Thinking Anglicans

Uganda isn't coming to Lambeth either

Updated Thursday evening

Religious Intelligence had this on Tuesday:

Theological convictions, not bruised feelings, will prevent at least three provinces from attending the 2008 Lambeth Conference, the Primate of the West Indies has said.

In an interview with the Nassau Guardian yesterday, West Indian Archbishop Drexel Gomez stated “there are at least four provinces in Africa that have either said they will not attend or are still considering if they will attend, but there are three who said they will definitely not be attending.”

Nigeria, Rwanda and Uganda had announced they will not be attending the conference as it is currently organized. Sources in the Anglican Church of Kenya tell us that the Church was to have made a decision at its House of Bishops meeting scheduled for this week. However, the post-election violence has postponed the meeting to April when a decision will be taken…

The Nassau Guardian article itself is here. It also says:

It would be “scandalous” if gay Anglican Bishop Canon V. Gene Robinson appeared at the upcoming Anglican Lambeth Conference in July with his partner, Archbishop Drexel Gomez told The Guardian Monday.

The upcoming conference, held once every 10 years, is expected to see the coming together of a number of Anglican Bishops at the University of Kent in Canterbury. But because of the on-going schism within the Communion as a result of the ordination of Robinson almost six years ago, Gomez said some provinces recently indicated they would not attend the upcoming conclave.

Uganda’s decision is now reported widely in the media:

Religious Intelligence again on Thursday: Uganda to boycott Lambeth

The African Province announced its intention in a statement issued last night by the Archbishop of Uganda, the Most Rev Henry Orombi, pictured, on the same day the Church of England’s General Synod discussed the content of a Covenant which is being drawn up to try and keep the worldwide Communion together.

The boycott revolves around the Church’s long-running row over homosexuality, which came to the fore after the consecration of an openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, by the Episcopal Church (TEC) of the USA in 2003. In the statement Bishop Orombi writes that Bishop Robinson’s consecration and the TEC’s continued practice of blessing same-sex couples is ‘in flagrant disregard’ of a resolution passed at the 1998 Lambeth Conference which described homosexual practice as ‘incompatible with Scripture’.

He added that their non-attendance was a means of expressing their disapproval that American bishops have been invited to the ten-yearly gathering of Primates. He said: “This decision has been made to protest the invitations extended by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Rowan Williams, to TEC Bishops whose stand and unrepentant actions created the current crisis of identity and authority in the Anglican Communion.” He added they planned to meet with other traditionalist bishops at an ‘alternative Lambeth’ called the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) in Jerusalem in June, which is expected to be attended by other conservative leaders from Africa and Australia.

Press Association Uganda boycotts Anglican conference

Reuters Ugandan bishops to boycott global Anglican meeting

BBC Uganda boycotts Anglican meeting

The Times Uganda bishops join boycott of Lambeth Conference over gay priests

And Ruth Gledhill has a blog article which links to the actual text of the Uganda statement as an RTF file. I have reproduced it as an html page here.

The decision by Rwanda not to attend goes back to June 2007, see Lambeth invitations: Rwanda not attending.

The decision by Nigeria goes back to May 2007, see Nigeria responds to Minns not being invited and also later, Nigeria: open letter to Canterbury.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
41 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Merseymike
Merseymike
12 years ago

The sooner these three premodern, homophobic provinces set up their own fundamentalist church the better for those left.

Its the only logical solution. A split. It should be welcomed and celebrated.

JCF
JCF
12 years ago

Must care. Must care. Must care. Must care. Must care…

Lord have mercy!

Lapinbizarre
Lapinbizarre
12 years ago

It would be unkind, I suppose, to suggest the Coptic Church as a precedent for the kind of relevance these guys are going to have.

Göran Koch-Swahne
12 years ago

What about the poaching?

Doesn’t count, he?

Prior Aelred
12 years ago

Well, at least Uganda has finally admittedly that the issue really IS homosexuality (truth in an unguarded moment, perhaps).

John Henry
John Henry
12 years ago

Certain members of the primatial circus are throwing a temper-tantrum. What else is new?

Andrew
Andrew
12 years ago

The tragedy here is that the Africans will look so stubborn and ignorant in the history of Christianity. Much as the Roman church looks in its persecution of Galileo. And our American fundamentalists look in their denial of evolution. And our current President in his refusal to fund stem cell research. What is it about religion in general that makes it so backward for so long after the reality changes?

