Time has announced its 2006 list of
…the 100 men and women whose power, talent or moral example, is transforming our world”.
Under the category of
Leaders & Revolutionaries – Dictators, democrats, holy men (and a TV host) – these are the people with the clout and power to change our world,…
they have included Archbishop Peter Akinola.
The article about him is written by Rick Warren.
Hat Tip: PoliticalSpaghetti.
Update Friday
This matter is reported in the Church of England Newspaper by Andrew Carey in an article titled Archbishop Akinola recognised on Time list.
The Church Times reported it only in a nib (not on web until next week) as follows:
Akinola makes top-people’s list
THE Archbishop of Nigeria, the Most Revd Peter Akinola, and Pope Benedict XVI have been included in Time magazine’s list of the world’s 100 most influential people. The Iraqi Muslim Shia cleric and military leader, Muqtada al-Sadr, was also included.
I’m glad I don’t have a subscription to Time. I’d have to cancel it if I did.
Well, the classification is interesting if not plainly ironic. Just like the breathless tone of the article.
Yes, “People with Clout” is a classification that Akinola qualifies for as he tries to insitutionalize bigotry:
Abandoning pastoral concern
Nigerian archbishop’s sexuality stance champions institutionalized bigotry’
by John Chane
http://www.episcopal-life.org/26731_73898_ENG_HTM.htm
Let’s not read too much of our own issues into the thought that Akinola’s “power” is “transforming the world.” After all, his portion of the list also include Muqtada Al-Sadr of Baghdad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. For the purposes of Time Magazine (as distinct from Rick Warren) it doesn’t matter whether the influence is good or evil as long as it’s real. They famously had Hitler on the cover as Man of the Year in the late 30’s. I find Warren’s description more annoying, and especially the allusion to “facing down Third-world Fundamentalists.” Where have we seen the evidence… Read more »
Marshall Scott — Warren was referring to Islamic fundamentalists in Nigeria when he wrote “facing down Third-World fundamentalists”. I’m certain of it. For the sake of clarity, it was a poor choice of words, but he was writing for a Western audience while being afraid it might inflame those in Nigeria to write “Islamic” in front of “fundamentalists.”
He is in the same set with a Hamas leader. At least he’s not classed under “heros.”
Matt, like Marshall I also took it that Warren was referring to Christian fundamentalism. It’s an imprecise term, but my guess is that he had in mind various versions of the prosperity gospel that are popular in Nigeria. Warren, who is very familiar with Africa, also might be referring to some extreme forms of Pentecostal belief which have been merged with traditional witchcraft beliefs. The Anglican Church of Nigeria has certainly been at the forefront of challenging ‘health and wealth’ theologies.
John, he is also in the same set with George W. Bush, Bill and Melinda Gates, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Pope Benedict, Condoleezza Rice, Junichiro Koizumi, Oprah Winfrey e.t.c.
How much can you hate this man? Matthew 10: 25
Tunde I am sure you noticed that Condoleezza Rice’s department had issued this note back in February: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2006/60241.htm Nigerian Legislation Threatens to Limit Rights of Sexual Minorities The United States is concerned by reports of legislation in Nigeria that would restrict or prohibit citizens from assembling, organizing, holding events or rallies, and participating in ceremonies of religious union, based upon sexual orientation and gender identity. This proposed legislation has not been adopted. The freedoms of speech, association, expression, assembly, and religion are long-standing international commitments and are universally recognized. Nigeria, as a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil… Read more »
Simon, Issue I posted earlier was about the expressed hatred of the man Akinola especially because he condemns same-sex marriages and the acceptance into holy orders of those who are in sexual relations outside holy matrimony. On the statement issued by the US department, it is understood once the system believes homosexuality is inborn. (– male, female, homosexual created He them.) In Nigeria, homosexuality is still considered an aberration and not a human-right issue. While a man can be imprisoned for bigamy in the some countries, in Nigeria where the society does not frown on polygamy, that may not be… Read more »
“Bigamy” is only a criminal issue in the US if it involves marriage to a minor, and then the prosecution is under statutory rape laws. It is getting harder and harder to have two marriage licenses because of computerization, and chances of defrauding the government are low. “Wife” number 2 or above is out of luck as regards survivor benefits, etc under the law, but that’s what civil law is for – probate court, lawsuits, etc. If people choose to live in sexual groups of greater than two, it’s none of the state’s business as long as other laws aren’t… Read more »
Tunde wrote “Many in the Western world will support jailing a man for bigamy (‘loving someone in addition to his wife) and yet will scream that the Church of Nigeria (not only Abp. Akinola but unanimous decision of delegates from all parts of the Church) supports laws jailing people for ‘loving’ people of the same sex.” Dear Tunde, Polygamy (supported by most pre-modern cultures and ripe in Nigeria) is not “loving someone in addition to his wife”. Polygamy is that men enjoy political, legal and social rights that women don’t have. Polygamy is about power. Under polygamy the man is… Read more »
Tunde, I just looked up Matthew 10:25. I had assumed (given the beginning of your post) that it might be something about leaving hatred aside (say, Mt 5:22-24–or a text like James 1:19-20). I hoped that you were asking people who were being harsh and intemperate to rethink their vitriol. But no, you pour petrol on the flames instead, by equating those who oppose Akinola with those who say Christ is Beelzebul. I think that’s a very bad use of the scriptures. It’s dangerous for you, spiritually, to think you are simply on Christ’s side and your opponents are on… Read more »
Pity if the passage infuriates some. It depends on each person’s interpretation of the text. I intentionally left out my interpretation to avoid too much of the venom especially since we differ widely on interpretation. Main purpose was not to ‘pour petrol’ ( too expensive to waste any these days! ) but to express that the hatred may actually not be unexpected and therefore not much of a bother. Really Chris, I must admit that the ‘sexuality debate’ in the past few years have portrayed the Church in very bad light especially as we all dug our trenches and insist… Read more »