Click to enlarge

Zimbabwe’s courts and its police support the push by Nolbert Kunonga, shown in his Harare offices, for Anglican authority.
Buy photo

Tsvangirayi Mukwazhi for The New York Times

As President Robert Mugabe, 87, pushes for an election this year, the harassment of independent churches seen as hostile to his government has intensified.

Truncheon-wielding riot police officers stormed a Nazarene church here in the capital last month to break up a gathering called to pray for peace. Days later, the authorities in Lupane arrested a Roman Catholic priest leading a memorial service for civilians massacred in the early years of Mr. Mugabe’s decades in power.

Mr. Mugabe, a Roman Catholic, recently denounced black bishops in established churches as pawns of whites and the West, singling out for special opprobrium Catholic bishops who have “a nauseating habit of unnecessarily attacking his person,” the state-controlled Herald newspaper reported.

But it is leaders of the Anglican Church, one of the country’s major denominations, who have lately faced the most sustained pressure. Nolbert Kunonga, an excommunicated Anglican bishop and staunch Mugabe ally, has escalated a drive to control thousands of Anglican churches, schools and properties across Zimbabwe and southern Africa.

“The throne is here,” declared Mr. Kunonga, who has held onto his bishopric here in the sprawling diocese of Harare through courts widely seen as partisan to Mr. Mugabe. He has also been backed by a police force answerable to the president, whom Mr. Kunonga describes as “an angel.”

By Savi Hensman

26 May 2011

Recent news items have raised serious doubts about the Church of England’s commitment to equality and justice.

In 2003, Church of England priest Jeffrey John was chosen as Bishop of Reading, then forced to back down because he was gay. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, though a friend of his, was afraid that appointing him would harm church unity. Many lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGB&T) people felt hurt and betrayed.

In 2010 John – an outstanding pastor and preacher – was one of the candidates for the vacancy of Southwark. John is in a longstanding but celibate relationship with his civil partner. But there was a huge row over an alleged breach of confidentiality when the press found out, and he was not selected.

A Guardian article by Andrew Brown in May 2011 contains disturbing revelations about what happened, and ongoing attempts by top church leaders to prevent even celibate gays from becoming bishops.

According to the newspaper report, based on a memorandum by the late Dean of Southwark Colin Slee, who was involved in the selection process, Williams was fiercely opposed to appointing John. Both he and Archbishop of York John Sentamu apparently put intense pressure on other panel members. Slee believed that the source of the leak was Williams’ approach to lawyers when he sought legal advice on how to block any chance that John would be selected. The archbishop’s staff dispute some aspects of the account by Slee, who later died of cancer.

Secrecy around LGB&T clergy is heavily entrenched in the Church of England, which is hardly the most healthy environment for spiritual flourishing. According to Slee’s memo, there several gay bishops “who have been less than candid about their domestic arrangements and who, in a conspiracy of silence, have been appointed to senior positions”.

Bishops are reportedly now divided over whether gays in civil partnerships but pledged to celibacy should even be considered for episcopacy, in case this upsets those Anglicans in England and abroad who are most hostile to homosexuality. Church lawyers have reportedly said that, while candidates cannot be turned away simply because of their orientation, those in sexually active same-sex relationships should be refused and acceptance of even those who are celibate but partnered might be in question, since bishops must “act as a focus for unity”.

Equality, prejudice and power

This raises an important issue: is it lawful, let alone ethical, to discriminate against minorities on the grounds that others might be prejudiced against them? No doubt there are parts of England where anti-immigration sentiment is running high and some congregations would find it hard to accept a black person born abroad as their new bishop. Should this then be a bar, or should the church instead challenge such views and work with those congregations to help them to live with diversity?

But there is another factor besides prejudice at play here: power.

In recent decades, increasing numbers of theologians, and others in church and society, have come to believe that, in the words of a Church of England working party report in 1979, “there are circumstances in which individuals may justifiably choose to enter into a homosexual relationship with the hope of enjoying a companionship and physical expression of sexual love similar to that which is to be found in marriage”.

This proved too radical to be accepted at the time, but eminent Anglicans including Williams – then a professor of theology – and John continued to make the case for acceptance, as attitudes shifted.

In 1991 the House of Bishops produced Issues in human sexuality. This set out the official line that sex should only take place within heterosexual marriage, but accepted that there were people who were homosexual in orientation, who should be treated with respect, and that laypersons might, in good conscience, enter into faithful and committed sexual relationships with the same sex. Clergy however were expected to abstain. It was accepted that ongoing discussion was necessary.

