Christian Living

---

Two Worlds Collide in Anglican Church

By confirming an openly gay priest as a bishop for the first time last week, the Episcopal Church set off shock waves of discord that are being felt as far away as Africa.

Read on to see what Aleck Cartwright has to say on this debate, it may surprise you!

Episcopalians meeting in Minneapolis confirmed the Rev. Canon V. Gene Robinson as bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire and gave tacit approval to local bishops to allow marriage-like blessings for gay and lesbian couples.

Robinson is strongly supported by his parishioners and confirmed by a majority of the delegates from the national church. However, his elevation angered church conservatives in the United States and sparked even greater fury in the parts of Africa that are in worldwide Anglican Communion.

"They have chosen the path of deviation from the 'historic faith' once delivered to the saints," the Most Rev. Peter Akinola, head of the church in Nigeria, said in a letter. With 17.5 million believers, his is the largest Anglican province in the world. Akinola went on to say that the controversy "compels us ... to think of the nature of our future relationship" with the Episcopal Church of the United States, a not-so-veiled threat about schism.

Archbishop of Uganda Henry Orombi announced last week that his church — which represents nearly 8 million Anglicans — would sever relations with the U.S. dioceses that supported Robinson's election. In Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan and Zimbabwe, African church leaders have roundly criticized the American bishops.

"The American influence is strong" in Africa, said the Rev. David Phillips, the leader of a conservative Anglican evangelical group in England. "But mainly because the American church has a lot of money. But my impression is now that the issue is such a strong one, the African churches may say they will ignore the American influence, despite their money."

When it comes to opposing homosexuality, some African churches appear to be willing to put principle before money. One day after Akinola issued his threat to cut ties with American dioceses who voted for Robinson's election, the Nigerian sent an even more strident letter to his flock.

"We are mindful of the backlash this strong stand can engender from the rich churches in Europe, America and Canada, who have long used their wealth to intimidate the financially weak churches in Africa," he wrote. "Our boldness in condemning the spiritual bankruptcy of these churches must be matched by our refusal to receive financial help from them."

Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion comprises autonomous national churches that are at liberty to interpret biblical scripture differently. The structure of the church is conducive to diverse cultures and changing times, but it has also left the institution vulnerable to schism.

"The African churches have a much more literalist interpretation of the Bible," said Thompson, adding that African conservatism was a remnant of evangelical Anglican missions that brought Christianity to Africa. "And prior to the missionaries, many Africans also had traditional cultural attitudes toward homosexuality that combined to produce a form of Anglicanism which is very opposed to openly gay expression." To many Africans, the mere mention of homosexuality is taboo.

"Religion is not just a Sunday thing for us," said the Rev. Canon Jackson Turyagyenda, a spokesman for the Church of Uganda. "You might say we Africans are traditionally and incurably religious." Turyagyenda says he is worried that Robinson's confirmation will harm the prestige of the Anglican church, which competes for new converts with the larger Catholic church in Uganda.

In Sudan and Nigeria, some Anglican leaders are concerned that they will lose converts to Islam and lose respect in the eyes of other denominations. Mohammed abu Bakar, a Muslim cleric in Lagos, Nigeria, said that "if homosexuality is what their Bible teaches, it is evil in my own religion and in the sight of the Almighty. It is evil, and it must affect the credibility of the Anglican faith."

South African Archbishop Winston Ndungane, successor of Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu, was one of the few national Anglican leaders in Africa who declined to criticize the U.S. appointment directly. However, Ndungane did say that the U.S. Anglicans were generally "too obsessed with sexuality."

"What is an issue in the church in the United States is not an issue for us," Ndungane said. "We're dealing with life and death issues here — poverty, hunger, disease, AIDS — these are the things that occupy our minds." But even Ndungane, who is known for his moderate views and support for social justice issues, has been criticized for his stance on gay priests in South Africa.

"Priests can be gay as long as they are chaste," he said. "Homosexual priests must be celibate, but heterosexuals do not have to be celibate" if they are married.

Not since 1976, when the Episcopal Church broke with tradition and agreed to ordain women to the priesthood, has the denomination been so shaken by threats of schism and discordant voices. What happens in the next several months will be closely watched by other denominations that have also been struggling with the issue of homosexuality, among them the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Presbyterian Church (USA).

