Nigerian Gay Rights Advocate Addresses Executive Council

On the first day of Executive Council’s June 11-14 meeting in Parsippany, N.J., a sub-group heard Davis Mac-Iyalla speak movingly about how he and eight other homosexual Nigerians were beaten and imprisoned for three days without food or water by Nigerian authorities because of their efforts to organize.

Among the issues Executive Council will debate are a partial response to the primates’ communiqué and the proposed Anglican Covenant. Mr. Mac-Iyalla spoke before a joint session of the national and international concerns committees. The 60-minute session was also attended by about three dozen press, visitors and guests.

Mr. Mac-Iyalla said his troubles began in 2005 after he publicly accused the Most Rev. Peter Akinola, Archbishop of Nigeria, for “telling lies” about lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgendered people in Nigeria. On Oct. 17, he was arrested and freed three days later, only after Colin Coward, founder of Changing Attitude U.K., a gay and lesbian advocacy group, paid his bail. Prior to that time, Mr. Mac-Iyalla said, he had never seen a white man or been outside his native country. He now serves as director of Changing Attitude Nigeria.

In response to a question, Mr. Mac-Iyalla said it would be important for The Episcopal Church to do everything it could to retain its full voice within the Anglican Communion. Mr. Mac-Iyalla said Archbishop Akinola is trying to subvert dialogue with gays and lesbians from taking place in Nigeria, and he believes the proposed dialogue in the Anglican Communion will not happen if the voice of The Episcopal Church is silenced.

“People are afraid to speak out,” Mr. Mac-Iyalla said. “Our hope is The Episcopal Church. If you do not speak out for us, we don’t know where we will take our voice.

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Episcopal Church (TEC), Sexuality Debate (in Anglican Communion)

68 comments on “Nigerian Gay Rights Advocate Addresses Executive Council

  1. Brian from T19 says:

    This is interesting. I think the idea of TEC planting churches in Nigeria is a bit absurd. I understand that the needs of the people are not being met by ++Akinola, but for TEC to plant churches would be a de facto granting of legitimacy to CANA and other splinter groups. But overall, good for Mr. Mac-Iyalla for standing up against the tyranny of oppression.

  2. Connecticutian says:

    If that bill were approved, Mr. Mac-Iyalla said it would be illegal for The Episcopal Church to plant a rival Anglican church in Nigeria similar to CANA (the Convocation of Anglicans in North America), which Archbishop Akinola has planted in the United States. He urged members of Executive Council to consider sponsoring such an initiative before the Nigerian law could be changed.

    It would seem that Mr. Mac-Iyalla shares the opinion of many that TECusa is not a church so much as a gay advocacy PAC. The (withdrawn) bill would have proscribed gay advocay, not church planting.

  3. Phil says:

    I’m quite sure a church that offers no answers, only questions, and advises people the only doctrine not open to debate is the affirmation of the erotic will pose no threat to the Church of Nigeria.

    I join Mr. Mac-Iyalla in encouraging ECUSA to blow its dwindling resources on such a project.

  4. DH says:

    “It would seem that Mr. Mac-Iyalla shares the opinion of many that TECusa is not a church so much as a gay advocacy PAC.”
    Well said, Connecticutian. The TEC has most certainly sold its soul for political approbation and lost its way!

    ++Peter has not sold his soul, nor has he lost his way. The vitriol aimed at him is astounding.

  5. Pb says:

    This is what TEC calls dialogue.

  6. Harry Edmon says:

    Instead of “sinners repent”, it is “sinners unite”!

  7. Phil says:

    Bigotry, TPaine? Please advise in which comment(s) it can be found.

  8. RalphM says:

    There was considerable comment on Mr. Mac-Iyalla in other threads, questioning whether he was, in fact, a Nigerian Anglican. Perhaps he should have stated what local church he claims as his own so that his credibility would have some anchor.

    TEC seems awfully worried about +++Akinola – it’s only one half of one percent of churches that have left TEC in this go-round, so why the focus on Nigeria?

