The BIG CHILL...fear and hate mongering all dressed up by Akinola and Ruth as sane/reasonable reporting with no place to go to save even one of the tortured LGBT souls they so "breathlessly" demean and destroy!

This does seem a remarkably 'soft' interview. Whether it was conducted before the events reported in the Nigerian 'Sun' newspaper I don't know - but the defence of northern Nigerian Christians which raises its head in Ruth's interview was an area on which ++Abuja was explicitly criticised as being ineffective by fellow Nigerian Christians.

I am not surprised about +Akinola's ignorance re the 'ex gay conversion' discredited bandwagon, and clearly some others who comment on this site have no idea that the idea of heterosexual sex is as repulsive to gay people as the reverse, but I am surprised in Ruth Gledill's piece not to encounter language that is not uncommon in Nigeria. About possession and exorcism and evil and devils which need exorcising etc. As happened disastrously in North London a few years ago,

As I noted to the comments section following Ruth's brief hagiography:

Two observations:

1. Despite the overblown rhetoric from this proud prelate, nobody in the Anglican Communion is forcing anything on Nigeria or on any of the other so-called Global South bishops. No one is requiring them to ordain homosexuals. No one is requiring them to bless same sex unions. The Church is the West (to its shame) has even been silent in the face of Akinola's horrible legislation which would make it a criminal offence to state publicly the belief that homosexual acts should not be criminal offences.

2. I note that you scrupulously avoided anything about the recent election for a new President of the Christian ssociation of Nigeria (CAN). Depite a series of increasingly desperate political machinations to ensure his own re-election, Dr. Akinola was thoroughly trounced, and replaced by the Roman Catholic Primate.

Ruth comes across as a fan of Akinola. Perhaps she was overawed by the big man when meeting him in his palace.

But it is not impossible that a man who uses holy language and describes himself as raised up by God could be a deeply destructive person, acting out an agenda of intolerance and ignorance. Ruth should do some reflection on her advocacy.

>Dr. Akinola was thoroughly trounced, and replaced by the Roman Catholic Primate.<

That's the giveaway, regarding recent behaviour. I notice in the interview he is said to have said:

_Who were once homosexual but who are now changed to heterosexual._

This is just pathetic, pathetic also for those who subject themselves to this sort of self illusion.

It would not so much matter (except some human rights issues, which can be ained at the Nigerian State) if he were not interfering in the United States, he assuming that The Episcopal Church is not an episcopal Church with his selective literalism.

Other than that, we can predict a little more safely, bar reversals, that he and others will stay away from Lambeth, obey their own rules, not go through Canterbury anymore, and perhaps the Anglican Communion as remaining might be that little bit more tolerant and not impose unwanted restrictions and Covenants and all of that on its Churches.

The archbishop struck gold in Miss Ruth, for sure. His every word taken at face value and passed on verbatim for Gledhill's readers. No attempt to place Akinola and his actions in broader, objective context (if Gledhill is even a quarter-way doing her job, she must know about last Sunday's piece in the Daily Sun). A completely uncritical, awe-struck, whitewash job, from the header down. But no surprise to those of us who regard Gledhill a third-rater.

Malcolm

- firstly, CAN election is not relevant to the ISSUES we face in the AC;

- secondly, ++Akinola is not in a tiny minority is disagreeing with you the AC ISSUES we face;

- thirdly, you say ", nobody in the Anglican Communion is forcing anything on Nigeria".......really??

I think you will find that we have had strong responses from the AC to TEC since its 2003 actions precisely because TEC is trying to foce the AC to accept its decisions and allow it to stay in the AC even though its decisions contradict past and present agreed AC positions.

The attempt to force the AC to accept "revisions" which most do not accept is not acceptable in the church.....even the liberal ABC seems to see that.

From Ruth's interview: "we have the scripture. We have our traditions. We have our Lambeth Conference resolution. We have the Primates communique. We have not broken the law. It is your churches breaking the law. You are the ones breaking rules not we. You are the ones who are doing what we said should not be done, with impunity. You are the ones breaking the law."

Very scary indeed. Peter Akionla's repeated use of "we have" with the clear implication that those who disagree aren't orthodox. The repeated assertion that "you are breaking", ignoring the repeated cross-boundary transgressions which the Windsor report required members to stop. There's a lot of talk about other people's obligations, but not a lot of understanding of his own.

"The bigger the Church gets, the fewer conflicts Christians will face."

Size is everything? Bigger churches in Nigeria will resolve all conflicts between Christians and Moslems?

The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) now has nearly 20 million members. Last year it was 17 million, so it is indeed growing fast (if the figures are authentic).

Size is everything, and the size of the Nigerian church proves their attitude to homosexuality is right and those holding different views, even with integrity, are wrong.

"He wore a clerical shirt with no collar, a cross around his neck. His feet were bare. The contrast between this and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s splendid palaces in Lambeth and Canterbury could not have been greater."

Ruth, are you really reporting this to demonstrate that Archbishop Akinola is a genuinely humble, simple, God-fearing man and the Archbishop of Canterbury is not?

I wonder if Ruth's reporting isn't going to backfire both on her and on the humble Archbishop Akinola.

NP has a point: if the Anglican Communion accepts the blessing of same-sex unions, then Anglicans in Nigeria are weakened in proclaiming that same-sex unions are immoral. But has this kind of thing not happened many times before? When the Archbishop of Canterbury gave the green light to legalizing abortion back in the 1950s there must have been many Anglicans worldwide who disagree with him and who felt their witness was undermined.

Bishop Akinola, and others in the GS, take great pride in the fact that their churches are growing by leaps and bounds while our churches in the West are shrinking. Why is that? Could it be because their secular states are "failing",(to meet the basic needs of their people), while our's, for the most part,are not.

'All this stuff about power. It is not me. My motto of life is, the simpler the better. You can ask my colleagues, my bishops, how I operate. Some people say I do embarrass them with my humility.”'

At the White Sands Hotel in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, in the course of the Primates meeting, Archbishop Akinola joined his colleagues Martyn Minns, David Anderson and Chris Sugden several times in their upper room. Those of us observing them speculated that they were plotting, preparing documents either for Peter Akinola's use or for submission to the Primates, drafts and revisions to the final communique, and talking strategy and tactics.

Subsequent conversations with people inside the meeting confirm that our speculation was accurate. They were playing power games, using and abusing power, and Peter Akinola was playing the power game with them.

He had humbly shed his archiepiscopal clothes and was wearing a simple, pure white Nigerian costume. It was stunning and in wearing it, he outshone and upstaged every other person in the hotel.

Oh indeed, how much Archbishop Peter Akinola embarrases some people with his humility.

Ruth does the best interviews. First Richard Dawkins, now Peter Akinola. I hope she visits Gene Robinson next. You can just imagine the three gentlemen in conversation together - charming, intelligent chaps, two Christians and a Humanist, or two liberals and a conservative (depending on your point of view), all getting along rather famously, as long as the taboo subjects - sex, religion and politics - are off the agenda.

