CHRISTIAN JOURNALISTS MUST BE PEACEMAKERS

In closing we drew attention to the situation in Nigeria’s Niger Delta where violence has been raging. The truth out there is clear: the resources of the people have been seized; being used to develop other parts f the country. And they are living in dehumanizing conditions. The truth is that under a just federal system, they should have the first call on the resources located on their soil. So what is the journalist- peacemaker’s role in the Niger Delta? Propagate this truth in season and out of season. Anything short of the truth may bring tenuous peace, the type in Kenya and the type being cobbled together in Zimbabwe, but not enduring peace. Only the Prince of peace’s methods can bring enduring peace and that method is one of truth.

Tomorrow, Christian journalists from across the globe will gather in Cape Town, South Africa to discuss the place of journalists in peace making. The forum, which will be the fourth congress of the World Association of Christians in Communication (WACC), holds October 6-10, 2008 and has the theme, “Communication is Peace: Building Viable Communities.”

The congress, according to its organisers, will focus on the role of communicators in conflict situations and offers participants the opportunity to learn more about how they can contribute to creating conditions which lead to sustainable peace in their communities.
WACC states among its objectives, the promotion of communication for social change. It posits “that communication is a basic human right that defines people’s common humanity, strengthens cultures, enables participation, creates community and challenges tyranny and oppression.” The association states on its website that its “key concerns, are media diversity, equal and affordable access to communication and knowledge, media and gender justice, and the relationship between communication and power”. It listed “advocacy, education, training, and the creation and sharing of knowledge” as among its means of pursuing these objectives. WACC partners worldwide “with faith-based and secular partners at grassroots, regional and global levels, giving preference to the needs of the poor, marginalised and dispossessed.” Being WACC, it emphasises “means ‘taking sides’”.
Preparatory to the congress at which Mr Lekan Otufodunrin, Editor, Sunday Nation, would be one of Africa’s delegates, Journalists for Christ (JFC) which he also coordinates held a pre-Congress seminar on Saturday, September 20, 2008. The seminar had its theme as “Journalists as Peacemakers” and saw yours sincerely as one of the speakers. And that is where today’s piece developed from.

Before, I continue, however, I wish to place on record my very sincere appreciation to Lekan and the rest of his team at Journalists for Christ, not just for the opportunity to speak at the seminar, but the clever packaging of my presence at that gathering as a kind of 60th birthday gift! It was touching to listen to so many professional colleagues sing the “birthday song” in my honour. Thanks a million, gentlemen.

Now, I found the topic of journalists as peacemaker a bit ironic at that particular point in time. I rather thought, journalists as peace-receivers, as professionals needing a peaceful atmosphere to operate, would have been more current, against the background of the Federal Government of Nigeria’s recent invasion of Channels Television on account of a certain report it found unpalatable. I did say that I disagreed with the indecent haste with which Channels went to town with an unconfirmed story, but I pointed out that unless the Gestapo tactics of the government was firmly and legally resisted, this may well be the beginning of fang-bearing by the rule-of-law touting administration.

I could not stay away from the theme, however, and so had to contend with the subject of the peace making journalist. Strictly in context, one noted that a genre of journalism, known as peace journalism was already being developed. Revolving around a book of the same title written and published in 2005 by Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick, this genre will probably develop into a full fledged branch of Advocacy Journalism in no distant time. And why not, we asked. If many acclaimed journalists made their names as War Correspondents and, peace is sometimes seen as the absence of war, there is no earthly reason why we cannot soon be having peace correspondents in our media houses! Don’t laugh, although my audience did, particularly when I publicly applied to be considered for such an opening.

But, I wasn’t led to discuss the role of the journalist in making peace in such troubled zones of the world as Iraq or Afghanistan or even Darfur. My thesis was that the journalist, particularly, Christian journalists, who constituted my audience, had no business being anything but peace journalists!

And I began like this. To be a Christian anything, lawyer, medical practitioner, anything at all, is to be that thing in a Christ-like manner. In other words, A Christian journalist is supposed to practise journalism in a Christ-like manner. In this context, the most important attribute of the Lord Jesus can be gleaned from the prophesy about him in the book of Isaiah Chapter 9. It reads in verses 6-7 like this: “For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be on His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. There is no end of the increase of His government and peace on the throne of David, and on His kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice from now on, even forever. The zeal of Jehovah of Hosts will do this”.

These verses of scripture say Jesus symbolizes peace, a peace that will endure forever. So, for a journalist to be Christ-like, he or she has to stand for peace; that is he/she has to be a peacemaker. And, so enamoured of peace and peacemaking was Jesus that he declared: “Blessed are the peacemakers! For, they shall be called the sons of God” (Matthew 5:9).

The questions that followed were, what is peace; what is the peacemaking process practiced or endorsed by the Lord Jesus; how might a journalist go about being a Christ-like peacemaker? We turned to the scriptures for guidance. Declaring has become recognized as his manifesto; Jesus opened to the book of Isaiah and read to a Sabbath day audience in one of the synagogues like this: "The Spirit of the Lord is on Me; because of this He has anointed Me to proclaim the Gospel to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim deliverance to the captives, and new sight to the blind, to set at liberty those having been crushed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord" (Luke 4:18-19).

Standing out from this manifesto is freedom: free the captives; set at liberty those ensnared, proclaim jubilee. In other words, freedom is a major tool of the prince of peace. This is because at the root of most wars is deprivation of one kind of freedom or the other. There is no doubt that Jesus took the subject of freedom seriously, such that you could liken him to a freedom fighter! But this was not your ‘all is fair in war’ kind of fighter. He wasn’t a guerilla hiding in the shadows to snipe at the unwary foe. This was a fighter who proclaimed and displayed his weapon for all to see. In the book of John chapter 8, verse 32, he presented his freedom fighting weapon in these words: “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free”.

Flowing from all of these, we posited that propagating the truth is a critical assignment of the journalist, if he is to enhance freedom, which is a non-negotiable condition for peace.

Of course, we noted that the question would be asked, what is truth? After all didn’t Pilate ask the same question of the Lord? As it was then, so it is today. The truth is under attack; it is subjected to the concept of relativity, such that there are shades of truth! But it doesn’t matter how much verbiage and philosophies we try to bury the truth under, the truth is the truth. Jesus defined it like this in one of his parting prayers for his disciples and the rest of us: “Sanctify them through Your truth. Your Word is truth. (John 17:17). Put simply, the only truth there is, is the word of God. So, if anything runs counter to the word of God, it is untrue. If it is untrue, it is incapable of bringing freedom; if it cannot set free, it cannot bring enduring peace. So, the Christian journalist desirous of being a peacemaker must not propagate it.

