Hi All,

I was just thinking the other day about our home here on GF.com. When I joined about 5 years ago, I amongst many others were dealing with many issues in their lives, and we all described our struggles and anxieties, our pain and the challenges....and the joy and freedom too.

This past year there seems to be much, much less of that. I know many of us have faced our demons and life has moved on. I know so many have come out to friends, colleagues....our kids and found life to be the happier and richer for doing so. Some in the past who feared, experienced even, hard times at work, have found the right place to pursue careers etc.

So I guess my question is, despite for instance the huge debates in the churches that try to demonize us as gay men; even though the Pope, the President etc etc seem set on rolling back and denying the fundamental human and civil rights of gay men and women....are things, the times, our lives in general better and less trouble-some than they were? Are we as gay men and fathers just more confidant and less concerned about what the world...our family and n'bours might think. Or, have the very people that we know and love, shown that despite what some public figures might say, in general, society has moved on and being gay isn't a societal issue of real contention that it once was?

In the past five years here in th UK, laws have been enacted to protect(total equality) us at work, we have legal civil partnership, and same sex adoption, and disrimination in the provision of goods facilities and services has also been regulated to prevent heterocentric practices impinging on our rights as citizens. Is the battle over, has enforced compliance moved to grudging tolerance or general acceptance?

Have we won the day, do we look to a time when Pride marches will be pointless, gay resource centres have no function, gay bars become st8 friendly etc...or am I being way too optimistic?

Let's hear how you view the current sitution, and things are in your corner of the world.

Cheerio for now...Vincent...xx

Vince,

you're questions are very appropriate and timely. I think that everyone could answer this from a different perspective because obviously the things that drive our perspectives are based on completely unique experiences. I know from my own experiences, regardless of where the rest of the world may be, I have moved forward and upward in big steps in just the last 4 years.

While I try to remain positive about the future, I realize that I am but one person and I can only affect the world directly around me. I can read daily about the struggles of the glbt community in Poland (for example 5,000 people marched today in support of glbt issues in Warsaw I think). Or you can read about the constant battle that Pope pushes from Rome. At the same time, the positives such as Mexico City allowing abortion (not that that's a good thing, just that it's contrary to Rome's dictates) or some states in Mexico allowing gay marriages are certainly uplifting.

Remember that the fundamentalist evangelical neo-con leader, Jerry Falwell died this week and there's been much rememberance here this week in the media surrounding his life and how he affected politics and society in general in the last 30-50 years. One thing I note about him is that he supported the huge movement in the late 70's with Anita Bryant to reverse a city of Miami ordinance which simply meant to outlaw discrimination in the city based on orientation. Let's not mince words here. He and Anita Bryant used the average person's fears to gather support to reverse a simple anti-discrimination ordinance. I think I read that in 1978 or so the city reversed the ordinance because the population voted something like 69 to 30 percent to oppose the city's anti-discrimination law. Falwell was a promoter of fear, or as John McCain said, he was an "agent of intollerance".

Remember that it was Jerry Falwell who said that the agents of 9/11 were enabled because of gays and lesbians (among many others). In effect, he was saying that 9/11 happened becase we were tolerant of homosexuality. Yes, we've come a long way from the 1970's or even the 1980's when Ronald Reagan couldn't even admit that AIDS was an issue. Consider that Reagan is the Godfather of the Republicans, the conservative movement, all of the neo-cons.

Here's my take on the state of the planet Earth. There are so many things that are far more important than the plight of the rights or lack of rights of GLBT persons around the world. However, those that seek to push an agenda can find a convenient/common topic to push to rally their people behind them, and that common element is homosexuality. Just look at the disintegration of the Church of England as an example. That organ is imploding and is splintering into factions simply based on how they view homosexuality. Huge congregations of this church in the USA are aligning themselves with the neocon bishops from Nigeria and they are actually promoting and supporting actions which criminalize even meeting someone who is homosexual. Because of the organization of the Church of England (compared to that of the Roman Catholic Church), I predict that within the next 10 years, it will no longer be. Perhaps that's a good thing. Who knows.