Getting inside the shoes of somone, seeing how they tick, is always a bonus, a must in investigative journalism. Can't knock Ruth for that.

And here we have, verbatim, what the most powerful Primate of the Communion thinks. He wouldn't be out of place in the House of Bishops of the Church of England, that's for sure.

Ruth says, "Given what is happening in Britain right now, we could learn a lot from how Islam and Christianity live together in Nigeria, particularly in the south. And from how difficulties are confronted in the North. Akinola's answer is simple: evangelism."

To that might be added a common doctrine on gays, an early outcome of the Anglican Covenant. We now have a clearer idea of how that document will be worded. A scary prospect indeed.

"The bigger the Church gets, the fewer conflicts Christians will face."

This comment scares me. The more the gestapo controlled the population and had rounded up the Jews and the dissidents, the less the conflicts the authorised church faced.

The bible is clear that it despises churches that become prepared to sacrifice to idols, so there is not problem with the title of one of the articles. Yet one contemplation in the last few days is that if souls are deprived a legacy in Jesse's son, they also have the right to walk away e.g. 1 Kings 12:13-24; and Jesus' words at Matthew 10 :14 "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town." Thus ABC's attempts to keep parties listening is consistent with Jesus' exhortation to be polite and listen to souls.

The other thing that scares me are souls who are charming in public but sinister behind the scenes. Beware not the loud rooster, or the flamboyant turkey, but the enemy who keeps their head down and appears to be soft spoken and humble e.g. http://www.torah.org/learning/tehillim/ch10.html

As someone who only recently was said to have written the most shrill posting seen the internet (refer Chris' posting on second link made on 11.36pm 30 May 2007). I don't think I qualify as soft spoken e.g.
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002080.html
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002420.html, which includes a posting from on

Why is Akinola wasting so many people's time. His remarks on ex-gays show he is a profoundly ignorant man, and his ignorance is cemented by arrogance and stubbornness. The Nigerians have seen through him. Why are we still debating his views? Why is Ruth Gledhill serving them up in the Times as if they were hot news? Why not interview the Taliban on their enlightened policies towards women and gays? Meanwhile the secessionists who have pinned their colours to Akinola's mast are drifting toward shipwreck. The dialectic of history does not favour stupid leaders, no matter how wily their tactics or how much they bask in appeasement.

One thing that has struck me in since making the last posting is what defines friendship.

In the first of the TA threads of the last posting, there were souls who stood up for me. They were souls who do not know me personally, having nothing to gain from a relationship with me, whose careers are not enhanced yet alone advanced by either knowing or advocating on my behalf.

Yet they did.

If love is unconditional, they manifested it.

Far better than the CoE minister, who when I was 14 told me that I must "desire" being sexually abused by my dad, as the abuse still continued. Sorry he didn't know the details at the time, but it took another 7 years to share with my sister and her with me as we were both under death penalties if we told another soul what we were experiencing.

One thing that strikes me in this debate is that there is a perception that bad things only happen to bad souls. When did I deserve to become a sexual toy? I was being abused before I was even out of diapers.

My enemies take that as confirmation that I am the "evil one".

Was Jesus' friends those that placated and condoned a cruel tyranny, or those that loved him even though he was an affront and challenged Herod and the sycrophantic priests?

Goran, Pluralist, Ford, Erika, David and others are more like the disciples than those who cow licked to tyranny and reject compastion to those who are abused. P.S. Davis has written privately and we like each other. He did that for no money or no career advantage, but simply because he recognised another friendly soul and sought out companionship.

I would rather be in hell with these souls, than in heaven with the "saved" who condemn.

What is all this hoooey or malarkey about large churches being best? In that case the Middle Ages in Europe were ideal and the Protestant Reformation horrible - strange words indeed to come from the mouth of an Anglican Primate. The concept that there will be fewer areas of discord with a LARGE CHURCH is downright bone-chilling and speaks of "mind control" and I am quite certain I do not want my mind - or my outward conformity - controlled by Akinolites.

Nothing wrong with large churches.....we have lots of charismatic and conservative large churches in the CofE.

Good interview - it comes over very clearly that all ++Akinola is doing is defending the agreed positions of the AC from those who would change it without proving their case from scripture to more than a minority in the AC

“Bishop Akinola, and others in the GS, take great pride in the fact that their churches are growing by leaps and bounds while our churches in the West are shrinking. Why is that? Could it be because their secular states are "failing", (to meet the basic needs of their people), while our's, for the most part, are not.”—Andrew Innes

As long-time readers of this site know, this is exactly the point that I have made time and time again. Nigeria is close to being a failed state, despite (perhaps because of) its oil revenues. The rapid growth of Christian fundamentalism (and Muslim fundamentalism as well) is a direct function of the economic and social disintegration people see around them.

Davis Mac-Iyalla has a great explanation for the numbers that +Akinola throws out. Because of the way records are kept in the Anglican Church of Nigeria, Davis himself is counted as a member in at least 4 different parishes. Suddenly that 17-20 million figure seems a LOT smaller...

And I find it alternately amusing and annoying that people like +Akinola and NP think numbers is what it's all about.

Hint: WITNESS is what it's all about. And that is exactly what we in TEC are doing: witnessing to the radical love and inclusiveness (Samaritans, Canaanites, women, Romans, lepers, etc., etc., etc.) of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

If my memory serves me correctly this is the second favorable article from Ruth with respect to ++Akinola.

I acknowledge my bias in favour of the godly archbishop. I wonder if it is impossible - given the tenor of the criticisms and ad hominems in the above comments if it is ever possible in this new world of Anglican division for him to be given a fair hearing or to be respected for what he has (under God) achieved on his home turf. I regard Ruth's writing as generally fair and reasonable as while she has her personal biases these do not prevent her giving kudos where kudos is due. ++Akinola has done significant and great things in the course of his ministry.

I believe that ++Akinola is clear and reasonable in his analysis of what is needed to heal the Communion and realistic in its not happening. That he is willing to cross boundaries and rescue people and parishes in extreme distress over here is regarded as very welcome by those so rescued. The point that I recall is how Jesus treated the Pharisees who were upset over healings on the Sabbath but would of course rescue the donkey fallen into a hole. Boundary crossings and rescue are (Dromatine and Dar es Salaam as evidence) insignificant compared to the rescue needs of the oppressed dissenting minority in EC, USA. If I remember there were authorised boundary crossings in the early doctrinal conflicts of the Church. If the bishop in a jurisdiction is heretical and or persecuting the faithful then resuce is appropriate with all the boundary crossings that may entail.

How wonderful that ++Akinola has a firm grasp on the authority of the Holy Scriptures.

How wonderful that he understands Evangelism and the "sword of the Spirit."

Would that the western churches might learn how to do the work that our Lord gave us to do in the spreading of the Gospel and the building of the Kingdom.

"Good interview". Wouldn't go quite that far, NP, but it does demonstrate that there are advantages to be had from writing or speaking in complete sentences, and from proof-reading.

