the public-theology think tank Theos, entitled "Faith, Morality and the Media". Given the events that have embroiled the BBC subsequently, that title has proved to be something of an albatross around his neck.

But the truth is that the public is now holding what it pays for to moral account. And the BBC is found wanting. In that speech, Mr Thompson said: "It is my and my senior colleagues’ job to ensure as far as possible that the right decisions are made and to be the first port of call if and when the public complain." Tell that to the young man in the pub, Mr Thompson, who doesn’t want you to swear in front of his mum.

 

Read more...

From BBC News

A Northern Ireland assembly member will not face prosecution over comments she made about homosexuals last year.

Iris Robinson, chair of the Stormont health committee, called for homosexuals to seek psychiatric counselling.

Mrs Robinson said if gay people got help they could be "turned around".

The police said they were satisfied no offence had been committed. But a gay rights group said in future she should "respect the diversity" in society.

Mrs Robinson made her comments on BBC Radio Ulster’s Nolan Show last June.

"I have a very lovely psychiatrist who works with me in my offices and his Christian background is that he tries to help homosexuals – trying to turn away from what they are engaged in," she said.

 

"I’m happy to put any homosexual in touch with this gentleman and I have met people who have turned around and become heterosexuals."

She later repeated her view that homosexuality was an "abomination" but denied she had ever indicated it was a mental health issue.

‘Freedom of speech’

The police said that they had carried out a lengthy and complex investigation into the comments.

"On receipt of the advice of the Public Prosecution Service and considering all of the matters raised, the police service is satisfied that on the occasions considered, Mrs Robinson did not commit an offence," a spokesperson said.

"As a consequence, no further police action will be taken in relation to these complaints."

However, Colin Flinn, who chairs an advisory group for lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgendered people said the current legislation needed to be reviewed.

He said: "While we are disappointed that a prosecution will not take place enabling the law to be publicly tested, we hope that in future Mrs Robinson and others may in future respect the diversity within our society and desist in attacking our community.

"There is a fine balance between freedom of speech, expressions of faith and the human right to be oneself and to live within a society free from discrimination and fear, whatever one’s sexuality orientation. "

One of the men who complained about her comments said that he was satisfied that his complaint had been investigated.

But Mark, who preferred not to have his surname released, said that he was disappointed no further action would be taken.

"I think that because she said it and got away with it it may encourage other people who have similar views," he said.

"She was speaking as someone in a public office and I think religious beliefs should be kept out of it."

The DUP said that an "orchestrated vilification" of Mrs Robinson has failed.

"It is a shame that those behind it cannot accept the decision of the PSNI and the PPS. Iris Robinson did nothing wrong," she said.

"She was asked to express a personal view and that is exactly what she did: Ulster people who believe in the fundamental right to freedom of speech accept this."

 

Read more...

Michael Howell has produced 250 photographs of the event in Texas.  The first page features assorted images from the Assembly’s first three days, while the second page features images from the glorious Enthronement Service.

They can be viewed here:

http://www.smilodon-photo.com/ACNA_page1
http://www.smilodon-photo.com/ACNA_page2
 

You will need the Adobe Flash player to view them, and if it is not already installed in your web browser, you can download it here:
http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/
 

Read more...

By Charles Raven,  SPREAD

A year after ‘Breaking Faith with Britain’, written for the launch of ‘ Standpoint’ magazine (www.standpointmag.co.uk) Bishop Michael Nazir Ali again sets out the case for a return to Judaeo-Christian values in another powerful critique for the July/August issue, noting that both the financial crisis, which has intensified over the past twelve months, and the recent Westminster expenses scandal, so hugely destructive of public confidence in Parliament, are further evidence of a nation seriously adrift from its historic values.

However, the Bishop’s illuminating line of reasoning may be overshadowed by controversy because the article, entitled ‘Only God Can Save Us From Ourselves’ is splashed on the magazine cover as ‘Michael Nazir-Ali: Why Rowan Williams is wrong’ supported by a somewhat doctored quotation, claiming ‘Rowan Williams and others…treat with contempt or actively oppose any attempts to uphold a normative view of the family’. This is misleading, but as I will show, the editorial instinct is nonetheless on to something.

A careful reading of the article shows that Standpoint has been unable to resist the temptation to stretch for a headline. Michael Nazir Ali recognises that those who want to subvert our national institutions do so primarily by dissolving the core institution, that of the family, by promoting relationships which are entered into and maintained on an entirely voluntary basis, without social sanction or coercion. He then observes that ‘Criticism by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and others of those who regard heterosexual marriage as “absolute, exclusive and ideal” is based on such views of “pure relationships” which are about mutual desire and fulfilment’. The reference to ‘contempt’ appears in a subsequent paragraph and if Michael Nazir-Ali has any individual in mind as someone who would have ‘contempt’ for the traditional family, his mention of British sociologist Anthony Giddens seems to present a more plausible candidate than the Archbishop.

Nonetheless, the Bishop is right to highlight the role of Rowan Williams in this process of dissolution. Williams’ 1989 lecture ’The Body’s Grace’ has been hugely influential and, buttressed by other writings, notably ‘Is there a Christian sexual ethic?’ in ‘Open to Judgement’, provided theological respectability for the gay lesbian movement. The thrust of his thinking is that what really matters is the quality of the relationship within which sexual acts occur, not the nature of the sexual acts themselves. In this way gender is relativised and the ground is cut from underneath those who want to stand publicly for the preservation of Christian marriage and family life.

Others have taken their cue from Rowan Williams and are willing to speak more controversially, such as the newly appointed Canon Chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral, Dr Giles Fraser, who, in response to proposals to force churches to employ workers in same sex relationships under the terms of its Equality Bill, warned recently ‘We must not allow homophobia to disguise itself as any sort of legitimate religious belief – it isn’t! Homophobia is a sin and its eradication from churches, mosques and synagogues is one of the most urgent challenges for people of faith in the 21st century." And with this pronouncement, Fraser inflates the term ’homophobia’ to include not only the historic teaching of his own Church and Communion, but that of Islam and Judaism too!

Such statements only begin to get traction in the public mind when its collective memory has become dim and this leads us to Michael Nazir Ali’s second cause of social breakdown, ‘an all-pervasive historical amnesia’ which cuts people off from their cultural roots and reduces the tested framework of an historically Christian society into just one option among others.

In this situation people are easily persuaded by what the Bishop calls ‘procedural secularism’ the assumption that there it is possible for a consensus to develop through open debate. However, this is illusory, because in any society there are predominant cultural worldviews which will shape the debate. The Church therefore has to recover its prophetic role and be ‘in the business of forming consciences and “telling it like it is.”’

Although Rowan Williams is not mentioned at this point, I could not help but think of the discredited Windsor Covenant process which itself well illustrates a form of ‘procedural secularism’ within the Church, an attempt to reach consensus by debate when actually what is needed is prophetic leadership. The Archbishop has been unable to give truly prophetic leadership within the Anglican Communion as it has slid into increasing chaos and confusion – and so GAFCON is moving to fill the gap – and he has been equally unable to provide it within the nation – and so this gap too has had to be filled by others, not least by Bishop Nazir Ali himself.

