Drama at Abbey, Akinola 'comes out' on anti-gay law

Who exactly are the slaves of today, and why was this protester, Toyin Agbetu, so angry that he disrupted the slavery commemoration service at the Abbey today? Peter Akinola thinks he knows the answer to the first question. He has given an interview to Philip Groves, who head the listening process for the Anglican Communion, in which he makes it clear that he is fully behind the draconian anti-gay measures currently going through Nigeria's legislature. The Abbey protester Agbetu was angry because there has been no formal apology from Britain's government for this country's complicity in slavery, in spite of calls from Archbishop of York John Sentamu among others.

Two further new developments - the Listening Process study guide is now available, as well as the reports from each province on the Listening Process so far.

The Church Times last week ran an advertisement placed by the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement in which they describe Nigeria's bill as an example of modern slavery. Anglican Mainstream came out in support of Akinola. They argued that the sexual licence of modern Western culture threatened another form of bondage to nations of the South.

LGCM said: 'This debate is held against a global backdrop where over fifty countries impose jail sentences, including life imprisonment, for homosexuality. In nine other countries the punishment is death! In most countries lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people face daily violence and harrassment. The Church must ask itself what part it plays in encouraging this disgrace. If maintaining the 'catholic' nature of the Anglican Communion can only be bought at the price of silence and collusion with such calumnies, this is not true catholicity in Christ.'

LGCM recently wrote an open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury asking why the Primates had not condemned the Nigerian law at their recent meeting in Tanzania. In reply, Dr Williams wrote: 'I don't think there was a chance of getting an agreed statement out of the Primates on this subject at the moment. I don't take any pride in that, but it's a fact.'

In his sermon at the Abbey today, Arcbishop Rowan Williams concluded his sermon with this: ' So have we good news to tell the world today, or only the grim recognition of just how deeply addicted human beings are to inhuman behaviour? Yes, we have good news; without it, we cannot hope for the transformation of this nation and world, the kind of transformation achieved through the witness of those like Equiano and Wilberforce who woke up the conscience of an entire civilisation. Yes, because the Spirit of which Jesus speaks in his ‘manifesto’ in the synagogue at Nazareth is of inexhaustible power and eternal energy, God’s own person and act. Slavery was taken for granted by Christians and non-Christians and irreligious people for centuries if not millennia; humanistic scholars and atheist liberals alike accepted it no less than the majority of religious believers in all faiths. Yet the Spirit that spoke in Jesus was a Spirit contemporary and alive for those who, two hundred years ago and more, refused to take it for granted because they saw something of the truth about God and about humanity.

'Is that Spirit contemporary and alive for us? If so, we shall indeed have the courage to face the legacies of slavery – the literal degrading slavery of the millions who, then and now, are the victims of the greed of others, and the spiritual slavery of those who oppress and abuse, and so wreck their own humanity as well as that of others. We shall have the courage to turn to each other and ask how, together, we are to make each other more free and more human.'

I have just a minor, personal footnote to add to all of this.

I am reading a book by Eric Williams, late Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobabo, on how slavery financed the industrial revolution. In Capitalism and Slavery, he warned how contemporary utterances can give a misleading impression of clarity. Speaking of the belief at the time that the white man was unfit for labour in the Tropics and that the 'Negro' was racially inferior and therefore condemned to slavery, he said: 'We have to guard not only against these old prejudices but also against the new which are being constantly created. No age is exempt.'

Halfway through the book, he mentions one William Rathbone, a Liverpool timber merchant. He says: 'In a port whose prosperity was intimately connected with the slave trade, William Rathbone was a curiosity in his refusal to supply timber for the construction of vessels to be employed in the slave trade, in which half of Liverpool's sailors were engaged.'

Reading that, I felt a stab of pride for the man who is, through my mother, my grt grt ... grt grandfather. Despite my own yearnings for the certainty of 'orthodoxy', and the fear of alienating friends, I feel I must take courage from the example of my brave ancestor. I must myself come out on the side of freedom and liberation, and so respectfully urge Rowan Williams to confront on behalf of his bewildered  Anglican Church the 'those who oppress and abuse'. The oppressed and abused of today need his help.

Comments

[Christopher]

Attagirl Ruth!

When Rowan Williams said (above) "Slavery was taken for granted by Christians and non-Christians and irreligious people for centuries if not millennia; humanistic scholars and atheist liberals alike accepted it no less than the majority of religious believers in all faiths" shouldn't he have added "But we, the christians, are supposed to be the salt of the earth!"?

