Kenya cancels guest programme for Chelmsford

This is where the bishop is marooned. It is Archer's Post, in the Embu diocese, north of Nairobi. For those believing that bishop and party are totally safe, in a sort of suburb of Nairobi (and anyone who thinks Nairobi is safe in any case has clearly never been there), just read this travel blog and start praying. See end of blog for more details. A story in The Times today, Tuesday, describes how the Archbishop of Kenya has instructed his clergy to cancel the programme planned for the Bishop of Chelmsford and his party of 20 curates visiting the province. Last year we reported also on how Bishop John Gladwin was forced to cancel a trip to Trinidad and Tobago that had already been booked and paid for. In both cases, the problems arose when the primates of provinces with long-standing links to Chelmsford but that remain strictly conservative on the gay issue discovered that Bishop Gladwin was something of a liberal. So much so, in fact, that he has just become one of four patrons of Changing Attitude. The row has made Anglican Communion News. Also, it has to be admitted that not everyone in Kenya endorses the conservative stance of Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi. Bogger Dave Walker, who has a friend among the curates, is particularly concerned. See what Irene Lancaster has to say about it here. See my own Gladwin profile in T2's The Face on Friday. The BBC's Sunday programme also carried an item on this story on 28 May.

The Chelmsford diocese has for decades been involved in supporting Africa and the present bishop is chair of the board of Christian Aid. But his beneficence is no longer wanted in Kenya, and one presumes many other parts of Africa, because of the gay issue. (Interestingly, his chaplain Chris Newlands is active in Christian gay politics, in the European Forum of Lesbian and Gay Christian Groups.) Even after we have seen the Anglican Communion virtually rent in two by the gay issue, British liberal churchmen still get a shock when they discover the extent to which this actually matters. The Nick Henderson debacle was evidence enough and his only 'error', if one calls it that, was to have been a former chair of the Modern Churchpeople's Union, an organisation that could be classed as neo-conservative when compared with Changing Attitude. Can it be that Bishop Gladwin was completely unaware of this episode when becoming patron of Changing Attitude just days before visiting Kenya, or did he really imagine he could change a whole province's attitude overnight? Surely there is something faintly patronising in what appears to be an underlying assumption that because we in the West have access to cash and the ability to get it over there, the Africans will bow down in eternal 19th-century style gratitude to our missionary efforts, lowering eyes away from doctrinal differences that may or may not exist. See this story from the East African Standard for a feel of how high passions are running there. 'I have no gay links, says UK clergyman' is the headline. Thinking Anglicans has a lot of other links from Africa here. Chelmsford's Anglican Mainstream has a statement which gives a good explanation of the situation here. AM in Chelmsford has also done a comprehensive analysis of the Bishop's views on the gay issue. Meanwhile, the Church of Scotland has been debating whether to permit the blessing of same-sex unions. It is to be left to individual ministers to decide. See report on Titusonenine here.

Update: Here is the response on the Chelmsford-Kenya row from LGCM. Bishop Gladwin was the preacher at the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement’s 20th Anniversary Service in Southwark Cathedral ten years ago. The Rev Richard Kirker, General Secretary, said: 'I have the deepest sympathy for the Bishop of Chelmsford and his curates who are experiencing in some small way the humiliation and rejection experienced by lesbian and gay people in the countries he is visiting. They can expect no reasonable understanding of this careful position there. However I am very surprised the Bishop of Chelmsford did not seek and receive an adequate assurance before departing for Kenya that he and his party would be treated with proper respect from beginning to end. It is naïve to think that a person as noted for his antipathy towards gay and lesbian people, such as Archbishop Nzimbi, would not take action of this sort.”

'Bishop Gladwin is sensitive to the fact that in the Church of England there are many hundreds of lesbian and gay clergy, some of them openly so, and tens of thousands of openly lesbian and gay lay Anglicans turning up to worship in English parish churches every Sunday, some with their families, partners and children. Many of these hold office in the parishes, some high office in diocesan and national Church bodies.

'This is not going to change because of the views of a host of bullying bishops in far flung places nor because we have the Windsor Report nor even if we ever get an Anglican Covenant, nobody, here in these islands, believes for a moment these facts on the ground will change at all.

'This farcical dance we are all enduring to pander to fanatical homophobes in Africa and elsewhere has to end. They are not just rejecting gay people they are rejecting any who would want to openly debate the subject or engage with us. The new legislation depriving every citizen of Nigeria from making or even listening to the arguments on sexuality is not an aberration it is the norm for these intolerant fundamentalists.”

'When are we going to stop wanting to appease these wicked bishops who would gladly see us locked up rather than listen to our voices, and when are they going to wake up to realise that all this Windsor process nonsense will change nothing on the ground in the United Kingdom, America, Canada and even Nigeria!

'The hapless bishop of Chelmsford is just a pawn in the greater game of persecuting every person who just might be open to change on the issue of human sexuality - perhaps now his brother bishops in the UK will realise how hopeless it is to use reason and debate with these people and rally to his support; if that is, they have an inch of spine left between them.'

In 2003, LGCM appealed unsuccessfully to the Home Secretary for Archbishop Akinola to be refused entry to the UK.

Further update: I am assured that it is only the programme that has been cancellled, and that the Anglican church in Kenya is making sure that the bishop and his wife and curates are all being looked after and cared for properly for the rest of their visit. However, those people who've been emailing to tell me that Embu is a civilised town should be aware that Bishop John and party are in the diocese not town of Embu. In fact, with the help of a colleague in Kenya, The Times has tracked him down to Archer's Post, a village with two or three bars, one butcher's, roads of sand and lots of locals getting drunk on Tusker. They are staying in unimaginably grungy accommodation because there's nothing else in Archer's Post. Further, I understand the bishop and party flew out on budget flights, which means they can't fly home early. Well, I guess they wanted to find out what life's like for the other half of the world, and now they're finding out... See this report for the last time Brits got into the news when they were in Archer's Post...

