by Ed Thornton

Instrumental: Dr Eliud Wabukala, who chairs GAFCON, gives his keynote address on Monday PHOTOS GAFCON

“GAFCON is for all”: the Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen

THE Archbishop of Kenya, Dr Eliud Wabu­kala, said on Monday that the Anglican Communion’s leadership should no longer “be focused on one person or one Church”, and that “orthodox leaders” should “de­velop new structures”, writes Ed Thornton.

In a keynote address to the leadership conference of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA), of which he is chairman, at St Mark’s, Battersea Rise, Dr Wabukala said: “Orthodox leaders must now do more than simply stay away. We have to go back to the basic principles and develop new structures while remaining firmly within the Anglican Communion. . .

“Our Communion has come of age, and it is now time that its leadership should be focused not on one person or one Church, however hallowed its history, but on the one historic faith we confess.”

Dr Wabukala said that there had been “unprecedented challenges to Anglican identity forced upon us by the revisionist scriptural interpretation”. This had enabled members of the FCA “to rediscover the dis­tinctive reformed catholicity of our Com­munion as shaped so profoundly by the wit­ness of the 16th-century Anglican Reformers.”

The Global Anglican Future Conference, which will meet for the second time next year, “was launched as a rescue mission for the An­glican Communion”.

The rejection of the Anglican Covenant by C of E dioceses (News, 30 March) showed “that institu­tional remedies for the crisis have failed, and that the problems we face are far too deep-seated to be dealt with by merely managerial and organisational strategies”. The “heart of the crisis” in the Communion “is not institu­tional, but spiritual”.

With thanks to the Catholic Education Resource Center

SUSAN BRINKMANN

Beginning here, The Catholic Standard & Times will publish a six-part series that will focus exclusively on the untold side of this issue. We will explore what is known to the medical, social, scientific and religious communities about homosexuality, giving our readers and their loved ones an opportunity to make an intelligent and fully informed choice about their lifestyle.

