I guess proper theology is more important than helping AIDS sufferers ….

Last weekend, Washington Post columnist Colbert King wrote a spot-on piece, earning him a vituperative response from a leading figure in the orthodox revolt. King’s column told of Ugandan Bishop Tembo’s rejection of AIDS relief funds from the Diocese of Central Pennsylvania. Bishop Tembo’s stated reason was that he had just learned (!) that, at General Convention 2003, the Pennsylvania diocese had been among the majority that voted to consent to the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. In his column, King castigated Bishop Tembo for his actions:

Apparently it matters less to the good Bishop Tembo — who does not have AIDS — that it is the suffering men, women and children in his diocese who may pay with their lives for his action, not the Central Pennsylvania Diocese. What’s more, Bishop Tembo and his wife, Dorothy Nzerebende, are the proud parents of five children who don’t have to fend for themselves. So when he turns down money for the education of orphans, it’s no skin off the teeth of his kids.

Yes, Kasese has only 15 trained physicians to treat more than 500,000 residents. Which, however, is better? Thumbing one’s nose at Episcopalians in the United States or bringing more doctors into the midst of Kasese’s human suffering? Bishop Tembo made it known where he stands.

All this he did in the name of God.

Sadly, Bishop Tembo is being cheered by conservative Episcopalians in this country. Some of them believe that the Episcopal Church of the United States, by consecrating a gay bishop, is, as one of them put it on a conservative Web site, "sending people to hell by the boatload, by presenting a false gospel." Thus, the Diocese of Central Pennsylvania’s money is tainted.

It seems to me that the Pennsylvanians were only doing what Jesus enjoined us to do, trying to send desperately-needed aid to our suffering brothers and sisters. They were willfully blocked by a soi-disant Christian bishop, one who evidently thinks that adhering to "proper" theological beliefs is more important than following Christ’s mandate — more important than effforts to relieve the suffering of his own people. (One wonders whether Bishop Tembo would have similarly rejected AIDS relief funds from Roman Catholic or Jewish or Muslim or Hindu organizations.)

None of that seemed to trouble the Rev. David Anderson, president of the American Anglican Council, the rump organization that is seeking to replace the Episcopal Church as part of the Anglican Communion. In a letter to the editor, Canon Anderson castigated King for not appreciating the obvious importance of "correct" theology — which means, of course, the theology proclaimed by Anderson and his invincibly-certain colleagues:

Do you always write this kind of overwhelmingly biased trash, or was Easter just a great moment for cheap shots?

You used the old angle "see those hypocritical Christians." The heroes are not the folks in the Diocese of Central Pennsylvania whose generosity is accompanied by a corrupting influence of revisionist money, pansexuality and corrupted Christianity. When African dioceses have accepted money from nonorthodox dioceses, the Episcopal News Service crows: See, everything is all right; they still take our money.

Everything isn’t all right, and the diocese is included in the "step back" directive that the Anglican primates gave the Episcopal Church. Central Pennsylvania is in the Anglican timeout box along with the rest of the revisionist church.

It is too bad when well-meaning but naive Episcopalians wish to help out but partner themselves with a diocese that has corrupted its theology. Some of those from Pennsylvania may have been asleep the past two years and not have known what is going on in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, but I doubt it.

I doubt you are that naive either. The Episcopal Church has declared war on the Anglican Communion because it thinks it knows best and has most of the money. …

It beggars belief.

There’s one good thing about Canon Anderson’s letter: He at least had the remaining decency to identify himself as president of the AAC, not as an Episcopal priest. He thus spared "well-meaning but naive Episcopalians" from the embarrassment — dare I say, the shame? — of being linked with him in print.

(Hat tip to TitusOneNine.)

Comments

6 responses to “I guess proper theology is more important than helping AIDS sufferers ….”

