As I noted in a comment to an earlier thread, the controversy is not one in which the churches in the western democracies (US, Canada, Australia, etc.) are seeking to impose their view of sexual morality on the Africans, but rather one in which the Africans seek to impose their view on the western democracies.

This letter merely confirms that view.

BTW, as anyone ever asked Archbishop Deng Bul his opinion regarding the actions of the government of Sudan in Darfur? It occurs to me that he ought to have bigger (and more local) fish to fry than the bed partners of priests and bishops on the other side of the world.

Sudan has more problems and tragedy than just about any other place on earth. I completely fail to see how whether Gene Robinson is or is not the Bishop of New Hampshire is going to do anything to relieve those problems.

It's worth noting that in Sudan, homosexuality is not only criminalized, it is punishable by death. Sudan's Sharia-influenced law offers the death sentence for the first offense for a man and the fourth for a woman.

Will the bishops of Sudan seek to "transform unjust structures of society" and speak out against these laws? Maybe the West and the Global South can make some mutually agreeable concessions here.

Oh, so sad.

Perhaps this is the moment when it (= the present Lambeth Conference or the whole thing?) starts to unravel. I do hope not.

How on earth could it be criminalized, when according to the Archbishop it does not exist there:

from _Episcopal Cafe_

Asked whether there were homosexuals in Sudan, Deng said, "They have not come to the surface, so no, I don't think we have them."

"It's worth noting that in Sudan, homosexuality is not only criminalized, it is punishable by death.""

Well now we know why there are no homosexuals in the Sudan....

Does anyone else detect the fine hands of Duncan, Minns, and the other usual suspects here?

The whole thing needs to unravel - how can anything remotely worthwhile exist when these sort of poisonous views are part of the whole? This is just simple homophobia, reflecting a fundamentally homophobic religion - conservative evangelical Christianity.

Appalling tosh.

Sickening abnegation of resposnsibility for human rights and well-being.

Nothing better to do or say ....

"Does anyone else detect the fine hands of Duncan, Minns, and the other usual suspects here?"

Nooo,noooo, surely not!

No, Merseymike. How easy it is for you, with your monofocal, manichaean perspective on (seemingly) everything, to say this. In other respects, some of these Sudanese bishops are very good people (I know one of them): far, far better than you (certainly) or I (certainly).

You have no interest in preserving Anglicanism. Some of us do. It's impossible - oh, so obviously impossible - to make any clean divisions between 'liberals' and (bigoted) 'conservatives'.

Get a life.

JPM "Does anyone else detect the fine hands of Duncan, Minns, and the other usual suspects here?"

Well, something certainly smells fishy. David Virtue announced on Sunday that this Sudanese statement was coming, therefore his conservative circle certainly knew. It was also released to him first via 'intermediaries' yesterday.

While the Sudanese Primate is certainly opposed to homosexuality, he's no friend of GAFCON (refusing to personally attend) or supporter of 'border crossings' either. He also opposed the Lambeth boycott and felt his church wasn't consulted by CAPA about it, and denies suggestions of 'bribery' by TEC (saying those African conservatives who accuse them of it are being 'hypocritical'). See the interview with him, at the end of June, reproduced in a forum post here:

http://www.madingaweil.com/forums/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=37808&sid=8f4acef3fa1e16261b19e75721081a26

It might appear to some that the Episcopal Church of the Sudan is placing the making the Gospel subservient to the Koran, and is also accommodating popular local mores.

This certainly isn't the Jesus I know. (With apologies to +Bob Pittsburgh).

In fairness to Archbishop Deng, The ECS also issued a statement on Sudan as reported by Episcopal Cafe

"Finally: Just as I am writing, the Church of Sudan has released two statements, one is a statement on the genocide in Darfur, the precarious situation of the church in Sudan and the church’s hope that the Communion will support the full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005."

That said, I think that TEC and ACC would argue that our respect for the authority of Scriptures and the Gospel message it contains has moved us to take the positions we have - thus the good Abp's previous points aren't relevant.

I can respond only with an excerpt from something I am reading on leadership written by Margaret Wheatley

"Life relies on diversity to give it the possibility of adapting to changing conditions. If a system becomes too homogenous, it becomes vulnerable to environmental shifts.Where there is diversity in an organization, innovative solutions are created all the time; just because different people do things differently. Almost always in a diverse organization, the solution the organization needs is already is already being practised somewhere in that system. If leaders fail to encourage diverse ways of doing things, they destroy the system's capacity to adapt. Organizations and societies are so complex, filled with many intertwining and changing interests, personalities and issues, that nobody can confidently represent anybody else's point of view. But there is a solution to this dilemma. We can ask people for their unique perspective. We can invite them to share the world as they see it. We can listen to the differences. And we can trust that with curiosity, we will create a much richer mosaic from our unique perspectives."

The Indaba process, as I understand it, is about listening. As a Canadian who might dare to call myself a "normal Christian",I hope there is less speaking and more listening by the Bishops at Lambeth than we are hearing today.

So much for sitting together at God's table as equals. How can this Bishop turn his brother away? Jesus Himself shared bread with those that His society, the 'scripturally faithful' deemed unclean.

"Does anyone else detect the fine hands of Duncan, Minns, and the other usual suspects here?"

When you look at this item in the list of demands the presences of those hands becomes even more apparent.

"- To cease court actions with immediate effect;"

John; get real. Anglicanism as a united group is finished. It is dead.

There is simply no way of reconciling people of such utterly different views. I am quite sure that conservative religionists are quite capable of deciding who is liberal and who is conservative - even if you are not! People might be 'good' but they are also homophobic - so, make your choice. Accept their homophobia of you think your Anglican communion is worth keeping. I think its a worthless, pointless, outdated waste of time and energy.

I said many years back that this would end in a split. It will. Stop trying to prevent the inevitable and agree to split in a civilised and decent way - what good is this sort of rancour doing for anyone??

>>>When you look at this item in the list of demands the presences of those hands becomes even more apparent.

"- To cease court actions with immediate effect;"<<<<

That is exactly what tipped me off.

