Bp. Whalon states that Christians in countires with Isalmic populations expereince increasing hostility because of the way TEC and others treat gay people. [I would quote exactly but can't cut and paste e/my program when it's the first comment]

Again, I ask Bp. Whalon or anyone else to cite an instance of such harassment or hostility on the part of Muslims that is linked to TEC - or any other Christian body - that treats gays fairly. I want sources like Reuters, AP, BBC - independent press. I don't want a press release from Bp Akinola. This claim has been made since +Gene's election, but nobody has cited independent evidence that African [or other] Muslims have attacked Christians and said it was because some Christian bodies treat glbt people as sheep of Jesus' own flock. I was born in Missouri - SHOW ME.

So far, the best documented instances of violence connected to gayness have been things like the man who shot up the UU church in the US a few weeks ago because it was too liberal towards gays.

Cynthia, it would certainly be helpful to have such reports. At the same time, such events were reported in the blog posts of a number of American bishops as stories shared in the indaba groups. It was reported often enough, and from enough different countries, that I think we need to take the possibility seriously.

Does it happen more often than glbt persons are attacked, in those countries or elsewhere? Who knows? Most likely not. But neither do we want to get into the "can-you-top-this" competition of "my pain is worse than your pain." *Both* are tragic.

Neither do I think it means we should somehow step back from radical Gospel hospitality to our glbt siblings, because I don't think that. However, I do think we need to take those losses seriously, and acknowledge that our commitment to welcome might have consequences that we also regret.

I would be more persuaded by those who claim to experience violence by the AC's reputation as a "gay church", if they would CHALLENGE LGBT-affirming provinces on an "If... Then..." basis.

"If you will consecrate same-sex bishops/bless or MARRY same-sex couples, ***THEN*** [_______________]."

For TEC/AngChCanada to pull out of the AC will do NOTHING to solve this problem (Try saying "We're not the 'gay church' anymore---there's a moratorium!" to your persecutors. AS IF that would stop them?)

However, a properly-constructed CHALLENGE to North America (among others!) would force us to (probably literally) "put our money where our mouths are."

For example, how 'bout North American-staffed "Nonviolent Protection Corp"? Literally putting our bodies between Sudanese Anglicans, and their attackers? It's just a thought...

...but one that does NOT require Episcopalians/Canadian Anglicans to violate OUR deeply-held moral beliefs (AND, it might actually save lives!)

Come, Holy Spirit, our souls inspire...

A very good example of the Lambeth reports that Marshall refers to is an interview given by the bishops of Michigan to their diocesan media officer who also reported Lambeth directly. It is a very frank interview.
'Bishop Gibbs: My biggest hope about the reflection [a summary of small groups discussions] that comes out is that it honestly reflects the fact that we are not of one mind as a Communion, but that we are of one heart—one heart in Jesus. And that we do want to stay together as a Communion, we are looking desperately for ways to make that happen, and we are trying to do it in a way in which our brothers and sisters in parts of the world who are being persecuted won’t be murderedevery time somebody in another part of the world does somethingthat appears to be inconsistent with traditional Christian teaching. Andthat is a hard balance.”
[Bishop Gibbs goes into detail about a Sudanese Bishop]
“He also has to deal with Muslims. Every time something happensin North America, they look at himand his church, point a finger, and the persecution begins. And it’s not just name-calling or people walking by General Convention booths with signs. We are talking about homes being burned [and] peoplebeing beaten and killed over thingsthat they didn’t even do. I think the[Lambeth Conference] reflectionthat needs to come out of this needsto say we are struggling with all of that.”
http://www.the-record.org/PDFfiles/conversation.pdf

I came across a documented case of violence against a gay man in Africa just a few days ago. Violence against gays is not a myth.

I think the following is close to the bone:

“Rescuing” Americans seems to provide a happy distraction from the lingering wounds of the collaboration of Rwandan Christians, including some Anglicans, in that horrific event.

I also applaud the bishop's appeal for theologians to make the biblical case for inclusion of glbt people, a call repeatedly made by Rowan Williams also. The witness of loving gay couples makes the case when correlated with what Paul says about agape.

