Already this long and bitter controversy over whether active homosexuals can be ordained ministers, has split the Methodist church in New Zealand. Methodists are walking away to join other denominations, or setting up independent churches. A similar situation exists within the Presbyterian church, although it is still holding together. Just.

Both sides, the "progressives" and the "orthodox", battle it out at their annual conferences. The weapons are remits, motions of order, prepared submissions, speeches from the floor and lobbying. The goal, to persuade the floating delegates in the middle to choose one’s side. Emotions at times run white hot. The contenders are generally intelligent, educated people, passionately convinced of the righteousness of their stances, acting in the light of their consciences.

Many Methodist and Presbyterian delegates emerge from these conferences, mentally punch drunk from the gruelling intensity of the debates and politicking. I heard of one Presbyterian minister, noted for his strength of character, attempting to give his congregation a verbal report on the General Assembly he had just attended. He gripped the lectern struggling to speak, his eyes filling with tears. For minutes he stood there, head bowed, redfaced; until members of the congregation came forward and comforted him.

This is not just a New Zealand phenomenon. It is happening in Australia, Canada, Britain and the United States. In mid-May at their Cleveland conference, delegates of the United Methodist Church with 8.4 million members, voted by 2-1 margins to reaffirm church laws banning gay-union ceremonies, the ordination of homosexual clergy and declaring homosexual activity (not orientation) incompatible with Christian teaching.

The Methodist confrontations over the active homosexual issue have been the most dramatic among mainline Christians, although similar struggles are continuing within the Episcopal Church (the US branch of Anglicanism), Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Presbyterians. Reform Rabbis voted in March to allow homosexual union services.

The Catholic Church in the USA has long had an extensive semi-underground homosexual network. Certain dioceses and their bishops have a reputation for being "gay-friendly" and this extends to recruitment and the staffing of institutions. A type of low-intensity guerilla war exists between the Vatican and some American cardinals and bishops who protect homosexually-active religious and lay Catholics in pro-gay social change groups like Dignity.

Richard John Neuhaus, one of the foremost Catholic intellectuals in America, describes the homosexual movement and its impact on contemporary American public life and social policy as, an "organized insurgency" - a rebellion against the status quo.

To understand the "insurgency" within the Methodist church in New Zealand, we need to look at the dynamics of homosexual "gay liberation".

Its defining moment came in 1969, when a squad of New York policemen beat up gay men quietly drinking in the Stonewall Bar. That incident sparked the movement.

The self-described term "gay", stands for "good-as-you". Those three words sum up what the cultural revolution over the past thirty years is all about. Being "good-as-you" (heterosexuals) entails full access to all areas and positions in public life that are currently off limits to visible homosexuals. Some ready examples: marriage, adoption, teaching positions in religious schools and the ordained church ministry.

Activists hold that this implies the status of second-class citizens for gays, of being merely tolerated by the heterosexual ascendancy. Therefore these status quos have to be challenged, to be opened up on the principle that we are as "good-as-you" and we want what you have. To be denied access is, to gays, a personal reproach, the expression of an underlying attitude that gays are not good enough, not quite full and proper citizens.

How representative are the gay activists in the vanguard? Homosexuals and lesbians are fairly diverse like the rest of the population and many just want to get on quietly with their lives. However, they appreciate that the stridency and determination of the activists advances their collective status and interests, particularly through statutory bodies like the Human Rights Commission.

For example, the process known as Consistency 2000 aims to turn the Human Rights Act 1993 into superior law. This means that all laws in New Zealand will have to conform to the Act, the ultimate arbiter and interpreter being the Court of Appeal, opening the way for judge-made social policy. Thus, while most New Zealanders might consider that marriage should be confined to men and women and not men with men, or women with women, the judges could rule that the current status quo with marriage discriminates against gays in terms of the Human Rights Act.

The judges could also rule that Protestant churches are discriminating against the Act by barring active homosexuals from the ordained ministry.

"After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear of Gays in the 90s", is the book that instructed gays how to wage and win the propaganda war. Witty, brilliant in its perceptions, it was a blueprint of genius.

The authors, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Marshall are New York-based gay activists and at the top in their professional field of public relations. They started from the situation in the late 1980s, where active homosexuals were identified with a number of negative public images: strange sexual practices, transmitters and carriers of HIV, dangers to public health and so on.

Kirk and Marshall argued that the key to gaining mainstream heterosexual sympathy and acceptance was for gays to portray themselves as "victims". Those who opposed the movement were to be demonised as: "bigots, homophobic (fear of homosexuals), hate-filled", to such an extent that other people would be intimidated into silence. The authors insisted that such ruthless pragmatism was necessary and justifiable, because most heterosexual opposition is motivated by hatred.

While such rhetoric certainly does have the power to intimidate, its promiscuous use over the years in the church debates, has seen it fall victim to the law of diminishing returns. Orthodox Methodists and Presbyterians have learned to absorb the verbal baseball bats of being labelled "bigots, homophobes, hate filled" and carry on with what they were saying.

How do we know all this? For the past thirty years, the American United Methodist Church has been debating this issue of homosexual ordination with growing intensity. The arguments, the type of people involved on both sides and in the middle, are similar to the Methodist Church in New Zealand.

In 1998, a scholar William Abraham, Professor of Wesley Studies at the Southern Methodist University, posted a careful analysis of the forces at work in the United Methodist Church on the internet. It was published and distributed here by Methodists who believe that the analysis reflects reality here.

Professor Abraham’s key points on the liberal position:

*Christian pluralism means to be absolute that there is no divine revelation that delivers genuine knowledge of God. We are on a journey of searching, of exploring expressions of God. The content of Christian doctrine can change at any point in history, because doctrine springs from the method and culture of the day.

