The debate about the place of gay people in the church became especially heated when the American Episcopal church ordained the practicing gay man, Gene Robinson, as Bishop. Since then, there has been splits in the Episcopal Church in America and the Anglican Church has been debating how well to address the issue of the status of gay people in the church. In fact, some Episcopal Churches in America have since decided to align themselves with conservative churches in Africa that have been strongly against acknowledging the existence of homosexuals.
The latest manifestation of this debate currently deals with the issue of whether or not the Anglican Church should sanction gay marriage. It is the response of the Archbishop of Canterbury, The Most Rev. Justin Welby, to this recent debate that has occasioned this post. According to the Archbishop, the lives of Christians around the world, especially those in Africa, would be put in danger if the Anglican Church accepts gay marriage. Thus, the argument about whether or not the church should recognize gay marriage is not theological but practical - to save the lives of Christians in other places around the world, such as Africa.
This argument would have been a really good argument if the Western Church has a good record of protecting the lives of Christians in Africa. This has however not been the case as the Western Church, especially the Church of England, has generally stood by as its governments have initiated and support many policies in Africa that have sapped the lives of many Christians. When it comes to the relationship between Western and African governments, especially relationships in which Western governments support dictators in Africa, the church in the West has generally been silent because it also benefits from such uneven relationships. This leads me to think that the Western Church does not generally worry about the well-being of Christians in Africa; what it worries about is its own well-being. Just like individuals, the Church generally seems to be guided by the self-preserving impulse.
I therefore wonder why the Most Reverend would use African Christians as a means to advocate the non-acceptance of gay marriage by the Anglican Church. The reason that this would negatively affect African Christians is just a public transcript because the Anglican Church does not generally make decisions based on how it would affect African Christians. The real reason has therefore not been spoken.
Moreover, arguing that accepting gay marriage would put the lives of African Christians at risk is not a logically consistent argument. First, those who are against Christians are not against Christians because Christians approve or disapprove certain lifestyles; they are against Christians as Christians. For them, it is a bad idea to be a Christian because being a Christian comes with a host of implications - gay marriage would only be one of them - and not the most devastating one at that. For Boko Haram in Nigeria, for example, the issue is Western education - Christianity is linked to Western education and other Western lifestyles. So because Boko Haram thinks Western education is bad, should Christians stop supporting it because they risk their lives doing so? To use another example, should the administration of Polio vaccines in Nigeria be stopped because some people have been killing nurses who administer them due to the belief that Polio vaccines are a means to sterilize Africans?
Finally, to withdraw support from something because it would put the lives of some people at risk is especially a bad argument because it would require that our conviction be based on whether or not it is safe to hold such a conviction. Thus, when holding a particular position would put the lives of some people at risk, we would need to withdraw our support for such position. If this argument had been followed, the Church itself would not have developed because, for the first Christians, being a Christian was a dangerous and risky proposition.
The Most Rev. might have many reasons why he does not like the Anglican Church to accept gay marriage. The risk to African Christians is not one of them.
The latest manifestation of this debate currently deals with the issue of whether or not the Anglican Church should sanction gay marriage. It is the response of the Archbishop of Canterbury, The Most Rev. Justin Welby, to this recent debate that has occasioned this post. According to the Archbishop, the lives of Christians around the world, especially those in Africa, would be put in danger if the Anglican Church accepts gay marriage. Thus, the argument about whether or not the church should recognize gay marriage is not theological but practical - to save the lives of Christians in other places around the world, such as Africa.
This argument would have been a really good argument if the Western Church has a good record of protecting the lives of Christians in Africa. This has however not been the case as the Western Church, especially the Church of England, has generally stood by as its governments have initiated and support many policies in Africa that have sapped the lives of many Christians. When it comes to the relationship between Western and African governments, especially relationships in which Western governments support dictators in Africa, the church in the West has generally been silent because it also benefits from such uneven relationships. This leads me to think that the Western Church does not generally worry about the well-being of Christians in Africa; what it worries about is its own well-being. Just like individuals, the Church generally seems to be guided by the self-preserving impulse.
I therefore wonder why the Most Reverend would use African Christians as a means to advocate the non-acceptance of gay marriage by the Anglican Church. The reason that this would negatively affect African Christians is just a public transcript because the Anglican Church does not generally make decisions based on how it would affect African Christians. The real reason has therefore not been spoken.
Moreover, arguing that accepting gay marriage would put the lives of African Christians at risk is not a logically consistent argument. First, those who are against Christians are not against Christians because Christians approve or disapprove certain lifestyles; they are against Christians as Christians. For them, it is a bad idea to be a Christian because being a Christian comes with a host of implications - gay marriage would only be one of them - and not the most devastating one at that. For Boko Haram in Nigeria, for example, the issue is Western education - Christianity is linked to Western education and other Western lifestyles. So because Boko Haram thinks Western education is bad, should Christians stop supporting it because they risk their lives doing so? To use another example, should the administration of Polio vaccines in Nigeria be stopped because some people have been killing nurses who administer them due to the belief that Polio vaccines are a means to sterilize Africans?
Finally, to withdraw support from something because it would put the lives of some people at risk is especially a bad argument because it would require that our conviction be based on whether or not it is safe to hold such a conviction. Thus, when holding a particular position would put the lives of some people at risk, we would need to withdraw our support for such position. If this argument had been followed, the Church itself would not have developed because, for the first Christians, being a Christian was a dangerous and risky proposition.
The Most Rev. might have many reasons why he does not like the Anglican Church to accept gay marriage. The risk to African Christians is not one of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment