Never was applause for a new Archbishop in Canterbury Cathedral as resounding or as ecstatic. No wonder Rowan Williams tried to pour cold water on the proceedings. But nothing could detract from the sheer joy of this moment. Along the tortuous and occasionally deathly road to emancipation out of Christianity's enslavement and persecution of queers it ranks as the most decisive.

But as we celebrated with tears of relief and great joy, others near and far were being stirred into a frenzy of outrage, condemnation and thinly disguised bile. This was Christianity imploding, cursed by its damnable contempt for us. What followed seemed to be a competition between those Anglican Provinces, dioceses, and homophobic pressure groups opposed to openly gay people, to outdo - or out say - each other in their condemnation.  In the end, it built to a crescendo, with other voices from Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and a host of Protestant Churches joining in, all, in some way or another, cutting cutting off relations with the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA). All because of Gene Robinson, due to take place in Cape Town in 2008,­ to a "safer" venue in view of Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane's support for Gene Robinson. Would Lagos or Sydney be "safer"?

The loving embrace between Gene and his partner Mark that said so much about affection, belonging, respect, mutuality, and profound inclusion, caused a fracture of potentially apocalyptic proportions within the Anglican
Communion and will be with us for decades.

The ghastly torrent of rejection and ill-will was no surprise to those of us who work in organisations devoted to the full inclusion of LGBT people into the Christian Church. Those Churches who genuinely embrace LGBT folk are few, and still represent just a tiny percentage of the Christians globally.
But this doesn't detract from the fact that, for the first time in modern history a partnered, openly gay man was democratically elected a bishop in a mainstream Church, and that he enjoys that office with the open support of the majority of the people in that Church.

Bishops and Church leaders suddenly found that "one of them" had become "one of us". Faced with this their reaction was inevitable denial, "he is not one of us!" Anglican Mainstream immediately "We, like most of the Anglican world, do not accept Gene Robinson as a bishop." Well, that was easy, wasn't it? It appears that being homosexual with a partner, somehow creates an invisible barrier around that person who is rendered immune to the Grace of Holy Orders.

Perhaps Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria was the theological consultant who devised this strategy; he already thinks us "lower than beasts", and we all know that you can't make a wolf a bishop, even in sheep's clothing. But although Bishop Gene Robinson is apparently not a real bishop things don't stop there. As Archbishop Akinola said "A state of impaired communion now exists both within a significant part of ECUSA and between ECUSA and most of the provinces within the Communion."

There is a minority within the American Church who cannot accept the ordination of Gene Robinson and in recent weeks there have been signs that at least one group is beginning to organize. Led by three traditional American Anglican bishops this group will probably be the first of several to emerge, each hoping that the Archbishop of Canterbury will stop recognising ECUSA and recognise them as the "legitimate" Anglican Church in America instead.

The overriding need to reject homosexuals has created some strange bedfellows from all extremes of Anglicanism; the fact is that the only thing that unites them seems to be the (homo) sexuality issue. They remain diametrically opposed on matters of doctrine, sacraments and Church Order, and are usually sniping at each other. I can only imagine that, once the honeymoon period is over, their differences will emerge even more strongly creating ever more fractures within the Anglican Communion.

The whole matter of how the Anglican Church will now realign itself is fascinating. Some believe the driving force for this is the Archbishop of Sydney Peter Jensen. Jensen's is undoubtedly amongst the richest and most conservative diocese in the Anglican world, with over $3 billion dollars of assets. Some say he is the 'Kingmaker' and his recent threats to recognize Archbishop Akinola as the Moral leader of Anglicanism, and to ignore Rowan Williams, are the opening shots in his plan.

The problem for conservatives in America, Canada, Australia and other Anglican Provinces where they are in the minority is, 'who controls the money and assets of the Church?'. To try and hold on, they have come up with a cunning plan where they might operate as a separate entity within their separate Anglican Provinces, without any real relationship to Canterbury or any others not of their own choosing, a schism 'de facto' if not 'de jure'.

On the home front the Church of England, unenvyingly at the intersection of these competing rivalries, finds itself in a cleft stick. On the one hand it is engaged in what it would like to think is an open debate and has recently published a document entitled 'A Guide to the Debate on Human Sexuality'.

Those most closely associated with Archbishops Akinola and Jensen, on the other hand, have already declared there should be no debate, as the matter is irrevocably settled by the Bible.

Small groups, particularly one called Reform, have already declared that they will not debate the issue and have invoked their favoured epithet of "false teacher" for Rowan Williams. Their position is entirely logical; either human sexuality is a matter for legitimate dissent within the Church or it isn't.

It would be difficult for the Church of England now to suddenly decide that the matter of human sexuality is a defined doctrine, as Reform and others believe, when some sections of it are at least going through the motions of trying to appear committed to discussion; and particularly when their current leader, within his time at Canterbury, has published relatively liberal views on the matter. It's further complicated by the poll published by the Sunday Telegraph a month ago, which revealed that over half of church-going Anglicans would be happy with a partnered lesbian/gay priest, and nearly three quarters happy with a single gay priest. This makes the views Philip Forster, Bishop of Chester, even more odious; he declared last November, that "gays would not be making a mistake if they sought healing". That such views are still taken seriously is a salutary reminder of how far we still have to travel.

Liberals and many in the middle ground were shocked at the treatment of Canon Jeffrey John, who was forced to step down from his nomination to the bishopric of Reading. The Archbishop of Canterbury must also be aware that his position, more than anyone else's, is being questioned by all shades of the Anglican Communion. His honeymoon barely lasted weeks. Can Rowan Williams preserve the Anglican Communion from schism in any meaningful way?
Will Archbishop Eames of Ireland, whom he has commissioned, in effect, to try and prevent irreparable large-scale fragmentation the Church within the next year, deliver? How far will he run with the Conservatives leaders to preserve their good will? Is he in a position to do anything to stop what seems inevitable?

Being present at Gene Robinson's great day, just a week after he had spoken by satellite to the Halfway to Lambeth conference in Manchester - to rapturous applause - will remain a golden moment for me, and a reminder of hope for countless others. But such memories will be nothing less than harmful if they obscure the reality and scale of the work still to be done to banish homophobia in faith communities.

Richard Kirker is General Secretary of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement [LGCM]

First published in Gay Times 304 (January 2004)