The comments on Roseberry's piece are very telling and sad.

What can anyone say to someone who thinks gays - who are fighting to be able to be married - are against marriage? How many hererosexaul marriages crumble into the dust because somewhere in the world a gay couple does get legally married? The animal analogies are just sick.

The Bible says a lot more about usury and the mistreatment of widows and orphans than it supposedly says about gay people. I don't hear anything from ++Akinola comparing usurers, or those who take advantage of the poor in other ways to animals.

Those who have left TEC to ally themselves and their followers with ++Akinola must be in one of two categories: just as willfully ignorant as he about human sexuality or cynically making a grab for power and pointy hats.
Disgusting.

"Akinola gave his Christmas Day message from a lectern on the church's rotating altar."

Another example of spin?

The argument that we should be grateful that Anglican-influenced lawmaking on homosexuality in Nigeria is less harsh than sharia law is akin to celebrating the abolition of castration and disembowelling as an intrinsic part of capital punishment ('hanging, dawing and quartering').

No ethicist would maintain that something was moral by dint of being less appallingly immoral than a rival course of action, at least when neither course of action was necessary.

Consequently, we must believe that the Archbishop of Abuja believes that jailing those who 'promote' homosexuality is not only a better alternative than judicial murder under sharia (and there I agree with him) but better also than any other course of action, including opposing the bill.

Interesting....

Archiepiscopal Species-ism gone mad! You would think a primate would know better!

We are animals. Presumably from the Latin as animated beings --
anima-ls.

The eyes of all look to Thee O Lord and Thou givest them their (our) meat in due season.

"He sees homosexual activity as a sin and violation of God’s law, but he does not condemn people out of hand."

No, he just wants them in jail for 5 years, where, presumably, it will be easier to "welcome them" into the churches, I guess because that makes it easier to know where they are, thus easier to evangelize? Or because 5 years in jail will inculcate the proper amount of fear of the power of the Church, and, by extension, of My Lord of Abuja?

from ABN Akinola: Summary Errors of Fact, Built on Ignorance/Prjeudice

(1) "Homosexuality seeks to destroy marriage as we know it, unity as we know it, family life as we know it …

Some facts? = homosexuality is a variation in human nature, entirely within the typical range of human diversity, is probably a complex good outcome of nature/nurture causes, and in itself causes no disability or impairment any more than heterosexuality does … families or unity are not destroyed by welcoming their LGBTQ offspring, but rather, deepened and strengthened

(2) When God created man, he saw man was alone and added a female mate for him. Why didn't he pick one of the baboons, one of the lions to make his partner? He could have done so. He didn't …

Some facts? = if we believe that heterosexuality is built into human nature because of our available empirical evidence, then we also have to believe that homosexuality is built in, too, in just about the same deep and persisting and potentially productive human ways … nothing we now know about people at any variation point on the Kinsey Scale Adjusted for sexual orientation has anything to do with any sort of empirical hypotheses or conclusion about human/animal sexual relations as such ….

(3) "We have gays in Africa, too …

Finally, some facts that are not spin dried errors. But earlier, wasn’t the line supposed to be that there were no gays in Africa?

Behind these errors of fact, can there by anything but ignorance? Prejudice?

(1) homosexuality is innately, nothing but destructive evil ….

ah, not for the real, live homosexual citizens who so courageously and productively live and love and work, despite your ignorance or prejudices … for them, it is forced powerlessness, silence, and invisibility which threatens to be nothing but socially and personally destructive and isolating …

(2) same sex couples cannot have any life or love together that is anything near what our heterosexuality makes possible ….

ah, get a clue, archbishop … maybe you could hang out for a while with the African gay people against whom you so love to bear false witness?

The likely probability is, statistically speaking, those queer folks are no further outside the human range in their variations and differences, than we would see if we took a representative sample of a comparable heterosexual population …

Watching the Archbishop yesterday (repeated late as well as shown early) he said it would have to be seen what the mind of the C of E was regarding a covenant, and up to TEC to decide regarding its place... If it all centres on this issue as the crucial element, or this crucial element, are we really saying that there would be a covenant with Nigeria but not one with TEC? The reasoning of this article of those allying themselves now with Nigeria (and similar) is so repulsive (and on this issue) that it digs an even bigger hole to where a covenant with Nigeria, that would exclude TEC, would be simply the wrong way around if that choice had to be made.

I don't say to someone (including this issue of gay equality) that because everyone is in position A that I'll be in a slightly more inclusive position regarding position A, I stick to position B (even if I can't achieve it). This is what the Nigerians should do regarding the legislation, and indeed every indication is that this is not some pragmatic slightly less repression than the Muslim north but that they actually want it.

