Can I ask how the advice of the Archbishop et al bears any relation to the direction to listen to and have dialogue with, gay and lesbian Christians? It is also clear that this is about a much more deep-seated homophobic culture and has actually very little to do with theology

It surely must be crystal clear that the conservative premoderns of Nigeria are not interested in dialogue or challenges to their certainties.

There is simply no point of compromise, even the ability to listen to each other is no longer a real possibility.

And we will be much more able to support gay and lesbian Nigerians from a position of being an affirming church (or even one which can live with dual integrities). Once the Anglican Communion splits and many conservatives leave, this will become much more feasible.

The first headline is priceless.

I wonder if Tunde ever found his way, it would be interesting to hear from him.

I thought Colin was to be there, but it seems a paper was read for him, did anyone from Changing Attitude UK attend? It would be good to have their report.

I would be interested to hear from someone who was actually at this meeting. Original publicity said that Colin Coward would be there, but obviously he wasn't. If anyone reading Thinking Anglicans was there, could they please tell us what really happened? Thanks!

Judging from the responses from Nigerian bishops, it seems that none of them attended to listen to the experiences of gay and lesbian Anglicans -- meaning that they are in violation of the Lambeth resolutions. Maybe Bishop Griswold should announce a state of impaired communion because of their open flounting of Lambeth (pardon my sarcasm, but I am getting tired of the North Americans simply rolling with the punches without pointing out the hypocrisy).

I like and respect the position of ++York--"everybody just cool it!"

The nearest to independent confirmation that the purported meeting of 2000 people actually took place seems to be this: "Interestingly, further investigation by Sunday Vanguard revealed that such people have already made up their minds to live their normal lives notwithstanding the disposition of the society to their plight. They demonstrated their effrontery recently with an Annual General Meeting of gays and lesbians in the country in Abuja.
The meeting which held under the auspices of Changing Attitude of Nigeria (CAN) resolved that prejudice against them in the church was as “unacceptable as racism or prejudice against women”.
The meeting which was the first in the history of Nigeria, had over 2,000 registered members and was addressed by Davis Mac-Iyalla, a director of CAN who said the meeting was to enable members deliberate on how to come out of their closets, and let the members of their various families know who they are."

I think that is second-hand reporting at best. The rest of the reports are just asking people's reactions to the purported meeting. It's a pity that Colin Coward didn't go - he could have cleared up the confusion about the existence or otherwise of a real CA group in Nigeria (and not just some scam to get CA money...)!

"Everybody must rise up against it": that's not a POV, that's the language of the *pogrom*---springing straight from the Father of Lies.

In the Name of Lord Jesus Christ, I cast it out!

As far as the CA site, the pictures seem to suggest yet another "gay and lesbian Anglican" event in which lesbians were *few*---but that's true even of too many LGBT (U.S.) Episcopalian events, also! {grumble-grumble}

I say this as a challenge to my gay male Anglican brothers: *ask lesbians* how to make LGBT Anglican gatherings *more welcoming to them*.

[It certainly doesn't help the homophobic obsession over "men's bits" if these "lesbian and gay" events are all-male (as they too frequently are)]

As others have said: the problem is *patriarchy*.

Well, Dave, I haven't a clue whether the meeting happened or not, but it certainly seems to suit homophobic Nigerian conservatives to believe that it did!

I don't care if only 10 people showed up to this thing. It's a "hair-pin drop" heard round the world (to use a now very quaint expression). The first public marches for gay-lesbian rights in America in the 1960s usually drew barely a dozen people running a gauntlet of hecklers and gawkers. Today, these parades draw thousands; and in New York, the mayor and an official police band participate. Who knows? 40 years from now the Mayor of Lagos might be marching in the Nigerian parade.

The photos from the "meeting" are most interesting. Where are the hundreds and hundreds of participants? Three men (gays??) hugging each other and a photo from a café....No names, no nothing!

Dave!

Why these accusations? Why do you doubt this meeting? Why do you say "meeting"?

Why indeed do you care - this does not regard you in the least. Worse, you are against this meeting ever taking place.

The Nigerian Sun has an article:

http://www.sunnewsonline.com/webpages/news/abujareports/2005/dec/05/abujaroport-05-12-2005-001.htm

Their estimate is that about a thousand attended, but as far as numbers are concerned, I agree with Counterlight.

Some reactions to the above posts.

The first press release we issued gave the impression that I was attending the Nigeria meeting and delivering my paper in person, which I had never planned to do. I apologise to all who were thus misinformed.

Where does the number of 2,000 come from? Nothing CA Nigeria or England has published claims such an attendance.

