Akinola must speak out to save gays

According to Rick Warren writing in Time, Dr Peter Akinola is one of the world's 100 most influential people. Rick says that like Mandela, he is 'man of peace and his leadership is a model for Christians around the world.' Yet even conservative Christians such as Ephraim Radner are beginning to ask why he has yet to speak out against a draconian new bill currently before Nigeria's parliament that Human Rights Watch today said threatens human rights and the country's democratic process. Australian priest Stephen Clark is among those wondering at Akinola's spirited attacks on gays while he remains silent on issues such as polygamy and the marrying off of 13-year-old girls.

Radner and Andrew Goddard wrote a lengthy essay about Nigeria and homosexuality, posted on Fulcrum. As they note, for some time, homosexual activity in Nigeria has been legally prohibited, with sanctions of up to 14 years in prison. Under the new legislation, same-sex blessings or marriage ceremonies will be banned and  those involved will be penalised and same-sex activity of any kind will be punished by up to five years' imprisonment. The law has nevertheless has been publicly upheld by the Nigerian Anglican Church and personally defended by Akinola, who wrote in a communique last February: 'The Church commends the law-makers for their prompt reaction to outlaw same-sex relationships in Nigeria and calls for the bill to be passed since the idea expressed in the bill is the moral position of Nigerians regarding human sexuality.'

As Matt Thompson reports, the bill is going through in spite of determined efforts by human rights workers in Nigeria to resist it. But a delay in the vote, originally to have been last Friday but still not taken, means someone might possibly be seeing sense.

  Changing Attitude Nigeria is among the bodies lobbying hard against the bill. Shortly after an article advocating their cause appeared in the Nigerian Sun, founder Davis Mac-Iyalla and eight other members were arrested and held by police for two nights. Only this week, Davis has suffered further intimidation, as CA founder Colin Coward reports. CA is a pro-gay lobby group, and its Nigerian branch is its fourth. Under the bill, anyone who speaks out on behalf of gays, or forms a pro-gay group such as Changing Attitude, faces imprisonment. There are 2,000 members already of CA in Nigeria, a country where both the Christian and Muslim leaders are overtly hostile to homosexuality. Most Nigerians, if they even admit that homosexuality exists, believe it to be deeply immoral. Under Sharia law, adopted by 12 of Nigeria's northern states, gay sex is punishable by death by stoning. The new bill doesn't go that far, but it will still be in direct contravention of Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Four United Nations envoys on a visit last month condemned it last month as "an absolutely unjustified intrustion" into an individual's right to privacy and a violation of human rights. I would be interested to know where the orthodox former Episcopal Churches of the US who've opted for Nigerian oversight stand on the bill.

Nigeria has roughly equal amounts of Christians and Muslims. Of the Christians, 18.5 million are Anglicans, members of the second largest Anglican church worldwide after the mother Church of England. It would be extraordinary if the Anglicans were to come out in the Gospel tradition of support for a persecuted minority and take a stand against this disgracefully homophobic piece of legislation. Somehow, I don't think it's going to happen.

Comments

[Fr Joe O'Leary]

Poor Ms Linsley has revealed exactly why the Global South has come crashing in public esteem. They thought, like her, that considerations of African popular prejudice has some kind of socio-anthropological respectability that would make violent homophobia stomachable. Now they are appalled to see that the whole world regards the Tanzania debates as a shameful sellout to evil. Trotting out the relativizing sociocultural considerations to which Ms Linsley treats us is truly quixotic at a time when the penny has dropped with a mighty clang. The Global South has painted itself in its own words and actions as monstrously homophobic and contemptuous of the rights, lives and liberties of a silenced and terrorized minority of men and women. The demonization has been done by Akinola and pals themselves, and not all the genteel whitewashing of Alice can undo this damage.

[Foo Keong]

Yes, Dr Peter Akinola is very influential even here in Singapore which is part of the Anglican Global South. But so much harm he has caused by ommitting to do what is right (not focusing poverty and disease in Nigeria)but instead an example of prejudice and discrimination against gays. I would find it difficult to share communion in Christ with him.

[Fr. Malcolm French]

I don't think the original source of the comment was Anne Lamott, but it does show that wisdom can spring from many places concurrently.

On the second point, ;-)

[Heredal]

"I was once advised, in another context, that the more certain one is of God's views on a subject, the greater the danger that God's voice bore a startling resemblance to one's own."

Fr French, I think you may mean the comment by Anne Lamott, the US author (and Christian) who said "You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."

Have you, incidentally, thought about seeking out the will of Allah on these matters? A second opinion might be helpful.

[Fr. Malcolm French]

Alice C. Linsley said:

"The problem would appear to be then that you have the same agenda as ++ Akinola. Is God telling him one thing, and you another?"

I certainly hope that ++Akinola's agenda is about seeking the will of God. I will admit I'm not convinced, but that is beside the point.

Certainly my agenda is to know and to enact God's will on this issue. Let us presume that this is also Dr. Akinola's agenda.

If Dr. Akinola and I have, despite holding the same agenda, come to different places, there are a number of possible explanations which all really boil down to the same thing. At least one of us is wrong in our interpretation of where God is leading us.

But I suggest that a discussion of how we discern God's will really wasn't your agenda, Alice. I hope I'm wrong, but I do rather suspect your post was more about affirming a false dualism while claiming that only those on your side care about God's will.

I was once advised, in another context, that the more certain one is of God's views on a subject, the greater the danger that God's voice bore a startling resemblance to one's own.

