Anglican West to Anglican South: Drop dead

Don’t be deceived by the so-what-else-is-new headline on our friend Julia Duin’s report in The Washington Times. “African bishops reject aid,” as the Times’ headline puts it, has been a story since the latter months of 2003, when many African bishops announced their intentions to protest the Episcopal Church’s decision to consecrate Gene Robinson as an openly gay bishop.

What sets Duin’s story apart is how much she reveals about the horrible cost being paid by these bishops’ people as conservative Episcopalians fail to make up for what the bishops have rejected.

Here are some of the distressing facts Duin reports:

Africa, which has 12 Anglican provinces each containing numerous dioceses, is the fastest-growing portion of the 70-million-member Anglican Communion, which includes the U.S. Episcopal Church. The 2003 election of New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson, who is divorced and living in a homosexual relationship, split the Anglican Communion.

Since then, the archbishops of Nigeria, Kenya and Uganda, overseeing 30.5 million Anglicans, announced they will not accept grants from the Episcopal Church. Some Rwandan and Tanzanian bishops are following suit.

Edwina Thomas, national director of Sharing of Ministries Abroad, a Virginia-based international Anglican group, said African prelates debated the matter in Nigeria last year.

“The archbishop of Congo stood in front of the bishops and said, ‘My people are starving. They are having as little as one meal every other day,’” she said. “I remember the archbishop of Nigeria saying, ‘We need to help you.’”

So do more Americans, [the Rev. Canon Bill] Atwood [general secretary of the conservative Ekklesia Society] said.

“Say there are 1,000 conservative Episcopal churches that spend $1,000 a month for air-conditioning,” he said. “That’s $12 million a year. The amount of money they are spending on air-conditioning each year is what is being sent to run all the Anglican provinces in Africa.”

I think I’ll remember those details the next time I read about fellow conservative Episcopalians calling themselves persecuted and oppressed.

Print Friendly

  • jayman

    I hope someone who comments on this post knows of a way one can make contributions to these African churches. I’d really like to know.

  • Jill

    Perhaps Ekklesia (http://www.ekk.org/) or Uganda Christian University Partners, headed by Diane Stanton, wife of Bishop James Stanton — Diocese of Dallas? Check out this page for possible ideas and contacts: http://www.episcopal-dallas.org/worldmission/resources.htm

  • Steve

    Oh, that’s cute. Blame the conservatives.

  • CTMom

    Right you are, Steve – if ECUSA would recant, repent, and reverse it’s actions, which is FREE, Africa would take their money and everyone would be happy, including Jesus.

    If ECUSA is looking for an entity to blame for the poverty of the African churches, perhaps ECUSA should look in the mirror.

  • http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2 Douglas LeBlanc

    I’m not trying to be cute, Steve. I’m a conservative Episcopalian myself. I know from covering meetings of conservative Episcopalians that leaders have talked about the importance of making up the gap created when these bishops have turned down money from liberal dioceses. This is a complex story, of course, and there’s plenty of blame to go around. Me and my fellow conservatives are not immune from it.

  • http://www.joe-perez.com/ Joe Perez

    The most interesting thing about this story is that it tragically demonstrates the intensity and depth of the homophobia and anti-gay bigotry among the African bishops. Everyone knows they’re bigots; now we know that they are willing to let their people starve to death to follow their ignorance and hate to the place where all hate leads: into darkness.

  • Pingback: Gay Spirituality

  • Robert

    The Anglican Communion Network was at one time developing an Anglican Relief and Development organization to be an alternative to Episcopal Relief and Development. ACN’s website says nothing about ARD.

  • bls

    That’s really some sterling logic offered by CTMom up there.

    1. ECUSA offers needed aid to Africa.

    2. African Bishops turn it down.

    3. Thus, ECUSA is to blame for the poverty in Africa.

    Brother.

  • bls

    (And FYI, ECUSA will be able to figure out alternative ways to get money to starving people who need it.

    It certainly doesn’t have to pass through the hands of the pointy-hats, or go through the Church at all, for that matter; there are thousands of aid organizations that can do the job.

    Brother, I say again. This is really getting old by now.)

  • http://pietist.blogspot.com/ Eric Swensson

    Everyone does not know that the African bishops are homophobic. They are taking a stand for what they know is the truth. That should be easy to undestand for postmodern souls.