Meanwhile, on Sunday 25 June the Bishop will be preaching at a service to celebrate the Kenya-Chelmsford partnership. 'That should be interesting,' one observer tells me.

ruth gledhill

religion homosexuality Anglican Church of England

Christianity

gays

Africa Kenya

Comments

[Nersen Pillay]

Dear Ruth

Just read your article on the Bishop of Chelmsford. What I continually fail to understand is the "doublespeak" we hear from people who are supposed speak with honesty. How is it possible to simultaneously claim to be committed to upholding the teaching of the church and at the same time be a patron of a group which exists to change it? Even the ABC, with his great intelligence, expects people to believe that he can support two positions at the same time, holding his personal beliefs but upholding Lambeth etc. Is it any surprise that the CofE has such a poor image in England? Look at the damage done to Tony Blair by claims of "spin" and "saying one thing but doing another" and we see that the public are not easily fooled by clever words. They want the truth and they have a right to expect truthful church leaders.

It is sad to see people in church leadership positions who are continuing to damage the gospel by holding positions which lack integrity and common sense.

Regards,

Nersen Pillay

[Andrew Spurr]

It's not about people lacking integrity, it is about how we understand the church progresses in the search for truth. We know what The Archbishop thinks personally, he has said so, as has the Bishop of Chelmsford, but neither is prepared to forsake the unity of the church by precipitating anything which would cause schism. The Archbishop has said that we stay united and we find the truth together, while his detractors think you should forst establish the truth and then unite around it.
While neither the Archbishop nor the Bishop of Chelmsford has cited the 'food offered to idols' argument Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 8, I think that offers a good model for the approach they are taking.
Both are men of integrity and neither is being duplicitous with this issue.

Andrew Spurr

[irene lancaster]

I cannot refrain from pointing out that Gladwin was instrumental in the recent Synod vote to divest from Israel and is chair of Christian Aid, another organisation which systematically demonizes Israel. He also recently was among those criticising Lord Carey for ridiculous and spurious reasons, which the latter has answered.

This latest should call into question the motivations of some senior members members of the Anglican Church. Supporting both the Palestinian Authority and homosexuals is a contradiction in terms, as Palestinian homosexuals were, certainly under Fatah, fleeing for their lives to Israel. Even the pro-Palestinian BBC made a programme on this. Under Hamas, I do not even know if fleeing would be on the agenda.

As for the overly-venerated Bishop Riah of Jerusalem, his views on homosexuals are unprintable, and yet those in the Church who dislike Jews and love homosexuals still give him their unwavering support, even when it is based on lies about Israel.

My own view is that the good Bishop has received his just deserts. I recently gave a well-attended lecture on the future of Christian-Jewish relations in Chelmsford's diocese to which he was invited, and he didn't even send along his representative, or if he did, they did not even bother to introduce themselves.

So maybe this latest is what the Buddhists would call karma, and the rest of us 'his just deserts'.

I shall be doing my own blog on this later.

[Ian Montgomery]

Dear Ruth,

Just a point of clarification arising from the Times article. I was in Embu last year helping at a funeral. It is only a couple of hours or so north of Nairobi and with quite good roads - it is not a dangerous outpost in the wilds of Kenya. I found it very civilised.

On the other matter - everywhere I have preached in Kenya I am preceded by a messenger from the appropriate bishop who vouches for my "orthodoxy." We in the west have little appreciation of how much we have caused offence and torn the fabric of communion by our unilateral (ECUSA especially) actions in attempting to change the teaching of the Anglican Communion.

Sincerely - Ian Montgomery

[John-Francis]

Andrew Spurr writes well of the present and ongoing situation. One of the glories of Anglicanism is that it seeks to understand what God is doing in every generation and culture and then work alongside such movements of the Spirit. I think Nersen has missed the point: there is no 'teaching' on the subjuct of homosexuality (but there are constant reminders from the bishops of the evils of homophobia). There have been two 'Statements' by the House of Bishops and a request for an international listening process. And there are churches in England that are growing because they are welcoming of LGBT people.

Bp. John's opposition to the illegal occupation of Palestinian land is not at variance with his stance on gay issues. It is possible to seek justice for all oppressed groups - and to continue to argue with them about their own conduct. Isn't this 'common sense'?

The sad thing is that regimes that oppress LGBT people in Africa or wherever are not challenged by more Christians.

John-Francis

[Dr Ben Knighton]

Dear Ruth,

My wife picked up this news from the Kenyan press, who were themselves interested in the 'gay' issue before the Archbishop of Kenya divulged anything. I was myself for seven years an expression of the link between Chelmsford (my home diocese) and the four diocese in north-east Kenya, while I served in St Andrew's College of Theolgy and Development, Kabare. Often the students would point to a range of instances of the degeneracy of British and Western culture, not least its lack of Christian faith. I could not but agree with them. How easily the Church of England forgets the drastic interventions that it required of its African converts, all but separating them from normal social life! Even now the Lambeth Conference has made only the most minimal concessions to polygyny, frequently a socially responsible institution. This has hindered the Anglican church in Africa addressing the whole issue of Christian marriage. However an honest appraisal of sexuality and marriage would give little succour to the gay lobby. So why do the English still feel so equipped to impose their changing moral standards on the rest of the world?.
I slept over one Easter in the pastor's shack in Archer's Post, preaching in the Anglican parish there, but I would not expect the Chelmsford curates to be more than passing through, and sampling the nyama choma (roast meat). It is not the locals who become drunk on Tusker beer (which most Samburu do not have the cash to buy), so much as those on safari! Ecclesiastical tourism is not the answer, but long term learning from the other, and in that the Diocese of Chelmsford has now failed, despite its former generosity.

[Nersen Pillay]

Sorry, John-Francis, I thought the Anglican position was to follow Biblical teaching.........despite lots of evidence to the contrary.