It has been suggested that homosexuality does not exist in the Sudan - such a patently obvious unreality, as is the request by the Archbishop of the Sudan that Bishop Gene should resign. What Abp Deng is suggesting - no doubt with the support and urging of the fundamentalist element present at Lambeth - is that TEC and the Church of Canada has no right to specific justice goals which brought forth the need to acknowledge the presence of homosexual - as well as heterosexual -clergy and people within the diverse mixture that is Christianity in their territories.

This cultural issue should be seen, and dealt with by the bishops at Lambeth, for what it is - a perception in certain areas of the world that God did not create homosexuals, and that their orientation and behaviour is against the plan of God for creation.

For the bishops of the Global South to try to impose their mores onto the rest of the Communion is akin to saying that the predominent Muslim population of the Sudan should be compelled to become Christians. This is not the way in which the propagation of the Gospel works in the world of the West - or anywhere else.

I disagree. The problem is that western churches are trying to impose their views. Not only on the Africans, but on other westerners, as well!!! Anyone that disagrees with TEC's policies on homosexuality is at risk of being called prejudice. What difference does it make to be in a church that claims it tolerates all opinions if it legislates policies that are offensive and uscriptural.

I think churches in American should worry about increasing their membership and relevance rather than attempt to tell the Sudanese what their concerns should be. That is the western arrogance that has caused division in the communion.

"Anyone that disagrees with TEC's policies on homosexuality is at risk of being called prejudice."

How terrible for you, D. Smith. What a risk!

{Sarcasm/Off---tell it to Davis Mac-Iyalla!}

I'd be angrier at the Archbishop of the Sudan, if I didn't pity him: as Bob Dylan sang so long ago, "he's only a pawn in their game".

God bless +Gene Robinson!

Isn't it curious that no-one has balked at the presence, as full Lambeth participants, of Old Catholic bishops ++Joris Vercammen (Netherlands) and +Joachim Vobbe (Germany), both of whose churches have endorsed the blessing of same-sex unions?

Maybe TEC should quit having to put up with anymore cr*p and join the Union of Utrecht instead. Heck, maybe we all should.

Pat writes, "As I noted in a comment to an earlier thread, the controversy is not one in which the churches in the western democracies...are seeking to impose their view of sexual morality on the Africans, but rather one in which the Africans seek to impose their view on the western democracies."

But that is precisely what Christians are suppose to do, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..."

What ABp Deng Bul states should be obvious. What is done in California affects Christians trying to carry out the Gospel mission in the Sudan:

"This has not only caused deep divisions within the Anglican Communion but it has seriously harmed the Church’s witness in Africa and elsewhere, opening the church to ridicule and damaging its credibility in a multi-religious environment."

To all (including the furious part of myself): please, please, please - don't prop up the headlines by being drawn into intemperate exchanges. Power neutralising, facilitated processes are often uncomfortable for those unwilling to listen and compromise, and raising anger is the best weapon they have to disrupt such processes.

Surely none of us need lose hope or give way to combative instincts? Despite the seemingly carefully-timed media-bombs, the overwhelming impression of the communication coming from Lambeth (Kent) is one of Christian love. A love despite differences. A love that will not let us go.

There is much that we do not agree on, but our common faith overrides it all - massively, conclusively, triumphantly! The words of our Bishop, preaching before he left for Lambeth, keep ringing in my ears:

"What unites us is Jesus Christ!"

It has been, is, and will be: enough.

Shame to see the whole show unravelling so soon. So much for indaba.

Smith - the Episcopal Church isn't telling the Sudanese what to be; as is blindingly obvious from the Sudanese statement, it is the other way round. The arrogance of most of the African bishops lies in their inability to accept any provision in the communion for those who hold legitimate alternative positions, more sophisticated for certain than throwing out the banal 'Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve' conceit. It is that arrogance which is tearing the communion apart.

I'm not a particular fan of Bishop Robinson, but this brings the arrogant meddling of the Foca Faction to new heights. And yes, the line about the lawsuits certainly is telling.

Shame to see the whole show unravelling so soon. So much for indaba.

Smith - the Episcopal Church isn't telling the Sudanese what to be; as is blindingly obvious from the Sudanese statement, it is the other way round. The arrogance of most of the African bishops lies in their inability to accept any provision in the communion for those who hold legitimate alternative positions, positions more sophisticated for certain than throwing out the banal 'Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve' conceit. It is that arrogance which is tearing the communion apart.

Execrable and wounding statements from a Bishop and a Province that should know better. The devil is alive and laughing in Darfur and the Sudan. This is not about west versus south or any other direction. This is about fear and violence towards homosexual Christians and the poor and marginalized in our world. Garret Keizer said it best in June Harpers: "and wouldn't it be nice....if for once, just once, we could achieve redemption without blood, if the empty cross would mean not only the resurrection that gives life but a vison of life beyond this constant, dismal, stupid need we have for sacrifial lambs, and all because we are less afraid of violence than of love."

"I think churches in American should worry about increasing their membership and relevance rather than attempt to tell the Sudanese what their concerns should be."

I am unaware of any American church (TEC or otherwise) dictating sexual mores to the Africans, in Sudan or elsewhere. Rather, TEC has said "this is what we believe to be faithful and righteous," with no attempt to force others to follow their path.

And, if you are referring to my comment regarding Darfur, then I ask you, what Christian could look upon that situation and worry more about sexual mores in a place 4000 miles away than about the devastation in his own country?

What would you have said if, at the height of Hurricane Katrina, the Bishop of Louisiana had come out with a long letter to an African bishop about polygamy in his country? Wouldn't you have thought he had his priorities a little skewed?

D, Smith posted:
"The problem is that western churches are trying to impose their views. Not only on the Africans, but on other westerners, as well!!! Anyone that disagrees with TEC's policies on homosexuality is at risk of being called prejudice. What difference does it make to be in a church that claims it tolerates all opinions if it legislates policies that are offensive and uscriptural.

I think churches in American should worry about increasing their membership and relevance rather than attempt to tell the Sudanese what their concerns should be. That is the western arrogance that has caused division in the communion."

Dear Mr. or Ms. Smith:

Since when are numbers of communicants the measure of truth, or holiness, or the fulfillment of the Sermon on the Mount or the parable of the Good Samaritan?

