Kendall Harmon has posted this exceedingly strongly-worded statement on T19:

I was very disgusted, upset and saddened to read the statement of Bishop Isaac Orama as quoted by the News Agency of Nigeria in a UPI story who, (if he is quoted accurately, and I am assuming that he is) said that persons involved in same sex behavior "are insane, satanic and are not fit to live." ..... It immediately brings to mind the Nazi language of Lebensunwertes Leben ("life unworthy of life") and in flood images and activities too horrendous and horrific for any of us to take in even at this historical distance from the events themselves.

These words are to be utterly repudiated by all of us--I hope and trust--KSH.

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/5606/

PS Greg Griffith uses even stronger language at StandFirm:

".... if the quote is accurate, then Bishop Minns and Archbishop Akinola need to come forward with a statement just as quickly, which contains an unqualified condemnation of +Orama's remark as abhorrent, and unfitting of the office of the Anglican episcopacy, and Bishop Orama should be removed from office immediately. If that's not canonically possible for Archbishop Akinola to do, then he needs to mete what punishment the canons allow him to.

Describing homosexuals as "unfit to live," or implying that that sentiment is in any way part of the Gospel message, is where I get off the bus. "Life not worthy of living" is the phrase Nazis used to describe Jews, dissenting Christian clergy, the physically handicapped, the mentally retarded, and anyone else who might spoil their vision of a pure Aryan world. If being homosexual makes one unfit to live, then being the kind of sinner Bishop Orama is makes him similarly unfit to live; and of course, that is not the Gospel of Jesus, not the Good News we have been entrusted by Christ to carry to the world. Bishop Orama deserves our prayers that he might come to understand this, but - if his remarks were accurately reported - he does not deserve to be a bishop in the Christian church."

It is sad, but at the same time comforting, that something this extreme has brought us to a common understanding.

If there ever were a need for alternative primatial oversight it's the gay and lesbian populations of Africa. I don't consider myself "in communion" with the bishops of province that smears people that way with impunity.

This is so helpful. I am grateful to Bishop Orama of Nigeria who has clarified for us all what it means to be a Biblical Christian and what it means to be a faithful Anglican. It all comes down to believing that "Homosexuality and lesbianism are inhuman. Those who practice them are insane, satanic, and are not fit to live because they are rebels to God's purpose for man.''

There. Now we have it. Now we understand Moses and the Prophets, and know why Jesus died on the cross. Now we know that Cranmer and Hooker and Temple were trying to teach us. So good to have that made clear, at last.

This goes along so well with the rank and arrogant hypocrisy of the claims that the Episcopal Church is not faithful to scripture. People who ignore the plain sense of scripture in thousands of ways every day but who claim that because we welcome the stranger and the outsider into our midst we are not worthy to be known as Christian, much less Anglican -- their true understanding of scripture is revealed to us. This is what it come down to. Now we know. If we only read the Bible correctly and faithfully -- as they do -- it would be clear to us that the only difference between Fred Phelps and Bob Duncan is the choice of vocabulary. JNW

Not even animals practice homosexual behaviour?

Hmm. Better stay away from the science journals and webpages. There's heaps of evidence to the contrary. Some don't need facts from the real world to have a biblical opinion.

The good thing is that souls are admitting they are interfering with the decision making process in other nations, and they are proud of it. Also that they are prepared to invoke the wrath of God and advocate the death of "unsuitables".

Some of the moderates who were concerned that some souls were drawing the parallels towards the development of nazism might want to rethink their positions. The development along the aggression continuum continues to unfold in a wonderfully transparent way.

Hopefully more souls will now realise why God promised an everlasting covenant of peace where tyranny is far from souls e.g. Isaiah 54:12-13. Maybe someone could talk to Jesus (with a dictionary and bible in hand) and carefully explain the difference between tyranny or gentleness; repression or forgiveness.

Hopefully more souls will "get it" as they see where the alternative will take them. Yuck.

