Anglicans Only: Peter Akinola's statement

[ahab]

I read with utter dismay the pastoral statement recently issued by the Church of England House of Bishops with regard to the Civil Partnership Act scheduled to come into force on 5 December 2005.

While I was pleased to note the reaffirmation of the Church’s historic teaching on both marriage and sexual intercourse [1], [4] I was sorely distressed that these words are not matched by corresponding actions.

The language of the Civil Partnerships Act makes it plain that what is being proposed is same-sex marriage in everything but name. This is even acknowledged in the statement [10]. I find it incomprehensible therefore that the House of Bishops would not find open participation in such ‘marriages’ to be repugnant to Holy Scriptures and incompatible with Holy Orders.

The proposal that the bishops will extract a promise from clergy who register that there will be no sexual intimacy in these relationships is the height of hypocrisy. It is totally unworkable and it invites deception and ridicule. How on earth can this be honoured? For the Church of England to promote such a departure from historic teaching is outrageous.

I also note with alarm that the statement encourages the church to ask nothing of lay people who become registered same-sex partners before they are admitted to baptism, confirmation and communion. [23] This not only dishonours the laity and the sacraments of the Church - it also makes it obvious that the bishops of the Church of England are proposing a deliberate change in the discipline of the church.

It seems clear the House of Bishops is determined to chart a course for the Church of England that brings further division at a time when we are still struggling with fragmentation and disunity within the Communion. Let it be known that it is not a path that we can follow. It is also a path that is clearly at odds with the mind of the rest of the Anglican Communion.

May I remind the Bishops of the Church of England that, when faced with similar decisions on the part of the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada, discipline was imposed. While I have great affection and respect for the historic role that the Church of England has played in all of our lives, no church can ignore the teaching of the Bible with impunity and no church is beyond discipline.

I call on the House of Bishops of the Church of England to renounce their statement and declare their unqualified commitment to the historic faith, teaching and practice of the Church. Failure to do so will only add to our current crisis.

I am, by this statement, asking my brother Primates, their bishops and all the faithful in our Communion to remain calm in the face of this new provocation as we look forward to our next meeting. I also call on all those who cherish and uphold the integrity and sanctity of the Word of God to pray for our beloved Church.

–The Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola CON, DD, Archbishop, Metropolitan and Primate of All Nigeria

I have to say I agree with him. Well written

 

[gitlance]

I don't know... the fact that witchcraft and polygamy is still "unofficially" allowed in his province disturbs me. We should concern ourseves with the beams in our own eyes before worrying about the specks in others'.

 

[Fish and Bread]

I think this statement makes it very clear that Bishop Akinola is outside the Anglican mainstream. What's next? Forbidding men from hugging because someone might get the impression that they're gay? Same-sex roommates are a timed-honored tradition and it makes sense, given that clergy are often single and have low rates of pay, for them to make the appropriate legal arrangements so that they can derive tax benefits that they are entitled to be, be able to visit each other in the hospital, etc. It is one thing to be against homosexuality, but this goes beyond that into the realm of paranoia. Would the Bishop prefer that these priests have opposite sex roommates? He needs to chill out.

I'll grant that I support monogamous same-sex romantic relationships, but this isn't even about that. This is about celibate best friends sharing living expenses and so forth. I can't see any reason on earth why anyone would have a problem with that sort of thing. It's a time honored Christian tradition. Same-sex Roman Catholic priests share rectories all the time. The only difference here is a sheet of paper entitled these priests to a few tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, and that sort of thing.

John

 

[PaladinValer]

I agree with the Git*



*Not an insult...a friendly expression I give to him (Gitlance).

 

[Albion]

I think this statement makes it very clear that Bishop Akinola is outside the Anglican mainstream.

Since the vast majority of the provinces in the Anglican Communion are on +Akinola's side in this, that is hardly likely. One could take exception to some of his incidental comments in any particular letter, but saying Akinola is outside the Anglican mainstream when he is recognized as the leader of it (except perhaps for the ABC whose position is difficult to assess these days), reads like just something to say.