I am curious about the Archbishop's proposed Pastoral Forum to deal with the problems minorites encounter in the various provinces of the Anglican Communion. Will this just be limited to hearing and advocating on behalf of conservative minorites in TEC and ACCn? What about the LGBT minorities in Africa? What about the Gay Christian Movement in the Church of England? Or is this just for bishops? If it is, what about +Gene Robinson or Bp Ingram of New Westminster. The Archbishop seems to envision a 'holding company' for these conservative bishops. Is he willing to provide the same accomodations for other minorities with aggrieved consciences? In fact, the only ones likely to appeal to it are LGBT Anglicans who want an end to be scapegoated. The Conservatives are already going out the door to the Southern Cone and other destinations.

Bishop Pierre Whalon can look to strengthen the case for inclusion theologically if he wants, but calling it moral theology rather than essential doctrine won't change the James Innell Packer's of this world who elevate the Bible to a literalist pinnacle and decide it is doctrine. It is also over optimistic in terms of what the Pastoral Forum will set out to do. As far as I can see, the Conference behind the Conference still finds TEC guilty and still will act against it.

Bp Whalon is correct that only a theological reinterpretation of the revelation of Scripture could form a firm foundation for the Church to accept some form of same-sex sexual relationship as not sinful. Other teachings have been found to have been culturally relative, and therefore re-interpretable (eg the role of women in the church), or based on incorrect interpretations of the original meaning (eg the absolute ban on receiving interest for a loan).

The trouble is that the texts condemning same-sex sex were written when it was seen as acceptable in in other surrounding cultures! God's revelation in Judaism and Christianity stood out against those cultures and demanded restrictions in behavior as well as adherence to correct beliefs.

That is where Bp Whalon's argument about homosexuality not being a creedal issue is fatally weakened. Doctrine encompasses behavior as well as belief. Correct belief is not enough - even the devil believes - as James' Epistle mentions!

If Bp Whalon were right Paul would not have insisted in 1 Corinthians that an immoral brother be rejected by the church.

I agree that we have to take this concern seriously. I am very concerned for those who are trying to minister in a homophobic environment. However, that does not allow for Christians to support or advocate abuse of homosexuals or any group. It was also interesting for me to hear from a Nigerian at Lambeth, that in fact the Muslim north is, in practice, more tolerant of homosexuality than the Christian south.

"such events were reported in the blog posts of a number of American bishops as stories shared in the indaba groups. It was reported often enough, and from enough different countries, that I think we need to take the possibility seriously."

Ah! Where there is smoke, there is fire. Not regarding where the smoke actually comes from.

Sorry - the sources are not disinterested and are hearsay. Not good enough.

If I were to report on the likelyhood of evolution being an unscientific bit of foolery, I could cite many many letters to that effect to the editor of my local newspaper. There would be lots of them. Similarly, if I wanted to know if God cursed gay people, the same sources would overwhelmingly agree.

Alas, they were not written by disinterested parties. They were written by people with an ax to grind.

I want independent corrabortion from a disinterested and reliable source.

So far, that has not been forthcoming.

SHOW ME.

That statement made me rethink my response Marshall. Very well put and you're right, in our eagerness sometimes, and in my case more than I'd like to know, we bite back without truly listening and possibly trusting that there is some truth to some of these statements.

I often wonder if they GS folks don't use this as a lead in to "see how your position has hurt our evangelism," but maybe we need to listen and give them the benefit of the doubt. That said, I agree with you that this shouldn't deter our working to full inclusivity of all peoples.

The conflict between Christianity and Islam in Africa pre-dates by decades, at the very least, any whiff of Gene Robinson:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/nigeria-1.htm

I don't doubt that in this context that the latest insults have employed references to Gene Robinson, but even if there were no such thing as LGBT persons, this conflict would still be raging. I am also certain that the taunts refer to the different ethnic and social origins of the people who are attacked - if we followed this logic, one would have to recommend, say, that any Nigerian Christian with an Igbo background should not be fully accommodated by the AC, until the attacks stopped, so that we could reduce the danger of rivalry. Pretty soon you would have divested the AC in Nigeria of any Christians at all..

