The Vanguard piece is so full of hatred, paranoia, and bigotry, it just makes your eyes bleed. I know we have news entities in the West that are jst as loopy, and represent only a small pathetic part of the population. Is this the same kind of thing?

The cowards continue to demonize part of Gods REALITY at Church/Anglican Communion...no sense ¨listening¨ and attempting to understand TRUTH when one can instigate hate/abominating and marginalizing far more easily...by using blind ignorance and feardriven hate some of the ¨clergy¨ may gain points with fellow bigots but will self-destruct in the poor ministry of their own making.

All I can say is that the 25 million Anglicans
(claimed) of Nigeria haven't made much impact on what is a truly dreadful place to live..there has to be something wrong there...the salt has certainly lost its savour. But maybe the savour is coming from US dollars.....

Imagine a Church of 12 milion in the UK,..what an impact that would have.

Today is the tenth anniversary of the death of Matthew Sheppard, murdered in the U.S. for the crime of being gay.

Prayers, many, many, many thanks to all the Other Sheep. Nzimbi may get some heat as he is targeted via guilt by association. Truth and fairness and open-minded grow, right under Akinola's feet it would appear. Sure this is God's doing inside our little overlapping alternative Anglican communities that are not supposed to even possibly exist, and it is surely marvelous in our eyes. The fruits of the Spirit bear good fruit, even under duress. The old fabric of prejudice and mistreatment is wearing thin in many global places, and this frightens those who still believe they hold exclusive power to interfere with queer folks as neighbors in God's name.

Looking beyond all that, one cannot help but wonder who will be targeted next in the uses and 'buses of such powers over others, once it is finally less and less possible to trash talk and demean African and other queer folks.

The traditionalists who depend on force are simply admitting that persuasion fails because their negative beliefs about queer folks are flat earth illusions.

The Liberal Church, or rather, the Church, needs to take to the fight to these homophobes. We owe it to LGBT people, we owe it to ourselves, and if we do not take a very radical and immovable stand, folk like Dawkins and the NSS have every right to lambast us, regardless of how specious some of their premisses are.

Enough!

"Akinola has been in the forefront of the fight against the weird intrusion of homosexuality"

What's "weird," is the OBSESSION with homosexuality we see in these African churches.

Lord have mercy!

Concerning the retrospective piece by George Conger in the Church of England Newspaper about Abp. Orombi's stand for a new Anglican Province in North America; it reminds me of the old song: "Let's all do the Conger", wherein all the dancers follow the leadership of whoever is in charge of the Dance. This particular Tribal Dance, led by certain Primates in Africa, can only lead to nowhere - theologically speaking. So why do they still continue to fret and fume about women and gays in the Church. I'm not at all sure that God is laughing at them in their little game. It is an offence against the Gospel of Christ, who died for all - incl;uding women and gays. Have the re-asserters not got it yet?

Akinola is going to have to account for his silly diatribe about the reality of homosexuality. His pre-historic view is surely not shared by the majority of Christians - let alone the population of the world. Where is he coming from?

To allow him to continue on his path of incipient destruction is to discredit the integrity of the Anglican Communion - from which he ought now to be allowed to make his exit, together with CANA and FOCA. He can no longer be tolerated as a credible Leader in the Communion.

"Akinola has taken a firm stand against ...same-sex blessings, the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals or, indeed, any homosexual practice."

Has he ever actually said that celibate gay people were okay? Everything I've ever seen come out of Nigeria seems to be of the school of thought that advocates praying our "lifestyle choice" away, or exorcising us.

And yes, JCF, they do seem to be fixated on the subject.

"All I can say is that the 25 million Anglicans
(claimed) of Nigeria haven't made much impact on what is a truly dreadful place to live."

Robert, I can't help but think that this is a prime motivating factor in ++Akinola's campaign: focusing on the evils of the West to compensate for wounded Nigerian pride at home.

The piece on Kenya was encouraging or at least really interesting. People actually coming to the defense of someone who supports GLBT people!

I think Duncan sees Akinola as a loose cannon and probably pleaded with Venables to offer him shelter from us crazies in TEC.

Robert Ian: I couldn't agree with you more. Nigeria has so many issues, you'd think that the church would have better things to do than worry about what we in the northern hemisphere do.
There are articles that say the oil companies actually making things worse ( several if you just google nigeria/oil/conlict).

"At the end of deliberations, they articulated a vision for the church, which include: “The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) shall be bible-based, spiritually dynamic, united, disciplined, self supporting, committed to pragmatic evangelism, social welfare and a Church that epitomizes the genuine love of Christ.”