  • http://pietist.blogspot.com/ Eric Swensson

    “The conservative African bishops have followed their ignorance and hate to the place where all ill will leads: into destruction and darkness. Their people suffer so that their self-righteous “leaders” can take a stand on the “principle” of putting anti-gay prejudice ahead of people’s lives. With morals like those, who needs sin?”

    I suppose you could enlighten us of what they are ignorant and what it is that they hate? I would hazard to guess that their ignorance is that they do not know that gayness should be celebrated and that what you think they hate is … you? It has occured to you that they are standing up for their values?

    Seems like your post is painting broad, broad strokes. Have you sat down with any Africans to talk about this?

  • bls

    Well, it’s simple, Eric: they must think homosexuality is just about the worst thing there is on earth, or else why would they let people starve over the issue? Wouldn’t you say that’s a little out of proportion – considering that homosexuality is more or less a victimless “crime”? Wouldn’t you agree that this hysterical reaction is based in prejudice? If not, what could it possibly be based in?

    And what “values” are they standing up for? The pretense that homosexuality doesn’t exist in Africa? That gay people are forever anathema – and for no rational reason? Perhaps you could explain that?

    And while you’re at it, can you explain why anyone should want to become Christian when they see this kind of hysteria? As I said, nobody needs the Church to distribute aid to starving people; other organizations do a great job in this area. If Christians are going to obstruct aid to starving people, for no rational reason, and when others will gladly help, why in the world would anybody be attracted to it?

    Just curious.

  • Pingback: CaNN :: We started it.

  • Robert

    The African bishops probably don’t think that homosexuality is the worst thing in the world, but they clearly think it matters. They are acting based on an understanding of Christian behavior that they hold in common with all but a tiny fraction of the world’s Christians. In their view, that’s a rational reason. And as Doug has pointed out, they were promised help. The real story here is not them but the apparent inability of the Network to deliver on that promise.

  • Beth

    Would this blog please post an address where we conservative Christians could send contributions to African Churches in need of help.

  • http://www.joe-perez.com/ Joe Perez

    What kind of bizarre world of Christian Moral Relativism is this when Eric and Robert argue that just because the bishops believe themselves to be acting on “principles” that are sincerely held related to the alleged sexual immorality of a guy named Gene Robinson, therefore they are justified in taking actions that result in death? I wouldn’t call them murderers, but their deeds are an evil. Speak out against it, or you’re a Christian Moral Relativist–evil is justified if you base it on a religious belief.

  • http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2 Douglas LeBlanc

    In response to Beth’s question:

    Anglican Relief & Development
    905 Oliver Building
    535 Smithfield Street
    Pittsburgh, PA 15222

    Ekklesia Society
    PO Box 118526
    Carrollton, TX 75011-8526
    http://www.ekk.org/

    Five Talents International
    PO Box 331
    Vienna, VA 22183
    http://www.fivetalents.org/

  • http://pietist.blogspot.com/ Eric Swensson

    Joe, let’s keep the ad hominem’s to a minimum, OK? And I’ll keep it to two points, the point I was trying to raise, that what they are doing is being consistent to their view of Scripture and this one about hunger.

    Do you think their poverty and hunger spiked in the last few months? Do you think that the West has been generous? We have not even given them a tithe of a tithe of a tithe. How much have you given to the hungry in other lands, or is this just a convenient argument for you?

    To my main point, there is nothing relativistic about their decision to not take money from official channels that they think are corrupt, corrupt in the ways that they think are of ultimate importance. Some people think that the church is about getting together with like minded individuals and working to help people out, some see it as participating in God. The later tend to see things through a biblical worldview which convicts people of sin demanding that they turn from their self-serving ways and follow Jesus who was the fulfilment of the law of Moses. SInce that law forbids homosexual activity, people with that world view find anything you say deluded.

    So their deeds are evil? And they are moral relativists? Are you saying the African bishops are moral relativists?

  • wildwest

    “Would this blog please post an address where we conservative Christians could send contributions to African Churches in need of help.”

    Will they accept contributions from liberal Christians, too?

  • http://pietist.blogspot.com/ Eric Swensson

    One might think that was funny if not for the fact that bishops on both sides are stating plainly that we have two religions in one church.

    However, for the sake of the widows and orphans, please do donate today.

    My congregation supports several small medical projects in Africa. Each one of you could do a lot of good by looking around and seeing who you can develop relationships with (Africans live and work in all our cities)and many have connections to clinics and can make sure that great good is done. I know several doctors who travel back and forth several times a year and always take medicine with them and work in a clinic while there. If you give them money they can lay up supplies for the next trip.