I'm also sad that none of the pictures reveal that any lesbians were present, though Davis tells me they were.

I am also disappointed that none of the pictures show more than 30 in one frame. Davis sent 100 pictures in total, and although I haven't counted the combined total of different people in the pictures, there were clearly a large number there willing to be photographed and have their pictures displayed to the world. The majority were not so willing, and given the minority of clergy and even lay people willing to have their photo taken and published, the reluctance of Nigerians to do so is even more understandable, isn't it? I have also received independent reports from 5 people who attended the weekend. What they universally report is the huge boost it gave to their self-esteem and morale.

The evidence leaves questions unanswered, I realise. What is evident is the violent reaction that is developing to news that the General Meeting took place. It is exposing the degree to which Nigerian culture is unable to take seriously the presence of same-gender loving people in the society. This isn't news, but people expressing their view publicly is. Also of help are the views of Anglican Nigerian Bishops. They provide further evidence of their failure to respect the Windsor Report, the ACC Meeting and the Primates' meeting, all attended by or agreed to by Archbishop Akinola. Whether they split or not, they are providing ample evidence of their partisan response to agreed (but not binding) church documents and reports.

There is something unpleasant about the repeated attempts to undermine or denigrate people who originally planned an event for 120 and were overwhelmed by the numbers wanting to come, and the insinuations that because it might not have been exactly how it was reported, it was worth nothing at all. The photos show more than three gay men hugging each other. But even a photo of three gay men hugging each other publicly in Nigeria is news - big news for lesbian and gay Nigerian Anglicans.

Colin

So where's the report from the New York Times reporter who was there? Or have we been misinformed about her/his presence too?

This proved there are Gays and lesbians in Nigeria, there is no doubt about that. We have to tell ourselves the truth, Church of Nigeria have to devise another means of reaching them. It is known that the group have been declared themselves.

I hope people will read the reports with open minds. Most were quoting Davis (finally he has a face) the vanguard did a story on it saying over 2000 registered, Sun interviewing him says 1000, and CA report says 360, then 800. I presume all reports emanated from same source. Nice to know he at least acknowledged funding from Colin. Hope I have pushed him to spending some of the funds collected for feeding and accommodating 1000 people for three nights.

The background for the photographs resembles the joints around the initially advertised venue. Different people including myself kept checking there on the days but there was no meeting. Of course, being a weekend, people kept visiting the centre to unwind. Wish I had Davis’s face before. I might have even taken a picture with him so that he knows I was there for the meeting. I asked around. Nobody seemed to know. I had different two people call from different phones to indicate interest in attending. Same response, meeting postponed due to National Carnival. There were drama shows on both Friday and Saturday nights in the hall as part of programmes for the National Carnival and I was expecting to see pictures of the 800 in the hall. I still doubt there was a meeting.

There are gays in Nigeria, and nobody has said otherwise. They are not being molested. (Some are even at a public African HIV/AIDS programme in Abuja today) The Anglican Church however believes the practice is an aberration and contrary to Scripture. We counsel and pray for those so afflicted. We are open to listen to anyone who will believe the Bible. Like the good Archbishop implied, just ignore these fraudsters seeking relevance in order to extort. CA should link up with authentic gays and when they want to come, there will be priests waiting to listen to them and we pray they will also listen to the priests.

Listening, Tunde, does not mean only those who believe what you think the Bible says.

That sort of condition is tantamount to not listening at all.

I haven't a clue as to the rest of the facts as to whether the meeting happend or not, but it's clear that you are only interested in listening to people who are prepared to agree with you.

A significant proportion of us here in the CofE do not agree with you, and we never will - thats why I shall be having my civil partnership next year. So will many other gay and lesbian Anglicans in the UK. And there is precisely nothing you can do about it.

Definitely more black faces here than there were by the Red Sea.

"They are not being molested." Tunde

Hogwash!

LGBT were molested and arrested/tormented made to pay bribes in Nigeria recently (or didn't you read/believe the NEWS report posted here while Akinola was conveniently out-of-town in Egypt?).

I liked your wry remark Goran, it made me laugh!

Thanks.

Given that gay and lesbian people are criminalised in Nigeria, with the Church's backing , I would take Tunde's observations with a large wheelbarrow of salt.

"They are not being molested." Tunde

Hogwash -- part 2!

Tunde, I believe it is the case that in your country men can be executed for having sex with one another, and that many have been. If this is not true, please give me facts to prove it.

We might argue over the semantics of "molested," but surely we can agree that the death penalty is the government's attempt to put a crimp in the quality of one's life, no?