  9. Craig Stephans says:

    “Mr. Mac-Iyalla said Archbishop Akinola is trying to subvert dialogue with gays and lesbians from taking place in Nigeria”

    There is nothing of this man’s history, reputation or trustworthiness available to readers, but here he is before the leaders of TEC accusing another Primate of being complicit in the abuse of others. There are so many things wrong with this event . I think what was mentioned earlier that TEC is acting like an advocacy group for changing views on homosexuality instead of an advocacy group for the gospel is a serious problem. Also, why is this man awarded the privilege of addressing the executive council? His one virtue that is apparent is that he espouses homosexuality; otherwise, who is he?
    I don’t think disagreeing with this event and this man is bigoted or lacks compassion. This is not about compassion…it is about changing peoples’ views on homosexuality and undermining the Archbishop of Nigeria. Of course, nobody here thinks jail or abuse of people like this is acceptable…give us a break TPaine.

  10. Pb says:

    I thought churches which advocated political positions were in jeopardy of losing their tax status. The HoB would probably brag to the IRS about their stand.

  11. john scholasticus says:

    Colin Coward has been described on T19 by Kendall himself as a ‘fine fellow’. Is he (CC) a liar? That’s one of several questions posed by this story. But it’s a critical one. Whatever view one takes on the gay issue, there are things going on here which any decent Christian – any decent person – should condemn. Come on, you orthodox guys, condemn it.

  12. TraditionalOne says:

    One would think that the most pressing problem in Nigeria is gay rights. To get a true picture of the country go to and read their country briefing of Nigeria. It is not a perfect place to live by any means, but gay rights is not their most pressing issue.

    Mr. Mac-Iyalla is saying exactly what you would expect of a leader of a gay rights organization to say.

    It is sad that the Executive Council of TEC is spending time with this individual while the church is crumbling arouond them.
    TEC is turning into a gay rights advocacy group and since they cannot compete with the message of Archbishop Akinola they are willing to ruthlessly destroy his reputation.

  13. Tunde says:

    Just a little correction…
    “The bill was removed from the Nigerian legislative assembly after the United States joined a number of international human rights groups in criticizing it, but many of the same Nigerian politicians who originally sponsored the bill were recently re-elected and Mr. Mac-Iyalla said it is only a matter of time before another attempt is made to approve the bill unless world attention continues to be focused.”

    1. The bill was an executive bill sponsored by the Prersident and his appointed executive council of ministers and not elected politicians.
    2. The bill was not withdrawn from any chamber. It was still in process when the elections came. Why it wasn’t rushed through is for future history. With many other outstanding bills it is still an issue and just enough noise from America may be necessary to raise it again.

  14. Deja Vu says:

    #13, John, I condemn the hijacking of the Episcopal Church into a gay rights advocacy organization. I have seen how quickly compassion and tolerance for same sex attraction has led to a take over by same sex activity advocates.
    It is obnoxious that a country with the problems of Nigeria would have USA financed subversives causing this contention. If this guy is truly a Christian, why doesn’t he put his sexual attractions in the back seat and use his energy to help his country?

  15. Rolling Eyes says:

    “What hateful people that you can read this cry for compassion and react instead with bigotry.”

    And what ignorant persons that can read the responses to this article and see bigotry.

  16. Sarah1 says:

    RE: “What hateful people that you can read this cry for compassion and react instead with bigotry.”

    Nope — we’re simply acknowledging the political grandstanding.
    ; > )

    But your definition of the word “hateful” would be quite the opposite of a reasserter’s definition of “hateful” — so it matters not a whit your using that word. Two different gospels — two different vocabularies — two different languages. And when one side uses a word, the other side shrugs and chuckles.

    RE: “A more complete article is here . . . ”

    They’re desperate for more traffic and comments, again, I see.

  17. Rolling Eyes says:

    John: “there are things going on here which any decent Christian – any decent person – should condemn. Come on, you orthodox guys, condemn it.”

    John, the reason why you see no orthodox posters going out of their way to condemn these actions is that you are right: ANY decent person would condemn how this man’s rights were trampled on. It goes without saying that those actions are condemned by decent people.

