this is not really a post, but I want to express my gratitude to everyone and comment quickly upon the cultural issue.
David wonders if "cuturally bound" christianity results in a sort of babel Christianity, and if the agnostic view of homosexual behavior is imperialistic. But being culturally bound isn't a bad thing - in fact it represents the incarnation. How do we get to understand each other? By praying together. I'm not sure if it matters that a Nigerian, or my girlfriend, or my stepmother believes exactly as I do, and I'm not sure how I would evaluate exactness. But I don't think Christ requires we believe in exact things - this seems to remove God's grace. I hope to Jesus I'm not judged on my thinking. And I sometimes hope I'm not judged on the quality of my faith.
I do confront the "imperial" view elsewhere, arguing that the current African view of sexuality resides in the self-understanding of Africans constructed by the west in the 19th century. Africans themselves have bought into the notions of sexuality and hypermasculinity that the Victorians thought true, in part because the African elite read those books the British wrote.
David also reminds us that most Christians and the tradition holds a view that genital sex between two men continues to be an abomination. He is right about the tradition, but the set of truth and tradition is not exactly the same; and most people in a religion can be wrong. We have to ask: why would homosexuality be an abomination to Christians? My own criteria is simple - does it benefit the Christian community; does it create people who are more loving, patient, encouraging and disciplined? The tradition is helpful, but it is also full of human error. As am I.
But keep tuned. In October I will be doing something a bit different - and far more entertaining.