There was however no ban on loving lifelong same-sex friendships, involving emotional intimacy and mutual support. Some, like John and his partner, deferred to church discipline and accepted this, a huge (some might think excessive) sacrifice, while continuing to hope for change.

Many Anglicans – including a number of conservative evangelicals – were prepared to continue discussing the issues involved. But some insisted that their interpretation of the Bible on this matter was sacrosanct, and threatened to leave if there were moves towards greater inclusion.

Increasingly in Anglican circles in England and particularly overseas, this faction gained ground. Some, especially in churches other than the Church of England, were openly homophobic, showing hostility or contempt towards those of lesbian or gay orientation (since they believed that those with sufficient faith would not even be attracted to the same sex) and/or regarding sex between two men or two women as worse than heterosexual ‘sin’.

When Jeffrey John was chosen as Bishop of Reading in 2003, nine Church of England bishops (one of whom later apologised) wrote a public letter of protest, stating that:

Dr John has many admirable qualities for the work of a bishop. But the issue is ‘what is acceptable sexual behaviour in God’s sight? By his own admission he has been in a same-sex relationship for twenty years. We value, of course, the gift of same-sex friendship and if this relationship is one of companionship and sexual abstinence, then, we rejoice. We warmly commend such relationships to the Church as a whole.

We are glad at the reassurances from the Bishop of Oxford that Jeffrey John’s life is now celibate. But it is the history of the relationship, as well as Dr John’s severe criticism of orthodox teaching, which gives concern…

We must… express our concern because of the Church’s constant teaching, in the light of Scripture and because of the basic ordering of men and women in creation.

We must also express our concern because of our responsibility for the Church’s unity, both in this country and throughout the world.

Yet theological diversity has long been accepted within the Church of England. For instance, though for decades there has been official acceptance that women can validly be ordained, people are still free to argue against this. Indeed, the Church of Englsnd has tied itself in knots to try to accommodate the small minority opposed to women’s ordination. Again, the notion that Christ’s death was the work of a wrathful Father goes against official church doctrine, but those who argue for this view have not been barred from becoming bishops.

Some of their overseas allies were less tactful about gays and lesbians. Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria wrote that “if homosexuals see themselves as deviants who have gone astray, the Christian spirit would plead for patience and prayers to make room for their repentance. When scripture says something is wrong and some people say that it is right, such people make God a liar. We argue that it is a blatant lie against Almighty God that homosexuality is their God-given urge and inclination. For us, it is better seen as an acquired aberration… Homosexuality or lesbianism or bestiality is to us a form of slavery, and redemption from it is readily available through repentance and faith in the saving grace of our Lord, Jesus the Christ.”

It is noteworthy however that, in England at least, there was acceptance in principle of celibate but loving same-sex relationships even by those strongly opposed to full inclusion.

Unity in diversity

When Dr Williams gave way to this faction, he encouraged them to become bolder in their demands. This in itself became a strain on church unity, as they came to see any refusal to accept their own views as rebellion against God.

When civil partnerships became law in the UK, a 2005 House of Bishops pastoral statement was issued. This stated that “The House of Bishops does not regard entering into a civil partnership as intrinsically incompatible with holy orders, provided the person concerned is willing to give assurances to his or her bishop that the relationship is consistent with the standards for the clergy set out in Issues in Human Sexuality. The wording of the Act means that civil partnerships will be likely to include some whose relationships are faithful to the declared position of the Church on sexual relationships”.

Since then, the case for full acceptance has been increasingly strongly made by Anglican and other Christian theologians, and many in the Church of England now fully accept LGB&T people in loving and committed relationships. However, others have continued to push for an even narrower stance, and the archbishops have shown great reluctance to offend them, while being quite willing to alienate those who feel that exclusion goes against God’s will for the church.

If Church of Engalnd leaders continue to discriminate against even those lesbians and gays who have made considerable sacrifices out of respect for church discipline, there will be considerable damage to its credibility as a force for love and justice in the world. It will also be harder to have a reasoned debate on sexuality and related issues if senior clergy are afraid to express their views, and indeed share their experience, with their brothers and sisters in Christ.