What I also see is that with regard to Christianity in general, there no viable group to which a gay man or woman could belong. How can anyone present a valid argument that a particular Christian church organization accepts completely a person who is gay? Sure, there is the few Metropolitan Community of Churches or whatever, but in summary, it's just not there.

This is where it all happens and that's why the Church of England is imploding. Think about this for a second. If the Catholic Church based in Rome suddenly said...ok, homosexuality is NOT a 'disorder', don't you think you'd have the same kind of splintering of congregations?

Here's the test of when you know we've arrived: When you can tell your neighbors or co-workers under any circumstance that you've got a partner and you don't have to worry about retribution, or that you can be confident in your kids' friends to meet your partner or know your orientation, you know then that the issue of being gay and therefore different from the societal norm is no longer something to keep secret and in the closet.


We may have a handful of laws on the books in some localities, but we're not there yet.

Jim

These are good questions, Vince and they deserve more responses.

Things are certainly better for high school graduates than they were when I was nineteen. There is much more openness. But we still have a ways to go.

On one hand we have my boss who has been reported to say that she doesn't like to talk about her husband to me for fear that I will talk about Brian. Sad, eh?

But on the other hand you have the small town hick ladies at Brian's hardware store who automatically give me Brian's 30% spousal discount at the register without my ever having asked.

Much of it is in how we train the young. I'd like to think that I've taught my kids well, taught them about acceptance and tolerance. Maybe that's why they treat their father with such great respect. I told them long ago and I'm glad I did.

It's not ideal yet. There is much ahead, but we are making progress.

Thanks, Vince and Jim! Great discussion.

Who else has two cents here?

I've been thinking about this question lately with regard to something that I've not only felt but have seen written in many articles and blogs online.

I think that as homosexuality has become more open and accepted, those who find it an abomination within their religious beliefs have become more vocal to the point of not only shouting from the hilltops (as it were), but actually advocating violence in much the same way as with the issue of abortion.

I really do think that what this screaming and yelling and condemnations have led to is a generalization in western society that if you are a true follower/believer in Christianity then you cannot also be gay. I mean yes, there are your minor denominations that advocate acceptance of everyone but in reality, the big players......your worldwide Catholic Church, the Baptists and even maybe a majority of the Anglican Church worldwide (certainly if you count the large groups in 3rd world countries) are all the ones screaming damnation for queers.

I'm only bringing this up because in the vain of Vince's original question about whether times have changed, yes, they have but I'm not so sure whether positive or negative.

Certainly individual cases such as David's partners co-workers giving him the hardware discount are positive affirming developments.

But you know, here's a quick test for whether times have changed.......

If you accept a new job in a new company/organization and begin work, would you be free to indicate your homosexuality to your co-workers say within the first 3 months of work? 6 months? 1 yr? Ever?

I can tell you that for me personally, I do not hide anything. However, I do not make an effort to go out of my way to advertise or admit to anyone in my professional life that I'm gay. In order for me to come out to a co-worker, I have to feel safe and not-threatened by them in order to 'come out'.

I read with interest the employee newspaper distributed today at the company I'm contracted (I'm not an employee, I'm a contract consultant).

On the back page was listed a whole host of congrats to employees who'd had a child (with their wife) in the past month or who'd gotten married or who'd gotten engaged. This is not exactly a small company and it's a company with about 95% highly educated technical computer types.

Is that progress? I don't think so. I think progress is when you can be open with your partnership or sexual preferences without fear of backlash.

Progress?



Jim

I think I totally disagree with at least part of what you are saying. Vince asked is this progress, but I think what you are actually thinking is, "Is it all better now?" Hell no, it's not all better now. But it is better. There are more laws to protect people on the job (not everywhere, but it is spreading). And believe me, managers are careful about anything that will make them have to pay a higher unemployment tax, or that might get their company sued.

Nearly eleven years ago I lost my job because of the gay issue. But keep in mind, I was working for a religious broadcasting station. Which brings us to your assessment of the "church." Aren't they sinking their own boat? the right wing Christian nut jobs, well they are digging their own grave and ruining their own reputation with a more reasonably intelligent public. Why not just let them sink their own ship? They are doing such a fine job so far. Also Mel White has a point when he says that we can be grateful to folks like Jerry Falwell for giving us a reason to fight and a purpose to rally.

