Fantastic! I think we've waited too long to say something like this, and it's about time the Religious Left came out of hiding and started preaching a bit of that Gospel of Love we claim to believe in, so that gay people know they are not alone, and the world knows that Christianity is not all about hate and intolerance.

The churches, no matter what denomnation, ought to stick to the teachings of Jesus.
He came to show us the way of love.
Not hate.
We have all been born into this world, we are all brothers and sisters, no matter our colour, our sex, nationality or creed.
If our thinking is right with God, then so will our actions too.
Let us love all God's children.
ALL, being hetrosexual and homosexual alike.
Let us not hide behind Man's teaching.
Let us walk in the light of God's love for all.
Let the Gospel, or Good news, of love be our banner for tolerance.

Peace to all in the Name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ—this is the Good News of our Lord, not "careful or we will sick our boys on you."

The Lord never once turned away anyone seeking Him out. Not one. NEVER. Yet time and again throughout history we have seen men using His name to divide, exclude, and do violence.

Bishop Chane rightly condemns this. He exposes the lie of hate and division at the core of this corruption by simply speaking the true Word to it. There is no hiding from it. There is no way around it. There is only one Way:

"One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, ‘Which commandment is the first of all?’

Jesus answered, ‘The first is, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.” The second is this, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” There is no other commandment greater than these.’ "

And to prove this, the Lord went and died on the Cross, and rose from it, and it is the truth of this Word and the power of it, that keeps us in Him, all of us, ALL, even in death.

This is the Word that the Episcopal Church preaches. This is the Word that the Holy Spirit fills us with and the power it lends us to do the work of the Lord.

This is what Bishop Chane is reminding Akinola of. Because if he ever knew it, he must have forgotten.

Thanks be to God, again, for the strong voice of John Chane...to name the elephant, as it is and to actually point to it, sitting there in the living room...
God bless you Bp Chane!...and greetings from San Diego..

Thank you, Bishop Chane, for your support for the ordinary freedoms of gay and lesbian people in Nigeria and elsewhere.

My heart lifts with joy to read such a strong response to intolerance as Bishop Chane's.

And yes, it's a warning to us all that the "movement" in Nigeria has financial support from the "movement" here at home, with tentacles in mainline churches. Let us reach out to our friends in other faiths and support each other in strength.

With children in school on the Cathedral close, I am relieved to hear Bishop Chane rise above local, national and international rhetoric to look at the people being affected by these views and to find a way to reach out and support them.

I'd like to see Bishop Chane addressing others within the (geographic) boundaries of his see: specifically, The White House!

(Where is the Bush Administration in all this? If the President's serious about "spreading democracy," how can he NOT denounce the *criminalization* of "peaceful assembly for redress of grievances"???)

I may be wrong, but isn’t Archbishop Akinola the one who said: "our wicked ways are the only reasons behind the AIDS pandemic, and thus have to be the focus of the battle against the deadly disease“. I couldn’t find the quote online but it was at an AIDS conference of African religious leaders and I thought it was from the archbishop from Nigeria in response to a call from South African clergy for churches to do more to combat AIDS and a protest against a conservative call for a policy of teaching “abstinence only” for combating AIDS.

I did find some other quotes from Archbishop Akinola saying; "God created two persons - male and female. Now the world of homosexuals has created a third - a homosexual, neither male nor female - a strange two-in-one human."

This statement clearly shows his intolerance and his lack of understanding.

And, rather than calling for peace and calm in the wake of sectarian violence over the cartoons of Mohammed, Archbishop Akinola seemed to call for Christians to strike back at Muslims.

"From all indications, it is very clear now that the sacrifices of the Christians in this country for peaceful co-existence with people of other faiths has been sadly misunderstood to be weakness. …. May we at this stage remind our Muslim brothers that they do not have the monopoly on violence in this nation," Akinola had said in response to the Muslim riots.

Following his statement at least 20 Muslims were beaten to death by Christian mobs, upwards of 150 injured and two mosques were burned. Not surprisingly, Archbishop Akinola could not be reached for comment on the outbreak of anti- Muslim violence following his statement.

I think Archbishop Akinola may be the Anglican equivalent of Pat Robertson.

And don’t expect George Bush to come out against this proposed law, he won’t come out publicly in favor of it but in his heart he wishes it were in the U.S.

I see nothing wrong with same sex marriage. Over 50% of straight marriages end in divorce. Marriage itself is in jeopardy. Many people are living together, and having children, without marriage. Instead of bashing gays, maybe the churches need to study marriage, and seek to find out why the failure. For a priest to suggest pulling away from the church and starting their own smacks of the Middle Ages. Why do the conservatives want to send us back to that time? Do they think it will be so much better? Someone needs to read history.