‘Where Williams is wrong’ (to refer back to Standpoint’s title) is not just on his views on sexuality; these are symptomatic of a whole theology which has lost touch with Scripture as authoritative revelation and instead looks for a consensus which is collapsing into pragmatism and naked church politics.

Michael Nazir Ali’s article coud be said to speak of a people becoming homeless – the rising generation emerging in the British Isles could be characterised as the ‘homeless’; many grow up in homes which due to family breakdown are not places where they feel truly ‘at home’ and in society as a whole they are cut off from their inheritance so that the very history which should enable them to feel ‘at home’ is either denied or appears as something distant, even alien. Hence the paradox that it takes those with the experience of cultural distance, such as Bishop Michael, to remind us of what home really is.

There has been a great sense of ‘coming home’ across the Atlantic this week as the ACNA has come to birth. The launch of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans next month here in the British Isles, whatever the precise structural outcome, similarly offers an opportunity for Anglicans to ‘come home’. And this home is not just a place of sanctuary. Like any strong family it will look outward. We have a gospel to proclaim, for men and women to come back to the Father’s house and for a fragmenting society to rediscover all that it is life giving in its privileged history.

Charles Raven

30th June 2009
 

Read more...

By Barbara Gauthier

Bishops:

Bp. Martyn Minns says that for right now, like AMiA and Rwanda, CANA churches will carry dual citizenship in both the ACNA and Nigeria. The goal is that eventually they will form into local dioceses:

CANA Missionary Bishop Martyn Minns, a leader in founding the new province, attended the meeting along with a CANA delegation that included more than 20 lay and clergy members. He issued the following statement in response:

“The assembly meeting was a wonderful coming together of the various jurisdictions represented in the Anglican Church in North America. Everyone was determined to make it work and we kept our eyes on Jesus and the Gospel.

“Since day one, CANA has been and will continue to be a full participant in the life of the new province, and will continue to maintain our own identity. We will encourage groups of congregations, when they are ready, to establish themselves as free-standing dioceses. Our goal is to support the work, mission, and ministry of the Gospel on this continent and bring our own particular distinctive to that task.

“CANA congregations now have a ‘dual citizenship.’ They are members of the Church in Nigeria and as a result of that relationship, full members of the global Anglican Communion. CANA congregations are also members of the Anglican Church in North America and will participate fully in the life of the new province.

“CANA is unique in its connection to the largest province in the Anglican Communion, the Church of Nigeria, which represents about 25 percent of the entire population of the Communion. CANA also has a distinct connection with the GAFCON and Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans movement, and with the Global South. We have a radical commitment to ministry of the poor which crosses all ethnic lines, to planting new churches, equipping the next generation for leadership in the church, and educating the church about how to engage with a resurgent Islam in North America.

“The future involves radical inclusion, profound transformation, and inspired service. The vision has not changed. Jesus Christ is the same and the Gospel remains unchanged. The new province has given us a way to do this work more effectively and more collaboratively.”  (http://tinyurl.com/lpx9uy)

Bp. Don Harvey of Canada was pleased with the unity and unanimity present in the Bedford gatherings even though there are still a number of questions to be answered. LIke CANA and AMiA, the ACiC will hold dual citizenship in both the ACNA and the Southern Cone for a while. +Harvey also tells his women priests that the ACNA ban on women bishops is only a temporary agreement:

Describing the assembly, Bishop Donald Harvey, moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC), said “There was a marvelous mood of co-operation and hope there. We had allowed three sessions for the adoption of the constitution and the canons and it was done in less than two. Everything passed unanimously all the time.”

He was quick to add, however, that he was “not naïve enough to think that in future synods there won’t be discontents of some sort arising,” noting that ACNA is a coming together of a number of different groups. Along with ANiC, which says it represents about 4,000 Anglicans in 30 congregations across Canada, ACNA includes dioceses and parishes that have left The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Mission in the Americas; the Convocation of Anglicans in North America; the Anglican Coalition in Canada; the Reformed Episcopal Church; and the missionary initiatives of Kenya, Uganda, and South America’s Southern Cone. Additionally, the American Anglican Council and Forward in Faith North America are founding organizations. ACNA says it represents approximately 100,000 Anglicans in 700 parishes.

Bishop Harvey noted that some of the groups that have united have been out of the mainline of Anglicanism for a long time, in the case of the Reformed Episcopal Church, for more than 100 years. “The big issue that’s there, though certainly not for us in Canada at this stage, is the ordination of women,” he said. Some of the churches within ACNA are opposed to this, but Bishop Harvey said ANiC’s policy is that “any office that can be held by a man can be held by a woman.” However, he explained, that “for the sake of launching this province,” ANiC agreed to abide by the ACNA decision that no diocese would appoint woman to the episcopacy in the immediate future. Women can hold positions as priests and deacons. “I’ve spoken to all of the women priests in ANiC about the reasons for us going along with something that is not really part of our own constitution,” he said, to reassure them that this temporary agreement does not represent a change in ANiC’s position. “It was to facilitate something rather than to change a doctrine. And they have all been very supportive. They know why we’re doing it.

Bishop Harvey said that the Anglican Network in Canada will continue to operate much as it did before becoming a diocese of ACNA. “To the average person in the pew, you won’t see any difference at all,” he said. Congregations that left the Anglican Church of Canada aligned themselves with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone in South America and Archbishop Gregory Venables.

Bishop Harvey said that relationship will diminish as the relationship with ACNA grows. “We have assurance from Archbishop Venables that for a period of time, there may be sort of a dual relationship. We are reluctant to sever our ties with the Southern Cone … until we know a sufficient proportion of the Anglican world is recognizing this as a province.” Bishop Harvey noted that the voluntary 10 per cent tithe that ANiC has been sending to the Southern Cone will now go to ACNA, “with perhaps some money still going to the Southern Cone, in gratitude for what they have done.”  (http://tinyurl.com/na38ax)

Bp. Keith Ackerman tells Forward in Faith that a birth has taken place and that it needs to be followed by growth growing and maturing. Citing the examples of Bp. Charles Grafton and Abp. Michael Ramsey, +Ackerman said that Forward in Faith has many riches to contribute to the ACNA’s growth and maturing in Christ:

"For us a birth has taken place!” This is the right time, the God planned time, for the founding of this new province where Anglicans of historic belief have come from diverse places and diverse histories, but having the Lordship of Jesus Christ at its center.

Bishop Ackerman described the formation of the new Anglican province in North America as the birth of a child. “Some of us have been waiting for the birth for 30 years!” This new province known as the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) came out prayer and a vision for historic faith and belief of Anglicans. This birth has brought many friends together and we are family….

