"The God who has blessed so abundantly is also a jealous God....."

That says it all. Let the new inquisition begin.

May God Have Mercy on us all.

So everything is just hunky-dory in Nigeria - it's the US which is to blame for all the ills of the world, especially those darned queers.

"Freedom to shield ourselves, and our children, from what we believe our God says is immoral and abominable."

Sounds straight out of the Third Reich. Who gets locked up---or much, much WORSE---while Akinola is building his "shield"?

What is one to say!! First, the irony. it has been the Left in America which has been most dismayed at our genocidal past and about slavery and racism. It is has been the conservatives who continually bypass this past. Is Akinola now with the Left? Second, the breakdown in marriages. this breakdown, had he set aside his moralism for a moment, is caused by a whole series of social factors - most having to do with the shape of a capitalist society. His screed against our immorality is set within the threat that "God will not be mocked". Is he now to join Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell who attributed 9/11 to God punishing America for its tolerance of Gays and women's rights. Just what kind of God does this Archbishop have in mind, here?

Hmmm. OK, I'd like to see a list of specific points that ++Akinola makes that are objectionable and why they are objectionable.

Please, no self-serving redundancy and ranting. The list should also interpret the language used by AB Akinola in its normal and usual sense without projecting assumed meanings onto the words used. Keep it clear, keep it simple, restrict yourself to the actual words on the page.

I'm curious what you'll find to object to here if you restrict yourself to what is actually set forth in this excerpt WITHOUT attempting to introduce what is--as we say in the law biz--parole evidence as to what you THINK he ACTUALLY means. Remember, stay with the WORDS in front of you as they are defined in the dictionary!

Steven

The Puritan of Nigeria has his eyes firmly set on the USA and the UK.

Not only does he give selective lines of history regarding the USA, but makes some sweeping statements about Western Church leaders being not concerned, ashamed and having lost confidence.

The difference is that these do not promote some sort of bigoted biblical Christianity but rather think about who is suffering pain and who, through applied Christian principles, might find ways to better faithful living. Furthermore, as for the bishop in a tribunal, it is because he, like everyone else, has to obey the law, and in this country the law says you cannot discriminate, nor create excuses for carrying out discrimination.

As for the USA and UK, the freedoms exist to carry on reading whatever you want, and even to mouth them - what you cannot (now, at last) do is discriminate, threaten, reduce or marginalise people. Those freedoms are freedoms for gay people too and all people, as much as can be achieved.

This is not the case in Nigeria, which is corrupt, undemocratic, threatens minorities, and has a freedom of biblical Christianity which sets to destroy many in the pursuit of its ideology.

I shall state clearly my view that this Archbishop of Abuja is a religious fascist in the way that any Puritan attempting to achieve power today would be a religious fascist. He is the one who wants cutting out, because the topsy-turvy world is the one he seeks to introduce, and the one that is causing the Archbishop of Canterbury to do the splits about ever ongoing discussion to include someone who is beyond the pale.

Some of us want out churches to reflect the tolerant society that we are trying to build. We know that there are many who will take up this man's leadership in the misled belief that he leads to a pure world ahead. He leads nowhere - no one in secular society is listening. Many who study Christian texts and traditions are clear that this man of Abuja is just narrow minded to the point of being wrong. The churches serve our society: they help and they encourage. They do not follow his imperialist sentiments: he should get out and keep out.

It simply sums up why this sort of person is not someone who any of us should want to be in Communion with.

He is so incredibly out of touch. That sort of homophobia might be all very well amongst the superstitious of premodernity, but its well past its sell by here

This sums up very well why an international communion is no longer a reality or something which we should even desire.

In a recent visit to Brazil, the Pope was told by the leaders that he has no right to impose the morality that applies to part of the population on all of the population.

I have no problem with Akinola and his camps of being honest and upfront about their theology. I have no problem with them telling us who they will and won't service and setting up their churches.

If they don't want to eat at the same table as some us, that's fine by me. But they don't have the right to invade our homes and steal our food.

