Some things are becoming clear, and some things are as yet unclear. No doubt Nigerian HQ will provide leaks for journalists with the main meeting place sealed off.

Clear is that there is some sort of structural proposal, but it is still unclear that Rowan Williams would find it acceptable. And it may not matter whether he does or not to any outcome. The Covenant is too slow, but it may be still his option, especially if Lambeth 2008 becomes a Covenant joining party - and who will decide that?

Would there be a bargain, that there can be a TEC within a TEC, traded for both TECs recognised as in the Communion? I can't see that makes any sense. Nor would it be acceptable, presumably, for a recognised TEC inside an unrecognised TEC - not to The Episcopalian Church proper (the would be unrecognised). But would the Nigerians withdraw their connection for such a TEC within a TEC? Of course they would not, nor would anyone believe they had if they said so, given the recently made bishop and connections.

If there is a TEC within the TEC, there might be a Cof E within the C of E. Gosh, they'll all want one.

What must seem increasingly in decline is geographical provinces, even geographical dioceses - maybe even geographical parishes. The Nigerians seem to have got ahead on this, and they are in a position where no agreement still leaves them doing what they have been doing. Their approach is "Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion)" is it not?

What would be the point a year later of joining or not joining a Covenant?

I was just chatting this morning (in church, as it happens) with another member of the congregation about this, and I thought we'd end up with a shell called the Church of England and islands of activity where the different religious definitions exist.

I thought afterwards that as well as different Convenants as a later outcome, a likely outcome could be Non-Covenant Anglicans in some parishes as a preference, but not second class to any other.

As they say, we shall see.

I am heartened by this 'bishop who is an unlikely rebel'.
He speaks with compassion and understanding.

Davis : “I came to Tanzania hoping I would be given the opportunity to meet my own Primate and I am very happy now to have met him and been warmly greeted by him.”

What happened? If a section of the press was to be believed, either Abp. Akinola sets upon stoning Davis or he (the archbishop) runs away rather than shake hands with a self proclaiming homosexual.

I look forward to more apologies.

If I understood Davis' post correctly, he had a lengthy chat with his Primate before Archbishop Akinola realised who he was. I am glad the Archbishop remained friendly afterwards!
And because he is so friendly to lgbt people, I also hope he notes Davis' appeal to Primates about the anti gay legislation in Nigeria and does all he can to stop it from being introduced.

I cannot see how I could easily sign up (insofar as it was my decision) this parish to official second-class status. I am too aware of my own shortcomings (and thus examine myself before receiving etc etc) to be able to join any community of the pure.

So let me see if I am following Ruth Gledhill's published logic?

We have to split because we cannot agree to disagree as believers who live in peace, do Tikkun Olam service, and let God sort us out over time while we continue to live/talk/worship together?

Why can't we live in peace? (It used to be because puritans and catholics couldn't manage to stop killing one another for God, until Elizabeth I.) Now it is: Because the queer-friendly believers will not stop living their faith out as they lay down legacy doctrines which tradition has keenly weaponized and as they open their homes to their own gay children; and the queer-damning believers say that all this non-damning change gets too much in the way of their legacy privileges for queer-damning.

Which privileges of queer damning are so intimately and strongly connected, say, to the creeds that legacy beliefs are an all or nothing package of sheer, pulsating, living, yum-yum God.

(PS, I like sheer, pulsating, living, yum-yum God because of certain mystical moments in my life, but I cannot make being carried off to the seventh heavens connect with empirical data about sexual orientation, not all that much. I guess I am missing something. I haven't put getting close to God through damning others as high on my working lists as I have getting close to God via service Tikkun Olam. Come to think of it, I probably accidentally got a slather of yum-yum God by hook and by crook, since I wasn't rubber stamped properly as a conservative believer before yum-yum thanks came into my life.)

Pause. …. what else does the world look like from this seat?

It is we who are expecting apologies, Tunde.

Just coff up!

"What must seem increasingly in decline is geographical provinces, even geographical dioceses - maybe even geographical parishes."

