Justice badly done by

Embracing principles of justice and equality as many of have been in the debate over homosexuality in the Anglican Church, it might be time that some of us white Westerners asked ourselves whether we have inadvertently allowed ourselves to become perpetrators of another equally wicked calumny. We must stop and question whether, in condemning so stridently the seemingly homophobic stance adopted by the churches of the Global South, we have not allowed ourselves to veer just a teeny little bit towards racism. What a disgrace that would be, were we so to have done so, on this bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade.

I ask this having just read the latest correspondence between the Episcopal Bishop of Maryland and the Archbishop of Ghana, Justice Akrofi. It has reached my desk exclusively this morning. Kendall Harmon posted the original letter from Robert Ihloff, sent in February, and explaining why he was ending his friendship of 30 years with Archbishop Justice. Massive correspondence followed on the blog. The American Anglican Council has published the correspondence in full.

Archbishop Justice has had long links with Britain, as it happens. His wife Maria is a consultant anaeshetist in Liverpool, and spends six months of the year in this country and six months at home in Ghana. One of their two children is about to start university here. I trust he would still be welcome in all parishes and dioceses here. The Archbishop's 'crime' as far as the TEC leader was concerned, though, was to be among the seven Primates who boycotted the eucharist in Dar es Salaam. As a result, the Bishop of Maryland withdrew an invitation to celebrate and preach in his diocese.

Before going into what Archbishop Justice says in his two letters of response, one sent on 27 Feb and the other on 4 April, I would just like to remind readers of the cultural context from which the TEC statement came. Lest we forget, this is a church where 'open communion' is frequently practised. Not only are all Christians invited to receive communion at episcopal churches, which no Anglican could surely object to, but communion is also often opened to the unbaptised, which even the most liberal in England might balk at. Inclusivity is taken to extremes. In this context, it is shocking then to discover the limits that intolerance of orthodoxy sets on the doctrine of inclusivity. If they are to be truly inclusive, the TEC bishop should have offered an even more fulsome welcome to the African, not withdrawn it altogether, after his stance in Tanzania. Had he not read the parable of the Prodigal Son? Oops, sorry, that's in the Bible, isn't it? Best not talk about that outdated text.

Ocean City in Maryland, incidentally, is where I once spent part of a gap year, serving eggs 'sunny side up' in a little eatery on the seafront. It was in Maryland in the early 1980s that I was offered cocaine for the first and only time in my life to date. I turned it down.

But enough of me. I was moved profoundly by Archbishop Justice's exposition of Anglicanism in his responses to Maryland, and by his overall tone.

He utterly rejects the charge of dishonest deception. He did not commune with Bishop Griswold at Lambeth Palace in 2003, nor at Primates' Meeting in Dromantine in February, 2005. So his boycott at Tanzania was not a new development, it was consistent with how he stood all along. (Presumbably, Bishop Ihloff knew this all along, so why invite him in the first place? rg) Archbishop Justice continues: 'So far as I am concerned, it is not using the Sacrament as a political tool. It is a consistent stance informed by what I judge fedelity to what I believe to be biblical faith. It is also not because of receiving some orders from Archbishop Akinola, it is my personal conviction. If that puts me in some camp, so must it be, but not because of political gymnastics.'

Just as TEC leaders are, so he is bound to reflect the stances of his constituency. (This is an important point that we often seem to forget in the Western church. I count myself among the guilty here. rg) 'This is not politics; it is a sober sociological fact that a leader/chief must reflect the views of his constituency.'

In his second letter mourns the sadness of matters coming to 'such an  acrimonious end' and pleadsL: 'May God purge any guile.' Interestingly, he says: 'It is for good reason and therefore by design that my response is taking note of the modern development of blogs in the wake of the communications revolution. Its real significance is that they tell and teach us what our clientele and co-workers are saying about us and who says what. This is a reminder, rude as it may sound at times, that the Church is not the private concern of the ledaer and that dictatorship and monopoly have no place in a corporate body. So we do well to take notice of the comments and sentiments of the blogs.'