By their own testimony, they have verified that they are not for all the people. Therefore they can not advocate on behalf of all the people, but they do have the right to lobby for their own congregations. In turn, we have the right to say "no thank you" and to choose to elect leaders that will care for all the souls of all the flocks. If they don't care whether we live or die, or where or when or how, then we are not of their business. As long as we do not attack them, they have no right to attack us.

They can primp and preen and we can choose whether or not to enter into a relationship with them. But we have the right to walk away and find a more pleasing mate who we believe is interested in creating a safe dwelling for future generations. No sensible female wants to sponsor theologies that collusively seek to desecrate and insult this planet and its occupants.

Well said, pluralist. I find ++Abuja's assumption that my discipleship and that of a mojority of people at St. Mary's is an insult to God to be so breathtakingly - well, words fail me, they really, really do. And that mentality will get nowhere in this parish, be it 'biblical' or no. Here I stand, as a fellow protestant once said.....

Contrary to the Archbishop of Abuja, this issue IS about homophobia; else he (and his American followers) would not be so enthusiastic about using state power against it.
The other thing that drives his passions is anti-Americanism; that lazy way of thinking that paints all Americans with the same brush as our arrogant and stupid leadership, and the trash-culture that is produced for the world's consumption by our corporate owners for their own profit. His is a double bigotry.

If the message of the Gospel is the call to live a perfectly HOLY life, then the Gospel is not good news. It would be, in the words of Luther, a calamity upon a calamity; as though the burden of the Decalogue was not enough.

So, God is mocked by laws against hate crimes? God is mocked by laws against discrimination in employment?

No wonder Minns and co didn't let Akinola speak at press conferences during his ill fated "installation" trip to the USA.

The man is an embarrassment to put it mildly. A disgrace, to put it less so.

Why do you not go first, Steven?

And yes, I would be particularly interested in hearing your take on this.

But then, I don't suspect we use the same dictionary...

This isn't going to go down too well in USA.

In his first paragraph, Akinola implies Americans are hypocrites for moralising about the rest of the world, when native Americans were robbed of their homelands and the nation's economic success was built on the proceeds of slavery. He conveniently makes no mention of US foreign policy or global Capitalism.

No, the most pressing moral issue on his agenda, the breakdown of marriage in USA, he blames, of course, on the promotion of "alternative lifestyles". Quite how this is causing "a massive crisis...in the rest of the world" is not made clear.

His next error is to deny the civil rights of a significant minority of the population, either in the USA or in UK, equating discrimination against LGBT people with the promotion of "holy living".

"The issue here is not about homophobia" is the same as saying "I'm not homophobic, but..."

Akinola gives us a "history lesson". And so it's important to be reminded of the lessons of history: A gay inmate at Camp Sachsenhausen in 1942 recorded the words of an SS officer: "You are a biological mistake of the Creator".

I was horrified, but not surprised, to discover that over six decades later, similar language is to be found on the Anglican Communion Official Website, in the Nigerian Church's response to the Listening process, with its talk of "acquired aberration" and claiming that "the continuation of the race is threatened by gay practice".

And this is called Biblical Christianity. For how much longer are we going to appease the fundamentalists?

Akinola is one of the very best sources of blind fear, ignorance and "hooligan" thinking...his behind-the-scenes political manipulating will possible generate "hate crimes" and international ill-will against LGBT human beings...all for the sake of a ego running riot.

"The breakdown in marriages in the USA is a scandal. It is causing a massive crisis in their own society and the rest of the world. But instead of admitting the problem and finding creative ways to strengthen traditional families we see a relentless promotion and protection of so called ‘alternative lifestyles.’"

As I see it, the breakdown in marriage has nothing to do with "alternative lifestyles." It has more to do with a societal tide of, "Well, if it doesn't work out we can always get divorced." For this married and very-straight guy, the presence of "alternative lifestyles" has yet to drive me to forsake my marriage for an affair with another guy.

One solution to the marriage problem would be to take seriously pre-marriage prep classes.

Another solution to the marriage problem would be to quit forcing gay people back into the closet and into marriages that are incompatible from the start.

