Shrove Tuesday is the day before Ash Wednesday, which begins Lent. It is a day of penitence, to clean the soul, and a day of celebration as the last chance to feast before Lent begins. In Britain it is popularly known as "Pancake Day".

This year, it fell on 28 February, my birthday. So I decided to learn about it and the famous Olney Pancake race. Similar races are now held in many places, especially in Liberal, Kansas

The English term "to shrive", means to hear confessions and grant absolution. It is found in the Anglo-Saxon Ecclesiastical Institutes translated from Theodulphus by Abbot Aelfric about A.D. 1000. "In the week immediately before Lent everyone shall go to his confessor and confess his deeds and the confessor shall so shrive him . . ."

Lent is a time of abstinence, so Shrove Tuesday was the last chance to indulge oneself, and to use up the foods not allowed in Lent, such as meat and fish, fats, eggs, and milky foods. So that nothing was wasted, families would feast on the shriving Tuesday, to eat all the foods that wouldn't keep until the end of Lent. The need to eat up the fats gave rise to the French name Mardi Gras; meaning "fat Tuesday". Pancakes became associated with Shrove Tuesday as they were a dish that could use up all the eggs, fats and milk in the house with just the addition of flour.

The oldest and most famous Shrove Tuesday pancake race has been held in Olney in Buckinghamshire since 1445. According to the story, a woman was busy cooking pancakes in her kitchen on Shrove Tuesday and lost track of the time. Suddenly she heard the church bell ringing to call the faithful to church for confession. She rushed out of her house and ran to church, still holding her frying pan and wearing her apron. Only women wearing a dress (no slacks or jeans), an apron and a hat or scarf, may take part in the race. Each contestant has a frying pan containing a hot, cooking pancake.

The race starts at the market square at 11.55 am. The starter orders competitors: "Toss your pancakes -- Are you ready?" and then give the starting signal. At the finish of the winding 415 yard (375m course) the winner is required to toss her pancake before being declared the winner and being greeted with the words "The Peace of the Lord be always with you" spoken by the Vicar of the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul and the traditional prize of a kiss from the Verger. All who finish the course are expected to attend the Shriving Service during which the prizes are presented. The record is 63 seconds, set in 1967.

A few towns in England continue the tradition, dating from the 12th century, of Shrove Tuesday football ('mob football') games. At the Westminster School in London, there has been the annual 'Pancake Greaze' since at least 1753. The school cook tosses a huge pancake over a high bar and the boys scramble for a piece. The scholar who emerges from the scrum with the largest piece receives a cash prize from the Dean. The cook also gets a reward, as is only right and proper.

In the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, there is a service of "Commination or denouncing of God's anger and judgements against sinners" to be used on Ash Wednesday. It includes this prayer:

O Lord, we beseech you, mercifully hear our prayers and spare all those who confess their sins to you; that they, whose consciences by sin are accused, by your merciful pardon may be absolved, through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Titusonenine quotes Andrew Carey (Church of England Newspaper 6 Jan 2006,) who has some proposals on how to behave when we are facing a stand-off about sexuality (or anything else) in church debate.

Mr Carey is to be congratulated for building bridges rather than burning them. We must find ways to continue our witness to the truths of the Gospel of Christ despite disagreements among ourselves. Mr Carey said:

Firstly, the chief protagonists on each side should make attempts to form relationships with each other. They meet across tables in radio and television studios but rarely know each other any better than that. There's no element of compromise in 'getting to know your enemy'. And a friendly debate, however strongly our differences are communicated, is surely a better witness than a shouting match.

Secondly, [Archbishop] Dr Williams suggested to Simon Mayo that we will all have to make some 'sacrifices' if we are to avoid schism. [. . .] In this kind of debate there are no winners -- only losers. When Jeffrey John pulled back from becoming Bishop of Reading, under immense pressure, that certainly didn't feel like a 'win', because it was such a wounding blow to a very decent and talented man. When in November 1992 the General Synod voted to ordain women I was standing between two women. One, a young reporter on the Sunday Times, felt elated that she had seen history change for her gender. But the late, great Betty Saunders of the Church Times, though professional as ever, was crushed by the decision. Any win, for either side, leaves losers. And any decent Christian will feel that loss.

And thirdly, I'd like to see some practical agreements between the parties to this dispute. Let's start with our situation in the Church of England. Many liberals and conservatives have one common frustration -- that bishops they know to be sympathetic to their viewpoint do not give a lead. Well here's an initiative for those bishops -- invite some of the leaders of the main groupings together (perhaps under the auspices of umbrella networks such as Inclusive Church and Anglican Mainstream) and try to hammer out some pointers and questions for future debate and behaviour.

Avoid attacking people rather than the issue.

To what extent can we all oppose human rights abuses against homosexual people, including parts of the Communion where Anglican leaders are at their most opposed to homosexuality? Can we ensure that the proper Synodical processes are used for continuing this debate among us -- that sleight of hand, planting facts on the ground, and acting alone are not strategies that we encourage?

Can bishops and parishes, at ground level, who are at odds with each other, find ways of loosening their ties without fully breaking communion with each other?

What degree of communion can we actually have with each other? And what would it take to fully put us out of communion with each other? Can we have the highest degree of communion possible, for as long as possible, while this debate about human sexuality, the Windsor Report, and the communion-wide process unfolds?

I hope and pray that we may.

Many, even of the authorities, believed in Jesus. But because of the pharisees they did not confess it, for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved human glory more than the glory that comes from God. (John 12.42-42)

Churches in the West have been curiously silent in the face of the Government of Nigeria's appalling proposals for anti-homosexuality laws which not only prohibit same-sex relationships but deny freedom of speech and assembly to groups of homosexual people. To its shame, the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) vociferous supported the legislation and other Nigerian churches have also supported the laws.)

Now, to his great credit, the Rt Revd John Bryson Chane, Episcopal bishop of Washington, has published a critique of the Nigerian church's actions in the Washington Post Sunday, 26 Feb, 2006. Comments (hopefully in support!) can be made on the Diocese of Washington's blog.

Prelidium and Salty Vicar are two bloggers to congratulate the Bishop and respond to his comments. Comments at Thinking Anglicans are interesting, too. On the other hand, David Virtue offers a strongly worded refutation of Bishop Chane. Earlier, Giles Fraser wrote wrote in the Church Times.

But despite pleas to act, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have (to my knowledge) said nothing.

This is what Bishop Chane wrote:

A Gospel of Intolerance

It's no secret that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion are engaged in a bitter internal struggle over the role of gay and lesbian people within the church. But despite this struggle, the leaders of our global communion of 77 million members have consistently reiterated their pastoral concern for gays and lesbians. Meeting last February, the primates who lead our 38 member provinces issued a unanimous statement that said in part: "The victimization or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us."

We now have reason to doubt those words.

Archbishop Peter J. Akinola, primate of the Church of Nigeria and leader of the conservative wing of the communion, recently threw his prestige and resources behind a new law that criminalizes same-sex marriage in his country and denies gay citizens the freedoms to assemble and petition their government. The law also infringes upon press and religious freedom by authorizing Nigeria's government to prosecute newspapers that publicize same-sex associations and religious organizations that permit same-sex unions.

Were Archbishop Akinola a solitary figure and Nigeria an isolated church, his support for institutionalized bigotry would be significant only within his own country. But the archbishop is perhaps the most powerful member of a global alliance of conservative bishops and theologians, generously supported by foundations and individual donors in the United States, who seek to dominate the Anglican Communion and expel those who oppose them, particularly the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. Failing that, the archbishop and his allies have talked of forming their own purified communion -- possibly with Archbishop Akinola at its head.

