The College of Bishops of the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA), at their recent meeting, issued a Pastoral Statement of toleration of same-sex persons within their fold. The Bishops noted “that the struggle with human identity is real and painful for Christians who experience same-sex attraction” and reject the use of language that identify such people for who they are- Gays; preferring that they be addressed as “Christians who experience same-sex attraction”. The College of Bishops also upheld a commitment to subsidiarity which defers to diocesan bishops, discernment on how to handle homosexuals in their church communities. It called on priests of their churches to teach about human sexuality based on the Bishops’ desire that parishes in ACNA province become “places where those who experience same-sex attraction, especially youths know where they can go to share about this reality”.
These decisions by ACNA bishops tantamount to a subtle capitulation to recognize and promote same -sex relations among its members, exactly the same route of argument adopted by The Episcopal Church (TEC). Its appeal to subsidiarity is another trick not to submit to the clear authority of Scripture on homosexuality, rather, they defer to individual Bishops discretion of discernment on how to relate to homosexuals, and offer them room. As Phil Ashey rightly observed, “Among Anglicans, subsidiarity does not give the Diocesan Bishops or Dioceses the authority to decide matters unilaterally that touch on the Faith and Order of the Church. Appeals to subsidiarity resulted in the unilateral decisions of Diocesan Bishops of New Westminster (Canada) to recognize same sex blessings of marriage and New Hampshire (TEC) to elect same-sex partnered Gene Robinson as Bishop.
These actions which fueled the crisis that has broken the fabrics of the Anglican Communion should not be repeated by ACNA. Manipulating languages to cover up sin and sinners are incompatible with the example of Scripture which condemned sin. A Gay is a Gay, they cannot be rightly described otherwise. In the same vein, we cannot describe people as ‘Christian Murderer’, ‘Christian Adulterer’ and ‘Christian terrorist’; neither should we even have ‘Gay Christian’ or ‘Gay Anglican’. “Without Holiness, no man shall see God” (Hebrews 12 :14).
Taking advantage of the ACNA Bishops Pastoral Letter, a group within ACNA published an invitation to ‘Gay Anglicans’ offering them invitation and pastoral accommodation in ACNA parishes. The letter was openly endorsed by some bishops, priests and laity in ACNA. It is a clarion call to recruit Gays into ACNA member parishes. The deadly ‘virus’ of homosexuality has infiltrated ACNA. This is likened to a Yeast that should be urgently and radically expunged and excised lest it affects the whole dough (Luke 13:20-21; Gal. 5:9). The response of ACNA leadership so far has been palliative, weak and unwilling to discipline the erring bishops and priests and taking a clear stand to totally reject their actions and underlying motives. We appreciate Archbishop Foley Beach’s intervention by which the offensive Gay Anglican letter was removed from the web; but this has not cured the diseases that has set in already neither has it mitigated the damage this has done by the public advertisement and the changing perception of the ACNA stand on Biblical orthodoxy and GAFCON Movement.
The Church of Nigeria views these events as most unfortunate and dangerous to the cause of Mission based on the Truth of the Gospel, especially at a time when secular governments are adopting aggressive campaign for global homosexual culture. The Church in USA which should lead the fight against this evil is ACNA; and if it fails, it would have disappointed God and faithful Anglican Christians worldwide.
ACNA was formed by GAFCON, as a safe haven for faithful Christians who reject the apostasy and rebellion in TEC. They should not now find in ACNA the aberrations which drove them from TEC. It is more serious that the Archbishop of ACNA, Archbishop Foley Beach is also the current Chairman of GAFCON. Therefore, his actions or inactions and that of his Province have serious implications for GAFCON leadership.
We therefore call upon the Archbishop and the College of Bishops of ACNA to make definite, unambiguous statement condemning the actions taken by the Gay activists in their midst, denounce their action, dissociate ACNA from the group, discipline the erring bishops, priests and laity who signed the offensive Pro-Gay letter and reaffirm ACNA’s commitment to all the fundamentals of orthodox Christian faith and the resolutions of the GAFCON Jerusalem Declarations and Statement. It should take a clear stand on their position on homosexuality and same -sex relations of all types. The Church of Nigeria affirms its total rejection of homosexuality and will surely stand to defend the Truth of the Gospel based on the injunctions and ethical principles of the Holy Bible.
And this is how you address a Social Justice activist issue head on; with strength, clarity, and resolve.
The ACNA could, and hopefully will, learn from this principled approach.
You may not agree with their position, but you have no doubt where they stand and where the battle lines are drawn. I pray the ACNA will find the backbone to be as clear.