Akinola withdrew from what he calls "the Communion" when he refused to take Communion with his fellow primates at Dromantine in 2003 and then again at Dar in 2007. He took Communion with the see of Canterbury out of his church Constitution in 2005. He made it clear he wasn't coming to Lambeth in "the Road to Lambeth" except on impossible terms, and he said it again when Minns wasn't invited earlier this year.

If I had a biscuit for every time Akinola said he was leaving and he didn't need Canterbury, and for every time Ruth Gledhill wrote that Anglican schism has just happened, like, yesterday, um, again, - I'd be a very fat man.

If I've got to read the same thing over and over again, I'd rather it was the Bible, not the religious correspondent of The Times.

NP - What a curious definition of "defending" you must be using.

The Windsor process agreed to restraint from *both* "sides". The TEC has refrained from further consecrations, the response of the Global South churches has been to install a group of flying bishops in direct opposition to the AC norms of polity. If the TEC started the tear in the fabric, then it is the Global South that continues to pull the material apart.

Cheryl,
I'm touched by your words. I think I missed the conversation about your experience you talk about, I was offline for about 3 weeks recently. It sounds truly terrible and I am appalled that you also experienced condemnation from people who clearly haven't a clue!

Cheryl. I'm organising a little room for us in the Dissidents' Ghetto down in hell. It won't be good living but there might be a few worthwhile challenges and the odd conversation worth having. I'm not much interested in NPs large numbers floating in his heavenly ideal nothingness. Anyway, we will have better central heating.

Colin - I think Simon has said ad hominem attacks are not allowed on TA.....even on ++Akinola, I assume.

As memory serves, Ruth Gledhill did not attend the Dar es Salaam primates' meeting, a major religious news event, for budgetary reasons. Now, suddenly, she shows up in Abuja, giving a very great deal (four separate pieces) of uncritical coverage to Archbishop Akinola. Be interesting to know who bankrolled this one, and why.

"...all ++Akinola is doing is defending the agreed positions of the AC from those who would change it without proving their case from scripture to more than a minority in the AC"

Let's try to unpack the doublespeak here... The "agreed positions of the AC" - agreed, that is, except by all who disagree. "Without proving their case from scripture" - in fact, neither side has proved their case from scripture, because if either had, the debate would be closed, wouldn't it? Both sides are quite confident that their own interpretations of scripture (and their own interpretations of rightful and wrongful uses of same) are correct. "To more than a minority in the AC" - verifiable statistics please? Besides which, when are moral questions ever settled by majority vote?

For my part, reading Gledhill's piece confirmed every bad thing I have ever thought about Akinola, despite her effort to portray him as a basically decent, misunderstood fellow. Arrogant, ambitious, intolerant - it's all there, despite the interviewer's assertions to the contrary.

I get the impression that, just as bishops of the Early Church stepped into the power vacuum left by the failed civic functions of the Roman Empire, so in some ways Nigerian bishops have replaced the tribal chieftains of their failing State.

The irony is that Akinola cannot see that it is his brand of Christianity that is deeply encultured, highly political and driven by the need for self-survival. In the West, in contrast, the churches have a more prophetic ministry that seeks to challenge the economic, social and political standards of the age.

NP Says: Nothing wrong with large churches - well , yes and no. Good thinking point, maybe.

If the point of being a large parish is to exert pressures to close down thinking and inquiry, I cannot agree as a modern educated person.

My life has personally been saved and rescued from legacy errors and blessed to overflowing - by how God has often used thinking and inquiry and openness in my life so far, as we all seek to follow Jesus of Nazareth.

The opposite is also true: My life has literally been threatened - more than once I must say, in the USA context - by lock-step thinking that cannot respect competency data (whether the data speaks about the competencies of inquiry and open mindedness and our best tool kits of critical methods, or whether the data talks about the many obvious and valuable competencies of queer folks), by large and small group pressures to conform (often backed by implicit and/or explicit bullying), and by various punitive measures which are always supposed to help non-conforming people - now the hot button groups of progs, libs, queer folks, and friends - get right with this curious penal-legal Anglican realignment God who dies once for your sins so that you can be hounded and punished even more freely by the believers and leaders who pledge allegiance. Apparently Jesus' death on the cross frees those believers, empowers them - to do what God in Jesus of Nazareth officially declined to do. Force people, by every means possible. Adding spin to the use of force is even more like abuse: We are doing this to you for your own eternal good.

Aside from large group conformity pressures, open worship in a large crowd is awesome - something of the Kingdom Feast in all of that, mammalian. Small group worship is awesome, too. Come to think of it, maybe worship and prayer are just awesome.

I am a gay man. After reading this interview, I realize I have more in common with Bishop Akinola than Bishop Robinson. My faith is more like the search for truth that Bishop Akinola talks about. I find myself always frustrated with Bishop Robinson's and Bishop Schori's "touchy-feely, new-agey" ambiguity. I think Bishop Akinola is wrong about certain things, but we approach things the same way, starting with a high view of Scripture.

My opinion is that the words used to describe homosexual behavior in Scripture are not the same as those which came about in the 19th century and which are based on scientific study. I think Scripture condemns a kind of hedonism which has nothing to do with those who are born gay and who seek lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships with other men. I also think Scripture witnesses to the power of same-sex love in the stories of Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, and the Centurion and his slave, among others. Scripture also witnesses to the inclusion of the sexually other in it's depiction of eunuchs.

But Scripture does not condone hedonism or promiscuity--for gays or straights. I think that we need to articulate a clear, Scriptural homosexual ethic. In accepting homosexuality, we are not saying anything goes. Multiple partners are not ethical. Open relationships are not ethical. Gay couples must take the same vows as straight couples--forsaking all others, 'til death do us part.

I think we would have a better time working toward communion with Bishop Akinola and the Global South if we showed we were holding gays accountable to the same standards to which we hold straights. Right now, it looks like we are saying, "We love you, we accept you, you can do anything you want," when we need to be saying, "You need to quit that stuff you were doing in the gay bars and Pride parades and start acting like adults with adult relationships and adult responsibilities."

I, as a gay Christian, don't condone what I see at Pride rallies and gay bars, and we need to start standing up for gay ethics. That way, we might have more to say to Bishop Akinola.

On homosexuality:
"We see it as a problem that can be treated."
"When you have chosen a particular way of life, a particular orientation"
"They are sick or tired of normal heterosexual relationships?"

Does NP still want to claim that people on the right "have listened and are not convinced"? Such ignorance would have been dispelled had he listened. He is making arguments based on lies and ignorance, despite his more than ample education, and backing them up with Scripture. The last quote just underscores this.

"The demand from the West that his Church liberalise he sees as a gross reimposition of an old imperalism."

A) Who is demanding that the Nigerian Church liberalise?
B) I've always felt this was grounded as much in his reaction to European imperialism and the harm it has done to Africa, perhaps informing an anti-white racism, perhaps not, as it is about any "Bible teaching". This strengthens that belief.

And, Ruth's falling over her own feet to laud his relations with Muslims is amusing given recent statements from Nigeria. As to the implication that taking his socks off is a sign of humility lacking in the AbofC, I guess Ms Gledhill is younger than me, a child of the 80s, perhaps?