A first phase of our mission has been accomplished, and needs to be celebrated; but the birth needs to be followed by growth, growing and maturing—it takes time and we need to remember the new province is in its infancy. FiFNA’s mission is to provide good nutritious food for healthy growth toward maturity. FiFNA is a teaching organization including a Catholic understanding of the unity of the Christian Church. We have great witnesses to the faith like Bishop Charles Grafton, who ‘insisted that the true principle of Christian unity lies in the sacramental union of the members of the body with Christ, the head.’

“The principle which unites and make the Church one must be a principle which lays hold of and affects every member of the Catholic Church. It must be a principle operating at one and the same time upon the ever Blessed Virgin, the Blessed Mother of God, upon all the saints in glory, upon all the awaiting expectant souls, and all the members of the Church militant…the Catholic principle of unity applies to the whole body of the Church wherever any of its members may be, and it will last as long as the Church lasts, and it is in itself indestructible.”

Bishop Ackerman exhorted that FiFNA members join in the witness to historic Anglicanism as Michael Ramsey, the 100th Archbishop of Canterbury, describes our need for the past.

“By openness to the past the Christian can contemplate the life and death and Resurrection of Jesus…The life of Jesus is to be imitated, and the death and Resurrection of Jesus are to be shared. So the sacraments of the Church which convey the death and the Resurrection to the believers link the contemplation of the past with the reality of the present.”

The role of FiFNA is to bring those significant gifts of our past, our Catholic heritage, and the gift of ourselves, our practice of that living faith, and offer it, to shower it upon this new child. As FiFNA we have a wealth of the rich Catholic faith to offer to the new province, in our existing FiFNA diocese and in our new Missionary Diocese. This birth may have been unusual, but it was certainly not unplanned. We need to be there for this new child, to nurture and see that it grows to the full stature of Christ. So in the words of Gregory of Nazianzus, “draw close to God to bring Him close to other, be sanctified to sanctify, lead by the hand and counsel prudently.”

“Together we have been part of this birthing. We will see to the raising of this child. We need to provide for this child, knowing that we are the Church, and we are family.” (http://www.forwardinfaith.com/artman/publish/article_484.shtml)

Bp. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire says that the ACNA won’t last very long because he just doesn’t see a future for "a church that does not ordain women or openly gay people"::

A new North American group claiming to embrace "traditional Anglican values" will not last long, the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop has predicted.

Bishop Gene Robinson, an openly homosexual man living openly with a partner, whose 2003 consecration as bishop of the diocese of New Hampshire created a backlash among traditional believers within the U.S., church, told Ecumenical News International he does not believe the new Anglican grouping has long-term viability.

"A church that does not ordain women or openly gay people – I don’t see a future for that," Robinson told ENI after delivering a sermon on 28 June at the First Presbyterian Church in New York City during the city’s annual gay pride festivities….  (http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10723)

The Episcopal Church and of the Anglican Church of Canada did not formally comment on the ACNA assembly, the Episcopal News Service reported, but a representative of a group of Episcopalians who are remaining with the established U.S. church noted there is still unresolved litigation between the break-away Anglicans and the U.S. Episcopal Church over such issues as church property.

"Despite the ACNA’s grand words, the new organization is being built largely with assets belonging to the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. It is unclear what Christian moral principles can be invoked to justify this," said Kenneth Stiles, a Pittsburgh attorney and vice president of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh.

Groups:

Changing Attitude is less concerned about the ACNA as it is about the presence of several Church of England bishops in Bedford, expressing their support for the new province. It is all part of a "dissident plot" to destroy the Church of England and undermine the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Changing Attitude wants to know how "the rest of the House of Bishops tolerates such dissent":

We have reached another seminal moment in the threatened destruction of the Anglican Communion by newly-formed networks of dissidents, Provinces and Primates who claim to represent the majority of the Communion – 80% according to one English bishop. This isn’t a threat coming only from overseas, from North America, Africa, South America and the Far East but from within our own church. We may be heading for schism, or the destruction of the Communion as at present constituted, or the failure and collapse of the dissident movement and the return of the majority to the fold. It’s impossible to predict.

The dissident plot involves the abandonment of the Archbishop of Canterbury as head of the Communion and the replacement of the Communion as at present constituted by the other three Instruments. Instead we will have a Communion of the so-called faithful orthodox constituted around the 39 Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. This Communion will deny an equal place in the church to women, lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people among others.

One crucial plot development has been taking place this week in Bedford, Texas. The Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) has been formally constituted, adopted Canons and recognised Archbishop-in-waiting Bob Duncan as its head. We’ll return to him in a moment. It proclaims itself to be the legitimate Province for the USA and Canada, aiming to replace The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, because it says it’s more orthodox than them.

The next crucial plot development takes place on 6th July in Westminster Central Hall, London, when the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FoCA) is launched in the UK and Ireland. This event is another building block in the dissident scheme to replace the Church of England as currently constituted with a GAFCON-style church.

Both events are timed to precede and trump the General Convention of the Episcopal Church meeting in Anaheim from 8th to 17th July and the Church of England General Synod meeting in its shadow in York.

How is the Communion responding to this strategically choreographed threat to its future? A number of English bishops are supporting the threatened take-over.

On behalf of the Church of England Evangelical Council, Bishop Wallace Benn of Lewes (left) and Archdeacon Michael Lawson sent greetings and expressed delight to be in full communion with the dissident Province.

On behalf of Anglican Mainstream Canon Chris Sugden and Philip Giddings sent very warm greetings, rejoicing at this very significant stage of development and expressing their fellowship and communion in the Lord with the dissident body. Philip Giddings is Vice Chair (House of Laity) of the General Synod of the Church of England.

A report posted by Anglican Mainstream says that Archbishop Bob Duncan informed the assembly on Tuesday that greetings had been received from the Bishops of Rochester , Winchester, Chester and Chichester. The Bishop of Rochester is speaking at a meeting on Sunday 5th July in support of the launch of FoCA.

The bishops of Lewes, Rochester, Winchester, Chester and Chichester and the Lay Chair of General Synod are all supporting a dissident, ultra-conservative, reactionary movement which aims to destroy and replace the Anglican Communion as at present constituted.

The plan doesn’t end with replacing Provinces in North America. The FoCA launch on the 6th July is the first step in a movement to replace the four UK Anglican Provinces. The only names missing from this list of usual suspects are the bishops of Blackburn and Exeter who signed a letter of support for Bishop Bob Duncan last year. Whether from ignorance, naivety or deliberate intent, these bishops and a senior lay person have committed themselves to a strategy designed to destroy the Church of England. They may think the strategy will rescue the Church of England from falsehood and error. The majority of Anglicans in this country do not agree with them.

