Posted on 01/12/2007 5:32:12 PM PST by sionnsar
Main Entry: pri'mate
Etymology: Middle English primat, from Old French, from Medieval Latin primat-, primas archbishop, from Latin, leader, from primus
Date: 13th century
1 often capitalized : a bishop who has precedence in a province, group of provinces, or a nation
2 archaic : one first in authority or rank : LEADER
3 [New Latin Primates, from Latin, plural of primat-, primas] : any of an order (Primates) of mammals comprising humans, apes, monkeys, and related forms (as lemurs and tarsiers)
-pri'mate-ship \-*ship\ noun
--pri-ma'tial \pr*-*m*-sh*l\ adjective
NIGERIAN PRIMATE EXPLAINS SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR OPPOSITION TO HOMOSEXUAL ACTS
Does he really hate homosexuals?
News Analysis
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
1/11/2007
If you read the secular Western Press on Nigerian Anglican Primate Peter Akinola you would definitely come away with the notion that he is, at best, homophobic and at worst a down right hater of homosexuals.
It is not hard to find a single major newspaper that has not denounced him as such. Both secular progressive newspapers the Washington POST and more recently the New York Times have trashed the brash often outspoken Nigerian Archbishop.
He is an easy target for post Christian Episcopal leaders, becoming the new whipping boy of pansexualists anxious to ride the wave of guilt free sexual experimentation handed down by resolutions from several Episcopal General Conventions. Never mind that, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) 19 million new sexually transmitted infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people aged 15 to 24. In addition there are the major physical and psychological consequences of STDs, which exact a tremendous economic toll estimated at up to $14.1 billion annually! AIDS remains the single biggest transmitter of sexually fatal diseases, and in the vast majority of cases it is transmitted through anal sex. Put that in worldwide economic terms it's the equivalent of the combined revenues of 21 of the poorest African nations.
But Western pansexualists are not interested in the facts, and American revisionist Episcopalians are only bent on vilifying the single most outspoken Evangelical Anglican leader in the world who is the driving force behind his province's meteoric rise from 18 million to 20 million and, if Akinola is to be believed, drive home the gospel message, elevating church membership to 36 million in the next five years through vigorous evangelism and discipleship. Akinola stands like a colossus over Christian Africa, and he is the major driving force behind keeping the Anglican Communion from sliding into the abyss of post-modernism with pluriform truths and moral relativism. (The actions of Western Anglican homosexuals may yet bring about schism).
So it is not the least bit surprising that he has been in the vanguard of a newly enacted Bill put forth by the National Assembly of the Republic of Nigeria on the prohibition of Same Sex Marriage.
Now this Bill (a copy of which VOL has obtained) says the following things:
Marriage means a legally binding union between a man and a woman be it under the authority of the State or Islamic Law. (Note the latter). Marriage between persons of the same sex and adoption of children is prohibited by Nigeria. Marriages between persons of the same sex are invalid and shall not be recognized as entitled to benefits of a valid marriage. Anybody offering a license to such persons would find them unenforceable in a Court of Law. The Courts of Nigerian will not grant a divorce, separation and maintenance order with regard to same-sex marriage. Marriage between persons of the same sex entered into inside or outside Nigeria will not be recognized in Nigeria. Same sex marriage shall not be celebrated in any place of worship by any recognized cleric of a Mosque, Church, denomination or body to which such place of worship belongs. No marriage license shall be issued to parties of the same sex. Gay Clubs, Societies and organizations by whatever name they are called are prohibited. Publicity, procession and public show of same sex amorous relationship through the electronic or print media is prohibited. Persons registering gay clubs, societies or organizations...and public show of same sex amorous relation ship in public and in private can be convicted to five years imprisonment. Any person who goes through a same sex marriage ceremony can be convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment. The same applies to witnesses who aid or abet a same-sex ceremony is also liable to five years imprisonment.
Now it should be noted that nowhere does it say that the Anglican Church of Nigeria is going about punishing homosexual persons. This Bill is under consideration by the State with both followers of Islam and Christianity obliged to obey the laws of the land. "We have no desire to see our nation follow the path of license and immorality that we have witnessed in other parts of the world," Akinola wrote, defending his support for the bill.
"We are a Church that teaches the truth of the Holy Scriptures and understands that 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. That is the conviction that informs our passion for evangelism and drives our determination to establish new dioceses and congregations. We have no desire to place anyone outside the reach of God's saving love and that is why we have supported well reasoned statements such as Resolution 1.10 from the Lambeth Conference in 1998 and also the section of the Dromantine Communiqué, which condemns the "victimization or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex". He wrote this in a letter of greeting to the congregations who recently joined CANA.