This is called congregationalism. There is quite a nice denomination in the US called the Congregational Church. I commend it to ++Akinola, +Minns and their followers. Of course, they would have to give up their fancy hats and duds ...

"If a section of the press was to be believed,"

Tunde,
I love it when the press acts badly and ends up looking silly, so, please, give us a link to stories that report this kind of thing. I'd be only too vocal in demanding they apologize, since, to read the Changing Attitude piece, the meeting might have been at most a bit tense.

While all this has been going on in Tanzania, Gene Robinson was interviewed on BBC Northern Ireland last night. In a 30 minute interview he said he was certainly going to attend Lambeth

AND

he said this too - even if the Windsor Report had been written in 2003, he would probably STILL have been consecrated a bishop!

But think how much better a church we would have after a split?

Its clear there cannot be agreement - why exactly does anyone here WANT to be in communion with these people?

Mike,
Try 1 Corinthians 12, verses 12 and onward. You see, if we put aside our human pride and need to be right, in other words if we behave as Christians ought to behave, then "these people" have their role. I've asked on another thread, and I apologize here if it sounded snotty, it wasn't meant to, how you define things like "Church". We want to be in communion with "these people" because we are called as Christians to rise above the bickering and strife breeding that are part of our human nature. If "they" exhibit bad behaviour, the Christian response is to correct "them" with love, not to write them off. Indeed, the Christian response is not to see "them" and "us" at all.

Then the Church as an institution is simply a waste of time, Ford.

Its not a case of needing to be right: its a case of being part of something worth belonging to.

But, then, I don't believe in the sort of nonsense which some do about the Church. It is a purely human institution.

"However, most Anglicans outside the United States believe gay relationships are sinful, and they are distancing themselves from the U.S. church."

The AP's Elizabeth Kennedy is out to lunch here.

Of the two contentions above, 1. may be true, but we have little real way of knowing (and what about all the divisions *within* all those "outside the United States" Anglican churches?) 2. there's even LESS evidence of this one. The *hierarchies* are distancing themselves---but even here, there are episcopal exceptions (e.g. the bishop of Central Tanganyika). But individual Anglicans? I contend that most either don't know, don't care, "live and let live" and/or actually SUPPORT TEC.

Really ought to expect better of an AP reporter (not to mention, ought to expect better of AC primates---but I've learned, painfully, to lower my expectations here! :-/)

What 'church' Merseymaike?

Ford

I'm with you, it is not about having a "comfortable" communion. A broad tent communion by its very nature will be uncomfortable because it intrinsically involves having people who do not agree with you on every thing and have different gifts and talent. The beauty of a broad tent communion is that it helps the church to manage the paradoxes and avoid extremes. On one hand encouraging people to do their best and avoid destructive behaviours, on the other forgiving them for their fallabilities and offering the support for them to try again the next day.

An example, a broad tent communion means you have to be publicly polite to someone you might despise and covertly wish to legislate out of existence. A broad tent communion means accepting that not everyone in this world is to your liking, but that God asks us to treat everyone with a minimum of respect.

The issue is whether the "niceties" of civilized behaviour have been agreed to as a basic premise on which to contine the communion; or if polite behaviours are simply opportunistic white washing until the purging cleansing infrastructure has been put in place.

After all, the Nazis were all so polite to the local Jews early on asking their leaders to make representations about any concerns they had. Those same local Nazis then knew who were the first families to be swept up in the pogroms. There are some groupings that until I see an articulation that cleansing and shunning are an abomination that I do not trust beyond a polite handshake in a public venue.

" ... in other words if we behave as Christians ought to behave,..."

It is not the liberals who have refused table fellowship. It is not because ++Williams was afraid ++Hutchinson and ++Jefferts Schori would throw a hissy that he did not schedule a Eucharist for this meeting.

The question is, are we still in communion with those who do refused to share the Eucharist with ++Frank? Is it accurate to call it the Anglican COMMUNION if we cannot come to Christ's table together?

