Nigerian Primate, Archbishop Peter Akinola, flexed his political muscle uniting African Anglicans behind his traditionalist position concerning homosexuality. There had been one holdout and that was Cape Town Primate, Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane. Archbishop Ndungane had favored the canonization to the office of bishop for active homosexual V. Gene Robinson. This provoked an angry exchange of letters between the archbishops. Now, it seems the archbishops have resolved their differences and have united behind Akinola's position. The story as reported by The Church of England Newspaper follows:
The Archbishop of Cape Town has agreed to ‘strengthen’ the traditionalist position of the African Church on homosexuality in return for the backing of other African Provinces for the next Lambeth Conference to be held in South Africa in 2008.African Primates had contemplated boycotting the planned Lambeth Conference in protest at Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane’s support for the consecration of a practising homosexual bishop in the United States. But after a meeting with the Primate of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, a statement was released which revealed a deal had been struck between the two leaders.
The meeting was held last week in Pretoria to discuss “the way forward for the Anglican Church in Africa and globally.”
It was held following a high profile exchange of angry letters between the two leaders last year when Archbishop Ndungane criticised Archbishop Akinola, chairman of the Council of African Provinces in Africa, for declaring broken communion with the American Episcopal Church.
In a press statement the two leaders said: “We agreed that there had been a communication gap between the leadership of the Church and this meeting resolved to remove obstacles that make communication impossible and thereby be able to fight against any forces that seek to divide us.”
The most significant aspect of the agreement was a pledge from the two leaders to “work together to strengthen the position of the Church in Africa on the issue of human sexuality.” They said that they both upheld the 1998 Lambeth resolution on human sexuality in which homosexual unions and marriages were categorically banned.
They also committed themselves to working together with political leaders on conflict prevention, and on the goals of eradicating poverty and disease.
In the statement Archbishop Peter Akinola backed off from the growing mood among African Primates to refuse to attend the Lambeth Conference in Cape Town in 2008.
Anglican liberals and gay rights activists will be disheartened by the Archbishop of Cape Town’s apparent change of heart.
Archbishop Ndungane has often been cited as the only African Primate who was sympathetic to the election and consecration of a practising homosexual.
We can not redefine marriage. It is not acceptable. Where are we going to? God did not spare Sodom He is not going to spare this present generation. There is no sin greater than the other, but when we are convicted of sin we should repent and give it up. The homosextuals say that they are born like that and so will continue living like that. The problem is the are turning temptation into a habit or nature. We are all tempted in the area of sextual sin and do not just go to be with every man or woman ,becuase we feel so.
I support the stand taken by bishiop Akinola and his African contarparts, no to this abomination.
Posted by: Eric Tangumonkem | April 17, 2004 at 08:47 PM
I believe homosextuals were born that way. Or at least the men. Most women turn lesbian after having a bad experience with a man. Although this is not proven, as far a I know, I believe we should look this up. I and for Gay marriages because, although I think it is sick (no offence), they are in love and marriage is a human right. They are not dogs. Homosextual's rights should not be limited just becuse we think it is weird and were not use to it.
Posted by: Aurore | November 17, 2004 at 08:04 AM
Where does Africa send her deacons and priests to seminary? How can these bishops, priests, and lay people ignore nearly fifty years of BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP regarding homosexuality--scholarship that gives us an in-depth study of what the text is saying? Scholarship from Muslims, Jews, Christians--gay and straight, men and women. How can anyone ignore the scholarship?
Even more distressing is the "Eames/Windsor" report that continues to "biblically" condemn homosexuality and makes no mention of current biblical scholarhip. I don't think God gives a fig what people do sexually, as long as power is not abused and there is respect and caring and ideally, love.
Of course, Xanity's history as a specific cult of Judaism honours both testaments, but I believe I am called to follow the life of Jesus, who proclaimed love and peace and spoke up for the rights of oppressed peoples and claimed a "preferential option for the poor." I'd have more respect for Archbishop Akinola got out of his bullet-proof limo and used his influence for love and justice--and not for hate and heterosexism.
No one "chooses" to be gay/lesbian, just as no one chooses to be "straight." When did Archbishop Peter choose to be "straight?" When did the condemning bloggers choose to be straight? If one can choose, then many women would choose to be lesbian. I tried, but find I was born straight.
What is so threatening about gay sex? Isn't this the real issue behind all this noise? Straight men seem to like oral and anal sex. Is it threatening two men, one giving and one receiving, are experiencing pleasure?
Sodom has NOTHING to do with sodomy; the Sodom story is NOT about homosexuality. The purity laws do not reflect contemporary life; only life at the time when a people were struggling to survive.
Marriage in "biblical times" was nothing like marriage today; how can anyone compare the two? That seems totally without any cultural, historical thought. And marriage IS a human-created institution, made a sacrament by the Church. It is long past time for the Church to bless ALL unions--unions sacramental require a sacrament. Why can't folks rejoice in ALL people celebrating their bodies of X,created and creatING by God, living the Body of X?
Just as the military would never have survived without gays; the Church throughout the centuries would never have any deacons, priests, bishops, sisters, brothers, etc if not for gays and lesbians. I've always thought it a loving gesture of the Church to "create" communities in which people of the same gender could live together. Are we really so silly to think that only straight men and women enter religious orders? They seem ideal places for same-gender loving, whether made sexual/genital, to thrive.
Vestments, with all their frills and lace, are just sooo perfect drag; they are so feminine that women do not look good in vestments--no place for breasts and hips. .
There is no reason for ECUSA and the Church of Canada to apologise for their open-mindedness, open-heartedness; it is the rest of the Anglican Communion that needs to apologise for their ignorance and homophobia.
Jesus, whose life we are called to follow, makes no mention about the rights or wrongs of same-gender relationships. This was a radical man. Did the women who hung out with Jesus carry a "red tent" and did the male disciples take a week off with the women during their periods or what? And what about "the disciple that Jesus loved" with his?/her? head on Jesus' breast/chest. Many early Xan images of Jesus show him with a very feminine body--with breasts and hips and women-styled hair!
Posted by: The Rev'd. oonagh Ryan-King | February 21, 2005 at 10:07 PM