In the colonial era the Anglican Church and British Imperial Power were not just continuous but identical. Orthodoxy and imperialism were inseparable in the British colonial project. British imperialism used religious orthodoxy ”“ the true faith, and political orthodoxy, parliamentary government as opposed to despotic rule. This helps to explain the resistance among liberals to orthodoxy. It was unthinkable for them to espouse orthodoxy without being associated with imperialism.
This now presents a problem for those from the non-western former colonial world who espouse orthodoxy. They are thought themselves to be relics of a colonial past. The challenge for them is demonstrate that religious orthodoxy is liberating and transformative. Liberals see them only as representing an alliance of orthodoxy with oppression.
In creating uncolonial space where they demonstrate that the gospel brings liberation and transformation, the Global South leaders are not only creating space for themselves, but also for the orthodox of western societies who are marginalized because they will not go along with the cultural pressure for diversity, inclusion and pluralism and are therefore seen as rigid and repressive. Evangelicals since John Stott have been regarded as marginal from the centres of power both of English society and the English church. Thus uncolonial space is global.
If anyone knows who the author or authors of this is/are, I would like to know it is unclear to me who he/she/they is/are.
Kendall,
You can’t tell who pulled the whole thing together, but the quote you cite is from an article authored by Canon Vinay Samuel.
Kendall, I assume this is by Robert Lundy of the AAC, with perhaps support from Chris Sugden and Phil Ashey. It appears to be Part 2 of the daily report from ACC.
Here is part 1, signed as being written by Robert Lundy:
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=10194
at the very end of Part 1 is written “More on today’s events will be posted at a later time.”
i.e. assume what you have posted is a continuation of Lundy’s article.
Following up on what Jeremy wrote in #2, I was trying to figure out exactly what part of this article is Canon Vinay Samuel’s article. Based on the quotation marks, I believe that the “blockquote” from Samuel should begin here:
“The Lambeth centre of the Anglican Communion is experienced as exercising colonial power.
and end here:
Indaba is the badge of oppression. It is the badge of a non-revelational faith and an untransforming gospel. It should be resisted.â€
And that the words “Here is how this has happened.” is where Lundy et al resume their summary of yesterday’s debate at ACC.
I, too, am a little confused from the format where Anis’ remarks end and who wrote or said what. But whoever said it:
[blockquote] The Lambeth centre of the Anglican Communion is experienced as exercising colonial power. How else can the continued resistance of the Anglican Communion instruments to carrying out the decisions of the Primates Meeting over the last five years, leading to the acknowledged dominance of the 2008 Lambeth Conference by Archbishop Williams, be explained?[/blockquote]
How indeed?
It also appears that the final section of this article is a report from Bp. Mouneer Anis.
It is definitely pretty hard to follow who has written what without proper blockquoting or indenting or other form of setting off text that is being quoted.
The last line of this article is very powerful:
[i]Indaba is the badge of oppression. It is the badge of a non-revelational faith and an untransforming gospel. It should be resisted.[/i]
I would love to know whom to attribute it to. It [i]appears[/i] to be ++Mouneer Anis who has made the statement. I hope we’ll get further clarity.
I don’t know who put together this report, but the section on Dr. Vinay Samuel of South India and his withering critique of the sheer folly of the whole ridiculous Indaba process was marvelous.
Also I thought the blast at the Compass Rose Society was illuminating, and the complaint about the corrupting power of money, whether it’s wielded as a virtual bribe, as has been done by TEC, or more innocently, as appears to be the case with the wealthy benefactors who make up the Compass Rose Society.
David Handy+
well, its a bit more complex than that, isn’t it?
I understand it like so: the ethic of the GAFCON primates is one inherited, actually, from Victorian England. Although partially indigenized, the cultures inculcated imperial ideology around sex and ethics. In sum, we have a world view (the global south) that is western, but Victorian, posited against a modern worldview that appropriates a southern form of “listening.”
But the truth is that money can corrupt.
Regardless of who said what in this report, there are some important themes expressed here that are fundamental to the whole widespread dissatisfaction with the way the AC is currently structured at the international level. Nothing is really new, but there are some choice, memorable lines that pack a strong punch.
