Registered user login:

The Church's true colours

Simon Edge

Published 10 January 2008

After three decades of trying to promote tolerance towards gay and lesbian Christians, the lead advocate is leaving, disillusioned

It is a favourite mantra among those loyal to new Labour that Britain is a much better place today than it was a decade ago - forward-looking, cosmopolitan and above all tolerant. The evidence often invoked on the last score is the emanci pation of lesbians and gay men. Riding high on law reform, the civil partnerships revolution and steadily increasing visibility from the cabinet to reality TV, many gay campaigners would agree.

But that is not how it appears if you are Reverend Richard Kirker, who is about to step down after nearly 30 years as head of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM). For the first half of that time, he fought a lonely battle to get church leaders to discuss sexuality. Now it's hard to get them to talk about anything else, but not in the way he had in mind. Homosexuality is at the centre of a global struggle for the soul of the Anglican Communion, and as gay people are accused of bestiality and demonic possession, the Church seems to have become a repository for the homophobia unacceptable in the rest of society.

Whereas in the old days the Church's anti-gay faction was led by an obscure "Mary Whitehouse in a dog collar" called Reverend Tony Higton, Kirker's main enemy today is Archbishop Peter Akinola, the powerful Anglican Primate of Nigeria. In open disregard of the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution to "listen to the experience of homosexual persons" and to "condemn irrational fear of homosexuals", Akinola says homosexuality is as dangerous to mankind as global warming. If Rowan Williams has issued any rebuke, it has been barely audible until recently. Gay-friendly before becoming Archbishop of Canterbury, he now reserves his chief condemnation for the North American Episcopalians who have elected an openly gay bishop. Many of the archbishop's former close gay friends have been left reeling by what they call his betrayal.

"The situation is appalling. Life for gay priests is immeasurably worse than when I started doing this job, because of the obsessive scrutiny of those who hate us," says Kirker, a battle-scarred 56-year-old whose shoestring organisation still numbers no more than 2,000 members. "Many people have given up the fight and left the priesthood. Others do not join it because it's not worth putting themselves through the indignity of interviews that intrude into personal morality in a way that was once never considered desirable or necessary. It is now official policy to ensure that gay people who don't give a commitment to celibacy are not selected for ordination."

While he takes issue with the notion that bigotry is crumbling everywhere else - it's a brave soul who tries to be a gay teacher these days, he notes - Kirker is prone, in his darkest moments, to gloom about his own legacy. "I always knew we would excite the animosity of those whose hostility was more dormant than active. But I did not foresee quite how active their hostility would become," he says.

Mixed blessing

That Nigeria is the power base of the anti-gay crusaders is particularly painful to Kirker, because he was born and grew up in that country. His father was a colonial civil servant there, and until Richard was 14 most of his best friends were black Africans. Educated at a minor English public school, he went to theological college in Salisbury. Among the 40 per cent of students and staff whom he reckons were gay (including the headmaster) was his first partner, Michael Harding. Kirker spent a year as a licensed lay worker in Southampton before becoming a curate in Michael's diocese of St Albans. The pair had the blessing of their bishop, the liberal Robert Runcie, who also wrote a warm letter of condolence when tragedy struck, in the form of a motorbike accident that killed Michael and left Richard badly injured.

That did not stop Bishop Runcie sacking him 18 months later. "He made it clear he couldn't continue to support me if I carried on writing to the papers about the Church's position on homosexuality and being a member of gay organisations. That was a compromise I wasn't prepared to make, and he was as good as his word," recalls Kirker, who has now been with his civil partner, Steve Caldwell, a charity worker, for 21 years.

Excluded from formal religious ministry, he threw himself into his work as general secretary of the LGCM, which was initially based in the church of St Botolph's in the City of London (it was evicted by the Diocese of London in the dark days of Section 28). Some of his actions were provocative. "Perhaps we were naive to try and sell The Joy of Gay Sex from the church," he says with a delighted cackle that betrays the instinct for mischief of a man who admits he is "more OutRage! than Stonewall". But that episode, in 1984, was no fun at the time. Customs and Excise had been intercepting Kirker's mail and tried to prosecute him for importing obscene materials; it backed down only when the gay community rallied to his defence.