 

[Albion]

I don't know... the fact that witchcraft and polygamy is still "unofficially" allowed in his province disturbs me. We should concern ourseves with the beams in our own eyes before worrying about the specks in others'.

The passage, and the way you paraphrased it, apply to OURSELVES and the beam in ONE'S OWN eyes.

 

[pmcleanj]

Closed for moderator review

 

[pmcleanj]

Christian Forums rule 4.2 restricts any posts relating to this controversial topic to the Philosophy & Morality, Liberal Theology or Christian Philosophy forums. Accordingly, this thread has been moved into the Christian Philosophy & Ethics "Denomination-Specific Issues" subforum.

Please review the Christian Philosophy & Ethics forum-specific rules before posting further in this thread.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Since the vast majority of the provinces in the Anglican Communion are on +Akinola's side in this, that is hardly likely. One could take exception to some of his incidental comments in any particular letter, but saying Akinola is outside the Anglican mainstream when he is recognized as the leader of it (except perhaps for the ABC whose position is difficult to assess these days), reads like just something to say.

The historically important provinces are almost all either lining up as netural or against Akinola on the major issues this day. The United States, Canada, and Scotland are clearly on the other side from Akinola. I think we can venture a guess that New Zealand (Based on it's very liberal reputation) and Southern Africa (Based on it's Primate's very public work with Primate Griswold lately) also fall with the above group. The Church of England could go either way and a lot of additional provinces swing on which way it goes. There is far from a clear majority here and, if we limit the issue to celibate roommates, we know we'd have England on our side and I'd venture to guess a lot of other provinces. I am not saying that Akinola's view on homosexuality is outside of the Anglican mainstream, but I am saying his stance against celibate same-sex roommates filing for tax benefits is outside the mainstream, barring evidence to the contrary.

John

 

[ahab]

Hi Fish and Bread

The historically important provinces are almost all either lining up as netural or against Akinola on the major issues this day.

No, the provinces who are lining up against Akinola and the majority are splitting in two. They are also the ones who can ill afford to as they are the ones shrinking and dying. Amongst them the only side showing any sign of growth will side with Akinola.

Peace

 

[ebia]

Hi Fish and Bread



No, the provinces who are lining up against Akinola and the majority are splitting in two. They are also the ones who can ill afford to as they are the ones shrinking and dying. Amongst them the only side showing any sign of growth will side with Akinola.

Peace

In what sense do the more liberal dioceses and provinces need the likes of Akinola? Answer: they don't.

Sure, if there is a split most (but not all) of the African & Asian diocese would go his way, and numerically that would be the bigger part, but so what? Akinola can't hold the whole communion to ransom, without destroying it - he has no more right to tell the Anglican Churches in Canada, the USA, N.Z. England, Scotland, Australia or anywhere else what to do than their bishops have to tell him what to do.

 

[Albion]

In what sense do the more liberal dioceses and provinces need the likes of Akinola? Answer: they don't.

Good. Then we can put to rest the tiresome argument that unless a church belongs to the Anglican Communion, it can't really be "Anglican." It is interesting to see how loyalists within ECUSA and the ACoC are now talking the same line as the Continuing Churches, although for a quarter-century they said just the opposite of what you have written and derided the Continuers for saying that membership in the Anglican Communion wasn't that necessary.

Sure, if there is a split most (but not all) of the African & Asian diocese would go his way, and numerically that would be the bigger part, but so what? Akinola can't hold the whole communion to ransom, without destroying it - he has no more right to tell the Anglican Churches in Canada, the USA, N.Z. England, Scotland, Australia or anywhere else what to do than their bishops have to tell him what to do.

Not exactly true. The Anglican Communion is an association based upon a common set of beliefs. If one member part of it departs from that which the body has voted as its policy, the organization has every right to decide that it thereby forfeits membership.

That in itself doesn't mean that the few provinces you mentioned do not have the right to believe whatever they want. No, but it also doesn't mean that the Anglican Communion has any obligation to keep them as members if they choose to adopt principles and policies contrary to the purposes of the Anglican Communion. Standing up for one's convictions does usually require one to take the consequences. Let's see how well ECUSA et al do with it.