I am getting very suspicious about this news item. I cannot find it through Google or Yahoo. If I go to UPI through their home portal I cannot find it in their archives. I cannot find it on NAN who are said to have originated the story. I cannot find it on the archives of the Nigerian Media website. I cannot find it on the Nigerian Guardian. Others have failed to find it on All Africa or the Nigeria Times. The date on the article is September 2, 3-4 days ago depending on where you are. All the blogosphere references are to the original UPI link, which is very sketchy. Why isn't this being picked up by anyone else? Is there somewhere else I could look?

Disgraceful.....this guy certainly has not been listening...to the bible

But - pls do not try to write off +Duncan and +Durham and +London and most of the Primates supporting Lambeth 1.10 on this basis ..... that does not follow

If this report is true and the guy does not resign, he should be fired.

Interesting to see how ++Akinola deals with this.....I am sure he will be furious with the unbiblical statements of +Isaac

Whether true or not the report that has "the reporter could be assaulted if he asked worshipers about the issue" on homosexuality shows the violence implicit in these so called Christian communities (this was an the Kenyan consecrations, the Boston report).

When I wrote above that "it is sad, but at the same time comforting, that something this extreme has brought us to a common understanding" I did not for a moment suppose that we were on the verge of the Peaceable Kingdom. I do, however, believe that good will come of this. In immediate terms, Akinola and Co have been hopelessly wrong-footed - and on the eve of the New Orleans meeting. It will be far easier for TEC and Archbishop Williams to proceed as they see best without factoring in "Global South" response at every twist in the road. For months "Leftists" have been demanding, with absolutely no success, that the CANA "cuckoo-in-the-nesters", in particular Minns, dissociate themselves from Akinola's homophobia. Even to raise the issue on StandFirm brings down a torrent of scorn, indignation, and peculiar references to Bishop Spong. Now, Greg Griffith is demanding, in the event that the report is true (allow him that face-saving clause - it's true), that Minns & Akinola "come forward with a statement .... which contains an unqualified condemnation of +Orama's remark". I expect nothing of Akinola, but Minns is in North America much of the time and is accessible. It will be very difficult indeed for him to avoid condemning the statement. Moreover, whether he does or does not, it will dog him and his associates, and will continue to dog them. Additionally the Western press will be far less supine than it has been until now in accepting the statements of the Central African provinces and of their "baby bishops" at face value. The honeymoon is over.

Secondly, and longer term. When StandFirm and T19 will issue immediate "editorial" statements of this type, attitudes are indeed changing. Can you imagine this having happened twenty years ago? I cannot. It will take a while - quite a while - but homophobia is in ongoing retreat, even on the Right.

[Most of this is also posted on Mad Priest. I rarely cross-post, but I think that in this instance my points are worth airing in a serious arena.]

Does anyone care to have a gentleman's wager on how long it will take Akinola to comment on Orama's statement??

Folks may be interested in this new blog site, part of an effort to demand that Akinola repudiate this disgraceful statement by one of his bishops, and that he take action against him.
http://akinolarepent.wordpress.com/

Orama is no more representative of conservatives than Spong is of liberals...

Anthony - it was indeed available on a Google search Wednesday AM but by the afternoon mysteriously disappeared. I'm not sure what that means.

"But - pls do not try to write off +Duncan and +Durham and +London and most of the Primates supporting Lambeth 1.10 on this basis ..... that does not follow"

It DOES follow, NP. The kind of rhetoric being spewed out by people like Iker, Duncan, and +Akinola creates the environment where such statements can be made, and where ordinary people are led to act on them. These are people who believe and quote propaganda against gay people, as we saw earlier this week with Bp. Attwood. It creates the environment described in another thread about a piece in the Boston Globe. And your hope for +Akinola's wrath at this statement is laughable. He has said much the same thing, if somewhat more restrained. You are always talking about the actions of +Williams, well everything in +Akinola's statements and actions shows he is in agreement with +Orama. And your call for firing again shows our different approach to the Gospel. I wouldn't want to see him defrocked, I'd like to see him come to understand how he is wrong and repent of that wrong. But, for you, the Gospel is inextricably intertwined with punishment, right? Salvation is about getting away unpunished, God's love is shown in His willingness to punish the innocent on behalf of the guilty, everyone who isn't a Christian will be punished for that error, and on and on, so you can't even understand redemption unless it is linked in some way to punishment or escape from punishment.

