In the comments for Andrew's article on the "Anglican Church in North America," I said this:The very fact that this new "province" is allowing the ordination of women is pretty conclusive evidence that the schism has nothing to do with an attempt to remain "Catholic," however they envision that sort of experience or way of being, but a subversive chess move in what is becoming more and more every day a hurtful war waged against the some of the weakest Christians among us - gay and lesbian Christians.
Perhaps I misspoke, in that this new ecclesial body may have more in common with Rome than that for which I gave them credit, if commonality with Rome lends a more indelible Catholic credential. You see, many of the groups in the newly-forming "province" were aligned with Akinola and those of like-mind in African Anglicanism. Akinola has actively campaigned his government for more and more restrictions on homosexual people in Nigeria, a country where homosexuality is already illegal. How is this Roman? The Vatican has opposed a UN declaration against the criminalization of homosexuality, and has had to go so far as to clarify their position lest anyone think that they support the death penalty for homosexuals.
So while this does not Catholic unity make, I presume, at least the new province is one step closer to Rome!
And let us be clear: Akinola and his crew do not object only to the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson to the Episcopate, who is gay and partnered, but to the very right of existence of gay people. Akinola believes, and has said so, that homosexuality is a western invention and was imported into Africa from the West. How deep does this thinking go in the American churches and individuals who aligned themselves with the Nigerian Church? To what extent will the new province be influenced by these values?
_Black_s_s_s_s_s.jpg)
