“Jailing Gays” in Nigeria: My Answer to Charges of Bigotry

December 23, 2006

Dubious accusations abound in the wake of the decision of many Virginia churches, including mine, to sever denominational ties with the Episcopal Church.  The harshest criticism has been saved for those churches’ simultaneous decision to affiliate instead with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), a mission of the Church of Nigeria.  The critics’ objection:  the Primate of the Church of Nigeria, Archbishop Akinola, is an alleged “advocate of jailing gays.”  In particular, he allegedly “threw his prestige and resources behind” proposed Nigerian legislation that would criminalize same-sex marriage and “make it illegal for gay men and lesbians to form organizations, read gay literature or eat together in a restaurant,” says the New York Times.  By choosing to affiliate with CANA, critics contend, these Virginia churches have implicitly endorsed jailing homosexuals for exercising freedoms of speech, association, expression, assembly, and religion.  (The full text of the legislation is reproduced here.)

As someone who voted in favor of separating from the Episcopal Church and affiliating with CANA, the critics’ sweeping accusations include me within their aim.  Harold Meyerson accuses me of deciding that not “all men were created equal.”  A writer for the Diocese of Washington has hypothesized that I may have been motivated by “naked bigotry,” and he seeks an explanation of why I “favor--or, at the very least, acquiesce--in depriving Nigerians of rights that Americans enjoy.”  Father Jake says that I “probably” am a bigot and issues the following challenge:  “Please explain how ordaining gays and lesbians can trouble your conscience, yet throwing them in jail does not.”

I suspect that these gentlemen would prefer to hear a response from someone in a position of formal leadership at my church.  I am in no such position.  As is true with respect to all I write but bears emphasizing at a time like this, I speak only for myself – not for CANA, The Falls Church (TFC), my friends, or my wife – just me. 

To characterize my vote to leave the Episcopal Church and affiliate with CANA as an act of bigotry is to miss the point entirely.  The overriding purpose of the vote called by my parish leadership, as I understand it, was to hold a referendum on the state of the Episcopal Church – to decide whether the denomination has so parted ways with biblical Christianity that we, in turn, must part ways with the denomination.  As explained in Part I of this essay, my vote in favor of leaving the Episcopal Church is my witness to the supreme authority of Scripture for all of life and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the one and only Mediator between God and humankind.  Choosing to leave, of course, raises the ancillary and less important question of where to go.  My parish leadership thoroughly reviewed the options, recommended that we affiliate with CANA as a transitional entity, and presented to the congregation the question of where-to-go in the same resolution as the question of whether-to-go.  Part II explains why I voted for this package resolution, despite concerns about the Nigerian bill.  In short, these concerns were insufficient to overcome my concerns about the Episcopal Church’s leadership’s abandonment of core tenets of the Christian faith. 

I.  Whether-to-go:  Why I voted to sever ties with the Episcopal Church

Before implicating me and the great majority of my fellow parishioners in a parade of horribles, let’s consider the specific resolution put before us by TFC leadership.  It stated, in relevant part, that:

[1] The Episcopal Church has departed from the authority of the Holy Scriptures and from historic Christian teaching on the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the only Lord and Savior of humankind; [and thus 2] The Falls Church shall sever its denominational ties with The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia and [3] affiliate with [CANA].

As I briefly explained in another essay, I accept the premise:  there is plentiful, sobering evidence that the denomination’s leadership not only has effectively abandoned Scripture as the supreme authority for life, but seems to have no reservations about denying the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.  These are not inconsequential matters at the edges of Christian doctrine about which the church – even those of us from the Anglican tradition – can agree to disagree.  Reflecting the biblical understanding that “All Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16), all Christians confess, through the Nicene Creed, that the Holy Spirit has spoken through the prophets.  For the same reason, our Book of Common Prayer repeatedly refers to the Bible as the “Word of God” or the “Word of the Lord,” and the Episcopal catechism (BCP p.853) teaches that Scripture – not man – defines truth:

Q. How do we recognize the truths taught by the Holy Spirit?

A. We recognize truths to be taught by the Holy Spirit when they are in accord with the Scriptures. 

See The Falls Church, Can Two Walk Together, Except They Be Agreed?, pp.3-4.  Nonetheless, the Episcopal Church’s 2003 and 2006 General Conventions rejected resolutions that would have affirmed that Scripture is the Church’s supreme authority.  See id. at 12;  The Falls Church, I Will Welcome You: Finding a New Home in the Anglican Communion, p.2.

