Seven Primates refuse Communion at Primates' Meeting

A statement posted on the Church of Nigeria's website is here: http://www.anglican-nig.org/GSPrimates_in_Tanzania.htm
These Primates apparently did this to remind us that communion has been broken by the Episcopal Church's actions. They demand our repentance before they can sit with us.

It is worth noting that there are a lot fewer Primates refusing Communion than at the last meeting, after TEC consecrated Gene Robinson. Anyway, the seven idiots are:

Abp. Peter Akinola (Nigeria)
Abp. John Chew (Southeast Asia)
Abp. Benjamin Nzimbi (Kenya)
Abp. Justice Akrofi (West Africa)
Abp. Henry Orombi (Uganda)
Abp. Gregory Venables (Southern Cone)
Abp. Emmanuel Kolini (Rwanda)

Archbishop John Chew's Province of SE Asia includes Singapore, my hometown. As such, I am especially ashamed of his actions. Are you listening, Abp Chew? In addition to this shameful act, it is reported that Chew and Akinola met the Archbishop of Canterbury before the Meeting, trying to persuade him to expell ++KJS and ++John Sentamu (whom was brought along to represent England, as ++Williams had difficulty doing that and playing the role of moderator at the same time).

Jim Naughton, of the blog Daily Episcopalian, has accused these Primates of making Communion about themselves, not about God. I agree. In the traditional Anglican understanding, the Holy Eucharist is what draws us into communion with each other. We do not demand complete theological agreement with each other, unlike some (and I emphasize, only some) Roman Catholic leaders who would exclude supporters of abortion rights from Communion. Among Anglicans, if you can't take Communion with some people, perhaps the problem is with you. No use telling that to a narcissist, of course.

In November 2003, after +Gene Robinson's consecration, John Chew's predecessor, Yong Ping Chung, released the following statement on the Diocese of Singapore's website (http://www.anglican.org.sg/break_communion_24nov2003.html).

"The Synod of the Province of the Anglican Church of South East Asia (‘the Province’) unanimously reject the purported consecration of Dr Gene J Robinson (‘Robinson’) on 2 November 2003 by the Episcopal Church in the United States of America (‘ECUSA’) in New Hampshire, as a bishop in the Anglican Church. The Province views the purported consecration as a flagrant disregard of the fundamental teachings of the Bible and the long established doctrines of the Church.

As Dr Gene J Robinson is a practising homosexual who had divorced his wife and has for the last 13 years been living with a male partner, the Province cannot and do not recognize his consecration and ministry in the Anglican church.

In view of ECUSA’s action in proceeding with the consecration despite the warnings and pleas of a large majority of Anglican churches worldwide, the Province regrets that communion with the ECUSA as well as those who voted for the consecration and those who participated in the consecration service is now broken.
This means that the Province no longer treats those in ECUSA who carried out and supported the act of consecration as brothers and sisters in Christ until and unless they repent of their action and return to embrace Biblical truths. At the same time, the Province remains in fellowship with the faithful believers within ECUSA who rightly oppose and reject the erroneous actions of their house.

This decision was made unanimously at an Extraordinary Meeting of the Synod held in Kudat, Sabah, Malaysia on 20 November 2003. A copy of the resolution is attached for general information."

Some Global South leaders are obsessed with homosexuality, even more than most of the actual homosexuals I know. When the Episcopal Church consecrates a bishop who is gay, that is seen as us forcing homosexuality on everyone else. It is an ugly truth, but repeatedly, TEC has been accused of imposing its will on the rest of the Anglican Communion. It is true that in the past, Western missionaries forced their cultures in addition to their religion onto indigenous people, at the expense of indigenous cultures. We are, to some extent, seeing the aftereffects of cultural and religious colonialism. Still, this is no excuse for their actions.

Even today, though, too many Global South Christians listen to quacks promoting extremist doctrines, rather than more moderate Christian scholars. I can say that because I learned those quack doctrines growing up. I was taught not to believe in evolution. I was taught that the Beatles were Satanic (partly because much of their music was written on drugs), and that I had to stop listening to them - that caused a very ugly fight with my mom. I was taught Christian Zionist eschatology, and the Methodist Church in Singapore utterly failed to condemn the Israeli occupation, despite the fact that Methodists are supposed to have a strong social conscience. And of course, I was taught to avoid "homosexual temptations". The aftereffects of colonialism only reinforce these false teachings.

Western churches must forever renounce colonialism in all forms, or else we will keep paying for it. We must reach out as partners - NOT as superiors - to our Global South counterparts, and help undo the legacy that some of our ancestors created. And we must hold our own governments accountable for their actions that continue to colonize the Global South.

