Peter Akinola: 'Unity will never be at the expense of truth'

I was privileged to be given the opportunity the other day to go and meet the Primate of Nigeria, Peter Akinola for an unprecedentedly frank interview. We spoke in his office in Abuja. One focus was the kind of man he is, his upbringing, relations with Islam. But inevitably we discussed the problems in the Anglican Communion as well. I wanted to know whether he and his 122 bishops - another five have been elected since we spoke - would be coming to Lambeth. Some of his words on that are also reported in our accompanying news story. (Update: There is lots of reaction, but for now I'll point you to one of the best. As usual, Get Religion has got it exactly. Thank you Mollie Hemingway. Apologies for earlier misattribution. Also thank you Chuck Blanchard for good analysis.)

The Nigerian bishops do not meet until September to decide. But Dr Akinola told me that two conditions would have to be fulfilled for them to come. One would be an invitation to Martyn Minns, newly-consecrated as a missionary bishop to the US. The other would be for the conditions set down in the Road to Lambeth to be met, in other words, for The Episcopal Church to backtrack on its agenda.

Dr Akinola is deeply concerned that Bishop Minns has not been invited to Lambeth. 'He did not apply to be a bishop. We elected him. We followed due process.If you do not invite any one bishop from this church, the church in Nigeria is not invited. I have to say, yes the Archbishop of Canterbury has the prerogative to invite whoever he wants to this event. But I also reserve the right to accept, to honour or not to honour an invitation. It is my right also... by not inviting one of the bishops you are causing a division in the house of bishops which I have to resist.'

Then there are the conditions laid out in the document, the Road to Lambeth. Dr Akinola wants the conditions met, and Bishop Minns invited, for the Nigerian church to attend. 'We in Africa we commissioned a study about two years ago. We called it the Bumpy Road to Lambeth Conference. When it came out they called it Road to Lambeth. We met in Rwanda.  Eight or nine provinces have endorsed its recommendations.'

This is some more of what he said regarding Lambeth and Canterbury, which is also in this week's Church of England Newspaper. There wasn't space in The Times to quote him at full but I thought readers might be interested in reading him at a little more length.

First, though, I should draw your attention to the other side of the story, and some of the serious problems besetting Nigeria, as reported in The Advocate, a journal of the lesbian, gay and transgender community.

Two things struck me most about Dr Akinola. First, he was not the arrogant man I had been led to expect. But he is not a man who fits neatly in a media age. This diffidence, almost shyness, which comes upon him when he is not in the pulpit is mistaken in the West for arrogance. We are not used to people who do not play the media game. I believe him when he says he can hardly wait to step out of the limelight and be just Bishop of Abuja for his last year, and then a preacher in his home parish for the rest of his life. Second, we might think of him as at the extreme end of conservative evangelicalism. But in Nigeria, he is almost a liberal. Those longing for his retirement, thinking that suddenly every African Primate will be sharing communion again with our bishops in the West, should be careful what they pray for. There are bishops and archbishops waiting in the wings, even more extreme and determined than him to ensure the Gospel message taken to Nigeria by Christian missionaries from England is in no way compromised.

Friends of Dr Akinola's say he is 'hewn from the rock' as his name, Peter, suggests. Until I travelled the road to Jos, to see some of the church's Aids work in action, and passed these extraordinary rock formations, I did not understand quite how significant this appellation is in this particular country. Nigeria is strewn with rocks, some like this one, balanced for centuries, one on top of another.

These are some of Archbishop Akinola's reflections on the disputes threatening the Anglican Communion, at greater length than appears in the paper. More quotes appear on our online faith page, at the end of the feature.

'As of this point I do not know [whether we will be coming to Lambeth.] I said that with all sense of seriousness. I do not know because we met as Anglican bishops the world over and passed a resolution to the effect that the mind of Christ the scripture our tradition there is no way you can be doing same sex union and ordaining practising gays to the ministry and saying that they are compatible with scripture, with tradition. This was Resolution 1.10, Lambeth 98, voted by the overwhelming majority of bishops. We said that's not our cup of tea. And it started happening, to do everything they said should not be done. For us to gather from all over the world and come to a common mind on such an important matter and for some to simply snub you and say to hell with you, we can do whatever we like, we felt that was unbecoming. Where is Christian charity? Where is Christian accountability? Ever since then the Primates have met - we met in Lambeth Palace, we met in Dromantine, we met in Brazil, we met in Dar es Salaam, touching the same issue. As a matter of fact in our one of meetings at Lambeth Palace in 2003 we could not share in the Last Supper together. Our communion was broken. We had been warned if this is done it will tear the fabric of our life so please do not do it. The Primate of America at that time, my friend Frank Griswold, I had invited him to this country. We were building up strong rapport. During coffee hour at the conference I called him out and praised him and said, if only  only  the sake of the Church in Africa and Asia, don't do this thing. I mean Christ says the Bible says I can eat meat. But if by eating meat my brother will stumble, I can do without meat..  So for God's sake even if it is for your own culture, please don't do it. He said unless Christ came back before the fixed date to go and do it.. After then I knew it. We had lost communion. At that moment. October 14 in 2003.'