Reference:

Andrew Brown, ‘Church of England tied in knots over allowing gay men to become bishops’ (Guardian, Wednesday 25 May 2011) – http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/25/church-england-gay-clergymen…

May 24, 2011

Posted by geoconger in Church of England Newspaper, Church of the Province of Uganda.
trackback

Archbishop Henry Orombi

First published in The Church of England Newspaper.

“Ugandans, your faith is under test,” Archbishop Henry Orombi has warned, as spiralling food and fuel prices have led to political and economic unrest in the East African nation.

Prices for basic foodstuffs and fuel have risen sharply over the past year in Africa. Following weeks of demonstrations, riots erupted in the centre of Kampala on April 29, the day after opposition leader Kizza Besigye was arrested by police for protesting the sharp increase in food and fuel prices.

The World Bank’s “Food Price Watch” for April 2011 reported the price of basic commodities had risen sharply due to a rise in fuel costs, poor harvests in key grain exporters and rising consumption.

The report found that over the past 12 months the cost of maize (corn) had risen 114 per cent in Uganda, 65 per cent in Somalia and 48 per cent in Rwanda. The price of rice had risen 26 per cent in Malawi, and wheat had risen by 87 per cent in the Sudan. In the past three months maize prices rose 27 per cent in Nairobi and 25 per cent in Kampala, at the same time as fuel costs rose 21 per cent.

Reports from Kampala state that between six and ten protestors were killed by the police during clashes with the security forces following Mr. Besigye’s April 28 arrest. Accompanied by approximately 100 supporters, police smashed the windscreen of the opposition leader’s car and sprayed him with tear gas when they arrested him.

In his Easter address, Archbishop Henry Orombi said Ugandans were right to be concerned “when food and fuel prices are soaring; when our young ones remain unemployed; and when our mothers, wives and sisters die during child birth.”

“It is true that at the moment, the cost of living in Uganda is very high. The levels of disgruntlement are manifested in the headlines of our papers and on the screen. The growing number of street children, high morbidity rates, poor nutrition and social abominations like child sacrifice rage on.”

However, faith not fear was the answer. “In the act of dying on the cross” Jesus “catered” for our needs. “At the cross we find freedom from the power of sin and death. Through Jesus we find much needed peace to carry us through the storms of life and only through Jesus do we actually get the wisdom to find solutions to our troubles,” Archbishop Orombi said.

The archbishop asked “all Ugandans to continually adopt peaceful, lawful, and unifying strategies to address their challenges.”

The government had its job to do as well, the archbishop said. In a sermon preached at the consecration of Bishop Rueben Kisembo of Ruwenzori before a congregation that included President Yoweri Museveni, Archbishop Orombi urged the appointment of a cabinet that would serve the people, not just politicians.

“I request you, Your Excellency to surround yourself and create space for new thinking, new blood, new brains, and new people who will contribute to your manifesto and strengthen your ability to deliver your mandate to the people of Uganda,” the archbishop said on May 7.

May 27th, 2011 

The Anglican Church in Southern Africa (ACSA) has published material partially produced in this blog for World Environment Day on June 5. Some of this material has been seriously questioned by Fr John Freeman, a priest and scientist in South Africa. I have not been able to reproduce the sections of relevant liturgy, but the challenges need to be taken seriously by all. Needless to say, Fr John has had no response. The cover picture is also shown here.

CLIMATE CHANGE

“Climate change is real, and it is happening now.

In large parts of sub-Saharan Africa, this is a reality. The poor, the vulnerable and the hungry are exposed to the harsh edge of climate change every day of their lives. The melting of the snows on the peak of Kilimanjaro is a warning of the changes taking place in Africa. Across this beautiful but vulnerable continent, people are already feeling the change in the weather. But rain or drought, the result is the same: more hunger and more misery for millions of people living on the margins of global society. In the past 10 years, 2.6 billion people have suffered from natural disasters. That is more than a third of the global population – most of them in the developing world. The human impact is obvious, but what is not so apparent is the extent to which climatic events can undo the developmental gains put in place over so many years.

It is time to stop this cycle of destruction.”

(Archbishop Emeritus Tutu)

A PRAYER FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

God of light and life,

we see you in the rising sun,

the wind blowing through the fields of maize,

and the feel of a life-giving shower of rain.

Help us to see your light reflected throughout creation.
God of compassion,

you are there with those people

who are facing the effects of a changing climate,

and are affected by floods, droughts and famine.