For people like Griffith and Harmon to take the stand they do is laughable. This is the logical outcome of the environment they have helped create by their rhetoric and fear mongering, so how do they get off getting so huffy? Rather than try to distance themselves from this, they should be acknowledging their own role in it all and seeking metanoia. But then, that would risk damaging one's public image for the sake of one's soul, and what would be gained by that?

Lapin says "When StandFirm and T19 will issue immediate "editorial" statements of this type, attitudes are indeed changing."

Er....not really.
The reported horrible statements of one guy in Nigeria would have got the same objections from most evangelicals last year and 10 years and 20+ years ago, Rabbit!

You will not see T19 and Stand Firm saying, "Given the disgusting reported statements of one Nigerian, we have to agree that VGR is acceptable as a bishop in the AC" - this simply does not follow..............

I note that the StandFirm list of those included in "Lebensunwertes Leben," including Jews, the handicapped etc., misses one significant group the Nazis targetted. Indeed, one significant group with a direct interest in the Bishop's comments.

I presume everyone here knows the origin of the pink triangle symbol used by lesbigay advocates. It was the homosexual parallel to the yellow Star of David. Each "Lebensunwertes Leben" subgroup in the concentration camp had a different patch to wear.

I was also struck by one of the final comments on the Titus 1:9 thread, where Alice claimed that, as an anti-gay person in North America she was at greater risk of violence than a gay person in Nigeria. I wonder where these people get this stuff.

"Orama is no more representative of conservatives than Spong is of liberals"
Since my above post, I have been thinking about this very thing, perhaps I am guilty of what I deplore in "the other side". Perhaps it is just a few hotheads.

"You will not see T19 and Stand Firm saying, "Given the disgusting reported statements of one Nigerian, we have to agree that VGR is acceptable as a bishop in the AC" - this simply does not follow"

Of course, that's not anyone has been saying, but you do love tilting at windmills!

Malcolm,
"I wonder where these people get this stuff."

There exists in American Evangelicalism the belief that they are oppressed. One can read on blogs of the oppression of Christians because there is no prayer in public schools, or because their kids aren't taught Creationism, or if they are prevented from putting the Ten Commandments in public buildings (never the Beatitudes, BTW, it being easier, I gues, to say "thou shalt not..." instead of "blessed are...."), or if anyone protests the saying of the Lord's Prayer at a football game. I have even read references to "Catholics persecuting Christians" since the latter cannot be the former. She likely sees herself as one of the poor persecuted remnant, and probably doesn't understand that defending one's self against attack is not the same as persecution of the attacker.

Bull-doo, NP!!! Didn't get a peep out of either of 'em a few months back when Akinola was spouting hate and pushing for legislation in Nigeria banning organizations and jailing individuals who dared advocate toleration of homosexuality - legislation so flat-out discriminatory that the Bush Adminstration State Department opposed it! The theory I saw expounded on this site (by whom?) that by so doing Akinola was forging a weapon to use against TEC - as an "organization supportive of gay rights" - if it ever countered his actions by following his lead and setting up alternative episcopal oversight in Nigeria, makes a very great deal of sense.

Short sabbatical there, buddy.

" ....than Spong is of liberals..." The Godwin's Law of Knee-Jerk Evangelical Reaction seems to be kicking in early today.

Ford,

You can't have it both ways. You say conservatives create situations like this, but that conservatives miss the point when they attempt to correct these situations.