An even more traumatic experience came at the last Lambeth Conference in 1998. After the debate on sexuality that had dominated the proceedings, a Nigerian bishop laid hands on Kirker in front of a phalanx of television cameras to "exorcise" the demons of homosexuality. He now shrugs the incident off with customary good cheer, but a mutual friend who was with him tells me: "It was a horrible, horrible experience where the symbols of the Church were being abused for the sake of attention-seeking theatricals. Richard could have been crushed by it, but he rose above it and refused to be made a martyr."

Good reason as he may have to resent such figures, Kirker blames Anglican liberals for their ascendancy. "Robert Runcie and Rowan Wil liams both betrayed their ideals in exactly the same way - by being supportive in private but not saying so in public. Our enemies, those who hate us, scent this weakness and they exploit it. They have grown in strength and confidence because they are in effect unopposed by liberals who won't stand up for what they claim to believe," he says.

In that context, his biggest regret is not that he dangled a pink rag in front of the evangelical bull, but that he did not wave it vigorously enough. In a dramatic parting gesture that will reopen old wounds for the Church hierarchy, he says he now deeply regrets not expressing explicit support for the "outing" campaign of the mid-Nineties, to which he has never previously acknowledged links.

The campaign was prompted by tabloid revelations in September 1994 that the then newly enthroned bishop of Durham, Michael Turnbull, who had condemned gay clergy in loving relationships, had a conviction for cottaging. An ex-monk called Sebastian Sandys outed three more bishops, including the then bishop of Edmonton, Brian Masters, at a debate at Durham University. Meanwhile, Peter Tatchell's OutRage! issued a list of ten gay bishops who had endorsed anti-gay discrimination within the Church. They included the high-profile bishop of Southwark, Mervyn Stockwood (who has since died).

The climax of the campaign came in March 1995 when the then bishop of London, David Hope, was named Archbishop of York - the number two post in the Church of England. Under pressure from Tatchell, Hope - who had endorsed the sacking of gay clergy and backed a Children's Society ban on gay foster parents - acknowledged that his own sexuality was a "grey area".

Some of us who reported on the campaign suspected that the knowledgeable Kirker - "Richard knows where all the condoms are buried," said one of his friends recently - was supporting it from the sidelines. He would not admit it at the time, but now he is breaking his silence to do so here.

He is at pains to clarify. "I was not a conduit for the release of names," he says. "The furthest I went was that, if Peter asked me about someone, I would say 'yes', 'no' or 'I've only heard rumours', which led to some names being taken off his list. But by not making my support explicit, I perhaps gave the impression I had moral qualms about the campaign. I didn't, and it troubles my conscience that I let OutRage! take all the flak. I stand by the principle of outing where hypocrisy and abuse of power is involved. It was right to expose bishops who led deceitful gay lives and who made it difficult for gay clergy in honest and committed relationships. If they had acknowledged they were gay, even if they were celibate, then people like Archbishop Akinola would not have the influence they have today."

One mark of the ascendancy of the anti-gay wing of the Church is the present wave of resignations and dismissals at Wycliffe Hall, the theological college affiliated to Oxford University. This follows the arrival of a conservative evangelical principal who hit the headlines with his professed belief that 95 per cent of the population will go to hell unless they follow the gospel. He also opposes the ordination of women, the irony of which is not lost on Kirker: the LGCM has always supported the cause of female priests, alienating Anglo-Catholic gay priests who might otherwise have been its natural constituency, but the support is not reciprocated by liberals.

"Many of the most ardent advocates of the ordination of women felt it necessary to dis so ciate themselves publicly from our cause, not because they disagreed with it, but because they thought it would do them harm," Kirker says - noting that the late Tablet columnist Monica Furlong was an honourable exception. "It's another example of the ground that the liberals have given to the evangelicals."