He continued: 'In this country in Africa no-one is saying there are no homosexuals. There are homosexuals everywhere in the world. In the Arab world. The Ugandan martyrs. Who are these? These are young boys who refused the king's invitation to become martyrs. They refused to sleep with the king. The king was homosexual. They were killed.  So we have homosexuals everywhere. But all we are saying is, do not celebrate what the Bible says is wrong. If the God in his word says it is an aberration, it is an aberration. Do not do it.  We have taken the scriptures. We have learned how to do hermeneutics. We have learned how to do exegesis. We have learned how to proclaim Christ. And people have been saved. And we have seen can see wonders. We can seen Christ bless our ministry. We cannot at this point think of any change.  And you who brought this to us, we see your churches being closed down. We see you have given up the faith. We see Americans going back to becoming Roman Catholics. So we have to have to use our brain to say the church in the West cannot pull us by the nose. If you are going to interpret the Bible in your own way, do a new kind of hermeneutics that will turn things upsidedown, good luck to you. But without us. So that is where we are on this matter.

'We have no quarrels with homosexuals. But for church leaders to be promoting and celebrating it. In our country, if anyone came to me and said look, bishop, I am homosexual. I said is that so, I will call the pastor. Brother we have a case here. Kindly help this young man, this young woman. I believe
that through counselling, through the study of the word of God together, and prayers, people can change. We have stories of people in England and America and England who have been transformed. Who were once homosexual but who are now changed to heterosexual. Seconly when we are ordained into the ministry of the gospel of Christ a minister is supposed to be a wholesome example, a wholesome example to the whole flock. When you have chosen a particular way of life, a particular orientation, you can only be an example to your own little clique. You can only be an example to your own little club. That in itself negates your ordination. So we have been this now for so many years, so many meetings, so
many committees, task forces, pronouncements, communiques, all to no avail. It is like the harder we work, the more difficult it is for Ecusa to make a return.

'So we have broken communion with Ecusa. Not just Nigeria but many in the Global South, some say they are in impaired communion, some say they are in broken. Whether we are impaired or broken, our life together is not to be.'

Certain things have to be done for Nigeria to be at Lambeth conference, he continued. 'Of what use will it be for us to come together  to what will it  be for us to come together as primates if we cannot share in the Lord's Supper.  The church's grown big. To have that number of bishops like that and we canot share
communion. And yet the condition for having communion together is for Ecusa to return to where we were by giving up its agenda. Robinson is not the issue.The problem is not Gene Robinson.  The problem is Ecusa and the Western church's way of seeing and handling Scripture. Gene Robinson is just a symptom. I kept on saying you do not have to go through Canterbury to get to Christ. They [missionaries]  brought the word of God here and showed us the way of life. We have seen the way of life and we rejoice in it.
Now you are telling me this way of life is not right. I have to do something else. Keep it for yourself. I do not want it. No Nigerian bishop needs to go to Canterbury to learn how to be a bishop. No Nigerian bishop needs to go to Lambeth Palace to go and study how to become a Christian. It is all available here. But as a fellowship we rejoice in our fellowship, we rejoice in our heritage as Anglicans. We think of what England did for us through CMS. We rejoice, we celebrate it. But our unity will never be at the expense of truth or the historic faith.'

Leading a breakaway church is not his ambition: 'Look, that has never been on my mind. This is something the media are making. You see we have the scripture. We have our traditions. We have our Lambeth Conference resolution. We have the Primates communique. We have not broken the law. It is your churches breaking the law. You are the ones breaking rules not we. You are the ones who are doing what we said should not be done, with impunity. You are the ones breaking the law. We are saying you cannot sweep it under the carpet. You can't. Maybe in the past, but not any more.  We have aged. We have aged. That is the point So we are not breaking away from anybody. We remain Anglicans. We are Anglian church. We will die Anglicans. We aint going nowhere, as Americans would say. We aint going nowhere. But to gather as Anglicans with all these people, we must get it right.'

How about seeing Lambeth as a mission opportunity? "The mission for the past eight or nine years to no avail. Has Ecusa for once ever listened to anybody? No! They have not listened to the Lambeth Conference. They have not listened to the Primates Communiques. Who's kidding who?'

So my guess is no Nigeria at Lambeth. Lambeth 2008 - the start of schism in the Anglican Communion. Peter Akinola would say it started long before.

But there is more to his story than the debate splitting the Anglican Communion. When he arrived in Abuja in the 1980s, it was completely bare.  There was no land, no money, no vicarage, nothing. It was not the federal capital then. He built it literally, from the rocks and dust on the surface of the land. As Dean, he constructed the cathedral. And then as Bishop, he was faced with the task of building the Ecumenical Centre for the Christian Association of Nigeria, the magnificent building pictured here.

The view from the front doors is of the mosque, slightly lower down the hill in a hollow. Note the minaret-style column at the Christian centre, with the little bell at the top. Given what is happening in Britain right now, we could learn a lot from how Islam and Christianity live together in Nigeria, particularly in the south. And from how difficulties are confronted in the North. Akinola's answer is simple: evangelism.   

To get the centre built, he needed to raise funds. So he went to the top. 'I appealed to Mr President then to help us do the fundraising through his friends. He throws his whole life into it. It was a God guided strategy. I went early in the morning after morning prayer to his inner chambers. When I found himlaughing and relaxed I said, Mr President, congratulations. He said, about what? I said you have not heard? You are the new treasurer of the Christian Association of Nigeria. He said what? I said: God have mercy you are the new treasurer. He said you get the money pay contractors when it is ready give us the keys. The fact is I was not looking for money, we wanted the job done. Now I can go to my village and say, Nunc Dimittis.'