I am by no means sure where God is leading his Church on this issue. I do know that the bullying conduct of Dr. Akinola and others has been quite counterproductive in persuading me of their view.

[heredal]

"So long as societies remain tribally based and place more faith in superstition rather than science - they cannot become either advanced economies or democracies. Christianity has been a primary enabler of this transition in Europe, so much so that its values have become internalised and have taken on a life of their own outside the institutional Christian context - often expressed in humanitarian or secular rather than explicitly "religious" terms."

There are several problems with this analysis in a European setting. First, Christianity continues to advocate ever greater adhesion to faith in superstition rather than science, as indeed it always has - religion IS superstition. We even have a Christian Government that is happy to let our schoolchildren be taught biblical creationism in science classes, and Christians who are only to ready to do that teaching.

So Christianity has not been a primary enabler of this transition in Europe - rather, the transition has occurred in spite of Christianity's best attempts to prevent it, not because of Christianity's influence which has in any case been in steady decline until the new found fundamentalists started bashing their bibles these last few years.

Frank's argument is not unlike those who like to claim that modern Britain has been shaped by a benevolent Christian heritage. A more accurate view would be that Britain has in fact been shaped by reaction against an insidious Christian malevolence down the centuries, with ordinary people all too regularly caught up in the recurring bloody battles between protestant and catholic hegemony.

To suggest that the secular or humanitarian world is just Christian principle put into practice but minus the dogma (I may be wrong, Frank, but that seems to be what you are saying) is another distortion. Compassion existed long before Christians expressed it, it certainly wasn't a Christian invention although of course that is how it is now portrayed. It's like those who proclaim that it was Christians who broke up the slave trade ignoring the fact that it was other Christians using biblical authority who were working it.

History will probably repeat itself though - in a few decades' time, Christians will be writing books and blogs claiming that it was Christianity's compassionate, tolerant and benevolent mindset that led the world into equal treatment of, and the abolition of prejudice against gays and lesbians.

[Frank Schnittger]

Maduka - Colonialism was abandoned partly because its costs (to the colonialisers) often outweighed the benefits. Certainly some individuals like King Leopold became very wealthy because of it, but for states the benefits were often more strategic than economic - to secure their influence in a region, to secure trade routes, or to ensure rivals did not take control of the territory.

If anything, colonialism prolonged the reign of the old pre-capitalistic aristocratic regimes in Europe, and the rise of democracy in Europe also hastened the demise of colonialism.

Glastnost and Perestroika also resulted in the dismantling of the old Soviet empire and its replacement by a capitalist but democratic Russian nation State (and a number of very backward and often dictatorial smaller republics).

Again if anything, the more advanced the economy (e.g. in Russia as opposed to Kazakhstan) the more likely that democracy succeeds. However once again, economic success is an enabling but not sufficient condition for secular democracy.

I am not at all sure that Chinese economic success will be sufficient to enable the development of a secular democracy because there is a history of imperial/military rule and no history of popular democracy or independent civil institutions.

Paradoxically, it is Christianity which has often been the driving force behind the democratisation process, particularly in Europe, because of its emphasis on the value and equality of all men before God.

Democracy has only rarely succeeded outside the Christian sphere of influence - in Japan, after the almost total destruction of the Ancien regime in World War 2, and in India largely because of the Parliamentary traditions of the colonial power and the exceptional leadership of Mahatma Gandhi - surely one of the greatest "Christian" leaders in practice, even though he was theoretically and culturally a Hindu.

So unlike you, I don't think either the Harvard Business School or the Harvard Humanities Faculty had much to do with the success of secular democracy in the developed world. It was primarily based on the fundamental respect and equality accorded to all men and women by Christianity - particularly in its Protestant forms. This respect also enabled the development of complex and sophisticated social and commercial relationships which are essential for advanced capitalist societies to function (See Weber: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism).

So long as societies remain tribally based and place more faith in superstition rather than science - they cannot become either advanced economies or democracies. Christianity has been a primary enabler of this transition in Europe, so much so that its values have become internalised and have taken on a life of their own outside the institutional Christian context - often expressed in humanitarian or secular rather than explicitly "religious" terms.

However Akinola represents a sharp reversal of this process in Nigeria. When religion loses respect for even small minorities, it loses respect for all. Akinola represents a diminution of Christianity and is part of the reason why Nigeria will remain in a relatively primitive state - with severe tribal/religious tensions and little by way of advanced indigenous social and commercial organisation which is a pre-requisite for any self-sustaining advanced economy and polity.

Alice is right, I do have an agenda. I do not like to see whole communities racked by poverty and preventable disease and maintained in a state of repression and dependency by either local or imperial/global despots. Europe has a long history of such repression, both at home and abroad. We have learned from our mistakes. I hope you can too - without having to repeat them all for yourselves.

[Heredal]

Fr. French:

"I have no other agenda than to see where God wants his church to be on this question."

The problem would appear to be then that you have the same agenda as ++ Akinola. Is God telling him one thing, and you another?

[Alice C. Linsley]

I was directing my comments to Frank above. (However, if the shoe fits...)

[Christopher]

"You have an agenda, Sir, and I am suspicious of people with agendas."

I don't know to whom you were addressing this but I suggest you go look in the mirror, Alice.

[Fr. Malcolm French]

From Alice C. Linsley:

"Your rants against him reveal more about you than about him. You have an agenda, Sir, and I am suspicious of people with agendas. I know you will argue that everyone has an agenda, but that is not what Christ commands his followers. We are commanded to give up all worldy agendas and to desire but one thing: to be transformed in His likeness."