Has anyone else noticed that all the bishops being ordained/consecrated for mission in the US are white despite the original contention that they were to serve congregations who had immigrated from Nigeria, etc.?
Columba Gillis

"WITNESS is what it's all about"

No, no, no, no, no! Obedience is what it's all about. We must tell people that they have to obey the letter of the Law. Jesus died for our sins, but that doesn't count if we don't obey. We can violate the spirit of that Law as much as we like, just as long as we make sure everybody is well aware that the God who loves us so much that He would not only condescend to become part of his Creation, not only become a helpless child and a homeless refugee for our sakes, he would also allow His own Creation to strike Him, flog Him, and torture Him to death, will also torture us unendingly if we disobey the Law He claims to have freed us from. Simple, really. There's a lovely Orthodox hymn for Good Friday, BTW that meditates on the wonder of the Creator of all submitting to being mistreated like that by His own Creation, and all out of His love for them.

Does Archbishop Akinola fit the profile that evangelicals often use to determine early onset homosexuality? No father. Lack of positive male role models. Early abuse. Imagine if this were true: it could explain a lot. Could he be a gay man, hiding in a deeply homophobic culture, desperate to prove himself by being more anti-gay than the straight boys? Is his desire to split the communion the work of a man who protesteth way too much? I wonder ...

NP, could you please provide me with the following figures:

- the number of same sex unions that Archbishop Akinola has been forced to bless;
- the number of "practicing" homosexuals that Archbishop Akinola has been forced to ordain?

I'm quite confident that the answer, in each case, is zero. Therefore, your claim that the Episcopal Church has "forced" anything upon him is, to put it kindly, a complete and utter canard.

I think James has a point, in promoting a standard of sexual ethics for gays that is the same as that expected for straights. I think it is tacitly done already, but not explicit enough, perhaps.

However, I think James is wrong to think that this will make a shred of difference to the anti-gay conservative contingent. The moderates might get it. The Akinolas etc are never, ever going to change their minds.

"Colin - I think Simon has said ad hominem attacks are not allowed on TA.....even on ++Akinola, I assume"

I think it's quite appropriate for someone to comment on a character piece by suggesting that it's inaccurate. Colin was being sarcastic, certainly, but this is not what is "ad hominem" means.

"Ad hominem" refers to any attempt to refute someone's argument by referring to their character, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., but not to the content of the arguments themselves. "John Boswell's arguments in Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality can be dismissed, given the the author is himself a homosexual" is an example of an ad hominem attack. However, if I were to say, "I am an honest guy" and you were to point out several instances of my telling lies, this would not constitute an ad hominem attack on your part. Akinola claims to be humble, Coward thinks otherwise and gives his reasons. That's perfectly legitimate, whether or not it happens to be correct. (Otherwise, we'd have to label Jesus' attacks on the scribes and the Pharisees "ad hominem" and he'd soon be banned from this site were he to be quoted.)

"the oppressed dissenting minority in EC, USA"

Oh, please! They don't get to redefine Anglicanism as a congregationalist confession. They don't get to close the doors to their bishop when he won't make a blanket statement condemning all non-Christians to Hell. Ooooh! How awful! Tell you what, when they are driven from their homes for being Evangelical schismatics and are forced to prostitute themselves just to survive like their attitudes do to a darn good many gay kids, then I'll buy it. I will not claim oppression because the Church won't marry me, I will not acknowledge it in comfortable middle class conservatives.

"How wonderful that ++Akinola has a firm grasp on the authority of the Holy Scriptures."

And how abominable that he is so arrogant as to use Scripture to justify his actions against people about whom he knows nothing, doesn't want to learn, and then claims he cares about our salvation! If he cared about our salvation, he'd learn about us so as to better tailor his message, not seek to jail us and justify it by saying it's still better than what the Muslims would do!

(2003) A Kenyan Anglican Bishop was yesterday morning attacked in a London street by two Church of England colleagues for opposing the appointment of a homosexual bishop by the US Episcopal Church.

The British clerics accused the Anglican Church of Kenya (ACK) of taking an uncompromising stand over the controversial appointment of Rev Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire.

The two confronted Bishop Simon Oketch in London where he is attending an international seminar dubbed: "New Wine Conference".

The confrontation began with a heated argument over the appointment of Robinson and almost resulted in an exchange of blows before members of the public came to Oketch's rescue.

Oketch, who is in-Charge of ACK Maseno North Diocese, called the East African Standard Kakamega office from London immediately after the incident.

"I did not have any fear being in the United Kingdom because Anglican clergymen in this country have never indicated their support for this kind of behaviour," he said.

Oketch said he was going to the venue of the seminar when he alighted from a vehicle while dressed in his collar. The religious garb attracted the attention of the church leaders who were walking along the street.

He said when the English clergymen saw him, they asked him to stop and after greetings, inquired which country he was from.

"When I said I was from Kenya, they expressed anger and asked me to discuss an issue with them before I could continue with my journey," he said.

"One of them said they were saddened by the stand taken by the Anglican Church in Kenya and other countries over the appointment of the gay bishop.

"I told them we could not budge on the issue and that we will oppose it to the end because it is un-Christian," said Oketch.

He said his reply did not go down well with his colleagues who then grabbed him and threatened to beat him up before members of the public noticed the commotion and came to his rescue.

"I find myself always frustrated with Bishop Robinson's and Bishop Schori's "touchy-feely, new-agey" ambiguity."

James, you're welcome to your opinion, but...

"But Scripture does not condone hedonism or promiscuity--for gays or straights. I think that we need to articulate a clear, Scriptural homosexual ethic. In accepting homosexuality, we are not saying anything goes. Multiple partners are not ethical. Open relationships are not ethical. Gay couples must take the same vows as straight couples--forsaking all others, 'til death do us part."

...I hope you aren't for *one second* implying that bishops ++Schori and +Robinson ARE "condoning hedonism or promiscuity", "saying anything goes" (like multiple partners or open relationships). If so, your implication is more than unfair---it's flat-out FALSE!

*****

++Akinola: "We have not broken the law. It is your churches. You are the ones doing what we said should not be done, with impunity. We are saying you cannot sweep it under the carpet . . . not any more."

Or in other words, "Nuh-uh, not me, youuuuu! Neener-neener-neener!"

So help me, I've heard 3 YEAR-OLDS w/ more emotional maturity... :-/

I am struck not by anything Biship Akinola is quoted as saying here (we've heard it all before haven't we), but by the continued ugly snipping at one another that one reads here day after day. It's like the last days of one of those tragic marriages where divorce is obviously inevitable and evident to all by the couple. If nothing that the Bishops are saying convinces you of the unbridgeable divide in the Anglican communion the remarks on here should. It is time to get on with the divorce and move on with as much dignity as we can muster.

Has Bishop Robinson or Bishop Schori ever articulated a gay sexual ethic? Have they ever said what kind of homosexual behavior is, in fact, immoral? I haven't seen any clear-cut guidelines for gays spelled out anywhere by any bishop or group of bishops. What standards are gays held accountable to?

