The Church of Uganda has come under fire from gay activists in the UK for failing to speak out against a proposed law that would toughen the East African nation’s sodomy laws.
However the furore in church circles over the “Anti-Homosexuality Bill” speaks more to the rift between the African and Western Anglicans than to the politics of the proposed legislation. The campaign mounted in the West to defeat the bill will likely change few minds in Uganda, while the Church of Uganda’s response will likely been seen in Britain as moral cowardice in the face of injustice.
One senior Ugandan cleric told The Church of England Newspaper, “The Church of Uganda is not passive about current issues, but we have chosen not to be publicly confrontational. People will work behind the scenes to influence current events and discuss issues with the players rather than go to the newspapers. For example, you will never know when the Archbishop meets with the President. This is the way we Ugandans do things, which is different from the West.”
[blockquote]
The Church of Uganda has come under fire from gay activists in the UK for failing to speak out …
[/blockquote]
So CEN thinks that only gay activists are upset by the reporting requirement:
[blockquote]
… Failure to inform would be an offence under the act punishable by imprisonment.
[/blockquote]
[blockquote]
The Church of Uganda has come under fire from gay activists in the UK for failing to speak out …
[/blockquote]
So CEN thinks that only gay activists are upset by the reporting requirement:
[blockquote]
… Failure to inform would be an offence under the act punishable by imprisonment.
[/blockquote]
Be sure to note that the “we” in “how we do things in Uganda” does not include the LGBT Ugandans whose lives are on the line and are asking for those with the power to do so to speak out on their behalf.
Isn’t it all about context, Susan? We asked them to trust us that we knew what we were doing. Sounds like that is what they are asking us to do . . .
RE: “Be sure to note that the “we†in “how we do things in Uganda†does not include the LGBT Ugandans whose lives are on the line and are asking for those with the power to do so to speak out on their behalf.”
Very true.
For instance were I to speak about how Episcopalians who are Christian believers “do things” I wouldn’t include the LGBT activists within TEC as a part of that group.
Quite obviously, the senior Ugandan cleric was speaking of “the Church of Uganda” — and not LGBT Ugandans.
Just as when Jefferts Schori speaks of “we in TEC” she is rather transparently not speaking of “conservative Episcopalians” in TEC, since they manifestly do not share remotely the same values or gospel.
This is an unacceptable answer to criticism of ++Orombi. If he chooses not to speak, then he supports by his silence. He can still speak out and work behind the scenes. The article says “…the Church of Uganda’s response will likely been seen in Britain as moral cowardice in the face of injustice” and that could not be more true. The world is watching and will judge the Church of Uganda by the actions of its Primate. Right now the lone bishop who has spoken out from the Church of Uganda is viewed as an aberration.
RE: “If he chooses not to speak, then he supports by his silence.”
Nonsense. Patently false.
RE: “The world is watching and will judge the Church of Uganda by the actions of its Primate.”
Well . . . the progressive activists will judge him harshly [yawn] and the traditionalists will judge him on the spectrum of his work.
None of which is, of course, anything new.
Brian, if a public pronouncement on the part of ++Orombi would be counterproductive and would encourage exactly the wrong outcome, would you still accuse him of moral cowardice?
I do not know how they do politics in Uganda. I do know Henry Luke Orombi, at least lightly, and consider him a friend. I will put my trust in his judgment, especially when he is acting in an environment unknown to me.
Moral courage is also required when it is necessary to stand up against your friends when you know that you are doing things right and your friends simply do not understand.
Surely conservatives and traditionalists need to be saying urgently to both Church and State in Uganda that this legislation is a dangerous threat to the very values and traditions we hold most dear. It discredits traditionalists and plays into the hands of the radicals by creating martyrs. Just because western progressives are against it doesn’t mean traditionalists should defend a bad law or idea. Do right and let come what may.
Brian, if a public pronouncement on the part of ++Orombi would be counterproductive and would encourage exactly the wrong outcome, would you still accuse him of moral cowardice?
Yes. Much of what Jesus did and said was counterproductive and caused troubling outcomes, but He spoke the Truth at significant cost.
Nothing that Jesus did was ever counterproductive in any way. Peter tried to forsway Jesus from his course to the cross, because he though it was counterproductive. Peter was wrong. Jesus’s course to the cross produced my salvation, and yours.
Well, the ECUSA/TEC response to this sort of input from the Anglican Communion was sooooooo responsive to others that I can see others doing their own thing in precisely the same way. What right of complaint has anyone in ECUSA/TEC to complain. Thay have set the bar to suit themselves. They cannot complain when others do differently. Just as they do not complain about LGBT? treatment in Islamic countries.
Folks in Uganda are in their own Province, right? Whatever the Province decides is proper, right?
Of course, I happen to realize that the Province is not co-terminus with the state, but that may be a tad difficult for some Americans in ECUSA/TEC to grasp.
I’m not in a position to assess the proper strategy for an organization in Uganda that might wish to oppose this proposed legislation that would, among other things, break the seal of confession and send fathers to jail for failing to “out” their sons.
What I think is significant for us is that some of our cousins here in America may be encouraging it. Listen, for example, to the report of November 24 on NPR’s “Fresh Air” entitled “The Secret Political Reach Of ‘The Family'” [that’s the C Street family],
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120746516
“This is an unacceptable answer to criticism of ++Orombi. If he chooses not to speak, then he supports by his silence.”
If that were true, then by his long silence, St. Thomas More consented to the marriage of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, but as we all know he did not so consent. The maxim “Qui tacet consentire videtur” is, at most, a legal canon of construction. It is often difficult to determine the underlying realities behind silence. Silence, depending on the circumstances, can be a signal of dissent as well as assent. In many cases, silence is simply silence. Silence may betoken cowardice. Silence may also betoken prudence, and sometimes it betokens courage.
The CEN article suggests, but does not explicitly say, that this is a bill brought by one legislator that does not necessarily represent the will of the Ugandan government or its legislative branch. Let us hope that is the case. In any event, as many Evangelicals have demanded “clarity” from their opponents, it is not unreasonable for gay activists and others who oppose this evil legislation to ask that Archbishop Orombi clarify his views. Moreover, it seems to me that American Anglican evangelicals should be the first to demand this clarity from the Anglican Church of Uganda because the public reputation of their denominations and their own very persons are at stake.