Thank you for sharing this shocking document, it is helpful to see what the chief pastor of our brothers and sisters in Nigeria thinks about gay people. It is also tragic to think what the proposed Nigerian legislation will inevitably lead to, if passed; egged on so enthusaistically by the 'lion of Abuja'. I struggle to see how any Anglican Christian in the 21st Century can, in conscience, support such draconian, vicious proposals that are liable to produce such strange, bitter fruit. Are there still Anglicans in Nigeria?

Who is ultimately driving all this? You can trace a linear descent straight back to the Common Cause Partnership.

Completely aside from the subject he means to be discussing, the Archbishop's insistence on inviolable community is completely and precisely opposite to the biblical picture of Jesus, who calls people out of such familial, tribal, ethnic, national affiliations into a new community centered on him.

I certainly hope the ABC is forced to read this. It is beyond shocking, even from this hate-filled source. I hope someone asks Martyn Minns to comment, among others. This is just plain vile. It is biblically ignorant as well as scientifically ignorant. Why should any educated person listen to this venom?

Every minute of silence from the ABC may mean, in time, the brutalization or death of glbt Nigerians. Will it take a Kristelnacht in Nigeria to wake up the ABC? Will even that move him?

Sorry Simon, but what on earth do you mean by making the pages so small.

Not a chance that anything but the headline "Church of Nigeria" can by read by anybody?

Simon responds: Just click on the image to enlarge it, Goran. And I have now added a PDF as well, which should avoid any difficulty.

Now I have been able to read it (copy and enlarge is your friend). I must say that some of the "translations" offered are somewhat faulty, that of Genesis 19:1-29 not even a paraphrase.

Which puts the claim that same sex marriage is un-Biblical in a strange light indeed... I think a Hellenist interpretation, traditional in some parts of Academia, explains the reading.

And I rather suppose the same is true of the claim regarding the Koran; Hellenist translations.

It's a sad thought, ..but HATE LIVES within the Anglican communion!!!

There are some who comment that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were to do with lack of justice or hospitality, rather than sexual preferences. The issue was not to do with who wanted to have sex with whom or how, but that visitors were not able to safely visit without being made into sexual exploits. It didn't matter if it was homosexual or heterosexual sex, the issue that was inhabititants insisting in violating souls.

Similarly, Jesus judging between the goats and sheep was not based on sexual proclivity, but on whether or not the vulnerable were offered hospitality and/or safe shelter.

Our profound thanks are due to Patrick from Lagos and Uche from Jos, both group leaders in Changing Attitude Nigeria, who attended the hearing, obtained a copy of the Church of Nigeria report, scanned it and sent it to me. As they discovered on arrival at the hearing, they placed themselves at great personal risk by being there.

Without their presence, there would be no independent report on the meeting nor would we have obtained a copy of the report. I will post a further report on the meeting on the CA web site.

In often extreme circumstances, the leaders and members of Changing Attitude Nigeria have come together and made a huge impact in our Communion just by being there and telling the truth. Davis and Stephen have paid the price of their openness and honesty by having to seek asylum in the UK. Asylum is never an easy condition under which to live and neither of them can now visit their friends or family at home in Nigeria.

On a shoestring, Changing Attitude has achieved a formidable reputation, and I salute Davis, Stephen, Patrick, Queen, Uche, Bobby, Shola and the other leaders who are able to confront the bigotry, prejudice and false witness that their church bears against them.

With his selective interpretation of Biblical passages, one wonders what the Archbishop of Nigeria would make of God's supposed attitude towards 'The Children of Ham'? And would His Grace, Abp. Peter Akinola, like to give us his rendering of what this story was all about? After all, one must be consistent in one's method of interpretation, mustn't one?

The prose of this document bears very little similarity to the prose of other documents from this source. This would suggest that other documents, which have on the whole been more restrained, subtle and careful, did not actually come directly from Akinola, but only after revision from another writer. For me, this raises the question of whether the person(s) who redrafted other statements understands Akinola's point of view, as expressed here, and agrees with it. If so, that's worrying, not least because it means that behind the more moderate prose of other documents there is the same mind set. Is Akinola here expressing openly, and without diplomatic language, what his fellows in the Global South actually believe but are too careful to state?

Just when I'd happily forgotten about him, up pops Akinola again. That document would not stand 10 seconds' scrutiny given all the fallacious references to the Bible in there.

So hateful, so ignorant... I hate to use such a phrase but it's completely un-Christian. So much for love for one another, no?

All the more fuel for the atheists' fires.

How about some background?

Who made the proposal? In the Senate or the House of Representatives? Which parties are behind? How are the chances this will be adopted? & c, & c...

Tim: the issue is whether this is in fact a view which the CofE can allow to be expressed without any stated opinion.

