“And, may I just add, that I agree with Archbishop Rowan (and others) when he says that “the overwhelming concern of most Africans is clean water, food, employment, transparent governance.” To that, I would also add quality education, adequate health services, and freedom from the power of sin and oppression by demonic spirits. We do, in fact, spend much more of our time focused on these issues, along with evangelism, than on homosexuality ”“ despite the imbalance portrayed by the press.
“But, what we in the Global South have strongly maintained is this: When you are known to be the “Gay Church” and a church that can’t discipline itself, that severely hinders our ability to engage our communities on such issues as clean water, food, employment, and good governance. That is why we must resolve this conflict. It is not a matter that we can “agree to disagree” about homosexuality (and the underlying theology that leads one to the acceptance of homosexuality) and still pursue together the Millennium Development Goals. Our credibility and integrity as a church are seriously undermined because of the lack of resolution of the current crisis. It is not enough to be able to say that the official position of the Anglican Communion is Lambeth 1.10, because the lack of enforcement of that resolution seems to, in fact, render it null and void.
“The crisis in the Communion is about authority ”“ biblical authority and ecclesiastical authority. Regrettably, all the proposals coming out of the Windsor Continuation Group have been tried in the past five years and failed. However, even before we begin a re-examination of the Instruments of Communion and, in particular, the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury, we do have within our structures the ability to bring order out of the present chaos. Sadly, though, the Archbishop of Canterbury missed his biggest window of opportunity. If, in the end, the only means of discipline is through his power of invitation, he has, through his decision to invite the persistent violators of Lambeth 1.10 to the Lambeth Conference, blessed the deviations of the American and Canadian Churches, which have been consistently condemned by the other three Instruments of Communion.
How clearly said and truthfully! He should be the ABC!
“If, in the end, the only means of discipline is through his power of invitation, he has, through his decision to invite the persistent violators of Lambeth 1.10 to the Lambeth Conference, blessed the deviations of the American and Canadian Churches, which have been consistently condemned by the other three Instruments of Communion.”
Who can argue with that?
[blockquote] We do, in fact, spend much more of our time focused on these issues, along with evangelism, than on homosexuality – despite the imbalance portrayed by the press. [/blockquote]
It really needs to be stressed that it is the North Americans and other allies insistence in ramming through doctrinal changes with respect to sexuality that means faithful believers in other countries need to spend time on these issues. If the western apostates weren’t focusing on destroying the biblical injunctions on aberrant sexuality, the remainder of the Communion would not be focused on it at all.
It’s not homosexuality. Consider this scenario: What if the Americans were trying to get blessings of an adulterous relationship – whereby the priests would bless mistresses (or whatever the male equivalent is). If instead of the current situation, Gene Robinson were still married to his first wife and openly living with a mistress. In such a case, the Episcopal elites would be whining about the Global South and its fixation on adultery.
In all that is happening – including the so-called “incursions” – the cause is the western faction’s rejection of “biblical authority and ecclesiastical authority” as Archbishop Orombi observes. But for ECUSA’s decision to walk apart from the Communion, there would not be local churches in the US begging for orthodox Christian fellowship and stewardship.
[blockquote] If, in the end, the only means of discipline is through his power of invitation, he has, through his decision to invite the persistent violators of Lambeth 1.10…[/blockquote]
Well, two can play at that game. ++Williams also invited the ‘persistent violators’ of Lambeth 72:1&2;(1988):
[i]This Conference:
1. reaffirms its unity in the historical position of respect for diocesan boundaries and the authority of bishops within these boundaries; and in light of the above
2. affirms that it is deemed inappropriate behaviour for any bishop or priest of this Communion to exercise episcopal or pastoral ministry within another diocese without first obtaining the permission and invitation of the ecclesial authority thereof.[/i]
If ++Orombi wished ++Williams to not invite those who consecrated +Robinson (‘persistent violators’ of Lambeth 1:10), then ++Williams could also have validly not invited those who consecrated the ‘irregular’ bishops (‘persistent violators’ of Lambeth 72:1&2;). Which would have meant ++Orombi wouldn’t have been going anyway. 🙂
I think there is a lot worthy to be unpacked here. If there are few gays in Nigeria or Kenya or Uganda, why is it considered a gay church. My own church isn’t considered “gay,” and we’re firmly in TEC.
Sulik’s example, unfortunately, isn’t very accurate…. gays are trying to get out of promiscuity and enter into the marriage institution. A more accurate problem is divorce and serial monogamy among heterosexuals.
What is the church doing about those two?
