It's very good to see local people organising to challenge the homophobia of the Archbishop Akinola, the church, and so of the wider culture there.

I hope that the hatespeech of this man Akinola, who is in a position of great authority and responsibility, has spurred decent and brave people on to achieve more good than Akinola's words have encouraged evil.

We should pray for their continued success in organising opposition to the cultural and ecclesiastical prejudice in Nigeria and Africa.

Maybe they needed an Akinola to react against in order to organise and move forward. God moving in mysterious ways and all that...

Gives me a glimmer of hope, anyway.

I literally cannot wrap my head around the ***BRAVERY*** of Mr. Davis Mac-Iyalla, the Changing Attitude-Nigeria leader, in challenging +PJA. Praise Christ for Your saints! 0:-D

[Especially considering what it's cost him already: "Davis was at one time the administrator for the office of the Rt. Rev. Prof I Ugede, late bishop of Otukpo diocese. He is a knight and lay reader and was principal of the diocesan school but the education board felt it was not proper for a gay man head the school and sacked him."]

But can someone tell me, re the Daily Sun write-up:

1) Why they *anglicized* his Nigerian surname, changing "Mac-Iyalla" to "Mark": they wouldn't be trying to suggest he's somehow "less African" for being gay, would they? Please say it ain't so!

2) The *most inappropriate* headline "Leader of gays and lesbians in Nigeria tackle primate of Anglican Church, Peter Akinola". It's open season on LGBTs in that part of the world (the unspeakable *violence* that the ABC denounced last year), and yet it's Changing Attitude's leader "tackling" +PJA? What the ----???

Lord, grant your faithful servant Davis Mac-Iyalla your *constant protection*. Amen.

Seems some know more about the report and the man Davis Mark or Mac-Iyalla than the journalist reporting. Was it a true interview?

While Simon called it ‘Nigerian national newspaper’ Sun prides itself as ‘Nigeria’s king of the Tabloids’ i.e. take report with ‘a grain of salt’

But wait? How can this be?! +PJA says there ARE NO gays & lesbians in his part of the world... :-P

To the best of my knowledge there is something phoney about the person of Davis Mac-Ayalla. If we are to believe he is 33, then who knighted him? Bishop Ugede must have demised in 2003, when Davis was 31. And at 31 he (Davis or 'Mark') has become all these: knight, lay reader, principal of a diocesan school. He deserves a good mention as one of Nigeria's youngest knights! This report by the 'accalimed Nigeria king of tabloids' reeks of the handiwork of a good PR officer. We have not seen the last of these sponsored releases... give me a break... these Changing attitiude guys will find Nigeria very difficult to operate. Agreed there is a lot of homophobia in Nigeria about things that are absurd including HOMO. Have you not heard of jungle-justice along the streets of lagos to those who steal chickens? Better watch out

J.C., Nigerian journalism is quite florid. They would never say "Mark addresses Akinola's comments" or anything that bland.

I didn't see the headline as indicating ++Akinola was being unfairly attacked-- if anything, the article sounded more like David tackling Goliath.

Changing Attitudes Nigeria asserts: "gays and lesbians are "holy" and are not satanic or devils, as portrayed by some bishops and pastors."

I'm not particularly "holy" so how can CA assert that "gays and lesbians" are ? And who is saying that such people are "satanic or devils"... !!
Isn't this most putting up of "straw men" rather than tackling the real spiritual issue.. of the morality or otherwise of same-sex sex ?

I think that we will have to make sure that we retain an Anglican presence in Nigeria, however small, when Akinola and the Nigerian province leaves the Anglican church.

I may be misreading, but is Emeka calling for or endorsing a Nigerian "jungle justice" against "things that are absurd including HOMO"? Has he compared gay people to chicken thieves in his post? Is Emeka himself Nigerian? Is he in any way connected with ++Akinola's church?

"these Changing attitiude guys will find Nigeria very difficult to operate"

*Find* Nigeria? They ARE Nigerian!

"Have you not heard of jungle-justice along the streets of lagos"

. . . and that's exactly why I pray for Mr. Mac-Iyalla's protection (even among those who disagree with him, surely you can join me in praying for his *safety*?)

