The reasonably observant can hear the rumble of canons in the distance, lobbing shells that do not yet reach us. Perhaps these are practice rounds. Perhaps these are rounds fired to see if anyone is listening. Two such rounds were fired this last week: One from the Communiqué from the Global South Primates Steering Committee meeting at Singapore, 6 Feb 2006, and one from THE MOST REV. PETER J. AKINOLA, Archbishop, Metropolitan and Primate of All Nigeria, etc.
The Communiqué shot this, “7. We are very much aware of the crisis that confronts our beloved Communion. We continue to pray and hope that at the General Convention of ECUSA in June 2006 and the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada in June 2007 there will be a positive response to the Windsor recommendations otherwise we fear this conflict will only worsen. In light of that we are concerned that the current design proposals for the Lambeth Conference in 2008 do not appear to fully recognize the seriousness of the crisis.” It also said this, “9. We have noted with regret the continuing efforts of those within Episcopal Church of the USA to portray the Provinces of the Global South as of divided opinion regarding their actions. While we do minister in a wide variety of situations and cultures we are united in our commitment to the ‘faith once delivered to the Saints’ and will continue to oppose those who would seek to subvert it.”
In two short paragraphs the authors of the Communiqué push at (or perhaps attack) the General Convention 2006, the General Synod of 2007 and the agenda of the next Lambeth Conference, and claim once again to represent in their statements all the Provinces of the Global South.
It is of course reasonable to expect the Steering Committee of Global South Anglican to try to influence what is done in various Provinces and to ascribe to themselves authority to speak for as many people as possible.
The Communiqué speaks of a crisis that will only worsen, the seriousness of the crisis, and the subversion of the faith once delivered to the saints. There is indeed a crisis. As the word indicates, there is now in the Anglican Communion a moment of decision, for that is what crisis means, but that may not be a bad thing at all.
The decision, however, is not between those who uphold “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 1:3, KJV) and those who would subvert that faith, namely, “ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 1:4b KJV) That is of course what the writers of this communiqué contend. But the particular phrase, “faith once delivered unto the saints,” used so often by the realignment folk, is not just a claim about their righteousness but about progressives being “ungodly men,” etc.
The shot being fired is, as usual, a claim that the effort to include gay and lesbian persons in the church is the work of ungodly men taking grace and turning it into a license for immoral behavior. At least they are clear just who they are shooting at and why.
But the decision might well be stated another way. If the “crisis” or decision involves seeing “the faith delivered” in a way that invites all who are committed to a new level of loving-kindness – one that is as well justice making (something of what is meant in Hebrew by j#sd “checed”) – decision is a good thing. The decision here may not be between “God’s way” and “the revisionist way” but rather between what we heretofore believed was God’s way and what we now understand is God’s way. Perhaps the decision is like that of moving from a world view where slavery was a reality and Christians could be slave owners to a world view where slavery is not condoned and Christians are not to be slave owners.
The Communiqué however has none of that. It has made the crisis between good and evil, rather than the decisions made by people who understand what they are called to do in quite different ways.
In the end the writers of the Communiqué take recourse in numbers. Their friends in the Episcopal Church were a minority at General Convention, so their efforts now are to make threatening noises from what is claimed to be a majority in the “Global South.” The Global South Anglican initiative does not of course represent all of the Global South churches, no matter what they say. It is unclear just how much authority these leaders have to speak for the whole of their synods and churches, much less for the church elsewhere in the South. The Executive committee condemnation of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada may not come with the force of the numerical superiority they claim, and may not well represent the decision facing the Anglican Communion anyway. Nonetheless, the whole point of firing off the canons is not lost. Large booming noises in the distance are in themselves threatening.
The second canon shot came from Archbishop Akinola, who opined concerning “perilous times” in his Lenten letter reprinted on the Global South Anglican website.
“Spiritually, people now only seem to love themselves and the unrighteous mammon. What obtains is religious gangsterism, distortion of the historic faith and doctrines, outright denial of the faith, pandering of falsehood and half- truths, self seeking and self glorification instead of seeking the glory of God by self appointed prophets and preachers who ought to have known better.
At the human and physical level, there is much moral decadence, encouragement of violence and lasciviousness by the screens, eroded family values and shameless immorality actively supported and promoted by some government laws in the name of human rights and even encouraged by some religious groups in the corrupted name of love.”
