Skip to comments.Bigotry or Obedience? The Media and the Episcopal Church
Posted on 01/11/2007 9:22:22 AM PST by sionnsar
As you have, no doubt, read in the newspaper or seen on television, the Episcopal Church in the United States seems to be breaking up. Just last month, several prominent Virginia parishes voted to leave the church.
Why? Well, the media would have you believe that the sole issue driving the split is homosexuality, or even more narrowly, the ordination of a homosexual bishop in New Hampshire: "There they go again, those anti-gay bigots."
But the issues behind the Episcopal Church's disintegration are much broader and deeper than just the matter of sexual behavior. They have to do with acceptance of scriptural authority. But characteristically, sexuality is the aspect of the matter on which the media has chosen to focus.
On Christmas Day, for example, the New York Times ran a front-page attack on Anglican Bishop Peter Akinola. Bishop Akinola is a Nigerian bishop under whom many former Episcopal churches are now uniting. The Times made its agenda clear in the article's subhead, which referred to Bishop Akinola as "an anti-gay Nigerian."
Let's face it: This is not front-page news because the New York Times editors are concerned about church splits. I doubt they would have covered Martin Luther if the Reformation were going on today. This is front-page news because the Times can use it to make Christians look bigoted. Why else would they lead off the article with a description of how Bishop Akinola was once taken aback to find that he had just shaken hands with a homosexual? As one who has ministered to homosexual prisoners and AIDS victims for twenty-five years, I do not endorse his reaction, but it sounds like naïveté and inexperience.
What I do take issue with is the Times and other critics telling us we are bigots. I have been in those prisons and seen our people ministering to AIDS victims over the years. I don't see these critics there. I see our people doing this day in and day out.
In any event, it's telling that the Times would choose to draw attention to something like this rather telling you what is really behind it. In leaving the Episcopal Church, many of these congregations are enduring public scorn and potentially devastating financial loss-including the loss of their church buildings, pastors' pensions, and so forth. Why? Because, in conscience, they must remain true to Scripture and their convictions. The issue is orthodoxy, not homosexuality.
Bishop Akinola gets to the heart of the matter in a profound and thought-provoking essay: "The point here," he writes, "is not of separating from sinners . . . but objecting strongly to yielding to the . . . worldly spirit of a materialistic, secularist and self-centered age, which seeks to mould everyone into its own tainted image.
"Our argument," the bishop continues, "is that if homosexuals see themselves as deviants who have gone astray, the Christian spirit would plead for patience and prayers to make room for their repentance. When Scripture says something is wrong and some people say that it is right, such people make God a liar."
That's the real issue here, and that's the issue Christians must continue to focus on. There's certainly room for discussion of Bishop Akinola's views and how he relates to homosexuals. But let's not forget why he and the U.S. churches now under his oversight are doing what they're doing: It is because they choose orthodoxy. They believe in the Word of God, and they will obey it. That's what we all need to be concerned about, whether the media gets it right or not.
By Faith McDonnell
The American Spectator
As the Episcopal Church begins to shed parishes like a dried-up Christmas tree sheds needles, it must have been comforting to the denomination to receive a sizeable Christmas present from the New York Times.
What could more clearly say "Merry Christmas" to the denizens of 815 Second Avenue, the church's national center, than the total trashing of the Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Nigeria, Peter J. Akinola, on the front page of newspaper's Christmas Day edition?
With the headline "At Axis of Episcopal Split, an Anti-Gay Nigerian," the Times story spins the crisis in the Anglican Communion as a simple pro-gay/anti-gay issue. But it wasn't just differing views of homosexuality that led nine parishes in the Episcopal Church's Diocese of Virginia to affiliate with the Province of Nigeria. And it wasn't just an "anti-gay bishop" that brought about the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA).
The root cause the Times ignores is a theological one concerning differences over many tenets of the faith: the nature of sin; the authority of Scripture; whether Jesus is the only way to God; whether God is a Father, or as the new Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church would have us believe, a Mother. The Times portrayal is guaranteed to make the Nigerian church and American traditionalists appear ignorant and hateful.
That's why the paper seems alarmed by the size of Akinola's flock -- there are more than 17 million members of the Anglican Church of Nigeria. (Think of the potential number of homophobes being indoctrinated!) And whereas the Times' pet Episcopal Church is diminishing more with each passing year, the Nigerian province continues to grow in spite of persecution. In 1998, there were 61 dioceses, and today there are 78 -- many of the new ones formed in the Muslim-dominated northern and middle "belt" areas of the country.
THE TIMES REINFORCES ITS "anti-gay Nigerian" theme with an introductory story about the archbishop's "first and only time" to knowingly shake a gay person's hand. Akinola recounts how while in mid-handshake with a man in New York, the man introduced him to his "partner of many years" while shaking his head in what the reporter describes as "wonder and horror." "I said, 'Oh!'" he told the Times. "I jumped back."