Akinola sees the issue in strictly theological and moral terms. He wrote: "Sadly, I have also 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. As I am sure you have heard, there is a bill currently being debated by the Nigerian Legislature that addresses the topic of same-sex marriages and homosexual activism. The Standing Committee of the Church of Nigeria, in its desire to see the strengthening of marriage and family life in our society, has commended the legislators for tackling this difficult issue. We have no desire to see our nation follow the path of license and immorality that we have witnessed in other parts of the world. And we also oppose the severe sanctions of Islamic law."
"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. I am glad to inform you that while the Honorable Speaker of the House, a Moslem, wanted the immediate and outright passage of the bill, the Deputy Speaker, an Anglican, persuaded his colleagues to allow full public debate on it."
But then Akinola took a swipe of his own: "Nigeria has the right to pass such a law if it reflects the country's values. Does Nigeria tell America what laws to make? Does Nigeria tell England what laws to make? This arrogance, this imperial tendency, should stop for God's sake." He has a point.
Neither the NY Times or Washington Post addressed this. The New York Times used a statement from Louie Crew that when he introduced himself and his partner Ernest to the Nigerian leader, Akinola in New York some time ago, Akinola sprang backwards, refusing to shake his hand. The NYT described it as "wonder and horror."
Faith McDonnell of the Institute for religion and Democracy said that 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. "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."
Prison Fellowship President Chuck Colson also lit into the New York Times attack on Akinola which called him "an anti-gay Nigerian."
"This front-page news was 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 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," wrote Colson.
In an inflammatory and outright untruth a Washington Post article said Akinola was characterized as "an advocate of jailing gays." That is simply not true, and the Rev. Martyn Minns rightly came to Akinola's defense.
Wrote Minns, "Archbishop Akinola believes that all people-whatever their manner of life or sexual orientation-are made in the image of God and deserve to be treated with respect. "We are all broken and need the transforming love of God," Archbishop Akinola said to me during a recent conversation.
Archbishop Akinola also said, "Jesus Christ is our example for this. He refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery instead he said. 'Go now and sin no more.' That is an essential part of the message of the Gospel and the teaching of our congregations."
Akinola has also made statements that one Post columnist called "stupendously insensitive." Said Akinola, "I cannot think of how a man in his senses would be having a sexual relationship with another man. Even in the world of animals, dogs, cows, lions, we don't hear of such things." Elsewhere, he compared homosexuality and lesbianism to bestiality." The truth is Akinola is right about this, animals do not behave thus, and gays and lesbians will never in a thousand years talk about the 26 known transmittable diseases associated with anal sex, preferring instead to making sweeping statements about AIDS, indicting heterosexuals for their failure to embrace sodomy, blaming them for being homophobic, when in fact the evidence points predominantly to those who practice homogenital acts.
Akinola has called homosexuality a "satanic attack" on the church and considers gay-affirming churches to be a "cancerous lump" in the body of Christ. Now if something is not of Christ and His gospel then it is a Satanic attack, however much liberals would like to believe otherwise. And as for it being called a "cancerous lump" one must ask the question, why is it that western liberal mainline denominations' are slowly dying while evangelical churches which proscribe homosexual behavior are growing by leaps and bounds. Churches like the Episcopal Church are dying of spiritual cancer, why do you think healthy churches would want to leave an unhealthy cancerous lump in its body - who in their right mind would want to stay only to be infected by the same spiritual cancer!
But then Akinola goes on the offensive. He wrote: "I am troubled, however, by the silence of outside commentators concerning the rights of the clergy, Christians, and particularly converts to our Church whose lives are threatened and too often destroyed because of mob violence. I see no evidence of compassion for those whose rights are trampled on because of the imposition of unjust religious laws in many parts of the world. There seems to be a strange lack of interest in this issue."
"We are concerned about eternal destiny and the need of every person to know the saving love of God. We preach a Gospel for all people that not only offers welcome but also the promise of transformation. We are delighted that you share these convictions with us and look forward to mission and ministry together with you in the coming years."
In short, while a bunch of whiny western pansexualists want to broker their behavior into the church, tens of thousands of Christians were being massacred "on the ground" in Nigeria. "A massive attack on Christians in the villages around Jos began on 9/8/01. The NY Times carried an eye-witness account from a Reuters reporter who had seen Christians being killed and was watching smoke from the villages rise. All this was eclipsed in our news media on 9/11/01," wrote Akinola.
A newspaper columnist then went on a tear calling Akinola a symbol of hate with his hatred of homosexuals. This is nonsense. Akinola, like millions of evangelicals hates the sin but loves the sinner. What steams American Episcopal gays is that they want him to endorse their behavior and he simply won't do that - and neither will tens of thousands of orthodox Episcopalians who are fleeing the TEC to save their very souls.
Archbishop Akinola gets to the heart of the matter: "The point 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 archbishop 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 Archbishop 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 choose 'the faith once for all delivered to the saints.' 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.
END
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Click FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search for a list of all related articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Archbishop Akinola gets to the heart of the matter: "The point 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 archbishop 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."
Perfect!
what about mark?
Mark reports Jesus as saying, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." In Mark Jesus offers no exceptions.
or paul?
Paul addresses the problem of Christians married to non-Christians. He says that the Christian should continue the marriage, if possible, in the hope of winning their spouse to the Lord. But then he says, "If the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound."
these two seem to contradict, and not only that the church allows both positions regarding this sexual issue? So why isn't adultly splitting apart churches, isn't this problem even more prevlanant and admittedly more confusing regarding Scripture?
" adulterers do not proclaim their right to commit adultery" Isn't that because the church doesn't kick out adulterers, so why should they demand that it not be brought up as an issue , in other words isn't adultery already accepted but in silent, like dont ask dont tell sort of thing ? I dont know , not trying to defend either sin, but this whole subject seems hypocritical, how to we justify?
They don't get up before the congregation and "celebrate" their adultery.
They don't have organizations or clubs within the church seeking to normalize adultery.
They don't demand that other people approve of their adultery.
Note that the church does not "kick out" homosexuals who don't do all these things.
You and Gidget have addressed the issue precisely. Thanks for the post. Note that some who take solemn vows before God and a hundred people at the wedding do in fact, adhere to said covenants (ie 50% of marriages do succeed).
That’s a good point, yet is it always true for all cases? Because; adulterers for example, sometimes do not have to proclaim publicly they have the right to do what they do, they just do it and it’s accepted and encouraged by their friends, it’s called divorce. One week a couple could be together, and the next they could both be with somebody else, and they go get papers signed and have wedding parties to and make their new vows. If that isn't but nothing more than an institution, and often accompanied by celebration I don’t know what is?
I am not trying to defend promiscuity outside of marriage between one man and one woman bonded in union to monogamous relationship, and the commandment to raise children, just curious of the issue of promiscuity, and why it is OK for some not for others , or why it is OK for some married couples not to have children and not others, and why these issues are not tearing apart churches, and no big public debate. The whole institution of marriage seems to be cracking, such that more people are single now than ever before, and nobody cares?
It’s not only the sin of promiscuity outside of marriage between one man and one woman, but also selective humbleness and forgiveness in the church, to accept institutionalized sin in our secular society, which perhaps it all means we are approaching the end times, maybe this is the real issue?
That's to avoid precisely the situation you describe.
Obviously this makes some people upset and resentful . . . but on the other hand the alternative is a devaluing of marriage.
are homosexuals kicked out of the church? Is there a movement afoot to have adultery accepted as an alternative lifestyle that is in keeping with what God has ordained? Is there a group of people trying to push an interpretation of the Bible that says adultery isn't a sin, and, therefore, need not be repented? I'm not seeing the parallels.
Great answer, thanks!!
seastay.........what she said!
"If the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so;..." these two seem to contradict...
There is no contradiction. In fact, the juxtaposition of St Mark 10 and 1Corinthians 7 reinforces that the focus is on remarriage. I know that, in a crude way, I'm only pointing out the obvious, but it is important that the ugliness of the first marriage not serve as the scriptural basis for the entering into of the second.
Actually, being divorced doesn't bar you from receiving Communion ( I assume you mean the Catholic Church). Only remarriage without an annulment does.
Of course, I'm sorry, that's what I meant.
The rule is that people who are serving in a public position in the church cannot be a public scandal.
If a gay couple goes and gets "married," that is directly contrary to the teachings of the church and a public scandal. I guarantee you they didn't do it on the quiet -- probably had engraved invitations and a big reception and the whole nine yards.
They therefore cannot continue to serve in a visible position in the church, i.e. the choir.
Same thing goes for somebody who's divorced and remarried - they can't do choir, can't do EEM, etc. etc. Otherwise it appears that the church is condoning scandal.
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.