People outside Anglican circles (that is, most people) are not easily fooled by Anglican fudge and have been voting with their feet for a long time to prove it….. this has not happened because they are getting a clear message from the Anglican church and retain a lot of respect for it.

Integrity is the issue. Saying one thing but doing another is not a way to win trust….. not for a political party and even less so for a church.

[Christopher]

The only impression such bishops give by their violent and tyrrannical reactions to the fact that there are gay and lesbian people on the planet who ought to be treated justly or people who support them, is that they do not want this truth to get out. They prefer to keep their populations in ignorance and bigotry; they care little for the least little ones among them who may be suffering under such oppression. They might even be their own sons or daughters...an uncomfortable fact if they believe homosexuality is contagious....

[Simon McIlwaine]

John-Francis is wrong.The "occupation" is not "illegal". As a solicitor, I would be intrigued to know the authority for this proposition. Where has John-Francis been
for the last year? Evidently, he seems to
have missed Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, or the fact that since 1994 95% of the Muslim Palestinians have been living under the total authority of the Palestinian Authority. Palestinian Islamic society is lethally homophobic, and don't try and blame Israel for that,John-Francis, and, as activists like Peter Tatchell will confirm, Palestinian gays have been granted refuge in Tel Aviv.

But let's turn to the law and that supposedly "illegal" Israeli presence.

Lawful owners of land have not been
wrongfully deprived of it.

By contrast, however, Jordan expelled Jews from land they had lawfully
bought in what is now called "the West Bank" after launching a war
against Israel in 1948.

The settlements are not located in "occupied territory." The last
binding international legal instrument which divided the territory in
the region of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza was the League of
Nations
Mandate, which explicitly recognized the right of Jewish settlement in
all territory allocated to the Jewish national home in the context of
the British Mandate. These rights under the British Mandate were
preserved by the successor organization to the League of Nations, the
United Nations, under Article 49 of the UN Charter.

The West Bank and Gaza are disputed, not occupied, with both Israel
and
the Palestinians exercising legitimate historical claims. There was no
Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza Strip prior to 1967.
Jews have a deep historic and emotional attachment to the land and, as
their legal claims are at least equal to those of Palestinians, it is
natural for Jews to build homes in communities in these areas, just as
Palestinians build in theirs.

The territory of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was captured by Israel
in
a defensive war, which is a legal means to acquire territory under
international law. In fact, Israel's seizing the land in 1967 was the
only legal acquisition of the territory this century: the Jordanian
occupation of the West Bank from 1947 to 1967, by contrast, had been
the
result of an offensive war in 1948 and was never recognized by the
international community, including the Arab states, with the exception
of Great Britain and Pakistan.

The Settlements are Consistent with Resolution 242.

Many observers incorrectly assume that UN Security Council Resolution
242 requires a full Israeli withdrawal from the land Israel captured
in
the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.

The assumption and the conclusion are deeply flawed. Resolution 242
calls for only an undefined withdrawal from a portion of the land --
and
only to the extent required by "secure and recognized boundaries."
Israel has already withdrawn from the majority of the land it had
captured, and nearly all of the areas in which it retains communities
are essential to "secure and recognized boundaries." The specific
location of Israeli settlements was determined by Israel's Ministry of
Defense over the last 30 years, not by the settlers themselves, and
they
were set up in order to strengthen Israel's presence in those few
areas
from which it cannot, militarily, afford to withdraw.

I cannot help but feel that people like the Bishop and John-francis can never give Israel credit for anything. Not for nothing do I fear they will not rest until Israel is destroyed.
We at Anglicans for Israel have news for you: "He who watches over Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps"!

Simon McIlwaine MA FRSA ACIArb

Anglicans for Israel

[Christopher]

"For those believing that bishop and party are totally safe, in a sort of suburb of Nairobi (and anyone who thinks Nairobi is safe in any case has clearly never been there), just read this travel blog and start praying."

Which goes to show that the Archbishop of Kenya, the Most Reverend Benjamin Nzimbi is the true ***!

[James]

"some with their families, partners and children"

---

Children deserve their mothers and fathers, and to have a married mother and father - who model for them normal maleness and femaleness, who teach them about normal sexuality, and about male and female, who provide male and female love for them, and model the right and normal interaction between the two.

(Can you still say that in Britain without a visit from the police?)

James

[Christopher]

Not very Christian then? Will that do?

On Anglia TV this evening Stuart White interviewed the Bishop of Chelmsford's chaplain. He put the question to him that the conduct of the Archbishop of Kenya, the Most Reverend Benjamin Nzimbi was "not very Christian". He repeated it four times but could not get the chaplain to agree. Sometimes bishops' chaplains are just TOO nice!

[Alistair McBay]

I seem to recall Bishop Gladwin has been the target of Anglican venom before, notably for letting the Jerry Springer cast perform in his cathedral, much to the ire of those well-balanced, tolerant and inclusive chaps at Christian Voice. Seems some of you Anglicans don't help a man in trouble, but instead enjoy putting the boot in, especially when he or she is a "liberal" (ie living in the 21st century rather than the 1st).

Now, what would Jesus do, I wonder (if, of course, he ever existed, either as a bachelor or married man.............!)

[Andrew Spurr]

It is one of the jobs of the Bishop of Chelmsford's Chapain to avoid saying anything which might endanger the bishop's party.
It's also a part of the job-description not to have a public opinion, which Chris Newlands does extremely well.

Andrew Spurr

[Christopher]

I take your point, Andrew, that Bishop Gladwin's safety is the first consideration. But I hope it will be a wake-up call to all who haven't realised how menacing homophobia is for everyone. Perhaps when pious Christians get up on their hind legs to say they "love the sinner but hate the sin" they will now realise that everything before the "but" is bullshit. If the Christian message is not about unconditional love it is about nothing at all. I'd have thought the way you treat someone with whom you disagree, particularly a guest, shows whether you are a decent human being or not.....Christian doesn't even come into it.