Think about it this way. There are these painters. They are working on a house. A BIG house. They are good painters, a little sporadic in their activity sometimes, but good painters and they are persistent. Despite days of rain that make painting impossible, despite the heat of summer, despite the high price of gas, still eventually you begin to see that they are making progress. The new colors are starting to look really good. A nice Victorian mix of color, rainbow-ish maybe.

It takes longer than you had hoped but you've been passing by the house daily and finally one day you realize that they are about half way done, and you can envision how good the house will eventually look.

I think our nation is like this. The fight for women's rights was not won over night. Hell, it's still not won totally yet and there are plenty of bigots who still hate and abuse the female sex. But have we made progress? There's no denying we have.

Same thing with discrimination against blacks. Is it gone? No, probably never will totally be, but there are protective laws and in this democracy, which despite its faults, is moved ultimately by a reasonable majority... or at least one that is constantly learning and growing. We've made progress. We are a long way from slavery days.

That's how it is with homosexuality too. It's easier to admit to over all these days. Is it still totally safe in the work place or the local bar? No, not totally. But it's better. And for that to get better I honestly believe that more of us need to take a stand and stop using words like "friend" and "buddy" when we talk about dates and partners. We can be careful, sure, and sometimes we should be, but how much of our problem is brought about by our own shame and fear? At least some bit, I think.

The House is nearly halfway painted... and that's progress. A hell of a lot more progress than what I saw when I was a frightened teen.

I love you, Jim. But I honestly cannot always tell if you are trying to rile us up and spur us toward positive action or if you are just being depressed and defeatist. I sincerely hope it's not the latter.

No, our house is not finished, but we've made much progress progress. We will keep painting one board at a time. And in my opinion those boards equal those unique local situations like the ladies at the hardware store. If we each win one... just think of it. I ain't givin' up yet. I choose to live and be. Let the prejudice and fear of others be their own downfall, not mine.

Thanks for listening to my rant.

David

thanks for the comments David. Couple of things in response.....

I'm not so sure that either post that I wrote conveyed the thought that I wanted. I really wasn't trying to be defeatest or imply depression over this issue. Quite the contrary.

One thing I keep hoping for with this site is that people will become more involved. It's pretty evident that if someone comes on board and posts a discussion around his own personal divorce or parenting issues then the readership rally's behind and gives their opinions.

I tried a few months ago to start some discussions around politics, religion and homosexuality. As I recall there weren't any responses at all, so my inclination is to think that generally the membership here might like to read some of these posts (being generous here), but certainly non-responses indicate a pretty clear message.

I read alot on a daily basis from all sorts of postings on the web both from the main stream media outlets to your multitude of liberal bloggers and even one or two conservative blogs.

The points I was trying to make regarding the question that Vince had posted were both intended to raise some thinking within readers minds as well as stoke the fires of the discussion.

Interestingly enough there are 58 views of this post and if you subtract maybe 8 views of it between you, me and Vince, that leaves about 50 readers who could potentially have put in an opinion.

I don't doubt for one second that life for gay men and women in the western civilized world is far better today than say 20 years ago. If it were not so, I would probably remained married and wouldn't have had the courage to come out to my family and kids regardless of the fallout.

You are correct that I approached some of my reaction from the standpoint of 'is it all better now'.....no it is not all better. But, Yes it IS better .

One of the points I was trying to make in my 2 posts responding to Vince which I think I failed to make clearly was something along these lines:

Pushing the cause forward, coming out into the open and trying to secure equal access to rights (such as employment and marriage, for example), the question is have we helped or hurt ourselves by being more militant? My reaction is that the militancy has resulted in a backlash from the religious side, and hence my examples of Jerry Falwell, et al....

Just a few more thoughts.


Cheers,


Jim

And they are good thoughts... so where is everyone else on this issue?

come on, guys, it's nice to read and believe me, I've gone through my periods of time when I didn't post much. But "throw us a bone here," as the good doctor says... wait, that was actually Doctor Evil. No matter, you get what I'm saying.