In particular, it’s great to see some Global South leaders loudly protesting how colonial the current wineskins of the AC are, and the great need for the creation of “uncolonial space.” It certainly lends support to the truth of the visionary address given almost a year ago by +Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted on the eve of GAFCON, when he spoke so eloquently of the momentous shift that’s inexorably taking place as the old, obsolete Erastian, Elizabethan, “Reformation Settlement” gives way to the new “Global, Post-Colonial Settlement” that is still just begining to emerge.
I would simply add, in characteristic fashion, that what is needed is not merely a new post-colonial kind of Anglicanism, but also an openly post-Constantianian, post-Christendom style Anglicanism. And by that I mean one that deliberately and explicitly adopts a boldly adversarial, Christ-against-culture stance to the dominant relativist culture of the western world. Given our state church and imperial heritage, that will be an extremely traumatic and wrenching adjustment to make.
But it’s absolutely necessary that we make that radical change, no matter what the institutional cost, and the sooner the better.
David Handy+
I’m very sorry for the confusion. I wrote the first part about the “fourth moratorium” and Can. Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream wrote the second part about the Indaba process. Can. Sugden did quote from a piece by Vinay Samuel in part two. Please let me know if you have any questions or there is any more confusion. rlundy@americananglican.org
Please continue to pray for ACC-14.
-Robert Lundy
Robert, many of us are praying. Thanks so much for your reports. They are very helpful and informative! Don’t mind our minor quibbles about formatting 😉
Chris Sugden wrote the essay. The last part is a paper by Vinay Samuel. I asked him to put some formatting in there to make it more clear.
NAR, while I am sympathetic to critiquing our imperial Erastian heritage, its link to liberalism is too deep. It will be something altogether different than Anglicanism, although Anglicanism will, in its liturgical forms, contribute to the emerging church.
It will be wrenching for both of us. As it is, young people are forming Christian communities that are countercultural; but are also agnostic about Biblical sexual ethics, while still being Jesus centered.
John Wilkins would you be referring to modern day Marcionites or cafeteria Christians? I don’t think being “Jesus centered” is the same thing as being “Christ centered” but that’s just my very narrow view showing. Cheers.
Robert and Ralinda, the revised formatting with italics is very clear now, thanks so much!
I looked at this article at Anglican Mainstream in the last hour and it appears to me that the formatting has made clear who said what.
I applaud what Bishop Mouneer said, and I applaud the writing of Vinay Samuel. This “Indaba process” is designed to manipulate meetings for the purpose of preventing Primates and others from coming to decisions. It has been used to cause decisions to be ignored. Bishops, priests, and laypeople should all refuse to participate in any more indaba process anywhere. Everyone knows where the others stand. Decisions are called for. If decisions are put off by yet another “Process,” (how tired we are of Processes!), the Anglican Communion will spin apart; in fact, it may be too late today. The imposition of another Process on the ACC meeting may have been the coup de grace.
There’s more to the story at http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/
Look who’s funding and facilitating the endless indaba.
[i]elves say: here is the full link[/i]
http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2009/05/questions-raised-over-goals-and-funding.html
#8. John Wilkins,
[blockquote]But the truth is that money can corrupt.[/blockquote]
John, could you expand on this comment. Do you mean money can corrupt in a general sense or are you referring to more specific things such as the compas Rose Society or comments by Mouneer Anis?
I do not understand how the Morehouse School of Medicine has become involved with the ACC. Morehouse is a part of Atlanta University. AU is one of the traditional African American schools in the US, made up of 4 colleges which were always traditionally for black students. Morehouse School of Medicine was started within the last 30 years as a part of AU. But neither it nor AU have any affiliation with TEC or AC. So how did it get hooked up with funding this indaba process for ACC or AC? Anyone out there know?
Billy, read the link at #17. Baby Blue is reporting that the money comes from a sexuality project at the Ford Foundation. The purpose is to indoctrinate religious groups with ideas of sexual license. There are quotes from the project design at the link.
Thanks, Kartherine. I read that before I asked my question. I assumed that it came from a grant from the Ford Foundation through Morehouse. I just don’t understand the connection with Morehouse.
Morehouse sounds so much more benign than the Ford Foundation.