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

In a radio interview I was asked how the subject of slavery is dealt with by the Jewish community during the Passover seder, coming up on Monday night.

Every year Jews around the world recount the time when they were 'slaves in Egypt'.

This year, in order not to forget that a huge number of people world-wide are still enslaved, we have been encouraged to eat more bitter herbs than usual and also an additional piece of unleavened bread, which symbolises 'the bread of poverty and oppression'.

[Chris Gillibrand]

The Catholic Church’s record on slavery is rather (indeed much) better than that of the Church of England. The Anglican Codrington Theological College in Barbados even kept slaves

To quote Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical on
Slavery in the Missions, 1890

“This zeal of the Church for liberating the slaves has not languished with the passage of time; on the contrary, the more it bore fruit, the more eagerly it glowed. There are incontestable historical documents which attest to that fact, documents which commended to posterity the names of many of Our predecessors. Among them St. Gregory the Great, (who reigned 1400 years ago!) Hadrian I, Alexander III, Innocent III, Gregory IX, Pius II, Leo X, Paul III, Urban VIII, Benedict XIV, Pius VII, and Gregory XVI stand out. They applied every effort to eliminate the institution of slavery wherever it existed. They also took care lest the seeds of slavery return to those places from which this evil institution had been cut away.”

On the Abolition of Slavery (to the Bishops of Brazil) by the same Pope in 1888,

“With the same forethought and constancy, other Pontiffs at a later period, as Urban VIII, (Pope 1623-1644) Benedict XIV, and Pius VII, showed themselves strong asserters of liberty for the Indians and Moors and those who were even as yet not instructed in the Christian faith. The last, moreover, at the Council of the confederated Princes of Europe, held at Vienna, called their attention in common to this point, that that traffic in Negroes, of which We have spoken before, and which had now ceased in many places, should be thoroughly rooted out. Gregory XVI also severely censured those neglecting the duties of humanity and the laws, and restored the decrees and statutory penalties of the apostolic see, and left no means untried that foreign nations, also, following the kindliness of the Europeans, should cease from and abhor the disgrace and brutality of slavery”.

Apostolic Letter condemning the slave trade, written by Pope Gregory XVI and read during the 4th Provincial Council of Baltimore, December 3, 1839

“It is at these practices that are aimed the Letter Apostolic of Paul III, given on May 29, 1537, under the seal of the Fisherman, and addressed to the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo, and afterwards another Letter, more detailed, addressed by Urban VIII on April 22, 1639 to the Collector Jurium of the Apostolic Chamber of Portugal. In the latter are severely and particularly condemned those who should dare 'to reduce to slavery the Indians of the Eastern and Southern Indies,' to sell them, buy them, exchange them or give them, separate them from their wives and children, despoil them of their goods and properties, conduct or transport them into other regions, or deprive them of liberty in any way whatsoever, retain them in servitude, or lend counsel, succour, favour and co-operation to those so acting, under no matter what pretext or excuse, or who proclaim and teach that this way of acting is allowable and co-operate in any manner whatever in the practices indicated.

Benedict XIV confirmed and renewed the penalties of the Popes above mentioned in a new Apostolic Letter addressed on December 20, 1741, to the Bishops of Brazil and some other regions, in which he stimulated, to the same end, the solicitude of the Governors themselves. Another of Our Predecessors, anterior to Benedict XIV, Pius II, as during his life the power of the Portuguese was extending itself over New Guinea, sent on October 7, 1462, to a Bishop who was leaving for that country, a Letter in which he not only gives the Bishop himself the means of exercising there the sacred ministry with more fruit, but on the same occasion, addresses grave warnings with regard to Christians who should reduce neophytes to slavery. “

But well before that Pope Eugene IV
Against the Enslaving of Black Natives from the Canary Islands in 1435

“And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands, and made captives since the time of their capture, and who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free, and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of money. If this is not done when the fifteen days have passed, they incur the sentence of excommunication by the act itself, from which they cannot be absolved, except at the point of death, even by the Holy See, or by any Spanish bishop, or by the aforementioned Ferdinand, unless they have first given freedom to these captive persons and restored their goods. We will that like sentence of excommunication be incurred by one and all who attempt to capture, sell, or subject to slavery, baptized residents if the Canary Islands, or those who are freely seeking Baptism, from which excommunication cannot be absolved except as was stated above.”