 

[Fish and Bread]

No, the provinces who are lining up against Akinola and the majority are splitting in two. They are also the ones who can ill afford to as they are the ones shrinking and dying. Amongst them the only side showing any sign of growth will side with Akinola.

Peace

Do we not worship a God who came down to earth and died for our sins, in part because most of the people of the time resented his seemingly unorthodox message, which included concepts love and inclusion? It seems to me that if those Anglican provinces in the world who stand up for love and inclusion suffer or die as a result, then they are in good company.

At the same time, though, I wouldn't count this as being over yet. I think there are even odds of ECUSA remaining part of the Anglican Communion, homosexual bishop and all, as there are of ECUSA being kicked out or "asked to leave". The same goes for the Anglican Church of Canada, the Scottish Episcopal Church, and others. Remember, the Archbishop of Canterbury defines communion, and Archbishop Williams and his province have taken heavy criticism from Bishop Akinola. Besides, I can't be the only one who's read Archbishop Williams' infamous speech, "The Body's Grace", can I?

John

 

[ahab]

Quite right Albion

 

[ahab]

Hi Fish and Bread

In what sense do the more liberal dioceses and provinces need the likes of Akinola? Answer: they don't.

Well I would say they need a leader who knows the gospel but they would say they don’t. Some like the ECUSA may leave but you cant have two groups, a huge one including the Africans and a small one including the ECUSA both claiming the other has left the communion.

Do we not worship a God who came down to earth and died for our sins, in part because most of the people of the time resented his seemingly unorthodox message, which included concepts love and inclusion?

Yes we do, but we ahve much more than that, we worship a living God who came down to earth, died for our sins, rose again to conquer death and hell and give us eternal life and rules and reigns even on earth by making His dwelling among us through His Spirit. He is love, not just a concept of it.

It seems to me that if those Anglican provinces in the world who stand up for love and inclusion suffer or die as a result, then they are in good company.

Depends what you mean by love and inclusion. Same-sex sex isn’t love or inclusion, its sex.. Adultery or prostitution, or theft or slander or greed isn’t love or inclusion. May I suggest you have the wrong type of love ‘eros’ instead of that of Jesus ‘agape’

Besides, I can't be the only one who's read Archbishop Williams' infamous speech, "The Body's Grace", can I?

Yes its extremely worrying that when the NT writers refer to putting away sexual desires and being changed to live by the Spirit, the Archbishop of Canterbury choses to say sex is important because its important to LGCM and yet makes no mention as far as I can remember to his church members or groups who are celibate or ex-gay.....hardly inclusive.

Peace

 

[ebia]

Good. Then we can put to rest the tiresome argument that unless a church belongs to the Anglican Communion, it can't really be "Anglican."

I take it you're assuming that the church will split, and the Archbishop of Canturbury will end up in Akinola's half.

It is interesting to see how loyalists within ECUSA and the ACoC are now talking the same line as the Continuing Churches, although for a quarter-century they said just the opposite of what you have written and derided the Continuers for saying that membership in the Anglican Communion wasn't that necessary.

A national church splitting is noticably different to a small number of parishes splitting. The test is whether after any split if any of the national chuches can hang together (even the one's inside the 'official' communion, if the any idea of official communion survives).

Not exactly true. The Anglican Communion is an association based upon a common set of beliefs. If one member part of it departs from that which the body has voted as its policy, the organization has every right to decide that it thereby forfeits membership.

Since when? The communion has hardly ever decided anything as a body, and the national churches (and provinces within the national churches) always been a pretty diverse bunch.

That in itself doesn't mean that the few provinces you mentioned do not have the right to believe whatever they want. No, but it also doesn't mean that the Anglican Communion has any obligation to keep them as members if they choose to adopt principles and policies contrary to the purposes of the Anglican Communion.

There are no defined purposes to the communion. If there where, Akinola's own church would be going against some of them. Anglicanism is founded on diversity and comprimise. If Akinola and his ilk force the issue, they destroying what is best about the communion in order to get their own way. If Akinola forces ECUSA and all who agree with ECUSA out, what is left is not Anglicanism. He can't win - either a good old Anglican fudge is found, or everyone looses.