I see by his statement that +Beach is asking each ordained signer of the “Gay Anglicans” letter to communicate with him directly. I don’t mind his taking the time to talk to them and to understand clearly what they say. However, as this Nigerian reaction indicates, some kind of reprimand or discipline must happen; that is, ordained signers need to clearly dissociate themselves from the letter and clearly associate themselves with the teaching of the Church.
No people who sincerely want to follow Jesus should ever feel unwelcome in the Church, no matter what sins and weaknesses they may have. Following Jesus, however, requires that the believer must commit to “sin no more,” as Jesus said to the woman taken in adultery. For all believers, failures are followed by repentance, forgiveness, and a renewed heart.
only within his diocese (minor clarification)
I actually don’t think this is what the ACNA College of Bishops intended. I think what was intended was “we have homosexual people coming to our churches, either visitors or long-term members, this is how we will approach that, this is the language.
But I think that should have been communicated in-house, and acted on by the churches in our ministries. By making it public it was read more like a denominational statement on homosexuality than guidance on doing ministry. When you are addressing your own clergy and laity you can get into the weeds. When you are addressing the public you need to keep it clear, direct, and simple.
Those who wrote the response letter clearly could not tell the difference, treated it like a public proclamation (it was, after all public), publicly disagreed with the College of Bishops and thus made the situation worse (by treating the CoB’s statement as something it was not). Good advice regarding your own is “praise in public, rebuke in private”.
Now the Church of Nigeria has weighed in. One can hardly blame them, the series of public statements coming out of the ACNA is disturbing. Had they been kept ‘in house’ we’d have been fine. Now I hope one conclusion is: “Do not make a public statement thinking the prevailing culture will be satisfied. The prevailing culture is a ravenous beast that will NOT be satisfied, and will be hostile, they WILL mischaracterize what you say. Do not give them the rope they will hang you with.”
I don’t think the guidance presented by the College of Bishops could have remained “in-house.” It would have been published on blogs and social media, and commented on all over the place. The problem, I suspect, is that clergy and leaders in the ACNA have not had to really take pastoral guidance very much before. Now they’re finding out what it’s truly like to be catholic.
It may be rash of me, but I do kinda blame the bishops of the Church of Nigeria. They jumped to false conclusions. Do they not have relationships within Gafcon, with other archbishops or bishops, to seek clarifications before making hasty judgments? Is the Primate of Nigeria too removed from the Archbishop of Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria, to send him a text or an email? Do the CONNAM bishops not speak to their old friend, +Martyn Minns anymore? Could the suffragan bishop Scott Seeley, not have read all the documents and explained matters to them? For that matter, how will the CONNAM clergy respond when one of their own parish children expresses troubling sexual feelings? Will they be able to respond in love and with pastoral guidance? I say this as someone who has had to overcome my own kneejerk reactions, ingrained from my time in TEC. A child who has been raised in the church by a loving family is a whole ‘nother creature than the likes of hardened activists.
++Nigeria needs to re-read Lambeth 1998 Resolution I.10
this almost feels like a gauntlet being laid down: Will Nigeria be disciplined for breaking protocols when TEC has managed to have a slap on the wrist? Both go against the letter and spirit of Lambeth and futher conversations between provinces.
[…] On 26 February, the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) published a letter signed by Archbishop Henry Ndukuba, the Primate, which heavily criticises ACNA for the original pastoral statement. The original PDF format of this letter can be seen here: Church-of-Nigerias-Position-on-the-Recent-Developments-in-ACNA-February-2021, and there is a copy of the letter at Anglican Ink, over here. […]
It might have been better for Archbishop Ndukuba to have consulted with Archbishop Benjamin Kwashi before firing off this letter, or to have consulted with Archbishop Beach.
The trouble with having Primates across the world retire and new ones filling their positions is that every new archbishop has to build up all new relationships with the others. But ++Kwashi and ++Beach already know one another well, not to mention that ++Kwashi is longtime friends with +Ruch, who introduced the CoB statement (the letter, “Identity Matters,” is the title I think). What’s going on in the Church of Nigeria that ++Ndukuba couldn’t have had a conversation with the men directly involved? I know that ++Kwashi is undergoing treatment for cancer, but this letter sounds like nobody in office had any Gafcon email addresses. Didn’t Baroness Caroline Cox tell the southern Nigerian Christians that they needed to help the persecuted northern Nigerian churches, sometime early last year or the year before? Surely there could be better communications at the Provicial and Global South levels, although I realize there are practical difficulties.
“Manipulating languages to cover up sin and sinners are incompatible with the example of Scripture which condemned sin.” amen and amen
Having read the appointed resolution it appears the African contingents have remained consistent in their positions — they stated it then and they have simply repeated their position now. I would like to know if there was a similar letter posted to the TEC, Church of Canada and Scotland or was this reserved for a close friend they consider in danger (as an act of accountability we all say is so important).