In other words, while it may be true that being a 'gay' church causes mockery, the call to remove Gene Robinson in order to prevent competition and hatred is absolute tosh.

Marshall Scott
Yes, it was reported on a number of bishops blogs. One reported it as fact first and 4 days later added that it was now "incontrovertible" fact.
I asked whether there had been any evidence to substantiate this and what made the previous "fact" now "incontrovertible", but although he engaged with virtually all other comments (including many of mine), he did not reply to this.

I think it DOES matter very much whether these reports are true or to which extent they are true.
Violence against lgbt people in African countries by their own people is well documented.
And it upsets me deeply that no-one has talked about African lives when potentially 2% of the population were at risk, but suddenly the whole church is up in arms about straight Christian lives without providing any evidence for them being at risk.

You are right, if there are Christians at risk because of what we do here it is something we must take very seriously, and we should think very hard about how we can protect them.

What is appalling is the political and immoral game being played here where we are being asked to protect and unspecified number of potential people at risk, whereas the others can threaten a real number of people at actual risk with impunity, even claiming it is the moral thing to do.

Marshall Scott,
Further to my previous post, Changing Attitude and Changing Attitude in Nigeria are working very hard trying to protect the lives of lgbt people in Africa while at the same time improving their status in society. To my knowledge the organisation has not received any support, moral or actual, from any of those bishops who now call loudly for the protection of African lives, nor from other people who now support the moratorium on the grounds that it helps people in Africa.

This is not to treat the potential danger of African Christians lightly. But those who have yet to lift a finger to protect anyone now to be calling for those of us who have been involved with African Christians to stop risking the lives of Africans is.... words fail me, actually.

Bob
"It was also interesting for me to hear from a Nigerian at Lambeth, that in fact the Muslim north is, in practice, more tolerant of homosexuality than the Christian south."

Yes, and it was the Muslim part of the Nigerian Parliament that was against Archbishop Akinola's proposed introduction of a law that would have criminalised supporters of homosexuals and threatened them with prison of up to 7 years. "Supporters" being anyone seen in public with a known homosexual.

This can be verified through the TA archives.

So, had we been having this debate 70 years ago we would be urging discretion about the persecution of Jews in case it brought reprisals against our fellow Christians in Germany. Do we need to be more careful when we speak out against anti-Semitism and the oppression of women, lest churches in the Middle East come under attack for being 'Jew-loving' or 'women-loving'?

How Christian is African missionary work when it relies on the sacrifice of innocent bystanders? The African Bishops' argument is despicable.

Fascinating that the only part of Bp Whalon's piece that is attracting any liberal comment here is on whether TEC's "sanctification" of same-sex relationships is causing harm to Christians in countries with significant Muslim populations. That was hardly the core of his argument!

BTW it is crass to suggest that conservative beliefs really just amount to persecution and oppression of homosexuals... Even liberals believe that SOME sexual attractions and desires are wrong... and certainly wouldn't accept that their beliefs amount to persecution and oppression of people who experience those attractions and desires! Beware sloppy thinking..

"For example, how 'bout North American-staffed "Nonviolent Protection Corp"? Literally putting our bodies between Sudanese Anglicans, and their attackers? It's just a thought..."

It upsets me when "liberal" Christians dismiss reports of militant people who identify as Muslim using Western tolerance for homosexuality as an excuse for violence. It strikes me as very much the same as conservatives denying anti-gay violence. However, I strongly agree with the above quote. I would caution that I made exactly the same claim over a year ago, and no less a person than Tunde Popoola advised me, that, were I to do such a thing, he would do nothing to stop others from laying hands on me and throwing me in jail for telling Nigerians that it was OK to sin. So, while I do believe we have a responsibility to protect the lives of people, gay and straight alike, on the other side of the planet from those who would kill them, at least one Nigerian prelate seems to think it more important to jail gay people than to accept their solidarity against those who oppress his flock. Since faithless, pagan, Western, society-pleasing liberals share our guilt by assocating with us, I'd suggest they would receive the same kind of welcome from +Tunde.