You are sadly mistaken, and have missed the essential message of Christ completely.

Take your hate, and take your psychosexual fears, and take your mindless attraction to literalism, and return to that place from whence you came.

You will be happier, and so will the vast super-majority of the Global North, as well as many of those who would geographically be in the "Global South", but who reject their single-minded fundamentalism.

If, Robroy, 'credibility' equals the promotion of homophobia, then the problem is with countries and religions which regard that as 'credible'.

If this 'Archbishop;' was any sort of leader he would stand up against Muslim fundamentalists, not ape them and try and put the blame on other people. I have no sympathy for him or his wailing. He and his country and its inhabitants have brought their troubles upon themselves - and now he bites the hand that feeds him.

The one thing I do disagree with TEC on is their far too rose-tinted view of Africa and its corrupt governance and religions. They should learn to put away the begging bowl and stand on their own two feel without having to rely on these decadent western liberals. I'm sure that the religious conservatives would be only too happy to fund them instead ...oh,. sorry, but conservatives don;t believe in that!

The high and exclusively straight righteousness - some would prefer to say, self-righteousness - which delights and rests at such ease in mistreating queer folks, up to and including various global iterations of the death penalty - is its own demonstration of sheer brute, violent prejudice.

Such traditional views, religious or secular-cultural, are the main exhibit in our continuing suspicion that this gospel is not good news, neither for the queer citizens it so eloquently condemns and dooms to death - death death, and all those version of living death like silence and invisibility and disenfrachisements in work or housing or relationships - nor for the friends and family who are dearly related to such queer citizens. We are brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, nevertheless.

The burdens of proof do not rest with those who would challenge, investigate, or overturn this traditional view - but rather with those who still cling to it so fiercely as if orgasms caused earthquakes or crop blight or stillborn cattle.

Alas. Lord have mercy.

"Pat writes, "As I noted in a comment to an earlier thread, the controversy is not one in which the churches in the western democracies...are seeking to impose their view of sexual morality on the Africans, but rather one in which the Africans seek to impose their view on the western democracies."

But that is precisely what Christians are suppose to do, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...""

This presumes--as you always do, robroy--that YOUR interpretation of scripture is unalterably correct and that any interpretation that disagrees with you is not only wrong, but a product of faithlessness. How do you come by this hubris, this all-consuming sense of your own rectitude?

"What ABp Deng Bul states should be obvious. What is done in California affects Christians trying to carry out the Gospel mission in the Sudan:

"This has not only caused deep divisions within the Anglican Communion but it has seriously harmed the Church’s witness in Africa and elsewhere, opening the church to ridicule and damaging its credibility in a multi-religious environment.""

Let me point out that the US is a far more "multi-religious" environment than the Sudan; what you're really saying is that Christians in the Sudan have to knuckle under to Muslim sexual mores in order to avoid [further] persecution.

This incident also shows that despite the design of this year's Lambeth conference, certain individuals will still attempt to promote their political agenda disregarding the indaba structure for their own personal grandstanding. Expect to see a lot more of this!

This is yet another example of one diocese attempting to impose rules on another.

Echoing what Paul H. had to say...my home diocese of Indianapolis (TEC), the Diocese of Brasilia (Brazil), and the Diocese of Bor (Sudan)have been companion dioceses for much of the past decade. Sudanese attitudes towards homosexuality are no secret to those of us active in global missions in the Diocese of Indianapolis, and yet our relationship continues. The Bishop of Indianapolis and the Bishop of Brasilia are liberal to moderate on the issue of people in committed same-sex relationships, and yet our Sudanese companions have not decided that our bishops' stance is a deal-breaker for them. If, after the release of this statement, the Bishop of Bor were to decide to cut ties with us, I am sure that the reaction would be along the lines of "We love you, our Sudanese brothers and sisters. Go forth to love and serve the Lord." Neither side is likely to change the other's mind on this point, but I feel there is still great value in remaining at the table.

Poor man, at best, only 16% of the people in the pews in the UK are likely to agree with his sentiments in this most unfortunate of statements.

I wonder if this might be one of the moments where the Sudanese (if not the FOCAs) overplayed their hand.

A Sudanese gay man gives an account of what life is like in Arab Africa where homosexuality is intolerated.

October 27, 2004: I am Arab, Sudanese national and I am writing to you with regard to the homosexuality in Sudan. In Sudan a kiss can cost you your life. First of all to begin with, I must confess I do not have the word expression to express to you the horror and the fear I am going through.

This is my best friend I am grieving about, it's all happened very quickly, I didn't had the chance to say good bye. It was last year when my friend G (I am not saying his name for my own safety) called me he asked me to meet some where. From the way he sounded I can feel he is in trouble, we have met and he told me that his brother saw him kissing another guy, he told me I think he is going to kill me as he is very anti homosexuality. So I was trying to calm him dawn & I told him don't be ridiculous no body is going to kill you just because of that & if at the time of the incident he did nothing I think he is not going to harm you, I told him to go back home and act as nothing was happened. I wish I said nothing.

Well the next 2 days my friend is been reported missing, I really thought that my friend is hiding some where & I never thought he is gone forever. Sadly the 3ed day he is been found stepped to death near by the river Nile. How sad & furious is that? such loving and caring person didn't deserve to die like that, every body loved him & he had no enemy whatsoever, he is just been condemned to death without no conviction, just like all gays in Sudan. I am going through a severe depression of what happened to my friend, knowing who did this crime I just want people to know about what is going over here, about how human life is so cheap& how intolerant & homophobic people in Muslim countries.

I just wonder is being gay is the only one thing about us? Or is it defines our whole being? Unfortunately for some people the answer is yes. You could be awarded with a Nobel Prize. (You know what I mean!) And for them you'd be just gay. So let me emphasis that our whole being is human being & being gay is only a small part of our being.

http://www.mask.org.za/article.php?cat=sudan&id=571

"It will give them the upper hand to kill our people."
So if we only stand shoulder to shoulder with our Moslem brothers in oppressing homosexuals, the mullahs will give us a pass on all our other errors, such as the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and his death on the cross?

