It had to come to this.
The Windsor Report asked for action (repentance, restraint, reaffirmation).
It never happened in ways which did not distort the meaning of the language of the Report; and certainly not in ways which upheld Resolution 1.10.
Now, in the middle of Lambeth, following a meeting of Global South primates and bieshops (including our own Bishop of Nelson), the Archbishop of Sudan has spoken.
Clear, crisp, coherent communication.
Gene Robinson and his cohort should desist from trying to get into Lambeth, and wailing about not succeeding.
The cohort should leave Lambeth in solidarity with Gene.
Let the Communion be a communion founded on theological truth.
Even Archbishop Rowan has confirmed that sex outside of marriage is wrong.
Read Ruth Gledhill's blog on the Sudanese plain speaking here. For related reports linked from Thinking Anglicans, go here.
And for the statement, read on:
In view of the present tensions and divisions within the Anglican Communion, and out of deep concern for the unity of the Church, we consider it important to express clearly the position of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan (ECS) concerning human sexuality.
We believe that God created humankind in his own image; male and female he created them for the continuation of humankind on earth. Women and men were created as God’s agents and stewards on earth We believe that human sexuality is God’s gift to human beings which is rightly ordered only when expressed within the life-long commitment of marriage between one man and one woman. We require all those in the ministry of the Church to live according to this standard and cannot accept church leaders whose practice is contrary to this.
We reject homosexual practice as contrary to biblical teaching and can accept no place for it within ECS. We strongly oppose developments within the Anglican Church in the USA and Canada in consecrating a practicing homosexual as bishop and in approving a rite for the blessing of same-sex relationships. 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.
The unity of the Anglican Communion is of profound significance to us as an expression of our unity within the Body of Christ. It is not something we can treat lightly or allow to be fractured easily. Our unity expresses the essential truth of the Gospel that in Christ we are united across different tribes, cultures and nationalities. We have come to attend the Lambeth Conference, despite the decision of others to stay away, to appeal to the whole Anglican Communion to uphold our unity and to take the necessary steps to safeguard the precious unity of the Church.
Out of love for our brothers and sisters in Christ, we appeal to the Anglican Church in the USA and Canada, to demonstrate real commitment to the requests arising from the Windsor process. In particular:
- To refrain from ordaining practicing homosexuals as bishops or priests
- To refrain from approving rites of blessing for same-sex relationships
- To cease court actions with immediate effect;
- To comply with Resolution 1:10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference
- To respect the authority of the Bible
We believe that such steps are essential for bridging the divisions which have opened up within the Communion.
We affirm our commitment to uphold the four instruments of communion of the Anglican Communion: the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates’ Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council; and call upon all Provinces of the Communion to respect these for the sake of the unity and well-being of the Church.
We appeal to this Lambeth Conference to rescue the Anglican Communion from being divided. We pray that God will heal us from the spirit of division. We pray for God’s strength and wisdom so that we might be built up in unity as the Body of Christ.
The Most Revd Dr Daniel Deng Bul
Archbishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan and Bishop of Juba
The score Global South 1 USA 0 does not mean the victory goes to the Global South. This will be the first in a series of press release 'games'.
Nor, in keeping with previous posts on this blog, does this statement mean that the last word is said by reaffirming Windsor and Resolution 1.10. It is one thing to deny that a person in a sexual relationship other than marriage should be a bishop, it is another to find appropriate 'spaces' and 'places' where gay and lesbian Anglicans live their choice to be in partnerships with integrity.
6 comments:
“We believe that human sexuality is God’s gift to human beings which is rightly ordered only when expressed within the life-long commitment of marriage between one man and one woman. We require all those in the ministry of the Church to live according to this standard and cannot accept church leaders whose practice is contrary to this.”
Sorry, but I missed when the Episcopal Church of the Sudan applied this “clear, crisp, coherent” teaching to heterosexual clergy in the Anglican Communion who are divorced and remarried. Please remind us where we can read about that.
Not having talked to the Archbishop of Sudan recently, actually not at all, I am not in the best position to justify and/or apply his statement re marriage! Suffice to note (a) it is possible that certain remarried clergy might not be welcome to minister in Sudan (b) it is possible that a reason why Sudan has not engage in episcopal oversight in the USA and Canada is that it knows it could not sustain the standard mentioned in the statement.
Hence, following your point, and the inner logic of the “clear, crisp, coherent” teaching of ECS, it would be fair to clarify their principles:
“We reject the practice of marriage of divorcees as contrary to biblical teaching and can accept no place for it within ECS. We strongly oppose developments within the Anglican Church in the USA, Canada, and elsewhere in ordaining and consecrating those married divorcees as priests and bishop and in approving a rite for the marrying of couples where one or both are divorced.”
Is it not of concern, then, that this “clear, crisp, coherent” teaching of ECS is only being publicised after it is applied to one homosexual – whereas previous to this there have been countless heterosexuals to which it would have applied?
Either ECS has been “clear, crisp, coherent” all along – but no one has bothered to report this when it applies to heterosexuals, or ECS has only formulated this position so clearly, crisply, and coherently in the context of one homosexual. Following your post, one would hope it was the former and manifest prejudice on the part of reporters, for if it were the latter it would undermine your contention that their position is coherent.
Dear Liturgy
It is coherent to have two standards and to choose to publicly oppose the failure to conform to one and not to oppose failure to conform to the other.
The logic of such a choice could be 'prejudice' but it could also be 'evaluation'. In this case I presume that ECS evaluates the failure of North America on one standard to be of greater direct impact to ECS than the other.
Your critique of my use of the word 'coherent' works on the basis that the remarriage of divorced persons is equivalent to entering into a blessed same sex partnership. Not all Anglicans agree with that equivalence.
My 'clear crisp coherent' phrase would readily come from my keyboard were I to find such a statement being made in response from TEC ... if you have any influence with the PB then encourage her so that she may receive a similar accolade from me!
You are correct that it is not the case that “the remarriage of divorced persons is equivalent to entering into a blessed same sex partnership.” One is clearly condemned by the scriptures, including by our Lord, the other is a concept the scriptural context was unaware of and hence does not address.
Might the following be an even more clear, crisp, coherent statement than that of ECS:
Recognising we live in an imperfect, fallen world, in particular situations, in contexts often very different to the milieu the scriptures originally addressed and understood, the undergirding biblical values such as compassion, justice, forgiveness, love, commitment may be more significant than individual biblical verses, the interpretation of which is disputed, and lead to blessing the marriages of couples where one or both is divorced, blessing committed same-sex couples, and ordaining leaders in committed same-sex relationships.
Hot off the press: a more irenic approach than “Global South 1 USA 0” might be found here:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/0726/1217013245796.html
Dear Liturgy
At risk of over employing recent cliches, I often think these days that how we frame issues helps with our understanding and working through of the issues.
Your alternative clear, crisp, coherent statement is a helpful framing.
Thank you!
Post a Comment