Something which is independently documented as causing tensions, riots and bloodshed between Christians and Muslims in places like Northern Nigeria is Christian tolerance of alcohol consumption and alcohol sales. I've yet to see calls for world wide Anglican tee-totalism or for the use of Ribena only in the eucharist, or for Anglo catholics to lay off the gin in the Home Counties lest they scandalise their Muslim brethren in Africa and cause riots. It's interesting to see how the Muslim response must be paramount in one case (even though no-one can point to any independent reports of this ever happening), and yet it's ignored in the other, despite the fact that it's a well-known flashpoint and Christians have actually been attacked for running businesses which serve alcohol.

The implicit deal we Anglican believers are being offered, sacrifice one group's physical safety (queer folks) right now for an unknown length of time, in return for progress or outright settlement in triumph in another group's safety (African Anglicans) is simple-minded sound bite - disinegenuous at best.

If you push a bit on the physical safey of queer folks in Africa, you typically get a Samaritan parable disclaimer: I see no violence, I hear no violence, I do no violence - as a believer I always cross the road when I see queer folks who might be threatened or attacked. Queer folks are dirty, a western corrupting imported by colonialism into traditional African culture. My African believer hands are clean, clean, clean, clean, clean - but not so clean as my bishops or archbishop's hands, which are super clean dontcha know?

But the hard and complicated choices are not between queer folks (vile, nasty, unrepentant) and everybody else (straight, baby-making, and repentant) - though that is the way hot button setups get pitched to us nowadays.

The hard and complicated choices are, especially in African and elswhere (everywhere?) where normative, sanctioned violence rears ugliness and danger - between following Jesus of Nazareth right through all of it, and trying to cut a deal with state powers or church life principalities or spiritual violence claiming to come down upon us from very high places indeed, all glowing with fake lights angelic.

Rowan, as ABC, is obliged to know better, and to preach better. The real cross we global Anglican believers bear is to follow Jesus of Nazareth right through all forms of violence, justified by all mean reasons pretending to be Light with a capital L. Our global temptation is violence offering us deals in desert places, rather as Satan in the New Testament offers deals to Jesus - just do this, and I will leave you that?

Buying into these Sophie's Choice sorts of deals will not ever save us. Even less will these forced, fake Sophie's Choices save and preserve us as Anglicans, globally.

An African Anglican church life and believer stand against all violence in all forms - and yes, repeat preachments about human dignity and basic human rights grounded in reason, the scriptures, available traditions and all following Jesus of Nazareth - would in the long run do more for a global revival of faith than these mean-spirited deals we are constantly being offered in this so-called holiness realignment campaign.

The deals are all faulty, as are the main outlines of the new institutional reforms Rowan or other leaders say will save us from being different enough to misunderstand one another? I remain unconvinced. Policing, punishments, threats, weaponized conformity in Anglican doctrines - who eva wudda thunk it could happen among Anglicans?

Lord have mercy.

Ford
"It upsets me when "liberal" Christians dismiss reports of militant people who identify as Muslim using Western tolerance for homosexuality as an excuse for violence."

That would upset me too.
But all I can hear are liberal Christians asking for verification of these reports, all at the same time stating that if they were true, they would have to be taken very seriously and we would have to think seriously about how to protect the people concerned.

"verification of these reports"

How does someone in a small village in Northern Nigeria verify that people killed her son yelling "Death to the sodomites!"? It is certainly an expected aspect of our fallen human nature that people would behave this way, and Muslims are just as fallen as we are. Whether or not it happens is not really the issue. What is at issue here is that Christians living in close proximity to militant Islam fear it and feel that arrogant Westerners are ignoring a real threat to thier lives, so caught up are we in what we see as a fight for justice. I doubt the woman I talked about above would see the marriage of two, by her standards affluent, Westerners to be a matter of justice when she has to go bury her son. Asking for verification just adds to the harm. Incidents of gay bashing can be equally murky, but I still take offence when some conservative tries to deny that it even happens, so why should we expect different from her? We end up looking like people who are willing to sacrifice the lives of others for our own interests. The argument that what we do will help gay people there is weak, since pressuring oppressive governments to stop their persecution of gay people is far more effective than ignoring their fears to do something that, let's face it, only benefits us. I'm not saying the argument is a valid one, just that it is counterproductive to demand some sort of verification that most of these people would not be able to give, any more than we would be able to give proof of a lot of incidents of gay bashing. We should accept that they at least fear it. I'm also not saying that we should stop what we are doing, but the parallels with gay bashing are too close for me to just refuse to accept it until someone has given me what I consider to be adequate proof. Perhaps a good start would be for us to say to that owman, "You fear being unjustly killed by militant Muslims, well we fear being unjustly killed as well, only by straight people. We at least share the fear of unprovoked violent death, so let's make that a starting point for discussion."