Because the conflict over homosexuality is not unique to Anglicanism, civil libertarians in this country, and other people as well, should also be aware of the archbishop and his movement. Gifts from such wealthy donors as Howard Ahmanson Jr. and the Bradley, Coors and Scaife families, or their foundations, allow the Washington-based Institute on Religion and Democracy to sponsor so-called "renewal" movements that fight the inclusion of gays and lesbians within the Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian and Lutheran churches and in the United Church of Christ. Should the institute succeed in "renewing" these churches, what we see in Nigeria today may well be on the agenda of the Christian right tomorrow.

Many countries have laws restricting marriage on any number of grounds. Some of these, such as age, kinship and marital status, for instance, are prudent, while most of us believe other sorts of restrictions, including race and religion, are oppressive and indefensible. Our global community has certainly achieved no consensus on the issue of same-sex marriage or the related issues of civil unions.

But the Nigerian law has crossed the line in several important respects. Its most outrageous provision deals not with marriage but with "same-sex relationships" and prohibits essentially any public or private activity in any way related to homosexuality. It reads in part: "Publicity, procession and public show of same sex amorous relationship through the electronic or print media physically, directly, indirectly or otherwise are prohibited in Nigeria."

Any person involved in the "sustenance, procession or meetings, publicity and public show of same sex amorous relationship directly or indirectly" is subject to five years' imprisonment.

The archbishop's support for this law violates numerous Anglican Communion documents that call for a "listening process" involving gay Christians and their leaders. But his contempt for international agreements also extends to Articles 18-20 of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which articulates the rights to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, association and assembly.

Surprisingly, few voices -- Anglican or otherwise -- have been raised in opposition to the archbishop. When I compare this silence with the cacophony that followed the Episcopal Church's decision to consecrate the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, a gay man who lives openly with his partner, as the bishop of New Hampshire, I am compelled to ask whether the global Christian community has lost not only its backbone but its moral bearings. Have we become so cowed by the periodic eruptions about the decadent West that Archbishop Akinola and his allies issue that we are no longer willing to name an injustice when we see one?

I also feel compelled to ask the archbishop's many high-profile supporters in this country why they have not publicly dissociated themselves from his attack on the human rights of a vulnerable population. Is it because they support this sort of legislation, or because the rights of gay men and women are not worth the risk of tangling with an important alliance?

As a matter of logic, it must be one or the other, and it is urgent that members of our church, and citizens of our country, know your mind.

Last November, Islamic fundamentalists had forced the closure of the Jakarta CP biennale because of the work of two artists, Agus Suwage and Davy Linggar, demanding their prosecution for 'blasphemy' or 'pornography'.



This installation Pinkswing-Park, 2005 by Agus Suwage and Davy Linggar was what caused all the fuss. I don't like it much (Some of the other works at the Biennale are most elegant.), but that's not the point. Suwage in particular is an important and valuable creative spirit, who should not be crushed by fundamentalist ignorance. Nor should Indonesia, a free spirited nation of diverse and talented artistry, be crushed into a bland conformity. Indonesia, home to more Muslims than any other nation, is emerging into democracy after decades of near-dictatorship. Must she now succumb to the fanatics?

The groups who protested over the press cartoons of Muhammad are targeting pornography in their battle to make Indonesia more strictly Islamic. The Indonesian parliament is expected to introduce a sweeping anti-pornography law. Expected to be passed by June, it imposes a rigid social pattern; couples who kiss in public will face up to five years' imprisonment, as would anyone flaunting a "sensual body part" -- including their navel -- and tight clothing would be outlawed. Most women's groups are horrified, entertainment industries believe it could destroy them.

The Islamic Defenders Front spearheads the anti-porn protests. Mainstream Islamic organisations, warning of moral decay, are supporting the law and politicans are caving in. In Jakarta, police have seized hundreds of thousands of "erotic" magazines and DVDs -- anything showing some skin -- following an direction by the police chief to "eradicate pornography".

One of Indonesia's leading contemporary artists, Agus Suwage initially trained as a graphic designer at Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB). His work explores the contradictions of human nature -- how violence and pain are inextricably linked to joy and pleasure.

Born to Javanese and Chinese parents in Purworejo, Central Java, Indonesia in 1959, Agus Suwage spent his youth in the city of Yogyakarta before studying graphic design at the Faculty of Fine Art and Design of the ITB (Bandung Institute of Technology), in Bandung, from 1979 to 1986. He then moved to Jakarta and took up work as a graphic designer and illustrator.

While he may be biologically Chinese, Suwage's cultural consciousness is essentially Javanese. He is comfortable with displacement and paradox, the outcome of the convergences of his surroundings. This gives rise to a sense of the unexpected in his work, allowing him to be provocative yet cheeky, humorous but darkly so.

Agus Suwage's solo exhibitions include: the H Block Gallery in Brisbane, Australia (1996); the Lontar Contemporary Art Gallery in Jakarta, Indonesia (1997); Galeri Padi in Bandung, Indonesia (1998); the Cemeti Contemporary Art Gallery in Yogyakarta, Indonesia (1998); and the Millenium Gallery in Jakarta, Indonesia (1999); Ough--Nguik!, a solo exhibition at the National Gallery of Indonesia and Countrybution, the 7th Yogyakarta Biennial in 2003.

His group exhibitions include: the 2nd AsiaPacific Triennial (1996), Awas! Recent Art from Indonesia (a touring exhibition to Australia, Japan, Germany and the Netherlands, 1999-2000) and Man + Space at Gwangju Biennale (2000), Phillip Morris Indonesia Art Award, ASEAN Building, Jakarta, Indonesia (1996); Current Art in Southeast Asia, Glimpses into the Future, Museum of Contemporary Art, Tokyo, and Hiroshima City Museum of Contemporary Art, Japan (1997); Sixth Biennale of Havana, Havana, Cuba (1997); Imagining Selves, Singapore Art Museum, Singapore (1998); Media dalam Media, National Gallery, Jakarta, Indonesia (1999). He was an artist in residence at Queensland University of Technology, in Brisbane, Australia (1996), and at Saitama Modern Art, in Tokyo, Japan (1999).

(sources: Valenitine Willy and The Legacy Project)



Suwage is an artist of substance. He is definitely not a pornographer. Legacy Project curator Jim Supangkat writes:

Suwage is a good example of "the right man in the wrong place." Born in Central Java of Javanese and Chinese parents, he grew up in a Javanese environment with a strict Catholic education. After working as a graphic designer and illustrator, he decided to dedicate all his time to creating artworks. Married to a Moslem Sudanese woman, Suwage is an example of an individual who continually goes through a process of negotiation regarding his own identity in a plural culture. While Nindityo Adipurnomo created a cynical work entitled Who is Afraid of Javanese, Suwage seems to say, "Who isn't afraid of being Indonesian Chinese?"

Self Portrait demonstrates the psychological tension in Suwage's life. The 24 self-portraits he paints show his face revealing many different personalities in many different situations. The unpleasant sensations the portraits reveal -- pain, suffer, disgust-- are related to deep psychological pain, hatred and anguish that have their roots in destiny and represent Suwage's search for self. Since he has a Chinese heritage, he feels Chinese and has discovered that being Chinese in Indonesia is unpleasant because of the threats to the Chinese minority.

