Well done, CA.

If anyone is a fraudster it's Canon Popoola and those who supported this baseless attack on this man and his group.

Interesting how until proof of his outrageous charges was demanded, Popoola was more than willing to post his slanders repeatedly here and on other sites and even on ACNS, but now, he cannot be bothered to so much as provide one iota of proof for anything at all.

Since he works closely with Akinola I can only surmise that he approved of all of it.

I too await a simple answer on how Popoola could have canvassed 15 million Anglican Nigerians using his "process" and determined that MacIyalla was not "active" in church.

Because once that kind of technology is shown to the world I am sure many other provinces will want to use it too.

Why is the Church of Nigeria not sharing this technological and communications leap with all the Communion???

Coo. While I hadn't followed these happenings in any detail, that page has the potential to make things quite plain, that a judge with some actual evidence could decide one way or another.

That's not the only angle from which to see it, though:
I can see where Paul was coming from in 1 Cor. 6:1-8, too; why should we need the world's lawyers to fight battles within the Church?
Where's the sense of unity in this? Discussion and mediation are two things, but accusations and legalism are quite different.

And to think those of us watching UK terrestrial television have just had Professor Dawkins misrepresenting what an awful lot of people believe in order to propagate a meme that religion is divisive. Hmmmm!

Thanks for keeping an eye on this question. Sad that the Nigerian church fights its battles with personal attacks rather than reasoned discussion. Changing Attitude Nigeria is to be congratulated for its courage.

It's a pity that a neutral inquirer can't be found to investigate the facts, rather than CA and ACNS incurring the cost and time of a court action.

But is anyone left in the middle who both sides would trust to arbitrate ? :-(

... at least the NY Times reporters should be able to confirm the 800 people present and the nature of the Meeting. And Davis' membership card can be corroborated - if Nigeria check the relevant page of St Phillip's church's membership roll ?

Why should there be any need to do so, Dave? Are the Nigerian Church so frightened ?

Every day I get more and more disgusted with the actions of Anglican African bishops and their collaborators like Canon Popoola. They just don't practise what they preach - Christian love and KOINONIA.

There are the 'pirates' among them taking charge, under the guise of biblical orthodoxy, of disaffected Episcopal parishes, pitting parishioners and their clergy against their legitimate territorial bishops. They presume to override ECUSA's disciplinary canons when applied by duly elected bishops and standing committees to so-called Episcopal clergy who declare themselves out of communion with their own bishops on very spurious grounds, such as Bishop XYZ has rejected the divinity of Christ by giving his canonical consent to the election of a certain bishop of a diocese within ECUSA. In ECUSA clergy, who respect the constitution and canons of the Church, just do not go around shopping, with impunity, for a like-minded bishop the way Americans shop for a used car.

An Anglican bishop from Africa, Asia and Latin America, who, contrary to the advice of the Windsor report and the Primates' Communique, supports such uncanonical actions compromises and tarnishes his own episcopal office.

There are enough issues in Africa with which African bishops ought to concern themselves rather than create division among U.S. Episcopalians. How about issues of genocide - the abuse of women, the AIDS pandemic due to extra-marital sex?

Well, there isn't any need for any court action. All that is necessary is for Canon Popoola and the office of the Primate of all Nigeria (AC) to publish another press release of equal prominence which apologizes without reservation and retracts all the slanders and allegations they have made and for them to cease all attempts to harass or defame Davis and his colleagues.

In light of all that has gone before, and the evidence before our eyes on the CA site, I can't see that it is possible for the Church of Nigeria to maintain any credibility or honour if it doesn't do exactly that.

It is a very shameful episode.

I am being pushed real hard. Hope I can resist a little longer. Meanwhile waiting for the publication of the sack letter. One of the three must be lying; A CofE priest, an 'Otukpo knight' or a Nigerian bishop.

By the way all knights have certificates. Please send some money to Davis so he can also scan that for the CA website.

Tunde, the allegation which YOU published on the Anglican Communion News Service at http://www.aco.org/acns/digest/index.cfm?years=2006&months=1&article=531&pos=#531 was that the meeting of Changing Attitude Nigeria never took place. Do you now withdraw that allegation? If not, how do you refute the evidence that it did?

I think you should take responsibility for your own statements and not try and divert attention onto those of other people.