Do we want an Anglican Communion in which one must have a communion ticket, like the Missouri Synod Lutherans?

Elizabeth I [female Head of the Church and uppity woman] famously said, "I want no windows into men's souls." Seems as if some want not just windows but magnifying glasses.

Ford, obviously you cannot deny reading words like ‘homophobic’, ‘gay-hater’ ‘gay bashing’, bigot, etc, in relation to the archbishop. Cannot search now and if nobody has ever painted him as such, I hereby offer my unreserved apologies. Maybe I am also letting my prejudices get the better of me.

Reading these various articles makes me think how horrible the Anglican Communion must sound to more enlightened people--such as athiests and agnostics--who think the whole Christian religion is a blight on the world.

Women as second class citizens (God doesn't love them but gave them brains? Intelligence for what purpose?) Demanding that a primate of another faction be banned from the meeting?

The oppressed OPPRESSED by and in scripture? Bishops precluded based on one type of sin?

The opposing sides facing off! Setting up headquarters down the road, strategizing, sending out ultimatums. The very Archbishop rudely accosted with ridiculous demands. Where are their manners?

Evangelism it is NOT!

Hmm--this whole thing is going much better than I had hoped for. Didn't the GAS Primates try to pre-emptively exclude TEC at the last ACC? That failed too.

And I like what has been called Williams' "nuclear option"; it's the best thing I've heard yet: a covenant assembly with Lambeth '08 cancelled.

It's gonna be all champagne and roses tonight!

Actually Tunde, you need to usher your excuses in the direction of Titusonenine and Standfirm.

Your December 2005 character assassination of Davis Mac-Iyalla is being spewed all over, much to the consternations of commenters who question how Bishops Akinola and Minns or Messrs Petre and Conger could have contemplated socializing with such an awful person in this manner.

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=17747#comments

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2141

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2133

"You can always be a Congregationalist..." doesn't fly. Churches that have a congregational structure de facto don't provide the religious life that Anglican churches do: the liturgical, sacramental character, the ethos, the historical connections--not just fancy hats.

The polity of the Anglican Church, the hierarchy of bishops with geographically defined dioceses and the system of geographically defined parishes is an expensive anachronism. It evolved in late antiquity to suit social and political circumstances and its ostensible religious purpose was to insure uniformity of doctrine--something most Episcopalians don't, and IMHO shouldn't want. That administrative arrangement is now being fetishised because there are stakeholders. Other mainline Protestant denominations in the US which are struggling with the same issues, however they agonize, aren't undergoing meltdown because they aren't saddled with this structure.

TEC is screwed because it is, as it has always said, both Protestant and Catholic--and in fact Catholic in the Roman sense: at least on the books, tidy, geographically organized parishes and dioceses and a hierarchy that has the dual role of administration and the establishment of doctrine. That may sound odd because TEC is not interested in strictly theological doctrine, e.g. about the double procession of the Holy Spirit or whatever. But it is intensely interested in moral doctrine

The deep problem the Anglican Church faces isn't sexuality but institutional structure. That, from the religious point of view, is utterly irrelevant. But bishops aren't doing to give up their fancy hats, or 6 figure salaries or their pretense to teaching authority, and priests aren't going to give up their shares in the Church Pension fund or their pretensions to being the educated gentlemen of their parishes.

I am tired of the suggestions that advocates of gay rights are opposed to the Bible -- not true. It is precisely through a deeper meditation on the implications of the Gospel message that many of us have changed our minds.

I am also tired of hearing about how it all started with Gene Robinson. AMiA anyone?

On 14 February 2007, Cynthia wrote:
"This is called congregationalism. There is quite a nice denomination in the US called the Congregational Church. I commend it to ++Akinola, +Minns and their followers. Of course, they would have to give up their fancy hats and duds ..."

Cynthia,

Two of the modern-day descendents of the Congregationalists are both very gay-friendly -- the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Association.