[James]

Unconditional Godly love, Christopher, calls you to something better and greater than you are (to be like Christ). Such love sees something far nobler for you, and works to get you there, no matter how you kick and scream.

The 'other' type of love affirms you just for who you are and whatever you do.

Your pick. (Choose wisely.)

James

[Nersen Pillay]

Christopher,

You write as if you think an African bishop has killed his heretical visitor and proclaimed his actions as "Christian" - just so you don't worry yourself any more, this has not happened and nobody is in any danger. Please relax.

All that has happened is that someone very senior in the Anglican church with great responsibilities in Kenya has completely legitimately withdrawn invitations to public events because his guest has views which were not communicated clearly to him before arrival (or even to many clergy in Chelmsford!)

You have probably created your own definition of what "being Christian" means but in the Bible you will find many examples of Christians and Jewish leaders behaving in similar ways to the Kenyan bishop because it matters what people believe when they take positions of authority and public platforms. The Kenyan bishop, who does put a lot of weight on what the Bible says, is just doing his job because being Christian does not mean "be nice to everyone and accept all views even if they contradict."

If you want an example of how Jesus Christ dealt with people with whom he disagreed, have a look at John 8:42-4 “Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

I guess you think even he was most “un-Christian” in his response………

[Tom Allen]

The idea that Bishop John deliberately became a Patron of Changing Attitudes just before visiting Kenya in the hope that he would change attitudes there is almost as
seriously surreal about this being linked to Anglican for Israel and their concerns. John Gladwin has been known for his concern for gay people and for a just settlement in Israel/Palestine for many years. These comments must be coming from people who are projecting their fears on him rather than knowing the person - that is the real cost of senior leadership in the Church of England at the moment.As for Anglicans for Israel they cannot believe that anyone can long for a just settlement for the Palestinian people (many seem to deny that there is even such a people as the Palestinians)and at the same time long for that Palestinian state to be at peace with Israel. Fortunately locally there are more informed people working for both - the kind of quasi-Zionism projected by Anglicans for Israel is actually the biggest threat to Israel.

[Dave Cohen]

As a Jewish born Christian convert born in Afula and now resident in Barking I would say that the only future for Israel is in a just and peaceful settlement with the Palestinian people and in the recognition that those who long for that are not per se anti-Israel. John Galdwin would be understandbly nervous of attending anything sponsored by Anglicans for Israel. Shalom

[Christopher]

Nersen

Defend it as you like, use holy texts to pour scorn, but don't deny that an awful lot of evangelicals in his own diocese are delighted that the Bishop you call heretical has been placed in this situation. You are a Christian, I take it....?

[James]

The good Kenyan bishop is simply refusing to endorse, directly or indirectly, sexual perversion, its glorification in society, its condoning to our kids or its condoning in the name of Jesus Christ. That's as all Christians should do. Mr. Gladwin will just have to deal with that.

James

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA, University of Manchester]

I totally agree that a just settlement for all in the Middle East is what is wanted. And Afula is a lovely place. I stayed a a kibbutz there once. I don't know Barking at all, but isn't that where the BNP recently won a number of seats? I know which I would prefer.

Because it is so important that the peace really is just, I recently agreed to become a Trustee of the Foundation for Reconciliation in the Middle East, which promotes the work of Canon Andrew White, vicar in Iraq, towards that end. This organisation is chaired by Christopher Segar, formerly our ambassador to Iraq.

Being an expert on Anglican-Jewish relations helps and also being a Research Fellow in one of the most respected university departments of Religions and Theology in the country.

And none of your correspondents has answered my question about the inexplicable absence of the Bishop of Chelmsford from a talk in his diocese to which he was invited, at which I was guest speaker, and from which many said he would have learned a great deal. These people also said that his absence was an insult to those who are in favour of closer ties between Anglicans and Jews, which are needed, not least in his diocese.

It's always better, I find, to put your own house in order before traipsing all over the world and making a fool of yourself.

He already did that in a spat with the CEO of Anglicans for Israel on Radio 4's Sunday Programme, where he exonerated Hamas' evil deeds and appeared not to be in favour of the existence of the State of Israel.

Well, tough. Most of the world's Jews live there now and Tel Aviv has overtaken New York as the most populated Jewish city in the world. So that is the future and those who dislike Jews and/or Judaism will just have to live with that, because we are no longer going to be silent.

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/

[Simon McIlwaine]

We at Anglicans for Israel want a "just settlement" for all the peoples of the Holy Land. It's just that we don't think the best interests of the Palestinian people are served by Hamas,terrorism, antisemitism and boycotts. We stand in fellowship with Palestian Christians and Muslims who also oppose terrorism and boycotts. However, there cannot be a just settlement that excludes secure borders for Israel.

[Mark Bennet]

As a priest in Chelmsford Diocese I want to declare myself firmly in communion with my bishop.
The current wave of grandstanding and megaphone politics has nothing to do with attentive listening and can only be distantly related to the Christian faith.

[Robin Bather]

I agree completely with Simon McIlwaine, to reach a just settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis means stopping terrorism, boycotts and granting Israel secure borders. Very reasonable.

This of course also signifies that Israel must retire from all of its illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, get out of East Jerusalem and the conquered Golan Heights, and destroy the Wall where it has been constructed on Palestinian land.
To paraphrase president Reagan's cry, "Mr. Elmut, tear down this wall!"

Oh yes and by the way, permit the Palestinian refugees the right of return to their homeland, stop stealing their water resources, pay them the taxes that Israel has stolen from them, stop overflying and "buzzing" villagers with warplanes, stop sending in tanks to kill kids.......................

All very reasonable.