Hurray for Bishop Chane! He will probably get a lot of negative comments for his stand, so he needs our prayers and support. What Archbishop Akinola has done is shameful.

Is there a way to send a message of support to gay sisters and brothers in Nigeria to let them know that their straight brothers and sisters support them??

Thank God our bishop is actually saying what a bishop needs to be saying! I am proud to be a member of the Diocese of Washington and proud to called Bishop Chayne a prophetic servant of Christ.

God bless you, Bishop Chane. This has needed to be said for such a long time. Why aren't you Archbishop of Canterbury?

During the recent Diocesan Convention our local church family dealt with many significant and difficult issues. It was only in voting on resolutions that touched, in some way, on human sexuality that I saw people hurrying to be part of small groups. I saw members of my own congregation meet with others to strategize on how to use Robert's Rules of Order to defeat Resolution 6 - On Full inclusion of Gay and Lesbian people. And then I watched them vote to exclude me, because I'm gay.

Inclusion is all or nothing in a case like this. Either I am good enough to be a fully participating member of the church or I'm not. Therefore I must admit I take umbrage at an attitude of, "we love you, but..."

If Christ accepts someone into his church, perhaps the rest of us should accept that and focus on finding ways to love each other. After all, Jesus never set up a membership review committee he set up a welcoming committee and commissioned them to spread the word.

Thank you Bishop Chane for your continued support and love of all of the flock. And thank you for having the courage to take a stand against the use of the Gospel as a tool of division.

It seems abhorrent to me that anyone would be against freedom to petition a government or to assemble or against freedom of the press. These are foundational freedoms in most democracies of the world. Is the Archbishop saying that democracy and the Church cannot coexist?

Could someone please provide me a link to any news article, other than the opinion piece by +Chane, that discusses this "new Law" to outlaw same sex marriage in Nigeria. I am surprised because homosexual conduct has been illegal throughout Nigeria for many years, just as it had been in most states in this country until fairly recently. In fact, in the Muslim controlled north of Nigeria, which observes Sharia law, a homosexual act is punishable by death by stoning. A new law in that country making homosexual marriage illegal seems somewhat redundant. I have not been able to find reference to such a new law using Google search or Yahoo search.

As for Abp. Ackinola encouraging violence against Muslims, there is a press release on the Nigerian Anglican Province website calling for an immediate end to the violence by all involved. I point out also that Nigeria is on the frontlines of winning souls for Jesus Christ, particularly in a country where Islam is quite popular. The Anglican church in Nigeria is a rapidly growing church, as opposed to our American Episcopal Church, which was losing members before its controversial actions in 2003, and continues to do so.

The timing of this op-ed piece by +Chane raises my suspicion that he and other revisionists in the Episcopal Church are now lobbying for the idea that provoking a schism in the Anglican Communion is preferrable to seriously considering the recommendations of the Windsor report as endorsed by the primates at Dromantine last year. He might as well say, "The global South is threatening to depart? Good riddance to them. And, by the way, with them gone, there is certainly no need to consider the Windsor recommendations directed at our church."

When the innovations were adopted at GC2003, the initial response of revisionists to the idea that this vote by ECUSA could provoke the Global South to leave the Anglican Communion was along the lines of, "They need our money to badly to leave." When Abp. Orombi and others in the global South returned moneys sent by ECUSA, the charge changed to, "They're simply letting wealthy right wing Americans call the shots."

Abp. Ackinola specifically replied to a similar charge by Irish Abp. Robin Eames, saying, "“It is reported that you, without citing specifics, are ‘quite certain’ that some of us have been bought. If you have any evidence of such financial inducements I challenge you, in the name of God, to reveal them or make a public apology to your brother Primates in the Global South for this damaging and irresponsible smear. I have always made it clear that there is no price-tag on my head — I am not a slave to anyone — I have been set free by the blood of the One who died for us all.”

As for the invidious renewal movement in American Protestant churches, I'm still wanting to know where all this money is supposedly going. When I look at the conservative movement in ECUSA and other churches, I see a lot of websites, not much else. Or could +Chane possibly be referring to the "God is Like No Other" campaign developed for GC2003 and sponsored by the American Anglican Council? To view, go to the AAC website and enter "God Is Like No Other" in the website search feature. It is vastly superior to any evangelical tools I have seen ont he 815 website.

And yes, Jesus did preach tolerance and inclusion (sort of). But what he really preached was, "Repent, the kingdom of God is at hand." It wasn't that he accepted the sins of prostitutes and tax collectors. He never once said that it is OK to sin. He said instead, "Your sins are forgiven." His message to the Pharisees was not that it was wrong to try to follow the law, but that trying to follow the law is not enough. We are all, Pharisees and Saducees and prostitutes and tax collectors alike, sinners in need of a savior in order to obtain God's mercy. And that if we do not acknowledge our sins and ask forgiveness and obtain God's mercy, we will surely go to hell (a place Jesus mentioned more times than any other character in Scriptures).