In closing we drew attention to the situation in Nigeria’s Niger Delta where violence has been raging. The truth out there is clear: the resources of the people have been seized; being used to develop other parts f the country. And they are living in dehumanizing conditions. The truth is that under a just federal system, they should have the first call on the resources located on their soil. So what is the journalist- peacemaker’s role in the Niger Delta? Propagate this truth in season and out of season. Anything short of the truth may bring tenuous peace, the type in Kenya and the type being cobbled together in Zimbabwe, but not enduring peace. Only the Prince of peace’s methods can bring enduring peace and that method is one of truth.

STILL ON OBAMA, GOOSE PIMPLES…

The 'church' has blindly adopted the Republican Party as the party of the broad political grouping called the evangelicals and have consistently watched president after president of the republican party continue to enact policies that will cause Jesus to use weightier words than he did the Pharisee’s in his time. The truth is that the democrats who championed the civil rights and eventually ended slavery and is further pushing the rights of blacks and other minorities to achieve some equality, are stuck in that broad grouping - minorities, it is difficult to push one and not the other. My conclusion is that Christians should come out in their numbers and vote for Obama who has a true desire to bring about change. Thereafter they should constitute a pressure group in the party to review the party’s position on abortion and the whole discussion on the murder of innocent/helpless unborn babies.

I had these interesting exchanges with one of my most ardent readers during the week, which might interest others. I have combined Rev Mrs Uche Biosa’s two very brilliant and informed contributions into one, unabridged, while due to space constraints, I have abridged my two responses Happy reading.

Mrs Uche Biosa
I am one of those Obama supporters and i have more than goose bumps for his candidacy for several reasons. I have read with great interest the 'Church' position on his candidacy and the only thing they seem to have against him is his pro-choice stance. But really to me, the underlining reason is his colour.

I was devastated when John Hagee and Rod Parsley in my opinion carelessly 'endorsed' John McCain who is not a born-again Christian and his stance on abortion to me is mere public posturing for political gains. Take for example, Sara Palin and her Republican supporters have cancelled fornication as a sin, but abortion is because the party that owns 'GOD' has given that verdict, Shame!

The 'church' has blindly adopted the Republican Party as the party of the broad political grouping called the evangelicals and have consistently watched president after president of the republican party continue to enact policies that will cause Jesus to use weightier words than he did the Pharisee’s in his time.

The truth is that the democrats who championed the civil rights and eventually ended slavery and is further pushing the rights of blacks and other minorities to achieve some equality, are stuck in that broad grouping - minorities, it is difficult to push one and not the other.

My conclusion is that Christians should come out in their numbers and vote for Obama who has a true desire to bring about change. Thereafter they should constitute a pressure group in the party to review the party’s position on abortion and the whole discussion on the murder of innocent/helpless unborn babies.

Dick Cheney's daughter is a celebrated lesbian and he is a great favourite of the conservative right/the church. The question is, what do they really believe and what did they teach their children. These people get the ‘church’s' vote to win election and then spin the biggest lies to invade another nation in order to make tonnes of money for themselves. The only good that was achieved in Iraq was the removal of Saddam Hussein. Bush and his people bombed out a whole country and awarded contracts to themselves to rebuild the country at the expense of the people of Iraq who by the way had nothing against the USA. Immoral and shameful, if you ask me. They vote against social security that will give disadvantaged millions the slightest chance to get out of difficulty, the list is endless.

Mitt Romney is a Republican, who is a member of the church of mammon and was "pro-choice" before he became "pro-life". Or Huckabee an ordained Baptist priest who wanted Obama knocked off (killed), why? Is it because he is black - so not fit to be the president of America or what? Please tell me, and the church was as silent as a grave yard on that one. The anchor woman of a Foxnews (conservative Christian right news network) program put Obama on the same board she put Osama Bin Laden and wanted him dead.

The religious bigotry of the so called Christian/evangelical right SMELLS to high heavens and they truly do not speak for God but for themselves. Take a look at the Catholic Church that protects paedophile priests who introduce children to homosexualism and other vices at such tender ages.

I am totally against abortion, but that is not the only reason to disqualify a person for secular office, but I also understand that individuals have a responsibility to make the right choices, as the Bible clearly indicates that we must choose who we will serve. Every issue cannot be legislated by government or politicians. We will stand before God and give account of our works on this planet that is the bottom line…

Let me move my argument further a bit, so that I am not misunderstood. As I stated earlier, the democrats have found themselves in a tight corner having to fight for all sorts of interests and perhaps positions they may as individuals not accept as right. If you are fighting for minorities, then you have to take all of them, which I think is a very difficult situation to be in.

However, what I advocate is that if Christians have a strong enough vote to get Obama elected, then he/democrats will listen to us. If we continue to vote based on one or two issues, then we will not have the advantage of a critical mass which the 'evangelicals' seem to exert on the Republican Party. McCain knew that he was already sunk without the conservative right vote, so he went and did what is now history and suddenly the presidency is within his grasp. That precisely is my point. He does not believe in any of these things that he is now associated with by the church. As soon as he gets into office he will go ahead with his war mongering and his other agenda which I don't wish to go into here, rather than pay attention to the poverty that is ravaging America and the whole world.

For me personally, McCain/Palin are not the people that can turn around the battered US economy, I truly believe that Obama can. God has endowed him with the intellect and the exposure which will stand him in good stead. He also has the vision and the discipline to lay out a plan of action and follow it through - take a look at his campaign and his officers, very well chosen, competent people. I don't know these people from Adam, so initially I listened and wanted to be objective about the 2 candidates and what they can do. McCain himself confessed that the economy is not his strongest point and right now, the economy should be the most important issue in the US election, unfortunately it is not really. Perhaps if Americans go through a period of 'famine' they will really understand what the issues are, but right now they still think that their country is strong. You cannot be a strong nation without a strong economy - they should go ask the former Soviet Union.

..In conclusion, if we vote for him, we will influence policy. After all, he who pays the piper dictates the tune. Winning election in the US, where people's votes count, is about having enough interest groups support and people vote for you. If the 'church' does vote for him, how can they expect to influence his stance on policy. Let the church fan out to the two parties and push their agenda and not allow the republican elite bourgeois class to monopolize the church vote. So that which ever party is in power, we will have enough influence on public governance. That will ensure that parties produce only 'qualified' candidates who will work for the people and listen to the people, not only during elections.