[Dave Cohen]

I am not sure how to respond to Dr Lancaster's remarks about Barking - it is the place where members of my Jewish family have lived peacefully for three generations. Time will tell if Anglicans for Israel serves any useful purpose alongside well-established groups such as CCJ to which I am deeply committed. If readers of this blog want a more informed view of Christian-Jewish relations see www.ccj.org.uk/

[irene lancaster]

The well-attended talk that I gave in the Chelmsford diocese in April, to which, as far as I know, the Bishop did not send any representative, was the AGM of the local Council of Christians of Jews. If the mayor and the local MP managed to turn up to this major event in their calendar, why was the diocese absent? This is what everyone was asking themselves at the time. I think we all know the answer to that one. After all, the lecture was called: 'Christians and Jews facing the future together'.

I live in Manchester and the current local Chair of CCJ is a close friend and former student of mine. He is, together with the Canon Theologian of Manchester's Anglican Cathedral, involved in the Interfaith Dialogue series I have organised at Manchester Metropolitan University, which Ruth has mentioned in a previous blog.

Thirdly, Canon Andrew White, CEO of the Foundation for Reconciliation in the Middle East, is on the Board of CCJ.

So it is David and others who are causing division and strife where there is none.

It is perfectly possible to support both CCJ and Anglicans for Israel, and many do.

I do not really understand the point that David is trying to make.

[Ian Montgomery]

I am concerned with the assumed identification of Embu and the northern Samburu people.. The road described in the travel piece is the road well north of Embu and Mt. Kenya that leads to Isiolo, Laisamis and Marsabit - and yes it has bandit issues. Embu is south of Mt. Kenya and Meru (home of the Meru people) and connected by good tarmac roads. Please show photos of Meru of ask me as I have a picture of the cathedral there and one of my students is a parish vicar there. Embu is not the Kenyan outback. It is just south of Mt Kenya and still in the lush southern part of Kenya, home of rice paddies and fruit farms. This disinformatiion is distressing. +Gladwin is not abandoned in the deepest outback but left to stew in his own mess that is really of his own making. He has/had easy access to Nairobi and his flight home.

[Mike Homfray]

This shows all the more why the Anglican church must split, and the pre-modern bigots of Africa left to their own devices - no more wasting money giving them aid to spend on arms, either. Let them manage on their own, then perhaps the population will reduce to a reasonable level (another area where the church does not help). They may even reach enlightenment stage!

As for Israel, when the remove their presence from the occupied territories and show some thanks for the gift of someone else's country given to them as a product of guilt, maybe they may deserve an ounce of sympathy.

[Jonathan Clark]

I've just listened to your comments on the Sunday programme about the Kenya issue. I was very interested to hear John Gladwin described as an extreme liberal. It's getting a bit crowded out here on the edges if all the rest of us who are more radical are super-extreme. But more importantly, no-one seems able to make the point that it's possible to obey a policy while also campaigning for it to change. Anything is else is attempted mind control

[irene lancaster]

On the day that NATFHE has voted to boycott Israeli Jews, Mike Homfray's ignorant snipe seems extremely apt.

Whilst packing up my things for the shipment that will transport them to a new life in Israel in exactly two weeks, I came across the following extract among my huge collection of material on 3,500 years of Jewish history. I thought I would share it with you.

' ... at a time when a effort is being made to besmirch all of our co-religionists ... it seems to me that ... we are not legitimate children of Fance, we are only adopted children'.

The same is, in my view, now true of Jews in Britain and the above words were written just over 100 years ago by Theodor Herzl.

[Tom Allen]

I think that what some of us dispute about Irene Lancaster's response is the way that it makes unfounded assumptions about things -
- plainly a Diocesan Bishop cannot attend every meeting especially in a huge Diocese with area bishops - what is the answer that we are all supposed to "know" - if it is the implication that + John is anti-semitic then any who know the man will know that to be nonsense. Furthermore David Cohen has now become a "villain" simply for suggesting that CCJ is a more reputable body for people who want to know about Christian-Jewish relations than Anglicans for Israel - there is no suggestion in his comment that there was any conflict between the two. There is a similar tone to AfI converage of Sabeel (and Naim Ateek its Anglican Priest head)which many of us accept us s being a vital voice in the search for peace. So perhaps AfI needs to learn to make its case (and it is a vital one) without stereotyping those is assumes do not share its concern. No doubt if asked +John will explain what lay behind is apparent decision not to be represented at Dr Lancaster's meeting - and what sort of welcome he would have received if he had?

[Nersen Pillay]

Christopher,

Please note:
a)I did not call the bishop a heretic:
b)I did not "use holy texts to pour scorn" on anybody.

I replied to your comments because you made criticisms of the Kenyan bishop based on an idea of what being "Christian" means (something like being nice to everyone and accepting of every idea) which Jesus Christ certainly did not teach or model himself. I said that nobody had killed an heretical bishop because you wrote as if some crime had been committed and I quoted a Bible text and asked you what you thought of it because, on your definition of "Christian", Christ himself was not being "Christian." My aim was to show you that Christ did not believe, teach or model that any belief or behaviour was fine as long as people are “nice.” So, I was showing that the Kenyan bishop was acting in a perfectly Christian way – based on Christ’s words and actions.

I don't know any Chelmsford evangelicals but if some are pleased with their bishop's predicament, did they force him to go on this jaunt to Africa while being involved with a campaigning group which he knows is not welcomed there? Maybe the Kenyans deserve some respect? Maybe the bishop should take some responsibility for his situation?

Yes, I am a Christian - which is why I have sympathy for the Kenyan bishop who, despite your attacks on him, is acting completely in line with Christian (as defined by looking at Christ) principles.

[irene lancaster]

My goodness, what a lot of prejudice in some of your correspondents. And how ill-informed some of them are.

A great number of people heard the Bishop of Chelmsford on the Sunday Programme after the Synod decision, where he exonerated the behaviour of Hamas, an organisation intent on the destruction of Israel.

As for the CCJ meeting in the Chelmsford diocese: you appear to be suggesting that Southend CCJ would have been less than courteous towards the Bishop of Chelmsford. I find that suggestion rather offensive, actually.