Congregationalism may lead to same-sex marriage and ordination of GBLT people as well. Once one removes a centralized authority (e.g. bishops, etc), one can find a church evolving in many interesting directions.

I have just received this in an email from a reliable source currently in Dar es Salaam:

" A Primate is holding dossiers on three leading Global South Primates. The reports are the result of two years work by a group of Southern hemisphere theologians studying the sermons and writings of the Church leaders over that time. The dossiers establish a long list of "heresies" and failures of correct Biblical teaching for each primate. "

Does anyone know any more?

PB Schori certainly sees the value of listening to those with different views. Those who want to exclude her from the primates club simply don't know what they would be missing. She is very special as detailed here: http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2007/janfeb/features/schori.html

See Province of Nigeria offical statemet on Davis Mac Iyalla. Might want to discount this person a bit.

The Anglican Primates' Circus goes on and on. Very few primates behave in a Christ-like manner. Shame on them! I for one would be happy to see a moratorium on all further meetings unless such meetings include all four orders of ministry: bishops, priests, deacons and laity.

The primates have brought disgrace on the Anglican Communion.

My dear 'Scotist',
If you (for obvious reasons) will need a 'pick me up' pill on Monday, please let Mr Sarmiento forward my address to you and I'll send you a substantial amount!

I am sure the so-called "Davis (David) Mac Iyalla," the self-styled "homosexual" Nigerian “Anglican” is laughing all the way to the bank. How easy it is for this guy to be getting good money and the spotlight from the promoters of homosexuality in the Western world. Talk of the real Nigerian fraud scheme: This is it. Look no further. Other Nigerian fraudsters are watching this guy. If he succeeds, I bet there is going to be a flood of emails from supposedly “homosexual Nigerian Christians” being discriminated against by Akinola.

And, of course, these supposed victims will be asking (in their emails) for money and some other help from the American and other Western promoters of Homosexuality. Watch the success of this Iyalla guy, and then watch your email Inbox in due course.

Yes, I am praying for Iyalla - that he NOT SUCCEED. May his fraudulent scheme not prosper, in Jesus Name, I pray.

Davis McIyalla greeting Akinola, Scott Gunn's stories of sharing a table -- these are gracious moments that point the way forward. They show what a church, or what a family reunion, should look like. Many families throughout the world have disagreements about gay-connected issues. Only very immature and dysfunctional families resort to disowning members, or to walking away in a huff. Ford and Cheryl are right: living with disagreement and with people you are uncomfortable with is of the ESSENCE of a Christian Church -- a Church like that of Paul in I Corinthians.

Ruth G. says that "No Communion is big enough for these three Luthers, all equally sincere in their faith and convictions, all nailing opposing theses to their church doors."
But their quarrel, unlike Luther's, is not about an articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae, and it is a quarrel going on everywhere, not just in Anglican circles. To urge schism is defeatist and would parallel the attitude of homophobic parents who throw gay kids out on the street, or gay youths who turn their backs on their parents as too troublesome to deal with.

If Anglicanism splits over homosexuality this will not be remembered in church history as a noble or tragic fate, but as a triumph of immaturity.

Also, nobody's positions are written in stone. None of the parties have the final and complete wisdom in the very fluid and open-ended debate about homosexuality. The human realities of gay and lesbian experience are far more complex than ideologues can handle. Hence the wisdom of Lambeth in calling for ongoing listening to the experience of gays and lesbians.

I am just suprised at how much this meeting is turning out to look like the early eccumenical councils. In terms of two differant meetings going on, sometimes being together, sometimes not, the accusations all over the place and so forth (at least this is the impression I get from the media, I could be completly wrong).

I suppose if we follow the parrallel two things are likely.

1. Someone is going to be consciously excluded, although we may not necessarily know who, but whoever it is, it will probably be for the best (or perhaps we would have been better to be 'inclusive' of Arius and Eutyches, both faithful Christians who were excluded because they were damaging the true mission of the church)

2. Whatever happens, it will be God's work. The seven eccumenical councils were not pretty affairs, but I believe that generally they did the work of God.

