Abp Akinola's rhetoric is based on false premises, and this means that no matter how noisily he makes his case it is doomed to fail -- but not before it has done a great deal of damage to the Church and to gay Christians struggling to survive in what appears to be a climate of brutal homophobia.

Just to sample one paragraph of his diatribe:

"In Lambeth Palace, we met as Primates, we could not share in the Lord's Supper. It is as that bad. As Primates and Archbishops, we could not share in the Lord's Supper - the highest and most important service in our church. So, what is left of the church then? It happened in two other places like that again and again, because the faith once delivered to the saints has been abandoned as far as we are concerned. All we are saying is that, look you don't have a monopoly of homosexuals in your community. They are in Africa, they are in Abuja here and everywhere, but we don't celebrate it for God's sake. Our duty is to counsel people that are involve in it. To pray with them guide and advise them until they will come back to their senses. Many who have this problem have been healed world over. [FALSE] It is an acquired syndrome. [FALSE] But they say no, it is not an acquired syndrome, it is the way they are made. But we say no to that. God did not make a mistake in creation. God did not make a mistake in creating a man and a woman and they cannot re-create what God has already created."

God is not in the image and likeness of Akinola's barren know-nothingism, thank God.

"that position is for us un-African, inhuman, unscriptural"

Inhuman. There now.

"they thought that as Africans, we don't know what we are doing;"

Gives a bit of insight into what drives him, it ain't just Scripture.

"Our duty is to counsel people that are involve in it."

In between the times when their cell mates are beating them, they being in jail because we put them there.

"Many who have this problem have been healed world over."

See, it'd be so much harder to argue against the man if he didn't come out with this sort of nonsense. I guess it shows the degree of "listening" he did. No, NP, he wasn't called to agree, but if he had listened, he would actually not be falling for this kind of garbage.

"They had us as human slaves, political slaves and economic slaves. They want to come for spiritual slaves"

And there it is. How much of the "adherence to Scripture" argument is just a cover for this, I wonder?

`we have made several efforts in Lambeth Palace, and other places, at reconciliation,'

What, like ad-hominem attacks on other provinces (calling them `cancerous lumps'), or by instituting CANA, the parasitic organization to suck people out of TEC?

Glad to see somebody's use of the English language is worse than mine. But I'm not a "professional" news reporter.

So ++Akinolla & Co. are fearing we'll send +VGR and Davis-Maciyalla as his acolyte to ordain new priests in Nigeria.

We could, but we won't.

Reckon +Minns had to wear a bulletproof vest at his consecration?

The interview with Akinola has infuriated me. I don't intend to have my life or conscience dictated to by someone on the other side of the world who never met me. I'll be part of no religion at all before I'll be made a slave to his autocratic dictate.

"Essentially, it is not a parliament; it is not a legislative body, it doesn't have any constitutional power, it does not have power to take decision for anybody ..... the meeting is consultative and advisory."

Thus spake Ab'p Akinola on the subject of Lambeth. Those who continually do cry "Lambeth 1:10", please note.

What a report!

_with the admission of people who practise homosexuals as priests and even bishops in the church_

There must be gay support groups all around the West who are training their members to become priests. The Churches must be finding these a great recruiting ground.

We learn that the Lambeth Conference is to be a platform to assess the impact of this division. Obviously a few study groups will be set up.

Has any Church sent homosexual priests to America? The report says:
_who are opposed to the churches with homosexual priests in America_
Apparently this is of concern to Nigerian members.

Some time between the sixteenth century and now the Church of England, the one that broke away from the Catholic Church, became the official Church. I'm just revising my history.

As for the interview:

I've got five wives. Local community: can I be baptised if I won't add any more?

As for the American Church:
_has been ex-communicated as it were or orstracised_

On homosexuals:
_pray with them guide and advise them until they will come back to their senses.... God did not make a mistake in creation._

_I tell you, we would have closed our church in Nigeria in shame._
Doesn't bear thinking about.

Can we suggest that we excommunicate Akinola? That the "baffling" Rowan Williams indeed realises that there is no plaster that will stretch across to such plain and simple institutionalised bigotry? No one would want to put Akinola and what he leads into "spiritual slavery". He is free to remove the chains and walk free elsewhere. No dangled carrots, no money - just go. Clear isn't it - he's not coming to Lambeth.

_So what is his [Bishop Martyn Minns] offence?_
Try the idea that a Nigerian bishop is organising American congregations.

_five huge parishes voted to join CANA_
Any news?
_One of their leaders said they have set aside over eight billion dollars to fight us_
Wow!

_decided to be part of CANA.... - who is who in Washington DC_
Yes: I think they are called fantasists.

And...

_If there is rain they blame God_

Actually we have grown up. We don't. The bishop who came nearest to that was ridiculed.

Homosexual Priests: Nigerian Anglicans Will Not Succumb To Pressure From The West, Says Akinola

+Akinola is the one putting pressures on the West to deny their belief and what they stand for. Homosexuality is never a choice at least not for me and my members.

I am glad to read that what + Akinola has previously claimed is unknown in African and indeed Nigeria is now being acknowledged as common in Abuja.

Those who are working on a split and separation should not forget that if indeed a split happens it will lead to a more liberal Anglican church to start in countries like Nigeria.

Don’t forget you can never claim to be Anglican if you are not in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

++Peter Jasper Abuja really excels at blowing his own trumpet:

"CANA doing very well even though it is also undergoing a very huge legal battle with ECUSA (the Episcopal Church in America). One of their leaders said they have set aside over eight billion dollars to fight us and I said that is very good, because I don't even have eight naira to fight them. But I know it is God's own battle and we will overcome. But we also continue to salute the courage of the people in America, who have seen that their spirituality is hampered by continuing to be part of ECUSA and they have decided to be part of CANA. These people are not just ordinary Americans; they are leaders and well recognised people - who is who in Washington DC."

Eight billion U.S. Dollars set aside by TEC to fight those disaffected Episcopalians leaving for CANA and stealing the silver on the way out?

And the Washington elite are siding with CANA?

Yes, George W. meets with the Nework bishops; but even George W. and war-monger Dick Cheney are closer to impeachment than ever before. Attorney General Gonzales, often mentioned as a CANA Truro congregant, may face charges for lying to the U.S. Congress about George W's attempts to subvert U.S. citizens' civil liberties in Bush's War against Terror.