And I couldn't disagree more strongly that the issue facing ECUSA is inclusion. To my knowledge, not one leader in the conservative wing of ECUSA has EVER advocated not allowing practicing homosexuals to belong to a parish or participate int he sacrament of communion. The question is whether it is OK for ECUSA to consecrate a bishop who is openly in a sexual relationship outside of marriage, and thus to radically change Church teaching for 2000 years that fornication is a sin, te having been named a sin by Christ as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew.

The message of conservatives in our church has always been, homosexuals are welcome in our church along with all the rest of us sinners. Come in and be exposed to the healing, transforming power of our risen Lord.

Blessings to all.

Here is a link to a site that has been doing a good job covering this situation.

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/001544.html

Rick, you've misread the piece. The point isn't that wealthy right wingers are calling the shots. The point is their contributions help sustain a global alliance whose leader has supported depriving gays of what in this country are First Amendment rights. This would seem to me an issue of some importance. We need to know whether the Network and its leaders support such legislation? And if htey don't, why haven't they said so?

As for your speculation on Bishop Chane's response to the Windsor report, I can only suggest to you that if he and other liberals like Bishops Bruno and Sauls did not see value in holding the Church and Communion together they probably would not be wastingthier time in a lengthy series of meetings with Bishops Duncan, Lipscomb, McPherson and Adams. This group of 12-15 bishops have met three times now to work out some way forward. I don't know whether they will succeed, but I don't doubt the sincerity of the participants.

Rick, I was able to find several sources additional on the net to confirm the basics of the proposed law, here , here , and here just to name three of many.

However, the outrage I think many people feel is not that they want to ban same-sex marriage, they’ve already done that in many states here in the U.S., but the outrage is that they seem to want to ban the concept of homosexuality altogether. They want to outlaw public displays of same-sex affection, the want to ban the media from writing or broadcasting anything about homosexuality, they want to ban free assembly of homosexuals for the purpose of advocating for rights they believe they should be able to petition for.

Not to argue that what homosexuals feel or want is OK or not Ok, but you can’t outlaw what someone feels, or the free speech right to speak out for yourself. And how do you outlaw something as vague as public displays of same sex relationships? This is a law which absolutely invites abuse.

And, FYI, homosexuality has not been against the law throughout Nigeria, only in 12 of Nigeria's northernmost states that have adopted Islamic Sharia law for their courtrooms and have sentenced dozens of men to death in the last few years for either being caught in or admitting to homosexual relationships. It is typical of these types of laws that two women caught together are usually not punished at all, because men don’t find that so offensive, and men rule over women absolutely in Sharia law. Nigeria's southern states are mostly Christian and do not follow Sharia law.

As for Archbishop Akinola advocating violence or not, I don’t see how it could be read any other way; "From all indications, it is very clear now that the sacrifices of the Christians in this country for peaceful co-existence with people of other faiths has been sadly misunderstood to be weakness. …. May we at this stage remind our Muslim brothers that they do not have the monopoly on violence in this nation"

To me this was obviously NOT a call for peace and calm, and I believe he got what he wanted, Christians striking back at Muslims. Violence may or may not be the Muslim way, depending on who you ask, but I think you would be hard pressed to find many Christian leaders advocating violence in retaliation.

I think I understand your stance on homosexuality and ordination of gays, and I think that is something for the Anglican Communion to work out internally, but I do not understand how you do not think this proposed law is beyond acceptable restriction of liberties.

On a scriptural question, someone quoted Romans 1:22-27 to me as a scriptural condemnation of homosexuality. It seems to me that his passage is a condemnation of idolatry. And it does say that “Because of this (idolatry), God gave them over to shameful lusts.”
How can this be seen as condemning homosexuality when God gave them over to these lusts? Yes, it does describe the acts as indecent and a perversion, but isn’t that why the acts are considered a punishment from God , that they were shameful, indecent and perverted? How does this apply to loving, monogamous same-sex relationships?

Romans 1:22-27 (New International Version)
22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Come on Rick, do a simple search on the internet for pete's sake.

Well, I did a simple search on the internet, as I said earlier, using Google and Yahoo, but failed to find the mentioned articles. Jim's link is to some other opinion pieces, on the Thinking Anglicans site, which links to another opinion piece. Daniel's links didn't work for me. I'm looking for some wire service stories or actual newspaper articles.

