Just as some were clearly disappointed that the reported comments were not true (as it gave them a weapon with which to beat ++Akinola),
I bet some are disappointed to see the ABC accept the report was false!

I would still like to see +Isaac say the reported remarks were disgusting and non-biblical but also think it is terribly sad that some "liberals" obviously wish the reports were not false so they could use them as a political weapon in the AC

As I said earlier in the week NP, in a comment that elicited yet another generic, off-topic, smokescreen response, it's not what Orama may or may not have said that concerns us. Even if it was said, the comment would be just another symptom of the cancer eating at the heart of the Nigerian church, and of the homophobia that Archbishop Akinola systematically cultivates and uses as a weapon of personal aggrandizement.

I continue to be amazed that one who presents himself as a thinking conservative evangelical can be taken in by Akinola, whose strategy and goals so closely mimic those of the prince bishops and popes of the later middle ages. Even the churches in his own country see through him and, his various attempted political manipulations notwithstanding, want none of him - witness his spectacular failure in June of this year to secure a further term as National President of the Christian Association of Nigeria. Tell me NP - and I know, if you run true to form, that you won't touch this one with a bargepole - how a conservative evangelical can embrace both the concept of lay presidency - which you did earlier this week - and the institution of the prince bishop? Do you actually believe in this man NP, or do you merely see him as a useful tool for the advancement of a conservative evangelical agenda in the United Kingdom?

Oh NP, it's all such a catch 22. If Orama could "say the reported remarks were disgusting and non-biblical." But alas he can't because he doesn't think that. Rather he thinks the opposite. And it is because he didn't say that and won't, that "liberals" wish the truth would finally come out and in their hearts know the report is true.

_some "liberals" obviously wish the reports were not false so they could use them as a political weapon in the AC_

Wasn't it Dave, Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick and Titch who had a song with the opening line: "Bend it, bend it, just a little bit"?

For someone who mentions "smokescreens", you really should not then try to make the issue ++Akinola, Rabbit!

As I have said many times, ++Akinola is not the issue (in this thread or major AC crises caused by TEC since 2003). I am pleased the leader of the Nigerian church supports the agreed positions of the AC and is against those who try to force the AC to accept their membership of it while they do not not show respect for certain agreed positions (ie VGR's TEC)...... this does not mean I have to agree with ++Akinola on everything or have to defend him!

What "cancer" in the Nigerian church do you mean, Rabbit?
The "cancer" of wanting to stick to agreed Lambeth positions eg 1.10?
How shocking and terrible that an Archbishop should want such a thing as keeping to agreed AC positions!

I notice the liberal Rowan Williams has not been issuing communiques asking ++Akinola to change his behaviour...has he???
(note the Tanzania Communique reiterated the fact that there is no equivalence between so called "boundary crossings" and the recent innovations of TEC which are not accepted by most of the AC Primates or members....in fact Tanzania made explicit that some felt they had to help the faithful in the US until TEC(USA) was in line with the AC or there existed adequate oversight for faithful Anglicans in the US)

The first sentence of section 26 of the Dar es Salaam communiqué states: "The interventions by some of our number and by bishops of some Provinces, against the explicit recommendations of the Windsor Report, however well-intentioned, have exacerbated this situation."

"... against the explicit recommendations of the Windsor Report .... have exacerbated this situation". I seem to recall heated statements on this site concerning TEC's "Windsor compliance", arguing that it is an absolute requirement. But only an absolute requirement for TEC, it appears.

I don't see anything in the communiqué about there being "no equivalence" between boundary crossings and TEC's "innovations". Maybe you'd guide me, NP.

As I said above, "yet another generic, off-topic, smokescreen response".

Typical naivety from Williams. I don't expect anything more from such a spineless compromiser. In any case, its Akinola, and the rest of the Global South who need to be challenged for their homophobia, which is intrinsic to their religion.

"What "cancer" in the Nigerian church do you mean, Rabbit?"

How about the "cancer" of openly supporting government measures that subject innocent human beings to injustice by virtue of their sexual orientation? Injustice that includes imprisonment and police abuse?

I said above that "I don't see anything in the communiqué about there being "no equivalence" between boundary crossings and TEC's 'innovations'". On second look I see that I was wrong - section 10 of the communiqué states that the Windsor Report did not see a "moral equivalence" between the two. It is in fact there. The substance of my post is not affected by this. I will not waste folks' time with discussion of the fallacy of the "no moral equivalence" statement, since all of us are familiar with the politics of the situation.

Pat referred to: "government measures that subject innocent human beings to injustice by virtue of their sexual orientation"

In fact, the proposed legislation in Nigeria went well beying persecuting homosexuals - and in any event, homosexual acts are already criminalized in Nigeria.

The act was even more odious that that, making it illegal to say "perhaps we shouldn't be so nasty to gay people."