That's a long-term solution, though. In the short term, we will have to ride this out. We will have to balance remaining in the Anglican Communion with ensuring that our LGBT members have an equal place at the table. It won't be easy.

Citizens Funds (a Socially Responsible Investing firm): inquiries on activities in Sudan

Citizens Funds is an SRI firm which invests only in companies that pass social and environmental screens. SRI is a growing trend worldwide. SRI firms will exclude companies that fail their screens, will engage as shareholders with companies to improve their social and environmental responsiveness, and will sometimes make investments targeted at low-income communities with low access to credit.

Many Americans are concerned with the genocide in Sudan, as they should be. Fidelity has blatantly refused to engage their clients and their fund shareholders who have demanded that they cease investment in companies that enable the genocide by providing funds (usually through oil royalties) to the government. They didn't answer my email, not even with a form letter.

Citizens, on the other hand, has queryed companies it believes may derive some revenues from Sudanese operations. The following companies have responded to their requests for information:

3M (Ticker MMM, diversified industrial)
Metlife (ticker MET, insurance)
Bank of New York (BNY, does what you think it does)
Ingersoll-Rand (IR, industrial machinery)
Baker Hughes (BHI, oil exploration)
Mellon Financial (MEL, financial)
Northern Trust (NTRS, financial)
Pepsico (PEP, you know what they sell)
Coke (KO, you know what they sell, too)
Volvo (VOLVY, sells automobiles and trucks)
Medtronic (MDT, medical devices)
Stryker (SYK, orthopedic devices)
Toyota (TM, cars, including the Prius, which I want someday)

Citizens has argued that instant divestment would deprive them of the ability to engage the companies as shareholders. Yes, it's a one dollar, one vote sort of deal, and there are firms out there that are a lot larger than Citizens. But the best companies do listen to their shareholders' concerns. Either way, there's value in both approaches to engaging corporations to align their behavior with human rights.

Of course, some corporations won't listen (like Exxon Mobil, Millstone Award recipient for March, and I doubt the Chinese oil companies involved in Sudan will listen, either). And most institutional shareowners (Fidelity, Vanguard, etc) don't consider these decisions their purview, which is monumentally irresponsible. But, we do try.

Janani Luwum, murdered Feb 17


O God, whose Son the Good Shepherd laid down his life for the sheep: We give you thanks for your faithful shepherd, Janani Luwum, who after his Savior’s example gave up his life for the people of Uganda. Grant us to be so inspired by his witness that we make no peace with oppression, but live as those who are sealed with the cross of Christ, who died and rose again, and now lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.



Janini Luwum was the Anglican Archbishop of Uganda from 1974-77. This was during the time of Idi Amin's regime. Amin was a brutal, power-hungry dictator, and a murdered. The Langi and the Acholi were victims of state-inspired violence during his reign; Milton Obote, the Prime Minister of Uganda whom Amin deposed in a coup, was Lango, and Luwum was Acholi. The Asian population suffered violence from the military, and in 1972 they were expelled from Nigeria.

Luwum was elected archbishop in 1974, and allowed Amin to cultivate a relationship with him. Amin was likely seeking credibility. Luwum tried to moderate Amin's excesses.

But Amin was not a man whose excesses could be moderated. The Anglican and Roman Catholic churches increasingly worked together to try to respond to him, and Uganda's Muslims joined them.

“While the opportunity is there, I preach the gospel with all my might. My conscience is clear before God that I have not sided with the present government (Amin’s), which is utterly self-seeking. I have been threatened many times. Whenever I have the opportunity, I have told the president the things the church disapproves of. God is my witness.”

Luwum delievered a letter to Amin on February 12, 1977, protesting the security forces' use of disappearances and arbitrary killings. (Disappear: (of a person) go missing or (in coded political language) be killed). Amin arrested Luwum and two Cabinet ministers, Erinayo Wilson Oryema and Charles Oboth Ofumbi, on fabricated charges of planning a coup. They were tortured and shot to death. Some say that Amin personally shot Luwum.

Amin escaped justice, going into exile in Saudi Arabia. Luwum is commemorated as a martyr in the Church of England and in the Episcopal Church, and his statue is part of a gallery of ten 20th century martyrs at Westminster Abbey in London. Sadly, I didn't know of Luwum when I was in London this summer, so I didn't manage to get a picture of his statue. The picture here is from Westminster Abbey's own site.

http://www.westminster-abbey.org/tour/martyrs/3_jl.htm

Sultan Assures Christians of Safety
The Tide News (Nigeria)

Sultan assures Christians of safety
• Wednesday, Feb 14, 2007
The Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Sa’ad Abubakar, has assured Christians in the state of safety and religious tolerance.

