"...the age of discretion that used to be 21 has been lowered 18 and there are efforts at reducing it to 16 if not 14."

Does Akinola really think this is unbiblical? Has he any idea what age Mary was when she was engaged to Joseph and gave birth? Most serious scholars figure she was no more than 16!

The Primate of All Nigeria, Archbishop Akinola, includes reference to a report from the "Hendon & Finchley, Barnet & Potters Bar, Edgware & Mill Hill Times", the Daily Telegraph of 18 July 2008 and TELL magazine, published in Nigeria. There was a suspicion that man had sex with a sheep. Akinola writes: “A 27 year old man was arrested for having sex with a sheep in Dulwich, south east London.” That isn’t true.

I have an Anglican Nigerian staying with me at the moment. He says reports of men having sex with sheep and other animals are also common in Nigerian newspapers. He thinks Archbishop Akinola’s comments are laughable.

They are. The conservative arguments descend to more and more infantile and ludicrous levels. Martyn Minns, Michael Scott-Joynt, Michael Nazir Ali, Bob Duncan, etc, etc, NEVER refute Akinola and others who seem to truly believe that gay sex is one step away from bestiality.

It’s difficult not to lampoon and make fun of Akinola for writing such things. It makes intelligent engagement with the Church of Nigeria about homosexuality very difficult. Akinola spreads false rumours designed, as ever, to denigrate the integrity of gay Christians. At least conservatives with brains might come to his rescue, and if they can’t do that, then correct his misapprehensions.

"Those of us who shall be left can proudly call ourselves true Anglicans, true Christians."

Ah, yes - good old Christian pride.

I apologise for what might seem a tasteless comment, but my first confessor recalled being trained in how to respond to spectacular revelations, when the mentor, taking the role of the penitent, announced, 'I have just had sex with an elephant'. When the hapless confessor-in-training was left speechless, the mentor, exasperated, said, "Come on man. Ask me whether it was male or female!"

Apologies.....

I think we can all agree that Martyn Minns did not write this particular speech.

So, His Lordship believes that the "issues that have brought the Anglican Communion to the brink of collapse" include sexuality and female bishops. Glad to know it's not just gays, but also those pernicious women bishops, too. I knew it.

As to the lowering of the age of discretion from 21 to 18, what on earth is he talking about? Does anyone here know? For the record, the Parliament of Canada recently (and not without controversy) _raised_ the age of consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16. Of course, Canada is hardly the world, and I suspect that the Lord Archbishop of Abuja, Metropolitan and Primate of All Nigeria and His Realms Across the Sea, like Al Capone, doesn't even know which street Canada is on. But there it is.

On the question of Sunday opening, His Lordship's speechwriter should do some historical research. He might discover that Sunday closing laws originated in the 19th century and represent a brief historical anomaly in Western society.

Ah well, but why worry? The parousia may be upon us.

To say nothing of the Hebrew traditions concerning the age for marriage, the Christian tradition (i.e., Protoevangelium) holds that Mary was 12 -- that she had to leave the Temple precincts at menarche, and was at that point espoused to Joseph. I think the youngest age for marriage you will find in the US at this point is 13 (for females with parents' permission) in NH. But even South Carolina, a state in which a diocese is a strong supporter of Global South concerns, has a lower limit of 14 (again with parental consent.) The Episcopal Church has no age requirement, and defers to the state, though an individual cleric could decline to perform any given marriage, on his or her own judgment. The RC canons set the lower limit at 14 for women and 16 for men.

Archbishop Akinola continues to betray a deep ignorance both of history, tradition, and current events. It is, as others have noted, occasionally to have samples of his actual writing, to compare with the heavily edited or ghosted material that occasionally appears over his name.

I think lampooning is the best that can be said about him, because he invites absurdity more and more. Let him be the embarrassment that he is, with underlining.

I do not support Akinola in any particular way but two of the points he raises are difficult to deny, per se, and need still to be equitably tackled: the persecution of Christians where they are a minority, whether this is at the hands of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. (or even where they live in ostensibly 'Christian' lands), and the question of the overall interference of religious in matters of human rights, of which Akinola might be said to be an example in regard to LGBT persons as much as Mohammed Bouyeri was to free speech and freedom of expression in The Netherlands.