The noisy smear campaign against Jefferts Schori is particularly represented by one David Virtue: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5477

Her innocuous remarks about two "strands" in the Gospel -- one focusing on sin and atonement, the other on divinization -- are being vetted obsessively with a view to finding in them a smoking gun of heresy.

But the hilarious irony is that Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" is held up as golden criterion of orthodoxy, whereby to consign "Mrs Schori" to outer darkness.

Rightist Christians really lost it when they started taking droves of schoolchildren to see Mr Gibson's antisemitic and sadomasochistic fantasy.

Does anyone have a link to the BBC interview with Gene Robinson mentioned earlier? I think it's extremely significant if Bishop Robinson actually did say that he would have been consecrated NOTWITHSTANDING the Windsor Report.

Annie, as an atheist, it's just more of what we come to expect from "Christians", I'm afraid. I admit I had hoped for better from the Episcopalians, since you all have always seemed to be more reasonable than most.

"Really ought to expect better of an AP reporter "

Although this was probably just a lapse, AP doesn't have a happy track record: it was AP which mangled David Jenkins' ultra-orthodox statement on the Resurrection in 1984, and all the corrections in the world have not succeeded in displacing the belief that +David Dunelm dismissed it as 'a conjuring trick with bones' - indeed he is still vilified by one or two posters on this site who have taken the lazy way out.

Davis Mac-Iyalla is one of the most committed Christians I have ever had the privilege to speak to. He is completely devoted to his church and to God. His integrity is so strong that he believed Christ would not wish him to live a lie, and he therefore came out as gay, trusting his church to accept him as a fellow Christian. As we know, his church has not accepted him at all but has started to persecute him and to destroy his name in public.

Davis is now living in hiding and in fear of his life. He has gone to Tanzania to build bridges, still hoping and praying that his church will be able to accept him.

On the same day Davis has highlighted the draconian anti gay legislation currently being debated in Nigeria, which is strongly supported by Archbishop Akinola, he has nevertheless shown an almost unbelievable humility and declared that "I came to Tanzania hoping I would be given the opportunity to meet my own Primate and I am very happy now to have met him".

If we all displayed only a fraction of Davis' spirit of true Christian love the church would not be in the state it finds itself in.

As for "laughing all the way to the bank" - if only! But we can all hope and pray, maybe one day Davis and Changing Attitude in Nigeria will indeed have the ressources they need to continue their battle for the acceptance of ALL Christians.

I am proud to call Davis my brother, a brother who teaches me more about true Christian love and humility before God than anyone else has ever done.

H.E. Barber wrote: “Churches that have a congregational structure de facto don't provide the religious life that Anglican churches do: the liturgical, sacramental character, the ethos, the historical connections--not just fancy hats.”

Oh for the fairy tale magic! the castles in Spain…

“… two years work by a group of .. theologians studying the sermons and writings of the Church leaders over that time. The dossiers establish a long list of "heresies" and failures of correct Biblical teaching for each primate.”

Could be fun!

Maybe it is time to some detailed study of late 20th century American and other Anti Modern eschatology, theology, ecclesiology, exegetics and so on, in light of what the un-truncated, un-translated and un-diluted Bible actually says / doesn’t say on various topics.

Could be even greater fun ;=)

Fr Joseph O'Leary wrote: “Also, nobody's positions are written in stone. None of the parties have the final and complete wisdom in the very fluid and open-ended debate about homosexuality.”

Nobody’s “position” is yet deserving of the name position, because this quarrel is quite new. 40 years at the most.

It was started in 1966 by certain Roman Catholic Cambridge “exegetes” eager to introduce their anti-Modern Social Politics into the translation of the not yet overtly (homo)sexualized 1955 Bible de Jérusalem.

Not to mention their thoroughly late Modern concept of “sexual orientation as identity”, changing malakós (the “proof” of a 1000 years for Platonist/Gnosticist teachings on Sperm/Masturbation/Abstinence) into catamite; passive gay man.