  • bls

    I totally agree with Eric: give, give, give. Give to the Red Cross. Give to Doctors Without Borders. Give to groups who will help the poor and starving. Give generously and often.

    Give to organizations that will accept your gifts and do good works with them. Ignore the ones who won’t.

    Just as gay people will continue to ignore the Church so that we can also “participate in God.”

  • bls

    (Amazing that the acceptance foreign aid to desperate people is now predicated on the giver’s having the proper cultural and/or “religious” views.

    And BTW, now it’s been confirmed: Homosexuality is not, in fact, “a sin like any other.” Nope: homosexuality is absolutely the worst offense on earth, bar none. Love between two people has officially been criminalized in the Christian Church.

    Well, now we know.)

  • http://pietist.blogspot.com/ Eric Swensson

    We do not know that homosexuality is the worst offense. No one in any responsible position has ever said this to my knowledge, not in Africa, North America or anywhere. To say so is not only building a straw man in order to knock it down, but using a very emotional arguement which does not move the discussion forward.

    When I initially entered this comment thread it was because it is unhelpful, and certainly from my experience untruthful to cast Africans as some sort of bigots. You need to have a window opened into their culture. I can do it becasue I am an American married to an African, but I can do that only to an open mind.

    Trust me, this is a worldview issue and you have to enter into the other in order to understand.

  • Brian

    The Gospels record that Jesus was hungry in the wilderness, yet he had priorities other than his immediate physical needs:

    1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

    2And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry.

    3And the tempter came and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.”

    4But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.’”

    Matthew 4

  • Dave

    I see one important point missing from this discussion.

    The African bishops did not reject money from the ECUSA because Gene Robinson is gay. They refused the money because in their view (and mine) the ECUSA is, as an organization, actively going about changing the core doctrines of the church. This has been going on for a long time, but the divide is growing and is really starting to mobilize the orthodox. Whatever side you fall on this issue, one has to see that it’s not “homophobia,” as some have implied.

    Would this be a fair comparison? A branch of Planed Parenthood that went pro-life and then tried to fund the counseling programs of other Planed Parenthoods in poor areas. Not quite a perfect analogy but it gets at what I’m trying to say.

  • http://pietist.blogspot.com/ Eric Swensson

    BTW, let the Africans speak for themselves? This from a conference of Lutheran bishops.

    Go to http://www.elct.org/ read the whole thing and you see that they use plain language and so may inflame some; however, you should see that they put the matter in the context of globalization.

    “Although Tanzanians are not well versed with all facets of globalization, and even though most of them feel that they didn’t cause globalization, but rather have been forced into it by those who wield power, yet globalization is inevitable. We therefore, in the face of such inevitability, find it necessary to stand for the defense of our national identity, culture and dignity.

    Above and beyond sexual immorality and cases of rape in our society, the critical issue facing the church and society today is homosexuality in different forms and shapes. It has shaken the church and the foundation of human civilization worldwide. Thus, we find it pertinent to state our position on this issue, hoping by so doing, to defend the church’s fidelity to Holy Scripture and societal decency.

    On HIV and the AIDS pandemic, we bishops view globalization and changing views of human sexuality as among the factors that contribute to the intensification of its gravity.”

  • bls

    ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.’”

    That’s easy, I suppose, for wealthy Westerners – and for Bishops whose own needs are satisfied – to say.

    The African bishops did not reject money from the ECUSA because Gene Robinson is gay. They refused the money because in their view (and mine) the ECUSA is, as an organization, actively going about changing the core doctrines of the church.

    Very interesting, then, that nobody turned down funds when ECUSA started ordaining women, isn’t it?

    You might be right that the Bishops aren’t personally homophobic. But they’re certainly depending on Christian homophobia – of which there is an endless and botttomless supply.

    But again: who cares what the Bishops do? If you want to feed hungry people, now you know not to support the Church, but to give the money directly to secular aid organizations. Live and learn.

  • bls

    (And FYI: do you think it’s coincidence that the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population is the “unchurched”?

    I don’t.)

  • bls

    Eric, if Christendom feels that innate homosexuality in a small portion of the population – people who for the most part only want to be left alone to live decent lives – is the biggest problem in the entire world, well, then: Christendom is completely and totally screwed up and deserves to die, and nobody should mourn it.

