In the last number of years, I’ve spent a significant amount of time traveling in the world church meeting, talking, and praying with Anglicans from a wide variety of backgrounds. Part of the impetus for this travel was to help other Anglicans understand how the American Episcopal church in which I was raised had reached decisions that seemed to them nonsensical, controversial, and unBiblical.
If there was one theme I kept returning to in so many of my conversations it was this: there is more to one’s Christian faith than one’s position on sex and sexuality. It may sound surprising that this has to be said. But for some African Anglicans I encountered, the only things they knew about the American Episcopal church was that it had a bishop (later two) who was openly gay and was making decisions that would allow weddings between two people of the same sex to take place in church. This information—and only this information—had been used by more than a few African Anglican leaders to loudly condemn the American church.
I understood that part of my role in these conversations was to show that, in fact, there was a lot more going on in the Episcopal Church than these decisions about sexuality (important as they may be) and that these decisions about sexuality came from a full and whole understanding of the Christian Gospel. My conversation partners didn’t always agree with what I said but I was usually pretty confident that we parted ways agreeing that there was more to the Christian faith than one’s beliefs on sexuality.
But now I wonder if I made a mistake.
It has been striking how in recent years there is an increasing willingness among all parties in the church to evaluate other Christians entirely on their views about a handful of topics related to sexuality. Two years ago, the fine and able Malawian bishop, James Tengatenga, was appointed to a position at Dartmouth University. Within days, attention was drawn to comments he had made regarding sexuality, offense was taken, and demands were immediately made that the appointment be rescinded. As later conversation would reveal, the comments were made in a particular context. Divorced from that context, they made little sense. But it was too late. Tengatenga lost the position. The only qualification that mattered was his views on sexuality. When they—apparently—failed to measure up, his history of accomplishments became meaningless.
This week, it happened again. Josiah Idowu-Fearon, bishop of Kaduna in Nigeria, was appointed Secretary General of the Anglican Communion. I have never met Bishop Josiah but when I traveled in Nigeria a few years back, I heard much of him. I heard that he is a man of deep accomplishment who has endured significant setbacks and opprobrium within his church because he has consistently argued against divisive steps taken by leaders of the Nigerian church. I also knew his diocese has a long-standing relationship with a congregation in the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut.
Almost immediately, however, the Tengatenga-ing of Bishop Josiah got underway. Some comments of Idowu-Fearon’s about sexuality were found on a Nigerian news site. All of a sudden, the only thing that mattered about Idowu-Fearon was what he had said on one occasion. The loudest voices making these arguments appear to be those who had never met Bishop Josiah. Those who had met him were making significantly more nuanced and positive comments but were quickly drowned out.
There seemed to be little effort to understand the context of the remarks, a lesson I had hoped we had learned in the wake of Bishop Tengatenga’s situation. (The context of talk about sexuality in Nigeria is complex and maybe I’ll write a separate post about that when we’re not in the middle of the holiest days of the Christian year.) Nor was there any effort to think about how else Bishop Josiah has walked the Christian way in his life and how that might influence his performance as Secretary General.
Not only is it wrong to criminalize homosexuality (though we should understand the impetus for some of this), the church should be a place that welcomes all people regardless of sexual orientation into the transforming love of God. These are precisely the arguments I have made in these many conversations with Anglicans around the world.
Yet I also think that the depth of God’s love for the world cannot be summarized simply by talking about sex all day long. It is right that we should inquire about Bishop Josiah’s position on contentious issues before the Communion. (A similar inquiry took place when the previous Secretary General was appointed ten years ago, leading to upset among some Nigerian and other African Anglicans. But that was before Twitter was invented.) But it is also right that being in the church means we are called to encounter the whole person whom God has created and ask how we are to relate to them. In the end, we may conclude that the person is not fit for the role in question. But we would at least have a full sense of someone.
I’ve written in the past that the mission of the church can be understood, in part, to be helping the world deal with complexity. But in order to do that, we need to react to situations less along tribal lines and more along the lines of the baptismal relationships which undergird our life together. If we’re serious about reconciliation, it would be a useful place to begin.
UPDATE: Over the weekend, there was some more information released. Bishop Idowu-Fearon released a statement clarifying his views and James Tengatenga, in his capacity as chair of the Anglican Consultative Council, released a statement explaining some of the background to the appointment.
7 thoughts on “The Tengatenga-ing of Josiah Idowu-Fearon”
Thank you, Jesse!
Actually, I don’t think that the outcry has been about his view about sexuality from many of those who are concerned. The outcry has been about his view about the law. There’s a huge difference and it is one that matters.
“Some comments of Idowu-Fearon’s about sexuality were found on a Nigerian news site. All of a sudden, the only thing that mattered about Idowu-Fearon was what he had said on one occasion.”
That’s a remarkably euphemistic summary for (the newpaper quote) “The government has criminalised homosexuality which is good”.
If Bishop Idowu-Fearon never said this, GREAT! If he did say it, but has convincingly repented ALSO GREAT!
But there’s no “contextualizing” of a clear and abhorrent endorsement of violating human rights—ANYWHERE. Finding out the *truth* of Idowu-Fearon’s present position, is not to be dismissed as “Tengatenga-ing” [FWIW, I believe Tengatenga should have been allowed to take the Dartmouth appointment]
The Truth will set you free.
An important comment, thanks: I think what I was trying to do with my “euphemistic” summary was to highlight the parallels with the Tengatenga situation, a situation I describe as apparently and immediately boiling a person’s entire being down to views on a single issue.
Yes, Kelvin is right. The outcry is about a specific quote in which the bishop was quoted as saying the law was “a good thing.” Some of the people expressing deep concerns about the human rights issues here were supporters of Tengatenga. I note that the outcry at Dartmouth had a lot to do with the Dartmouth community and not the Episcopal Church. I was very proud that TEC institutions stepped in to receive Bishop Tengateng’s ministry (and give him work).
Of course, now that Bishop Idowu-Fearon is under scrutiny, people have found articles where he expresses the basis of his theology. I’m sorry, equating LGBT people with adulterers and liars is not going to give him much credibility. It will reinforce people’s view of lame Biblical scholarship leading to ignorant and hateful conclusions. Further, he has lambasted TEC for our “arrogance” in consecrating +Gene Robinson (those arrogant New Hampshire people!) and expressed difficulty in dealing with our female PB. He is also associated with schismatics who have actively sought to isolate and hurt TEC. So I have my doubts about this “virtuoso reconciler.” I think I will look to Desmond Tutu and MIL for inspirational theology and accomplishment in peace and reconciliation.
Hold on a minute… Who exactly is making judgements based on a single issue? I believe it’s Josiah Idowu-Fearon. He would have homosexuals in jail. THAT is judging someone based on only one issue.
You have accused the wrong party of being interested in only one thing.
People had concernes about Idowu-Fearon because his statements place homosexual Christians lives in danger. That’s a legitimate concern. Others, those who knew him, spoke out more positively for him and it is my experience that those comments were positively received, not drowned out.
Really, I fail to see that you’ve done anything except condemn the one you’re trying to defend.
Since when does Dartmouth, a secular university with no official ties to the Episcopal/Anglican Church, owe sinecures to retiring Anglican prelates? Internal anglican politics aside, Dartmouth was under no obligation to make allowances for some sort of sliding scale Anglican morality where institutionalized homophobia is a given. There was significant debate amongst about the morality of his appointment and objections were rightfully raised by a wide sector of campus groups, ranging from the NAACP chapter to the gay student union. This was no witch hunt – belittle these students at your own risk! http://www.dartblog.com/data/2013/07/010961.php