Emeke, can you please explain exactly what you mean by the following two comments taken from your posting:

"...about things that are absurd including HOMO." (what is HOMO?)

and

"Have you not heard of jungle-justice along the streets of lagos to those who steal chickens? Better watch out"

And if you are saying what I think you are saying in the second quote (please clarify), how do you feel about that? Where do you stand on that exactly?

"(even among those who disagree with him, surely you can join me in praying for his *safety*?)"

yes. Amen.

Yes amen of course.

"when Akinola and the Nigerian province leaves the Anglican church." -Merseymike

Sorry, We will not and do not want to leave. We are only saying we people like 'Sir' Mark (Mac-Iyalla) should not be appointed to lead Christ's Church. They can however come to church, pray and honestly seek God's intervention in their problem. Where they insist they must lead you and I in worship, they should go and start their own Church.

Is it because of that reason you want us out?

Reason? Which? Where?

And sorry, the Church of Nigeria has already left.

Ah, so you are going to re4tain the link with Canterbury, then, Tunde, rather than threaten in the way that you appear to do with monotonous regularity.

Frankly, I don't think your church is something which has any benefits to the sort of Communion I would wish to create, thus it is best if you go your separate ways - as you clearly intend to do. No doubt you will then claim to be the 'true Anglicans'.

But you won't be - because Anglicanism is defined simply as being in communion with Canterbury.

And you have made it clear enough where you stand on that one.

I think it will be a relief to be able to have sensible conversation and to re-make links with our American and Canadian friends again without constantly hearing the crashing cymbals of the Voice of Nigeria!

Well the majority of the Communion would beg to differ with you Merseymike.

I'm afraid I cannot reconcile what you say with a Christian attitude at all.

But it's interesting that you think you are trying to create a new Communion.

“Frankly, I don't think your church is something which has any benefits to the sort of Communion I would wish to create, thus it is best if you go your separate ways - as you clearly intend to do...I think it will be a relief to be able to have sensible conversation and to re-make links with our American and Canadian friends again without constantly hearing the crashing cymbals of the Voice of Nigeria!”--Merseymike

Amen!

It’s time that we American Episcopalians remind our friends of our 450-year history of faith—the oldest of any Anglican Church outside of the British Isles. The fist Anglican celebration of the Holy Eucharist in North America took place at San Francisco Bay in 1578, and the first native-born American Anglicans were baptized in Virginia in 1587. This was more than 250 years before the first Anglican missionaries even stepped off the boat at Nigeria.

We Americans have parishes which were founded before the English Civil War (e.g., St. Luke’s Church—“Old Brick”—for example, was built in Virginia in 1632.) Our Line of bishops, beginning with the consecration of the Rt. Rev. Dr. Samuel Seabury by bishops of the Scottish Church in 1784, is the oldest Line of Anglican bishops outside of the British Isles.

The American Tory, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Charles Inglis, was consecrated in 1787 at Lambeth Chapel to be the first Anglican Colonial Bishop (of Nova Scotia), and in 1793 a Colonial Bishop for Quebec was consecrated. Thus, the Canadians became the second people outside of the British Isles to possess the Historic Episcopate in the Anglican Tradition.

I believe that Nigeria’s first Colonial Bishop was only consecrated in 1864—just three years before the First Lambeth Conference. Akinola should realize that he is far, far down the list of seniority as far as Anglican bishops go.

"Anglicanism is defined simply as being in communion with Canterbury"

I don't think ECUSA will like that definition soon !!

Tunde:

As you can see, there is really nothing that is going to be lost by separating. There can be no meeting of the minds or common faith between revisionists and orthodox. They recognize this as well as we do. Still, it is a shame that it must be done.

Steven

But, Dave, it is Akinola who is saying that he does not wish to be in communion with Canterbury! And that, for him, that is not the definition of Anglican.

Or haven't you been paying attention?

""Anglicanism is defined simply as being in communion with Canterbury"

I don't think ECUSA will like that definition soon !!"--Dave

Actually, Dave, I don't think that Duncan et. al. will like that definition soon!!!

"I'm afraid I cannot reconcile what you say with a Christian attitude at all." Neil

I agree Neil.

+Akinola makes it much easier to reconcile/view Christian Attitude: "excommunicate" LGBT people in Nigeria/everywhere and demean/cast-out their "holligan" children! Now THERE is a "Christian Attitude" that speaks with clarity!