And Jim, I really appreciate your trying to get the guys talking. We need to do that more. I'm also looking to get some more traffic in here again. I'm up for ideas.

Hugs

Ok. So I have been a lurker. I have been pretty busy working F/T and still not too used to working, but I do have a story, that I cannot remember whether or not was posted here; In Saskatoon, The Angican Church has a group called Integrity. There are a number of GLBT, (mostly me ) that meet in the cathedral, (The bishop's church), and have a mass. The clergy that run the communion and such, just got stripped of his 'poweers' because of his stance on sam-sex marriage and blessings. The following letter is from him to the general public:

<< AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CHURCH

Conversion of St. Paul, 2007

Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,

As you are no doubt aware, our church finds itself in a turbulent, confusing, and painful time. Many issues are involved in our current struggles: authority, hermeneutics, ethical and theological visions and convictions, and the complex relationships of gender, power, and patriarchy. Though the "presenting issue" is the place of LGBTT folk in the Body of Christ, the roots of our conflict go much deeper.

As a priest in the midst of this struggle, it has become clear to me after much prayer and soul-searching, that my spiritual conscience can no longer abide by the laws which I am required to uphold in regard to the blessing of
same-sex unions and marriages. It is my conviction that our current ban on such practices is theologically problematic and fundamentally unjust. Upholding such a position (even unwillingly) forces me to bend severely (if
not break) my priestly vows, my baptismal covenant, and the Word of God inscribed within my heart. I therefore publicly declare that I will, when requested, officiate at same-sex marriages and offer blessing upon committed
same sex unions. I will no longer discriminate against homosexual people when it comes to the exercise of my priestly duties.

I am aware, of course, that the stance I am taking will likely lead to serious consequences, and I am prepared to face these consequences openly and publicly. It may be helpful to consider my action a form ofecclesiastical civil disobedience. With conflict and rhetoric rising in the worldwide communion, too many queer brothers and sisters are being further marginalized and excluded. In some parts of the world, this takes the form of outright violence: as I write, the coordinator of Changing Attitude (a sister organization of Integrity) in Nigeria is living under a death threat from his "fellow Christians". Here at home, it is often a more subtle form of oppression: exclusion rendered invisible. As a priest and leader in the church, my complicity in upholding our current law makes me at least
partially responsible for the ongoing suffering of LGBTT Christians, and I can no longer take part in that. If my current action helps render visible that which has been made invisible, then I will be happy to bear the
consequences. I too will stand "outside the gate", where so many other queer Christians have been sent.

To be clear, there are three main reasons for my choice of taking this stance. On one level, this is a clear issue of justice, solidarity, and human rights. On another level, this is an issue of evangelism: our church's continuing discrimination against LGBTT people is a scandal which keeps many of my peers from being able to hear the good news of Jesus. And finally, this is an issue of personal integrity: I can no longer, in good conscience, uphold a law which I consider unjust, as well as theologically deficient.

Some might say that my actions sidestep the legitimate process of discernment underway in the church. I understand that concern, and I have wrestled long

and hard over what to do, working within our established canons and structures to the best of my ability. However, I also see my current course of action as being part a/the wider church's discernment. We have heard many arguments about the cost of blessing same-sex marriages and ordaining unclosetted queer folk; we also need to recognize that there is a cost as well to not moving in this direction. The cost is a huge amount of suffering for LGBTT Christians who are pressured to remain silent. The cost is that some of us, straight and gay, will no longer be able to abide the status quo, and we will simply cease to obey an unjust law. The cost is that others will quietly leave. That reality needs to be part of our church's discernment. In this, I am not leaving the church, nor relinquishing my orders. Instead, I offer my current action, with all its consequences, for the ongoing discernment of the Body.


Yours in the unquiet peace of Christ,


The Rev. Shawn Sanford Beck >>

And the following is his update after the news was given to the Bishop:


<< Dear Friends,



I am writing to thank you all for the tremendous support you have given me and my family over the past few months. Ever since I went public about no longer discriminating against LGBTT folks, and being willing to bless same-sex marriages and covenants, it has been a very uncertain and stressful time. Your emails, phone calls, prayers, and good energy has helped me remember that this struggle is indeed worth it.