Madam, you make a number of assumptions about what I think, what I intend, what I will say and what motivates me. My mother used to tell me not to make assumptions because of what they did to "u" and "me."

Doubtless my comments about Dr. Akinola reveal things about me - as, no doubt, Dr. Akinola's smears against assorted persons, including Davis Mac-Iyalla freveal things about Dr. Akinola.

Now, I probably do have an agenda. My agenda is to seek God's will on this and other questions. I may not do this as effectively or as thoughtfully as God might like. But this accusation that only the supporters of one position have any desire to be faithful Christians is just a meaningless canard tossed about when people have run out of rational arguments.

At my diocesan synod this weeken, I heard a very good presentation from the Bishop of the Canadian Diocese of Edmonton, Chair of the (Canadian) Primate's Theological Commission. In her presentation she observed that it is meaningless, counterproductive and simply false to claim that everyone on the "other side" of the debate is this, that or the other. Certainly the vast majority of "liberals" on this issue that are known to me seek very much to be "transformed into his likeness." To suggest otherwise is no different than claiming (as some "liberals" do) that all "conservatives" are motivated by hatred of homosexual persons. Both arguments are demonstrably false.

All of us are seeking God's will on this question. Most of us are doing so as sincerely and as honestly as we know how.

As to my "agenda" - I have no other agenda than to see where God wants his church to be on this question. As I noted at synod this weekend, I would be quite confortable with being (as the Americans are using the phrase) a "Windsor Compliant" diocese - at least until such time as it becomes apparent that God is leading us elsewhere.

But I am not interested in a dishonest interpretation of what that means. Complying with Windsor must mean complying with Windsor - not just picking over the dessicated corpse for the bits I like.

In the mean time, I will still view it as hypocritical that Dr. Akinola - having committed himself to listen to the experience of homosexual persons - is now engaging in a legislative campaign to silence them. Which was, after all, the focus of the original blog.

[J Pearce]

”What sustains the "liberal / secular" project is economic security. Take it away, and it falls to pieces.”

I think this comment is extremely insightful. In fact, on a gut level, I agree with it completely. But it begs a multitude of questions. The first, most obvious one (to me), being:

What alternative do you propose?

Maduka, you say that Christianity thrives on persecution. What would you prefer – being a persecuted minority in a barbaric society, or being a member of an economically secure society where you are forced to defend your faith against robust but peaceful criticism, but still survive in relative luxury (i.e. your basic human needs are catered for)?

Its as though you don’t believe humans can progress beyond their basic biological/emotional drives and that we are forever condemned to an existence that pits us forever against each other. That’s not exactly a central tenet of Christian thinking, is it? Surely a secular society is something akin to what Christ would desire from the peoples of this planet – albeit, shorn of some of the more rapacious aspects of human character and suffused with a lot more worship (obviously…).

I would aver that western, liberal, secular societies are a lot closer to the vision as put forward by Christ, than any backward, feudal, perpetually-in-tumult third world countries. And I put it to you – if Christ’s message is so powerful, irresistible and all-encompassing, then how come it seems to be engaged in perpetual war with other religious doctrines? In the battle of ideas, the message of Christ isn’t exactly winning the propaganda war, is it?

As for Akinola – if the man is using the homosexual issue to rally political support to fight against Islamic repression, then by definition, hasn’t he already divorced himself from the teachings of Christ? I was under the impression from various frothing-at-the-mouth orthodox Christians that Jesus (and by extension, his teachings) was beyond mere, petty, human politics. If Akinola is waging a political war by utilizing the victimization of gays as a weapon, then surely he has succumbed to petty human frailties as much as those he chooses to vilify and condemn?

I pity those who cannot see beyond the power machinations at work in this sorry state of affairs.

[Alice C. Linsley]

Archbishop Akinola is concerned about defending historic apostolic teaching, which is at the centre of Christianity. Your rants against him reveal more about you than about him. You have an agenda, Sir, and I am suspicious of people with agendas. I know you will argue that everyone has an agenda, but that is not what Christ commands his followers. We are commanded to give up all worldy agendas and to desire but one thing: to be transformed in His likeness.

[Charlotte]

Ten days ago, I sent a letter of protest to Archbishop Akinola. Today I received the following reply from his Communications Director, Canon AkinTunde Popoola, which speaks volumes about the Nigerian Anglican church and its supporters:

--begin quote--

Dear Dr.,

Peace!

Thanks for your mail below which I just saw today. Forgive the time lag. We
have been very busy lately in the office because of the activities around
the landmark consecration of 20 bishops in one service held here in Abuja
and the subsequent inauguration of 19 dioceses around our vast country.

Your message will be forwarded to the archbishop's desk, though I doubt his
seeing it before the end of the month when he is expected to have completed
his missionary diocese trips and returned to the office.

Every Blessing,

The Rev. Canon Akintunde Popoola.

[Maduka]

Frank,

The success of the secularisation project has as much to do with unsavoury individuals like Rockefeller, King Leopold of Belgium, Cecil Rhodes who "brought the bacon home" as it has to do with Voltaire.

The failed attempts at Perestroika and Glasnot in the Soviet Union showed us plainly that liberalisation without economic prosperity is a dead duck.

You brought up China. China is not doing anything different froom what Britain or the United States did at earlier stages of development. The United States economy was largely built on the cheap labour of slaves and gross human rights abuses, similarly the British Empire was also built on cheap labour (of coolies), unfair trade restrictions and gross human rights abuses.