Daniel, I really don't want to start a long discussion about whether Scripture really condemns homosexual behavior as we know it today. Can we say that it condemns adultery and other forms of sex outside of marriage and agree that, as of right now, the Bishop of New Hampshire is not actually married to his sexual partner in the eyes of either the state of New Hampshire or the Episcopal Church? Apart from the issue of whether we should have divorced clergy in our church (and I would argue that we should not), if he had not divorced his wife and was openly living in an sexual relationship with another woman, would anyone argue that he was an appropriate candidate for the episcopacy?

Can anyone point me to a news article on the Web in which Dr. Akinola is actually quoted as favoring this legislation? Unless such an article exists(I haven't been able to locate one) Chane is assuming an awful lot and I'm not going to take his word for it.

Rick,

Have you tried Google News? I just searched and found at least one Nigerian newspaper article as well as some from other countries. I do not understand why you cannot and have not done the same.

Also, the page Jim linked to at Thinking Anglicans had the full text of the bill in a pdf file format. Do you question its accuracy simply because it was provided by an "opinion site"? I can understand your questioning the objectivity of opinion-writers' summaries and analysis of news but find it difficult to see why you would question the text of a bill. If Nigeria is like this country, one has to dig quite a bit to get texts of proposed bills and they generally appear in pdf format like the one posted. Do you honestly believe someone just manufactured it? Do you think the Bishop made it up also?

Anglican Church in Nigeria Welcomes Ban on Homosexuality

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-01/2006-01-19-voa55.cfm?CFID=33692415&CFTOKEN=64989135

Tunde Popoola, the same "spokesperson" who went after Changing Attitudes - Nigeria speaks for the Archbishop, who was obviously too busy encouraging Christians to burn mosques and kill Muslims to be bothered by this trivial law.

Rick,

I apologize if you believe I was trying to bait you into a discussion of scripture and homosexuality. I am not trying to change your position, I am trying to clarify mine for myself. I am trying to reconcile what I feel to be right in my heart with what our church doctrine is regarding homosexuality, and I am finding it difficult to accept the conservative SBC position that, among other things; Homosexual orientation is a type of mental defect, or a condition caused by an unhealthy relationship with one's parents; Homosexuals are actually just heterosexuals who have developed a perverted attraction for the same sex, that “homosexual” isn’t something anyone actually is; and Discrimination against gays and lesbians is proper, in the areas of: Employment, to protect family, or to protect other social institutions. These are actually tenets from a tract put out by the SBC.

So I hope you see why I am not certain of where I stand on and issue that, to me, has unanswered questions. For many it is a black and white issue, but for me there is still a lot of grey area.

I have mixed feeling on this issue. First, yes we are to love our neighbors no matter what their sin, since 'love covers a multitude of sins' and we are to reach out with the love of Christ to those who are lost, like those who practice homosexuality. On the other hand, we need to call evil, evil. We are called to be a light that exposes evil, not sugarcoat it. If we are being lukewarm about this issue, then Christ says in Revelation that He will 'vomit us out'. Homosexuality is a serious sin just like any other sin and needs to be dealt with as such. So if you LOVE your neighbor, aren't you going to be TRUTHFUL with him/her and let them know what their sin will lead to if they don't stop? We need to give them the truth, and yes, sometimes the truth hurts. But wouldn't you rather give them the Truth that can save their soul from hell??

Calling homosexuality an abomination is completely accurate to the bible. If you don't agree on this then either you don't agree with God's Word on this or you are a lukewarm Christian who doesn't want to stand in truth. How serious is homosexuality? God completely demolished the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for it's rampant homosexuality and sexual immorality, because as Romans 1 puts it, it's a totally unnatural and depraved lifestyle.

So yes I believe and treat homosexuals with love as one created in the image of God, but I fear for this nation because of the proliferation of homosexuality in it. If God did not spare Sodom & Gomorrah, you think He will spare this nation? Sometimes, drastic situations call for drastic measures. How do we know if this is not God moving and using such a figure of authority, which He appointed, for 'all authority is appointed by God', and using this to wake up the nations and the minds of those who are bound by sin? This could be the grace of God on a world that is living in the dark, and we need to recognize this and pray that such a drastic move will indeed open their eyes to the truth.

You know, years ago I remember when they started outlawing smoking in restaurants and bars, because they realized the health hazards of second-hand smoke. Not only that but the stench too. When this occured I believe many people started getting help and quitting smoking, and now there are programs everywhere to help people quit. Well...in the same way, could this not be the start of a massive move to eliminate the 'use' of homosexuality, a lifestyle that is self-destructing and the cause of moral decay? Could this move cause people to realize that this lifestyle really is bad and get people to start living normal heterosexual lives once again, and in effect be the start of nationwide programs to rehabilitate and help those who are in bondage? I think this could be a very positive move...who knows but God.

