The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams and Archbishop Bernard Malango, Archbishop of Central Africa, held a meeting on 7 March with Bishop Nolbert Kunonga, Anglican Bishop of Harare. The meeting took place in South Africa.
As Pat Ashworth reports in the Church Times this week (not yet on the web):
Bishop Kunonga has been widely criticised as a Mugabe apologist. A case against him involving a set of serious charges is still pending. His superior, Archbishop Malango, has in turn been criticised for the lack of progress in the case, and for not reprimanding Bishop Kunonga. In the mean time, Anglican leadership in Zimbabwe during the country’s economic and political upheaval has been widely seen as compromised.
Here (or here) is the official joint statement issued about this event:
“We are grateful for the chance to meet face to face and discuss the role of the church in Zimbabwe and the wider region in working towards the realisation of the Millennium Development Goals.
“We shared our deep concerns with the Bishop of Harare about the situation in Zimbabwe, affirming those places where Anglican ministries are bearing fruit and the church is growing, but also expressing the widespread concerns in the global church and in the international community about the deteriorating economic life of Zimbabwe and issues of human rights and peaceful non-partisan protest.
“We encouraged the development of an independent voice for the church in response to these challenges. All ministers of the gospel must be free to serve and to speak for the needs of those most deprived and disadvantaged.
“We want to find new channels of communication and to facilitate regional conversations about issues of development and justice, including the impact of sanctions, so that Anglicans may work together more effectively with and for the poor whom they serve in Christ’s name.”
Here is some press coverage of the event:
And a comprehensive backfile on Nolbert Kunonga can be found at Magic Statistics, see Rowan Williams “shares concerns” with renegade Zimbabwean bishop.
Also, see African church leaders urged to take action by Trevor Grundy.
Proverbs 22:16 “He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich — both come to poverty”
You can back the team that is rich or the team that oppresses, but neither team is the winning team.
I am sure that the brave Archbishop Pius Ncube will not be taking lessons from Rowan “grateful for the chance” Williams on his hope that these Millennium Development Goals might be implemented.
I thought of several imaginative parallels but in a response of frustration have opted for silence.
Nice to see that when the Anglican Communion is faced with an internal situation that calls for genuine moral outrage, firstly the problem is stuck indefinitely on the back burner, and then, when an attempt is finally made to face up to the problem, the upshot is this cliché-ridden communique, of which StatGuy rightly says “I have to wonder whether saying nothing wouldn’t be preferable to this”. There again, Canterbury’s daring to go even this far may simply be just one more indication that the Mugabe regime is now in its terminal stage. Let’s hope that what was actually said… Read more »
WOW!
He will meet with the ecclesial bag-man for a murdering dictator, but won’t come to the US.
I’m simply overwhelmed by the Grace in action that is the WWAC.
And how many years too late was this meeting?
Like Pluralist, I am lost for words. ++Cantuar speaks too late and too little. His is not a prophetic voice but a pathetic whimper. The Archbishop of Central Africa is also hardly able to speak on these issues, being himself so thoroughly implicated in like practices.
It’s not easy in Zimbabwe, this was reported by Ekklesia overnight http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/news/world/070312harare
History will judge those churches who colluded with the degeneration of society, and those who sort to slow down or reverse the downward spiral.
My prayers are that things start to calm down soon and there is a return to a stable lawful order where the citizens can get on with building their society in relative safety. What is happening now is not sustainable.
Well – I would like to see some leadership based on Titus and Timothy eg open, public repudiation of people who are not fit because of their unrepentant actions to be ordained let alone bishop – and not just in Harare but also in New Hampshire.
Whew! For a minute I thought NP was showing signs of some sense of humanity, propriety and proportion – thn I got to his last words equating the moral standing of +New Hampshire with +Harare and had my threatened world view affirmed once more.
May I therefore thank him for reminding me that in the ConsEv universe alleged complicity in murder, fraud, intimidation and corruption are morally no more repugnant than sleeping with the ‘wrong’ gender (which is clearly NOT the ‘wrong’ gender for +Gene).
Sisters and brothers,
We should also take note of the detainment and beating of Morgan Tsvangirai and several other opposition leaders by Zimbabwean police. Mugabe continues to persecute his opponents. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Zimbabwe has condemned Mugabe. Let us hope and pray that the Anglican Church in Zimbabwe will be emboldened to take a similar stand.
Oh, and Kunonga should be deposed.
Mynster
Who gave you the right to re-write the scriptures and ignore 2000 years of the chuch’s teaching?
You want to apply the standards of scripture to Harare but not to New Hampshire?
NP: you could make pretty much as strong a SCruptural/Traditional case against non-procreative hetero sex, could you not, and the RC and Orthodox still do? You know, based on words of Jesus about makinng yourself a eunuch for the kingdom, Paul’s dismissal of marriage as a necessity only for the weak, the elevation of the ideal of virginity in the NT, the call to deny the family, not to mention the Sin of Onan and a pretty constant Christian tradition of ‘No’ to anything which might be described as recreational sex. But the COnsEVs don’t seem overworried by that consistent… Read more »
Does NP feel that modern law tramples on his religious freedom by denying the God-given right (ordained in Leviticus, Pauline stamp of approval) to own slaves?
NP demanded;
“Who gave you the right to re-write the scriptures and ignore 2000 years of the chuch’s teaching? “
My ordination promises. Sorry to disappoint, but Catholic clergy take this business rather seriously, you know, probably incomprehensible to you.
