3/12/2009

Great Minds, etc....Pluralist tells on Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion.)

Having just posted my last entry "Nigerian Anglicans ramp up the anti-gay rhetoric," I wandered over to The Pluralist, who had also just posted on the Church of Nigeria anti-gay campaign. Pluralist's Expel the Nigerian Church - Time to Move On says it better, digs deeper and tells it like it is. Read it.

Pluralist says, "The Anglican Communion is watching one of its members become increasingly fascist, but its "patient" response so far has been to slow down the brighter model of inclusive development of human rights elsewhere. This is simply not a proper response to such a State's and Church's relationship towards its weakest (to paraphrase the identification of how to identify 'being ethical', according to the Archbishop of Canterbury in his recent economics lecture).

Rather, the time is now to show an alternative beacon of Communion of all the people: to meet this evil homophobic obsession in Nigeria head on and show that there is another way and a visible hope for all those about to suffer even more at the hands of the likes of Akinola and his crew. The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, and other Churches, should now take off the brakes, because this is the ethical thing to do in the face of the dark clouds over obsessed Nigeria."

Right. The Pluralist puts the skunk on the table.

And when will there be any response from the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, or the GAFCON wannabe Province, now the Common Cause Partnership, concerning their close association with this hate mongering mess?

9 comments:

  1. Are there any resolutions getting ready for GC to distance ourselves from the Nigerian Church's actions? Jim in Texas

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is anyone preparing GC resolutions to distance our church from the actions of the Nigerian Church?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I read the BBC source article referenced in the Pluralist piece. I did not see anything in there about the Anglican Church's position on this new proposed law nor any statement by Peter Akinola. He and the Anglican Church of Nigeria might be supporters but I don't see how one can glean that from the BBC article.
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  4. In complete agreement with Pluralist.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I second the Pluralist as well.

    Those who followed Jake's blog back in the day got thorough documentation for all of ++Akinola's statements going back almost 6 years explicitly endorsing the Nigerian Anti-gay legislation. There are also other sources out there. The archbishop has a long record of public statements as well that are embarrassing, to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Apart from being conservative by nature it is necessary to allow that the Nigerian Anglican Church is still being directed by North American dissidents.

    These, now having effectively purchased 'apostolic succession' need the Equatorial Provinces to stay on board long enough to get their new North American 'Bishop Duncan Province' recognised. They are increasingly worried that this is taking longer than expected and that the Nigerians and other Africans may not be altogether on board. Take for example the recent expulsion of the Bishop of Namirembe, Uganda for showing 'liberal' tendencies.

    Hence the rhetoric is getting increasingly shrill even from Akinola, who has only just over a year left as Archbishop.

    If Lambeth and the ABC were to be a bit more politically astute they would realise that there is everything to play for in this scenario. Above all by not recognising the American Common Cause partnership and procrastinating endlessly about its status.

    The price to pay is a nasty, and very un-Anglican situation in Nigeria.

    ReplyDelete
  7. To the third Anonymous I recommend Thinking Anglicans who have the relevant press relese from the Church of Nigeria praising initiative.

    What remains unclear is which party (-ies) in the Nigerian Paraliament lie behind this.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It was not just based on the BBC source. It is based on a round up of several sources, including the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent lecture in which he talks about ethical behaviour measured as it affects the least in our societies.

    Now Nigeria is creating a least, by its oppression, and clearly by this measure it is unethical. Thus if the Archbishop is saying these things, then will he act upon them, or are they just words blown into the wind?

    Will he be going to the General Convention to try and save his bureaucratic arrangements that involve turning a blind eye to such unethical behaviour.

    By the way, yesterday I put an entry about this on Fulcrum, a group which thinks they are close to the Archbishop and influential. It's the equivalent of Covenant Communion. It didn't appear, though other postings of mine did. So I emailed about this, and it has appeared, though down the list because it is older. Coming back in this evening I notice that it has not attracted a single comment either to challenge or to agree or, more to the point, to show concern. Does this say something about Anglican Communion as a bureaucracy?

    I'm grateful to Mark Harris here for picking up my writing: I'm only an individual without connections making comments.

    Pluralist (Adrian Worsfold)

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am pleased to see that Graham Kings has responded, calling it 'current very disturbing news'. I think this now needs to be noted, along with a collection of responses now. Those responses are worth reading, particularly how more conservative blogs are failing to respond, a wooden fundamentalist response, and sympathy for those facing oppression in Nigeria.

    ReplyDelete

OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with comment moderation but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.
Rule: PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF AS ANONYMOUS: BEGIN OR END THE MESSAGE WITH A NAME - ANY NAME. ANONYMOUS commentary will be cut.