You brought up Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. Both are rich in Oil, but they are not PRODUCTIVE economies. Only productive economies can successfully embark on the secularisation project. (Mark my words, China is on its way there).

I think the secularisation project owes its success more to Harvard Business School than to the Harvard Humanities Faculty.

[Frank Schnittger]

Maduka - I had decided to stop posting on Timesonline but your last post deserves a response on a once off basis.

Yes, it does make sense - in a sociological sense - to attribute the success of the secularism project in large measure to the economic success of Europe/America. People do tend to revert to their childhood faith or cling to any institution offering hope when in extremis. Severe economic recessions have given rise to fascism or extreme lurches to the right.

But it is also a bit of a "chicken and egg" argument. Does economic success enable the democracy/secularism project to succeed, or are democracy/secularism enablers of economic success?

We can all see the success of Saudi Arabia et al, but it is almost entirely based on oil. When that runs out will it revert to a backward semi-feudal state? Clearly economic success is not a sufficient condition for secular democracies to succeed - although it can be very helpful. But it is surely also no accident that the most advanced economies are also generally secular democracies. China is perhaps the largest anomaly - but its success is to date based almost entirely on cheap labour - a bit like Saudi Arabian oil.

Nigeria, too, has sufficient resources to be a relatively prosperous state. Undoubtedly colonialism did it no favours, but the same can be said of Ireland and many other smaller European countries. All have now become very successful economically because of the secular democratic project. But Nigeria still lags behind, riven by tribal/religious/regional conflicts, corruption and despotic regimes without respect for human rights.

It is that agenda that Akinola is playing into, and for so long as he succeeds, Nigeria will not be able to shake off its colonial and tribal past and become a modern, successful, secular democratic state.

You can choose that road if you want to - and there are many political reactionaries in America and Europe cheering you along on that path. But they are very marginal creatures in the greater scheme of things in Europe, and may also be losing traction in the U.S.

But if you do, you will remain an impoverished society ready to plunge into even greater poverty when the oil runs out. And if you make common cause with American/European reactionaries in the meantime you will also lose the sympathy and support of those who are really driving the economic and political success of the West.

And that, sadly, no longer includes the Christian churches. They are just remnants of what they once were and are often populated by the very old and the very young, and a few fanatics in between. For the vast majority their functions are limited to weddings and funerals – if that – and their social and economic teachings have long been discarded – to the chagrin of those who still think they are running the show.

They do of course, provide a very important social function for the marginalised and for immigrant communities – and are to be commended for that. But they have lost the heart and soul of the people as a whole.

They like to blame this on “modernism”, “materialism”, “consumerism”, “scientism” , “relativism” “secularism” and Godlessness etc., but in reality it is they who have lost their way to God – as the woeful compromises in Anglicanism and the turgid ritualism of Catholicism show only too clearly.

God pours His blessings on those who act out the Gospels rather than give lip service to them in Church. To the Churches He just gives the curse of Akinola – a dreary, impoverished, diseased, despotic and cruel regime – little better that the Islamic Fundamentalists with whom he contends in the marketplace of hatred. Truly Hell on Earth.

[Deb]

I think Akinola is caught between a rock and a hard place. I think he should stand up to homophobia and persecution of gay minorities and ensure that the church is a safe place for them to be heard. However if he does say that gay activity is not punishable groups like changing attitude are already pushing for CPs and freedom to make the relationships they choose. Part of the legislation in Nigeria was to stop same sex marriages.......!Not just imprison gays. We know the churches teaching Lambeth and that has been disregarded and there are those who couldnt give two hoots about that teaching.
The church should ensure that whilst Nigerian churches begin to reach out to gay and lesbian women there will not be groups trying to defy the lambeth teaching,pushing for gay marriages at the same time.I am perturbed that groups like Changing attitude dont realise what pressure and tension this puts on the church at a time when they are already coping with resisting a strong muslim presence. It works both ways....! protect gay and muslim men and women but they in turn should realise that some of their demands might risk the lives of their other christian brothers and sisters.

[David Smith]

Father Malcolm French:
'Andrew, the quotation marks around my title were merely juvenile.'

You say this to Andrew, Malcolm, but I wonder what you would say about your 'title' to Jesus - quoted in Matthew 23 Verse 9: " ..do not call anyone [in the church] on earth father, for you have one Father, Who is in heaven.. " ?

[Jake]

The accusations lodged against Davis by the Church of Nigeria have been proven to be false. They were nothing more than a smear campaign launched in an attempt to silence him and CA.

When that failed, this piece of legislation was hatched, which specifically targets groups like CA.

[Fr. Malcolm French]

Well Andrew, I trust the baby is fed and well.

I certainly do have a low opinion of the Primate of Nigeria. Perhaps I should be more charitable.

But I do find the man's conduct more than hypocritical on a number of points, including:

- his selective upholding of Lambeth 1.10 as authoritative on those points where he wants it to be authoritative and of no account on those points where he wishes it to be of no account;

- his similarly selective upholding of the Windsor Report as the way forward for the communion while at the same time defiantly refusing to conform to the Reports requirements regarding cross provincial intervention;

- his enthusiastic support for this draconian legislation despite the commitment he made (but apparently did not ean) to listen to the experience of homosexual persons.

Let us be clear, Andrew. This legislation does not make homosexual acts illegal. They are already criminal offences in Nigeria.

What this act does is make it a crime even to discuss the prospect that criminalization of homosexuals might not be the grand idea the archbishop believes it to be.