I could/can see it...

The flow of the puritans caftan/pj's and the wrap of his headpiece as he emerges/makes his entrance/appearance into the not-so-discreet and well populated common area.

He commeth!

The loving and "angelic" face of smiling/dimpled hatred as +Akinola simultaneously uses "endorsing" behind-the-scenes sneaky actions/tactics in support of hatefilled and potentially murderous exclusion of Episcopalian and Anglican *others* by jailing LGBT Christians/Muslims and their supportive families and friends in NIGERIA. SWISH goes the supple white fabric as the opening act of his dangerous and deceptive "show of shows" is staged in a Hotel Lobby in London.

Act Two moves us upward, albeit less close to heaven, as the web of deceit is spewn and spun (most likely out the the same material the caftan/pj's/wrap are made of) with a Graceless spin and seemingly blessed/holy touch.

Speechless remains the audience. Spellbound!

The orthodox, yet divorced/remarried, Roseberry reports to us it's been a grand and holy experience as he gushes over his second cup of copy when finally alone...he absorbs the mirage of Gods love and peace drinking coffee.

Later in the day, after some of the "Godspell" has been lifted, Roseberry flies off into the Western eternal sunset to regroup from such a "moving" (and don't forget exhausting) experience.

Roseberry rests, rethinks, regroups and then moves onward to *other* possible venues/outposts of exclusion and selfrighteous believing/extreme thinking in his quest for more validation. Roseberry and his accomplices are needy men as the former Episcopal priest presses forward with their "collective" desire/mission to deny LGBT and *other* tainted Christians/marginalized folk the love and support that is currently unavailable at their Plano, Texas non-denominational excluding church.

Presto chango and surprise! Another white ++body swishes into the third act and saves Roseberry and his gang from "falling away!"

This may very well be a Four Act Play before the finale!

Honest question, can The Church of England sign a Covenant with any teeth without the agreement of Parliament?

My understanding is that The Church of England can't even issue a Book of Common Prayer, so I wondred about this -- e.g., does Porvoo actually mean anything or is it essentially a statement of good will, like Archbishop Runcie signing a statement with Pope Shenouda agreeing that the problem with Chalcedon was just a misunderstanding?

I speak as a Nigerian.

Do you think Akinola is a Westerner? Do you know how Nigerians think and react?

Why are you expecting him to react like a Westerner?

What on earth will it take you people to understand that you are not up against Akinola but the vast majority of Nigerians (Muslim and Christian)?

What on earth will make you understand that you understand that you are not dealing with a Western problem in a Western Nation?

What on earth will get you to understand that the progressive Western concept of Christianity is vastly different from the African concept of Christianity?

What on earth will make you understand that the problem in not "homophobia" but a vast difference in scriptural intepretation?

The days when a person could stay at Oxford, influenced soley by the cultural context prevalent around Oxford, inteprete Christianity based on the prevalent social conditions in and around Oxford - and call it Christian theology, are OVER.

The genesis of this crisis was a lack of dialogue. If the "progressives" in the West had any idea of what the "progressives" in Africa were getting up to, the process would have been better thought out and better executed.

I am not in lala land. A nation that had deadly Islamist influenced riots for issues as mundane as Miss World and the Danish Cartoon controversy is not going to pay too much attention to a Western Church that is:

1. Silent in the face of aggressive Islamist expansion.
2. Silent in the face of Shari'a and persecution of Christians.
3. Silent in the face of death and murder of Christians.

Yet so vocal about the homosexual issue. (Which is one issue oddly enough, where Muslims and Christians agree).

Am I saying we are right to be bad to homosexuals? No. But they are simply not listening to you. Please understand why.

Imagine yourself as Nigerian for a minute. Imagine you grew up in a culture with a strong sense of community (as opposed to the individualistic West). Imagine growing up in a society that mirrors the New Testament World much more closely than the West. i.e.
1. Persecution
2. Unjust Tax Collectors.
3. Wicked Rulers.
4. Famines, Hunger and Poverty.
5. High Mortality

Would you intepret the Bible differently?

Maduka

It could be said that there is an assumption that people outside of Nigeria/Africa have not faced the same obstacles as yourself.

The people of South Africa faced huge injustices under Apartheid, yet they found the way forward did not involve elitism or exclusiveness.

Shunning 2-5% of your population will not solve your bigger pictures. And if people as horrible as you say, why does your credibility in their eyes matter to you anyway? As you shun so you will be shunned.

