Sunday 15 March 2009

Nigeria: has no-one condemned you?

For the last couple of days, sections of the Anglican blogosphere have been agog with excitement over the apparent support by the Church of Nigeria for their government’s proposed legislation against homosexuality.

I admit to not yet having had time to digest either the legislation or the stance of that church.

Nevertheless, I am struck not only by the extent to which criticism is being directed at the Church of Nigeria (some of which qualifies as demonisation), but at Western Conservatives. “Where,” the questioning goes, “is your condemnation? Why are you silent?”

Now it may indeed be that condemnation is required. For all I know, it may already be happening, though not necessarily via blogs and ‘open letters’.

But I cannot help noticing, with regard to the spiritual dynamics of all this, the similarity with what happened in the case of the woman caught in adultery. When her accusers brought her to Jesus to ask what should be done with her we are told by the Evangelists, “They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.”

There was, of course, no doubt of the woman’s guilt. And it is worth reminding ourselves that if the Law of Moses has a Divine origin, then in God’s eyes adultery was then a capital offence, to be punished by the State.

But this was not about the guilt of the accused, and nor is reaction to the Nigerian situation simply about the Nigerians.

There is also a clear difference in that the question was put to Jesus — the Holy One in whom there was no sin. None of us can stand in that position (indeed, that is the point of what Jesus said in reply.)

But we must not forget that this was not a view shared by the accusers. In their eyes, Jesus was a charlatan, a spiritual usurper, a frustrating and dangerous opponent needing to be brought down.

And what did they feel in their hearts when one of their number first came up with the bright idea?

“Wait a minute! Don’t let’s stone her. Let’s take her to Jesus. He’s always condemning and accusing us. He’s got to agree to her being stoned. Let’s see him get out of this one!”

How different is this from the thoughts of those who have taken the Nigerian Church (brothers and sisters in Christ) to the Conservatives crying, “The gospel commands us to condemn such people — now what do you say?”

What do they hope to hear? A shared condemnation? Evasion? Silence?

Is it any wonder Jesus said to us, “Judge not, lest you be judged, condemn not, lest you stand condemned”?

Of course, as anyone will know who tries to put these words into practice, they are impossible for us. We must judge and we must condemn, because life is full of damnable things, and yet with every judgement we accuse ourselves.

But that is surely the point. We must know ourselves to be people under judgement, and keep this before us every time we see a fellow human being committing sin.

When Jesus said, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” the lesson was not that adultery was suddenly allowable, nor that adulterers should no longer be condemned. Rather, it was that the accusers saw what Jesus saw in their hearts, and they were shamed by what they found.

As each day passes, we see the Anglican Church revealed not as a thing of beauty but an object of horror, suitable only for the world’s derision and God’s judgement — indeed, as a woman taken in adultery.

Revd John P Richardson
15 March 2009

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

16 comments:

  1. I too can see a very clear parallel with the stoning of the woman caught in adultery.

    The Church in Nigeria has picked up stones and is ready to do violence to the homosexual. The message to western conservatives is, "Why the hell are you just standing there watching?"

    We're not talking about standing up for some abstract principle here, but intervening to stop persecution and oppression.

    Dave Rattigan, Liverpool

    ReplyDelete
  2. David, I think you're entirely right - and simultaneously wrong! And that's the point, isn't it?

    "When you point your finger cos your plan fell through, You got three more fingers pointing back at you." Dire Straits, but it could have been Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This whole thing is affecting me in the same way as the Jade Goody saga.
    Let us make a comparison; on the one hand we have Ms Goody; someone who does lots of things I utterly disapprove of, and does them very much in the public eye, who is now suffering terribly and eliciting sympathy and support from people with whom she has little or nothing in common (Gordon Brown for one).
    I am torn between my horror at the whole media circus, and my compassion for a fellow human being (a fallen sinner like myself) who is suffering.
    On the other hand we have a group within Nigerian society whose approach to personal ethics and morality is not the same as mine when it comes to sex, and who have been, with the the collusion of elements of the Western media, making a noise about their agenda for a fairly long time.
    Now though, they face persecution. I therefore am moved to feel compassion, even though I do not agree with them.
    If someone has cancer I do not give them a hard time about why they got it (even in cases of lung cancer caused by smoking its not the greatest pastoral approach to say "ha!, its your own fault!") so why should I withhold compassion and a desire for fairness and justice from the gay community in Nigeria? It was wrong for the Nazis to oppress homosexuals, why is it apparently OK for the Nigerian government to do the same thing?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The "judge not..." admonition does not, I think, mean "don't criticize..." Arbp Akinola is my brother in Christ and I have a responsibility to admonish him when I discern that his words and actions are contrary to the Gospel - just as he has taken on the responsibililty to admonish those whose views on same-sex relations he discerned to be contrary to the Gospel.