I have not heard anything that remotely sounds anything like this from the leading conservative bishops and clergy here in the US. There may be an issue of perspective, but I would be shocked if there was anything that even hinted at condoning violence or less-then-human status for LGBT (Gene Robinson's lamentations not withstanding).

Assuming these reports are true, the issue w/ Robinson and Orama is the same: leaders are held to a higher standard. Robinson's moral leadership is questioned by many and obviously Orama has serious errors in basic theology and human anthropology. Yes, the goal should be reform and a continuation of ministry, like Peter after Paul rebuked him. In the meantime, the proper course of action is to suspend that ministry so that Orama can focus on correcting his error and the people currently under his guidance are ministered to properly.

"Alice claimed that, as an anti-gay person in North America she was at greater risk of violence than a gay person in Nigeria."

Of course, Alice was the 'victim' of a reappraiser bishop in TEC, who inhibited her (i.e., suspended her from the priesthood) for whatever reasons. Now she is a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Lapin wrote

"I do, however, believe that good will come of this."

I agree. It will not happen overnight, but it will happen. We already have some early signs e.g. Akinola losing the post to represent Nigerian Christianity after shameful organizational politicking. That might not affect the Nigerian Anglicans, but the other souls from the other denominations would have seen what was attempted against their own institutions' representatives. It doesn't take rocket science to go back and contemplate that such things might also be happening within the Nigerian Anglican communion itself.

Then when you see similar testimonies, organizational politicking and lawsuits popping up globally with the same shameful signatures; the wise start to recognize the underlying pattern. They also start to recognize the white washing and smiling assassin modus operandi.

Then as souls start to see the vitriol, the incitements to violence, the hospital and police records demonstrating a statistical increase in hate crimes; which will follow with statistical correlation between the areas that preach violence and the areas that they live and/or target for "purification". If they start to act out in a Klu Klux Klan fashion, the evidence will come to light.

As the AIDS pandemic spreads, as angry victims go and rape "pure enclaves", their attempts to being immune from the suffering of those around them will have failed. There will come a recognition that those who seek to be above their neighbor or leave their neighbor suffering whilst they are "safe" are actually in more danger than those who go in with the masses and seek to make societies safer for all souls, both their own and their enemies' children.

Of course, as the bloody mess is acted out, we will look back in history and ask what the leaders were doing. We will recall those who sponsored and advocated accusational theology and repression; and those who warned they were failed paradigms. We will remember those who sought to avert bloodshed and those who espoused bloodshed.

Wisdom will be proven right by her children and the meek shall inherit the earth. Because if they don't, this earth and ALL its occupants will be extinct, by the hands of the lovers of the greedy accussers, tyrants and their sycophants who would rather everyone lost everything than they surrended their high places.

Ford, I concur: Spong has some gems in this teachings but some are just rubbish.

Ford, I am aware of the Evangelical delusion about persecution. But "shot?"

We can easily create a list of hundreds of people shot, stabbed, beaten to death and even crucified every year because they are gay. We can count on one hand (and maybe even no hand at all) the number of people murdered just for hating gays.

She was a female priest who turned anti WO.

(Don't ask)

Lapin....the point stands, NOBODY is going to excuse the ordination of drunks, adulterers or any other person disqualified for the ministry (according to scripture) because of the horribble statements of one Nigerian.

NP: "NOBODY is going to excuse the ordination of drunks"

Well, it would be so embarrassing when they couldn't make the necessary declarations of assent without clutching their heads and moaning 'och, ma heid'. Not to mention asking the organist to play more quietly.

Actually, if alcoholism is an illness (as most are agreed) and not a moral failing, I think you're a bit off beam there old boy. "NO-ONE is going to excuse the ordination of diabetics" hmm???? And what about overweight clergy?

Anyway, speaking as one who rolled back from his wedding anniversary dinner having over-eaten and over-imbibed, those factors combine to act as a pretty good prophylactic against the other urges of the flesh. Perhaps all non-married clergy should be ORDERED to over-consume in the interests of sexual purity?