The Episcopal Church is not the only Anglican church in which controversy over homosexuality has arisen in the last several months. In May, the Anglican Church of Canada's Diocese of New Westminster, which includes Vancouver, authorized same-sex blessing ceremonies. That prompted at least 17 foreign archbishops, mainly from Africa, to declare that they were in "impaired communion," something like breaking diplomatic relations.

Then in July, a celibate homosexual priest, the Rev. Canon Jeffrey John, who was appointed suffragan, or assistant, bishop of the Church of England's Diocese of Reading, was forced to decline the appointment amid opposition that included Akinola's threat to leave the communion.

For many in the church, homosexuality has become a litmus test of fidelity to the faith. In the West, differences over how to interpret biblical passages that refer to sex between members of the same gender are controversial enough. But when conflicting cultural attitudes within a worldwide church are added to the mix the subject can become even more volatile.

"What in our culture we describe as a 'sexual identity' is seen solely as a behavior in other parts of the world. There is no capacity to think of a person self-identifying as gay or lesbian," he said.

"We also have incredible variations in vocabulary," he continued. The "term 'homosexual' in our context is neutral, but the equivalent of that term in other languages is highly inflammatory. So we may think we're speaking in a kind of reasonable, even prose, but the moment it's translated into another language it becomes something quite different."

These differences complicate dialogue, but Griswold said he was optimistic about the outcome of a meeting with other Anglican leaders in London in October to discuss the issue. The meeting was called last week by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.

The following is an interview with God-Life.com regarding homosexuality.

Question: Is homosexuality a condition or an act?

Aleck: The Bible states clearly that it is an act, as is adultery or sex before marriage. It is made clear that homosexuality is not a condition like hermaphrodite or eunuch.

Question: If tomorrow, a scientist at John Hopkins University claims that he has isolated the gene in people that determines that homosexuality can be hereditary, what would you say then?

Aleck: I would guess that any behaviour would then be ascertained by my genes, I could say that I am a talented person, a thief, an adulterer and so on and all because of my genes. I have no free will to choose, this is ultimately and genetically predetermined. If this is the case, then neither I nor anyone else can be held accountable for our behaviour, good or bad. Out of necessity, we would have to free all those on death-row, in jail and also intelligence or great abilities would also become obsolete. It would be like "Brave New World!"
Our genes would over-arch our ability for free choice.

Question: So how much is our identity actually based on our actions?

Aleck: So what you are asking is "If homosexuality is an act, not a condition, then if one has homosexual inclinations but does not act on them (i.e. abstains from them) is he then still a homosexual? Well, that's where the rubber hits the road, if it is a condition, then genetically one is a homosexual whether he acts on it or not. On the other hand if it is not a condition - the person has a choice, if it is a condition - it is a nature and choice plays no part in his actions - nothing he can do will change the fact that he is inherently homosexual. The fact remains that a gene has not been found, and I don't believe will be found. Homosexuality is an action not an identity. I, as a married man have the potential to commit adultery, I am capable and able to do so, but until I commit adultery, I am not an adulterer. I will always have choices and bad choices reap terrible consequences. As human beings we cannot escape the God-given norms of cause and effect. Our choices will dictate the effects of our actions.

Question: Do you have any Biblical basis for your views?

Aleck: Both Galatians 5:16-21 and Romans 1:24-32 address homosexuality as a fruit of sin. It is the product of sinfulness and not the nature of the tree itself. The nature of the tree or person is sin, but one of the many expressions of the tree happens to be homosexuality.
Paul clearly lists the works of the flesh in a person, while clearly defining a difference between the action and the nature of the person. Sin is not genetic and neither is righteousness, our choices decide what fruit we will produce. Love is not genetic, it is a fruit of the spirit, God imparts His love to us because He is our identity.

If homosexuality is genetic, could love be genetic too? Are some born murderers and others born faithful or gentle by nature? Is it all down to genes? We had better decide soon, otherwise we may just settle on for-going any choices at all and writing it all down to genes.
This would not be true ultimately, but as a man thinks in his mind so is he! Because if we feel we have no choice or power, then we probably don't. That would be a pitiful state to be in on any choice of right and wrong, it renders us powerless to choose and determines our own identity.