If it is so, then is it not reasonable to assume that they are prepared to live with this sort of hatred for the good of 'unity'

And if so, does this not suggest that the church is institutionally homophobic, and is it really healthy for gay and lesbian people to remain within such an institution.

This one really is in the Church hierarchy's court. Saying nothing is really not acceptable

This also appears to be more than a "hatred" issue. While I agree that the Nigerian Church (in general) and +Akinola (in particular) are driven by fear and hate (with a little xenophobia tossed in for good measure), it seems to me that at least some of the Nigerian leaders are heretics; and I do not use that term lightly.

From the above report: "After which a Bishop said that clearly it was a big lie for any gay person to say that he was created by God."

Even if one believes homosexuality is sinful, just who does this bishop think created lgbt people? A lesser god? A devil? This statement, if correctly reported, is pure dualistic heresy.

Since the charge of hatred doesn't seem to be making any headway with our esteemed leaders in the Anglican Communion, maybe we could get their attention by pointing out that the Nigerian Church is promoting and harboring heretics.

Now we have a list of sponsors of this proposed legislation.

Who are they? What do they represent?

Which parties? Which religions?

Cheryl Va at 0812 GMT, my understanding is that lack of hospitality towards strangers is, from the Jewish Talmudic tradition, indeed the crime of Sodom and Gemorrah. Now, obviously, the word "Sodom" and homosexual acts have been linked in the English language for a long time, but the true crime was how they treated strangers.
The biblical story of the heavenly strangers in Sodom and Gemorrah is a mixed bag for conservatives. After all, Lot offered his daughter to the lust-filled crowd as a replacement for the strangers ...

I notice the Church of Nigeria not only supports the legislation, but wishes to amend the penalty for contracting a same-gender marriage from three years to five - an extreme example of rendering unto Caesar.

Any suggestions for what people who are appalled by this and e.g. live within CofE territory should do?

It's time for the Anglican Communion to decide whether we want to continue being tarnished in the eyes of the world (people) by these THUGS, or whether we want to proclaim that ALL are ONE IN CHRIST.

Lord have mercy...

Just as a matter of interest, I wrote a new thread on Fulcrum yesterday about this Nigerian oppression, but it didn't appear. This morning I pointed out that it hadn't been posted, when other comments had. I've been out but it has appeared, down the list (because it has an older date) and has drawn no interest whatsoever.

"After all, Lot offered his daughter to the lust-filled crowd as a replacement for the strangers ..."- Peterpi -

Yes! And this might perhaps be considered godly (by the Abp. of Nigeria and his cronies) - in contrast with the supposed ungodliness of what they consider to be the sin of homosexuality. This is, of course - the homophobic view, long established, and needing to be corrected by some decent Biblical exegesis.

Oh, Jesus, please help. How much more can your children, your body, take?

Colin, thank you for names - it makes praying for CANigeria much more concrete, almost horrifyingly, but necessarily, so.

"Any suggestions for what people who are appalled by this and e.g. live within CofE territory should do?"

That's the only real question here.
Any ideas, anyone?

I responded Pluralist, but so far my response has not yet appeared. (Fingers crossed!). I have just re-submitted it, as I know things sometimes go awol there, due to technical problems.

I was glad you put that on Fulcrum.

'Just as a matter of interest, I wrote a new thread on Fulcrum yesterday about this Nigerian oppression, but it didn't appear. This morning I pointed out that it hadn't been posted, when other comments had. I've been out but it has appeared, down the list (because it has an older date) and has drawn no interest whatsoever.'

Posted by: Pluralist on Friday, 13 March 2009 at 6:30pm GMT

A shame that ++Abuja cannot be declared persona non grata in the UK in much the same way that Mugabe and his cronies have.

About the only good thing about this is that it makes me realise that outrageous and inhumane 'Christianity' isn't the monopoly of a particular bit of the worldwide Church (hat-tip Tom Ambrose). T'other side of the Tiber may be a bit dung-encrusted post-Williamson, but, hey, we've not much cause to crow about it while we keep Akinola on our books.

Thanks for publishing the Bill – I was very surprised.

This is NOTHING like the Bill that published and debated early 2007.

That Bill outlawed Gay organisations in schools or social clubs indeed any self-affirming group and even criminalised advocating for a change in the law on homosexuality – it was both preposterous and dangerous.

While this Bill remains preposterous the draft I am reading here has had the dangerous elements removed.

The Bill is preposterous because it outlaws something that is already impossible under Nigerian Law, and what is more a parson performing a marriage rite for a gay couple in Nigeria could only fall foul of this law if a local government registrar issue a Marriage Licence as prescribed under the Nigerian Marriage Act.

I think it highly unlikely that a registrar would issue such a Licence and so as the Nigerian Marriage Act makes clear that without the Licence there is no Marriage.