A re-write is probably in order when the re-asserters win, and an Alpha co-ordinator is appointed at witchsniffer general to ensure all the bits about diligent study and seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit and deepening one’s understanding of the Scriptures are taken out, but until then….
NP the teaching you refer to may be 2000 years and more outside of the Church, but a mere 800 in the Church.
And it was that same teaching which changed the Sacred Scriptures of the Bible in Paris in the late 1100s.
muddying the water does not make your case, gentlemen……….
– maybe you do believe you are supporting what was always intended by JC and his Father and you are not just ignoring stuff you find inconvenient but that would make the case for a split even more clear because that understanding of scripture and tradition is VERY different to Lambeth 1.10 / Drom / Windsor / Tanzania
– again, if we had Paul, Peter, James, John here, do you really think the would say TEC was right to ordain VGR? seriously?
“Paul, Peter, James, John”
they had enough trouble agreeing on black pudding!
NP – asking you a question as to where you stand on a significant social practice, unquestionably commended or condoned in Old and New Testaments, and a practice which, like it or not, must, by one’s acceptance or rejection of it be a defining issue on the question of whether one is a Biblical literalist or a relativist, is not “muddying the water”. It simply and straightforwardly asking where you stand on this issue. Evading or ignoring the question IS muddying the waters. So, for a second and final time, on the issue of slavery, is Leviticus, with Pauline underpinnings,… Read more »
NP and other biblical fundamentalists, including the framers of Lambeth 1.10, please answer:
Why does the Church today no longer uphold sacral genocide as in Numbers 31 and 1 Samuel 15?
Is it that Herr Hitler has shown them what a nasty thing it is in practice?
But he also showed how nasty homophobia is, as Akinola does; so why not renounce biblical homophobia just as we renounce biblical genocide?
Actually I despise human sacrifices full stop. Whether that be on the altar of violence or the altar of judgmental theology. Jesus was either the unique atoning sacrifice for all humanity for all time, or he wasn’t. If he was, then we are all children of God and called upon to live reverential lives that respect the needs of ourselves, each other and all of creation (including our enemies). If not, then abusive priests are no more protected than practising homosexuals. We are all sinners before God. We are either all forgiven or none are forgiven. By faith we trust… Read more »
Ah, lapinbizarre, I seem to remember tht NP has already answered that one in his paean of praise for the poor and underpaid city bonus recipients. The money from the bonuses came from somewhere, ultimately from people in grinding poverty. The Ot and Paul therefore condone a practice which NP seems also to condone. Don’t get the poor dear to spell it out for you, it’d be ever so embarrassing for him to reveal such depth of devotion to what is permitted in Scripture. Having had the Wilberforce ‘march of the abolitionists’ overnight in my parish, it struck me how… Read more »
>>>May I therefore thank him for reminding me that in the ConsEv universe alleged complicity in murder, fraud, intimidation and corruption are morally no more repugnant than sleeping with the ‘wrong’ gender (which is clearly NOT the ‘wrong’ gender for +Gene). You must remember that in order to be a good, upright fundamentalist, one must only do two things: 1. Don’t be gay. 2. Don’t have an abortion. Everything else–cruelty, bigotry, self-righteousness, profiting from the misery of others, etc.–is perfectly fine, since those things don’t involve sex. That’s why fundamentalists must constantly announce that they are Christians–if they didn’t, no… Read more »
Lapin – yes, Lev is inspired and is to be read in the context of the whole bible.
Please look up “Onesimus” and Col 3:11
The NT taught something revolutionary about slaves…..even the OT did in terms of Jubilee etc.
And the NT gives me authority to have a prawn too (in case you are tempted to bring that weak argument up)
But it never says VGR should be a bishop…….does it??
Actually, it says the opposite, as I am sure you know.
mynster – where do you think the money comes from to pay your wages, pension and housing etc? (since I assume you generate no revenues yourself) I trust you are in favour of the NHS and free education in the UK? If so, do you realise that 20% of UK tax revenue comes from the City and these services depend on that revenue? You can criticise the City people’s bonuses and envy their incomes but remember they generate revenue and their incomes come from what they produce not from the work of others or your ill-informed comment about poverty. And,… Read more »
No, NP, I don’t “know” that – nor do I care, since I do not believe that the world should be run in obedience to Bronze Age taboos purely on the principle that they are “the Word of God”. So the prawn issue, which you rightly term “weak”, does not interest me. Your final response, to mynsterpreost, makes me wonder if I should not have inquired as to where you stand on the Bible’s teachings on usury, rather than asking about slavery. Another time, perhaps?
Lapin – easy one – I do not lend money at interest
HP. That’ll teach me to get smart! Congratulations on keeping to your principles on that one.
Lapin – but seriously, when you say, “No, NP, I don’t “know” that – nor do I care, since I do not believe that the world should be run in obedience to Bronze Age taboos” when I say let’s stick to the Bible’s clear teaching ……I have to conclude that your faith is very different to the majority of the AC.
So, it makes sense for us all to go our own ways and stop attacking each other.
I hope the ABC gets that because forcing unity is not working well for any of us.
“I hope the ABC gets that because forcing unity is not working well for any of us.”
NP,
Still not at all sure about this supposed requirement for unity.
Much as your views irritate me, isn’t continued conversation, learning from each other, possible change of mind and compromise one of the reasons you’re posting on TA instead of sticking to Stand Firm, Tutus 1:9 etc, which are more your natural habitat?
Staying with your own alone means stagnation. I hope the AC will continue to be diverse enough not to stagnate.