    What we SHOULD see, John, is your response to post #16.

  18. Frances Scott says:

    Is there any way this can pop up every time David Mac-Iyalla’s nam comes up?
    Check it out. Somebody is hoodwinked.

  19. john scholasticus says:

    #16, 17
    ‘Mr. Mac-Iyalla said his troubles began in 2005 after he publicly accused the Most Rev. Peter Akinola, Archbishop of Nigeria, for “telling lies” about lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgendered people in Nigeria. On Oct. 17, he was arrested and freed three days later, only after Colin Coward, founder of Changing Attitude U.K., a gay and lesbian advocacy group, paid his bail.’

    If that’s true, there is something very wrong. The story seems to be supported by Colin Coward, who has been and continues to be extremely supportive of our man. And Colin Coward is a ‘fine fellow’, according to Kendall. That’s my challenge, guys, answer it. I see disgusting bigotry here. Why don’t you?

  20. Scotsreb says:

    #21, simply because others do not allow you to set the frame of the arguement, does not make them bigots. Simply because others do not agree with your positions, does not make them bigots. Simply because others have a more conservative, scripturally based world view different from your own world view, does not make them bigots.

    Perhaps it would be valuable if you difined what the word *bigot* means to you?

  21. Brian from T19 says:

    Frances Scott:

    Check it out. Somebody is hoodwinked.

    Yes, anyone who reads that drivel is being hoodwinked. It is like the Klan saying they don’t have any black members.

  22. Brian from T19 says:

    Davis Mac-Iyalla meets Archbishop Peter Akinola
    Wednesday, 14 February 2007

    by Colin Coward

    Davis Mac-Iyalla meets Archbishop Peter Akinola

    This afternoon, following the first press briefing prior to the official beginning of the Primates meeting on Thursday 15 February, Davis Mac-Iyalla, Director of Changing Attitude Nigeria and Archbishop Peter Akinola, Primate of All Nigeria, met for the first time. As Davis left the hotel lobby with Carol Denton Hall, he found the Archbishop in the company of Bishop Martyn Minns and his wife, and Canon Chris Sugden from Anglican Mainstream.

    Davis went straight to the Archbishop to introduce himself and Caro. The Archbishop didn’t immediately recognise Davis, but asked him what he was doing in Tanzania. Davis explained that he has come to greet him and other Primates. Peter Akinola asked Davis if they had met before and Davis said yes, they had met several times, when Peter Akinola came to inaugurate the Province of Jos. Davis told the Archbishop the story of the late bishop Ugede, when they had met at the bishop’s funeral. Davis also told Peter Akinola how he had spent the night at his house following Bishop Ugede’s death in Abuja. Davis went on to describe the formation of Changing Attitude Nigeria. Peter Akinola then remembered who Davis was and thanked him. The Archbishop jokingly asked Davis if he was officially invited to the meeting, and Davis replied that no, he is not a Primate.

    They were joined by Colin Coward from Changing Attitude England who had met Archbishop Akinola at the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Nottingham. We exchanged handshakes and greetings with the Archbishop, who was friendly and open.

    After the meeting, Davis Mac-Iyalla said:

    “I came to Tanzania hoping I would be given the opportunity to meet my own Primate and I am very happy now to have met him and been warmly greeted by him. My Archbishop is now aware that I am here, representing Nigerian lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Anglicans.”

    I care about our Anglican Communion of which we are both members. I would hope for the opportunity of meeting him again so that I can bring before him the issues affecting gays and lesbians in Nigeria as a result of the Government bill and of church attitudes towards LGBT people.”

    “I am happy now that the truth that I have always told about myself, that I am a gay Nigerian Anglican has been witnessed by my own Primate. I hope Archbishop Peter Akinola will know that I am not a person who has deceived or cheated the church. I have always told the truth about my time with Bishop Ugede in Otukpo and my commitment to the diocese and the whole church.”

  23. MJD_NV says:

    Brian, your #23 is hate-filled to an extreme, and your #24 is old news and one-sided.