* Certain minority groups are designated victims of oppression (in NZ Methodism: women, Maori and gays) and are consequently assigned a privileged position. Their experiences of oppression are seen as visible expressions of the reign of God. Anything which questions these experiences is strictly unacceptable. The diverse convictions, ideologies and discourses of the new politically correct groups are accorded great respect.

* Liberal Methodist leaders of the past generation have anguished over the rejection of critical inquiry, courtesy and academic standards. The new scholarship is subjective, radical and political. The divisions that first appeared in academic circles gradually spread into the life of the church.

* Adherents of the "new orthodoxy" are driven by a missionary zeal to transform the church and the world.

* The heart of the matter is that orthodox Methodists cannot accept in all conscience, the "new orthodoxy" that homosexual and lesbian sexual activity and relationships are an entirely legitimate expression of God’s good and diverse creation. Both sides reject any compromise. Also, few of the "new orthodox" accept that the Bible is authoritative, or that Jesus Christ is the sole way of salvation. How can both sides coexist in the same church?

First there was the dynamic Evangelical Awakening of the eighteenth century, led by John and Charles Wesley. After World War II, evangelicals emerged again with leaders like Billy Graham, believing that Christians should be intellectually strong, culturally literate, socially engaged and cooperative in spirit. Evangelicals stress personal conversion ("being born again"), activism (both evangelistic and social), biblical authority and the centrality of the Cross.

The opening skirmish occured at the 1990 Methodist Church Conference in Dunedin with a major debate about the acceptability of active homosexuals in the ordained ministry. David Bromell, a former Baptist minister, was openly gay and wanted full recognition as a Methodist minister. He enjoyed the general support of the Methodist leadership. However, evangelicals had grouped together as Methodist Affirm arguing that "receiving" David Bromell was unacceptable and would compromise the theology and integrity of evangelical and orthodox Methodists.

The 1991 Conference in Wanganui was mainly devoted to the issue, with speech after speech, notices of motions and intense lobbying. The Rev Ashley Sedon stood up and declared his homosexuality. Evangelicals again stated their inability to accept such a new morality for ordained ministers, but did not seek any disciplinary action against Rev Sedon.

The evangelicals were further alarmed when David Bromell and Rev Evan Lewis questioned the Trinity in their 1991 work Faithful and Free: "We would have misgivings about the Trinity. This kind of doctrine creates more problems than it solves."

But the manure really hit the fan in 1998 when the Rev Dr David Bromell wrote a column on sexuality entitled Abstinence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder, for the Canterbury University Orientation Magazine. Here is a selection of his advice to students:

* "When a man and woman have sex, they are fulfilling the divine in human existence. We bonk to the glory of God."

* "Some of us meet by having great sex first, and then get to know one another later."

* "You’re the best person to decide what’s right for you, right now. It’s OK to say ‘No’. It’s OK to say ‘Yes’."

The 1993 Conference in Christchurch debates the issue again. A leader, the Rev Merv Dine moves from the floor that the Methodist Church should order its life according to the intent of the new Human Rights Act. Some evangelicals support this, believing that the Act gives religious groups the right not to accept homosexuality or other controversial moral matters if it contravenes their Church doctrine. Many liberals interpret this decision as allowing practising homosexuals into ordained ministry.

The 1997 Conference in Wellington is a bitter affair with the evangelicals and Pacific Island delegates struggling to stop David Bromell being ordained. The Conference breaches its usual consensus decision-making procedures and decides by a majority vote (64% for - 36% against) to bring Rev Bromell to full reception and agrees that the Faith and Order Committee should explore blessing ceremonies for same-sex relationships.

The Conference also decides to establish a President’s Commission for those who cannot live with the controversial decisions. Directly after this Conference, the Wesleyan Methodist Movement (WMM) is formed to coordinate evangelicals and some Fijian, Samoan and Tongan parties.

Because of the Conference decisions, three ministers and 150 members (half of Blenheim and most of Red Beach churches) immediately leave the Methodist Church.

During 1998, a further three ministers and 450 members (half of Birkenhead, half of Shirley Christchurch, 30 adults from Papakura, all of Havelock North, half of Opawa Christchurch and most of St Stephens in Tauranga) move out. Some of these congregations make moves to lease their buildings from the national Church.

Throughout 1998, the WMM employs a flying Pastor-at-Large, Rev Tavake Tupou (a former President of the Church) to minister to hurting congregations throughout the country. Rev Tupou has to rely only on WMM funding, in the face of opposition from the Methodist Church and its leaders.

Meanwhile, the President’s Commission proposes a national Evangelical Synod, where evangelicals can exercise some control of ministry training and appointments. This is followed by a Covenant affirming the place of evangelicals in the Methodist Church.

However, at the 1999 Conference in Auckland there is more trouble. The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and supporters group and Te Taha Maori stated that they "cannot live with the establishment of an Evangelical Synod."

A lesbian candidate for ordained ministry from Manukau is accepted for training despite no support from the Manukau Synod. The Faith and Order Committee inform Conference that they will soon have a liturgy service available for the blessing of same-sex relationships.

Frustration at Conference’s failure to confirm the Evangelical Synod, leads to more defections, six ministers and around 600 members (the rest of Opawa, most of Greenmeadows Napier and more Samoan and Fijian congregations). Further congregations give notice that they are considering their future: half of Wesley Papatoetoe, Wesley Hastings, Henderson, Massey, Pakuranga and Howick South.

The fallout from the 1999 Conference continues where by May 2000, twelve ministers and more than 1200 members have left the Methodist Church.