In January, my bishop cancelled my license to minister, and replaced it with a temporary license which expires at the end of March. It was his way of giving me time to reconsider my decision. After meeting with him again earlier this week, it became clear that I will not be recanting and he will not be renewing my license. So this means that I will no longer be able to preach or celebrate the sacraments, and that I will lose my job at Native Ministry.



I knew when I made my decision that this would be the likely outcome, but it is still a bit of a shock now that I know for sure. But it’s good that Janice and I had several months to really get used to the idea, and make some plans for what we will do come the end of March. By the way, I want to let you all know that, logistically, we are fine: Janice is working for CHEP, and though things will be a bit tight, we’re certainly not going to starve! For my part, it will be a journey into the reality of being a priest in exile...



One of the things about an act of civil disobedience is that a person usually gets their “day in court”, in which to talk about what led them to their decision, and take advantage of a public forum for the issue at hand. Because of the idiosyncrasies of the Anglican Church (eg. its odd combination of democracy and feudalism), it is highly unlikely that I will get that type of day in court.



Someone recently asked me if I had a good “communications strategy” and I almost choked on my soup. Basically, I am just not cut out to be my own publicity manager! On the other hand, I am very willing to talk about this issue in whatever context comes up, with whomever is willing to listen. Some of you have asked me about whether or not you could contact the media about this …as far as I’m concerned, my open letter and my story is public domain. It is silence which kills, not the telling of our stories.



Throughout it all, I have come to a deeper understanding of the level of hostility still directed toward the gay community. I have also come to a deeper understanding of the solidarity and goodwill among people of various social, theological, and political stripes. My hope is that this action will have some positive impact, in the church and in the wider society, toward transforming the “domination system” into a true community of rainbow people.



Again, thank you all so much for the support you have given. Prayers and good vibes are still greatly appreciated!



Yours in the deep peace of the Creator,

Shawn +>>

Following, is a letter I am not sure where I got it, maybe even here:

<< A Failure To Communicate:

We’ve thought, discussed, and prayed about it long enough. Now we have to make a decision. I am going to try to convince you that full acceptance and inclusion of homosexuals in the Anglican Church –not merely the blessing of same-sex marriage -- is clearly the right thing to do, despite the risk of schism.

Both “conservatives” and “liberals” must agree, I contend, that we have all overlooked the importance of one crucial fact about the Anglican tradition, which , when we take it into account, makes the right decision obvious. Once the muddle about Tradition is cleared up, the other two legs of the Anglican tripod, Scripture and Reason, will be seen to support that decision.

This should not surprise us. With famous exceptions, in most cases the right thing to do becomes, at some point, all too obvious. Almost always, the hard part is mustering the gumption to do it.

. The crucial fact to which I refer is that our discussions have not reflected the plain and undeniable truth about the Anglican tradition concerning homosexuals.

Almost all discussions I have read or heard concerning What To Do start with the proposition that persons actively homosexual are, in the Anglican tradition, thought to be in need of repentance and (if possible) reform, and are definitely excluded from any priestly office.

Wrong. All this time the real Anglican tradition has been that homosexuality –and I mean sexually active homosexuality, including all “yuck” factors --- has been not only tolerated but also tacitly accepted, subject only to the exercise of prudence and the maintenance of deniability. If you kept it secret from the outside world and from self-righteous heterosexuals within the Church, you could, if otherwise qualified, readily become a priest and ultimately a Bishop. Let’s talk specific examples. I am reliably informed that not too long ago, in our own Diocese of Edmonton, at least four of the twenty or so priests in the city of Edmonton were, or had at some point while ordained been, non-celibate homosexuals. Some time earlier still we even had a Bishop, now defunct, who had to resign when he was in danger of being “outed”. I mention that these situations occurred in the past not to protect reputations , but to emphasize that we’re talking tradition here, not counterexamples..

