Well, that's disgraceful.

Lord have mercy!

If Christ hadn't been resurrected he'd turn in his grave!

The anglican bishops are ceasing to surprise me.

Sowing and reaping .........

But because of my own Evangelical background, I suppose, the failings of Evangelicals cut deepest and hurt most somehow.

I think i am a recovering fundamentalist and doubt full recovery from the pain will become possible ......

It seems that they are so concerned about sexuality that they can't deal with such mundane things as justice and mercy.

The press reports exagerate. I wouldn't read the bishops letter as entirely supportive of Mugabe's disgraceful regime, although it is critical of the sanctions. I doubt that the Bishops from Zambia, Botswana and Malawi would have signed a letter directly supporting Mugabe.

"We call upon the government of Zimbabwe to provide a framework for peace by creating a conducive environment for dialogue and tolerance."

"As Bishops we denounce all forms of violence perpetrated by whatever source as a means of resolving conflict. As this is a degradation of those created in the image of God. We want to make it unequivocally clear to all of our people, that we do not condone what is happening in Zimbabwe."

"We call upon the civil society in Zimbabwe to articulate and promote the practice and respect of human dignity by all social and political ways in the building of a culture of governance that respects the sanctity of life."

They'd probably think differently if Mugabe was gay.

Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing we have come to expect from the so-called "Global South." If it doesn't involve penises, vaginas, or --saints preserve us!-- anuses, then it's not a moral issue, apparently.

What an absolute, unspeakable disgrace.

On the other hand, the Roman Catholics of Zimbabwe have given the world a heroic example of what it is to speak truth to power. Thank God for them.

This is one of those situations where duckshoving really comes into play.

We're being cruel because of harsh sanctions claims one group. Another group claims to put in place sanctions because of cruelty to the peoples.

The mistreatment of Zimbabweans is to be deplored (and any aliens in their midst).

It does also raise the question of sanctions. My observations are that sanctions are becoming a failed tool and should probably be considered an act of war. They are equivalent to laying seige to a walled city and hoping to starve the people into submission.

The people hurt by sanctions are rarely the power brokers. It is typically the most vulnerable in the community: the poor, women, children, the afflicted, or outcastes. Sanctions actually exacerbate community tensions as the fear of shortages and unnecessary deaths leads to people behaving in more aggressive fashions. e.g. "If there is not going to be enough to go around, then at least my family/sons will survive." or "If there is not enough to go around, if we eliminate a few of our enemies mouths then there is more food for our allies".

That said, priestly castes need to be careful not to be seen to be endorsing cruel or repressive regimes. That is the what Jesus hated about certain Phariseans and others during the Roman occupation: they had become apologers and justifiers of the cruel Roman empire - remember there were crucifixes lining the highways as a form of psychological terror in their occupied nations. Imagine what that was doing to children's pysches at the time. Fast forward to today, imagine what is happening to children's psyches in Zimbabwe, Sudan, Palestine, Israel, Iran or Iraq today...

Any soul or nation who exacerbates these problems or intervenes to create a status quo that serves their economic interests with either no regard or contempt for the wellbeing of a nation's citizens and sojourners has God's emnity.

Isaiah 5:13-21, Ezekiel 34:7-31, Hosea 4, Zechariah 3:11 to 12:8 are worthy rebukes for apologists to cruelty. Matthew 25:31-46 quite makes it clear that both cruel leaders (justifying negligence of their own citizens) or those who impose blockades (depriving from without) are guilty of failing to feed and provide for God's flocks.

What a revolting development this is...but, it figures as it's the same clan of mischiefmaking renegade Anglican bishops who continously inspire ignorance, outcasting, corruption of TRUTH/SOCIETY and preach hate against fellow Christians.

I suppose it's like the Russian patriarch supporting Stalin. The Church continues to break the hearts of the faithful.

More leadership from the "Global South" Anglican bishops.

Well, they have full stomach and are well fed. What else do they care for. They are eating right out of the palm of Mugabe. God have mercy!

It looks like the people who signed this are all Zimbabwean bishops. To take them as representative of all Global South Anglicans. Njongonkulu Ndungane is a Global South Anglican. So is Desmond Tutu. So is Mdimi Mhogolo. So am I, sort of ... at least until Sep 30 (I am Episcopalian, but was born in Singapore).

I have to say, read as is, the requests made by the 14 bishops do seem reasonable. we all do know that Kunonga is a crook with a purple shirt, and that Malango has supported him. But that's all we know.