Ah, the hegemony is being challenged on its racist and abusive manipulation of the existing system while claiming to incorporate “other” process. How incredibly ubuntu. The ABC’s game, with that of the power-brokers and money-brokers, discovered and exposed! And called! Let’s see how the ante gets raised now.
Here is the rub. The Continuing Indaba Process is funded by the Satcher Health Leadership Institute at the Morehouse School of Medicine. According to Dr. Satcher, the group’s director, the funding “is part of the work in consensus building processes among leaders initiated by the Center of Excellence for Sexual Health of the Satcher Health Leadership Institute.â€
Here is where the Ford Foundation comes in, the Ford Foundation, according to Satcher’s website, funds the Center of Excellence for Sexual Health.
I quote from Satcher’s website, the “Center of Excellence for Sexual Health. This Ford Foundation-funded program was developed to implement actions proposed in the Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior. Its mission is to raise the level of national dialogue on human sexuality and sexual health and well being in a sustained, informed, honest, mature, and respectful manner, and to produce actions that reflect scientific evidence and deeply held beliefs.”
Ford funds the Center for Sexual Health. Sexual Health Center funds the Listening Process. I’m writing a story now with some more information. Check the AAC’s site or Anglican Mainstream later.
Thanks for the info #24. And thanks for that mission statement. But I’m not sure what any of those words actually mean, other than, in my opinion, that they must be code words for things I disagree with, if this group is funding indaba for the next 3 years within the AC, if this indaba is going to be like the Lambeth indaba in which it was reported that TEC bishops went with talking points from 815 to ensure that their groups were directed in certain ways. And if indaba means that everything that is said in the group discussoin is given equal weight (as at Lambeth), it really is useless and waste of time (like Lambeth) – no conclusions or compromises can every be reached – no “consensus.” There will only and always be just discussion. (If God wants to send me to hell, this is where he will put me – in an endless indaba group.) But as one commentator said, this is apparently the goal of the ACC and the ABC.
I do not understand how the Morehouse School of Medicine has become involved with the ACC.
I don’t think Billy’s comment has really been answered yet. I understand about the Ford Foundation, etc., but why is Ford Foundation money being funneled through Morehouse to TEC???? That’s crazy. And what kind of money do they need for indaba? Or is the plan to hurl a bunch of Morehouse medical school professors into the indaba?
excuse me – that should be to “ACC” not “TEC”. If there is a difference.
The sick Canterbury-centered Anglican Communion just got sicker.
Time to just say NO.
I hope the orthodox leaders have had enough and will have the courage of their convictions to absolutely refuse to play reindeer games with Williams, Shori, Kearon, etc.
It is (past) time for Jesus to call the shots in the AC.
#26 The Ford Foundation likes to fund groups that advance its view of desirable social change. The Satcher “Center of Excellence for Sexual Health” has received a lot of money from the Foundation to fund their work. I’m guessing someone from 815 or Canterbury heard about Satcher’s work to achieve consensus on different issues related to sexuality and found the perfect indaba facilitators–academic outsiders, a historically black college in the South–couldn’t be up to anything we wouldn’t approve of. Better yet, they are well-funded and can go global. You really need to read all of baby blue’s links.
And Eugene Satcher, M.D. is the former Surgeon General under Bill Clinton. All of this is too shrewd by far. There is definitely more to this story than is being told at present. Maybe some of our intrepid journalists can get to the bottom of how this funding came to be – what person to person meetings took place and who are the identifiable parties who made the connections.
The center is a political activist organization targeting what it labels “conservatives” who use religion to “oppress” women and LBGT. Do all members of the ACC know this? Or just the TEC folks who rounded up this money? How much money does it take to indaba?
Billy, are you suggesting a vast left-wing conspiracy funded by subversive groups designing the breakup of the Anglican Communion internationally and the ECUSA/TEC locally? Why am I not shocked? Can’t wait to hear the verbal gymnastics from Naughton et alia on this money trail. The contortions will make an eel-tangled fishing line look easy to untangle.
Indaba, in the form used by the ACC, appears to be a giant waste of money and time. I found Dr Samuel’s comments to be very helpful.
The whole thing is a giant mess, but God is still sovereign!
Henry L. Morehouse must be rolling in his grave.