As I predicted, Canon Popoola would not be able to stay aloof from this discussion. The accusations made were too serious, and as a result, so will be the implications for the Nigerian Church and the ability of the Anglican Communion to address homosexuality in a mature, reflective, thoughtful way as requested by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Davis has scanned and sent documents to us at his own expense. The implication that we are paying for everything, and still being taken for a ride, is unworthy of a senior Christian priest.

It isn't the responsibility of Davis to provide more and more evidence of his truth until Canon Popoola is satisfied. Experience tells me that moment would never be reached.

I almost daren't pick up the comment that one of us must be lying. I have never called anyone a liar, but that is what, by implication, Canon Popoola is now accusing me of. We are asking the Nigerian Church to admit that a major mistake was made when it published the press releases and that an apology be made to Davis.

I am amazed and concerned by Canon Popoola's postings, especially his request that money be sent to Davis. This is the man who told the world that Davis was a fraudster and now HE is asking us to send him money ...

I had to read the message twice to make sure that's what he was saying. As this seems to be taking on an even more sinister dimension I agree with the comment made that an independent enquiry needs to be made, if that were possible.

John-Francis

CA is much more charitable in its assessment of Popoola and the Nigerian church than I. For that, it is to be commended. It has demonstrated true Christian charity and fairness.

Prior to this last shameful and further libelous post, Popoola urged CA's "gay lawyer" to file papers if they wanted proof.

Prior to that the Church in Nigeria through Popoola's boss, insisted there were no gay Nigerians and said gay/lesbian/bisexual affections were like bestiality.

Why should anything they say on this matter be believed? Their methods are lies, corruption, and attacks, on some of the most vulnerable amongst them...

They are unworthy to be church leaders even in their own province.

Popoola has yet to answer even one question presented to him, preferring instead to persist in his shameful lies. Such a lack of dignity and grace.

I would like to hear, for starters, the details about the wondrous technological and communicative "process" that allowed Popoola to poll more than 10,000 parishes and 6,000 clergy to determine whether one churchmen out of millions, was "active."

Does he truly believe any one with a shred of brain tissue believes such lies?

Colin, badman etc.
Where are the 800 participants? or the 2000 for that matter? All we have seen so far could be from any kind of small private event with 20 or so participants. There is no independent eyewitness to the claimed numbers. If they are ridiculously exaggerated why should we believe Davis claimed context of the event?

John Henry said,

"There are enough issues in Africa with which African bishops ought to concern themselves rather than create division among U.S. Episcopalians. How about issues of genocide - the abuse of women, the AIDS pandemic due to extra-marital sex?"

Why would these church men, and I use the term loosely, be interested in working on these issues, which would actually require engagement with people in their own countries who they refuse to admit even exist or have any claim to justice or dignity?

They'd much rather style themselves as church jet setters who to do the "work" of the church, cannot be bothered to begin in their own backyards.

Pirates indeed.

I believe Davis needs our help.

He may need more suggestions and ideas on how best to continue forward and carry the GOODNEWS message of "inclusiveness" and TRUTH at the Nigerian Anglican Church. Akinola and accomplices have little sense of reality, basic decency toward or understanding of the WHOLE composition of diverse membership that makes up many of our/his Anglican families and parishes.

Davis is dealing with liars, schemers and frightened/dangerous thugs in OUR church in Nigeria. What help guidance or solace can we offer?

Is his life being threatened daily? Are you being intimidated/molested Davis? Are you O.K.?

Davis, if you are reading this please give us a update on your concerns, fears, dilemmas and the current "status" of your "mission" at Changing Attitudes Nigeria?

We care about you.

Tunde
Stop this obfuscation! In English law it the accuser who must provide proof, not the accused. The burden of proof lies with you not with Davis or Changing Attitude. You have made defamatory statements about Davis and Changing Attitude - either provide your evidence or withdraw your allegations publicly.

I have lived and worked in west Africa; from experience at the British High Commisison in Abuja, I know the difficulties of communication and of checking official records in Nigeria. You might like to withdraw your grandiose claims about checking with every parish and with every Anglican priest.

You will not need to be reminded of the 9th commandment `You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour'. If telling lies about someone was condemned under law, how much more now we are under grace.

The real question, Tunde, is `What strategy does the Church of Nigeria have to implement the listening process commended by Resolution 1.10 and the Windsor report'? What procedures do you propose to put in place to ensure that you hear the voices of your lesbian and gay parishioners and clergy?

Why is this blog so fixated on Nigeria? Other categories barely get a yawn, but post something about Nigeria and the fur starts to fly.