Point by point, he rejects the charges made against him. The  charge of being 'un-Anglican' should be consigned to the dustbin of history, he says. Anglicanism is in origin not a theological revolt with a slogan like Luther's 'sola fidei'. The Articles of Religion are a 'platform' around which Anglicanism gathered. Essentially, Anglicanism was a 'liturgical renewal'. Hence the global prominence of the Prayer Book. Thus, liturgical life has become key to the communion of the family. 'It should occasion no surprise that the disagreement has shown up in the liturgy. It is the proper place for it to show because we are essentially a liturgical renewal.'

He refers to Newman's description of Anglicanism as the Via Media. 'Whatever this means, affirming people across the board has never meant overthrow of the lessons, indeed demands of Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Sacrament. As I have by study and prayer discerned,  Scripture does not encourage me to take on board different sex orientation as acceptable. Allow me to humbly draw attention to a fact in the context: to accept it as a norm in my context, will be to constitute a scandal and an undermining of the mission of the Church in Africa. And when I talk of the mission, I mean both extensive and intensive growth of the Church - not just numbers and geographical spread but also, and perhaps more importantly, qualitative Christianity.'

He utterly refutes the TEC bishop's charges of duplicity and inconsistency. 'It reads like a case of giving a dog a bad name so as to be able to hang it. I am afraid the various responses on the internet suggest or confirm that that line of approach is ultimately self-defeating.' He notes that they have both shared Holy Communion together several times in Maryland and in his own diocese of Accra, as well as at the famous General Convention of 2003. For several years, Archbishop Justice has known of Bishop Ihloff's stance and that of his assistant. 'The lesson is that this issue was fought at the Primate's level because decision had been taken there, which was unilaterally varied.'

He rejects the charge of politicisation of faith. Conservative and progressive are not the only camps. 'It is fidelity to scripture and tradition, and dialogue with contemporary developments, holding firmly to the Anglican principle of the primacy of Scripture.' He must respect, love, take along and challenge his own constituency. 'So rather than resort to such popular slogans as conservative/liberal, the beam must fall on 'the kingdom of God and its righteousness'.'

The Archbishop cannot resist a hit back here, and who can blame him. 'Your point about politicisation has also unfortunately touched a raw nerve here, which crudely put is as follows: "Typical big brother, America attitude and style - because of your little contribution to our life and mission, they want us to sing their tune and we have no voice and attitude of our own." This is most unfortunate.'

He raises the issue of the bishop as servant-leader. 'As St Augustine insightfully put it, one may lead either from the front or from behind. While leading from in front may not be allowed to become dictatorship, as in medieval church, neither may leading from behind be allowed to become leader being dragged by the nose by the people.' A bishop's taks includes to teach - 'presumably true gospel.'

It is bad luck, he notes, that the tiff has happened at a time when Ghana is celebrating 50 years of independence from colonialism. It has also happened during the celebrations of the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade. Africans are being reminded daily of how they were treated cruelly as things rather than bearing 'the imago Dei'. Further, the BBC is reporting in Ghana how Caucasians have been recruiting young African boys as slave labour by enticing them abroad with promises of life as football stars.

'Please, we are not interested in the bond because of some material benefits. We may be the poor part of the siblings' relationship, but we are not down and out. Without being arrogant, we were doing our own thing before we bonded.' He cites two African proverbs for why the partnership between South and West remains important. 'The left hand washes the right hand, the right hand washes the left,' and 'the fingers are not all the same in terms of length, size, but what one can do cannot be done by the other.' He would rather have dialogued 'eyeball to eyeball, face to face.' (Ha ha. I would have liked to see that 'eyeball to eyeball' encounter. I think I know who would have won.)

West Indies Primate Drexel Gomez summarised one of the problems here in a recent lecture.'The limited nature of our church’s leadership in the past, where bishops even in Africa and India, came from the same British schools and universities, meant that local diversities were held in check by common pastoral backgrounds and a common exercise of authority. This meant, in turn, that cultural blindness was both limited in its examples, but also deeply entrenched over many generations and across many cultural lines. The emergence of local self-determination within Anglican churches over the past 40 years has ramified plural identities within the church, often in contrast and conflict. And just now, the nature of cultural captivities is being exposed, across the board. The danger is that we will let it be, because it is too hard to confront – and we will have a collection of culturally limited churches and perspectives and theologies. The idea of communion however, is a multiple series of learnings and giving ways. Paul in Eph. 5:21 says strikingly: submit to one another. Submit, he urges, not in identical ways – for the husband and wife are not the same, nor child and parent and so on. But submit in a way that makes for deep mutual commitment, even to death.'

