As an outsider posting here I avoid making new threads; however, the situation in Nigeria is clearly going to become more oppressive for its gay and lesbian minority and this oppression has the support of the so called Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion).

In his recent lecture, the Archbishop of Canterbury defined ethical behaviour as how you treat the least in your society. Here we have a movement that is defining and treating its least even worse.

No one would expect Nigeria to introduce partnership legislation for gay and lesbian people, but it can live and let live with no impact on its society. However, it will regard even living together as marriage, and legislation will allow the police to harass individuals and couples in a manner similar to early Nazi oppression. They even twist the meaning of holocaust against the State, when a holocaust affects groups and individuals. Clearly Nigeria - the State and this Church - is obsessed by this subject when there is plenty more to think about.

Personally I think this Nigerian Church should be expelled from the Anglican Communion, if it stands for anything ethical; furthermore, its commitment to oppression now needs the Western Churches to provide an alternative model for gay and lesbian people to be fully part of church life. We should never show "patience" with oppression.

When the Archbishop of Canterbury goes to TEC and its General Convention, he should be reminded about his own words, and hopefully the General Convention will now move on and end what is a bureaucratic stalemate that simply has not worked for the people in Nigeria and elsewhere. Here is another one of these Bonhoeffer moments. I know that Changing Attitude wishes to keep links with the Nigerian Church, but I think this is the duty of the State and diplomacy: the Nigerian Church ought to be isolated, and there could be others too.

This is a very serious situation of making and going after victims: these people are being addressed in the language of war inside the Nigerian Church. It's time this was tackled, and that what we are seeing here is a form of evil.

Yes, Pluralist, this is an urgent crisis -  anglicanism in Nigeria heads towards a bloody denoument which will invalidate the spiritual and ethical validity of the whole anglican communion in a way the ordination of women bishops never could ...

Pluralist, I suspect I might perhaps be inclined to agree with some (perhaps much) of your concern about the oppression of gay people in Nigeria, even if not with your (to my mind) grossly OTT suggestion for the Church of Nigeria to be expelled from the Anglican Communion, (haven't we already had too much talk of expelling and withdrawing?) but not having heard anything recently I am left wondering if I have missed something significant. Is there a particular thing that has triggered your posting, and can you supply any links?

Perhaps I can help, in the manwhile George.

This site contains a report on Nigerian church responds to legislation, dated Thurs 12th March. There are two or three further theads beneath this one. Hope helpful.

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/

I am sure Pluralist will be able to elucidate further this crisis of humna rights.

I've done a trawl of the usual conservative websites. I used the search function (where available) for 'Nigeria'. Nothing on T19. Nothing on Stand Firm. Nothing on Virtue Online. Couldn't spot anything on Anglican Mainstream. I'd like to be wrong - perhaps I'm just missing the threads where fellow brothers and sisters in Christ have spoken out against this unjust and unwarrented legislation.

George - I don't think it's OTT to call for the expulsion of the Anglican Church in Nigeria. I'm quoting Martin Niemoller a lot recently: "First they came..." I said that to my previous vicar right after he used my bum on his pew to add weight to his endorsement of the Jerusalem Statement and the whole GAFCON process, and right before me, my wife and my kids left for another CofE church that actually wants to stay within the CofE.

To put it bluntly: if it wasn't about imprisoning gays and the friends of gays, but about any other identifiable minority, we'd be all writing strongly worded letters to all and sundry. But it is about gays, and I certainly won't be silent.

Here's one you may have missed Simon: http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2009/03/reverse-colonialism-ganging-up-on.html

It is linked from the Standform "around the web" page. Judging by Haley (the posters) datestamp it was up when you looked,

Of course, his arguement, that the Nigerians get more scrutiny than others, may not appeal to you.

I find it very worrying that the only ones of us decrying the words of the church of Nigeria are those of us who also believe that it is a godly thing to be Christian and actively gay.  Surely, one can think that active homosexuality is immoral whilst voriferously repudiating Akinola's words and actions? 

 Peter Ould is usually good at condemning homophobia- is he saying anything about this?

most of you fulcrumites out there aren't 'liberal' on homosexuality.  I assume you aren't 'liberal' on oppression and victimisation either.  It would be so much easier to respect the 'conservative' position on homosexuality if there was a concerted effort to reproach the Cof N for its actions.

Could you not put a motion to that effect at one of your next neac thingys? at the next Reform conference, etc etc. Admonishment of one conservative to another is much stronger than liberal admonishment - they think we're stupid and corrupt anyway so why listen to us - rebukes from conservative church organisations would carry far more weight - so get to it!

Let's not get carried away with the propaganda against the Nigerians....the CofE and Akinola agree re SSBs and that certain behaviour is "incompatible with scripture".....that is why we do not see the ABC coming out in publica against Akinola on this

In the light of this current very disturbing news, it is worth reading again the very significant Fulcrum article by Ephraim Radner and Andrew Goddard, 'Human Rights, Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion: Reflections in Light of Nigeria'.

Hi Clare

You said, 'Surely one can think that active homosexuality is immoral whilst vociferously repudiating Akinola's words and actions'. I think this would fairly represent my feelings. I follow the late Abp Michael Ramsey, who argued for the decriminalisation of homosexual activity in England & Wales on the grounds that not everything immoral should also be illegal.

Perhaps one reason why those taking a traditional view might be reluctant to post here is the suspicion that this thread is about more than Peter Akinola's views on what Nigerians should do in bed. Pluralist's original makes it clear that there's another agenda also at work. Which leaves me with the rather unwelcome feeling that some of the outrage might be synthetic, aimed at promoting a political platform. If I'm wrong, and I hope I am, maybe it would be best to keep the two issues separate in future.

Regards from Toby

I think, Nersen, your obsession with scriptural detail in repetitive posting has finally hit the ethical deck. We are talking about real people here, not turning pages looking for the most appropriate quote.

Indeed: why post here? Because the people here, who have supported a collective Anglican Community, who have a high view of scripture, can be the very people to see when an oppression is being driven and when to counteract it. Yes it is easier for people of liberal persuasion to lead on this, but in the end basic human rights are indivisible.

Why should this include expelling the Nigerian Church? Well, what happens with the British Commonwealth, when a member becomes decisively unethical in a political sense, that leads on to being oppressive? The point is that this is being driven by its Archbishop. It's not just a bit of rot somewhere deep in his Church. He is the one that is making spurious biblical quotes that don't stand up to reasonable analysis, he is the one recommending prison sentences, his people are turning up in t-shirts to drive this campaign, he is even the one by his presentation to rub along with Sharia Law when it suits. He clearly wants to stand out as some sort of leader, he is being driven by some presumably deep, irrational fear that skews his Christianity, and turning it into a power driven attack on a minority.

Here are some words of the Archbishop of Canterbury from his recent lecture:

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.

Let me reply to Toby.

Of course there is another agenda as well. There is the agenda of homosexual inclusion in blessings and ministry. It would be daft to deny that there is such an agenda.

I go further, that a means to counteract what Akinola is doing is indeed to give the gay and lesbian people in Nigeria, and elsewhere, a different model of a Church that can be a beacon of hope for them, and this can be provided by the Americans and Canadians, and when they do others will follow. Indeed the Americans have a General Convention coming.

However, oppression is just that, and you can state one view about the oppression and have another about the wider agenda.