One is moved to wonder how much listening a homosexual person is liable to get in Nigeria. Not bloody much, it seems.

Now, perhaps this (and the rest of his policies and actiona) do not represent hatefulness, triumphalism or bigotry. But I must confess, I cannot see how that is possible.

And BTW, Andrew, the quotation marks around my title were merely juvenile.

[Jean]

"Most Nigerians are not really bothered about the legislation. Sodomy is already an offence under the Nigerian Criminal code. The legislation is more like a statement against “decadent Western Values”. I think it has a very emotional background. When the air has cooled a bit, we will revisit it." - Maduka

Ah yes - and so what if a few gays get slaughtered in the meantime - they're not proper Christians anyway.

As you point out Maduka - Moslem extremists will use any excuse to slaughter a few Christians. So there isn't much point in offering them gays on a sacrificial platter. They'll find other reasons to slaughter Christians in any case.

But at least under the proposed legislation Nigerian Christians can feel good about having made an emotional statement against "decadent western values". Rampant poverty, corruption, racism, homophobia, rape, preventable disease - all endemic in Nigerian Society - together with the occasional stonings, genital mutilations, and tribal/sectarian killings obviously don't count as decadent in your eyes...

Give me "decadent western values" any day.

[Jean]

All the people complaining about the British Government's "interference" with religious rights in the SORs controversy seem to be curiously silent when the Nigerian Government legislates in support of conservative Christian attitudes on homosexuality. Does Government legislation on homosexuality only constitute "interference" when it is opposed to rather than supportive of conservative attitudes?

[Maduka]

Mike Homfray,

I am a Nigerian but I do not support the draconian legislation. It violates the spirit of human rights.

Christianity is often coloured by the cultural views of its practitioners, ambitious and wicked men also prey on the fears of Christians to wreck havoc on their enemies or to advance their selfish ambitions. But I think Christianity is a marvellous faith.

Every day in Great Britain, half a million black parishioners walk through the doors of predominantly black churches. These people suffer the same or even worse conditions than muslim minorities and yet are less prone to violence against the State.

Does Christianity have anything to do with it? I don't know.

Then we need to talk about "Liberalism" and "Secularism". I have no doubt that the secularisation project has worked splendidly, but we may differ on what contributed to its success. The success of secularisation in Europe has more to do with economic prosperity than the philosophy of Voltaire, Kant or the rantings of Dawkins.

You also need to understand that European economic prosperity (that supports the secular - liberal project) is based on a foundation of greed. Europeans did not come to my country to spread enlightenement values. Shell keeps you warm at winter, but at the cost of enviromental degradation, loss of life and human rights abuses. Shell and big business pay taxes to your government. These taxes provide money that supports the welfare state, boosts your economy, provide money for "loans" to developing countries designed to maximise returns and cripple developing economies.

The result is that you have a high standard of living.

About 10% of the population has the time and inclination to delve into the "sophistication" of Dawkins, Harris and other elightenment figures. For the rest, it is essentially "bread and games" (seasons tickets for United games, Big Brother, X factor and holidays in Ibiza).

Government and big business play a balancing act of satisfying the "elightenment brigade" and "bread and games" crowd. That, essentially is what "the triumph of the secular state" is all about.

You may say I am wrong, but when the German people could not have their toys, they trooped behind Hitler. When the French were afraid for their economic security, the National Front rose in prominence.

What sustains the "liberal / secular" project is economic security. Take it away, and it falls to pieces.

It does not have a bright future because our planet has limited resources. If the welfare state collapses, we could have a radical Islamist or a BNP man at No. 10 Downing Street. (Kant's philosophy will amount to little if that occurs).

On the other hand, Christianty (for all its flaws?) thrives under persecution. I have seen it thrive in refugee camps in the Sudan, Congo and Northern Nigeria. It survived Mao's cultural revolution and thrives under persecution in China.

I hope I make sense.

[Christopher]

I find the question of Baby Blue very strange. Colin Coward was in Tanzania with Davis and we saw them both on television in the Heaven & Earth Show on BBC1 when they were trying to get to speak to Peter Akinola. Surely, if anyone knows Davis exists Colin does - and so does Akinola, though he brushed him and Colin aside with a rude "no comment" which shocked everyone in the studio at Heaven & Earth. Even Alison Ruoff for whom Akinola can do no wrong looked very discomforted and tried to make excuses for him.

Apparently it was a certain Canon Tunde (who's he? you may ask) who tried to discredit Davis on behalf of the archdiocese of Nigeria, but Colin kept faith with him and I saw them both together on TV interviewing David Virtue who was also there in Dar es Salaam. David Virtue would be one of the first to say Davis was an impostor if he really thought so...but he didn't.

[Matt]

Baby Blue,

I've contacted Lydia Polgreen of the New York Times who has met Davis and attended one of his meetings. She confirmed his existence for me, as well as the existence of his rather sizable organization (all meeting in tight secrecy, I might add). Polgreen wrote about Davis and CA back in October(?) 2005.

If anyone wants more information, please contact me through my web page.

-Matt

[Andrew]

Up in the middle of the night to feed the baby, so I take a few moments to read your latest post, Ruth.

Two comments struck me: one was Maduka's, which was genuinely informative, and has my gratitude.

The other was the alas all too familiar personal abuse from 'Father' Martin French ('a hateful little man... triumphalist bigot'). The 'hateful' adjective does seem to cut both ways.