"I am being pushed real hard. Hope I can resist a little longer."

The way that LGBT people are "pushed" (around), just for being who they are, in Nigeria? I think not, Tunde. :-(

[NB to John-Henry--- "Please send some money to Davis": I believe the canon is being sarcastic.

NB to Tom--- As we North American Anglicans are frequently informed, Nigeria is the second-largest Church in the AC (after the CofE), and is being held up as a model. I think observing the Nigerian Church's Christian charity-in-action bears some *careful consideration*, wouldn't you agree? :-/]

Tunde, given your and Archbishop Akinola's willingness to loudly speak without evidence about your fellow Anglicans, how about taking action to help the people of Lake Malawi and Zimbabwe who are "being pushed real hard" by their bishops?

The evidence of injustices committed against these Anglicans by Archbishop Malango and Bishop Kunonga is credible, extensively documented and in the public domain. As Andrew Carey commented in a constructive post on the most recent 'Zimbabwe: the case of Nolbert Kunonga' thread, "some risk-taking leadership is going to have to come from key people." He helpfully indicated the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA) - whose Chairman is your boss Archbishop Akinola - as one source of this.

When will CAPA and the Church of Nigeria take action against the injustices of Archbishop Malango and Bishop Kunonga, and what action do you plan to take?

Tom wrote: "Why is this blog so fixated on Nigeria? Other categories barely get a yawn, but post something about Nigeria and the fur starts to fly."

Hm... a Pseudonym in denial! Is that what they call Limbo?

NB to J.C.: No, I don't actually. There's way too much dysfunction in North America to contend with that we've no business pointing fingers at Nigeria.

Dave asks why Nigeria attracts such interest on this blog.

There is also the suggestion that TA readers are hardly interested in the rest. Well that’s clearly not so from reviewing the archives, but it is worth commenting that many TA readers come here for information and resources rather than for a chinwag.

On a general level things Nigerian have a particular significance for the worldwide Anglican Communion at this time. Peter Akinola is outspoken, and now presides over the new Global South Anglican Communion. Through what he says and does we are able to see the drama of schism being played out. While others have things to say it is Akinola who has, up until now at least, made most of the running in public.

So, while I would like to see the centre of our attention move to Sydney where I believe the real influence lies, the other players are happy to see Akinola draw the flack and be the main spokesperson. People like Jensen are happy to take a back seat, draft letters, speeches and set the tone. I think this is frustrating too! I have a strong suspicion that Akinola’s excesses has made his time as front man rather shorter than planned and others will emerge to take the reins.

What makes the Nigerian Changing Attitude story so interesting is to have all three of the people involved in this matter posting here. The news unfolds before your eyes, and I have a feeling it is going to have some interesting and far reaching ramifications. It would be churlish not to notice this. It’s a top story!

I think that one reason why the "Nigerian Matter" is gaining so much attention here is because of ++Akinola's (self-proclaimed?) position as spokesman for the Global South.

Conservative evangelicals have (for reasons that still elude me) made the issue of homosexuality THE defining issue. Among those leading the way has been ++Akinola. So the issues concerning homosexual Christians in Nigeria ARE of immense importance to Anglicans across the world.

Equally, the question of whether or not Akinola and his associates have lied or deliberately deceived raises enormous questions about his basic credibility. To put it bluntly, he can't claim to be making a stand for "gospel values" with regard to homosexuality if - at the same time - he and his associates are knowingly issuing libellous and highly misleading statements. This is why we need to establish the truth of this matter.

Finally, I agree with Martin Reynolds' comments:

"...I would like to see the centre of our attention move to Sydney where I believe the real influence lies, the other players are happy to see Akinola draw the flack and be the main spokesperson."

For a long time, I have had the nasty suspicion that others are very happy to use Akinola as a battering ram, and will sit back and wait to see what happens to him. I have had no pleasure in such suspicions and it is only slightly reassuring to find that someone else sees things in a similar way.

Strange, Tom: that you would translate "careful consideration of a model" as "pointing fingers."

North American Anglicanism is "dysfunctional", compared to what? The Righteousness of God? (Then, emphatically, WE ARE!) Or compared to other churches of the AC, some of whom seem determined (regardless of their own problems) to run our church for us?