In summary, in the 1839 Apostolic Letter
“We reprove, then, by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, all the practices abovementioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in this Apostolic Letter.”

My apologies that this is long, but the Popes speak so well for themselves and their predecessors on this subject. It all makes the claims to British leadership in the abolition of the slave trade rather hollow. Catholics never took slavery for granted,

One is driven to the conclusion that had England retained her Catholic Faith, the chances are that there would have been no slave trade to apologise for and we would not have seen the strange spectacle today of dressing up in “Sunday” best for the penitential service which took place today in Westminster Abbey.

It all comes down to the absolute nature of property. It is not surprising that those that did not respect the material property of the Church at the Reformation, ended up not respecting the right of some human beings to be possessed of themselves and not to be brought and sold as other people’s property.

This is also the reason why in modern times the patenting of human DNA is morally repugnant.

[Jay]

Ruth, could you connect the dots in your post? Does your last sentence mean that you believe the LGBT community are in general "oppressed and abused" and thus a modern-day equivalent to slaves? Or are you only referring to measures like the proposed Nigerian law or shari'a criminal sanctions against same-sex sexual activity?

(rg replies: yes, sorry, obviously the entire LGBT community is not oppressed and abused. It is the latter I was trying to refer to, although not exclusively. There is the example of homophobic bullying in schools, for example, which some say is not being addressed effectively enough in this country.)

[Frank Schnittger]

Thanks, Ruth, for "coming out".

This issue initially came to a head with TEC breaking an uneasy consensus by consecrating an openly gay Bishop. It has now moved on to Akinola openly supporting repressive measures against all gays (of all religions and none) and all who would speak for them.

It thus breaks the "listening process" Anglicanism is supposed to be engaged in and moves the issue on from the morality of homosexuality per se, to the basic human rights of freedom of expression and of religion - in the case of those whose religious beliefs lead them to accept homosexuality as a valid expression of God's creation.

There now seems to be two mutually exclusive forms of Christianity: those who condemn homosexuality, and those who don't, in much the same way as Christendom used to be split between those who condemned slavery and those who didn't.

As Chris Gillibrand has persuasively argued above, the Catholic Church has a reasonable history of providing leadership on the slavery issue. Given the ABC's apparent inability to provide leadership on anything, must we look to the RC Church to provide leadership on this issue as well?

It is all very well for a bureaucrat to say that "I don't think there was a chance of getting an agreed statement out of the Primates on this subject [the Nigerian anti gay laws] at the moment. I don't take any pride in that, but it's a fact." But we require a higher standard of leadership from the leader of a "Communion".

Ultimately, it is a statement about what is right and what is wrong that is required, and the fact that there is no overall consensus on this is not an exculpatory "fact". The Anglican Communion will disappear not because there was disagreement on certain issues, but because there is no one who can or will provide leadership.

Freedom of religious conscience is a non-negotiable in all this. By aligning itself with the repressive measures being adopted in Nigeria, Anglicanism has signed its own death warrant.

[Christopher]

.....that "I don't think there was a chance of getting an agreed statement out of the Primates on this subject [the Nigerian anti gay laws] at the moment. I don't take any pride in that, but it's a fact." But we require a higher standard of leadership from the leader of a "Communion.

I agree with Frank entirely. Rowan Williams is giving worldly and political reasons for inaction, when his christian commitment should disregard these where it comes to something that is, by his tacit admission, an urgent matter of justice and oppression.

And the awful thing is that this oppression comes from powerful sections within the church that he purports to lead. He would not be asking the bishops of Nigeria to stand up against the secular arm, as is the good RC Archbishop Pius NCube against the Mugabe regime. This time the Anglican church is completely implicated in pressing for the Nigerian oppression of its gay people - aided and abetted by some people in England, let it be said, who have even tried to mount a sick justification on the AM website.

[Alice C. Linsley]

"Draconian anti-gay measures..." How to spin the news, Ruth!

[Fr. Malcolm French]

Way to spin reality, Alice.

Homosexual acts were already criminal offences in Nigeria.

The new legislation makes it an offence (among other things) to "advocate" for homosexuality. So, reasonably, it is now against the law in Nigeria to say "I think perhaps tossing homosexuals in jail may not be quite the best thing."

