A suburban Chicago church sought leadership from Rwanda amid theological disputes with the Episcopal Church. This week, it found itself in conflict with its leaders over Rwandan politics.
All Souls Anglican Church had invited Paul Rusesabagina, whose life was featured in the 2004 movie Hotel Rwanda, to speak during Sunday morning services. The Wheaton, Illinois, church, a member of the Rwandan-led Anglican Mission in America, invited him as part of a fundraiser to build a school in Gashirabwoba, Rwanda.
On Thursday, however, Emmanuel Kolini, the Anglican archbishop of Rwanda, asked All Soul’s pastor J. Martin Johnson to rescind the invitation.
Rusesabagina has been at odds with the president of Rwanda. The archbishop feared that the event could create a strain in the relationship between the Anglican Church of Rwanda and the government.
“Truly I am horrified that we could have such a negative impact without meaning to,” Johnson told Christianity Today. “I had no idea this was a controversial issue.”
Read it all (hat tip: Ted Olsen).
[blockquote] “Johnson, who was previously a priest in the Episcopal Church, has been under the Rwandan authority since 2004.
“He simply said, ‘Please don’t. Your church can’t have this man speak there,’ ” Johnson said. “My initial response was, ‘Can they tell us what to do?’ We just have to say, ‘Okay, fine, sorry,’ and that’s what we’ve done.”
The church had sent out announcements to several people in the Chicago area and Johnson was embarrassed to have to cancel the event.
“I don’t know if we’ll simply have to get masters degrees in political science to keep working in the church,” Johnson said and laughed. “I’ve never even been to Rwanda, but we are Rwandans now.” [/blockquote]
Interesting. Why block this man from speaking at an anglican church in the united states? Other than the fact that the President of Rwanda objects. This doesn’t make sense to me. They may be under the authority of the Rwandan church but they are Americans in and American congregation. Intresting.
I like having a local bishop
As a member of All Souls’, and a former senior warden of the parish, perhaps I can address plainsparson’s comment, which probably reflects the puzzlement of many others. Archbishop Kolini is of course not our direct episcopal authority — that’s Chuck Murphy — but he’s one of the founding primates of AMiA and we are grateful to him for his leadership. He has helped to make a home for us in the Anglican world. So when he made a request of us — note that he did not issue an order, but rather make a request — it seemed to Father Martin that he owed the Archbishop that courtesy. And for what it’s worth I agree. I don’t like being entangled in Rwandan politics, and insofar as I understand it I don’t agree with the political stance Archbishop Kolini is taking — but I also know that my understanding is limited and am willing to wait and learn and, in the meantime, show what I believe to be proper deference.
I’m not sure what plainsparson meant by his comment about American congregations, so I hope this won’t be taken as an accusation, but I want to say that I think it’s important to avoid the “we can do what we want to in our country” attitude. That is precisely the attitude that TEC has taken towards the rest of the Anglican world (“Don’t try to force your values on us”), so we at All Souls’ very much want to avoid that — especially since many Christians (and non-Christians) around the world pay close attention to what American churches do. We should remember, for instance, that many African Anglicans have reported that the consecration of Gene Robinson, and other similar actions by TEC, intensified difficulties for them in their relations with Mulsims. Of course, it’s possible to be so sensitive to the responses of others that you never do anything — any action a church takes is likely to offend someone — but oversensitivity to our brothers and sisters in the Global South hasn’t been a typical trait of Episcopalians and Canadian Anglicans. So we at All Souls’ would rather err on the side of being overly respectful of and deferential to our Global South leaders than to err in the way TEC historically has.
Welcome to the global Church, everybody!
Alan,
Thanks for responding. I think it is fine to show some defrence to leaders. However, I find it strange that we live in a land that not only values freedom of speech, but has enthorned it in the highest law of the land and that a small congregation, in that same land, is prevented from inviting a speaker that is critical of another countries government. Why would it strain the relationship between the church and the government of Rwanda? Is there some truth to be told about the church? I remember a number of clergy there who participated in the genocide. (I think they were all deposed and removed and that does not include Archbishop Koloni). Besides this is a fundraiser for a school right?
I just find it rather strange.
Plainsparson, let me note again that no one was “prevented” from doing anything. Archbishop Kolini made a request, and Father Martin agreed to it. That has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with “freedom of speech” — ours or Paul Rusesabagina’s, who by the way is speaking in Wheaton this evening. There are complex issues here, but none of them relate to freedom of speech.
Also, I should say that Rusesabagina’s presence in our church was not a fund-raising appearance. We have been raising money for a school for some time, and apparently Rusesabagina heard about our efforts and wanted to express his appreciation. Of course, we were hoping that his presence might bring some more people out and help raise more money for the school, but that wasn’t the explicit purpose of his visit.
