Thinking Anglicans

CofE archbishops rebuke Ugandan Anglicans

The Archbishop of Canterbury has issued this: Statement on the Church of Uganda’s support for Anti-Homosexuality Act.

The Archbishop of York has followed suit: Statement on the stance of the Ugandan Church on the criminalisation of LGBTQ+ people in Uganda

The full texts of both statements are copied below the fold.

York

“I am glad the Archbishop of Canterbury has made a public statement and has written to the Archbishop of Uganda about the stance the Ugandan Church has taken over the legislation passed by the Ugandan Parliament and now signed into law that criminalises LGBTQ+ people simply for being themselves.

“There is still so much prejudice, violence, discrimination and oppression targeted at people who are perceived to be different. But the Gospel calls us to a different narrative – one that is rooted in the love Christ has for us, and we for him and our neighbour. The Anglican Communion, though divided on certain questions around human identity and sexuality has, nevertheless, always affirmed the God given dignity and value of every person, wonderfully made in the image of our creator God. When we treat people differently or worse criminalise them for merely being who they are, we mar that image.

“It is time for us to do better. And although none of us get this right, and I am only too conscious of the failings of the Church of England in this regard, I invite my fellow disciples in Uganda, around the Communion and in our own Church of England to join me in resolving to turn our backs on homophobia, racism and all other ‘othering’ of those who are our sisters and brothers in Christ, to make our churches places of welcome for everyone, and show the world a more excellent way.”

Canterbury

“I have recently written to my brother in Christ, the Primate of Uganda, Archbishop Stephen Kaziimba, to express my grief and dismay at the Church of Uganda’s support for the Anti-Homosexuality Act. I make this public statement with sorrow, and with continuing prayers for reconciliation between our churches and across the Anglican Communion. I am deeply aware of the history of colonial rule in Uganda, so heroically resisted by its people. But this is not about imposing Western values on our Ugandan Anglican sisters and brothers. It is about reminding them of the commitments we have made as Anglicans to treat every person with the care and respect they deserve as children of God.

“Within the Anglican Communion we continue to disagree over matters of sexuality, but in our commitment to God-given human dignity we must be united. I have reminded Archbishop Kaziimba that Anglicans around the world have long been united in our opposition to the criminalisation of homosexuality and LGBTQ people. Supporting such legislation is a fundamental departure from our commitment to uphold the freedom and dignity of all people. There is no justification for any province of the Anglican Communion to support such laws: not in our resolutions, not in our teachings, and not in the Gospel we share.

“The Church of Uganda, like many Anglican provinces, holds to the traditional Christian teaching on sexuality and marriage set out in Resolution i.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference. That resolution also expressed a commitment to minister pastorally and sensitively to all – regardless of sexual orientation – and to condemn homophobia. I have said to Archbishop Kaziimba that I am unable to see how the Church of Uganda’s support for the Anti-Homosexuality Act is consistent with its many statements in support of Resolution i.10.

“More recently, at the 2016 Primates Meeting in Canterbury, the Primates of the Anglican Communion “condemned homophobic prejudice and violence and resolved to work together to offer pastoral care and loving service irrespective of sexual orientation.” We affirmed that this conviction arises out of our discipleship of Jesus Christ. We also “reaffirmed our rejection of criminal sanctions against same-sex attracted people” – and stated that “God’s love for every human being is the same, regardless of their sexuality, and that the church should never by its actions give any other impression.”

“These statements and commitments are the common mind of the Anglican Communion on the essential dignity and value of every person. I therefore urge Archbishop Kaziimba and the Church of Uganda – a country and church I love dearly, and to which I owe so much – to reconsider their support for this legislation and reject the criminalisation of LGBTQ people. I also call on my brothers in Christ, the leadership of GAFCON and the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA), to make explicitly and publicly clear that the criminalisation of LGBTQ people is something that no Anglican province can support: that must be stated unequivocally.

“As disciples of Jesus Christ we are called to honour the image of God in every person, and I pray for Anglicans to be uncompromising and united in this calling.”

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

76 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Angusian
Angusian
10 months ago

Great words, but without action they are pointless!