Show me an Anglican who says his or her diocese is different and I’ll show you a whited sepulchre. Or at best a person of surpassing credulity and simplicity.

I am also reliably informed that many Anglican seminaries are and have for many years been known to contain lots of homosexuals. For example, an “inside” joke is that the High Anglican seminary at Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, is referred to as “Fond of Lace”. Graduates therefrom who for whatever reasons are anxious to rebut the presumption are, I am told, quick at the outset of any conversation with an insider casually to mention the wife and kids.

If those attracted to the Anglican priesthood include a large percentage of homosexuals, many of whom, one may say uncontroversially, enjoy dressing up, we might infer that, a fortiori, Catholic seminaries would include at least as many persons with homosexual orientation. And we would be right. The Catholic pundit and historian Gary Wills in a chapter entitled, “A Gay Priesthood” in his recent (2000) book , Papal Sin, (among other evidence) cites a study claiming that the percentage of homosexual seminarians was about 50 in the Fifties and had risen to more than 70 percent by 1980.

How long has the Anglican tradition of hypocrisy been going on? So long that nobody quite knows when it started.. That’s as good a working definition of “tradition” as any.

“Hypocrisy”, la Rochefoucauld famously said, “is the tribute vice pays to virtue”. What we Anglicans have is a double-barreled tradition of hypocrisy. Our homosexuals have hypocritically hidden their sexual orientation; and our hierarchy and leading lay people have averted their eyes and pretended not to know. Enough. Let us plainly ask ourselves: are we going to

1) root out homosexuals from our clergy; or

2) continue to accept and tolerate homosexuals while pretending they don’t exist or are celibate, and agree not to appoint any more openly homosexual Bishops or to permit our clergy to perform or acknowledge same sex marriages; or

3) permit homosexuals to admit both their sexual orientation and practices and recognize them as full and unrestricted members of our church?

Nobody is advocating #1. Tradition strongly suggests #2. But here I confidently appeal to a moral principle that nobody will deny, and that Jesus Christ took many opportunities to affirm: namely, that in the long run, hypocrisy is bad.

If we cull the hypocrisy from Anglican tradition we are left with what should be called the Real Tradition, as opposed to the hypocritical tradition: namely, a long history of the ordination of homosexual priests and the consecration of homosexual bishops. The Real Tradition is now entirely consistent with the law of Canada and other Western societies , which not only tolerates practising homosexuals but requires that they be treated precisely like other citizens. For example, in Canada the law now ensures that same-sex partners will be entitled to survivorship benefits.

The text that springs readily to mind in this context is John 16:12-13: “ I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak:and he will show you things to come.”

That text is a knock-down argument with respect to the direction we may gain from Scripture. It is common ground that Christ left no recorded comments about homosexuality; and the analogy of his openness to the despised and ritually impure has been convincingly pressed in support of the Real Tradition. Opponents are reduced to relying on two extraordinarily irrelevant passages from Leviticus, and three somewhat equivocal and perfunctory extracts from the letters of Paul (if you’ve read this far, you know what I’m talking about). Scriptural support for opponents of divorce and female ordination was several orders of magnitude stronger. But even if I am wrong as to who has the better of the argument about the correct exegesis of these passages --- and I am certainly no theologian, though as a barrister I make my living inventing and evaluating arguments ---we have it on the highest authority that the Spirit of truth trumps exegesis.

Thus Scripture.

How, then, may we ascertain what, if anything the Spirit of truth has to say to us today?
Taking care, I hope, to avoid the risk of circularity, I submit that the Real Tradition provides a guide, or at least a rebuttable presumption. The truth about the prevalence and acceptance of homosexuality in the Church should have been obvious to Anglicans for hundreds of years. Is it not significant that only now are we able to admit it? Perhaps that is because only now, when most of the civil disabilities of minorities have been removed, are (most of us) able to bear the truth: that the category “homosexual” is as spiritually irrelevant as the categories, “slave”, “woman”, “Jew” (and Greek, for that matter), which have all come to be seen to be legally irrelevant.

“Most of us”: there’s the problem, indeed, for the worldwide “Anglican communion”.