Based on that vision, Akinola has been in the forefront of the fight against the weird intrusion of homosexuality into the Christian faith"

And there I was thinking that based on that vision he should be at the forefront of fighting for social welfare and a Church that epitomizes the genuine love of Christ.

Before any become too encouraged by +Nzimbi's "openness", please recall his response to the Lambeth recommendations. It was the GS's first:

“We won’t stop going to America to preach the Gospel. We are going to preach the Gospel. We are going to tell the good news to the people,” Nzimbi said in Nairobi on July 30 while addressing journalists before being installed as the president of Church Army Africa, a society of Anglican evangelists.”

He has done just about all he can do to provide safety, succor and encouagement to North American conservatives seeking to build a second or replacent province for TEC and the ACC in North America. The hot-button issue here, despite claims of biblical interpretation is homosexuality. It is easy to look tolerant of those with whom you might disagree when you are fairly certain you will not have to be tolerant. In addition, the priest involved is a heterosexual espousing an inclusive theology. It's not as if +Nzimbi had proposed "tolerance" of an actual, real, homosexual person. Would he have been willing to go that far? The presence of a deluded straight is one thing, but the presence of an actual gay? I would be really happy to see evidence from others that it would?

thanks EPfizH. I was hopeful that maybe Nzimbi was just maybe softening.

I havent't had the opportunity of asking Michael Kimindu more questions about Nzimbi's attitudes, but what he said at Lambeth may have been intended for a particular audience, and I wonder if his private views are rather different from the views expressed for Global South consumption.

Sam Eyoboka’s report in the Nigerian Vanguard is inaccurate in many respects. The Revd Rowland Jide Macaulay did not found House of Rainbow to counter the efforts of Archbishop Akinola in his vehement opposition to the election of Bishop Gene Robinson. House of Rainbow is not a group of Anglicans who are trying to undermine the profile of Archbishop Akinola. Perhaps this spin fuels the grandiose dreams of Peter Akinola. Jide is not an Anglican. He founded House of Rainbow as an inclusive ministry specifically but not exclusively to LGBT Nigerians.

Jide has been a friend of mine for over 10 year and talked with me at length before leaving London to found a gay-affirming church in Lagos. He is supported by the Metropolitan Community Church and his decision was an act of almost reckless courage. He knew that the church would have to be a discrete presence, and it was only when he allowed a more public report of his ministry to be filmed that his ministry came under investigation and attack.

Changing Attitude Nigeria and House of Rainbow are very different organisations. Changing Attitude Nigeria’s 3,000 members are active Anglicans. They are not creating a separate gay church but encouraging the hundreds of thousands of LGBT people who worship every Sunday among the 25 million members of the Church of Nigeria.
They are invisible to the bishops, priests and lay people but they there, and Archbishop Akinola is guilty of hubris when he imagines that he is a force which is eradicating what he imagines is the alien presence of homosexuality from Nigeria. On the contrary, he is presiding over a church in which, secretly, LGBT people are growing in confidence and meeting regularly.

Good point, Colin Coward, and one of wide application. My personal experience of many 'conservatives' is that they actually don't give a toss about the gay issue (some being, for example, far more exercised about women priests) but in official contexts pretend to be or more genuinely claim to be when forced into a corner. Either way, it is a cause for hope - as also a reason for avoidance of blanket condemnation of them.

"..fighting for social welfare and a Church that epitomizes the genuine love of Christ."

Erika, I think many of his supporters believe that is precisely what he is doing. He is defending the Gospel, and society, from an unholy alliance of liberals and homos. In their eyes it has already pushed Western society far along a path of social destruction. Massively increased violence (a total fiction, but the fearful don't want facts), decline in Church attendance (which shows them a disturbing decline in conformity), sexual freedom with no punishment for "tarts" that get themselves pregnant before marriage, and on and on. Conservatives here, nearly to a man, express, in some way or another, the idea that many of the social justice advances of the past 40-50 years have actually driven Western society to the brink. Seriously. That's how much they fear us, and that fear translates into hate. They don't see their behaviour as hateful or feaful, they see it as valiantly standing for God's Truth. Interesting though that they seem not to have noticed the crisis our acceptance of usury has landead us in the past few weeks. But then, they probably think that the idea that the Church once considered usury a sin is just another liberal lie.