The really sad thing is the suppression of the truth (see Archbishop Ademowo's request to the Vanguard to not write anything about the conference). This is not the first time I've witnessed an Anglican minister suppressing the truth. I've even had one say that when Paul said not to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18) it was only referring to the Gospel. (In other words it's okay to suppress the truth if it is not gospel, or if it is gospel that is not convenient to the powers that be). Further, on arguments from the threats to the angels in Sodom and Gomorrah, I wonder if the people who use these arguments would be bothered if the angels had been female? It's starting to look like it is okay to deprive people of clothing, violate their human rights, have abusive sex; as long as it is not homosexual. Is that why the churches turned a blind eye for centuries to bullying, domestic abuse; the use of rape and semen as a biological weapon to intimidate, humiliate, murder, cripple or tear open women's wombs? Is this because everything but homosexuality is forgiven by their god? If so, which god are they talking about? I don't think it is the biblical God of the Book of Truth; which Jesus is meant to personify (the New Testament is only part of the body, not the whole body).

Cheryl,

Which 'truth'? that someone claimed 1000, 2000, 360 or well, maybe 800 attended an Anglican religious meeting for hours with no programme of service, no minister, but a well known master of ceremony(!) with a Muslim name who had appeared on National TV as gay?

I think the Vanguard did a good job of devoting much of the article to the issues surrounding the practice and not to the fictitious meeting.

The Church's love should not be exploited to give relevance to lies.

"It's starting to look like it is okay to...have abusive sex; as long as it is not homosexual."
...well that's not a million miles away from the message of Genesis 19. That having failed to identify the 10 righteous men who would have saved Sodom from destruction, God saved the family of a man who had just offered up his unmarried daughters to be gang-raped by a crowd which presumably included their fiances. The same daughters who would go on to get their father drunk so they could get pregnant by him. Not exactly the perfect family role models.

"that someone claimed 1000, 2000, 360 or well, maybe 800 attended" said Tunde.

Um, I'm past caring enough to go and recheck all these reports, but I don't think you said a truth there, Tunde.

I see no evidence that 'someONE' has claimed all these differing figures. These are from different reports, different reporters, different organisations, some from the same reporter referring to different periods of the event, some from before the event in anticipation of expected numbers.

It really is astonishing the degree to which people are trying to cast doubt on, and question the integrity of, other Christians, PUBLICLY, at every stage of this story, in every way they can - with no evidence and no rational cause to do so, that I am able to discern at least, from the available reports.

Why? It can't be just because they are gay, can it? Am I missing something?

I'm sure you wouldn't be accusing a conference of Anglican Ladies Knitting Clubs, of all this lying, fraud and theft with no evidence to back up your defamation, would you?

I'm glad it is happening really, it confirms me in my beliefs about the nature of fundamentalist 'reasserter' Christianity. If it confirms me in that, it must be confirming others in the same, which pleases me no end.

AUgustus

I think Tunde is telling the truth that's all. Nothing like hearing the real news from the ground.

Terry

I wasn't commenting about the meeting, Tunde. I was commenting on the attitudes of your country and your church to its gay citizens and members.

You mean he is telling the truth about the treatment of gays and lesbians in Nigeria?

I don;t think Amnesty International would agree.

And given a choice between an organisation I respect such as AI, and the Church of Nigeria - well, there's no contest really, is there?

MerseyMike

This TA article is about some meeting in Nigeria. I am just staying on topic. I happen to know Tunde personally and know he won't lie about things like this.

"And given a choice between an organisation I respect such as AI, and the Church of Nigeria - well, there's no contest really, is there?"

. . . and that's really the issue, isn't?

As refers to the previous "Europe is a Spiritual Desert" bit, the TRUTH of the matter is that there is heck of a lot *more of the Gospel in Amnesty International* (which makes no claims to it) than there is in the Church of Nigeria (which, largely through its Primate, claims to be its sole legit interpreter).

For Anglicanism and its mission, that's more than a pity.

It's a tragedy. :-(

Let's remember to not paint with too broadly a brush, I daresay the entire "Church of Nigeria" is more than one or two persons. It is after all, 25 million-odd Christian souls!

Let us also keep in mind that we are a Communion. Now, this might be difficult to keep in mind and in practice when even others in it, seem intent on tearing down/attacking, etc (however you wish to term the unhealthy and unfair attacks against gays and lesbians).

But I would think that if we keep the Lord in our sights, and his requests that we treat our neighbors in a certain way, then this will take care of our behavior. He is what unites us all anyway, we are all united in him, as +Tutu said, "all, all, all, all."

