As hard as this may be to hear, the Episcopal Church of the Sudan may be showing the Communion a way forward. Recently the Archbishop of the Sudan made some very strong statements about Bishop Gene Robinson and the Episcopal Church. Since the Sudanese along with Liberian bishops and some others had been invited by our Presiding Bishop for a reception tomorrow afternoon, when we first learned of Archbishop Bul’s statement to the press, we thought it signalled a rejection of us and a further splitting in the Anglican Communion. This does not appear to be the case.
We in the Episcopal Church have always said that we do not demand agreement with our positions in order to be in relationship. Now is the time to live into that commitment. The Archbishop of the Sudan was signalling to the rest of Africa, and I imagine particularly to the bishops of GAFCON who have stayed away from this conference, that he and the Sudanese are not being “bought” by the Americans. They do not agree with our actions, just as our other partners in Africa do not necessarily agree with us. And still they are choosing to be in relationship with us.
Hold in mind the words of Bishop Mdimi Mhogolo to me when we first entered into a partnership for Carpenter’s Kids. “We do not agree with your decision [concerning Gene Robinson] but we think the division is the devil’s work to keep the church from ministering to a suffering world.” Of course, Bishop Mdimi said those words to me in private and the Archbishop of the Sudan went very public very unexpectedly. Nevertheless, I believe we should keep this particular door wide open. The Sudan is one of the places where extreme poverty and extreme violence combine to produce some of the greatest suffering on this earth. As long as the bishops choose to be in relationship with us, we can move ahead to minister together to this suffering world.
I am so tired of listening this this manipulative con game. She has just said that there is no division so severe that TEC cannot accept it as long as the opponent accepts TEC. This is tolerance? No indeed, this is absence of principle. I said this before of those I have met who tolerate anything: The grant to others what they so desperately hope to get for themselves. And this is TEC. If we hang around with people like this on street corners, we will get marked by the cops ourselves.
++ Deng’s response ought to be clear. Correct me if I misread, but did he not say, in essence to TEC,”We want nothing to do with you because you and vgr are joined at the hip” – if that is where they are joined. And this should be all Anglicans response to TEC: “YOu are theological and psycho-social poison. Get thee behind me.” How can we not recognize Darth Vader even if he puts on stole and funny hat?
Aw, man — when I saw the opening, I thought she was agreeing that VGR should be tossed out of the episcopacy!
Seriously, if TEC had any sense, that’s what it would do. I don’t know anything about the canons but, objectively, this guy isn’t a proper bishop. He spends most of his time on tour promoting GLBT causes, his books, and movie; he advocates for abortion and makes appearances for Planned Parenthood; he even publicly endorsed a presidential candidate. VGR is clearly an activist and politician, using the episcopacy for political purposes and to feather his own nest. He should be deposed.
Being at the same meeting does not a relationship make…..
Why is this absence of principle? If antything, it is a principled decision to say “I disagree with you, I think you are absolutely wrong, but I’ll still stay connected.” It is simply a different principle. It is a mature view.
TEC is not forcing the archbishop to agree. The archbishop seems to believe there is nothing wrong with learning to love the people you think are wrong.
Actually, #3 – the archbishop, and several Sudanese bishops, have spent a fair amount of time with the clergy and laity of New York.
It makes us look better…
It doesn’t really matter what we believe…
Sorry John, but I think you are wholly wrong in this matter. If you wish to take my daughter out and I know you think that you can talk her into going to bed with you, shall I say, “I will not allow this, but we can still be connected because I will let you take my daughter out. I simply want you to understand my point of view.” All this means is that “wrong” isn’t anything more than a matter for discussion. In short, I care more about my self than I do about my daughter. No, John. If wrong means anything to me and I care about my daughter, my answer is,” Get the hell out of this house and don’t you get anywhere near my daughter.” In short, your argument makes right and wrong meaningless because to you they are just words. LM
Larry – the problem is that the issue is really between your daughter and me. Not between you and me. My hope is that you would trust your daughter to make the right decision.
If she had integrity of her own, she’d know to say “no,” and I’d respect her for it. Of course, you assume that I’m the one talking her into sleeping with me, when it might just be the other way around.
🙂
The other way is to just say you won’t let your daughter go out with me, but that I have to be at the dinner table with you when I come over. It’s your house, after all. I will respect your house. Why wouldn’t I?
No, John, absolutely wrong. If my daughter is an adolescent then I have a complete responsibility to keep her out of harm’s way. This is not some theoretical liberal world babble, but the real world talking. Dad MUST do his job, and if that means keeping my daughter from playing with fire, then so be it. Right now, she obeys me – regardless of her fury – she can love me later. If I do not enforce the moral law from the time she is able to say NO, and I WANT…, then she will NEVER internalize the law, never make it her own. External discipline becomes self discipline, and this is exactly what Christ intended.
What is laughable is your assumption that if she said NO, you would respect her for it. (I do not speak to you personally here.) Any father who thinks that young males operate by this rule are living in some other world than this.
LM
Well, Larry, that’s an assumption I didn’t have.
As a liberal… I agree with you. I thought she would be of consenting age. In fact, I kind of assumed as such.
I don’t even date women younger than 26.
The liberal world-view does not deny that fathers and mothers have the prerogative to raise their children. I think that’s a mistake lots of conservatives make: that liberals don’t believe in any boundaries. It’s just not empirically true.
But I think its interesting that you assume that people are immature in this arrangement. I think of people as being adults here.