No word from the ACO?

Phil Groves
Phil Groves
Reply to  Angusian
10 months ago

The ACO does not comment. Think of it as civil service. They communicate when the Instruments of Communion want something put out. The ABC has his own comms team.

Jo B
Jo B
10 months ago

So will there be sanctions on the Church of Uganda for breaching Lambeth i.10 like there were against TEC?

Tim Chesterton
Reply to  Jo B
10 months ago

Those sanctions were imposed by the Anglican Consultative Council, not the English Archbishops.

Phil Groves
Phil Groves
Reply to  Jo B
10 months ago

The sanctions were not having a place on Anglican bodies. They only mattered because TEC cared. Uganda has long withdrawn from those.

Fr Dean
Fr Dean
10 months ago

Canterbury’s statement is particularly strong and to be welcomed.

David Hawkins
David Hawkins
10 months ago

“I invite my fellow disciples in Uganda, around the Communion and in our own Church of England to join me in resolving to turn our backs on homophobia, racism and all other ‘othering’ of those who are our sisters and brothers in Christ, to make our churches places of welcome for everyone, and show the world a more excellent way.” Fine words. Who could disagree ? However if Uganda had passed legislation against any other minority (religious or ethnic) would the reaction of the Archbishops have been the same? I think not. I think not because the Church of England… Read more »

James
James
Reply to  David Hawkins
10 months ago

You are very mistaken on Ugandan history. You should learn about the Ugandan Martyrs (Anglican and Catholic) and their place in Uganda’s self-understanding.

Jo B
Jo B
Reply to  James
10 months ago

Using the Ugandan Martyrs as an excuse for persecuting gay people is utterly reprehensible.

James
James
Reply to  Jo B
10 months ago

I was referring to his lack of knowledge about Ugandan history and the assumption that opposition to homosexuality in Uganda is a result of Protectorate-era laws, which is nonsense. The laws only codified what Ugandans already believed, and the Ugandans themselves often refer to the page boys of the Kabaka as a definjng moment in their history.

Simon Dawson
Simon Dawson
Reply to  James
10 months ago

Like all martyology, it is important to distinguish fact from fiction and hagiography in the Ugandan Martyr story. In a context where accurate historical records may be limited, and interpretations of what was going on may be contested, I don’t think it will be possible to claim that anybody is “mistaken”. They may just have a different understanding of events.

I agree that the martyrs may play an important place in the self-understanding of the Ugandan church. But that is not to say that the story, and the understanding, cannot be challenged.

James
James
Reply to  Simon Dawson
10 months ago

Which events in the story do you think are untrue?

peterpi - Peter Gross
peterpi - Peter Gross
Reply to  David Hawkins
10 months ago

David Hawkins,
“The very idea that her Christian witness and ministry is somehow impaired because she loves another woman fills me with disgust and anger.”
Amen and thank you.
I think of many, many gay or lesbian couples I have known in my adult life who were or have been together for decades. For others to treat those couples as though they were merely sexually cohabiting or that “God will get them” likewise fills me with disgust and anger.

Trevor Moss
Trevor Moss
10 months ago

The reputation of ‘Global South’ churches is seemingly confirmed by the leadership of the Church of Uganda. In my lifetime in the UK,- to this day – we do not need the State to discipline homosexuals. Thousands have committed suicide. A dear Christian friend of mine did so ten years ago – jumping to his death – smashed on the rocks at the base of a cliff. The ‘attitude of the Church’ was his dismay. SO – is that good enough for you Archbishop Kasiimba? Be assured we don’t want to export the likes of this to you. Not that… Read more »

Rod Gillis
Rod Gillis
10 months ago

The statements by Canterbury and York are dispatches from within a religious silo. Nothing like referencing the resolution from Lambeth 1998 which at this point is part of the problem not part of a solution. No mention in churchland of human rights in Uganda despite major concerns by human rights organizations and the opposition in Uganda. (see news links).