I think Brown himself in that sense verges on pandering to the metropolitan elite's view of the Muslim 'constituency' in his apparent outrage at Akinola's religious intolerance. In this he forgets at his peril the real beef that many religious, including Muslims and Christians, whether here or abroad, have with 'decadent Western values', which many see as the direct result of the freedoms inherent in the system of individual human rights, as far as morals go (I am not touching on the critique of democracy as a mechanism of government, partly based on the way in which it is 'wielded' by the US).

Peter Akinola is confused, very confused, and ignorant. When asked about the gay church in the Ojodu area of Lagos, he assumes that Changing Attitude Nigeria is being referred to, hence his comments about efforts being made to meet them.

The Church he is being asked about is of course the House of Rainbow MCC church founded by the Revd Jide Macualay, a friend of mine from London.

The church is not mere propaganda but is real and has been meeting regularly. Akinola wants to believe that the church is funded by white men but he is wrong. It is a church of and for lesbian and gay Nigerians.

Archbishop Akinola, there is a gay church in Nigeria, but it isn’t Anglican. What is worse for you, there are thousands and thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender members in the Anglican churches in Nigeria, and they are invisible to you, but one day you wil be shocked to discover who they are.

They are true Anglicans, true Christians, as much as you are. They are often exhibit a more Christian attitude than you. They are in my experience honest, spiritual, wise, and courageous, more truthful and less ignorant. They know what you don’t know - that gays are everywhere in Nigeria and many are faithful Anglicans despite the way you lie about them and denigrate them.

It is not the first time I am hearing or reading about people having sex with animals. This has happened in Nigeria and is no big news as the Archbishop is portraying it to be. There have been reports in Nigerian newspapers of men having sex with sheep and dogs. Archbishop Akinola is not only ignorant about the presence of a gay church in Nigeria but also the sexual activities of Nigerians.

"others who seem to truly believe that gay sex is one step away from bestiality"

It is at least tow steps away. But are they up or down?

Not sure what +Akinola means by "age of discretion". I may be doing him an injustice, but his obsession with sexual morality leads me infer that he may be talking about the age of (sexual) consent, in which case I would be amazed if Nigeria has an age as high as 21.

As for the sheep, I can't pretend to be inspired to lust by a gimmer ewe, but I'm at a loss to understand why anybody should be thrown in the slammer for being so tempted....

One does seriously wonder how Abp. Akinola ever managed to sire children. How on earth did he know what to do? His understanding of sexuality is seriously compromised every time he opens his mouth on the subject. Surely his contemporaries in the African countries ought to disabuse him of his shibboleths about sex in general.

If he was so serious about the dangers of sex, then perhaps he should issue an edict against it -especially for contenders for ordination in his province.

Can anyone tell me if they allow women to be lay readers in the Anglican Church of Nigeria?

The age of consent has just been raised in Canada.

Akinola should stop talking out his nether regions.

"There is nothing like that; it is all just mere media propaganda. It is not real. If there is anything like that at all, it must have been arranged by some people who just want to take money from those abroad who will like to fund anything just because of our stand on the issue. There is no gay church in Nigeria; it is only a deception, a media propaganda. Efforts have been made to meet them before but they could not be located anywhere."

Apropos of . . . something---

Wasn't there a Great English Lady who said, soon after the publishing of Darwin's "The Origin of the Species":

"Good heavens! We must pray it isn't true. And if it IS true, we must pray it does not become well known."

>>What if your resolute stand on this matter leads to a division of the global Anglican Communion?

>>If that will be the price to pay, so be it. Those of us who shall be left can proudly call ourselves true Anglicans, true Christians.

I don't think so. It won't be long before homosexuality will be a non-issue. Just ask the young people what they think about it. They can't be bothered with it and is mostly a non-issue for them even if they don't agree with it.

Those who are contributing to the breaking up of the Anglican Communion will long be remembered for the evil they have done and the good they have not done. In other words for their sins.