Merseymike, your definition of Anglicanism is half there, but not quite.

While Halsbury’s Laws of England 14:313 defines the Anglican Communion as embracing “all those churches and dioceses which are in communion with the See of Canterbury”. If we stopped there then you would be correct. But we would also see the Porvoo Churches and other groups added into the Anglican Communion which are not presently counted among the elect.

The legal definition adds a confessional side to the definition of Anglicanism---something the Nigerians made explicit in their constitution, and which passed the Sydney Synod on Monday.

According to Halsbury, Anglican Churches propagate “the catholic and apostolic faith based upon the scriptures interpreted in the light of Christian tradition, scholarship and reason as expressed in the Book of Common Prayer (1662) and the Ordinal and their derivatives.”

It seems we have a Communion now of those who seek Communion with Canterbury but reject the Anglican formularies, and those who accept the Anglican formularies but are none too happy with Canterbury.

If you must go, Steven, may +Akinola, Tunde and all *revisionists like yourselves* go w/ the Peace of Christ.

We in *ECUSA and the rest of the orthodox Anglicans* (who are NOT parting w/ Canterbury, Dave) will continue to pray for God's blessings upon you (and continuous conversion of ALL our hearts, ever closer in Christ's likeness).

Shalom!

George
I think that is not quite right...

There are plenty of people in the Anglican Communion who BOTH accept the historical Anglican formularies AND are, and are happy to be, in communion with Canterbury.

Also, there are, especially in the USA, quite a few people who do the first, and not the second, although many of them probably would like to do the second. I refer to the "continuum".

This item has produced a lot of excited comment, but I'm concerned about the factual foundation on which it's based.

The two sources don't agree about the protagonist's surname or the spelling of his christian name. (Note also that the Daily Sun refers to the "Lambert" Conference!)

As another contributor has said, the protagonist seems to have racked up a huge number of achievements in three decades. I'm particularly suspicious about the "knighthood". I'm unfamiliar with the Nigerian political system, but would be reasonably confident that the Queen would require the consent of the President and/or Prime Minister of Nigeria before conferring a knighthood on a Nigerian citizen. (This is even the case in those Commonwealth countries, such as Canada, where she remains head of state - vide Conrad Black!)

I fear we may be building up for an acrimonious row over a spurious account.

Davis MacIyalla is a knight in the church of Nigeria, not a Knight of the Realm of the United Kingdom.

I've no idea why they anglicised his name.

He is a real person and the interview really happened.

Davis has taken a huge risk in allowing his name to be published, and reports from the Diocesan Office indicate that Archbishop Akinola is preparing to take action against him, by at the least trying to discredit him.

Changing Attitude Nigeria are responding in the most appropriate way possible to the commitment of bishops and Primates at Lambeth 1998, in the Dromantine statement and the Windsor Report to listen to the voices of lesbian and gay people. Listening isn't going to be resourced by the church - it is dependent on the courage of people like Davis.

Colin

J.C.:

Your comment proves a point I have been trying to make for some time. Both sides see the other as the diseased revisionist limb that cannot be saved, but must be separated from the body lest the whole body be destroyed. I'm quite content to let God and history sort out the question of who is the cancer here--in this I think I am on the same side as Merseymike. What I don't like is the attitude (when adopted by either side) that the other should get out taking nothing but the shirts on their backs. Let us, for the sake of Christ and the witness we have in him, at least strive for a fair and amicable parting.

Steven

Colin claims Davis MacIyalla is a knight in the Church of Nigeria. Pity the present bishop of Otukpo does not know him. The former bishop who he claimed knighted a 30 year old school headteacher(!?) is late.

"reports from the Diocesan Office indicate .." -Colin. Which diocesan office?

Still convinced some outside Nigeria know more about this issue than the people involved.

Hi friends,

It is nice that you are talking about us, but what you all will never forget is that we have been kept under the carpet for so long, it's God's time that we begin to talk of a change of Attitude. I was knighted at the age of 30 if you must know.

This mission is all about us and our freedom. I am ready to do my best by the grace of God to influence Akinola to listen to us, this is just the beginning.