Dysfunction is as dysfunction does, and returning to the topic of *this* thread... :-/

I was sent a text yesterday by Davis saying he had heard a news report that the Nigerian Government was proposing 5 years in prison for gays and lesbians if caught. I was phoned early this morning by a BBC World Service researcher trying to reach Davis for an interview. He said the Nigerian Government has announced that it is proposing to introduce legislation banning the possibility of gay marriage in Nigeria. I've Googled for the story with no success. Does anyone have more information?

The proposed legislation must be a reaction to our Civil Partnership law, but two more thoughts crossed my mind. Is it also a reaction to Changing Attitude Nigeria and the high profile they have achieved in the Nigerian press and online, and is Archbishop Akinola involved, putting pressure on the Nigerian Government to take this action?

Davis was in something of a panic yeserday about it, and got me worrying for his safety. The legislation is only a proposal at the moment, but indicates Government moves to tighten hostility to gay people in Nigeria, and is going to make the culture even less safe.

The Anglican Communion has a notional policy of respect and protection for LGBT people, but doesn't understand that applying 'traditional Biblical teaching and morality' about same-sex relationships is incompatible with this.

This is why Canon AkinTunde's press release is one more contribution to what makes life so much more dangerous for Davis and all lesbian and gay Nigerian Anglicans. It is impossible to protect and respect lesbian and gay people in Nigeria at the same time as not speaking out against proposed legislation which will increase the risk against them.

The arguments introduced above by Martin and others are critical to the complex drama being played out across our Communion. Maybe Archbishop Peter Akinola has been used by others, and maybe the leadership is going to move elsewhere. Meanwhile, at the highest level, the identity of our Communion as I understand it is subject to the gravest of risks, and at the same time, the safety of individuals - Davis, Nigerians and LGBT in other countries, is also subject to extreme risk. I pray for them and their safety, for us and our Christian witness, and for all of us who are tempted to polarise the Gospel and divide our church into competing, partisan factions - and do so dishonestly.

Perhaps there is no need to remind those who read this blog that Canon AkinTunde Popoola has still failed to produce a single item of evidence in support of his serious allegations.

David and Martin,

So Archbishop Akinola's strings are being pulled by Sydney. The reason for this is presumably either 1. Africans can't think for themselves or 2. Africans are too nice to have views that you personally find distasteful.

At best there's a whole load of unreality behind what you're suggesting.

Andrew

Or perhaps they are a little less naive, Andrew. It gives Sydney credibility to be fronted by an African primate. OK, he's proved to be something of an embarrassment as he says what they really think without the niceties, but still....for me, it simply identifies the lack of worth of the Anglican 'Communion' and the need to see a split, where these incompatible views no longer have to remain together.

Andrew, I seem to remember you writing somewhere that those who thought Akinola would be “enthroned” as leader of the Global South and that there would be an attempt to humiliate Rowan at the South to South encounter were delusional.

I cannot recall anything from you subsequently telling how you, and many others, were deceived by Akinola saying this was not a business meeting. Perhaps I missed your reporting.

Your analysis of my post is puerile.

Still, a couple of weeks ago you published an excellent article in the CEN on finding a way through this impasse, so not all is lost.

Tom said,
"Why is this blog so fixated on Nigeria?"

The church there has taken it upon itself to slander and demean the good name of a man who dares to speak up for justice and dignity in a society of rampant corruption, where glbt are imprisoned.

I think the answer is simple: Jesus said, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

This talk of a sinister worldwide plot is laughable. There *is* a worldwide concensus that homosexual practice is sinful - because that is God's view as he has made clear in His Word. It really is that simple.

As for this:

"The Anglican Communion has a notional policy of respect and protection for LGBT people, but doesn't understand that applying 'traditional Biblical teaching and morality' about same-sex relationships is incompatible with this."

That is just not true.

And finally, hasn't anyone else watched with some amazement at the personal attacks made on Akinola and Popoola on a number of threads, including here. The charge is maligning someone else. Yet what the accusers seem to decry, they are themselves happy to do!! We seem to be very close to substituting double-standards for Christian charity. I am reminded of planks and specs of wood. :(

Colin, Try http://www.champion-newspapers.com/news/teasers/article_5 for details. Not sure however the article will load after today.

Martin,

You and I have had some good conversations and generally get on quite well. But your constant insistence that either Americans or now Australians are pulling the strings is tiresome. It does leave the question in the air of what you actually think of Africans that they are so easily and obviously manipulated.