From “act” for a l l, to essentialist identity for the new social outcasts. From “sin” to sinner ;=)

“But their quarrel, unlike Luther's, is not about an articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae, and it is a quarrel going on everywhere, not just in Anglican circles. To urge schism is defeatist and would parallel the attitude of homophobic parents who throw gay kids out on the street, or gay youths who turn their backs on their parents as too troublesome to deal with.”

It’s all about the real estate!

'Time to divorce' is a message that presupposes that relationships are finite, or typically finite. They 'die'. This presupposition is neither Christian nor has borne anything but bad statistical fruit since the day it was adopted. Ruth Gledhill should aim to 'divorce' herself from the highly quesitonable presuppositions of her (and our) own limited culture.

Suppose we fissure, and fissure again etc, that means that each resulting group is more narrow minded and ends up talking only to its own kind. That is the very opposite of the way that trith is attained.

As Pilate almost said, 'What is trith?'

Merseymike,
I disagree entirely.

Cynthia,
I have always felt that the lion's share of bad behaviour was on the part of the "Right" in this, but the Left is not blameless. I have no problem with the consecration of +VGR, he's as worthy of a mitre as +Iker, for certain, but was it necessarily right to do it after warnings from people all around the world that this would be a huge issue, and furthermore, that some in countries on the otherside of the globe might lose their lives as a result? Is TEC so assured of Her prophetic role in this that the sensibilities of the majority of the world's Anglicans do not matter? And I'm not speaking only about the Right here. Many in the real mainstream of Anglicanism, who fall neither one way or the other and who can't understand all the fuss, will be hurt as a result as well. I think both sides have to repent of bad behaviour, though I DO think the Right has a lot more repenting to do.

'What is trith?'

Must be some kind of statistics.

There are serious allegations made about MacIyalla by Church of Nigeria. These have not been disproved but only denied. The most pertinent ones are these:
1. That he did at one time undertake to marry the daughter of the late bishop of Otukpu. Did he actually make any such undetaking, either to the bishop or the woman in question?
2. That he stole money and documents from the church. Where is the prima facie evidence of this, and how much was allegedly stolen?
3. That the police in that Nigerian State are seeking him on charges of theft. Is this true?
We really need Colin Coward - and Mr Mac-Iyalla - to answer these questions quite specifically, because the response on the 'Changing Attitude' website does not deal with the substantial questions at all.
People may remember that 'Integrity Uganda' took folks for a ride a few years back.

Mr Coward's first posting makes very curious reading in the light of his second. Is he saying that he made up a meeting/snubbing that never occurred? And did he really not recognize Archbishop Orombi in the company of Minns et al?

A good post, Dr. Shell. ANd the supplementary:-) Whether it proves possible......

Ford Elms --

Have many people have been killed because of Gene Robinson? Compared to say, because of George Bush?

Assuming that you are referring to the period following the General Convention that consented to his election, there was no legal process to block his consecration. The Presiding Bishop has no authority not to consecrate a bishop-elect who has received the consents of the majority of diocesan bishops & the diocesan Standing Committees (or House of Deputies, depending of the time of the election). ++Frank made it clear that he agreed that going ahead would cause difficulties but that he had no choice not to do so (at most he could have asked someone else to be chief consecrator which would only have opened him to charges of cowardice).

Thank you Steve Watson for that meaningful contribution to the discussion on MacIyalla, the so-called Nigerian Anglican homosexual. Your is a refreshing breath of fresh air.

However, I must warn you that if you are holding your breath, waiting for the backers and promoters of homosexuality to actually ask this Iyalla guy any serious questions, you are in grave danger.

If anyone believes this Iyalla guy is not a fraudster, I have some penguins to sell to you. By the way, the penguins are somewhere in the Sahara Desert.

"Thinking" Anglicans should appreciate Ford taking the trouble to see some of the other side of the argument - much more productive than building and reinforcing a bunker mentality.