Show us how to be there with them too.
God of truth and justice,

you hear those people around the world,

who struggle to make their voices heard.

Open our ears and the ears of those in power

to hear the cries of those living in poverty.
God of hope,

we see you in people who refuse to give up,

who will not lose faith and keep on fighting,

for your earth and for your people.

Lift us, so that we may never lose hope.

Amen

Adapted from Michaela McGuigan/CAFOD

COP 17

What is it?

From Monday 28th November to Friday 9th December 2011 the eyes of the world will be on South Africa – and in particular on Durban. Negotiators and political leaders from around the world will gather at the 17th Conference of Parties (COP) to the United Nations Climate Change Conference.

Why is it important?

Time is short and firm commitments need to be made by governments to decrease rapidly their carbon emissions, as the Kyoto Protocol comes to an end in 2012. Although ‘developed’ nations are reluctant to make carbon emission cuts, climate change is increasingly evident around the world.

What is the role of the Anglican Church?

The Anglican Church is playing a key role in mobilising other faith communities to join in the work of influencing governments to make these firm commitments in Durban. At a local level, through the networks of Anglican environment groups and activists such as the parish, regional and diocesan environment groups in the Diocese of Natal, under Bishop Rubin Phillip who is based in the host city of Durban, Anglicans are being encouraged and educated to work at both a local level – through initiatives such as greening their parish and fostering small organic vegetable gardens – and at a wider level – through taking part in ecumenical and interfaith actions.

The Anglican Church is also a founder member of the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI), working with people of many Christian denominations as well as other major faith groupings in the work for an ecologically sustainable world. SAFCEI is well placed to head up the faith communities’ insistence that governments of the world carefully consider the moral and ethical implications of the COP17 negotiations, and not only their own narrow financial and diplomatic interests. The call is for a radically different approach to world politics, if planet earth as we know it is to be saved for humanity.

Pray for:

Durban activities planned by SAFCEI: a large rally of people of faith on Sunday 27th November and a prayer service on Sunday 4th December. The programme has the full support of many faith leaders including Archbishop Thabo Makgoba and Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu who will be participating in the rally to call the world’s politicians to follow moral and ethical principles in meeting the threat of climate change. The one way to meet this challenge is to follow biblical principles of justice and equity for all of God’s creation.

Anglicans are invited to come to Durban in numbers to be part of this great initiative of faith communities and civil society across the world. We will be part of civil society’s watching brief to show our governments that the world is eagerly waiting for an outcome from the COP17 deliberations that will bring justice to the world and enable sustainable, ecologically-sound development for all people, especially those most in need and the poorest of the poor. This is our opportunity to witness to our faith, and publicly to put our faith into action, calling for an ethical and moral outcome to the COP17 talks.

“It is now abundantly clear that we have at our fingertips all of the tools that we need to solve the climate crisis – the only missing ingredient is collective will. The climate crisis is an unparalleled opportunity to address at long last, many persistent causes of suffering and misery that have long been neglected and to transform the prospects for future generations to live healthier more prosperous lives.” (Gore, A. Our Choice – a plan to solve the climate crisis.)

The liturgical material here has been adapted from the Season of Creation (authorized by Archbishop Thabo for use in ACSA)

RESPONSE FROM FR JOHN FREEMAN

DALE AHLQUIST

The fear of death is universal and quite natural. In fact, Chesterton calls the fear of death common sense, “a coarse and pitiless common sense.”

G.K. Chesterton 1874-1936

We all know we are going to die, and we all hate the fact that we are going to die. Because death is something rotten. It is the “failure of the flesh.” In fact, Chesterton used the fear of death to make people better appreciate life. That is why when someone said that life was not worth living, Chesterton took out a gun and offered to shoot the person. Suddenly, for some reason, when you’re staring down the barrel of a gun, life isworth living! Life is good. Life is precious.

While the fear of death is universal, the fear of damnation is more personal, more individual, because the fear of damnation is the voice of our conscience. It is calling ourselves into judgment. It is the inescapable sense that if we were to get the judgment that we really deserved, it would not be pretty. Justice is something we all want when we feel we have been wronged. But justice is something we really don’t like to think about the rest of the time, which is most of the time. Our fear of damnation is really only a deep realization that God is just.

