Akinola’s position on homosexuality within the Anglican Communion

Looking at it from the Nigerian perspective


Background for Discussion

Archbishop Peter Akinola’s opposition to the consecration of homosexual bishops and the blessing of same sex marriages cannot be viewed from strictly scriptural or human rights perspectives. Although these are certainly relevant and powerful perspectives
within the dialogue (or dual monologues), they are not at the heart of what drives Akinola’s aggressive stance on the issue of homosexuality in the Anglican Communion and the US Episcopal Church’s progressive (and admittedly nontraditional) views.

Akinola’s words and actions must be considered first within the context of the historical and ongoing conflict between Christianity and Islam in Nigeria. While Akinola consistently argues the immorality of homosexuality and refers to scripture and the traditions of the Anglican Communion to advocate his position, he has also noted that the Anglican Church in Nigeria cannot politically or physically survive if it is seen (even vaguely) as accepting homosexuality.

Even if he were personally inclined to be more progressive in his views, Akinola believes that he cannot afford to associate with the US Episcopal Church now for fear that the “enemies” of the Anglican Church in Nigeria will use that relationship as proof of the moral depravity and thus illegitimacy of Anglicanism and Christianity in general.

The enemies, of course, are Muslims, which account for 50-55% of Nigeria’s population. The remaining 40-45% of Nigerians are Christians. It is this relative balance that creates a conflict situation between the two religions, as each competes for advantages, more dominance. Each religion feels threatened by the other. Christians live in fear of violent persecution by Muslims. Muslims have the same fear of Christians. Both fear the possibility of a religious war and possibly genocide instigated by the other. There is plenty of history between the two religions in Nigeria to justify this fear.

In such a delicate situation, Akinola sees little room to maneuver, particularly given that Muslims in Nigeria began applying and enforcing Sharia religious law during the 1990s. In extreme cases, non-Muslims can be subjected to Islamic civil, criminal, and family law. Christians could suffer a range of physical punishments ordained by Sharia tradition, including floggings, mutilations, and death.

Akinola and Christians in Nigeria fear Sharia and feel they do not have the “luxury” of being more accepting or tolerant of behaviors that are seen as immoral and insulting to God… even if they wanted to. On the contrary, they feel they must be inquestionably purer, more religiously orthodox than Muslims so as not to be at risk of the draconian Sharia punishments.

Questions for Discussion

Assuming that Akinola and the Anglican Church in Nigeria are responding to the US Episcopal Church’s positions on homosexuality more out of fear for their very survival than a theological disagreement over scriptural interpretation, anger over the seeming break with tradition, or a desire to judge and condemn what they see as sinful, do Akinola’s words and actions seem more reasonable… even if they feel offensive, unjust, and perhaps even evil?

If by moderating his position for the sake of unity within the Anglican Communion and for the sake of upholding the equal rights of gays and lesbians, Akinola created a political and religious environment in Nigeria that led to the persecution and death of millions of Christians in that country, would it be worth it?

To what extent should the US Episcopal Church’s position on issues like homosexuality (on which there is a wide theological and cultural divergence within the Anglican Communion) be sensitive to the impact it can have on fueling political instability and even war and genocide in other countries?

If there is such a wide religious and cultural divergence within the Anglican Communion, is it unreasonable (from a practical standpoint) to assume that US Episcopalians can remain within the Communion without causing a lot of trouble?

Can the US Episcopal Church do more good and be more effective by acknowledging irreconcilable differences and simply opting to leave the Anglican Communion rather than continuing to take on Akinola, African Anglicans, and conservative US Episcopalians that have decided to leave ECUSA?

What are the pros and cons of such a move? Is the eventual expulsion of the US Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion a given? And if so, would it be better for the US Episcopal Church to pre-empt this expulsion and leave on its own terms?

-Marco