A Question of Priorities

When I find myself wondering what next to write for this blog, I often find "inspiration" by checking out the traditionalist blogs I follow. It worked again today.

Homosexuality: More Important than AIDS or World Poverty?

The TitusOneNine blog (which should be on your must-read list) quotes a report in the London Times that traditionalist African archbishops have managed to seize control of the agenda of the primates’ meeting in Northern Ireland this week and to insist that the entire week be spent arguing about homosexuality:

[C]onservative archbishops won the first round in the battle for the soul of the
Anglican Church yesterday when they “tore up” the agenda of the week-long
meeting.

Led by the primate of Nigeria, Dr Peter Akinola and primate of Central
Africa, Dr Bernard Malango, the anti-gay evangelicals used their numerical
strength to force the meeting to put subjects such as Aids and world poverty on
the back burner and to spend all week debating the threatened schism over
homosexuality.

(The TitusOneNine moderator, the estimable Rev. Dr. Kendall Harmon,
points out that the primates’ meeting is closed and that the emerging
rumors are just that.)

In response to this news report, one of the blog’s regular traditionalist commenters, Kenneth Jones, neatly sums up (perhaps unknowingly) a fundamental difference in priorities between traditionalists and modernists:

AIDS and world poverty are certainly important enough issues, but they are ones
that should be left to science and governments to deal with. The Communion
should, and must, deal with the issues most immediately and most directly
affecting us all, since they affect the future of the Communion. I think the
Conservative Primates are absolutely right in chucking the agenda, and forcing
these issues to come to the fore!

(Emphasis added.) In other words, let someone else tackle the problems that actually impoverish — or end — peoples’ lives, because conservative Anglican archbishops have more important things to worry about. Good grief.

Another TitusOneNine "regular," identifying himself as Spencer, remarks that:

I find it very telling that issues which are much more relevant to Africa such
as AIDS and world hunger are willingly laid at the foot of the cross by those
who need relief from these issues the most. This should let everyone know just
how important the southern primates regard the issue which is now before the
church.

(Emphasis added.) That’s certainly an interesting "take" on the matter. If I understand Spencer correctly, he asserts, in effect,that impoverished Nigerians dying of AIDS are glad that their archbishop is spending his time — and his church’s money — on the fight over gay clergy and same-sex marriages in the U.S. and Canada. I presume he also thinks those unfortunates are equally joyous that their primate has rejected financial aid from U.S. Episcopal dioceses that allow gay people to function as clergy. We have to give Spencer full marks for creativity; his perspective would never have occurred to me.

Someone Has Their Priorities Seriously Screwed Up

Spencer’s comment reminded me:

of the thought-provoking remarks of another African archbishop, the Most Rev. Winston Njongonkulu Ndungane, Archbishop of Capetown, about where the church’s priorities ought to be:

There is a
woman waiting to be stoned to death for adultery in Nigeria and yet we
are not hearing any fuss from the leadership of the church there about
that. … People are going hungry across the world, the Israelis are building a
fence around the Palestinians, HIV/Aids is a global emergency… these
are major, urgent, issues which should be a priority for the Church and
we must not lose our focus on that.

and of the furious response by the above-referenced Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria, the target of ++Ndungane’s criticism:

We are poised, using
every gift of God available to us to defend orthodoxy, the integrity of
the church and banish the erroneous teachings you plan to impose on us.

Archbishop Akinola and his friends sure have a different set of priorities. I cannot understand how they manage reconcile their frantic urgency about homosexuality with Matt. 25:41-46. (Mindful of the Rules of Engagement, I won’t say what I really think.)

Maybe We Should Be Excommunicating Them? (No.)

For months, many of the Global-South archbishops have trumpeted their intention of excommunicating the U.S. Episcopal Church over the homosexuality issue. There are reports that Archbishop Akinola and his allies plan to refuse to take communion at the primates’ meeting because U.S. Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold will be there.

If you ask me, it ought to be the other way around. If I were at a Eucharist where Archbishop Akinola was serving the bread or wine, my instinct would be to ostentatiously refuse to accept it from him. His and his allies’ priorities are so far out of whack from Christian values — and they seem so implacably opposed to any facts or opinion that don’t fit their own — that we in the Episcopal Church could be forgiven for wanting to excommunicate them.

But that’s not the answer. Jesus’ example was not to scorn sinners, but to break bread with them; that’s one of the ways he reached out to them. We’re all sinners — none of us knows everything, we all need to do what we can to learn from each other, and we all need to continue to recognize each other as made in the image of God.

So continuing "in communion," notwithstanding its aggrevation, is what we need to be doing. Even if we were all to miraculously come to agreement about all the disputed issues, there would still be more than enough for us to do. We need to agree to disagree; praise God — together; and GET BACK TO WORK.

Comments

8 responses to “A Question of Priorities”

2005-02-23

ThankfulForProgressiveEpiscopalians

I did a little web-checking last night, and I suppose this shouldn’t come as a surprise, but in many of the countries from which these self-described orthodox primates come, the penalty for being gay or lesbian is either imprisonment (in some cases for life) or death. The death penalty is the punishment in Nigeria, from which the most vocal primate comes.