John W, evidently you know nothing about the power of Islaimc propaganda in Nigeria, Uganda and Sudan, not to mention all the activity of Colin Coward’s ‘Changing Attitudes’ in Nigeria – but actually you do know about that, as does everyone who reads this blog. And believe it or not, they do have the internet in Africa!
#3 William. You have hit the anvil dead center with the sledge hammer. I think 50 years has been enough to say that it may be time to leave.
A strong statement by Bp. Orombi. Clearly mere association (communion?) carries a burden for them.
As for cross diocesan border interventions, TEC has always had control over this issue: simply adhere to the faith and refuse the innovations. Then, of course, nobody could possibly dare to venture that TEC has left the faith. Seems like such a small price to pay… but then.
😉
[blockquote]When you are known to be the “Gay Church” and a church that can’t discipline itself, that severely hinders our ability to engage our communities on such issues as clean water, food, employment, and good governance.[/blockquote]
If the people who disagreed with New Hampshire’s choice of a bishop had not spent the last six years hollering about it, the powers than run Uganda would likely not think of the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion as a “Gay Church”.
Not to mention, that part of his argument boils down to: an Episcopal Diocese in the United States, when electing a bishop, should consider the sensibilities of the Muslims in countries like Uganda and Nigeria. Personally, I don’t believe General Convention or individual US Episcopal dioceses SHOULD take African Muslim opinion into account.
“Archbishop Henry Orombi: “No. I am not suggesting that the Archbishop of Canterbury should resign. And, for the record, it was The Times (of London) that approached me about writing an essay on why the Church of Uganda Bishops were not attending Lambeth.”
A very helpful opener, since the headline in the paper claimed ++Orombi had called for the ABC’s resignation – twisting the real words spoken into a blatant lie.
With that out of the way, ++Orombi goes on to say exactly what needs to be said, and was not said so clearly from Lambeth.
John Wilkins:
– Serial monogamy in heterosexual relationships is a major and continuing problem (esp. in developed countries?). Will this be a problem with validated homosexual relationships?
– Have you asked a nondenominational Christian, or a Baptist, or a Pentecostal, if your church is “gay?” I submit that your self-opinion of your church may not be universally agreed to. You might continue to ask others about your church in the years and decades to come.
An interesting experience about being the “gay” church, while we were in an Episcopal church in Midland, Texas some members found that when inviting guests to our church, they received “Oh, so you are in that gay church” as a reply. That’s one reason why our parish left TEC.
Merionj
“A more accurate problem is divorce and serial monogamy among heterosexuals. What is the church doing about those two?”
Its a fair and pertinent question……but in all honesty, I cannot abide physical expression of man love as naturally consequent. One man, one woman.
#9 Teg: Maybe in the shallow view you enunciate, the Muslim sensibility (or the minority Christian in a Muslim land) should not ‘be taken into account’, (as you wrote in your post):
But that clearly demonstrates the BIG PROBLEM with your viewpoint: it’s to human beings, it’s the BIBLE that takes homosexual practice into account, and says over and over that such activity is WRONG for a follower of Jesus, the Christ! So, what is your stand: do you or DO YOU NOT want to be a disciple of Jesus the Christ? For all of us sinners (whether we live in a hedonistic secular society, a repressive Muslim society, or somewhere in between), it’s that simple: homosexual activity (not homosexual proclivity) is WRONG FOR CHRISTIANS: and that difficult. GROW UP AND TAKE YOUR STAND.
12. I have had folks make the same remarks in at least FOUR totally different states in the US. It is the ‘moniker’ of TEC: the church that says ‘what the heck’ to just about anything (except perhaps tacky, middle-class people).
This paragraph strikes me as pointing to the most significant deviation within the Communion over the past 18 months, the usurpation of the Primates’ authority by the ABC. It appears he was not happy with their uppityness at Dar es Salaam and decided to relegate them to the role of occasional advisors. By manipulating the invitations and agenda of the Lambeth Conference, its uppityness – demonstrated in 1998 – has now been stifled in a fog of indaba.
When one looks for the reasons behind GAFCON, one finds a convergence of concern about theological and ecclesiological deviation. It was assumed after 1998 that the Primates would be the body monitoring the response to the Lambeth Resolutions. That role has now been hijacked by the ABC and whoever he chooses to appoint to assist him. The GAFCON Primates’ Council is, among other things, a move, however partial, toward righting the balance.
BTW, for those who care to speculate, while I live in Uganda, I have nothing to do with preparing Abp. Orombi’s statements. He is quite capable of speaking for himself. I just happen to agree with him and so does the Church here.