Finally, there is the issue of the anti-gay law currently going through Nigeria's legislature. Dr Akinola has been widely criticised for supporting this. I was anxious to hear his justification. In fact, his support for it is not without reservations. 'There have  been a lot of importation of western values and practices in our country. Now the Western world is highlighting the gay issue as the thing. We realise that if care is not taken, our country will end up like [one of those countries] where you can do whatever you want to do. This [law] was intended to prevent wholesale importation of western values and practices. There was a meeting here. I was out of the country. Gays were carrying placards. What will happen  to our children? The institution of marriage as we know it? Family life as we know it? This thing, these provisions, are meant to guard our traditional values of family life, marriage. Now the specific provisions: that is where I have problems. But what you have there is still much less, much softer than if it were to be sharia. This is our context. On the one had the Christian community is happy that we have this provision. It is just our hope that it will help to preserve the institution of marriage family life as we know it. But if it is not passed fine, we will look for something else. It is purely democratic.' He points out that it was an Anglican in the country's legislature who prevented it going through on the nod and insisted on a full debate.  'The Muslim speaker wanted it passed with no debate. His deputy, an Anglicans, says give it a full hearing. By the time the house has done its work, what will come out will be what is in the best interests of our nation.'

Then he challenges me: 'By the way my dear sister what gives England or America the right to dictate to us the law we make in our own country? You make your own laws and it is right for you.' Enough of this imperialism, he says. 'For God's sake, let us be.'

The remnant is always there. 'God will bless his church through this remnant and it will grow again.'

Not looking good, I fear, for unity.

This video shows the Archbishop describing how he nearly became a victim of ritual sacrifice.

Comments

[andrew holden]

The greatest commandment was not to seek truth at the expense of love.

Bothers and sisters in Christ should pursue truth, of that I have no doubt, but all our understandings of truth are provisional and love must never be sacrificed at its altar.

[Ian]

Mr Jackson: Thank you for your considered, thoughtful and courteous replies to my comments. I feel we will have to agree to differ on this matter, though. I suggest that there is the most onerous duty - yes, duty - on a Christian to satisfy himself - through enquiry, study, discussion, openmindedness, what the Word of God actually is, and may mean. No one says it is an easy pilgrimage, but it is, in my view, a necessary one. This is especially important where the effect of an interpretation of such Word (as in the debate on homosexuality)is to constrict love and charity, the two overriding principles that underly the Christian way of life. Arrogance is often, I am sad to say, the result of emotional and intellectual laziness. Christianity is an inclusive religion, and Christ's words are always inclusive. We Christians depart from this at our peril - for where will it end? The world encompasses a godly creation, with all its diversity. We should welcome such diversity with faith, and hope, and charity. And now I will stop.

[Tom Jackson]

Ian, I am certainly not disdainful of those who choose to academically explore Scripture and have said so elsewhere in this blog.

I quote, "it behoves us to make especial and rigorous enquiries of its authenticity before emotively accepting what we think it says." Taken at face value, what you say is perfectly reasonable but to those who regularly seek to undermine one's religious beliefs, this is usually a mischievous opening gambit. You yourself have continued with "Yet biblical scholars will admit that there is real doubt as to the actual meaning of many of the biblical passages under discussion".

Of course there is real doubt! The events happened 2,000 years ago and have been recorded not on digital video tape but on fragile materials, not by trained, experienced recorders but by men enthused by the teachings and passion of Christ, living in an age of word-by-mouth history.

And it doesn't take an academic or theologian to question the authenticity of that material without too much difficulty.

But then, that is not what it is all about.

A Christian such as myself - someone whose professional life has been based in the logical world of computer software development, who didn't start to question any religious belief system until middle-age - starts a long journey of investigation and questioning. - for example, widely drawing on the experience and analysis of people who are qualified to peruse Aramaic or Greek translations and the nuances of a particular word or phrase.

And after a period of time, when it's make-your-mind-up time, you either reject or accept Christ. And then the real work of developing a relationship with God through Christ begins.

This is not religious babble; there is always doubt; there will never be "absolute certainty" in this life.

I have - and I hope I demonstrate adequately - respect for those people who do not subscribe to a belief system. In the past, some have accepted that - as a believer - there comes a point when faith takes over, even if it seemingly contradicts something considered "absolutely vital to the matter at issue".

Having an enquiring mind is - in my view - an essential part of participating in a debate such as this but it is foolish to make the mistake that solely on the basis of academic or scientific evidence, the essence of a debate will be revealed. Thankfully, I am neither deaf nor dumb.

[Ian]

To Tom Jackson, 6 July: Mr Jackson, I am not a theologian, either. I get the impression that you think that theologians and scholars are peripheral to this debate. They are not. What I am, though, I like to think, is someone with an enquiring mind, not prepared to accept simplicities just because they happen to fit my preconceived prejudices. Nothing I have read yet in this blogstream (apart from Dr Irene Lancaster's comment) has convinced me that virtually all the contributors have no knowledge of the complexities of biblical translation and scholarship - nor indeed, are they interested. Yet this is absolutely vital to the matter at issue. It is not an academic point. Your contributors cannot have it both ways. If they wish to base their interpretation of Christianity on the Bible, then it must be with absolute certainty. Yet biblical scholars will admit that there is real doubt as to the actual meaning of many of the biblical passages under discussion. If one does not admit that doubt, then the discussion is meaningless. It is dialogue of the deaf, and the dumb.