++ Daniel Deng Bul might consider making statements
Re: the Genocide in Darfur - for beginners. Sticking ones nose into another provinces business
has not hindered the African Primates at this juncture , I doubt they will stop now...
It occurs to add...IMHO , Bul , Akinola & company
still believe that Gays wake up one morning and say,
" Hey,,,,I think I'll be Gay the rest of my life"
Being Gay is not a lifechoice , it is one of those
genetic differences that is rampant in every species. And until the African Primates understand this basic of all anomalies , their voices are like "clanging cymbals" , shrill and
of no value in the present discussion.

Yes,the devil is indeed "alive and dancing in Darfur." The travesty that this prince of the communion, head of a province in one of the most God-forsaken places on earth,has the audacity to demean not just +Gene, but all gay people, makes me want to throw-up.And all of the reactionary "media" voices lap up the kool-aide he sells.

Feed my sheep.

Abp of Sudan opposed to homosexuality and wants Gene to resign - this is news??

Compared to many of the comments and arguments I have had the misfortune to have read on other sites such as the Anglican Mainstream Forum, I find this Bishop's letter to be reasonable and grace filled in his context. He gives some insight to the difficulties this situation has placed him in in his cultural perspective.
Perhaps we, in cultures where battles for equality have been won, need to remember the road that brought us here and how ugly those battles were and still are in many places and realize that we are demanding these people make a quantum leap in their own journey that we have set them on.
I believe in inclusiveness and I feel compassion for this Bishop's situation. I pray that there be a solution that will preserve Anglican Unity for those who desire it as he seems to.

Interesting that in April Deng said, "The Episcopal Church of the Sudan believes that God created humanity in his image, irrespective of ethnicity, religion, culture, sex or otherwise, having the same values, rights and dignity," he said. "The Episcopal Church will work hard to eradicate ignorance and assist in the support of the rights of the poor and oppressed, and to remove injustice."

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_96547_ENG_HTM.htm

This latest has at least one inclusive American parish very confused as he visited them last year and happily took their money home with him.

The test of charity in Lambeth is how warmly they stand up for the victims of people like this Sudanese bishop, who blandly accepts the execution of his gay brothers.

"some of these Sudanese bishops are very good people (I know one of them): far, far better than you (certainly) or I (certainly)."

Very good people have been known to mouth racist and antisemitic views in public, when no one took reponsibility for checking them.

First off, I thank Thinking Anglicans. They did a great job covering GAFCON, they're doing a good job with Lambeth.
D. Smith, no one is telling the African bishops or provinces what to do. They don't like gay people? I feel sorry for them, but it's their path to follow. Nobody is stopping them. I resent the African provinces telling TEC what to do.
It's all fine and dandy for Archbishop Williams to talk about conservatives' pain, but what about the pain of gay people and their treament in some parts of Africa, and the brutal language conservatives use to describe gay people in the West? Gay people have to wait until the African provinces approve? I don’t know if they want to wait 400 years.
All this anguish over TEC standing by its man, but no anguish over parish poaching by African (arch)bishops.
If the conservatives here think Robinson is the only gay bishop, they’re kidding themselves. He’s the only one who’s being honest about it.

For me, the tipoff is the puzzling "Two Adams" remark, which sounds suspiciously like the "Adam and Eve/Adam and Steve" meme.

I'm from the Diocese of Chicago, where the archbishop has been welcomed as a friend for years. This pronouncement is going to puzzle a lot of people here.

Indaba was obviously too much for this hot-headed bishop. Could he not listen for a few days at least?

And what a listener to his own flock he must be is he thinks that none of them are gay.

MJ made the following comment yesterday but unfortunately on the wrong thread, so I am copying it over now:

In relation to the Sudanese bishops' statement, a commenter on SF has pointed to statements the Primate of Sudan made in an interview he gave at the end of June, which is reproduced on a forum here - http://www.madingaweil.com/forums/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=37808&sid=8f4acef3fa1e16261b19e75721081a26

In it he makes the following statements, which show that, while opposed to homosexuality, he cannot be said to be aligning with GAFCON and those advocating schism: On the lack of consultation with, and sidelining of, ECS by CAPA "...he does not think split is the way forward. I put it to the Archbishop that, by leading his troops to Lambeth, he was letting down his African brothers who have boycotted the gathering that will bring together an estimated 700 Bishops at the University of Kent in Canterbury. Archbishop Deng in response said the Episcopal Church of Sudan was not consulted under Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA), by the African colleagues who have boycotted the forum, and said the Church in Sudan, one of the fastest growing Church with large population in the Anglican Communion, was sidelined by CAPA and ECS will not be taken by waves but will make its own independent resolution on the future of the world-wide communion. I know that our former Archbishop was in poor health, but the Church Council was there. I was the secretary, CAPA did not meet to discuss Lambeth, or if it did, Sudan was not invited, Deng said on his African brothers who are boycotting Lambeth." On the charge of accepting TEC ‘bribes’: "The Archbishop who has come into office when the world-wide Anglican Communion is going through turbulent times denied that ECS has been induced to remain in the Communion with hand-outs. He shot back at those making such allegations accusing them of hypocrisy. He said such talk was stereotype view of ECS but in a tone that seemed to explain that there are hand-exchanges behind scene, the primate said: Who has not been given money? We know what is happening. We are conservatives too but those claiming to be conservatives are not honest. We should stop being hypocrites and preach the truth." On boycotting Lambeth, and GAFCON: "Deng said, boycotting Lambeth, a traditional meeting place of the Anglican Bishops for alternative gathering in Jerusalem was not the solution to problems of the Anglican Church and that is why he refused to attend Global Anglican Future Conference (Gafcon) he said, but confirmed that he had sent two Bishops to attend the conference ending in Jerusalem...He said during the African-American Bishops meeting in Spain last year which he attended the Bishops in Africa were open to their American brothers on the issue of human sexuality and he believes the Church in America is aware of the stand of the Episcopal Church of Sudan." On ‘missionary bishops’ and ‘alternative oversight’: "The Archbishop criticized the idea of missionary bishops and said it was setting a dangerous prototype in the Anglican Communion. Why consecrate a white bishop in Africa and call him Bishop of this state in America? Deng questioned. For example, the tradition is that I cannot preach in Uganda leave alone ordinate a priest without the consent of the Archbishop of Uganda, he said."

