Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Archbishop of Canterbury “putting church unity before gay equality”

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Martin Davies - C of E Gay Clergy Spouse 1 Aug 2008, 2:02pm

    An expected situation for me really, irrespective of the personal values of some Anglican Bishops. Their actions singly or on mass simply prove them to be hypocrites, homophobes and in some instances torturers and murderers, for as an institute Ecclesiastical that ‘claims to speak as one voice’, the charge of false imprisonment, torture or murder is not just upon the man that ‘swings the blade or pulls the noose’ but those who by their bone idolitous and personal hatred give authority to such actions.

    On a localised issue of this for the UK, one should perhaps look toward UK and EU governance for guidance, as the state church receives a lot of benefits in terms of tax and other perks, and yet the state has made its judgement on homophobia. So why is the state still giving financial aid and perks to this persecuting organisation?

    Have these people still not learnt from the prosecution of Anthony Priddis? throughout history we have seen crimes of hatred and persecution take years to come to resolution, perhaps now we should move forward and take the issue further but lawfully to the EU or the Hague?
    Your comments and ideas please?

  2. Not sleeping with the enemy would help.

    Lesbians and gay men walking away in droves taking their energy, resources and money to set up their own churches or to explore other areas of spirituality would leave a very mighty gap.

    Why stay where you are so very unwanted and doing nothing but feeding discord and division? The LBGT Christian movement has done more than any pagan new-agers to undermine and rock the foundations of the very church they say they love. As a Thelemite/occultist I can only applaud this rot and decay of what I perceive as a very tired and irrelevant institution, but as a gay man can only despair at the astounding waste of energy when there are much more important things that should be addressed.

    It all comes over as love/hate, masochism of a really unhealthy sort.

  3. I’m with T Light on this one… why join any club that wouldn’t have you as a member. Been there, done that, got the neuroses. Leave the clergy to fade into irrelevance.
    Then again, the fact that LJBT Xtians are bringing the church to its knees by staying has a kind of perverse appeal too!

  4. Sportin' Life 1 Aug 2008, 10:38pm

    Rowan Williams is certainly a complete and utter failure as a moral leader–and a substantial failure as a political leader, as well, since his pandering to bigots has only emboldened them and made the situation worse.

  5. T Light and flapjack:

    “why join any club that wouldn’t have you as a member.”

    I am fascinated by LGBT people who assume that one’s sexuality is congenital, but one’s religious convictions are chosen. I don’t know if I chose to be gay, but I’m pretty sure I couldn’t not be an Anglican if I tried. Here we stand, as the man said. We are Anglicans. We can do no other. If you really want to side with the Evangelical Fundies and argue that we must leave, then I suppose that is your right (though, as outsiders to the Church, yours is a very limited right). But doing so puts you in very unsavoury company, and makes it difficult for you to argue that you are in any way upholding the rights of LGBT people in or outside the Church.

    “Lesbians and gay men walking away in droves…”

    Not even remotely true. Gays and lesbians have been extremely loyal to the Church of England (and ECUSA in the States, as well as the Anglican Churches in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Scotland, Wales, and various other havens of Anglican latitudianarianism), and will no doubt continue to be so. I doubt that the Anglican Church in Nigeria or the Middle East can count on a great deal of LGBT support, but gay people in those countries probably have bigger things to worry about.

    “The LBGT Christian movement has done more than any pagan new-agers to undermine and rock the foundations of the very church they say they love…”

    Which foundations exactly? The authority of scripture? The historic creeds of the church? The place of tradition and reason in Anglican theology? The sacramental and sacerdotal character of the Church? Which foundations has the LGBT movement undermined? Since you apparently share one mind with Archbishop Akinola over this (and rather you than me), I am curious to know how we have struck at the heart of the Anglican faith. It seems to me that Anglicans are merely disagreeing, once again, over a rather marginal point of doctrine. Please enlighten me on why you feel this shakes the foundations of the very church. Or are you merely giving vent to uninformed prejudice?

    “the fact that LJBT Xtians are bringing the church to its knees by staying has a kind of perverse appeal too!”

    You give us too much credit, flapjack, although I’m not sure about the imagery (gay Anglicans practically live on their knees). If we’ve been in the Church of England for 1400 years, I fail to see how we’re going to bring it down now.

  6. rjb – Please give me the courtesy of reading my post properly before making comments and don’t cut my words to suit your argument. I never said that lesbians and gay men were leaving the chiurch in droves ( wish….!) – I pointed out that IF they did the church would soon notice the gap in many ways.

    I am also surprised at you using terms like ‘uninformed prejudice’ – unlike yourself, I always post here using my real name with a link to my own website which gives a very clear picture of who I am am, what I do and my background.

    Unlike yourself, I don’t feel the need to hide behind an anonymous screen to make public statements.

  7. Rjb – don’t get me wrong – I’m fine with LGBT people being a part of a religion that respects their views and allows them to be who they are, but it seems as if the Anglican communion is taking their lead from the pope and those on the far right of late. Would we be having these schisms these days if the topic for discussion wasn’t being gay but being black? Go back 60 years and you would’ve heard that from many pulpits – certainly in the USA. In these more enlightened times everyone would be telling the far right where to stick it, but for some reason being gay is still considered at least fair game enough that “all sides must be heard to find a middle ground” which in practice means gay people having to give ground to keep the bigots happy.
    Well, if giving up the progress made over the last 20 to 40 years in gay equality is a prospect that appeals to you, stick with it. Just don’t complain when you find yourself shoved back in the closet.
    BTW I chose not to be an Anglican, after 15 years in the fold, and so far it’s working out fine for me. Not listening to any more blood and thunder prophets quoting Leviticus at me and telling me I’m bound for the fiery pit is a refreshing change to say the least. And as for choosing my sexuality, If I could’ve chosen it I could’ve happily skipped 8 years of painful denial without thinking twice. In the end staying in the closet did more psychological damage than just embracing it. I can’t even think “straight”!

  8. rjb:
    had you been born in Baghdad you’d have been Muslim, in Delhi – hindu. In either case you’d have still been gay (if incredibly closetted).

    Sexuality is set, religion is a choice. You are indoctrinated as a child, and then it is largely a learned, habitual behaviour.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all