Even Time, whose coverage of Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria has been credulous at best, is now aware that the man is advocating the legalization of human rights violations. The story is here.
Glad as I am to see a major news magazine call the archbishop to account, I find the piece perplexing; it is difficult to tell whether the revisionism at work here is deliberate. Bishop John Bryson Chane had an op-ed about the proposed Nigerian law published in The Washington Post last February. The Rev. Martyn Minns, rector of Truro Church, and now a bishop in the Church of Nigeria, responded on the church's Web site shortly thereafter. The Anglican blogosphere, in which members of Truro and the Falls Church are active participants, was abuzz with charge and countercharges. So the notion advanced in this piece, that the good people of Northern Virginia just recently found out about this law and are now owed an explanation is difficult to take seriously. As is the notion that Akinola ever, at any point, actually "softened" his support for the legislation. As is the notion that white Americans, rather than gay Nigerians, are the people to whom the archbishop owes his explanation.
Time declared Akinola one of the 100 most influential people in the world a few months back, and it has been covering its backside, and his, ever since. Even in calling him out, the rump coverage continues.