Malcolm+
12 years ago

There is only one reason not to attend. They know they’ve lost. Like many losers, they will simply declare victory and run away. I half expect to see Big Pete landing on an aircraft carrier with a big banner that says “Mission Accomplished.” Now, the interesting this will be to see what happens to Anglicans in Rwanda, Nigeria, Uganda (and wherever else) who don’t agree with the absolutism of their puritanical prelates. Once they puritans have officially departed the Communion, the sooner we can begin providing direct support to non-hatemongerers in Rwanda, Nigeria, Uganda (and wherever else). Perhaps we can… Read more »

Tim
Tim
12 years ago

I hardly see a province’s own choice to walk apart being the same as “prevention”, but then we’re getting used to this conservative “victimization” rhetoric by now.

Someone tell me exactly how they are “anglican” if they will not share communion with Canterbury?

John Bassett
John Bassett
12 years ago

So, since the whole purpose of the Covenant was to keep these provinces happy, and since they’re not going to be part of the communion anyhow, can we just forget about the Covenant and maybe talk about the Gospel, dealing with sickness and global poverty, you know, the whole Kingdom of God stuff? Imagine the headline: Anglicans Commit to Making God’s Love Real to World.

Tobias Haller
12 years ago

My sense is that they keep issuing these statements (“We’re still not coming”) in the hope that ++Rowan will cave in to their demands. They have seriously misread him, I think. He has made it very clear that he is not in the “compulsion” racket, and people who choose not to come to the Conference are exercising their own freedom to choose to walk apart. That carefully planted phrase in the Windsor Report is being realized in ways some never expected, but which I have seen as likely from the beginning. The intolerant cannot and will not coexist with that… Read more »

Pluralist
12 years ago

Down to three, then. It was four definites. No it is three and a maybe. Not very impressive this, is it?

Bob in SwPa
Bob in SwPa
12 years ago

I can’t agree more with you Andrew. I sometimes wonder if religion isn’t a hinderance to progress. I also, agree with Tobias+. I think they keep saying “I”m not coming,” in hopes of pressuring the ABC into disinviting TEC and ACofC. What I find really interesting is what would they do if TEC got disinvited and Canada still kept their invites???? When they scream they scream mostly about the U.S. not Canada.
Why???

Christopher
12 years ago

The question is, Fr. Haller, if we can continue to extend them room to not come at this time without making coming to Lambeth or not a “breaking matter”. I don’t think not showing at Lambeth is “communion-breaking” and we all need to take a chill pill and allow others to do the same–by not coming, it that’s what they need. That’s what mature, healthy people and families do.

JCF
JCF
12 years ago

“can we just forget about the Covenant and maybe talk about the Gospel, dealing with sickness and global poverty, you know, the whole Kingdom of God stuff?”

Oh, John Bassett: from your lips to Rowan’s (et al) ears. Alleluia! 😀

Martin Reynolds
12 years ago

I believe Adrian makes an important point.

At their height the GS was threatening over 50% withdrawl if they did not get their way, and up until very recently the MINIMUM we understood they could gather was 6.

The obvious ploy is to emphasise the numbers claimed as membership for the three and we are already seeing this.

The interesting thing is the three leading American bishops who have caused much of this schism are themselves booked-in and paid for at Lambeth.

Just who are Jensen and his allies supporting then?

Pluralist
12 years ago

A rationale for the Windsor Continuation Group is that should Lambeth itself not produce a sufficiently conclusive outcome (all study and chat, a minimum of resolutions, sufficient disagreement, resistance by many provinces to a centralising conserving Covenant), then there will be the Windsor Continuation group going on to try to lessen the impact of recruiting to GAFCON. Assuming it actually does what it says, this GAFCON will try to do its own surviving and building afterwards.

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
12 years ago

“When they scream they scream mostly about the U.S. not Canada.” I think it has to do with the very different culturally informed behaviour of the two Churches. It’s a cultural difference between “You can’t tell me what to do” and “I don’t have the right to do what I like when I like.” What the conservatives find so offensive about TEC is a perception that they don’t give a cobbler’s cuss about what anyone else thinks, they will be sublimely independant in their own area, by God, because their right to do what they want as they see fit… Read more »

Lapinbizarre
Lapinbizarre
12 years ago

So the “orthodox brethren” who pay Orombi “so much money” have called the tune. Big surprise!

