Akinola 'demonised'

Friends of the Archbishop of Nigeria hope that the news that the Nigerian anti-gay laws have fallen will help throw some perspective on earlier of what is actually going on over there. 'There is a demonisation of Peter Akinola taking place which really is not fair, and sits very ill at ease with the remembrances on the abolition of slavery,' one told me today. 'It seems that Africans are to be welcomed and apologised to, unless we happen to disagree with them.' Integrity USA is running an interesting report from David Mac-Iyalla of Changing Attitude in Nigeria that suggests the bill is indeed dead. But Davis and others will not be officially celebrating until the end of May, in case it is re-introduced by the new parliament. (Picture of Archbishop Akinola in Tanzania taken by Matthew Davies.)

Anglican Mainstream is also reporting an interesting undercurrent in the whole saga. Apparently, it is claimed, 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.

This is just a brief post, but I thought it worth doing separately, rather than just updating the last one. One of the pities around all this is that Archbishop Akinola does so few interviews, so there is rarely any opportunity to ask him what he really thinks about all of this. What he has said before is well known, so I won't resurrect it now. In the light of his previous comments, his friends cannot be wholly surprised that he is not seen as the world's greatest defender of minority rights. But I accept that it is almost impossible for most of us in the West to have any conception of what it is to be a church leader in Nigeria at present.

Besides meeting the needs of his own national Anglicans, Archbishop Akinola is having to take increasing responsibility for hundreds of disaffected episcopalians.

Only this week, Grace Church and St Stephen's, one of Colorado's biggest, voted to leave TEC and join Nigeria's Convocation of Anglicans in North America. Three months ago, the church's pastor Don Armstrong was suspended as part of an investigation into church finances. The parish is continuing to break up, with two of the clergy hired by Armstrong refusing to go with him to CANA. Armstrong is robustly refuting the allegations. Father Jake has one take on this, as does episcopal priest Betty Conrad Adam. David Virtue and Anglican Mainstream have another.

I can't help wonder if we are looking at here, in microcosm, the future of the Anglican Communion. CANA or TEC, which way will the Church of England go? No wonder Rowan Williams wants three months away from it all.

Comments

[Geoffrey Smith]

"In your definition of a Christian, Geoffrey, you don't mention the need to be "born again" that Jesus laid so much stress
on. I wonder why not?"
- David Smith, 3 May 2007

Don't wonder, David. You have no need to.
Your question would be answered by a careful reading of the second sentence in my previous post. "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit...." is an eternal truth handed down by Our Lord to His Catholic Church, one which our bishops have never failed to apply.

[David Smith]

Geoffrey Smith:
'A Christian, Jill, is someone who recognises that Our Lord, Jesus Christ, is the promised Redeemer and seeks to do His holy will in all things.'

In your definition of a Christian, Geoffrey, you don't mention the need to be 'born again' that Jesus laid so much stress on. I wonder why not?

[Geoffrey Smith]

A Christian, Jill, is someone who recognises that Our Lord, Jesus Christ, is the promised Redeemer and seeks to do His holy will in all things. This means not only worshipping God and obeying His commandments, but holding fast to the eternal truths handed down to the Apostles by Christ, and, through them, to the bishops of the Catholic Church. Bearing in mind that even one of those apostles was a renegade, it can hardly be surprising that the successors of the Twelve will also exhibit human weakness and fall by the wayside. We cannot say that we were not warned - Our Lord Himself told His disciples that such would be the case.
So, when you read certain posters on this blog fulminating against the Church for suffering the consequences of such frailty, remember that but for the grace of God go you and I. Too many so-called Christians have lost all sense of sin and
evil-doing, and no longer regard such abusive conduct as deeply offensive to Almighty God, but as "a demonstration of power", or "a serious social problem" - anything but downright wicked and grievously sinful. Not until such Christians take heed to this wake-up call and renew their commitment to the age-old tradition of the Church will we see any significant reduction in this catalogue of abuse. Kate is not alone in confessing her inability to provide a slick answer
to bring about an end to this ordeal. We too, if we are honest, will admit that such an answer will be given only at the crack of doom, with the eclipse of human
existence.