Naas wrote: Calling homosexuality an abomination is completely accurate to the bible. If you don't agree on this then either you don't agree with God's Word on this or you are a lukewarm Christian who doesn't want to stand in truth. How serious is homosexuality? God completely demolished the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for it's rampant homosexuality and sexual immorality, because as Romans 1 puts it, it's a totally unnatural and depraved lifestyle.

Naas, I don't think the Bible says God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality. Have another look at that that story. I don't think it gives any clear moral at all. The men of Sodom want to rape Lot's visitors. Those visitors are not men. They are divine messengers. Lot responds by saying, no don't rape the divine messengers, rape my daughters instead. How you get from this to a clear teaching on homosexuality is not at all clear to me.

Have a look at the earlier entry on the blog a week or so ago by Father James Alison. How would you engage his argument?

Naas,

Having been told at one point that I had committed a sin so grievous to the Lord that I should no longer be welcomed in church, and then to have scripture quoted which seemed to back up the individual’s point, has led me to believe (or hope) that not all scripture is as condemning as some would have us believe.

Specifically, at the age of 45 my wife and I decided we were happy with the number of children we have and we decided that I would have a vasectomy (better than continued artificial birth control hormones or invasive surgery for her). Shortly after that I was told, by a very conservative Christian friend of mine, that that I had committed a sin so grievous to the Lord that I should no longer be welcomed in church. And he quoted Deuteronomy 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Now, I’m not buying this by any means, but if someone can quote this verse and tell me “By your own actions you have made yourself unwelcome in the congregation of the Lord” then you can see why I’m skeptical when someone quotes scripture and says it means a certain thing. And this was someone who I once respected a great deal and who played a part in bringing me back into a close relationship with Jesus. I would add that he also believes homosexuality and adultery should be capitol crimes in accordance with scripture.

I’m not trying to say homosexuality is not a sin, but I do find it a little hypocritical that it is condemned with such vigor while I’ve not seen a corresponding effort by conservative Christians to decry adultery. Who does a loving, monogamous homosexual relationship hurt? Possibly the individuals involved, if you agree that it is sinful in nature, but often the individuals seem to flourish and live exemplary lives.

Who does adultery hurt? Adultery devastates families, spouses and children, those most innocent and vulnerable little ones most in need of our protection.

It’s possible that I’m not objective in this area because I was raised by a divorced single mother, but to me, adultery is a worse sin than homosexuality due to the innocent lives that it hurts. If homosexuality hurts anyone it is those actively omitting the sin.

You also used the phrase “help those who are in bondage” and it reminded me that the Southern Baptist Convention endorsed slavery as being scripturally sanctioned in 1845 and didn’t disavow and apologize for it until 1995. 150 years from now I don’t want to look back and say I was on the wrong side of the issue and guilty of bigotry or intolerance. So my mind is still open on this issue.

If that makes me a lukewarm Christian, I’m ok with that. I’m all for calling a sin a sin, but let’s not focus on fears and prejudices, let’s focus on sin.

Lost its backbone and its moral bearings? I am compelled to say, "Yes," starting with the diocesan leadership. How much longer are rebellious parishes going to be mollycoddled instead of cut off from abusing the substantial resources of ECUSA? How much longer is there going to be be so little legal defense against the rebellious parishes that courts routinely award the parishes all the capital assets even though we have an episcopal corporate form? How much longer is this church going to accept the Anglican Communion's being held hostage by a mob of illiterate, superstitious peasants that has more in common with the Nazis than with Anglicanism? I fear none of this will change until the Episcopal Church is beyond saving, and its death will rightly be placed at the feet of the bishops.

When my clients come to me to make donations and arrange bequests, I am professionally constrained to advise them against giving money to the Episcopal Church. The odds are simply too great that the money will go to some group espousing views diametrically opposed to their own, whether a diocese in Africa or a break-away parish across town.

I try to learn from these negative Nigerian developments by taking a step back from their immediate, and admittedly outrageous, force. I provisionally put these developments in a many-sided global perspective.

The possibility cannot yet be excluded that various neo-conservative forces for what is euphemistically termed church realignment or church renewal - decode: purge of alternative thinking, and shutting down inquiry/discussion among Christian believers - well, it seems quite likely to me that the familiar and well-institutionalized negative emotions about homosexuality (fear, ignorance, disgust) are being provoked, mobilized and manipulated to achieve what looks like might be wider neo-conservative strategic ends.

So far as I can discern these possibilities, these wider neo-con means and ends may include the main effect of disguising and distracting us all from the overt scapegoating and the sheer meanness which remains innate to so much of this allegedly godly and necessary neo-con realignment of our shared global life together.