On the other hand, those who have attended meetings of Christian Aid, of which he is national Chair, have been subject to booing, hissing and threatening behaviour.

This has all been documented in letters written to the Church Times in August and September last year.

No, what some of your correspondents find unattractive is to have been wrong-footed by facts. It's as simple as that.

[James]

====

"This shows all the more why the Anglican church must split, and the pre-modern bigots of Africa left to their own devices..."

---

I agree - the church must split. Those who want their children taught that copulating with anyone for any reason, male or female (and that is makes no difference), can go one way - those who believe what the Bible and Christ tell us about sexual morality can go the other. As for the bigot word, it doesn't work anymore. People are rolling their eyes...

James

===

[Tom Allen]

Hmmmm I don't think my suggestion was that the discourtesy would come from CCJ - rather than there is an agenda underlying attitudes to Bishop John not unconnected to his support for Sabeel UK. He did not exonerate Hamas on the Sunday programme - he called for Hamas (now a democratically elected party) to adopt a purely peaceful approach which accepted the right of Israel to exist in two state solution. Fortunately readers can hear for themselves what + John said: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/sunday/archive/index.shtml?site=feb2006

[irene lancaster]

OOH, he really has his groupies, doesn't he? I do hope that this means people will also hear how he was completely wrong-footed by the CEO of Anglicans for Israel.

Hitler was, of course, also democratically elected.

Had the pleasure of meeting Stephen Sizer, VC of that wonderful organisation, Sabeel UK, at Liverpool's Anglican Cathedral tonight, who made the interesting remark (inter alia) that Orthodox Jews don't pay any tax in Israel.

I'm really interested in this, as I intend to work in Israel, but hadn't yet been told that of all the perks offered by that beautiful country, not paying taxes was one of them. Can't wait!

Luckily, there was an expert on brainwashing in the audience tonight, who stated after the talk that we had been subjected to an extremely morally irresponsible exhibition of fudge and denial and that the speaker should be ashamed of himself.

What's the link? Oh yes, during the talk Sizer blamed an article by the prize-winning journalist, Melanie Phillips, for the fact that his mate, dear John, did not get the post of ABC and that it went to Rowan instead.

Well, we're used to being blamed for everything, from Christ-killing onwards. One of Sizer's supporters in the audience said that I didn't look Middle Eastern and therefore had no right to live in Israel.

Oh dear! But to get back to dear John: imagine what would have happened if the person currently in a rather undignified position in Kenya were actually the Head of the Church of England! Doesn't bear thinking about, does it?

[Sarah Callen]

Interesting to listen to the recording - nowhere did the Bishop "exonerate" Hamas as Irene Lancaster suggested indeed quite the reverse. Does Israel need "friends" who simply dish people perceived as being against Israel's cause without particular reference to the facts?

God's wish is for a Kingdom of justice and peace - to include both Jew and Arab, Israeli and Palestinian - which will come "from genuine understanding and compromise, matched by security for Israel and statehood for the Palestinians" Jimmy Carter.

As someone who lived in Haifa until 2001 ( with my Jewish husband)can I say that facts and tone is of vital importance in these matters as are real local relationships which transcend national identities - Haifa is a tolerant place (which may God willing) have little time for "Dr" Lancaster's stereotyping

[irene lancaster]

Sarah is right about one thing.

Haifa is tolerant.

I am pleased for Sarah that she thinks she has a hotline to the Almighty.

Pity she can't attend my aliyah presentation here in Manchester next Wednesday, when I shall be talking about the beauty of Haifa and using slides sent me by the office of its Mayor.

But of course, those with a hotline to the Almighty, don't need to bring themselves down to the level of others, as their status is already so elevated that they might end up with the same reputation as Jimmy Carter.

Sarah's posting has already created hilarity in the office of the Mayor of Haifa and among my colleagues at Haifa's two universities.

And I think I might even quote some of her words to the assembled audience on Wednesday.

Funny how, if Sarah found Haifa so wonderful, she is no longer living there.

[Sarah Callen]

I too wish that I still lived in Haifa - however it seemed right for us to move to the UK to care for my mother-in-law who is suffering from cancer.

It is sad to reflect but again Irene Lancaster is content with making false assumptions and sideswipes at genuine contributions and does not reply to the substantive point - did the good Bishop actually call for Hamas to adopt peaceful means or did he say what Irene Lancaster suggests?

I know the cost of the conflict with a family member killed by a Palestinian terrorist - but I long for peace between our people and suspect that steretyping is our greatest block to real peace.

As to the "hotline" it tends to be Zionist that claim that - in biblical theology ( Old and New Testament) there is something called "The Kingdom of God" here on earth where justice and peace will reign - and I pray that will happen for both Israel and Palenstine in mutual security.

I wish Irene Lancaster well in Haifa. Mazel Tov.

[Liz]

From the following article: http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.pl?source=4/b/viii/archives/281020041

'This political and Biblical revisionism, as espoused by Christian Arab clerics like Ateek, is not confined only to Arab Anglicans. Sadly, even in England some members of the Anglican clergy express negative views on the re-born Jewish State. According to JAT, the Rt. Rev. John Gladwin, Bishop of Guildford, has declared that the creation of a Palestinian state would be merely a “first step” and that “one shared state” ruled by the Palestinian Muslims “is the vision one would want to pursue.”'

Are some here making excuses for Christian clergy who reject a large part of the Bible (read the article for details of that) and a Bishop who wants to see the world's only Jewish state dissolved or destroyed and replaced by a Muslim one?

[irene lancaster]

I am very sorry to hear about your mother-in-law, Sarah. You would have loved our interfaith dialogue at Manchester Metropolitan University tonight, the last of three that I have organised and chaired.

If you ever come back to Haifa, if only for a visit, I would love to meet you, as the talk tonight, by the Greater Manchester Diocesan Interfaith Advisor, was on Encounter, Engage and Englightenment.

