It was an odd sort of Christmas Present: an interview in the New York Times titled, At Axis of Episcopal Split, an Anti-Gay Nigerian, by LYDIA POLGREEN and LAURIE GOODSTEIN. It was posted from Abuja, Nigeria, with the interview date of December 20, 2006. It was published on Christmas Day. It is worth reading in its entirety HERE.
Fr. Jake has as always an interesting take on the whole thing. I hope you will read what he has said HERE.
Several additional remarks:
The article opines, that “Archbishop Akinola has created an offshoot of his Nigerian church in North America for the discontented Americans. In doing so, he has made himself the kingpin of a remarkable alliance between theological conservatives in North America and the developing world that could tip the power to conservatives in the Anglican Communion, a 77-million member confederation of national churches that trace their roots to the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
The NYT speaks of a the Anglican Communion as a “confederation of national churches,” a description I think is basically sound. “Confederation” is certainly more apt than either “federation” or “world-wide church.”
The article then quotes Rev. Dr. Ian T. Douglas of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass., who says, “He sees himself as the spokesperson for a new Anglicanism, and thus is a direct challenge to the historic authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury.” Professor Douglas, who is a careful observer of such matters and not given to immoderate charges, confirms what has been widely understood: that Archbishop Akinola is directly challenging the “old Anglicanism" and the Archbishop of Canterbury. This, of course, has been a challenge in preparation for some time: the changes in the Church of Nigeria’s Constitution, the emergence of the Global South as a force working for a realignment of Anglican churches, the Archbishop’s leadership in several regional and worldwide religious organizations, all serve the ends of his challenge to Canterbury.
The article then states, “Archbishop Akinola’s views on homosexuality — that it is an abomination akin to bestiality and pedophilia — are fairly mainstream here. Nigeria is a deeply religious country, evenly divided between Christians and Muslims, and attitudes toward homosexuality, women’s rights and marriage are dictated largely by scripture and enforced by deep social taboos.”
The writers got the right items in this commentary, but the wrong order. My sense is that Nigerian attitudes toward homosexuality, women’s rights and marriage are dictated largely by deep social taboos and enforced by scripture, not as the article suggests first by scripture and then enforced by taboo. The claim that homosexuality is contrary to “African values” lies first in the taboos of the culture and then in the overlay of scripture.
The writers report that, “Archbishop Akinola spoke forcefully about his unswerving convictions against homosexuality, the ordination of women and the rise of what he called “the liberal agenda,” which he said had “infiltrated our seminaries” in the Anglican Communion.” If this part of the reporting is accurate, Archbishop Akinola weighs in finally in opposition to the ordination of women.
There is a quite revealing supposedly supportive statement from Martyn Minns: “Bishop Martyn Minns, the rector of Truro Church in Fairfax, Va., who was consecrated by Archbishop Akinola this year to serve as his missionary bishop in North America, said Archbishop Akinola was motivated by a conviction that the Anglican Communion must change its colonial-era leadership structure and mentality.
“He doesn’t want to be the man; he just no longer wants to be the boy,” Bishop Minns said. “He wants to be treated as an equal leader, with equal respect.”
Well, the NYT got it mostly right. Bishop Minns, since his consecration, has been priest in charge of Truro Church. That ends in just six days. Bishop Minns may be motivated by the notion that ails the Anglican Communion is “its colonial-era leadership structure and mentality,” but I must presume his motivation includes wanting to do something about it, namely to assist in the Archbishop’s challenge to Canterbury.
Bishop Minns “boy” and “man” observation has so many layers to it that it is hard to know where to start. Perhaps it is enough to say that it has been a long time since any one I can think of would ever think of the Archbishop as anybody’s “boy.” As to his being treated as an “equal leader, with equal respect,” I would certainly hope that was the case.
Over the past months there has been considerable concern for the Archbishop’s support of Nigerian legislation criminalizing homosexuality and any expression of support for gay and lesbian rights.
The NYT article quotes the Archbishop as saying, “No bishop in this church will go out and say, ‘This man is gay, put him in jail.’ ”
The writers reported that the Archbishop “added, Nigeria has the right to pass such a law if it reflects the country’s values. “Does Nigeria tell America what laws to make?” he said. “Does Nigeria tell England what laws to make? This arrogance, this imperial tendency, should stop for God’s sake.”
Archbishop Akinola equates criticism of this law with imperial tendencies. In an earlier letter to the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), which is a Church of Nigeria “mission” in the United States with Bishop Minns as its bishop, the Archbishop roundly criticized those who believe him wrong for NOT speaking out on matters of religious rights and social concerns.
There he said, http://www.canaconvocation.org/news/ “I am troubled, however, by the silence of outside commentators concerning the rights of the clergy, Christians, and particularly converts to our Church whose lives are threatened and too often destroyed because of mob violence. I see no evidence of compassion for those whose rights are trampled on because of the imposition of unjust religious laws in many parts of the world. There seems to be a strange lack of interest in this issue.”
The Archbishop wants the voice of ‘outside commentators’ on these matters, but considers such voices an “imperial tendency” when they are directed against him. He also doesn’t know what he is talking about: the imposition of unjust religious laws has come under considerable scrutiny by churches and a wide range of religious commentators in the US and elsewhere in the West.
The last few sentences of the New York Times report reveals more than we may ever want to know about the Archbishop:
“Self-seeking, self-glory, that is not me,” he said. “No. Many people say I embarrass them with my humility.”
Anyone who criticizes him as power-seeking is simply trying to undermine his message, he said. “The more they demonize, the stronger the works of God,” he said.”
The reporters, Lydia Polgreen and Laurie Goodstein have given us a remarkable and devastating view of the Archbishop.
This article was indeed a strange gift, but finally an important contribution to understanding both the Archbishop and his US missionary bishop, Bishop Minns. The Archbishop is digging a hole out of which he will not be able to climb, and Bishop Minns is offering the sort of help that will only make the hole deeper.
No matter that the members of the parishes who voted to leave the Episcopal Church for better climes were told otherwise, they are entering into a relationship with an Archbishop that sees criticism as demonizing, supports either passively or actively proposed Nigerian legislation that will severely restrict freedom of speech, is against the ordination of women, the “liberal agenda.” They have opted for leadership from someone who is also contending for leadership of the Anglican Communion, is not committed to the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and is working for communion wide “realignment” away from a confederation to a more metropolitical structure.
Well the hole gets deeper all the time, and one wonders how long it will be before things begin to unravel.