Hardly the Washington elite!

Not exactly the essence of unbiased, independent journalism, as evidenced by the very first sentence:

"The Primate of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), Most Rev. Peter Akinola has manifested as a lone voice in the crusade against the attempt to re-write the scripture by some Anglicans in Europe and South America, with the admission of people who practise homosexuals as priests and even bishops in the church."

The journalist is accepting Akinola's premise--that those who oppose him are attempting to "re-write the scripture"--and working from that position from the outset.

++Akinola is not the issue.......
he, like many others, in fact the majority in the AC, including many bishops and archbishops, wants the agreed positions of the church to be honoured by those would claim to be faithful members of the AC.

"... the Lambeth Conference is the gathering of Anglican Bishops .... it is not a parliament; it is not a legislative body, it doesn't have any constitutional power, it does not have power to take decision for anybody .... So the meeting is consultative and advisory."

Now what was that about Lambeth 1:10?

Still, it's a sort of progress, isn't it? Now he's saying that there ARE gay Nigerians/Africans.

That's sort of toning down on the fascist notes.

I'm serious.

It is quite important.

I know he's still a fascist, vile homophobe who would put Jesus off Christianity if he started thinking about it critically on an off day, but we need to hold onto the fact that he has acknowledged that lgbtq people are everywhere. And his Oh, so holy presence has not been able to make them all go 'swumph' up in a pink cloud with glitter and choirs of campest angels.

To state what has been stated before - no one in the West has been pressuring Nigeria to ordain gay priests. ++Akinola has only received a few light wrist slaps for supporting viciously inhuman legislation, for procedural violations (border crossings), and for uncharitably absenting himself from the Lord's Table. The pressure, in fact, has all been in the other direction. (Did you notice, we've all been excommunicated by him? When did the ABC assign him that power? "... [I]t means that the other group has been ex-communicated as it were or ostracised [sic] and you are not in fellowship with them any more until that communion is restored.")

This interview should be preserved as an utterly classic instance of spin-doctoring at its most hypocritical. Just state the exact opposite of what you know to be the case, flashing the press your best smile of aggrieved tolerance. ++Akinola, poor humble martyr that he makes himself out to be, would have made a great character in a Dickens novel - Uriah Heep and Pecksniff have nothing on him.

"In Lambeth Palace, we met as Primates, we could not share in the Lord's Supper. It is as that bad. As Primates and Archbishops, we could not share in the Lord's Supper - the highest and most important service in our church."

Yes he could have shared in the Lord's Supper. It was not that they "could not" but, rather, that they chose not to share in the Lord's Supper. It was their free choice. The Table was and always is open to Abp. Peter and his followers.
Lois Keen

This is a fascinating comment for several points. First, I'm fascinated by the great length Archbishop Akinola goes to in explaining the limitations of Lambeth Conferences, and the limitations of Lambeth's authority in speaking to autonomous provinces.

Second, it becomes clear that the Archbishop's concern is as much about American "cultural imperialism" as it is about the actions of the Episcopal Church. To write off the discussions of the past generation within the Episcopal Church as capitulation to a permissive culture is disingenuous at best, since I know he's not simply ignorant.

Third, and as a corollary, the concept of "spiritual slavery" is simply bizarre. All that the Episcopal Church has asked is respect for the culture within which we preach the Gospel, just as we seek to respect the cultures in which he and others work. He acknowledges that the Episcopal Church and other Anglican churches in "the West" function as minorities, with no control of the cultures around us. How then can we be blamed for "imperialism" or efforts at "spiritual slavery" by a culture we do not control? He has ignored our efforts to challenge our own culture, because we have not challenged the issue of critical importance to him in the way he would wish.

NP said,
"he, like many others, in fact the majority in the AC, including many bishops and archbishops, wants the agreed positions of the church to be honoured by those would claim to be faithful members of the AC."

Exactly! Why to prog-libs even care about retaining Anglicanism? Their actions show little to no respect for the tradition when they reject Scripture and the formularies, qualify the creeds and willingly take actions that go against the position of the global Communion as expressed in decades of Lambeth resolutions. Cripes, the TEC primate is an outright pluralist!

Lambeth I.10 reaffirms the orthodox view of human sexuality no less than four times and while only calling for the church to listen (no process is established!) once. The admonition for loving pastoral care and affirmation of salvation is obvious, no doubt, and the orthodox can do more to show love to gay Christians. But emphasis on listening is nowhere near the emphasis on Biblical sexual ethics.

I am amazed by the reference to the full acceptance of gays as "inhuman"? The first step to genocide is to reduce another group to non-human status. That statement really scares me. Doubly so that it came from an archbishop. Frightening!

NP, ++Akinola may not be your issue, but you may have noticed, not everyone agrees with you. The moderator chose to provide a link to an interview with him, and some of us would like to give our thoughts on it. Thank you so much for respecting our right to do so without being confronted with your almost identically worded objections every fifth post or so.

NP wrote: "++Akinola is not the issue......."

You keep repeating that.

Davis said: "Those who are working on a split and separation should not forget that if indeed a split happens it will lead to a more liberal Anglican church to start in countries like Nigeria."

In Canada and the US, the Church has taken legal action against those who propose to take the property with them when they leave.

When "liberals" in Nigeria leave the Akinolist Communion, I hope that they will resist the temptation to try and take the property with them.

Of course, even if they did, my Lord of Abuja would not need to sue them for the property. He'd be too busy trying to have them all thrown in jail for daring to say that gays may not be pure evil.

'Release your mind from Mental Slavery....'
Bob Marley classic song

"These people are not just ordinary Americans; they are leaders and well recognised people - who is who in Washington DC. So, we are encouraged and strengthened by what we see." Akinola

I'll tell ya, he's barking up the wrong sacred cow if he thinks he impressing anyone with "namedropping" this crowd of greedy murderous well/recognised persecuting pillagers and biggest liars on the earth . I truly think the Minns feedback (gush,gush) is going to blowup on +Akinola, that is, if Akinola is capable of facing the reality of the hideous and immoral mess he has made for his fellow Anglicans as Primate of Nigeria.

