|
 |
 |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
[Back to index of March articles] Akinola backs human rights violations By Bishop John Bryson Chane It is no secret that the Episcopal Church continues to struggle with issues surrounding the role and place of gay and lesbian persons in its corporate life. In this, we are no different than any other major Christian denomination. The struggle for Episcopalians was amplified, however, in 2003 when the church's General Convention, meeting in Minneapolis, consented by a large majority of voters to the election of the Right Rev. V. Eugene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. Bishop Robinson has been in a covenanted, same-sex relationship for some years and his election continues to be problematic within the Episcopal Church and the larger Anglican Communion, consisting of some 77 million souls, located in 38 provinces throughout the world. Since Bishop Robinson's consecration, the primatial leaders, some in significant disagreement with the action taken by the Episcopal Church, have nonetheless continued to express their concern for the care and dignity of gay men and women. This was clearly stated when they met in February in Dromantine, Northern Ireland. After hours of frank and painful disagreement about the morality of same sex relationships, they gave unanimous consent to a statement that said, in part: "The victimization or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us. We assure homosexual persons that they are children of God, loved and valued by Him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship." Yet, one of the most outspoken Anglican leaders, Archbishop Peter J. Akinola, the head of the Anglican Church of Nigeria and leader of the conservative movement within the communion, has violated not only the position taken by the Anglican Church regarding the place of gay and lesbian persons in its life but recently threw his influence and resources behind legislation passed last month in his country that has criminalized same-sex marriage and denied gay citizens the right of freedom to assemble and to petition their government. In my view the real problem with the Nigerian legislation does not lie in its opposition to same-sex marriage. The global community, let alone our own country, has certainly achieved no consensus on this issue. But the Nigerian legislation that Akinola supported crossed the line in several important ways. The most outrageous provision of the Nigerian law is Article 7, which deals not with marriage, but with "same-sex relationships" and prohibits essentially any public or private activity in any way related to homosexuality. It reads in part: "Publicity, procession and public show of same sex amorous relationship through the electronic or print media physically, directly, indirectly or otherwise are prohibited in Nigeria." Any person involved in the "sustenance, procession or meetings, publicity and public show of same sex amorous relationship directly or indirectly" is subject to five years' imprisonment. Anglicans must recognize that the archbishop has violated the core of the Windsor Report and resolutions of the Lambeth Conference dating back to 1978. Both the report and the resolutions affirm the importance of listening respectfully to the experiences of gay and lesbian Christians as we work to ascertain their place in the church. One cannot with credibility claim an interest in listening to other people's experiences after one has worked to criminalize any assembly in which those experiences might be made known. On a much larger scale, the archbishop's actions should raise the concerns of all Christians, for the Nigerian law he supported violates articles 18-20 of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights which articulate right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, association and assembly. Were similar legislation enacted in this country, it would deprive gay men and women of protections guaranteed under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and would establish a precedent for giving the federal government authority over religious practice. If the Archbishop was a solitary figure, and Nigeria an isolated church, his efforts to institutionalize bigotry would only be significant within his own country. But the Archbishop is perhaps the most powerful member of a global alliance of conservative bishops and theologians, generously supported by foundations and donors in the United States, that seeks to dominate the 77 million member Anglican Communion, and expel those who oppose them, particularly the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. Failing that, the Archbishop and his allies have bruited the idea of forming their own purified communion, quite possibly with Archbishop Akinola as its head. The Archbishop's supporters in the United States gathered under the banners of the Anglican Communion Network. Last November, he addressed a cheering crowd of more than 2,400 people at a Network meeting and urged them to leave the Episcopal Church and ally themselves with his movement. Financial subsidies and gifts from the Ahmanson, Bradley, Coors and Scaife families or their foundations have allowed the Washington-based Institute on Religion and Democracy to sponsor so-called renewal movements, within mainline Protestant denominations that have connections with the Akinolas of the Anglican Communion and their supporters. Where does the Institute find democracy in a piece of legislation that makes it illegal to citizens to discuss changing the laws by which they are governed? Anglican leaders have struggled nobly and mightily with the question of whether same-sex relationships can be considered sacred. They now must ask themselves whether they can remain in communion with a province that supports the repression and if necessary the imprisonment of gay men and women and their heterosexual supporters. So far, the primates of the Anglican Communion have remained silent on this issue. Why the silence now when so many global church leaders rose up in a deafening chorus to oppose the Episcopal Church's decision to consecrate Bishop Robinson? Have periodic eruptions of rage about the decadence of the West by the archbishop and his allies left us unwilling to name and speak out about injustice when we see it? Given the closeness that many in the network and the American Anglican Council and others have with Archbishop Akinola, I ask why these organizations have not publicly disassociated themselves from his country's attack on the basic human rights of a vulnerable population. Is it because they support such legislation? Or is it because the rights of gay men and women are not worth the risk of damaging an important theological alliance? [Back to index of March articles]
|
|
||||||||||