"I would be shocked if there was anything that even hinted at condoning violence or less-then-human status for LGBT "

Well, they might not say it themselves, at least pubically, but they make common cause with those who do. Rushdoony has publically advocated a return to stoning! Now, he's no bishop, but he IS one of the emminences grises connected to IRD and involoved in the funding of this. Ahmanson(?) is much the same. That doesn't mean people are payed to do their will, but it does reveal something of a shared mindset, one held to varying degrees by some but likely not all. All it takes is one, though. For me, all the ubershocked claims by the "reasserters" the calls for +Orama's defrocking, the denunciations, are all hollow. I, frankly, don't believe a word of it. All I can see is a bunch of self righteous homophobes frantically controlling the spin as best they can. Not that they necessarily agree with +Orama, and, if my blood splashed on their shoes, they might be upset at the inhumanity of what had been done to me, but they really aren't all that bothered by what he said, either. They just know they have to make some public display of shock and disapproval "for the cameras".

"Lapin....the point stands". Just as the fantasy claim that immediately precedes it - "the reported horrible statements of one guy in Nigeria would have got the same objections from most evangelicals last year and 10 years and 20+ years ago", also stands? Assertions are not arguments, NP. Constant reaffirmation of "Lambeth 1.10" (those bits of it that suit our purpose, at any rate) but refusal to accord equal honour to Lambeth V.13; never-ending appeals to the Windsor process, though the ABC has certified TEC as "Windsor compliant", while just this month three Global South provinces have gleefully ripped apart Windsor through the irregular consecration consecrations (completed or in process) of out-of-communion bishops (bishops whose creation raises the question of Simony - where, out of interest, do you stand on that one, NP? "Not scriptural", perhaps?), and treating the bizarre, railroaded political outcome of Dar es Salaam as though it was the work of the Holy Ghost.

Gertrude Stein observed to a fellow writer that "Remarks are not Literature, Hemingway". They are not argument either, NP; nor are they "thought", as in "Thinking Anglicans".

Blush.

I know I should know this, but so many labels have been bandied around that I've lost track.

Could someone please indulge me with an explanation of what "reappraiser" is, perhaps at two levels. The "stereotype" and then where variations tend to occur.

I just don't get the Alice thing, and that piece of the jigsaw might help.

"Lapin....the point stands, NOBODY is going to excuse the ordination of drunks, adulterers or any other person disqualified for the ministry (according to scripture) because of the horribble statements of one Nigerian."

As I recall, there are Levitical commands to stone drunks and adulterers to death, Perhaps Bishop Orama is being very strictly Biblical, purely and simply, in his comments.
As far as I'm concerned, the cat is out of the bag. This whole tiff was always about a deep reluctance to accept LGBTs fully as brothers and sisters in the Church or anywhere else. All the appeals to theology, doctrine, and tradition are figleaves and no one is fooled. Even without the violence, Bishop Orama states candidly and directly the central point about LGBTs as defective and inferior humanity that the right wing religious have danced around cautiously circuitously all this time.

Mynster,
Dan Savage says that if conservatives want to put a stop to gay sex, they shouldlet gay people adopt, since nothing stops sexual activiy like an infant in the house!

While I do agree with you on alcoholism, it is still interesting to note that in modern society, the Seven Deadlies are all now either illnesses or virtues. But note the "disqualifies" idea, as though someone discerns a call from God, the diocese discerns that call from God, but that person is "disqualified" for some reason. The episcopate is thus just another job, and God's call is what? A mistake? Or is the perception of that call where the mistake lies? Odd, because, despite what he said recently, and the circumstances surrounding his consecration, I cannot claim that +Orama is "disqualified" from being a bishop. I guess this is the meaning of "High" versus "Low" Church. It's all strangely mechanistic, like the "necessary for salvation" idea, as though St. Peter meets you with a clipboard at the pearly Gates, making sure you have enough of the "right stuff" to "qualify" for entrance.