Well, an interesting rant, but at the close of it is the telling sentence, “shameless immorality actively supported and promoted by some government laws in the name of human rights and even encouraged by some religious groups in the corrupted name of love.” Up until that point the reader might well have thought that the Archbishop was speaking to issues primarily within Nigerian society, but this sentence brings forward his first comments on the subject of “shameless immorality.” Clearly, the reference to “some government laws in the name of human rights” hits out at the English civil partnership law. But the comments work just as well as his first response to critics who have held him to task for supporting the federal law in Nigeria criminalizing homosexuality and all conversations, meetings and organizations in support of homosexual rights.
The invocation of love and human rights is a time honored prophetic role, and it would appear that the Archbishop will have none of it, save to brand those who so invoke the names as agents of shameless immorality. Perhaps he is just testing the distance, our hearing, the range. Well, we hear the guns but their sound is an embarrassment to more and more who hear it.
As with the mutterings of too many religious leaders, both in Nigeria, the United States, England and elsewhere, this rants concern the things of religious conflict. These are the comments of a theologian entrenched in the front lines of a religious civil war while the real battle for justice and love in a world largely devoid of both is being fought prophetically somewhere else. Archbishop Tutu speaking on the balcony of the Montana Hotel in Port au Prince Haiti did more in ten minutes for love and justice than all these cheap shots at fellow Christians.
The Archbishop of Nigeria has done better, and indeed has at times done courageously. His words against state corruption and manipulation of power have been important statements by a major religious leader. Of course he is not alone: we wait impatiently for words of God’s checed to be spoken by our religious leaders, for words from religious leaders in the US calling for the freeing of captives held in our prison at Guantánamo, joining Archbishop Tutu. For that matter, where is the continuous outrage from American religious leaders for our out of control military spending in Iraq? Ain’t none of us clean. And we continue to be hear the guns in the distance, whose sounds are a distraction from the prophetic need to make the world safe for the least of these our sisters and brothers.
Don’t worry about the pop guns claiming to be canons…the decisions we have to make concern that loving kindness against which there is no struggle, except to attempt to surpass one another. Our crisis is the decision to make room for loving kindness.
2/17/2006
The Network makes Claims.
The Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes – the legal name for the Anglican Communion Network – is going through some interesting changes. (I never refer to it as the Anglican Communion Network since that gives undue credibility to the organization, as if it were indeed a Network OF the Anglican Communion, rather than a network IN the Anglican Communion.)
The Network has a new web page look, crisper and cleaner without heraldry beyond its logo (which looks strangely like the Anglican Communion compass rose logo.) The site’s front page no longer directly links the reader to the American Anglican Council. The Moderator is no longer as prominent. The site front page links to the News Archive, the place where the lead articles find a home. There is very little to suggest that this is anything but an organization of concerned Episcopalians and Anglicans, concerned to be Anglican and orthodox.
All of this follows the path laid out by the AAC and the Network about just how to divide the tasks of realignment. The AAC would take the harder tact, being critical of the Episcopal Church and its leadership in the more harsh terms. The Network would work from ‘within’ as an organization clearly within the Episcopal Church working for its renewal and repentance.
So it is with some interest that the last several lead articles on the Network web pages remind us of the fact that there continues to be an interlacing of the efforts to work for realignment.
The Network proclaimed on January 23, 2006, “The ACN, which was formed just two years ago, continues to grow daily. Presently, affiliates include over 1000 parishes and 2500 clergy, 10 dioceses and 6 convocations, and an estimated 250,000 communicants.” The 10 dioceses and 6 convocations is now inclusive of the Forward in Faith congregations, and so the count of 1000 parishes may be a reasonable guess (remembering the Network states that not all parishes openly declare themselves as part of the Network.) At the same time not all parishes in the 10 dioceses wish to be included in the count, and not all parishes included continue to be related. More, we have very little to test the extent to which these parishes look to the Moderator for ecclesial or spiritual leadership. In any event, there are 8032 parishes listed with Church Publishing Clergy Directory and so the number 1000 is a bit high. One tenth of the dioceses ought to yield about one tenth of the parishes, or about 800.