Akinola is correct. He will not be in communion with the TEC. It is an anathema for everything he has stood for. There are others in the same ilk. One thing I will give Akinola is that he is honest. There others who have worked longer, harder and more extensively on this issue than himself, but have a less public profile. God knows who they are, what they have done, where, when, how and why. Each will be dealt with appropriately.

The thing to do is to build each communion as healthily as possible. There might be a need to protect some souls as others make aggressive incursions. We will have to pray for some souls who we can not help at this stage, just as we pray for souls in Israel, Iraq and Palestine.

Each church will contribute to the building of their parishes, communities and nations. The fruits of the theology will become manifest in terms of how well they meet the needs of their citizens and neighbours, whether they resort to the sword or the plowhsharem, whether children can play safely in the streets, whether their economics is sustainable, whether there are human rights infringements.

Let the churches make manifest their love of their Jesus. The ripples of their theology will be seen by God, including whether abuse is kept hidden or voices suppressed so that souls can pretend they have the "better" church.

In reading the words of ++Akinola, I'm reminded of the 12-Step saying:

"Resentment is like drinking poison, but expecting someone ELSE to die."

No wonder ++Akinola never endorsed "the Listening Process". Listening might lead to working out conflicts . . . and he doesn't WANT to work anything out. He wants to HANG ONTO HIS RESENTMENT(S), at all costs. They are what give his life meaning.

++Akinola's resentments, and not Christ, are what he truly gives *highest worth* to (worships).

"Lambeth I.10 reaffirms the orthodox view of human sexuality no less than four times and while only calling for the church to listen (no process is established!) once."

Got you... So the rhythm here would be "Leviticus! Leviticus! Leviticus! Leviticus! Listen... Leviticus! Leviticus! Leviticus! Leviticus! Listen..."

Lambeth 1.10 was a triumph for the conservative wing of the church to be sure - a seemingly successful attempt to close down the discussion of sexual ethics that had been going on for several decades, engineered by people having difficulty coping with relatively new ideas ("The Lord doesn't mind if you're gay, just so long as you love")- difficulty they mistake for virtue. The triumph has been short-lived however, because apparently, there are quite a few Anglican Christians who don't share their views, and have been listening, studying and thinking long before somebody resolved that this might occasionally be done as a break from prooftexting. To say nothing of non-believers who look upon these debates with askance, and as a result don't feel the slightest impulse to ever set foot in a church. "For they'll know we are Christians by our love."

"For they'll know we are Christians by our love."

Perhaps one of the most hilarious of the "new hymns." How often have I heard people say they stopped going to church because of the lie of this hymn! And is it not also interesting that, far from having disobeyed Lambeth statements, TEC is now being demonized for actually DOING what successive Lambeth conferences have asked us all to do, and by those who didn't obey at that?

_Cripes, the TEC primate is an outright pluralist!_

I've been clericalised and promoted!

I understand that "Cripes" is an alternative exclamation to Christ.

Part two:

"These people are not just ordinary Americans; they are leaders and well recognised people - who is who in Washington DC. So, we are encouraged and strengthened by what we see." Akinola

Oh, I didn't notice or *recognize* them being present at the +Minns knighting/enthronement (or whatever it was) at that rented hall in Virgina...the fading "who's who" Akinola groupies must have had conflicting Grand Jury/Senate and/or upcoming Impeachment hearings to get "prepared" for.

choirboy (and Malcolm from yesterday).....you know that VGR's bulletproof vest was not necessary.....nobody attacked! All you are saying is that some were paranoid enough to make him wear protection....

Brian...yes, some here want to make ++Akinola the issue, I know, but I am more concerned with the AC and you may have noticed that the Windsor Report and the Tanzania Communinque were not responses to ++Akinola tearing the fabric of the Communion.....but do avoid the main issues if you like, I do not really mind as the AC is at last making progress towards a united Communion - bring on the end of Sept and bring on the Covenant for the AC!

"... the Windsor Report and the Tanzania Communinque were not responses to ++Akinola tearing the fabric of the Communion..."

They were meant to stop him doing it.

NP, because +Gene Robinson wasn't attacked in the course of his consecration service, that proves that the bullet-proof vest wasn't necessary?

You think +Gene's security advisers, choirboy and Malcolm are guilty of being paranoid, rather than accurate and realistic about the threats to +Gene's life 3 years ago?

I think that is a totally reprehensible thought, and you should be ashamed of allowing the idea to enter your head. You post continually to TA as if you alone occupy the moral and theological high ground, but write prejudice.

Davis Mac-Iyalla has received death threats by email and once by a hand written letter delivered to his place of work. Davis is living in exile from Nigeria and fears for his life. Is he paranoid?

He is even more fearful now, because of an event of extreme violence that took place two weekends ago.

One of his brothers has just been appointed as Commissioner by the Governor of Rivers State. After the swearing in ceremony which was held in the Mac-Iyalla family house in Port Harcourt, gun men invaded the house and started shooting at random. Twenty-three people were killed, including Davis’s cousin Opali who came from Abuja to attend the ceremony. His mother was shot in the leg and is still in hospital recovering. All 23 were related to Davis.

Davis’s elder brother, who has said he will kill Davis for starting CAN if he ever sets eyes on him, managed to escape as well as the brother who is appointed commissioner who was main target.

NP, I take the risk to people's lives very seriously, a risk that is being exacerbated by the prejudice against LGBT people underlying everything +Akinola and +Minns believe, and which Lambeth 1.10 gave them permission to adopt as Anglican teaching.

I condemn Lambeth 1.10 and the foul prejudice that gave birth to it.

Colin - I also take people's safety seriously but the point is that VGR was not attacked so why keep on talking about the precautions he took, on advice from others?

If he had been attacked, ++Akinola and +Duncan and all sane people in the AC would have been disgusted by the thought and the action - but nobody (thank GOD!) did attack him. Why keep on mentioning his bullet-proof vest??

In our discussion in the AC, it is really not relevant that a few mad people made threats of violence.....unless people want to create the impression that those threats had any backing from those opposing TEC's innovaitons in the AC. Is that why the "bullet-proof vest" is dusted down regularly and brought up around here??