    I would like to know the status of Mr. Mac-Illaya’s warrants for fraud in Otukpo.

    The fact that Mac-Illaya will not answer these charges is telling.

  24. Brian from T19 says:

    Also see the 6/4/07 article in the Chicago Tribune:
    Homosexual lay minister from Nigeria embarks on U.S. tour

  25. Steven in Falls Church says:

    If what is reported in the story happened, then of course it is condemnable. In fact, it is at least as condemnable as the following exchange between Frank Griswold and Fidel Castro during the former’s trip to Havana last year (as reported in ENS):

    The conversation turned again to flags — this time, to the 30 or so being flown on large poles in front of the U.S. Interests Section building in Havana — strategically erected by Cuban officials to obscure some twenty-five separate red light panels located in the windowpanes of the building and programmed to display news and information. The “ticker”-style message system, installed earlier this year by the U.S. government, broadcasts messages criticizing the Cuban government that, until the erection of the flagpoles, were fully visible to motorists on Havana’s main highway.

    “I’m embarrassed,” Griswold said of the messages, which have become the focus of several international media reports.

    “I’m very grateful,” Castro replied. “If you’re playing baseball, and your opponents make mistakes, you appreciate it.” He said the ticker “was ordered from Washington” and that staff of the local Interest Section should not be held responsible for the device.

    The messages broadcast from the U.S. compound were probably the only public dissent in the whole country. Yet ++Griswold gives his tacit approval to Castro’s countermeasures by expressing his “embarrassment” at the messages. Would reappraisers be willing to step up and condemn that also?

  26. Deja Vu says:

    Does the name “Brian from T19” mean that this poster Brian is affiliated with T19? If not, why choose to use that posting name? Dose it reflect a chosen style of discourse?

  27. KAR says:

    #28 It was his SF name for a while, when T19 moved from Blinky’s server onto Greg’s he logged in using his usual SF name.

  28. Craig Stephans says:

    Based on the warning and disclaimer on the Nigerian website and the story from the executive council meeting, one of these primates/provinces is deceived about this man. If the Nigerian website’s disclaimer is true, what on earth is this guy doing on center stage with TEC’s leaders.

  29. The_Elves says:

    #28, number #29 is correct. Brian is simply a normal commenter, not an elf and with no special affiliation to the blog. For awhile he was moderated on the old T19 site, and started posting regularly on Stand Firm under “Brian from T19” as a way of helping make a connection with folks who would have known him from T19 (He has often been a prolific commenter. And, of course, he’s one of Sarah’s favorite reappraisers!)

  30. john scholasticus says:

    When I said ‘disgusting bigotry’, I did not mean yours: I meant that of the Nigerian authorities and of Peter Akinola. I’m glad ‘Rolling eyes’ seems to agree with me. Peace, brother! (or something like that – not my style) On the other matter, I’m tired, my eyes hurt (chronic conjunctivitis), I’m in a different time zone and I’m going to bed.

  31. Craig Stephans says:

    TPaine writes “Sorry folks – supporting the imprisoning of people for simply being gay or for supporting gays, as you clearly do, is bigotry. If you don’t speak out against it, you share in the sin. ”

    What are you talking about? nobody here is supporting that. As for your statement about speaking out against it..that is just idiotic! as if what your doing is alleviating anyone’s suffering. And according to the Bible resisting sinful sexual temptations is exactly what we are supposed to do. Not that scripture would matter though apparently.
    What I think we are all wondering is who is this guy and why is he able to present to the executive council when no other group is represented

  32. Irenaeus says:

    No PowerPoint slides about orthodox Anglican bishops practicing polygamy?

  33. Deja Vu says:

    #33 T Paine,
    No one has the time and energy to engage on every issue. We all have to prioritize our time and energy.
    So, the issues people choose to engage in reflect their priorities. Someone choosing to devote their time and energy to advocating for the right to engage in previously proscribed erotic behavior is making a statement that changing the rules regarding that erotic behavior is very high priority. Given the state of the world, and particularly a home country of Nigeria, this seems like bad priorities. Seems more like a prodigal son in the pig pen than a man returning home to the Father.

