Credibility Gap: Archbishops Akinola and Malango
While I've been away from the blog, Father Jake, Simon Sarmiento of Thinking Anglicans and Mark Harris have posted valuable updates on the troubling activities of Archbishop Peter Akinola, primate of the Anglican Church of Nigeria, leader of the movement to toss the Episcopal Church out of the Anglican Communion. (He has even founded a rival church in the US in October, 2004, but, thus-far, it has been almost invisible.)
Stephen Bates of the Guardian touches on similar issues in a column for the Church of England Newspaper, but touches, too, on what might most charitably be referred to as the erratic behavior of Archbishop Bernard Malango the primate of Central Africa who, like Akinola, is hot to get rid of the Episcopal Church.
Have a look at Bates' column, and ask yourself why the leaders of the Anglican Communion continue to behave as though the consecration of gay bishops is the most pressing moral concern before the Communion, and why the Episcopal Church's membership in the Communion should depend, in any way, on the good opinion of men who act in this fashion.
The internal problems of the Anglican Communion and the rifts all this has caused aside, how do conservatives within the ECUSA and AC justify supporting the actions of Archbishop Akinola?
He has incited his followers to violence. He has led his followers to amend their constitution to enable them to fracture the AC. He is as much the definition of “fundamentalist” as any extremist Muslim mullah. Archbishop Akinola is the Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church of the Anglican Communion.
I am a moderate who believes both sides have pushed to envelope, but it is by far Akinola and the Global South who are most grievously violating the teachings of Jesus. He has called for violent retaliation against Muslims. He has come out in favor of a law which violates basic human freedoms like free association, free press, and the right to petition the government regarding issues of importance to you.
If a society wants to ban gay marriage, that’s their right in a democracy, but to ban advocacy of a position is to criminalize what people are thinking. Akinola supports making it a criminal offense to witness a gay wedding? Not participate or support it, but simply to be present and witness it. The law he supports criminalizes the public show of same-sex amorous relationships. And who’s to judge what is a public show of same-sex amorous relationships?
This man is not acting and not leading his followers according to the teachings of Jesus Christ. It appears to me that he is acting and leading based on lingering homophobia and ancient tribal superstition and he, and the Global South, need to be called to task by Canterbury. It seems he thinks the AC needs him and the Global South more that he needs the AC and that he can dictate to Canterbury and the AC.
Posted by Daniel | March 13, 2006 3:23 PM
Greetings, While having lunch with friend Rev. Peter Antoci I wondered out loud what good be motivating the Nigerian Bishop. Peter and I agreed that our Bishop is courageous in a situation that requires courage, since the Nigerian Bishop is attempting to lead a divisive movement within the Angligan communion, which is anti-gay, anti-women, etc..
I know little of Nigeria, other than their oil (the are courted now by China), and what appears to be a civil war between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria. I friend of mine who worked in Nigeria warned me against attempting to understand Nigeria--although I assume in Christ all is knowable. So what motivates the Bishop? Is he politically motivated vis-a-vis Muslims, and is attempting to out-flank Muslim fundamentalism?
Surely the Muslim-Christian dialogue is a top priority for us all, the way through military conflict in the Middle East. And for us, the resolution of our intra-Anglican conflict is the way to the Muslim-Xian dialogue. So help me with this: where is the Nigerian Bishop coming from? Rev. Robert Hundley
Posted by Rev. Robert Hundley | March 15, 2006 11:20 AM
In my heart I want to believe that all Christian leaders, including Archbishop Akinola, are acting on good faith and following their interpretations of scripture, but in the case of the Archbishop I don’t believe that. From the things he’s said and done it just doesn’t seem that he’s following Jesus’ teachings.
To come out in favor of banning gay marriage is the conservative position and is consistent with the social mores of Nigeria, but to support a law banning free assembly and free speech of homosexuals, and banning free press speech about the issue, is unacceptable in a Christian leader. This may be OK in Nigeria but it should not be supported by a Christian leader.
Archbishop Akinloa says he was not inciting violence in the statement he released, but when I read the statement I don’t see how you could read it any other way.
"From all indications, it is very clear now that the sacrifices of the Christians in this country for peaceful co-existence with people of other faiths have been sadly misunderstood to be weakness. …. May we at this stage remind our Muslim brothers that they do not have the monopoly on violence in this nation," Akinola had said in response to Muslim violence.
This certainly sounds like inciting violent retribution to me. And it does not sound like what Jesus would say.
In many ways it does seem like Archbishop Akinola is trying to win the hearts and minds of the Nigerian people by being more fundamentalist than the Muslim fundamentalism he is battling in his country. But it is not the Christian way to convert people by any means necessary and to kill the ones you can’t convert. We can’t win people to Jesus Christ by becoming more evil than the evil one’s we oppose.
Posted by Daniel | March 15, 2006 2:40 PM