Breaking up the Anglican Communion will not solve anything. Once broken, the Communion can never be put together again. It is just like breaking an expensive jar. No matter how much super-glue or whatever one uses, the jar can never be the same again. Advocating for the breaking up of the Anglican Communion for any reason is a stupid and selfish thing to do. Such people have no foresight or long-range vision. It won't surprise me if more and more people turn to other religions, new-age movements or become atheists and that I believe is the real price the Christian Churches will pay for their constant in-fighting.

I don't believe God has anything to do with the present war in the Anglican Communion. It is all a man-created and quite unnecessary.

Cheers

As lampooning has been mentioned, we must be clear that the Punch article is from a leading Nigerian newspaper, not the satirical magazine which is deceased and enjoying an afterlife in cyberspace.

"As for the sheep, I can't pretend to be inspired to lust by a gimmer ewe, but I'm at a loss to understand why anybody should be thrown in the slammer for being so tempted...."

For being so tempted, no. But for actually doing it he ought to at the very least have to some psychiatric help.

Besides, it's hard on the livestock (no pun intended). According to the newspapers, several of the sheep actually died. And I'm willing to bet that the survivors were at least annoyed.

"Archbishop Akinola continues to betray a deep ignorance both of history, tradition, and current events."

Actually, I think he betrays a deep seated insecurity over his Nigerian culture. I think he judges traditional African society as primitive. That's why he thinks this whole age of consent thing is such an issue. I bet that, like most pre modern rural societies, the age at marriage was/is quite low in Nigeria, early to mid teens, likely. He sees the adoption of an older age of consent as a sign of modernity and "civilization". But this young marriage business is global. All human societies do it. It is only rich effete cultures where lives have been so technologically altered that we get the luxury of pretending that there is a distinct group of humans called the "teenager". Look back in my family, most families, and you'll see life-long marriages that began when both parties were in their teens. Just because we in the West feel we need to allow our children to remain children for at least ten years longer than most traditional rural societies doesn't make it necessary or somehow "better" to do that. But, somewhere deep, deep down, +Akinola thinks it is because, and he'd never admit this, he actually does see Western society as somehow normative and, where African culture differs, that's something to be ashamed of. His colonized roots are showing, and it isn't the first time either.

Robert Ian Williams asked: Can anyone tell me if they allow women to be lay readers in the Anglican Church of Nigeria?

Yes there are women lay readers in Church of Nigeria. And even a diaconate ministry. The Diaconate ministry approved recently by the Church, but the the women folk seem not to be coming forward yet ... as no record of ordination by any diocese has been reported.

I suppose that Dr. Akinola is more worried about homosexual practices and ignores that many heterosexuals also have some strange and not so savory sexual practices. I don't see him talking about spousal abuse or poligamy!!!
I don't know one gay or lesbian person (and I know many) who are having sex with animals.

Why are so many concerned with the practices of Gay and Lesbian people????

I have to report that men having sex with sheep is (or at least was) a matter of grave concern for sheep who are frequently believed to be the unwilling partners in this activity.

On my very first day as a journalist in 1971 at the magistrates’ court in Ebbw Vale I found myself reporting on the case of a man who had allegedly been seen violating sheep. The very idea that Welsh people have a predisposition to carnal knowledge of mutton was unknown to me at that time and I still stoutly defend the male sex of my nation against the generality of such a calumny.

However, sadly I have to tell that the evidence against the 39 year old farm worker from Rassau was enough to convince the Justices and he was only saved from a custodial sentence by a rousing testimonial from his Calvinistic Methodist minister.

The evidence from a local vet confirmed that the animal in question was a ewe and so the potential greater scandal of this being a homosexual rape was avoided. I must say that I never looked at a pair of Wellington boots in the same way thereafter.

Talking of homosexual scandals, I just happened to see that the leader of Changing Attitude Nigeria has had a rough outing from the man who escorted him on his American tour – allegations of promiscuity etc from someone who appears to be a supporter of our cause.

Perhaps this is a good time to ask if Davis is going to boldly refute these rather disgusting accusations – or are we going to see a change in the leadership of Changing Attitude Nigeria?