[J Pearce]

Here's a bigger question - why does a Christian have to be constrained by medievalist dogma and implacable adherence to an iron age social documentary?

For example, if certain people are so enamoured of His Commandments, why don't they put their money where their mouth is, go back to living in mud huts and forsake all the comforts that scientific progress has bought to modern living?

After all, if it wasn't for heretical scientists - commandment breakers to a man (and woman) the lot of 'em - pushing the boundaries of human knowledge, we wouldn't have the lightbulb, the telephone, the car...

[Jill]

This is the big question, Geoffrey - what makes a Christian? Someone who is a member of a Church, or someone who worships God and obeys His Commandments?

[Kate]

Mr Smith: I AM ANGLICAN. The Church of Ireland is a united communion. Thanks be to God! A communion of diverse, inclusive, sometimes eccentric but essentially thoughtful clergy and people. Likely more logically equivalent to the love and teachings of Jesus Christ than those without experience of religious and civil conflict.

In keeping with the autonomous will of my Church I emphatically DO NOT agree with Akinola on homosexuality. Nor do I "ally [my]yourself with those people who are determined to eradicate His will from the face of the earth."

Your view exposes a wish for societal regression - social, religious and educational. This diktat reveals a mindset mired in literalism and fundamental obedience which denies reason.

The greatest Biblical scholars are still seeking accuracy in - translation, dating and absences or discrepancies in specific texts.

I have both a scholarly and personal interest in this matter. I refute the implication that 'emotional' (personal) as opposed to objective, informed, cerebral processing of information, must explain my thinking.

This assumption is, of course, part and parcel of the conservative, ultra-religious, patriarchal view of women's place in society.

While the simple deist might suppose that the foundation of the Christian Church should always remain the same, and that words on a page from 2,000 years ago are immutable, Saint Thomas Aquinas knew better.

A century or two later, his passion for logic and reason would have brought him within range of the Inquisition.

Thomas argued that, unless man was a free agent beyond constraint, the Church was a fraud. If God was the sole and immediate cause and support of everything in His creation, God was also the cause of its defects, and could not hold man responsible for His own omissions.

In short, Aquinas argued for the balance between intellect and emotion: the former being God-given and the latter a male-construct based in religion.

Fundamentalists are a social phenomena caused by the stress of social, political, and economic change. They are essentially emotional and opposed to enquiry. They reject the modern world and the use of science and logic. They operate on emotion and the comfort of an immutable 'Word'.

I do not propose any further discourse. The gap between those who attempt balance - of intellect and emotion - and those who deny it is too wide.

[Geoffrey Smith]

May I ask your Church of Ireland correspondent, Kate, a straightforward question?
Do you approve or disapprove of Archbishop Akinola's forthright condemnation of homosexual behaviour? If you approve, then you can hardly complain if the Archbishop
seeks to expunge that sort of behaviour from Nigerian society and supports proposed legislation designed to achieve that effect. If you disapprove, then the inference must be that you prefer to contradict the teaching of the Church, based, as it is, upon Scripture and centuries of tradition. Such a contradiction would suggest that you have
a personal agenda to uphold, one which you consider to be more important than the age-old Christian witness. You should remember that no one can serve two masters.Either you serve God and keep His commandments or you ally yourself with those people who are determined to eradicate His will from the face of the earth. Which one is your choice?

[Kate]

Geoffrey Smith: "Hence the venom and bile displayed by Mr Homfray and Ms Kate."

Pardon me? Evidence of "venom and bile" please. From whence comes your "Christian" right to judge my beliefs? I am a practising member of the Church of Ireland. Facts on Akinola cannot, I fear, be erased by wishful thinking. Nigerian law persecutes homosexual men and women and their associates. Is this compatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ? What Extraordinary judgementalism.

