The Big Man

It doesn't take a conservative to admit that one of the big problems in the developing world is the "big man." Obviously there are good things about having a clear authority. But one of the wonderful things about capitalism and democracy is its tendency to undermine ossified traditions and institutions.

There seems to be rumor that Akinola, with the encouragement of various camps in the US, is ready to declare himself head of the southern Anglican church. Let us not be fooled - this is not merely a north/south thing. There are plenty of smart bishops in the South who simply don't buy into Akinola's bad theology. What he requires is ideological uniformity. This is an understandable desire, a part of our Platonic heritage. And on essentials, I'm inclined to agree. But imagine the irony when a reasserting archbishop claims "we're tired about talking about sex." Liberals feel the same. So lets talk about polity and authority instead - where respect and theology get directly engaged.

Akinola is setting himself up as the "big man." Christian behavior is secondary to his hubris and arrogance. He has given himself authority to discern the holy and profane. He has implicitly declared himself a God, by giving himself God's authority. If God Himself had declared homosexuality neutral, Akinola would set up a different religion.

This is ecclesiastical totalitarianism, and finally, the reason I am glad I am in the west, and am proud to be part of the truly evangelical, the truly liberal, the truly catholic church that is able to recognize the image of God in all his peoples, and not merely in the righteous. But he can do as he wishes. We've seen how well the Big Man form of authority of government has done in Africa.

I don't expect it will be much different in the church. If anything, Akinola will create the seeds of civil unrest within his own continent, as a small cadre of African bishops and priests decide to think for themselves. Akinola will insist on ideological purity; he will form inquisitional systems to ensure his continued authority; and he will find ways to hreaten clergy who don't hold his own views. And all this will be done in the name of Christian love.

Akinola will expect compensation from the conservative west, but that will be slow and inconsistent. It will take years for reasserters to harness the expertise and connections ECUSA already has. Individual churches in Africa, and organizations like the Mother's Union will resist the totalitarian impulses of the men running the church, and accept the support of ECUSA, which is given without any litmus test. ECUSA, unlike the conservatives, has the authority not to talk about sexuality. However, is the only thing that truly identifies conservatives.

It's all very sad. The Ugandan and Nigerian priests in my diocese have been cut off from their homes, whether or not they share the same views. It's all pollution by association, an aspect of religion that seems antithetical to Christianity. Of course, perhaps Akinola is a better representative of an old religion with a Christian veil, and we Christian humanists are left watching them enjoy the crucifixion of those who would offer a more humane world, and are more tentative in claiming that a single self-selected man can claim the authority to speak as God does. We already have someone who has spoken, and He is the entire body, not just the genitals.

And when there is confusion, only love prevails and endures. I have no reason to think that Akinola believes that the power of love can manage the tension and challenges in difference that we have between us. For Akinola, love is believing what Akinola says.

No, he's never said this. But his actions speak louder than words.

And it is over so very little.

Comments

[J. C. Fisher]

A truly magnificent post, Salty. :-D

[Emily]

Thank you for your comments on Akinola. You have put into eloquent words some of my own concerns about him.

[joanne]

This sums up Akinola so very well.

[John]

Wonderful post

[Jake]

Well said. Thank you.

Have you heard about the planned Big Man conference scheduled for Novemeber in Pittsburgh?

http://www.anglicanhope.org/

Since it will be after Alexandria, one might wonder if Bob Duncan will be officially initiated into their ranks at this meeting?

[John Wilkins]

Someone should blog that conference.

[F]

You wrote "If God Himself had declared homosexuality neutral, Akinola would set up a different religion. " Hard to see how you made this great assumption since the Archbishop is basing his stance on God's clear word. Cosidering his words and actions I would say more likely that if God had said homosexuality was nuetral, Akinola would say the same. Building a straw man and then knocking it down with gloating and smirking is rather childish and does not seem to serve the Gospel.

[Jennifer]

John said, "And it is over so very little."

If this is true, why doesn't the progressive side let the whole gay argument go? Is it really over so very little?

[J. C. Fisher]

F, phrases like "God's clear word" is rather "gloating and smirking" in the face of the 2000 years of faithful Christians who've "read, marked, learned and inwardly digested" the Scriptures...coming to different conclusions as to what they mean.