Mynster - whether alcoholism is a disease or an addiction, it is hardly in the same category as diabetes, is it?? Your logic would also leave us with cocaine addicts as vicars....if we are being logical.

From Titus Ch 1 - "For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined"

I wonder which version of Titus 1:7 NP is quoting. Reference to the text would make clear to him that Paul (if indeed it be he) is using a word with a very specific meaning, and both NRSV and NIV are closer to the original than NP's version. Episkopoi shouldn't be given to "Friday night *behaviour* on the streets of most of our towns"

This is not to deny for a moment that drunkenness should be a severe no-no: I remember a confirmation sermon (I think from Nigel McCulloch) pointing out that bishops wear an amethyst as a reminder not to be drunk on wine, but on the Spirit (amethustos = "not intoxicated" in Greek).
My point is that before quoting verses ripped out of their setting, it's a good idea to be sure they really say what you are trying to demonstrate.

"Mynster - whether alcoholism is a disease or an addiction, it is hardly in the same category as diabetes, is it?? Your logic would also leave us with cocaine addicts as vicars....if we are being logical."

Well, yes it is, NP, a disease is a disease. If one is treated for one's illness, why shouldn't one be a bishop? Because one might fall ill again? How does illness "disqualify" one for episcopacy? So, yes, we might end up with TREATED cocaine addicts as rectors. What's the issue?

"NRSV and NIV are closer to the original than NP's version"

But, unfortunately, they do not allow for the downgrading of a bishop to an overseer, as though a bishop is some kind of middle management employee whose job is the running of some corporation's local branch office.

here's how misunderstandings start. the charming story about the amethyst isn't interpreted by anyone (even bishop mcculloch) as a directive not to be drunk on wine. it is a quotation from the apostles at pentecost - 'we are not drunk, but filled with the holy spirit', so the amethyst ring is a sign of the pentecostal calling of the apostles (bishops). it's a small shift of exegeis, but an important one, and i think it illustrates why we are in the trouble we are. there are those who have elevated a single, false interpretation of a text above all others, and they won't budge.

as for not ordaining drunks. most of my fellow ordinands - long since ordained - would be selling insurance now if that were true - me included.

Of course "alcoholism" and "drunkenness" are not the same thing.

"Your logic would also leave us with cocaine addicts as vicars....if we are being logical."

And why not?
Anyone who battles or has battled with the depth of the human condition, has found strength in God and has something to say about His saving love is surely a more important and interesting voice to be heard than someone who never puts a foot wrong and lacks any empathy with those he's preaching to.

Erika, you're quite right, as usual, but i would want to add, strongly, that i don't like to link homosexuality with cocaine addiction or anything like that. i don't want to discuss them in the same argument. addiction is a problem to overcome, being gay is a given of some people's lives. what they need to do is to live freely and joyfully and morally as gay people (with or without partners), not to repent of it or to seek a cure. i know you agree with this, i'm just trying to close a loophole in your last post.

Ford typoed:
Well, they might not say it themselves, at least pubically

which has cheered my Saturday!

Beautiful Erika

"Anyone who… has battled with the depth of the human condition, has found strength in God and has… a more important and interesting voice to be heard than someone who never puts a foot wrong and lacks any empathy…."

This discussion has amused me no end this weekend. I keep thinking of that email about which leader would you back? The teetotaler who never committed adultery, or the regular drinker who had the odd indiscretion? If you chose the former you chose Hitler; if you chose the latter you chose Churchill.

There are also those biblical passages where Jesus and his disciples were accused of being gluttons and drunks (Matthew 11:19 & Luke 7:34). So Jesus obviously drank more than a communal sip.