The US has imposed travel restrictions on Zimbabwean officials, and frozen their assets. That alone doesn't sound too bad, but it also seems that Zimbabwe's rulers control so much of the business sector, and that business and ordinary Zimbabweans are suffering because those assets are frozen. I'm making a logical inference from this article: http://iwpr.net/?p=acr&s=f&o=334461&apc_state=henpacr

How many have posted having just read the spin on the statement and not the statement itself?

A fair reading does not at all lead to seeing this statement as support for Mugabe.

Yes, it says sanctions hit the poor - which they do in part. Maybe the bishops are just being fair in their judgment, unlike some here?

Read their statement and you will see condemnation of violence, including government violence, and a clear statement that sanctions have "exacerbated" and not created Zim's probs. Having said that, there is not enough courageous taking on of corrupt leaders - this is a typical Anglican compromise statement....concessions have clearly been made to Mugabe's friendly "bishop".

I think the RC statements on Zim have been better and braver - but then RC statements on various contentious issues are often more faithful than Anglican fudges.

What Brian highlights here is the speaking-out-of-both-sides-of-the-mouth-in-a-pretence-to-be-middle-ground so carachteristic of the Anglican Communion of late.

Economic sanctions have never been an "efficient" weapons. Simply put, it is too blunt a method to work. It does not even always cause shortages...

But some will get rich.

This comment at Stand Firm by the man behind Magic Statistics may be helpful:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2852/#47539

NP,
I have read the statement. And I note that the very first point made after description of the crisis is:
"We therefore call upon the Western countries to lift the economic sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe. We further call upon the British and American governments to honour their obligation of paying compensation to the white farmers."

While I agree that the statement also calls on Mugabe to create the conditions for "dialogue and tolerance", that sounds as though Mugabe might even have a point that could be defended in a tolerant discussion.

I rather agree with NP (let Solemn Te Deums be sung amid clouds of incense in all Church Society churches). The pastoral letter is hardly the ringing endorsement of all Mugabe's policies that the headline writers would have us believe. That said, it lacks the moral courage of the RC bishops, and is a pretty miserable effort. But who would expect anything else from Kunonga and Malango?

It is interesting to note how coloured it is by cultural and political presuppositions. I thought only liberal westerners allowed such things to intrude.

NP, I read the statement, and it is a disgrace, especially when compared to what Zimbabwe's RCs have had to say.

Trying to steer a middle course and say 'just enough' to both sides they've ended up saying very little, have been misrepresented by everybody, and have missed out on prophetic opportunity. Who do they think they are, the Archbishop of Canterbury?

RR

NP,
I agree, it IS a typically Anglican statement (Care to come to the Te Deum with me and Cryptogram?) it says something that could be seen as critical of the government, but not enough to get them in trouble with the government, and doesn't really blame the government for anything, actually plays the race card in implying that it is Western (white, colonialist) sanctions that have caused the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe (odd they didn't say the same about sanctions in Apartheid era South Africa) and makes sure their well appointed Erastian bummies are covered. Typically Anglican. But, as has been said, what are we to expect from Kununga and Malango? BTW, are Mugabe, Malango, and Kununga all from the same nation (I use the word in the way North American aboriginals do)? I ask because such loyalties are important. African tribalism isn't all that different from the European kind.

I'm so sad about that weakness and submission under a dictator. I commented on the Bishops' Letter in my blog; www.xicoassis.blogspot.com

Revd. Canon Francisco de Assis da Silva
Provincial Secretary of Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil

WOW - TA is bringing the nasty NP, the nice Ford and the very pleasant Cryto together......maybe this dialogue, listening stuff has something to it after all!

"maybe this dialogue, listening stuff has something to it after all!"
Maybe you'll give it a try! (Sorry. I've been pretty nasty all day, NP, take this as a bit of gentle ribbing, not in the tone of previous posts). And we'll meet at the Te Deum. I'm envisioning two thurifers doing Queen Annes at the altar rail. Bring your inhaler!

Goran wrote "Economic sanctions have never been an "efficient" weapons. Simply put, it is too blunt a method to work. It does not even always cause shortages... But some will get rich."

That is the conundrum that has been perplexing me for some time now. If there are embargoes, the powerful within the city/nation still get access to food and medicines. They get it by diverting it from the already impoverished, thus exacerbating their physical and metaphysical wellbeing.