I don’t know, Ford. Is this Nigerian woman real or is she a hypothetical example?
If the woman has found it possible to alert enough people to what happened, to the point that bishops could confidently take the story to Lambeth, then I would expect other, independent sources to have picked it up too. Or for the bishops to have given concrete examples that others might verify. Anything, however small that might help.

The point Cynthia keeps making is that there just is no independent confirmation of any kind of violence of the sort. I suppose the suspicion is that these stories are made up in order to make us feel guilty about being liberal on sexuality issues. With gay bashing there is enough actual evidence and it can readily be assumed that there are more incidents than are being reported. But when not a single incident of violence has been verified, while Islamist aggressors generally make their motives for attacks very public, there is at least a possibility that these reports are purely politically motivated.

When we cite anti gay violence we tend to have evidence for it, although the conservatives refuse to see the evidence and claim that we’re lying. That’s not quite the same thing.

But evidence is also important to assess how we can best help. Because if these reports are real, then we have to do more than use them as a starting point for a conversation.
We are at least trying to actively help lgbt Africans, and Davis, for example, knows a lot about who is at risk and where they are, so things can be and are being done to protect them.

I accept there is probably real fear of violence.
I accept that we bear a responsibility for this.
But before I accept that we are, however indirectly responsible for real violence and that this should have actual consequences for the way our own churches act within our own countries, I would need to have a little more than the say so of strongly anti gay bishops talking in the cosy confines of indaba Lambeth.

"while Islamist aggressors generally make their motives for attacks very public, there is at least a possibility that these reports are purely politically motivated."

But Islamist aggressors DO make it very clear what their motives are: they will no longer be dominated and oppressed by the decadent corrupt Westerners. Erika, ask your Middle Eastern friends. They will tell you that ordinary people in the Middle East consider you a prostitute simply because you are a Western woman, and all Western women are prostitutes by definition. I get this from a colleague from Iraq. That is the impression of Western society held by many many people in what are far more conservative and traditional societies than our own: we're all arrogant rich hedonists who will sacrifice others for our own self fulfillment. Again, as I say, the issue isn't the veracity of the reports, but the fact that so many fear these things. I read these discussions as if I were someone from one of those places, fearing religious violence. It sounds to me very much like the denials of gay bashing I was talking about. We can indeed cite statistics that they probably cannot, but in individual cases, the fact is denied. Just a few weeks ago, there was a thread here of a gay bashing, called such by the police, somewhere in England. Conservatives here all questioned the objectivity of the police in calling it a gay bashing! I imagine those Nigerians and others who live with the reality of sectarian violence feel very much the way I did then: "These people hate us so much they even deny the facts of our deaths, all the while pretending to love us!"

Boy, am I tired of the "African Muslims are killing African Anglicans because of American Anglican homosexuals" meme. In the first place, I find it really hard to believe that such persecution exists (do African Muslims really keep that much abreast of PECUSA politics?), and no, I'm not willing to take ++Akinola's or ++Orombi's unsubstantiated word on the subject. Secondly, even if it were true, what's the point?

The whole purpose of the argument is to condemn liberal Anglicans for endangering African Anglicans over what I imagine is supposed to be the frivolous subject of gay rights. I reject the implication. Sorry, but the one responsible for shooting someone is the person who pulls the trigger, not whatever third party the shooter decides to blame.