Very sad that Davis' faces violence....but lots of people in Nigeria face violence every day eg Bishop Kwashi this week......so, unless you are saying ++Akinola or someone else in the AC is behind threats to Davis, again, it is not relevant to the debate. I am sure if you had any evidence against the Nigerian Archbishop, you would use it so I am confident that you and Davis cannot show anybody in the Church of Nigeria is behind the disgusing threats Davis gets!! ++Akinola met Davis in Tanzania....and did not threaten to kill him, did he? Did he not shake his hand?

Mad and bad people make threats of violence and carry out their threats sometimes.....bringing that up is I think intended to smear "conservatives" in the AC by trying to create some association - it does not work as it it is not TRUE to say conservatives in the AC support any violence against you, Davis or anyone else...

We do not want to hurt anyone....we just want vicars in the AC to keep to their vows and the agreed positions of the church (even if you yourself condemn them)

NP,
I'm not a regular commenter on here and not one of your usual sparring partners - but your comments about paranoia and unnecesary bulletproof vests leave me feeling sick and tearful at your ignorance.
Hate crime is an appalling fact of life - gun crime in the USA is an appalling fact of life. Risk assessments are made all the time and public figures have to act on them.
You suggest others' comments are out of proportion to reality? Look closer to home on that one.

Stephen - if you read what I say ....I am not diminishing the real violence that some face.
More than that, I oppose that violence and would have been outraged if anyone hurt VGR (I still would be)

I am questioning why, in the AC debate, some people keep on bringing up threats (which were not acted upon).....I am asking if this is to try and smear the conservative position on Lambeth 1.10 even though there is no proof that the threats come from anybody even in the AC.

To be clear.....if someone does not support VGR as a bishop it does NOT follow that they support threats of violence against him or anyone else.

"These people are not just ordinary Americans; they are leaders and well recognised people - who is who in Washington DC. So, we are encouraged and strengthened by what we see." Akinola

Well I wasn't going to bring it up, but seeing as Akinola did - the unspoken reason that Falls Church and Truro must take the property with them is because without the property they do not have the necessary barrings for those who they like to count amongst their number. I grew up in D.C. I know this group. This group is very self-important. They are not going to go to church in a hall. If CANA wants to compete for the minds and pockets of this group, they have to have to right digs. Without it, their influence is greatly compromised and so is their position on the world stage.

New definition of paranoia: if we didn't attack you today, that means we have never attacked you in the past nor never intend to attack you in the future. If we fail in attempting your murder, then we never threatened to murder you.

If we can drive you insane, then we don't have to worry about murdering you...

If you resort to sedatives or alcohol to cope with the non-existent threats or insults that may or may not have happened in the past, that merely proves you are from the "evil one". So it's okay that we break up your family, because they obviously need to be removed from your evil influence before they too are infected. If you need to resort to more sedatives or alcohol to cope with estrangement from your parish and/or family, then that's further proof of your insanity and the influence of the "evil one".

We, of course, are never culpible. We, of course, groom our parishioners to avoid the internet or conducting themselves in such a way as to leave verifiable evidence that anyone was ever threatened, or if evidence is to be found that it is completely spurious to assign blame to any particular individual.

Finding death threat letters and making accussations as to their source is obviously further proof of souls' paranoia. Americans are all conspiracy theorists and insane, obviously influenced by the "evil one" and excessively paranoid. We need to contain their infection before it spreads elsewhere.

After all, that is what Jesus wants us to do, or we wouldn't have been appointed priests or officers in his church.

Nor should we be disciplined or held to account for corruption, complacency, hypocrisy, deception, greed or maliciousness. Such accusations would only come from paranoid who are going to hell.

P.S. I believe in a just God. God would never rebuke a soul more than it deserves. Humans and naughty angels might. But God does not. I have faith that each and everyone is appropriately placed and treated in our afterlives commensurate with our conduct and motivations within this life.

"if someone does not support VGR as a bishop it does NOT follow that they support threats of violence against him or anyone else."

NP,
The rhetoric coming from the people who "do not support VGR" is absolutely venomous. We have seen here on TA this week an interview with +Akinola in which he uses words like "inhuman" to describe anything that is friendly to gay people, and couple those words with a pan-African politics that gives ready voice to justifiable African resentment over the evils of colonialism, making the West the enemy and he and his people the beleaguered defenders of Christianity against the "inhuman" defenders of the homosexuals. No, he doesn't call for violence. Others of his supporters HAVE called for us tobe stoned to death. Do you not see how this creates an environment in which this type of violence is to be expected? Do you not think a man called to be to the flock of Christ a shepherd, not a wolf, has a responsibility to be more circumspect in how he says what he wants to say?

Ford - yes, I do think he should be more careful with his words but as you say he does not call for violence.

You say his supporters have called for violence - who?

Gee NP, my last flight I took didn't get bombed, so I guess I didn't need to go through security.

"You say his supporters have called for violence - who?"
The guy who delivered a death threat to Davis, for one.

"...if someone does not support VGR as a bishop it does NOT follow that they support threats of violence against him or anyone else."

2 different things, I am afraid.

That it makes you incomfortable bringing it up, is reason enough. This because deep down you k n o w that your "conservative position on Lambeth 1998 I:10 does not add up.

Which means that you need to challenge your "conservative position on Lambeth 1998 I:10" for your own good and repent, NP.

Repent.

One is glad to have the lowest common denominator showed off in public, so baldly: biblical sexual ethics=trash talking queer folks=exclusive straight con-evo believer rights to the kingdom feast. I'll change my sexual orientation, maybe, six years after the good archbishop changes his, maybe. Thank you very, very, very much.

No matter how often more sophisticated narratives try to spin us away from this ground framing equation, claiming or at least hinting at all sorts of depths and subtleties, we always get a return to this basic plumb line of disgust, fear, and self-protection of exclusive straight privileges in church life, if not also by implication in wider cultural and planetary life.

Yet each of the signs of broken communion actively cited by AB Akinola was significantly instigated by him and/or by leaders very similar to him in the realignment campaign. Take note of this typical egregious spin: VGR and New Hampshire ex-communicated Nigeria by existing in good conscience, informed by decades of exacting inquiry and home diocesan studies, fleshed out by careful living, up close and personal, with the ministry of the elected candidate. In USA, we might call this, NIMBY theology - Not In My Back Yard. Let the queer folks gather somewhere else, if they know what is good for them. Yet notice the shift: Nigeria now admittedly has its own indigenous queer folks, Africans all, after all.

