Uganda report
Following up on the interview with Henry Orombi mentioned in the previous item, the Guardian reports today that African bishop spurns Aids cash from pro-gay diocese. This involves the Diocese of South Rwenzori and Bishop Jackson Nzerebende Tembo.
The letter referenced in the article is here.
Correspondents on the US website were divided over whether the bishop’s action was in accordance with Christian principles.
But that’s not all.
You will recall what Henry Orombi said recently in No debate on gays, says Orombi
By Jude Etyang and Jude Katende
THE Church of Uganda (COU) yesterday announced that it upholds the biblical position on sexuality, with no room for homosexuality.
The Archbishop of the COU, Henry Luke Orombi, ruled out any debate with homosexuals, saying they either repent and adopt the biblical teaching of sex or go their way.
“I do not think there is a debate. When God gives his word, you either take it or leave it. We either agree with God or go our own way,” Orombi told journalists he called to brief on the Anglican leaders’ meeting which resolved to suspend the American and Canadian Churches from the Anglican communion because of consecrating gay Church leaders.
Orombi said, “The Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The Episcopal Church of America hasn’t followed the biblical teachings on sexuality and that’s why we’re against them.”
Then New Vision carried this letter Church Should Listen to Homosexuals
Bishop Christopher Senyonjo
KampalaOn March 1 your paper reported that the Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi likened the views of both proponents and opponents of homosexuality to views of any other people and said the Church could only find a solution by listening to them.
Let the Church of Uganda follow the Archbishop’s vision. The Church should listen to the silenced, perplexed, intimidated, abused and marginalised homosexuals in our midst. They are not only in institutions of learning but are everywhere (though in minority) rubbing shoulders with the heterosexuals.
Dialoguing with them is in agreement with the gospel of Jesus Christ.
And today, we have Church Warns Bishop Senyonjo of Arraignment:
Jude Etyang
KampalaTHE Church of Uganda will arraign gay sympathiser Bishop Christopher Senyonjo before the provincial tribunal if he continues to ask the church to soften its position on homosexuality.
The Provincial Secretary Church of Uganda, the Rev. Aaron Mwesigye Kafundizeki, sounded the warning after Senyonjo wrote in the New Vision saying, “the Church should listen to the silenced, perplexed, intimidated, abused and marginalised homosexuals.”
Senyonjo suggested that the church should have dialogue with homosexuals.
“Bishop Senyonjo and company will soon face a Church of Uganda Provincial tribunal if he continues to provoke the Church of Uganda leadership and the entire Anglican Communion,” Kafundizeki said.
Update
According to titusonenine on Thursday, this story has been denied by Church of Uganda Provincial Secretary, the Rev. Aaron Mwesigye Kafundizeki who issued this statement:
In the 21st March 2005 issue of The New Vision newspaper (p. 3), reporter Jude Etyang incorrectly reported that the Church of Uganda “will arraign gay sympathiser Bishop Christopher Senyonjo before the provincial tribunal if he continues to ask the church to soften its position on homosexuality.” The Church of Uganda has not initiated any ecclesiastical discipline against Senyonjo and calls upon The New Vision to publicly apologize to the Church of Uganda and Senyonjo for implying that it has.
The Church of Uganda continues to be distressed that a retired bishop, namely, Christopher Senyonjo, persists in openly misrepresenting the teachings of Scripture. In so doing, he is misleading the public on the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the historic teaching of the church on human sexuality that the Church of Uganda upholds. When he speaks, he speaks only for himself, and has no authority to speak on behalf of the church.
On human sexuality, the Bible is very clear and, as Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi has previously stated, the good news that we in the Church of Uganda joyfully proclaim is this: “Sexual intimacy is reserved for a husband and wife in a lifelong, heterosexual, monogamous marriage. We are committed to offering the gospel to those struggling with homosexuality. For us in Uganda pastoral care means leading people into the fully transformed life that Jesus promises to those who call upon his name.”
Funny, that. I remember Jesus associating with those society saw as immoral at the time, be they tax-gatherers or prostitutes or sinners, since there was a greater message to be conveyed. I don’t remember him saying `in 2005 AD go off and form some multi-national organized religion’. Likewise I recall James saying not to treat one’s fellow Christians differently because of how they dress (“here, you can come sit at my feet”). Given that nobody on this planet is perfect on any number of grounds, and yet from some we choose to appoint bishops and the like, on what grounds… Read more »
Dialogue is a good thing. It works two ways as well. African bishops have a perfect right to defend Biblical marriage without having the usual ‘bigoted homophobe’ labels attached.
Is it the position of this site that it is impossible, where homosexuality is concerned, to ‘hate the sin and love the sinner’?
Or, to put it another way, are there any supporters of traditional Christian teaching on sexuality who are not considered to be motivated by hatred ? If so, could someone say who they are ?
Just imagine the suffering that is caused by this man’s action in denying financial aide to the sick! Think of children orphaned. Think of women and men dying.
The will of God?
It has been declared anathema in the worldwide communion to not recognize homosexuals as children of God.
Lord have mercy. Christ have mercy. Lord have mercy.