[Hugh Manitas]

Ruth: My comments were not intended as a criticism of the blog, but were designed to challenge what appears to be the self-absorption of some commentators. I read through the A - Z headings and then quickly trawled through the contents. It occurred to me that there are very few comments concerned with anything other than either the internal machinations of faith groups or pronouncements on perspectives and interpretations of the varying spectrums of opinion within religious faith. Whilst I accept that contributors will see this as an important forum for sharing ideas and ideals; in the light of the passionate arguments sometimes expressed, I note that few are based on concern for humanitarian issues. Maybe there are few pronouncements from senior clerics on topics such as world poverty, disease, burgeoning arms sales and unbridled militarism, but the overall impression could suggest an active avoidance of such issues in favour of immersion in a calm sea of comfortable insensitivity.

People are of course free to comment in whatever way they wish in an open forum like this, but it seems as if the core values of the faithful are abstracted from the reality of their wider global relevance and applied rhetorically within an autonomous dogmatic, framework greatly consumed by its own governance.

[David Palmer]

Ruth,

I'm probably late coming in on this one but I have just read "For God's Sake" and can only compliment you for a magnificent piece of reporting, for you are fair, you allowed the man to speak for himself, you asked good questions.

I also agree with your analysis: Lambeth 2008 is in deep deep trouble.

Liberalism despite its theology, was once morally conservative, ethically Christian (just finished reading Robert Moats Miller's biography of Harry Emerson Fosdick, standard bearer in the English speaking world for Liberalism in the 1920's through early 1950's). Lacking a biblical foundation, it progressively slipped to a morally relativist position, lost its Christian moorings, is now doomed but for the trickle from evangelicalism's (catholicism's?) left wing to buttress its numbers.

In passing I note Mike Smith's previous comment to the effect that in relation to Islam it is “not just a question of mission and conversion”. but of “the need for a deep respect for each other’s faith traditions and the values that we hold in common”.

Contrary this comment, the Archbishop is spot on, it is a matter of mission and conversion. Fundamentally there is a vast distance between Islam’s conception of their god, Allah and God’s own self revelation through the prophets and supremely through His Son. This plays out in all manner of ways of which the periodic killing of Christians by Muslims not only in Nigeria but other majority Muslim lands is but one example. Friendly relations between a Pastor and an Imam (and for how long?) do not speak for the totality of Christian Islam relations. We in the West live in dar ul-kufr, dar ul-harb, and we do well to remember that.

[Mike Smith]

Many thanks to Ruth Gledhill for her excellent and enlightening interview with Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria. I wish the debate could move on from sexual orientation (of which Jesus said nothing) to other global issues, such as relations with the world of Islam where Nigeria is on the front line. This is not just a question of mission and conversion. Let’s be realistic. The Christian world is not going to convert the Islamic world at the wave of a magic wand. Rather, there is the need for a deep respect for each other’s faith traditions and the values that we hold in common. (There is a whole other theological debate here about the nature of the ‘universal Christ’ present in the whole of creation.) In Kaduna, in northern Nigeria, the Christian leader Pastor James Wuye has built bridges of trust with Imam Muhammed Ashafa. They were leaders of rival armed militia who have found a remarkable spirit of reconciliation and forgiveness, beautifully captured in the documentary film The Imam and the Pastor, narrated by Rageh Omar. The film has been commended by the Archbishop of Canterbury. I declare an interest here as I am associated with the film production company FLTfilms which shot the film in Plateau State, Nigeria, last year. I do recommend that anyone who wants to know and understand what is going on in Nigeria to see the film, available from: www.fltfilms.org.uk

[Ron McKenzie]

Ruth,

"As usual, Terry Mattingly on Get Religion has got it exactly. Thank you once again, Terry.)"

Ruth, I believe the entry you link to on GR was posted by Mollie Hemmingway, not Terry Mattingly. ("http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2529")

Ron

[Brandon Coombes]

In your piece ‘For God’s sake’ you quoted Dr Akinola on the subject of homosexuality in the church and the marrying of same-sex couples, “All we are saying is, do not celebrate what the Bible says is wrong. If the Bible says it is an aberration, it is an aber-ration.”
He is right! Isaiah said, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.” (Isaiah 5:20,21)
Why is there even a debate on the issue of homosexuality in the church when it has been so clearly condemned by God?

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

God loves us all so much that he has made provision through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ for all people to be forgiven by faith in His one and only Son, we are all sinners and deserve to go to the fiery lake of burning sulphur, but through Gods immen-surable grace we can have our sins washed away, be sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ!
By compromising the faith and making the illegal legal, we cannot hope to save sinners from their fate, because they have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law or the compromising wing of the church. This is why Dr Akinola’s church is growing so fast and the US churches are not, he refuses to call evil good and good evil.

The Book of Revelation IS the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show his servants, Chapter 20:8 says concern-ing those will not inherit the kingdom of God, “But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulphur. This is the second death."
What part of this do they not understand? Do they not know that God sent a clear warning to those who mess with His Word in Revelation 22:18,19, plagues described in this book will be added to him and if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

[Hugh Manitas]

Tom.

Do look at the long list of headings on this 'religious' blog. From. A to Z there are very few items in which any of these major humanitarian issues are discussed.

(oh dear is that a criticism of me? valid I fear. plse tell me the issues concerned - I'll try and do something about it. rg)

[Tom Jackson]

"Where, on these pages......."

You seem to be doing quite well on your own, Hugh.