Indeed, as the Marriage Act only recognises marriages that take place in buildings registered for the purpose, then if you wanted to be doubly sure of not breaching the new Act one could hold the ceremony at home – or in a hotel.

I believe a sympathetic Priest or Minister could use any appropriate rite to celebrate a same-sex union in Nigeria without breaching this law, it would have no legal standing and so could not breach any law. Once again if there remained a faint whiff of doubt then all one would have to do is name the service a “Service of Solemn Covenant”, this Bill as drafted would not outlaw such an event.

I do not think the Nigerian State has the power to outlaw a priest blessing a couple, it can certainly prevent the registration and recognition that such a blessing confers the state of marriage on a couple as defined by the state and deny them the benefits that come to married couples.

Britain has also refused to recognise same sex marriage – even when I have used the 1662 rite! Britain also will not recognise same-sex marriages entered into in other countries. In this respect Nigeria has done no more than to affirm what is already the case in their country.

Where the Bill offers a serious challenge still is to those gay Nigerian couples (and perhaps foreign nationals resident in Nigeria) who have contracted a MARRIAGE in one of the few countries that actually offer Marriage. I do not think the Bill as drafted would criminalise a gay couple living in Nigeria who have entered a British Civil Partnership – this is quite clearly NOT marriage as the British courts have made clear

Hmmmm. I think your points are not entirely accurate, Martin. The reality is that legally, there is no substantial difference between the rights and responsibilities of civil partnership and civil marriage. The British government gives same-sex marriages civil partnership status in the UK which is 'not marriage' in that it has another name but provides the same legal status in practical terms.

I don't think that gay people are all that bothered what something is called, but what legal status it confers.

Personally, I think that only civil ceremonies and arrangements should have any legal status and religionist marriage should be purely recognised by the religion, whatever that happens to be.

Thanks Peterpi

Tried to find the Jewish article that made that insight, but because couldn't find the link did not make the direct reference.

Personally, I like to read and incorporate Jewish interpretations of the Old Testament (after all, they wrote it, and were studying it a long time before Jesus came along). Plus it is from these traditions and teachings that Jesus was incarnated and raised :-)

I'm with Reverened Ref of heresy perspective. That includes rapture theology (the only legitimate remaining manifestation for Jesus is as a global mass murderer descending in his cloud of glory), or propositional revelation that dares to purport that Jesus is the complete and perfect fulfilment of God. The good news about the latter perspective is the other two members don't have to take responsibility for these Christians teachings or conduct - they are solely Jesus' responsibility. After all, who is God or Spirit to rebel against the "Perfect" and "Complete" Being?

No comment yet from the ABC?

While I might agree with your last point Dr Mike, I am not so warmly disposed towards Civil Partnership as you.

What I say is accurate, Civil Partnership and Marriage are different in far more ways than one is open to gay people and the other straights. I would argue that these differences are substantial and that (as yet) Civil Partners do not enjoy the same protection from the State as is enjoyed by married couples. You may think I am nitpicking, but I think these differences are important,

Important enough, I contend, to ensure a British Civil Partnership is not covered by the proposed Nigerian legislation.

As to gay people "not being bothered", well I am and more significantly so were Wilkinson and Kitzinger who sought recognition of their Canadian Marriage. There is a nice piece from ILGA here www.ilga.org/news_results.asp?LanguageID=1&FileCategory=3&FileID=822 .

The rather nasty judgment handed down in this case supports my contention.

As to what Anglicans might do, I think one thing is to make a personal resolution to resolve to exclude any thought of keeping the Anglican Communion together from our minds.

I am proud to say that the west of Scotland is already moving gently in the right direction - in St Mary's Cathedral Glasgow Gene Robinson celebrated the Eucharist and there have been services blessing Civil Unions. What effect the change of bishop and of Primus which will inevitably follow Idris's retirement will be I dunno.

I think it was wrong for me to say that:
"Nigeria has done no more than to affirm what is already the case in their country."

Of course by threatening to imprison gay people for 3 or 5 years for Marrying thy are doing much more.

I thought Andrew Brown's Piece above 1st Class!

Martin; I know that for some nothing short of it being called marriage would ever be enough, but in common parlance and perception, as well as almost every actual legal provision - there is no difference. I think there is very little evidence that there are substantial differences.
I'm talking in practical terms here - not philosophical which I thought the judgment of the Kitzinger case largely was.

I'm interested purely in the rights and responsibilities given.

Sarah MacVane. The Archbishop of Canterbury did comment on how to make an ethical judgment. He did it recently in his lecture on economics:

"Ethics, I suggested, is about negotiating conditions in which the most vulnerable are not abandoned."

"The reduction of pain or of frustration, the augmenting of opportunity for human welfare and joy - again, these are obviously good things. They are good because they connect with a sense of what is properly owing to human beings, a sense of human dignity."