[Geoffrey Smith]

No one will ever mistake Kate or Mike Homfray for Christians. Their contemptuous attitude to Peter Akinola is absolutely appalling. The African is one of the most faithful members of the Anglican Communion, a man who really believes in the Christian Gospel and the teaching of the Bible, as distinct from the Lyons' corner-house "theology" of people like Vicki Gene Robinson and Marilyn McCord Adams.
Christian principle, practice and tradition are irrevocably opposed to the practice of homosexual behaviour, and this attitude will never be changed or even diluted. Hence the venom and bile displayed by Mr Homfray and Ms Kate.
It's all very saddening when their carping
is not going to have the slightest effect
on Akinola's faith, or his influence on
Nigerian politics.

[Mike Homfray]

Demon appears a very suitable word for a thoroughly nasty bit of work.

[Kate]

Dear Ruth

It might be suggested that no-one need 'demonize' Akinola - he does an awfully good job of that himself - pronouncements on gays and the bid for supremacy in Anglicanism.

I am not convinced that any of this is in keeping with biblical teaching or Christian conscience - more in a long tradition of African dictators.

Akinola is facilitated by western Christians suffering post-colonial guilt - whether for the slave trade or other real (and imagined) ills afflicted on native populations by Imperialism.

Translated, this means we must 'understand and excuse' primitive and often barbaric, cultural and moral value systems still pertaining in a post-colonial world. Moral relativism, in its misunderstood application, is the great curse of 21st century reasoning.

[deb]

Ruth
Davis Maclyalla said he was received by Akinola very warmly if I remember rightly. Even African Primates can be civil.......!

[Christopher Panduro]

People in many lands have avoided the Bible and have lacked respect for it because of the bad conduct of those who claim to follow it. In certain lands it has been said that the Bible is a book that leads to war, that it is a white man's book, and that it is a book that supports colonialism. But those are mistaken views.

The Bible, written in the Middle East, does not support the colonial wars and greedy exploitation that have been carried on in the name of Christianity for such a long time. On the contrary, by reading the Bible and learning the teachings of true Christianity taught by Jesus, you will see that the Bible strongly condemns warring, immorality, and the exploiting of others. The fault lies with greedy people, not with the Bible. (1 Corinthians 13:1-6; James 4:1-3; 5:1-6; 1 John 4:7, 8) So do not let the misconduct of selfish people who live contrary to the Bible's good counsel prevent your benefiting from its treasures.

Included among those who do not live by the Bible are the peoples and nations of Christendom. "Christendom" is defined as that part of the world where Christianity prevails. It is largely the Western world with its church systems, which from about the fourth century C.E. became prominent. Christendom has had the Bible for centuries, and its clergy claim to teach it and to be God's representatives. But do the clergy and missionaries of Christendom teach the truth? Do their actions really represent God and the Bible? Does Christianity really prevail in Christendom? No. Since its religion came to the forefront in the fourth century, Christendom has proved to be an enemy of God and of the Bible. Yes, the facts of history show that Christendom has betrayed God and the Bible.

Unbiblical Doctrines
The fundamental doctrines of Christendom are based not on the Bible but on ancient myths—those of Greece, Egypt, Babylon, and others. Teachings such as the inherent immortality of the human soul, eternal torment in hellfire, purgatory, and the Trinity (three persons in one Godhead) are not found in the Bible.

Dante's "Inferno"

For example, consider the teaching that bad people will be tortured forever in a fiery hell. How do you feel about this idea? Many find it repugnant. They find it unreasonable that God would forever torture humans, keeping them in excruciating pain. Such a fiendish idea is contrary to the God of the Bible, for "God is love." (1 John 4:8) The Bible is clear that such a teaching 'had not come into the heart' of Almighty God.—Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 32:35.

Hindu trinity

Today many religions, including the churches of Christendom, teach that humans have an immortal soul, which at death goes to heaven or hell. This is not a Bible teaching. Instead, the Bible clearly states: "The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, . . . for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol [the grave], the place to which you are going." (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10) And the psalmist states that at death man "goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish."—Psalm 146:4.