Look to Joseph, he faced all those obstacles and yet managed to bring forth God's compassion - and not just for the sanctified Jews but for all the Pharoah's people.

Justice does not recognise colour, sex or creed. If justice is denied to one, the precedent is set to deny it to all. We are as strong as our weakest links. If we deliberately weaken certain elements then we are all diminished.

If your church chooses to exclude, that is your church's choice.

But God has a need for the arms of compassion for the least of these. If your church will not respond to the call, then another church will. Maybe healing will take longer in Nigeria than other places, but that will be a reflection of the choices of the shepherds.

In the meantime, the rest of us are working to slow down the AIDS pandemic and global warming, awakening compassion in holy sparks and seeking a repentance away from selfish "I'm okay so stuff you" thinking that has led to the abysmal conditions on the African continent. God's love will flow where people can accept it in whatever package it comes in. It will not flow to where people put up boundaries to keep it out. God does not demand and God does not rape. If you don't want inclusive love, then it will not be given to you. All you have to do is ask and it will be given.

Cheryl,

I have no problems with your POV. The problem is greater than either of us. I want you to understand what we are up against.

The tone of conversation in the Western media / West does not show that there is an understanding of what the factors at play are.

Maduka,
What will make you understand that this is not a racial or postcolonial issue? This is not the evil white people trying to treat their formor colonies as if they still were colonies. This is an issue of human rights. You do not want to "be bad to homosexuals", why then do you want to throw us in jail? This IS homophobia, and it IS the problem. Homosexuality is not some Western thing, it is part of the human experience. Or do you think Westerners somehow imported it into Africa? What will make you understand that your concept of "the West" is as limited as that of some people about Africa? I did not grow up in "the individualistic" society you describe. I grew up in a world of extended families where tradition was important, in a place where there was a societal structure not unlike that of colonial Africa, with British people who lorded it over us. If they were like that to us whose language, religion and skin colour were the same as theirs, I can imagine what they were like in Africa. I understand quite well where +Akinola's attitudes towards the West come from, and I have imagined how I would feel were I Nigerian. Imagine how you'd feel if you grew up gay in Nigeria. Imagine the fear, the self loathing, the knowledge that, should you ever be found out, you would at least go to jail, or maybe even be killed, and people actually believe you chose this for yourself, and therefor deserve this kind of treatment. As to the violence between Muslims and Christians in your country, I agree. There have been expressions of sympathy on this and other Internet boards, but official expressions of solidairty with oppressed Christians have been sadly lacking.

Therefore, Maduka, you have your Christianity, suited to your culture, and we can have ours. Yours has no appeal to me.

And lets split the Anglican Communion as soon as we can so that can be achieved.

Ford Elms,

Nigeria's problem is not gay rights, Nigeria's problem is HUMAN RIGHTS.

Cheryl,

South Africa solved its HUMAN RIGHTS problem before it resolved its gay rights problem. (Infact homosexuals were at the forefront of the anti-aparteid movement).

If you could read "The Next Christendom" by Jenkins, you will get more perspective.

Maduka,

That you would so blithly toss homosexuals to the wolves is what makes so many of us seem insensitive. That His Lorship +Abuja hates me, personally and would have me arrested for being in a committed relationship makes me think less of him.

But, Maduka, gay people are human beings. Do we not have rights? Are we not entitled to life and liberty? Are we somehow second class so that our freedom, our right to life, can be sacrificed in order that the Muslims in Nigeria will leave the "real people" (ie the heterosexuals) alone? Are you saying that throwing people in jail for being gay is not a human rights issue? Another thing. I assume you are heterosexual. Supposing, under this new law, someone has a grievance against you and accuses you of being homosexual. How would you prove such a person wrong? How would you escape 5 years in jail? Do you not fear this? You should. In the days when homosexuality was illegal in the West, it occured a lot. People's lives were destroyed by it.

"What on earth will make you understand that the problem in not "homophobia" but a vast difference in scriptural intepretation?" Maduka

What on earth will it take for you to understand your thinking is twisted and your belief system against fellow citizens and LGBT human
beings is warped to the point of being another deadly Nigerian National epedemic like AIDS?

What on earth will it take for you to understand
that the disease of AIDS originated in Africa? "Sexual sinners" from Nigera and surrounding countries spread AIDS by heterosexuals having SEX (mostly).

Do YOU blame "Westerners" for the consequences of your heterosexual sexual activities?

What on earth will it take for you to
understand that with all your loud preaching/Biblical "insisting" that
you refuse to face the realities of ALL human sexuality (mostly amongst polygamists and other heterosexuals)?