Unfortunately, most African Anglicans --- with praiseworthy exceptions, of course, starting with Bishop Desmond Tutu — appear to have been affected by the fact that they live in societies that in some respects cannot yet bear to hear the truth about homosexuals, and may not be able to bear it for a long time. Famously, and fatuously, Bishop Akinola of Nigeria, who appears to be the heaviest hitter among the African bishops, has gone so far as to claim that homosexuality doesn’t exist in Nigeria, “even among animals”, and has apparently approved repressive laws preventing those non-existent homosexuals from even attempting to alter Nigerian law so as to achieve more toleration. Yes, yes, of course in other contexts I’m obliged to admit that there are truths evident to most people in the Third World that we in the West cannot yet hear. But tu quoque –“You’re another!”--- though the standard House-of-Commons riposte, is not an admissible argument in this context (any more than the equally common, but equally irrelevant ad hominem argument: would it matter if the writer —or the reader –is “straight” or “gay” or “bi”?). We in Canada, if we do what is right, will be merely trying to remove the beam from our own eyes by owning up to our Real Tradition. We are not attempting to legislate for Africa, or other Third-World dioceses (besides, Bishop Akinola all by himself generates enough eyewash to remove even fair-sized motes without any help from us ).

“What we got here”, to quote a phrase from the 1967 classic American film, Cool Hand Luke, “is a failure to communicate”.

So let’s again try to avoid hypocrisy. Such is our communications problem that -- let’s admit it: in reality, we already are out of communion with the African churches. That has been so since at least 1998, when a number of the African bishops embarrassed themselves and their Church by their conduct at the Lambeth Conference. According to Bishop Richard Holloway, that conduct included purported “exorcisms” of identified homosexuals! Of course, a number of other Bishops embarrassed themselves at least as much by not only failing to condemn these excesses, but also failing to support their victims. Such people continue to be an embarrassment. Here in Canada , for example, we recently heard Bishop Terry Buckle of the Yukon, in a keynote address to the conference of the Diocese of Edmonton, claim and advocate ---untroubled by or (more likely) utterly unaware of the great mass of evidence to the contrary --- that homosexuals can be “cured”.

What , we must ask, will be lost if we become “officially” out of Communion with some or all of the African churches ? Well, true, we won’t be able to say there are 86 million (or however many) Anglicans. The number will be cut at least in half. Searching scripture (and tactfully ignoring the “church-building” enthusiasms of the evangelical wing of our Tradition!) , I cannot see that the number of “bums in the pews” has ever been considered a spiritual desideratum. In any case, that way of thinking is spiritually dangerous. Other than the halving of our numbers, I can see no long-term problem, as long as we retain sufficient humility to be really open to dialogue. Let’s not forget how recently we have come to these understandings: I, and many of my readers, antedate the feminist movement, let alone “gay rights”. English law did not remove civil disabilities from non-Anglicans till well into the 19th century, and was still treating women as chattels until just before beginning of the 20th. Well, I’m not that old. The point being that truth in these matters is far from self-evident. These ideas, aided by the social solvent of capitalism, took Western society half a millenium to accept –and that only recently and imperfectly . It is unreasonable to expect that they could possibly be welcomed in very different, mainly traditional societies, in a few scant decades. Still, there comes a point when, to protect the integrity of a group, intolerant people ( as opposed to people with whom we disagree, however strongly) should no longer be tolerated, and must be ignored unless and until they see the error of their ways. The Anglican church has reached that point.

The alternative sought to be imposed by the most recent “deadline” announced by a group of reactionary Bishops – a moratorium of some sort whereby homosexuals seeking ordination or preferment would again be strongly tempted, and perhaps, as in the past, encouraged, to cover up their sexual orientation. –would plunge us back into an intolerably dishonest situation. In that case, my ears are anticipatorily ringing with the epithet that our Saviour, for all his meekness, didn’t hesitate to apply to whoever deserved it, however righteous they might otherwise be: “You hypocrites!”