My Response
Thanks for your powerful points, not in favour of Obama, but against his opponents. You did not deny Obama's position on abortion, which statistics…show kills in the millions! You have not addressed his pro-gay position either, vis-a-vis its approval as public policy at the federal level!.. The points that individuals are one thing or the other (bigots, lesbians, paedophiles, fornication-endorsers etc) is noted, but what is the man seeking to hold the most powerful office in the world today committed to doing with the power?.

…Many mistakes have been made, labels manufactured or unearthed and frantic attempts made to glue them on the opponent. Obama as Hussein and a friend of terrorists and haters of America etc: but so are democrats playing the game. Even you seem to have bought into the name-and-damn game: Catholics not Christian enough and as paedophiles; Republicans as racists. No, we can't join them in order to beat them: at least, not on the basis of conjectures such as racism, hypocrisy, posturing to get the votes etc. This should not be just about what you said or did in the past: it should be about what you are committing yourself to do in power!..

..I still find myself unable to get into the conjecture game about what McCain might do or not do when he gets into office! I'll rather take his words for it and hold him accountable later. And I have no difficulty extending the same trust to Obama. Which is why I shall be surprised if Obama can be influenced to move away from positions he took during the campaign; positions which could be said gave him the votes!

The point about Obama's competence is another area where I can't join issues with you correctly since it's a matter of what you believe. But I wonder how one can be as sure as you are on his ability to turn the economy around, only on the basis of having run a reasonably efficient campaign; and nothing else, never having served in any executive capacity. But you believe and all I can say is 'so be it.'

You see, the economy does seem like the "real issue" in current American reality, but you cannot build something on nothing! No matter how competent, how efficient or how economically sound, an administration may be, it will achieve nothing in the Sodom & Gomorrah ambience that an Obama at peace with abortion and gay marriages is set on creating! That I believe!

OBAMA, GOOSE BUMPS AND NIGERIA (2)

He threw in some statistics” …The number of U.S. soldiers who have been killed in Iraq since 2002 currently stands at 4,092. Yet a slightly smaller number of unborn babies, approximately 3,900, die every day in this country because of abortion. Currently we kill 1.4 million babies a year. Since abortion was legalized we’ve snuffed out more babies than the entire populations of Iraq, Israel and Jordan. That’s more than 40 million people. It’s a holocaust we deny ever happened”


We were saying that there is more to the popularity, in Nigeria, of Barack Obama, candidate of the Democratic Party in the fast approaching presidential election in the United States. We admitted that his rock star image, his youth, his meteoric rise from obscurity to the national stage, and his African heritage have all captured the imagination of many, if not most Nigerians. We noted that he has considerable animal attraction for many of the fair sex who swoon and serenade at the sight of his picture or the sound of his voice.

We also noted that some men also develop goose bumps about the prospects of an American president of African descent, not least of them, the internationally acknowledged African-American preacher, singer, author and entrepreneur, Thomas Dexter Jakes, better known as Bishop T. D. Jakes. To understand the bishop’s point of view, let me serve you a bit of his widely quoted statement:



“Last night, I, like most Americans of all stripes, watched with visible goose bumps as history was made. I sat with my 13-year-old son and looked from the screen to his eyes as Sen. Barack Obama became the first African American in history to lead a U.S. major-party ticket when he claimed the nomination for the Democratic Party for president of the United States.
“I congratulate Sen. Obama on this historic accomplishment. I thank him for accepting the torch that was lit by our forefathers and proudly carrying it through the darkness of our struggles, trials and tribulations, bringing light and hope to a new generation, and for facing all those who said "No" and "You can't win," or "It will never happen," and firmly, proudly, defiantly saying, "Yes I can! However, what I really hope people take away from that night is that this is not just a victory for African Americans, it is a victory for democracy that proves that our country provides possibilities for all people. It is also a sign that a metamorphosis is in progress. Today we saw that Americans respect experience, but are interested in change. I hope that we can somehow merge the best ideas of our differences and emerge with a president who epitomizes our highest and best ideals. While it remains unclear where we are going, last night proves that we as a people have moved beyond business as usual…”



So, for this man of God, this was about his heritage as a black man, the crashing of a seeming glass ceiling beyond which the man of colour is not expected to rise. It is about the American commonwealth redefining itself as a nation where the equal opportunity ideal is at last being extended to the highest office in the land. It is for, him, a thing to be misty-eyed about. This indeed is a position most Nigerians can and do identify with.



We said here last week, however, that beyond identification with colour and heritage and, the historicity of the Obama phenomenon is the appeal of his liberal platform to many. We homed in on the area of cultural liberalism, which according to Wikipediia focuses on “the rights of individuals pertaining to conscience and lifestyle, including such issues as sexual freedom, religious freedom, cognitive freedom, and protection from government intrusion into private life. …Cultural liberalism generally opposes government regulation of literature, art, academics, gambling, sex, prostitution, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and cannabis and other controlled substances. Most liberals oppose some or all government intervention in these areas…”



We then tried to show how this agrees with the world view of the Nigerian elite, the ones who mould opinions through their control or access to the media of mass communication.
A cursory look at how bills that seem to impinge on the unfettered exercise of human rights and fundamental liberties particularly in the areas sex, religion and other religion at the National Assembly indicate this. The anti-nudity bill is the most recent example. Given the vociferous opposition to it by the very vocal segment of society as reflected at the public hearing, that bill is as good as dead. And the reason for the opposition? There are more serious issues confronting our nation than the length of a a lady’s skirt or blouse or the depth of her neckline! The Obasanjo anti-gay marriages bill is another example. It’s dead. Dead, because the current administration is unlikely to re-present it. Were it to try, the avalanche of derisive remarks that will welcome it will most probably stop the Assembly from paying it any attention. Again the retort would be: we have more pressing issues. We have said all of these to say that our liberal tendencies tally with the Obama platform particularly in the cultural arena. He is, in the American socio-political lexicon, pro-choice. Which simply means: he supports abortion. He is also anti-homophobia, which is euphemism for support for gay rights.