What the neo-conservatists and fundamentalists like Akinola seem unable or unwilling to do is to prove why it is necessary to discriminate against and persecute some members of society in order to protect the institution of marriage.

Why is marriage such a weak and vulnerable institution that it is put at risk by my relationship with my Civil Partner?

Counterlight

One of the blessings of the 2004 SE Asian Tsunami was that it gave the citizens of the US (and other affluent nations) a wake up call of how they were perceived by the rest of the world. I remember someone commenting shortly afterwards that people overseas didn't hate US citizens because they were the holiest nation on the world, but because they were the most inconsiderate.

Similarly, Katrina, Rita & Wilma exposed flaws in the US system. In particular how far the economy has disaggregated. In Australia, over half of marriages break down due to financial hardships. When military spending is proiritised over oiling the infrastructure of society (e.g. safety nets, education, health), then it is not a surprise to see families collapsing as they are simply unable to support themselves.

The other good thing in the last few years is that most of the world now understands that there is a big difference between the government of the US and its citizens. It is one of our windows to create global peace - by making it clear that the US citizens have very little control over their government's actions they become "innocents". Thus it becomes immoral to attack them...

Reverend Ref, it would be interesting to look at who is ending marriages, for what reasons and why.

My guess is that the second next major cause of marriage breakdown in the US would be partners leaving to "actualize" themselves with a more worthy partner as their public status shifts, with this being more a male than female phenomenom.

Also some of the traits of a successful marriages are fidelity and loyalty. Leaving your wife because she is no longer worthy and might disgrace your name is not loyalty, appointing another more suitable wife is not displaying fidelity.

The funny thing is, he has almost got a point with the colonization of America at the expense of the... well let's be correct and call them Native Americans please, shall we?

Pity it all goes to hell in a handbasket thereafter. Fallacy heaped upon fallacy. I don't recall anyone talking about *faithfulness* in marriage at all. In fact, that's one of the things on which I thought all agreed; it's bigotry on grounds of what-sexes-are-involved-in-marriage that constitutes grounds of separation.

"The issue here is not about homophobia. "

Bull.

I say, if you're against gay marriage, don't marry a gay person!

Try this!

God is mocked by hate laws.

Christ is mocked by hate laws.

The Holy Gost is mocked by hate laws.

The Gospel is mocked by hate laws.

Feel any better ;=)

Archbishops who live in glasses shouldn't throw stones.

Logic and history do not appear to be ++Akinola's strong suits.

"The breakdown in marriages in the USA is a scandal. It is causing a massive crisis in their own society and the rest of the world."

Do you know what is truly curious about this "scandal"? The sections of our country in which evangelicals reign supreme and fundamentalism is the rule have the highest rate of divorce and pregnancies out of wedlock. This has been a problem for generations in these areas.
But their working harder on pre-marital preparation isn't helping because some of their so-called "bible based" teaching has unintended and unfortunate consequences which just contribute to the problem.

I find it objectionable that Abp Akinola has not spoken out more against Nigerian injustices; but I can't find anything not to agree with in his words in the present post. I would therefore find it immensely helpful if someone would tell me what (if anything), in their view, I am missing.

"One solution to the marriage problem would be to take seriously pre-marriage prep classes."

Another would be to stop seeing all ended marriages as failure for which someone must be to blame. Relationships can have very long and very successful periods, but can come to an end for a variety of reasons.

The happy couple promising to stay together for life (WITH THE HELP OF GOD, we will - not from our own strength!) does not know if they can whether the storms of life together. Serious illness, the death of children, addictions, other major desasters all take a toll that no-one can envisage, because until we're put into those situations we genuinely do not know our own strengths and weaknesses, never mind those of our partner.

Very few people casually stroll out of a happy relationship. For most divorce is among the hardest things they go through in life, and only as a truly last resort.

We all start out with much hope and lots of potential, but as in all other areas of life, not everyone fulfils their potential.

If Christians could condemn a little less, understand a little more and then help to mitigate the consequences of a divorce rather than tut-tut from the sidelines, many of the social side effects could be avoided.