The Archbishop of Canterbury is to visit the TEC bishops in September. The Lambeth Conference will go ahead, and all will be invited. It is clear that TEC is to remain in the Communion. The 'workers' cannot sack their 'paymaster', Communion officials have at last understood. At all costs, though, in negotiating this settlement, the Lambeth Conference must not be permitted to wash its hands of Peter Akinola. It is interesting that Archbishop Akinola last time persuaded the Nigerian government to pay for his bishops' visit to England for the three-week Lambeth Conference. Apparently, the argument he used was that this was the Anglican equivalent of the Haj. It will be interesting to see how accommodating the Nigerian government will be next year. If TEC stays in, as it should, some way of persuading him not to walk away, as surely he might be tempted to do, must also be found. If a sacrifice is made, it will be the Church everywhere that pays the price. Not least, I don't like to think of the fate that could await abandoned Anglicans in Nigeria. It really is time now that we all stood up for Justice.

Comments

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

dear Ruth,

I fail to see how "racism" comes into this. We have a different perspective, re homosexuality for example, by various churchmen, It's natural for the more learned and self assured to lecture the weaker intellects. However, Chritianity is based on faith, not on how well you did on your theology exams.

I personally feel that certain issues, like homosexuality, be left alone like horse excrement on a country road.

[Malcolm French+]

At no point has the Bishop of Maryland ever said that the Primate of Ghana may not receive communion in the diocese of Maryland. What the Bishop did do was uninvite the Primate to a party in protest at things the Primate had done.

Right or wrong, it was hardly an excommunication.

[Huw]

Dear Ms Gledhill, your lede wonders if some Anglicans are guilty of racism: that is a good hook. But the terms race and racism do not show up again in the entire thing. Instead you offer a platform for the views of Archbishop Akrofi. This is fine, in and of itself, but don't you think you might have just introduced the article honestly as such?

Also, I think it is unfair to equate +Maryland's uninvitation of the Archbishop with denial of Communion. A bishop preaching and performing sacraments in someone else's diocese is very different from simply showing up and taking communion. If Archbishop Akrofi showed up at any Church in ECUSA he would be given communion just as freely as anyone else.

[Frank Schnittger]

No one is denying that the world is changing. Generally speaking, most people would consider those changes to be largely for the better – particularly when one considers a past made up of Slavery and Colonialism.

Also no one is denying that different Churches operate in different political, economic, social and pastoral contexts, and that Church leaders need to take account of this. The increasing assertiveness and self confidence of African Churches is to be welcomed.

However, this only reinforces the need to ensure that diversity is allowed where socio-political attitudes are clearly diverse, and what unanimity can be preserved is upheld for the core essentials of the faith.

Attitudes to homosexuality are clearly different in different parts of the Communion. Let them be. The issue didn't merit a specific comment by Christ so why should we place it at the core of the Communion?

However, the partaking of Communion clearly IS at he core of Christianity and the Anglican Communion. Whatever our differences on socio-political issues that is the one thing that should not be politicised or made subject to approval of the views of those with whom one is communing.

Those that refuse to share in Communion are excluding themselves from the one thing Christ did ask his followers to do.

"It is clear that TEC is to remain in the Communion." - Ruth

Given all you have written about the inevitability of Schism, that is an astonishing assertion and it would be interesting to know why you have changed your mind on this. Hopefully it is not because of your next observation that "the 'workers' cannot sack their 'paymaster', Communion officials have at last understood" as that would be a very poor basis for maintaining any spiritual Communion.

All of a sudden, you are concerned that it is Akinola et al and not TEC who might find themselves out in the cold. Could this have anything to do with his support for repressive legislation in Nigeria - legislation which would be completely unacceptable in any "First World" society and would render Christianity on a par with Islam when it comes to reactionary totalitarian politics?

If that is the case, surely it is you who are imposing first world attitudes on the third?

