There is a short CNN video interview with ++Nzimbi in which he explains why he's not going to Lambeth - he just about holds back from saying some provinces are 'sinning' :-)
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/07/17/mckenzie.kenya.bishop.nzimbi.cnn

And on a brighter note, there's another CNN report on Gay Christians in Nigeria:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/07/17/purefoy.nigeria.gay.church.cnn

"“If we allowed immorality to take place, then soon some African clergy will demand to break their vows of marriage to enter polygamy,” he said."

Priceless and beyond parody.

Refreshing to read a diversity of opinions about Lambeth from such African sources. Appreciate the links.

“It is upon their synods and personal conscience because morality is the pillar of Christianity,” he said.

hahahahahahahahaha!

Really, you can't make it up.

And here was me thinking belief in the saving power of Jesus Christ was the pillar of Christianity.

"Priceless and beyond parody."

Honestly, I don't see why.

But if African Christians can rise above their culture re. polygamy, why can't Americans re. homosexuality?

""Priceless and beyond parody."

Honestly, I don't see why."
You might want to look at the post immediately above yours. Then stop and think why it is that you have unquestioningly accepted that sexual morality is the core of Christianity. Consider how the issue of sexual morality in Scripture is a much more complicated thing than "If one is monogamous in marriage one is a good person". Consider that GAFCON seems to think that agreement on a conservative position on sexuality takes precedence over Christology, ecclesiology, and sacramental theology as definitions of orthodoxy. Consider how they decry others for "innovation", but practice a style of Christianity, well most of them anyway, that 500 years ago represented a far more radical redefinition of the faith than anything they now oppose. Then think what forces have led you to the acceptance of this. Fear of change? Political entanglements? Uncertainty of salvation? What leads you to accept the bizarre idea that "morality", itself subjectively defined, is at the core of Christianity, surpassing God's free unconditional love, even seeming to supplant justification by faith. Since if morality is at the core, then one is justified by morality: works, and not by faith. Meditate on these things. You don't have to agree with the Left, this isn't the point. Rather, you are so avidly defending a particular "morality", and you might be right that it is in some way important, that you seem to have veered widely from the basics of the faith. You don't have to give up your ideas of morality, just look at what you have ended up giving value to.

"protesting the laid back handling of gay clergy in the Anglican Communion"

Are there positions in which handling gay clergy would be acceptable to them?

"But if African Christians can rise above their culture re. polygamy, why can't Americans re. homosexuality?" - Dan

Because monogamy is easier than celibacy?

"But if African Christians can rise above their culture re. polygamy, why can't Americans re. homosexuality?"

Because polygamy is wrong?

"...But if African Christians can rise above their culture re. polygamy, why can't Americans re. homosexuality?"

Isn't that exactly what we're doing? Our culture taught us for more than 2000 years that homosexuality was immoral, ugly, icky, etc.

We've risen above that to discover that it can be-- when pursued in a loving, monogamous relationship--as proper and spiritual as a loving, monogamous heterosexual relationship.

Polygamy is extremely harmful to women, and indicates a society where women are valued only as property. Monogamous gay and lesbian relationships do no such thing. In fact, they enhance the value of women, since lesbian relationships value women and gay men, who are stereotyped as being effeminate, also challenge sexism.

Why is that, Erika?

[Since we're all taking a crack at Misses-The-Obvious. ;-/]

Polygamy is a CHOICE, Dan. Homosexuality ISN'T.

In Christian morality, polygamy has been determined to be a *sinful* choice. Monogamy---for those called to it (as opposed to celibacy)---has been affirmed as a healthy, righteous choice.

The only problem, has been getting that healthy, righteous choice extended to homosexual couples, as it has been to heterosexual ones.

[The cultural question is a red herring: healthy homosexuality, and sinful polygamy, are found in BOTH Africa and (the U.S. of) America!]

Trooper,
Polygamy makes sense in extremely poor countries where women are not allowed to support themselves financially and where rich men are called on to support more than one woman.

But that's still no reason to combine looking after people with sexual exploitation.
If you read women's accounts of their experience as one of many wives you will find much heartache. The feeling of being no longer loved or valued when a young beautiful wife comes along. The feeling of being only second or third best because you were chosen (or given away by your father) later. The difficulties of living with other wives, having to share your husband with other wives....

It comes down to sanctioning unequal and exploitative relationships.