I hasten to clarify that I used Reverend Ref's comment as an entry for my own. I agree with what he/she says and my comment was not meant to be a criticism!

Hi Goran:

As far as I could tell when I posted I was first--nothing else had been put up yet at that point. However, my post works either way. I was primarily curious to see whether anyone was capable of reacting to, and would react to, the excerpt by taking what was written at face value without interpreting most of what was said as a kind of code, full of innuendo and references to evil fascistic intentions. No one did.

In making this request, I was thinking of Screwtape's admiring words spoken to his nephew about one of the best ways to stir up strife--i.e., encourage the "patient" to insist that everything he/she says be taken innocently at face value, while simultaneously interpreting what is said by the "enemy" as laden with innuendo, sarcasm, hidden meanings, hidden insults, etc.

Needless-to-way, the response to the Akinola excerpt was interesting from this perspective. However, having read a variety of things written by different authors of differing persuasions, I would say that the contributors at TA do not differ in this regard from those elsewhere.

Steven

PS-I would say that we use the same dictionary, and would agree about the meanings of almost all of the words, but would disagree about whether certain matters fell within the definitions of certain words or not. /s

I spotted an evasion, Steven. And your second, 221 words, post confirmed that evasion.

(What, by the way, is "Screwtape")

Steven - You act like Akinola was inviting a broad based discussion of the issues confronting Western Civilization, the causes for those issues, and a systematic approach to addressing them. He is not. He is merely buttressing his fundamentalist outlook on a chaotic world by laying the evils of society at the feet of gays. Conservative Christians in America have been assailing American culture for decades with the same diagnosis and miracle cure. Do you think there is something to engage Falwell about (when he was alive)? Robinson? How about Dodson? or Fred Phelps? It's nothing but a buncha self-promoting statements meant to rally the troops.

Dear Cheryl,

I am relieved that us Yanks are finally no longer obliged to carry the burden of blame for a leadership that most of us did NOT choose, and a lot of us consider illegitimate.
Indeed, in this country too, most marriages break apart over money issues rather than over infidelity. And, as Tom Downs points out above, most of the divorce rate is in the Southeast and Midwest. Those 2 regions are not only dominated by conservative evangelical Christianity, but they also have a disproportionately high population of the poor. Most of those who are not poor are balancing on the edge. Many of their marriages end over financial stresses, not helped by a relgious message that says over and over again that poverty is the wages of sin and not simply a misfortune.
Perhaps the best way to preserve marriages and families in this country is not more harsh moralizing sermons (this time from a foreigner), but living wages and a certain amount of security against the financial catastrophes that accompany sudden ill health and unemployment here.

Let me hlp Christopher Shell:

To repeat: he is saying that Western Church leaders are not concerned, are ashamed and have lost confidence. No they have not. They do not agree with him or his view of biblical Christianity. He talks about a bishop in a tribunal. This bishop should be in a tribunal - he is answerable. On top of this, Akinola is acting in other countries to undermine other Anglican Churches with which he disagrees. He decides that he is right, others are wrong, and he is going to do something about it invasively. His view is that of the sectarian end of the Church of England, Episcopal Church and many others in the West - and more than those. Instead of commenting on the US and UK in such a shallow manner, he should look at his own compromised language about his own land, and see what damage he supports regarding human rights.

If you cannot see what is harmful with Akinola, you will only end up spreading harm elsewhere.

You don't imagine that his +Minns wrote this shabby/shapeless stuff do you? Certainly Minns is more shrewd than to write this outpouring of D- sensationalism?

Steven

As the child from a very clever covert violent father, I challenge your smugness.

My mother, sister and I were experts at hearing our father talk about how much he loved at whilst at one of his friend's homes, whilst knowing that meant we were going to get thrashed when we got home behind closed doors.

Even a dog can recognise a cruel master.

Some of the words and sentiments are beautiful. One of the pities is that he has pitched his stakes in the camps of those who would perpetuate slavery, and against those who genuinely seek to end slavery.