“… they support us, they give us money. Oh they give us money. Since we began to relate with our orthodox brethren they have given us much more money, much more money, oh yeah, much more money. They have given us more money.” Extract – unedited transcript – from Anglican TV’s interview of September last with Archbishop Orombi [with “assistant for international relations” Alison Barfoot keeping watch].

http://www.anglicantv.org/blog/index.cfm/2007/9/9/Archbishop-Henry-Orombi

Rae Fletcher
12 years ago

With regards to the future of the Anglican Communion, I wish we would give far less press to those who are not going to Lambeth and far more to those who are. The future of the Communion is in their hands, not the hands of those who stay away. Let’s not let the non-attenders even think they can influence the outcome if they aren’t there.

JPM
JPM
12 years ago

>>>When they scream they scream mostly about the U.S. not Canada.
Why???

Wealthy Canadian reactionaries are not paying their bills.

Tobias Haller
12 years ago

Christopher, as you know I believe in a laissez-faire approach in all of this, and feel that the communion matters will settle themselves out in time. My sense of the “walking apart” language did not preclude some “coming back together again some day” implication. Much will depend on the extent to which the remainder of the GS attempt to form up as an alternative to the Anglican Communion. That will make it much harder to restore unity at a later time. It may be a step through which we must go, however; but I am concerned that institutions once established… Read more »

Cyndee
Cyndee
12 years ago

Andrew – I realize you think of me as “stubborn and ignorant” but just to clarify, when did evolution become a fact? I thought it was still considered a “theory”. I guess you “progressives” just move so much faster and are so much smarter than us. Perhaps you can educate us. When did the theory become fact?

Lapinbizarre
Lapinbizarre
12 years ago

Been a fact since the first primitive organism evolved several billion years back, Cyndee. It became a theory quite a bit later (1859). Squawkings and smoke-screens of Creationists and “Intelligent Designers” notwithstanding, scientific research since that date has consistently supported evolution as fact. There is NO alternative scientific theory. If you doubt evolution, go take a look at what’s on offer at Cruft’s or the Westminster Dog Show. All these dogs have been bred from a common ancestor, almost all in the last two millennia, most in the last two centuries. This is wildly irrelevant to the Uganda business. Can… Read more »

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
12 years ago

“when did evolution become a fact?” When God made it happen! Evolution is, of course, a theory, but you seem to think that ‘theory’ means some sort of idle speculation. There is a huge body of evidence that supports the theory. Discussion about how smooth a process it is continues. The issue is not whether or not evolution actually happens, the issue is the soullessness of those who cannot see it as the action of God. Why is it necessary for you to disbelieve it? Can you not believe that God started billions of years ago? Can you not see… Read more »

Frank
Frank
12 years ago

When did the theory become fact?

Er, um, just take it (evolution) on faith Cyndee.

bls
bls
12 years ago

Here, Cyndee (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html): —————————————— In the American vernacular, “theory” often means “imperfect fact”–part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is “only” a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can’t even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric):… Read more »

Cheryl Va. Clough
12 years ago

I don’t have a problem accepting evolution. In fact, I think it rather nicely puts egotistical males (both human and angelic) back into proper perspective. By the same rational, how did theory that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine become fact? Or that the Jewish Exodus and Moses and his siblings’ leadership occured? Or that there was ever such a thing as matriarchs and patriarchs of the calibre of Sarah and Abraham? Or that God called Job “friend”? Or that there is even such a things as prophets? Or the bible is holy and divinely inspired? Stubborness and… Read more »

Merseymike
Merseymike
12 years ago

Put it like this, Cyndee, its a good deal nearer ‘fact’ than the myth of creation which is about as scientific as Grimm’s Fairy Tales.