The assurance was contained in a statement issued Sunday in Abuja on the Sultan’s visit to the Primate of the Church of Nigeria Anglican Communion), Most Revd. Peter Akinola.

Abubakar recalled that as a student at the Nigerian Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, near Jos, he worked on a project on the promotion of Christian/ Muslim relationship.

He promised to make a copy of the study available to the Church.

I have told Christians in the state that whenever they are attacked, they should run to the palace. I will stand between them and whosoever wants to attack them,” he said.

The statement quoted the primate as expressing appreciation to the Sultan and urged him to be a father of all in the state.

He stressed the need for religious tolerance and mutual respect by the faithful of the two religions to ensure national unity and progress.

[Editor: There is much violence between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria. +1 for religious tolerance.]

Anglican Primates meeting in Tanzania, likely to be acrimonious, Anglican Communion might split

First off, for my non-Anglican readers, a Primate is the chief bishop of a province, which spans one or more countries. Anglican, Catholic, etc Primates are not to be confused with primate: mammal of the order that includes lemurs, bush monkeys, tarsiers, marmosets, monkeys, apes, and humans, although of course it is true that all Primates are primates. This distinction caused a moment of levity when some friends and I were discussing evolution over lunch, and one of them made a non sequitur about the outgoing (Anglican) Primate of Australia.

Some conservative leaders are meeting before the actual meeting starts. Davis Mac-Iyalla, of Changing Attitude (Nigeria), met personally with Abp Peter Akinola (whom I have excoriated mercilessly on this blog). CA is a global LGBT organization. Davis is gay, and Nigerian. Davis is appealing to the Primates, "in the name of God," to oppose the legislation in Nigeria that would criminalize advocacy by and on behalf of the LGBT community there. He has previously received death threats for his work in Nigeria. Please pray for his safety. At least this time, Akinola didn't run away.

http://www.changingattitude.org.uk/news/newsitem.asp?id=278

Meanwhile, some Global South leaders have suggested that they would not sit at the same table as the Episcopal Church's new Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori. Some want to harangue her, and/or eject her from the meeting. Their reasons are, I believe, a combination of her gender, her support for LGBT rights including ordination and marriage, and her relatively liberal theology. I hope they will reconsider. They will make themselves look un-Christian if they do so.

Lastly, an article by Stephen Bates in the Guardian is instructive. Take his article with a pinch of salt, but Bates makes the case that Akinola is motivated by power, consciously or not. He has (very, very sadly) replaced Desmond Tutu as the most prominent African Anglican leader, and his agenda is primarily condemning homosexuality rather than condemning evil.

"In the past, this biannual meeting [Ed: Primates' Meeting] of the world's 38 Anglican primates has been a congenial, consensual affair: a chance for prayers and discussions and getting to know each other. The last time they took a vote was in 1981, and that was a unanimous vote of thanks. But two years ago, at their last gathering in Northern Ireland, the developing-world primates turned on the Americans and Williams because of the gay issue. They refused Williams's plea that they should attend communion together - an unprecedented snub - and one white primate told me he had been shocked to overhear Akinola telling his colleagues about Williams: "He'll do what we tell him.""

"Today it will be Akinola calling the shots among the bishops gathered in Tanzania, and he is enjoying his new-found eminence. After more than a century of being patronised, overlooked and ignored by their white proselytisers, the church's black brethren are not going to take it any more. And none is more powerful than Akinola. " [Ed: Rowan Williams technically calls the shots at the actual Primates' Meeting; Bates means Akinola is calling the shots now, when the conservatives are gathered.]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2012434,00.html

Frankly, Akinola is acting as if we in the West are trying to sodomize him and his fellow Africans. The Episcopal Church's actions are perceived as arrogant and unilateral. Indeed, America's actions around the world are perceived in the same way. In some way, we are paying the price for cultural and religious colonization of the Global South, and for denying them their rightful place in Anglican (and other) polity. Colonialism is often perceived in similar ways as sexual violence. This is NOT to excuse Akinola's actions; they are evil, plain and simple. However, Americans and others in the West need to put them in context. Too many times, we have acted with arrogance and paternalism. When we get through this, we have to remember never to do so again. Else, the tables may turn on us.

And by the way, there's a little bit about Nolbert Kunonga in the article (I've previously singled Kunonga out for fire and judgment on account of his corruption):

"Some English bishops rush to defend the archbishop. He is in fierce competition, they say, for souls, and lives, in a region where militant Islam is also on the march - as is charismatic Christian Pentecostalism. Yet curiously, Akinola seems much more obsessed with what gay white men get up to than with some of the abuses in Africa. He has uttered not a word of condemnation of Bishop Nolbert Kunonga of Harare, a crony of the Mugabe regime, who has been accused by his own black parishioners of seizing white property, evicting black farm workers, and calling for the assassination of his church opponents. Indeed, Akinola invited Kunonga to address a plenary session of the All African Conference of Bishops."