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/05/30/ugandas-president-signs-repressive-anti-lgbt-law

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/05/presidents-musevenis-approval-of-anti-lgbti-bill-is-a-assault-on-human-rights/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/8/uganda-says-it-will-not-renew-mandate-of-u-n-human-rights-office

Rod Gillis
Rod Gillis
Reply to  Simon Sarmiento
10 months ago

He chooses to double down. A predictable political stance.

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
Reply to  Simon Sarmiento
10 months ago

Was the Church of Uganda statement written by the Archbishop do we suppose, or some western adviser who is part of the GAFCON movement? I just thought the style and language was more reminiscent of Charles Raven – who has ghost written this kind of stuff before. But I could be quite wrong…..

James
James
Reply to  Andrew Godsall
10 months ago

Yes, they do struggle with the English language, don’t they? That was your meaning, wasn’t it?

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
Reply to  James
10 months ago

No James it wasn’t my meaning. It was about style – a style I have recognised before from western ‘advisers’ such as Charles Raven. You will recall that in the past statements such as these did not actually originate from where it was stated they had originated.

James
James
Reply to  Andrew Godsall
10 months ago

Well, keep practising your stylometrics – as if if mattered, in any case. I don’tknoe who Charles Reven is, but maybe you canask him yourself. Do you not think a Ugandan Archbishop with a PhD is capable of thinking for himself? I hope you don’t have the soft bigotry of loe expectations.

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
Reply to  James
10 months ago

I’m perfectly sure he is capable of thinking and writing for himself. But I am also aware of the irony of rejecting so-called ‘Western’ concerns on the one hand and then using western advisers as part of a political game. As I say, this has occurred before and one hoped for some more positive development.
It rather sounds from your posts here as if you are a staunch supporter of the criminalisation of LGBTQ people.

James
James
Reply to  Andrew Godsall
10 months ago

No, you are mistaken in your assumption. I don’t support criminalisation. I am happy to let adults live their own private lives and face the consequences on the Day of Judgment.
Equally I oppose the promotion of the Stonewall and Mermaids agenda in schools. I have seen first hand thd enormous confusion engulfing adolescent girls in British schools.

David Runcorn
David Runcorn
Reply to  James
10 months ago

I think you are still missing Andrew’s point. Our Archbishops both have teams who write their press releases and speeches and prepare their policy statements. We do not think that insults their academic qualifications. I would expect the Archbishop of Uganda to have the same. The question being asked is who that team includes.

James
James
Reply to  David Runcorn
10 months ago

Why? So you can have a witch hunt of Anglican clergy in Britain?

David Runcorn
David Runcorn
Reply to  James
10 months ago

Sorry, I simply do not understand this response to my comment.

James
James
Reply to  David Runcorn
10 months ago

Why does it matter to you who may or may not have helped to draft the Ugandan Archbishop’s reply to a public criticism of him by an English Archbishop? I don’t speak any African or Asian languages, so if I had to address an African or Asian in theif own language, I would doubtless seek the help of a native speaker to express myself accurately and appropriately in the target language. The point is he put his name to this, so he must agree with it.

David Runcorn
David Runcorn
Reply to  James
10 months ago

Well perhaps it does not matter but I think you are still missing the point behind Andrew’s initial comment (as well as my response). In terms of the Anglican Communion this goes beyond a national church and politics. The Ugandan Archbishop is a senior leader in GAFCON. So he is part of a significant conservative network of influence and pressure at work in the wider global communion on this issue. That could be thought significant.

Andrew Godsall
Andrew Godsall
Reply to  James
10 months ago

James it matters because in previous cases where this has happened responses like this have been prepared by those who are not, as a matter of fact, Anglican and are exercising undue influence on those who are. It matters because this is not what Jesus would do, and one would expect an Archbishop to know that, but it might not be expected of an adviser who was acting primarily out of political stance rather than a moral one. It matters because the response directly contravenes the 5 Anglican Marks of Mission, and so brings any claim the GSFA or GAFCON… Read more »

Interested Observer
Interested Observer
Reply to  James
10 months ago

“Do you not think a Ugandan Archbishop with a PhD is capable of thinking for himself? ”

I do indeed. Which means I am perfectly justified in treating his church as utterly appalling, and a church that decent Christians should cast into the outer darkness.