Recall, too, that when Adam and Eve broke God's law, the punishment was not immortality. That would have been a reward, not a punishment! Instead, they were told that they would "return to the ground, for out of it [they] were taken." God emphasized to Adam: "For dust you are and to dust you will return." (Genesis 3:19) Thus, the teaching of inherent immortality of the soul is not in the Bible but was borrowed by Christendom from non-Christian peoples who lived before them.

Christendom's Trinity

Also, Christendom's Trinity doctrine portrays God as some mysterious three-in-one God. But that teaching is not found in the Bible either. For instance, at Isaiah 40:25, God clearly states: "To whom can you people liken me so that I should be made his equal?" The answer is obvious: No one can be his equal. Also, Psalm 83:18 simply states: "You, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth."—See also Isaiah 45:5; 46:9; John 5:19; 6:38; 7:16.

The teachings of the Bible about God and his purposes are clear, easy to understand, and reasonable. But the teachings of Christendom's churches are not. Worse, they contradict the Bible.

Ungodly Actions
In addition to teaching false doctrines, Christendom has betrayed God and the Bible by her actions. What the clergy and churches have done in past centuries, and have continued to do in our time, is the opposite of what the God of the Bible requires and the opposite of what the Founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, taught and did.

For instance, Jesus taught his followers not to meddle in this world's political affairs nor to get involved in its wars. He also taught them to be peace-loving, to be law-abiding, to have love for their fellow humans free from any prejudice, even being willing to sacrifice their own lives rather than take the lives of others.—John 15:13; Acts 10:34, 35; 1 John 4:20, 21.

Indeed, Jesus taught that love for other humans would be the mark that would identify true Christians from false Christians, pretenders. He said to those who would follow him: "I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves." —John 13:34, 35; 15:12.

Contrary to the teachings of Jesus, the clergy on both sides have backed wars

Yet, century after century, the clergy of Christendom have meddled in politics and have supported the wars of their nations. They have even supported the opposing sides in wars within Christendom, such as the two world wars of this century. In those conflicts the clergy on each side prayed for victory, and members of one religion from one country were killing members of that same religion from another country. But that is how the Bible says Satan's children, not God's, act. (1 John 3:10-12, 15) Thus, while the clergy and their followers have claimed to be Christian, they have contradicted the teachings of Jesus Christ, who told his followers to 'put away the sword.'—Matthew 26:51, 52.

For centuries the churches collaborated with the political powers of Christendom when those nations conquered, enslaved, and humiliated other peoples during the age of imperialism. That was the case for centuries in Africa. China too experienced this, when Western nations carved out spheres of influence by force, as during the Opium Wars and the Boxer Rebellion.

The religions of Christendom have also been in the forefront of the persecuting, torturing, and even killing of those who disagreed with them during those centuries of history called the Dark Ages. During the Inquisition, which lasted for hundreds of years, fiendish practices, such as torture and murder, were authorized and carried out against decent, innocent people. The perpetrators were the clergy and their followers, all of whom claimed to be Christian. They even tried to stamp out the Bible so that the common people could not read it.

Not Christian
No, the nations and churches of Christendom were not, and are not, Christian. They are not God's servants. His inspired Word says of them: "They publicly declare they know God, but they disown him by their works, because they are detestable and disobedient and not approved for good work of any sort."—Titus 1:16.

Jesus said that false religion could be identified by what it produced, its fruitage. He said: "Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to you in sheep's covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will recognize them. . . . Every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit; a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. Every tree not producing fine fruit gets cut down and thrown into the fire. Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those [false prophets]."—Matthew 7:15-20.

Thus, by what they have taught and what they have done, the religions of Christendom have demonstrated that their claim of believing in the Bible and of being God-fearing and Christian is a lie. They have betrayed God and the Bible. In doing so, they have disgusted millions of people and caused them to turn away from belief in a Supreme Being.