Professor Janis Price of DePauw University, Indiana, placed issues of a magazine on a table in the back of her classroom. One of her students was offended by an article that was critical of how homosexuality was being handled in public schools and complained to the administration. Price was accused of providing her students with intolerant material. She was suspended and her salary cut by 25 percent. Albert Buonanno, a Christian employee of AT&T Broadband, was fired in February 2004 for refusing to go along with a mandatory company policy demanding acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. Rolf Szabo lost his job at Eastman Kodak after he refused to go along with the company’s “diversity” program, which required he give support to homosexuals in the work place who wanted to come out. Motorola actively promotes a similar agenda through mandatory “homophobia” workshops and homosexual sex-ed courses. One employee told author David Limbaugh that “this push is causing a great deal of tension among employees and the ‘quiet anger’ of some who disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle because of their religious beliefs.” Episodes such as these are happening by the hundreds across America, every day of the week. According to medical, social science and especially legal experts, what is being called “diversity” is actually a dangerous new movement by a small group of activists to make the homosexual lifestyle appear as normal and healthy as the heterosexual lifestyle, even if that means deliberately hiding any information to the contrary. “The media or major health organizations communicate none of the serious medical and psychiatric problems associated with homosexuality,” said Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist from West Conshohocken, who has practiced child and adult psychiatry for more than 20 years. For instance, a 1997 Canadian study done in Vancouver shows the life span of gay men to be similar to what it was in 1871. The study estimates that one-half of all gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 will not reach their 65th birthday. Two recent studies published in the American Medical Association Archives of General Psychiatry confirm the existence of a strong link between homosexuality and suicide, as well as other mental and emotional problems. Forty percent of people with same-sex attraction were sexually abused as children. Relationship violence is as high as 44 percent among gay men and 55 percent among lesbian couples. “This is the truth that no one will speak,” said Fitzgibbons, “This is the truth that is not spoken in any of the diversity weeks they have in colleges or high schools. Students are made to think the homosexual lifestyle is exactly the same as the heterosexual lifestyle and all the major research coming out today shows that it’s not the same. ? But they are specifically choosing to ignore this research because the issue is political correctness, not science.” Fitzgibbons recently served as an expert witnesses in a case involving an Ann Arbor Michigan high school student whose Christian viewpoint was deliberately excluded from the schools “Diversity Week” celebration. Part of the week’s festivities involved a panel of six clerics from different denominations who were assembled for a discussion about “Homosexuality and Religion.” No one on the panel represented the Judeo-Christian view of homosexual relations. Betsy Hanson, an 18-year-old Roman Catholic student, requested that a representative of the Catholic Church be part of the panel. Her request was denied by school officials who claimed her religious views would convey a negative message and would “water-down” the positive religious message that they wanted to convey. Hanson and her mother decided to sue and Detroit Federal Judge Gerald Rosen ruled in their favor. “Isn’t this cultural hegemony, where you’re only going to present one view to the exclusion of others?” the judge demanded of the school’s attorneys. “Don’t you think that smacks of government and religious totalitarianism? Isn’t that how we got to book-burning in Nazi Germany back in the 1930s?” Fitzgibbons believes schools and school psychologists should be held liable when they actively promote the homosexual lifestyle while withholding vital information about mental and physical risks. “I’ve dealt with parents whose children were ushered into the gay lifestyle in college who are determined that if their child acquires AIDS, they plan to bring litigation against those universities. If a child was ushered into the lifestyle by the faculty at a school, and were never presented with the truth about the medical and psychological dangers associated with homosexuality, then they should be held liable.” Although doctors are obligated to provide informed consent to their patients, educators are not, he said. However, in schools where a school psychologist is involved in these groups, then Fitzgibbons said they have the requirement to provide informed consent about the dangers of the lifestyle. “If they don’t, and a child experiences some of the medical illnesses that are so highly prevalent, particularly among men involved in same-sex relationships, that school psychologist is liable, the principal is liable and the school superintendent is liable. Just as when a doctor makes a mistake at a hospital, the hospital is also liable.” Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values, has been sending out letters to 2,500 schools across the country who are relying on the “safe-school” programs devised by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network warning them of potential legal liabilities for the tort of negligence “if it is proven that homosexual activist organizations were granted access to students under the school’s responsibility and that students suffered physical or mental harm. Under the right circumstances, state authorities could also bring criminal proceedings,” he writes, citing Ohio Revised Code 2907.04, 2919.22 and 2919.24. Beginning here, The Catholic Standard & Times will publish a six-part series that will focus exclusively on the untold side of this issue. We will explore what is known to the medical, social, scientific and religious communities about homosexuality, giving our readers and their loved ones an opportunity to make an intelligent and fully informed choice about their lifestyle. Contact Susan Brinkmann at fiat723@aol.com or (215) 965-4615

The gay-rights brigade have allowed their quest for gay marriage to tip over into active hetero-phobia. If they don’t snap out of it, they’ll even lose the support of gay people like me.

A little while ago I wrote a piece for ConservativeHome about how the attacks and smears of the pro gay marriage campaign had shaken my belief in the cause to its foundations. The impulse to cry ‘paedo’ every time a Catholic spoke of their discomfort over same sex marriage, the howls of ‘bigot’ accompanying even the most gentle warning about potential implications – these are the characteristics of a movement that no longer believes it can win an argument and has instead decided to rely on ad hominem and vitriol. It is intolerant and it is ugly.

Over the last week we have seen further examples of the extent to which the gay rights militia has abandoned any moral authority and now seeks, apparently unashamedly, not to win through debate but to rob others of their right to speak.

First came the Advertising Standards Authority’s demand that the blogger ‘Archbishop Cranmer’ answer for the adverts he had run on behalf of the Coalition for Marriage campaign. These ads – which showed heterosexual couples celebrating their nuptials and implored viewers to sign the coalition’s petition – apparently caused ‘hurt and offence’ to some gay people. The only way in which one could possibly be ‘hurt’ by the ad would be if one were somehow offended by the image of straight couples doing what straight couples have done for thousands of years – marrying one another. This isn’t a reaction against ‘hate speech’ folks, it’s outright hetero-phobia.