But let’s take a closer look at the abortion issue, for example. Obama is not your borderliner on the issue of abortion. J. Lee Grady, editor of Charisma magazine in his “Fire in my Bones” column wrote: “Everyone on Capitol Hill knows Obama is a radical when it comes to abortion policy. He opposed a ban on partial-birth abortion (a clinical term for stabbing a baby in the neck when his arms, legs and torso are already outside the mother); then he criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold that ban. While an Illinois lawmaker, Obama opposed a bill that would have prevented the killing of an infant born alive during an abortion.To top that off, Obama said in April that if his young daughters got pregnant out of wedlock, he didn’t want them to be “punished with a baby.” In other words, he wants the abortion industry to thrive.”



Of course, there are many Americans who, like many of us, would say those two issues are unimportant. There are those who’ll say that Iraq and Afghanistan and the sub-prime mortgage crisis are much more important, and should carry greater weight in the choice of a presidential candidate. And that will be true, on the surface.



Grady’s take on this in his write-up which inspired the headline of this serial is very illuminating: “ I have dialogued with young Christian voters who say they are supporting Obama because they believe he will bring justice to poor people who’ve never achieved the American dream. Who are we fooling with this empty talk about justice? Hello? The God of justice abhors the slaughter of unborn babies!”

He threw in some statistics” …The number of U.S. soldiers who have been killed in Iraq since 2002 currently stands at 4,092. Yet a slightly smaller number of unborn babies, approximately 3,900, die every day in this country because of abortion. Currently we kill 1.4 million babies a year. Since abortion was legalized we’ve snuffed out more babies than the entire populations of Iraq, Israel and Jordan. That’s more than 40 million people. It’s a holocaust we deny ever happened”

Stephen Strang, publisher of Charisma also dwelt on this issue in his statement endorsing the candidacy of John McCain of the Republican Party. Giving Obama’s stance on the gay issue as the third of three reasons why he and the magazine group, Strang Communications, cannot support Obama, he said:

“The third reason we cannot support Obama is his sympathy toward those who are attempting to legitimize homosexuality. Since the beginning of recorded history, marriage has been defined as a union between one man and one woman, an institution designed by God for the primary purpose of bringing children into the world and raising them in a family. But radicals in our country now want to change the definition to include unions between two people of the same sex. Many of them are also pushing for the passage of legislation that would give homosexuals special legal rights and that would protect them from "hate speech," loosely defined as language that criticizes them in any way, even if it is based on biblical beliefs. We must not elect a leader who will support this legislation or aid the homosexual agenda in any way—because if same-sex marriage is ever legalized or protected on a national level, there will be no turning back.”

I cannot add much to all of that. But let me say in closing that I believe that Obama is not good for America, on the basis of his extreme liberalist tendencies in the socio-cultural area. By the same token, the extreme liberalism of the Nigerian elite is not good for Nigeria. When all those so-called more serious matters have been dealt with, the issues being currently touted as unimportant would have become intractable. We must avoid that. It is for this reason that I repeat what I have said here before: the Church must enter the arena of moulding opinion and influencing governmental policies. (Concluded)

OBAMA, GOOSE BUMPS AND NIGERIA

Incidentally, Obama does not elicit goose bumps from only doting and swooning females. No less a man, one hulk of a man than the preacher of preachers and the United States leading African-American pastor, T.D Jakes admitted to such susceptibility recently. He was quoted as telling a CNN interviewer recently that he “watched with visible goose bumps” as Obama claimed the Democratic Party’s nomination, shortly after, rival Hillary Clinton conceded defeat and wound down her campaign.

If Dr Ndi Okereke-Onyiuke, Director-General of the Nigeria Stock Exchange did not create Africans for Obama, someone else would. And it won’t necessarily be because there is money to be made. It would be because they love Obama and would want to contribute their quota to having him elected as President of the United States of America.

Let me make two or three quick points in passing. One, unless we are careful, we will end up demonising everybody in public service for even the most basic of mistakes. Even, if one agrees that the Africans for Obama dinner was one fundraiser too many for the Stock Exchange boss, the speed with which she was accused, tried and convicted by the media smacks of indecent haste. Thank God, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has come to the conclusion that no known laws have been violated and she has therefore been told to go and sin no more. That notwithstanding, the EFCC has taken on the role of seizing the money (about N74million) made from the dinner and returning it to those who contributed it. That is wrong. Has any of the contributors complained to EFCC? Even if they did, is it not a civil matter for which they should be advised to take out a writ? This is institutionalising the widespread practice of policemen and soldiers serving people as rent and debt collectors! Perhaps Okereke-Onyiuke should consider challenging the EFCC’s decision in court.

The second point that needs to be made is that the indiscretions of this “green-card” holding lady sitting atop one of Nigeria’s apex financial institutions should by now have convinced her employers that she’s lost touch with corporate ethical best practices. She should therefore be, as someone would have put it, “kurucified” or in this case sent to Harvard or wherever it is that her erstwhile comrade-in-arms in the ”third-term for Obasanjo” project, Festus Odimegwu, was sent by the board of Nigerian Breweries Plc.

Thirdly, it is one of those ironies of life that projects of more enduring values do not get the funding support of the many rich friends of Ndi who could garner N74million afterhours for a foggy idea with a high-sounding title.

As I was saying before the digression however, Ndi Okereke-Onyiuke and Company are not alone in the Obama song-and-dance. Obama is the closest thing to football in Nigeria today. That may be a bit exaggerated but, man, Nigerians, particularly the women folk love this guy! While some swallow hard at the mention of his name, others develop goose-bumps at the sound of his voice; yet others swoon at the sight of his picture. Obama-mania is growing in leaps and bounds. His youth, his oratory, his rock-star image and his African heritage have all combined to enthrone passion for the man to such levels that the all-time poster boy of US politics, John Fitzgerald Kennedy must be envious.

Incidentally, Obama does not elicit goose bumps from only doting and swooning females. No less a man, one hulk of a man than the preacher of preachers and the United States leading African-American pastor, T.D Jakes admitted to such susceptibility recently. He was quoted as telling a CNN interviewer recently that he “watched with visible goose bumps” as Obama claimed the Democratic Party’s nomination, shortly after, rival Hillary Clinton conceded defeat and wound down her campaign.

Jakes, a best-selling author of many books, singer, and entrepreneur’s goose pimples however had other roots. In his words: “This is not just a victory for African-Americans, it is a victory for democracy that proves that our country provides possibilities for all people.” He is not alone in situating the Obama appeal beyond animal attraction. My Centre Pastor, Rev Ajibola Oluyede, for instance, saw the rise of Obama as the product of “the audacity of hope”, which happens to be the title of Obama’s autobiographical book. In his opinion, and he illustrated many sermons with it, Obama is the modern day manifestation of the powerful symbiotic relationship between faith and hope as powerfully taught in the Epistles.