Inquiring minds wanna know: Does Akinola and his sort actually know any of those Nigerian competent queer folks - at school, at work, in their local home neighborhoods? Mostly doesn't sound like he does.

As for the much vaunted Lambeth 1.10, it must be read in the spin and rightwing campaign contexts which helped give it rise. It was hastily and specifically achieved to head off a more open commission report about to be delivered to Lambeth - and thereby to the whole communion for discussion, that would have been more accurate in its mention of the actual range of sincere Anglican thinking on sexual and embodiment issues. Thanks Lord Carey and con-evo believer friends.

Deliberate ignorance of the facts of queer human wholeness and competency=traditional religious authority.

I try not to respond to NP here but I do, as is evident. I noticed back in March (I was archiving) that Simon Sarmiento told people here not to refer to NP as a troll, though this has happened since, and I don't think he is.

However, he reminds me that there is not simply a "mind" of the communion, but that we have minds, and that the Anglican Church has rarely treated all its documents in the literalistic way he does and demands simply because of the theology which takes place that even, indeed, at times contradicts these documents. The Anglican Church is a Church of practices that takes its cue from these documents.

Nevertheless he slowly moves me to the view that there ought to be a split, and when there is perhaps he will then debate with those who go to his kind of Communion, wherever it ends up being centred, once this Communion becomes clearer in its relationship to these historic documents. I wonder if NP debates on the Anglican Mainstream discussion board, where he will find people agreeable, and he can develop his points in depth rather than like a cracked record, or is this place here just for him to lecture others? If it is no "fun" over at Anglican Mainstream, then he is behaving like a troll; I just think the debate between him and most others here is getting very stale. I would not say the same about other posters who seem to agree with him.

I would say that until we get to September and Lambeth 2008 the NPs of this world are going to be putting out their unchanging points to others who simply do not agree that his view is the nature of the Anglican Church.

On a slightly different note: the liberals will of course not be leaving the Church of Nigeria. There is no need for them to do so. There will be a brief contremps around the time of the Lambeth Conference, in which the present Archbishop will no doubt be involved, and then it will be time for him to retire. Replacing him might be the newly installed Six Preacher, Akinola's "counterpart" or "counterweight," according to Ruth Gledhill. Or it might be someone else. In any case, Peter Akinola cannot legally remain Archbishop of All Nigeria after his retirement date, which is soon. If he chooses to try to claim the office after his retirement date, of course he can do so, but he will have no right to claim it. And the Anglican Communion, including Nigeria and its new Archbishop, will move on.

NP,
Look at the "who is who" in Washington he so proudly claims as backing him. Look at their politics. Look at their funding. Look at the IRD. Follow the money. At the end of the trail, you will find people who advocate recriminalizing homosexuality, and one who advocates a return to the punishment defined under the Mosaic Law: stoning. Whatever your opinions on gay people, these are your bedfellows, and they are not as lenient even as you. Besides, what do you think will be the fate of the homosexuals in Nigeria who get sent to jail as a result of a law +Akinola supports?

Ford - I think those comments from ++Akinola about "who's who" are just embarassing.....with you on that!

Pluralist - the reason I come to TA is to talk and listen to those with whom I do not disagree.
I may not agree but that does not mean I do not listen to what people say.
My hope is that some see what I am saying and understand the majority AC position better...and even move to it.
Some will, like you, be realising that those soft evos who have not left the AC are not for compromising on the presenting issue of the authority of scripture....so, yes, there may have to be a split.
(Remember people like me have been very tolerant...until TEC tried to force us to accept in the AC someone who flagrantly rejects agreed positions i.e. changing the teaching of the church effectively.)

Humm. More cold feet?

Archbishop Drexel Gomez is saying:

_his province believes that it is "better to be at the table," Gomez said: "My fear is that, if traditional people don't turn up (at Lambeth), the liberals in the Communion will change Anglicanism and will do so without blinking an eyelid."_

http://www.challengeonline.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=149

In other words, he is saying, turn up at Lambeth or some positions could be changed...

It is worth reading; he sees first moves happening at end of September 2007, which must be right, but then these African folks would not turn up at Lambeth, would they?

Welcome to the new Communion?

It is interesting to notice that Anglican Mainstream has not yet (1630) referred to, let alone linked to, this interview with Akinola. I wonder why.

crypto - maybe because Anglican Mainstream is not the tool of ++Akinola (people on TA listen to him much more than conservatives outside Nigeria.....we are not led by him!)

Pluralist - I am with ++Gomez......we must all turn up and vote to define what the AC is going to be going forward. However, I will not be surprised to see the ABC withdrawing invitations to TEC bishops to ensure the participation of Nigeria, Kenya and Uganda....depends on what TEC says at the end of September

I think the pressing issue is that some people do not believe in freedom of religion, and this is very serious. Freedom of religion is at the ancient centre of human rights and civil liberties.

In the seventeenth century for instance, thousands of Welsh speaking had to flee Wales in pursuit of religious freedom.

The Third Reich took non-freedom of religion to its logical conclusion.....

NP-
Since I doubt that anything short of total capitulation will make a bit of difference, your hopes are in vain. Face it, when the ABC allowed the communique to be hijacked by +Abuja at al and the sub comission's report was cast aside, it became clear what they wanted: "No queers, women are to be seen and not heard and grovel for our forgivenes." Anything short of that will be rejected.

I doubt that +++Rowan will continue to back down in the face of this one sided game.

"we must all turn up [to Lambeth] and vote to define what the AC is going to be going forward"

Gee, NP, short attention-span much? Just look near the top of this *very thread*:

Akinola: "Essentially, [Lambeth] is not a parliament; it is not a legislative body, it doesn't have any constitutional power, it does not have power to take decision for anybody ..... the meeting is consultative and advisory."

We bring up the death threats against +Gene and Davis because they are relevant to the discussion.

One of the common "conservative" talking points is that the big, mean nasty old Episcopal Church is picking on the poor, innocent "conservatves." The narrative is about the pure remnant being attacked by the powerful - who will stop at nothing.