Let's imagine that all of the nasty homos stop infuriating African Islamists. Are they going to start giving us a pass on our drinking alcohol, eating pork, or praying to Jesus? Would it be better if Islamists killed Christians because of these issues, instead of one having to do with sexuality?

Ford
Absolutely, Islamists will no longer be oppressed by decadent Westerners.
They assert that, and based on that they carry out terrorist attacks.
Those fears I take seriously, theirs and the resulting ones in the West.

I am not denying any deaths, and I do know that Christians are actually being persecuted by Muslems. This, too, I take as seriously as Muslims being attacked by other people, or being made to feel oppressed.

What I will not do is accept guilt where there is no shred of evidence.

No-one has yet claimed that African churches accepting money from Western churches as part of aid programmes or mission programmes directly results in Islamists who hate the West killing African Christians. No African church has asked loudly for those donations to be stopped because the corrupt West is flooding Africa with tainted money in order to increase its immoral influence.

But you're asking me to believe, without a shred of evidence, that this obvious association with the West does no discernible harm, yet the West's permission of SSBs incites Islamists to kill.

If it does happen, if there is the slightest evidence for it anywhere, I will do everything in my personal power to help alleviate the situation, just as I now do everything I can to help African lgbt people.

Until then, I remain sceptical and refuse to feel guilty.

Erika wrote: “But when not a single incident of violence has been verified, while Islamist aggressors generally make their motives for attacks very public…”

It seems to me that it is the “Christians” that make their motives for attacks very public e.g. “No monopoly on violence”, a few years back, or “No comments”, more recently ; - (

Ford wrote: “all Western women are prostitutes by definition. I get this from a colleague from Iraq.”

I am sure this is about the clothes, Ford.

I actually think all this talk of violent Muslims is just the Very Proper Gander exercising his lungs. Perhaps it’s not even African propaganda.

"What I will not do is accept guilt where there is no shred of evidence."

It's not about our guilt, Erika. Human beings hate each other, it's part of being fallen. We find ways to single out the "other". We love to hide behind religion to do it. Anglicans are doing that now, all of us. God has placed in our way things that we can use to justify that hate and fear, and I think He did it as a test. Muslims are people too. There is a group of people who are no more Muslim than Fred Phelps is a Christian, who, like him, hide behind their Scriptures to justify their hatred. Then there are others who present far more elaborate arguments that their position is a Godly one, misusing God to justify some very nasty personal effects of the Fall. Then there are those who are poor and struggling who get a lot out of the solidarity that somes from this and the sense that they can blame someone for their troubles. This is in no way different from the current Anglican situation.

We know there is persecution of Christians. I am not saying we should stop going where we are going because of this, and I'm certainly not talking about blame for this. I am saying that demanding "proof" of gay people being used as an excuse to kill Christians shows an alarming unwillingness in us to "bear one another's burdens". It also prevents talk. Why would anyone in Nigeria want to talk to people who dismiss their fears in this manner? When someone on this site dismisses the reality of anti-gay violence, do you have much other than anger for him? It's not about blame. It's about people just as ordinary as us, who have the same kinds of fears, justified and unjustified. I don't care if those in power give me any evidence at all that what they say is true, I'm far more concerned with what that hypothetical woman with HIV is feeling, because she and all the other faceless people like her will support +Akinola against us if she thinks that all we care about is ourselves. It's what the rest of the world thinks of us Westerners anyway, and dismissing their fears just confirms it.

Ford
I think the difference between us is that I need proof in order to be able to truly bear the other's burden.

Sitting at home twisted in sympathy (I exaggerate to make my point, apologies) isn't actually helping anyone.
If bearing the other's burden means anything it has to mean that I modify my own actions in order to help the other, or that I go out of my way to provide practical and actual support. Both would be possible.

But to say "I believe I know of your plight and I do feel ever so sorry for you, but I will otherwise do nothing for you" is almost verging on the cynical. It's certainly in line with those conservatives who will condemn any theoretical violence against gay people but stop short of condemning any actual example, far less do anything to reduce it.

I rather suspect that some cases of anti-Christian violence by Muslims have included homophobic rhetoric about "the gay church."