What puzzles me is, how do the rest of the House of Bishops tolerate such dissent? Changing Attitude would like to know why English bishops and senior lay people are prepared to support groups which treat LGBT people and women as inferior third class citizens at best. At worst, they don’t believe gay people exist and advocate prejudice and intolerance.  (http://tinyurl.com/n5z38d)

Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh would like to point out that the ACNA is not truly Anglican because it is not recognized by the Archbsihop of Canterbury. Given the improbability of its ever becoming a part of the Anglican Communion, the ACNA is far more likely to split the Communion in two rather than reform it and strengthen it:

The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) faces a difficult and uncertain future. The new “Anglican” denomination formed this week in Bedford, Texas, that elected Robert W. Duncan, deposed Episcopal Bishop of Pittsburgh, as its archbishop, seems more likely to fracture the Anglican Communion permanently than to strengthen or “reform” it.

ACNA faces the difficult task of embracing diversity while adhering to the restrictive polity, theology, and membership set out in the Global Anglican Future Conference’s Jerusalem Declaration. The disparate groups that met in Texas have in common a desire to be a part of the Anglican Communion, a disdain for The Episcopal Church and for the Anglican Church of Canada, and a passionate desire to believe as they think their forebears have always believed. Future conflicts over polity, power, and theology appear inevitable.

More immediate are ACNA’s financial and legal problems. ACNA has inherited ongoing litigation over property claimed by The Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada in California, Ontario, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vancouver, and elsewhere. Litigation to date has been overwhelming unfavorable to those leaving existing churches, and additional lawsuits are likely. In Pittsburgh litigation, Archbishop Duncan has pleaded with the court to unfreeze contested diocesan assets because his group is close to financial collapse. ACNA has been trying to raise $700,000 in special gifts from members of its component churches.

“Despite the ACNA’s grand words, the new organization is being built largely with assets belonging to The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. It is unclear what Christian moral principles can be invoked to justify this,” said Pittsburgh attorney and Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP) vice president Kenneth Stiles.

Notwithstanding “Anglican” in its name, ACNA has no secure relationship to the Anglican Communion. Certain churches of ACNA have never been part of the Communion, and the rest of ACNA has violated Communion tradition through irregular relationships with compliant Anglican provinces, autonomous national or regional churches that are members of the Anglican Communion.

“Less than a fifth of the Anglican provinces have offered ACNA any kind of recognition,” observed PEP board member William Stevens. “Communion membership has never been determined by recognition of individual churches other than the Church of England through the Archbishop of Canterbury. Full inclusion requires admission to the Anglican Consultative Council, which will not meet for another three years and which has shown little interest in ending the ancient tradition of geographical dioceses.”

Whereas ACNA will celebrate whatever “recognition” it receives from sympathetic Anglican provinces, its advent can only exacerbate tensions within the Anglican Communion. PEP is concerned that this has the potential to cause the Communion itself to split into two communions, one traditional but flexible, the other radical but reactionary. “Anglicanism at its best keeps us all worshipping together while we continue to discuss our differences,” observed PEP board member Lionel Deimel. “ACNA, unfortunately, seems not to see the value in that.”  (http://progressiveepiscopalians.org/html/2009-06-25acna.html)

Individuals:

Fr. Randall Foster of the Diocese of Fort Worth give his impressions of the first day’s worship services, which spanned the spectrum of Anglican worship:

I must say, this ACNA Assembly has been refreshing to attend. Having experienced a number of acrimonious meetings during my time in the Episcopal Church, what strikes me most about this ACNA gathering is the absolute lack of bitterness and division. Everyone seems delighted to be here, and perfectly willing to accommodate the differing opinions and worship styles of others. Yesterday, for example, there was so little division over the proposed Canons of the Church that they were all passed in less than half the time allotted in the schedule (and that seemed too brief to me when I first saw the time alotted!). All of the delegates seemed to be willing to say, "The Constitution and Canons may not be perfect but they are good enough and can be amended later if it appears they are not working well. Let’s just get on with it so we can get back to doing what the Church ought to be doing."

And participating in the varied worship services, with their diverse styles, has also been refreshing for me. Although I have a preference for a moderate degree of "smells and bells," today I can appreciate better where my more contemporary Evangelical and Charismatic Anglican sisters and brothers are coming from. Everyone’s preferences have been accommodated. Yesterday, for example, we began the day with a Rite I low mass in the cathedral at which we sang a couple of very traditional hymns (Mrs. Burton sounded great on the organ, as usual). Later in the tent we said Morning Prayer (Rite II) accompanied at times by a guitarist playing more-or-less traditional hymns mixed with a praise chorus or two. Then noonday prayer was a brief, spoken service. Finally the evening ended with a very traditional Rite I Evensong service, complete with incense. Large numbers of people took part in all four services, more or less comfortably, and seemed pleased to do so. It truly has been a pleasure for me as well.  (http://texanglican.blogspot.com/2009/06/reflections-on-first-two-days-of.html)

Foster was also impressed with the installation service which managed to blend the three streams of anglo-catholic, evangelical and charismatic worship together seamlessly:

Well, it was a busy week around St. Vincent’s Cathedral. About 800 guests from around the world moved from one end of campus to the other over the three and a half days of the Provincial Assembly, following a three day ACNA House of Bishops meeting in our parish hall. It was a genuine pleasure to have so many dedicated servants of our Lord here with us. A thousand thanks to all the volunteers from St. Vincent’s and from around our diocese who made this massive undertaking look so easy. Very well done!

This last week has re-confirmed me in my convictions as an Anglican. I feel energized by the interactions I have had with clergy and lay people from around North America. I now have an even deeper admiration for the breadth and depth of traditional Anglicanism on our continent, and have developed a sincere appreciation for expressions of Anglican worship quite different from my own. I am very excited for the future of our Anglican tradition, and am delighted that I will be part of ACNA as it grows. (And it will grow!)

The installation of Archbishop Duncan on Wednesday night at Christ Church, Plano, was a joy to attend. The excitement in the air was palpable. And I have to admit that–despite misgivings I had walking in the door–the folks at Christ Church carried off a "blended" worship with astonishing elegance, calling upon elements from the Evangelical, Charismatic, and Anglo-Catholic expressions of Anglican worship in such a way that the entire service felt surprisingly coherent. The archbishop’s homily was conversational but effective, and the actual installation ceremony was genuinely moving. Well done, Christ Church.  (http://texanglican.blogspot.com/2009/06/wrap-up-on-acna-provincial-assembly.html)

TEC Executive Council member Mark Harris has writtten a series of reflections on the new ACNA beginning with this farewell as the ACNA was constituted at 5:22 EDT on June 22, 2009:

Well, there it is. The Constitution of the Anglican Church in North America has been accepted by representatives of the 28 groups that make up the ACNA. There were few changes, but one suggestion of some interest was voted down.

The suggestion was to take out item 4 of the Constitution, namely,

"We are grieved by the current state of brokenness within the Anglican Communion prompted by those who have embraced erroneous teaching and who have rejected a repeated call to repentance."

It appears the vote was not to do so. Bye Bye.  http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2009/06/522-edt-acna-constituted.html

Mark Harris then comments on the fact that the threatened Separation between TEC and the ACNA has finally occurred and henceforth TEC will have only ecumenical relations with the ACNA, the same as with the Methodists or any number of other distinct denominations. He concludes that it is time for TEC to move on and turn to other tasks:

From either side I suspect there is relief in that: the Separation is real. Now the relations are as between peoples, nations, tribes, and in the case of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in North America. We are now in ecumenical relation to ACNA. They are not sister church to us, they are not part of the family of churches of the Anglican Communion. They are a Christian Church distinct and different from The Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church of Canada.