What on earth will it take for you
to understand that vile/demeaning speeches/sermons against "Westerners"
and LGBT Christians/Muslims will not solve YOUR Nigerian based problems?

What on earth will it take for you to understand that some of the
"Western" influence you disdain invented and today provides the medical LIFELINE which is saving millions of lives of
heterosexual "puritans/fundamentalists" who are supporters of bigoted
Africa Christian theology in NIGERIA?

Estimado Maduka

What will it take for you to get
beyond your hatefilled spirit that allows YOU to justify the outcasting, shunning, loathing and JAILING (pending) of your fellow LGBT Nigerians?

YOU are the problem in Nigeria!

What in the world will it take for YOU and your Nigerian brothers and sisters to find the common sense and WILLINGNESS/wellness to
face your fellow citizens of ALL religions and work out peaceful solutions for living together harmonously?

What will it take for YOU to
get over playing the "victimized" blame game and start taking responsibility for your
own dishonorable and immoral "behavior" and actions against LGBT Christians both at home and abroad?

What will it take for Nigerians to start noticing/addressing the many perverted and disturbing/warped everyday realities of YOUR own
twisted making?

Maduka, please join me in prayer for +Akinola.

Lord hear our prayer that the Nigerian arch-shepard will stay at home and tend his sickly flock and attempt to
"love his neighbors" as ALL Nigerians struggle to find your Godly solutions for the made-in-Nigeria spiritual/social and cultural atrocities that are committed daily.

Amen

I welcome messages here from Nigerian people. Surely, we do need to receive aas many points of view as possible; and of the experience of others. Even if --or especially if hard to hear or hard to take.

We all express our frustration differently --and our passion.
We are very anglo-american here --if i may so put it --- we really need to hear from other places and cultures.

I was very interested to hear of the role of gay people in the anti-aparthied movement.

I understand Maduka to be saying that human rights logically and practically precede gay rights. The latter would follow and stem from the former, was what I took to be her message to us.

I must put my own hand up to her charge of not being concerned enough, or involved in human rights for all in Nigeria, I am ignorant of an real in-depth knowing and understanding ...

So thanks, Maduka,

laurence -- gay man in uk

Maduka, you wrote "Infact homosexuals were at the forefront of the anti-aparteid movement"

Therein lies my case. At the forefront of the fight against oppression, repression, slavery and institionalised poverty - you find the outcastes of society. The same thing happened in the fight against nazism.

In modern parlance, we use the term homosexuality. In the OT we use the term eunuch.

It is when we deny rights to one that we deny rights to all. Your rebute of me was actually confirmation that my position is valid. Read the bible:

Isaiah 39:5-10, accepting that some of your descendants will be less that perfect (e.g. eunuchs) will lead to peace. Matthew 19:11-12 includes "The one who can accept this should accept it" i.e. it does NOT say condemnation if you can not accept it. It is a "bonus" clause.

Isaiah 56:3-5 is particularly relevant: "Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the LORD say, “The LORD will surely exclude me from his people.”And let not any eunuch complain, “I am only a dry tree.” For this is what the LORD says: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant— to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off."

"To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant"

But Cheryl, Conservatives would argue that this is what they are saying gay people must do, keep His Sabbaths, choose what pleases Him, and hold fast to His covenant. Now I've made my thoughts on this clear, I think, but, assured though I am of God's love for me, I fail to see how me being in a gay relationship fulfills this. Same time, I am, as I have said, assured that God has led me here. So I am forced to choose between the literalism of Evangelicals and, essentially, my own faith in God. He has proven to me that my faith in Him is not vain, so it's really no choice at all. I'm still left with the apparent contradiction, all the same.

Ford

I was thinking about this overnight and the issue is partly to do with how people have become used to problem solving.

The dialectical model of thinking has its merits, but one of my observations about how the world has degenerated is that there has become an assumption that there are "good guys" and "bad guys" (and girls).

So, if you are a puritanical Christian, you are a good guy. Even if you are corrupt, hypocritical or sociopathic. If you are a Muslim (for example), you are bad guy and all your good deeds are seen as sinister as they are perceived as a smoke screen to hide your inner evil.

This is not how the real world works, and the people who think this way are either mentally disturbed or incredibly immature. Simlarly, we seem to have a world that has allowed souls who are stuck in puberty to decree how to resolve problems and conflicts. Effectively, we have immature youths running around on testosterone posturing and bullying to work out who is the biggest stag on the block. I can tell you that every sensible female has walked away from the paddock and no longer cares who is the biggest, strongest or bravest.

What appears to be missing is the underlying rudder that helps one identify what is moral, wherever it might be found. Abraham found morality in the midst of paganistic idolatry. Joseph stayed true to moral principles despite extreme enticement.

