Living Church–Primate of Uganda: Episcopal Bishops Were Coached

“The report is severely compromised and further tears the existing tear in the fabric of our beloved Anglican Communion,” Archbishop Orombi wrote. “It is gravely lamentable that our Instruments of Communion have missed the opportunity in this moment to begin the healing that is so necessary for our future.”

Archbishop Orombi said the primates never asked the House of Bishops to make new policy for The Episcopal Church. Given that General Convention would not meet again for three years, he said the primates wanted the Episcopal bishops to clarify parts of two General Convention resolutions which the primates believed could be interpreted several different ways.

“TEC has lost the right to give assurances of their direction as a church through more words and statements,” Archbishop Orombi said. “They write one thing and do another. We therefore cannot know what they mean by their words until we see their meaning demonstrated by their actions.”

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, - Anglican: Commentary, - Anglican: Primary Source, -- Statements & Letters: Primates, Anglican Provinces, Church of Uganda, Episcopal Church (TEC), Sept07 HoB Meeting, TEC Bishops

23 comments on “Living Church–Primate of Uganda: Episcopal Bishops Were Coached

  1. Stuart Smith says:

    On other threads I have read the objection to ++Orombi’s logic, and the claim that, of course, the JSC would work WITH the bishops to develop a successful statement. But, what the Primate of Uganda has in mind is the importance of the bishops conferring and working towards a biblical, repentant response to the primates call for repentance…NOT a politically posturing Mind of the House response, based on vetted and approved sentences!!! The primates want a sign that the HoB will walk another way (“repent”) and call TEC to change its direction. Of course, TEC bishops can claim “we are not the whole church”. Right. But, the HoB has its unique…and very Anglican…vocation to lead by teaching and proclaiming. No evidence of a Christian conscience in the HoB came out of NOLA. Only those consumed by political machinations could fail to see that.

  2. Bob from Boone says:

    Since he deliberated absented himself as a member of the JSC from the HOB meeting, he has no business passing judement on how the JSC functioned in this regard. This statement is more of the same attack on the TEC.

    #1, the HOB was not asked by the Primates to issue “a biblical, repentant reponse to the primates’ call for repentance.” That is not what the Tanzania statement asked, rather what the reappraisers insist of HOB and the whole TEC that they do. ++Akinola and ++Orombi and a few other primates may insist on it, but that is what they have insisted on all along.

  3. Ross says:

    The DES Communique did not call for “repentance” on the part of TEC. The Communique called for TEC to abide by the Windsor “moratoria” on SSBs and ordaining non-celibate gay bishops. Nowhere in the WR or the DES Communique was TEC requested to declare that we were wrong in principle about human sexuality, or that we thought that SSBs, etc., were un-Christian. We were just asked to hold off on doing them unless or until the Communion changed its mind.

    If the HOB had a somewhat larger portion of Communion-minded moderates, I would bet money they would have come up with a statement saying something like, “We still think we’re right about homosexuality, or at least we’re not convinced that we’re wrong, but for the sake of Communion unity we’ll agree to refrain from putting it into practice while we undertake to persuade the Communion of our position.” Such a statement would be in complete compliance with the Windsor Report and with the DES Communique, but it would contain not a smidgen of repentance.

    A couple of the GS Primates have talked about the Communique as though it asked the HOB to repent — but that interpretation is far from the text.

  4. Sherri says:

    It hardly matters since the HOB didn’t come close to what was asked, in any case. The New Orleans meeting was all about masking intent with words.

  5. Lapinbizarre says:

    This is the gentleman who, in a recent Anglican TV interview, observed of his North American re-asserter supporters that “they support us, they give us money. Oh they give us money. Since we began to relate with our orthodox brethren they have given us much more money, much more money, oh yeah, much more money. They have given us more money”. This apparent fondness for American “money” might call into question the Archbishop’s impartiality, not to mention his motives, in this and any other statement he makes or action he takes relative to TEC.

    The Anglican TV interview video may be seen at

    The Archbishop’s musings on the topic of money commence around 13:55 minutes into the interview.

  6. tired says:

    [blockquote]”…the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates inserted themselves uninvited into a process the primates originally devised.”[/blockquote]

    I think this statement just about says it all.

    The DES Communique was straightforward. A ‘negotiated’ or ‘interpreted’ response was not requested by the Primates, merely a simple yes (affirmation) or no. The HoB and JSC statements were vague, conflicting, incomplete (non-responsive), inaccurate, and, IMHO, dishonest – those statements were intended for purposes other than truth (the PB said as much in SF, or just ask Bruno or Ely). TEC (and many of the participating members of the JSC/ACO) did not want a clear, honest response.