Because your “soft bigotry” cuts both ways. Too many people want to claim that Ugandan Christans are not thinking for themselves, as an excuse for their bigotry. They are. We see them, hear them and understand them. They should be held accountable for their bigotry.

James
James
Reply to  Interested Observer
10 months ago

Well, you sound pretty judgmental to me. By “outer darkness” do you mean hell? That’s what the term meqns in the Bible? Do you believe in hell and think Ugandan Anglicans will end up in hellfire because of this?
I genuinely want to know your answer because most theological liberals I have known over more than 40 years either don’t believe in life after death or they are universalists.
Do you think the Ugandan Christians will end up in hell over this?

Richard
Richard
Reply to  James
10 months ago

Certainly Uganda is creating hell on earth for gay people.

David Hawkins
David Hawkins
10 months ago

“We wonder if Archbishop Justin Welby has written to encourage the Anglican Bishop of Cyprus and the Gulf to publicly advocate for decriminalizing homosexuality in the Arabian Peninsula and the Middle East? Why are African countries like Ghana and Uganda singled out for such virtue signaling?” (Archbishop of Uganda) An entirely valid point because we must always resist appearing to patronize post colonial territories and we should always remember (with shame) that anti gay legislation was originally introduced by the British Colonial Authorities. Ghana and Uganda should not be singled out. The Church of England should be clear that it… Read more »

Jo B
Jo B
Reply to  David Hawkins
10 months ago

I think there is a difference between a powerful church in an overwhelmingly Christian country calling for laws to be made more punitive and a weak church which is itself under persecution keeping its head down and not pushing for liberalisation. Your moral obligations when you have power are greater than when you do not.

Besides which, engaging in whataboutery of this kind is not becoming, particularly for a Primate.

David Hawkins
David Hawkins
Reply to  Jo B
10 months ago

Jesus never kept his head down and his followers shouldn’t either. The Church of England does rather more than keeping its head down. When the King of Saudi Arabia died, a man who believed in public beheading, persecution of gay people, enslavement of women and in whose kingdom the practice of Christianity was totally banned, the flag on Westminster Abbey was lowered “in respect”. That was utterly shameful and I hope you agree. The Dean of Westminster should have resigned rather than carried out the immoral request of Buckingham Palace. I am a firm believer in “whataboutery” it is called… Read more »

Jo B
Jo B
Reply to  David Hawkins
10 months ago

Jesus did, at times, keep his head down. He did not confront every injustice, and avoided provoking the authorities until the time was right.

peterpi - Peter Gross
peterpi - Peter Gross
Reply to  Jo B
10 months ago

Very well stated, and the second clause of your second sentence is spot on!

Struggling Anglican
Struggling Anglican
Reply to  peterpi - Peter Gross
10 months ago

Does this not presuppose a knowledge of detail which we do not have unless we give no account of redaction or editing by the gospel writers?

Mark
Mark
Reply to  David Hawkins
10 months ago

I think this argument that anti-gay laws all over the world were the fault of the British is quite false: the fact that laws were passed against homosexuality during the British imperial period, and not anywhere (?) remotely controversially either at the time nor for long afterwards, merely indicates that there was a taboo on homosexuality that went across many cultures around the world. It ended sooner in Western countries than other parts of the world; which kept those laws. That is not in itself a sign of some particularly British evil, is it? Rather, I would have thought, it… Read more »

David Hawkins
David Hawkins
Reply to  Mark
10 months ago

This argument that anti-gay laws all over the world were the fault of the British is quite false and it is not what I said. You are making a classic Straw Man Argument. I did not even say that the Ugandan anti Gay laws were the responsibility of the British. Uganda is an independent country and decides its own policy. What I did say was that male homosexually was made illegal in Uganda when Britain was the colonial power and that Britain should take its responsibility for putting homophobic attitudes in place. My main accusation is against the Church of… Read more »

Last edited 10 months ago by David Hawkins
Phil Groves
Phil Groves
Reply to  David Hawkins
10 months ago

Ah, but this is Anglican power politics. Cyprus and the Gulf have not joined GAFCON or GSFA and so the ABU and his advisors are pointing to hypocrisy. However, the bishops of this province have not cut ties with TEC etc, not condemned the C of E and do not support the horrific legislation in the Gulf. they just have no power to influence things. In Uganda the story started by some Anglican church leaders and politicians inviting anti-gay people from the USA to teach them about the evil of homosexuality in 2009.