The curiously consistent scapegoating is easily read on the comments available on sites like virtueonline.org, or the UK Forward In Faith, or UK British Reform, or so many of the Nigerian church pronouncements about homosexuality which mainly presume that LGBTQ people have crossed over some final and terrible line which renders them disgusting, dangerous, and less than human.

Some sincere respondents to the juxtaposition of our former - and duly scandalous - readings of the Bible to support slavery with our desperate clinging to isolated texts in the Bible to continue the homosexual abomination idea - for example asserted that we will do well to return to Christian slave-owning as a form of godly social security for poor people who cannot seem to compete otherwise in the modern job market and society.

Surely we all see and read and hear how the repeated tag, Abomination, comes up so consistently in connection with vilifying homosexual acts. An accurate and informed argument can be made that homosexual acts in the ancient near east were what we moderns would still call abominations, i.e., profound violations of core decency or deep creation order - because the most reasonable ancient contexts and meanings which appear to be presumed and referenced in these texts are all violent and assaultive.

If you are a man who uses force to make another man sexually service you - viewed an episode of the HBO series OZ lately? - you demonstrate how superior and powerful you are, while stripping your cowed and diminished sexual inferior of humanity, dignity, worth, status, and most of all, the power to reject your advances. I submit that in these cases - you are indeed practicing just that sort of abomination which probably we can reasonably surmise both the ancient near eastern citizen and the modern citizen would recognize as prohibited, vile or evil.

As if male-to-male violence were not sufficient, we also have the profound disgust of ancient tribal Israel and the abomination laws of the Old Testament against anything smacking of pagan rituals. We know pretty accurately that a large number of these ancient pagan rituals seem to have involved sex

These days, who among us cannot stir up a crowd - and short circuit any informed plural inquiry into texts and contexts - by shouting, Abomination.

But the fact remains that for moderns, rich bodily repertoires of kissing or touching or oral sex or anal sex are part of the lovemaking of a good many couples, straight or otherwise, followers of Jesus or otherwise.

We are indeed far - and the point is, we should be far, given what we know and understand of sex and human nature - from the ignorant and fearful former beliefs that oral sex caused plagues or hurricanes, either because oral sex made God angry and people got punished, or because oral sex so deeply disturbed the deep natural order of things that a plague or a hurricane was a logical result of the original sex disturbance. Ditto, for other melodies played in the human sexual genres of positive, good sexual loving.

If this rich bodily repertoire is not an abomination when a straight, married couple uses it to express their desire, devotion, and bond with one another; the modern juries are still out, when it comes to claiming that either unmarried people or non-straight people must be up to no damn good when they do the same things.

Indeed, if we can rely on the survey data, for the younger generation this is increasingly a settled matter. What makes a sex act violent or loving these days always gets understood among us as flowing mainly from the significant combinations of the effects you are having on the other person, the effects you are having on yourself, the nature of the consents you are both exercising, the various needs and motivations you are sexually expressing, and how all of the former spills out onto the networks of the people to whom you never cease to belong.

Increasingly, in a simple and common sense way, folks younger or older readily understand that what matters in sex is things like honesty, fairness, openness, decency and care for the other person as an equal to and in some way an extension of your own person by way of having been so deeply welcomed into that person embodied. These ethical goods are hardly automatic to, or only achievable in, traditional heterosexual marriage.

For a modern citizen of the 21st century, religious or secular, the main ethical considerations in sex include being informed and responsible, respecting the other person's views and needs and powers of consent, and opening your sexuality so far as you are able to the ethos of care that we all more or less understand and try to practice in our daily lives. Defrauding and violating someone sexually is no more or less of an abomination to the modern ethical person, than defrauding or violating someone in another aspect of our ongoing social life.

Another thing which we moderns know - and which we should consistently admit that we know - is that marriage in and of itself does not guarantee the actual good that even traditional theory claims for marriage. Modern folks know all about marital rape, for example, which many people of past centuries would have found controversial since the dominant belief was that a married woman had no right to be a sexual or social or human equal to her husband. We all know married people who are apparently greatly blessed - and are apparently great blessings to all around them - in their marriage and family life. We all probably know people who are struggling with a mixed picture of blessings and challenges in married living. We all know people whose marriages have devolved - quickly or slowly, over the short or the long term - into neglect, violence, and what we probably would all recognize as common sense forms of abuse.

Increasingly, we all recognize that if you really find you cannot turn a bad marriage around, you are better off to divorce than to stay and torment one another with ongoing neglect, disinterest, and abuse. Battered women are these days encouraged to gather up the children, and find a safe shelter if need be, where in past centuries there were no independent safe community shelters for them or their children, and the official cultus advised them to figure out ways to return to the battering husband and let Jesus nail their suffering and the suffering of their children to his cross of sacrificial penance.