Akinola is hell bent on splitting up the global communion, not the rest of us who can (A) agree to disagree while coming together to the Lord's Table in common prayer, and (B) pledge to the global communion big tent where God is the only true judge, not you, not me, not Rowan Williams, no Akinola, not Orombi, not Martyn Minns ... where thanks to grace and the Holy Spirit, Anglican understanding unfolds over time, changing to correct at least some errors in ethic or theology that our forebears may have made. As the United Churches of Christ outreach in USA preaches: God is still speaking, ...

This leeway, this big tent is so innate to so many different patterns of our shared and connected Anglicanisms at our best that to tear the global relationships apart in the name of sexualized or other purities is sad, embarrassing and ignorant to the extent that such a view lays special claim to being especially Anglican in any narrow and excluding manner, and bound for the intellectual garbage heaps of the current century.

Alas. None of all that affects brother Akinola in the least, as little as it affects the Jensens in Sydney and a whole host of other loud conservative realignment preachers. The bottom line is, they preen at better so very much better than any of the rest of us, and think that makes them great saints. Alas. Lord have mercy.

We Anglicans have a zillion good things to which we are called in this century, and conservative realignment of the Akinola sort is hardly one of them.

In counterbalance of brother Akinola's vitriol, I offer a link to another sort of story, contrasting, of another Anglican sort of repentance and spiritual pilgrimage - thanks to GMM then:

See: http://thewoundedbird.blogspot.com/2007/01/confessions-of-recovering-homophobe.html

Dear Martin Reynolds, the said allegations were made during Lambeth and I did not respond to because I was at Lambeth to witness and focused my attention completely on that. It up to the person who has made these allegations to produced facts and evidence as I toured about 21 cities in the US with 80 events.

I came directly from US to the UK to continue my speaking engagement during which I also meet and visited different parishes. Before my tour to the US, I have visited Switzerland and other parts of the world in respect to my work with Changing Attitude Nigeria. I am sure those who have met me can describe the Davis they meet.

Yes there might be a change in the Leadership of Changing Attitude Nigeria because I am now a refugee in the UK, but not because of those allegations. And my international witness and campaign for full inclusion of LGBT people in the Church of Nigeria can never stop no matter where I am located.

Well played Davis.

It is a good thing if there is a change of leadership in Nigeria. It demonstrates that the organisation has a maturity beyond the confines of one individual's ego.

As Martin reminds us, the concern about animals is not peculiar to one country. Aussies are known for making jokes about that supposed propensity amongst their neighbours (who in turn give as good as they get right back at them).

It is proper not to engage in the slanging matches. The thuggery, accusations and refusal to acknowledge the holy spark in others is the testimony of the fruit of their theology. The tragedy of these camps is they think that only their sins are forgiven, and that all they have to do is flatter Jesus the loudest to be saved. Some purport that Jesus is all of God and no longer accountable to the Father or Holy Spirit for either Jesus or his "approved" priests conduct. That is idolatry and proves that Jesus is a sinner.

Jesus would do well to remember that God recognises sins of ommission as well as sins of action. For example, the sin of ommission to stop priests aiding and abetting pedophiles or bishops grooming parishioners on how to hurt feisty parishioners. Nor has Jesus reliably undertaken his High Priest duties. He has forsaken the feminine, tolerated the breaking the covenant of peace and forced conversions. He has allowed his priests to deny grace and succour to gentiles, eunuchs, the outcaste, the weak and the vulnerable.

Jesus can posture and preen all he wants in front of his Christians. Jesus can not hide from God what he has done nor what he has failed to do. Unlike his priests, Jesus knows that God is real and that God is more than himself. Shame on him for allowing these priests to think otherwise and then behave so disgracefully, all supposedly with God's consent. Jesus might claim he has done this all for the glory of God, no, Jesus did this all for the glory of himself. There is no glory in tyranny and Zion does not tolerate abuse.

"Just because we in the West feel we need to allow our children to remain children for at least ten years longer than most traditional rural societies doesn't make it necessary or somehow "better" to do that."