"But the task is to turn people's eyes back to the vision of a human dignity that is indestructible. This is the vision that will both allow us to retain a hold on our sense of worth even when circumstances are painful or humiliating and sustain the sense of obligation to the needs of others, near at hand or strangers, so that dignity may be made manifest."

Oh I see. You mean that when it comes to the religious bureaucracy, its leaders and its intended oppression of the few, he remains silent.

"Any suggestions for what people who are appalled by this and e.g. live within CofE territory should do?"

Goad, taunt, humiliate, encourage, cajole, or whatever works, every conservative you know to step up to the plate. I mean, they keep telling us this is not about homophobia, getting all indignant and self righteous about how THEY are being mistreated if someone even mentions the word. Well, I have have goaded twice on this site now, but, I note, not one conservative has deigned to speak against this. These, remember, are the people who tell us they love us, they just hate our sin. These are the people who wag their heads and wonder about the damage done to society if gay people are allowed to live free unmolested lives. These are the people who, when pushed in other contexts, make pious sounding statements about how appalled they are about things like this, and how awful they think +Akinola's words are. Well, here's their chance. The people I am talking about post here. I'm not speaking to movers and shakers, but to others like me who like shooting their mouths off on blogs. I have no doubt that the word "Nigeria" in the thread title drew their attention like flies around proverbial. But not one comment, not one. Not even so much as "Well, that's a bit harsh". Nothing. So, it would appear you will have quite a job, since none of them seem in the least motivated to show that their honeyed words, which many people here have openly doubted, actually do not deserve that doubt. Come on, you know who you are, I've already named some of you by name once. What about it? Gonna prove that my refusal to believe that you have even one iota of love for me or any gay person is somehow not justified? Angrier comments deleted in the interests of getting posted.

Ford
Someone who used to post here has explained on another blog that the problem with the West is that they simply ban homosexual behaviour to no effect, whereas in Nigeria they put such a harsh jail sentence on it that it acts as a deterrent. So the result is that we don't need to worry because no-one will actually end up in any real jail.

Neat, don't you think?

"Neat, don't you think?"

Indeed! But nauseating is a better word. And I note, still not a word from the conservative members of this online community. Guys? Am I to believe none of you have read this or any other thread dealing with this issue? Can you not know that your continued silence on this issue shows you for what you really are? Do you wonder why "liberals" call you homophobes and bigots? Every passing day of silence from you all proves it. Come on, guys, your Christianity is showing!I'll keep goading you and rubbing your shame in your faces till either you post something denouncing this or Simon gets fed up and refuses to post what I type. And you just know that this will be slapped up to you every time you pretend to "hate the sin, love the sinner".

I find the mealy-mouthed platitudes of liberals less scary but more nauseating. Also those of Evanglelicals who wish to soften the blow-or appear good at least.

"Evanglelicals who wish to soften the blow-or appear good at least."

Well, you won't be much nauseated by this these days, it seems. None of the Evangelicals here, the conservative ones anyway, appear to have any desire to look good on this issue, their silence is deafening.

"The presence of gay churches, fellowships and clubs in Nigeria is not only embarrassing but also very unhealthy. The passage of this bill will no doubt ensure that this moral cancer did not destroy the social fabric of our dear nation."
- Abp. Peter Akinola - re new legislation -

Yet again, the vitriol of the Nigerian Archbishop is officially pronounced - in his statement here about the Nigerian Anglican Church's support for anti-gay legislation in Nigeria. To call the Christian LGBT community a 'moral cancer' with the capacity to 'destroy the social fabric of our dear country' is an offence against the integrity of all Christian people who happen to be LGBT - whether Anglican or of any other denomination.

Surely this is the time for the Primates of our Communion to take Akinola and his cohorts to task on this and all other matters concerning his lack of respect for the human dignity and rights of the LGBT community. Not to do so now, will create further problems of credibility of Anglicanism in the upholding of human rights in the world community.

"an offence against the integrity of all Christian people who happen to be LGBT"

But LGBT people can't be Christian, by definition. And who was it in Nigeria said that homosexuals are not made by God? So, you see, the "moral cancer" is not human beings at all, perhaps the twisted creatures of some malign demigod or other. As someone pointed out, this is just plain heresy. So, the Pseudorthodox become more and more 'Pseud-' and less and less 'orthodox' every day. Bp. Popoola is one charged with "rightly dividing the word of God's truth", perhaps he could explain this rather odd theology that considers that the Trinity is NOT the Creator of all that is, who this "other creator" might be, and exactly how such a bizarre belief could in any way be called "orthodox". But, he speaks for one of the main framers of the Jerusalem Declaration, so his knowledge of what acutally IS orthodox Christianity is, to say the least, a bit weak.