As for the numbers of 2,500 clergy and 250,000 communicants, these numbers are more difficult to understand. The Network, even assuming everyone in all ten dioceses and a considerable following elsewhere, is suggesting that one in five clergy and one in five communicants are members of the Network. We will never know, of course, because the Network does not list all parishes, and no communicants for a variety of reasons.
Interestingly, over 14 months ago, October, 2004, the Network claimed 800 parishes and 1000 clergy. So, there have been 200 more parishes counted, but 1,500 more clergy claimed. If so, the Network claim to growth has not been in Dioceses (unchanged) or in parishes (moderate growth) but in clergy and lay persons. We will see.
Having claimed new growth, the Network, through its Moderator announced that all the Forward in Faith North America parishes (in the US) have become Network parishes. This makes the Forward in Faith convocation much larger.
The last of the announcements, made February 15th, is that the Network will form a seventh convocation to be made up of parishes that have affiliated to dioceses elsewhere in the world. The story states, “They are now under the jurisdiction of dioceses in four Anglican Provinces: Uganda, Southern Cone, Kenya and Central Africa.” The Network seems to be consolidating parts of the wider “Common Cause Partners” into itself.
The object of all this is to make a strong claim for attention prior to General Convention. If between now and then the Network draws in additional partners, say AMiA, or solidifies its relation to the Global South Anglican initiative, and particularly with the Province of Nigeria, the Network’s claim to attention grows.
In terms of its international standing, the Network needs the Province of Nigeria. Nigeria now has parishes in the United States, and has entered covenants with the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province of America. However, the Archbishop of Nigeria has come out in support of Nigerian law criminalizing homosexual behavior and any organization or gatherings in support of homosexuals. The Archbishop is a growing embarrassment and too close a connection with him will become more and more a mixed blessing.
The plan is on course… consolidate, let the AAC do the nasty work, find partners where you can. But there is still time for things to go sour. Perhaps the numbers are a bit overblown, perhaps the union of those who can’t bear women in ordained ministry, those who can’t bear women bishops and those who can won’t hold, perhaps bishops from the Global South will find the connections with the Network less interesting if they seem themselves loosing these parishes, and perhaps, God willing, the Moderator will see fit to distance himself and the Network from the Archbishop’s stand on criminalization of homosexuals in Nigeria.
But about distancing from the Archbishop of Nigeria and his support of criminalization nothing has been heard. No announcement yet.
The Network has a new web page look, crisper and cleaner without heraldry beyond its logo (which looks strangely like the Anglican Communion compass rose logo.) The site’s front page no longer directly links the reader to the American Anglican Council. The Moderator is no longer as prominent. The site front page links to the News Archive, the place where the lead articles find a home. There is very little to suggest that this is anything but an organization of concerned Episcopalians and Anglicans, concerned to be Anglican and orthodox.
All of this follows the path laid out by the AAC and the Network about just how to divide the tasks of realignment. The AAC would take the harder tact, being critical of the Episcopal Church and its leadership in the more harsh terms. The Network would work from ‘within’ as an organization clearly within the Episcopal Church working for its renewal and repentance.
So it is with some interest that the last several lead articles on the Network web pages remind us of the fact that there continues to be an interlacing of the efforts to work for realignment.
The Network proclaimed on January 23, 2006, “The ACN, which was formed just two years ago, continues to grow daily. Presently, affiliates include over 1000 parishes and 2500 clergy, 10 dioceses and 6 convocations, and an estimated 250,000 communicants.” The 10 dioceses and 6 convocations is now inclusive of the Forward in Faith congregations, and so the count of 1000 parishes may be a reasonable guess (remembering the Network states that not all parishes openly declare themselves as part of the Network.) At the same time not all parishes in the 10 dioceses wish to be included in the count, and not all parishes included continue to be related. More, we have very little to test the extent to which these parishes look to the Moderator for ecclesial or spiritual leadership. In any event, there are 8032 parishes listed with Church Publishing Clergy Directory and so the number 1000 is a bit high. One tenth of the dioceses ought to yield about one tenth of the parishes, or about 800.
As for the numbers of 2,500 clergy and 250,000 communicants, these numbers are more difficult to understand. The Network, even assuming everyone in all ten dioceses and a considerable following elsewhere, is suggesting that one in five clergy and one in five communicants are members of the Network. We will never know, of course, because the Network does not list all parishes, and no communicants for a variety of reasons.