The principal of Wycliffe has been backed to the hilt by James Jones, the Bishop of Liverpool, who is the head trustee of the college and a vocal opponent of gay law reform. It may discomfort those who trumpet new Labour's legacy of tolerance that Bishop Jones was given his diocese following the personal intervention of Tony Blair, but it does not surprise those who keep up with Church of England appointments. Another of Blair's choices was Graham Dow, Bishop of Carlisle. It was Dow who blamed this year's catastrophic floods in England on God's wrath over gay marriage.

As the government steadily moves religion to the centre of public life, through faith schools and other social initiatives, Kirker finds he has more in common with secularists in his worries over this drift. "Questions need to be asked about what these faith projects are actually preaching, and there is an urgent need for research on the amount of public money being ploughed into homophobia via indiscriminate support for faith institutions," he says.

Yet, somehow, as Kirker prepares to hand over the running of the LGCM to his deputy, Reverend Sharon Ferguson, he remains hopeful. "When I began this job 30 years ago, my instinct was that it was more than a lifetime's work. I was never motivated by the belief that we would be able to achieve everything by the time I retired.

"That's why I am not downhearted now. We could only take our opponents on by allowing them to show their true colours. That is precisely what they have now done, and we owe it to future generations not to let them defeat us."

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

31 comments from readers

Puzzler
10 January 2008 at 12:30

Sorry. I just can't for the life of me understand why gays want to be members of an organisatiion the beliefs of which specifically say that homosexuality is wrong. If they are believing Christians they should surely look at what the bible actually says, not just try to change the rules to suit themselves. Either that or leave.

As for the rest of this article - this is a highly selective take on the activities of gays within the church to say the least. My recollection is that many gay clergy were among the most vehement opponents of female ordination, not supporters.

I think you are being very dishonest here. And as for the comment that "some of Richard's bets friends were African" ... don't get me started. What? Richard was brought up in privilege in Nigeria as a kid, so his criticisms of Bishop Akinola can't be racist?

I remember the shennaigans after the last Lambeth conference, when the attitude of western clergy over the refusal of the Africans to accept a gay american bishop could basically be summed as "who do these darkies think they are". It was a disgraceful performance with the gays and their supporters shown as the bigots, not the Africans.

The essence of the African objections was that the Americans had no right to make arbitrary decisions relating to belief without agreement from all parties. the way forward should have been debate and discussion - not "sod you sambo - we'll do as we please".

Michael Hampson
10 January 2008 at 13:37

The New Testament condemns both legalism and licentiousness. Those who seek to live in faithful homosexual relationships are celebrating the goodness of love which is neither legalistic nor licentious. Those who condemn them are the legalists, soundly condemned as hypocrits all in the gospels and the epistles. All the New Testament references to homosexuals are wanton mistranslations carried over from earlier centuries. The full biblical case in favour of stable homosexual relationships has been presented repeatedly (almost ad nauseam) over the last thirty years, most recently in "Last Rites: The End of the Church of England" (Granta, 2006): go here and scroll down: www.michaelhampson.co.uk

Richard Taylor
10 January 2008 at 14:48

That is a disgraceful comment from Puzzler. If you are confident in your arguments, Puzzler, then put them forward without cooking up bogus claims about race. Shame on you.

Jonathan Clatworthy
10 January 2008 at 17:52

I trained for the Anglican priesthood in the 1970s. To me, being unmarried and straight in that all-male residential college felt like being an outcast. The social life was dominated by gossip about who was having sex with whom and all the giggly gay smut that went with it. They knew the authorities disapproved of it but they had no intention to defend in public the lifestyles they were practising in private. If they had done, the church would not now be in this ridiculous mess.

On the other hand, they had a lot to lose. One of them did campaign for gays. He got my respect, but he never became a vicar. His name was Richard Kirker.

As the article says, there is something wrong when people who think of themselves as liberals aren’t prepared to defend their liberalism against people who attack it. To collude with oppression is to be on the side of the oppressors.

