• Coalition against same-sex unions and gay priests
• Critics say move will lead to Church of England split
Thousands of Anglicans will gather in London tomorrow to support the launch of a UK movement opposing liberalism in the Church of England, with critics claiming it will undermine the church and the authority of the archbishop of Canterbury.
The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA), which counts five homegrown bishops among its backers, is aimed at congregations and clergy unhappy with the Church of England’s position on the blessing of same-sex unions, the ordination of women and homosexuals as priests.
One of the English churchmen supporting the FCA is Michael Nazir-Ali, bishop of Rochester, who continues to draw criticism for his views on homosexuality.
In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, and then today from the pulpit of the Church of St Peter in Bushey Heath, Hertfordshire, he said homosexuality was a threat to the Christian way of life and that it had divided the Anglican communion.
In his sermon he said: “When we ignore what the Bible tells us we do so at our peril, as we continually discover.
“If we continue in God’s way then we will flourish as persons. Marriage will be strong, family will be strong and society will be strong. It’s not rocket science.”
The other danger to Christians and the Church of England was “syncretism” ‑ the attempted reconciliation of opposing principles or beliefs, he said. “It happens daily when we capitulate to the forces around us,” he warned. “The values of culture are not necessarily values of the Christian faith.”
The tendency among traditionalists was to “keep the peace, not rock the boat and compromise with the world”, he told churchgoers. He said the FCA would change that, adding: “We will resist compromise … We need to make sure that God’s will for human beings and their flourishing is set forth clearly.”
After the service he said there had been meetings with the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, about the movement and that he had sent a message for delegates. Asked if it was a message of support, Nazir-Ali replied: “I’ve only seen one line of it, but it looked good to me.”
Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell accused Nazir-Ali of prejudice. “As an Asian man, the bishop knows the pain of racial prejudice,” he said. “I am shocked he wants to inflict similar prejudice on gay people. Bigotry, even in the guise of religion, has no place in a compassionate, caring society. His prejudice goes against Christ’s gospel of love and compassion.”
The bishop, who retires in September, was one of several high-profile clergymen to address congregations in the Greater London area today to rally support. Others included the archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen.
Organisers of the event claim it does not represent a schism and that the group is not an organisation, with structures and a constitution, but simply a spiritual network of like-minded Christians.
Some are unconvinced, noting that the FCA allies itself with groups that have snubbed the archbishop of Canterbury or established parallel churches that are more conservative.
The Rev Andrew Goddard, a tutor in Christian ethics at Trinity College, Bristol, said the FCA was “self-consciously” distancing itself from the Church of the England and aligning itself with conservative churches in Africa and North America, and that it included and was supportive of some who had already separated.
“These people would want the FCA to distance itself from at least parts of the Church of England and would seek to move the FCA in a more separatist direction. The danger is that even if it as a whole does not officially follow a ‘separatist’ path, [it] will give legitimacy and provide cover for members who do separate.
“The concern is that it will simply support those who sign up to it.
“However they conduct themselves in relation to the authority structures of the Church of England, the separatist tail will end up wagging the officially non-separatist dog.”
Why Tories are winning the pink vote
Labour can’t bear the idea that gay people, too, are repelled by them, and are turning to a changed Tory party
The culture secretary, Ben Bradshaw, asserts that “a deep strain of homophobia still exists on the Conservative benches”. The Foreign Office minister Chris Bryant goes further and warns that “if gays vote Tory they will rue the day very soon”. It’s not hard to detect the desperation in these shrill outbursts – and with good reason. A reputable new poll has found that 38% of gay men intend to vote Conservative at the next election – more than any other party, and a swing away from Labour of 14.2%.
It is this seeming ingratitude that Labour is unable to bear. It cannot comprehend that gay people might be as repelled by the government as everyone else. So now it resorts to pitiful efforts to scare them. “Don’t trust the Tories,” it says, while preposterously claiming that we’ll reverse all the progress towards gay equality that’s been made.
It’s quite hard to make the argument of homophobia stack up when the visible evidence is that the Conservatives have changed. Two shadow cabinet ministers (I’m one of them) are openly gay. As Alan Duncan (the other one) pointed out, more of Michael Howard’s shadow cabinet voted for civil partnerships than the cabinet. We have a number of talented openly gay candidates in winnable seats across the country – selected by the grassroots, not imposed by the party’s high command.
When David Cameron used his first conference speech as party leader to talk about the importance of marriage, he added that the commitment was as important for gay couples as for those who are straight. The conference audience applauded. From that moment, any doubt that the Conservative party was changing its attitude towards gay people should have been dispelled.
This is all immensely inconvenient for Labour politicians, who are determined to maintain clear pink water between the parties because they believe it’s in their electoral interest. Both Bryant and junior Labour minister Angela Eagle have claimed that the Conservatives opposed the new offence of inciting gay hatred. But this is simply not true. We supported the measure – I know, because I led for the opposition and I said so in the Commons. So did David Cameron. We also said that temperate comment had to be protected – a view widely shared in the media, including by leading gay commentators such as Peter Tatchell, who actually opposed the new offence.
That Labour should fall back on an outright lie to justify their charge against the Conservatives says more about them than it does us. Last week, at a Conservative event in support of Gay Pride (a gathering that would have been unthinkable in the old Conservative party), David Cameron apologised for the party’s introduction two decades ago of the infamous section 28, which banned local authorities from portraying homosexuality in a positive light. “I’m sorry,” he said. “We got it wrong … I hope you can forgive us.” Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights group Stonewall, described the apology as “a remarkably positive step forward”. In telling contrast, Harriet Harman could not bring herself to welcome it. Don’t be fooled, she said, and anyway it’s all too late.
But it’s never too late to say sorry. Just as Gordon Brown has not understood that voters are rejecting his false dividing line between “investment” and “cuts”, Harman, Bradshaw and Bryant have not understood the lessons of Damian McBride and “smeargate”. When Cameron says he made judgments on gay issues he now believes to be wrong, people respond to his candour as surely as they reject Brown’s dissembling.
There is more for us all to do. We still need to tackle gay bullying in schools and homophobia in sport. We still have bishops telling gays to “change and repent”. Intolerance and persecution of gays in other countries is a real cause of concern. But there is no need for a party divide on such issues. To believe gay people vote only on issues related to their sexuality is patronising and wrong. They care about the same things as anybody else. They want a better future for their country, and a better politics, too.
The truth is the major parties are reaching a consensus on gay equality. So the real dividing line will be between the parties that are honest with the public and those that are not; between those who can mount a broad appeal and those who fall back on a narrow tribal base. Even as their once natural supporters abandon them, New Labour still has not learned that the public is rejecting old politics, and that people – gays included – are crying out for change.