  34. Br. Michael says:

    No one wants homosexuals persecuted. Neither do I want to see their sexual life style championed.

  35. TraditionalOne says:

    I would again encourage people to learn about Nigeria on their own. The Economist magazine produces excellent country profiles and their profile on Nigeria can be found at the following
    Their are many problems issues confronting the people of Nigeria and gay rights and allegations of persecution are not among their most urgent concerns.
    We as Episcopalians should be asking why the Executive Committee is allowing iteslf to be a mouthpiece for gay rights activists from England and Nigeria. Surely, there are more important matters our church leadeship should be addressing!

  36. FrJake says:

    The smear campaign was refuted some time ago:

  37. TraditionalOne says:

    Is the Episcopal Church to be a human rights organization in this world or is it meant to be a vehicle to knowing and worshiping God and having an enternal life? It clearly should be the latter. Furthermore, I do not accept the premise that this is either a human rights issue or a human rights issue that is as importnat as any other human rights issue? Where are any facts to support such a claim?
    Would someone tell me why the Executive Council is allowing itself to be used as a mouthpiece for the gay rights lobby? Why do we tolerate this from our “leadership”?

  38. Steven in Falls Church says:

    TraditionalOne–The Episcopal Church is a human rights organization, but only when it wants to be. When it comes to dictators “fashionable” to the Far Left like Fidel Castro, TEC turns down the blinds, as my posting of ++Griswold’s comments above demonstrate. (Interesting how many TEC defenders have commented late in the day yet no one has bothered to respond to my posting.) The same hypocrisy can be seen in Bishop Chane’s obsequious fawning over Mohamed Khatami–culminating in Khatami’s invitation to National Cathedral–who oversaw the official persecution of gays not to mention Christians while president of Iran.

  39. BillS says:

    The causality runs the other way. Our “leadership” is using Davis Mac-Iyalla to support their propaganda that Bishop Akinola is a homophobic, reactionary, violator of human rights, who eats puppies for breakfast.

    TEC is practicing “radical inclusion” by suing the parishes in VA who no longer wish to be part of TEC, but who voted of their own free will to place themselves under the care of Bishop Akinola through CANA and Bp Mimms. According to TEC, once included, parishes no longer have the right to exclude themselves from the warm, loving embrace of 815 and its insistence on diversity of viewpoints. By diversity TEC means that if your viewpoint is diverse from theirs, you must listen to them until you are properly re-educated and love Big Brother.

    TEC is using Davis Mac-Iyalla to paint Bp Akinola as a homophobic human rights violator in order to influence the perception of the public as the suits against Truro, Falls Church, and the others, come to trial.

    As part of the TEC theology, the personal experience of gays such as Davis Mac-Iyalla trumps anything that the Bible says on the topic. Do not expect our Dear Leaders to “listen” to anything that Bp Duncan or Bp Iker might have to say on the topic, they are misanthropic homophobes, whose diversity and “different voices” are not worth hearing.

    Hope this makes it clearer what our “leadership” is up to.

  40. Br. Michael says:

    45, homosexuality is associated with a sexual behavior. And they desperately want their behavior legitimized.

    This article smacks of propaganda.

  41. Faith says:

    Dear Steven in Falls Church:
    I too am very dismayed, but not at all surprised that no one has responded to your comments about the visit of Griswold to Cuba. Sadly, we seem to think that orthodox Christianity is complete with a biblical view of sexuality.

    I just read the line of comments and this article, and you are so right. The hypocrisy is staggering on the reappraisers’ side when it comes to human rights issues like Cuba, China, North Korea, etc At General Convention during debate in committee on the Cuba resolution the proposer told the crowd that Secretary Rice had said that there was no need for exemption for pastors to go to Cuba because there were no Christians in Cuba. Now can you imagine Condoleezza Rice saying something that stupid? I can’t. And yet everyone gasped and took him at his word, with no factual evidence, because it was what they wanted to hear — it made the U.S. look bad.