However, the failure of the clergy and churches of Christendom, as well as the failure of other religions outside Christendom, does not mean the failure of the Bible. Nor does it mean that God has failed. Rather, the Bible tells us about a Supreme Being who does exist and who does care about us and our future. It shows how he will reward honesthearted people who want to do what is right, who want to see justice and peace prevail throughout the earth. It also shows why God has allowed wickedness and suffering to exist and how he will rid the earth of those who harm their fellowman, as well as those who claim to serve him but do not.

To be continued.....

[Frank Schnittger]

"...it does not help with people who have no knowledge of African culture or the situation in the churches out there trying to impose there ill thought out views. -Deb

I don't know of anyone posting here who has tried to impose "their ill thought out views" on African culture on Africans. What many do object to is Akinola trying to impose his views on the Anglican Communion as a whole.

It seems that we are all supposed to make allowances for African bishops trying to compete with Sharia law in the context of African political realities but are not supposed to make any allowances for TEC ministering in the very different context of the USA.

The reality is that American conservatives have seized on Akinola's global aspirations as an opportunity to undermine TEC. If Akinola wants to let himself be used in this way, he can hardly complain that those who support TEC will target him and his political positions in Nigeria.

The fact that the proposed legislation may not now become law does not absolve him of the fact that he supported its introduction. In fact he could have used his obligation to comply with the Anglican "listening process" as an opportunity to condemn the proposed legislation outright.

The fact that he did not do so shows the hollowness of his alleged Windsor compliance and solidarity with the Communion worldwide.

It may suit certain American conservatives to make common cause with certain African reactionaries. The rest of the world will have none of it - any more than we will let some pseudo-post colonial guilt inhibit our condemnation of Mugabe and his cronies.

Give me Tutu and Ncube any day. You may wish to act as an apologist for reactionary regimes, but at least not all Christians in Africa are so craven in their support of despotism.

[Christopher]

A comment on your picture of Akinola, Ruth. At first glance it may look as if he is dancing but he is not. Nor is he swatting away troublesome flies. He is imperiously waving away two gay men, the Rev Colin Coward of Changing Attitudes and Davis Mac-Iyalla a Nigerian gay christian, who tried very politely to approach him. The whole thing was caught on camera by the BBC 1 Heaven & Earth show and though Alison Ruoff did her best to to exonerate Akinola from harsh rudeness towards christians he had committed to 'listen to' in the Lambeth process, she was plainly unconvincing - and unconvinced. (Why do some christians persist in trying to defend the indefensible when it comes to Africa?) Anyway it seems the Nigerian law may have stalled for the time being http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-4040.html

In the meantime, something else to make people glad they are at least talking to gay people, even if they disagree with them; Louis Theroux spent a period living in with the Phelpses at Westboro Baptist Church. The broadcast is to be aired on BBC2 on Sunday at 9pm and it can be read about here
God's squad
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/features/story/0,,2046604,00.html

I think everyone will be glad to belabelled liberal by the Phelpses'
standards.

(rg writes: fyi, My understanding is that AB Akinola was actually waving away the cameras, I think. He did meet and shake hands with Davis MacIyalla during the conference, and Colin Coward blogged quite movingly about this.)

[ash]

It is all too easy to accuse Akinola's theological adversaries of being all collonial and still thinking of African countries as lesser than the North-West. This is, however, simply as way of demonising their own enemies right back: it is equally misguided.

I strongly disagree with Akinola's theology and some of his actions. Not because he is African, not because I am a white British man; but because I believe he is wrong with the same conviction that he believes I am wrong (or would, if he knew me).

Sometimes I do agree with him, such as a view he once expressed condeming the 'prosperity gospel'.

[Deb]

I wonder why he does so few interviews. Even RW himself said he has been misquoted and misheard several times. It is so hard to get to the bottom of what is happening out there and it does not help with people who have no knowledge of african culture or the situation in the churches out there trying to impose there ill thought out views.