Do the bishops really speak for homophobic hordes? I saw a Malaysian bishop claim that homosexuality was taboo in his country -- something wildly at variance with the facts. I suspect that these bishops need to learn to listen to their own people first. Kudos to those who came to Lambeth despite outrageous bullying from their fellow-bishops. Only one province is unrepresented there now!

""Priceless and beyond parody."

Honestly, I don't see why."
You might want to look at the post immediately above yours. Then stop and think why it is that you have unquestioningly accepted that sexual morality is the core of Christianity.

Ford,

(1) I wasn't referring in any way to the post above mine.

(2) You have assumed without any proof that I agree with the perspective cited in that post.

(3) I don't.

(4) The fact that you jumped to the conclusion that I do, says quite a lot about yourself.

(5) Said post wasn't even written at the time of writing of the post I WAS responding to.

(6) You need to chill out man ;)

(7) You haven't answered my question.

(8) My simple little post has clearly touched a very raw nerve with a lot of posters. (TBC)

"But if African Christians can rise above their culture re. polygamy, why can't Americans re. homosexuality?" - Dan

Because monogamy is easier than celibacy? (Hugh)

Not to JFK it wasn't! Plus you're ignoring that many homosexual men (including the man at the eye of this whole storm) do actually marry and sire children. Maybe they should be better termed bisexual?

"But if African Christians can rise above their culture re. polygamy, why can't Americans re. homosexuality?"

Because polygamy is wrong? (Erika)

Try maintaining that to Muslims and Mormons from the Bible alone. You'll have your work cut out.

But once you've done all you can on that front, just try turning round and telling them that the Bible says nothing against homosexual practices per se.

Both groups will laugh their heads off.

Consider:

(1) Which is ever explicitly provided for in Biblical moral law, and which isn't.

(2) Which was undoubtedly practised by persons undoubtedly in covenant with the true God without putting them out of it, and which wasn't.

Looks like I'll have to spend all morning replying to other responses to my first post ;)

"...But if African Christians can rise above their culture re. polygamy, why can't Americans re. homosexuality?"

Isn't that exactly what we're doing? Our culture taught us for more than 2000 years that homosexuality was immoral, ugly, icky, etc.

We've risen above that to discover that it can be-- when pursued in a loving, monogamous relationship--as proper and spiritual as a loving, monogamous heterosexual relationship. (Pat)

I believe you've committed a fallacy involving a manifest anachronism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but ECUSA/TEC only started ordaining known practising homosexuals once homosexuality became normalised among that narrow social/cultural section of the US population from which the membership of that province is principally drawn.

In other words, I very much doubt that TEC was ever really rising above culture at all. In fact it seems pretty clear to those of us outside that it's been a weathercock for whatever liberal US culture has deemed acceptable.

If you really want an example of a live fish swimming against the tide, you'd be better off considering somewhere like Sydney Diocese.

"Polygamy is a CHOICE, Dan. Homosexuality ISN'T."

You're not comparing like with like. An inclination to polygamy or homosexuality may not be chosen, but the decision to act or not act upon that inclination definitely is. Not saying whether it's hard or not - that's a different matter.

I object to the moral defeatism implicit in the post, to the effect that even with the resources Christ makes available to us we can't control our urges and are somehow fated to be driven by them like a ship before a hurricane.

Dan:

No, I don't think I've committed that fallacy. And even if it were true that "...ECUSA/TEC only started ordaining known practising homosexuals once homosexuality became normalised among that narrow social/cultural section of the US population from which the membership of that province is principally drawn..." (and I don't think it is true), what does that say about TEC? To me, it says that TEC was in the lead in the recognition that homosexual love--in a respectful, monogamous relationship--is as much a gift of God as heterosexual love is.

Why is that the traditionalists always want committed, monogamous homosexuals to "control their urges" to follow the inclinations God gave them, and never ask committed, monogamous heterosexuals to do the same?