    It goes without saying that the JSC/ACO does not have the confidence of the primates for the discernment of a truthful response by TEC, the primates certainly did not invite them for this role – but of course, the JSC and ACO each have their own interests. (oh, and #5 LP, probably not nearly to the degree of the ACO and those voting with the JSC!)


    But, of course, this kind of behavior is what I have come to expect of the ACO.

  7. Dale Rye says:

    As a public servant, I often see people who did not vote but then complain about the quality of the people they did not vote against. Abp. Orombi is a member of the JSC and was in the United States at the time of its meeting in New Orleans, but chose not to attend. A communicant of his province who is on the Anglican Consultative Council Standing Committee did attend, but has signed neither the report nor the dissent. (A member from West Africa has similarly abstained. In both those provinces, signing the report could have major costs while signing the dissent would carry major benefits. We may yet hear from them.)

    Of the eleven JSC members in attendance at the meeting who have expressed an opinion, ten signed the report and one the dissent. The majority obviously feel that they have acted properly, while Bp. Anis disagrees. Abp. Orombi agrees with Bp. Anis, both as to the process and its results. Others can make up their own minds. None of us could have voted and chose not to do so, so we are entitled to an opinion.

  8. pendennis88 says:

    [blockquote] The Communique called for TEC to abide by the Windsor “moratoria” on SSBs and ordaining non-celibate gay bishops.[/blockquote]
    Um, a misleading statement. The DES communique asked for three things (four if you count ceasing lawsuits). On the question of bishops, the HoB came closest, by “exercising restraint”, which is hardly a moratorium of any kind. On the other questions, SSBs, the DES process for adequate alternative oversight, the HoB said no (but we will lie to you about it if that helps) and no (though we will pretend to be thinking about sending a bishop to do confirmations and that sort of thing). On lawsuits against the orthodox, no written response, but they haven’t ended, if anything are getting worse, so no.

    The only passing grade was all yeses. The response of maybe on bishops and the rest nos was not a passing grade. The JCS was an effort to argue that it was, but is so gratingly mendacious that it has made matters far worse for the communion.

  9. Ross says:

    #8 pendennis88:

    I’m not disputing that the HOB statement evaded the DES requests; it did. I’m just saying that what DES requested was something other than “repentance.”

  10. teddy mak says:

    Dear bizarre rabbit: Did you know that there are some polygamists in Orombi’s Diocese? How about Leviticus’ prohibition on eating shell fish?

    Give us a good TEC yammer about those off topic and shop worn thread killers. They are as irrelevant as your post above. If we are dumb enough, we let you distract us again.

    Maybe not, maybe not.

    Don’t Feed The Trolls, folks. Don’t feed the trolls.

  11. jamesw says:

    Ross: The WR did call for the TEC to express “regret” for “breaching the bonds of affection”. In order to be WR compliant, TEC would need to say “While we still think we might be right about homosexuality, we should never have pushed ahead in practice until there was a consensus permitting us to do so in the AC. Unless such a consensus develops we will take no further action in this area, stop the things we are currently doing that violate AC teaching, and within that framework, we will continue to advocate for the acceptance of homosexual behavior in the councils of the Church.”

  12. jamesw says:

    Dale Rye: Henry Orombi declined to attend NOLA with the JSC because he believed it was illegitimate of the JSC to attend, in that it undermined what the Primates had asked of TEC.

    I think an analogy would be if you came across a lynch mob and they were setting up a mock jury and asked you to be on it. You would, of course, say “no, I refuse, that is illegitimate.” If the jury then recommended death, and you protested, what would YOU think if the lynch mob then replied “well, you can’t complain now, you had your chance to be a part of this?”

  13. Dale Rye says:

    I had missed the statement in #6, “It goes without saying that the JSC/ACO does not have the confidence of the primates.” Certainly there is evidence that some of the Primates dislike the Standing Committee that they themselves elected, but where is the evidence that a majority of them feel that way?

  14. jamesw says:

    Lapinbizarre: I find your insinuations about Ab. Orombi in #5 to be beyond the pale, slanderous and shows that you are willing to twist people’s words in order to score a cheap political point. I went to watch the video, and you are taking Orombi’s words completely out of context.

    The reporter interviewing Orombi asked him a series of questions about how the situation impacted the Ugandan church financially. Orombi explained the cost, and pointed out that the church of Uganda refused TEC dollars and explained why. The reporter then asked about whether Uganda was getting anything from the orthodox Anglicans in the US. Orombi said they were, but the reporter kept prodding for more. This led to Orombi’s mild outburst – he was reassuring the reporter that the orthodox were giving money to make up for what Uganda wasn’t getting from TEC, and was also stating the fact that as the alternative Anglican presence in the US grows, more money is again coming to Uganda.