But the narrative is false. There are countless "conservative" parishes and congregations within the Episcopal Church who have not sought to tear their dioceses apart, who have struggled to find workable relationships with their more "liberal" bishops and dioceses.

But the other falsehood has to do with how power and violence are being deployed in this epic struggle.

To the best of my knowledge, Bishop Duncan has not required a bullet-proof vest. Bishop Minns needed no metal detectors at his consecration. Archbishop Akinola has not been threatened with imprisonment for saying that he believes homosexuality to be wrong.

In this context, I find the "conservative" victim narrative a trifle less than credible.

On the subject of threats of violence, I've just read this on Father Jake's blog...

"Davis Mac-Iyalla, Director of Changing Attitude, Nigeria, has recently received some disturbing news.

"Gun men invaded his family house in Nigeria and started shooting. They killed 20 people. The family was gathered for the swearing in ceremony for one of his brothers. He had just been appointed as Commissioner by the Rivers State Governor.

"His mother was shot in the leg and is still in the local hospital. His cousin Opali was killed. Davis' brother, who was the main target, managed to escape.

"Please remember Davis and his family in your prayers."

As someone who has been freed from homosexuality, I can't thank God enough for servants like Akinola, Minns and those who stand with them. The "fundamentalist" gospel of transformation, of redemption, of the cross, has blessed me and made me whole in ways I could never have imagined or hoped for. The "gospel" of TEC welcomed and loved me after a fashion and "blessed" me as I was, but it kept me where I was too. It was the "fundie homophobes" who loved me as Jesus loved me, healed me, and showed me that it was "for freedom that Christ set us free."

Disagree all you like. Reject the "fundamentalist" understanding of the gospel. Stay as you are. But don't cry "homophobe". These same people (CANA), many who have been deposed from TEC, have shown me Christian love, joy and beauty when I knew none.

Now criticize and condemn me all you want. Say I was never really gay or other nonsense like that. I don't care. I know where I have been and I know where I am and I wouldn't trade places for all the riches in the world, and certainly not for a gospel of affirmation and "justice" that offers hollow promises it can't deliver on.

The people villified on this blog offer a gospel of mercy, redemption and transformation. They simply appose those who would deny this gospel and keep people like me in a prison of false freedom.

Often enough and slowly enough JCF, and maybe ...

Bishop Duncan seems to be on the same bandwagon as Akinola. He is quoted by Living Church (one thread up) as having said "that both the See of Canterbury and the Lambeth Conference have been lost as instruments of communion".

Appears that triumphalism is at a bit of a discount this week.

ok - using the logic of Malcolm et al....I want to complain about the treatment the Reformers met.

They were actually killed!

Now, don't you go disagreeing with me.....look how we "conservatives" suffer

(I don't think this deals with the issues ..... but if some think threats from persons unknown are relevant when disagreeing conservatives, I may as well play the victim too.......but I would prefer if we all stuck to the IMPORTANT issues i.e. was TEC right theologically and given its position in the AC to ignore all pleas for restraint and go ahead with its unilateral decisions in 2003)

Redeemed - THANKS for your post!

I am sorry to say that you can expect little openness to your life experience from some on TA but it is great you have spoken up for the truth.

As someone who has been freed from homosexuality, I can't thank God enough for servants like Akinola, Minns and those who stand with them. The "fundamentalist" gospel of transformation, of redemption, of the cross, has blessed me and made me whole in ways I could never have imagined or hoped for. The "gospel" of TEC welcomed and loved me after a fashion and "blessed" me as I was, but it kept me where I was too. It was the "fundie homophobes" who loved me as Jesus loved me, healed me, and showed me that it was "for freedom that Christ set us free." (by Redeemed)

As long as you are happy and your individuation process is unfolding for you, that's fine.

'Let the redeemed of the Lord say so'. (Sorry bout the pun !)

For myself, it just happens that I was freed thru 'homosexuality'--though I prefer our own word gayness ! Each to her or his own...

Go well .....

"The people villified on this blog offer a gospel of mercy, redemption and transformation. They simply appose those who would deny this gospel and keep people like me in a prison of false freedom"

I can't comment on your personal experience. It's yours - not mine. My own objection to fundamentalism goes well beyond the gay issue - involving matters such as the belief in Biblical inerrancy, the promotion of creationism as a science, the advocacy of outdated attitudes towards women because of a few verses in Paul or Proverbs, etc. As I reject fundamentalism on the whole, forgive me if I do not regard their stance on same-sex love to have any more credibility than the rest of it.

There are ex-gays, and then there ex-ex gays. There are ex-gays who will be candid about the fact that they still feel same-sex desire, but no longer have a desire to "be a part of that lifestyle". There was one man - literally a poster boy for the movement - who was caught socializing in a gay bar. Perhaps he was evangelizing. The straightforward "I was lost, but now am found" narratives of ex-gay claims become a lot more complex when examined in detail.

Society has conditioned gays to feel guilt & shame - some react to this by seeing through this, and learning to respect themselves just as they are. This is roughly analogous to the "black is beautiful" movement of the sixties. Others seek to be "cured". Freud once wrote to the effect that there would be probably be as great a likelihood of success in converting a homosexual to heterosexuality as the other way around - it's just that no one has ever tried the latter.

You are entitled to live your life the way you choose, believe what you like about same-sex desires. Maybe this is indeed what God wants for you. I'm happy you're happy. However, insofar as your stance implicitly involves condemning my friends and me - at that point, I must raise objections.

Redeemed,
I spent 10 years praying not to be gay. The only answer I got was encouragement to come out, entirely unlooked for and certainly unexpected since no-one but me and God knew I was gay. I came out. Slowly. Not only did the sky not fall, but I have grown as a result. I know God loves me, I have ample proof of that. We Anglo-Catholics don't go in much for Testifying, and space is limited. I wouldn't dream of denying your experience. I have to admit to doubts, not about your homosexuality, but about your change and the way it was effected, but they can only ever be my own, possibly sinful, doubts. I am happy that you are happy and at peace. It would seem God does not work the same way in everyone's lives. He didn't change me, He led me to self-acceptance. He has done the same for many others. I would ask you to accept this, perhaps as difficult for you as your change is for me. The people "vilified" on this blog may have done a good thing for you, but their other actions are still hurtful and damaging to a large number of people. To you they showed Christian compassion. Too bad they seem not to be able to show that to the rest of the world.