 

[ebia]

Do we not worship a God who came down to earth and died for our sins, in part because most of the people of the time resented his seemingly unorthodox message, which included concepts love and inclusion? It seems to me that if those Anglican provinces in the world who stand up for love and inclusion suffer or die as a result, then they are in good company.

At the same time, though, I wouldn't count this as being over yet. I think there are even odds of ECUSA remaining part of the Anglican Communion, homosexual bishop and all, as there are of ECUSA being kicked out or "asked to leave". The same goes for the Anglican Church of Canada, the Scottish Episcopal Church, and others. Remember, the Archbishop of Canterbury defines communion, and Archbishop Williams and his province have taken heavy criticism from Bishop Akinola. Besides, I can't be the only one who's read Archbishop Williams' infamous speech, "The Body's Grace", can I?

John

Well said.

The most anoying aspect of the whole thing is the distraction it creates from going out and being the Church, and in particular from Dr Williams from being the amazing visionary Archbishop that he is capable of being. The best theologian to be ABC in years, and he'll end up being either (at worst) the one who presided while the communion split, or (at best) the one who held it together.

 

[Albion]

I take it you're assuming that the church will split, and the Archbishop of Canturbury will end up in Akinola's half.

What I said was, "...Then we can put to rest the tiresome argument that unless a church belongs to the Anglican Communion, it can't really be "Anglican."

I don't see how that relates to your response.

But if you want a guess about the future of the Communion, I would guess that Williams will remain the head of a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] of former member provinces while Akinola or someone else heads a replacement communion with most of the world's Anglicans as members. It doesn't really matter to me, but that's the guess.

A national church splitting is noticably different to a small number of parishes splitting.

More scrambling, IMO, to make the same argument sound different.

Since when? The communion has hardly ever decided anything as a body, and the national churches (and provinces within the national churches) always been a pretty diverse bunch.

Well, since 2003 or so when the Communion did decide as a body the very issue that has ECUSA in hot water now for having defied it. This was well reported in the world's press.

There are no defined purposes to the communion.

Not so. It has stated principles, and the promotion of them is the purpose for its existence. No, there are not defined "purposes" if you are trying to take us into specific parish activities or the like, but purposes there are.

If there where, Akinola's own church would be going against some of them. Anglicanism is founded on diversity and comprimise.

You are commenting on Anglicanism as you see it, but the topic is the Anglican Communion. Certainly, there is diversity in Anglicanism, but not everything is up for grabs. The churches of the Anglican Communion do indeed have some shared principles, and they are voiced according to the rules of the Anglican Communion.

If Akinola and his ilk force the issue, they destroying what is best about the communion in order to get their own way. If Akinola forces ECUSA and all who agree with ECUSA out, what is left is not Anglicanism. He can't win - either a good old Anglican fudge is found, or everyone looses.

Yep, that's essentially what is left for the losing side to argue.

A realistic evaluation of this situation, however, doesn't lead to deep theological insights. It never was the case that all the Anglicans in the world were represented in this club (the Anglican Communion), nor did those who were "in" care about that. We are merely witnessing the changing some of the seats now.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Hi Fish and Bread

Hi ahab. Before responding to the rest of your comments, I wanted to start off by clarifying that the quoted material, "In what sense do the more liberal dioceses and provinces need the likes of Akinola? Answer: they don't.", was incorrectly attributed to me and was actually posted by someone other than myself. Though that poster and I agree on many matters, I personally can not affirm that particular comment, as I think we all have need of each other in one respect or another. Granted, I do agree with the original poster that we should not allow Akinola to blackmail us into abandoning our principles, but I still hold that the ideal outcome would allow us to all stay together as a communion while still recognizing the minstry of our gay brothers and sisters, if that is at all possible.

Same-sex sex isn’t love or inclusion, its sex.