[BabyBlue]

Ruth,

Has anyone in the secular media looked into the background of Davis Mac-Iyalla? Is this the same man as the one that the Church of Nigeria issued a release about last December who is an imposter? The Voice of America says that he is now in charge of Changing Attitudes Nigeria. Is he the same man - or a different man?

It might be interesting for a third party (like the secular media who should be - in spirit - unbiased) to look into who Davis Mac-Ilyalla is. Is he now a gay activist or the same person that defrauded a Nigerian bishop of diocesan funds? They have the same name - but perhaps its a common name in Nigeria?

If we care about gay people (and to be sure that even those with whom I might personally disagree are not being taken advantage of), it might be good to find out if this guy is the real deal or not. If he's the one who is providing information to the western media about the Nigerian legislation, it would be good to know if he's who he really says he is.

I am interested in knowing the truth - obviously. Perhaps you can look into it?

bb

[Simon Barrow]

Fine post, Ruth. And the one on the treatment of women in Saudi. Thank you very much.

[Prior Aelred]

R. Robert Blake,

The situation of people from "traditional" cultures wanting their cultures to be respected & deriding "modern" cultures reminds me of a passage in a novel I read some years ago that went something like, ". . . it was decided that American cultural attitudes did not count."

[Mike Homfray]

The problem is that conservative christianity is endemically and institutionally homophobic.

Indeed, it is an evil and damaging dset of ideas that have much in common with the fundamentalist Islam it claims to dislike so much. They are two sides of the same coin.

Liberalism is the opposite to this and it is liberalism which needs to be heard loud and clear to oppose all conservative religionism.

[Mike Homfray]

The proble is that conservative christianity is endemically and institutionally homophobic.

Indeed, it is an evil and damaging dset of ideas that have much in common with the fundamentalist Islam it claims to dislike so much. They are two sides of the same coin.

Liberalism is the opposite to this and it is liberalism which needs to be heard loud and clear to oppose all conservative religionism.

[Alice C. Linsley]

Akinola’s view on homosexuality is shared by most Africans. A reporter for the Christian Science Monitor reported, “Amid the rattle and hum of portable generators on Abuja's Wuse market, shoppers leafing through Christian books and Bibles variously describe homosexuality as "evil" and an "abomination."

"We are very conservative here in Nigeria," says Norma Obazele, who describes herself as a devout Christian and declined to give her age. "Homosexuality is wrong, it's from the devil." (Source: The Christian Science Monitor, 8 Jan. 2007)

In February 2006, Akinola issued a communiqué on behalf of the Church of Nigeria, stating, "The Church commends the law-makers for their prompt reaction to outlaw same-sex relationships in Nigeria and calls for the bill to be passed since the idea expressed in the bill is the moral position of Nigerians regarding human sexuality." (Source: Church of Nigeria News, 2006).

Bishop Martyn Minns said of Akinola, “He does not advocate jailing homosexuals. What he supports is a bill strengthening traditional morality in Nigeria ... it’s quite complex.” (Source: Washingtonblade.com, 22 Dec. 2007).

To many, the Church of Nigeria’s position seems harsh, but it should be regarded in the context of the radical Islamic presence in Nigeria. Akinola elaborates in his January 2007 statement to the churches in Virginia: “As I am sure you have heard, there is a bill currently being debated by the Nigerian Legislature that addresses the topic of same-sex marriages and homosexual activism. The Standing Committee of the Church of Nigeria, in its desire to see the strengthening of marriage and family life in our society, has commended the legislators for tackling this difficult issue. We have no desire to see our nation follow the path of license and immorality that we have witnessed in other parts of the world. And we also oppose the severe sanctions of Islamic law. We recognize that there are genuine concerns about individual human rights that must be addressed both in the framing of the law and its implementation. I am glad to inform you that while the Honorable Speaker of the House, a Moslem, wanted the immediate and outright passage of the bill, the Deputy Speaker, an Anglican, persuaded his colleagues to allow full public debate on it.” (Source: CANA news)

“We do not want any money from the Episcopal Church of the United States,” said Peter Akinola, Chairman of the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA), representing more than half the world’s 77 million Anglicans. “This is not rhetoric,” Akinola said at a news conference at the close of CAPA’s 2004 Nairobi summit. “If we suffer for a while to gain our independence and our freedom and to build ourselves up, I think it will be a good thing for the church in Africa. And we will not, on the altar of money, mortgage our conscience, mortgage our faith, mortgage our salvation.” (Source: Christian Science Monitor, 19 April 2004)

“Risen, ascended Lord, as we rejoice at your triumph, fill Peter Akinola and the Primates with power and compassion, that all who are estranged by sin may find forgiveness and know your peace, to the glory of God the Father.” (Source: Lent and Beyond, 24 January 2007)

"The consecration [of Gene Robinson] clearly demonstrates that authorities within [the Episcopal Church] consider that their cultural-based agenda is of far greater importance than obedience to the word of God.” He added, "Such a church is bound to become a shrine for the worship of men rather than God. We cannot go on limping between two opinions." (Source: Washingtontimes.com, 4 Nov. 2003)

Writing in the Washington Post on Feb. 26, Bishop Chane also called on conservative Episcopalians to disassociate publicly from the Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola’s “attack on the human rights of a vulnerable population.”