The other issue that I have not seen a lot of discussion about, but really needs to happen, is how globalisation has enabled immoral/illegal traders to buffer themselves from direct action. So arms dealers are no longer just arms dealers, they also have stocks in medicine, food or other service provisions. Their diversified portfolios mean that if arms dealing is taking a knock this decade, the revenues from another area buffer their profitability. Further, their diversified portfolios mean that if you apply sanctions on national grounds, much of their portfolio is based in other nations/offshore. This is further exacerbated by the ease of owning and shedding shares, and the ease with which production can be shifted from one city and/or nation to another. Lester Thurow has done some good economic analysis of this. Like the debate with Jesus and the Pharisees, if you take the names of the characters out of the equation you start to see the dynamics of the interactions. Thurow's books "Head to Head" and the "Rise and Fall of Capitalism" are both worthy reads.

The other problem with the blunt instruments of power, is that the victims are not targetted. Conflicts and civil unrest such as in Zimbabwe and Iraq very badly affect children's wellbeing. This in turn affects their ability to make good decisions or handle conflict when they become adults. This UN report does a good job of looking at childhood impacts in Israel/Palestine/Lebanon http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=22317&Cr=children&Cr1=conflict

The Palestinian children's comment that it is an eye for an eye and tooth for tooth until justice is done is scary. That is because many Palestinians are so inflamed that their idea of justice is the elimination of the Jewish state. It is no wonder that the Jews find it hard to be tolerant when their very existence is in peril.

the 14 bishops' is, indeed, very mild compared to what the RC bishops have said. however, I hate to agree with NP, but there are people here who read the statement without really reading the statement. you all know who you are.

there are some African newspapers who have spun this as outright support for Mugabe. I think that's unscrupulous. the Associated Press article I first read (before I read the statement) also reported that the statement was in support of Mugabe.

we rightly criticized two Evangelical Anglican bishops for attacking Jeffrey John over his reported comments on the Resurrection - before they even bothered to read what John actually said. we should hold ourselves to the same standard when we interpret the words of others.

that said, my lot in the Zimbabwe issue is with the Romans, not the Anglican leaders.

I am bringing my guitar, Ford!

Queen Annes

Is that what we used to call Spanish Eights???

Queen Annes

Is that what we used to call Spanish Eights???

Likely. I've never seen it done, and the prospect of hot charcoal and resin swinging around in a figure 8 makes me ever so nervous, but, liturgy is supposed to engage the whole created being, including one's adrenals, I assume. And bring along your guitar, NP, but none of that modern guff. If we're going to sing "your" kind of hymns, can they be Sanky and Fannie Crosbie? Dodgy theology, but oh my what a lovely sing! (Totters off singing "There's power in the Blood, power in the Blood".) No, that last bit isn't sarcastic, I LOVE those old hymns.

When I was an RC, back in the days when we still took incense seriously, we used to attribute such thuriferistic ballistics to the Ethiopians, who wowed Vatican II with their liturgies in St. Peter's.

Congratulations NP and Ford !

"the Ethiopians"
Aren't their Masses 7 hours long or something?

Today's item in the Times about the apparent poisoning of Fr Rodney Hunter in Malawi is disturbing. Ruth Gledhill (or the sub-editor) contrives to suggest a connection to the "liberal" and "gay" agenda, though without much evidence except that Rodney had been against the election of an English priest as bishop in Lake Malawi diocese. The province of Central Afrtica does seem to be in a mess. Maybe Abp Malango should spend less time on the perceived iniquities of TEC and more on those of a province where an inculturation of a different and more dangerous kind seems to have a grip.

Cheryl - I have to correct you on a point of fact. The European Union sanctions (and as I understand it the US sanctions as well) target a select list of about 30 top ZANU-PF officials, preventing them from travelling to the EU or USA and preventing them from moving the proceeds of their pillage out of the country. They are not general economic sanctions. They do not impact on the majority of Zimbabweans.

At a time when thousands of Zimbabweans, white and black, are fleeing to the UK every year as a result of their government's banditry, I think it would be grotesque to allow those most directly responsible to pop over to London a few times a year for shopping trips in Kensington. The Southern African Development Community, parallelling the Anglican Bishops, chooses to do nothing.

The Mugabe government has publicised the letter as an endorsement, and follows the line of Bishop Malango, one of Mugabe's staunchest supporters. However framed, it turns a blind eye to the appalling suffering inflicted by one of Africa's most bigoted and violent leaders.

One of the signatories to this letter is Rt Rev Trevor Mwamba, who is taking Mass as a guest of honour at Keble College, Oxford, on 3 June. I suggest all those in the area with opinions on Zimbabwe try to attend and make your views known.