Africa’s Anglican bishops silent on graft at home
These are interesting times for the Anglican Church. If it is not grappling with the issue of gay bishops, then it's the consecration of women bishops. And do not forget the so-called conservatives, who are losing their patience with the Archbishop of Canterbury ,Dr Rowan Williams, over his supposedly soft stance on 'gayism'! But what is this obsession about sex among the Anglicans?
More than 1,300 bishops are threatening to abandon the Church of England, if it goes ahead to approve the consecration of women bishops - which the church has done. Then, there was the Jerusalem bishops meeting where Archbishop Luke Orombi, among others, pledged to form a council of bishops to provide an alternative to churches they said were preaching "false gospels" of sexual immorality.
But is life only about homosexuality, and women priests? There are many people who are impressed about the debate on the finer points in the Anglican Church; the issues of gender in terms of the apostolic character of the episcopate, the problem of how best to interpret Leviticus XVIII, 22 ("You must not lie with a man as with a woman"), and the status of the Archbishop of Canterbury within the post-colonial Anglican communion.
However, there is a feeling that humankind is not really bothered by many of the issues that are rocking the Anglican church. They are actually more concerned about things like how and where to get their next meal.
In Zimbabwe, for instance, it's how and when President Mugabe will leave power that is their major concern, not gayism or women bishops. In Uganda, issues of major concern include President Museveni's interest to stand as president in the 2011 elections, the LRA war, mile akenda, biting poverty and school fires!
Retired Bishop Dr George Sinabulya says he is not bothered about the issue of women bishops - he actually supports the consecration of women as bishops. However, he says the gay issue irks him to the core. He says, "The Bible clearly states that God doesn't like such behaviour, hence the Sodom and Gomorrah scenario".
Whereas it's a good thing for the African church to defend the faith, the big question is, isn't the church not being hypocritical by choosing to defend the Bible and not condemning African leaders most of whom have caused suffering and poverty to their people. Ins't it a fact that most Africans suffer from even curable diseases, illiteracy etc. because of the continent's bad leaders?
For instance in Uganda where there is chronic corruption, what has the church as proof of their disapproval of what is going on? I thought corruption is a vice that condemned by the Bible (see Thou Shall Not Steal)! Are some sins considered heavier than others? Is homosexuality more of a sin than stealing?
A sin is a sin in God's eyes? For example, why don't African church leaders boycott or stop swearing-in of politicians to office, never mind whether such politicians are corrupt or unfaithful to their spouses?
In my view, church leaders should not be selective - they should condemn all vices whether at home otherwise with a passion - they shouldn't ignore some issues and harp on others. Secondly, why should the Anglican Church face a possible schism over homosexuality and women bishops?
Can't there be another way out of the impasse, apart from breaking up? If the Anglican Church is bent on tearing itself apart, then that is sad. However, before that happens, the bishops should first consider the implications of their actions.
Mr Kalumba is a journalist
arkalumba@yahoo.com
Africa's Anglican bishops silent on graft at homeMore than 1,300 bishops are threatening to abandon the Church of England, if it goes ahead to approve the consecration of women bishops - which the church has done. Then, there was the Jerusalem bishops meeting where Archbishop Luke Orombi, among others, pledged to form a council of bishops to provide an alternative to churches they said were preaching "false gospels" of sexual immorality.
But is life only about homosexuality, and women priests? There are many people who are impressed about the debate on the finer points in the Anglican Church; the issues of gender in terms of the apostolic character of the episcopate, the problem of how best to interpret Leviticus XVIII, 22 ("You must not lie with a man as with a woman"), and the status of the Archbishop of Canterbury within the post-colonial Anglican communion.
However, there is a feeling that humankind is not really bothered by many of the issues that are rocking the Anglican church. They are actually more concerned about things like how and where to get their next meal.
In Zimbabwe, for instance, it's how and when President Mugabe will leave power that is their major concern, not gayism or women bishops. In Uganda, issues of major concern include President Museveni's interest to stand as president in the 2011 elections, the LRA war, mile akenda, biting poverty and school fires!
Retired Bishop Dr George Sinabulya says he is not bothered about the issue of women bishops - he actually supports the consecration of women as bishops. However, he says the gay issue irks him to the core. He says, "The Bible clearly states that God doesn't like such behaviour, hence the Sodom and Gomorrah scenario".
Whereas it's a good thing for the African church to defend the faith, the big question is, isn't the church not being hypocritical by choosing to defend the Bible and not condemning African leaders most of whom have caused suffering and poverty to their people. Ins't it a fact that most Africans suffer from even curable diseases, illiteracy etc. because of the continent's bad leaders?
For instance in Uganda where there is chronic corruption, what has the church as proof of their disapproval of what is going on? I thought corruption is a vice that condemned by the Bible (see Thou Shall Not Steal)! Are some sins considered heavier than others? Is homosexuality more of a sin than stealing?
A sin is a sin in God's eyes? For example, why don't African church leaders boycott or stop swearing-in of politicians to office, never mind whether such politicians are corrupt or unfaithful to their spouses?
In my view, church leaders should not be selective - they should condemn all vices whether at home otherwise with a passion - they shouldn't ignore some issues and harp on others. Secondly, why should the Anglican Church face a possible schism over homosexuality and women bishops?
Can't there be another way out of the impasse, apart from breaking up? If the Anglican Church is bent on tearing itself apart, then that is sad. However, before that happens, the bishops should first consider the implications of their actions.
Mr Kalumba is a journalist
arkalumba@yahoo.com
Daily Monitor, Uganda
posted by Tom Jackson at
7/16/2008 03:02:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home