Here at Preludium some care has been taken to refer to Robert W. Duncan by the office to which he was called, in The Episcopal Church or elsewhere. When he ceased to be a bishop in this Church I referred to him as Moderator Duncan by virtue of his office with the Anglican Communion Network and the Common Cause Partnership. When the issue concerned his relation to or comments upon The Episcopal Church I also referenced him as deposed in The Episcopal Church to make it clear that he has no standing as bishop in this Church.

Now, however, he makes no claim on that history of his. Now he has sworn to uphold the Constitution and Canons of ACNA just as he once swore to do so regarding the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. Perhaps he will be more comfortable with this set of affirmations. So on this blog he will now be referred to as ACNA Archbishop Duncan, just as one might speak of the Traditional Anglican Communion Archbishop. When he is commenting on or referring to The Episcopal Church I will remind readers that he is not a bishop as far as this Church is concerned.

It seems to me that the relation between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in North America is now similar to that between this church and any other church in Christendom. If they determine that we are the enemy, unChristian, heretical, unOrthodox, contenders spiritual warfare, or the adversary, then I suppose we are enemies. If we are united in common cause for the good of the world or in the name of Christ, then we are Friends.

It is time to move on.

There are still bits and pieces to work out. What the assisting bishop in Springfield, retired of Quincy, Bishop Ackerman, will do is still an item of interest. There are various property disputes. There is the whole question of the relation of ACNA to Canterbury. There is still the need to be watchful.

There is also the question of just what sort of thing ACNA is. We know it is a church, a church with bishops and an Archbishop / Primate. It is also called by reporter George Conger, "The 39th Province – in – waiting." This of course in support of the notion that the end game is either dual jurisdictions in North America, or ACNA’s own sense that its destiny is to be THE jurisdiction of the Anglican Communion in North America. The Anglican Communion is not breaking up, it appears. Rather a second world wide Anglican grouping, one not referencing Canterbury directly and not including a number of older churches, fundamentalist in decidedly un-Anglican ways is developing. If so it will join a variety of other world-wide Anglican bodies and will take its place in the history of the Church.

Now it is time to turn to other tasks.  (http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2009/06/moving-on-holding-them-enemies-in-war.html)

Todd Wetzel found the constituting of the ACNA a bittersweet moment because many who were his close colleagues for years in Episcopalians United are now former Episcopalians:

On the afternoon of June 22nd, 2009, in the gymnasium of St. Vincent’s school in Bedford, Texas, the gavel, ably wielded by Bishop Duncan, came down signaling passage of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of North America. With the words, "We are now ‘constituted," the new province was born and life among Anglicans on the American shore became more diffuse and confusing.

I rejoiced and wept almost in the same instant. Rejoiced because so many had worked so hard, sacrificed much and prayed without ceasing for this moment. I am among them. Yet it was bitter sweet for me. I realized that many of the people now part of this new entity are people with whom I’ve loved and laughed, prayed and commiserated over the years. These people were friends and colleagues. Together we were Episcopalians and now they were rejoicing in being "former Episcopalians." That bond is now irreparably broken. The distance between us will grow even though we will try not to let it impair our relationships.

The next day Canons were put in place and the new entity was not only constituted but now disciplined. It is striking to note that the bishops of this new jurisdiction elect bishops. Laity may nominate, but bishops elect. That, of course, will precipitate a very different set of problems than presently experienced in the Episcopal Church today. But for them no more the ‘dog and pony shows’ of special diocesan conventions and the consequent popularity contest based largely on a person’s ability to sway the voters. Better? Time will tell. Lay prerogatives were clearly protected, but even a cursory reading of these canons leaves little doubt that bishops are in charge. Not much room here for prickly jokes about the "Senior House" of General Convention.

While the Episcopal Church these days seems a sad tale of "breaking apart and away," this Assembly was clearly about the coming together of fragments some of which broke away from the Episcopal Church as early as 1873 (the Reformed Episcopal Church) while others splintered away in the late 1970’s over the Prayer Book and women’s ordination. Yet more left after the consecration of V. Gene Robinson in 2003.

Coming together fosters new ideas and energy. Most Episcopalians would rather not be reminded that division fosters mistrust and drains power and resources. The newly invested Archbishop, Robert Duncan, ordains women though most of the bishops with whom he’ll be working do not. Can this work? Perhaps; only time will tell.

The Service of Investiture displayed an interesting fact. The Most Rev. Leonard Riches served as principal consecrator. He is the Presiding Bishop of the Reformed Episcopal Church and is the spiritual descendent of Bishop Cummins who broke from the Episcopal Church in 1873 over very real evangelical concerns. The Presiding Bishop of the first group to break away served as the principle consecrator for the newest amalgam.

Bishop Riches does not, nor does the REC, ordain women. Yes, they ordain women to a special service position of Deaconess, but not as priests. The new Archbishop has and will. Together they embraced and both have worked hard to build this now newly formed entity.

This ACNA will continue to be the bearer of hope and the recipient of prayers beyond its still questionable boundaries. They will receive more attention and scrutiny than its small numbers (between 75,000-100,000) merit. The Anglican Communion, ancient in its origins and global in its reach of some 75 million+ members, needs new vision and renewed enthusiasm for its Christ -given mission.

As Rick Warren pointed out to attendees at the Assembly, asking God to bless our efforts is not what it’s all about, rather it comes down to our being willing to discern what God is blessing and "go with the flow." That’s a word both the ACNA and the Episcopal Church need to bear in mind. I wish them Godspeed.  http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10712

 

Columnists:

http://tinyurl.com/ldg2cm  British Catholic columnist Damien Thompson is a tongue-in-cheekingly confused by the presence of two overlapping Anglican jurisdictions with differing doctrines, which makes no sense whatsoever from a Catholic perspective (or from an Anglican one either, for that matter):

Please welcome the 39th province of the Anglican Communion, the Anglican Church in North America. “Formal recognition awaits,” writes Ruth Gledhill, but the head of the ACNA, Archbishop Robert Duncan, is in talks with Rowan Williams and the new province is already in full communion with 30 million Anglicans around the world.

 

Great news, eh? Funny that it took Anglicanism 400 years to establish a presence in North America, but better late than never.

 

 

Oh. Sorry. I’ve just done a quick Google search and it turns out that there is already an official Episcopal Church in the US (TEC) and an Anglican Church in Canada. Perhaps the ACNA uses a different rite of worship: there’s precedent in the Catholic Church for overlapping jurisdictions based on liturgical heritage.

 

Hang on. (Another Quick Google search.) Nope, turns out that the soon-to-be 39th province of the Anglican Communion actually has different doctrines from TEC, which by my reckoning is the third province by order of foundation.