The reasons for your complete volte face on issue this might be worth a blog in itself?

[ash]

I am also at a loss to see how this is racism. It is childish, most certainly; but both sides are guilty of that quite frequently. Why is it that when the Global North camp acts in this way it is suddenly racism?

As ++Justice has said, his views on homosexuality are largely due to the views of his 'constituents'. He acknowledges that taking the same stance as the TEC in his own diocese would seriously hinder mission. The opposite is no doubt true of the TEC: if the US episcopate continues to hold heterosexist beliefs, they risk alienating their own constituents.

Ultimately, both side of the debate has the same authority: both may argue their case, with integrity, from scripture; and both are clearly influenced by their cultures. African cultures are often deeply heterosexist, sometimes even homophobic, and for many reasons. The USA/Canada are culturally tolerant toward minority sexualities, at least, again, as a rule.

Both churches are, in my opinion, guilty of using scripture to support their cultural biases; no side is reading scripture free from that.

[Peter Farrington]

Ruth, I have thought for some time that the response of some parts of Western Anglicanism to the conservative and Biblical stance of the Global South was fundamentally racist and I am glad that you sense this also.

Personally, as a member of the British Orthodox Church which is part of the ancient Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, I have been amazed at how much I have learned, and enjoyed, from being part of a conservative and traditional Orthodox community.

I always found the criticism of the Anglican Global South always seemed to embrace all the more conservative, Biblical and traditional Christians of Africa and was frustrated by such language.

I hope that others will also temper their criticism, make it less sweeping and personal, and appreciate that it is Western Anglicanism which is out of step with the rest of the Apostolic Churches, not the other way round.

Peter

[Fran]

I take Huw's point here, Ruth. I can't see any real reference to what may be called racism in the report as you've written it. But in my personal experience, your premise - that adverse reaction to the position taken by African Church leaders over homosexuality within the Church sometimes has more than a whiff of racism about it - is correct. I do not claim it is widespread or consistent. But it is there.

I have personally heard implied and overt racism in the private comments of fellow Anglicans on this issue. You know, of the "We live in the 20th Century and are being expected to listen to the rantings of people still living in the dark ages/bongo bongo land" (yes, really!) type.

And these comments have come from people who usually have impeccable liberal credentials in all other areas of their Christian life. For example,urging that white Christians 'Should be listening carefully to our African brothers and sisters' on such issues as racism in the Church, global inequality, etc. Which indeed white Christians should.

I accept that this is anecdotal evidence, and I'm only repeating what I've personally heard. But I HAVE heard it. Not once but repeatedly. Not frequently, but consistently.

I am not saying that all opposition to African bishops is founded on racism. Neither do I suggest that people who support recognition of homosexual partnerships as equal to heterosexual marriage in opposition to the Arfican bishops are thereby being racist.

But I have been astonished at the ill-concealed contempt for Africans emerging from some liberal Christian lips as African Christians have dared to disagree with the white man over this contentious matter.

[Christopher]

Good point, Ruth, but I am not sure that Akinola and some of the bishops of the gobal south aren't a tad guilty of racism when they accuse us in the first world of moral decline - "white man's sin" and all that. That bishop who tried to exorcise Richard Kirker on television at the last Lambeth conference was surprised when he found out Richard was actually born in Nigeria...and even more surprised when Richard told him it was a Nigerian boy who introduced him to homosexuality. (I believe Richard has spoken about this publicly so I not betraying any confidences, Ruth.)

[Christopher]

Dear Emanuel Appel , I believe horse excrement is known as "horse apples" and the decline of horsedrawn traffic on the streets has contributed to the decline of sparrows in great cities. They used to find rich pickings..... Funny old thing, nature, eh?

[Deb]

I am just waiting to see how many primates will refuse communion if Ecusa decide not to comply by 30th Sept.And why single out Africa for reproach when it was not solely African Primates who said they were in impaired communion and refused to take communion.

[Frank Myers]

Ruth, good article. God's hand is on Archbishop Justice Akrofi, and all things in his life have come together for good, no only for himself, but for thousands who are under the covering of his faithful ministry in West Africa and around the world including America. Please know there are many in America proud of Justice's heart for missions and his steadfeast unshakable stand for Biblical turth. The world community needs more leaders like Archbishop Justice Akrofi who listens to God, who follows God, and stands up for the laity sitting in the pews the silent majority.