Just as Chesterton used the fear of death to evoke a deeper appreciation of life, he uses the fear of damnation to create a deeper appreciation of salvation. The fear of damnation is usually portrayed as something very negative, but Chesterton does not hesitate to portray it as a very positive thing. In his book on St. Francis of Assisi, he writes:

“A very honest atheist with whom I once debated made use of the expression, ‘Men have only been kept in slavery by the fear of hell.’ As I pointed out to him, if he had said that men had only been freed from slavery by the fear of hell, he would at least have been referring to an unquestionable historical fact.”

It is the fear of hell that freed the slaves. Slaves were not afraid of hell, but slave-owners were. Thomas Jefferson fretted about the fact the newly formed United States of America, founded on freedom, had not freed the slaves. He was worried, he said, “because God is just.”

Throughout history, the saints and other lovers of justice have preached for the reform of society, to make it more just, to make it less hellish for the poor and the oppressed. They used simple words about good things like bread and land and children and churches, and simple words about bad things like crime and sin and death and hell.

They were preaching to the smug and the self-satisfied, to those who abuse every one of God’s gifts, including the gift of language, to create philosophies to rationalize away religion. Chesterton calls these philosophies of “unfathomable softness.” They have forgotten God certainly. But their big mistake before that, was that they had forgotten hell.

When you forget hell, it means you have forgotten the larger reality outside of yourself. You have collapsed into egoism and self-centeredness. Hell is separation from God. And just to make it worse, hell is being stuck with only yourself.

Hell, of course, is always portrayed as fire, but when you forget hell, you freeze. (Which is probably why Chesterton compared Scandanavia to hell). Chesterton says, “The place where nothing can happen is hell.” You cannot act. Nothing can happen. You are frozen. That is why hell is symbolized by chains, and heaven is symbolized by “wings that are free as the wind.”

But ironically, you cannot act in this world, unless there is a hell. You cannot act unless you know that your actions are significant, eternally significant. You cannot act unless there are consequences for your actions, whether they are good or bad.

In other words, without hell, there is no free will.

We were made for heaven, but we are not forced to go there. Chesterton says that it is a fundamental dogma of the Catholic Faith “that all human beings, without any exception whatever, were specially made, were shaped and pointed like shining arrows, for the end of hitting the mark of Beatitude.” But the shafts of those arrows, he says “are feathered with free will, and therefore throw the shadow of all the tragic possibilities of free will.”

The most tragic of the tragic possibilities is eternal damnation. The Church has always tried to emphasize “the gloriousness of the potential glory,” but it also has to “draw attention to the darkness of that potential tragedy.”

Chesterton says that another name for free will is moral responsibility, and “Upon this sublime and perilous liberty hang heaven and hell, and all the mysterious drama of the soul.”

There is, however, within Christianity, and even within the Catholic Church, a growing and creeping heresy called Universalism, the idea that everyone no matter what will go to heaven. This is clearly contrary to the teaching of the Church, and yet we see in many places an increasing resistance to talk about hell, about the “tragic possibilities” that accompany the glory of free will. The Universalists have done the Protestants one better. The Protestants reduced the scheme of salvation to “faith alone,” but the universalists have even dumped faith. Now it’s salvation no matter what.

But human dignity depends on the doctrine of free will. Chesterton says that another name for free will is moral responsibility, and “Upon this sublime and perilous liberty hang heaven and hell, and all the mysterious drama of the soul.” The drama of the soul is this amazing possibility that “a man can divide himself from God.” But even more dramatic is that a man can be reconciled to God. It is not logical – or theological, for that matter – that we can be reconciled with God if we cannot be separated from him.

Hell is not a subject to be avoided; it is a place to be avoided. Not thinking about Hell is a great danger. We might even fool ourselves into thinking there is no Hell. But thinking about Hell is a very good idea. It is a good way to keep ourselves out of it.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Dale Ahlquist. “A Happy Little Reflection on Hell.” The Catholic Servant (2011).

Reprinted by permission of the author, Dale Ahlquist.

The Catholic Servant – a tool for evangelization, catechesis and apologetics – is published monthly and distributed free through parishes and paid subscriptions.

by Andrew Goddard and Giles Goddard

This article appeared in Church Times, 20^th May 2011.

part of the ongoing conversation in the Goddard 2 Goddard series

The Anglican Communion is not, of course, the only denomination in which this subject is bitterly divisive. Next week, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland will debate the subject. There are lessons to be learned from the way they have proceeded.