You can hardly fault that. You cannot ignore the grass-to-grace substance of Barrack Obama’s life. His meteoric rise from one-term state senator to one-term federal senator to presidential candidate is the stuff fairy tales are made off. Recall the fact that he was given next-to-no chance when he started the nomination race against the combined political clout of Hillary and her former president husband, Bill Clinton. Consider that no black leader, including the once popular Rev Jesse Jackson of the Run Jesse, Run fame ever went beyond the first few months of any nomination race. Think about how his pastor, Jeremiah Wright became an albatross he had to , reluctantly, remove from his neck; his well publicised Kenyan and Moslem roots; his wife’s gaffe on her new-found pride in America and so many such campaign stumbling blocks. From all of these, it is easy to find something Davidic about this man.

But, apart from all of these there is one strong thing that connects Obama to Nigeria and Nigerians: his liberal political tendency. Liberalism is alive and well in Nigeria, largely. Many truly embrace the liberal school of public governance which is where Obama stands. To appreciate this, it is germane to define liberalism, particularly in the context of this piece.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word liberal was not used in the English Language as a public governance concept until 1801 when it was defined as: "tending in favor of freedom and democracy." Does that remind you of the average Nigerian? My focus here however is more in the area of liberalism described as cultural liberalism.
Wikipedia defined cultural liberalism as focusing on “the rights of individuals pertaining to conscience and lifestyle, including such issues as sexual freedom, religious freedom, cognitive freedom, and protection from government intrusion into private life. …Cultural liberalism generally opposes government regulation of literature, art, academics, gambling, sex, prostitution, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and cannabis and other controlled substances. Most liberals oppose some or all government intervention in these areas…”
When this is applied to the Nigerian environment, you begin to see a certain meeting of minds between the vocal population of Nigerians , the one’s who have access to and or control the media of mass communication.

Permit me to show a couple of examples of how this unarticulated though clearly discernible leaning play out in the direction of public policy in Nigeria.

Very recently, a delegation of the National Inter=religious Council (NIREC) .paid a courtesy visit to the Governor of Lagos State, Mr Babatunde Fashola. Among other things, he drew their attention to the surge in homosexuality in the nation, From the next day and for at least one week thereafter, Fashola was the butt of many jokes in cartoons. He was lampooned for leaving more serious matters to dwell on an insignificant subject.

The same goes for the people’s reaction to the so-called Anti-nudity bill. Respected women rose up through many NGOs to attend the public hearing on the subject. There arguments: it is a distraction.

One Mrs Kenny Babalola-Adepoju, said to have served with ex-Governor Bola Tinubu’s government as Special Adviser on Special Duties and Inter-governmental Affairs, and a leading light of the Action Congress (AC) in Lagos State describes those behind the bill as having “nothing to do”. She continued in a newspaper interview very recently: “May be, they have nothing to do. There are lots of more important and serious bills panting for enactment. We are all human beings. We are all created with, at least, a minimum level of intelligence that will tell you what to do to belong in the society, save there is a problem somewhere. Most of us are grown up and we know that it is not good to go out naked. Mostly, its when you go to parties that you see such things as exposure of erotic zones of the body. Anti-nudity bill? What kind of bill is that? Does it portray us as serious with the job we should be doing? I even learnt that they took a large entourage to America to discuss the bill. Imagine taking such bill to America, a land of freedom and liberty. I’m sure, one of the people they met could have even worn ordinary bikini to the meeting. I want to see who will cast the first stone in this case of anti-nudity…” That is liberalism in practice. (Continues next week)

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PAT UTOMI

Then he spoke on the need for men to have the courage to be witnesses,
rather than just preachers and teachers, and this is where the gospel according to Pat Utomi seems to take its essence. He began by acknowledging that God has given him, “the grace to see things going wrong around me and want to do something about it: I have had that good fortune”. That, for him, is the very core of the Christian’s witness. He cited a number of examples of such social activism as Christian witness.

First, full disclosure. For the avoidance of any doubts, I am a Pat Utomi partisan. I admire his doggedness in advocacy and his roll-up-your sleeves style of activism. That was why in the run-down to the last elections in which he ran as president, I sent out hundreds of text messages canvassing his candidacy, unknown to him and totally independent of his structure. That was why, in a piece meant for this column, but which found itself in the op-ed page of the Daily Independent, I even played the geo-politics card, as it were. The relevant paragraph read like this:

“…The first is that all who wish to enthrone equity and call the bluff of those who think might is right should refuse to vote for candidates from outside of the two disadvantaged regions. There are a number of candidates to choose from. I do not shy away from saying that my personal preference would be Professor Pat Utomi. Apart from his other attributes of character, compassion, competence and freshness, he uniquely meets the objective of filling the South-South/South-East slot. As a Deltan, his geo-political home is the South-South while as an Igbo; his root is in the South-East. Thus, he could even be the President that completes the rotation circle and free our nation to henceforth shop for the best from anywhere at all times.”

That could easily be seen as the reason Professor Utomi was invited to speak at last quarter’s Real Men Luncheon of Christian Men’s Network Nigeria of which I am one of the Coordinators. For a while, I felt I might even be guilty of abuse of privilege, using what was fast becoming a major men’s forum to “push a personal agenda.” It didn’t help matters that a number of my colleagues actually questioned the gentleman’s Christian credentials! But thank God, apart from what I knew about Pat Utomi’s impeccable Christian character which went way back, I had a witness in my spirit that he was absolutely qualified to follow in the footsteps of our illustrious earlier guest speakers: Elder Felix Ohiwerei, Dr Christopher Kolade and Deacon Gamaliel Onosode. Thank God for the Holy Spirit. Full disclosure over.

And so Professor Patrick Okedinachi Utomi came, spoke and left an indelible impression on the minds of that gathering of hardly impressionable men, at the Sparkles Hall, Ikeja GRA on August 2. Aged 52, last February 6, but looking as youthful as ever in his “parachute”, his version of “agbada”, he spoke, as he was requested to, on “The Men Nigeria Needs.”