Graham McKerrow
10 January 2008 at 18:36

It seems no-one can make some Christians see sense on this subject but, as an observer of Richard Kirker's career, it seems to me that his great achievement over 30 years has been to provide reasonable, sensible and faithful responses in the face of outrageous and wicked insult and provocation, and thereby to reveal the hatred and prejudice for what it is by offering an obvious contrast. He has had to draw upon enormous reserves of patience and good humour and moral strength to do this for so long. The Rev Kirker should be honoured for his work.

Terri Murray
10 January 2008 at 23:56

Richard Kirker had been an exemplary leader in the LGCM and we will be sad to see him go. For my part, I will continue to insist that, until the gospels are purified of that scoundrel "Saint" Paul -- a self-appointed "apostle of Christ' who never met Jesus (unless you believe in ghosts), hated everything he stood for, and then founded Christianity in his name -- this sort of bigotry will never end.

Sent with love.
11 January 2008 at 07:08

Sent with love.

I will say to those who are called 'not my people', 'you are my people'; and they will say, 'you are my God' – Hosea 2.23

Aud
11 January 2008 at 14:21

If everything these people say is exactly the way that it is, then I would rather burn in hell with the people who hold no limits on love or on acceptance then sing in heaven with the people who condemn them.

Erika Baker
11 January 2008 at 17:39

The voices against us have become so loud because of Richard’s efforts to put us on

the map. They can no longer pretend we're not here, that we're not moral, and they can no longer push us back into their closets. No wonder they're shouting and thrashing about like toddlers. But these are death throws, not signs of victory.

And it's people like Richard we have to thank for this. Without him we would not be as confident as we are now. Without him we would not have Inclusive Church and like organisations supporting us. Without him, my local Changing Attitude group would not consist of 50% straight supporters. Without him my lovely priest would never have got involved in the debate, never been challenged, never have learned and grown - as it is, she is a wonderful and staunch supporter. Small steps, but all the more significant for going on, quietly and naturally, everywhere around us. It's easy to miss those when you're in the thick of national church politics!

So I hope Richard retires with a sense of success. We'll keep on fighting, and we WILL win.

justatim
11 January 2008 at 18:13

It's really sad that so many "Christian" leaders and their followers fail to realize the unchristian deception being preached. To an unbiased thought, this deception is rampant in many churches: out-of-context Bible quotes, hatred, bearing false witness about other people's beliefs, and self-justification.

Indeed, the "heaven" of these pretenders would be hell to true Christians, and the true Heaven (where all are loving and loved) would be a hell to these pretenders. I pray daily (it is my Christian duty) that these pretenders may go to Heaven.

Douglas Chalmers
11 January 2008 at 19:17

Churches are property/land-owning organizations. They are concerned with the establishment and the status-quo for their own material benefit. Joining a church or being born into one (sadly) means that you endorse that heirarchy and eventually become a slave to it.

Thus, the church becomes your master, not God. It is a "religious" organization but, consequently, not a spiritual one. It seeks conformity and domination over its subjects who are then mere objects of humiliation in their imposed and contrived ignorance.

Religion, then, becomes not a path to spiritual "salvation" or awareness or enlightenment but a means of social repression. Having a head of state as the head of a church makes it all the worse. Britain, along with Japan and the old imperialist China, are examples of that and its consequences.

Colin
12 January 2008 at 05:09

An answer to those who say that the Bible condemns homosexuality.

After years of research, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible approves of men being emotionally attracted to men and it does not condemn any form of sex between men except for male-male penetration.

Nevertheless, men penetrating men is okay if no one is harmed. Full details, including the Biblical basis of this reasoning, can be seen on www.gaysandslaves.com.

Robert Ellis
12 January 2008 at 09:56

If Richard Kirker is "disillusioned" it will be the first time in the 30 years that I have known him. He comes in that long line of people which the church calls "prophets" but by definition then ignores them or is embarrassed by them. He does not know the future he just tells it how it is. As a former Church of England Diocesan Director of Communications I was always grateful for his wise guidance and advice. As a member of the General Synod I was always very appreciative of the fringe meetings he organised on behalf of LGCM. In years to come I am sure the Church of England will hang its head in shame about the homophobic period we are passing through. However when the final edifice of the KIngdom of God stands revealed I am sure that there will be one small brick with Richard Kirker's name inscribed upon it. Both the straight and gay community owe him a great debt.