After a divisive debate two years ago about the induction of a minister in a same-sex relationship, the General Assembly, “for the sake of the peace and unity of the Church”, appointed a special commission, representing a breadth of opinion, to consult and prepare a study.

Its report, to be debated next Monday, is illuminating reading. Nine people have met roughly each month since June 2009. Although they report “many discussions in which we have not reached unanimity of view”, they note that this “has not prevented us from working together closely and with mutual confidence”.

The church-wide consultation which they undertook, probably unprecedented, reveals the scale of the disagreements in the Church. About three-quarters of the nearly 25,000 people involved in the consultation have a clear position on same-sex relationships. Asked whether a person in a civil partnership should be permitted to be an ordained minister, 46.2 per cent of elders said yes; 47 per cent said no.

The perception of this issue’s importance is also illuminating. Ten per cent of elders would regard a decision to ordain people in a committed same-sex relationship as “heretical”, and 28 per cent as unjustified by scripture. On the other hand, refusing to ordain was seen as heretical by four per cent, and unjustified by scripture by 24 per cent. Twenty per cent viewed the decision either way as “not particularly significant”.

Asked whether certain situations would make them “consider it obligatory to leave the Church of Scotland”, 19 per cent of elders said that this would be the case “if the General Assembly were to allow people in committed same-sex relationships to be ordained as ministers”; eight per cent would consider leaving if the General Assembly forbade such ordinations.

Nor is sitting on the fence comfortable: 12 per cent of elders said that they would leave if “the General Assembly were to decide not to make a clear statement on this issue”.

We suspect that similar findings would result if the Church of England were brave enough to undertake such a consultation. That is, of course, one reason why it has shied away from an orderly, constructive, nationally-led conversation. The question now is whether such an avoidance strategy remains wise, or the best way to discern the mind of Christ.

In addition to its survey, the Church of Scotland commission consulted widely with other Churches. It also explored the science, something often ignored (although it was thoroughly explored in the guide, sadly under-used, edited by Phil Groves in 2008: The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality).

The commission concludes that the Church should not determine the ordination issue “unless and until it has reached a view on the status of such relationships and the appropriateness or otherwise of allowing a minister to recognise and celebrate a life-long committed same-sex relationship in a form of a blessing or other liturgy”. This is because the dispute “is essentially a theological dispute about whether same-sex activity in a committed relationship is contrary to the will of God”.

Despite its differences, the commission reports that, “through discussion and patience, there was a great deal on which we agreed”. It is unanimous that “it is contrary to God’s will that Christians should be hostile in any way to a person because he or she is homosexual by orientation and in his or her practice” and that traditional teaching should not be classed as homophobic.

The commission calls for preserving the current moratorium on ordaining those in same-sex relationships but wishes to establish a theological commission to enable “a sustained theological addressing of the matters before the Church”. It also asks the General Assembly to signal the trajectory it wishes the Church to take. Should it consider an indefinite moratorium or consider lifting it and ask for a theological report to include advice on a form of service for blessing same-sex relationships?

As two people who hold opposing views on this issue, and want the Church of England to follow different trajectories, we believe we can learn from our Scottish Presbyterian brothers and sisters. We need to move beyond the current stand-off and instead engage in serious and substantive conversations, not just talks about talks.

As the Archbishop of Canterbury said, part of the problem is that the subject “has become a cardinal example of how we avoid theological debate”. We urgently need an “opportunity of clarifying” how different perspectives “see the focal theological issues”.

Some formal structure therefore needs to be established to enable “robust but respectful debate” in the context of deepening relationships. This needs to resource and listen to the wider church. As in Scotland, this is unlikely to resolve disagreements but it may enable greater respect between opponents and help us move beyond the current options of either staying silent (as have most bishops) or joining a political campaign on one side or the other.

We believe that the Church of Scotland report helps to identify key areas that we need to explore. It also highlights the urgency of addressing these and our divisions over them. We need to find new and better ways of doing this if, as we hope and pray, we are to find a faithful way forward together.

The Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is a member of the leadership team of Fulcrum; the Revd Canon Giles Goddard chairs Inclusive Church.  They are not related.