There is a theology that says that slavery will end when God destroys this world and gives the "pure" their new heaven, free of suffering and malcontents. In the meantime, this theology says this is meant to be a world of suffering and hate - simply to prove the sinfulness of Gaia's occupants.

The other branch of theology says that God is trying to bring back reconciliation through this earthly manifestation. We begin our journey where we are, fix what we can and where we can, and mitigate against the worst excesses of our fallen states. We grant rights of citizenship and freedom, dovetailed into responsbilities back the broader community.

Basically there is an offer of armistice - if you don't attack us, then we won't attack you. But if you keep attacking us, then we will defend ourselves, and we will provide a refuge and home for those that you have rejected. The lodgings might not be that nice, the company a bit rough and ready, but at least we are showing hospitality. If souls keep themselves clean and heed our advice to stay away from the really rough areas, things are not that bad.

It is rather amusing, we have a lot of souls coming for shelter as they are tired of the accusations from the pure camps, who then rejoice at finding old friends and relatives in reasonable wellbeing considering their circumstances.

Hmm, you'd think someone (a "leader". no less) from a country with a 5% HIV infection rate would have other things to worry about.

Erika, no offense taken. My comment about pre-marriage prep stems from my own experiences with both good and bad prep sessions. I mandate six sessions with the couple and we discuss basic personal histories, finances, children, sexuality, and spirituality. The last session is for planning the service. Knowing that there are couples out there for whom marriage is not a good idea, I also let them know that I'm available for a personal meeting if they are having any undue concerns. I'm more than willing to be the bad guy. In at least one instance I know of, had the priest offered "a way out," much heartache could have been avoided later.

I will also agree that there are times when divorce is an acceptable option: abuse, infidelity, addictions, to name three. If we (I) can help people realize that we don't know what the future holds (not always peaches and cream), that marriage IS hard work, offer education on warning signs, and provide support and resources to the couple in difficult times, then that might help stem the tide of our high divorce rate.

There are no easy answers to the problem, and the first step might be to acknowledge that marriage is way more complicated than anything you can imagine and takes way more work than you realize.

PS - Yes, I'm a guy. ;)

Hi Pluralist-
But I had already said that I do not commend his human rights record. As for his 'stance' on the content of Christianity it is historically orthodox, normal and typical. If others have shifted, how is that his fault?

Christopher Shell's claim of “historically orthodox, normal and typical” is rather interesting, considering that there is hardly any testimony to that effect.

Before, say 1978, there is Dr Bailey’s 1955 Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition and very little else.

Indeed what was discussed (rarely) before that was Gnosticist ideas on the Spilling of Semen for non procreative purposes; Masturbation, the 3rd of the 7 Deadly Sins, cf the New Catholic Encyclopaedia entry on Masturbation (no such entry in the old Catholic Encyclopaedia ;=)

I would be glad to stand corrected…

Goran:

Not sure what you mean by the "evasion" comment--Me or Akinola?--you'll have to be more direct.

PS-Screwtape = Senior Tempter (Demonic) from "The Screwtape Letters" by C. S. Lewis.

C.B.

My only point was that neither side takes statements from the other at face value. Everything is interpreted through the lens of paranoi. Of course, as the old adage goes, it's not paranoi if they REALLY ARE out to get you! Stll, both sides feel this way as well. The whole thing is symptomatic of the breach and the fact that dialog will not make a cure--we merely talk past each other.

Cheryl:

See, above. Also, I'm poetically impaired. As your posts go on they often become increasingly figurative and difficult for me to interpret and respond to. My fault--sorry.

Steven

No Steven, you have to be more direct.

This is what you wrote in your first post: "Hmmm. OK, I'd like to see a list of specific points that ++Akinola makes that are objectionable and why they are objectionable.

Please, no self-serving redundancy and ranting. The list should also interpret the language used by AB Akinola in its normal and usual sense without projecting assumed meanings onto the words used. Keep it clear, keep it simple, restrict yourself to the actual words on the page.