Even while working as a graphic artist, Suwage sketched and drew on every scrap of paper he could find. Even now he has hundreds of little pictures piled in his cupboard. He begins work on his creations by developing the sketches recorded on those scraps. Suwage did not study oil painting on canvas, or the other traditions of painting; he is much closer to everyday media including photocopies, photography, pencils, charcoal, ballpoint pens, poster paints, and even coffee grounds, which he uses to color his sketches. Although he now uses oil paint and canvas, Suwage continues to explore different uses of non-standard media and equipment.

Mark Forbes writes in his piece in The Age.

Suwage believes his work captured attention because one of the models, Anjasmara, is a popular soapie star. The two models, photographer Davy Linggar and the curator of the biennale, Jim Supangkat, are also facing criminal charges.

Supangkat declined to be interviewed and Suwage is increasingly bitter at his reaction to the protest.

However, a detailed interview with Jim Supangkat has been published on a webpage about the biennale.

After hundreds of demonstrators had descended on the exhibition, a panicked Supangkat ordered the offending panels to be covered with white cloth. Other artists draped their own works in solidarity and Supangkat closed the biennale, permanently.

Suwage believes his prosecution is linked to pressure to pass the anti-porn law and the desire of fundamentalists to impose Islamic rule. Afraid of prison, Suwage says he is determined to fight. "Maybe it's good for me and Davy to become the victims, maybe we need martyrs," he said.

Based out of a small cafe gallery in Jakarta's backpacker precinct, Suwage and a motley collective or artists are mobilising against the new law. "From this case, we make a manifesto for art against the pornography bill," he said. "It's very dangerous for freedom of expression but it also threatens other aspects of society."

Meanwhile, Bali's embattled tourist authorities are alarmed at the prospect of sunbathers being arrested. (Bali is Hindu and animist more than Muslim.) Are we going to see Donald Friend's works, such as this Red Interior stripped from the walls of Balinese galleries?

My cousin Julie Ann McKinlay Greaves died yesterday, after a prolonged struggle with cancer. She was 47.

I did not know her very well, as we've lived a long distance from each other for more than 20 years. She was an attractive, courageous and highly accomplished woman.

Julie is the first member of my generation to die, apart from my younger sister Noella Ann, who died at birth. I am the oldest member of my generation in my father's family and my mother's family.

How vulnerable we all are! My genes say that I may have a long life. I have a many medical problems, but none of them should shorten my life or make my old age miserable. James's parents had short lives, but he is superbly fit and well. Who can say how we will live?

My days are swifter than a weaver's shuttle . . . remember that my life is wind . . . (Job 7.6,7).

We pray for Julie's husband Anthony, her sons Luke and Adam, her parents Bob (my father's younger brother) and Eunice, and her brothers Phillip and Trevor.

It seems just possible that, alongside their Episcopal sisters and brothers, the good people of the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland may reach a sensible position on civil partnerships and, by implication, on committed same-sex relationships. In May 2006, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland will be asked by the Kirk's Legal Questions Committee to receive a report relating to civil partnerships, which are now established in British law.

In a press statement of 20 February, the Church says:

Commissioners will hear that an obvious new pressure on the Church is the reality of civil partnerships being entered into and fully recognised in law. While such partnerships cannot be entered into by persons of the opposite sex, there is no presumption in law that a sexual relationship exists where a civil partnership has been entered -- an arrangement may exist between friends solely for legal and financial reasons. To some extent, therefore, it is necessary to take a neutral view of the implications of civil partnerships but, inevitably, the issue is bound to attract controversy as inferences are likely to be drawn.

In fulfilling its obligations in relation to civil law, the report suggests that the Church cannot do other than recognise the legal reality. The Kirk does, of course, have the protection of its own distinctive practice, through the independent spiritual jurisdiction in general, but it is not exempt from civil law in matters like pension rights and other patrimonial issues. The Legal Questions Committee believes that in these civil law respects, the General Assembly does not need to take any particular measures but simply requires to recognise the implications of the new legislation, for instance in relation to pension entitlement and retirement housing provision.

A major question facing the committee was whether ministers and deacons may act in ways which would recognise the status conferred by the civil law event. There is no current expectation that civil law will devise the equivalent of a marriage ceremony and so the Church doesn't have to consider whether ministers would become celebrants for that legal function. However, those who are religious cannot have any religious element in their civil partnership ceremony. So it is not surprising to find them turning to a sympathetic minister to provide some form of religious ceremony to mark the event. At present, ministers willingness to mark same sex committed relationships has to be packaged as an act of pastoral necessity to comply with the criteria that came from General Assembly sexuality debates in the 1990s.

The committee readily acknowledges that this is a controversial question but believes that it is important to recognise the existing freedom of pastoral conscience of ministers and deacons to guarantee that they do not face censure in the wake of providing this service. It is equally important to respect the rights of those who, in conscience, could not affirm same sex relationships, legally recognised by civil partnership. Consequently, the committee will ask the General Assembly to agree that a minister or deacon who conducts any service marking a civil partnership does not commit a disciplinary offence while also asking the assembly to agree that no minister or deacon will be obliged to conduct such a service against his or her conscience. The committee will also ask the assembly to agree that civil partners may ask another minister or deacon who is willing to conduct the service to do so if the parish minister has declined.

The committee's report concludes by stating that it believes that the suggested agreement which it will place before the General Assembly is permissive in tone but will protect conscience on all sides.

In a press release Integrity has welcome the inclusion of a gay man (the Very Rev. Robert Taylor) and a lesbian (the Rev. Bonnie Perry) in the list of candidates to be the next Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of California (San Francisco and the surrounding region). I look forward to the day when events of this kind are so ordinary that they will be no longer newsworthy.

It was inevitable that another gay/lesbian person would eventually be nominated to the episcopacy. Whether or not Robert or Bonnie is elected by the Diocese of California, it is inevitable that another gay/lesbian person will eventually be elected, confirmed, and consecrated to that order of ministry as the Episcopal Church continues to live into its call to fully include all of the baptized into the Body of Christ. [. . .]

Regardless who is elected to be the Bishop of the Diocese of California, it will be the responsibility of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church to give or withhold consent to that election when it meets this June in Columbus. As it has in the past, Integrity expects General Convention to follow canonical procedures to the letter-giving consent to the bishop-elect if there is no justifiable impediment to his/her consecration. The canons clearly state that, "No one shall be denied rights, status or access to an equal place in the life, worship, and governance of this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, disabilities or age."

We realize that some of our brothers and sisters in other provinces of the Anglican Communion will be dismayed by Robert and Bonnie's nomination and, perhaps, regard it as deliberate disregard for the Windsor Report. However, it must be remembered that the Windsor Report is a set of recommendations with no binding authority. Both the Diocese of California and the Episcopal Church must discern and obey the will of God as faithfully as they know how-even if doing so in not consonant with the understanding of other members of our communion.

The Independent (18 Feb) reports that the Archbishop of York, the Most Revd. and Rt Hon. Dr John Sentamu, has passionately attacked American refusal to close the its prison camps at Guantanamo Bay.

Dr Sentamu, the Church of England's second in command, urged the UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) to take legal action against the US - through the US courts or the International Court of Justice at The Hague - should it fail to respond to a report, by five UN inspectors, advising that Camp Delta at Guantanamo Bay should be shut immediately because prisoners there are being tortured.