Annie
Tim (and others), I’m going to be upfront with you: I’m not sure where I stand on the issue of homosexuality in relation to Christian tradition. I honestly don’t know if it’s a sin or not. But I feel you (and many others) are missing the point. From what I’ve seen, no one is ‘discriminating against a particular sin’. It’s just that they are chosing to remind people (in reaction to what has happened in ECUSA) that this is what the Christian faith has held down through the ages. For 2,000 years, Christians have held that acting on homosexual feelings… Read more »
How easily we rush to condemn! My guess is that Henry Orombi agonized over this decision before coming to the conclusion that principles came first. It’s not a new stance. There are churches that have refused gifts because of their source – gambling for example. Such a decision takes guts. Incidentally, from what I am given to understand, churches that have taken a similar line to Henry Orombi have unexpectedly been receiving large funds from other sources, and if this is correct, it would confirm that the Lord honours those who honour Him. 1 Samuel 2 v.30: “They who honour… Read more »
Michael (and maybe others), I did combine a number of thoughts in that comment, but didn’t really emphasize what I was thinking all that clearly: woops. One of the thoughts I had is that homosexuality is not actually the point: sin is. The issue *should* be about what kind of person is viable for a role in the clergy, given that *all* Christians, whilst saved by grace, are also all subject to temptation. It might be reasonable to say that someone flagrantly doing something they know to be wrong with no sign of repentance is unsuitable to lead others, I… Read more »
Laban,
Yes, it’s quite possible to hate the sin and love the sinner. That’s quite a good way to start to analyze the situation, because the next question is what’s the relationship between the sin and sinner – continual, stopped but inclinations, repented, not perceived as a sin, … etc?. From this point people can discuss decently and in order, whatever the outcome.
I am reminded that:
At one time Christians accepted that charging interest on money lent to other Christians was forbidden by Scripture;
At one time Christians accepted that divorce was forbidden by Scripture;
At one time Christians accepted that chattel slavery was permitted by Scripture.
The truth of God is never easily comprended by us once for all. We must always continue to listen and respond to the movement of the Spirit in our hearts.
“Or, to put it another way, are there any supporters of traditional Christian teaching on sexuality who are not considered to be motivated by hatred ? If so, could someone say who they are?” Laban, can I answer your question with a question? Is it not possible to believe that people legitimately *disagree* on the question on the righteousness/sinfulness of homosexuality, each side IN GOOD (BIBLICAL) FAITH? In someone like +Orombi, we see the belief that “we own THE Biblical perspective—ergo, we own orthodox Anglicanism.” What if *both* +Orombi and +Senyonjo, in good faith, hold to what they each understand… Read more »
Fair enough, Tim – but that’s not what I read on this site or in some of the comments boxes. From Frank Griswold’s association of conservative clergy with ‘the devil … father of lies’ to the commenter who considers Bishop Orombi’s views to be ‘cold hearted and horrendous’ (and that’s just the top page of this site) it appears that those who consider homosexual acts contrary to God’s will are either infernally inspired or suffering from a personality disorder. I can’t remember a single item on this site where an opponent of ECUSA’s position is considered to be mistaken, but… Read more »
Laban: welcome! It’s good to see you commenting on this site. I always enjoy reading your blog — though as someone who describes Rowan Williams as ‘Rasputin’ and the ‘Mad Monk’, perhaps you are not in the best position to complain about the uncharitable language used by others. I share your dislike of the intemperate rhetoric used by some liberals in this debate. However, if Griswold and company had been more moderate in their response, then I think I can guess what your reaction would have been: “typical limp-wristed liberals .. afraid to stand up for their beliefs .. unable… Read more »
Thank you Andrew – I’ll look up his pronouncements on ths issue. You’re quite right to take me to task, but then I don’t pretend to be terribly tolerant. I think I’m more with Peter Mullen than Peter Selby (the heir to Wulfstan and Oswald ! One could weep). What annoys me is the continual flow of remarks along the lines of ‘we need to accept all people in the spirit of love – and anyone who disagrees is a Nazi bigot’. This is an excellent site though – easily the best resource for anyone wishing to witness the suicide… Read more »
Hi Tim, Thanks for the reply. I truly appreciate the dialog. You said something to the effect that you “don’t see why homosexuality should be the hop topic of the day compared to nicking a coin from the collection plate”. The reason, as I’m sure you are aware, is because no one is asking that unrepentant thieves be consecrated nor are they asking that stealing be considered OK. (NOTE — Given the subject at hand, I feel the need for a disclaimer: I am not saying thay I personally equate homosexuality with stealing. I’m just going along with Tim’s example.)… Read more »
Yes it is a good site. Simon, presently poorly with a heavy cold (God Bless!) has a keen eye and a first class ability to find the key passages of a document or story. He presents the material well and makes fair comment. Unlike other bloggers he is rarely applauded, and probably prefers it that way. But this seems like a good opportunity to say “Thanks Simon!”.
Michael, That’s not *quite* what I’m saying. I’m saying that all Christians are still far from perfect. If one is to consider grounds which prevent someone becoming a member of the clergy, one must consider *all* grounds. Anything less is a hotch-potch of discrimation lurching from one decade’s hot-topic to another; anything less presents the media with a view that we don’t have our act together, which they will latch onto with claws. Example: you’re consider Person A for the role of vicar. You discover he’s got a problem with sin S (e.g. gambling). This is no surprise: if you… Read more »
I think these Ugandans want to completely bleach Jesus (whoever he really was) out of the equation.
They are hateful Christians and it puts me in mind of Ghandi’s comment that “I love your Christ, I hate your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ.”
Simple enough idea for some. What do you think Jesus might think of these Anglicans who sow seeds of hatred and dissension?