Give thanks to God for true prophets such as ++Deng.

Its difficult for an American to understand what the buying power of $100,000 is for people in a Third World country like Sudan. 

My ballpark guess-timate is that $100,000 dollars in Sudan is equivalent to something like $1,000,000 to $10,000,000 in the USA. 

In a war torn area like Southern Sudan, an area that is barely surviving let alone producing crops and goods for export, spurning $100,000 rather than spurning “...the Faith once given…” is a heart wrenching and compelling witness to that Faith.

I wonder how the ECUSA elite in their comfortable and secure New York City surroundings and lifestyle feel about this. 

Will they follow Scriptural admonitions regarding the poor?  What will their discussion at cocktail parties be?  Will it make their surf-n-turf dinners of lobster and tenderloin less tasty?  Will it sour their wine?  Will the heavily endowed Episcopalian parish in Lower Manhatten write out a large check to help the Anglicans of Southern Sudan?
A check written ‘sans’ revisionist political ambitions.

I don’t know what is in their minds, but I fear that ECUSA’s ruling elite feel only condescension toward the Anglicans of Sudan who adhere to “...the Faith once given….”

Rather than just having the Archbishop turn away the funds, I’m curious if he shouldn’t at least offer it to the neediest of his country?  I don’t find it in any way noble or admirable to decline money that can be used to feed starving people, or provide shelter and safety.  In fact, I find that to be an example of very poor leadership when one doesn’t put God’s people first!  If the money was there, available, and people rallied saying they’d rather be hungry than accept money from TEC - then so be it.  But how cruel for one person (or even a few people) make this decision on behalf of tens of thousands who are in dire need of aid.  A gay bishop in New Hampshire doesn’t justify allowing people to starve to death.

RE: “I don’t find it in any way noble or admirable to decline money that can be used to feed starving people, or provide shelter and safety.  In fact, I find that to be an example of very poor leadership when one doesn’t put God’s people first!”

We understand, Mark Johnson, that you would believe that.

Mark, I believe the proper phrase is “speaking truth to power” - especially when the monetary power is used to compel the new thang gozpell on the recipients.  Should you doubt the intent, just check out the DioMO Convention on the intention of continuing support to the Sudan to bring ‘em the opportunity to “share our understanding of the gospel (sic)”.

The truly sad part is the insistence of self-righteousness that the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC has in this matter despite what all the AC and Christians have to say about their incorrect stance.  But, hey, it’s a cultural thingy from start to finish - (self-gratification raised to the ultimate power).

Who could object to offering a little incense to Caesar?

Let’s not forget that much of TEO’s offer of funds ends up coming with either strings attached or “certain expectations,” that the Sudanese find sinful.

Let’s also not forget that the Diocese of Virginia’s “missioner” to the Sudan, Lauren Stanley, stood before her diocesan convention this year and stated that Sudan didn’t care about the whole same gender sexual relationships issues.

Did.  Not.  Care.

But we know that at least one archbishop does and numerous clergy.  We know that.

So the only thing left is to claim that the Mean Archbishop is Being Bad to show that he cares by not taking money that surely has “no strings attached” other than that the likes of Louie Crew can claim that all is well because—look, they’re accepting our money!

It is also naive.  If we havdn’t noticed already Muslims need little excuse to persecute and kill Christians.  One of those arguments goes like this.  “Their church is corrupt, they do not believe even their own scriptures. The incremental westerniation represented by their accomodations to western ideals is a threat to Islam.” 

At least give the Archbishop credit.  He is able to justify his stance in the written word and thus face down the muslim persecution without losing his integrity.

To Daniel Deng, Archbishop of Sudan,
Please also not the whirling dervishes and supplications to strange gods at the Women’s spirituality conference on Valentine’s Day in our National Cathedral as well as the election of a Buddhist ‘bishop’ in Michigan. 
Please note the long list of heretical actions and sayings all around TEC.  Please do not think the resignation of VG Robinson would solve the problem or clean out the sewage that has spewed into US Episcopal churches and out of the pulpits and dominated the politics and the agendas for decades.

Oops, that’s please also *note* the whirling dervishes…

aldenjr speaks rightly, I believe, about how African Muslims are likely to look at collaboration with Westerners of corrupt morals.  Among Egyptian Muslims we get higher respect when they become aware that we practice our religion.  And from the Sudanese Christians’ point of view, their physical survival is so problematic for many reasons that they, like the New Testament Christians, focus on eternity.  They do not consider betraying the bread of life for mere daily bread.

The moderate Muslims whom Hopper may know in Western places are likely to be an anomaly in Sudan.