We've heard nothing further from Emeka, and his remarks do seem to call out for clarification. Tunde, perhaps you can help. Emeka's comments suggested he was Nigerian. In your experience, does he represent the viewpoint among the rank-and-file in ++Akinola's Church? Is his name at all familiar to you? Does he hold any sort of official position in ++Akinola's Church?

While they disagree profoundly, Colin and Tunde have the advantage over me of knowing what a "knight" is in this context. Can someone please explain?

Emeka is a Nigerian name. Do not know him from the e-mail address but I believe comments on TA are personal. No single church leader has advocated 'jungle justice' to my knowledge.

Wish I can explain what kind of 'knight' Davis is but his comment above reveals he is not even Nigerian. None refers to a priest by the surname without a title.

"his comment above reveals he is not even Nigerian"

... and still more gnosis is displayed. :-(

Whatever happened to people naming themselves (including their own nationalities/religious-professions)?

I am *so tired* of hearing that someone "cannot be what they claim they are".

To that end, Steven, I apologize for calling you a "revisionist." I understand you do not claim that title for yourself.

But *neither do I*. I am---so help me God---an orthodox Anglican (nothing more, nothing less: a sinner redeemed by Christ).

But see, Steven

"Both sides see the other as the diseased revisionist limb that cannot be saved, but must be separated from the body lest the whole body be destroyed."

... this is just not true---of me. I *don't* call for the separation of anybody. I have need for ALL the members of the Body of Christ (that call themselves "Anglican"). I just pray that Christ removes the *disease of self-righteousness* from ALL of us, as well. :-/

There is some mention on the Internet of something called the Knights of St. Christopher as an honor for those who have performed good service for the Anglican Church of Nigeria. Non-Nigerian sources are convinced such a knighthood is fraudulent but I find references in "This Day" to it.

See http://www.thisdayonline.com/archive/2002/03/19/20021119bus17.html and see also http://umuahians.com/ObituaryFolder/DrJOkezie2.html
It is also mentioned at http://www.acclawnet.co.uk/report.pdf in a brief biography for a Provincial Registrar of Nigeria.

What funny tests of citizenship you seem to have in Nigeria, Tunde. Well, Norman Tebbit in Britain did suggest the 'cricket' test (ie, which cricket team you supported) of citizenship, so I suppose it's equally sensible to refuse to accept someone as having Nigerian citizenship on the grounds that they sometimes refer to someone without using their official title. We wouldn't want to offend Archbishop Akinola, would we? (The Archbishop who compares gay people to dogs and calls their children bastard hooligans - HE of course derserves the utmost respect)

But hang on, I'm seeing a trend here: Tunde refuses to acknowledge the citizenship of Davis because Davis has a slightly different approach in referring to titled persons, and Akinola (I'm not Nigerian) refuses to acknowledge the faith and 'Anglicanism' of anyone who has a different approach to interpreting and understanding the Bible and tradition.

Well, it's nice to see some consistancy. There's a lot of 'If you don't think like me, you cannot be associated with me' (eg by nationality or faith) in Archbishop Akinola's camp, isn't there?

Christianity is such an open, warm, welcoming, tolerant, understanding, equitable, faith isn't it?

Reminds me of the Samaritan woman by the well.

JC:

I admire the sentiments expressed, but cannot see any reasonable, and (more importantly) any honest way that the two sides can remain united within one communion.

For both sides, the issues are too important on an ethical and theological level. To pretend that they are unimportant or trivial, to sweep them under the rug and claim unity where, in fact, both sides consider the other to be abusers and distorters of the faith, revisionists, uncompassionate, vicious, heretics, and/or homophobes, etc. is untenable.

Moreover, taking this outside of the realm of mere feelings--there are very real, very important, and mutually exclusive theological positions here. Someone is right and someone is wrong. And, until time and the Holy Spirit reveal who is in the right and who is in the wrong, it is impossible on an individual and corporate level for the two sides to inhabit the same "house". Could a Jew and a Nazi reasonably be expected to cohabit in the 1930s? You may insist that there are no Jews and Nazis here and I would agree, but the level of animousity, the irreconcileability of mutually exclusive theological/world views, and the overall ideological differences are beginning to approach this level. No one is going to give in--things can only get worse.