As for your predictions prior to the South-to-South Encounter that ++Rowan would be unceremoniously, and humiliatingly dethroned and ++Akinola posted at the head of a new Anglican Communion - they were nonsense. And seriously did you really expect there to be no 'business' at the South-to-South meeting? It was clear from the past two gatherings of this kind that some kind of communique would be issued.

On the other hand, you should be pleased that the later debacle of the letter revealed tellingly that the so-called Global South is not a monolithic entity. This is why it is so frustrating to observe discussions like these on Thinking Anglicans where some posters unthinkingly condemn 'African Bishops' for the perceived and actual 'faults' of some they've read about.

Here is the text of that page Tunde quoted:

FG moves to ban same sex marriage

LERE OJEDOKUN, Abuja

FEDERAL Government yesterday approved a draft bill seeking to ban same sex marriages and relationships in the country. If enacted by the National Assembly, offenders face a five-year jail term without option of fine.

Besides, formation of association of homosexuals and lesbians as well as any form of protesting for rights recognition by the affected persons will be outlawed.

Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Chief Bayo Ojo (SAN) who briefed State House correspondents after the weekly Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting, said the move became necessary following the reported cases of the unnatural marriage in South Africa.

He explained that President Olusegun Obasanjo had expressed concern at the development in the former apartheid enclave, last year and requested his ministry to come up with the appropriate legal framework to forestal it happening in Nigeria.

The minister added that the draft bill which FEC approved after some amendments, would be forwarded to the National Assembly for passage into law.

"We all know that marriage is a unique institution between a man and a woman and this fact is universally acknowledged. It is also contained in the Holy Books. But in recent time, this incident of marriage or relationship between people of the same sex has been growing in the developed world.

"Just in December, this incident crossed over to South Africa, we got worried. Mr. President then thought it fit that we should bring a bill to council to prohibit the relationship and marriage between people of the same sex," he said.

Chief Ojo said various sections of the proposed act include validity and recognition of marriages, non-recognition of marriages of same sex, prohibition of marriages of same sex in any of the recognised places of worship like churches, mosques and customary courts.

He further explained that the state high courts and federal high courts would have jurisdiction over matters relating to same-sex marriage, even as he said that government could not afford an alien culture desecrate African long-held belief of holy marriage.

His words: "You know it is unAfrican for people of the same sex to contract any form of sexual relationship or marriage. This is why government is putting in place a legal framework to checkmate it straightway and ensure we don’t have such incidents in the country."

Information and National Orientation Minister, Mr. Frank Nweke Jnr, who also spoke on the issue, said government considered Nigeria as a "basically conservative society" where all religious and culture abhor marriage between persons of same sex.

He added that the open canvassing for recognition by an advocacy rights group at December’s summit on HIV/AIDS in Abuja informed the move by government to nip the practice in the bud.

Other decisions at the FEC meeting chaired by President Obasanjo include approval of N5.4 billion for the completion of Nassarawa-Loko road rehabilitation, N580 million for reconstruction and asphalt laying on Okigwe-Afikpo road and N440 million for Onitsha-Enugu road rehabilitation, according to Works Minister, Chief Adeseye.

Others are N2 billion for the Ota-Abeokuta road dualisation, N167.5 million for furnishing of the new office for the Ministry of Petroleum Resources and N63 million for consultancy by the Presidential Committee on Consolidation of Emoluments of Public Servants.

© 2006 @ Champion Newspapers Limited (All Right Reserved).

Andrew,

in retrospect, my words concerning ++Akinola were perhaps misleading.

I don't think that someone is pulling his strings. But it would be naive in the extreme to assume that no-one is "playing politics" here. So, do I think that ++Jensen is manipulating ++Akinola? No. But he is certainly a player in the overall politicking and it is fair to ask the question "where is he in all this?"

I'd like to return this thread to the starting point. It is now clear that Canon AkinTunde is still reading the blog from the helpful link he posted. He has still failed to produce any evidence in support of the malicious and totally unsubstantiated allegations against Davis MacIyalla.

He has hasn't challenged the material posted on our web site. He has, by asking Davis to scan and produce his knight's certificate, implied that he doesn't accept the picture of Davis in his uniform with his bishop as evidence and that it is either a forgery or Davis wearing a uniform to which he is not entitled in the presence of the bishop.

I want to see the evidence on which AkinTunde based his allegations. I live in a culture which requires people to produce evidence when they make an allegation against a person which may be libellous, and be subject to redress if no evidence is produced.