Froghole
Froghole
10 months ago

Of course a certain Y. Museveni, who sponsored the law, is himself Anglican. As I see it, this law (and the response of the local Anglican Church to it) is all part of a wider shift in Uganda’s political affiliations which has been underway for some time. Although Museveni and the NRM had much blood on their hands, Museveni was the donors’ darling in the 1990s. In the period 1994-98 he was *the* favourite, and was thought to have banished the ghosts of Obote, Amin and Okello. He fought against HIV/AIDS (what a contrast with Mbeki) and sponsored affirmative action… Read more »

Jonathan Jamal
Jonathan Jamal
Reply to  Froghole
10 months ago

Froghole
What I remember from my Anglican days, and having lived in the past in that Diocese, is that the Diocese of Bristol has a link with the Province of the Church of Uganda and I wonder if the Diocese of Bristol will now be seriously reviewing that link in the light of what has happened as far as this new Ugandan Legislation is concerned? Jonathan

John Caperon
John Caperon
10 months ago

On the stance of the Church of Uganda, two facts may be relevant. First, that Uganda was never, strictly speaking, a British colony, but a Protectorate, despite the Archbishop’s anti-colonial rhetoric: under British rule, yes, but ‘indirect rule’ through local rulers, and often recognised as pretty benign. Second, the early years of Uganda’s contact with Anglican and Catholic missionaries in the 1880s culminated in the 1886 martyrdom of twenty-two newly-baptised Christians who chose death rather than submission to the homosexual advances of Kabaka Mwanga II, in whose service they were. There’s a lot of’colonial era’ and martyrdom background to this… Read more »

Jo B
Jo B
Reply to  John Caperon
10 months ago

Yes, but there’s also a lot of tub-thumping rhetoric to appeal to homophobic popular sentiment.

Froghole
Froghole
Reply to  John Caperon
10 months ago

Many thanks, Dr Caperon. Whilst I agree that indirect rule was certainly characteristic of the British presence in Uganda, I am not certain that its status as a protectorate made any meaningful difference. Many of Britain’s African territories were protectorates, invariably as quirks of their foundation. There was usually scant difference between the status of a protectorate and a colony, save that denizens of a protectorate did not have British nationality status after the British Nationality Act 1948. However, in Uganda local potentates enforced hut and other taxes on behalf of the colonial administration, in what increasingly became a cotton… Read more »

James
James
10 months ago

A little bit of fact checking would be useful here. First, Welby and Cottrell are mistaken – and surprisingly so – in stating that the new law criminalises homosexual acts in Uganda. I thought everyone knew that homosexual acts have ALWAYS been illegal in that state. What this law does is to increase the penalties for any “promotion” of homosexuality. It is clearly intended to close down advocacy and acceptance of homosexual relations as is now common in British, European and American schools. American foreign policy (and David Cameron’s as well) often tried to compel Christian African nations to change… Read more »

Fr Dean
Fr Dean
Reply to  James
10 months ago

Just because the death penalty is rarely carried out, does not make it acceptable.

James
James
Reply to  Fr Dean
10 months ago

I didn’t say it was – but my primary point, which you neglected to comment on, is that Welby and Cottrell are seriously mistaken in claiming that the new law criminalises homosexual acts, which it doesn’t because they are already illegal in Uganda. They have misrepresented the facts – and I’m sure thry knew this. My second point, which you may have missed, was that the death penalty was proposed for “aggravated homosexuality”, which is defined as rape, including child rape. That’s a badly titled offence but I note that most press comment in the west has omitted this fact… Read more »

Fr Dean
Fr Dean
Reply to  James
10 months ago

James, can you confirm that the death penalty is imposed on men who rape women in Uganda?