Better to THINK - and think about the meaning of th scriptures in relation to all this Anglican mess (thanks to decades of poor leadership and fudges)

Colin Coward has admitted he was not factual in his reporting of the so-called meeting/snubbing that never was.

Making up stories, misrepresenting facts, and denying the obvious are the stock-in-trade of those, like Coward, who are more interested in championing their cause for a worldly political end, guised in religion, than they are in championing the Cause of Christ who calls all sinners to repentance and to a New Life in Him that may sometimes call for very serious sacrifices, including cooling of unwholesome sexual desires, OF ALL SORTS.

Any sexual intimacy outside the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman (unrelated) is sinful and is not in accord with Holy Scriptures. These are NOT my words: they are the expression of the Mind Of The Anglican Communion, as backed by Holy Writ.

Steve Watson,
is it no longer true that the prosecution has to prove their allegations? Despite numerous requests from Changing Attitude the Nigerian church has not provided a single piece of supporting evidence against Davis Mac-Iyalla.

Prior,
I'm actually referring to the convention that consented. They had every right to do it, but they could have withheld consent, too. They thought it was right. For what it's worth, +VGR sounds to me like an excellent bishop. In interviews he seems compassionate, kind, and full of agape, not to sound precious in saying so. I admire his conviction that he is called to this office, and I doubt the people of New Hampshire, not exactly a bunch of hairy hippies knitting their own meusli, would have chosen him if they didn't feel called to do so. As to how many have died because of him, I doubt any as a direct result of this. But conservative Muslim clergy are preaching about this as evidence of the decadence of Western Crusader religion and stirring up hostility. No, you're right, there is no equivalent to Iraq, but that's not the issue. We must bear one another's burdens, and that doesn't only mean the burdens of us gay people, but also of the Nigerian Christians who might well endure the same kind of violence they would inflict on gay people, and even if they act most spitefully towards us Westerners.

“… the Cause of Christ who calls all sinners to repentance and to a New Life in Him …”

Spiro, if you go back to Titusonenine you will see both commenters who set repentance and excuses above the preceding laps and see them as valid access to a renewed Life in Him.

You will also find commenters (yourself included) who do not...

Erika Baker: I assume that's the law in Nigeria too! But my point was that Mr MacIyalla has not directly answered a number of the allegations (e.g. that he promised to marry the bishop's daughter) or that he is sought by the state police on a charge of theft. As I'm not in Nigeria I can't answer these questions. But since Mr Coward (and presumably Mr MacIyalla) read this blog, they could answer these questions very quickly and very clearly. If Mr MacIyalla has been slandered or libeled by the Church of Nigeria, at the very least he is owed a fulsome apology.
If he can't or won't answer these allegations, it is difficult to see how he can be believed.

No Watson, it's for the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) and it's Communicator to present sufficient excuses to Mr Mac-Iyalla.

Internet access has been extremely intermittent in Dar Es Salaam for the past 24 hours, so I haven't been able to come online to respond to previous comments. I'm having a sleepless night, it's the middle of the night here, few people are online and access is fast.

I'm truthfully amazed that people have continued to attack Davis Mac-Iyalla and question his honesty and integrity.

Steve Watson, no, I didn't make up a meeting/snubbing that never occurred. I made a mistake, for which I have apologised in person and online. No, I didn't recognize Archbishop Orombi. I have never met him before and I have still not met him.

Steve (again):
1. Davis Mac-Iyalla did not at any time make any undertaking to marry the daughter of the late bishop of Otukpo, either to the bishop or the woman in question.
2. Davis Mac-Iyalla did not steal money or documents from the church.
3. Neither Davis nor I have any evidence to confirm Canon Tunde's assertion that the police in a Nigerian State are seeking him on charges of theft. This is one of a series of unsubstantiated allegations by Canon Tunde, none of which has he produced any evidence to substantiate, 13 months after he posted them.