The problem for most of the Jewish community in Britain (as attested by letters to the Church Times last August) is that there is simply very little desire even to encounter the very few Jews left in Britain, by much of the Anglican Church.

I do hope you will feel free to contact me at my e-mail address and to meet up some time in the future.

[Liz]

Perhaps if "Mrs" Callen has such an ardent desire for peace and reconciliation, she might like to refrain from personal sideswipes (her word) at another poster, referring to her, rather nastily I thought, as "Dr" Lancaster. She should also try not to indulge in stereotyping about Zionists.

I suggest she return to the topic of Bishop Gladwin, who 'has declared that the creation of a Palestinian state would be merely a “first step” and that “one shared state” ruled by the Palestinian Muslims “is the vision one would want to pursue.”'

He also declared at a Sabeel conference in November 2005 that he “assumed that Christians who subscribe to Zionism are not Christian”. In other words, Christians who support the right of Jews to self determination in a State of their own, are not Christians.

[irene lancaster]

I should perhaps add that Israel is now proving to be a haven for Muslims from Darfur and other parts of Sudan, who have fled the terror there.

Similarly, Tibetan Buddhists in Dharamsala, India, were assisted by Israelis to set up a museum (similar to those recording Holocaust atrocities) to express their suffering at the hands of the Chinese.

And, of course, as we know from a previous post on Ruth's blog, Haifa is now the centre for the Bahai faith, which is suffering under the Iranian regime.

[Sarah]

Liz my use of the word "Dr" was simply to emphasise that I would expect someone claiming academic credentials in supporting Israel to apply academic standards otherwise the arguments in Israel's favour are greatly weakened.

I was challenging Irene about what the Bishop said (she has yet to acknowledge that he did not say what she claimed as Tom Allen's helpful and elementary bit of internet research has so clearly proved).

What is needed in this situation is that people hear what is actually say (and sometimes through dialogue what is meant) rather than what people claim that they say which is nearly always the case with JAT's selective/distorted reporting. Your definition of Zionist is not mine.

I fully and wholly support the right of Israel to exist as does Bishop John and Naim Ateek. What we do not accept is the biblical interpretation of the OT to suggest that it is a "God given" right according to borders of OT times. Those who disagree with you do not reject a large part of the Bible - they reject Zionist interpretations of it.

Of course the Israeli nation is being hospitable to many different refugee groups (we had Persian exile neighbours in Haifa), the problem remains with the Palestinian people who are refugees from Israel's actions and the search for just and secure solution for both people.

The thing that I most fear about Zionist interpretations is that it makes enemies of people who could be our friends. I fear that people who suggest that "Zionism is Israel's greatest enemy" are being given increasing support by poorly researched and ill-tempered responses. Naim Ateeek and John Gladwin are not our enemies nor are they anti-semitic because they disagree with your interpretation of history, politics or the Bible.

I guess that all I ask is that in our passion for Israel we take care to be accurate and considerate and in particular sue "primary" sources - Israel's future may depend upon how its allies abroad behave. Shalom

[irene lancaster]

Sarah, you are digging yourself in deeper and I see that you have disregarded my eirenic approach towards you, which demonstrates to me that you are completely uninterested in encounter and engagement.

My PhD was awarded me for my doctorate (on which I based my book, Deconstructing the Bible ), which deals with Muslim, Jewish and Christian approaches to their respective sacred texts. It is apparently quite popular in Muslim countries.

You will no doubt be even more upset to learn that I was also recently elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.

It is you who have not answered Liz' points about the Bishop of Chelmsford. If you access the site that she mentions, it is obvious what his true views about Israel are and they are worse than even I thought, having heard him on the Sunday Programme.

You would do yourself a favour by stopping the insults and the attempt at psychoanalysis of other's motivations.

Look into your own heart first is the best motto, I always find.

Finally, all your words are being read by people in Haifa, who now understand completely why I am joining them soon.

I am too polite to publicize what they think of you and your distortions.

[Tom Allen]

Interested that Irene Lancaster has not yet acknoweledge that John Gladwin did not say what she claimed.

Even more interested to read on her own site her version of Sarah Callen's post as follows:

"And had to deal with a posting on Ruth's own site, in which a Christian (I think) objected to me moving to Haifa, because I disagree with the Bishop of Chelmsford, and also thinks I don't deserve the title 'Dr'. Oh dear: my friends in Haifa are in hysterics about this. For the woman also thinks she has a hotline to God."

Where does she object in her post to Irene moving to Haifa because she disagrees with the Bishop - where does she suggest that she does not "deserve" the title Dr.

I wholly agree with Sarah's explanation makes clear it is simply a case of asking for people who claim adademic credibility to use academic standards in quoting
sources ie that one should quote the individual directly (and fully) rather than 3rd parties version of what they said.

Similar questions about academic rigour might similarly be asked about statements from Irene Lancaster such as:

"The problem for most of the Jewish community in Britain (as attested by letters to the Church Times last August) is that there is simply very little desire even to encounter the very few Jews left in Britain, by much of the Anglican Church." - words such as " most", "very little" "very few" don't appear too academic to me - would Irene have accepted such a paragraph in a student essay - or if they are simply a matter of opinion then and are clearly contradicted by the Jewish Board of Deputies who have this to say on Anglican/Jewish relations