[Hugh Manitas]

As usual the Christian ideal is miles apart from the reality. Both extreme clergy and laity can fulminate to their hearts are content over homosexuality, which is becoming an irritatingly hackneyed topic, secure in the knowledge that transmogrification among a paucity of willing candidates is wholly unlikely to change anything whatsoever. Are there no issues for faith groups other than their own internal structures, forms and biblical fixations? Where, on these pages, are the appeals for and the reports of help, in the form of humanitarian aid, for the millions suffering poverty and disease? What, apart from urging a return to moral godliness, are faith communities doing about decay in the world's urban areas, human rights and issues of equality? Who, amongst the church leaders, forever steeped in vitriol over matters involving sinning and the control of members of their faith, is calling for a reduction in armaments and an increase in controls on warmongering politicians within bellicose cultures - like ours?

[sharon]

Sad commentary. Very sad.

His comments about the West being neo-colonial in its actions are bizarre in view of his muscle-armed approach to church politics. Witness his CAN performance.

[saint]

Excellent article and blog post Ruth.

(BTW I think it was Mollie this time at GetReligion.)

[Tom Jackson]

Ruth asks if she should have censored the comment by Steve Rera. It is a difficult question and it is not the first time that we have been faced with someone who feels the need to provide descriptive detail of the homosexual act (anyone remember James?)

Personally, it would take a great deal more than this to offend me but there is no necessity to contribute in this way if you have respect for the intelligence and experience of fellow contributors. The only possible objective is to shock, which in itself demonstrates a certain degree of immaturity and lowers the standard of what is otherwise a fascinating and informative debate.

If I suspected that I was referring to a subject or an act which other contributors might not be familiar with and which could be considered abusive or disrespectful to them, I might provide a link to a relevant site and that would be sufficient.

Censorship in this case, therefore, would have been entirely appropriate in my opinion. The debate would not have suffered one iota from the omission of Steve Rera's contribution.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster]

I hope you don't mind if I add something on Jewish interpretation here.

First of all, our knowledge of Jesus is partial, being based on various gospel writings which contradict each other, and a bit on Josphesus, who was a Jewish quisling, having gone over to the Romans.

I very much regret having to inform bloggers that the legalism of Judaism is still with us, although this is a loaded term - and interpretation of Torah (which means 'teaching', not 'legalism') carries on regardless of those who think that Christianity has come to complete Judaism.

I met Bishop Suheil, Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem on Wednesday, and am involved in theological and interfaith dialogue with the new broom at St. George's at a very high level.

Just based on one lesson in Hebrew, Bishop Suheil's Director of Communications asked me if, considering 'adam' means humanity and not 'man', there is a possibility of women priests. And I said 'why not? We have them already in the western hemisphere.

I know that Orthodox Judaism doesn't have female rabbis yet, but at least we can conduct services in Israel and even give sermons to a congregation consisting of both sexes.

This posting is not written to take sides over Akinola, but to point out that it would be most useful if bloggers could follow in the footsteps of Bishop Suheil, a Palestinian, and meet on a regular basis with Jewish scholars who might be able to guide gently over the tricky biblical paths, using midrash, Mishnah and Talmud.

And by the way, Jesus would have been aware of midrash, because much of what he says in the Sermon on the Mount etc is already based on oral midrashic teachings which were written down later.

Mishnah and Talmud post-dated the time of Jesus, but are, nevertheless, very useful aides to the continuation and improvement of Judaism, in the face of all those who wish to destroy or subsume it into their own thought and/or belief systems.

[Tom Jackson]

Since I am a simple Christian, Ian, not a theologian, debating the finer points of doctrine which are under attack is not usually something I indulge in.

Although the Gospels do not directly address the subject of homosexual behaviour, Jesus was a Jew. He would certainly have been familiar with references in the Old Testament even though he rejected the Oral or Scribal Law, the thousands of legalistic rules and regulations that was the most common reference for Jewish behaviour at that time. Some would interpret the absence of any direct reference to homosexuality in the Gospels as Christ's acceptance of the Old Testament on the subject.

My comments on Peter Akinola are simply a realisation that here is a man, someone who is clearly following Jesus, who has a perspective on a subject such as homosexuality which is supported by the New Testament (whether you consider it sound doctrine or not but which is certainly considered by Christians as sound) and which he is not afraid or restricted by politically correct boundaries to express.

It is clear he cannot be labelled as an homophobic, a label readily applied here to anyone who dares to debate or express views on homosexuality which question the practice or condition. It is clear that the Bishop does not reject or cast out homosexuals but seeks to embrace them - even if you disagree with his analysis of the reasons for homosexual behaviour and his approach to dealing with them.

I suspect that he would treat adulterers, wife beaters, blasphemers, drunkards, slanderers and anyone else that he identifies as a "sinner" from his reliance on Scripture, in exactly the same way.

[David Mayor]

The Archbishop is quoted "There was a meeting here. I was out of the country. Gays were carrying placards. What will happen to our children? The institution of marriage as we know it? Family life as we know it?". This is more suggestive of irrational fear based on prejudice than reasoned biblical study. If the Archbishop believes his interpretation of the bible is the truth I'd urge him to have confidence in proclaiming it without the need to join those who persecute those with whom he disagrees. Have no fear of a few placards Archbishop. Others have said the bible doesn't have much to say about what we know today as homosexuality, that may be arguable. However, the Gospels contain much about religious leaders joining with governing bodies to persecute minorities. Especially persecution of those who would associate with outsiders whose lifestyle is seen to exclude them from God's love. On this kind of behaviour Jesus is clear in teaching by word and action.