I suggest that the bishops at Lambeth should ask Archbishop Deng to apologize and to obey conference rules. If he refuses, ask him to leave.

Nearly all of us here agree that the Archbishop's views on homosexuality are wrong. What follows? It's quite pointless mouthing off about how wrong he is. The fact remains that this is a grievous blow to Lambeth. The question is: what does one DO? None of us, of course, can actually DO very much. But I think 'liberals' should at least recognise that the Sudanese bishops are in other respects very good people who are living in a very difficult situation. We should not damn them as primitive Africans. We should still continue to fight both for 'liberal Anglicanism' and for staying together.

I do strongly urge all who can do so to watch the two-part video of the entire episode on ENS. There is no substitute for hearing the exact questions he was asked, and listening to the answers that he then gave.

And you get to see the reporters' faces too...

Many thanks to ENS for providing all this.

Also, I am trying to get the OTHER statement made by the Sudan bishops, about the political etc. situation in Sudan, published electronically. So far nobody seems to have it.

Plus the fact the Sudanese Episcopal church has voted for women bishops...I dion't think that GAFCON would like that....as Uganda, kenya and Rwanda keep their women priests in their place.

The Sudanese Primate’s statement reads: “Women and men were created as God’s agents and stewards on earth”

Only not as “women” or “men”, but as Persons.

The traditional (Academic = Neo Platonist) view of “Human sexuality” BTW was Chastity for All and Abstinences for the Ordained.

It was still around when (and where) I was a child.

The Idea of Men and Women as different/symmetrical/opposite categories is Modern, 19th century. Impossible in the Traditional mindset of One Gender; Man (Senior; Sperm, Hat and Sword) with subordinates (juniors): Woman (Gnostic Sofia, the daughter of Eve lacking Sperm), Celibatarians (Academics/Priests, wearing frocks!); Children (pais, garçon!); Slaves (also pais, doulé!).

The distortion of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 (Social Politics) as the “headship” of Man and the re-subordination of Women comes in “The Bond that Breaks (!) Will Homosexuality Split the Church”, by a certain Don Williams, California 1978…

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=243

But the Church teaches that God is a Communion of Persons seeing humans as part of that Communion.

So the faulty (Scholastic, Humanist, Dynamic Equivalence) Exegetics of this Anthropocentric statement – as does anti-modern Social Policies generally – diminishes the Gospel of the Incarnation (Jesus) and of God’s Righteousness in Christ to the level of a Theology of Body Parts.

Perhaps these Bishops should re-consider this mixis of their culturally induced anti Muslim Policies and calls for the exclusion of their Christian sisters and brothers…

It seems to me statements such as this, not the actions of the CofE, TEC, ACofC and others, that seriously harm “the Church’s witness in Africa and elsewhere, opening the Church to ridicule and damaging its credibility in a multi-religious environment.”

Little matter how you perceive it, by this unfortunate letter the Cat is out of the proverbial Bag.

Perhaps a starter for some real talk and some real listening? beginning with some awareness about how the way we express our attitudes is perceived in different quarters??

Father Ron Smith wrote: “For the bishops of the Global South to try to impose their mores onto the rest of the Communion is akin to saying that the predominant Muslim population of the Sudan should be compelled to become Christians. This is not the way in which the propagation of the Gospel works in the world of the West – or anywhere else.”

This seems to me to be about the Leadership of the Muslims of Sudan imposing their age old (cultural, all too human because Alexandrian Neo Platonist) Ideology on Christians!

Simon Sarmiento on Tuesday, 22 July 2008 at 7:18pm BST and others,

For Sudan se page 37 of this brochure http://www.rfsl.se/public/ilga_govbedroom_2006.pdf

THE PENAL CODE

Chapter VI

OFFENCES AGAINST HONOUR, REPUTATION AND PUBLIC MORALS

Article 148 SODOMY

(I have seen an Amadija Koran in English containing a reference to Sodom as “Sodomy”, the category first known from non Kosher Hellenist “Wisdom” literature (academically challenged Philo of Alexandria and double renegade “Flavius” Josephus, né Levi), around the year 0, but I do not know if this reference is in fact in the Koran or the work of the translator.)

The ENS video of the Sudanese primate at the press conference is, indeed, remarkable.

"For us, when you look at that one, God is not making a mistake of creating Adam and Eve. He would have created two Adams if he wanted. But now what we are saying, we are saying now God is wrong of creating the different sex. So that is a concern."

In answer to the question whether he had talked to Gene Robinson - "I personally I am not going to talk to him because he has first of all to confess and if he confess this is where the time now we have to talk to him."

In answer to a question about the listening process - "Well, their listening should not be in the table, not on the table, should be in the periphery so that we listen to them, but you cannot bring the listening on the table whereby you will make a decision something then will engulf everybody in the Anglican world, so listening of somebody who made a mistake with something of extraordinary within the Bible should not be a part of the whole church."

To the question is it worth listening to gay Christians "I am saying it should be away because it is not part of my culture. I can't talk about it."

This is a worldly, pragmatic and political Christianity, by whose lights, reading Luke 10:25-37, Jesus and the good Samaritan were wrong, and the priest and the Levite were right.

One thing I think should be said: in many Muslim countries (including, it is claimed, in Talibanian Afghanistan) there is in practice toleration (I use the word neutrally) of homosexuality. That was my experience in Turkey in the 1960s and it has just been confirmed by a gay friend at church who has travelled very extensively in Muslim lands. 'They're everywhere' (his words). (Yes, I know about Iran, Nigeria, etc.)

That fact, if it is a fact, seems to me to cut both ways: (1) it's a basis for hope because sooner or later even religions have to catch up with realities; (2) there remains - obviously - a huge gulf between practical realities and doctrine.

How can Lambeth be rocked by a statement that was made outside of Lambeth, and after the formalities of Lambeth were finished?

The souls who demand Robinson's resignation are the same souls who deny the diversity of humanity, and claim that this world only exists because of an "original" sin by a woman that is unforgiven even after Jesus' sacrifice. They are in breach of the covenant of peace and have no intention of healing their own societies or this planet as they fantasize about a "new earth" expunged of all non-Christian and non-divine souls.