I think that if we held gays accountable to some kind of clear sexual ethic, our conversations with the Global South would be easier. Maybe we won't ever convince Bishop Akinola, but maybe there are others who simply need to see a clear gay sexual ethic in order to be convinced of the possibility of gay marriage.

Has anyone in the Church articulated a gay sexual ethic?

Those who claim TEC has not stated standards for same-sex couples are simply wrong. In 2000 General Convention passed Resolution No. 2000-D039, which states in part:

Resolved, That we acknowledge that while the issues of human sexuality are not yet resolved, there are currently couples in the Body of Christ and in this Church who are living in marriage and couples in the Body of Christ and in this Church who are living in other life-long committed relationships; and be it further
Resolved, That we expect such relationships will be characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God; and be it further
Resolved, That we denounce promiscuity, exploitation, and abusiveness in the relationships of any of our members; and be it further
Resolved, That this Church intends to hold all its members accountable to these values, and will provide for them the prayerful support, encouragement, and pastoral care necessary to live faithfully by them;

In 2003 General Convention reaffirmed this standard by Resolution No. 2003-C051:

3. That, in our understanding of homosexual persons, differences exist among us about how best to care pastorally for those who intend to live in monogamous, non-celibate unions; and what is, or should be, required, permitted, or prohibited by the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church concerning the blessing of the same.
4. That we reaffirm Resolution D039 of the 73rd General Convention (2000), that "We expect such relationships will be characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God," and that such relationships exist throughout the church.

Worth following up Giles F's question about +Akinola; and widening it to ask to what extent the present fascination with gay relationships is a result of unresolved attitudes towards lesbian and (mainly) gay people in Africa and among conservative Evangelicals in the US and UK? The "Christian gay sexual ethic" is precisely identical to the "Christian straight sexual ethic" - i.e. sex in loving relationships as a celebration of God's love - so perhaps there's a connection between people who have a problem with that and people who haven't come to terms with lesbian and gay people as ordinary members of society and the church? Or with their own experiences or desires?

I object to the tacit assumption made here, unchallenged that diverse relationships, including open relationships are unethical. It depends upon a person's ethical sensibilities and sense of call. Different relationships and set-ups meet the spiritual and other needs of different people, also our needs may differ across the life cycle. Love and its demands and commitments take many forms. "Different strokes for diffrent folks!"

This is recognised in the lives, loves and practice(s) of straight folks. So please lets not get into make believe that most striaght people abstain from sex until they marry and then --bingo! Thats there lot for life ! I don't buy it. I do live amidst the straight world and have eyes and ears !

Many books have been written exploring gay relationhship and sexual ethics. By gays for gays.

Adrian Thatcher writes well on relationship and sex ethics for all.

I don't think many gays are going to be too keen on church input on gay realtioships and sexuality, until the Churches have accepted us, and egun their long and complex process of making good their damage and making reparation.

Jeffrey John certainly has, James.

And look at the thanks he got for it - stabbed in the back by a so called 'friend' who isn't up to his job.

[If this isn't going too far off-topic]

James,

I'm against a "gay sexual ethic" for the SAME reason I'm against "gay marriage".

No, I'm for the ONE sexual ethic---as I'm for the ONE marriage (Christian marriage)---for ***same- and opposite-sex couples alike***!

No "heavy-lifting", of theology or morality, has to be done here. All that's needed, is for the Church to STOP SLAMMING THE DOORS on gay people/gay couples, to the *common sacramental life* already going on.

I honestly don't understand, James, why you see this as so complicated. :-/

[Now, if you believe that *heterosexual sexual ethics* needs further explanation---and then BY EXTENSION to same-sex sexual ethics---I'd be interested in hearing your views. But NOT some "special" ethics for gay couples: that's emphatically not necessary!]

James:

Why should it be a "'gay' sexual ethic"? Why not just a "sexual ethic"? Ethical sexuality is not dependent on orientation, is it?

Looks like Ruthie's trying to get Tunde's job!

Peter Akinola and Bob Duncan both had very troubled childhoods. I believe Duncan had an alcoholic father, a sister who lived part of her life as a lesbian (NPR interview) etc... Akinola's being fatherless, almost given over as a sacrifice for a potion etc..then finding God seem to point to something very interesting. The church somehow saved them. It gave them a way out of their pain and put them on a new path. It gave them a new life and purpose. I wonder how many other of these orthodox Anglicans had similar experiences?

It's sounds like, "you can't change the church, it's been my only constant." There is fear written all over so many of these people.

Just curious how these people come to this point.
Peace, Bob

James wrote: ”Has Bishop Robinson or Bishop Schori ever articulated a gay sexual ethic? Have they ever said what kind of homosexual behavior is, in fact, immoral? I haven't seen any clear-cut guidelines for gays spelled out anywhere by any bishop or group of bishops. What standards are gays held accountable to?”

Try the same as for all others?

It appears that hose who believe the Gospel speaks of equality between human beings before God under the Terebint, tend to think that this means that the same rules should apply to all, and that what’s wrong with the present situation is that this is not the case and haven’t been for quite some time (AD 1215).

James wrote: ”Maybe we won't ever convince Bishop Akinola, but maybe there are others who simply need to see a clear gay sexual ethic in order to be convinced of the possibility of gay marriage.”

I’m with Charlotte on this one. Not a chance.

To me, ”human sexuality” is just the pre-text, the ”presenting issue”, in a political bid to bring back the social ”realities” of the American 1950ies.

James wrote: ”Has anyone in the Church articulated a gay sexual ethic?”

Unless you actually believe in social re-subordination, along hierarchic, colonial and racist lines, I cannot see the need for such a thing.

David Virtue of Venomonline for one has written extensively of a troubled childhood in a dysfunctional family.

Otherwise, one of the reasons why I am fond of the Harry Potter books is the absence of quasi psychology.

The grown-ups don't go about pitying him, but see him as he is and takes for granted that he is NOT a "victim" but a human being able to cope.

To me that's Gospel.

Reading what +Akinola tells from his childhood, makes me think of San Pietro Damiano (*1007 +1073), who an infant was exposed in the woods but saved from the swine by a serf, later sent to school by 2 of his elder siblings, and went on to invent (and persecute) the abstract crime of "sodomia".

Only 1/4 of victims of abuse recover, they say. 3/4 continue to abuse others.

Dan, thank you for that cut'n'paste from 'freerepublic.com.' I have not yet traced any more reputable source of your story, perhaps you could let us know what it is?

In the absence of corroborating evidence, the claim that "as a young man ..... he narrowly escaped being a victim of a ritual sacrifice. His body parts were to be made into “concoctions”, he said, and sold", should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt. It is certainly something that could have strong impact on the subsequent development of a child. On the other hand, I have known various individuals who have vividly described dramatic earlier lives: not all of these descriptions proved to be entirely accurate. If true, it would certainly be strong corroboration from the horse's mouth of the "pagan rooted" comment by Pluralist that has come in for a certain amount of scrutiny in recent posts.