May 23rd, 2011 

by Michael Nazir-Ali

You cannot blame a politician for liking rhetoric, and President Obama’s speech on the Middle East is full of it. His favorite word “change” occurs often, and there are idealistic expressions like “a season of hope.” But what was wrapped up in the sugar coating, and will it be acceptable to the American people and those who value freedom in the world at large? A few observations on those questions:

Throughout the speech, I had a recurrent sense that he was not addressing the U.S. and its people but Muslim opinion in the Middle East and beyond. Some scholars have written about the dhimmi mentality, i.e., a subservient attitude developed towards Muslim rulers by Christian, Jewish, and other communities that were allowed to survive, but under heavy restrictions, in the Muslim world. It has sometimes been held that the West’s response to events in the Muslim world betrays a similar mentality, brought about by fear. Was the president’s speech an example of this?

The president seemed understandably but unduly optimistic about the aftermath of Osama bin Laden’s death. It will undoubtedly affect some of al-Qaeda’s operations, but extremist Islamism is now so decentralized that it will have little effect, for instance, on the Taliban in Pakistan or Afghanistan, or al-Shabab in Somalia, or even on AQ in the Arabian Peninsula. It would be a great mistake to see bin Laden’s death as the end of radical Islam. It may in fact lead to his becoming an icon or a martyr in exactly the way that the president does not wish.

Read here

News Analysis

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
May, 2011

If one has any doubt about where the Anglican Communion as a whole is going, look no further than the ever increasing encirclement of evangelical Global South Anglican wagons around the liberal-revisionist West.

A council of Anglican leaders who make up the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) representing more than 35 million Anglicans now plan to meet for a second time in 2013 in Jerusalem (the first was in 2008). They also plan to open offices in London and Nairobi.

This move to plant a Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) office on UK soil can only be viewed with alarm by Lambeth Palace. It is the first major encroachment on the turf of the Mother Church by orthodox Anglicans from the Global South and must be taken with tremendous seriousness. This is happening while a number of Church of England Anglo-Catholic bishops, clergy, and laity are fleeing to Rome under the offer of an ordinariate by Pope Benedict XVI. Evangelicals within the CofE are flexing their own muscles opposing both the possibility of women bishops and the acceptance of pansexuality that are being covertly and publicly endorsed by the Church of England.

With the announcement of the opening of a GAFCON office in London, African, Asian and Latin American Anglicans might just as well fly banners over the city and take out ads in “The Times, Guardian” and “Daily Mail saying”, “We’re not taking it any more” and hope the Archbishop of Canterbury is looking out his window at Lambeth Palace and listening.

The Global South’s non-appearance in Dublin earlier this year spoke volumes. They said they were disappointed that those who organized the Primates meeting in Dublin not only failed to address their core concerns over morals and discipline, but that they decided, instead, to unilaterally reduce the status of the Primates’ Meeting.

“This action was taken with complete disregard for the resolutions of both Lambeth 1978 and 1998 that called for an enhanced role in ‘doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters’. We believe that they were seriously misled and their actions unacceptable,” they said.

The GAFCON primates have now thrown down the gauntlet making it very clear that the great divide (some might call it a schism though that is not a word they use) has widened even further with an office in London. It will not only address their concerns but bring evangelicals into the Church of England to say they have friends in the Global South who believe as they do. Despite all the nonsense talk about cultural differences and worship styles, the core beliefs of the Global South are in exact accord with evangelicals in the CofE.

Furthermore, as whole dioceses in England, many of which are liberal, depend on the financial largesse of these core evangelicals, the establishment of the GAFCON/FCA (Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans) office must be viewed as a serious threat to their hegemony.

In their recent meeting, the Global South Primates reaffirmed the statement of orthodox faith formulated at GAFCON 1 in 2008, known as the Jerusalem Declaration. This stands in marked contrast to the Anglican Covenant which has been circling the globe. The Archbishop of Canterbury hopes it will draw the Anglican Communion together, but it has, in fact, become a lightning rod for dissent in The Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Anglican Church of Canada, (ACoC). It has been endorsed by Mexico, South East Asia and the West Indies. The Church of Ireland has “subscribed” to the covenant, while, the Province of South East Asia, has issued a “letter of accession.” Three other Anglican Communion provinces have officially adopted the covenant. They are The Anglican Church of Mexico, The Anglican Church in the West Indies, and the Church of the Province of Myanmar. It is by no means a slam dunk in either TEC or the ACoC.

In strong language, the Primates stated, “We believe that the theological principles outlined in the Jerusalem Declaration offers the only way forward that holds true to our past and also gives a sure foundation for the future.” The use of the word only cannot be overlooked or taken lightly. If that is the case, the Anglican Covenant document must be viewed as little more than Chamberlain’s “peace for our time” Munich Agreement document. We all know how well that worked.