These readers responded to their ‘hurt’ not by engaging in debate or navigating away from the page but by submitting complaints to the ASA – who have followed up in aggressive style and have frightened the man behind the avatar into hiring in the lawyers.

Next came the extraordinary decision by the Law Society to withdraw permission for an event on the role of heterosexual marriage in a good and just society. Cristina Odone (who was due to speak at the event alongside my friend Phillip Blond) has written for the Telegraph that the decision was taken on the basis that a discussion of heterosexual marriage contravened the esteemed society’s ‘diversity policy’. Apparently diversity – for the Law Society at least – stretches only one way in the discussion of public policy.

And this is the problem. I too believe in diversity. I’m a gay man (who, as it happens, believes that gay marriage is the right way forward for our society) who has benefited from our tradition of allowing a plurality of views and for the open discussion of what is good and right and what is bad and wrong. Were it not for Britain’s tolerance of dissent who would have been brave, or foolish, enough to argue that people like me ought not be imprisoned for our sexual desires?

Yet that very word, ‘diversity’, has now come to represent not plurality but homogeneity, not dissent but repression. Hiding behind it, secularists and the ayatollahs of social liberalism are able to strip public discourse of the bits they don’t like – faith, orthodoxy, skepticism about change. They have been able to use the frame of diversity as a weapon against its very purpose; to shut out and shut up those with whom they disagree.

It’s time for those gay men and women who genuinely prize freedom to take a stand against those who act against it in our name. It is up to us to continue winning the argument for the freedoms our society permits us – not to preserve those freedoms at the expense of others’ consciences or right to speak.

If my society gives me the right to marry I want that right to have sprung from a collective judgment, not from the authoritarian zeal of those acting, supposedly, on my behalf. Let’s leave the hetero-phobia at the door and get on with the business of political and moral debate. For goodness sake gays, stop whinging about people who disagree with you – argue with them.

By Dave Doveton

South Africans at the recent Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans conference in London, from the left L-R Bishop Bethlehem Nopece, Rev Dave Doveton, Rev Cierigh Samaai, Rev Gavin Mitchell, Rev Dominic Dube, Rev Lukas Katenda, Rev Nigel Juckes.

In 2008 the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) held in Jerusalem, established a Primates Council representing the majority of the world’s Anglicans and set up a global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) as a movement of bible believing Anglicans within the Communion. This was a response to the crisis caused by false teaching and the unbiblical actions of both the Episcopal Church in North America and the Canadian Anglican Church

“After some 450 years it is becoming clear that what some have called the ‘Anglican experiment’ is not ending in failure, but is on the verge of a new and truly global future in which the original vision of the Reformers can be realized as never before” – Archbishop Eliud Wabukala

The Primates Council called the London conference and it was held from Aril 23 to 27 at St Marks Church, Battersea Rise. It was attended by 200 invited delegates from 30 countries and 25 Anglican Provinces. We were a delegation of seven from Southern Africa:  From Port Elizabeth –Bishop Bethlehem Nopece, Rev Dave Doveton and Rev Dominic Dube;  from Durban — Rev Cierigh Samaai and Rev Nigel Juckes; from Stellenbosch — Father Gavin Mithchell; and from Namibia — Rev Lukas Katenda.

The theme of the conference “Jesus the Christ, Unique and Supreme” was brought home powerfully in the morning Bible studies from Colossians. The worship was joyful and uplifting. Seminars ranged over key topics such as evangelism, family, economic empowerment, the Gospel, church and spiritual leadership under pressure.

We heard reports from different parts of the world which put a face on the opposition and difficulties Anglican believers face as they try to engage in gospel witness. In Nigeria, Anglicans experience violent terrorism against leaders and churches; in many Islamic and Hindu contexts believers are persecuted and evangelism made very difficult. We heard how even in “Christian” England secular authorities harass faithful Christians. Many leaders spoke too of harassment by their own bishops for their gospel witness. While we were in the conference we received a report of a lay preacher from the very area we were meeting in who had been suspended for defending the traditional teaching on Christian Marriage.