I'm curious what you'll find to object to here if you restrict yourself to what is actually set forth in this excerpt WITHOUT attempting to introduce what is--as we say in the law biz--parole evidence as to what you THINK he ACTUALLY means. Remember, stay with the WORDS in front of you as they are defined in the dictionary!"

Namely,

1. that "others" could not specify their (expected) criticism (which I take to mean that there is no grounds for criticism),

2. that this criticism - if specified - would be "projecting assumed meanings onto" what had been said (which, again, I take to mean that there is no grounds).

So I asked you what y o u thought might be found objectionable and what not - and on what grounds.

I expected no answer - because I spotted a trick. A page out of the 1920ies German school of Rhetoric.

I think you'll find that Christianity has been a broad and diverse animal since, about, er, its first day.

Steven
". . .neither side takes statements from the other at face value. Everything is interpreted through the lens of paranoi." Your second sentence explains the first. Indeed, everything is interpreted. Certainly every statement written or uttered must be "interpreted" through some kind of lens. Whether through the "lens of paranoi" is arguable. Thus, it is really almost impossible to take "statement from the other at face value." You will, of course, interpret my interpretation of your comment.
Secondly, ". . .dialog will not make a cure--we merely talk past each other." I agree. There must be some shared frame-of-reference for dialogue. Otherwise we are limited to quibbling, quarreling, name-calling, labeling. . .almost anything except a rational exchange of reasons and argumentation. As I read the comments on several websites I am struck by the lack of civility and the absence of critical thinking on the part of many bloggers. Anger, hostility, vituperation and callous shallowness have replaced dialogue, reason, argument and, most importantly, love of one another to which Jesus commended and commanded all of us.

Reactions to the statement will get us wound up and have no effect on Aki or the ABC. We need to take his words apart using rigorous critical and analytic tools at our disposal. Challenge not what he says, but the way he says it - reveal the underlying style for what it is, disrobe him linguistically and expose him as an empty vessel.

He engages people's concern with the rapid social changes in the western world, such as failing marriages. He couples this to a story from the UK about a discriminatory Bishop who fell foul of UK law gives gay people similar rights to people from ethnic minorities. He is duplicitous because he makes it appear that what is going on is not employment protection, but an attack on freedom of faith. At the end he concludes by saying that this is not about homosexuality. He has managed to slip from one unrelated matter to another, homosexuality, and ended up denying that is not what is at issue. His style of engagement with the issues is not theological in context, but overtly political. Whether or not there are any traces of far-right support in his ministry or not, the style of argument places his words clearly in that context - and thus out of his own mouth he is condemned.

I refuse to remain in a communion that panders to this man and those who follow and support him. How can I support an organization which turns a blind eye while some of its members publicly and openly abuse my brethren? Can I find comfort in an organisation which appeases an ideology that thrives in cultures where gay people are beaten and stoned even unto death? When he and those who support him have quit or been expelled from the communion, then I will return. Until that time, as far as I am concerned, the communion is supporting a rising global ideology of hatred and skapegoating of gay people, rather than standing against it. In the mean-time, it is nice to have a rest from such a church so that I can focus more clearly on Jesus rather than other people's repugnant views about queer folk like me.

I am sad that the ABC has allowed the church to get so completely hijacked by this. But he is an academic, and clearly the ideologues run rings around him.

Mish

I have left many places, and the time to leave is when there is a significant difference and the probability of change is exhausted in any meaningful time scale. This is not the situation here. Akinola in his invasive imperialism and attitude will meet considerable resistance. He has his supporters, of course, and there are entryist events, but they have a chip on the shoulder and there is still something like an inferiority complex from some of their comments.

I just think it is important that those who tolerate difference, who have a liberal view of some kind, are prepared to articulate it more than they have done, and to stand up for the values of searching, disbelieving, changing, sometimes rewriting, to limit the name-game of orthodoxy and to be more active about toleration both on a simple human level and about ideology. It is peculiar perhaps to have to stand up for toleration and difference.

Re: What is Akinola saying, really?