James
James
Reply to  Fr Dean
10 months ago

As far as I know, the death penalty isn’t imposed on anyone in Uganda, not even for murder. They may be sentenced to death but no executions have occurred for about 20 years.

Fr Dean
Fr Dean
Reply to  James
10 months ago

I’ll rephrase my question: are men who have been found guilty of raping women sentenced to death in Uganda?

James
James
Reply to  Fr Dean
10 months ago

You could have googled this yourself, Dean. The answer is that the Uganda Penal Code para. 129(i) does mandate the death penalty for rape of a child under 18. However, in 2009 the Supreme Court of Uganda abolished mandatory death sentences. In February 5, 2022 President Museveni stated he would like to see a mandatory death sentence for rape, but there have been no executions for any crimes in Uganda since c. 2003.

Savi Hensman
Savi Hensman
Reply to  James
10 months ago

Regarding ‘aggravated homosexuality’, a consenting adult who is disabled or aged 75+ is very different from a child. And the death penalty also extends to ‘serial offenders’, that is people who have previous convictions for homosexuality or related offences.

James
James
Reply to  Savi Hensman
10 months ago

You can read the text of the bill here: Anti-Homosexuality-Bill-2023.pdf (independent.co.ug)
Disabled persons are described as ‘victims’ here, not consenting adults. This is not the same as consensual sex which is covered in section 6.

Fr Dean
Fr Dean
Reply to  James
10 months ago

Why should an amputee or a deaf person be denied a sex life; assuming all the usual caveats about consent and the ability to consent are in place?

James
James
Reply to  Fr Dean
10 months ago

I don’t think you have read the bill correctly.

Savi Hensman
Savi Hensman
Reply to  James
10 months ago

The wording of the Act (rather than the Bill) is on https://www.parliament.go.ug/sites/default/files/The%20Anti-Homosexuality%20Act%2C%202023.pdf. Within Part 2 (Homosexuality and Related Practices), which includes section 3, on ‘Aggravated Homosexuality’, section 6 makes it clear that consent is not a defence under the Act, while in section 3, there is a separate item (i) covering non-consensual sex with adults. The use of ‘victim’ for a consenting adult partner ties in with the fearmongering pretence that gays and lesbians tend to be predators and also maybe avoids embarrassing images of the state killing an amputee or 80-year-old grandmother for daring to experience loving intimacy.

James
James
Reply to  Savi Hensman
10 months ago

I do not think you have understood the Act correctly. The preamble to the Act makes it clear that “victim” means:
A. A child under 18.
B. A person with mental illness
C. A recipient of threats, force, intimidation etc.
D. Other vulnerable persons (extreme age etc).
All of these categories correspond to “victim” under English law.

Savi Hensman
Savi Hensman
Reply to  James
10 months ago

Are you suggesting that under English law, if a husband and wife have a loving consensual relationship and one of them experiences PTSD or mobility loss or turns 75, the other is liable to be arrested if their sex life continues? I recognise that at times disabled and older people here are patronised, even treated as if children, but that is not our actual legal status.

Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  James
10 months ago

I am genuinely puzzled by some of this discussion. There is no provision for a death sentence anywhere in the Bill. Under clause 3 the penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’ is a ‘fixed tariff’ sentence of imprisonment for ten years. Clause 3 (1) (f) also clearly states that the offence is committed where the ‘offender is a serial offender’. That, of course, would not preclude some other legislation imposing a more severe sentence for the specific offence of serial offending, but one would expect to see some cross-reference to it. Clause 6 states that consensual homosexuality is not a defence. The… Read more »

Savi Hensman
Savi Hensman
Reply to  Rowland Wateridge
10 months ago

See 3 (1) of the Act, which contains a harsher penalty.

Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  Savi Hensman
10 months ago

Thank you. I had independently found the Act after posting my comment. I think that the Bill was the equivalent of a private member’s bill in our legislation: it is signed by an MP. The contrast between it and the Act as passed – within three months, I think – is indeed startling.

I’m struck by the irony (in the context of the Archbishop’s reference to former colonial rule) that this legislation by the Republic of Uganda follows a wholly UK parliamentary draftsmanship style.