There was the most amazing sense of unity and purpose in the conference that struck me personally, as we recognized and reaffirmed together the nature of the unchanging Gospel – the life transforming message of salvation from sin and all its consequences through the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. We were also encouraged to continue in our FCA goals which are – to proclaim and defend the gospel and to strengthen the church worldwide by supporting faithful Anglicans who have been excluded by those teaching a false gospel. We sensed that the Lord was working to revive and renew his church; were given hope that God still had a great purpose for our church by Archbishop Elihud Wabukala who in his chairman’s address to us said, “After some 450 years it is becoming clear that what some have called the ‘Anglican experiment’ is not ending in failure, but is on the verge of a new and truly global future in which the original vision of the Reformers can be realized as never before”

In a plenary address, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali (UK) spoke powerfully and movingly; he said the FCA is called to model an alternative way for the churches of the Anglican Communion to gather and relate to one another in such a way as to carry out the Great Commission in the coming decades.

As we met in seminars and network groups we were able to take practical steps to implement the commission that we felt the Holy Spirit was urging upon us. One major outcome of the conference is that international networks have been formed to facilitate our mission and to resist revisionist intrusions. Some of the networks formed are – Episcopal leaders, Pastors, Evangelists, Women in ministry, Theological Educators, Cross-cultural workers, Aid and Development workers, and Lawyers.
For me personally, I am blessed to be able to attend international conferences fairly often, but this particular one was the experience of a lifetime.

By Tim Stanley, Telegraph

[...]  The pattern of missing the wood for the trees has been consistent (it started when Obama wrote a memoir that everybody loved but nobody read) and it continues with his “endorsement” of gay marriage. The talk is all about how incredibly brave he is, not what his support actually means for gays and lesbians or why he waited until this moment to offer it. Conversely, the news that schoolboy Mitt Romney might have once said something nasty to someone who might have been gay has turned him into a rampaging homophobe. Yet again, style has eclipsed substance.

What was the gay marriage endorsement really all about? Ignore the timelines about Joe Biden being a loudmouth and follow the money instead. On Monday, the day before the North Carolina vote, the Hollywood Reporter reported that the marriage question was hurting Obama among west coast donors. “It’s safe to say that the longer Obama waits on the issue, the more frustrated the [movie] community will grow with him. Perhaps it won’t cost him their votes, but it might slow the flow of cash and public rally appearances. That concern doesn’t end with Hollywood … One in six of Obama’s so-called bundlers – people who raise money in great stacks for the president’s campaign – is gay, giving the issue great importance in his fiscal game.”

So on Monday, Obama was losing dollars on the Hollywood fundraising circuit. On Wednesday, he endorsed gay marriage. On Thursday, he flew to Hollywood for a fundraiser, where 150 donors paid $40,000 each to meet the Prez at the home of George Clooney. Coincidence?

Read here

As was widely anticipated, President Obama’s “evolution” on the marriage question has now reached its final resting place in the gay lobby camp. But the political consequences are not so clear and the electoral rout which the other convert to the redefinition of marriage cause, Britain’s David Cameron, experienced at the polls last week might be worrying him. But really, given his imprisonment – not necessarily an unwilling confinement – by the ultra liberal caucus, he had little choice as to which side of the fence he was ultimately going to choose.

Political observers in Britain are already speculating that the coalition government there, following the disastrous showing in last week’s nation-wide local elections, rewrote the content of yesterday’s Queen’s Speech, the speech written by the Prime Minister but read by the Queen to Parliament and outlining the forthcoming legislative plans. “Gay marriage” was not mentioned in the speech.

However, it does not mean the plan has been abandoned. The Chancellor, George Osborne, said the “reform” plans were being postponed in favour of “the things that really matter” to voters, namely the economy. Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone assured the gay lobby that there will be “no U-turn,” saying it will be brought in as promised by 2015. The are proceeding with their strange consultation. “There was never any plan to include equal civil marriage in this year’s Queen’s Speech. Our consultation is still ongoing and it’s important we listen to people’s views.” People are not being consulted as to whether or not they want marriage redefined, just about how they want it redefined.

Read here

By Graeme Archer, Telegraph

Evidence is so strong that children raised in standard two-parent families fare best that it takes a wilful perversion to ignore it.

