Thursday, January 05, 2006

Love from Uganda

Sine dubio on this inception of Epiphany you are up on the latest Anglican Communion schism-drama. The Abp. of Uganda wrote an open missive to Bp. Lee of Virginia in which the Abp. says I must object, in the most strenuous terms, to your characterization of Rev. Ashey’s decision to resign as a Missioner of the Diocese of Virginia as a renunciation of his holy orders. Steel yourself--and read.

Add this to the growing list of embarassments from the so-called Global South (in reality something less that the global south), a list populated by Abp. Akinola's implying gays are less-than-human, Akinola's notorious letter to Abp. Williams, the less-than-Global South's abandonment of discourse over homosexuality contra the WR, its obstinate "border crossing" contra the WR, and the way the Anglican Church in Nigeria persecutes the Nigerian branch of Changing Attitude.

There's no use turning this thing over for the "Made in Truro, Virginia" label, or the "Approved by the IRD" sticker; the Ugandan province is a full member of the AC, regardless of who influences its thinking. We are called by the WR to covenant with the Provinces of Nigeria and Uganda. Yet trust is a condition for entering into such a covenant. Do you trust the Provinces of Uganda and Nigeria to be partners with ECUSA in an Anglican covenant? Does their behavior confirm confidence in the future of an Anglican covenant? Yeah, sure.

The WR is horribly light on setting up or proposing checks and balances among the Instruments of Unity, and there is nothing in it analogous to a Bill of Rights for member provinces. The by-now painfully obvious implication is that provinces in the minority on controversial issues stand to get "steamrolled." The Archbishop of Uganda evidently imbued with righteous audacity already feels entitled to do whatever he pleases in the province of ECUSA. What if he had the weight of the Instruments on his side, rubber-stamping his cupidity? Where would he stop? Indeed, with the wrong type of covenant, the AC stands to become an arm of the IRD or some equivalent, an arm of partisan, secular powers here in the US. The only covenant worth entering into circa 2008 would be one with clear checks to the power of the Instruments, and clear protections for minority provices.

2 Comments:

At 2:08 AM, Anonymous J.C. Fisher said...

Ack. Scoty, I can't believe you got me to click on that nutso site... (T1:9) >:-(

"Lack of trust" indeed: pity.

. . . but we're made for FREEDOM in Christ (yeah, it's the freedom-of-the-cross, but still: it's only w/ our fiat we go there). We (ECUSA) are bloody well not going to be the Primatial-Majorities' slaves!

 
At 3:23 PM, Blogger The Anglican Scotist said...

My apologies. The problem is that guys like me sometimes go around looking to start a debate, an altercation. I can't hide my curiousity about why Harmon or Kimel, etc think the way they do.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home