Leaps of faith sometimes seem to be irrational, as if one is coming out of a drunken stupor e.g. Isaiah 51:17 to 52:2, Lamentations 4:20-22, Ezekiel 39:17-29. But God curses the faithless with a stupor equivalent to being drunk e.g. Isaiah 29:9-15, 49:26, 63:2-6; Jeremiah 25:27-38, 48:25-30, 51:6-26; 51:39, 51:57; Nahum 1:10

I love Habakkuk 2:12-20, it seems so appropriate for these times “Woe to him who builds a city with bloodshed and establishes a town by crime! ...Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbors, pouring it from the wineskin till they are drunk, so that he can gaze on their naked bodies. You will be filled with shame instead of glory. Now it is your turn! Drink and be exposed! The cup from the LORD'S right hand is coming around to you, and disgrace will cover your glory. The violence you have done… will overwhelm you, and your destruction of animals will terrify you. For you have shed man’s blood; you have destroyed lands and cities and everyone in them. “Of what value is an idol, since a man has carved it? Or an image that teaches lies? For he who makes it trusts in his own creation; he makes idols that cannot speak. Woe to him who says to wood, ‘Come to life!’ Or to lifeless stone, ‘Wake up! ‘Can it give guidance? It is covered with gold and silver; there is no breath in it. But the LORD is in his holy temple; let all the earth be silent before him.”

"it is still interesting to note that in modern society, the Seven Deadlies are all now either illnesses or virtues".

I'm not sure which excesses would be considered to be virtuous.

But to classify what used to be considered a "sin" as an "illness" does not change the severity of its impact on the sufferer and those around him. All our modern psychological insights to is shift the focus of support we can give.

Condemning an alcoholic with obvious moral distaste is about as effective as chaining a debtor until he has paid his debts.

All we are called to do is not to judge - until we are very very sure of what it is we're judging.
Which brings us neatly back to the "listening process" - and yes, Liddon, I do emphatically not include same gender love in my list of sins/illnesses!

Erika, I'm not sure if you're still around, but I'll respond anyway. Currently, 'lust' is now 'sexual addiction', 'gluttony' is an 'eating disorder', 'anvy, anger, and greed' are at worst morally neutral, and in business circles would be considered beneficial, "virtuous" if you like, as is 'pride' which is now 'self confidence'. Sloth is the only one, and even that can be explained away. I'm, not saying that this changes anything. I am commenting on the fact that our society, like every other one, is a pretty warped place. Sexual addiction is real in some instances, but for others it's just a way of escaping the guilt that comes from calling it lust. Why not just not be guilty? Eating disorders are real, and disorders, I'm not saying otherwise. But does this mean that the older concept was wrong and the newer one is somehow right? I think we've merely shifted follies. For eating disorders, for example, the new concept, for all it perceives some things, misses the mark as well, I think, since it hasn't led to any great advances in treatment, anorexics and bulemics are stiill quite resistent to therapies that come out of the illness model. It's just that one source of guilt for the anorexic is gone.

I have Known The Rt Revd. Isaac Orama to be a decent, spirit- filled and bible based clergyman. His father The Ven Jason Orama is a clergyman of respectable value. Bp. Orama cannot make such statement.I pray that all those fighting against the Church of Nigeria is fighting against God.Please Leave our beloved Primate Dr Akinola, Bp. Minns and Bp. Orama Alone. I will advise, that the bible is there for them to read and be saved.

"I pray that all those fighting against the Church of Nigeria "

No-one is fighting against the Church of Nigeria. The Bible is indeed there for us to read, but it is our faith that saves us. You might try to read more carefully the passages that tell us not to trust in falsehood. Or do you believe the kinds of things your Primate and his supporters spew about gay people? You really think we are no better than animals, a cancer on the Body of Christ, that we could change if only we obeyed? The group of people who look to your Primate as their leader have spread lies and propaganda about gay people, even as recently as last week we have seen this. I cannot directly accuse your Primate of the same. This is not an attack on the Church of Nigeria or any other Church. It is merely a statement of fact. Now, you must decide how much falsehood your are willing to tolerate in the defence of what you believe to be the truth.

Oh, by the way, has anyone seen the promised retraction? It may be too early, but I am waiting with baited breath. I am NOT holding my breath in anticipation, as I suspect I would not resume breathing in the forseeable future.