Expunging Gene Robinsion, repressing women, or genociding non-Christians will not heal this planet and merely demonstrates such souls worship a messiah who does not love as was ordained by the God who created the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, Judaism, the prophets or Jesus.

Goran may be right. However you perceive the problem, it still has to do with one culture wanting to subject another to assimilation.
Whereas Saint Paul tells us that "In Christ, there is neither Greek nor Hebrew, male nor female, slave nor free - but all are give the same Spirit" (intrinsically through the Word-made-flesh - in Christ - to all who come to him).

One cannot be bullied into into God's Kingdom - no matter how well-intentioned (?) the instrument
Proselytising by the 'self-righteous' can never be the work of the Holy Spirit. God alone in holy

LGCM has prepared two documents in their "bishops" pack sent to every Lambeth bishop giving information on the world situation regarding the criminalsation of homosexuality.
The PDF files are here:
http://lgcm.org.uk/LambethPage/LGBTWorldLaws.pdf
and here:
http://lgcm.org.uk/LambethPage/map_lgbti_rights.pdf

Lisa Fox, whose own diocese has companion links with Sudan, who has spent time with their Primate, and who has visited Sudan, has written a number of (understandably angry) posts regarding the Sudanese statement. This is worth quoting:

"Many of the priests in Sudan are not married to the women with whom they live and have children. Why? Because they cannot afford the "bride price." To take a woman (and I use that verb advisedly and intentionally), one must be able to offer as many sheep and cattle as she is "worth." And one must be able to afford the cost of the party that tribal customs dictate upon a "wedding." Therefore, many Sudanese priests live "as if" they were married. But they are not – at least not in any sense that we would recognize. Things are very different in Sudan. We have been willing to be quiet and tolerant about this. I (and others who have travelled to Sudan) have been willing to respect that the Sudanese culture is very different from ours. We have honored the marriages that they recognize. I have respected that. Until today. Until the interview that Archbishop Daniel gave, in which he seems to suggest that Sudan has it all right and we have it all wrong. It's time for some honesty.

During one of our mission trips in Sudan, the guys in the jeep began good-naturedly talking about what "bride price" one of our young, attractive, single women could fetch in Sudan. How many cows was she worth? The bantering was good-natured and even funny in that time, in that place. The Missourians understood and accepted that cultural practice. We knew we were not going to sell her off to the highest bidder. But if she had been a Sudanese woman, she would indeed have been sold to the highest bidder.

Is this the view of "Biblical marriage" that Archbishop Daniel wants the Episcopal Church to adopt? Is this the "authority of the Bible" that he wants us to adopt?"

http://my-manner-of-life.blogspot.com/2008/07/sudanese-statement-marriage.html

It seems to me that the archbishop is expressing a kind of fear in an outburst, but somehow the usual tramlines aren't operating. He's going to have to be disappointed. I'm saying this before seeing the video.

Why haven't people pointed out that the Anglican Communion just doesn't work this way. One province has no right to dictate who can be bishops in another. The provinces/national churches are completely autonomous. There have been women bishops is some places (e.g. Canada) for twenty years and no one in Canada would expect a conservative bishop to forbid their ordination. This is eqivalent to a woman bishop being asked to resign (a bishop can't just be "fired") by a foreign bishop. Gene Robinson is duly elected and is accountable to his diocese, not to the Archbishop of the Sudan. How preposterous. Does he think that Gene Robinson can be dismissed by the Archhbishop of canterbury or the Presiding Bishop? Weird.

"but what about the pain of gay people and their treament in some parts of Africa"

Peterpi, the not so well concealed subtext in most conservative attitudes to this is that we deserve it. The occasional pious statement about hating the sin and loving the sinner is false on its face. But, at least no conservative will acknowledge it, being far more interested in defending their right to insult and lie about us than they are in changing their behaviour, so there's no risk that their real motivations will become any more covert.

"But that is precisely what Christians are suppose to do, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...""

robroy, you of course know that the passage actually means that Scripture is to teach US, to rebuke US, to correct US, to train US. Why do you have the idea that Christians somehow have the right to enforce our beliefs on society? Because we believe our Scriptures are given to us by God? So do the Muslims, so why don't any arguments you have against thre imposition of Shari'a equally apply to Christians, particularly thos who wish to impose upon society a Law that our God Himself tells us we are no longer under? God is in control, robroy, He doesn't need you imposing your imperfect understanding of His will on society. In fact, continually trying to do that in this day and age will only drive people away from the Gospel.

Well the positive in Bishop Deng Bul's media statements is that he does call for everybody to come to the table. The contradiction is that, before New Hampshire can come to the table, their bishop must say he is sorry he has been in a committed ethical relationship with another man for twenty years or so, honestly, and in great networks of caring with his own ex-wife, his daughters and their families, and a good deal many others in that diocese.

Thus, is it not just about one man, one bishop, but about all of those far and wide who have weighed his daily life, and counted him a brother believer - sufficient to then discern that God was calling that one to be our bishop.

You cannot split VGR off from the rest of us who recognize him - both as a human being and as a believer in witness, and who recognize those who discerned and called and elected him, and those who consecrated him - nor can you split any of us off from the good news which calls us all to be honest in this difficult and controversial matter.

And that honesty must this century involve pointing to all the hypothesis tested research data which so roundly disconfirms this negative cultural and religious allegation that not being straight innately dooms one to awful and unethical living. In this partial regard, the good DDB is running in closed intellectual circles that are simply flat earth preachments. The fact that violence and other pressing matters have led the archbishop to put that piece of homework on his back burners, does not change the changes we are struggling through, in fact and understanding.

If VGR were to resign, would not his presence as priest in the diocese still raise more or less the same controversies, and call into questions the received condemning preachments? Even honest caring lay queer folks occasion these questions?

Ok Dr. DDB, we are here, we are queer citizens of equal human value and dignity just the same as if we were the most traditional and exclusively straight people on the face of the earth, and we are telling as much of the truth as we know how to tell under very different and troubling - often violent, if you survey the planet including Sudan? - circumstances.

Lord have mercy.