    Fortunately, the Church is not God, and won’t have the final say.

  • bls

    (And by the way, Dave: the “core doctrines” of the Church are the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds. Nothing much in there about gay – or female – bishops, as I recall.)

  • Dave

    bls,
    True, neither the Nicene nor the Apostles’ Creed talk about sexuality. They also don’t talk about feeding the poor. These morals are derived from the Bible, and it’s the authority of the Bible that is perceived to be under attack.

    I’m not saying that the homosexuality issue is not an emotional one. There is defentally a cultural component to strong reaction we see to the ordination of homosexuals, both from the African and western churches. It is not the core component.

    As Eric Swensson said, it is a worldview issue.

  • wildwest

    bls,

    Your point about women’s ordination is well taken. In order to be consistent with the “worldview” discussed here (we must follow everything in the Bible and take it literally, even if it means doing things that are really not very nice, in order to be faithful), women should clearly not be ordained, either. What gives? I wonder. (Men should wear their hair short and women should wear it long, too, btw.)

  • Connecticutian

    I don’t understand all of this arguing and generally snarky tone. It’s complex (as Dave said earlier) but also very simple:

    1) The Africans do not want to accept aid from ECUSA because they disagree with its religion (not just one [im]moral teaching) and by being yoked together they would be seen as approving of that religion. To them, heresy is worse than hunger. We may agree or disagree, but who are we to say they’re wrong or suggest that they’re evil in doing so?

    2) GIVE! Donate, today. Three organizations were cited, and has been pointed out, there are others. Here’s a challenge to all, but especially to those criticizing the African bishops: Will you make a donation to the ARD today – which WOULD be accepted by the African bishops – to help starving Africans? Or will you avoid them because you disagree with their politics?

  • Connecticutian

    Repeating from Dave’s post above, for more visibility:

    In response to Beth’s question:

    Anglican Relief & Development
    905 Oliver Building
    535 Smithfield Street
    Pittsburgh, PA 15222

    Ekklesia Society
    PO Box 118526
    Carrollton, TX 75011-8526
    http://www.ekk.org/

    Five Talents International
    PO Box 331
    Vienna, VA 22183
    http://www.fivetalents.org/

  • bls

    Here’s a challenge to all, but especially to those criticizing the African bishops: Will you make a donation to the ARD today – which WOULD be accepted by the African bishops – to help starving Africans? Or will you avoid them because you disagree with their politics?

    I’ll definitely avoid them, and give to organizations that don’t promote vicious prejudice against gay people. As I’ve been doing all along.

    And I’ll definitely continue to criticize homophobia in the Church, and homophobic clerics who continue to promote it. That will keep me busy for the rest of my life, I’m sure.

    Why, BTW, do you think it’s perfectly OK for us to be “yoked” to people whose “religion” we don’t agree with?

  • bls
  • bls

    (And here’s another.

    We don’t have to choose between helping starving people and registering our disapproval of religious homophobia and the incredible damage it wreaks in people’s lives. We can do both, quite easily, and we should.

    If the Church were the only game in town, that would be one thing. But it’s emphatically not, thank goodness, so indeed: give, give!)

  • Connecticutian

    bls: “Why, BTW, do you think it’s perfectly OK for us to be “yoked” to people whose “religion” we don’t agree with?”

    I think it must be perfectly OK with you, because that’s the standard you’re holding the African bishops to. You expect them to violate their consciences (and those of their followers) by working in concert with an agency that purports to be Christian yet undermines the values of the worldwide Church. If you believe their religion can be compromised, then you should believe that your religion can be compromised.

    You are correct that you fortunately have alternate routes to help the needy. The Africans also felt they had alternatives; sadly, we orthodox apparently are falling short, which should be to our shame.

    If you think they’re operating out of petty bigotry, consider that in some parts of the world, they are threatened with death because they are associated with a church that promotes acceptance of unnatural acts. It’s not ONLY that they can’t evangelize because people won’t give them a hearing; it’s that they are actively persecuted because they are linked to the “homosexual church.” But if you think that’s no reason to keep Gene Robinson from enjoying his “rights”, then I don’t see how you have any moral superiority to the African Bishops – just a different agenda.

    Finally, please give the “phobia” business a rest. There is little to no fear in the issue, just matters of principle.