As for Peter Akinola, he is a disgrace upon the Anglican Communion, Christianity in Africa, and Christ's holy catholic church. He may very well go his own way, and secede from the Anglican Communion. My first reaction might be to celebrate, but this maniac will lead millions of Nigerian Christians and other African Christians astray on a road of hate, arrogance, and willful ignorance. God will judge him on the last day, but it's going to be too late for too many people.

Teens prosecuted for racy photos
From Police Blotter, posted on CNET News

When: Florida state appeals court rules on January 19.

Outcome: A 2-1 majority upholds conviction on grounds the girl produced a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child.

What happened, according to court documents:
Combine unsupervised teenagers, digital cameras, and e-mail, and, given sufficient time, you'll end up with risque photographs on a computer somewhere.

There's a problem with that: Technically, those images constitute child pornography. That's what 16-year old Amber and 17-year old Jeremy, her boyfriend, both residents of the Tallahassee, Fla., area, learned firsthand. (Court documents include only their initials, A.H. and J.G.W., so we're using these pseudonyms to make this story a little easier to read.)

[Editor: This is moronic. The majority opinion seems to be that she had no expectation of privacy since she sent the photos by internet, since an email could be intercepted or a computer could be hacked; the dissenting judge said that a letter could be opened, too, or a friend could find the photos, scan them, and disseminate them. I tend to agree with the dissenting judge.

I have no idea if she'll have her lawyer take this to the Supreme Court. That will cost a lot of money unless this guy is doing this pro-bono. And now, will she be labelled a sex offender? She will, I assume, have a juvenile record, which will likely be sealed. So, perhaps she's not guilty of a sex offense, but her boyfriend was charged with possession of child pornography, and he's got a good shot at being labelled a sex offender. The judge writing the majority opinion speculated that he "could" disseminate the photographs. Even if his decision is legally correct, the judge is a moron.]

On March 25, 2004, Amber and Jeremy took digital photos of themselves naked and engaged in unspecified "sexual behavior." The two sent the photos from a computer at Amber's house to Jeremy's personal e-mail address. Neither teen showed the photographs to anyone else.

Court records don't say exactly what happened next--perhaps the parents wanted to end the relationship and raised the alarm--but somehow Florida police learned about the photos.

Amber and Jeremy were arrested. Each was charged with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Based on the contents of his e-mail account, Jeremy was charged with an extra count of possession of child pornography.

Court records don't say exactly what happened next...but somehow Florida police learned about the photos.
Some more background: Under a 1995 ruling in a case called B.B. v. State, the Florida Supreme Court said that a 16-year old could not be found delinquent for having sex with another 16-year old.

"The crux of the state's interest in an adult-minor situation is the prevention of exploitation of the minor by the adult," the majority said at the time. The court ruled that a Florida statute punishing sex between teens was "unconstitutional as applied to this 16-year-old as a basis for a delinquency proceeding."

In other words, under Florida law, Amber and Jeremy would be legally permitted to engage in carnal relations, but they're criminals if they document it.

Amber's attorney claimed that the right to privacy protected by the Florida Constitution shielded the teen from prosecution, an argument that a trial judge rejected. Amber pleaded no contest to the charges and was placed on probation, though she reserved her right to appeal her constitutional claim.

By a 2-1 vote, the appeals court didn't buy it. Judge James Wolf, a former prosecutor, wrote the majority opinion.

Wolf speculated that Amber and Jeremy could have ended up selling the photos to child pornographers ("one motive for revealing the photos is profit") or showing the images to their friends. He claimed that Amber had neither the "foresight or maturity" to make a reasonable estimation of the risks on her own. And he said that transferring the images from a digital camera to a PC created innumerable problems: "The two computers (can) be hacked."

Judge Philip Padovano dissented. He wrote that the law "was designed to protect children from abuse by others, but it was used in this case to punish a child for her own mistake. In my view, the application of this criminal statute to the conduct at issue violates the child's right to privacy under Article 1, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution."

Excerpt from Wolf's majority opinion:
As previously stated, the reasonable expectation that the material will ultimately be disseminated is by itself a compelling state interest for preventing the production of this material. In addition, the statute was intended to protect minors like appellant and her co-defendant from their own lack of judgment...