Interestingly, over 14 months ago, October, 2004, the Network claimed 800 parishes and 1000 clergy. So, there have been 200 more parishes counted, but 1,500 more clergy claimed. If so, the Network claim to growth has not been in Dioceses (unchanged) or in parishes (moderate growth) but in clergy and lay persons. We will see.
Having claimed new growth, the Network, through its Moderator announced that all the Forward in Faith North America parishes (in the US) have become Network parishes. This makes the Forward in Faith convocation much larger.
The last of the announcements, made February 15th, is that the Network will form a seventh convocation to be made up of parishes that have affiliated to dioceses elsewhere in the world. The story states, “They are now under the jurisdiction of dioceses in four Anglican Provinces: Uganda, Southern Cone, Kenya and Central Africa.” The Network seems to be consolidating parts of the wider “Common Cause Partners” into itself.
The object of all this is to make a strong claim for attention prior to General Convention. If between now and then the Network draws in additional partners, say AMiA, or solidifies its relation to the Global South Anglican initiative, and particularly with the Province of Nigeria, the Network’s claim to attention grows.
In terms of its international standing, the Network needs the Province of Nigeria. Nigeria now has parishes in the United States, and has entered covenants with the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province of America. However, the Archbishop of Nigeria has come out in support of Nigerian law criminalizing homosexual behavior and any organization or gatherings in support of homosexuals. The Archbishop is a growing embarrassment and too close a connection with him will become more and more a mixed blessing.
The plan is on course… consolidate, let the AAC do the nasty work, find partners where you can. But there is still time for things to go sour. Perhaps the numbers are a bit overblown, perhaps the union of those who can’t bear women in ordained ministry, those who can’t bear women bishops and those who can won’t hold, perhaps bishops from the Global South will find the connections with the Network less interesting if they seem themselves loosing these parishes, and perhaps, God willing, the Moderator will see fit to distance himself and the Network from the Archbishop’s stand on criminalization of homosexuals in Nigeria.
But about distancing from the Archbishop of Nigeria and his support of criminalization nothing has been heard. No announcement yet.
2/11/2006
The Silence Continues
Some time ago I wrote on this blog about the support by the Anglican Church of Nigeria for proposed legislation in Nigeria outlawing same sex marriage, same sex relations and any action by anyone in support of either. I asked then, “What is left of the Archbishop’s claim to moral virtue when he supports the suppression of any and all expression from homosexual persons? What is left of the claim that he assures homosexual persons that they are loved by God …and full members of the Body of Christ.?”
The exact language of that proposed law is now available and its terms are harsh. To cut to the heart of the matter, the Bill states:
- “Any person who is involved in the registration of gay clubs, societies and organizations, sustenance, procession or meetings, publicity and public show of same sex amorous relationship directly or indirectly in public and in private is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a term of 5 years imprisonment.
- “Any person goes through the ceremony of marriage with a person of the same sex is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a term of 5 years imprisonment.
- “Any person performs, witnesses, aids or abets the ceremony of same sex marriage is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a term of 5 years imprisonment.”
This proposed law makes marriage between two persons of the same sex impossible by definition, without warrant in the courts of Nigeria, any ceremony related to such a claim illegal, the persons in such a ceremony or anyone conduction, witnessing, aiding or abetting the ceremony a criminal, and any organization or meeting of gay people or their supporters to consider changing this law illegal.
The peculiarities of the grammar in the matter of gay organizations makes it hard to get to the crux of this part of the legislation, but the best read I make of it is that this law makes it illegal to hold meetings of gay persons to talk about gay issues, to publicize such or to speak in such meetings of gay relationships, in other words to have any substantive conversation about being gay. It seems to me that anyone attending such meetings would fall under the general description of “Any person who is involved in the registration of gay clubs, societies and organizations, sustenance, procession or meetings, publicity and public show of same sex amorous relationship directly or indirectly in public and in private.”
The question for us in the Anglican Communion is this:
The proposed law would make impossible any meeting in Nigeria related to Lambeth 1998, 1.10 and it’s resolve to “listen to the experience of homosexual persons” or its assertion that “they (homosexuals) are loved by God and that all baptized, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ.” And the Archbishop and Church’s support of this law effectively says, we can meet with, respect, and listen to the experience of homosexual persons, but not in Nigeria.