    To suggest that Orombi has a “fondness” for American money and that this is what motivates him is dishonest, reprehensible and totally removes any credibility you might have.

  15. Ross says:

    #11 jamesw:

    Fair enough. “Regret,” of course, is not the same thing as “repentance,” so I think my main point still stands.

  16. Mike L says:

    Well, Lapinbizarre, if the good Archbishop was soooo concerned about money, then why has he refused the money that used to come from TEC? What’s that? That came before the time you wanted us to see? Don’t tell me you tried to hide that little tidbit, now did you?

  17. Dale Rye says:

    Re #12: If I thought that my vote on the mock jury might save an innocent man (i.e., my refusal to vote for conviction would be honored and prevent a unanimous verdict), I think I would serve. In your example, the outcome of the mock trial was preordained, since the mob would hang the man regardless of the verdict. No moral person would serve under those circumstances.

    If Abp. Orombi believes, as most of you here clearly do, that the great majority of Anglicans worldwide agree with his position on TEC, he should have had no hesitation serving on a committee where he could forcefully express the majority views in a strong report. He could only do that if he participated in the meeting. The only reason for him to refuse is that he foresaw that a majority of the JSC (in the event, by a 90% margin of those voting) would accept the TEC response. He can dissent as effectively (perhaps more so) from outside as in, but it does sort of undercut the argument that the Communion is of one mind (his) on this issue.

  18. jamesw says:

    Dale: For the record, I believe that Orombi should have attended NoLa with the JSC and stood up and made noise. I also think that Iker, Duncan, Schofield, etc., should have stayed to the bitter end and stood up and made noise. I think that these courses of action would have been more beneficial for the orthodox cause.

    The point is for Orombi, is that he felt that bringing the JSC to the NoLa meeting was undermining the work of the primates. He is smart enough to realize that the JSC is not any way representative of actual Anglicans, nor of the primates. The JSC is determined geographically and weighs heavily in favor of the liberal provinces. He believed that if he attended NoLa, he would be lending credibility to the JSC process. As it is, I think it can be fairly said, that the JSC report is severely tainted by the fact that no GS primate has signed on to it – the primates of the vast majority of the Communion are not represented in the report. You may argue “process” Dale, but that remains a fact that seriously undercuts the report.

  19. MJD_NV says:

    You people just don’t get it, do you? Orombi is making it clear that this meeting was intended to be a dishonest sham from the get go, and he was hving no parts of dishonest shams. Good for ++Uganda!

    The money quote:
    [i] “TEC has lost the right to give assurances of their direction as a church through more words and statements,” Archbishop Orombi said. “They write one thing and do another. We therefore cannot know what they mean by their words until we see their meaning demonstrated by their actions.” [/i]

    And since several bishops made it clear that SSU blessing would continue in their dioceses unabated, and KJS made it clear that waging reconcilliation is full steam ahead, I believe the HoB has already proven Orombi’s point.

  20. Lapinbizarre says:

    If I was hiding any “little tidbit”, Mike L, I would have quoted precisely what the archbishop said – as I did – while omitting the link to the Anglican TV video. In fact, I included it. When you can’t challenge the facts, impute the motives of the reporter, Mile L?

  21. MJD_NV says:

    #20 Wow, so you WANTED us to know that you were completely twisting the meaning of Orombi’s words? You WANTED us to know that you were being completely disingenuous and that the facts did not match your conclusions?

    Man, you reappraisers are even stranger than I thought.

  22. j.m.c. says:

    #5 & #20 Lapinbizarre, your quote was nonetheless misleading with all the money money … money since you failed to mention the questions – and you wouldn’t have wanted to omit the link since you wouldn’t have been taken seriously if you had. This is not saying to say that you intended to mislead, only that your means of quoting was misleading – I was so misled and watched the video and afterwards couldn’t understand why you quoted Orimbi in this way. I haven’t read of African bishops thinking realignment groups were manipulating them with money – however one CAPA bishop has indicated that he thought that the ECUSA was trying to manipulate African bishops with money:

  23. Dale Rye says:

    Re #19: Abp. Orombi may have regarded the HoB meeting a sham, but he didn’t just boycott that, but the associated meeting of the JSC as well. If he is convinced that meetings of the Primates’ Steering Committee are “shams from the get go,” why did he consent to being elected to the committee in the first place? If he trusts the Primates so little as to regard their elected steering committee a sham, why is he participating in the Primates’ Meeting? Why, if all that is true, is he even an Anglican primate, or bishop, or clergyman, or communicant? Some minimal level of trust is necessary for the Communion to hang together, and Abp. Orombi seems not to have that trust. This has stopped being about Global South vs. TEC and has started being about GS vs. all the institutions of the Anglican Communion itself.