Dr Akinola is talking a lot of sense. He's right - unity by all means, but not at the expense of truth.

Lionel, London, UK

Unity has nothing to do with spiritual leadership. Rowan Williams should provide moral and spiritual leadership based on his church's beliefs and interpretation of the Bible. If he believes the ordination of homosexuals to be right under God, then he should fight for it. If that means splitting from Nigerian homophobes, so be it.

James, Beijing,

I see the liberal/conservative debate by the Anglicans in Africa a total waste when neither they nor the politicians have anything to say about the plight of the people of Zimbabwe.

Bill Hide, Grimsby, Lincolnshire, UK

Thank God for Dr. Akinola. He may yet save the Anglican

Church from apostasy.

Robin Hale , Amersham, Bucks, UK.

I was intrigued to see the vestments worn by Dr Akinola in your picture in the print edition. Were these the actual vestments commissioned by Dr Carey for his own enthronement, or a copy? Is there any significance to be read into this?

trisha scott, stockport,

To Janet McGail

Well, I suppose you also oppose gay marriage in the USA and same-sex marriage ceremonies in the ECUSA? So you make it impossible for two gay men to get married and yet then punish them for not being married by saying "Oh they are in the same state as two unmarried heterosexuals". A bit of a contradiction, yes. At any rate until gay marriage is recognized by church and state we will have this contradiction. On the other hand, perhaps you are working actively to change that.
I would say let married gay partners and married heterosexual partners have full rights in the church and permit marriage both in the state and in the church.

Puddy Katz, Brooklyn, New York

As a Christian heterosexual, I both understand and sympathise with the view expressed by Archbishop Akinola. However, in my opinion, he is totally wrong. All Christian Scripturewas composed approximately two thousand years ago or longer. The words were written for various primitive societies, even in first century Palestine, certainly by today's standards. Anything that is living, such as the Christian Church, must grow and change or wither and die.

Jesus even had cause to correct writings in the Old Testament (e.g. Matthew 19:7-8), even though he would have thought of them as the 'Word of God', just as archbishop Akinola and Christians do today.

The disciples of Jesus used to be embarrassed by his mixing with publicans and sinners (Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:34). I fancy that Archbishop Akinola and others would be equally embarrassed if Jesus was here today and mixing with gays and lesbians.

Alan Munro, Walton-on-Thames,

As an interested agnostic, I'd like to comment.

On the evidence of the Old and New testaments, God is an unreconstructed sexist and homophobe. There are too many texts pointing this way to admit doubt - and no wonder, since the books were written at the times they were.

Now, I do not base my beliefs on the Bible, so it is not my problem, but to watch the churches, over two millennia, adapt their beliefs to current secular fashions and then desperately interpret and reinterpret the scripture to make God toe their line does have its amusing side.

If God is reading this, could we please have a word from Him so that we all know where we stand? And failing that, can the churches stop using Him as a cover for whatever local and temporary issues they are preoccupied with?

Michael Bruce, Selby, Yorkshire

If you do not believe homosexuality or lesbianism is wrong you either have not read scripture or do not believe it. (scripture)

The unfortunates who either chose or were condemned to this way of life are not condemned per se. The bishops are agreed, and so am I, that those who ,practice this abomination, for whatever reason, should be neither in the pulpit or any position of church leadership. This would provide a stamp of legitimacy contrary to Gods word. In this the bishops are supremely correct.

henry cowan, linthicum, USA/maryland

Dr Akinola has stuck to the faith of 2000 years.
The anglican communion in the west has drifted with PC opinion.
When Dr Williams guides his flock in this direction he is saying that the teaching of his communion of 500 yrs is wrong and that the christian church has been wrong for 2000 years.
When it comes to matters of christian doctrine who should we believe?
Much of society believes not only that Jesus is not the son of god, but that god does not exist. Follow the current trend and Mr Wiiliams has nowhere to go! A meaningless existence.

Ted Pillinger, Welwyn,

AMEN to everything Archbishop Akinola has said! If only our bishops and archbishops would be as courageous in affirming Biblical truths.

Ray Watson, Bristol,

What a joy to read the article about Dr Akinola's approach to the Christian faith and particularly the truth contained in the bible, which does not change according to man's whim. At last someone has had the courage to stand and be counted. The God of the bible is a loving, but not indulgent God, who is all holy and cannot tolerate sin. His blueprint for our lives, with its various limitations, is for our benefit, as well as the benefit of all His creation.

Carrie Stroude, Southampton, Great Britain

He [Archbishop Akinola] added: “We have not broken the law. It is your churches. You are the ones doing what we said should not be done, with impunity. We are saying you cannot sweep it under the carpet . . . not any more.”

I just wonder why he thinks he has got the authority to say so.
Those liberal Anglican brothers and sisters can also say:
"we have not broken the law. it is your churches. You are the ones doing what we said should not be done [i.e., (i) condemning and discrminating against homosexual members of the Church and (ii) lacking love], with impunity."

Martin, Hong Kong,

Dr. Akinola is refreshingly frank about where Rowan Williams errs and what the Episcopal Church (TEC) has done. He is light on TEC. They have cast out Jesus and I no longer consider them Christians. And they are going to need more than luck under these circumstances.

Robert Thomas, Tallahassee, FL

It seems to me the church in Nigeria has plenty to deal with in its own backyard, never mind meddling in the affairs of others. If he wants to go, give him a rousing send-off and be done with him.