Just heard Archbishop Jensen ( Gafcon secretary and mastermind) give his Synod address...he talks about the pure Gospel, condemns women as priests and then upholds men like Orombi and Duncan who ordain them! He talks about the malaise in the West over sexual ethics , but never mentions that his diocese re-marries divorced persons.

i was specially " moved " to hear him praise a great Anglican, Bishop Harvey of Canada. Bishop Harvey is a great devotee of Our lady of Walsingham..isn't that idolatry according to his own logic?

Jim Packer is upheld for his nutshell statement that the liberals are sanctifying sin...but haven't they been doing it for years in re-marrying divorcees and allowing contraception?

He then has the cheek to describe Robinson as divorced and yet bishops in the new pure "province" of North America are re-married divorcees.

They talk about liberal confusion..to me the Gafconians are riddled with it.

"I was specially " moved " to hear him praise a great Anglican, Bishop Harvey of Canada. Bishop Harvey is a great devotee of Our lady of Walsingham..isn't that idolatry according to his own logic?"

There is no bishop named Harvey in Canada. There once was, but he has voluntarily relinquished all spiritual authority as a minister of word and sacrament in the Church, and is thus to all intents and purposes a layman. The only other Harvey I am aware of is a six-foot tall invisible white rabbit.

Come back to us, Robert! We need your incisive take on all of the different political situations presently engulfing the Anglican Communion - while your own Roman Catholic brethren sit on the side-lines, quivering - wondering when the ordure will hit the fan for them.

In all fairness, I usually appreciate the comments of Robert I an Williams, even if i sometimes have a quibble. It seems to me that someone who truly accepts the Roman claims ought to become (or remain) a Roman Catholic. As for me, I agree with Archbishop Laud, "As long as Rome remains what she is, we must remain where we are." I did have (unrealistically) high hopes after the Council (even after Humanae Vitae), but they are long gone. Perhaps if John Paul I had lived, it would have been very different.

Prior Aelred, I agree with your feeling about our Roman Catholic friends. Loyalty to one's Church is quite important. It seems to me that most converts to the Roman C. Church are content to congratulate themselves on having moved to a more authentic and superior magisterium - without having to loiter in the corridors of their former faith community - which I perceive RIW as doing.

I, probably like yourself, was at one time hopeful of an accord being reached with Rome - especially during the eirenic reign of Good Pope John XXIII. However, Since Rome's retroactive return to pre-Vatican II theology, I can only base my hopes on a radical move towards a more liberal attitude on such subjects as: women in ministry, the acceptance of homosexuality as a variation of the norm, and therefore not excluded from the ministry of the Church, and, of course, some movement on the continuing argument about contraception.

However, I'm not even hoping to see any change in attitudes in my life-time; but perhaps people like Robert Ian Williams, whose postings tell us that he is not averse to women or gays, having recently been recruited into the Roman C. Church, could help to change the attitudes of the R.C. hierarchy on such matters. What do you say about this, Robert? Is it a possibility for you?

"i was specially " moved " to hear him praise a great Anglican, Bishop Harvey of Canada."

Even though this is a relatively conservative diocese, I suspect many here would be "moved", in a negative direction, to hear Bp. Jensen praising Don Harvey. For the most part, he is not thought very highly of in this his old diocese, even by those who supported him in his episcopate. I attend his old parish, and we are not exactly what you'd call a liberal lot. Gee, we don't even use modern language at our main Mass, the issue of OOW can still divide us, and we haven't even looked at "the gay thing". We just put our heads down and get on with the business of being old fashioned, stuck in our ways, "Anglo-catholic parish with a Methodist congregation", stodgy traditionalists. I cherish the place, BTW, can't imagine going anywhere else. Yet, since his retirement, he really hasn't received all that warm a welcome in our place, indeed, hasn't visited for a couple of years. This is a place that used to have very warm feelings for him, that thought so highly about him that they DIDN'T leave and go elsewhere when he changed his mind on OOW, to the consternation of most of the parish, including me at the time. I doubt many would echo Jensen's sentiment. Which is too bad, because I do think Harvey is sincere, that he is reacting to a significant amount of spiritual pain, and that he really DOES believe the ACC is going to Hell on a handbar. But when he gets on with this "persecuted faithful remnant" nonsense, well, that just puts people off. The usual question is "Would Don Harvey care to point out who is being persecuted by whom in this diocese?" The underhanded way Essentials went about organizing here has also affected his reputation. There is skullduggery and scheming in their behaviour. You simply do not behave in that fashion and expect to remain respected, not even by those who are on the same political page you are on.