The report was published on Thursday, as a senior High Court judge, Mr Justice Collins, stated that American actions over Guantanamo's Camp Delta do not "appear to coincide with that of most civilised nations". As a result of his ruling, three of eight British inmates held in the camp are to appeal to the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to intervene with the Bush administration on their behalf. [. . . ]

Dr Sentamu [who is also a lawyer] said the UNHRC should seek a writ of habeas corpus, compelling the US to bring those being detained at Guantanamo to court, to establish whether they are imprisoned lawfully and if they should be released.

"The American Government is breaking international law," he told The Independent. "The main building block of a democratic society is that everyone is equal before the law, innocent until proved otherwise, and has the right to legal representation. If the guilt of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay is beyond doubt, why are the Americans afraid to bring them to trial? Transparency and accountability are the other side of the coin of freedom and responsibility. We are all accountable for our actions in spite of circumstances. The events of 9/11 cannot erase the rule of law and international obligations.

"The US should try all 500 detainees at Guantanamo, who still include eight British residents, or free them without further delay. To hold someone for up to four years without charge clearly indicates a society that is heading towards George Orwell's Animal Farm."

Well said, your Grace.

The National Council of Churches of the U.S. has also called for the Guantanamo prisons to be closed.



America does nothing to make itself the "home of the free" by denying rudimentary process of law to those who are its prisoners. What is America seeking? Vengance (which belongs to God) or justice, which requires the rule of law. Due and equal process of law is, I believe, enshrined in the US constitution -- which seems not to apply in Guantanamo Bay. Many nations have suffered terrible loss in war. Yet those we most honor have respected the Geneva conventions protecting prisoners of war and have tried to apply justice fairly to all, including their enemies. Such is the mark of a humane, civil society.

P.S. In response to the suggestion that the Guantanomo Bay situation is an unusual anomaly, Dr Sentamu said on 23 Feb:

This is not an anomaly. By "declaring war on terror" President Bush is perversely applying the rules of engagement which apply in a war situation. But the prisoners are not being regularly visited by the Red Cross or Red Crescent, which is required by the Geneva Convention. They were not even allowed to be interviewed by the United Nations Human Rights Group.

In Uganda President Amin did something similar: he did not imprison suspects because he knew that in prison the law would apply to them, so he created special places to keep them. If the Guantanamo Bay detainees were on American soil, the law would apply. This is a breach of international law and a blight on the conscience of America.

(From the Changing Attitude website):

12 February 2006

Open Letter to:

The Most Revd Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury
The Most Revd Dr John Sentamu, Archbishop of York
The Revd Canon Kenneth Kearon, Secretary General Anglican Consultative Council
The Rt Revd John Patterson, Bishop of Auckland, Chair Anglican Consultative Council
The Revd Canon Phil Groves, Facilitator of the Listening Process

Changing Attitude England and Nigeria

In August 2005, with approval and support from Changing Attitude (England), a new Changing Attitude network was formed in Nigeria. Davis Mac-Iyalla became the co-ordinator of the new group and through lesbian and gay Anglican friends began to develop groups in Abuja, Jos, Lagos and Port Harcourt. A committee organised a first General Meeting for the group in Abuja from 25 to 27 November. The Daily Sun and Vanguard newspapers in Nigeria carried reports, as did the New York Times on 18 December.

The Revd Canon AkinTunde Popoola, Director of Communications for the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) subsequently began to send me emails. He claimed variously that Davis was not a real person, was not gay, was not a member of the Anglican Church, and was defrauding CA (England) of money. With information and evidence provided by Davis, I was able to satisfy myself that Davis was who he claimed to be and that the facts of his life were as presented to us.

On 29 December 2005 Canon Popoola published a press release on behalf of Archbishop Peter Akinola. It alleged that Davis had defrauded his bishop in Otukpo of large sums of money, documents and church salaries and that he was a fraudulent personality, defrauding foreigners of money. Davis denied each allegation and provided further evidence of the truth about himself. We have been provided with independent verification from a number of sources.

We have asked Canon Popoola to provide the evidence on which his allegations are based. He has been unable to do this. His tactic has been to repeatedly question the evidence provided by Davis and demand additional proof. We believe the burden of proof lies upon him to substantiate his allegations.

Having assessed the documents provided by Davis Mac-Iyalla and in the absence of evidence from Canon Popoola, our understanding of the press releases is that they were deliberately published to undermine Davis's reputation and the work of Changing Attitude (Nigeria). The releases have partly achieved this aim because they were accepted as true in many reports. They have put Davis's life at serious risk, made people doubt his integrity and credibility and caused great anxiety among the CAN members in Nigeria.

We suspect the press release was also intended to undermine the work and reputation of Changing Attitude (England) and poison the atmosphere in which the Communion-wide process of reception of the Windsor Report and monitoring of the listening process is taking place. We bring this to your attention because we believe it is a deliberate assault on the work of Changing Attitude Nigeria to support lesbian and gay Anglicans, develop a response to the Windsor Report and contribute to the listening process.

On Wednesday 18 January 2006 the Federal Executive Council of Nigeria approved a bill for an Act prohibiting marriages between people of the same sex. The Bill also prohibits the public show of same sex amorous relationships. Any person involved in the registration of gay clubs, societies and organizations in private is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a term of 5 years imprisonment. The bill received the support of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion).

We understand that the Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council is meeting in London in March 2006. We ask that you bring this matter to the attention of the Standing Committee and the Councils of the Anglican Communion. In particular:

We ask that attention be paid to those members of the Councils who are failing to honour the documents and statements agreed by those Councils to listen to the experience of lesbian and gay people. We ask that the Primates of the Anglican Communion respect the dignity and integrity of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Anglicans and oppose legislation designed to curtail our essential right to protection and freedom of association.

We are committed to the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We are committed to engage with the Church in dialogue in a spirit of mutual respect, honouring difference.

Yours sincerely,

The Reverend Colin Coward
Director of Changing Attitude

The crazy thing is that the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) should be so naïve as to be caught up in support for the politically motivated actions of the Nigerian government -- especially when its been boldly critical of the government on other questions of probity and social justice. The church leadership, and Archbishop Akinola in particular, has deceived itself because of its visceral hatred of homosexuals.

Far more serious than the prospective ban on same-sex marriage is clause 7 of the Nigerian government's bill, which will make it an offence for gays and lesbians to form clubs and associations or to gather together in an organised way for any purpose, including assertion of their civil rights. Among other things, this is a violation of fundamental right of assembly and a contravention of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

How can the Nigerian Church support such a thing? Only, apparently, because it thinks that a gathering of homosexuals is on a par with a gathering of rapists or murderers.

Press release -- 15 February 2006

Changing Attitude Nigeria responds to Government proposals to outlaw same-sex marriage

Many people from the press in Nigeria and from other countries have contacted Davis Mac-Iyalla, Director of Changing Attitude Nigeria asking for comment on the proposed Government Bill outlawing same-sex marriage. Davis has remained silent, praying and thinking about what to say but now has some answers.