Numa
12 January 2008 at 18:50

When I gather from your article that Richard Kirker is 'disillusioned' but 'hopeful' it strikes me as an interesting combination of words. Not everyone who takes (early) retirement is necessarily disillusioned. Thirty years of seeking to make the church inclusive would, I believe, carry a recommendation from Jesus who sought to create just such an inclusive community. Numa.

George Hopper
12 January 2008 at 19:56

Richard Kirker has long been in the front line of challenging homophobic, unintelligent, unbiblical forces in the church. His courage reminds me of words I learned at Salvation Army Junior Sunday School - 'Dare to be a Daniel; dare to make it known; dare to have a purpose firm, and dare to make it known'. He has taken the flak of unchristian comments and pressure, and not allowed it to divert him from seeking justice and proper recognition for Christian LBGTs. He has my admiration and respect.

When he retires he can look back on a job well done for his Lord and Saviour Jesus.

Jesus was not homophobic - why are so many in the church unlike their Lord in this respect?

George Hopper, Local Preacher

www.reluctantjourney.co.uk

SueW
12 January 2008 at 23:01

3 years ago I moved from the UK to St Lucia, West Indies. I was told before I came here that homosexuality is illegal (in fact it isn't, per se, although sodomy is) but I was unprepared for the hatred and loathing that I have heard expressed towards gay people. Sadly, this is fuelled almost entirely by the churches here and, as most people go to church of one denomination or another, they have been brainwashed into this decidedly unChristian way of thinking. If gay people want to stay in the Church they have also to stay in the closet.

I happen to be straight but I am 100% supportive of the right of anybody, of any sexual orientation, to live as full a life as anybody else and this includes being full members of their churches. How can anyone really believe that God will turn away anybody who truly loves Him and wishes to serve Him? I find this particularly difficult to live with in a country where adultery is commonplace and widely accepted.

I was deeply shocked to discover all this and felt very alone here until a British friend pointed me in the direction of LGCM. I have been warmed and strengthened by my correspondence with Richard, his understanding and his support and, although I have known him only a short time, feel that I shall have lost a real friend when he departs.

I note with interest the suggestion that 'the Church seems to have become a repository for the homophobia unacceptable in the rest of society.' As a professional counsellor I think this could well be true in places like the UK.

Here, unfortunately, there is nothing unacceptable about homophobia - only about opposing it.

Sue Whitlock

St Lucia, West Indies

Roland Baker
13 January 2008 at 16:26

The Bible was written (or rather not written) so long ago that nobody now knows what it means.

One part, as lucid as any other, is Leviticus. I am an atheist republican so I claim no authority to comment. But it looks to me as though 'gay' is not a function of 'Christian'. In civil society Christians render unto Caesar so Leviticus does not govern the position of 'gays' in civil society.

If you want salvation though, Leviticus suggests you don't get it the 'gay' way. It seems from Leviticus that 'gay' is not one of the sins redeemed by the crucifixion of the son of the father. The holy trinity is not 'gay'. Mohammed had similar views I believe.

Now, listen to my sermon. Get the Archbishop of Canterbury and kick him awake. Ask him to say whether Christianity today overlooks the Old Testament. Defy him. Do an Andrew Marr on him. Demand a definite answer. He went to an Islamist magazine and castigated Western Society. Demand to know what he meant - exactly what he meant that is.

George Broadhead
13 January 2008 at 17:55

"As the government steadily moves religion to the centre of public life, through faith schools and other social initiatives, Kirker finds he has more in common with secularists in his worries over this drift. "Questions need to be asked about what these faith projects are actually preaching, and there is an urgent need for research on the amount of public money being ploughed into homophobia via indiscriminate support for faith institutions," he says.

When is Richard going to join the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association ?