Why not? It's one more arrow in the quiver for fundamentalist Muslim rabble-rousers.

Now, if Muslim violence against Christians would stop if only we westerners would quit ordaining lgbts and blessing their unions, then we'd really need to have a serious discussion about this.

But I don't believe for a minute that these things are the sole cause of such violence.

You see, I am not an idiot.

If the North Americans (and the Brits and the Australians and the Kiwis and cetera) all cast our lgbt brothers and sisters into the outer darkness this afternoon, and if all our secular governments recriminalized homosexual acts, and if we started hanging lgbts in the village square, anti-Christian violence and the fundamentalist Muslim screeds behind them would continue unabated.

Ford, you wrote, "Whether or not it happens is not really the issue. What is at issue here is that Christians living in close proximity to militant Islam fear it and feel that arrogant Westerners are ignoring a real threat to thier lives, so caught up are we in what we see as a fight for justice."

Huh.

Do you actually do a lot of talking with people in northern Nigeria? How do you know -- besides having the gay-hating Nigerian bishops' word for it -- that anyone is actually afraid that the reason that the Islamists are coming after them is because of North American gay Anglicans?

Sorry, but whether or not this gay-induced persecution happens IS the issue. It's closely linked to the issue of whether or not this fear is a complete fabrication of the GAFCON episcopate.

"It's closely linked to the issue of whether or not this fear is a complete fabrication of the GAFCON episcopate."

No, I haven't talked to Nigerians, but I have talked to Arab Christians, who tell me of the hostility of their Muslim neighbours. No doubt I'd get the same thing from those Muslim neighbours. I also know that hate and finding ways to justify that hate are basic parts of human nature, regardless of the religion those humans profess, so this isn't about making Muslims evil. Even if this IS as a complete fabrication of the GAFCON episcopate, their people are hearing it. They live in a society where there IS sectarian violence, and some of them have been killed in it. Whether or not any of these people suffered because some others chose to hang their hate on Western Christian openness to gay people, individual Nigerians, coming from their own cultural framework, are hearing what their bishops are saying in a atmosphere where they can reasonably be expected to fear it, whether or not it actually HAS happened. Again, I don't care what some power hungry cleric says. I DO care what impression, mistaken though it may be, our reaction to what these clerics say gives to ordinary people. We can't expect them to have any love for us at all if we give them the impression their fears don't matter, or that we think their leaders, for whom they seem to have great respect, are lying to us. I'm not saying we should accept blame, much less turn back the clock, just that I think the reaction gives the wrong impression of us and gives those same powerhungry clerics more ammunition.

"...are hearing what their bishops are saying..."

You make a good point, Ford. I hadn't considered that news of our perfidious ways might reach African Anglicans as easily from their bishops as from CNN.

"I hadn't considered that news of our perfidious ways might reach African Anglicans as easily from their bishops as from CNN."

I don't want to be disrespectful of them, but I figure that for some in the more rural areas of Nigeria, what their bishop says is far more real than CNN. How many of them have ever seen CNN, or anything like it? I don't think rural Nigeria has as much contact with worldwide telecommunications as urban North America. I'm from Newfoundland, and in rural parts of this island you can't get broadband net access, and that's in "affluent" North America. When I was a kid in the 60s, we didn't even have television. The 500 mile road down the Northern Peninsula from where I grew up to the rest of the island wasn't paved till the 1980s. I read a letter from a Nigerian foster child to one of my friends who was the sponsor. The life she described, of having to walk several miles to school and bring her share of the wood for the school stove parallelled my parents' childhoods, and that cultural situation didn't change all that much till the 1960s. So I tend to think of rural Nigeria as being somewhere around rural Newfoundland about ten years before I was born. If that is to be considered "backward", as some seem to feel Westerners think of Africans, then I guess I grew up in a pretty backward place. I never thought I did, and would be quite insulted to be told otherwise, just like I imagine most Nigerians were by the statements people made at Lambeth '98 about them. But it leads me to think that I am not being in anyway disrespectful when I consider their culture now to be so much like my own roots in respect of isolation and the kinds of services people have access to, and with which I strongly identify.