Have so few on the right spectrums of believers ever taken a class in rhetoric or textual hermeneutic studies?

Fact: Most of Akinola's comments claim to be based in a worldview which is repeatedly tagged - biblical.

Looking further into the tag, one finds that supposedly there is claimed to be an exclusive, objective conservative reading of scripture.

Examining that objective claim leads one to surmise that this special cons reading is significantly functioning in ways which we are supposed to presume as ahistorical, transcontextual. A corollary is that such a reading is closed, and likely to great extent impervious to any, any, any criticism that matters from any, any, any outside or alternative framework/hermeneutic. As the sheer word of God revealed, its meanings can speak to anybody, anything, any view; but the rest may not speak back, and especially, the rest may not ask questions that have to be answered, with dignity, respect, or sensitivity, or care. In this approach, there is simply no tool kit of best practices which allows us to bridge between what scripture may be saying to us, and what anything else may be saying to us. Any bridge that exists, must occupy the closed presuppositions or definitions, and so is more or less a one way street.

Looking into those claims, one finds that this realignment reading of scripture exists, rhetorically, on a spectrum of similar readings, and that this home spectrum puts realignment readings in a discern-able presuppositional or definitional context. Thus, one gets to the clear point that the realignment reading is some sort of interpretive kin to fundamentalist, dominionist, and reconstructionist readings.

The farthest right anchor point on this spectrum is of course, most recently, the great conservative USA religious prophet R.J. Rushdoony, of Chalcedon Institute fame, of Institutes of Religion fame.

Is this all airy and theoretical?

Hardly. One then gets quickly to the practical point that Ahmanson and other realignment funders in USA have historical ties to Rushdoony-based church and para-church communities.

Thus. One must decode Akinola using these provisional tools, or one is likely to miss the deeper realignment campaign points he is making.

More clues? Akinola constantly repeats USA rightwing religious rhetoric, almost word for word in some cases. These sound bites of false witness are aimed at committed gay relationships, and other darling targets. Come back, these points in mind.

Mish Mich - congratulations for taking the same step I did 18 months ago.

I too will not be returning until there is a split and we can be rid of these abhorrent homophobes and their conservative theological beliefs.

Pluralist said,
"I think you'll find that Christianity has been a broad and diverse animal since, about, er, its first day."

Yes there have always been heretics in the Church.

And someone is a heretic today. God would not split his people by telling them two conflicting messages about Himself, His Son, His Word and His call on our lives.

Drdanfee wrote: "... such a reading is closed, and likely to great extent impervious to any, any, any criticism that matters from any, any, any outside or alternative framework/hermeneutic.

As the sheer word of God revealed, its meanings can speak to anybody, anything, any view; but the rest may not speak back, and especially, the rest may not ask questions that have to be answered, with dignity, respect, or sensitivity, or care."

I think you are spot on with this analysis, but I would turn your initial question around and conclude that Rhetoric is precisely what this is about - Political rhetoric.

And disdain for what God is telling us through his very good Creation. Indeed, if there is any god behind this thinking, it's the Demiurge.

GoSane:

Thanks for an excellent response. In large part I agree. I think my primary point of interest was the fact that, absent specific references to current events, the rest of the Akinola excerpt could have come out of the mouth of almost any leader in Christendom, including that of a liberal. It is for the most part, and with no particular disrespect intended, pious "prophetic" boilerplate and subject to completely different and divergent interpretations depending on the source and the listener.

If, for example, the PB had voiced these same sentiments they would have been interpreted in a completely different way. Whereas, at TA the same words spoken by Akinola bring up images of yellow stars and concentration camps. All of which is symptomatic of a divide that is going to be very difficult to bridge with dialog, i.e., more words.

Words spoken by either side, even if innocuous on their face, are interpreted in the worst possible way by the other. Its negative spin run amok.

Steven

Akinola and company should be make themselves aware of the following:

“An Acceptable Sacrifice? The answer is simple: No. It is not acceptable for us to discriminate against our brothers and sisters on the basis of sexual orientation just as it was not acceptable for discrimination to exist on the basis of skin colour under Apartheid."

Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu


The Lord our God has told us what is good and what is required of us: to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with (our) God. (Micah 6:8) Paul declared that, there is not longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28). Jesus was asked which of God's commandments is the greatest. He responded, "The first and greatest is that you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. The second is like unto it, that you shall love your neighbor as yourself. From these two are derived all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:35-40). He also said, "Where two or more are gathered in my name, I am there among them" (Matthew 18:20).

Akinola and company are not interested in making themselves aware of anything that they do not already know, Frank. This is not about religion, it is about POWER.

"This is not about religion, it is about POWER."

I used to think this was a canard. But it's true.

All of this is about the power of the Spirit. Do we think the Spirit had the power to inspire Truth in the OT and NT writers. Do we think the Spirit has the power to help modern Christians interpret and apply the Truth in the world today?

But the really scary question is do we think the Spirit has the power to change us? Do we take Jesus at his word that the Spirit can sanctify us?

The more I think about claims made by reasserters, it becomes obvious some people will answer these questions with a forceful "NO!"

Chris, if I've understood you correctly, you seem to be saying that anyone who doesn't immediately bow down to the demands of a 'reasserter' is deliberately and wilfully rejecting the Spirit (presumably the unforgiveable sin).

Since I've had a letter today accusing me of just such pneumatomachian evil, can I just say that there is another sort of faithful discipleship, you know! A tiny spot of restraint before sticking the boot in on others' faith and spirituality, perhaps?

Crazy Rabbit-I would modify it slightly, it's not about religion, it's about POWER manipulated by FEAR.

Mynsterpreost (=David Rowett),

After rereading my post I can see how one would easily come to the conclusion I was making the equal and opposite error of placing extra conditions on salvation. That is not the case.

The sins listed limit the Spirit's power and they are sins every Christian commits. These sins are not a denial of the Spirit as one has already affirmed the Spirit's power as part of salvation. Rather rejection of Scriptural and apostolic authority while also holding back portions of their life limits power of the Spirit in them.

Goran-
I meant only that Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 have been universally upheld for all Christian history hitherto. One would search in vain in previous centuries for any controversy comparable to the present one.

Christopher,

Something repeatedly said is not necessarily true. Seems to me you have some reading to do.

Hi MerseyMike.

Nice to see you again, and Goran. The background to my post had to be truncated. Finding myself on Southwark Diocesan Synod, I then moved to the coast. I visited my local CofE parish for Palm Sunday, and have to admit the reception was cool and the service far from inspiring. Easter Sunday we made our way to the local MCC - where the reception was friendly and the service lively (although not what I was used to). I felt torn, how could I replace the ten-year relationship I had built up with those in my former parish, which grounded me in the communion; did I want to move to a ghetto-church?

I decided to take a rest from church altogether, just as I had between leaving religious life and finding my previous parish. It has been refreshing, to be honest, to take a holiday from church for a month. No doubt I will find somewhere sooner or later I can have fellowship again.

The problem is, I go to church for spiritual reasons, not religious duty or politics; it feels at times that there is a part of the church which is engaged in a form of spiritual warfare. I do not find that conducive to my personal spirituality or my relationship with Christ. I feel that the institutional church has had its day, and Christ finds His home in people's hearts, rather than cold buildings and empty dogma.

Mish

The observation that the controversies over sexuality are uniquely ours - and uniquely intense in our own era - is easily explained. We are the people who have to think through all the new facts in human nature and sex, which are hardly yet done flooding out from the busy research efforts all over the planet. So far as human nature and sex are concerned, the flight from Kitty Hawk has long ago taken off and managed to be airborn for sufficient time to demonstrate that - just to pick one sore point - legacy male privileges to exemplify what human nature essentially is are tattered and worn through with rents like domination, warfare, and trash talking your sports opponents. These can still be fun or embarrassing from time to time, as situations and different people warrant; but they can no longer be discerned to be exclusive and special male keys to understanding the best of what God creates humans to be. Surely. Domination will hardly go nicely into the good night of world history.