[Andre Boulanger]

Dear Ms. Gledhill: As a gay man of 72 years, over this time I've become unabated by insults.
I must admit that I was quite shaken by the comment of Emanuel Appel who stated: "I personally feel that certain issues, like homosexuality, be left alone like horse excrement on a country road."
Has it all come this?

[Jill]

Fran: 'But I have been astonished at the ill-concealed contempt for Africans emerging from some liberal Christian lips as African Christians have dared to disagree with the white man over this contentious matter.'

At the announcement of Rowan Williams' appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury, I found on the website of the liberal inappropriately-named 'Affirming Catholicism' (Props: Rowan Williams, Frank Griswold, Jeffrey John, Richard Holloway et al) a paragraph positively gloating at the appointment of one of 'their own', thanking their lucky stars that it had not been one of those 'more robust' Africans. It was racist in the extreme, and I cut and pasted it onto another blog with some shocked comments. Next time I looked at the AffCath website, it was gone! Unfortunately, in spite of extensive searches for my original cut'n'paste, I cannot find it.

Western arrogance is astonishing here. Small declining provinces demanding a volte face by huge and rapidly growing provinces - no 'listening process' for them!!

Christopher - Richard Kirker, being 'introduced' to homosexuality by a Nigerian boy? And all this time you have been telling us this is not how it happens!!

[Christopher]

Oh Jill, what do you want me say? The Nigerian boy introduced RK to sex, then. Will that do? I suppose where the older or more experienced person takes the lead but the inexperienced person was not unwilling "introduced" is an appropriate term. Otherwise it is abuse, surely. Where both parties are inexperienced perhaps "discovered" might be better. What happens in holy matrimony? In Barbara Cartland's novel the bridegroom is supposed to initiate the bride in some way, so should be "experienced" according to her. But she was always a bit mysterious about how he gained that experience if ideally all brides were virgins.

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

Dear Andre The Baker,

I'm surprised at your sensitivity but aren't all gay men?
My intent was not to insult but to point out that homosexuality and one's attitude to it should not be a test of one's religious feeling.

[Heredal]

Where is the racism? The introduction prompts several questions.

What about black Christians who happen to disagree with Akinola and are as strident and vocal about their opposition to his stance as white folks? Are they also being racist? Are black christians who attack the lifestyle of other black people purely on the grounds of their choice of sexual partner, merely being homophobic, but white christians attacking black people on the same grounds are being racist as well as homophobic?

Or are black Christians not obliged to feel so restrained by their skin colour that they are able to criticise prejudice without fear of giving offence? Perhaps black Christians who strongly object to Rowan Williams' handling of the Anglican communion are being racist too?

I hardly think so.

Peter Tatchell, a man always likely to provoke a strong reaction, made an interesting point in the Review section of the Sunday Times yesterday. He said:

"Robert Mugabe has murdered more black Africans than the entire South African apartheid regime. A black state murdering black citizens does not apparently merit the same outrage as a white state murdering black citizens".

There are religious parallels too - Muslims in Britain have commented more on the Muslim fatalities in the West's War on Terror than on the atrocious Muslim on Muslim genocide in Darfur, Sudan, a fact that Yasmin Alibhai-Brown commented upon at length in her column in the Indie last year.

I seem to recall an earlier blog here about Akinola refusing communion in Dar-es-Salaam with Katherine Jefferts Schori. Was he being racist as well as sexist in so doing? Or does he just play the "conscience" card and thus side-step any allegation of racism, sexism or mysogyny, with impunity?

[Christopher]

"My intent was not to insult but to point out that homosexuality and one's attitude to it should not be a test of one's religious feeling."

But done with your usual delicacy, Emanuel Pferd-Apfel. Let's substitute the word 'Jew' for 'homosexual' if you say it doesn't matter....but then perhaps you don't think, unlike Shylock, that Jews ARE sensitive to slights. My hunch is that being the butt of slights would make you sensitive to them all the more - nothing to do with being gay or Jewish. Just being human is enough.