I don’t have any paternal instinct; zilch. Perhaps this is selfishness. But there’s more than enough love and companionship in my existence. The universe is indifferent to “Graeme Archer”; that I will at some point be swept away, like a sandcastle by the waves, leaves me oddly content. Wash me, thoroughly (sic), of my iniquity, says the Psalm – and wash the Earth free, too, of my human stain, once I’ve gone.

So perhaps I’m wrong to comment on the case that emerged this week of the gay couple who are “devastated” to have ended up with two children from different racial backgrounds, after a mix-up at an IVF clinic. On the other hand, perhaps my unpaternal objectivity helps.

A lack of desire to reproduce I always imagined to be a psychological correlate of same-sex attraction. It seems evolutionarily obvious, though untestable, why we gay people exist. Raising children well is the most difficult, and important, human activity. It must help a tribe’s survival prospects for each generation to produce a few adults not impelled to pass on their genes. “It takes a village”, as they say, and uncles and aunts with no children of their own can lend a hand to the others.

Those without children can help lift the load, but the burden still lies most heavily on the actual parents, of course. Fortunately, there’s a very efficient incubator in which to maximise successful child-rearing: the emotional bond between mothers and fathers. The heterosexual family.

Read here

Following His Grace’s reporting of the plight of Lay Reader Mr Peter Gowlland, who was suspended from ministry following differences of opinion on the Coalition for Marriage petition, the story has spread far and wide and the Diocese of Southwark has seen fit to put out an official statement. It has being inferred from this (notably by the ecclesial vermin) this His Grace was wrong in certain key facts, and even drew on a warped source for the story. Neither, in fact, is true: the statement by the Diocese ( and reporting in the Church Times) does not actually contradict anything His Grace wrote:

Statement from Southwark diocese on the claim a reader was “sacked” for opposing gay marriage:

A spokesperson for the Diocese of Southwark said:

The Reader in question has not been suspended. Some members of the congregation had raised some pastoral concerns with the Archdeacon and he discussed these with the Reader. During the meeting it became clear that there are disagreements within the parish concerning how some matters are handled. The Archdeacon asked the Reader to refrain from ministry in the particular parish for two months in order for there to be time for these pastoral matters to be resolved. The Bishop of Southwark has put measures in place to try to resolve the difficulties within the parish.

The issue is not about the traditional view of marriage but related to matters of church order and authority during an interregnum.

Ends

Fisking:

Statement from Southwark diocese on the claim a reader was “sacked” for opposing gay marriage:

His Grace never used the word ‘sacked’. If others have done so, then they must answer for their misinformation.

The Reader in question has not been suspended.

Mr Gowlland was ‘invited to withdraw’ from preaching and leading worship for a period of two months. Since the kind invitation was clearly extended with more than an inference of obligatory acceptance, it is not unreasonable to infer that it amounts to suspension. We can quibble over terms, but Mr Gowlland is in no doubt that his ministry has been suspended, and the OED concurs. Certainly, he is not permitted to minister. If that is not suspension, His Grace does not know what is.

Some members of the congregation had raised some pastoral concerns with the Archdeacon and he discussed these with the Reader.

These members of the congregation ought to have been exhorted to follow Scripture and take their concerns directly to Mr Gowlland. The (acting) Archdeacon should have rebuked them for gossiping and slandering Mr Gowlland behind his back. Certainly, the Archdeacon ought to have given Mr Gowlland proper warning of the allegations made against him and time to respond properly to them. To ambush him with no warning (which is, ironically, what Mr Gowlland is accused of doing to his fellow believers) is not only discourteous but contrary to natural justice. In particular, one would expect better behaviour from the retired Bishop David Atkinson, who was one of those who complained directly to the Archdeacon.

During the meeting it became clear that there are disagreements within the parish concerning how some matters are handled.

Surely these disagreements had been made known prior to the meeting? Why otherwise did some members of the congregation see fit to escalate the matter to the Archdeacon if it was not to communicate certain disagreements? The Archdeacon was clearly aware of differences of opinion and appears to have made up his mind on a course of action before his meeting with Mr Gowlland.