On another tack, while Akinola's anti-gay rhetoric has been the principal focus of attention hereabouts, I find his February 2006 statement, issued during Nigerian Muslim riots subsequent to the "Mohamed cartoons" uproar, even more chilling, given its potential for inciting widespread civil violence. "May we at this stage remind our Muslim brothers that they do not have the monopoly of violence in this nation". That Akinola issued this statement in his capacity as President of the Christian Association of Nigeria may be one reason - and a good one - why he was not re-elected to the post.

"stabbed in the back by a so called 'friend' "

interesting. I see it as Jeffrey emulating St. Chad. What you see as persecution of him by someone else, I see as saintly Christian humility on his part. Both played a part,of course. No doubt the AbofC put pressure on him to step down. But why focus on an act of betrayal by one person, rather than the saintly response of another? Others choose to focus on the AbofC exercising his authority and putting the "liberals" in their place for once. Why do that either?

"you can't change the church, it's been my only constant"

Funnily enough, more or less the theme of my St. Thomas' Day homily. There has to be pastoral care of those who say to the Lord, "Grant me just this one certainty, THEN I'll follow" (and I guess we all have that tendency somewhere within us - as +Truro says, 'everyone's a fundamentalist about something'), and our gracious Lord appears as the servant at such times — but whether that lust for certainty can be made to square with the NT or with Christian tradition - that's a separate matter.

(FWIW the context was the local Servers' Guild office - constitutionally bound to reject the ordination of women, I had the jolly job of informing them that one of their female members begins training for the priesthood in the autumn!)

Goran:

Your numbers are pretty spot on. I have worked in special settings teaching socially emotionally disturbed children, many of whom have been sexually abused as well as physically and mentally abused. No matter how we do in theraputic treatment only a few ever seem to really recover.
I'm guessing but maybe 20% will be able to live a normal life. Of the rest the vast majority will be haunted and tormented. A large majority will be abusers. I've even saw this starting to manifest itself as soon as the victim is removed from the abuse and can find a victim (even within months of being removed from their abuser).

As far as the "he doth protest too much," statement. I've heard it suggested that Bob Duncan might be a bit sexually confused and one of our diocesan very pro network priest is an ex-homosexual. He is grossly obesse, has many kids, is very anti gay and the most miserable, mean-spirited man I've ever met. Food is a substitute and my guess are the brood of children are a "look and see, I'm cured," sign.

Just some thoughts.
Bob

The ethical and religious alternative to legacy condemnation and deadly rule-bound celibacies, at least for the overlapping queer communities, has never, never been Anything Goes.

That spin doctored notion is a key piece of false witness against the queer communities, borne mostly from afar - and what social distances these are - by conservative believers loudly telling us what they still think the queer communities believe.

The legacy presuppositions start off defining all things human and queer as immoral, so you get back some credits for not acting on your feelings, but in daily life's truths, not much - in conservative circles. Unless, maybe, invisibility and silence are among your highest forms of spiritual-salvation blessing.

Core ethics in the queer communities typically involve centers of value, organized around honesty, fairness, informed consent, equality, courage, and care.

To have conservative believers hissing, Sodomy, and Abomination, at people who live these center of value in their daily lives is so close to false witness that I can hardly drive a knife's edge of presuppositional holiness in between the difference between what conservative believers so often say about queer folks, and bald-faced, outright lying.

Is anybody else tired of having to reply to conservative realignment believers, like Akinola in some remarks reported by Gledhill, who just hasn’t yet done all of his homework?

Read Jack Rogers, and Gray Temple and a whole host of others – then let’s talk.

Read the published science about the many ethical and practical human competencies of queer folks, then let’s talk.

Akinola needs prayer not more power over others - and a big, big, big reading list, and a couple years off to work through it all in small group conversation with at least one social scientist, one mother of a gay son or lesbian daughter, one partnered life same sex couple who are parenting, and a clown juggler accordionist bartender for break times.

Our sexual ethic upholds an ideal - that all genital sexual expression occurs in the context of loving an committed relationships with the intention of faithfulness, permanence and mutual respect.

For heterosexuals, we call that relationship marriage. We are still debating what this means, practically, for homosexuals.

That said, we are pragmatic enough to realize that all people will live up to that ideal at all times. Just like every other area of human life and experience, people fall short. Our response to this is (or should be) pastoral.

Why can't you just say, "If you're gay, you get to have sex with just one person, your lifelong partner"?

Straight Christians understand that, however they might stumble, the ideal is sex with just their partner, for as long as they both shall live.

I fear that there are those who twist words like "fidelity" and "monogamy" to mean emotional bonding, and not sexual exclusivity.

I look forward to the day when Bishop Robinson or Bishop Schori or Archbishop Williams says, "Gay or straight--you are only allowed one sexual partner for life. That's it. Deal with it. If you choose something else, you're sinning."

Bishop Akinola might not agree, but he'd be impressed that at least we were confronting people with their sinfulness. In fact, I hope one day that Bishop Akinola sees the holiness in lifelong, sexually exclusive gay relationships--and has the guts to confront those who want to bless sinful forms of gay behavior.

"Bishop Akinola might not agree, but he'd be impressed that at least we were confronting people with their sinfulness. In fact, I hope one day that Bishop Akinola sees the holiness in lifelong, sexually exclusive gay relationships--and has the guts to confront those who want to bless sinful forms of gay behavior. "

James, I agree with you but the options for many gays is not as simple as it is for heterosexuals.
Normal dating in high school isn't normal for most GLBT youth. Education is almost non-existant. GLBT youth don't have the same experiences or the same playing field of that of heterosexual children. In many smaller towns, gay clubs/bars are of the beaten track, with no windows etc.. Meeting people is difficult at best. There are so many obstacles faced by young GLBT people.

Mind you I'm not defending promiscuity but we have to understand the dynamics of the situation.

Bob

"Gay or straight--you are only allowed one sexual partner for life."

eh....apart from the fact that I really don't understand this hang up about sex.... will "till death do us part" no longer apply? No second marriage afterwards? No divorce at any price?

Fidelity and monogamy are really the only way to express what we actually mean.

It is always tragic to hear of others' childhood suffering, particularly when it is extreme.

Goran's comment was poignant. What researchers are also finding is that a lot of souls who go on to abuse were also abused in their own childhood. Mind you, some souls are just bad apples and do bad things because their brains emotional intelligence wiring is extremely faulty, no matter how perfect their upbringing.

One problem is that souls who were badly abused often try to create a very safe environment when they grow up. There are very few souls who experienced traumatic childhoods who can go on to accept ambiguity and risk as an inevitable part of the human experience. They often try to dissassociate from the human level of reality and fantasize of living in a reality where bad things no longer happen.

One of my problems with extreme poverty, violence or inequity is that such souls do not cope with these conditions. Souls will do really stupid things to get out of the ghettos. Souls who can not get out do really stupid things because they are simply overwhelmed. They are thus victims as much as perpetuators.