-Bradley J. Willis,
c/o #132 Heritage Court, 150 Chippewa Rd.
Sherwood Park, AB, T8A-6A2
ph.780-417-9222; fax 780-449-1222
email: jwillis@strathconalawgroup.com >>

Now, I am sorry for making such a long post, but I wanted to show you that we are still havin' problems here even in a group that is supposedly not olny tolerated by Bishop Rodney, but he says he wants us to continue. What kind of message is he sending, essentially firing our chaplain? Now most of you know, I am Wicca and not Christian, mostly due to a lack of faith in the Catolic Church, but I go to support my partner, Dwight, and to hear the gospel and THAT preist's version of what it means -- down with the hellfire etc.

At work, I have not 'come out' though I have not hidden it. They have not asked. I am ready to start talking about 'my partner, rather than friend. I have worked there for six months. I am planning on bringing a picture of him for my desk. I will let you know how that goes.

One point though. You have to remember, that there are a whole lot of things on the net that are all vying for your on-line time. I have 'OZ', my blog, I have the research that goes into helping those with their computer problems, and I have Facebook, as well as Neonet. Combine that with email, RSS and wanting to do something other than sit in front of my computer (as I do 40 hours a week at work), and that means that I will not post as often. I read the posts, and like to keep up on the group as much as I can.

No, my world is not all perfect. I have progressed, but until I have that conversation with my son, (he's 10 now), I will not have arrived at the point I am desiring.

Hope that you find this post interesting.

Thanks Oz, great post, although long yes, but worth the read. So one step forward 3 backwards?


Cheers,

Jim

Yep... so it seems..

Hi Guys,

I suppose I tend to regard the debates around religion....and yes you are right Jim, regarding the strong moralistic backlash across he globe...AND society in general and legislative bench marks differently.

I truely sense that a majority of people do not see sexual orientation as an...or even one of thee issues anymore. For a whole host of very obvious reasons that we encounter in our daily lives with friends/family/colleagues etc. The times have changed, people are more honest about the gay skeletons in their family closets; there have been and will continue to be changes in the law that guarantee basic fundamental civil liberties and human rights for the LGBT community, it is just inevitable.

The common occurance of this subject in the media, films, soaps...at schools, in bars and resturants....people see, know, gay singles and couples living around them....and largely don't care...we all are just getting on with living. A decent person, a good n'bour, a loyal friend, a loving relative is pretty much the same gay or st8.

Those that cherry pick... have a kind of pick and mix attitude re the Bible to suit themselves, by say; ignoring teenage sex, or un-married st8 couples living together, or un-belivers getting married in church or having their kids baptized etc are the ones that annoy me the most. Hell I couldn't care less about Felps and his 71 followers...atleast they are honest about what they believe and how they deal with scripture...very wrong no doubt, but nevertheless honest in their interpretations, and we know where they stand. The bigger issues in the church seem as much about power, preserving position, and property, condemning one easily attacked group which allows them to ignore the enormous challenges facing the church in general...such as where is god now, when/is it ever likely that he will return like a thief in the night...have we all been had...why are people voting with their feet and what can they do to change that, other rely on the good old fear factors. Do we need a 9/11 every other year just to keep the faithful hedging their bets and praying for protection that clearly isn't coming from the power of the church?

Ok I ramble....we push re our rights and societies attitudes and prejudices, and according to Issac Newton's theories there is an inevitable reaction in the opposite direction...simple laws of physics ..I jest, but the idea for me is right... nothing ever changed or was achieved without sacrifice, angst, bravery and challenge.

At my Civil Partnership nearly two years ago, a friend stood and cried..he wasn't alone in that respect I might add ...but he explained why to the guests later in a speech at the celebratory meal. When he came out as a young gay man it was illegal in Ireland to be gay, it was a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment. Now, nearly 20 years later he has witnessed legal protection for gay men and women come into force at work, in our daily lives and in the arena of partnerships. He never, ever thought this would happen in his life time....and he was over-joyed to have witnessed it's reality at our ceremony.

So no matter what others may say or do...to give hope, to prevent others suffering for who they are, some teribly as in the well known case of Matthew Sheppard...we must push against what the church..society...our peers see as the right traditional way of things....for what is right by all of our community.

Cheerio for now...Vincent...xx