In this light, and in the face of Davis's categorical denials, might I not reasonably expect people to doubt what Canon Tunde posted, seemingly with deliberate and malicious intent to destroy Davis's reputation.

Davis is here in Tanzania, Steve. Come and meet him and ask him yourself. He has met Archbishop Akinola, Bishop Martyn Minns, Canon David Anderson and Canon Chris Sugden. Do you think they have met someone they suspect of having defrauded the Church of Nigeria and lied about being gay and Anglican?

I hope Bishop Martyn will ensure that his colleagues in the Church of Nigeria will act in a manner appropriate to Christians, and that Tunde, his Communications Officer, will cease attacking Davis and apologise for the danger and distress he has caused.

Spiro, my 'stock-in-trade is not making up stories, misrepresenting facts, or denying the obvious. I have no idea what unwholesome sexual desires you may be subjected to, but I have been blessed with wholesome, holy, loving desire for my partner in the past (he was tragically killed in a car crash in 2005) and I bitterly resent the implications of your post.

Mr Coward, thank you for your reply, which is clearer than the response on the 'Changing Attitude' website - though maybe Mr MacIyalla should directly answer Canon Popoola's charges in the first person - have the two ever met?
As for the serious claim that he is sought by the police in a Nigerian State on charges of theft, that can be very easily settled by Mr MacIyalla going there and visiting the police authorities; it can't be a mystery. Has Mr MacIyalla ever asked the police this?
If the claims are baseless, Canon Popoola should certainly be apologizing.

I repeat:

Steve Watson, it's for the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) and it's Communicator to present excuses to Mr Mac-Iyalla.

Steve, why can't you just stop pursuing and persecuting Davis Mac-Iyalla and turn your attention to Canon Tunde who first published these totally unsubstantiated lies? Do you have some agenda against the safe presence of lesbian and gay people in the Anglican Church?

It is time for Canon Tunde to apologise unreservedly to Davis and withdraw his allegations.

Colin Coward,
The Body of Christ clearly and "bitterly resent the implications" of your raising your sexual relationship with another man to the level of an acceptable Christian sexual relationship. You are free to agree or disagree. Take it or leave it.

Colin, I've never met Mr MacIyalla, Canon Popoola or your good self, and I didn't think I was 'pursuing' or 'persecuting' anyone. I am just greatly puzzled by the matter. As I said, 'If the claims are baseless, Canon Popoola should certainly be apologizing.' I wonder that Mr MacIyalla hasn't directly replied or that Canon Popoola hasn't substantiated the claims. I thought the matter could be quickly put to rest. But really, this is none of my business, so I'll just butt out, none the wiser.

Steve, thanks your your comment - I appreciate your graciousness.

Spiro, we disagree. I recognise your freedom to hold your Christian view with integrity. I hope you can do the same towards me and all other lesbian and gay Christians.

A section of the Body of Christ objects to my presence in the Church, not the entire body. Praise the Lord, I am welcome in many churches of the Anglican Communion, and the church has ordained me, a gay man who loves the Lord and has been blessed with love for another man. God is indeed good.

Steve, I have been reading your comments. I want to state categorically that all the allegations made against me by Canon Tunde are not true.

Spiro, if God is truly the being that he is, he will surely clear me and prove you wrong in your attitude to me as a gay Nigerian Anglican. You have never met me. Please don't accuse me.

Okay, I have to go to breakfast, and I always remember, Jesus loves us all.

Steve Watson,

I advise you to read you last post again. Carefully.

Steve
if I suddenly accused you of criminal behaviour, would you feel it was your duty to go to the police to prove your innocense, or would you wait until I had presented at least some shreds of real evidence?

Spiro
I'm also part of the body of Christ and I rejoice in Colin, or anyone else, finding true and lasting love.

Spiro,
Who made you speaker for the Body of Christ? We broke with Rome 500 years ago, in no small part because we didn't agree that the Bishop of Rome has that authority. Who gave it to you? This attitude is yet another example of the damage done to your soul to which I referred on another thread.