This report about my second visit to Canterbury on Monday has been delayed, mostly because Tuesday, when I was not there, was a much more exciting day, at least for journalists. Whether this is connected to my absence, I do not know.
Anyway, when I went again to the Registration Desk, I was able to obtain the full content of the previously missing Welcome Pack content, namely a paper Campus Map.
Also from a separate IT Desk I was able to get a WiFi login for my own personal use. I have to say that the instructions for using it in conjunction with Windows XP (which is what my laptop runs) are definitely not for the faint-hearted. However, on Monday I was able to connect using the Press Room’s ethernet rather than the WiFi, and so avoided the challenge again.
During the day I attended two press briefings, one conducted by Paul Feheley of Canada and one conducted by Archbishop Phillip Aspinall of Australia. The latter was the one at which the Archbishop of Canterbury answered questions, which have been pretty thoroughly reported elsewhere already. I didn’t understand the logic of his answer about why the Bp of New Hampshire had been excluded, but then neither did most other people I talked to.
The earlier briefing was dominated by complaints from several other journalists, but Bill Bowder in particular, about being excluded from the morning and evening worship in the Big Top. I was personally surprised to discover this was the case as I distinctly recall ten years ago that these sessions were not restricted only to bishops and spouses, and plenty of outsiders attended them on various occasions. No convincing explanation of the need for this restriction has yet been offered.
I also spent time in the Marketplace. Among the exhibitors there were Inclusive Church, and also WATCH, Changing Attitude and LGCM.
LGCM, which is sponsoring the Peterson Toscano shows next week, had several interesting documents available, including this review (PDF) of the book by Phil Groves, which has been mentioned as a major resource for sexuality-related discussions at the conference. Unfortunately, Professor Michael King is not impressed by this book, although he does like a couple of chapters in it. These were not the ones written by his professional colleagues. You can read a much more favourable review of this book here, and another critical comment here. I have still not read most of it, so am reserving judgement. There is also more about the book here.
Speaking of books, I was sorry not to be there today, Wednesday, when Peter Francis, who edited the book Rebuilding Communion to which I contributed a chapter, was due to be the LGCM Guest of the Day.
At the end of the day, I went down to St Stephen’s Church for Evening Prayer. Everyone was welcome to attend this service…
There are many references to the “conference organizers”. It would be interesting to get some background on who the people are that are actually running this highly controlled show.
The most remarkable thing about Groves’ book is the suppression of the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Submission to the Listening Process authored by Professor King, which, if the book had sought to be balanced, would have been quoted in its entirety. http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/uploads/rcp.html Only one sentence is quoted from the report in a chapter titled: “Unwanted Same-sex Attractions: Can Pastoral and Counselling Interventions Help People to Change?” authored by Glynn Harrison, a member of General Synod and opponent of gay equality legislation. The whole chapter, the final and concluding chapter of the book, is a defence of therapies denounced as harmful… Read more »
As the manager of the 1998 Market Place and Fringe Events Coordinator, it is heartening to see the list of participants. I was under strict orders from the top to refuse any gay/lesbian presence – so I had to find other ways to assist them. Sounds like some lessons were learned.
Thanks to Ruth Gledhill I have now finished reading the Groves compilation so generously endorsed by a “post gay” called Peter Ould and recommended enthusiastically on an earlier thread by Changing Attitude’s Colin Coward. I found myself agreeing with Professor King and the Provost of Glasgow. Despite its good bits this is a dangerous book, and despite all the assurances we had from the Anglican Communion Office Professor Glyn Harrison did have established relationships with those on the lunatic fringe offering “reparative therapy” to gay people. This was a real betrayal. It is important to remember that decades after western… Read more »
It’s great to see Bob McCloskey posting here and telling us authoritative how it was.
It is a great antidote to the silly whinging from some journalists about how many gay fringe events there are this decade! It seems that even in some liberal quarters gays are still OK as long as they don’t act up too much – Gosh now I think about it, some gay groups have bought into that!
Hmm, these constant feeds from people who have allegedly changed their sexual orientations through mainly religious therapies, so-called reparative therapies, or some combinations thereof raise interesting questions. One I asked back in the day when I was still allowed to post on blog StandFirm was: How is it, that every time God changes somebody from the awfulness of being queer to the nothing but wonderfulness of being nothing but straight, God makes them a strictly conservative religious person, all at the same time? I still do not have a careful answer from the conservative/change now crowds. Another question is: How… Read more »
I guess most books are written by people with a particular passion. The Scriptures, of course, are a good example. What is really needed is a good interpreter. I believe that, in the end, God’s Spirit will, if necessary, re-orientate (and maybe, re-interpret) whatever our individual opinions may be.
However, the exercise of interpetation needs the grace of truthfulness. The Gospel can be entirely subversive of the ‘establishment’, requiring the gentle art of listening. Perhaps this is why God has given us two ears but only one mouth.
From the King review on “The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality”: “Concern is even expressed that “current political pressures” (read here gay lobby) will mean that gay and lesbian people will be denied their “human right” to seek therapy for their “unwanted same-sex attraction”.”
Ridiculous—and irresponsible. THIS is what all the bishops at Lambeth are reading???
Lord have mercy!