When I was a child, (naughty me) I used to enjoy stirring up ant beds. There are fire ants in Florida, they build fairly large (but soft) mounds, and when stirred with a stick they swarm out to bite and destroy whatever has disturbed their repose. One stirs quickly, then steps away leaving the stick in the mound. Soon the stick is invisible--as is the surface of the mound, covered with biting vicious little insects swarming and sending out waves of troops into the surrounding ground to find and punish the interloper. But, enough of that.

Merseymike is right. There is no middle ground here. One side or the other is right, and there is no in-between. Nonetheless, I am hopeful. Liberalism has things to contribute to the Anglican mix. But, like the Puritanism that preceded it a few centuries before, it will have to learn its limits. And, like many of the Puritans that still constitute part of the Anglican mix, some of its advocates will always chafe at the limits imposed. This is the only way forward that leads to a continued communion. Outside of this there is only a continuation, reinforcement and confirmation of the current schism.

So, whether rightly or wrongly (as liberals define such terms), the ball is in the liberal court. Compromise your "ideals" or schism--you decide. The Body of Christ will continue one way or the other. You are merely choosing your place and relationship to the whole.

Steven

Nearly all of us here agree that the Archbishop's views on homosexuality are wrong. What follows? It's quite pointless mouthing off about how wrong he is. The fact remains that this is a grievous blow to Lambeth. The question is: what does one DO? None of us, of course, can actually DO very much. But I think 'liberals' should at least recognise that the Sudanese bishops are in other respects very good people who are living in a very difficult situation. We should not damn them as primitive Africans. We should still continue to fight both for 'liberal Anglicanism' and for staying together.

Posted by: John on Wednesday, 23 July 2008 at 9:17am BST

A few of us could go to the Conference, douse ourselves in petrol and ignite it and ourselves.

Obviously, only those who feel really called it and ready for it.

It is in the great tradtion of the Buddhist monks and nuns who defended their own in that time honoured & brave way ...

Even if we find we feel unable to, for one reason or another, it may be worth thinking about these more extreme and striking posssibilites

.... Their Graces might look and see !

See and listen !

Oh, sweet irony! From Episcopal Cafe:

"Yesterday, the Episcopal Church of Sudan urged the Episcopal Church to suspend all litigation against breakaway churches attempting to leave the denomination but maintain possession of the parish property. Their call has an ironic twist, as is evident in the latest newsletter of the American Friends of the Episcopal Church of Sudan...

In brief, the Episcopal Church of Sudan lost control of its guesthouse to the Reformed Episcopal Church of the Sudan. The RECS said that it broke from the ECS because the ECS condoned homosexuality. The guesthouse was then sold to a Sudanese corporation. The Episcopal Church of Sudan sued. In March, it won. An Episcopal church in Virginia, and members of American Friends of the Church of Sudan helped pay for the lawsuit."

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/lambeth_conference/live_sudan_an_ironic_sidelight_1.html

I am with Lisa Fox, as quoted by MJ. Certainly the church in the Sudan has the right to determine how to practice the faith in thier own context. But the same goes for us in the West.
The good Archbishop said, "This has not only caused deep divisions within the Anglican Communion but it has seriously harmed the Church’s witness in Africa and elsewhere, opening the church to ridicule and damaging its credibility in a multi-religious environment."

Well, being linked to homophobic statements from outside the West certainly opens the church in the West to ridicule and damages our credibility as we attempt to include ALL of God's children at the table!

"And by Cherie Wetzel here."

Please, dear readers, be careful when perusing reports from Ms. Wetzel. She is the wife of one of the most (neo-) conservative priests in the very conservative Diocese of Dallas here in the U.S.

If you're reading her missives as unbiased reporting, you might as well be reading the Stand Firm or Virtue Online sites...

MJ, much as I'd love to chortle with you over the irony, it isn't the same thing. A guesthouse isn't a church building.

What I found interesting about the Sudan guest house story referenced above is that the "Reformed Episcopal Church in Sudan," just like the schismatic body led by Kunonga in Zimbabwe, is led by a protegé of the government, and uses spurious claims of homosexuality as a rationalization for its schism. Clearly, something other than the Gospel is driving the debate in Africa, and the ones who use supposed tolerance for homosexuality as a weapon to be used against the Anglican Churches are not Muslims, but disgruntled Anglican bishops.

Does it come down to this? There are three questions.

(1) Who is right and who is wrong about whether homosexual relationships can be equal to heterosexual relationships in holiness? This is an ongoing debate, in which most on this board would answer yes.

(2) Can either side be persuaded by the other? Almost certainly not, at least in the short term.

(3) If not, can the two sides remain in communion and in relationship with each other?

From Dromantine to Dar es Salaam, it seemed that the answer to (3) would be no. At this Lambeth conference, there have been encouraging signs that the answer might yet be yes. But the Primate of the Sudan has, deliberately or not, dealt a serious blow to that hope.

Treebeard wrote: “It is in the great tradition of the Buddhist monks and nuns who defended their own in that time honoured & brave way ...
Even if we find we feel unable to, for one reason or another, it may be worth thinking about these more extreme and striking possibilities."

adding: ".... Their Graces might look and see!"

I don’t really think they would, sorry. And I wouldn't find it worth it, even if they did.

"A guesthouse isn't a church building."

So ... it's OK to steal church buildings, but not OK to steal, say, Sunday School buildings?
Or it's ok to steal both? Please clarify what property owned by, say, TEC, it is ok to steal and what not. That would surely clarify things.

Pat writes, "This presumes--as you always do, robroy--that YOUR interpretation of scripture is unalterably correct and that any interpretation that disagrees with you is not only wrong, but a product of faithlessness. How do you come by this hubris, this all-consuming sense of your own rectitude?"

I don't have a personal interpretation, rather I ascribe to the straightforward reading that our parents, grandparents, etc., and all the church fathers ascribed to. The hubris is to say, "We modern folk know so much better than St. Thomas Aquinas, better than St. Paul, better than all the popes in history (and the current one)." Now, that is hubris! It is a level of pride and arrogance that I can't imagine.

Caolin writes, "Certainly the church in the Sudan has the right to determine how to practice the faith in thier own context. But the same goes for us in the West."