 

So… if you attend a service in an American Anglican parish belonging to the third province, homosexual acts aren’t necessarily sinful, but if you nip down the road to a parish from the 39th province then hellfire awaits.

 

Maybe it’s my Roman Catholic ignorance, but this strikes me as stretching the definition of “Communion” just a tad. How lucky that the Anglican Communion is headed by an intellectual of the stature of Dr Williams. He’ll sort it out! Indeed, watching him closely in the heat of debate, I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s the most decisive Anglican statesman since the Rev Timothy Farthing.

 

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10717 — David Virtue wonders if there is a new Anglican Communion in the making:

The pieces of the Anglican puzzle are beginning to fall into place and the puzzle is beginning to take shape – for many, a new shape altogether.

The first born ecclesiastical child from the Anglican womb was GAFCON, the Global Anglican Future Conference the orthodox Anglican answer and response to the Lambeth Conference. This movement, though unrecognized by the Lambeth Conference and the Anglican Consultative Council, represents fully two thirds and more (approximately 40 million) of the entire communion of 55 million Anglican Christians. They are mostly evangelical with a minority of Anglo-Catholics. (This figure, discounts the 26 million Church of England followers who are baptized Anglican at birth, but who make no later claims to being Christians, hence the 80 million is deemed fictitious.) By contrast, the Lambeth Conference represents one third of The Anglican Communion with about two-thirds of its bishops.

This week in Bedford, Texas, The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) was born amidst calls for a new reformation, renewal, evangelism, discipleship and, on the darker side, a rejection of The Episcopal Church’s "gospel" of MDGs, continuing lawsuits and hostility from a church that many believe has lost its moral and theological way.

ACNA claims 100,000 Anglicans in 700 parishes with some 28 or more dioceses. It is bigger than the Anglican provinces of Wales and Scotland. It has a clear understanding of mission, evangelism and discipleship. Being gospel driven, it will only grow, much to the annoyance and chagrin of The Episcopal Church that hopes it will split over issues and become another splinter operation, much like what followed the 1977 St. Louis Convention. At that time, four priests announced they were leaving TEC over women’s ordination and, over time, morphed into a Heinz 57 Varieties of Anglo-Catholics, most of whom will not engage each other in meaningful unity talks. That movement failed to coalesce into a single province with a single overarching archbishop and one House of Bishops. ACNA has done precisely that. It has even pulled in Forward in Faith North America, who will consecrate their own bishop making them a full constituent member of ACNA.

ACNA has been well planned and well executed. It has received the imprimatur of a number of global Anglican Primates adding legitimacy to its existence and continuance. While those Anglican jurisdictions who have joined together will maintain, as it were, dual memberships (CANA, AMIA et al), they have come together, not to bury their differences, but to come under a single umbrella of Anglican orthodoxy. Is it a perfect union? By no means. The issue of women’s ordination remains a thorn in the side of this movement, and does not seem likely to be extracted any time soon. Archbishop Robert Duncan said on two occasions (Bedford and Plano) that God will sort it out, and one hopes He does.

But that might not be the biggest issue at all. The powerful, uniting service at Christ Church, Plano, was barely over when an evangelical bishop whispered in this reporter’s ear that there is an ecclesiastical tug of war brewing over Anglo-Catholic verses Evangelical dominance of the new province. Time will tell. Clearly, Archbishop Duncan has his work cut out for him. Both sides must work together to avoid a such a situation. The new province could devolve into schism before it is off the ground.

Duncan has shown great leadership to date and a good deal of humility in drawing together 28 dioceses. That is no small feat. Many believe he has done the nearly impossible. The canons and constitutions quickly passed indicate that compromises could and were made. The focus on the mission of the church (the gospel first) and centrality of the local church to do mission without a top down ecclesiastical hierarchy is a reverse model from that of The Episcopal Church. That may be its strongest feature.

Moreover, the continuing presence of Bishop Jack Iker of Ft. Worth, Texas, and Bishop John-David Schofield of San Joaquin, two leading Anglo-Catholic bishops in America to have left TEC, speaks volumes about their willingness to let the issue of women’s ordination ride, refusing to let it become a province dividing issue. (This has met with a good deal of hostility from other smaller Anglo-Catholic jurisdictions that have excoriated these Anglo-Catholics for compromising on this issue.) For all its problems, the ACNA ship has set sail and there is no turning back.

Next week in London, another significant occasion will occur in the life of the Church of England. A movement calling itself the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) will be launched amid signs that the Church of England is in desperate shape and in fast decline. The Rt. Rev. Paul Richardson, assistant Bishop of Newcastle, wrote in "The Telegraph" this week that Britain is no longer a Christian nation. The latest figures reveal a continuing annual decline in Sunday attendance running at around 1 per cent, resulting in a church that can survive for no more than 30 years. He says its leaders are not prepared to face that possibility.

The FCA is the brainchild of GAFCON. They invite individuals, congregations, dioceses and even whole provinces to join. All members have to do is assent to the Jerusalem Declaration and the goals of the FCA as a mandatory step. This may rule out the vast majority of the Church of England who still think that Jerusalem will be built on England’s green and pleasant lands, but the FCA people know better. They are signaling very politely, as only the British do, that the CofE is a theologically and morally spent force and it is time do something about it. FCA is the answer.

Their list of speakers includes a number of Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical Bishops who will launch FCA, much as ACNA had. They include five bishops: among them Dr. Michael Nazir Ali, the very evangelical and able Bishop of Rochester and Bishop John Broadhurst of Fulham, a leader in the Forward in Faith, the Anglo-Catholic movement in the UK. Other speakers include Wallace Benn (Lewes) an evangelical and a leading US Anglo-Catholic Bishop, Keith Ackerman. They will lead sessions on how FCA is a catalyst for united mission, ministry and focus for both orthodox Anglicans, be they evangelical or Anglo Catholic. So it is clear that evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics can work together to make common cause over the gospel and much more….

What is very clear to this writer is that a new Anglican Communion is slowly being born. It has been pushed over the last decade by the strident evangelical voices of the Global South and by such evangelical lions as Peter Akinola (Nigeria), Henry Luke Orombi (Uganda), Benjamin Nzimbi (Kenya) and Emmanuel Kolini (Rwanda), to name but a few. (Nzimbi laid hands on Duncan in Plano).

They have had enough of TEC, the ACofC, and, increasingly, the Church of England with its lackluster leadership out of Lambeth.

There is no formal structure for schism in The Anglican Communion. We do not have a pope, there is no Magisterium. There is no common set of canons and constitutions to which all can adhere, but the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury has been shaken to the core. Williams is desperate to keep it altogether though he admitted in Jamaica that he might not be able to do so.

What is now clear, however, is that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s authority is so seriously diluted and dissipated that he has been rendered impotent and irrelevant. ACNA, the new 39th province of the Anglican Communion, doesn’t need his or the Anglican Consultative Council’s approval. Why ever would they seek it?