The Archdeacon asked the Reader to refrain from ministry in the particular parish for two months in order for there to be time for these pastoral matters to be resolved.

This asking was not a request: it was mandatory. Ergo, Mr Gowlland is suspended. Differences of opinion must involve (at least) two disputing parties (schizophrenia excepting), but Mr Gowlland is the only Lay Reader to have been disciplined.

The Bishop of Southwark has put measures in place to try to resolve the difficulties within the parish.

The resolution requires no special measures. The Archdeacon failed to follow Scripture, and set aside principles of natural justice. This whole matter need never have escalated to episcopal level if those believers who had concerns had bothered to have a quiet word with Mr Gowlland in the vestry. Instead, they chose to go behind his back and present their views to the Archdeacon. The Archdeacon chose to believe their account and summarily suspended Mr Gowlland. The more they deny this, the more foolish they appear.

The issue is not about the traditional view of marriage but related to matters of church order and authority during an interregnum.

It would be nice to believe this particular bit of spin, but it must be observed that Mr Gowlland was ‘invited to withdraw’ from ministry following his support for the Coalition for Marriage petition. The other Lay Readers who take a different view on marriage have not been suspended (or ‘invited to withdraw’) from their ministries, despite their manifest contribution to the disharmony and trasgression of church order. It beggars belief that an experienced Lay Reader of 50 years standing should require some sort of special permission or submit to some sort of corporate vetting before he may mention from the pulpit a petition designed to uphold the traditional and biblical view of marriage. Why have Lay Readers Mary Duncan and Penny Bird not also been ‘invited to withdraw’ from their ministries after exhorting the congregation not to sign the petition, since this exhortation was also made without prior discussion and consensual agreement?

Ends

That’s what you think.

All Saints Church in Sanderstead is part of the Diocese of Southwark. The parish says of itself: ‘We rejoice in our diversity as churches – but rejoice even more in our unity, as we seek to serve God and our neighbour together.’ But it seems that their rejoicing in diversity does not extend to differences over the Coalition for Marriage petition, for a Lay Reader of 50 years standing and loyal service has been suspended over the issue.

Peter Gowlland, 78, was due to meet with Barry Goodwin, acting Archdeacon of Croydon, on St George’s Day for his Reader’s licence to be renewed for a further year. To his surprise, he was presented with some nebulous charges (with no prior warning) which concerned an incident eight days earlier, when he dared to suggest that the congregation at All Saints might like to sign the Coalition for Marriage petition. He had been preaching about the boldness of the Apostles, and told the congregation that the C4M issue called for a contemporary manifestation of like boldness.

As a result of this, there were one or two mumblings from members of said congregation who favour same-sex marriage, and so they complained to a higher level. Sadly, the Venerable (acting) Barry Goodwin didn’t exhort these believers to follow Scripture and take their complaint first to Mr Gowlland: he decided instead to suspend him for two months.

Bizarrely, the (acting) Archdeacon acknowledged that Mr Gowlland was ‘experienced and committed to preaching and teaching the Gospel’, but it appears that (retired) Bishop David Atkinson (and others) found him a little too committed to the cause of upholding the Church’s traditional teaching on marriage (which happens also to be the law of the land). And so he has been suspended because ‘there is a potential for division in All Saints’.

Well, there’s a bright Archdeacon. You suspend a voluntary and highly-experienced Lay Reader at a time the church has no vicar in order to sustain an illusory unity. Mr Gowlland is not merely a Reader of 50 years’ standing; he has a Diploma in Theology; taught A-level RS for 20 years; and was a headmaster for 24 years. He has been informed that the issue is not with his support for the biblical view of marriage, but with the way he introduced the subject and petition which were ‘bounced’ on his colleagues ‘without prior discussion’. For this reason, the Venerable (acting) Barry Goodwin has ‘withdrawn’ Mr Gowlland from preaching and leading worship for two months. This is not, however, a suspension.

Right.