I am part of a Christian Communion which I expect to be fallible but in which I want Christian leaders to behave with a high degree of integrity. Canon AkinTunde introduced the word liar into this thread, and suggested that either Davis or myself or a bishop (by which I assume he might mean Archbishop) is a liar. I know that I am not lying. I have evidence from Davis that much of what he has told me he has proved true, to my satisfaction, and nothing has yet been shown to be untrue. The one person who has not produced a single shred of evidence is Canon AkinTunde, who posted a press statement under the name of Archbishop Peter Akinola.

Members of the Anglican Communion hold with integrity radically different views on homosexuality in relation to scripture, Christian teaching and practice. I may disagree with people who post to this group, but I know I belong in the universal Church with them. What the Canon may have done on behalf of the Nigerian Church is introduce into the international debate about homosexuality a new and utterly abhorrent way of conducting Anglican Communion relationships and affairs.

Colin Coward wrote: "Members of the Anglican Communion hold with integrity radically different views on homosexuality in relation to scripture, Christian teaching and practice. I may disagree with people who post to this group, but I know I belong in the universal Church with them."

Dear Colin, that is one of the first posts I have read for a long time that didn't just attack people like me who (in my case after much thought and experience of homosexual people) believe that homosexual sex is sinful. I wish more liberals were prepared to listen and respect other views.

Thanks...

Ah well, thats because Colin wishes to preserve the Anglican Communion and is prepared to give your views credibility . Whereas I wish the Anglican communion to disintegrate (the sooner the better!) and think that conservative christianity is superstitious, harmful and ultimately to be rejected. For me, the only thing I have in common with you, Dave, in terms of our views, is the label Christian.

"people like me who (in my case after much thought and experience of homosexual people) believe that homosexual sex is sinful."

Dave, why is thought and experience relevent here? I thought you were guided solely by what is often called 'the plain truth of scripture' and the tradition and consensus of the Church.

I think you have said before that applying thought and experience to the interpretation and application of scripture etc is SUBJECTIVE.

You see? I AM listening to your views. I just don't know which bit of them to respect - the bit that condemns subjectivity or the bit that uses subjectivity?

I expect to see you (along with everyone else) in heaven.

Colin, thank you for the reminder that we are all brothers and sisters in one universal Church. It's too little expressed or understood. Dave, I share your dismay at the number of posts here with the tone of attack, and I would add sniping and triumphalist tones as well. Those posts appear from people on all sides of a given argument.

It's his playground, and he makes the rules, but I would urge Simon to consider stricter rules with regard to the comments he allows to appear and greater haste in shutting off exchanges when they degenerate into personal attacks. It is sad and frustrating to read the comments on old TA posts and see the degree to which the level of debate here now often sinks. Surely we can do better than this.

Anna
Thank you for that timely comment. I have been trying to be generous to commenters and have disallowed only a very few of the comments made recently. Perhaps I should be a bit stricter in future. Would other readers welcome this too?

I fundamentally disagree with the slogan about the 'one universal church'- I simply don't believe it exists- and I hope that any censorship won't omit the perspective of those of us who think that we have no connection other than the label Christian with Nigeria et al.

You see, Anna, this is not a situation where there is or ever could be a point of compromise. There are fundamental disagreements, and I do not wish to have any formal relationship with those who I consider to be homophobic. That divide is far greater than any supposed religious connection - and personally, i think that conservative and liberal Christianity are entirely different religions.

I know this is a controversial point of view, but its one I hold strongly, and informs my view that Anglicanism as it now stands is essentially redundant.

I for one would not like to censor comments simply because they may reflect a sometimes unpleasant reality.

Let people read and make up their own minds. Otherwise you begin to have posts that do not reflect reality but what is only not-frustrating or only what you would prefer to hear.

If any discussion only results in "You! No, you! No! Yes! What!" etc, then we'd better find another way through, hadn't we?

Simon has done a very good job at seeing to this.

I am very confident that we can weather any unpleasantness or frustration.

"Perhaps I should be a bit stricter in future. Would other readers welcome this too?" Simon S.