From its outset, Anglican teaching has clearly accepted the biblical understanding that Jesus Christ is the only Lord and Savior of humankind.  Affirming the words of Jesus (John 14:6 and Matthew 11:27) and the teachings of Paul (1 Timothy 2:5; Romans 3:21-22) and Peter (Acts 4:12), Article XVIII of the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles proclaimed:

They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

Even so, the Episcopal Church’s 2006 General Convention rejected a resolution that would have declared a “commitment to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the only name by which any person may be saved,” and would have “acknowledge[d] the solemn responsibility placed upon us to share Christ with all persons when we hear His words, ‘I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.’”  See I Will Welcome You, p.9.  In two subsequent interviews (summarized here), the denomination’s recently elected leader certified the convention’s rejection of this non-negotiable tenet of the Christian faith. 

I understand that many sincere people of faith disagree with my assessment of the evidence.  But for those of us who have concluded that the leadership of the Episcopal Church has unrepentantly forsaken core matters of Christian faith, separation from the denomination becomes imperative.  We are not to “be yoked together with unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 6:14). 

About those who depart from “the teaching of Christ,” we are warned: “Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching; for to welcome is to participate in the evil deeds of such a person.”  (2 John 10-11.)  The Apostles’ instruction is eventually to keep away from him and have nothing to do with him.

Can Two Walk Together, p.16 & n.14 (citing Romans 16:17;  2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14;  2 Timothy 3:5;  Titus 3:10).  Yet there are those, including Bishop Lee of Virginia, who would have us ignore this teaching as well, all in the name of maintaining unity in the church.  See, e.g., Statement from Bishop Lee, Unity through Diversity, Dec. 10, 2006 (urging congregations contemplating leaving the diocese to preserve, defend and maintain unity within and through diversity), available at the diocese’s press room;  Letter from Bishop Lee to Truro Parishioners, Dec. 6, 2006 (“ vote for the unity and mission of the church, therefore remaining one with your diocese . . . .  Until the Day of Judgement, the wheat and the weeds will grow together as Jesus promised in the Gospel”).  A resource published and commended by the Diocese of Virginia claims that: 

A great variety of interpretations of Scripture has coexisted in the Anglican Communion.  Unity has been based rather on common discipline, common worship, common prayer, shared reverence for and discussion of Scripture, and common allegiance to the Bishop.

This notion bears little resemblance to the unity in Christ of which Paul spoke – “unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God” (Ephesians 4:13), unity with “one faith” (v.5).  As the leaders of The Falls Church put it, the unity envisioned by the diocese – “unity through the ‘yoke’ of denominational affiliation – without regard to shared belief, and even in the face of obvious disbelief”:  

is neither Anglican nor Christian.  It would transform the Church into a less-than-Christian organization, which we perceive that the national Episcopal Church has now become . . . (I Will Welcome You, p.15).

To remain affiliated with the denomination is to be complicit in its serious doctrinal error.  It is to submit to, if not endorse, teaching that rejects Scripture as supremely authoritative.  It is to submit to leadership that denies Jesus Christ as the one and only Mediator between God and humankind.  For evidence of complicity, one only need look at the accusations of bigotry that triggered this essay.  Critics explicitly or implicitly accuse those of us leaving the Episcopal Church for CANA with complicity in every word uttered and deed done by the Archbishop of Nigeria.

Consider also the denomination’s response to news of our votes to disaffiliate.  “This is a handful of congregations of a total of nearly 7,200, the vast majority of which are engaged in healthy and vital ministry,” said Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.  Paragraph two of the Episcopal News Service press release highlighted the fact that Sunday’s defection involved “eight of Virginia’s 195 congregations” and “about 8,000 of the diocese’s roughly 90,000 Episcopalians.”  The implication invited by the presiding bishop and her news service:  the other 187 Virginia congregations and 82,000 Episcopalians support the denomination’s leadership and teaching.  I refuse to be counted in this way as one of the denomination’s supporters.