An understanding of what is moral and ethical enables one to recognise decent behaviour in others; irregardless of gender, caste, sexuality or creed.

Plus there needs to be the "rule of thumb". If this moral imperative were applied to all what would happen? For example, if celibacy was demanded of all humanity - we would become extinct. Thus celibacy should be voluntary. If monogamous marriage and a life long commitment leads to more stable and healthy family units and thus broader communities; then everyone should have access. Otherwise justice is being arbitrarily denied, and that becomes a cancer that respects no boundaries.

Cheryl,
Here's my problems with gay marriage. First I believe a lot of people are actually looking for validation from the Church, whether as punishment for past wrongs, or any number of other reasons. I'd like to say that marriage isn't about validation of relationships, and ideally it shouldn't be, but we routinely marry straight couples with no faith at all merely because they are wealthy, or because the woman has been raised to believe that the white wedding in a church is her right. If we are willing to show such disrespect for the Sacrament of matrimony as to marry those who don't believe merely because they think it is their right for having been born in a nominally Christian society, and their wealthy parents will stop giving if we don't, then we are hypocrites to refuse marriage to faithful gay people

I also have the suspicion that maybe religious marriage is only for straight people. If so, then to claim to be oppressed because the Church won't marry me is kind of like saying that I'm oppressed because as a man I can't give birth to a child. I just don't feel that the Church is doing me any wrong by not marrying me. Sorry. The civil sphere is another matter, but civil marriage and Sacramental marriage are not the same thing. The Church has persecuted us in the past, still does in some places, I'm just not sure that refusal to marry us is part of that. I do not have the audacity to claim that God is oppressing me. Now, as to His followers.....

Ford

I sympathise with your posting. At one point you wrote "...civil marriage and Sacramental marriage are not the same thing."

There are people for whom that is true. However, I can tell you that I personally know many women and know of many other women who do not make that distinction. They have gone into their marriages (civil or sacramental) with the same commitment to lifelong monogamy and vows of for better or worse. As one of my girlfriends the other day said, being in a church didn't change her level of commitment to the marriage. Another thing that this layer of women have in common is the horrible realisation that their spouse had not made a genuine commitment, they had a perspective that if things got too hard, too uncomfortable or a better package came along; that they would move onto greener pastures. I counsel women whose husbands had left the marriage emotionally and psychologically long before they told their wives they were no longer committed.

Being a church or civil wedding does not change the trauma for these women - not least of which is the loss of faith and trust that comes when someone who says they love you but has already left the relationship. The horror of what they have said about you to their friends. The realisation that the problems with money were their deciding the funds belonged elsewhere than with "her" and the family assets. Many struggles degenerating to the men wanting to prove they could defeat their wives, with no moral underpinning of what was in the best interests of the whole family, including the children.

The issues over the abuse of women are not unique to civil marriages, the churches actually aid and abet men's discounting of the needs of women. In fact, I find many civil marriages stronger, because the women refuse to be push-overs to selfish husbands.

The other sad thing, is that women love to be given away with blessings. When fathers or churches refuse to condone a marriage, that hurts. Churches and parents have the power to deny love and affirmation to whomever they so choose, but they should not be surprised if there is no one there to comfort them in their old age as their children prefer to be in the wilderness than at the beck and call of their latest selfish abusive whim.

That's not what I meant. I'm not suggesting that civil marriage means less commitment. Civil marriage is a contract overseen by the State in which two people who seek to commit their lives to each other agree to the responsibilities the State considers that level of commitment to entail. Sacramental marriage is something else. Both start from a basis of commitment, which should be the same in both cases. There is a great difference in the way that commitment is formalized, which also entails different attitudes about what is produced, but that should in no way imply that civilly married couples have a lessened moral responsibility to fidelity. I am suggesting that Sacramental matrimony intends to produce something different from that produced by civil marriage, but that the degree of commitment expected of the parties entering into the marriage ought not to differ.

Ford

I think that we probably agree, but the words don't reflect it. Practical example, although my previous marriage was civil, I always considered that I had made vows to God that I would look after my husband.

In fact, I chose him over a wonderful career and allowed him to take all my superannuation and home equity so he could live out his dream. For better or for worse...

The only reason he and I agreed to end the marriage Christmas 2005 was because some godly things had happened that made it clear that God probably had other intentions. My previous husband has since done an excellent job of being a "Tov" and letting me go.

But we only ended the marriage to allow the possibility of God's will being done. Otherwise we would have stubbornly continued, even though the marriage was doomed.