That is precisely the point of the Sudanese primate. We live in an internet world where the irresponsible and defiant actions of the American church directly affect the Church in Sudan's gospel mission.

Cheryl asked: How can Lambeth be rocked by a statement..."

How can anything be "rocked" at all, by a statement of a "view" we all know exist (even if we find it irrational and offensive and don't agree with it)???

"Campaign" jurnalism.

"Compromise your "ideals" or schism"

There are liberals who have done that (Merseymike probably epitomizes the most clear cut archetype).

The thing to understand is that liberals don't schism in the same way that conservatives do. We really do distinguish between the sin and the sinner, comprehend "love thy enemy", not renoucing the "least of these", acknowlege the holy spark in the "dirtiest" of beings.

Thus when liberals schism, we schism not against persons and organisations, but rather with paradigms and perspectives.

The great battles in Exodus amongst the Jews were not between one camp's leaders and another, but rather between one world view and another.

Comtemplate this: A Sudanese Bishop has advocated the removal of Gene Robinson from his job, the shunning of Gene Robinson, and refusing him to provide a safe place to dwell. He has suggested that Gene Robinson be deprived of the ability to earn an income in order to provide for himself or others, denied any legal representation or justice, and advocated making his environment so unsafe that Gene be forced to move on.

For those who are interested in fractal problems, can you not see the similarity in paradigms that has led to literally millions of Sudanese being removed from their jobs, deprived legal represatation and forced to become refugees as it was no longer safe to live where they were previously dwelling?

Another example of how we see priests making pleasant lands desolate, and again being blind or oblivious to how their own advocacy tears apart the fabric of their own society.

They are of the same ilk who felt the need to plant a new church in South Africa in 1987 when the established Anglican church had the temerity, courage and faith successfully advocate paradigms that enabled the peaceful resolution of apartheid and restoration of justice to the oppressed and outcaste.

Robroy wrote: “I don't have a personal interpretation, rather I ascribe to the straightforward reading that our parents, grandparents, etc., and all the church fathers ascribed to.”

Then please tell me, H o w can they be the interpretations of “our parents, grandparents, etc., and all the church fathers” when they so ostensively come from the Scholastic changes to the Versio vulgata (around 1200); the 16th century Humanist Renaissance Volkssprache versions; the 1611/ 1787 KJV; the 1917 Swedish state translation (defending the 1862 changes in Swedish Criminal law, parallel to the British blackmailer’s charter of Oscar Wilde fame and still on the books in may former Colonies); and 1947 (the Calvinist edition of the RSV of the New York Bible Societies); and finally the 1966 Roman (Cambridge) changes by Pater Zerwick and others to their translation of the (non official) Codex Sinaïticus; and the novel 1970ies Focus on The Family ideas of a re-subordination of women???

All this may be called Academical, but none of it qualifies as “our parents, grandparents, and all the church fathers”. I would appreciate an answer.

"I don't have a personal interpretation, rather I ascribe to the straightforward reading that our parents, grandparents, etc., and all the church fathers ascribed to. The hubris is to say, "We modern folk know so much better than St. Thomas Aquinas, better than St. Paul, better than all the popes in history (and the current one)." Now, that is hubris! It is a level of pride and arrogance that I can't imagine."

Are you suggesting that new revelations (yes, I use that word) of translation, of science, of experience (such as knowing more and different people and more and different cultures) might not make us better able to understand what the Spirit is telling us through Scripture than those of the first millennium? Does your reverence for the interpretations of Paul and Aquinas include a reverence for, say, their cosmology?

"We live in an internet world where the irresponsible and defiant actions of the American church directly affect the Church in Sudan's gospel mission. "

And it's not at all possible that, in that same internet world, that the backward and prejudiced interpretations of the African churches is directly affecting the American Church's gospel mission? Or does it only flow in one direction in your world?

"I don't have a personal interpretation, rather I ascribe to the straightforward reading that our parents, grandparents, etc., and all the church fathers ascribed to"

All the church fathers?
Why is it that people keep saying this when it is so obviously and demonstrably not true?
Does repeating it make it right?
Is there street cred in refusing to educate yourself?

Please, do some reading. I have recommended 2 books here before: Karen Armstrong's biography of the bible, and Alistair McGrath's Introduction to Christian Theology.

You can believe what you believe, there's no problem with that.
But you cannot claim that it's the only way true Christians have always believed, and you certainly cannot claim that all church fathers saw things your way.

"We live in an internet world where the irresponsible and defiant actions of the American church directly affect the Church in Sudan's gospel mission."

Of course, your average Sudanese Christian has LOTS of free time to be surfing the net, unrestricted access to computers and internet connections, and an abiding interest in the marginal details of life amongst North American Christians.

What planet did you say you were posting from?

"I don't have a personal interpretation, rather I ascribe to the straightforward reading that our parents, grandparents, etc., and all the church fathers ascribed to."

And DENIAL ain't "just a river in Egypt", robroy!

[Also curious, Ford, re the difference between a guesthouse and a "church building". If the guesthouse had an attached or built-in chapel---as a number of church-owned guesthouses I've been in, do---would that make a difference? :-/]

Guest house vs church building? I guess none, now that you mention it. (no blush smilie). I'll crawl off tail between legs now:-0

Frankly, I don't think the allegedly irresponsible and defiant acts (to quote robroy) of TEC matter one iota to the Muslims, or to the promoters of what I’m calling Orthodox Anglicanism (yes I know that ought to be an oxymoron) in Sudan.
Does anyone remember that in the mid-1990s, Sudanese Muslims and others sold Sudanese Christians and animists into slavery? Are our memories that short? How was TEC responsible for that? That was years before the Right Reverend Gene Robinson’s name entered the conscience of most Episcopalian church goers in New Hampshire. Go back to the late 1800s, and a Christian British general lost his head (metaphorically and all too literally) in a battle with Sudanese Muslims waging military campaigns against Great Britain and Christians. But I suppose that was the fault of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, as TEC was called then.
Isn’t it possible that Muslims are quite capable of making trouble for Christians, and vice versa, without TEC even being involved? It’s a shocking concept to the GAFCON crowd, I know.

+
+
+

The above represents my (strictly non-sacramental) absolution of you, Ford. ;-)