He began somewhat like this. “Nigeria needs men strong enough to love…courageous enough to be witnesses, not just teachers and preachers… men who are leaders…; men of integrity… men who trust God and are therefore unshaken in His faithfulness… men who have the courage to stay the course…”

Kicking off on the subject of love, he said, being tough does not mean being unable to love. It does not mean lack of compassion. He noted that it is widely thought that men are not supposed to cry; that they are not supposed to love. The typical Nigerian father is supposed to be so tough and feared that the children scamper for cover the moment he arrives at the gate of their home. And this is not applicable only to the home-based, or if you like, the unexposed Nigerian male! The Nigerian family in the United States, for instance is in grave danger. The divorce rate of African marriages in that country is above the national average, he pointed out

He recalled a famous Reuben Abati column in the Guardian. Titled “The 12 O’clock Man”, it told of a man who was so busy making money to keep his family materially comfortable, that he was never home except on Sundays when he manages to have lunch with them at noon. One day, goes the story, he failed to do even that. One of the children wondered aloud; where is that man who usually comes to lunch every 12 O’clock on Sunday. You can imagine the rest.

Emphasising the place of this quintessential issue, Utomi referred to a Yale University study which has identified the greatest challenge of the future as the challenge of compassion, adding that it is now widely accepted that what the world needs, most of all, now is a civilization of love.

If Nigerian men would rise up and love; love their family enough to want to safeguard the future of their children and love their neighbours as themselves, which is the Christian thing to do, then we won’t have corruption, for instance.

He tarried a while on the issue of corruption. He quoted an international agency report which opened in these words: “Corruption runs a spectrum in Afric; from rare in Botswana, to widespread in Ghana, to systemic in Nigeria.” In other words, whereas corruption hardly exists in resource poor Botswana, and it’s widespread in Ghana, in Nigeria, it is ingrained in the system! He also noted the irony of how Nigeria is characterized both as religious and corrupt. He recalled the story of a man, who upon hearing that he (Pat) was being considered for a ministerial appointment, complained to somebody that he would stop the flow of ill-gotten wealth if so appointed. The man then prayed; “he won’t get there, in Jesus’ Name.” That’s the kind of amazing thing we do in the name of Jesus.

He spoke about how, in their greed for corrupt acquisition, many people are today consuming the future of their children. And how so myopic those who corruptly enrich themselves while in office are, even at the practical level. He drew attention to the fact that they do not even really enjoy their stolen wealth. Once out of office, they have to provide for themselves the municipal services they failed to provide for society while in office – power, water, security, name it. Have you seen the high fence walls behind which many erstwhile public officers live; or the roads that lead to their villages and homes, he asked. He quoted several passages from the Bible Book of Proverbs to buttress his position about the futility of wealth by ungodly methods.

Then he spoke on the need for men to have the courage to be witnesses, rather than just preachers and teachers, and this is where the gospel according to Pat Utomi seems to take its essence.

He began by acknowledging that God has given him, “the grace to see things going wrong around me and want to do something about it: I have had that good fortune”. That, for him, is the very core of the Christian’s witness. He cited a number of examples of such social activism as Christian witness.

He spoke about how the experience of a woman he knew who went from living comfortably in a middle class suburb of Lagos to become homeless within a few weeks of her husband’s death. Her husband’s relations had thrown her out and taken over the family house, in accordance with tradition. He was so moved that he wrote a newspaper article to draw attention to the plight of widows in our society. He recalled how his concern over the issue eventually led to his involvement with a Widow Support Group.

He also gave Christian witness as his motivation for establishing the Centre for Values in Leadership which trains young men to inculcate elevating values and prepare them for future leadership. Many Lagosians remember this centre as responsible for clearing the daunting mountain of refuse at Obalende in the heart of Lagos a few years back. Though, he didn’t mention it, the now famous Lagos Business School is a product of Christian witness through the Catholic group, Opus Dei. Even his transition from political activism to politics is situated in within the concept of Christian witness.

As he spoke, one couldn’t but see that social and political activism is an essential part of Christian witness. In fact, without it, we would just be preachers and teachers and our fruits would be limited. Jesus could have stayed in Heaven and tried to persuade God to send an angel to come and save mankind. He did not. He could have ignored the woman whose only son was about to be buried; after all, she didn’t ask for his help (Luke 7: 12-15). He did not. Neither he did he wait for the helpless cripple at the pool in Bethesda who had waited for miracle healing for 38 years (John 5:2-9). Like Pat Utomi and others like him, we should follow the Lord’s example.

GAFCON & THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH (6)

"..I continue to see a negotiated “orderly separation” as the best and most fruitful way forward for the Anglican Communion. The experience of this Lambeth Conference… has again convinced me that the Anglican Communion cannot hold in tension convictions and practices that are incompatible…without continuing seriously to damage the life and witness of Anglican Churches as much in “the Global South” as in North America and in other provinces that have followed the lead of TEC. The experience of this Conference cannot have encouraged any participant to imagine that the latter are about to turn their backs on a generation or more of development in directions foreign to the life and convictions of the vast majority of Anglicans, let alone of other Christians, across the world. I cannot see that the members of an “international family of Churches” can thrive and grow and offer a clear witness to Jesus Christ as Lord while offering contradictory teaching, on a matter as central as the character of the Holy Life… "

We have said these past few weeks that it is in the nature of man to give the mundane centrestage, while the fundamentals are studiously ignored. This, we said, explains the scant attention paid in the media, in particular, to happenings in the Anglican Church in the past several years culminating in the founding of the Global Anglican Future Conference, the boycott by more than 200 bishops of the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference, and the import of all of these on the entire Church of Jesus Christ.

Let me say, in passing, that the media in particular need a rethink of our attitude to religious events. The iron-cast position that Christianity, for instance, is a Sunday subject, is simply untenable. Christianity, in its true essence, is a way of life; an every second of life reality and needs to be so treated as such; given as much priority as we currently give to politics and governance; business and economy, sports and whatever else we’ve been committing tonnes of newsprint, ink and airtime to. True Christianity influences all other aspects of life and is influenced by none. That is why to get our religion right is to get everything else right. And as always, the media’s role is pivotal.

Please forgive the digression. But as we said, the formation of GAFCON and the subsequent Jerusalem Declaration should be seen as of such significance as the publication in 1517 of the late Rev Martin Luther’s 95 Theses, which led eventually to the Reformation and the birth of the Protestantism.

There might have been readers who thought that was alarmist, but as subsequent events demonstrated, the impact of GAFCON is such that at least one influential bishop is beginning to suggest an orderly separation within the Anglican Church as the way forward!