• The proposed Government bill gives a clear signal to the world that gays and lesbians really do exist not only in Nigeria but in the whole of Africa.
• There is freedom of association and speech in Nigeria and human rights which must be respected.
• Nigeria is a secular state. The Government should concentrate on good governance and give protection to gay and lesbian Nigerians to ensure that we can live in peace in our society.
• The Nigerian Government should not be using time and energy to attack and deny the human rights of lesbian and gay people . We are children of God who have been created to enjoy and affirm our God-given sexual nature.
• The disclaimer and press release issued against me by the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) and the frequent threatening phone calls and emails to me are showing to the world how the Church and the Nigerian Government are homophobic and are prepared to use any means to silent the voices of innocent, vulnerable people.
• The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) has committed itself in the Windsor Report and Resolution 1.10 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 to listen to gay and lesbian experience. It is shocking to discover that in direct contravention of these commitments, the Church is attacking individual gay Christians and attempting to destroy the new work of groups like Changing Attitude Nigeria.
• The Church should commit itself to mission and evangelism and the Good News of Jesus Christ in the life of all her members. The Church should protect the safety of all minorities and people who are subject to prejudice, including lesbian and gay people. The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) as a signatory to Resolution 1.10 has assured lesbian and gay people "that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ."

Davis Mac-Iyalla
Director Changing Attitude Nigeria
+234 80 25866133
Email: davis@nigeria.changingattitude.org

In a column in Lagos newspaper The Vanguard (9 Feb 2006), Moreni ke Taire finds cynical politics to be behind the Nigerian government's motives, far from any concern for the moral wellbeing of its people.

[T]he proposed bill is the greatest insult the Federal Government has ever thrown in the face of the National Assembly, in spite of the fact that it has thrown out far more important bills, such as the one which proposed the elimination of all forms of violence against women.

Clearly, the question of whether homosexuals are allowed to marry or not are not the most important issue we are faced with right now in our national life, even on the social scene. We have never, in the first instance, had any solid laws regarding marriage, even in the secular situation.

In the churches and mosques the laws guiding marriage and cohabitation are no less lax, with many highly placed Christians being husbands of more than one wife and/or having children by more than one wife, and with highly placed Moslems with more than one wife showing open favouritism . We have no laws that take care of women in marriages and, in the face of polygamy (which the information minister might argue is African), the very idea of bigamy is all but ridiculous.

One wonders then why our government is in such a hurry to make this an issue. To be fair the Nigerian chief Anglican cleric has repeatedly made his stance known about homosexuality and same sex marriage, though his declarations to that effect are of about much magnitude as German Chancellor Schroeder, declaring his stance against the war in Iraq to a dinner party in Lagos last weekend.

When government begins to preempt a matter like this in a country where homosexualism (sic) has not only been a reality for so long but has been associated with some of the wealthiest and most highly placed Nigerian men, what may have been perceived as "holier than thou" might now be perceived rather as more "conservative than thou".

Those who say that the Nigerian government has carried homophobia to ridiculous levels are not wrong, but are not as right as those who argue that the anti same sex marriage law is a political trap that is being set now to be used later. Possibly for 2007?

I passed 8th grade Math
[Just as well, in my job!]

"Congratulations, you got 10/10 correct!" Could you pass 8th grade Math?

Red roses aren't a cliché when they come from your own garden (tho' the picture's from the Web). There's a vase of these glorious 'Mister Lincoln' blooms on my office desk, grown in our courtyard. Thanks James,

To whom I owe the leaping delight
That quickens my senses in our wakingtime
And the rhythm that governs the repose of our sleepingtime,
    The breathing in unison

Of lovers whose bodies smell of each other
Who think the same thoughts without need of speech
And babble the same speech without need of meaning.

No peevish winter wind shall chill
No sullen tropic sun shall wither
The roses in the rose-garden which is ours and ours only

But this dedication is for others to read:
These are private words addressed to you in public.
--- T.S. Elliot

St. Valentine's Day is Tuesday. But James and I are taking advantage of the weekend for a small celebration today.

There are numerous legends and accounts of St. Valentine. Wikipedia tells the history of St. Valentine's Day. This is from the Anglican Breviary:

On this day is commemorated blessed Valentine, a priest of Rome who was martyred for Christ, probably in the persecution of Claudius the Goth, about the year 269. He was buried on the Flaminian Way; and about 350 a church was built over his tomb, and later a catacomb was constructed thereunder, wherein were buried the remains of many Martyrs. [. . .] In England, from the time of Chaucer onwards, there was a belief that on his feastday the birds began to choose their mates. From which arose the custom of arranging betrothals in Saint Valentine's Tide . . .

I rather like the idea of joining with the love birds as we celebrate our love. So today I'm wearing a Threadless tee with this "For the birds" design.

Valentine's feast day was removed from the Roman church calendar in 1969 as part of a purge of merely legendary saints. In 1836, relics alleged to be of St. Valentine had been removed from Rome and donated by Pope Gregory XVI to Whitefriar Street Carmelite Church in Dubin, where there is a Shrine of St. Valentine

On 27 October 2005, the Church Assembly (Kyrkomötet) of the Church of Sweden decided that a special order of service for the blessing of a registered partnership should be introduced. Registered partnerships include same-sex partnerships. The Church's Central Board has been commissioned to produce the new order of service, expected to be introduced this year 2006. The decisions of the Swedish draw on two documents from its Theological Committee, Homosexuals in the Church (2002) and Life Together (2005).

The Synod also resolved that:

• Any condemnation of the homosexual person is ruled out and so is the attachment of guilt to the homosexual orientation.
• The church should work actively to oppose discrimination of people because of their sexual orientation.
• The Church of Sweden ought not to sanction or to run any organised work aimed at "curing" homosexual people of their orientation.
• A homosexual orientation, or living in partnership, is not a motivation for denying anyone ordination to service in the church.

From Confessing Reader I learn that, as part its our relationship with the Church of Sweden under the Porvoo Common Statement, the Faith and Order Advisory Group of the Church of England has commented on the new policy.

The writers of the English response, the Revd Canon Professor Oliver O'Donovan and the Revd Dr Jeremy Morris, delineate clearly and fairly the difficulties posed to ecumenical relations by the respective decisions of the English and Swedish churches concerning homosexuality.

But I can't help but feel that this is tinkering at the margins. What is essentially at stake in the everlasting debate on homosexuality is the way we receive, interpret and apply scripture and tradition; the 'question of authority', as ARCIC entitled it in another context. Unless and until we sit down and work long, hard, and prayerfully on the use-of-scripture question, we have no hope of agreement on a matter such as homosexuality.

Actually, I doubt that the churches could ever agree on the use-of-scripture question (did someone say 'ecumenical council'?). Certainly it could take centuries. But that is where the challenge lies. And in any case, agreement on homosexuality in isolation will take a hundred years at least, in my view.

The other possibility is simply to relax and allow each other to listen to the Spirit as best we may.

We could even try both.

In the meantime, do we or do we not respect each other as fully brothers and sisters in Christ?

The Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Bill 2006 now before the Nigerian parliament will, as its title implies, prohibit same-sex marriage. That is regretable, but no different to the situation in dozens of other countries. Possibly unique, however, is this deplorable provision in the bill:

7. Prohibition of registration of gay clubs and societies and publicity of same sex sexual relationship.

1. Registration of Gay Clubs, Societies and organizations by whatever name they are called in institutions from Secondary to the tertiary level or other institutions in particular and, in Nigeria generally, by government agencies is hereby prohibited.
2. Publicity, procession and public show of same sex amorous relationship through the electronic or print media physically, directly, indirectly or otherwise are prohibited in Nigeria.
3. Any person who is involved in the registration of gay clubs, societies and organizations, sustenance, procession or meetings, publicity and public show of same sex amorous relationship directly or indirectly in public and in private is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a term of 5 years imprisonment.