Akinola may have been shaking his head with dismay over a province of the Anglican Communion where same-sex partners are not just accepted but exalted. And perhaps the archbishop jumped back because he is savvier to Episcopal Church operatives than for which he was given credit. African bishops and clergy from Sudan and Uganda, for example, had been introduced to the same gay man and his partner while the Episcopal News Service conveniently happened to be close by. They seized the moment on camera to exploit those Africans -- either for shaking hands or for not shaking hands. Maybe Akinola did not want to join the ranks of those who had been used by the Episcopal Church to provide credibility for itself in the wider Communion.
The rest of the article continues in this vein. Akinola is called "the most visible advocate for a literal interpretation of Scripture," which supposedly challenges the "traditional Anglican approach of embracing diverse theological viewpoints" The archbishop is further identified as "the 62-year-old son of an illiterate widow." The reference to his mother's lack of education -- not uncommon among African women of the time or even today -- seems to suggest that only the ignorant and uneducated have this perspective on the Bible.
Yet the reporters admit that Akinola's views on sexual morality fit the Nigerian mainstream. "Attitudes towards homosexuality, women's rights, and marriage are dictated largely by scripture and enforced by deep social taboos," the Times scolds. These attitudes contrast sharply with those inculcated by some American church activists, who make use of transgendered sock puppets to promote "Queer Week" at Episcopal Divinity School (EDS) in Massachusetts.
Maybe the Times should have interviewed the sock puppet rather than EDS Professor Ian Douglas. Douglas says Akinola "sees himself as the spokesperson for a new Anglicanism, and thus is a direct challenge to the historic authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury." But Douglas's concern for "historic authority" seems disingenuous. He was present at General Convention 2003 during debates over the consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. Those in favor of Robinson justified their challenge to historic authority by invoking the Holy Spirit (in favor of consecrating as bishop a man who had left his wife and children to live in a homosexual relationship). Falsely portraying orthodox, traditional faith as "new" Anglicanism is part of the spin.
IN A PARTING THRUST, the Times expounds upon proposed Nigerian legislation that would make any public expression of homosexuality a crime punishable by five years' imprisonment. What the story fails to mention is that homosexual activity has actually been illegal in Nigeria, as in many African countries, for years. According to Article 214 of the Nigerian Penal Code, sanctions include up to 14 years imprisonment. But recently, homosexual activism sponsored by organizations from outside of the country has enflamed the already-heightened religious tensions. Islamists seek to reform the country by imposing a legal code that calls for the stoning of homosexuals. In response, Nigerian President Obesanjo has proposed the aforementioned legislation, which would prohibit homosexual activities sans stoning.
Akinola recognizes that there are concerns about the possible violation of the human rights of individuals affected by the proposal that need to be addressed in "both in the framing of the law and its implementation." He informed the CANA churches that "while the honorable speaker of the House, a Muslim, wanted the immediate and outright passage of the bill, the deputy speaker, an Anglican, persuaded his colleagues to allow full public debate on it."
It's difficult enough to keep your head as a Christian in Nigeria. For the archbishop to decry legislation that limits "gay rights" would be to expose the entire Christian community in Nigeria to the wrath and violence of the Islamists. Moreover, Akinola has made it quite clear that he believes it is in the best interest of his country, and indeed, of those persons who are living in a homosexual lifestyle, to not "follow the path of license and immorality that we have witnessed in other parts of the world."
The Times may not be considered all the news that's fit to print in the Archbishop's Palace in Lagos, but Akinola is well aware of his critics' charges. In a letter to the new CANA churches in the U.S., Akinola wrote, "Sadly, I have heard that some are suggesting that you are now affiliated with a church that seeks to punish homosexual persons. That is a distortion of our true position."
"Every person, regardless of their religion or sexual orientation, is made in the image of God, loved by God, and deserving of the utmost respect," Akinola says. CANA Bishop Martyn Minns adds, "[Akinola] is not seeking to victimize or diminish anyone. He is primarily an evangelist and a pastor whose desire is to see all people come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ."
Archbishop Akinola sees individual human beings who need Christ's healing in their lives to become the people they were created to be. The New York Times sees an opportunity to promote the gay rights agenda. Who is it who is really diminishing people?
---Faith J. H. McDonnell is director of Religious Liberty Programs at the Institute on Religion and Democracy, is the co-founder of the Sudan Coalition in Washington, D.C.
To state that homosexuality and homosexual behavior are against the will of God and to deny that such things are deserving of equal civil and moral status with heterosexuality and heterosexual behavior is, to the mind of such people, victimizing and diminishing homosexuals. Don't expect that to change soon.
So are murderers victimized and diminished when one "states" that murder is wrong? In a free society, people have a right to believe and state that homosexual activity is immoral. One can argue about whether it should be criminal, but one has a right to believe it immoral. And to state so in a loving way is to help those with a tendancy to this specific sin to leave a sinful and harmful lifestyle. Just as a statement that adultery or divorce is wrong might make people inclined to those particular sins stop and think.
Sure, you have a right to believe it. But what I'm finding is that to say it is to invite an attack on the basis that by saying it, you are attacking homosexuals, contributing to marginalization and suicide, and are a "homophobe".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.