  • bls

    If you think they’re operating out of petty bigotry, consider that in some parts of the world, they are threatened with death because they are associated with a church that promotes acceptance of unnatural acts. It’s not ONLY that they can’t evangelize because people won’t give them a hearing; it’s that they are actively persecuted because they are linked to the “homosexual church.” But if you think that’s no reason to keep Gene Robinson from enjoying his “rights”, then I don’t see how you have any moral superiority to the African Bishops – just a different agenda.

    I think rather that you ought to consider the fact that in many, places in the world, if not most, gay people are not just threatened with death, but beaten, murdered, and/or executed by the State. Or is that simply irrelevant and unimportant to you?

    And please don’t try the loathsome trick of making us responsible for our own victimization – responsible for the bigotry and hatred of the people who persecute us, and now even for the victimization of others. How about, instead, if you put the blame where it belongs, for a change? And perhaps the Church ought to repent for its part in this endless persecution, along with the other “religionists” who are the cause of it? Of course, I expect the Church will be offering apologies to homosexual people in another 300 years or so, just as it ends up apologizing to all its victims. But it could begin here and now, and renounce any persecution of gay people; or is that simply too radical for the religion of “love”?

    Here’s a clue, CT: gay people aren’t doing anybody else any harm and only want what everybody else in the world wants: to find a bit of love and happiness in life, and to enjoy a modicum of physical safety. Perhaps heterosexual relationships are entirely about sex, but that’s not the case for gay people, so I’d appreciate it if “Christians” would stay out of our private lives and not worry so much about our alleged “unnatural acts.” It’s really none of your business. And BTW, I haven’t ever heard Gene Robinson talk about “enjoying his rights”; all he’s ever spoken about is his 17-year relationship, and his love for his partner. Is that what you’re all so worried about?

    “Homophobia,” BTW, simply refers to hatred of homosexuality and of homosexual people. There’s no other word available, so I wish you guys would give the whining about its use a rest.

  • bls

    (I suppose, too, you think that victims of lynchings in the South were responsible for their own murders, too? And also for the murders of people who were “associated” with them?

    Or could it possibly be that bigots are responsible for both of these things? And that bigots should be renounced and held accountable for their bigotry and for their actions in promoting it?

    Or are these things all simply irrelevant when it comes to gay people?

    Gee. Let me guess.)

  • Melissa Hastings

    Wow! A lot of attachment of emotional baggage to somebody. Because you believe A than you must also believe B C & D! Yes, all you consservatives who believe homosexuality eat gay babies for breakfast! You…you…all beat up Matthew and hung him on the cross!

    Nope, not biting. I don’t believe that…and deep down, I don’t think you do either.

  • Connecticutian

    I was considering a response to bls, but I think Melissa has a point. A blog conversation is not going to cut through all of that anger. I’m out…

  • wildwest

    Although his 1:55 entry went a bit overboard, unfortunately it gave ammunition to those who would refuse to see the reason in his 1:50 entry, which stands to reason as far as I’m concerned.

  • Anonymous

    No, wildwest, the 1:50 entry contains almost no reason, just irrational emotion manifested as illogical complaints. Which is understandable. But it’s not something which a blog confontation will fix. This thread ahs gone well past any rational discussion of facts and ideas, or even motivations. I’m out (again)… :-)

  • Connecticutian

    (Sorry, the 10:09 post was from Connecticutian, who forgot to ‘sign’ it.!)

  • wildwest

    You’re right. Threads can’t cure it. Now, I have the last word. And if you come back again, you only demonstrate that I cannot take you at your word. You said you were out. :-)

  • Stephen A.

    I’ve learned so much from this thread.

    Apparently, Western churches (and many governments) were ALSO guilty of starving thousands of South Africans when it acted on principle and “divested” billions of dollars from that country’s economy in the 1980s to protest its apartheid system. Is that about right?

    No, clearly that wasn’t the case, nor is it true in this modern situation.

    African Anglicans have every right to refuse to work with and accept aid from religious groups with whom they disagree, just like Westerners have that right, and exercise it all the time.

    For “wealthy Westerners” to attempt to coerce Anglican bishops to accept aid from, and therefore remain attached to, a Western church with whom they say they no longer want to be associated seems downright imperialistic.

    It’s ironic who the imperialists are these days, though.