I note that in many of the discussions, it was charged that the US & Canada were imposing their cultural values, but I think one could argue just the same in reverse. If these primates come from countries where homosexuality is a crime (often worthy of punishment by death), then it would be very easy to become hysterical over the consecration of a gay bishop. Especially if one would never even attempt to listen to, to understand, to discern, the voices of the marginalized. Or even refuse to be the in the same room with your peer, who hails from a place where those voices have been heard to some small degree. Certainly there would be no place for dialogue. That might lead to understanding.

No, instead, for these primates and bishops, it’s a figurative “off with their heads”. Reflecting their culture? Heavens, no! Following Christ? Why, of course! Christ was much more interested in knee-jerk responses to maintaining the status quo than in lifting up the marginalized, especially concerning sexual morality, which are the gravest sins of all.

And although it’s not quite as clear-cut in the US, but I do find it interesting that many of the most vocal breaking-away dioceses are based in states that still had sodomy laws on the books before they were removed by the Supreme Court. And yet they accuse their opponents of bending to the culture. Instead, they’re following Christ, who never would have considered whether laws were unjust or not. Christ was much more concerned with maintaining the status quo, or, in today’s parlance, “traditional values”. Yup, that’s following Christ.

(And, in a segue worthy of Andy Borowitz, the Pope said in his latest book, released yesterday, that democracy is destructive to God.)

2005-02-24

Greg

First, the whites come to Africa to preach the Gospel – the advent of Christianity, specifically Anglicanism, in Africa was an imposition of Western culture and religion. In the early years of the Anglican Communion, the whites controlled the church because they were numerically larger. When the Africans are “saved” in large numbers, they find that the West has changed the game – now they need “inclusivity” – defined specifically by homosexuality, “diversity” – also defined by homosexuality, otherwise, the Africans and the Global South are “backward”. (It does not matter that in all of these countries, the pews of the Anglican churches are more “diverse” – different tribes, customs and traditions – than the pews of ECUSA.) In other words, in the Anglican Communion, only the West can make policy even if they are numerically smaller than the Global South because they control the purse strings. So much for “democracy” as envisioned by Br Tobias. If this is not racism, I don’t know what is. What has ECUSA done for fighting AIDS in the Global South? The only country (re AIDS) I know ECUSA has helped with is South Africa who were strangely more “tolerant” of the decisions of GC 2003. If ECUSA was so concerned about AIDS, how is it that we did not “elect” a HIV+ bishop? Easier to say “the body of Christ has AIDS”. Empty words. Did ECUSA spend more on AIDS prevention and education than any other category in their budget?
The 1998 Lambeth Conference was a shock to ECUSA because they thought the Global South would keel over and accept anything they proposed. For the first time, the Global South was numerically larger and the Primates stood up for what they believed was right. Ironically, they studied at Western universities, read books and formed their own conclusions rejecting the proposed new theology. Even at that time, Spong said that it would be the end of the Communion. The argument is not about Christ, not the Gospel, but power.
Perhaps you should also look at how many people were convicted of sodomy in those countries. Surely, you don’t mean that a partner in a “life-long, faithful, monogamous” homosexual relationship would actually go to the authorities with a sodomy complaint, do you? For the sake of argument, let us say that a 19-year old young man was “sodomized” by another man. Under what law should the perpetrator be convicted, rape? Or are you suggesting that all homosexual acts are acts of “life-long, faithful, monogamous” homosexual relationships?
Further, what would you tell a church whose leader was killed because he spoke out against a dictator’s repressive acts against his own people and his sexual excesses including homosexual acts? What would you tell a prostitute who sells her body because she needed to survive and now has AIDS? In many of these countries, the church is the only organization that even cares for these “marginalized” people and they are truly “marginalized” no steady income, no protection under the law, pariahs.

2005-02-24

Greg

Do you remember Rudy Giuliani refusing to take the $10 million check for the 9/11 victims from the Saudis? Do you believe he should have taken it?

2005-02-24

obadiahslope

With respect, whether the Mayor of one of the richest cities in the world takes a cheque for what would be a tiny part of his budget, and what a poor prelate might do are very different. For Guliani it was a gesture, either way. For starving people it is different.
A poor analogy Greg, and argument by analogy will tie us in knots anyway.

2005-02-24

Bruno

Let us never refuse to take communion with anyone. Even those who would vilify us.
It is tempting to try to shout louder than those who would have us kicked out of the communion. But it is more powerful to live by example.
Thank you for your posts
Bruno

2005-02-24

Greg

The check was for the victims, NOT his city budget. Besides, Rudy accepted checks for the victims from other generous donors. Sometimes people in rich countries give me the impression that the poor must take whatever is gifted out to them even if it goes against their culture or their honor or their principles. Such “gifts” are best not given.

2005-02-25

D. C.

Greg, it’s one thing for Rudy Giuliani to reject a gift when the U.S. had more than enough money to take care of the needs and hand and was eager to do so. It’s another matter entirely when the archbishop of a desperately-poor African nation rejects money, sorely needed and capable of being immediately put to good use, because of petulance over a so-called “moral issue” that (a) isn’t, and (b) is none of his damned business anyway. Mark my words, Archbishops Akinola and Orombi will have much to answer for.

2005-02-26

Greg

D.C: You are, of course, assuming that this “desperately-poor African nation” will not be able to raise the money elsewhere. Besides, I find it telling that you don’t consider this to be a “moral issue” and would like ++Akinola to agree with you by accepting the money, despite his own beliefs. And ++Akinola is well within his rights to accept or reject aid to his Church as he sees fit – it is his “damned business”, not your’s or Louie Crew’s.