The current neo-con valorizations of straight marriage as the only ideal and permissible social or religious form of human sexuality falls, actually, quite short of the full measure of what we all know in common sense to be the truths of human nature, sex, marriage, and family life.

It is only when we fall into the curious intellectual and religious traps of playing the ideal objectified theory games to which we are so often invited by reassertors of the going neo-con theory of sex and marriage that we get all caught up in going exactly where those ideas and definitions are intended to drive us, in the first place. Then we are all caught and transfixed for that moment, only able to see that no other possibilities of sex, human nature, marriage, or family life are possible.

Then we easily forget what we all actually know of sex and marriage from a common sense point of view.

As Jesus so long ago said to the disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane, friends, we might do well to put aside the swords of using law and governments to criminalize LGBTQ people. These malignant uses of force raise ethical issues every bit as disgusting, troubling, and alarming as any occasion of gay dating could ever provoke.

So the neo-con attack on inquiry and discussion among believers continues, whether you are attacked for being a non-conservative follower of Jesus (liberals are yucky), or whether you are attacked for being LGBTQ (queers are, guess what, yucky, too).

Once you go down these paths, putting people in jail will hardly prove to be sufficient. Jail and punish LGBTQ folks today. Then tomorrow you can jail and punish alternative followers of Jesus. As the tit for tat of ongoing violence in Nigeria between certain Muslims and certain Christians demonstrates for us, this might does not make right.

Alas, how easily we believers become whitened repositories, so full of dead bones. Lord have mercy

I've written a bit about this topic on my non-Anglican blog. It may be of interest to some as a summary of the important news stories -- and it may be very old hat to others. In the interest of disclosure, I am personally no longer associated with any Christian church, though I was raised as an Episcopalian in Southern California. My father is an Anglican priest.

Here's the link:

http://politicalspaghetti.blogspot.com/2006/03/nigeria.html

Chjristopher Johnson: Go to Nigeriaworld.com and do a search and you will find many quotes and articles in support of the law.

It is sad that such an intelligent Bishop Chane appears to understand so very little about what the Gospel is about; and apparently has little concept of the Scripture as understood, taught, and fulfilled by Jesus the Christ. He(Chane)would do well to attempt to learn basic exegesis as well as textual criticism. At least Archbishop Akinola knows these well and is not afraid to stand for what the Gospel and Jesus himself(and St Paul) proclaims is Truth (absolute at that). Heresy is always very sad, particularly for those 'sheep' who hear it and know no difference. The evolving American Episcopal church is a tragedy-but expected and not new, consider Pike & Spong.

I don't understand why people have trouble seeing the difference between civil rights issues and religious issues. And it is amazing that people should be exercised about a proposed law in Nigeria that doesn't conform to our views on civil rights. I don't think there are many people who feel the church shouldn't be open and welcoming to homosexuals and even allow them to be priests and bishops. I'm sure we have had a lot of them. But to leap from there to allowing gays to define marriage based on the way they like to have sex, is far out of line. We have a Bishop in NH who would be unacceptable as a school bus driver. Is there something about the last decade's experience with alcoholic gay priests that people are missing?

Don, Nigeria's law is really not the issue. Rather, it's Bishop Akinola's clear support of it that is giving people pause. I think good people these days are becoming more and more uncomfortable with certain religious sects' scapegoating of homosexuality as some sort of "super-sin" that not only reduces gay people to sub-human level, but requires civil legislation to keep in check. Think about it--can you name one other "biblical sin" that certain sects have lobbied for civil legislation against as much as homosexuality? Can you imagine the outcry if Akinola supported similar draconian secular laws against adulterers?

Your comments about Bishop Robinson are a little offensive. That bit about him being "unacceptable as a school bus driver" and then the next sentence about "alcholic gay preists" suggest that you may be confusing pedophilia with homosexuality. I won't bother explaining the difference (buy a book) but I will mention the proven fact that pedophiles are less interested in their victims' gender than their accessibility. There's not a lot of roles for young girls in church services...hence the incidence of pedophile priests preying on young boys.

And by the way, the fight for gay marriage has nothing to do with "how gays like to have sex." My partner and I have been together for almost 21 years--over half our total lives at this point. Trust me when I tell you that sex really has precious little to do with why we're committed to each other.