[dave paisley]

"We are not used to people who do not play the media game."

Really? How naive are you, Ruth?

After all the behind the scenes skullduggery at Dromantine and Tanzania, to name just two venues, are you really trying to say that this guy is a babe in the woods when it comes to spinning the media? I'd say he's spun you rather well.

And really, I'd love to hear him talk about CAN and his abject failure to win re-election, despite heavy campaigning and pressure.

[Christopher]

Really Ruth, what do you feel we learned about Akinola that we did not already know by your schlepping all the way to Abuja? That he was not as rabid and homophobic as has been reported...or that he is beginning to mollify his insupportable hardline homophobia in the face of justifiable world criticism?

In any event, was it really worth the carbon footprint?

[Mike Homfray]

The presence of this sort of belief content is exactly why the church is fast becoming a third-world only affair - its of precisely no appeal to most people here, and I for one am thankful for that.
If this is Christianity, then atheism is entirely preferable.

[steve rera]

it is the people who are so intent on redefining homosexuality that are so keen to present it like some modern sexual activity. see! homosexuality has been with us for over three thousand years and that was why it was condemned by the Bible. those politically-correct idiots who are so keen to tell us how modern homosexuality have refused to tell us one single modern thing about homosexuality. listen to me friends, homosexuality is one single act of putting your penis into the anus of another man. it is not sex at all.it is so disgusting for honourable men to define themselves only by one compulsive act of putting your penis into the anus of another man. God! human being are smarter than that. sex means a natural male genitalia entering a natural female genitalia. men who pretend to do that are only engaged in' consensual anal mutilation'. females who pretends to that are only engaged in perpectual masturbation. and in both cases, they cannot be said to have sex. Now, this is scholarship.
(rg asks: should I have censored this comment? In the end I decided not to, because I thought it was illustrative of a certain point of view. I apologise if it causes offence.)

[Christopher Johnson]

In Matthew 15:19, Christ did call "sexual immorality," which covers a lot of ground, including homosexual sex, defiling. And anyone who still pushes the ridiculous "Christ didn't say anything about it" argument should bear in mind that He also didn't say anything about racism, sexism or "homophobia" either.

[John Chorlton]

An excellent article; Ruth Gledhill has done us a favour in introducing us to the real Peter Akinola, up to now we have only really heard hysterical opinions about him.

[Nike Olafimihan]

Jesus Christ said 'Male and female he created them, Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one'
In any case, as Chrisians, we take the scrpiture as one. They do not end with the gospel of John.

[Mike Rooke]

Archbishop Akinola's favourite nursery rhyme must have been the one where the innocent young man cried out "the Emperor's got no clothes!". By stating the obvious, "how can a man marry a man" he strikes a chord in my heart at least. I do not believe in God, any god, but if I was a Christian I would have great feelings of misgiving if the leaders of my chosen religion followed the the direction of a secular, selfish and hedonistic society. In their desire to maintain marketshare, the Anglican church seems to me to have accepted the legitimate, but biologically unnatural sexual behaviour of a minority, and by that action compromises its moral authority. Peter Akinola addresses this issue simply and unequivocably. Crystal clear judgement and leadership. No wonder his church in Nigeria grows. No wonder, despite populist but weak policies emanating from Canterbury and the Episcopal Church in the USA, fewer people than ever turn to the those churches for support, guidance and the social company of like-minded people.

Where I part from Akinola is that my greatest fear is that the strong growth of opposing faiths end up being led by religious leaders that, at the end of the day, become politicised, that leads, inevitably and predictably to only one conclusion - local, or even, globalised conflict in the name of.....what?

The same thought processes that blamed heavy rain in Doncaster on the sins of ordinary folk in that poor town? God help us and protect us from such crass statements. A weather forecast at least would have carried more weight than a weather report.

[Bill Brown]

Thank God for Bishop Akinola. His argument is anything but inapposite to "In My Father's House are many mansions...". To argue such is disingenuous. What the good Bishop is stating is that the alternative life style is not to be equated to the traditional family of husband and wife, and that Christians, but especially church leaders, need to take heed and govern themselves accordingly. His is a voice in the wilderness in today's PC climate but his is a voice of reasoned theology, for which we can each be most grateful.

[Ian d'Alton]

Mr Jackson: Thank you for your comments. I suppose the obvious thing to say is, that Christ himself had nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality; and if you believe (as I suspect you do) that the Bible is inerrant, then you might consider that this was for a reason. The New Testament quotes you cite are Pauline, and thus not necessarily to be relied upon as sound doctrine. And in any case, if the lists of sins and sinners therein is to be believed, the kingdom of God will be poorly populated indeed!

[Tom Jackson]

"Does Akinola faithfully follow ALL the ceremonials, does he accept ALL the prohibitions set out in Leviticus?"

As I understand it, Peter Akinola is a Christian, not of the Jewish faith. The New Testament (Romans 1:27-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, Jude 1:7) contains significant condemnation of homosexual practices.

