Last weekend I had the opportunity to worship at Christ Church Cathedral as part of the Flower Festival weekend. As the celebration of the Holy Eucharist came to a close, the presider, the Rt. Rev. George Wayne Smith, Bishop of Missouri, turned to the Most Rev. Daniel Deng Bul Yak, Archbishop of Sudan, and invited him to impart the final blessing on the congregation. The words he used to extend this invitation were something like, “Archbishop, my brother, would you bless us in the language of your birth?”
It was, for me, a powerful moment. The Archbishop spoke in what I am told was Dinka, an African language utterly unfamiliar to me (and, I would guess, to nearly everyone else in the Cathedral). And yet, at the moment when he raised his hand high to begin making the sign of the cross over us, every person in that church knew that we were being blessed “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” and it made no difference to us in what language the words were spoken. This was Anglicanism at its best: generous and welcoming, respectful of both liturgical tradition and cultural difference, joyfully making room at the table for all who feel called to respond to Christ’s invitation to reconciliation, fellowship, and transformation.
One of the most powerful moments of faith in my life was in a remarkably isolated village in northern Saskatchewan, many, many miles beyond the last road. In a Roman church we recited the Lord’s Prayer … in a mixture of Latin, French (the priests were Oblates from Quebec), Athapaskan, and a smattering of English.
It always left me curious… if God understands (easily) any and all of the above languages, why is there any need to pray in “tongues” or some special “language of the Spirit” ? Just wondering …
Praying in tongues is not necessary, but there are times in a person’s life when there are no words to express the hurt or longing or fear ro joy residing in the heart; at those times praying in tongues is of great comfort and the Holy Comforter brings peace and quiet to the unquiet heart. It is not the only way, but it is a way.
I had understood only the Province of South Africa to be ‘not on board’ the CAPA distress and outrage over TEC’s and ACC’s (Canada’s) innovations. Does anyone know the position of the Most Rev. Daniel Deng Bul Yak, Archbishop of Sudan and his province?
montanan (#3),
The case of the Episcopal Church of Sudan is very complex. ++Daniel Deng Bul is thoroughly orthodox and he definitely does NOT go along with the “gay is OK” delusion. Neither did his predecessor, ++Joseph Marona. Both have made explicit statements on the subject in the past, though they generally adopt a “No Comment” approach.
However, Anglicanism in Sudan is desperately impoverished, perhaps more so than anywhere else in the world, and it’s under very severe pressure from Islam, which has waged almost relentless war on the Christians in the South for decades.
I’m not trying to make excuses here, just to give some essential background information. The ECOS has grown enormously in the last 30 years. It may have 5 or even 6 million members now, about the same size as the Anglican Church of Kenya. But they are totally consumed dealing with the overwhelming problems they face in their own country.
I have met the Archbishop of Sudan and I trust him. TEC has been desperately trying to buy the silence of its bishops (they will never get its favor or support). Many of the bishops have to get around on bicycles, they are that poor. And TEC offers them SUVs…
The Sudanese are in a very different situation from nearby Uganda, which was much better positioned to refuse all TEC money (even though Uganda is a very poor country too, but everything is relative here). New Sudan (the southern half of the country seeking independence) is probably the poorest country in the poorest continent on earth.
Just to name one example. In the Diocese of Renk, the Archbishop’s diocese, there is ONE high school for about a million people. And there are virtually no paved roads. That’s it. The Arabs in the captial of Khartoum refused to invest any money at all in building up the infrastructure of the southern half of the country.
And FWIW, as the crisis in Darfur has shown, the notorious National Islamic Front, the ruling regime in Sudan, which is committed publicly to imposing Sharia law throughout the land and then throughout East Africa, is quite possibly has the dubious distinction of being the absolute worst and cruelst dictatorship in the world. Worse than Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, worse than the notorious military junta in Myanmar, worse even than North Korea.
I hope that helps.
David Handy+
We have a Sudanese congregation in Sioux Falls, SD.
One of the young Sudanese men here is working to build a school in his home city. You can check it out at
http://www.diocesesd.org/WHAT_CAN_YOU_DO/summer_mission_groups.htm
David Handy – thanks for the information. I would absolutely not judge a primate or one of his bishops for decisions to associate with TEC bishops – especially when the material needs of his flock are so dire; the visit simply surprised me. I am glad to hear he is orthodox in his theology.
montanan (#6),
You’re welcome. I have a special fondness for the Sudanese church. One of my former congregations (St. Martin’s, Richmond, VA), sponsored a young refugee couple from Africa. The husband is Nigerian, but the wife is Sudanese and from her I learned a lot about the terrible plight of Christians in southern Sudan. The couple remain dear friends.
Two further points of information. The dictator of Sudan is Omar al Bashir. His name out to go down in history as one of the cruelst despots of all time. Believe me, I don’t use the word “evil” or “wicked” lightly, but the National Islamic Front, and President Bashir in particular, are truly evil. I mean utterly wicked, in a horrifyingly Satanic way. Darfur is only the tip of the iceberg.
Alas, although Sudan is geographically the largest country in Africa (in terms of square miles of land), it is of no strategic or economic interest to the U.S. or Europe. Some oil fields were discovered there in the 1980s so that may change a little as time goes on. But basically the West turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to the desperate cries of the Sudanese people.
Second, on the virtual eve of Pentecost, it’s worth noting that there has been an incredible move of the Holy Spirit that has led to the conversion of literally millions of Sudanese in the last three decades, especially among the cattle-herding, nomadic Dinka people. One of the great needs of the Church in Sudan is for the completion of the translation of the Bible into Dinka. Wycliffe Bible Translators has a team working on finishing the OT, but then there will be the cost of publishing the Bibles and distributing them to the millions of new believers there, along with the literacy training required, since most southern Sudanese can’t read or write. Basically a whole generation grew up without access to public schools during the long civil war in Sudan. The list of severe problems there is almost endless. Lord, have mercy.
David Handy+
Re:”It always left me curious… if God understands (easily) any and all of the above languages, why is there any need to pray in “tongues†or some special “language of the Spirit†?”
2 things occur on this note, and a final comment to tie in with the thread.
First: Speaking in “tongues” as first described did not entail speaking in strange babbling tongues, but rather speaking and having all who wished to hear the message hear in their own tongue. As to whether the speaker is speaking his original language or some “universal” tongue recognized by the subconscious of all humans is debatable. I have direct knowledge of this happening, but only once within the last thirty years.
Second: The incoherent babble that is known as praying in the Spirit may or may not have been practiced by the apostles, Scripture is silent other than Paul’s “I have spoken more in tongues than all of you combined” statement. Rules were given by Paul governing their use in church, no more than one or two at a time and only if there was one there who could interpret the babble.
In both cases the use of “tongues” is not to edify the Spirit in any way but for the Spirit to edify us and show It’s approval (and perhaps Authorship) of the message delivered.
I remember as a child going to strict “no tongues, ever” indepedant Baptist churches. My grandpa came out to one to sing (his ministry, he had been trained in opera at the New York Met). During the final verse of the song he starts singing in Italian, sings one line, then says “Don’t worry folks, it’s not tongues, it’s Italian, the pastor said it’s okay,” then continued to sing without missing a beat. The congregation got a big laugh along with a very moving performance, and many said the Italian portion somehow seemed more spiritual.
The archbishop doesn’t care about our internal dispute, from what I hear. He is engaging in “listening” when invited.
I suspect he is going wherever there is love and concern for the Sudanese people and doesn’t insist on a litmus test.
The Holy Spirit is “He”.