"But what if our neighbor doesn't respond in kind? What if our neighbor doesn't believe this?"

Well the Lord said we must be ready to forgive 7x700 times. (This is the hard part.) We must trust the Spirit to do its work.

I understand the positions of some here like merseymike, who feel a great frustration and anger at some of the comments directed towards gays and lesbians and at the some times wishy washy or even silent positions of some of the churches in the face of this.

Yes, by all means, the Communion overall is behind other institutions in openness and acceptance of the gays and lesbians already in it and historically, always in it.

There are some good documents available that strive to keep people talking about things in a very Anglican way.

Some are at Wales, some at the Diocese of Southwest Virginia, which has struggled with this issue.

http://www.southernvirginia.anglican.org/cross/aug05/reconcil.htm#report

I certainly don't agree with the "just let them go" positions, I think our Communion worthwhile.

There are amongst the more "conservative" theologians, those who are committed to a process of conciliaiton, listening, and working together on spreading the Good News. I daresay they are in the vast majority.

As far as gays and lesbians serving in the Roman Church, who now ifnd thesmelves confronted with the type of edicts coming from there, I pray for them! What a terrible situaiton to be in, to serve faithfully and well, to live holy lives, but then, by fiat, to be ordered to stand down from yourself!

rmf --

It seems to me from the language used by persons in the video produced by the ACN & the fact that certain GSP refused to take Communion with the other primates that the split is already real, even if not yet clearly formalized nor its precise bundaries clearly deliniated. One can insist on inclusivity but one cannot prevent departure (even the rack & the bonfire were unable to accomplish that).

And as to forgiveness -- I certainly have the obligation as a follower of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to forgive wrongs done me -- I have no authority to forgive the wrongs done to my gay & lesbian brothers & sisters -- if they are persecuted & lynched it is not my place to say to their persecutors, "I forgive you."

I am somewhat confused by your statement about forgiveness?

Any way, my points are along the lines of:

(1) a difference of opinion or on points of theology, even if quite serious, does not constitute a split, as far as I know, no dicoese or province has left the Communion, depsite some strong language; (2) if there is a split, we should not kick on the way out, as if some people leaving, in some way means the end of certain beliefs or attittudes; (3) we should work to prevent a split ,as best we can, by keeping the hand extended and the willingness to talk real, even if it is not reciprocated, the Gospel does not demand or even require reciprocity.

Naturally to be effective Communion at some point will require communing, reciprocity or willingness from others, that is why I linked to documents that lay out a structure for helping this process along. These sorts of documents for structuring discussion, which many diocoeses have developed in response to Windsor, suggest quite well that shutting the door or proclaiming matters decided because we think that one side has decided, is not inevitable or desirable.

They suggest that the dialogue is ongoing, or perhaps just beginning, really. (In the words of ++York, "everybody just cool it.")

Even if we are not gay or lesbian we can certainly contribute to an atmopsphere that encourages if not contributes to dialogue and communion.

rmf --

Sorry, I don't know how to clarify what I said about forgiveness -- telling gays & lesbians to suffer for the sake of unity is too raw for me, I fear.

As to staying together -- no one in the North American Churches has called for anyone to be expelled from the Communion, in spite of the general failure of the Churches to honor the Lambeth resolutions called for a listening process to appreciate the experiences of our gay & lesbian members. Gene Robinson has explicitly stated numerous times that he wants to be in communion Peter Akinola, but it takes more than one side to stay together -- as Steve (a "conservative," I believe) posted a few threads back to Martin (a "liberal"?):

Martin:

The way forward is clear. We need to faithfully and charitably separate. All of the arguments I have seen on this site to date have accomplished exactly nothing in terms of reconciling opposing viewpoints. There is nothing that can be accomplished--the gap is unbridgeable. All we do is create animousity, when we could be working together charitably to work out terms of separation.

Steven

Yikes! I don't think I am suggesting that people suffer for the sake of unity! But that a separation ends one side of the argument or ends words...is this the idea behind separation? But I suppose if there are some who separate, what can be done if they are intent on it?

I think the Spirit may offer another way forward we haven't come to yet. I am hopeful.

In the meantime I admire ++Canterbury's statements (in the audio) regarding the recent meeting in Nigeria. He naturally upholds and affirms the dignity and respect due all people regardless of their orientation. And he views the meeting as a positive development for the dignity of people.

I also find of clearly dubious merit the suggestion of some (not here) that sexual orientations are somehow a product of Western export or worse,"imperialism," foisted on the unwitting. Hogwash!