    When Griswold went to Cuba and schmoozed with Fidel, I was appalled that there was no mention whatsoever of the thousands of political prisoners and Christian prisoners languishing in Cuba’s over 300 prisons. But hey, you don’t hear reaffirmers talking much about the human rights and religious freedom violations in Cuba either. For the most part, if it’s not about sex, it’s the crickets chirping.

  42. MJD_NV says:

    40 & 41 well, the charges were responded to, not answered. Frankly, I think both sides have a ways to go to prove their case, one way or the other. Nothingn MacIllaya’s writings particularly lead me to believe that he is much less than an opportunist, and nothing in Colin’s documnetary evidence (especcially not the fact the MacIllaya’s “membership card” was not signed until 12/2005, effectively making Canon Tunde’s case, and was not signed by the Vicar) particularly moves me. However, sans a police reoprt/court documents/third party statements, neither side of the story is really convincing.

  43. Faith says:

    Once more, Steven in Falls Church:
    I was proud to be standing with the Iranian American dissidents across the street from the National Cathedral, along with fellow Episcopalian Father Keith Roderick from the Diocese of Quincy. It was a shame to see Mo Kat treated like a rock star, and courageous, freedom-loving Iranians watching in disbelief as a CHURCH (as they said over and over) welcomed a murderer with open arms.

  44. Craig Stephans says:

    50…As Christians, we base our beliefs on the Bible. We account for people based on what the Bible says. The Bible accounts some behavior as sinful and all people as sinners. Sexual activity is behavior. Homosexual behavior would be a temptation just as premarital sexual behavior would be a temptation. Doing it would be a sin. Because our culture accepts both of them, does not legitimize them according to scripture.

    Christians are people of the Bible. It does not conform to us..we conform to it.

    I don’t have to account for gay people anymore than any other people. Jesus died for all and God instructs us to keep his word.
    Your problem is with scripture and that is between you and God what you do with it.

    Why is it that homosexual behavior is a virtue to you rather than a temptation the “old nature” must die to along with every other sexual temptation.

  45. Brian from T19 says:

    The fact that we are even discussing Cuba as compared to this situation is mind boggling. There is not even a single degree of equivalence. ++Frank made a statement about the attempts of a foreign country to radicalize Cubans against their leadership. I don’t support human rights violations in Cuba, but what ++Frank said is something like what the Dixie Chicks said in England.

    ++Akinola supports the criminalization of same-sex sexu@l activity. But even worse than that, he supports the criminalization of conversation related to same-sex sexu@l activity. So I will not condemn what ++Frank said (much as I would not condemn what the Dixie Chicks said) but I will condemn what ++Akinola does.

  46. Faith says:

    No, Brian. What is mind boggling is that you are thus comparing the brutal dictatorship of Fidel Castro to the United States attempting to fight against radical Islamist jihad. If you think Archbishop Akinola’s biblically-based views of sexuality are oppressive, wait til the Islamists take complete control in Nigeria. They may hypocritically enough enjoy a bit of pederasty (like Arafat) but officially they will be brutal against same-sex or other proclivities, which always seem to be ignored, except by “Beyond Inclusion.”

  47. Steven in Falls Church says:

    Brian–Here is an ABC News article on the erection of the flags in front of the American Interests section in Havana. Note especially the following:

    The sign has featured statements by famous U.S. figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln, but also by those who helped bring down European communism such as former Polish President Lech Walesa.

    The Cuban people have no free press; everything they read and watch is controlled by the state. What is “embarrassing” about broadcasting statements of MLK and Lincoln to them? According to your logic, VOA broadcasts to Europeans behind the Iron Curtain were an embarrassment. ++Griswold’s comments were picked up and milked by the state-controlled media to justify Castro’s actions, which makes those comments condemnable. By the way, I do not mention this episode to defend the Nigerian law. This episode (along with +Chane’s offensive buddying up with Khatami) serves to illustrate the hypocrisy of TEC’s selective concern for human rights.

  48. Brian from T19 says:


    If you believe that ++Akinola is following the Scripture by advocating the imprisonment of human beings and further that he is not simply compelled to do so by God, but also by the “threat” of Islam, then I would say you have drunk the Kool Aid.