God's Word, Jesus Christ, offers Himself for us, and deserves to be known and loved.

The Word of God contained in Scripture, is NOT self-interpreting.

Jennifer, as arguments go, the "whole gay argument" really is over very little: if God made "Adam and Steve" to LOVE each other---as is manifestly obvious for some percentage of the population---then why shouldn't they marry as all those other "Adams and Eves"?

Where it is NOT "really over so very little" is not as arguments, but as persons: each one infinitely loved of God, each one in God's Image.

[i.e. this is why I don't "let myself go"! ;-)]

[toujoursdan]

Why do so many people confuse temple prositution for committed gay relationships? They are nothing alike.

[C. Wingate]

I would find the dutiful partisanship here amusing if it weren't for the crisis it is promoting. For some odd reason, I don't find the power struggle over the communion so, um, purely political. What's it going to mean if this conference comes and goes, and there is no proclamation?

There's a much easier and more plausible explanation for this that doesn't rely so heavily on self-serving denegration of Akinola. The Anglican Communion is obviously moving in the direction of expelling ECUSA and the Canadians. The only important questions (given the reality of American intransigence) are (a) will Cantuar and the CofE stick with one side or the other; (b) will ECUSA hold together in 2006; and (c) if it comes apart, how much will each side get to keep. At the moment, the answer to (b) appears to be "no". My guess is that same sex marriage rites will be proposed, that they will be pushed through bishops with ease and through the deputies on tight margins, and that some dioceses will balk to the point of schism. It seems clear that various American dioceses and bishops are making preparations for this scenario. That leaves question (a). My reading of Cantuar's statements is that he is going to bend to the will of the communion. This view isn't universally shared, and in any case Rowan Williams' personal sympathies with the American liberal positions leave doubts. In this context, Akinola's maneuvers make sense again as preparation. But capability doesn't imply intent. The "big man" mythology is no more or less self-serving than the liberal self-congratulation as deliverers from the bondage of outmoded morality (or to be fair, the opinions offered on David VIrtue's site). In practice it means commitment to divisive actions with the (in my opinion false) confidence that the 1st world Anglican churches will all fall into line.

[John wilkins]

Hi C.

The problem is that "expelling" has no real meaning, except "we won't hang out with you" which merely means that there will be greater internal ideological conformity.

what will most likely happen is that relationships will continue - with bishops and priests in Africa who understand that there are different contexts, and recognize that they can continue taking communion together without diminishing their own integrity. It might not be at the top, but EDS will still offer scholarships to Africans; we'll still appoint Anglican priests from Africa and Asia in revisionist dioceses. Relationships happen, unless Akinola decides he's a big man and needs obedience from his clergy. What if NH decides to license nigerian priests? how will he manage? Will he demand litmus tests?

I'm judging Akinola as a "big man" based on his fairly arrogant proclamations and his dismissive attitude toward Cantuar, which is hostile and contemptuous.

[John wilkins]

Hi C.

The problem is that "expelling" has no real meaning, except "we won't hang out with you" which merely means that there will be greater internal ideological conformity.

what will most likely happen is that relationships will continue - with bishops and priests in Africa who understand that there are different contexts, and recognize that they can continue taking communion together without diminishing their own integrity. It might not be at the top, but EDS will still offer scholarships to Africans; we'll still appoint Anglican priests from Africa and Asia in revisionist dioceses. Relationships happen, unless Akinola decides he's a big man and needs obedience from his clergy. What if NH decides to license nigerian priests? how will he manage? Will he demand litmus tests?

I'm judging Akinola as a "big man" based on his fairly arrogant proclamations and his dismissive attitude toward Cantuar, which is hostile and contemptuous.

[C. Wingate]

Obviously an "expelled" ECUSA will continue to be able to receive converts from the remaining Anglican communion, just as it would from a "pretender" communion. And just as obviously, there will be more doctrinal conformity, but you say this as though it were a bad thing. :)

That's a distraction from the "big man" theory. American revisionists shouldn't be casting stones in the glass house of clerical obedience anyway, but question remains: what will it mean if November comes and goes and there's no division, nor any competing hierarchy established?