If you don't think that's draconian, then you, madam, are a very dangerous person.

[Lister Tonge]

If the Nigerian laws - present and proposed - do not deserve the word, 'draconian', what adjectives would you prefer, Alice?

Also, is fourteen years' imprisonment in some way not draconian?

[Christopher]

Alice, there's no arguing with you as far as Akinola is concerned. You'll defend him through thick and thin, which is a pity for you when there are so many good Africans you could take as a role-model for the world, such as Nelson Mandela or Desomnd Tutu.

[Fr Joe O'Leary]

Shameless apologetics for the papacy in one of the postings above. Leo XIII's boasts after the Church finally came out against slavery (after Catholic Brazil became the last country to make it illegal) are well known to be false. In 1866 the Holy Office was still insisting that slavery is compatible with Natural Law. See the essay on this topic in Curran, ed. Changes in Official Church Moral Teaching.

[Jill]

I don't think we should be too quick to criticize Archbishop Akinola. As Ruth herself has quoted on another thread, 'one reason the Anglican bishops were in favour of the new laws was because an alternative was for the much-harsher sharia law to come into effect.'

Archbishop Akinola needs a strong Christian Church in Nigeria to stand up to this threat. A weak and divided one like ours in the West will not do.

Those who are fighting against him are putting themselves in far greater danger.

[Martin]

"good Africans you could take as a role-model for the world, such as Nelson Mandela"

An ex-terrorist is a role model for the world? Please. I am sick of this "living canonisation" of Mandela. He is not a living saint - he is a terrorist with good PR!

[Martin]

"Leo XIII's boasts after the Church finally came out against slavery (after Catholic Brazil became the last country to make it illegal) are well known to be false."

Rubbish.

The imperial regime in Brazil was unable to abolish slavery with ease as this would cost it the support of the landowning class. When the Princess Regent Isabel did so in 1888, it began the chain of events which led to the fall of the monarchy the following year.

Leo XIII was wholeheartedly behind the Princess Regent on the matter, however, and awarded her the Golden Rose for her actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel,_Princess_Imperial_of_Brazil

[J Pearce]

"I don't think we should be too quick to criticize Archbishop Akinola. As Ruth herself has quoted on another thread, 'one reason the Anglican bishops were in favour of the new laws was because an alternative was for the much-harsher sharia law to come into effect.'"

I see. Christianity is the lesser of two evils, so we should wholeheartedly support it. I mean, who cares about the people who are going to suffer - they're only gay, aren't they? Or possibly friends of gay people. Or maybe people who were seen walking on the same street as gay people. But as long as Christians are all right, thats OK then.

In other words, the ususal twisted, irrational, anti-human garbage we've come to expect.

[Mac]

"As Ruth herself has quoted on another thread, 'one reason the Anglican bishops were in favour of the new laws was because an alternative was for the much-harsher sharia law to come into effect.'"

What a false argument. Shari'a law is already in place in the muslim north of Nigeria and has no influence in the christian part. This law was to be a federal law and would apply to the whole of Nigeria. Are you telling me that it was done in the hope that the muslims would opt to use the man-made law in preference to god's shari'a law? If the federal government really wanted to it could prohibit the death sentence of stoning, allowed to judges in shari'a law, but it doesn't. Instead of standing for the 'standards' of Jesus Christ the Nigerian church seeks in a show of machismo to vie with the worst excesses of a barbaric system . That makes it complicit.

[Stephen Clark]

There is an issue here about the "listening process".
So often there is a demand from conservatives that liberals desist from advancing their cause.... isn't this what the Primates are saying to ECUSA...but the same restraints are not being expected on the other side.
Akinola is not being restrained. He is being outspoken and being very proactive in promoting his case.
This tactic...of encouranging liberals to be "more tolerant", which so easily appeals to their sense of fair play, was the same one used to delay the ordination of women all over the world.
It is deceitful and manipulative.

[Helen Lewis]

Well terrific Irene! (27 March) I'm really impressed. Eating those bitter herbs should really help you identify with the millions of Palestinians living below the poverty line in the west Bank, Gaza and Lebanon. Not to mention the Israeli Palestinians, consistently treated as second class citizens and discriminated against in their own country. (Sources: UN reports, Christian Aid reports; Susan Nathan: The Other Side of Israel)

[Damien V]

We're mobilizing regarding this issue. please take a look at our site. life.Sankofaway.org