  • Greg

    I come from a third-world country – the current crisis in the Anglican Communion precipitated by the ordination of an openly gay non-celibate priest as a Bishop by ECUSA has been a revelation. The situation as I understand is:

    In the 1988 Lambeth Conference, ECUSA and some of the western provinces decided that homosexual people were being treated unjustly and passed a resolution for a “deep and dispassionate study of the question of homosexuality, which would take seriously both the teaching of Scripture and the results of scientific and medical research.” (This resolution was an expansion of a similar resolution passed in 1978.) The 1998 Lambeth Conference passed Resolution 1.10 which stated that “all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ;” and that “…cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those
    involved in same gender unions.” Following the conference, Spong called the Africans just removed from animists and promised the breakup of the Communion and another ECUSA-n bishop suggested that the primates of the Global South had been bought with “chicken dinners”.

    The 1988 Lambeth Conference also passed a resolution calling for the 1990s to be a “Decade of Evangelism”. In the midst of this “Decade of Evangelism”, the Global South came together with the Kuala Lumpur statement on Human Sexuality
    in 1997. So yes, the “dialogue” has already taken place in the Global South but they did not (and do not) agree with the North American Churches. No amount of “dialogue” is going to solve the theological differences between the two groups.

    The ordination of a non-celibate homosexual bishop is one step in an ongoing series – election of a Bishop that did not believe in Christ, election of Bishops that have been divorced and remarried four times, advocating for
    abortion and choice, pagan worship etc. If these are the “episcopate” I am supposed to look up to, we are scratching the bottom of the barrel. Why does anyone wonder that membership in ECUSA is declining – when even their leadership is not convinced about their own beliefs? How can a Bishop be elected that does not believe in Christ – that just boggles my mind? Why didn’t he just quit?

    Since 1978, the North American churches were willing to compel the rest of the Anglican Communion to adopt attitudes that were alien to those cultures as well as Christianity. And if the North American Churches believe in “democracy”, why are they so upset about the 1998 Lambeth Resolution and the flap over the consecration of Gene Robinson? Hypothetically, then if the results of scientific and medical research “prove” that the “homosexual orientation” can be changed, would the ordained persons lose their ordination? I am curious as
    to the “scientific evidence” that everyone quotes but none can produce.

    As the Dromontaine conference started to get closer, the shrill rhetoric started to get even worse – the Rev. Susan Russell came out with another statement and was promptly applauded for “speaking the truth”. Comments were made about the homosexual laws in those countries that opposed ECUSA while there were State Laws in the US that prohibited homosexual acts. And, the
    message ignored, that the laws remain on the books for another reason – they are primarily used in cases of child molestation and “underage” sex and very frequently it is the Western “tourists” that are caught in such acts (and they promptly bribe the cops and make a quick exit). What happened to the vaunted principle of “separation of church and the state” ? Shouldn’t the citizens of those independent countries be allowed to make up their minds on their laws. It seems strange that the missionaries who first Christianized us were “civilizing animists” from engaging in such “perverted sexual acts” while the current ECUSA leadership is assuring us that they have the “good news” – the previous missionaries were imperialists and did not know the message of Christ. They were wrong – one can be an “animist” and a “Christian” too, just do it with “love”.

    Last year, Louie Crew asked the African Bishops how they could accept money from ECUSA if they were “not in Communion”. The African Bishops promptly decided that it was not a good idea to accept money because it would impair their mission. This of course, produced aggreived howls and crocodile tears from Louie Crew and his ilk. I thought my contributions to ECUSA were being
    used for the “greater glory of God”. Why should my contributions fund people in the Executive Council in ECUSA, that can use those funds as a financial cudgel to browbeat African bishops to agree to their views? It is a shame he continues to sit on the Executive Council. He should quit if he has any semblance of “Integrity”.

    For all the opposition to the ordination, it is telling that the primates of the Global South have castigated the theology of certain bishops in ECUSA while there have been quite a few sermons and articles that questioned the integrity of primates of the Global South. Makes one wonder who is “Christian and civilized”.

    All of this leads me to believe:

    1. I would think twice about giving money to ECUSA funded missions. I would encourage every right thinking Episcopalian to “do justice” and redirect your funds to charities/relief organizations or directly to the churches in Africa.

    2. I would prefer to stay at home rather than worship with a bunch of folks who think they are “keepers of my soul” and one step removed from “animism”.

    3. “Freedom” and “Democracy” are only for the rich – the poorer nations are supposed to be “grateful” for the scraps that are thrown in their direction.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X