For all their faults, strains and apparent weaknesses, GAFCON, ACNA and FCA are the future of the Anglican Communion. Their train has sounded the final blast and it is "All aboard." for a new gospel driven day in the Worldwide Anglican Communion.
 

 

Read more...

From The Christian Institute

The Government’s ‘equality’ watchdog is recruiting 14 and 15-year-olds for its second annual summer camp.

The camp, called Our Space, will consist of a few days in the Lake District with outdoor activities and “modules to discuss diversity, equality and rights”.

The camp is being organised by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the body which recently funded a leading homosexual lobby group to write a guide for employers on how to deal with religious workers.

The same watchdog gave an atheist group £35,000 last year which was used to fund another set of guidance which told employers that evangelism in the workplace was “highly likely” to be unlawful.

Earlier this year EHRC leader Trevor Phillips said he regretted appointing the Commission’s sole evangelical Christian because it had upset homosexual and atheist campaigners.

The Our Space camp was attended last year by Dakota Blue Richards, the young star of The Golden Compass film adapted from the novel by campaigning atheist Phillip Pullman.

It has also emerged that an atheist camp for children aged eight to 17 will take place in Somerset in late July, with the backing of prominent atheists Richard Dawkins and A. C. Grayling.

The camp will include lessons on rational scepticism and moral philosophy, as well as traditional outdoor activities. The sing-song will reportedly include John Lennon’s Imagine, which contains the lyrics: “Imagine there’s no heaven/ It’s easy if you try”.
 

 

• Richard Dawkins launches children’s summer camp for atheists (telegraph.co.uk, 29 June 2009)
• ‘How to deal with religious employees’, by gay lobby (18 June 2009)
• Equality chief ‘regrets’ appointing evangelical (21 May 2009)
• Atheist lobby allocated £35,000 public money (27 November 2008)

Read more...

By Peter Ould

I want to begin a series of posts looking at how Scripture approaches sexuality and slavery and to see whether the allegation that conservatives use two different exegetical principles has any basis. I’m going to begin by looking at one of the most common revisionist arguments in favour of same-sex relationships and move on from there to explore issues of exegesis where Scripture can seem to present ambiguity on a subject.

A word of warning – this post contains some description of sexual acts that some might find offensive. These descriptions are simply for the purpose of academic inquiry to provide context to the discussion of the specific meaning and intent behind the use of certain words in the NT.

To begin, let’s examine one of the most common revisionist arguments in support of blessing same-sex relationships. The argument goes something like this:

The writers (mainly Saint Paul) of the New Testament clobber passages on sexuality were unaware of the possibility of “permanent, faithful, stable” gay relationships. Therefore, their condemnation of specific same-sex acts (prostitution etc) cannot be read as prohibiting modern gay relationships.

It’s a convincing argument, but let’s break it down to examine in detail its constituent parts:

1. The NT writers were unaware of permanent gay relationships
2. The NT passages refer to specific sexual acts and are not a wider prohibition on same-sex activity per se
3. Twenty-first century gay relationships are of a qualitative and substantive different form than those in the first century.

So to the first point. Were NT writers unaware of permanent gay relationships?

We can answer the question “Were NT writers unaware of gay relationships?” with a definitive “No”. While the first century Roman / Hellenistic world that Paul operated in was (at least in the more Hellenistic parts) beginning to frown upon homosexual activity (particularly pederasty, to which we will later return), it still went on and was widely known about. For example, the Roman Emperors Nero and Salba were both widely reported to have taken male lovers (Nero most prominently to have “married” his lover in a public ceremony) but the context of these relationships was almost always of a superior partner and an inferior partner (and this was often linked to the specific roles in penetrative sex). Part of the criticism against Nero (apart from him being completely bonkers) was not that he engaged in homosexual practice, but that he was willing to be the receptive partner in penetrative sex, the role normally taken by the socially inferior person in the relationship.

Earlier, in the mid Roman Republic period (300 -150 BC) there was even wider acceptance – Rome is reported to have specific sectors of the red-light district that catered for male prostitutes. Grafitti has been uncovered in Pompeii that advertises the sexual abilities of specific male prostitutes, indicating that such practices were common well into the first century AD. It appears from the legal framework of this period of Roman rule that while homosexual activity was increasingly being viewed as inferior to heterosexual activity, it was still accepted as long as the social norms of its practice were adhered to, specifically that when it came to penetrative sex the socially superior partner of the relatonship was the one who penetrated.

The one thing however that was completely frowned upon in Roman society, from 300 BC onwards, was pederasty. This was in contrast to the the Hellenistic cultures of Greece, Asia Minor and the near Middle East where pederasty had a long and favoured history. From Homer onwards, the adoration of youth in Greek culture permeated the understanding of sexual expression, and not just homosexually, for Greek men often took teenage wives for themselves when they were aged in their late 20s and older. This pratice displays a clear marked difference between what the Roman and Hellenistic societies saw as ideals and can be easily seen in the contrast between the portrayal of the male body in the relevant artisitic cultures. In Hellenistic erotic art, the male penis is almost always displayed as small and pre-pubescent, even when erect. In Roman erotic art, the bigger the penis the better.

Pederastic relationships of the Erastes-Eromenos format were the most favoured (erastes – lover – the older male; eromenos – “beloved” (though this is not a perfect translation) – the younger male) and depending on location and time period could be chaste or sexual active. A perfect Erastes would not generally be overly interested in the sexual component of the relationship (though that sometimes featured and had a role in the education of the Eromenos) but rather would see his position as a sponsor and educator in the wider sense. Indeed, writers like Plato highlight the moral difference between an adult male who takes on an Eromenos to educate and sponsor and who engages very occasionally in sexual activity and that of an adult male who pays for sex with teenage boys.

Pederasty, where practised, can be seen then as less a demonstration of innate homosexual attraction and more a social constuct to facilitate the life of the community. In Ancient Greece, one model would be of teenage girls from high society being married off to older males (usually aged 30 and above) while the boys would enter into pederastic relationships with men 10 to 15 years their senior (aged in their 20s). These boys would then graduate to being Erastes themselves, until finally marrying teenage girls once they reached the necessary age and refusing any further affection to younger men and boys. This model raises the question as to whether these relationships, even at their highest moral points, can be described in the same language as modern western gay relationships. Compare the Hellenistic pederastic relationships to the modern practice of some tribes in the East Indies who practice a form of ritual sodomisation amongst teenage boys (where boys upon reaching a certain age transfer from their mother’s care to the hut of the teenage boys, and for the next few years engage in ritual sodomy, first as penetrated, then as the penetrator, until they finally leave the hut, marry a girl and never ever engage in sodomy or other homosexual practice again). Is such sexual attraction and ability to function homosexually (and all of the boys involved practice penetration) biological/genetic or culturally conditioned? If culturally conditioned, what does this have to say for our modern western ideas of “natural” homosexuality?

