Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

It's About "TIME"!!!

TIME Magazine has given many pages in previous editions over to stories about Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria.  With news regarding the Virginia churches that chose to disaffiliate from The Episcopal Church, the formation of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), the recent Primates Meeting of the Anglican Communion in Tanzania, and the Communique' issued afterward, Akinola has reaped almost as much press as given the death of Anna Nicole Smith (don't get me started!). 

Now support from the Archbishop and his church of harsh consequences to be levied against individuals for gay gatherings in Nigeria is being questioned by TIME.  Maybe "just in time!".  Thanks to Cleve for sharing this with me.  Read on. 

Crunch Time on Gays for Anglican Archbishop
Thursday, Mar. 08, 2007 By DAVID VAN BIEMA

Awkward as it may be for an outsider to intrude in the doings of a country or a church that is not his own, I nonetheless believe that the Most Rev. Archbishop Peter Akinola has some explaining to do. The Anglican Primate of Nigeria, one of the most powerful churchmen in Africa, needs to clarify his stance on a Nigerian anti-homosexuality bill he initially supported, which assigns a five-year prison term not only for practicing gays, but also for those who support them. Akinola either needs to publicly renounce, in strong terms, his early support of the bill's punitive clauses and to amplify the rather tepid concern he later expressed about them, or else he needs to explain why he's not doing so to the dozen or so churches in Virginia whose congregants were largely ignorant of the legislation when they voted to join Akinola's archdiocese in December.

It worked like this: The Nigerian legislation was introduced in 2006, and promptly embraced by almost every church in that country. This included Akinola's, which does nothing without his say-so. Akinola's acceptance of the bill caused considerable discomfort in the 73-million member Anglican communion — even among fellow conservatives, some of whom undertook a quiet campaign to change his mind. Meanwhile, a group of conservative Virginia congregations in the Episcopal Church (U.S.A), which belongs to the same Anglican Communion as Akinola, were taking the tough decision to jump the Episcopal ship and become Nigerian congregants because of their unhappiness over Episcopal stances on a number of issues, including the ordination of a gay bishop. But they knew little about the Nigerian legislation. Some had read a story in the Washington Post, and a fairly vague response from one of Akinola's U.S. representatives. They voted without knowing much more; and, as one pastor told me after the vote, the Nigerian bill "just wasn't on our radar." I talked to a half-dozen congregants in the various churches, and, although they didn't want a gay bishop, none of them supported the jail sentences prescribed in the Nigerian legislation.

The Nigerian bill, although troubling, did not seem worthy of more than a couple of paragraphs when I wrote a recent profile of Akinola, for two reasons: By last December, it was considered unlikely to pass, partly due to international outcry — the U.S. State Department, for instance ,expressed concern. And within days of the Virginia vote, Akinola moderated his view. In a welcoming letter to the Viginia churches — also released in Nigeria — he admitted, "We recognize that there are genuine concerns about individual human rights that must be addressed both in the framing of the law and its implementation."

In the heat of Nigeria's presidential election campaign, however, the bill has been revived. According to Stefano Fabeni of the Washington-based organization Global Rights, the Nigerian legislature is supposed to be considering a new, "harmonized" version of the bill, that may or may not include the five-year penalties. Fabeni also asserts that on February 14, during a discussion of the issue, the Christian Association of Nigeria, to which Akinkola's church belongs, argued in favor of letting the penalties remain. In any case the old version, with penalties, has already passed two readings in both houses of the National Assembly, and will become law if it passes a third reading in the Senate. The deciding vote could take place at any time within the next few weeks. So, now would be a good time for the habitually forceful Most Rev. Akinola to be a bit more forceful.

A few months ago, Nigerian religion expert Abieyuwa Ogbemudia said to my colleague Gilbert daCosta, "It is incredible for any church to even tolerate homosexuality and survive in Nigeria. Your church would be dead in the water." Akinola, however, has proven himself in the past to be a brave man. He took a strong and important stance against Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo's bid for an extraconstitutional third term. He needs to be brave again and speak out against the penalties in the Nigerian bill. If he truly has concerns about human rights, he should express them with vigor. Failure to do so ought to prompt his new Virginian congregants to give a second thought to their choice of Akinola as their shepherd.