Bill, Burlington, Ontario, Canada

If Akinola is such an advocate for historic Biblical interpretation, would he prefer we go back to the Biblically institutionalized (and millennia-long) forms of slavery that were so condoned in the Bible and in the West in the past? Paul gave explicit instructions on how Christians were to treat their slaves, but we learned that slavery was a destructive cultural blind spot which the Holy Spirit could help us overcome. The church will now struggle past discrimination against gay people. Unfortunately it looks as if some of the turmoil required to bring an end to slavery will accompany their journey as well.

Troy, Indianapolis, IN

Some of the comments here praise Akinola for sticking to the historic faith. The problem is, that the historic faith was also oppressive of women; against democracy; against usury (and therefore the whole modern banking system); pro-slavery; etc. So clearly, some liberalising is unavoidable. Why then would it be ok to liberalise to make the faith easier for everyone except when it comes to gay people?

mumbojumbo, Oxford,

Mr Akinola, you won't be missed. No one wants to be held captive to a another bishop with power issues. Take your toys and go home!

R Harris, Dorchester, MA

If we're going to be fundamentalist about the Bible then let's be literal in all scripture passages in Leviticus regarding menstruating women attending church, stoning children who do not honour their parents etc.

John McLaren, Bracebridge, Ontario, Canada

So exactly how biblical is it to condemn gays and lesbians as being evil? What ever happened to Christian love and inclusion? Sadly it is Dr Akinola who is the 'evil' one here by putting so many lives at risk both in Nigeria and in wider Africa by the way he treats and speaks about gay people. He should be ashamed of himself for being so unloving and uncaring and displaying such unchristian hatred. It is not up to us to judge, leave that to God. Furthermore, why single out this issue. Why is Dr Akinola silent on a range of other issues that seem to be far more pressing and important, like the corrupt politics in his country, so many other atrocities commited in Africa and the distinct lack of love and care displayed by him and other clergy. If he wants to be so bible fast, he should take Christ's teachings first and foremost: love thy neighbour and he who is without sin cast the first stone...

Castor, London, UK

Behind all the realignment sweet talk about how biblical realignment believers are - and how un-biblical the rest of us believers are - we can easily discern a pressing of the same inadequate realignment campaign dilemma: Do things our way, or else we will kick you out while telling everybody you forced us to take action to protect our eternal salvation. How easily people in general and conservative believers in particular sidestep the ongoing and openly unfinished discernment question: Could God be speaking to us to correct legacy negative errors about queer folks?

Via the huge storehouse of carefully obtained (and yes, Western, but what matters more, Tested Empirical) competency data which disconfirm the negative legacy views of just how imcompetent not being straight is supposed to be? Via the decent, good lives that queer folks and friends are now honestly living in most liberalized (and yes, Western - but what about South African?) among us? Via critical tools to read texts?

drdanfee, Berkeley, CA, USA

He [Archbishop Akinola] added: “We have not broken the law. It is your churches. You are the ones doing what we said should not be done, with impunity. We are saying you cannot sweep it under the carpet . . . not any more.”

I just wonder why he thinks he has got the authority to say so.
Those liberal Anglican brothers and sisters can also say:
"we have not broken the law. it is your churches. You are the ones doing what we said should not be done [i.e., (i) condemning and discrminating against homosexual members of the Church and (ii) lacking love], with impunity."

Martin, Hong Kong,

For nearly 2000 years Christians belived that homosexuality was wrong. Then, when it became politically incorrect to have this view, western Bishops decided that its now ok to be gay! So what happens when it becomes politically incorrect to worship Jesus as the 'Son of God' for fear of upsetting other religions? I thought political correctness was there to protect religions not the other way round.

Rod Munch, Northampton, UK

I wonder why the conservative have got the authority to tell other Anglican brothers and sisters what to do and what should not be done. They may need to prove their supremacy in terms of authority on interpretation of the Bible.

M, Hong Kong,

Great - an Anglican Archbishop who actually believes in the historic Christian faith, rather than the watered down version pedalled by liberals in the West. One wonders how these liberals have the gall to criticise the African church as their congregations dwindle and their 'social gospel' proves to be ineffective and irrelevant.

andrew brown, derby, UK

Not only is Bible's teaching clear on homosexuality, the Church of England's own Westminster Confession unequivocally states, "The supreme judge, by whom all contoversies of religion are determined, and all decress of councils... can be no other than the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture." The African Churches are merely being true to both. As the assistant to the Archbishop of Rwanda told me, "The missionaries came and told us not to have more than one wife. We obeyed (because it was Bible). Having done all that, do they now expect us to endorse men marrying med, which is both non-Biblical, as well as being against our ancient culture?" Unless Rowan Williams sounds the Biblical trumpet plainly, he will split the chruch. It is split anyway: the only question is: does Dr. Williams wish his remnant to be Biblical?

Rev. Dr. Micahel Wieteska, Ph.D., Geneva, Switzerland

If Nigeria has 130 of the 300 bishops, I'd say the Archbishop should probably move to Lagos, rather than reconsidering Nigeria's focus on Philly or LA. Maybe they should all convert to Methodism. I'd be amused at the idea of a Nigerian Anglican communion in the conservative dioceses of the Southern United States, haha. For separation (for tax purposes, of course) of property I'm sure there's something more demanding (say, Darfur) that could set the stage rather than the uneventful Dr. Robinson.

Lee Chevalier, Dallas, TX/USA

Re. The Episcopal Church in the USA, I have this question. Why is it that one (or possibly both) of two men living together in a sexual and supposedly commited relationship can, be an ordained minister, not to mention bishop, when neither partner in a heterosexual relationship can be ordained without being married to each other?

Janet McGrail, Cuba, USA