Dan,
"You need to chill out man ;)"

Indeed I do. But for the last two years here, I and others have repeatedly had to explain the truth about gay people to those who refuse to acknowledge the facts of our lives. Instead, they defend, often with pseudoscience bordering on propaganda, the most eggregious lies against us. Surely you can see the difference between acceptance of gay people and polygamy. So why make the statement you made? Yes, I need to chill, but how do I do that when every single conservative with whom I communicate refuses to listen, claims to have done so, and is so engaged with opposing the Evil Hell Bound Liberals that they are oblivious to anything I am saying? How would you feel if you repeatedly pointed out to someone with no scientific background that his "evidence" for some of the most eggregious lies about gay people is not scientifically valid (and I do actually have the training to make that statement, unlike him), he not only refuses to accept, but continually makes reference to vague evidence that he never cites, that contrary to all credible scientific evidence, he is right and the entire scientific community is wrong? Others take the same stand and claim that the scientific community is actually covering up the "facts" out of political correctness. How would you feel if someone defended jailing you for five years as "a good compromise" because other people want to kill you outright? I have never argued for SSBs, yet, most conservatives here think I support it, merely because I oppose their rhetoric. There is the occasional pious disavowal of such rhetoric, by people whose subsequent defence of it proves their insincerity. So, yes, I need to chill, but after two fruitless years of trying break through the knee jerk defensiveness of conservatives who are lost to the myth of their own persecution, I have my own knee jerk responses. Mea culpa. Now, tell me you DO know why gay acceptance is NOT justification for polygamy.

Dan
why should anyone fight the urge to have a loving relationship?
Apart from the untenable idea that God might not like it, there just is not a single credible reason for anyone to reject love and stability.

Dan
"Try maintaining that to Muslims and Mormons from the Bible alone. You'll have your work cut out.

But once you've done all you can on that front, just try turning round and telling them that the Bible says nothing against homosexual practices per se.

Both groups will laugh their heads off."

I don't particularly care whether Muslims or Mormons laugh their heads off because of my reading of Scripture. I am neither a Muslim nor a Mormon.

What I am is a Christian who is applying the time honoured Anglican formula of Scripure, Tradition and Reason to her understanding of faith.

It goes without saying that the Bible is not inerrant, is not literal fact, and has not always been translated properly.

And before you laugh your head off again. Please, please, please do a bit of background reading. A skip through the major theologians of the last 2000 years would do. There are some excellent books available that summarise the various ways Christians have interpreted their faith, and which are relatively brief and accessible. You do not need to study theology to get a basic understanding that your way of looking at things is just the latest way of doing theology.

That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean that dismissively laughing your head off at those who disagree with you is not a sign of superiority but one of childishness.

"An inclination to polygamy or homosexuality may not be chosen, but the decision to act or not act upon that inclination definitely is."

See, Dan, you start out all reasonable and tell me to chill, then you come out with this. You reduce my relationship to an "inclination" to do a bit of the nasty once and a while. We have been called by several Lambeth Conferences to listen to gay people. I can only assume from this you haven't listened, and are thus as "disobedient" to Lambeth as the conservatives accuse TEC of being. Conservatives here have compared my sexuality to the "temptation" they fight to have another piece of dessert at Christmas! How would you feel if I compared your marriage to a Banoffee Pie? Who I am is not a temptation, Dan, and I and others have been making that argument to conservatives here for years (note the plural). Do we have to make the argument over and over to every conservative we encounter, only to be rebuffed over and over by people who just do not want to accord us the dignity of recognizing our humanity? And you don't, Dan, not if you can listen to our stories and dismiss our relationships as nothing more than an "inclination' to sin. I'll say what I always say: if you can show me that you do actually make your claims based on an understanding of what it is to be gay, I will listen, but as long as you come out with statements like this that show clearly that you are judging your preconceived notions of what I am rather than bothering to learn the truth of my life, why should I care? You are not talking about me, just about what you want to think I am.

"You're not comparing like with like. An inclination to polygamy or homosexuality may not be chosen, but the decision to act or not act upon that inclination definitely is."

No, YOU are "not comparing like with like", Dan.

The *rational* comparisons, are

1) Homosexuality with Heterosexuality (morally neutral, depending on one's innate orientation)

and

2) Monogamy with Celibacy (Both blessed states of life---manifested in accompanying righteous actions--- depending on one's call)

Polygamy, adultery, man-on-dog (etc. etc. ad nauseum) are SINFUL BEHAVIORS, which have NO place of comparison in a discussion of the above orientations and callings.

Quit blowing smoke, Dan!

I'd like to hear more about Kang’ethe Mungai.

Does this *eminently reasonable* person have any standing in the Anglican Church in Kenya? (and if not, why not? ;-/)