The “Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act” before the Nigerian Federal Assembly would bar “marriage between persons of the same sex” and the “adoption of children” by same-sex couples. The act forbids churches and other ecclesial communities from performing same-sex marriages or blessings and would also ban “gay clubs” in schools and in government-affiliated institutions. (Source: The Living Church, 27 Feb. 2006)

Archbishop Akinola’s advice to would-be political office holders: "Whoever God is calling to govern must put God first, must know the people, must know what their aspirations are, must know what their needs are and address those needs. In that way they will be blessed, they will rejoice and God too will be honoured." (Guardian Newspapers, 24 Jan. 2007)

"Our participation in this worldwide fellowship is contingent on genuine repentance by those who have chosen to walk away, for two cannot walk together except they are in agreement," said the Most. Rev. Peter Akinola of the Church of Nigeria in a statement. "Christian unity must be anchored on Biblical truth." (Source: The Christian Post, 16 Jan. 2007)

“Self-seeking, self-glory, that is not me. No. Many people say I embarrass them with my humility." (The New York Times, 25 December 2006)

"The victimization or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us." (Statement of the Primates of the Anglican Communion at Dromantine, February 2005)

"The archbishop's support for this law [the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Bill 2006, see above] violates numerous Anglican Communion documents that call for a "listening process" involving gay Christians and their leaders. But his contempt for international agreements also extends to Articles 18-20 of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which articulates the rights to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, association and assembly. Surprisingly, few voices -- Anglican or otherwise -- have been raised in opposition to the archbishop. When I compare this silence with the cacophony that followed the Episcopal Church's decision to consecrate the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, a gay man who lives openly with his partner, as the bishop of New Hampshire, I am compelled to ask whether the global Christian community has lost not only its backbone but its moral bearings." (John Chane, Bishop of Washington)

When Sarah Simpson visited the Archbishop’s office in Abuja, hoping for an interview she tripped and fell. According to the Christian Science Monitor, Akinola “stopped to see if Sarah was all right, and she delivered a plea for an interview. She got it. ‘I don't know whether it was the fall or if Akinola is always this friendly to journalists, but I left his office with a handful of butter cookies and a mint candy,’ Sarah said.” (Source: The Christian Science Monitor, 8 Jan. 2007)

Akinola’s prominence takes a toll. The Archbishop is much in demand. “I used to play table tennis,” he explained in an interview, “but now I take a long walk if I can. That's all I have time for now. Where's the time? Is it when I'm thinking about Nigeria, Africa or the global South? They won't let me rest! Everybody wants a little bit of me, every second. I have about 18 million Anglicans and 94 bishops so where's the time to go and start watching football.” (The Nigerian Guardian, 29 Jan. 2006)

“Pastors, Bishops and all religious leaders are called upon to remove the masks and do away with all pretence. It is time to be true Shepherds and feed the flock. False prophets are called upon to remove the mask and stop the exploitation and manipulation of the gullible, unsuspecting flock and stop shouting peace when God has not sent them.” (Source: Akinola’s New Year Address, Church of Nigeria News, Dec. 2005)

Bishop Akinola responded with this: “…the incontrovertible and indisputable fact remain that at our meeting in El Sukhna, the first draft of the response was circulated to all present to peruse, and give us any additional input or objection. It is pertinent to say NO ONE objected. All those that responded will see that the final draft reflected their inputs.
The presentation of the Archbishop of Canterbury to us was made public and has been widely discussed by many who were not present at our Encounter. It is only fair that our collective response to that publication should also be publicly available. Our response was released when it was fully ready and timing was not deliberately planned as being suggested. We find it pitiable that the media spin is drawing attention away from the deep Biblical discussions contained in our response. (Source: Global South Anglican, 18 Nov. 2005)

Andrew Carey has said, “The fact is Archbishop Akinola is viewed as the devil incarnate by many Church of England liberals and many of these ‘inclusive-church types’ have an extremely exclusive side to them.” (Source: Mainstream Anglican, 7 Dec. 2006)

[KY Choong]

Hi Peter - perhaps Ruth is just reminding the church of what most distinguishes followers of Christ from those of other religions that (like Christianity) takes morality seriously - i.e., a capacity to be a "friend of sinners" (which Jesus was accused of being). The events in Nigeria is an opportunity for the church to show the world what love really means. Herein lies our witness to Christ.

Are we likely to see a day when the church is accused (e.g., by Muslims?) of being a "friend of homosexuals", yet without endorsing homosexuality? I hope this is possible.

Best,
Kien

[Maduka]

I wrote this elsewhere.

Most Nigerians are not really bothered about the legislation. Sodomy is already an offence under the Nigerian Criminal code. The legislation is more like a statement against “decadent Western Values”. I think it has a very emotional background. When the air has cooled a bit, we will revisit it.

On the issue of Shari’a and the legislation understand this - early last year a Danish Cartoonist drew a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad, the reaction was a rampage on Christian Churches and the murder of Christians in Northern Nigeria. In 2001, when America invaded Afghanistan, Muslims in Northern Nigeria went on rampage and murdered scores of Christians. In 2002, the “Miss World” beauty pageant was held in Nigeria, as a result Muslims went on rampage and killed scores of Christians.

Please what do:
1. Danish Cartoons.
2. Invasion of Afghanistan
3. Miss World

Have to do with Christianity. In the Muslim mind there seems to be no distinction between WESTERN values and CHRISTIAN values. To the average muslim Britain, America, Australia and Canada are all Christian nations. Therefore, Christians are to be punished for the crimes of Christian nations.

Now Sodomy is a crime under Islamic law and a certain fellow Akinola is the head of the Nigerian branch of a Church that has suddenly woken up to the fact that Sodomy is no longer a sin. This fellow Akinola cut his teeth as a vicar in Northern Nigeria and he knows fully well that if Muslims could use an excuse as flimsy as “Miss World” to brutally murder Christians, what would they do if he allows an excuse as “water proof” as the “support for Sodomy” to drop on their laps?

