Coward says he was abused by a priest when he was 16, but did not report it. He should have. To go from there to demanding that his being a homosexual and should therefore be accepted, is a bit like saying a person with cancer should have his or her cancer accepted and promoted, without anyone looking for a cure. It is a reductio ad absurdum argument.

Coward is asking, nay demanding, that 77 million Anglicans who have no personal, or theological history with sodomy, suddenly change their minds to satisfy him and a handful of people like himself living in a post Christian secular west, with no moral absolutes, when, in fact, what they need is our pity, compassion and prayers. He wants to see the whole Anglican Communion turned inside out for maybe 1500 to 2000 homosexuals! Would he demand that for a similar number of cross-dressers or nose-pickers be afforded acceptance and a Rite if they upped and suddenly demanded it? Would we see the Archbishop of Canterbury, head bowed in front of a radio microphone, agonize over whether the Church should proclaim God's love and the Church's acceptance for cross dressers without the need for repentance as he did for homosexuals?

The Church of England is fast becoming a post Christian church with a conflicted ABC who can't make up his mind what he thinks about homosexuality. His conflicted views have brought scorn down on his head from GAFCON primates for his prevarication and waffle. His failure to uphold scriptural standards on the subject is bitterly dividing the Anglican communion. His failure to be definitive is only strengthening the resolve of Global South archbishops who implacably oppose sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. He is shooting himself in the groin and can't feel the pain he is inflicting on himself.

Coward wants to see sodomy decriminalized in countries where it is unlawful to sodomize another man. On this he has a point. Criminalizing a behavior won't make it go away. However, four things should be noted.

First the decriminalization issue largely came about because of the West's push for homosexual acceptance in African countries where homosexuality is largely unknown and forbidden. It is not in their cultural DNA.

Secondly, to push a behavior that has multiple diseases built into it in countries not medically set up to deal with HIV/AIDS needs to be noted.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the Church has scriptural prohibition on its side in rejecting sodomy. Ironically, secular African nations more often than not have Anglican schooled politicians and leaders who are fully aware of what the Bible says about sexuality.

Fourthly, Islam has seen the western church's acceptance of homosexuality as a license to persecute and kill Christians. This cannot be ignored or swept under the rug. This is most notable in Nigeria, where the Boko Haran have murdered entire Christian villages and erased whole churches, mocking Christians as they kill and maim.

Coward opines that God is unconditional, infinite, intimate love and then says that conservative Christian theology tends to be rooted in a belief that God's love is conditional, restricted to those who conform to so-called 'orthodox', traditional dogma and teaching. "The Christian dispute about human sexuality is at root a dispute about the nature of God." He then went on to say that the hostile stance to LGBTI people held by GAFCON and other conservative networks can (not) be described as Christian.

But is experience of the love of God unconditional? No. It is not, says pastor John Piper. "It is conditional on our humbling ourselves and our drawing near to God. "God gives [more] grace to the humble. . . . Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you.

"There are precious experiences of the love of God that require that we fight pride, seek humility, and cherish the nearness of God. Those are the conditions. Of course, the conditions themselves are the work of God in us. But they are no less conditions we fulfill.

"I fear that the unqualified, biblically careless reassurances today that God's love is all unconditional may stop people from doing the very things the Bible says they need to do in order to enjoy all the peace that they so desperately crave. In trying to give peace through "unconditionality" we may be cutting people off from the very remedy the Bible prescribes," writes Piper.

When future historians and archaeologists dig up the remains of a dead denomination, they will marvel that anyone could have embraced sex, especially homosex with such ardor as to do themselves in. They might quietly bury the remains, shaking their heads as they do so.

Perhaps the deeper truth is that it is better to go to heaven as a celibate Christian than to go to hell indulging in sodomite behavior. For that, after all, is what the Bible teaches.

END