The (acting) Archdeacon has listened to the complaints of a vociferous few who support same-sex marriage and without giving Mr Gowlland the chance to respond to the allegations has summarily ‘withdrawn’ Mr Gowlland’s licence to preach and lead worship for two months, but this doesn’t amount to suspension. And, moreover, the (acting) Archdeacon has done this during a interregnum, when the church needs all the lay expertise it can muster.

Incredible.

Mr Gowlland has appealed to the Bishop of Southwark, pointing out that the Chairman of the District Church Council was not only aware that Mr Gowlland intended to mention the Coalition for Marriage; he even offered to find a table for promotional literature. He told the Bishop that during the notices he read out the petition and encouraged people to sign it. The person leading the service was Mary Duncan, another Lay Reader, who made no comment to Mr Gowlland personally. It transpires that Ms Duncan didn’t approve of Mr Gowlland’s stance, and so made her feelings known to another Lay Reader, Penny Bird. And together, without warning or discussion, they came to the lectern and exhorted the congregation not to sign the petition. “There are other views,” they said. “Do not sign it without giving it very careful thought.” Ms Duncan turned to Mr Gowlland and said, “Just in the interests of balance, Peter.”

The Worldwide President of the Mothers Union, Rosemary Kempsell, then said that the Government was having a consultation and had asked people to respond. Bishop David Atkinson, who was leading the service, said that this was neither the time nor place to discuss this, but suggested a meeting in the near future to do so. It is quite incredible that neither Bishop David nor any of the Lay Readers expressed their concerns to Mr Gowlland privately. And neither has the Rev’d Andrew Watson (curate) nor the Rev’d Susan Atkinson-Jones (vicar-in-charge during the interregnum). This is a great shame, for the situation could easily have been defused with a quiet word in the vestry.

And now Mr Gowlland is suspended, but the (acting) Archdeacon isn’t calling it so, and neither is the Bishop of Southwark. What is significant here is that the Lay Reader whose licence has been temporarily ‘withdrawn’ for two months supports the Coalition for Marriage, while the Lay Readers who oppose it – and who stood up in front of the congregation to dispute publicly with Mr Gowlland – are not subject to any disciplinary action. Of course, Lay Readers are not employees, and so the (acting) Archdeacon is not bound by employment legislation. But, as a courtesy, one might expect the Church of England to uphold certain procedures and principles which accord with natural justice: viz. i) oral warning; ii) written warning; iii) final written warning; iv) suspension/dismissal. This would accord with the teachings of Jesus (Mt 18:15) and of St Paul (Gal 6:1ff).

Peter Gowlland has been charged, convicted and summarily sentenced without the right to present his case (cf Prov 18:17). The suspension (which it certainly is) is a manifest punitive action and a public humiliation. Mr Gowlland is elderly, fragile and very hurt: he and his wife now attend another church. He is not exercising his ministry.

Orthodox bishops in the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, meeting this week in London, are gathering in a capital city where the Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson has just banned this statement from London buses: “Not gay. Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it.”

Such censorship of these advertisements, responding to the earlier “Some people are gay. Get over it.” campaign by the highly politically influential homosexualist lobby group Stonewall, is disturbing enough. But the reasons Mr Johnson has given for the ban in the UK capital city are even more alarming.

His latest rationale frighteningly exposes the dry-rot in the edifice of democratic freedom.

At a mayoral hustings last week at St James’s Piccadilly, Mr Johnson declared that he banned the ads on London buses by Christian groups, Anglican Mainstream and Core Issues Trust, because “the backlash would be so intense it would not have been in the interest of Christian people in this city”.

His initial stated reason for banning the posters was his desire to protect Londoners from being exposed to the suggestion of gay therapy: “London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance. It is clearly offensive to suggest being gay is an illness someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses.”

Whilst his latest reason at the hustings does not contradict his earlier one, it is a significant development. It emits an even stronger whiff of democratic putrefaction.

What ‘backlash’ exactly against Christians is Mr Johnson afraid of? Is he concerned that the bus ads would have unleashed violent disorder against the Christian community? Church services disrupted? Vicars jostled? Or worse?

And a backlash by whom? Gay stormtroopers?

Or was he worried that Christians might get upset by people disagreeing with the idea of gay conversion?