We have noted, in the course of this serial, that Archbishop Rowan Williams is a man in the eye of a storm; with his potential place in history oscillating between that of the man who presided over the disintegration of the Anglican “empire” or, the one who pulled her away from the brink. We had said that this deeply spiritual man didn’t have a minute to stand and stare since taking the see of Canterbury and the headship of the Communion. He had been there only a few months when the crisis over the ordination of openly gay bishops blew open. We have stated that his handling of the situation opened him to criticism particularly in the appointment of Canon Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading. Quotes attributed to him then suggested he was either pro-gay bishop ordination or indifferent. But so strong was the opposition to that appointment, that he was never consecrated. Canon John, a vocal gay, resigned the appointment obviously on the Archbishop’s advice.

The appointment and subsequent consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire by the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA) didn’t lend itself to the same treatment. Robinson has since become the symbol of the Anglican crisis. That was five years ago. While the Archbishop seemed unwilling or unable to take a firm position on the issue, the so-called conservative wing of the church was unequivocal. They severed all relationship with ECUSA and demanded the enforcement of Lambeth 1998 Resolution1:10 (on Human Sexuality) which clearly forbids the ordination of openly gay bishops while the issue was still being considered through what it called the “listening” process. In this group were bishops from what is known as the Global South where a vast majority of Anglicans live. Several meetings of several organs, or what the Church calls ”Instruments of unity” yielded very little. ECUSA and her allies in the Liberal West including Canada where homosexuality has been elevated to a human right dug in. The opponents who insist that it is a sin also stood their ground.

That was the situation when preparations began for Lambeth Conference 2008, the once-a-decade gathering of Anglican bishops. It was a meeting which, for some, held the potential of resolving the issue; while for others, it would just be a talkshop designed to attempt to weary and possibly overwhelm the anti-gay group. To the latter group, the only way they would attend was if bishops whose provinces had violated Resolution 1:10 from the last conference were not invited. The Archbishop thought otherwise; he wanted a full house where things could be resolved in the Holy Spirit-filled atmosphere he hoped could be created by the way the Conference was designed.

In the event, about 250 Bishops gathered in Jerusalem for GAFCON, drew up the Jerusalem Declaration and urged their leaders to establish what could be seen as parallel structures to those of the Communion. Most of them also stayed away from Lambeth.

Canterbury hosted about 650 Bishops at Lambeth 2008. From the archbishop’s presidential addresses, it was clear that Dr Williams saw the problem as partly structural. His office was just one of the Instruments of Unity without executive powers of any kind. So, he canvassed an Anglican Covenant and a new council with powers to take certain decisions. The meeting ended without approving either. The Conference however would seem to have approved that discussions and negotiations continue towards these goals. The meeting also saw nothing wrong with the continued moratoria on the appointment of gay priests, the blessing of same-sex unions in Church and the creation of cross-border dioceses and provinces.

As we saw last week, the conference didn’t even have a resolution. In its place is a 161-paragraph document styled “Lambeth Indaba, Capturing Conversations and Reflections from the Lambeth Conference 2008,“ otherwise known as the “Reflections,” document. It was simply a narrative of what transpired at the Conference; the arguments for and against as well as a long list of “possible ways forward”.

So what is the import of all of these? Did Lambeth 2008 fail? Did it succeed in staving off the threat of disintegration permanently or just for a while? What is the place of GAFCON in the future of the Anglican Communion?

To answer the last question first, it is my opinion that GAFCON has a major role to play in how things shape in the coming days. First, if there was no GAFCON and no Jerusalem Declaration, it is possible that Lambeth 2008 might have ended differently. It is possible that condemnation of bigotry and intolerance may have found its way into a resolution that would have watered down Resolution 1:10 of 1998.

On the other hand, the absence of most of the opposing bishops contributed in no small measure to the lowering of temperature and pressure at the Conference, Had they attended and tried to get their viewpoints into the resolution, they certainly would have been resisted. Should that then lead to a walk out, the damage such a spectacle would have caused would have been devastating. So mercifully, Lambeth 2008 cannot be said to have failed, even if it wasn’t a roaring success. It enabled the Archbishop make the point that the Anglican Church has a position on homosexuality. It has been seen as a sin over the years, and it remains so until the Church decides otherwise. The onus is on those who think otherwise to continue to push their case with a view to getting others to see what new information or revelation or whatever makes a change imperative. This position should satisfy the Bishops of GAFCON. But will it please ECUSA and their allies? Will they refrain from ordaining any gay priest and stop conducting gay marriages till the matter is resolved as stated above? Will GAFCON, on the other hand stop establishing dioceses outside of their geographical boundaries? I certainly hope and pray so.

But there are informed opinions to the contrary. For instance, The Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt, Bishop of Winchester had this to say: "...I continue to see a negotiated “orderly separation” as the best and most fruitful way forward for the Anglican Communion. The experience of this Lambeth Conference… has again convinced me that the Anglican Communion cannot hold in tension convictions and practices that are incompatible…without continuing seriously to damage the life and witness of Anglican Churches as much in “the Global South” as in North America and in other provinces that have followed the lead of TEC. The experience of this Conference cannot have encouraged any participant to imagine that the latter are about to turn their backs on a generation or more of development in directions foreign to the life and convictions of the vast majority of Anglicans, let alone of other Christians, across the world. I cannot see that the members of an “international family of Churches” can thrive and grow and offer a clear witness to Jesus Christ as Lord while offering contradictory teaching, on a matter as central as the character of the Holy Life… “

How all of these affect the Church as one body? Simple, we have to face and deal with all intra- and inter- doctrinal and other conflicts; even if it brings us to the brink. For we can rest assured that the gates of hell will not prevail. The time to begin is now. (Concluded)

*Pix:The Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt, Bishop of Winchester , Church of England

GAFCON & THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH (5)

“I think that we have emerged at the end of this conference with
some quite surprising results; a surprising level of sheer willingness to stay together; a surprising level of agreement about what might be necessary to make that happen. So that for all the fact that all the details of the covenant proposal still need a good deal of clarification nonetheless there is a following for that. There is also a wide degree of agreement on the need for moratoria on both sides where divisive actions are concerned. And one thing that came up which is not planned and is not really expected was again a strong level of support for a more coherent and coordinated attempt to draw together the work of the Communion around issues of justice and international development.”