The Archbishop of Nigeria has been a person of growing influence in Anglican circles and his voice carries far. Right now he speaks with two voices: the one which lauds Lambeth 1998 resolution 1.10 and claims it is the voice of the Church, and the other which rises in support of legislation that would criminalize the listening required by that very resolution, and subject “full members of the Body of Christ” to criminalized status, in spite of God’s love for them. He speaks, one might say, with a forked tongue.
Bad laws abound, and God knows we all have our share of them. But few laws are accompanied by making it illegal to meet to change those laws. Laws of these sorts are laws of sedition, laws making it illegal to rise up against bad laws, or bad rule.
Such laws should be particularly onerous to people of faith, for they make possible State control of religion. The law today may make it illegal to meet to criticize the laws against marriage of persons of the same sex. Tomorrow it may make it illegal to meet to criticize the laws governing divorce, or ceremonies setting persons apart as ministers of the Gospel. These things have a way of backfiring.
The question remains: Will the Archbishop of Nigeria explain himself, or do we assume from his support of these measures that he has no intention of providing any safe meeting places for gay Christian persons and no intention of honoring those parts of Lambeth resolutions he finds inconvenient?
2/09/2006
Women as Bishops tear at the fabric too.
I have been following the debate in the Synod of the Church of England concerning the ordination of women to the episcopate, although I have to admit without much enthusiasm. Thinking Anglicans is of course the place to go for reporting on all that has transpired here, and as usual TA does a good job of it all.
The debate is a reminder to me that the Windsor Report too easily and too quickly proclaimed the issue of the ordination of women an example of a successful reception process. The Lambeth Commission makes much of the fact that the lead up to the ordination of women was accompanied by notice and discussion and that similar debate and notice has not taken place regarding the ordination of Bishop Robinson or the blessing of same sex unions. Similar mutterings about lack of consultation with ecumenical partners have been made. Both the Diocese of New Westminster and the Episcopal Church have contested this perception.
I don’t know if consultations with other parts of the Communion have taken place and inform the current debate in
It was also interesting to note that the Roman Catholics are back at it, claiming that having women bishops would be an impediment to ecumenical relations with them, as if things weren’t impaired enough already. I continue to wonder why we should be concerned about the opinion of a church that believes our bishops and clergy are not in fact bishops and clergy in the valid orders. They have determined our ordained leaders to be sectarian religious leaders rather than validly ordained catholic priests and bishops. And now they want us to take their concerns about ecumenical relations with them seriously? I think not.
It appears that the Church of England will have women bishops, but at considerable cost: Alternative oversight can be sought so that no one a woman bishop’s diocese actually has to have a woman bishop; the whole thing will not happen until 2012; and who knows what the Roman Catholic Church will say then.
It would appear that the Windsor Report was incorrect to assume that matters concerning the ordination of women had been worked out in a very satisfactory way. They have not.
There are a number of provinces that do not ordain women and where women are not welcome to serve in any priestly capacity. The same is true for Bishops. So what becomes of the notion that ordination is for the whole church?
Well, in the case of the ordination of women, it is conveniently forgotten that there is this problem. In the case of the ordination of a gay or lesbian person in a committed relationship the problem remains and is indeed shouted about with much hand wringing – he or she is not a bishop for the whole church.
The question is, why are we willing to cover up the incomplete recognition of the ordination of women bishops and hide from the brokenness of all that and at the same time bemoan the incomplete recognition of the ordination of a gay man?
I think this is a rhetorical question.
1/27/2006
The Voice of Shame and the Shame of Silence:
It is hard to know which is more shameful: (i) That the Government of Nigeria proposes to make unlawful homosexual behavior and freedom of speech and assembly for homosexuals; or (ii) that there is support of such proposed laws by the Church of Nigeria (Anglican).
Fr. Jake of “Fr. Jake Shakes the World” does a splendid job of spelling out the real scandal of the Church of Nigeria’s support for these repressive measures. He states at the close of his essay, “The actions of the Church of Nigeria in this one particular story alone would seem sufficient to give anyone, conservative, liberal or moderate, reason to seriously reconsider if this is the direction the Anglican Communion wants to move in the future.”
