[The indaba process’s] main thrust is to enable every member of the group to take responsibility for the process and agreed outcome. The group I am in has witnessed some very powerful and moving exchanges.
For an American liberal to hear how his action has led to the deaths of fellow Anglicans in another part of the world is not easy. There is work to do here and no guarantees that the hearing will turn to understanding; but that will not be the fault of the process.
Whatever the final outcome next week, what cannot be denied is that this has offered a new experience and a new way of doing our business.
Rather than displace serious attention to hard issues, these groups have provided a context of respectful relationship in which hard things can be said and heard.
Many western liberals now understand better how their actions affect people in New Guinea and Tanzania. And many Africans now understand better that the assumptions they bring to the debates also need to be checked.
For Bishop Nick’s blog from the Lambeth Conference, click [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/forum/blog.cfm?thread=7456]here.[/url]
[blockquote] For an American liberal to hear how his action has led to the deaths of fellow Anglicans in another part of the world is not easy.
Rather than displace serious attention to hard issues, these groups have provided a context of respectful relationship in which hard things can be said and heard. [/blockquote]
This is the sort of thing that I have hoped that the indaba process might provide. Like others I have been skeptical, but perhaps some real good has come out of it. God can use all sorts of thing to further His purposes.
I thought the penchant to never claim personal responsibility and always find another on which place blame, thus rationalizing all sorts of abhorant behavior, was particularly characteristic of the us in the U.S. Apparantly, I am mistaken. Candidness (from the bishop) is good, murder for any reason is horrid, but let’s please put the responsibility for murder where it belongs: not a gay bishop (and his supporters), but in the hands of those who actually commit the murder, and in the hearts that are infected with the spiritual (and mental) illness which rationalizes justification for it, and in those who wantonly facilitate it by things such as even denying the existence of certain classes of people and backing legistlation for incarceration for little more than a state of being and reminding us that Muslims don’t have a monopoly on violence and smiling and saying “No comment” in response to a reporter’s question about knowledge and condoning of a murderous rampage by those who represent an organization that one is president of. If murders occur in Africa, that is to be lamented, prayed for, and worked against. But the cause is not a gay bishop; the cause is those who actually commit the murder and/or facilitate it.
#3: Why is it I don’t believe that your point fairly covers the issue? First of all, if VGR had received his fame by winning a gold medal at the Olympics instead of by pushing his cultural agenda, I still would not want him as a role model for my children. He has absolutely no humility and just wants to be in the face of everyone who disagrees with his theology. To me his theology is “I’m God†just like Muhammad Ali used to say “I’m the greatestâ€.
Second, mankind by its nature is tribal. People will always delineate between “us†and “themâ€. If the “them†have such an abhorrent notoriety to foreign cultures causing extreme condemnation, they know it and still want to be in limelight, and consciously try to represent the norm of a larger “them†(Anglican Christianity), they do take on the responsibility for the violence.
Earlier this week I ran into a good friend that I hadn’t seen for a long time. She is a single Muslim woman. I instinctively reached out to hug her. I caught myself, because in her culture that would be forbidden. I have to respect her cultural boundaries. VGR has no public respect for anybody’s boundaries. Blame does fall on him.