The really sad cases are those who are terrified of finding themselves in unsafe conditions and thus attempt to deprive "unsafe" souls access to themselves. They can end up with a bogeyman issue, where they are genuinely frightened to inter-relate with others that they fear e.g. someone who looks like their pedophilic uncle. If the abuse is done on church grounds, the souls may later have an anathema to moving within churches or their communities.

Bob in SW PA,

You do display an extraordinary lack of love.

Your comments re: Bishop Duncan are cheap and beneath this site. Same for your mean cracks at an overweight man and Bishop Akinola. Mean spirited speculation without a shred of Christian charity.

We all fall short. We all have wounds. But to speculate without facts about a man who just might be doing what he believes he is called to do by God is beyond the pale.

Good grief. Peter Akinola has pushed for the world's worst Gay law, which would imprison two Gay people for having lunch together, just in case they were planning to organize.

Americans who support this impostor deserve all the public derision headed their way. CANA will collapse in a cloud of toxic dust.

Interesting to study Akinola's body language in the youtube video of his interview -- he is so animated and emphatic that you could scarcely pursue a calm logical argument with him.

I think you have it there Fr Joe.

In a nutshell!

Harvard man

Your right! I don't have the facts. I only have hearsay and comments made by Akinola and Duncan. I can only speculate about what motivates Bob Duncan but he has a queer pre-occupation with homosexuality as does Akinola. Maybe you should listen to an interview Duncan did with Terri Gross (all things considered) on the NPR website. You might change your tune. As for the obese priest, in many cases obesity can be sign of some deeper troubles. If your a "reformed homosexual" good for you. Don't think what cured you cures everyone. Personally, I'm not buying the man is cured or happy (he's never come across that way and has a terrible disposition toward gays. You'd think there would be more understanding and compassion.

If your offended, you have my apologies but I think the "cure" has been disproven.

Connoisseurs of Ms Gledhill's objective journalism will enjoy the blog, posted yesterday, on Ann Holmes Redding, the Seattle-based ordained Christian/Muslim hybrid, whose story, floating the Internet this last three or four weeks, has now been picked up by Gledhill. After noting some recent news, that "Geralyn Wolf, the Bishop of Rhode Island, where Redding is canonically resident, has suspended her from exercising her ministry for a year", she continues "What will happen when the year is up though? A flash of inspiration hits me. She will be consecrated to the episcopate. What a great "first" that would be for TEC - the world's first Anglican Muslim Woman Bishop."

Great stuff, Ms. Gledhill. "Flash of invention", you mean. Keep this up and your boss may be promoting you to Fox ("Fair and Balanced") News. Which brings me back to the question that I asked yesterday - who bankrolled the Abuja trip, and with what agenda?

http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2007/07/the-tec-woman-p.html

Bob,

Thank you for your measured response to my perhaps overly hot post.

Many find Christ heals in ways beyond human comprehension. He is 'the cure'. Certainly many have found he can make them whole of deep dark sins. And in my and many traditional understandings, that includes sexual drives outside of traditional marriage, in all forms.

I think my biggest issue with what I see as the agenda of ECUSA is that by affirming same sex relationships, those who struggle with ssa and feel it is not godly are invalidated in their struggle to heal, such as by your dismissive comments.

We have two irreconcilable positions, you and I. And that is the challenge in our church. I understand this as a scriptural authority issue that leads to freedom if honored, you see it as a human justice issue on its face.

I don't doubt your beliefs are heartfelt and genuine, and I ask you accept the same from me. I just don't see that we'll agree.

For me to stay true to my understanding of the Gospel, I believe the church should remain true to scripture and the faith as it has been handed down, in this case specifically re: sexual relationships as holy only with marriage and marriage is man and woman.

It is not for me to tell you to believe otherwise, but I do believe I am supposed to help protect the church from bending away from its scriptural basis and yeilding to secular pressures.

Oddly, it looks like that means those like me have to eventually leave ECUSA as it is being taken to a place foreign, and directly in conflict with our beliefs. It is odd that the reappraisers are not the ones to leave, but that just seems to be the way this will play out.

To your point about the traditionalists like Duncan being preoccupied with sexuality, well this is the issue that is the wedge being driven into the church. So it doesnt' seem unusual that he focuses on that wedge.

Talk of ssa is balderdash, the stuff of self-hating gays a la CourageMan or John Heard. It has no anthropological or psychological validity, but is an invention of bullying fundamentalists, who will then propose their snake-oil cure -- and we have seen where that leads to -- Ted Haggard, Exodus whose founders are now publicly apologizing etc. etc.

Duncan et al. deserve the ridicule they are receiving. Their posturing about godliness is so fake! It is they who have fastened on gayness as the wedge issue, cultivating the "extraordinary obsession" denounced by Desmond Tutu. In doing so they have behaved as heresy hunters stumbling over shibboleths rather than pastors listening to their flock.

Harvardman,
I don't understand you. You accept that Bob's views on sexuality are different from yours and you ask us to accept that yours will not change.
That's fine.

But why do you allow others to make this a defining wedge issue that may cause you to leave ECUSA?

Why accept their evaluation of this issue as the one that separates the sheep from the goat?
Why not live side by side, agreeing to disagree?

After all, there must be hundreds of other points of faith you and your fellow worshipers disagree with.

This is only divisive if you make it so.

Erika,

Thank you for your thoughtful post. It is one thing to agree to disagree personally. It is another to accept changes to the teachings of the church, teachings that appear to contradict scripture and the 2000 years of our faith, as I understand it. I am still here because I don't want to leave. And its not only sexuality, but a much broader sense that this church has abandoned the faith that makes me feel I'll eventually have to leave. For now, my local church seems to remain immune from ECUSA wanderings, so I remain in support of the clergy and for the teaching and preaching and fellowship.

I don't agree it's only divisive if I let it be so. It seems to me it's only divisive if the church teaching and doctrine change in a manner that seems inconsistent with scripture and tradition, yeilding to reason only. Not how our faith has been founded and honored.

Spirit of Vatican, I will say a prayer that your meanness is healed. Lots of angry and condescending words in your post, not 'thinking anglican' like.

And Exodus aside, there are many clergy who can speak to individuals struggling with ssa who find peace, healing and grace in Jesus. Let's leave them that option, ok?

Harvard Man wrote: "I think my biggest issue with what I see as the agenda of ECUSA is that by affirming same sex relationships, those who struggle with ssa and feel it is not godly are invalidated in their struggle to heal..."

And exactly how many are they?

(Remember, numbers is the game!)

Ref question: Who bankrolled the trip.
No-one 'bankrolled' it.
The Times is paying for it, or will do, when I've got around to submitting my expenses. I can't do that until I've obtained all the relevant receipts, which I hope to do next week sometime.
Ruth

Just curious, Ms. Gledhill, in light of one of your February explanations, re your absence from the Dar es Salaam primates' conference, that the Times is "generally unwilling to finance" this kind of thing. In the current climate, it's hard not to see a political aspect - one that is wider than your personal interest - in this sudden Akinola saturation. Incidentally, having viewed the videos again, I do owe you one apology relative to a posting above - the coherent accounts that you have extracted from the Archbishop's somewhat free-ranging interview style must have been quite a labour.