(www.galha.org)

George Broadhead
13 January 2008 at 18:32

Jesus was not homophobic - why are so many in the church unlike their Lord in this respect?

George Hopper, Local Preacher

Please read the GALHA briefing 'Jesus and Homosexuality' on the website www.galha.org

George Hopper
13 January 2008 at 19:14

George Broadhead wrote read 'Jesus and homosexuality on GALHA website! Have done and it is written with the same ignorance of Biblical literalists, ignorance of the poor quality of translation of the Bible, and Jesus' commands to love God and one another, and that 'Love is the fulfilling of the law'.

Suggest you read www.reluctantjourney.co.uk and follow 'Letters' to the Bible Societies for some examples of the quality of translations.

George Hopper

Ergo
14 January 2008 at 01:43

The trouble with organized Christian religion is that it put far too much emphasis on sex rather than love and the result had been disastrous. A letter to the bishops by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, approve by John Paul II is as convoluted and obscurantist a document you can ever hope to find in which male and females are presented as half-persons completely defined by genitalia and complemented and completed by the opposite of their own sex.

Borrowing from the Kabbala the relationship of the trinity is couched in sexual metaphors of complementality, a view from which Mormons' doctrines borrow heavily. It's difficult to understand how any thinking person, much less gays and lesbians, would want to identify with such destructive drivel.

Ergo
14 January 2008 at 01:47

The trouble with organized Christian religion is that it has put far too much emphasis on sex rather than love and the results have been disastrous. A letter to the bishops by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, approved by John Paul II is as convoluted and obscurantist a document you can ever hope to find in which male and females are presented as half-persons completely defined by genitalia and complemented and completed by the opposite of their own sex.

Borrowing from the Kabbala, the relationship of the trinity is couched in sexual metaphors of complementality, a view from which Mormons' doctrines borrow heavily. It's difficult to understand how any thinking person, much less gays and lesbians, would want to identify with such destructive drivel.

Linda Hurcombe
14 January 2008 at 17:45

Thank you Simon Edge and NS for flagging the work of Richard Kirker, who has been for me an admired acquaintance and sometime confidant for more than 25 years. As an ex-spouse of a vicar and now a 'fulltime' exiled Christian who happens to wear my lesbian badge with modest gratitude, I thank god for Richard--his courage, humour, clarity and refusal to bow to the fundamentalists who seem to be cornering the sexuality market at this point in history. This summer the Lambeth Conference will be freighted with the continuing problems that the dear old Anglican communion has with sexuality. I shall be there, and Richard Kirker's continuing inspiration will inform my presence.

Cosquillador
15 January 2008 at 14:53

Sadly, Richard is probably influenced more by his colonial background than he realises, for there are traces of 'white man's burden' in his attitude. Yes, the African churches are homophobic, often virulently so, but the answer need not be to force them to accept the western approach to gay rights. Gay activists tend to have a culturally imperialist, 'west knows best' approach, in which rainbow flags and pride parades are universally valid indicators of 'liberation'. They ride roughshod over non-western traditions of homoerotic expression - in Middle Eastern cultures for example - and consider them inferior to western-imposed 'progress'.

It is partly because of this missionary-like zeal that gay campaigners have helped to stir up homophobia in non-western churches, especially black Africa.

Speaking as a gay man myself, I sense that the western model of 'liberation' is full of holes. Indeed I have felt more at home in some North African and Latin American countries where there is no gay movement - yet!

Many of the legal advances of the last ten years are very positive, and I do not denigrate them or underrate their importance. Nor do I underrate the advance in social attitudes, which has been immense. But the gay culture itself is shallow, consumerist and ageist. It lacks both compassion and restraint, and is deluged with promiscuity and pornography. This self-oppression is worse than anything emanating from the heterosexual majority. It is to this, rather than the attitude of people in Africa, that Richard and others should turn their attention.

