Scarcely a week seems to pass without some new scandal, some outrageous statement or appalling behaviour coming out not of sundry [African] regimes, militias, or armed factions, but from an institution that is fast becoming equally corrupt, the Anglican Church itself.Indeed.These are not just any old Anglicans but bishops and archbishops, with scarcely a peep coming out of anyone, least of all their allies in the evangelical constituency, with only a few honourable exceptions. For the rest it is almost as if embarrassment, political correctness and maybe even the fear of upsetting those on the same side in the gay row causes a reticence that is close to cowardice.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
"... the fear of upsetting those on the same side ..."
Another excellent post at Thinking Anglicans by Stephen Bates of the Guardian (March 3, Church of England Newspaper). Quote:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
First I cannot find any "liberal" Christian criticizing their "liberal" Bishops either - this is a question of closing ranks and is done by all groups - Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccan etc.
On the question of Bishop Chane and the "god" of Muslims, the "conservative" Catholic Church has the same position as Bishop Chane and teaches it in their catechism. The "evangelical" Christians have roundly criticized the Catholic Church for this position.
In many societies, the rights of the individuals are protected by the government and the law enforcement agencies. In societies with volatile faultlines, the security personnel themselves may become the perpetrators. When the government fails to protect the citizens what are the citizens to do? If they are Christians, should they just turn the other cheek and wait for the next blow like they have been doing for years?
Abp Akinola was stating that even if he wanted no violence, it was impossible to contain the "restive youth of CAN", in other words they would not be pacified by his arguments for non-violence when the Northern Muslim-majority states are killing Christians.
But, we should not have Christian leaders inciting the violence...Would Jesus have advocated violence in retaliation for violence against Christians in Nigeria? NO! And anyone who does advocate violence is NOT being a good disciple of Christ.
The theory of "just war" was proposed by a Christian saint and has been the basis of Christian and Western military intervention in many wars and crusades. Regrettably, a primal response may be necessary in certain situations as has been demonstrated by nations even in the 21st century.
“May we at this stage remind our Muslim brothers that they do not have the monopoly on violence in this nation. Nigeria belongs to all of us – Christians, Muslims and members of other faiths. No amount of intimidation can Change this time-honoured arrangement in this nation. C.A.N. may no longer be able to contain our restive youths should this ugly trend continue."
Taken with the first point of Abp Akinola's communique, this is more an entreaty to the Muslims to stop killing the Christians in the North. There were no cries of horror from "liberal Christians" regarding this killing. Many reports BBC, indicate that the violence started when the Muslims demonstrated against the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed. "Free speech without limits" has certainly a lot to answer for.
Sorry did not get the next para in the prev post..contd
Personally, I think this point and the entire communique could have been better worded (or translated). Either way, I would agree with Daniel that Christian leaders cannot be inciting violence.
Right, we're all agreed, then? (smile)
I think a good place to "re-start" in our discussion of this issue is that we will all agree that "Christian leaders cannot be inciting violence."
I want to believe that Akinola had no intention of unleashing hordes of angry youths in Onitsha (hundreds of miles from the Muslim north, such that the Onitsha mobs could not be justified in terms of self defense). However, the language "may no longer be able to restrain" is the language of threat. And while that language may have been an accident of phrasing, its usage leaves us with only two options, neither of which is particularly flattering to the Archbishop: (1) the Archbishop has a terrible press office (which doesn't seem at all improbable given the Gay Marriage Legislation), or (2) he really intended it as a threat, or a true incitement to violence. Because no one in the Western media saw the statement (which they wrote was very well publicized and timed just before the violence in Onitsha commenced) as anything other than inflammatory.
As for liberals criticizing liberal bishops, I've talked to lots of liberal Anglicans (by which I mean "soft" on gay rights) who are not happy with the non-evangelical message their bishops are putting forward. I think Ed Little of Northern Indiana (I've known him since I was a kid) would be an excellent example of a liberal ECUSA bishop, who, were he not a bishop, would be criticizing many bishops on issues of Gospel orthodoxy.
Post a Comment