  49. Brian from T19 says:


    Freedom of the press is not a basic human right.

  50. KAR says:

    #56 Freedom of the expression is in the preamble of the UN DHR and freedom of assembly is Article 20 just after freedom of religion Article 19.

  51. Br. Michael says:

    50, you mean all this commotion is actually being caused by homosexuals who want to practice a celebate life style?

  52. William P. Sulik says:

    56. Brian from T19 wrote:

    Freedom of the press is not a basic human right.


    So the freedom to have sodomy is a basic human right, but not freedom of the press…

    This is why, although I consider myself a political liberal, I have a hard time identifying myself as one. The so-called “progressives” are nuts.

  53. Rolling Eyes says:

    #32: “I’m glad ‘Rolling eyes’ seems to agree with me.”


    #33: “Sorry folks – supporting the imprisoning of people for simply being gay or for supporting gays, as you clearly do, is bigotry.”

    Clearly? Are you insane? Is English your second language? Those could be the only excuses for such an idiotic and brain-dead remark.

  54. Deja Vu says:

    # 59. William P. Sulik
    Yes Yes Yes
    I thought I was a liberal, too!!!
    But I was the kind of liberal who believed in freedom of the press, free speech means all sides get speak, and all those old fashioned, out dated, mid 20th century ideas that have been abused by the “progressives” to advance an agenda that rapidly embraced “by any means necessary”.

  55. Rolling Eyes says:

    #62, “Sorry, the commotion I’m seeing is being caused by people who don’t like gay people.”

    Utter stupidity. There is no other word for it.

    TPaine, if you aren’t going to pay attention to both sides of this “conversation”, then perhaps you should refrain from commenting. You have NO idea whatsoever about what the people who disagree with you are saying in their posts. Instead, you simply chalk everything up to bigotry. You should be ashamed.

  56. usma87 says:

    Your response to #51 clearly separates you from me on the understanding of scripture. I am hardly a theologian, but I think you ignoring significant parts of the OT and NT that condemn same-sex activities as sin. I do not recall any qualification that these action be in a “long-term loving relationship”.

    We are part of two separate faiths. All that is needed is the formal rift.

  57. KAR says:

    #65 “since gay people weren’t allowed to in those days.”

    I beg to differ, in Greek society there were no such rules, in fact quite to the contrary. So when Paul is writing, he’d very much know of this and an it was counter-cultural then. In fact Justin Martyn used the chastity of the Christian as part of his defense of the faith because it was so unusual. I do believe you are not portraying the context the New Testament was written accurately at all.

  58. john scholasticus says:

    ‘The writers of the Bible, Paul included, could not have imagined monogamous, committed (by that I mean religious/legal commitment) same sex relationships.’

    Crucial point. I absolutely agree. Despite repeated challenges, people such as Priscilla Turner are unable to produce any examples of this way of thinking, as precisely defined by you.

  59. Reactionary says:

    ’The writers of the Bible, Paul included, could not have imagined monogamous, committed (by that I mean religious/legal commitment) same sex relationships.’

    The act condemned is sodomy, so it makes no difference what trappings you affix to the act; it is still sinful. When Paul and Jesus spoke of marriage, they referred to an institution that predates written history. So it’s not surprising that neither explicitly condemns marriages between siblings or with an animal either. There can never be such a thing as homosexual “marriage” because the biological and social implications present in a marriage between a man and woman simply do not exist in two people of the same gender sexually exciting each other. So for all I care, homosexuals can engage in all the sex they want or not, but they can’t get the sacrament of marriage extended to the activity because, theologically, biologically, socially and economically, it will never be a marriage.

    To insist that the relationship is whatever we say it is, one has to accept the gnostic heresy.

  60. john scholasticus says:

    The act condemned is sodomy, so it makes no difference what trappings you affix to the act; it is still sinful. When Paul and Jesus spoke of marriage, they referred to an institution that predates written history.