Not sure I agree, in light of recent research on brain development. Adolescents are more given to risky behavior because the parts of the brain involved with planning, decision making, and risk assessment are not fully developed yet.

"Adolescents are more given to risky behavior because the parts of the brain involved with planning, decision making, and risk assessment are not fully developed yet."

But brain development is only part of it. I'd venture to bet that if you went back three or four generations in any family, especially those with rural roots, you'd find a fair number of us have ancestors who started their families in their mid teens. It is still a part of many traditional rural societies. That such families have been successful for millenia will suggest that there is more to the having and raising of children than mere brain development. Like community support, for instance. It is a lot easier for two 14 year-olds to have a family if there are numerous men and women around to offer help, advice, and even annoying criticism. It does indeed take a village. I'd suggest it is our society that is abnormal, which is why we have to convince ourselves that it is somehow intrinsically bad for a 14 year old to start a family. We don't even question that our destruction of traditional forms of community has necessitated this break from what was natural only a few generations ago. Which is why I think +Akinola actually looks to Western society to define what is good and acceptable. I'd venture to bet you wouldn't have to go back too far to find teenage parents in his family, he'd better start reassessing how much validity he gives to modern Western social mores unless he wants to claim great-great grandma was a shameless hussy at the age of 14. I think it is our society that is abnormal in this, and that's because of our rejection of more traditional societal structures. (See, I can get all conservative when I want to:-)). Besides, nature prepares our bodies for parenthood an awful lot earlier than we now allow people to begin parenting. Might Mother Nature know more than us? Years ago, teenagers got married and raise families in the context of community, where they were expected to behave as adults, and, mostly, lived up to it. Now, teenagers are sexually active, all on their own, and not only is there no societal expectation that they will be responsible, they are actually expected to be irresponsible. I think lack of brain development would be far more detrimental in the second context.

Cherryl Va,

Much as I normally enjoy the stimulation of your postings on this site, I do have a slight worry about your intimations of a certain sin of what you might call Jesuolatry, being practised solely by the dissenters, but nevertheless questionable, as a denial of the co-equality attributed to each of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity.

Much as I agree with your assertion that some Christians seem to attribute undue influence to Jesus alone, while in some way neglecting to take into account the constant reference by Jesus to the influence of his Father and the Holy Spirit upon his earthly ministry; I would hesitate to entertain the idea that they are denying the essential nature of Trinitarian theology.

The Christian religion (certainly from the point of view of traditional Anglicanism) should never discount the influence of the other Persons of the Trinity upon the life and ministry of the Incarnate Son of God. This would be entirely different from our creedal statements of faith.

Therefore, to attribute any such notion of self-regard to Jesus himself (as you seem to do in your positing here) is not only unfair but also theologically unsound. Just one statement of Jesus would discount any thought on anyone's part of any tendency to his independence: John 8:28ff-"I do nothing of my own authority, but speak thus as the Father has taught me. And he who has sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I aklways do what is pleasing to him."

Father Ron

I agree with you. And a good read of the New Testament distinguishes between the Jesus who acknowledged God and Holy Spirit as discrete entities apart from himself who collaborate with him, from the overstated Pauline case that Jesus is God in completeness.

There are conservatives, who include Jensenites, who now purport that Jesus is God in complete and perfect fulfillment.

If Jesus does not move to refute that claim, then Jesus can be said to be in acquiesance of that claim.

It really is not good enough to scape goat others own actions or omissions. Some Christians claim that that the grace of Jesus means they are above sin, but then claim that "Satan" made them do things. If they are true worshippers of Jesus, then Satan has no influence over them. They can not palm their sins off onto Satan, unless they are really Satanists pretending to be Christians.

The same as the actions of one female does not act as the justifier of all male (or female) sins since then. There will be no new heaven or earth if it is simply going to be a repeat of abuse, rape and violence against weaker members. We will not respect you on a new heaven or earth when we can not trust you within this current heaven or earth. At the moment, every single male (including Jesus) looks like a manipulative male who promises the female she will be "respected" in the morning, when in reality they are simply gigilos who move on with no regard to the damage they have done after they have achieved their conquest. One earth is one too many enough for such males.