I don’t think ABp Deng has turned away funds like ABp Orombi. The homosexualists had paraded him around just before Lambeth, introducing him to their homosexual partners, taking him to gay churches, etc. He was very gracious and apparently took it all in. So he knows well the seedy side of American Episcopalianism. But their plan to buy a primate backfired. He might take American money but he upholds scripture.

RE: “Personally We find it odd that anyone would believe otherwise.”

Yes indeed.  And I agree wholeheartedly that your group would.  The two responses perfectly illustrates the divide between conservatives and revisionists.

Unfortunately, when the Global South Primates do accept the money, the folk who gave it loudly proclaim “See? They take our money, therefore our theology doesn’t matter to them, so by condemning us but taking our money shows they are hypocrites!”

If they refuse the money, the rebuffed givers loudly proclaim “See? They care so little about the needs of their people that they refuse to accept our money just because they disagree with our theology on minor points!”

In other words, the Primates of the Global South are in a no-win situation as pawns in TEc’s little games.

#16 - I can’t speak for others, but I certainly would not criticize someone for taking TEC funds to help people survive even if they disagree with TEC’s “policies.” 
Off-topic - “Sarah” - why so angry?  I think the responses above though differing in thought, are all respectful, but not yours.  Chill out - say a prayer!  There are other blogs that are more suited for hostility.

Who could object to offering a little incense to Caesar?

I heard the same thing.  Amazing how certain sentiments echo through time, unchanged, isn’t it?

Mark,
YOU might not, but I’ve seen the blog posts that say what I said almost verbatim starting around the time of GC ‘06.  Perhaps you weren’t hanging around then, but that is what TEc and those sympathetic to the reappraisers were proclaiming.  As well as bringing out the ‘racial epithets’ such as “look at them, ignorant Africans, all pious at first, but they’ll sell out for a chicken dinner!”

“For what fellowship does the light have with the darkness” is the reasoning behind the GS refusal of ‘blood money’ (metaphorically speaking) from TEc. 

Oh, and by the way, donations directly to the African diocesan HQs have gone up—by reasserting parishes affiliating with Uganda, etc. for oversight. Money that would have gone to TEc (and diverted for pet projects and administrative overhead and law suits) is now directly in the hands of those who need it most, and can distribute resources more effectively. So the poor in those areas are NOT hurting because of disaffiliation with “an heretical branch of Anglicanism”.

As to Sarah’s posts, she has been posting here a lot longer than I’ve seen your name.  She is an intelligent poster, and has a lot of facts and insight in her posts. She also has a sharp wit and keen sense of sarcasm.  I enjoy a thread more when she posts to it.

Peace to you!
Jim Elliott <><

RE: “Off-topic - “Sarah” - why so angry?”

Not certain what you mean.  It appears that the only two that are a bit “het up” on this thread are you and Hopper, you initially over the excellent actions of integrity by Archbishop Deng and Hopper for other reasons.  I didn’t really care to refute your comment’s assertion—I merely noted that of course it’s to be expected that you believe what you believe and we believe what we believe.

That comment appears to have displeased someone.  I can imagine why.  But it’s not particularly my concern.

How interesting that my pointing out the fact that the two different gospels represented here are going to have utterly opposing viewpoints about the actions of Archbishop Deng . . . you’ve asserted is some sort of “hostility.”  But hey . . . if it makes you feel better to assert that . . .

RE: ” . . . say a prayer!”

Lol. 

[Insert trembling stained glass voice here . . . ] “I shall pray for your repentance, Oh Angry One.”  ; > )

#20 - thanks, for confirming my assumption!  OK, I’m outta here.

But wait—what about the prayers?  Don’t flounce away angry . . .

I’m supposed to be angry, not you!

When do I get a chance to be angry?

“Be angry, but be careful not to fall into sin”—Ephesians 4:26

John Wesley wrote:

4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not - That is, if ye are angry, take heed ye sin not. Anger at sin is not evil; but we should feel only pity to the sinner. If we are angry at the person, as well as the fault, we sin.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

26. Be ye angry, and sin not-So the Septuagint, Ps 4:4. Should circumstances arise to call for anger on your part, let it be as Christ’s “anger” (Mr 3:5), without sin. Our natural feelings are not wrong when directed to their legitimate object, and when not exceeding due bounds. As in the future literal, so in the present spiritual, resurrection, no essential constituent is annihilated, but all that is a perversion of the original design is removed. Thus indignation at dishonor done to God, and wrong to man, is justifiable anger. Passion is sinful (derived from “passio,” suffering: implying that amidst seeming energy, a man is really passive, the slave of his anger, instead of ruling it).

So, Peace! Be comforted! All is not lost!

In Him,
Jim <><