Pat O'Neill
Pat O'Neill
12 years ago

I can’t believe I have to explain this in such an otherwise intelligent community. Cynthia: In scientific terminology, “theory” means an explanation that adequately covers all the facts. The facts in this case include, but are not limited to, fossils, DNA, and observed physical similarities among species. Those facts add up to species evolving from one another over geological time. The “theory” is in how that happens, what mechanisms make it happen. Like all scientific theories, it is subject to change as new facts and evidence emerge. There is now a controversy over whether species evolve slowly or (relatively) rapidly… Read more »

John Holding
John Holding
12 years ago

Cyndee — I’m not Andrew, and I don’t know what’s behind his (or your) comments. But evolution is a “theory” in precisely the same way that gravity is a “theory”. In scientific terms, calling something a “theory” doesn’t mean there is doubt about its validity — it means that there is no (and probably cannot be) absolute proof of the type that is reducible to a mathematical equation. Fatherhood (without DNA testing) is a “theory”, if you like, even if the son is the mirror image of his putative father and if the mother was locked up in a cell… Read more »

OS
OS
12 years ago

Cyndee – For the record, “theory” (as in “the theory of evolution”) is a technical term in science. A theory is never “elevated” into a “fact.” Thus medical science uses “germ theory” to explain some diseases and physics points to “the theory of gravity” as the reason why what goes up must come down. They may be theories, but I still wouldn’t advise skipping your flu shot or jumping off a cliff.

Lapinbizarre
Lapinbizarre
12 years ago

“In fact, I think it [evolution] rather nicely puts egotistical males (both human and angelic) back into proper perspective.” Thanks Cheryl.

Cheryl Va. Clough
12 years ago

Lapin

Don’t thank me, thank God for Creating it all in the first place.

After all, humanity’s mother’s name could have been something other than Cheva (aka Eve), but humanity would still exist anyway.

We are wanted by God, or we wouldn’t exist at all. Every morning when you wake up in this reality is a testament that God wants this reality to exist.

Don’t let stupid humans or naughty angels tell you otherwise.

God bless.

Cyndee
Cyndee
12 years ago

Again, sorry for my ignorance. If it’s such a well known fact that all scientists agree with, why is it still called theory? I must respectfully disagree with the reference to dogs. While I concur there are may different types of dogs, and yes, I certainly agree that species “evolve”, there has never been any proof that a dog came anything other than another dog! And to the other commenter, I apologize for throwing things “off track” but it’s very difficult to read these type of comments where those who have a different position are labeled as ignorant or bigoted!!… Read more »

Simon Sarmiento
12 years ago

Try reading this article for an explanation of these terms which is, in my opinion, very clearly set out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Pat O'Neill
Pat O'Neill
12 years ago

“If it’s such a well known fact that all scientists agree with, why is it still called theory? I must respectfully disagree with the reference to dogs. While I concur there are may different types of dogs, and yes, I certainly agree that species “evolve”, there has never been any proof that a dog came anything other than another dog!” You really didn’t read anything the rest of us wrote, did you? “Theory” refers to the process, not the fact that it happened. Try this analogy: Refrigerators keep things cold–fact. They do it by heat transfer through a compressor system–theory.… Read more »

Göran Koch-Swahne
12 years ago

Intelligent dogs come from Hyenas, stupid dogs from wolves… I have been told.

Lapinbizarre
Lapinbizarre
12 years ago

The hyena/wolf theory, which was behavioral, was proposed, most entertainingly, by Konrad Lorenz, who I particularly enjoyed on account of our shared devotion to chows. Incidentally Lorenz did not consider wolf-descended dogs, from which he believed – rightly – that chows are descended, to be “stupid”, but rather to be less servile than their hyena counterparts.

DNA indicates that all domestic dogs are of wolf-descent, so there goes the Lorenz’s hyena descent = servile theory. His books are still worth reading for the anecdotes and excellent drawings.

Peter of Westminster
Peter of Westminster
12 years ago

“it’s very difficult to read these type of comments where those who have a different position are labeled as ignorant or bigoted” As I read the posts, folks are not holding that you’re ignorant — just ignorant of science. Evolution is fundamental to every science, not just the biological sciences. Physics, astrophysics, cosmology, chemistry, geology — the inescapable fact of evolution is seen throughout the whole of nature. And science works — the technologies you use everyday are the practical result of our species’ scientific inquiries into nature, and a pretty good indication that science understands the natural world more… Read more »

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
12 years ago

“it’s very difficult to read these type of comments where those who have a different position are labeled as ignorant or bigoted!!”

Where were you labelled either of those? And if you want to see true Christians being hostile to those who believe differently, trot on over to a conservative blog like Venomonline. You’ll see how benign this place is.

41
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x