This predicament undermines our value, because we can no longer choose our actions, instead we are bound to our genetic make-up. The Bible says that we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and as such we have free choice along with that, consequences for our actions (cause and effect). Neither our consequences or our choices are us, but they are expressions of who we believe ourselves to be. If we believe that we are born in a certain way, we have at that point, lost our ability to be something different. We need to base our identity on who God sees us to be, not on our own judgements, or else we put ourselves in the place of God and we lose all justice in the process by declaring that we are a product of our genetics and very little or not at all of our choices.

Question: So what is the role of the church in this debate?

Aleck: South African Archbishop Winston Ndungane said, "Homosexual priests must be celibate, but heterosexuals do not have to be celibate" if they are married. First off, I agree with that statement. Secondly, if someone has homosexual inclinations, but remains celibate then I don't see them as a homosexual, they make continual active choices to not engage in sexual intercourse. Much the same as a heterosexual virgin does until they are married. This is not genetic it is a way of life. Sexual drives are God-given, but they are not all powerful. As a married man I still have to make choices about my sexual thoughts, I fail, I recognise it as sin and I realise that my choices will have consequences in my life.

Ndungane also said that the U.S. Anglicans were generally "too obsessed with sexuality." I think this is very true for our societies, we have made sex a necessity as much as food or drink. Sex is not essential to life, you can actually live a very fulfilled life while never having had sexual intercourse. I have never heard of anyone dying from not having sex, you can starve, you can die of thirst, but sex is not and never will be as important as societal obsession gives it credit for.

I think that as a church, we should call out for the rights of a homosexual to the same extent as we do for the rights of any other human being. Homosexuals should be protected from wrongs, they should have justice and they should be treated with respect. They should not have special rights, they should not be given more rights than unwed single couples living together, they should never have the same rights as married couples, as this gives them preference.

I have been to a huge gay rally in Washington DC as a Christian two years ago, they are just normal people. They need love, respect, friendships and encouragement just like anyone else. That is what we should be to them. We cannot be anti-gay if we don't give any credit to their assumptions that that is their nature. The gay, lesbian and transgendered community is open to loving and caring people who will treat them with respect and love them, we don't need to condone their lifestyle choice. Much the same as I can be a friend to sinners of all types because I can understand that Sin is and always will be sin, no matter how it is packaged and homosexuality is an active choice, but in that it is sin, it is no worse than any other sin. If I am an adulterer, I am sinning by my actions. If I am in a homosexual relationship, I am sinning too. There are always consequences to sin, the consequences may differ, but as a church we are called to uphold moral law regardless of how much civil law changes with the will of the people.

My judgement on the act of homosexuality does not make me anti-gay or homophobic, because that is not who they are, it may be their sexual preference, but it is not who they are. I need to be as much against any other sin as I am against homosexual and lesbian acts. All sin is destructive in it's consequence. So, in closing I believe that one cannot be homosexual or lesbian by nature, one can have homosexual or lesbian inclinations, but if one abstains, one cannot be called a homosexual or lesbian.

It still remains true that no mainstream religion, neither Islam, Seikhism, Buddhism or Christianity accepts the gay lifestyle as a normal and ideal sexual relationship. While it is true that many on the fringes of every one of these religions are more sympathetic to the gay community, most religions today still do not condone homosexual acts.

The role of the Christian Church is to uphold God's law in society, this is true regardless of what society at large decides what is right. As a Christian, a member of the body of Christ and a missionary, it is my calling and responsibility to address all that I go through from a Biblical perspective and be open to correction myself, as I am not perfect. My role is to identify with the pain of the issue and to be open to discussion and blind spots in my own understanding. The Christian church will be accountable on this issue and it's credibility will be judged by our response to this crises.

"if homosexuality is what their Bible teaches, it is evil in my own religion and in the sight of the Almighty. It is evil, and it must affect the credibility of the Anglican faith." - Mohammed abu Bakar, a Muslim cleric in Lagos, Nigeria.





Note: © 2003, God-life.com,
This article cannot be used without permission from the author, if you would like to use this article, please contact us at [email protected]

---

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE