Peter Akinola at Wheaton

I had the unusual privelege of hearing Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, speaking to a group of Orthodox Anglicans at Wheaton College. This meeting was in the news for a couple of reasons. For one, the meeting stands in contrast to the meetings held in New Orleans, during which the Episcopal Church has once again failed to even adequately address the call of the majority of the Anglican Communion to repent of the blessing of same sex unions and the consecration of an openly gay Bishop.

Akinola heads the largest province in all of Anglicanism, and is an outspoken opponent of the agenda of the Episcopal church on this issue. That has made him an enemy of many and there were a handful of picketers, as promised, outside Edman Chapel on campus.

But like most of the Orthodox Anglicans, his focus is not on the symptom but the cause. A brief summary of his key points will follow.

This meeting was about unity, as representatives from many different churches in Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana and Minnesota were present. Africans, midwestern Americans and Spanish speaking churches were present. Those churches represented different groups whose leadership, at present, comes from places like Nigeria and Rwanda, groups which critics say could further fragment the communion if they do not come together after the dust settles from the September 30 deadline for the Episcopal church to comply with the demands of the rest of the communion. The fear is that if the TEC fails to repent, which is almost certain, that various Anglican groups will split into many different directions, with various Global South leaders setting up different missionary structures in the US that will end up in competition.

To that end, Akinola said things like this:

Lost Faith

From Hugh Hewitt...If you don't believe a lack of holiness and doctrinal purity can be damaging to others, read this.

I do not mean to take God's place and pass judgment, but Jesus words about those who mislead children having a millstone around the neck are rather sobering. Lord have mercy.

What is an Anglican?

Anglican Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi has written an excellent article published in FirstThings about the meaning of Anglicanism. It should be read in its entiretly, but a couple of highlights...

For the Ugandan church to compromise God’s call of obedience to the Scriptures would be the undoing of more than 125 years of Christianity through which African life and society have been transformed. Traditional African society was solely an oral culture, which limited its ability to share ideas beyond the family level. We couldn’t write our language, and there was nothing to read in our language. The first converts in Uganda were called “readers” because they could read the Bible, the first book available in our own languages. Because of the Bible, our languages have been enriched and recorded. For the first time, we heard God in our own languages. To this day, our people bring their Bibles to church and follow along with the readings.

He then gives several examples of that transformation, from bringing peace to warring tribes to bringing respect and dignity to women to virtually making a unified Ugandan society possible. This is not a "spiritual" transformation, if by "spiritual" we mean of the mind or heart. This is real transformation of living breathing human beings in a society. And it is based on a fairly straightforward reading of the text of the Bible.

Maybe the Last Straw...

The Washington Times today reports that openly gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson wants to be one of the first in New Hampshire to marry his gay partner. So after the consensus of Global Anglican bishops was that the Episcopal Church should toe the orthodox line on gay issues, this is yet another outrageous and defiant slap in the face to orthodoxy. Meanwhile the NY Times reports that presiding bishopress Katherine Jefforts Schiori is upset that Othodox Nigerian Bishop Peter Akinola is about to consecrate Martin Minns as a bishop here, crossing "boundary" lines. Predictably she considers crossing territorial lines more divisive than biblical morality. She protects her turf, but not the truth.

D.H. Williams on the Creed

I enjoy D.H. Williams. His book Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism ought to be required reading for evangelical pastors.

Williams has an article in Christian History regarding the Nicene Creed. It is titled "Do You Know Whom You Worship?" and has the subtitle "Did the Nicene Creed distort the pure gospel, or did it embody and protect it?"

Given the fascination with spurious writings like the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas as well as the worldwide phenomena of "The Da Vinci Code", this is a timely article. The accusation is leveled these days that the church which defined the creed and the Canon was already relatively corrupt, owing to the marriage of Roman imperial power with a hierarchical structure. In a way, some Protestants have made the very case Dan Brown attempts to make with his book.

"At the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries, some Protestant historians regarded the Council of Nicaea and its creed with the same suspicion as they did the church of Rome. The esteemed German scholar Eduard Schwarz, for example, depicted the conflicts between pro-Nicene and "Arian" opponents as in reality a struggle for power within the church which was disguised as a theological dispute. The council's decisions represented a victory for those who wielded the most influence over the emperor. This meant too that the creed was an unfortunate capitulation of the church to imperial politics and an emblem of the new merger between the Roman empire and Christianity. "