For the benefit of interested TA readers, your video of the Archbishop and his alleged childhood threat of human sacrifice, which I cannot find in the links above, has been posted by you on YouTube (many thanks). I think that many who view it will, like me, find Akinola's claims on this point less than wholly convincing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8Pald1s9-U

More on Harvard Man's statement that by TEC's "affirming same sex relationships, those who struggle with ssa and feel it is not godly are invalidated in their struggle to heal...". By analogy, this is parallel to stating, of ECUSA's participation in the Civil Rights Movement of the 50's and 60's, that by supporting Civil Rights the Church invalidated the struggle to heal of such African Americans as might actually have believed themselves to be racially inferior. It will come as no surprise to readers of this page that the only gay acceptable to some "Christian" groups is the self-hating, "Uncle Tom" gay, but Harvard Man's statement is preposterous, steeped in a now-discredited psychology discarded by the APA more than a quarter of a century ago. Those who struggle with the belief that their same sex attraction is ungodly need to be "healed" by the realization that there is nothing ungodly in their orientation - that their lives should not be twisted into accommodation with an interpretation of a Bronze Age taboo that is questionable at best.

Yes, the reason I didn't go to Dar es Salaam was partly due to cost. It would have meant too long out of the office, not just the five days I was in Nigeria. But I have to confess I didn't really lobby hard to go. One reason was that I find it difficult to cope with the stress of limited or no official access, combined with intolerable technical communications difficulties. It was bad enough in Dromantine. Talk to anyone who went to Tanzania and they had a nightmare. My experience of Lambeth 1998 taught me that in every sense, I cannot cope with that kind of stress. I did not want to have a nervous breakdown and so decided to cover the conference from home. The other reason was my young son, who had just started school and hates it when I go away. I went to Rome in November and knew that Nigeria was a possibility, and wasn't prepared to be away for three times this year, so had to make a choice. Frankly, it was not a difficult choice. I have to confess though, Nigeria has given me the travel bug again. It was an amazing trip. After Abuja, I went to Jos for a few days. I'm hoping to write about it soon. I do now realise that there is nothing like being in a place to understand it properly. I probably will try and go to the next Primates' meeting as a result of that. (And also as a result of the criticism I got here and elsewhere for not going.)

Thanks, Lapin, for your ever so Christian response. So sure of yourself, so condescending of another viewpoint. No respect for a timeless Gospel message and the possibility of what it may do for others.

A Thinking Anglican. Not much of a Loving one, from my perspective.

Race is not sexual orientation. One is clearly given. The other is arguably not, from a psychological and religious viewpoint. I ask for that discussion to remain open, you want it closed by forcing your agenda.

lapin and harvard: watch it please...

Harvard Man wrote: "No respect for a timeless Gospel message..."

The Gospel is not "timeless". The Gospel is Time, change; a new Creation.

Alexandrian Philosophy/Gnosticism is, though. The Highest Being is changeless, un-reachable, un-touchable. A-pathia and the rest.

God is the contrary to all this.

Change, though the great horror of heathen Philosophers, is God's way of working with and being with his Creation. Read the Bible - and you'll see.

The Gospel is Change; change to the un-Righteous hierarchic structures of this World; of Society. Change to individuals who promote greed and hate, denigration and subordination.

"Race is not sexual orientation. One is clearly given. The other is arguably not, from a psychological and religious viewpoint. I ask for that discussion to remain open, you want it closed by forcing your agenda."

In the meantime, Harvardman, please be aware that you are not talking merely about a theological issue, but about real people with real feelings.

It's hard to be unbiased when the shouts from all sides are "you don't count, you're a sinner, you will be excluded".
This is not an even discussion, so please be a little understanding when our emotions get the better of us and anger, tears and frustration spill out into print.

Ms. Gledhill, you did list all your reasons for not attending Dar es Salaam in your February "Times" piece. I was guilty of partisan "editing" in listing only the one, which was v. naughty of me. Sorry! Neat performance of "The Twist" by your son on YouTube. Roger

On this one, harvard man, I am, as you observe, sure of myself. As to how loving, perhaps we should let others, less involved in this than ourselves, judge which of us is the more charitable on the issue.

"Arguably not" - see my earlier "now-discredited psychology" comment. The analogy is a fair one.

"Timeless Gospel". One gets a little tired of having to constantly go round and round on this one. Remind me again where in the Gospels Our Lord condemns homosexuality.

Apology appreciated but unnecessary. As a journalist, how often I wonder have I been 'guilty' of selective quotation? I rely on people such as you to haul me up and make me better at a job I hope do be doing for another 20 years. Maybe I should have gone to Dar, maybe I should have gone harder on CAN with Dr Akinola. (I don't really have a good excuse on that one, except I was still suffering from terrible travel sickness and something else as well I suspect - another reason why I go abroad as little as possible - I am such a bad traveller and always get very ill indeed in foreign parts - and I was following a specific brief from my bosses at The Times not to make it all too 'Church Times', to focus on the person rather than the politics. There was also limited time with him. CAN did come up, but I got the impression that he was anticipating his retirement in 18 months and so another period in office with CAN would not have been practical.) It has all been a learning experience, but the interview, whatever its merits and faults, has certainly generated a good debate. And I enjoyed very much meeting him and having the chance to talk to him. I fail to see why, if the interview showed that pleasure, that is a bad thing. I am no Lynn Barber. We in journalism are always being condemned for being too negative but here I do something positive and get attacked for it! But I don't mind that of course. What I do object to is the fact that KJS has never responded to my request to do a similar piece with her, submitted at the same time I put in a request for an interview with Dr Akinola. I offered to fly out to the US to see her as well. And I would try and do a similar bottle-half-full job on her as well, I find her really interesting. And as for RW, well I've completely given up any hope of getting an interview from him and am looking forward to maybe having better luck with his successor.

"The other is arguably not, from a psychological and religious viewpoint. I ask for that discussion to remain open, you want it closed by forcing your agenda."
See, Harvard Man, this is why the Church urged listening for so long. If conservatives had actually listened to gay people, they would know how wrong this is. But then, they would have to change their assessment of us as evil rebels against God who, if we prayed hard enough, would be brought back by Him into heterosexual health. Well, many of us HAVE prayed hard enough, Harvard Man, and the only answer we got, some of us, was the firm assurance that God loves us anyway, regardless of whether conservatives want to hear that or not. If you are going to make statements like this, then any other statements you make about homosexuality are going to be understood to come from the same place of ignorance. And please don't cite the "ex-gay: people as examples of change. The price of that kind of "change" is that many will be driven to suicide, and the "success rate" is far less than fifty percent. As a physician, I can tell you, any drug that had a significantly high death rate while affording significantly less than a 50% cure rate would not be approved as therapy.

From Ruth G's post: "CAN did come up, but I got the impression that [Akinola] was anticipating his retirement in 18 months and so another period in office with CAN would not have been practical."

One is moved to wonder, then, why he went to such lengths in order to retain the ever so impractical post.