    It’s true that sodomy is condemned. But since the Bible has no concept of loving, monogamous (etc.) homosexual relationships, it does not consider (a) whether ‘sodomy’ might be permissible within those relationships (faute de mieux, as one might say); (b) whether within those relationships other forms of sexual expression might be permissible. As for ‘marriage’ predating written history, that takes you back before the OT, so your reliance on religious texts is undermined.

  61. Scotsreb says:

    #70, if you agree as you have just done, that sodomy is condemned in scripture, then the rest of your statement is basically merely putting covering trappings on an action that is condemned.

    The trappings to not change the act and so therefore, the trappings do not relieve the act of its sinful nature and condemnation. No matter how deeply the individuals feel for each other, their very real emotional modifiers do not change the underlying reality.

    To be frank, putting lipstick on a pig, just puts lipstick on a pig and does not change the basic nature of the pig.

  62. john scholasticus says:

    #71 No, it’s not. There are plenty of instances in Scripture, especially in the New Testament, where a specific act or practice, condemned within a certain context, is allowed within a different context.

    As for your pig analogy, who is the pig here? I only ask.

  63. Br. Michael says:

    John, you are arguing from silence. And you are wrong. Scripture is quite clear only you simply don’t accept it.

  64. Merseymike says:

    When I read a contribution from a reasserter which unreservedly condemns discrimination against gay people without any caveats at all;, I shall start to believe that their claims of not being anti-gay are true

  65. JGeorge says:

    The writers of the Bible, Paul included, could not have imagined monogamous, committed (by that I mean religious/legal commitment) same sex relationships.

    What about Emperor Nero’s and other Roman emperors’ same-sex marriages? Consider this: even in one of the most promiscuous and “inclusive” times, “gay” marriage was never socially accepted. And we have now lowered the standards that our Bishops must live up to – to that of Emperor Nero.

  66. Colin Coward says:

    I am Colin Coward, referred to in a number of posts above in connection with Davis Mac-Iyalla. Ralph M wanted to know if Davis is really an Anglican and which his local church is in Nigeria. Craig Stephens wrote that nothing in Davis’s history, to prove his reputation or trustworthiness, is available to readers. John Scholasticus asks if I am a liar. Deja Vu wants to know if Davis is really a Christian. Frances Scott refers to the disclaimer about Davis published by Canon Tunde on the Church of Nigeria web site. MJD_NV says Davis is an opportunist and I don’t move him and am not convincing.

    I am worried by the refusal of conservative Anglicans on this site and on Thinking Anglicans to trust the integrity of Davis and myself. I am ordained in the Church of England. Nothing in the dislaimer published by Tunde against Davis is true. The evidence showing that Davis has told the truth has been published on the Changing Attitude web site. I have met Davis in three different contexts. I have met a man whose Christian integrity is absolute.

    Those posting to this site who question my truth and integrity are doing something which I perceive to be unChristian, to put it mildly, and evil to put it strongly. You are denying who I am, and you are denying Davis’s own testimony about himself. You assume that a Canon of the Church must be telling the truth, and Davis and myself must be lying and untrustworthy because we are gay.

  67. Tunde says:

    I take objection to being called a liar. The question asked remained unanswered.
    Which Church does he attend?

    Your friend claimed to be a knight of a diocese which not only denied that, but showed me documents of alleged fraud perpetuated by him. His bolting away was because he was called to account for monies he diverted to his personal use. I interviewed many people in Otukpo but none knew him there as homosexual. Efforts to get him to clear himself have been rebuffed. Not even a phone call to the Bishop since 2003! Over time, he has proved everything I said. Remember your defense of the last one about his original plans for asylum?

    If he succeeded in fooling you, the disclaimer remains to avoid you saying you were not warned. If others are think otherwise(r), why get “worried”? You assume he must be telling the truth because he is gay. The disclaimer is not about his homosexuality but about FRAUD. Your ‘evidence’ only showed a smart guy who dodged issues by producing pictures outside the issue.

    Let me add my own questions?

    Has he introduced you to any gay partner?
    How much have you helped raise for the Nigerian cause?
    How much of it has been spent directly by Davis?