I was referring to the situation in the RC church where the crisis has been brought about not by pedophilia but by male homosexuals preying on boys and young men. There is a big difference, read a book not your emotions. There have been a tiny few cases of pedophilia but well over 95% have not been that. The homosexual activity in RC seminaries has been notorious and no doubt led to what happened. The Pope is taking action to prevent that in the future but he even said the steps he has asked for, are not forever. Being a Priest in any church requires someone to exercise discipline and will. They may have to hold themselves away from activity which is considered acceptable or tolerated by those in the pews. But they are held to a higher standard regardless of how inconvenient that might be. Right now, being an openly gay, practicing homosexual is something that is not allowed in the Anglican Communion and those that live that life style are not eligible to be a Priest. It may not be fair and it may change over time, but for now, and until we are better able to determine the facts, those who want to be Priests, need to either exercise the will and discipline to fulfill that requirement or find another calling.

As for the comment about Bishop Robinson. He is an alcoholic and would not be acceptable as a school bus driver. As an alcoholic gay priest, he would not be acceptable as a baby sitter. He obviously is a person with little personal will or discipline (and now I expect a diatribe on the "disease" theory of alcoholism. Spare me.) He has been a disaster as a Bishop even before this last bit of news but perhaps this last bit of news explains a lot of what has gone on.

My kids are past the age of needing a sitter, but if they weren't, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to leave them with +Gene. He's a terrific and caring person.

It seems to me that a gay alcoholic is no more likely to seduce teenage boys than a straight alcholic man is likely to seduce teenage girls. Or a straight alcoholic woman is to seduce teenage boys. Alcoholism being an addiction to alcohol, of course.

It also seems to me that forcing any person (gay or straight) to remain celibate increases the likelihood that he or she will be tempted to have sex secretly and illicitly. A person in a healthy, committed, mutually supportive relationship, having no need to hide or keep secrets, has little reason to be looking for sex outside of that relationship.

I'm not talking about the Roman Catholic tradition, in which all priests are expected to remain celibate. That's a whole different topic. In the Episcopal Church (and most protestant denominations) clergy are allowed to marry and have families, so requiring lifelong celibacy for gay clergy is a double standard.

Here's a news flash: Gene Robinson is not the first gay bishop. He's just the first one (in the Episcopal church) to be honest about it.

Gene Robinson is not the first Gay bishop or clergy by a long shot. Nor is he the first alcoholic, nor is he the first alcoholic gay priest/bishop. Nor does that have anything to do with the price of beans.

There has been a double standard for a few centuries. We expect priests to be more than administrators. They also provide moral leadership and direction. In our church that involves the interpretation of the Bible. It is hard to do that if there is confusion. And while homosexuals don't like to be accused of being confused, the rest of the world ofetn sees it that way

I must thank the Bishop for his boldness, we mambers of Changing Attitude Nigeria,
That Arch Bishop Akinola has denied us our right as members of the church ware feeling bad
That no one can call the bishop to order. May i say here thet Akinola views are more political than religioun.
How can a bishop belive in african juju and clam homosexuality to be western corruption.

Full inclusion in the Episcopal Church is achieved by the two Great Sacraments; Holy Baptism and the taking of Holy Communion. Full stop. Don't believe me? Check your Prayer Book.

Those who insist they are not being "included" must have unrelated difficulties, such as difficulty accepting themselves, that perhaps makes them insecure. While I think such discouraged people should be reassured by their clergy, in my experience such deep insecurities often require therapy and/or much prayer and even medications to help overcome them.

We are indeed in a sorry state of affairs if our clergy are either too ignorant(of Anglican formularies)or too bold of their innovations(no proper fear of God)to stand firm and unyielding in stating that it is through the two Great Sacraments ALONE that one becomes a full member of the Episcopal Church, and of all Anglican Churches. All Christians are part of the body of Christ, NOT a political entity or societal tribe, by Jesus' own teachings.

Accession to clergy membership is not a civil right, of course, and has its own independent qualifications, training, and requirements, both subjective and objective, like other professions. A clerical calling requires self-discernment and discernment among and by others beyond the self. Nevertheless, of the ninety-three parish churches in the Diocese of Washington, at least 30 are currently pastored by self-declared 'gay' clergy
with live-in self-declared gay partners. This is also verifiable.

Bishop Chane, by his intemperate outburst, unfortunately displayed his own ignorance of Anglican formularies, his poor grasp of the meaning of 'justice'and its orgins(he also thinks abortion is a form of 'social justice'), and his deep lack of concern for the average Anglican, who is today a profoundly poor , 30 year old black African woman with three children. He also demonstrates rebellion against God's will and a disdain for Biblical authority, yet is blind to the likelihood that he is encouraging his flock, and others, into God-defined sin. His own bizarre agendum to broker in the ever increasing political demands of a self-styled tribe who, like the extinct Shakers, are not procreatively self-sustaining, is peculiar, given that such like must continually bring converts into the fold or vanish.

For does not 'gay rights' bring to bear "the diversity to end all diversity"?