Pencils
15 January 2008 at 21:40

There's been some very eloquent comments on this, so I ask to excused for being banal, but... there is one mention of homosexuality in Leviticus, there are possibly hundreds of prohibitions against eating bacon; so those who claim to be following the word of God have a clear indication of God's priorities - if they cannot demonstrate that they devote, to the cause of stamping out bacon eating, time and energy proportionate to the attention it is given in the bible, compared to the energy they expend on fighting homosexuality, then it is clear that they are not following a scriptural imperative, but simply perpetrating a prosecutable hate crime.

sprout
18 January 2008 at 19:20

My understanding is that the New Testament's "love one another" replaces the many constricting laws of Leviticus found in the Old: where am I wrong?

Sprout :

Munisha
19 January 2008 at 12:20

I found this article very interesting, not least because it reminds me of things long forgotten.

I'm an ex-member of LGCM, a lesbian and an ordained Buddhist (Western Buddhist Order). Around the time I was moving from Christianity towards Buddhism I took part in the OutRage! naming of 10 bishops believed to be otherwise than straight. Very quickly I regretted it, for reasons I'll explain.

We stood outside Church House at the start of the General Synod, holding up 10 posters bearing the message "Bishop X - Tell the truth!" A passing synod member stopped in front of one of the posters and asked the man holding it what this bishop had done to be so named. The man holding the poster answered casually that he had no idea and to go and ask Peter Tatchell - who was not holding a banner, but surrounded by journalists.

At this point I realised I had only turned up today because I was feeling bored that morning, when Peter had rung me looking for extra hands. I'd had no briefing; I was merely a footsoldier, taking no responsibility. I'm told this OutRage! action was crucially effective, but to me the manner of its execution remains unethical, not because we named these bishops, but because individually we had not taken informed and considered responsibility for the effects of our actions upon those 10 men and their families. In Buddhist ethics, motivation and responsibility are crucial matters.

I'm also pleased to see Richard emphasise again the link between support for the ordination for women and support of gay people in general, and the fact that many of the leading opponents of women's ordination are homosexual men.

Finally, many thanks to you, Richard, for all your years of work for us all. Though I am no longer a Christian, I know that many non-religious people unthinkingly look to the Church to back up their own homphobic opinions; thus it matters what example the Church sets.

Munisha (Catherine Hopper, formerly Catherine Treasure)

Andrew Carmichael
19 January 2008 at 17:20

This comment comes from Anthony Garrett, long term partner of the late Sir Angus Wilson - a very early and passionate campaigner for Homosexual Law Reform.

" Wonderful to read The Churche's True Colours and the, well earned, praise of the competence and courage of Richard Kirker."

Andrew Carmichael
19 January 2008 at 17:56

I call myself a Christian, in the sense that I believe in the main idea Christ taught us was, “love thy neighbour”. HE does not condemn homosexuality! Why does the Church accept parts of the Old Testament, but as noted in an earlier comment, not condemn us all for eating pork? Surely, most people accept that the entire Bible was written a VERY long time ago, and a long time after what was said and happened. Of course, the folks that wrote it all down put their own interpretation on events, as do certain groups of other modern “Christians”. I don’t like lots of things that people do in life, but provided no one is hurt by their actions I would not dare to tell them not to do what they choose!

Why is the Church so hypocritical?

Andrew Carmichael

Just thinking
23 January 2008 at 00:00

The difference between the Archbishop of Canterbury's private and public positions was well illustrated recently in his crossing diocesan boundaries to preside at a clandestine Eucharist for gays: http://www.liturgy.co.nz/worship/matters_files/archbishopcan...

Richard Gregson
23 January 2008 at 13:56

Richard Kirker certainly seems to be a 'prophet for our time'. As a gay Christian (yes, it's an odd state to be in, and almost but not quite self contradictory) I am immensly grateful for the leads he has given through, mainly, LGCM. The longest journey is the one never started; he has certainly given us a great lead on what will surely be a very long path. We must now use the wide variety of beliefs to continue to explore inclusivity and liberalism in Church and State - the two kingdoms which Martin Luther considered we should not "confuse and mingle into one secular and spiritual government".

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Is this the worst economic situation for 60 years?