I'm glad I don't have a subscription to Time. I'd have to cancel it if I did.

Well, the classification is interesting if not plainly ironic. Just like the breathless tone of the article.

Yes, "People with Clout" is a classification that Akinola qualifies for as he tries to insitutionalize bigotry:

Abandoning pastoral concern
Nigerian archbishop's sexuality stance champions institutionalized bigotry'

by John Chane
http://www.episcopal-life.org/26731_73898_ENG_HTM.htm

Let's not read too much of our own issues into the thought that Akinola's "power" is "transforming the world." After all, his portion of the list also include Muqtada Al-Sadr of Baghdad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. For the purposes of Time Magazine (as distinct from Rick Warren) it doesn't matter whether the influence is good or evil as long as it's real. They famously had Hitler on the cover as Man of the Year in the late 30's.

I find Warren's description more annoying, and especially the allusion to "facing down Third-world Fundamentalists." Where have we seen the evidence for that?

I don't like the results I'm seeing of Akinola's influence; but I have to acknowledge that the influence is real.

Marshall Scott -- Warren was referring to Islamic fundamentalists in Nigeria when he wrote "facing down Third-World fundamentalists". I'm certain of it. For the sake of clarity, it was a poor choice of words, but he was writing for a Western audience while being afraid it might inflame those in Nigeria to write "Islamic" in front of "fundamentalists."

He is in the same set with a Hamas leader. At least he's not classed under "heros."

Matt, like Marshall I also took it that Warren was referring to Christian fundamentalism. It's an imprecise term, but my guess is that he had in mind various versions of the prosperity gospel that are popular in Nigeria. Warren, who is very familiar with Africa, also might be referring to some extreme forms of Pentecostal belief which have been merged with traditional witchcraft beliefs. The Anglican Church of Nigeria has certainly been at the forefront of challenging 'health and wealth' theologies.

John, he is also in the same set with George W. Bush, Bill and Melinda Gates, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Pope Benedict, Condoleezza Rice, Junichiro Koizumi, Oprah Winfrey e.t.c.

How much can you hate this man? Matthew 10: 25

Tunde
I am sure you noticed that Condoleezza Rice's department had issued this note back in February:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2006/60241.htm

Nigerian Legislation Threatens to Limit Rights of Sexual Minorities

The United States is concerned by reports of legislation in Nigeria that would restrict or prohibit citizens from assembling, organizing, holding events or rallies, and participating in ceremonies of religious union, based upon sexual orientation and gender identity. This proposed legislation has not been adopted.

The freedoms of speech, association, expression, assembly, and religion are long-standing international commitments and are universally recognized. Nigeria, as a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has assumed important obligations on these matters. We expect the Government of Nigeria to act in a manner consistent with those obligations.

2006/127
Released on February 1, 2006

Simon,

Issue I posted earlier was about the expressed hatred of the man Akinola especially because he condemns same-sex marriages and the acceptance into holy orders of those who are in sexual relations outside holy matrimony.

On the statement issued by the US department, it is understood once the system believes homosexuality is inborn. (– male, female, homosexual created He them.)
In Nigeria, homosexuality is still considered an aberration and not a human-right issue. While a man can be imprisoned for bigamy in the some countries, in Nigeria where the society does not frown on polygamy, that may not be easily done. The Anglican Church in Nigeria does frown on polygamy but welcomes participants to worship. Such however cannot have such unions blessed in the Church. They can not be ordained ministers and in some cases are disallowed communion. The Church’s decision is based on its biblical beliefs. We have not, can not and will not make polygamy a human rights issue or attempt to institutionalise it in the Church. The same applies for homosexuality.

Many in the Western world will support jailing a man for bigamy (‘loving someone in addition to his wife) and yet will scream that the Church of Nigeria (not only Abp. Akinola but unanimous decision of delegates from all parts of the Church) supports laws jailing people for ‘loving’ people of the same sex.

For me, Christ’s remarks in Matthew 19 settled the issue of marriage and sexuality.

I think TIME recognise the boldness of Abp. Akinola in speaking out the truth without any colouration.

"Bigamy" is only a criminal issue in the US if it involves marriage to a minor, and then the prosecution is under statutory rape laws. It is getting harder and harder to have two marriage licenses because of computerization, and chances of defrauding the government are low. "Wife" number 2 or above is out of luck as regards survivor benefits, etc under the law, but that's what civil law is for - probate court, lawsuits, etc. If people choose to live in sexual groups of greater than two, it's none of the state's business as long as other laws aren't being broken. It might be bad for the wives not holding the marriage license and thus not guaranteed legal rights, but frankly, if they know about their legal disadvantage, who am I to object as long as they aren't getting beaten, imprisoned at home, etc (wife beating and wife confinement seem to be problems in some polygamous Mormon settlements in the rural Western US).