I can’t imagine how his presence at our church would have done anyone harm, but then, as I said, I have a lot to learn about these matters. I’m hoping I will learn more.
Alan,
Thanks again. I only have the media report and understand that the depth of this i surely beyond a short article. It matters because the man who’s invitation was rescinded was honerd with a Presidental Medal of Freedom. The Article states:
[blockquote] But after President Kagame found out Rusesabagina was supposed to speak to speak at a church overseen by archbishop of Rwanda, he contacted Kolini, who then *told* the church to cancel the event, Johnson said.
“The bigger reality for us is having to accept the whole concept of obedience, and that is a harder cultural pill to swallow than I realized,” he said. “I’m forced to encounter my own resistance and bias.”
Johnson, who was previously a priest in the Episcopal Church, has been under the Rwandan authority since 2004.
“He simply said, ‘Please don’t. *****Your church can’t have this man speak there****,’ ” Johnson said. “My initial response was, ‘Can they tell us what to do?’ We just have to say, ‘Okay, fine, sorry,’ and that’s what we’ve done.” [/blockquote]
Plainsparson, why didn’t you put asterisks around the word “Please”?
Alan,
As a leader, I will often be polite to those I am giving orders. I am more intrested in what Johnson said. :”Can the tell us what to do?” That sound like a reponse to an order. Not “Can they ask us not to do this?”
Again. I just find this interesting. Not know much about Rwanda’s inner works, but intrested in how this affects the Rwanda congregations. That a Rwanda president can convince a Rwanda Archbishop to suggest/ ask/ order that a speaker be stoped from speaking in a Rwandan Congregation in America says something. What it says is that not only is the congregation under the authority of the Rwanda Archbishop, but the secular president as well. Interesting how this all unfolds. Fascinating.
No American president could do that here. (think of the iranian president speaking in the heart of our capital at the national cathedral.)
This aspect of the relationship was not featured in the brochures! I would like to think that the President of Rwanda couldn’t stifle speech here either. I guess that’s up to the priest, too. Don’t they have a first amendment in Rwanda, or know that we have one here? Oh my, another church to leave…or not join, in my case.
As I mentioned below and have insisted before, those who wish to place themselves under the authority of institutions grounded in another culture with profoundly non-Western values are going to find themselves asked to honor all of those values, not just the ones (such as opposition to homosexuality) that African and American traditionalists hold in common. Unquestioning obedience to authority is one of those values, and it can be seen in both Abp. Kolini’s subservience to the Rwandan state and in the Province of Central Africa’s acquiescence in the Mugabe tyranny.
While the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Zimbabwe is being persecuted for righteousness’ sake, the Anglicans are issuing communiques blaming the nation’s troubles on Western neo-colonialism. Anyone who dares to differ is labeled as anti-African and tarred with the pro-gay brush. As far as racism goes, there is very little to choose between Rhodesia and Zimbabwe, it being just a matter of whose ox was or is being gored. The same goes for the Province of Rwanda; American adherents of the AMiA are obviously expected to support the government in power. Change the government, and church policy will change as fast as the CP-USA Party Line between 1936 and 1941 changed to follow the CP-USSR.
Surely the Republican Free Marketeers who have joined Global South provinces are aware that the Millennium Development Goals are relatively tame compared to the economic policies that their new churches advocate. Do women in these American parishes really want to be treated like the other women in their provinces? How about those who have divorced and remarried?
It is precisely this sort of conflict between national culture and foreign institutions that led the Church of England to declare its autonomy from the Church of Rome. That principle is canonized in the Articles of Religion and in the writings of the Anglican Fathers who insisted that a national church must be the expression not only of the Church, but also of the nation. It is a very bad thing that American reappraisers have become captives to American culture, but why does that make it a good thing to become a captive to some completely alien culture?
RoyIII:
There are indeed churches in the Wheaton area that are well worth leaving. All Souls’ is emphatically not one of them. Martin Johnson is a very good man, and a conscientious, theologically astute priest, who has stood up against the rotting theology of TEC while others choose to live with it or at least not rock the boat. It angers me to see his parish and his ministry maligned on the basis of this one fleeting incident, which came and went with very little time in which to maneuver. What All Souls’ is doing for the children of Rwanda and for the Kingdom of God far outweighs any Sunday evening quarterbacking that might be done about Rusesabagina’s canceled visit.
Dale Rye:
I don’t think that being sensitive to a culture is the same as being captive to it. To be sure, there will be much to learn and discern in this new international landscape, but having lived through decades of Griswoldian “listening,” I’d much rather have to struggle with some of these new realities than continue to be held back by the old, familiar apostasies of TEC.
It could be worse. I am grateful to God that none of you, afaik, are (so far) under the authority of the Bishop of Harare!