Elsewhere in the Hellenistic world, homosexual relationships between adult males were frowned upon at the very least. The few cases that have come down to us have been viewed as fitting the older / younger model (i.e. Euripedes and Agathon) and the idea of two equal males engaging in a sexual relationship was so socially problematic in the second half of the last millenium BC that Greek writers had to re-interpret the myth of Achilles and Patroclus to make it similar to a pederastic relationship (complicated by the fact that Patroclus was older, but Achilles was the dominant partner).

So, to summarise, the kind of relationships that Paul would have known about are as follows:

• Hellenistic pederasty, where a man aged in his 20s would take a teenage boy. This relationship was not always sexual. Discussion is present in Greek philosophical literature as to whether pederasty was moral.
• Hellenistic male prostitution. This relationship was heavily frowned upon by Greek society.
• Hellenistic adult male couple. This relationship was very rare and socially unacceptable.
• Roman homosexual activity between a socially superior and inferior. While attitudes varied to this practice, it was tolerated as long as the socially superior partner was the assertive / penetrative member.
• Roman homosexual prostitution. Accepted on the same basis of fitting social norms of superior/inferior (i.e. to pay a prostitute to penetrate him was acceptable, to pay one to be penetrated was not).

One could argue from this list that Paul was conversant with at least two forms of homosexual relationship which, while not taking the exact social form of modern western gay relationships, were to some extent “permanent, stable and faithful”. The first was Hellenistic pederasty, which when discussing we need to view beyond our 21st century lens of automatically labelling as immoral on account of the ages involved. Pederasty in its highest forms was not necessarily primarily sexual and played a crucial role in the social life of some Greek cities.

The second form of permanent relationship was the Roman form of two adult male lovers of differing social standings (something scandalous to the Hellenistic mindset). This relationship was explicitly sexual, but normally accentuated by the socially superior member being the more assertive. The junior member received social status by being associated with the senior member, but only in a rare number of cases were the role boundaries crossed.

This second form of relationship has the closest similarities to modern western gay relationships. If one was to remove the social boundaries and hierarchies of specific sexual activities from the Roman model of male adult love, a very clear approximation to modern western gay relationships appears. One thing is clear – Paul was definitely aware of this kind of relationship because it was exported across the Roman Empire wherever the Latins went. If you doubt this, have a read online of Craig Arthur Williams’ “Roman Homosexuality”, which explores these matters in greater depth, including concepts around male-male marriage (to which I will also return in later posts).

In the second part of this series I will turn to the NT passages on homosexuality to see how they might fit in connection with this First Century understanding of homosexual practice. In particular, I will examine some of the revisionist arguments about the possible meanings of certain words and see whether such interpretations in context might interact with the First Century Roman/Hellenistic culture Paul found himself in. After this I will turn to seeing how our hermeneutical processes around homosexuality might then be applied to the issue of slavery in the New Testament.

 

Read more...

By Robert R Reilly, Mercartornet

Writing about homosexuality has become a growth industry, one writer has quipped. Indeed, there has never been a time in our nation when we have been so publicly preoccupied with this subject. The love whose name dare not be spoken (once upon a time) is being shouted, if not from the rooftops, at least from the streets in demonstrations, from the platforms in political rallies, and from the pages of various popular and intellectual journals.

And now, also from the White House, where on Monday, President Barack Obama met with 250 "gay" leaders to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the birth of the modern "gay rights" movement, an event precipitated by a police raid on the Stonewall Inn, a homosexual bar, owned at that time by the mafia, in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of New York City. It is hard to recall that it was in the not-too-distant past that many states and cities had laws against sodomy. One wonders how and why this change – from legal censure to public celebration in the East Room – happened.

One reason is that the subject of homosexuality, much like that of abortion, has become inextricably enmeshed in the political rhetoric of rights. Rights, as the Declaration of Independence tells us, are founded firmly in and are fully dependent on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God." Anyone whose claim can be asserted on the level of a right therefore gathers tremendous moral and political impetus for his cause. For this reason, activist homosexuals attempt to identify themselves as the new civil rights movement.

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney’s recent public endorsement of same-sex marriage is typical. He said: "I think that freedom means freedom for everyone… I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish." Really? Any arrangement? What does this mean for our society?

This attempt to legitimize any arrangement demands especially close scrutiny, because it questions the meaning of concepts critical to our moral and political understanding of ourselves, including the very understanding of that "Nature" upon which our Founders thought our existence as a free people depends.

Homosexual acceptance

The case for homosexuality begins with seeming modesty. Its proponents contend that sexual choices are private, and therefore homosexuals should be left to their own sexual predilections. Stay out of my bedroom! Live and let live. At the same time, they insist they are the objects of discrimination and wish to enact remedial legislation. This very complaint, however, reveals that there is a public aspect to their private choice.

First of all, they must be identifiable to others as homosexuals, otherwise it would be impossible to discriminate against them. In many cases this public aspect takes the form of the homosexual telling others that he is a homosexual: "coming out of the closet", as it is called if voluntary, or "being outed," if it is not. Why should a homosexual feel impelled to do this, especially if he expects discrimination as a result? After all, the hidden homosexual who has not "come out of the closet" enjoys the privacy of concealment.

One reason homosexuals take this risk has been made fairly clear by militant homosexual organizations; by so doing, homosexuals wish not only to be tolerated in terms of their private sexual behavior, they wish to have that behavior publicly vindicated and recognized as normal.

This is hardly a strange desire. Man is a social being. Though parts of his life take place in private, in the normal course of things even those private aspects have public manifestations. Indeed, public social life is organized in such a way as to ensure privacy for certain things. We learn what should be private from the public way in which certain privacies are protected. So by private we do not mean things which are nobody else’s business. The private, in this sense, is everybody’s business.

For example, certainly the sexual intimacy between a husband and wife is held to be private and inviolate. But what are the public manifestations of this privacy? Obviously, weeding rings, children, private property, homes schools, communities — the whole structure of society, in fact, is built to protect and maintain the conditions for that intimacy and its results. The whole social and political order is supportive of this privacy. It is encouraged and protected by law because it is held to be of benefit to all.

This is the kind of support and acceptance which homosexuals are seeking. This is seen in their desire to have their relationships legally recognized as marriages, or to have the ability to adopt children, etc. This makes somewhat specious the claim that all that is at stake in the homosexual controversy is the right to privacy. The clandestine homosexual does not claim a "right" to do the things he wishes to conceal and so claims no public protection for his privacy. As a result, he implicitly acquiesces in society’s implied judgment of his actions as wrong. Many homosexuals no longer find this concession tolerable. And by advancing their cause at the level of moral principle ("gay rights") they insist on not only a repeal, but a complete reversal of that public judgment. In the same way we once learned of the inherent goodness of married life, we must now be taught the "new morality" of homosexuality. Ironically, the logic behind this process of legitimization of homosexuality undercuts any objective standards by which we could judge the moral legitimacy of anything.

A Demotion of Marriage

Why this should be so requires some understanding of the moral foundation of law and its prescriptive nature. The legal protection of hetero