I have zero interest in regulating private consensual sexual behavior of adults. After all, the state could regulate number of children allowed per couple (China; Romania), could regulate who is allowed to get married or who MUST get married or at least pregnant (this was true in Nazi Germany, in which race status determined if you got a marriage license, and unmarried "Aryan" women were pressured to either marry or to have sex with appointed "Aryan" military officers until pregnant). Celibate religious orders could be seen as traitors to the State.

In the US we have same sex couples who lead law-abiding lives together for 30 or 40 years of coupledom until death. (By the way, if that isn't some sort of love, what is it? Can't just be sex that keeps couples together through illness and troubles.) Why does their specific behavior represent tangible damage to outsiders? Who has lost money or been physically assaulted in such a case? If a same sex couple isn't having sex in the middle of the thoroughfare and distracting passing drivers - I. Don't. Care. from a legal standpoint. None. Of. My. Business. We have laws against sex with children, against rape, etc. If a gay male, or a STRAIGHT MALE, rapes another man, eg as part of an assault or inside prison, there are laws to address this.

I am a strong believer in freedom: freedom from state intrusion in private matters, freedom of religion, freedom of self-expression. Therefore I strongly support the concept of strict separation of church and state. I don't want religion to dictate law, I want a secularist human rights approach.

The Nigerian law offends human liberty, on the privacy count, on the freedom of religion and conscience account (since there are many Christians who do not see committed gay relationships as inherently evil, and many more who do not see them as appropriate subjects for the punishment of the state), and on the freedom of expression (since any objection to the statute, once enacted, can be punished by prison - a mother of a gay child could be thrown in jail for protesting the imprisonment of her child).

Tunde wrote "Many in the Western world will support jailing a man for bigamy (‘loving someone in addition to his wife) and yet will scream that the Church of Nigeria (not only Abp. Akinola but unanimous decision of delegates from all parts of the Church) supports laws jailing people for ‘loving’ people of the same sex."

Dear Tunde,

Polygamy (supported by most pre-modern cultures and ripe in Nigeria) is not "loving someone in addition to his wife". Polygamy is that men enjoy political, legal and social rights that women don't have.

Polygamy is about power.

Under polygamy the man is married to several women, the women are only married to one man; the same...

Mark 10 with parallels is not about marriage (very little in the Bible is about marriage) but rejects repudium; the legal right of the polygamous man to send away one or more of his wives.

Repudium is not our Western divortio but particular to polygamous, that is pre-modern Societies.

Only the man has this right, the women don't & c...

Fighting un-Righteousness is not an easy task, nor is it very popular. It took the Church more than a thousand years to outlaw polygamy in Europe (there are still some vestiges!) - it's time that the church of Nigeria gets at it!

Tunde,

I just looked up Matthew 10:25. I had assumed (given the beginning of your post) that it might be something about leaving hatred aside (say, Mt 5:22-24--or a text like James 1:19-20). I hoped that you were asking people who were being harsh and intemperate to rethink their vitriol.

But no, you pour petrol on the flames instead, by equating those who oppose Akinola with those who say Christ is Beelzebul.

I think that's a very bad use of the scriptures. It's dangerous for you, spiritually, to think you are simply on Christ's side and your opponents are on the side of Beelzebul.

But in any case, I think it's damaging to quote a single scriptural passage to sum up your argument, without commentary and without explaining your reading of the text. It doesn't show much respect for the Bible, and it doesn't further anyone's understanding. It just zaps your opponents.

More importantly, I think the Anglican Communion has an opportunity to show the world that we know a better way-- we've discovered that we disagree on fundamental issues of theology, eccelsiology, and ethics, and have looked at each others' societies and found much to dislike. Those are the facts. So what are we to do now? Does Anglican Christianity offer the world a better model to deal with disagreement and rancor, or are we just operating out of the Old Adam, jockeying for power and slagging off our opponents? That's not a slam at you, Tunde, it's a request for all of us to find the most constructive way forward. Whether we dissolve the Communion or not is less important than that we faithfully demonstrate that Christ's followers know how to deal charitably with their fellow human beings, both inside and outside the Church.

Pity if the passage infuriates some. It depends on each person’s interpretation of the text. I intentionally left out my interpretation to avoid too much of the venom especially since we differ widely on interpretation. Main purpose was not to 'pour petrol' ( too expensive to waste any these days! ) but to express that the hatred may actually not be unexpected and therefore not much of a bother.

Really Chris, I must admit that the ‘sexuality debate’ in the past few years have portrayed the Church in very bad light especially as we all dug our trenches and insist on being right. I do mull over what God must be feeling as we throw punches at each other either directly (mostly conservatives) or subtly (mostly our more politically correct liberals). Surely, God will work out a way to still glorify His holy name through all these.