Brian / L.Roberts / Ford....it is fine to say "that's nice for you" and to respect Redeemed....but are you really sure that God's will for you involves God accepting things he has clearly said he does not?

"the IMPORTANT issues i.e. was TEC right" My, and here I thought the important issues were to "do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God." Silly me! Of course, punishing those who are wrong is important. Forget about forgiving my brother not 7 times but 70 times 7. I know, NP, you can probably count up 490 times "you" have forgiven TEC, so now you think you don't have to any more. Tell me, does your bible add a verse where Jesus says "And make sure you punish all those who disagree with you, especially if they are confident enough to act without your approval. Drive them from the fellowship, deny their faith, this is the Third and greatest commandment"? Don't bother. I know you can give me what you think is Biblical approval for a witch hunt.

"you can expect little openness to your life experience"

Based solely on the posts here so far, would you care to retract this, or at least admit you were a bit hasty in your condemnation? Or does your persecution complex actually cause you to see ill will in statements like "I'm glad you are at peace"? That's the difference between respecting and agreeing, NP.

Ford...come one...the point is was TEC right according to what God has revealed as His will.
(I am sure you are deliberately missing the point)

And, no, the responses here were not open to repentance by learning from Redeemer but were writing it off as a challenge by saying "that is nice for you.... but don't ask me to stop doing what I want to do". THis is not openness, Ford

So, we do come back to what is right.....and if we do want to walk humbly with God, maybe we should go with what he says is right?

Yes, NP, Cranmer et al did die at the hands of those who believed that foreign prelates should have the final say.

And on that, I am the one standing with Cranmer et al, while you stand with Mary Tudor and her cousin Pole.

"are you really sure that God's will for you involves God accepting things he has clearly said he does not?"

Are you really sure that God's will for you involves keeping the Judgement Seat warm till he gets back and dismissing the lives of people you don't even know because they don't conform to the Law as you think it should be interpreted? As to God accepting things He does not, you would do better to look to your own life and the things God does not accept in you rather than being so eager to point out to everyone else how THEY fall short of God's design.

NP, I am not deliberately missing the point. You are so caught up in this fantasy of being the faithful remnant standing for the Gospel finally getting the chance to punish and humble the evil TEC for its rebelliousness that you can't even hear when someone comes at it with a different approach. It has to be either TEC is right or TEC is wrong with you. It has to be either 'gays yes' or 'gays no'. You simply can't break out of that little mold. The rightness of everything else depends for you on which position someone takes on these particular points. You'd defend the Devil himself if he stood with you on those issues. Too bad. We aren't talking about the same thing, I don't think we ever were. I reject your totalitarian Pharisaic position. I reject your attitude towards Biblical authority. That doesn't mean I necessarily support any of the things you oppose. It doesn't mean I don't believe the Bible, it doesn't mean I have no faith. It doesn't even mean I'm a liberal. There's more to the world than A vs B, NP.

Ford,
Thanks for your story. I spent almost double that praying not to be gay, alternating between not acting on my desires and leading a double life for increasingly less brief stints. After meeting someone special I got the courage to come out slowly too, I even came out to my dad who to my utter amazement didn’t reject me but hugged me and told me he loved me.
In hindsight, I realize that in my father’s embrace I received my “father’s blessing” – when I thought I least deserved it. The odd part of it was that when I went home to my partner something deep inside me had changed. I had been touched in a way that no sexual partner could. My “gayness” was as strong as ever, but deep inside I knew my life was headed the wrong way. As time went on I felt as if I was getting closer and closer to some deep nameless nothingness. I see now that it was “grace that taught my heart to fear.” I couldn’t go on and yet I knew I couldn’t go back. The will power to “white knuckle it” and pretend to be straight was gone. What to do? In tears I cried out to Jesus and the burdens suddenly lifted. Along that time I also came to self acceptance but perhaps just as importantly to a place of submission, telling God I would be alone (celibate) for him.
Then began the journey of faith and healing. Perhaps the most powerful healing experience in my journey was seeing our Holy Mother nursing baby Jesus in a vision (some of us Anglo-Catholics do give testimonies), then seeing the river of life that comes down from God’s throne as it turned into a river of mother’s milk pouring into the wounded heart of my infancy, healing deep deprivations I had previously not known. It was a special healing and I have never been the same. There were many special healings and there were many times of struggle clinging to the cross. But that should be the journey of every Christian, whatever their brokenness, sexual or otherwise.
I am glad you know God loves you. I know he does too. That isn’t the real debate here, but will we love him in return? Jn 14:15

"...that God's will for you involves God accepting things he has clearly said he does not."

Intentionally distorted anti Modern DE translations _clearly_ say.

Not God. I'm sorry.

Malcolm - you really think Cranmer would support VGR if he were here?? I suggest he would have been very much part of the call for reform of the AC.

Ford - I reject the view that the AC must accept people as vicars and bishops who flagrantly break its teaching and encourage others to do so - is that unreasonable?

"the wounded heart of my infancy, healing deep deprivations I had previously not known."

But I don't have that wounded heart, I'm just gay. No abuse in my childhood, no distant father, none of that. Redeemed, I respect that you are happy now, but my experience was utterly different. I stopped going to Church because, believe it or not, it was too liberal! 18 years later, after coming out, and after being with someone for 14 years, I started going back to Church because I knew I needed to. My soul was starving. God took me back, led me through some very difficult stuff, and never required I be celibate. I only ever asked to be shown the next step, I didn't ask for anything that I wanted: peace, wholeness, strength, anything, just the faith to put my foot the next place He wanted me to put it down. I am happy for you. This s what you needed, and God gave it to you. He gave me what I needed, and didn't change my sexuality.

"Ford - I reject the view that the AC must accept people as vicars and bishops who flagrantly break its teaching and encourage others to do so - is that unreasonable?"

It is when it's a blatant self delusion. You do not reject such people if they support your legalism, NP, indeed you even defend their behaviour.

I have no idea what Cranmer would think of Robinson.

But I am absolutely certain that Cranmer would not be supporting the deconstruction of Anglicanism by demanding governance by foreign prelates.