Thus, I continue to insist that an amicable parting that strives not to scandalize the world and diminish the ministry of the separated parts to the world is the best solution. That is, if this is even possible at this late stage . . . God help the Anglican Communion.

Steven

I was expecting someone to attempt to discredit Davis, but I thought the attempt would be subtler. If I am reading this right, what we have here is an official of the Nigerian Church (Tunde) stating that Davis is not a Nigerian. It would seem to me that Davis' citizenship is easily established one way or the other. And if he is a Nigerian, then this clumbsy bit of hand-tipping will cause sensible people to regard future attempts to discredit him with great skepticism.

"Moreover, taking this outside of the realm of mere feelings--there are very real, very important, and mutually exclusive theological positions here. Someone is right and someone is wrong."

Not necessarily. If my boss tells me to carpet a floor and the other guy and I get in a tussle about whether it should be a beige berber or a green shag we are dealing with mutually exclusive positions but if the floor doesn't get carpeted neither of us are right.

I thought Jesus made things quite clear--"love God, love your neighbor." I'd even throw in "keep my commandment--that you love one another" for good measure. Now I'm not an anti-nomian, and I realize that working out *how* we love is contested territory but... *That* we love our neighbor seems to be Jesus' main thrust--the reason that he died for us sinners...

"there are very real, very important, and mutually exclusive theological positions here. Someone is right and someone is wrong."

Maybe. Let me see if I can get at them (or not).

I say that God made some of God's children gay.

You say that God CANNOT have made some people gay.

I ask "Why?"

And you say (pardon me if I'm putting words into your mouth, Stephen)

"Because if if God made some people gay, that means either 1) the Word of God is inherently untrustworthy---and the god it preaches is also, and/or 2) my reading of the Word of God is so 'off', that I can't possibly be capable of understanding it at all (and ditto all other Christians: why should we trust those who wrote the Creeds, if no one is capable of understanding the Scriptures?). Either way, to accept that God made some people gay destroys my faith---makes me feel adrift in an uncaring universe---which is unacceptable."

Am I even remotely close? (just trying to get at the root differences)

[As a queer person---AND life-long Anglican---I'm more blessed than most: I had already come to the position that *gayness was OK by the Bible*, BEFORE I thought that this approval pertained to me personally! (such it is for a person who's a little *clueless* about their own sexual orientation ;-/)]

JC:

The trouble with blogs is that the discussion keeps moving on to the next topic. I think this is a dead thread at this point. Still, you're question demands an answer even if it will have to be repeated at a more active topic forum later: don't try to turn the straw that broke the camel's back into the whole load! The homosexual issue is merely the last in a long line of issues. The two sides here are as different as Spong and Akinola (or Duncan). The fact that the whole thing has held together for this long is what is remarkable, not the fact that the homosexual issue happens to be the point where the long delayed schism finally happened.

Steven

Fair enough, steven. I'll look for your response elsewhere (truthfully, I just checked back on this off-the-frontpage thread, to see if "Emeka" ever came back---because I see s/he's posting on a new thread, now).

I really *would like* your response to my scenario, at some point however.

I have not seen such bravery in my life, i believe this is indeed God's time, that those who say they love Jesus should truly show they love Jesus. Davis in my opinion is a hero for many LGBT people. In Nigeria, it is difficult to be a man, yet alone be a gay man and also a Christian.

Many Christian denomination need serious awakening to the reality of marginalised community, this is not only placed in the LGBT community, are we totally free of prejudice towards women or people with disabilities. Lets think of what is right, right now and do the will of Jesus.

The LGBT community has waited a long time for these kind of outbursts and I will continue to pray for Davis and Changing Attitude. I pray that God will bring our world closer to the truth of love and peace. Amen

There is nothing even slightly mysterious in Davis Mac-Iyalla's membership of the Kiight's of St. Christoper. There are numerous mentions to be found of the order.

The Diocese of Delta West, for example, has a Chaplain to the Knights of St Christopher and the Diocese of Owerri mentions the Knights' President as one of its officals.

In January 2002, Presiding Bishop Griswold of the United States
attended a service in Onitsha Nigeria which included a "rededication of the Knights and Lady Knights of the Order of St. Christopher."

This is similar to the Roman Catholic church's tradition maintaining various orders of ecclesiastical knighthoods for lay people.