[MalcolmFrench+]

The Diocese of Maryland has a compansion diocese relationship with the diocese of the Primate of Ghana. Thus, the Primate of Ghana personally,individually and specificallyhadbeen invited to events in the dioceses of Maryland.

Then the Primate of Ghana refused to take communion at a service where the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church would be taking communion.

The Bishop of Maryland felt this was not rightand retaliated by uninviting the Primate of Ghana.

As I said above, he did NOT excommunicate him. He simply uninvited him to a party.

He did NOT single out the Primate of Ghana. I'm certain had the Primate of Nigeria been on the guest list, he'd have been unvited too.

Yes, Ruth, there have been examples of racism from some "liberals" in the midst of this debate.

This isn't one of them.

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

Dear Christopher,

I'm blunt because your culture's "delicacy" is a smokescreen for bigotry and racism. After all, you invented the idea.

Some Jews are touchy but it's the result of an abnormal history for the last 2,000 years. Greeks under the Ottomans were similarly deformed.

To repeat, one's attitude to "works" in general and social issues as a sign of one's religious devotion is more a Jewish attitude than a Christian one. Slavery, alcoholism, homosexuality are social matters that are not central to one's relationship with God.

[Mike Homfray]

Homophobia is homophobia, whether its supporters are black or white.

I simply think to have a church which speaks the same message to wildly different cultures is impractical and does not work any more. the divides are too wide. The communion should split.

[Kate]

Dear Ruth

I am unsure as to the validity of the use of the pejorative term 'racism'. With Heredal I would ask, what does it mean?

Must the concept of 'justice' necessarily transform into positive discrimination or 'special' privilege when white people are dealing with people who are not white?

Is positive discrimination and/or privilege, which extends (for a select group) beyond the commonly understood conventions of social structures necessarily 'justice' - or even positively 'good'?

In philosophical terms, justice is linked, both etymologically and conceptually, to the idea of justification: having and giving reasons for one’s beliefs and actions.

According to Thomas Hobbes, humanity forms peaceful societies by entering into a social contract; society is a population beneath an authority, to whom all individuals covenant just enough of their natural right for the agreed authority to be able to ensure internal peace and a common defence. Law, for Hobbes, is the authority which enforces common justice.

I think this is worth noting because Hobbes's book Leviathan set the agenda for nearly all subsequent Western political philosophy and underpins the legal justice systems of western societies.

Re-reading your post, I would ask whether you are concerned with 'justice' in the social sense or with justice as a Divine command?

Justice based in Divine command means murder is wrong and must be punished because God commands it. If that is the case, then 'justice' is arbitrary and not necessarily to the common good for justice then becomes the exclusive province of a particular set of 'believers'.

It is I think more useful to recognise 'justice' as derived from a basic and commonly understood standard of rightness: what is right is what has the best consequences.

The problem here is that what is a basic and commonly understood standard of rightness in western society does not necessarily apply across different cultural and social traditions or different moral value systems.

This brings us back to the social contract. For example, the primates of Africa operate under an entirely different social contract to that which has evolved in western society. It is possible that such discrete social systems are not and cannot be compatible.

Is it racist to recognise and acknowledge such incompatibility? OR is it inverse racism to 'make allowances' and to ignore overt social and political differences? What are the consequences of such a decision for the overall 'good' of Anglicanism?

Extraordinary assertions have surfaced on this thread. I do not for one moment believe that Rowan Williams, Frank Griswold, Jeffrey John, Richard Holloway et al are guilty of racism or, for that matter in the business of "gloating". I would require a source and verifiable evidence.

That said, I do believe that accusations of 'racism' are today utilised in order to denigrate those with whom the accuser is personally at odds.

I am neither racist nor alone in the Anglican communion in recoiling from the prospect of a 'robust' African Canterbury. I am adamantly opposed to cultural relativism and the patently failed attempts to impose on western society cultural and religious value systems which are incompatible with enlightenment thinking and evolved social systems.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is the spiritual leader and senior clergyman of the Church of England. Anglicanism is historically various, inclusive and grounded in British culture.
Canterbury is recognized by convention as the head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, but Anglicanism is not a numbers game.