Dear Simon,

I live in Latin America. I live in a Anglican/Episcopal Diocese that is "not" especially "progressive" in a country that is historically notorious for deceitful/criminal behavior and behind-the-scenes manipulation for personal greed/prestige/power/control and exploitation of *others*...most IMPORTANT Human Rights issues are ignored here by the "church" because people don't want to be "embarrassed" or "shamed" or "caught" in their real "character" or "sin" of omission(s)...or just plain AFRAID to speak truth...it's better to make lofty *traditional* religious pronouncements than look at fact and REAL...most people play "pretend" that *things* are different than they really are. Many LGBT people have been murdered here when they refused to ignore the truth of about being exactly who they are (at all levels of society)...many other LGBT's live "twisted" lives while pretending to be "different" than they *really* are (sometimes simultaneously destroying their families and themselves with various forms of sick and violent "abuse" toward others and/or *other* self-destructive acting out to themselves...insanity). These are the facts.

Simon, I'm very glad you are "open" to "exchanges" from all points of view here...I have much passion against "self-righteous" religious "leaders" (espeically in OUR church) because they can KILL other Christians while schmoozing with their pompus views of Gods Love and Biblical "truths" as they *should* be...they KILL with their ignorance, fear and selective reading of the Bible...and more horrible is the fact that they seem to rejoice/puff-up at being "right" in Gods eyes! I see little true compassion, Christian love or basic decency directed toward LGBT people in Nigeria or in some of the *other* Provinces in OUR church. I see grave danger for people like me in places like Nigeria. I see MORE fear being converted to MORE hate when ++Akinola makes speeches belittling LGBT people.

Dave says (repeatedly) that he has many "positive" experiences working with and "befriending" LGBT people during his personal ministry and life. Bravo Dave. Like many other minority people we NEED all the love, understanding and support we can get...we're more used to being marginalized and/or harmed, shunned and shamed by many "well meaning" heterosexuals at church.

LGBT people have much "experience" surviving in a world filled with righteous "straight" folks who think they are being "fair" and objective with people like us...they often whisper judgements against us and demean our daily existence and they make life very hard to live in a honorable and "open" way...it's time we all came OUT and moved away from ugliness and deceit.

I'm not willing to play pretend anymore and remain "silent" in my pew while people like me are made "second class" sinners by fellow Christians.

Thank you Simon for allowing me to "speak."

Dear Simon

The trouble with restricting free speech is that it is probably counter-productive and manipulative, except for stopping real excesses such as threats of actual violence, bullying or intimidation.

I don't enjoy people throwing campaign slogans like "homophobe" or "anti-gay" at anyone who is significantly less liberal than they are, or huge amounts of emotional pressure, but I would rather have a full and free exchange than be "protected" by gagging everyone! After all, if I can't stand the heat I can always get out of the kitchen.

One thing I would like to encourage if possible is addressing the points that the other people have made, rather than just raising unrelated counter arguements. (The classic in the USA being abortion, where one side seems to argue only about the rights of the mother and the other only about he rights of the child). But I'm guilty too; I've seen how effective it can be, and if everyone is communicating with piles of emotion then I have to do it too!

The posters above have made good points against disallowing comments. In the best commenting and posting experiences I've had, a moderator has taken an active role in helping others stay on track-- not cutting off true debate, but reminding posters to be civil, encouraging them to stay on topic, respond to the post they're commenting on, and perhaps most important, gently pointing out when people continue to play the same note again and again and encouraging them to add something new to the discussion.

This kind of facilitation can shape and guide a discussion with very little effect on content but a great deal of effect on behavior and emotions. Dave, I disagree that emotional posts have to be responded to with emotion!

Mostly, I'd like to see more attention to the topic of the post and less using of the topic to announce one's stand for the umpteenth time. And with that, I'll stop, since I'm now off-topic!

I reckon it's about right as it is.

I agree with Anna on the filtering of comments on Thinking Anglicans.

"not cutting off true debate, but reminding posters to be civil, encouraging them to stay on topic, respond to the post they're commenting on, and perhaps most important, gently pointing out when people continue to play the same note again and again and encouraging them to add something new to the discussion... I'd like to see more attention to the topic of the post and less using of the topic to announce one's stand for the umpteenth time."

The most tiresome thing of all on a "Thinking" website is constantly to see posters merely reiterate their opinions (with or without the assertion that no other point of view is possible), without contributing new insights, or facts, to the item in hand.

Thinking Anglicans is nowhere this point yet, but I have seen newsgroups killed because "bad comments drive out good" - it is so easy stridently and repetitively to assert a point of view, and to abuse those who disagree, that thoughtful contributors whose posts require more effort are gradually drowned out, lose interest and eventually withdraw.