Several writers, along with Fr. Jake, have pointed out that the Church of Nigeria’s support of the State’s proposed repression of homosexual freedoms of assembly and speech is so far from the statement of the Lambeth Resolution 1.10 as to constitute a betrayal of the intentions of that Resolution. That statement read in part, “We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ...”
Voice of America online reports on the comments of the Anglican Church in Nigeria’s spokesman:
“The Anglican Church in Nigeria Thursday said it welcomes government decision to push for legislation to outlaw homosexuality. The government said it will introduce legislation to punish homosexuality by up to five years in jail and ban same-sex marriages. A spokesman for Nigeria's Anglican Church described homosexuality as an abomination.
The spokesman for the Anglican church in Nigeria, Reverend Tunde Popoola, says the proposed ban is appropriate. The Anglican community in Nigeria has long waged a vigorous campaign against homosexuals, as Reverend Popoola explains.
"The Anglican church in Nigeria has been in the forefront of condemning the attitude because the church sees it as an aberration, in other words, we see it as against the norm. We see it as an abomination," he said.”
It is not hard to understand the Church of Nigeria’s support. The political and social pressures in Nigerian society must be immense, split as it is by serious religious and social divisions. But in speaking out in favor of the proposals and by not distancing themselves from the repression the proposals will bring the Church of Nigeria succumbs to very charges it raises against the West, namely that of becoming subservient to the culture.
It is doubly disappointing that the Church of Nigeria has not spoken out against these proposals, since the Church has exercised some courage in denouncing corruption in Government. If the Church felt it could not speak out forcefully (which is what is needed) at least it could have called for further conversation and discussion, or something!
The fact is that the Church of Nigeria, and in particular the Archbishop, Peter Akinola, are indeed supportive of laws which will criminalize homosexual behavior and any assembly or speech in support of homosexual persons.
Stephen Bates, in A CHURCH AT WAR, asks, “Why has no one told Peter Akinola that he is a bigot?” (pg 306, new edition) So let us ask that. What is left of the Archbishop’s claim to moral virtue when he supports the suppression of any and all expression from homosexual persons? What is left of the claim that he assures homosexual persons that “they are loved by God …and full members of the Body of Christ.”?
And, while we are at it, shame on the American Anglican Council that can cause a critical comment on the persons nominated for Presiding Bishop to be written in less than eight hours from the time of the announcement of the slate, and yet does not seem to be able to criticize the support of the Church of Nigeria for the criminalization of homosexuals in Nigeria.
We might also note that the Moderator of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, seemingly a good friend of the Archbishop of Nigeria, likewise seems to have nothing to say about the bigotry inherent in the Church of Nigeria’s support.
And why the silence from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Episcopal Church?
What is going on here? Is it simply that everyone in the Anglican World is so embarrassed by the position of the Church of Nigeria that they are stunned to silence? Is it that no one wants to put the Church of Nigeria on the spot because relations with the State are tenuous? Perhaps the Church of Nigeria is unwilling to speak because everyone is jumping aboard the bandwagon to criminalize homosexuals in Nigeria.
Perhaps too no one really takes seriously the extent to which the planned limits placed by Nigeria on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association run counter to the most basic of human rights and counter to the best hopes of life in religious community. But surely some people in authority in the church somewhere can speak out!
The critiques that exist so far come from various blog sites. That is not enough.
There has been an important and powerful (and short) essay in the Church Times condemning the proposed laws and asking the Church to speak up. That is a good start. There must be more. If the Church of Nigeria is unwilling to speak out, others must.
I call on the Archbishop of Nigeria to speak out against the repressive laws being proposed by the Government of Nigeria. If he cannot or will not do so, I call on the AAC and the Network to distance themselves from his support of this repression.
I call on the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Episcopal Church to issue statements critical of the repressive laws being proposed by Nigeria.
As Giles Fraser, author of the Church Times essay, “Would You Walk From A Lynching” says, “Forget the unity of the Church: not standing up to this is tantamount to walking away from a lynching.”
