not too much

My thanks to the ever-alert compilers of Thinking Anglicans for spotting an article in The Vanguard (4 March 06) discussing the Nigerian government's recent actions against homosexuals. The article quotes David Mac-Iyalla, founder of Changing Attitude Nigeria and also quotes at length the views of various Muslim and Christian religious leaders. What is dangerous in their statements, is their call on the state to enforce what they believe to be the law of God. That takes us back to the Inquisition, where heretics were burned, not by the church, but by the state at the insistence of the church. It might just be possible to mix theology and politics if the theology is sound and the politics humane. But in Nigeria's actions against gays and lesbians, the theology is foolish and the politics are brutally cynical.

The Vanguard asks:

. . . do homosexuals not have the right to make their choices as to who they want to spend their lives with as husbands and wives, or as boyfriends and girlfriends even if they are of the same sex? Or how should the government handle this matter that is catching on globally and threatening to tear the entire world apart?

The Anglican Bishop of Lagos, Dr. Ephraim Adebola Ademowo responds:

As a matter of fact, we commend the Federal Government for the bold step it has taken thus far on the issue and we hope it will go the whole hog to make the National Assembly complete the process by enacting it into law which will be completed to the letter.

It is an unhealthy practice and every normal human being will boldly tell you it is not part of the traditional African culture. But above all, the Bible is very clear on the issue. It described it as an abberation and should not be seen among men who are called of by the name of God.

So, we totally commend the Federal Government for its initiatives and we will continue to pray that the National Assembly will enact the law and the judiciary will follow suit to interprete the laws when the time comes in order to forestall any breach of the law.

In a piece on the website of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) the Rt. Rev. David Onuoha, Bishop of Okigwe, trots out the usual arguments based on Leviticus and Romans and badly misunderstands Genesis 19. Much more dangerous, however, is his advocacy of action by the state to enforce his (and the Church's) ill-formed views.

There is no doubt that advocates of gay marriage are motivated by the need to preserve the rights of those who are inclined to live perversely. There is nothing wrong in preserving ones right. Human right ensures that man lives as he ought to and not as he likes to.

It is very clear that if everyone is allowed to live as one likes to live, there will be chaos and anarchy. This is why the law is there to guide ones life as one ought to. Man, at creation, has his freewill which guarantees freedom of choice and action. He is free to choose between good and evil, right and wrong etc.

Since man is created in the image and likeness of God and is also dependent on Him, his laws must be derived from those of God. When therefore there is a conflict between 'human right' and 'God right', the former must judge and redefine itself by and from the latter in order to live in true freedom.

Our conclusion therefore is that same sex union in whatever guise it may manifest -- homosexuality, lesbianism, sodomy, sexuality, gay, civil partnership -- is unnatural, unbiblical, unreasonable, unethical, ungodly and unAfrican.

The rights and wrongs of faithful same-sex relationships can be debated until the end of time. What is at stake here, however, is whether the Christian church should be encouraging the state to enforce a code of morality in a way that violates internationally established norms of civil and political rights.

The question is not simple. We would accept a church exhorting the state to legislate against child abuse, child pornography, rape, etc. In the Nigerian case, however, the church is asking the state to punish consenting unharmful activites between adults (presumably in private). Further, the Church is supporting the Government's proposal to make illegal any organised meeting of gay and lesbian people, completely removing their rights of assembly and free speech. The onus is on the Nigerian churches to make out a much better case for this than it has done so far. In fact, I believe, it is impossible morally and ethically for it to justify its stance.

The leaders of the church of Nigeria are entitled to say what they believe Scripture to mean. I may disagree. I may even think their interpretation to be contrary to the Gospel. But they are entitled to express their views, subject to the disciplines of the church of which they are members -- it's called free speech.

However the disciplines of the church require those who proclaim the word to do it well and do it faithfully. I genuinely doubt that the Nigerian leaders are rightly dividing the word of truth.

Archbishop Akinola and his fellow leaders have every secular right to say that that gay relationships are sinful, (though I may disagree by saying that not all gay relationships are sinful). What they should not do in the name of the church is advocate denial of free speech and free assembly to people who are merely supporting a moral opinion that differs from their own. Nor should they advocate punishment by the state of those who simply differ from them in their opinions.

The state should only punish those who impose objective harm on others. One cannot say in fairness that consenting non-violent sexual behaviour in private between two adults is imposition by one of objective harm on the other.

Just read your post (#21) over at titusonenine on Martyn Minns’ letter. I was glad to see someone else had seen the Vanguard letter. This issue will continue to be a real mess as long as the interested parties in the US fail to see it as a human rights issue.
Matt () (URL) - 05 03 06 - 08:32

Great catch, Brian. After reading Onuoha’s piece, I choked when I read Minns’. But you found the smoking gun. I think this is one case in which “qui tacet consentiret” might apply to a certain Primate if his bishops are so bold. For as I understand it, the discipline of that Church is much stricter than the discipline of my own.
Caelius Spinator () - 05 03 06 - 09:57