II.  Where-to-go:  Why concerns about CANA were insufficient to lead me to vote to remain a part of the Episcopal Church

This discussion may seem like the long way around to answering accusations about my vote to affiliate with CANA, but it is the only way around to the question.  There really is no other way to provide an accurate account.  This is the context in which the decision to affiliate with CANA was made.  This was the source and urgency of my conviction to dissociate from the Episcopal Church.  The issue of where-to-go, while not unimportant, was minor compared to the issue of whether-to-go and why.  Issues of sexuality and civil rights, while important, are lesser than questions concerning the nature and authority of Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures.

Contributing to the lesser importance of where-to-go is the fact that our destination, by nature and design, is impermanent.  Regardless whether The Falls Church were to affiliate in the immediate term with Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, etc., that relationship will be temporary, lasting only until a new US province of orthodox Anglicans can be formed.  See Mary Springmann, Vestry Registrar, Truro Church, Why CANA? (describing CANA as a “transitional entity with built-in flexibility to move to a permanent orthodox American structure”).  TFC’s rector, John Yates, paints this picture:

Ages ago, before the world was born, the great battle began when the Prince of Darkness rebelled against the one, true king.  It has raged ever since.  Among the many vessels commissioned by our glorious king to engage in this holy war, was our own good ship “Episcopalian.”  Not nearly as large or conspicuous as many, still we have admired her beauty and been proud to serve in her crew.  

Tragically, now, she is sinking.  Great leaks have developed, she has rusted and rotted.  The captain and officers seem unaware.  “All is well,” they cry as the waters rise, the ropes give way and the rudder comes loose.  . . .  Now, look!  Other ships in the great Anglican fleet have noticed our perilous condition and sent little lifeboats with supplies and fresh materials – little rafts from the ship Rwanda (A.M.i.A.), Nigeria (C.A.N.A.), Bolivia, Kenya, Uganda, and elsewhere.  Their ships are led by strong and able captains.  “We will help you,” they shout to us.  “Let us carry you for a brief time to a sheltered place where we will help you build a new ship that will bring great joy to our king.  Bring whatever tools and supplies you can, but don’t be encumbered.  This is a moment for courage and faith!”

In evaluating the available lifeboats, my parish leadership considered ten or so factors similar to those set forth in this summary by Truro’s vestry registrar.  Our senior warden’s explanation of the leadership’s rationale for seeking shelter in CANA, the lifeboat offered by the Church of Nigeria, was thorough and reasonable.  I do not repeat his explanation or defend their decision in this essay, which is intended to provide my perspective as a member of the congregation of The Falls Church.  Although the accusations against Arbishop Akinola gave me serious pause, I ultimately found those accusations to be an insufficient basis to reject my leadership’s recommendation.

I am disturbed by the Nigerian bill’s proposals to curtail the freedoms of speech, association, expression, assembly, and religion – freedoms so critical to the health of a democracy.  Governments ought not restrain their citizens’ freedom to advocate in favor of – or against – homosexual practices – in Nigeria, Britain, Sweden, Canada or elsewhere.  After our congregational vote, Archbishop Akinola explained that the Church of Nigeria, likewise, believes that “there are genuine concerns about individual human rights that must be addressed both in the framing of the law and its implementation.”

Even without the benefit of this later clarification, I was not convinced, at the time of my vote, that Archbishop Akinola supports such restrictions.  Claims that he does originate from two reports of the Church of Nigeria’s Standing Committee (here and here), each of which contains one line generally supporting the proposed bill.  It is true that the archbishop signed these reports.  It is also true that the reports fail to qualify the church’s support for the legislation in anyway.  Before condemning the man, though, let’s consider what else we know about him that might enhance our understanding of the situation.