Appellant was simply too young to make an intelligent decision about engaging in sexual conduct and memorializing it. Mere production of these videos or pictures may also result in psychological trauma to the teenagers involved.

Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives. These children are not mature enough to make rational decisions concerning all the possible negative implications of producing these videos.

In addition, the two defendants placed the photos on a computer and then, using the Internet, transferred them to another computer. Not only can the two computers be hacked, but by transferring the photos using the Net, the photos may have been and perhaps still are accessible to the provider and/or other individuals. Computers also allow for long-term storage of information which may then be disseminated at some later date. The state has a compelling interest in seeing that material which will have such negative consequences is never produced.

Excerpt from Padovano's dissent:
If a minor cannot be criminally prosecuted for having sex with another minor, as the court held in B.B., it follows that a minor cannot be criminally prosecuted for taking a picture of herself having sex with another minor. Although I do not condone the child's conduct in this case, I cannot deny that it is private conduct. Because there is no evidence that the child intended to show the photographs to third parties, they are as private as the act they depict...

The majority concludes that the child in this case did not have a reasonable expectation that the photographs would remain private. To support this conclusion, the majority speculates about the many ways in which the photographs might have been revealed to others. The e-mail transmission might have been intercepted. The relationship might have ended badly. The boyfriend might have wanted to show the photo to someone else to brag about his sexual conquest. With all due respect, I think these arguments are beside the point. Certainly there are circumstances in which the photos might have been revealed unintentionally to third parties, but that would always be the case.

That the Internet is easily hacked, as the majority says, is not material. The issue is whether the child intended to keep the photos private, not whether it would be possible for someone to obtain the photos against her will and thereby to invade her privacy. The majority states that the child "placed the photos on a computer and then, using the Internet, transferred them to another computer," as if to suggest that she left them out carelessly for anyone to find. That is not what happened. She sent the photos to her boyfriend at his personal e-mail address, intending to share them only with him.

The method the child used to transmit the photos to her boyfriend carries some danger of disclosure, but so do others. If the child had taken a printed photograph and placed it in her purse, it might have been disclosed to third parties if her purse had been lost or stolen. If she had mailed it to her boyfriend in an envelope, it might have been revealed if the envelope had been delivered to the wrong address and mistakenly opened. As these examples illustrate, there is always a possibility that something a person intends to keep private will eventually be disclosed to others. But we cannot gauge the reasonableness of a person's expectation of privacy merely by speculating about the many ways in which it might be violated.

The critical point in this case is that the child intended to keep the photographs private. She did not attempt to exploit anyone or to embarrass anyone. I think her expectation of privacy in the photographs was reasonable. Certainly, an argument could be made that she was foolish to expect that, but the expectation of a 16-year-old cannot be measured by the collective wisdom of appellate judges who have no emotional connection to the event. Perhaps if the child had as much time to reflect on these events, she would have eventually concluded, as the majority did, that there were ways in which these photos might have been unintentionally disclosed. That does not make her expectation of privacy unreasonable.

Rev Bradley Schmeling decision: Disciplinary committee suggests that ELCA allow practicing homosexuals to serve as clergy, delays his suspension until after Synod meets

I'd been checking the website of Lutherans Concerned North America (www.lcna.org, the ELCA's LGBT ministry) for news on Brad's case. Madpriest beat me to it.

If you check some news articles on the web, you'll see that Brad has been suspended. This is correct: as of Aug 15, the committee has ordered that he be removed from the clergy roster.

Aug 15 is quite some time away. In fact, it is after their next synod meeting. The committee has respectfully suggested that the ELCA:

1) Revise their regulations (Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline and Vision and Expectation) to allow practicing homosexuals to serve as clergy. They believe that the previous restrictions were at best bad policy, and at worst violations of the ELCA Constitution.

2) Permit the reinstatement of clergy who left or were removed because they entered into same-sex relationships.

Their decision is posted here: http://www.lcna.org/lcna_downloads/schmeling_decision.pdf
It is a legal document, so it is a little long.

The ELCA has struggled with this issue before. They obviously had not managed to remove the restrictions. Brad may still face dismissal: the panel has concluded (I'm pretty sure) that if the restrictions are upheld, they have no choice but to remove him. His church has pledged to keep him even if that happens, but I pray they will not have to resort to this.

Some of you may have heard of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, a right-wing organization funded by wealthy ultra-conservatives, which is funding groups in the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Methodist churches which are attempting to keep these churches from moving to accept LGBT individuals and their relationships. If the ELCA makes the same move, these people will target the ELCA as well.

North Korea's official name in English is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The IRD is as democratic as the North Koreans. And they are as religious as Peter Akinola, and the Protestant and Catholic churches that supported Nazi Germany.