3 March 2006

“INCREDIBLY POSITIVE” ANGLICAN/JEWISH DIALOGUE AT THE BOARD

Representatives of Anglicans for Israel, Christian Friends of Israel, the Office of the Chief Rabbi, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews have met together with the Council of Christians and Jews, to discuss Anglican and Jewish relations. The group was joined by Canon Andrew White, Vicar of Iraq and special envoy to the Middle East of Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who had flown in from Jerusalem.
The meeting took place in the wake of recent moves within the Church of England concerning divestment and matters discussed included attitudes to Israel within the Anglican Church. Concerns were expressed that too little was known or understood about the true position in the region. The group discussed ways of Christian and Jewish relations and encouraging dialogue and interaction between the two communities at all levels.
Commenting on the meeting, President of the Board of Deputies Henry Grunwald QC said, “Recent events should not obscure the fact that there are good relations with the Church and there have been many who have spoken out against boycott campaigns targeting Israel. We all recognise that the way to counteract misinformation is through education and fostering closer ties.”
Jon Benjamin, Chief Executive of the Board, commended the efforts of those engaged in interfaith work from across the whole spectrum of the Jewish community. “This was an incredibly positive meeting, but one which flagged up the challenges ahead. As a community we must rise to those challenges and work hard with our Christian friends to address them.”
Speaking on behalf of Anglicans for Israel, Simon McIlwaine said, “We are worried by the damage the Synod vote has done, both to Anglican-Jewish relations and to the role of the Church in bringing healing and reconciliation to the Middle East. Reconciliation cannot be constructed on falsehood and ignorance of Israel's needs and fears, nor can it be built on demonisation of the only refuge of the Jewish people. As Anglicans, we care for all those who wish to live in peace, and seek to be friends to both Israelis and Palestinians."
The Council of Christians and Jews commented, “The issues involved are complex and the meeting was an opportunity for Christians and Jews to hear each other in a supportive environment. It is vital for us to work together to promote positive and constructive responses that will help Israelis and Palestinians make genuine progress towards a peaceful settlement."
The meeting followed one in Manchester between representatives of the Jewish community and a number of Anglican Bishops in the north-west described by one participant as “splendid”.

Similar excellent relations exist in Leeds and Birmingham between the Jewish communities and local Anglicans.

Disinvestment is clearly a difficult issue but lets not over-emphasise the problem - the relationships are good and will outlast.

With blessings to Irene on her move

[irene lancaster]

Thank you Tom for promoting my blog and for praising the sterling work of the Board of Deputies, Canon Andrew White and Anglicans for Israel, all of whom I advise on Anglican-Jewish relations.

The more publicity given to the Board of Deputies, Anglicans for Israel and Canon Andrew White (who is the CEO of the Foundation for Reconciliation in the Middle East, of which I am a Trustee), the better.

The Board of Deputies will, I am sure, be most grateful to you for the posting.

Let's hope that the Bishop of Chelmsford reads it as well. Because it is that other group, the Council of Christians and Jews in his diocese, who invited me to address them in April on the subject of Christian-Jewish relations.

For some reason, neither he nor members of his team were able to make this meeting, although I believe that they were invited to attend.

So, you have made my point for me, admirably. Yes, friends we do have, but I wonder if the Bishop of Chelmsford is one of them.

[Fran]

Tom

To return to what Bishop Gladwin says in the “Sunday” programme interview. He agrees that when Hamas’ says of Israel that they must be humiliated before they are destroyed, it is unacceptable. He insists that such words will not lead to peace and that Hamas must realise that they cannot indulge in such rhetoric if they want to be taken seriously. So far so good.

However, he goes on to claim that “They are moving away from violence and into seeking proper political solutions.” On what evidence does he make such a claim? It sounded naïve at the time, and even more so now!

I’d say that the Bishop’s contribution is also notable for what he does NOT say. It is not good enough to call for the dismantling of the Security Fence and cessation of house demolitions without also calling for the cessation of arms smuggling through the tunnels under many of these houses, and the suicide bombings against Israeli civilians which the security fence has been so successful in combating.

And when Bishop Gladwin agrees with the Bishop of Jerusalem in lamenting the decline in Palestinian Christian numbers in the Holy Land, he does so without appearing at all aware that large numbers of them are moving because of intimidation and threats from radical Islamists who now wield ever greater power within the Palestinian Territories. See http://www.acnuk.nativesolos.co.uk/shop/frameset.asp Christians in Ramallah.

Why should you be surprised that Bishop Gladwin’s support for Sabeel raises doubts about his having a genuine concern for the continued existence of a Jewish State of Israel? NGO Monitor sums up the views of many of us who feel that Sabeel consistently demonises Israel.

“Sabeel's statements consistently highlight Palestinian suffering and place blame on Israel, while ignoring such issues as corruption within the Palestinian Authority, violence perpetrated against Israelis and Palestinians alike by armed Palestinian militias, and attacks against Christian Arabs.”

And reading Naim Ateek’s essay “Suicide Bombers” http://www.sabeel.org/old/news/cstone25/suicidebombers.htm is a perfect illustration of Sabeel’s approach, demonizing and delegitimising Israel without any references to the existential attacks to which she has been subjected since her foundation, attacks which give meaning and context to the measures she takes to defend her civilian population.

The position of the Palestinians is tragic. But whose fault is it that they have no state? They could have had one in 1948, any time between 1948 and 1967 and again in 2000. Each time it was their own leaders, and the leaders of some of their allies in the Arab world who scuppered that hope.

This dispute is not simply between Palestinian and Israeli as some naively believe, but between those in the Arab (and non-Arab) world who resent the very existence of a Jewish State, and those who believe that Jews have just as much right to a national aspiration on their ancient homeland as every other state “created” in 1948 – of which there were several!

[John]

Hmm. These comments have made interesting reading. But, sadly, for the wrong reasons. The arguments have been ad hominem on far too many occasions. There is too much reference to third-party partial quotes, used to infer someone else's attitudes. There is far too much "me, me, me".

Come on, folks. If we want to talk about emotive issues, we have to avoid all these things. If we want to know what Bishop John thinks about Israel, let's have full, actual quotations, not characterisations that rely on a third party's version of their words for the crucial portions. If we want to "support Israel", let's say exactly what that means - does it mean that it must retreat to its original 20th century borders, or that it must dominate everyone around it, or perhaps some middle way?

pax et bonum