We know that Archbishop Akinola is respected as a “man of peace [whose] leadership is a model for Christians around the world” (Time Magazine, April 30, 2006).  We know that he “is primarily an evangelist and a pastor whose desire is to see all people come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ” (Letter from Martyn Minns, March 3, 2006).  We know that he “face[s] burdens of ministry at home both ponderous and persistent” (World Magazine, Dec. 16, 2006), burdens of a nature unknown in our country.  In northern Nigeria, Islam and Christianity are “at war” (id.).  As northern states began adopting Sharia law – law that calls for the stoning of homosexuals – Akinola “called on the government to suspend oil receipts and supplies.  ‘Time has come to call the Shariah governors to throw Shariah off our land,’” he said (id.).  When Muslims rioted in February 2005 in response to Danish cartoons unflattering of Mohammed:

Nigeria was hit hardest: In the north rioters killed more than 120 Christians, burned about 40 churches, and destroyed hundreds of shops and houses.  Reprisals by Christians in southeast Nigeria killed about 100 Muslims and left perhaps thousands homeless (id.).

We know that Archbishop Akinola, ministering in this alien cultural milieu, is “working overtime to lower the religious and ethnic tensions in Nigeria and to care for those who have been traumatized in the recent strife” (Minns Letter).  The very Standing Committee reports upon which Akinola’s opponents rely demonstrate a breadth of ministerial concerns that belies any claim that this is an intolerant homophobe obsessed with oppressing people based on their sexual orientation.  These reports express the Church of Nigeria’s concern with  child trafficking; the riotous “destruction of lives and property” triggered by the Danish cartoons;  “attacks on and assassination of clergy”;  “frequent . . . hostage taking . . . in the oil producing area of the Niger Delta”;  the unethical diversion of funds away from HIV and AIDS patients;  fighting bird flu;  the obedience of all citizens, “especially the three tiers of Government,” to the “rule of law”;  the efficiency and trustworthiness of the police force;  educational policies;  administration of the census;  corruption of the electoral process;  the care of Nigerian pensioners; etc.

Finally, we know that, prior to our congregational vote, the archbishop attempted to clarify his position on the proposed Nigerian legislation, explaining that:

he 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 . . . .  Jesus Christ is our example for this.  He refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery [and] instead . . . said, ‘Go now and sin no more.’  That is an essential part of the message of the Gospel and the teaching of our congregations.”

CANA statement, Dec. 7, 2006.  Some who disagree with Akinola’s adherence to biblical teaching on the underlying issues of same-sex conduct construe this clarification as non-responsive, Orwellian doublespeak.  I find this interpretation untenable when one more fully considers the reputation and past performance of the man who is speaking and the circumstances in which he ministers.  When looking through that lens, one can reasonably and fairly conclude that the archbishop does not offer unqualified support for the proposed Nigerian legislation.  Pointing to Jesus’ refusal to condemn the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11) as an example, Akinola indicates a reluctance to condemn those who practice homosexuality.  He observes that they “need the transforming love of God,” implying that compassionate healing – not jail sentences imposed through the criminal justice system – would be the proper response of the Nigerian people.  He embraces the biblical understanding 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.”  By this statement, did the archbishop intend to imply opposition to the proposed restrictions on homosexuals’ fundamental rights of speech and association?  Detractors, I’m sure, would vigorously dispute such an interpretation, perhaps attributing this sentiment to nothing more than political expedience.  I admit that he was less clear than I would have hoped.  But when the time came to cast my vote, I chose to take into account what we know about Archbishop Akinola and the dangerous circumstances in which he ministers so faithfully, and give him the benefit of the doubt on this point.  I trust and hope that this was the correct decision.  The archbishop’s more recent statement, in which he acknowledges “genuine concerns about individual human rights” being threatened by the proposed law, suggests that it was.

*          *          *

In summary, to those who claim that my vote to leave the Episcopal Church and affiliate with CANA is a vote for bigotry:  you’re missing the point.  My vote was cast in support the primacy of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ – not against sexual practices, in the United States or Nigeria.  While the attention given to this issue no doubt is a product of our cultural obsession with all things sexual, it should be equally clear that our decision to leave the Episcopal Church and join CANA is rooted in our fidelity to the Word.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Matthew Thompson has amassed an extensive collection of resources on the proposed Nigerian legislation.