Not only does Nigeria supress the civil rights of gay and lesbian people, but makes illegal any organised social activity by gay and lesbian people and any attempt by them to assert their rights.

And the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) supports this abuse against its own people.

The always interesting Mr Thorpe is back at work again. I wish him success in the Commonwealth Games.

Meanwhile, a real hero for the games seems likely to be Matthew Cowdrey. Competing in the Elite Athletes with a Disability events at the Australian trials, the arm amputee established new world records in the 50m Butterfly (twice), 50m Backstroke (twice), 100m Backstroke, and 100m Freestyle and 200m Individual Medley (in whicvh he broke the record by 3 seconds).

A Paralympian in Athens, Matthew won two gold, two silver and two bronze medals there. He is now in the Commonwealth Games swim team to contest the Elite Athletes with a Disability (EAD) races in Melbourne. The EAD team mebers are part of the mainstream team and the EAD events are integrated with the mainstream program. However Cowdrey will contest only two events at the games - as the 50m and 100m Freestyle are the only two in his repertoire available to EAD athletes.

Today is the feast of St. Dorothy; not a day well noted in church calendars. She is probably apocryphal and her cult was suppressed by the Vatican a decade ago. I'm reminded of her by the St. Dorothy's Day mass held in Melbourne yesterday for Midsumma. But I'm especially observing St. Dorothy's feast to pray for my aunt Dorothy, my father's younger sister and a special friend. Dorothy and her late husband, Geoff, were very kind to me as a young child and I have had a special affection for them both. She recently had a stroke and is now struggling to recover. So I pray for her healing and strength. Curiously, this is the only photo I have of her, taken when she was a teen and I was only a toddler.

According to legend St. Dorothy (Dorothea) was a virgin martyred at Caesarea in Cappadocia in about 313 CE, during the persecution by Emperor Diocletian. As she was on her way to execution, a young man named Theophilus jeered at her and taunted her for her piety. "Send me fruits and flowers the garden you speak of, where you are going to your bridegroom." As Dorothy knelt in prayer before the executioner's block, an angel appeared before her with a basket of three apples and three roses. After she died, the basket was delivered to Theophilus, some say by the angel and some by a child. He was immediately converted and later was martyred. St. Dorothy is usually represented with the basket of roses; sometimes there are also apples. She is the patron of brides, gardeners, florists, newlyweds; against lightning, fire, and thieves. The veneration of Dorothy was strong in medieval Europe and there are some fine works of art depicting her (and some kitsch, too). This wooden sculpture, for example, from the Rijksmuseum. The sculpture, 38cm high, by the Master of Koudewater, was probably for one of the cells in the Mariënwater cloister.

One of the oldest European pieces in the National Gallery of Australia, here in Canberra, is a 16th century altarpiece Triptych of the Virgin and Child with Saints. Cologne School c.1510-20 . The centrepiece depicts the Virgin and Child enthroned within an enclosed garden, flanked by angel musicians and six female martyr saints. To her left are Saints Agatha, Katherine and Dorothy (with chaplet and child with basket of flowers -- detail), and to the Virgin's right are Saints Barbara, Cecilia and Agnes.

Geek boi tags me with this, so . . . [Read this to work out whether the following is a meme or not]

Remove the blog in the top spot from the following list and bump everyone up one place. Then add your blog to the bottom slot, like so.

1) Anastasia
2) LutherPunk
3) *Christopher
4) geek_boi - uncensored
5) not too much (Brian)

Next select five people to tag

Five? Do five people read this? No idea really. Not sure I want to inflict it on anyone.
Damien?
Augustus?

What were you doing 10 years ago?

Working as Director of Library and Records for the Australian Government's now-defunct Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs -- and thinking of quitting (which I did a year later) to study theology. And thinking I really would like to have a boyfriend, which a year later, I did.

What were you doing 1 year ago?

Almost exactly the same as I am now.

Five snacks you enjoy:

I don't eat snacks (boring answer, I know), but:
A. Wholemeal toast and honey
B. Cheese
C. Apricots
D. Apples
E. Cornish pasty

Five songs you know all the words to:

None, except the entire choral libretto of Handel's Messiah. Most times I know just a few words.

Five things you would do if you were a millionaire:

Now, if that were a millionaire several times over. . . :
A. travel (a lot, first class all the way)
B. endow a lectureship or three at my theological college
C. set up my partner James, my brother and my sister financially for life
D. create a really good private library
E. build a house big enough to put it in, as well as a beach cottage

Five bad habits:

A. being too busy, doing too much
B. loosing stuff -- spectacles, wallet, keys, etc., etc.
C. talking too much
D. maybe too much coffee
E. insufficient exercise

Five things you enjoy doing:

A. being with James
B. reading
C. writing, so long as I don't have to do it
D. thinking/daydreaming
E. travel, at a slow pace

Five things you would never wear again:

A. Just about anything tight -- I like loose clothes, though when I was 20 years younger . . .
B. A necktie, if I have a choice, or any other business clothes for that matter
C. A beard (only once, for medical reasons, ugh!)
D. Batik
E. Short shorts

Five favorite toys:

Toys?

And while I doing memes . . . (Hat-tip: *Christopher):

25 Random [?!] Questions:

1. When you looked in the mirror first thing this morning, what was the first thing you thought?

Shave.

2. How much cash do you have on you?

Exactly $200 Australian.

3. What's a word that rhymes with TEST?

Rest.

4. Planet?

UB313

5. Who is the fourth person on your missed calls?

There are none (boring answer).

6. What is your favourite ring on your phone?

There's only one -- old fashioned telephone 'Ring, ring!'

7. What shirt are you wearing?

A tee from Threadless.com

8. What do you label yourself as?

Christian, scholar, gay, friendly

9. Name the brand of shoes you've recently worn.

Rockport

10. Bright room or dark room?

Bright, but cool.

11. What were you doing at midnight last night?

Sleeping; what else is there to do at midnight? I get up at 6.00am, every day!

12. What did the last text message on your phone say?

I don't get text messages, as I don't send any. I prefer to talk.

13. Where is your nearest 7-11?

Over 200 km away, in Sydney.

14. What's a saying you say a lot?

I don't use sayings. I tend to speak in fully articulated sentences, a consequence of my upbringing as the son of a school teacher and grandson of a well spoken English lady.

15. Who told you they loved you last?

James -- and it's mutual.

16. Last furry thing you touched?

Myself (see 1. above)

17. How many drugs have you done in the past three days?

Medicines - four per day
Coffee and wine - both every day
Anything else - absolutely none and never

18. How many rolls of film do you need to get developed?

I'm digital.

19. Favourite age you've been so far?

Forty; young enough to do anything, old enough to know better.

20. Your worst enemy?

Fatigue

21. What is your current desktop picture?

An autumn scene; I'm hanging out for the cooler weather.

22. What was the last thing you said to someone?

"Goodnight, baby, I love you." (He went to bed early, with a fever.)

23. If you had to choose between a million bucks and being able to fly, which would you choose?

$$$

24. Do you like someone?

I like most people.

25. The last song you listened to?

Daniel Schutte's Here I am Lord, which was our closing hymn in chuch this morning, and as usual, it made me weep.

Philip Bewley, student at Trinity College Theological School in Melbourne, and Dr Peter Sherlock, post doctoral fellow in history at Melbourne University, are launching a new Changing Attitude network in the Diocese of Melbourne.