Sex at it's best can be wonderful expression of love. When monogamous same-sex couples who care deeply for one another and are in love have sex, I would argue that they are in fact using sex partly as an expression of love in the same manner that heterosexual couples are. To say that same-sex sex is never an expression of love is simply false. Maybe it would be more apt for you to express your viewpoint by saying that same-sex sex isn't a biblically appropriate expression of love in your view. We could argue whether it's biblically appropriate all day long, but there really is no way to dispute that homosexual sex can be an expression of love, approrpriate or not. And, personally, I'd rather err on the side of being too tolerant on what some might say is inappropriate love than risk erring on the side of unfairly condemning a gift from God and those who practice it. Gay people experience a lot of rejection and a lot of hurt in this world because of people's reactions to the way they were made; the Church of God should be extending the loving hand of God towards them, not piling on and adding to their pain and misery.

Yes its extremely worrying that when the NT writers refer to putting away sexual desires and being changed to live by the Spirit

It seems to me that even St. Paul, arguably the most anti-sex New Testament author, had some beautiful things to say about marriage here and there and even strongly advised anyone who could not stand to be celibate to marry, explicitly claiming that it was not a sin to do so. Sex in the right context is a gift from God. For those who are called to celibacy, perhaps that can equally be a gift, but most are not called to celibacy.

the Archbishop of Canterbury choses to say sex is important because its important to LGCM and yet makes no mention as far as I can remember to his church members or groups who are celibate or ex-gay.....hardly inclusive.

Peace

I do think the celibate members of the Church should be honored a bit more than they are, but I think the ABC's lack of mention of them lately relative to his frequent mentions of gays are simply because celibacy is very non-controversial and homosexuality seems to be very controversial right now. No one is being excluded or told they're going to hell for being celibate. Unfortunately, though, many people do and say such things to gays.

John

 

[ebia]

What I said was, "...Then we can put to rest the tiresome argument that unless a church belongs to the Anglican Communion, it can't really be "Anglican."

I don't see how that relates to your response.

Unless you think ECUSA is going to end up out of Communion with Cantuar, I don't see why you think ECUSA is likely to change it's view of what is/is not Anglican.

But if you want a guess about the future of the Communion, I would guess that Williams will remain the head of a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] of former member provinces while Akinola or someone else heads a replacement communion with most of the world's Anglicans as members. It doesn't really matter to me, but that's the guess.

If this were to happen, then surely ECUSA and everyone else in that '[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]' could carry on insisting that they are Anglicans and the rest are not. Or am I missing something?

More scrambling, IMO, to make the same argument sound different.

If there are any "core beliefs" that are intrinsically Anglican, surely one of them is that the Bishop is the symbol and centre of the local church, so a Parish (that thas no theological standing) is very different from a Diocese (that does) is different again from a national church.

Well, since 2003 or so when the Communion did decide as a body the very issue that has ECUSA in hot water now for having defied it. This was well reported in the world's press.

2 years. Wow. What an ancient Tradition. (If that were an accurate portrayal of what happened anyway.)

Not so. It has stated principles, and the promotion of them is the purpose for its existence. No, there are not defined "purposes" if you are trying to take us into specific parish activities or the like, but purposes there are.

Only in terms of being Church. Not in any terms that could qualify excluding a national church for anything less than ignoring the core beliefs of Christianity as stated in the creeds or perhaps stepping outside the 3 fold order or similar.

You are commenting on Anglicanism as you see it, but the topic is the Anglican Communion. Certainly, there is diversity in Anglicanism, but not everything is up for grabs. The churches of the Anglican Communion do indeed have some shared principles, and they are voiced according to the rules of the Anglican Communion.

Shared principles and heritage, yes. The right to tell other churches they are wrong on anything outside core beliefs, no.

Yep, that's essentially what is left for the losing side to argue.

Seems to me either the communion is held together by another fudge, and everyone wins, or the communion breaks and everybody looses. I really can't see how there can be winners and losers.

A realistic evaluation of this situation, however, doesn't lead to deep theological insights. It never was the case that all the Anglicans in the world were represented in this club (the Anglican Communion), nor did those who were "in" care about that. We are merely witnessing the changing some of the seats now.

Since I don't see "Anglican" as meaning anything if it doesn't mean being in the communion, I'll have to disagree.