[Ian d'Alton]

Mr Smith. Your comments are appreciated, but, I am afraid, not accepted. I stand by what I said. A person made in the image of God will be enquiring, sceptical and humble, admitting that if God's word is indeed in the Bible, it behoves us to make especial and rigorous enquiries of its authenticity before emotively accepting what we think it says. As an example, let us look at the passage in Leviticus which seems to so exercise the archbishop:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." If I may quote some scholarship on the matter: "In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some form of anal sex with other men. But they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities. For example: The Living Bible greatly widens the scope of the original Hebrew to include all homosexual acts by both men and women. This is not the case in the King James' Version, where only male homosexuality appears to be condemned. They confuse the matter further by not differentiating between homosexual orientation and homosexual behaviour. They render the first part of this verse as: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden."
On the other hand, many religious liberals have interpreted the beginning of this verse as referring only to sexual activities between two males during a Pagan temple ritual. If there were a liberal translation of the Bible, it might say "Ritual anal sex between two men in a Pagan temple is forbidden." "

Need I go on? The point is that one needs to take great care, in reading a modern English translation of ancient and often not fully-understood languages, in drawing conclusions that may neither be accurate nor warranted. The archbishop completely ignores this, as he does a vast corpus of observation of the world, and scientific analysis, in his (laughable, if not so serious)"belief" that homosexuality can somehow be "cured", as if it were some kind of disease. And this goes to the heart of the matter. If it is not a disease, if it is not an aberration, then all becomes much clearer. It is as much part (if always a small part)of the natural world and, by extension if you are a Christian, of God's creation and plan. A true Christian generosity of spirit accepts homosexuality for what it is - another way of expressing love - complementary to, not inimical of, heterosexual love. Let Christ have the final word... "In my father's house, there are many mansions..."

[Nigel Boatman]

The element lacking in Ruth Gledhill's interview report, and in the debate, is the inerrancy of the Holy scriptures, the Word of the Living God. His word is truth, Bishop's in their ordination affirm this, yet those supporting homosexual practice stand against the truth and thier own affirmation.
Sexual relations are not just an act between two people, true sexuality is a picture of the Lord's commitment to those who believe and commit themselves to Him, therefore any sex outside of the marraige bed is outside the will and purpose of God. It is sin.Thus there is no common ground.

[David Smith]

Tom Jackson:
'Excellent article, Ruth...the politically correct culture that has developed in the UK...why should anyone choose to follow Christ?'

Excellent post, Tom... and yes, excellent article too, Ruth - though it seems that some would have had you stay with Peter Akinola for a week and still not have been satisfied that you had covered everything to their satisfaction!!

[David Smith]

Ian D'Alton - you say:
'Akinola's literalism takes no account of the problems and different interpretations thrown up by translation into English from Hebrew. In summary, Akinola's approach to homosexuality is selective intemperateness unmediated by knowledge or scholarship.'

Perhaps you should look again at what Akinola says above:
' ..all we are saying is, do not celebrate what the Bible says is wrong. If the God in his word says it is an aberration, it is an aberration. Do not do it. WE HAVE TAKEN THE SCRIPTURES. WE HAVE LEARNED HOW TO DO HERMENEUTICS. WE HAVE LEARNED HOW TO DO EXEGESIS. WE HAVE LEARNED HOW TO PROCLAIM CHRIST. And people have been saved. And we have seen can see wonders. We can seen Christ bless our ministry. We cannot at this point think of any change. And you who brought this to us, we see your churches being closed down. We see you have given up the faith. We see Americans going back to becoming Roman Catholics. So we have to have to use our brain to say the church in the West cannot pull us by the nose. If you are going to interpret the Bible in your own way, do a new kind of hermeneutics that will turn things upsidedown, good luck to you. But without us. So that is where we are on this matter.'

Selective intemperateness unmediated by knowledge or scholarship? It doesn't look like that to me.

[David Smith]

Martin Humphries:
'Peter Akinola.. no doubt.. provides help and hope.. but not for anyone who is lesbian, gay or bisexual.'

Akinola said to Ruth:
'In our country, if anyone came to me and said look, bishop, I am homosexual. I said is that so, I will call the pastor. Brother we have a case here. Kindly help this young man, this young woman. I believe that through counselling, through the study of the word of God together, and prayers, people can change. We have stories of people in England and America and England who have been transformed. Who were once homosexual but who are now changed to heterosexual.'

What is that, I wonder, if it's not providing hope and help?

[David Hill]

I am a committed, confirmed Christian but the Church is losing me. Dr Akinolas interview tells you why.
The historic attitude to homosexuality is well founded if intolerant.
The fate of any homosexual community, living life as they would wish, is extinction within 100 years. The ageing amongst them will not find the personal or fiscal support that future generations bring. Unlike those that enjoy the fiscal support within our regenerating Society.

Tolerance and acceptance are one thing.Encouragement and sanctity are another level. All faith needs a bedrock.Dr Akinola is standing on it.I'm not sure the COE still is.David

[Ian d'Alton]

I was very disappointed with Ruth Gledhill's interview. She failed to pursue Archbishop Akinola on why, of all the many absurd prohibitions in the Old Testament on ceremonial uncleanliness, he seems to concentrate only on homosexuality. Does Akinola faithfully follow ALL the ceremonials, does he accept ALL the prohibitions set out in Leviticus? If so, we should be told. But if not, why has he singled out one particular, apparent prohibition for his ire and damnation? And this raises a second, most important, point. Akinola's literalism takes no account of the problems and different interpretations thrown up by translation into English from Hebrew. In summary, Akinola's approach to homosexuality is selective intemperateness unmediated by knowledge or scholarship. Above all, it is uncharitable, and thus unChristian.

[dave paisley]

What, no questions about the underhanded chicanery that failed to get him re-elected president of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN)?