Fr. Jake of “Fr. Jake Shakes the World” does a splendid job of spelling out the real scandal of the Church of Nigeria’s support for these repressive measures. He states at the close of his essay, “The actions of the Church of Nigeria in this one particular story alone would seem sufficient to give anyone, conservative, liberal or moderate, reason to seriously reconsider if this is the direction the Anglican Communion wants to move in the future.”
Several writers, along with Fr. Jake, have pointed out that the Church of Nigeria’s support of the State’s proposed repression of homosexual freedoms of assembly and speech is so far from the statement of the Lambeth Resolution 1.10 as to constitute a betrayal of the intentions of that Resolution. That statement read in part, “We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ...”
Voice of America online reports on the comments of the Anglican Church in Nigeria’s spokesman:
“The Anglican Church in Nigeria Thursday said it welcomes government decision to push for legislation to outlaw homosexuality. The government said it will introduce legislation to punish homosexuality by up to five years in jail and ban same-sex marriages. A spokesman for Nigeria's Anglican Church described homosexuality as an abomination.
The spokesman for the Anglican church in Nigeria, Reverend Tunde Popoola, says the proposed ban is appropriate. The Anglican community in Nigeria has long waged a vigorous campaign against homosexuals, as Reverend Popoola explains.
"The Anglican church in Nigeria has been in the forefront of condemning the attitude because the church sees it as an aberration, in other words, we see it as against the norm. We see it as an abomination," he said.”
It is not hard to understand the Church of Nigeria’s support. The political and social pressures in Nigerian society must be immense, split as it is by serious religious and social divisions. But in speaking out in favor of the proposals and by not distancing themselves from the repression the proposals will bring the Church of Nigeria succumbs to very charges it raises against the West, namely that of becoming subservient to the culture.
It is doubly disappointing that the Church of Nigeria has not spoken out against these proposals, since the Church has exercised some courage in denouncing corruption in Government. If the Church felt it could not speak out forcefully (which is what is needed) at least it could have called for further conversation and discussion, or something!
The fact is that the Church of Nigeria, and in particular the Archbishop, Peter Akinola, are indeed supportive of laws which will criminalize homosexual behavior and any assembly or speech in support of homosexual persons.
Stephen Bates, in A CHURCH AT WAR, asks, “Why has no one told Peter Akinola that he is a bigot?” (pg 306, new edition) So let us ask that. What is left of the Archbishop’s claim to moral virtue when he supports the suppression of any and all expression from homosexual persons? What is left of the claim that he assures homosexual persons that “they are loved by God …and full members of the Body of Christ.”?
And, while we are at it, shame on the American Anglican Council that can cause a critical comment on the persons nominated for Presiding Bishop to be written in less than eight hours from the time of the announcement of the slate, and yet does not seem to be able to criticize the support of the Church of Nigeria for the criminalization of homosexuals in Nigeria.
We might also note that the Moderator of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, seemingly a good friend of the Archbishop of Nigeria, likewise seems to have nothing to say about the bigotry inherent in the Church of Nigeria’s support.
And why the silence from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Episcopal Church?
What is going on here? Is it simply that everyone in the Anglican World is so embarrassed by the position of the Church of Nigeria that they are stunned to silence? Is it that no one wants to put the Church of Nigeria on the spot because relations with the State are tenuous? Perhaps the Church of Nigeria is unwilling to speak because everyone is jumping aboard the bandwagon to criminalize homosexuals in Nigeria.
Perhaps too no one really takes seriously the extent to which the planned limits placed by Nigeria on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association run counter to the most basic of human rights and counter to the best hopes of life in religious community. But surely some people in authority in the church somewhere can speak out!
The critiques that exist so far come from various blog sites. That is not enough.
There has been an important and powerful (and short) essay in the Church Times condemning the proposed laws and asking the Church to speak up. That is a good start. There must be more. If the Church of Nigeria is unwilling to speak out, others must.
I call on the Archbishop of Nigeria to speak out against the repressive laws being proposed by the Government of Nigeria. If he cannot or will not do so, I call on the AAC and the Network to distance themselves from his support of this repression.
I call on the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Episcopal Church to issue statements critical of the repressive laws being proposed by Nigeria.
As Giles Fraser, author of the Church Times essay, “Would You Walk From A Lynching” says, “Forget the unity of the Church: not standing up to this is tantamount to walking away from a lynching.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)