Any African leader of the Church of England would be required to operate under an evolved social contract and a hitherto commonly understood cultural facticity.

I am not convinced that any of this is fully comprehended by the African primates - in particular Akinola. In his specific case, civil and moral and legal incompatibilities with an evolved social structure is highlighted by his published approval of the incarceration of gay men.

I would suggest in response to Fran's comments that what she has witnessed has more to do with fear of extreme religiosity and the imposition of a social value system alien to historical Anglicanism.

[Tim]

Ruth, You are correct that inclusivity is often taken to an extreme in the TEC, but I have to question the accuracy of your statement about the practice of such radical "open communion" being so widespread here. I am no expert, but I have visited many parishes and found that all baptized Christians are welcome to partake and all unbaptized people are welcome to come forward and be blessed by the celebrant. That might seem too narrow to some in the TEC, but I think it represents more of the actual practice found across the USA.

[Jill]

Kate: 'Extraordinary assertions have surfaced on this thread. I do not for one moment believe that Rowan Williams, Frank Griswold, Jeffrey John, Richard Holloway et al are guilty of racism or, for that matter in the business of "gloating". I would require a source and verifiable evidence.'

Several misrepresentations here, Kate. I did not accuse those named of being guilty of racism, nor did I accuse them of 'gloating'. The article was on the website of the organisation set up by those people - author unknown. It has since been removed, but it was extremely self-congratulatory, (gloating!) and the tone was - if not racist, then definitely guilty of 'cultural superiority'. Same thing, in my book.

[Kate]

Jill - several misrepresentations? Indeed. Who better than your good self to recognise such? I suggest it is malignant gossip to publish such a comment from (your) memory. You offer NO verifiable evidence.

I would suggest your memory serves only to interpret words on the page as you understand them - not necessarily as they are commonly understood.

Do have a look at Alice in Wonderland - I have already quoted the relevant text on another thread.

[Christopher]

Dear Emanuel

"...your culture's "delicacy" is a smokescreen for bigotry and racism. After all, you invented the idea."

No, not me, my ancestors maybe, but let's see for a moment if the israelites, your ancestors, were entirely innocent of racism and bigotry with respect to the canaanites in the hebrew scriptures? I would gladly defer to Irene on this, but isn't it so that the only historical source we have of the canaanites and their iniquities is the hebrew bible? History being written by the victors may be a truism, but the vices you write of are seemingly endemic in humanity as a whole.

We agree on sensitivity (though you seem to think it a weakness or 'deformity'); it isn't the preserve of any special class or race but is an entirely understandable human response to centuries of ill-treatment.

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

Dear Christopher,

Re racism and brutality

I'm afraid that you are chronologically closer to it than I since I can point to 19th century Britain and Europe whereas you have to travel back almost 3000 years to the Canaan example.

Sensitivity is good in its proper place, the artist, but not in the warrior or the head of state charged with protecting his people. Being "sensitive" to the Viking's needs dooms the natives to murder and theft.

[Christopher]

Dear Emanuel

Okay that the british empire may have been the more recent practitioner of these vices...but then 'invent' is hardly the right word, is it? They are age-old and I doubt the israelites invented them either. We know, for instance, how your ancestors suffered under the pharoahs, but I doubt even the ancient egyptians invented racism and bigotry. Useful tools of empire but no doubt they ante-date the very first empire; they are probably tribal or even good old family values, if the truth be known. But please don't blame me. I do my level best not to engage in that mindset.

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America,

Dear Christopher,

The English language has been corrupted by the Left's usage. "Racism" is precisely that as invented by 19th century Europeans such as Houston Chamberlain, Gobineau, Wagner, and fans like Henry Ford. Google them to see what I mean. These men wanted to apply Darwin's ideas to their national likes and dislikes.

"Racism" has nothing to do with national or imperial conflicts. Israel, the Cannanites, and the Egyptians all belong to the Semitic sub group of Caucasians.

I don't resent English thugs who want to make money. I resent English thugs who support wiping out my nation for the sheer pleasure of it.
Mr. Irving and Mr. Galloway are examples of what I mean. It's they who'd resent my tone.