[Martin Humphries]

As a non-religious gay man I find it appalling that Peter Akinola holds such bigotted and reactionary views and through his position is able to influence thousands of others. I thought the position of love the sinner hate the sin had long since been discredited along with the pernicious view that only heterosexuality is valid. To me it is alway ironic that a religion which espouses tolerance and love of fellow human beings is actually riddled with intolerance and hatred usually by those most in power.
Within the context of the country he is in his position is a soft one and no doubt that provides help and hope for some Nigerians but not for anyone who is lesbian, gay or bisexual.

[Tom Jackson]

"Are you really "privileged" to be speaking to this man and relaying his amazingly ignorant anti-gay propaganda? "

Excellent article, Ruth; a commendable insight into a man of God who, even if you have some difficulty with his approach and expression of his views, is of considerable stature.

Given the politically correct culture that has developed in the UK over the past decade or so, I can understand people having difficulty with Peter Akinola's views but how refreshing to hear someone express his belief and interpretation of Christ's teaching in such a forthright manner, unencumbered and unfettered by a fear of being saddled with a label.

It highlights the problem that people such as Rowan Williams have when preaching Christ's message. Is this going to offend someone? Is someone going to take this the wrong way or marshal forces against me because this is how I interpret what the New Testament says to me?

What a contrast between the sophistication and complication of our society here and that which exists in Nigeria. At the moment, we don't have to worry about rival religious factions driving us from our homes, looting and murdering because we do not share their belief. Rather like the early Christians sheltering with each other from the Romans, how that must focus the mind on the fundamental teaching of your religion.

What it does demonstrate is that if Christ is to be raised high in our society it is not going to be achieved by a wishy-washy approach from the established church where issues such as homosexuality and abortion are concerned. In Nigeria, someone searching for a belief structure knows exactly where Peter Akinola and his church stand.

You either come out and say abortion at 24 weeks is perfectly acceptable, marriage between homosexuals is normal and should be seen as such or, you say the opposite. But no, that is too black and white for us intelligent, sophisticates here in the West.

Sitting on the fence has become an art form when it comes to issues such as these and when other people see the church as indecisive, cultivating a severe case of piles on their perch as they try to satisfy all sides rather than make a clear, unequivocal and unambiguous statement and then follow through on that statement, why should anyone choose to follow Christ?

[robroy]

To Joseph O'leary: Ignorant? Where is ignorance? He takes the same stand as Luther, Aquinas, all of the popes including the last two, etc. Are these men also ignorant?

[David Smith]

Joseph O'Leary:
'Are you really "privileged" to be speaking to this man and relaying his amazingly ignorant anti-gay propaganda?'

Here we go again with one of the favourite 'arguments' of some of those in favour of the practise of homosex.

It is essentially that anyone who believes this practise to be wrong must hate those who engage in it, and that we should therefore all immediately stop listening to them.

Ruth has done us all the service of actually meeting Peter Akinola, and telling us what he actually thinks, as opposed to what he is rumoured or speculatively judged to be thinking.

As she quotes, he said to her:
'We have no quarrels with homosexuals. But for church leaders to be promoting and celebrating it. In our country, if anyone came to me and said look, bishop, I am homosexual. I said is that so, I will call the pastor. Brother we have a case here. Kindly help this young man, this young woman. I believe that through counselling, through the study of the word of God together, and prayers, people can change. We have stories of people in England and America and England who have been transformed. Who were once homosexual but who are now changed to heterosexual.'

I believe this too, and have seen it happen in front of my own eyes. Others who contribute to this blog have told us of how it has happened in their own lives.

The Bible, which I believe to be the Word of God, says that the practise of homosex is wrong and damaging to the individual in this life, and potentially eternally. I and many others have concluded the former to be true through actual life experience - whether from our own lives or the lives of those we have known personally. Those who practise it have a choice: they can ignore this and carry on with the lifestyle they are choosing, with its own particular consequences - as is their perfect right, and, for so long as they make this choice, they should absolutely not be subject to any discrimination for this per se. Alternatively, they can agree with God's view expressed in the Bible (and actually, I believe, somewhere in their consciences - however deep down this may be), and be set entirely free from their orientation towards homosex, helped in this - if they want it, by the many compassionate organisations and individuals that exist to offer this help.

The choice is theirs, but to try to smear everyone who simply does not think that they are getting the best from life, as God designed it to be lived, as haters of homosexuals is, in my view, a dishonest and ultimately futile exercise.

[Joseph O'Leary]

Are you really "privileged" to be speaking to this man and relaying his amazingly ignorant anti-gay propaganda?

[Fr. Malcolm French]

It should be noted that the "draconian" law, about which Dr. Akinola now claims to have "reservations," does not criminalize homosexual acts. Homosexual acts are already criminal offences in Nigeria.

What the legislation does propose to do is to criminalize "advocating" homosexuality or for homosexuals.

Thus, to state in public that perhaps homosexual acts should not be criminal offences would be, of itself, a criminal offence.

I must ask how that listening process is going - that listening process that Dr. Akinola voted for at Lambeth 98, that listening process that was an integral part of Resolution 1.10.

The answer is clear in Nigeria's report on the listening process, available on the Anglican Communion website.

There was no listening process in Nigeria. The only voices permitted are those who believe as Dr. Akinola believes.

Thus, Dr. Akinola defies the very document he claims is authoritative on every Anglican bishop in the world.

Is it any wonder I canot take this man seriously?