Wie man sich bettet…
As a side note: rent “Hotel Rwanda” ( brilliant Don Cheadle) and avoid Academy Awards approved “Last King of Scotland” – a white boy fantasy of meeting a real Blue Meany. ( “Scotland” doesn’t even bother a nod to the Christian martyrs in that beleagured country; and as there is no story but for the white boy in darkest Africa fandago, why not? … Excuse me, he is not just a white boy, he’s a doctor. Well okay then. )
Wow — can folks like Dale Rye really not have grasped yet that for parishes like this one, it’s so so so so worth it to be out of ECUSA?
Conversations like this make me think that liberals and moderates alike have just not grasped the utter repellance that the departing have for TEC.
It’s like saying to a woman who has left her foul abusive husband with joy and freedom “well . . . you really may have to get a job. Do you really understand what you are giving up?”
She looks at you as if you are just crazy.
So far, these folks have given up a tremendous amount already just to flee, and now their bishop has asked/ordered/demanded/tortured/whatever them to not have a speaker. Of course, parishes in ECUSA dioceses have to present their bishops with lists of the people they intend to ask in every year. And every year, revisionist bishops attempt to stop events from taking place. And every year, parishes have to meet off-site in order to move on with the event.
But let this happen one time to a parish, and they’re supposed to be shocked and appalled and consider fleeing back to the abuser.
Weird. I really would have thought that Dale Rye would have gotten it by now. He’s been on this blog for years and years . . .
Dale, I find it ironic that those who have left TEC because they say we have yielded to secular cultural practices and abandoned “orthodoxy” are now discovering that they may have to yield to non-American secular cultural practices in order to keep their “orthodoxy.”
Pastor Johnson may well need to get a degree in political science, with a concentration in African politics.
Re #14: I never suggested going back to the abuser. I simply suggested that moving from one pattern of abuse to another is like an addictive personality who gives up gambling for alcohol. This struggle is, in part, about winning hearts and minds over to one’s vision of the Church of Jesus Christ. It will not win any friends or influence any people to suggest that in order to avoid (1) those who would tolerate homosexuality, it is necessary to embrace (2) those who would tolerate the suppression of basic human freedoms.
Insofar as American reasserters hitch their wagon to an alien culture, to that degree they will lose their appeal to other Americans. It is simply not the case that most Westerners are more upset about homosexuality than about dictatorship and murder. If they are presented with that choice, they will prefer TEC to Global South churches that tolerate radically antidemocratic values. My major point is that many American reasserters seem completely unconscious of these appearances and unconcerned with how they will play out in the public square.
RE: “It will not win any friends or influence any people to suggest that in order to avoid (1) those who would tolerate homosexuality, it is necessary to embrace (2) those who would tolerate the suppression of basic human freedoms.”
So true — but then 1) is not in play, so 2) necessarily falls to the ground as well. That’s not why this parish left. They left because they deem ECUSA to be eaten alive with heresy both creedal and pragmatic. You are welcome to not believe that — but that’s why they left.
RE: “If they are presented with that choice, they will prefer TEC to Global South churches that tolerate radically antidemocratic values.”
If they are presented with the choice of the heresies and denials of the gospel of TEC, [as I have pointed out repeatedly] they shall leave TEC, then decide where to go. Most of them [as I have also pointed out for the past two years] will leave Anglicanism entirely and head to Rome, Geneva, or some other non-Anglican place.
Some will head to an alternate Anglican entity.
So your two choices are just vastly incomplete.
Dale, how nice it would have been if TEC had been willing to make a place for the orthodox. Stories like this one are concerning. One can only guess that the influence is going to work both ways, for better or worse. May it ultimately be for the better, both ways.
Sherri, your point is well made. At the time most of us left our TEC parishes for All Souls’ and made the eventual decision to go to AMiA, we did so in part because the Bishop of Chicago had come out and said there’d be no AEO option in his diocese (Nov. 2003), and AMiA was an alternative that we were happy to have.
We at All Souls’ are in the process, as Alan said above, of learning more about Rwandan politics. We knew that we would have bumps in this road we are on, and none of us headed into this relationship thinking that we’d be in some pure and perfect church, being the sinners that we all are. We placed ourselves under the authority of the bishop, who asked, not demanded, that we not have Paul speak from our pulpit. We want to be obedient to our bishop, and we trust that even if we weren’t sure of his reasons for asking, he has our best interests at heart. IF this is a situation where our Rwandan brothers and sisters need to learn something from us, then God will see to that. Right now the people of All Souls’ are discerning through prayer and conversation with people who know about Rwandan politics how we should look at the issues that this last week has raised for us. As Alan also said, we are members of a global church, and, as we are getting to know each other, and are working to deepen our relationship, we are both growing closer to Jesus as we work out living as a true community. This can only be for the better, ultimately, as Sherri says.
If Karl Barth were to read #19, he would be spinning in his grave at the notion that a church could EVER rightly be subservient to political interests.