After all, he died over the principle that foreign prelates had no place in the governance of "national or particular" churches.

"Brian / L.Roberts / Ford....it is fine to say "that's nice for you" and to respect Redeemed....but are you really sure that God's will for you involves God accepting things he has clearly said he does not?"

Sorry, you and I do not share the same premises about the Bible. I don't believe that the Bible literally reports the words of God, nor that it is inerrant. I don't believe that God ever ordained the slaughter of whole peoples, for example, despite several instances of this being reported in the Old Testament. At a certain point in my life (after I'd read the story of the slaughter of the Amalekites) I decided that it was necessary for me to think for myself about moral issues and not expect the Bible to come up with a set of invariably "right" answers. As I don't exclude the possibility that the ancient Hebrews sometimes attributed their prejudices to God, as people continue to to do this day, there is nothing clear to me at all that the passages cited to condemn same-sex love proceed from the mind of God or represent His will. I am sure that God is better than the best of us, and in this age the best of us - the people I most respect and admire - no longer have a problem with same-sex love. Are you sure this isn't God's will for me? Or for you?

Ford: "But I don't have that wounded heart, I'm just gay." - Hmmm, so you say. Looking at my many gay friends, I couldn't say that about any of them. (Of course, to be fair I can't say the parallel about most of my heterosexual friends either. We are all carrying around something.) I would have to say just the opposite, that being gay is proof of a wounded heart. But then the message of the cross is that all of humanity's hearts are so disordered that Jesus had to die for us to bring us to the Father.

Brian: "At a certain point in my life (after I'd read the story of the slaughter of the Amalekites) I decided that it was necessary for me to think for myself about moral issues and not expect the Bible to come up with a set of invariably "right" answers." -- Brian you may choose to 'decide what is right in your own eyes' (it's been done many times before) but you can't call that being Christian. Jesus believed the scriptures. Who are you (or me or anyone else for that matter) that what we say, in and of ourselves, should carry any "right-ness" at all? Either the word of God is authoritative or it is worthless. Either Jesus was the Son of God or he was a madman. Either God has revealed himself to us in his word and in his son or we are left guessing about God. People may believe we don't really know God, or know what is moral or not from the scriptures, but that isn't Christianity (much less Anglican).

To be fair, sometimes understanding what God is really telling us about right and wrong, about what is moral and what is not, can be very difficult. But of course, that really isn't the case in the area of human sexuality.

Brian - yes, we do have very different starting points....this is why TEC (since it is dominated by "liberals", and probably Canda too) is so out of step with most of the AC.

I am afraid that the "inconvenient truth" is that God is not just about love and mercy but also about judgment....he did judge those like the Amelekites and he will judge you and me too....he is holy and does not tolerate sin or those who reject him.

Malcolm - I think Cranmer would have said that fighting for the faith once delivered was more important than keeping out foreign prelates....we have to get our priorities straight! Again, this all boils down to the question I will ask Ford below because this is the issue TEC has brought to the fore in 2003.

Ford - again, 2 wrongs do not make a right! Am I right or wrong in saying VGR is breaking the clear, stated position of the AC for vicars and bishops?? It seems to me that ALL the Primates in Dromantine and Tanzania say I am right - even though some of them are doublespeakers! Pls do not avoid the question! Am I (the Primates and TWR!) right or wrong on VGR?

NP & Redeemed,

You two have provided me with an object lesson of attempting to argue with some conservatives/fundamentalists - i.e., don't attempt it. One of you has just told me that I can't call myself a Christian (!), the other implied as much (if being "in step" with the AC is NP's definition of being a Christian). I asked earlier who gave ++Akinola the power to excommunicate? Now I would ask the same of of you two. What arrogance.

I used to think excommunication was a bad thing - now I realize having a formal excommunication process, while it has the potential to be abused, ordinarily serves as a check on ad hoc dismissals of baptized Christians by other baptized Christians.

If two scientists are arguing over the correct interpretation of, say, quantum theory, they will both generally take the trouble to understand each other's point of view. One scientist will not tell the other "You cannot consider yourself a scientist." I can tell you with absolute certainty that you do not understand the point of view of people like myself and you have not taken the trouble to do so. How Christian is that?

Let's just agree to stop this thread, right here and now.

NP, my personal belief is that the Church is still trying to decide the issue. All the things you cite are statements along the way. The way might be leading to total condemnation of people like me, maybe not, but we're not there yet. I wish +VGR had behaved like Jeffry John, and like St. Chad. I also accept that he feels he is standing for a higher principle. The point is that you are not speaking the truth when you say you do not tolerate false teachers, or that you respect Lambeth '98. Now's the time for you to stop avoiding the question. Why do you think it is acceptable to ignore certain sins, some of which, like reviling, Paul mentions in the same verses you quote in conmdemnation of me, but other sins are worth splitting the Church over?

"being gay is proof of a wounded heart."

Redeemed,
I respect that you are happy and at peace. Despite my deep misgivings about this, despite al the possible things this might represent, from confusion over your sexuality in the beginnig to manipulation by "Christians" who feel they are called to manipulate the brokenness of people rather than ministering to it, to having a whole pile of other issues to do with your sexuality and on and on, I have not attacked you, I have not denied your experience. It is not for me to do. I don't know you. I would ask for the same respect from you, please. You do not know my heart, you do not know how God has acted in my life, you do not know my issues. God does. I am as sure of His presence and guidance in my life as you are of it in yours. Again, I ask for the respect I have extended to you. You may not believe me. Fine. I do not believe you. You believe my gayness is a sign of a wounded heart? I believe your "transformation" is a sign of much confusion, deep emotional issues, and possibly manipulation. There. Now can we get back to treating each other with respect? Your doubts as to what God has done for me will not weaken my faith. Why should my equivalent doubts towards you weaken yours?

OK no further comments on this thread unless they relate specifically and directly to the content of the interview.

Simon, I respect your moderation. And can I add an apology?

Brian, forgive me. I didn't mean to convey that you were not Christian, nor anyone else on this blog.

And Ford, please forgive me. I did not mean to imply that you did not have God's presence or guidance in your life. I assume we are all Anglicans and therefore brothers and sisters in Christ.