And so Lambeth 2008, the ten yearly meeting of Anglican Bishops, the first this millennium, has come and gone. It ended on Sunday August 3. Although I was in London for most part of the Conference, I could not cover it officially because, accreditation of journalists had closed by the time I arrived in the United Kingdom. In the event, when, at the close of the Conference, I did not get to see the resolutions, I thought I had somehow missed it. I combed various Anglican websites, in vain. It took a terse e-mail from Canon James Rosenthal, the veteran Communicator (Director of Communications) of the Anglican Communion and Editor of the Anglican World magazine, to convince me that Lambeth 2008, momentous as it was, ended without a formal statement of decisions in the form of a communiqué. In his reply to my inquiry, Rosenthal assured me that there were no resolutions and directed me to what he described as “Reflections” published on the Conference website.

Of course, I had seen the document he referred to. Titled, Lambeth Indaba, Capturing Conversations and Reflections from the Lambeth Conference 2008, it was a 42-page narrative of the discussions at the Conference. In 161 paragraphs divided into 13 sections, the document rivals the best of United Nations resolutions carefully put together to avoid the almighty veto of any of the Security Council permanent members. I do not say that to minimize the gains of the Conference. And there were many, intangible for now.

Archbishop Rowan William’s address to journalists at the final media conference shortly before the conference formally wound up sought to put the gains in perspective. He identified what he described as “some quite surprising results” from the Conference. His words:

“I think that we have emerged at the end of this conference with some quite surprising results; a surprising level of sheer willingness to stay together; a surprising level of agreement about what might be necessary to make that happen. So that for all the fact that all the details of the covenant proposal still need a good deal of clarification nonetheless there is a following for that. There is also a wide degree of agreement on the need for moratoria on both sides where divisive actions are concerned. And one thing that came up which is not planned and is not really expected was again a strong level of support for a more coherent and coordinated attempt to draw together the work of the Communion around issues of justice and international development.”

As a result of these “surprising results”, the archbishop said “…there’s work to do” and he went on to itemize some of the various processes that will take the process forward as follows: “There will be a number of meetings coming up: a special meeting of the joint standing committee of Primates, the Consultative Council in November; we are planning a Primates meeting very early in the new year, and there would be the routine meeting of the Consultative Council in the early summer”.

Situating the place of the “Reflections” document in the on-going processes, the archbishop continued: “Feeding into all of these will be continuing reflections from various groups that will be looking at the issues the Conference has been discussing. They will be looking at those in the light of the very detailed responses and perspectives offered by the indaba groups as represented in the “Reflections’ document, which was formally presented to the Conference and to myself this afternoon and, which we will be dedicating in prayer at the service at the cathedral very shortly. I think that in addition to all that, all the formal aspects of the work together, there’s been very, very widespread desire simply to go on building personal relations…”

But it is, perhaps, his concluding statement that captures the state of the Communion best and I quote: “Even where people may not want to sign up to formal agreements, nonetheless they felt that the exchanges they had have been nourishing, valuable and the phrase that has occurred in several context is we want the indaba to continue. We want the process to continue in which there is space to do the sort of thing we have sought to do in this last two weeks.”

This statement is indicative of the fact that the outcome of the Conference did not meet the expectations of the conference president himself as reflected in both his opening and second addresses. He had canvassed the need for both a Covenant to bind the provinces that make up the communion together in a fairly less loose manner and a Council that can, at least, make pronouncements on critical issues concerning the body. Neither was adopted.

Commenting on the Conference’s failure to put an Anglican Covenant in place, Dr Williams said: “I had outlined in my opening address that the covenant was not meant to be a punitive exclusionary device, it was meant to say if you want to adopt a more integral, more intensified form of mutual responsibility; this is the way to do it. If that doesn’t happen, well, that’s regrettable. It doesn’t mean that there is an absolute separation; it means that some levels of relationship will be entered into. And that still leave a great many possibilities for cooperation”.

In spite of that, however, the archbishop still saw much to celebrate in the outcome of the Conference. Answering a reporter’s question, he said: “I feel it’s worked out very much as I had hoped and prayed. It’s not evaded the difficult questions, even if it has not solved them the way some people would like to have them solved. But that doesn’t cause me to lose much sleep, because the conference has not been an executive body that can simply make those sorts of quick-fix decisions. I’ve actually been surprised by how much energy that’s been growing in the indaba groups to continue the process of encounter. I feel we’ve been very well served by …providing an atmosphere of prayer and worship. People have said the encounters were serious and prayerful, without too much pressure. I don’t think I could have prayed for that”

On the face of it, it does seem as if the archbishop has been rationalising the failure of Lambeth 2008. Of course, the resort to a “Reflections” document, is itself evidence that there were very few, if any, agreements on the way forward; beyond ”a strong willingness to stay together.” Some of the contents, in many ways, help the conclusion that the Communion still has a long way to go towards resolving the issues that kept at least 250 bishops away from Lambeth 2008, and gave birth to GAFCON.

For instance, where Rowan Williams canvassed a “more integral more intensifying” form of mutual relationship and sought a review of the Structure of the Communion to provide for it, the Reflections document didn’t go beyond “affirming the need for the review of the bureaucracy of provinces in order to facilitate more effective communication and efficiency. There is need to strengthen the sense of collegiality and the building of trust and accountability between dioceses, the assumption of some appellate function as a way of adjudicating issues which may arise, and ensuring that decisions and actions are taken at the appropriate level…(Paragraph 44)

This is in spite of the documents’ admission later in paragraph 79 that “Current divisions between Anglicans and the actions by certain provinces that have provoked them have inevitably disrupted not only the internal life of the Communion but also ecumenical dialogues and cooperation. Our ecumenical partners are sometimes bewildered by apparent Anglican inconsistency especially where issues of authority and ecclesiology are concerned. This is immediately relevant to the dilemmas facing this Conference.”

This philosophy class approach to issues was also evident in Section H of the document, which dealt with the issue of Human Sexuality. In all of 15 paragraphs (105-119), an attempt was made to capture the various views. And in the 16th, 12 possible ways ahead were listed including: “Further careful study of the Scriptures, theology, doctrine and other disciplines, such as theological anthropology, must be pursued together through a formal Commission at Communion-wide level. This would equip the bishops in their teaching office.” And I thought this was a Spiritual matter!

Nonetheless, Conference recorded a major victory in the tacit reaffirmation of ”the moral authority of the whole of the Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1:10, and the report commended in it, and continue its implementation…Acknowledge that some good work has been done on the resolution..”. Although, this was contained in paragraph 130 (Possible Ways Forward), its mention by Archbishop Rowan in his media conference address would seem to give it the force of a declaration.” (Concludes Next week)

*Pix: Rev Canon James Rosenthal, Director of Communication, Anglican Communion.