Talk:Peter Akinola
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Togo. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Peter Akinola is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Low church Evangelical?
I don't think that application is correct. Trau
[edit] Hostile?
This seems to be a hostile biography by someone who clearly disapproves of Akinola's position on homosexuality.
[edit] Attacked Spong?
I have deleted one paragraph which contained misleading information. I regret to say that I was the one who originally posted the claims - which I have since found out are incorrect - that Archbishop Akinola laid hold of Bishop Spong at the 1998 Lambeth Conference. I have since learned that it was (a) a different Nigerian bishop involved, and (b) that it was not Bishop Spong who got handled. It was, however, someone he publicly supported.
I apologise for not checking my facts more carefully before publishing them the first time. Davidcannon 22:14, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Canterbury
"Since the Anglican Communion has historically been defined as those Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, whose Archbishop is head of the Church of England and thus primus inter pares in the Anglican Communion, this led to speculation that Akinola was positioning himself as a possible international leader of a more conservative church than the present Anglican Communion, which would no longer recognise the authority or primacy of the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Several churches that call themselves Anglican do not recognise the authority or primacy of the Archbishop of Canterbury already. This is worded like he is leading a coup that actually occurred well over 100 years ago.
- The passage refers to membership of the Anglican Communion, which necessarily requires intercommunion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is now officially described as the "focus of unity" in the Anglican Communion. Whilst it is correct that there have been breakaway churches calling themselves Anglican in the past, none of them are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Regarding: "He has also lost support among non-Anglican Christians in Nigeria, though not necessarily because of his conservative theology." The article here cited http://www.tribune.com.ng/07072007/news/news8.html - regards the election of offices for the Christian Association of Nigeria, and opposition of some members of the Association to his becoming Vice President of that organization. I.e., that he lost support of the Christian Association of Nigeria for the specific function of being installed as Vice President of that body, and nowhere is it implied that he lost support in general. The way the statement is phrased, it is implied that Akinola has lost support amongst non-Anglican Christians in Nigeria in general, and not only amongst these few designated to elect members for this particular body - and lost support in general, and not specifically for the position of vice president of this body. I'd suggest that this be modified to "Some members of the Christian Association of Nigeria objected to his being installed as that body's vice president," or the sentence dropped as the facts not reflecting the claim implied. It is also rather ridiculous that someone thinks this merits placement in introduction.
[edit] Quotations of Archbishop Peter Akinola.
"Homosexuals are lower than pigs & cattle". - He is known to have said this in expressing his anger at the Anglican Church of Canada & the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A over their stance regarding homosexuality. - (Aidan Work 04:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
- Do you have a precise quote and source for this? If so, the place for it might be Wikiquote on Akinola which has a number of surprising quotations from this man. A very similar quote has been attributed to Robert Mugabe ("lower than pigs and dogs") by e.g. the BBC here. I suspect that your quote is a paraphrase of Akinola's (inaccurate) observation "I cannot think of how a man in his senses would be having a sexual relationship with another man. Even in the world of animals, dogs, cows, lions, we don’t hear of such things." It seems that he has denied the "lower than beasts" quote: see this reference. Chelseaboy 16:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] POV
I don't think that a more laudatory paean to this schismatic could be crafted than as this article is presently written. Bring on the canonization! Why is there no citation of his verified denigrations of gays and lesbians, or discussion of his attempt to redefine the polity of the Anglican Communion, or his violation of the historic tradition of Anglican Christianity that it be comprehensive and respectful of national customs and character, in accordance with Article VI? I don't want an editorial tug-of-war over this hagiography, but if recent editorial contributors are unwilling to insert some balance into this article, I'll get on it next week. Fishhead64 23:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just be careful not to make it POV yourself. I think the article is pretty balanced - it mentions that he is out of favour with many international Anglicans for opposing homosexuality. Moreover, I felt that the references to his position on Islam were actually unfair to him, exaggerating his perceived anti-Islamic rhetoric and taking it out of context. So I think the article can hardly be called a "paean" to him. If I had my druthers, some parts of it, especially the Islamic section, would be rewritten in a way more sympathetic to him. Why don't I? Because we can't have bias in wikipedia. I respect that. I hope you will also. David Cannon 00:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I appreciate your cautionary advice, however, I think my contributions speak for themselves. I'm looking for balance here. FWIW, I agree with your observations concerning Akinola and Islam. Fishhead64 00:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- That's okay then:-) David Cannon 09:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