If Jesus does not move to distinguish himself from such males, then he is no better than such males. Nice words without witnesses is simply cunning deceitfulness.

I agree to some extent that the "teenager" is a "modern Western" construct - but physically teenagers are not fully developed. Childbearing at 14 is much more hazardous than at 24, and under-18s are generally banned from serious weightlifting or at least closely supervised at gyms. Possibly the apprenticeship method of training recognised this - teenagers weren't expected to be fully fledged stonemasons or carpenters but to help out and acquire skills over many years. If "we" go back to a greater measure of responsibility for the under-20s I'd vote for that model rather than the pattern of early industrialisation sending them all down the mines and into the factories at 12, with early childbearing for some of the girls.

"the pattern of early industrialisation"

I'm not talking about industrialization, except to see it as the root of our modern societal structures. I am talking about small, rural communities. Farmers and fishers, mostly. Much more tied to the land and each other than an industrialized society allows us to be. The fact that people were expected to take on adult responsibilities at a younger age is probably a kind of "apprenticeship", actually. You wouldn't expect any first time mother, whatever her age, to be an expert, but she didn't need to be. Her house was probably in the back garden of her mother or mother in law. The other women of the community also played a role. The fact that family meant something much larger and supportive than the rather anemic "nuclear family" so beloved of conservatives is also important. A 14 or 16 year old mother in such a community has a large number of women on whom she can rely, so she can take on a more adult role earlier, having, so to speak, back up. My point is that it is a mistake to judge "appropriate" ages for the taking on of adult responsibilities in general by what our culture says. Industrialization and the rise of the "market economy" have caused a huge change in how we understand community and our responsibilities towards each other. It was certainly possible for people to start their families in their teens 200 years ago, for the reasons I have given, and not thought all that extreme. It isn't now. But we are no more "right" in thinking 14 or 16 is "too early" in some absolute sense. It's just not workable now, because we do not have the same ties to each other.

Yes, Ford, I understand that - however the risks of pregnancy and childbirth remain higher for young girls regardless of the supportive structure around them.
Here's a WHO report http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/towards_adulthood/7.pdf
which contains the following item:
"It is generally accepted that childbearing among women aged 15–19 doubles the risk of death due to pregnancy-related causes compared to women in their twenties (Population Reference Bureau, 2000)."

I have a relative involved with a charity for operating on women with fistulas in developing countries, and have heard heartrending stories about the effects of lack of healthcare and other resources. Before modern techniques of childbirth were available, and before the cause of puerperal fever was known, giving birth killed huge numbers of women, during the very times and places when it was more acceptable for very young women to be starting families. Certainly the risks are mitigated for a girl with a good extended family/village around her ensuring she is well nourished during pregnancy, etc, but not completely cancelled out.

I'm not advocating returning to/increasing the shaming of teenage mothers here by any means.

"I'm not advocating returning to/increasing the shaming of teenage mothers here by any means."

No, indeed, I didn't think you were. I am also not advocating teenage motherhood. And I do know the physical issues surrounding childbirth at a young age. I'm just reacting against the idea that our modern society is somehow more "enlightened". We have advanced in many areas, but we have regressed in many others, and I think one of the biggest areas is loss of community and interconnectedness. Even Christians think that the "nuclear family" is somehow an ideal, as though human history does not reveal otherwise. If we think teenagers "aren't ready for" parenthood, then that's that. But it isn't, actually. Modern society might make it necessary for us to delay adulthood, but that isn't some intrinsic piece of human nature, it's just our society is so screwed up that no-one can afford to be an amateur at life, since there's no-one around to be a mentor. That's just not the way we humans lived for millennia, it isn't what God wants for us, I'm convinced of that, which is why I am so antagonistic to the worldly Evangelical endorsement of mid-1950s society as somehow God given, and it just isn't healthy. But, it IS based on good old Western individuality, and the rights of the individual, so it MUST be God's way, no?

"But, it IS based on good old Western individuality, and the rights of the individual, so it MUST be God's way, no?"

I know you meant this ironically, but I buy it.