Today, at the 11th annual St. Dorothy Day Mass, part of Melbourne's annual Midsumma festival, Philip and Peter are inviting people to register interest. A core group are to meet before holding a first public meeting, probably sometime in March.

Changing Attitude was founded in 1995 as a network of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and heterosexual members of the four Anglican churches of the United Kingdom. It now totals over 1000 people, including supporters in other countries. Its goal: the day when the Anglican Church fully accepts, welcomes and offers equality of opportunity to lesbian, gay and bisexual people.There are Changing Attitude networks in Scotland and New Zealand and Nigeria. They have similar aims to Integrity in the USA, Canada and Uganda (e-mail).

I earnestly pray that Changing Attitude will flourish in Australia. Yet more I pray that one day it will be no longer be necessary to have an organisation to work toward the day when the Anglican Church in Australia fully accepts, welcomes and offers equality of opportunity to lesbian, gay and bisexual people, because that day will have arrived.

I've been reading reviews of
Lee Joon Ik's Korean movie hit Wangeui Namja ("The King and the Clown" ) in Bloomberg.com, Hancinema.net (the best written and most interesting), Korea Times, and Chosun Ilbo. With ticket sales of over 8 million, it is among Korea's most successful films.

Based on a play, Yi, the story takes place during the 16th century Joseon Dynasty. Jang-saeng (played by Kam Woo-seong right) is a clown in the Namsadang troupe who abandons his troupe after realizing that it had degenerated into a plaything for the aristocrats. With a fellow clown named Gong-gil (played by Lee Joon-ki), whom he loves deep in his heart, Jang-saeng leaves for Hanyang (now Seoul) for a new life. There he leads a show troupe and with his exceptional talent makes the troupe famous with a show that satirizes tyrannical King Yeonsan (played by Jeonng Jin-yeong left) and his favorite concubine, Nok-su (played by Kang Seong-yeon). The king likes with the performance and provides living quarters for the clowns in the palace. He soon starts to cast amorous glances at Gong-gil, however, which causes Nok-su to fall into a jealous rage and devise an evil plot.

The stills of Wangeui Namja look fabulous. Will we ever see it in Australia?

---

New York Times 31 March, 2006
Gay-Themed Film Gives Closet Door a Tug, by NORIMITSU ONISHI

SEOUL, South Korea - "King and the Clown" lacked a single top star from South Korea's booming film industry, or the other usual ingredients of a surefire blockbuster.

And in a country where homosexuality was removed from the Youth Protection Commission's list of "socially unacceptable" acts only in 2004, the film centered on a gay love triangle in a 16th-century royal court: a young male clown torn between his love for a fellow clown and an amorous king.

But to everyone's surprise, not least the director's, in mid-March the movie became the most popular ever in South Korea's history, seen by more than 12 million people, or one in four residents. In American terms, it would perhaps be the equivalent of "Brokeback Mountain" -- to which this movie has been loosely compared -- grossing as much as "Titanic."

As a cultural phenomenon, "King and the Clown" has led to sometimes confused, sometimes uncomfortable discussions here about the nature of homosexuality, something that was rarely discussed publicly until a few years ago.

At the core of the movie, which the producers hope to take to the United States, are two male clowns, a masculine one named Jang Saeng and a feminine, delicate-looking one named Gong Gil, who assumes the female part in skits. Itinerant performers who depend on handouts for their survival, they are condemned to death one day for a bawdy skit insulting Yonsan, a king remembered in Korean history for his tyranny. But after succeeding in making the king laugh, the clowns are pardoned and allowed to become court jesters.

The king becomes enamored of Gong Gil, and the ensuing relationship fuels Jang Saeng's jealousy. Physical displays of affection are subtle: the king kisses the sleeping clown in one brief scene; in another showing the two clowns sleeping next to each other, Jang Saeng gently tucks in his partner.

All tame perhaps, but many here consider the movie a taboo-breaker in its matter-of-fact portrayal of homosexuality. Popular culture had long ignored gays or, in more recent years, relegated them to caricatured roles.

"One or two films tried to describe gay relationships in a serious way, but were unsuccessful commercially," said Tcha Sung-Jai, one of the country's best-known producers and a professor of film at Dongkuk University. "That's why everyone in the industry was so surprised when 'King and the Clown' became a hit.

"I cried when I saw the movie," Mr. Tcha added, "and I'm a very strong heterosexual."

In addition to homosexuality, other previously taboo subjects, like human rights violations during South Korea's military rule and North Korea-related themes, have been broached recently in film. Movies have mirrored, and sometimes tried to stay abreast of, a South Korean society that has been socially and politically transformed in the last decade.

Until a decade ago, when a tiny gay rights movement was started by Korean-Americans on a few college campuses here, most Koreans had been completely unaware even of the existence of gays. Even though Seoul has long had two neighborhoods with small clusters of gay bars, Itaewon and Chongno, they remained hidden, and homosexuality went unmentioned.

Then, in 2000, the issue was tossed into the public area when a well-known television actor, Hong Suk Chon, became the first major figure to declare his homosexuality. Mr. Hong was immediately dropped from his show, and his career appeared over. But in 2003, in a sign of changing attitudes, the actor began a successful comeback.

"We feel that the last 10 years is the equivalent of a hundred years because so many changes occurred in such a short period," Oh Ga Ram, an official at the Korean Gay Men's Human Rights Group, said in an interview in the organization's office in Chongno.

No other public figure has come out of the closet, and most Korean gays remain hidden. But Mr. Oh said "King and the Clown" was a "positive step" because "there is a discourse now that did not exist before."

The discourse, though, was often confused, Mr. Oh said. Because the love triangle hinges on a feminine male clown, some viewers say the relationship is not a gay one at all. "In the minds of many Koreans now, 'pretty males' equal gay," he said.

The movie's title in Korean is more direct about the nature of the relationship: "The King's Man."

Still, its director, Lee Jun Ik, was hesitant to define his movie as a gay-themed one and played it down as breaking taboos.

"This is not homosexuality as defined by the West," Mr. Lee said in an interview. "It's very different from Brokeback Mountain. In that movie, homosexuality is fate, not a preference. Here, it's a practice."

Mr. Lee said he had been more interested in evoking the world of itinerant clowns, many of whom were involved in same-sex relationships.

One person the director consulted was Kim Gi Bok, 77, who is considered the last surviving itinerant clown. Mr. Kim was amused at the attention he had gotten because of the film.

"Before, we were treated as beggars, but now we are considered traditional artists," he said in an interview in Anseong, a town two hours north of Seoul, where a center to keep alive his craft was established.

Intense relationships developed among itinerant clowns, Mr. Kim said, because they worked in all-male troupes and traveled together all the time.

"It was also difficult to get a wife," he said. "We were beggars. Who would marry a beggar?"

As in the movie, a masculine clown and a feminine clown often became a couple. The masculine clown showed his love by buying his partner, called biri, a watch, Mr. Kim said.

"They would stay together all the time, sleeping in the same room, helping each other out," he said. "The biri would go into people's kitchens and even beg for food for both of them."

"Some of the biris were extremely beautiful - they had hair down to here," Mr. Kim said, pointing to his waist, as his eyes lit up at the memory. He added that some clowns who did manage to marry would sometimes leave their wives for fellow clowns.

Mr. Kim himself married and had one son. He said he, too, had biris during his life, though he said the relations had not been sexual.

"Relations between men were very sincere and genuine," Mr. Kim said. "It was an amazing, remarkable relationship, much closer than anything between a husband and wife."