Akinola surely did step on a lot of toes in the Western world, and that must definitely be part of his article, but that's only one side of his bio - the other side is the job he's doing and has been doing in Nigeria under, mildly expressed, difficult conditions. He leads a 19 million church which has quadrupled its membership in less than 20 years, founded a university, teaches his 100+ bishops the basics of financial management of a church and gets them to establish secondary schools and hospitals, he created dozens of new dioceses in non-Christian areas (which in each single case brings besides the laying-on of hands a string of organizational and financial problems to cope with), he fights for freedom of religion and worship for all Christians in Nigeria and against criminality and bribes in his country - browsing through the news of the Church of Nigeria shows that homosexuality is a minor issue in his day to day activities. How many western bishops did at any time in their life create a flourishing church (to become ten years later the center of a church province) out of nothing in an Islamic environment? Such very real achievements have to be mentioned in an NPOV bio - even though they sound in Western eyes sure so much out of the way of the ordinary duties of a bishop to amount to hagiography. BTW I do not at all agree with Akinolas view regarding same sex legislation - but I have not walked in his shoes or his cultural environment and have no real idea of Nigerian politics, and without such knowledge I don't feel high enough on the moral ground to judge. Irmgard 14:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless of what Abp. Akinola is achieving in his own province - which I agree needs to be mentioned - I think his contributions to dismantling the worldwide Communion is a far more lasting and important legacy. As for judgment, well this speaks for itself, I think. His virulent opposition to LGBT rights and LGBT people is certainly notable in the context of the LGBT scene in Africa. Fishhead64 16:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- This threat is really bad, but I don't think it should be put at directly Akinola's door - in his own country, his views regarding LGBT rights are shared by most Christians, and Muslims are even less tolerant. Akinola is just the one who happens to be quoted by the newspapers, because he is primate - but he sure isn't the one person who causes the Church of Nigeria (or Nigeria or Africa) to be conservative in this point. You can get similar quotes from any Nigerian leader, political or religious, the difference being only that other Nigerian leaders usually are not mentioned in Western media. That's why I think it wrong to single him out in this area. Here a description of the Nigerian view by a professor of religion at a state university in Nigeria: [1].
- Regarding the Communion: well, the majority of Anglican provinces are conservative, this is a long-standing fact: the view of Nigeria is the rule, the views of ECUSA and Canada are the exceptions. What's new is, that the numbers have definitely turned in the last 50 years: since about 700, Christianity was a religion numerically and theologically dominated by people of European descent, but by now two thirds of Christians are living in non-white countries. In the Anglican Communion the relation is even more pronounced - tendency increasing, looking at membership developments e.g. in US and Nigeria. And somewhere around Lambeth 98 the Anglican South found out that they are the majority (which some in the West have not yet realized). From their view, ECUSA has started something new and they don't want to follow but stay with Lambeth 98 - so the split is caused by ECUSA, they themselves are the ones who keep the Anglican Communion in the Anglican tradition. The Church of Nigeria is financially independent of the West, has now its own university with state approval, 19 million members, and more church attendees each Sunday than all Western provinces together. They (and not only Akinola) understandably see no reason why they should have to accept Western liberal traditions adopted by the 2,5 million ECUSA as superior to their own conservative traditions (and Nigerian Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, and UMC leaders fully agree with them). That sort of problem is not specifically Anglican - the Anglican Communion just happens to be the first to fully feel its impact, but similar situations will arise in the WCC and in several worldwide churches in the foreseeable future. And it's also not only a difference regarding LGBT issues but regarding theology, the view of creeds, and Bible exegesis - in all of which Africa is clearly conservative. Akinola is at best the point of the iceberg visible from the West - not the iceberg itself. Irmgard 09:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a substantial amount of biased POV in this article, mostly negative toward Akinola. I cleared some of it out, especially some points where sources for statements are not cited, and I inserted facts which give better context to the Danish cartoon riots. QJX (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have undone again someone's addition of an unsourced and potentially libelous claim about cannibalism (this individual, oddly, has called my first deletion "vandalism"). I attach for that person's reference a link to the Wikipedia rules on biographies of living individuals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
Those rules state that "[e]ditors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced . . . ." Any source, furthermore, must be from a credible source. Biographies also cannot contain defamatory or libelous statements, and the deleted statement comes close to crossing that line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QJX (talk • contribs) 02:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dead link
Footnote 16, Claiming our Anglican Identity: The Case Against the Episcopal Church, USA, is a dead link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.89.25 (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Homophobia
Why is related with category homphobia? (User:Lucifero4)