Now the lines are being sharply drawn and the focus is becoming clearer.

In the U.S., the growth of The Anglican Mission (TheAM) and the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), with new dioceses forming in TEC territories and the growth of the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC), and the Anglican Coalition in Canada (ACiC) continues apace. They are pouring new evangelical wine into new wineskins even as the old wineskins of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada dry up and dissipate. By any reckoning, this can only be an embarrassment to Dr. Williams as he tries to hold a flailing communion together.

Global South Primates are planning a second GAFCON in 2013 to be preceded by a leadership conference in New York in 2012. This can only be seen by Dr. Williams as a smack in the face against his authority as GAFCON represents more Anglicans than he does. What about the failure of pan-Anglican liberalism doesn’t he understand?

Tucked quietly away in the 13-point statement issued after their Nairobi meeting was this, “We continue to be troubled by the promotion of a shadow gospel that appears to replace a traditional reading of Holy Scriptures and a robust theology of the church with an uncertain faith and a never ending listening process. This faith masquerades as a religion of tolerance and generosity and yet it is decidedly intolerant to those who hold to the ‘faith once and for all delivered to the saints’. We believe that the theological principles outlined in the Jerusalem Declaration offer the only way forward that holds true to our past and also gives a sure foundation for the future.”

This is a direct attack on Dr. Williams himself. The term shadow gospel comes from a book by Charles Raven titledShadow Gospel: Rowan Williams and the Anglican Communion Crisis in which the author argues coherently that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s theology and the real problem facing the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion are not so much an ecclesial deficit as a confessional one. He argues that what Williams really believes is the shadow, not the substance of the faith. This has blinded the West and infuriated the Global South who have seen through his ecclesiastical and theological gerrymandering with his efforts to hold the Anglican Communion together at one Primates’ meeting after another. That day is done. GAFCON is a repudiation of the Lambeth Conference. The Jerusalem Declaration is a repudiation of a failing Covenant. The GAFCON primates meetings signal the end of any future meeting of Primates called by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

It also signals the end of the Instruments of Unity as having any binding authority on the Global South. They have seen how manipulated they have been by Canon Kenneth Kearon of the Anglican Consultative Council and will have nothing more to do with him. They also believe the so-called Listening Process is nothing more than a way of desensitizing orthodox Anglicans into believing that sodomy is good and right in the eyes of God when it is not.

They will also never sit down again with Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of The Episcopal Church (TEC) and, by association, the Anglican Church of Canada, which is little more than a clone of TEC. Their archbishop is easily manipulated by a revisionist bishop like Michael Ingham of New Westminster. Jefferts Schori is paying obeisance to New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson or Mary Glasspool of Los Angeles. Pansexuality has triumphed in the West; it is a non starter in the Global South.

As Charles Raven observes, GAFCON is clear in its intention to build “alternative institutions” and they won’t be stopped, stifled or inhibited in moving forward. As Kenyan bishop Bill Atwood noted, GAFCON is not forming an “ordinariate.” It is a movement among Anglicans to promote mission to share Jesus Christ with the world and, as the Jerusalem Declaration makes clear, it is doing so in the Anglican way.

It is clear we are fast approaching what is called the “end game” in chess. The institutional and intellectual challenges GAFCON is now committed to are huge. They amount to founding the Anglican Communion afresh. The Primates have embraced their divine summons with sober faith in the power of the resurrection. As Kenyan Archbishop Eliad Wabukala observed on his appointment as Chairman of the GAFCON Primates during the Nairobi meeting, “I recognize that we have set ourselves a truly monumental task but we serve God for whom nothing, not even overcoming death itself, is impossible.”

Dr. Williams should take note.

Steve Kryger
May 19th, 2011

18 “Imprint these words of mine on your hearts and minds, bind them as a sign on your hands, and let them be a symbol on your foreheads. 19 Teach them to your children,  talking about them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 20 Write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates, 21 so that as long as the heavens are above the earth, your days and those of your children may be many in the land the LORD swore to give your fathers.” – Deuteronomy 11

I really want to know and love God’s word. The Fighter Verses iPhone app by Desiring God is helping me to do this.

You can learn more about the Fighter Verses Program here, and download the app (for $3.99) here. It’s well worth it – just by waiting for trains and having showers, I’ve memorised 5 passages in a week!