All tame perhaps, but many here consider the movie a taboo-breaker in its matter-of-fact portrayal of homosexuality. Popular culture had long ignored gays or, in more recent years, relegated them to caricatured roles.

"One or two films tried to describe gay relationships in a serious way, but were unsuccessful commercially," said Tcha Sung-Jai, one of the country's best-known producers and a professor of film at Dongkuk University. "That's why everyone in the industry was so surprised when King and the Clown became a hit.

"I cried when I saw the movie," Mr. Tcha added, "and I'm a very strong heterosexual."

In addition to homosexuality, other previously taboo subjects, like human rights violations during South Korea's military rule and North Korea-related themes, have been broached recently in film. Movies have mirrored, and sometimes tried to stay abreast of, a South Korean society that has been socially and politically transformed in the last decade.

Until a decade ago, when a tiny gay rights movement was started by Korean-Americans on a few college campuses here, most Koreans had been completely unaware even of the existence of gays. Even though Seoul has long had two neighborhoods with small clusters of gay bars, Itaewon and Chongno, they remained hidden, and homosexuality went unmentioned.

Then, in 2000, the issue was tossed into the public area when a well-known television actor, Hong Suk Chon, became the first major figure to declare his homosexuality. Mr. Hong was immediately dropped from his show, and his career appeared over. But in 2003, in a sign of changing attitudes, the actor began a successful comeback.

"We feel that the last 10 years is the equivalent of a hundred years because so many changes occurred in such a short period," Oh Ga Ram, an official at the Korean Gay Men's Human Rights Group, said in an interview in the organization's office in Chongno.

No other public figure has come out of the closet, and most Korean gays remain hidden. But Mr. Oh said "King and the Clown" was a "positive step" because "there is a discourse now that did not exist before."

The discourse, though, was often confused, Mr. Oh said. Because the love triangle hinges on a feminine male clown, some viewers say the relationship is not a gay one at all. "In the minds of many Koreans now, 'pretty males' equal gay," he said.

The movie's title in Korean is more direct about the nature of the relationship: "The King's Man."

Still, its director, Lee Jun Ik, was hesitant to define his movie as a gay-themed one and played it down as breaking taboos.

"This is not homosexuality as defined by the West," Mr. Lee said in an interview. "It's very different from 'Brokeback Mountain.' In that movie, homosexuality is fate, not a preference. Here, it's a practice."

Mr. Lee said he had been more interested in evoking the world of itinerant clowns, many of whom were involved in same-sex relationships.

One person the director consulted was Kim Gi Bok, 77, who is considered the last surviving itinerant clown. Mr. Kim was amused at the attention he had gotten because of the film.

"Before, we were treated as beggars, but now we are considered traditional artists," he said in an interview in Anseong, a town two hours north of Seoul, where a center to keep alive his craft was established.

Intense relationships developed among itinerant clowns, Mr. Kim said, because they worked in all-male troupes and traveled together all the time.

"It was also difficult to get a wife," he said. "We were beggars. Who would marry a beggar?"

As in the movie, a masculine clown and a feminine clown often became a couple. The masculine clown showed his love by buying his partner, called biri, a watch, Mr. Kim said.

"They would stay together all the time, sleeping in the same room, helping each other out," he said. "The biri would go into people's kitchens and even beg for food for both of them."

"Some of the biris were extremely beautiful -- they had hair down to here," Mr. Kim said, pointing to his waist, as his eyes lit up at the memory. He added that some clowns who did manage to marry would sometimes leave their wives for fellow clowns.

Mr. Kim himself married and had one son. He said he, too, had biris during his life, though he said the relations had not been sexual.

"Relations between men were very sincere and genuine," Mr. Kim said. "It was an amazing, remarkable relationship, much closer than anything between a husband and wife."

Ship of Fools has been running a competition for the funniest and the most offensive relgious jokes, with the results decided by poll; 951 jokes were submitted, of which 82 were shortlisted for debate and are still available. Over 10,000 votes were cast.

With all the current fuss about cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed, and debate in the UK and elsewhere about anti-vilification laws, it's good to see that Christians can allow themselves the occasional tasteless religious joke.

But maybe I don't have the GSOH so desired in dating advertisements. Most of the winners of the competition left me cold. (I had seen a couple of them previously.) But these made me chuckle:

Mother Superior calls all the nuns together and says to them: "I must tell you all something. We have a case of gonorrhea in the convent."

"Thank God," says an elderly nun at the back of the room, "I'm so tired of Chardonnay."

---

The Trinity were planning a holiday. The Spirit, manifesting the creative part of the divine nature, was coming up with the ideas. "Let's go to New York," he suggested.

"No, no, no," said the Father, "They're all so liberated, they'll spend the whole time calling me 'Mother' and it will just do my head in."

So the Spirit sat back and thought. "I know, what about Jerusalem?" he said. "It's beautiful and then there's the history and everything."

"No way!" the Son declared. "After what happened the last time, I'm never going there again!"

At this point, the Spirit got annoyed and went off in a huff. Sometime later he returned and found that the Father and Son had had a idea they both thought was excellent:

"Why don't we go to Rome?" said the Son.

"Perfect!" cried the Holy Spirit. "I've never been there before!"

---

Jesus came upon a small crowd who had surrounded a young woman they believed to be an adulteress. They were preparing to stone her to death.

To calm the situation, Jesus said: "Whoever is without sin among you, let them cast the first stone."

Suddenly, an old lady at the back of the crowd picked up a huge rock and lobbed it at the young woman, scoring a direct hit on her head. The unfortunate young lady collapsed dead on the spot.

Jesus looked over towards the old lady and said: "Do you know, Mother, sometimes you really piss me off."

Is God offended?

The ranking entries in the 'most offensive' category of the Ship of Fools competition are just that--offensive. And too many of them are about priests doing bad things to young boys and girls. When Ship of Fools tried them on a live audience, few laughed. This one made me smile, though.

An Indian man dies and arrives at the Pearly Gates.

"Yes, how can I help?" asks St Peter.

"I'm here to meet Jesus," says the Indian man.

St. Peter looks over his shoulder and shouts, "Jesus, your cab is here!"

Are you offended?

And speaking of transportation:

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the Anglican Diocese of Sydney will ordain 45 (male) deacons this week. Each will be appointed to a "living" within the Sydney church that includes living quarters, a car allowance and a $39,000 stipend. This may be the largest group ordained at one time in the Anglican Church in Australia. Many of the new clergy have been appointed to set up new congregations affiliated with existing parishes.

All this (apart from the male exclusiveness) is very good news.

However, a crazy consequence of the constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia is that the more employed ordained people there are in a diocese, the more ordained and lay representatives it has in the General Synod. The constitution allows one lay and one clergy delegate per ten clergy in the diocese who are either incumbents (paid or unpaid) or in other paid positions. This ordination will give Sydney between 8 and 10 new votes in the General Synod. The constitution cannot be amended without Sydney's assent.

The number of people a diocese can afford to pay depends not merely on the number of people it has but on its wealth. Growth in Sydney is a very good thing, but the dominance this gives it over the church nationally is not. Sydney can use its wealth to buy control of the national church.

I do not decry the growth of the Sydney diocese in terms of the number of people is has--far from it! This must be to the good of the Kingdom. But I do regret that representation (lay and ordained) in the national forums of the church depends on the number of clergy a diocese can afford to pay. In our diocese we are exploring models in which unpaid clergy can serve in small rural communities.