FCA, Nazir-Ali and all that

This morning, the expected happened. There was a representative of the Fellowship of Confessing Evangelicals today on BBC Radio Five Live today, because today is the big launch at a meeting at Westminster Central Hall (home of Methodism, no less). Nicky Campbell - whom I've met a couple of times and found to be polite and interesting - just kept asking question after question about Homosexuality. About seven in a row, I think. And it was he who suggested that the FCA are all about this one issue.

Bishop Nazir-Ali is lightening rod of hatred for this movement. Poor bloke. Naturally, for me to even show sympathy with him makes me as 'bad' as him. There's nothing I can do about that. These are strange, unpleasant and rather hateful times we live in. I wonder how long we can all continue in such shrill tones.

The reality about homosexuality is uncomfortable for both sides of the debate. Homosexuality is now 'no big deal' in the media. Celebrities and politicians are out in the open. And the public media-debate appears to be broadly over. So Nicky Campbell can ask the same question several times because he is sure he is on the side of moral correctness.

And yet, for a mixture of good and bad reasons, many people in Britian have a problem with homosexuality. Many don't quite know why - and would admit that it's prejudice. Most don't want to see homosexuals come to physical harm or suffer because of their sexuality. Some do - and that's bad, obviously. It requires no legislation, however, since its illegal to beat someone up whether they white, black, straight, homosexual or a Millwall fan.

But some have a problem with homosexuality and know exactly why - because of what the Bible says. (And Muslims pretty sure about it too) Here's the real problem for the national debate and Tatchell and co - Nazir-Ali and people like him are not going to change their mind. Nazir-Ali is convinced that homosexuality is wrong. Tatchell is convinced that Nazir-Ali is wrong. I don't think Nazir-Ali is proposing homosexuality be made illegal, but Tatchell, like many others, would like to see Nazir-Ali silenced or his views outlawed. And that's the real problem.

So George Pitcher writes in the Telegraph:

But [Nazir-Ali's] comments in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph, which he is expected to repeat today, that homosexuals should "repent and be changed" cannot pass unchallenged. Or rather, they should not go challenged only by homosexual rights campaigners, such as Peter Tatchell, who you would expect to be somewhat antipathetic to the expressed view.

However, a comment left by someone beneath that article observes rather shrewdly:

Pitcher, in fact, is having the debate he asks for in his last paragraph: but in fact he does not want debate. He wants the Bishop to shut up, and so do the broad swathes. That would be so much more comfortable. It has always been so, and that is why Socrates was poisoned and St Paul was beheaded.

The problem in this debate is that Tatchell and Pitcher are able to appeal to the likes of Harriet Harman to permanently silence - by force of law - one side of this debate. They may well succeed in the short term should Parliament lose its mind and pass thought-police legislation.

For an interesting article on the FCA itself and whether it's a good thing for Anglican Evangelicalism, Charles Raven has written some useful things here, mostly in response to Fulcrum's rejection of FCA, and allegations that FCA is determined to bring about schism. Raven writes:

Fulcrum is ultimately a distraction because it defines itself politically, as holding the centre ground. But preoccupation with this kind of ‘centre’ means that the gospel itself is no longer central since the Church’s chronic inability to go against the grain of the surrounding culture leads to the centre being pushed continually in a revisionist direction.

Read the rest of Charles Raven's thoughtful article here.