Every Bishop must be a politician of some sort. He had to find a way vocally oppose the position of Episcopal Church on “inclusivity”, this he did at Lambeth (but the Islamic Community does not follow Lambeth), so the legislation came in handy. Every Bishop also has to protect his flock.

(Unfortunately, Nigerian Christians have come to realization that the West is seldom helpful regarding the plight of poor African Christians and that when help comes it is usually due to the efforts of the “Liberals” and not the “Conservatives”. The Conservatives are usually not bothered. If you doubt me ask ++Desmond Tutu about how helpful Ronald Reagan and the Southern Baptists were in freeing Mandela and ending Apartheid - We can discuss this later).

You might say he is capitulating to the Islamic community, but even the British capitulated (during the Colonial era). Most of Northern Nigeria is ruled by Emirs. Emirs are both religious and political leaders. The British ruled through the Emirs, the Sultan of Sokoto (the Khalifa) and the Shehu of Borno. When the British left their power structures were left intact.

If you are a missionary catechist in Sokoto, being associated with a Church that ordains openly active gays is quite simply a matter of life and death . Now, Nigerian Christians have a long track record of matyrdom but they do not wish to be matyred for “Sodomy”.

[Kate]

Peter: "You are trying to make an issue which is shades of grey into one which is black and white. It isn't."

Dear Ruth

I totally disagree with the poster quoted above. You are indeed extraordinary in your courage in 'calling a spade a spade'.

There is a qualitative and quantitative difference between disapproval - whether on religious or personal grounds - and legislation which, in an African context, means vile abuse, discrimination, torture and even death. Life and death ARE states of 'black and white'.

[Stephen Clark]

What some of your commenters seem to forget Ruth is that no one is suggesting that Christians or Moslems need to approve of homosexuality.
What, in a way, is being discussed here is how we live with difference.
The Akinola solution is that we lock it up, and God forbid, put it to death.
Whatever the Archbishop might think will he now be consistent and promote such solutions for others who he think contravene his Biblical standard. Will the heterosexual fornicators and adulterers now go to jail? One could conceivably suggest (on some biblical readings) that those who practice masturbation should be executed.
Perhaps these examples help us to understand that we have to do better than the sort of selective literalism that we are tempted to indulge in.
We could slavishly follow the Biblical text as though it was prescriptive for all places and all times. Or we could recognise that it is also an invitation for us to become creatures of grace rather than law.
Sadly the Primate of Nigeria, like so many of his ilk, is not going to do that.

[R. Robert Blake]

This is more than a bit embarassing to the newly Nigerian churches in the USA and their leadership. The general tenor of the defense is that "We of the West can't understand the cultural context in which the Nigerian Church finds itself, so it is wrong for us to attempt to judge them according to our standards."

We Americans are said not to do irony well, and this is certainly a strong point in support of that assertion.

[Peter]

Ruth, just because a group is in the minority doesn't give it some divine requirement to be supported by the Church. I do think that people's private practice should remain private - although that is not the view in the UK since there are many things I might do in private which would also end me up in prison. You use words like homophobic and disgraceful, but that is your own opinion, it does not logically follow that a social rejection of homosexual behaviour is disgraceful - that is your opinion.

We have seen this week that a sick woman who privately cooks with marijuana and privately eats it in private is liable to end up in prison if she persists - is this also 'disgracefully drugophobic'? Or is this an acceptable societal intrusion into private life? It seems to me that we actually accept a great many such intrusions into our private lives which could lead many of us to spend time in prison.

These could all be called breaches of our human rights, but there is no such objective thing as 'human rights', it is just a modern invention and is entirely relative. There are many things in UK society which intrude on my life in a negative manner and with which I strongly disagree, are these all breaches of my human rights, or in a democratic society must I persuade the rest of society that my views should be heard rather than considering myself, as I am in many regards, a member of a persecuted minority.

You are entitled to you views, but I get rather frustrated that you seem to equate those views with the only reasonable Christian voice. It is not. There are whole range of nuanced positions which you dismiss by using the tone you regularly take. You are trying to make an issue which is shades of grey into one which is black and white. It isn't.

To be honest I rather wish that you would find a wider range of topics to blog about than Anglicanism and homosexuality.

Peter

[Fr. Malcolm French]

I fail to see how the Primate of Nigeria could possibly be described as "a man of peace and his leadership is a model for Christians around the world." He is, in fact, a hateful little man happy to spread his venom so long as he can continue to receive financial support from wealthy right wingers in the US. Nelson Mandela probably has grounds to sue for having been compared to this triumphalist bigot.

[Frank Durkee]

The conservatives ability to rationalize and live in denial is clearly brought out in their belated and/or non existent denunciation of this legillation and the Arch bishops support of it and the lack of the ABC denouncing it. Unity is simply not worth this lack of basic humanity.

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

Dear Ruth,

As a libertarian sympathizer, I deplore the heavy-handed targeting of a sexual anomaly. However, it is the Negro's country after all. What all this says is that your democracy lessons and example didn't stick in this part of Africa.

From a Christian religious side, is the Bishop that wrong after all? He has both books of the Bible to back him up ( more the old than the new book but both nevertheless ) and a thousand years of traditional attitudes.

Should a bishop be engage' re socio-political affairs or concentrate on the spiritual state of his group?