The controversial Nigerian archbishop preached at a conservative Anglican gathering at Wheaton College (my alma mater) this past weekend. It's a reasonable enough location for such a gathering; in the last several years it seems you can't throw a Bible at a Wheaton-area homosexual without hitting a new non-Episcopal Anglican church. Still, I found it very strange to watch video of the event happening in the chapel in which I worshiped with the campus community, performed with several ensembles, received my diploma, and sat through countless chapel speakers (some, admittedly, more offensive to me than Akinola is, though also much lower profile).
The protest outside the chapel was scantly attended, and if it included people from the college community, that wasn't clear in the Tribune article and video. Back in my day, I'd like to think a lot of my friends would have been out there. But other friends would have been inside. That's the way this thing has gone...
Which brings me back to what I think is one of the more important questions about this whole mess, and indeed about all schismatic moments in the wider church: what does it look like for individual clergy, laypeople, or even congregations to be in communion with people with whom they are no longer in Communion?
Jesus Passion made present John 18 1 19 42
5 weeks ago
Good question. What's the answer?
ReplyDeleteI don't know. I hope it's yes. That's generally been my experience, though not w/o it's tensions. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteIt means... pass the wine, bro. (I'll drink it as soon as the baby comes). I'm still in the commune, I mean, communion. - SKJ
ReplyDeleteI would have been outside protesting.
ReplyDeleteToday I still am, though from inside the chapel....
AKJ
Actually, let me revise that, having just read the Trib piece--I would not have been holding a sign saying Akinola preaches hate and division. It's not so simple.
ReplyDeleteThough I remain appalled (no matter what "his context" in Nigeria) at his support for that now infamous legislation....
But he doesn't really hate gay people.
AKJ
Fair enough. But does the fact that he doesn't actually hate someone make it patently false to say that he preaches division and hate?
ReplyDeleteSteve, I really think you should rethink your policy of throwing Bibles at Wheaton-area homosexuals.
ReplyDeleteNo--I suppose you could theoretically not hate someone and still preach division and hatred. But I don't know how you could demonstrate from Akinola's sermons, source documents, etc., that he has actually *preached* those things. I haven't read anything of his (and I've read a bunch of his stuff) where he's said, "Go thou and divide and hate."
ReplyDeleteI think the more accurate phrasing could be that his preaching has *led to* division (I'd be hard-pressed to go as far as "hatred"). Though I actually think that even that statement would miss the larger context of how this division has come about (to really assess that, going back at least several decades in the Episcopal Church's polity and history is necessary).
But this is splitting hairs over semantics in some regards. I'm a bit frustrated with just about any media outlet that has covered this issue. There's no theological nuance in any story (present media company excluded, of course!). Not that I should expect that from a newspaper. But it's frustrating--to read the Trib or the NY Times or even the Wash Post (what I view as the best daily out there), you are either "anti-gay" and a hater or "accepting" and a lover. I reject (as you know) such a dichotomy, and seeing it promulgated throughout media channels day after day is starting to get on my nerves.
Largely because it makes for an AWFUL witness from the Body of Christ. I'd imagine that God is really grieving over this whole thing... Lord, have mercy on us all.