Rowland Wateridge
Rowland Wateridge
Reply to  Rowland Wateridge
10 months ago

Answering my own question, the Bill very dramatically amended passed into law, and the 2023 Act does indeed prescribe the death sentence. Wikipedia conveniently summarises the provisions of the Bill (as I did above) and the amendments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Homosexuality_Act,_2023

Frankly, the procedure followed, and on such a short timescale, regardless of all else would be inconceivable in our parliamentary system.

Froghole
Froghole
Reply to  Rowland Wateridge
10 months ago

Indeed, although I note that the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (admittedly four sections and in rapid response to Ian Smith’s UDI) passed all of its stages in 5 days! UDI was declared in Salisbury (Harare) on 11 November, and the Act received royal assent on 16 November. Very quick drafting by Noel Hutton, John Fiennes, etc.

James
James
Reply to  Rowland Wateridge
10 months ago

That’s what I thought. A lot of misrepresentation going on, beginning with Welby and Cottrell.

William
William
Reply to  James
10 months ago

Thanks for clarifying this James.

peterpi - Peter Gross
peterpi - Peter Gross
10 months ago

Are GLBT members of Anglican provinces continually to be beaten over the head with the detestable Resolution 1.10 of 1998?
If someone spews hatred towards a group of people, and then says “but some of my best friends are x”, does the latter excuse the former? That is my view of 1.10. A few crumbs thrown our way to make us feel better about the other 90% of 1.10.
And I agree with others. The Archbishops issue communiques — followed by no actions.

Last edited 10 months ago by peterpi - Peter Gross
Kate
Kate
10 months ago

I don’t agree with the “great words” viewpoint.

Those condemning same sex relationships always seem to do so in clear, strident language. Is the Church of England support for LGBT people as clear and strident? For me, very much not.

These letters for me show that the current insipid compromise undermines any clear mission the Church of England might have in this area

John Davies
John Davies
Reply to  Kate
10 months ago

The problem is that those condemning anything usually have a very clear cut, black and white view of the issue, which makes it very easy to be strident. It’s harder for others, who are more sensitive to match it.

Susannah Clark
10 months ago

As I have dedicated and personal family interests involved in the Christian life in Uganda, I want to guard my words very carefully. One thing I do want to urge is that where possible Anglicans in England continue to keep contact with Christians (including Anglicans) who live among communities with pitiful needs. Please keep the channels open, whether you or they hold socially liberal views or conservative views. I am acutely aware of the abject circumstances and poverty too many live with. I receive details for prayer every week. Young mothers abandoned by men, others suffering domestic abuse, more turning… Read more »

Susanna (no ‘h’)
Susanna (no ‘h’)
Reply to  Susannah Clark
10 months ago

Well said.
I wonder whether it would be presumptuous to suggest the two archbishops have a discussion with each other about the beginning of Matthew c7- motes and beams or logs and splinters or whatever wording you prefer?

Savi Hensman
Savi Hensman
Reply to  Susanna (no ‘h’)
10 months ago

I do not think that trying to build on existing ties, maintain dialogue and recognise complexities means that leaders (who are almost inevitably imperfect and inconsistent to some extent) should never speak out against harsh violence against the defenceless and distortions of Christianity. The archbishops probably gave some thought to the issue of what might be most effective in reducing the damage caused by this Act and church complicity and admittedly this is not always clear. However I do not believe Matthew 7 suggests that, whenever someone tries to provide religious justification for brutality to minorities or women or for… Read more »

William
William
Reply to  Susannah Clark
10 months ago

Excellent response Susannah. Thank you.

Rod Gillis
Rod Gillis
10 months ago

There is an old Rabbinical saying, “Never throw stones in the well you draw water from”. Religious conservatives have given this saying a political application with regard to the situation in Uganda by greeting the same with silence or equivocation or waffling. For the most recent statement on Uganda’s anti-gay legislation from Global Affairs Canada see the link.

https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2023/05/statement-on-ugandas-anti-homosexuality-act.html

76
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x