#5 The Times stated the whole communion is now termed “The Gay Church.”
Thank you, Dr. Noll, #16, for once again pointing out how the Communion instruments are being manipulated by Canterbury. The results of the Primates’ meetings were unsatisfactory to him, and so he has come up with ways to bypass both the Primates and now the Lambeth conference. This will only work if the Primates consent to being manipulated. The GAFCON, and I hope the larger Global South group, Primates are seeing the light and acting like archbishops despite Canterbury.
FANTASTIC! The clarity and truth in this statement are exemplary. It saddens me that such a leader had to stay away from Lambeth, a decision I regrettably understand and support.
When I think of the 100s of pages of fog that Lambeth produced (which I still haven’t even begun to finish wading through, having only skimmed about 4 pages of the Reflections document so far), and then compare it with this by +Orombi, the contrast is telling. Oh for more leaders who write and speak up with such force, conviction and clarity.
16: Dr Noll: thank you.
It is this distinctly non-conciliar (uncatholic) aspect of the ABC’s actions that invites attention from commenters such as the ACI. I would also appreciate evaluation of the implications that a single instrument/bishop may reject or interfere with the actions of the other instruments.
In this context, GAFCON looks downright catholic to me.
RE: “If the people who disagreed with New Hampshire’s choice of a bishop had not spent the last six years hollering about it, the powers than run Uganda would likely not think of the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion as a “Gay Churchâ€.”
That’s it — if only conservatives had been quiet about this minor issue, all would have been well and [i]nobody would have known [/i].
Sarah–We think alike, as usual. I am glad to know it was my fault not VGR, NH and GC 2003. I always knew somehow, I was guilty. I think it has to do with not reading my baptismal vows before breakfast every day. And to be brutally honsest, I confess I haven’t memorized the MDG’s yet. By the way, Tegularius, if the police hadn’t arrested him, we never would have heard of Charlie Manson. He gives me the creeps–darn those police.
CMsigler: I think you’ll have the same problems in gay relationships that you might have in straight relationships. Most relationships are different, and even within them we fall short. It’s just easier to condemn others than it is to condemn the greater population which is busy sinning away.
CMsigler – you might be right. Let’s unpack it: the term “gay church” which – I’m guessing is pejorative? Because Episcopalians are agnostic about specific acts taken out of context. It doesn’t bother me that they don’t want to come to the Episcopal church – they might not be happy with people who can’t get all exercised about gay people. Is it accurate or true? That’s more interesting to me.
What has been happening (at least in my neck of the woods) is that those straight people who just don’t buy RC, Pentecostal, Baptist or non-denominational line on gay people are coming into the Episcopal church because they don’t think gay people are insults to God. Some people want to be in such churches.
#14 – Little Cabbage, the problem is that some of us Christians don’t think the same way. What do we do then? Anti-homosexuality in Islam demonstrates, to me, that it is incomplete in its understanding of God’s love. Their view of homosexuality just makes it another religion like any other. Christianity has saved us from God’s wrath through the love of Jesus in the light of his resurrection. This allows sinners to come close to him, of all sorts and conditions. This is so radical, it changed human culture. True? Or not true?
John Wilkins are you saying all other denominations except for TEC view gays as “insults to God”?
I thought it was homosexual activity that was proscribed in Holy Scripture. Why is it difficult to separate ones desires from ones actions so that the former then defines the individual?
Sin was once a way of life for me. Although I felt at the time that my desires were always justifiable it wasn’t until I surrendered my will and my life to the Lord that my eyes became less myopic. It wasn’t all about me after all. And while I may not yet be the man God wants me to be, I thank God that I am no longer the man I used to be. I know firsthand the transforming power of Jesus Christ because I did not change, rather I WAS changed. And to me those “gay christians” who view homosexual activity as irrelevent to God’s inclusive love are missing an opportunity to experience the power of Christ. It seems as if their desire to live their lives as they please questions Scriptural authority by which other followers of Christ measure their faithfullness to Him. How can one love Jesus but only follow those commands one agrees with? How does that save anyone from God’s wrath?
RE: “Because Episcopalians are agnostic about specific acts taken out of context.”
No we’re not. Revisionist Episcopalians are agnostic, but not the rest of us.
RE: “Some people want to be in such churches.”
Heh. Fewer and fewer, it appears . . . fewer and fewer.
Hey the Roman,
RE: “John Wilkins are you saying all other denominations except for TEC view gays as “insults to Godâ€?”
Yeh . . . JW’s into hyperbole, though, as a replacement for rational argument. Good way to score a few rhetorical points. ; > )