“The President [of Uganda] donated sh2m in cash to the American bishop.”

Should he accept?

Interesting also that unless I’m mistaken that’s somewhere between one and two thousand dollars.

There are others better-versed in African culture than I, but my understanding is that if he were to decline the gift, it would be an insult of the highest order.  What do you find interesting about the amount?

THE Anglican Church of Uganda has consecrated an American priest as bishop to oversee Christian congregations that have split from the main Episcopal Church in the US over the issue of homosexuality.

We can holler all we like that “It’s not about homosexuality, it’s about Scripture.” The press is just not going to get it.
++Gomez’ sermon in Kenya, on the whole (or at least the soundbites excised by the press), was also unhelpful in this regard.

Interesting merely in that the interested reader might want to know what a shilling is worth.

Regarding homosexuality, “Prime Minister Nsibambi received a thunderous applause when he praised the Church of Uganda for their firm stand on homosexuals.” The church gave the government a platform. To do what? To attack homosexuals.

You omitted the context, John:

“We do not want to persecute them because we know they suffer and need assistance… Guernsey’s consecration came at an opportune time, in the light of acts of moral decadence in the present times…  The church should come to the rescue. The church has been vigilant in building homes. It should also design programmes for young people so that they do not roam in other pleasures.

Iread this not as an attack on homosexuals, but a welcome and an encouragement for the church to do what the church ought to be doing: redeeming lives, from homosexual and other temptations.

Maybe not an attack on homosexuals per se, as these words are of the “hate the sin, love the sinner” variety, but certainly on homosexuality, and an encouragement to those who cannot distinguish the sin from the sinner and oppress and persecute the latter. It is not safe to be gay in Uganda, where ++Orombi admitted that it was very difficult to bring himself to even meet with gay Anglican Ugandans in his own cathedral.

And, of course, this whole conflict IS about homosexuality—being used as a Wedge Issue (the IRD-AAC Plan) to split the American Church (it hasn’t happened yet, rather there’s been a pealing off). ++Gomez, ++Orombi, ++Akinola, and every other spokesman (and they are all men) for the dissidents has made it clear from their constant references to it that homosexuality is at the heart of the conflict. In that respect, the press does get it, however misleading and inaccurate press reports are at times.

I’ve come to believe that for the Africans the whole issue of colonialism is a major factor, at least if I am to take seriously their constant use of colonialist rhetoric and their references to casting off the “control” of the C of E and the “neo-imperialist” TEC. I don’t think they have entirely thown off the colonial mentality themselves, and see this as a major opportunity. It is possible that they’re proclaiming an Global South Declaration of Independence; perhaps it will lead to a GS Anglican Communion. I hope not, but there are determined people in the leadership bent on exercising power to dominate world-wide Anglicanism. This whole conflict is about a lot more than Scripture-moral theology.

From remarks by the new bishop, there seems to be a desire to bring the fervor of the East African Revival Movement to the US and reach out not only to Anglicans but to other Americans, including the younger generation. Lord knows that the younger generation is deserting the churches, and not only the mainline ones. Whether EARM will have any more success than the centuries-old American revivalist tradition remains to be seen.

In a way it is about homosexual acts.  But this is because the other side wants to call what God calls sin, as holy.  For me it is not about which sin is being called holy but that sin is being called holy.  This does mean that today the topic is homosexual sin.

As to the the IRD-AAC Plan my only suggestion to Bob from Boone is to get a life.  This the IRD-AAC Plan is a tale and nothing more.  This whole conflict is about Scripture-moral theology.  To those who want to claim it is about money, I would point out the recent more or less secret meeting in Spain funded by the big money of Trinity Wall Street.

Homosexuality is a “wedge” issue only in that consecrating gay bishops or blessing same sex marriage triggers the “wow - that is messed up” or a “come to Jesus moment” for those Christians c0onservative and moderate who have not paid attention to the leftwing takeover of the Episcopal Church.  It is a departure from boiling the frog slowly tactic that worked so well for so long.

This frog got really uncomfortable.

Chips, you are so dead right.

The radical progressives created the “wedge” because they just couldn’t wait and wrongly believed that only a few would protest, and those would leave quickly.

Mistake.

Scott+, I have a life. Consdier pruning tired rhetorical expressions from your vocabulary. Evangelical Randall Balmer attended a meeting at IRD over a decade ago, where the use of homosexuality as a wedge issue was the major topic of discussion and decision.

The meeting in Spain was “secret”? Didn’t you read the press reports? If you want to talk about secrecy, focus on the dissidents.