The Rev. Canon Aaron Mwesigye, the Provincial Secretary of the Church of Uganda has written a “Clarification on the November 2006 Pastoral Letter from the Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi Archbishop of Church of Uganda” posted on TitusOneNine. Supposedly this was meant to clarify something. It doesn’t.
In it Canon Mwesigye says,
“The actual words of the Primates’ 2005 Communiqué from their meeting in Dromantine notwithstanding, our understanding of the decision of the Primates was captured in Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi’s press release following that meeting: “In our Ireland meeting the Primates suspended the Episcopal Church of America and the Canadian Church until they repent.” Therefore, to sit with the new Primate of ECUSA when they clearly have not repented is to surrender commitment and follow through on a previous decision.”
So now the challenge will be that, no matter the actual Communiqué, The Archbishop of Uganda’s press release will prevail, and on the basis of that The ABU will refuse to sit at the same table with the Presiding Bishop.
Well, perhaps that does clarify something: The Global South Steering Committee, and Archbishop Orombi in particular, intend to make the Primate’s Meeting the “come to Jesus” moment. Either the Archbishop of Canterbury will side with the Global South or with the North. If the decision goes to the Global South, they will set the agenda, which will include recognizing a new province in North America, or more specifically the United States. If it goes to the North the Global South will begin its own processes towards an alternative Communion.
The point of contention around which this move will come will have to do with the seating of the Presiding Bishop at that meeting and the seating of someone from the Network. The seeming accommodation to include the Moderator as part of any meeting where the Presiding Bishop is present would play into the agenda the Network and the Moderator has had for some time. It is a very bad idea.
This meeting is being held hostage by the Global South Steering Committee. No matter who or what in turn holds the GSSC in its influence, the fact is the GSSC is the point group on this.
The Primates Meeting, whose mandate is to provide “an opportunity for ‘leisurely thought, prayer and deep consultation,’” in theory has no authority beyond offering the results of their thoughts, prayers and deep consultations. What power their words have as a whole will be significantly reduced by having a block of Primates control the agenda, seating arrangements, and outcome. More, it will reduce the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury to titular head, if that.
Whatever else we might have wanted in an Archbishop, we have wanted neither a Patriarch or a reflection of the Monarchy in England. We want neither Pope or Queen.
12/16/2006
7 comments:
OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.
Rule: PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF AS ANONYMOUS: BEGIN OR END THE MESSAGE WITH A NAME - ANY NAME. ANONYMOUS commentary will be cut.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
“The actual words of the Primates’ 2005 Communiqué from their meeting in Dromantine notwithstanding..."
ReplyDeleteAh, the delicate sound of hermeneutics at work. As Humpty Dumpty said, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." Good to know the spin-cycle is still fully functional in Uganda, as the gyre keeps widening....
Tobias
The actual words . . . notwithstanding, our understanding . . . was
ReplyDeleteGnosticism is alive and well in Uganda. :-/
Wow. It makes me wonder what would prompt such a . . ehm . . . clarification.
ReplyDeleteAlice in Wonderland indeed. Good 'ole Humpty.
It was a rare moment to giggle and be sad at the same time, as it reminded me in a roundabout way of a now famous remark of Donald Rumsfeld's:
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
Whether it's secular or ecclesiastical warfare, obfuscation appears to be the in thing.
If the Networkers have "supervision" from AB Orombi, they are represented at the Primates meeting by AB Orombi.
ReplyDeleteIf the Networkers have "supervision" from AB Akinola, they are represented at the Primates meeting by AB Akinola.
Tobias has certainly zeroed in on the correct reference, but I think he stopped short of the real punchline:
ReplyDelete"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
Lewis Carroll
Alice Through the Looking Glass
& Göran seems to have the primatial representation logic well in hand!
SO, is ++Rowan FINALLY going to have to make a decision?
I do not rejoice in the fragmentation of the WWAC, but we cannot force people to associate with us if those people refuse to do so.
So someone tell me what the difference between ++Orombi and the bad, feared revisionists? After all, isn't it the great sin of the revisionist not using the "plain meaning?"
ReplyDeleteFWIW
jimB
Thank you, Good Prior, for the rest of Humpty's statement. Actually that whole chapter is marvelous; as is the section in which the White Knight discurses on "Haddocks Eyes," in which the distinction between the "name" of a thing, what it is "called" and what it "is" gets an ample and inspiring discussion. (I believe Bertrand Russell later used it to serious ends!)
ReplyDelete