    ReplyDelete
  5. John - the core issue isn't a parallel of the woman taken in adultery. It's the Good Samaritan. You seem to be content to pass by on the other side of the road, less you find yourself contaminated with gay cooties, or worse still, have your friends think you're contaminated with gay cooties.

    The issue's pretty clear to me. By not speaking out when you have the opportunity to do so, you're saying that you don't care what happens to these people.

    Simon Morden
    Gateshead

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hello,

    I remember Archbishop Akinola being accused of homophobia when he supported a similar law a while ago. And then it turned out that he was supporting a much more liberal, gentle law than the law that the majority of Nigerians wanted - so, in the Nigerian context, he was actually pushing for making things better. Context is important. I don't know anything about the current situation though.

    Phil Craig, London

    ReplyDelete
  7. What you miss in your analogy with the woman caught in adultery is that conservative evangelicals have already been quite vocal in condemning Gene Robinson et al.

    The question is quite simply whether we are going to be consistent in how we treat Americans when they sin in ways which don't fit with our politics and Nigerians when they sin in ways which do fit with our politics.

    And this conservative evangelical thinks that's a good challenge to us.

    John Allister, Oxford.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Simon, I have no idea what a 'cootie' is. I don't know what you mean about contamination with gay cooties.

    You do, however, seem to imagine you have a window into my soul.

    ReplyDelete
  9. A definition of the word 'cootie' can be found at

    http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=cootie&meta=&btnG=Google+Search

    I fail to see what it has to do with John Richardson's post.

    Chris Bishop
    Devon

    ReplyDelete
  10. John - you could always find out what cooties are if you were bothered, like you could engage with my comment if you were bothered.

    I don't have a window into your soul. I just have your writing. It's enough to form an opinion - that you find it too uncomfortable to either defend the indefensible (++Akinola's homophobic statements) or defend the undefended (Nigeria's gay citizens).

    I am genuinely not impressed by your equivocation. Custard - who I have crossed swords with many a time on Ship of Fools - has a clarity and consistency of thought that is far more commendable.

    Simon Morden
    Gateshead

    ReplyDelete
  11. Simon, I can't 'engage' with name-calling. And I still don't know what you meant by this! However, if this is the standard of Christian debate, no wonder we're going down the pan.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Chris, I already looked that up and I'm still none the wiser as to what Simon Morden is actually saying about me, except that it is clearly meant to be rude!

    ReplyDelete
  13. John,

    I don't think I really wish to explain what 'gay cootie' means except to say that the fact that Simon Morden's use of it in the context of making personal attacks on you, is strong evidence that his clarity and consistency of thought is clearly less than Custard's.

    It was not meant to be rude but offensive.

    Chris Bishop
    Devon

    ReplyDelete
  14. Chris and John - neither rude, nor offensive, so don't go looking for it where it doesn't exist. It's kids' talk: it's funny. Boys catch the mythical girl cooties by being near girls, or touching something that belongs to a girl. They grow out of it (eventually). I was, by use of analogy, referring to the equally mythical gay cooties you catch off gay people simply by being near them.

    And the mere fact that I'm having to explain to the pair of you what cooties are makes me despair for the future of the church far more than anything you've written so far...

    Simon Morden
    Gateshead

    ReplyDelete
  15. I do not know Simon Morden and he does not need me to defend him. However, his suggesting the Good Samaritan parable was as appropriate and challenging as John's use of the story of the woman caught in adultery. What keeps any of us from coming to the defense of others? Why do we pass by on the other side? John has come to the defense of those who have not joined the crowd criticising Arbp Akinola. Simon has challenged John and the rest of us - and himself - to question why we may not be eager to defend those in Nigeria who may be harmed very seriously by the propsed legislation (whether because they are jailed or because the legislation may be seen as an indication that violence against LGBT people and their friends will be tolerated).
    While I can onoy speak for myself, I don't see challenges like John's or Simon's as personal attacks, but rather invitations to self-examination. I certainly see the tone of these challenges as much milder than Jesus' "whited-washed sepulchers."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Simon Morden
    From your own definition of cooties you are making a completely unwarranted assumption that John Richardson is afraid of being 'contaminated' by gays by being in proximity to them. You have no evidence for that statement except your own prejudiced assumptions about him which you choose to read into his posts. This is why it is a personal attack and offensive.

    And if you really believe that us (or others) not having a correct understanding of 'cooties' makes you despair of for the future of the church then coming from someone who has considerable literary talents, this is such a a ludicrous statement as to beggar belief.


    Chris Bishop
    Devon

    ReplyDelete