2005-04-02

Greg

Hmmm, not quite the whole story is it? They were wilfully blocked not by a soi-distant Bishop, but the actions of Louie Crew. The Ugandan Bishops decided to do away with the “hypocrisy” alleged by Louie Crew. The Ugandan Bishops refused aid only from the Diocese of Central PA not from other sources. They don’t want the attached strings that come with it.
Excerpt from post #23 at http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=5758.
On March 2, 2005, Bishop Creighton of Central Pennsylvania wrote to his diocese in response to the Primates’ Communiqué. He concluded his letter with these words, “Lastly, the Diocese of Central Pennsylvania has lively, healthy and helpful global relationships in the Anglican Communion. We are…engaged in supporting eight Medical Clinics and two hospitals in the Diocese of South Rwenzori, Uganda, that battle disastrous HIV/AIDS infection. A group of physicians and medical people will be traveling this summer to assess how we can help more, medically and socially. Those Ugandan bishops have visited Central Pennsylvania and are solidly our brothers in Christ. However global conversations and church politics turn out in the coming months and years, the Diocese of Central Pennsylvania will always be engaged with brothers and sisters in Christ around the world in faithful and loving service.”
The string that came attached to Central Pennsylvania’s money (which we now know never went to South Rwenzori Diocese, anyway) was the right to claim there was no broken communion between them and the Church of Uganda, when in fact the Church of Uganda had broken communion with bishops and dioceses who voted in favor of consecrating as bishop a man living in a same-sex relationship. They got to give the impression that the Church of Uganda are basically liars and that they don’t mean what they say when they break communion. Central Pennsylvania got to look good at a time when they were under intense scrutiny by the world, and they did so at the expense of the Church of Uganda, those they claim are “solidly their brothers in Christ.”

2005-04-02

Tom Roberts

“It seems to me that the Pennsylvanians were only doing what Jesus enjoined us to do, trying to send desperately-needed aid to our suffering brothers and sisters. ”
That isn’t the only thing that Jesus enjoined us to do. Apparently you placed charitable missionary work as being more important than Tembo’s “commitment to His Word and the historic teaching of the church”. De gustibus non disputandem est. But you fail to note that the Central PA “charity” was hypothetical and future tense, where as Tembo’s local efforts try to deal with the here and now as he sees matters. That is why he was consecrated as a diocesan bishop, which you spuriously characterize as “soi-disant”.
But to your critique of Anderson’s letter. You extensively quote that letter, but your “It beggars belief.” represents not argument but a conclusion that you simply don’t agree with Anderson. A simple link and more evidence of thought on this particular letter’s issues might give the reason why your soi-disant argument might be correct.

2005-04-02

D. C.

Tom Roberts, thanks for your comment. I’ve enjoyed reading your thoughtful comments at TitusOneNine (even though I seldom agree with them).
1. You note that that Bishop Tembo didn’t reject any offered money, he withdrew an as-yet unfunded request for money. +Tembo’s subsequent letter points out that his diocese per se had never received any money from the Pennsylvanians; their previous gifts had gone to a foundation run by +Tembo’s predecessor.
Both of those points amount to a distinction without a difference; the analysis is the same. What’s even worse is that +Tembo felt he had to withdraw his funding request because of what he regarded as badgering by Louie Crew. It’s unbelievable that +Tembo could be pushed so easily into reacting that way. His flock would have been better off if he had simply ignored Crew’s comment, not even deigning to acknowledge it.
+Tembo might benefit from re-reading about Winston Churchill’s reaction when Germany invaded the USSR in June 1941. A fervent foe of Communism, Churchill nevertheless said that

though he would ‘unsay no word’ that he had spoken about Communism, this was a war against native Russia, and the ’cause of any Russian fighting for his hearth and home is the cause of free men and free peoples in every quarter of the globe’.

Would that we could adopt a similar attitude in our common battles against humanity’s various ills.
2. Along the same lines, I would have thought the reasoning of my argument about Canon Anderson’s letter was self-evident: Canon Anderson seems to be more upset about what he perceives to be “crowing” by ENS than about the real-world problems that so urgently need addressing. Even if Anderson+ is right about the crowing, who gives a flip — there are more important things we should all be worrying about.
3. I don’t question that Bishop Tembo is a bishop. I used the term soi-disant in reference to his Christianity. That was probably intemperate and judgmental, and I’ll try to do better in not writing in that way.

2005-04-02

Tom Roberts

DC- I think we basically agree on all the facts here, but simply place different values on some of them. One thought to consider is that Tembo might well have found Crewe’s critique sharp because it was accurate, whereas Tembo’s prior insouciance on this issue essentially allowed Uganda to have its cake and eat it also. Where Tembo then had to chose was between one evil (perceptions of moral inconsistency) and another (not having these future resources to address dire social issues). But this is where bishops get called to make the tough decisions, and saying that you would do so differently from your observation point is probably a statement of the obvious. Contrary to you, I found Tembo’s problem here delightfully Christian in that it has no good answer and many bad outcomes from either choice the bishop might make. Unlike you, I do not see this situation monochromatically.

2005-04-02

Joseph Walker

I am curious to discover if the persons directing the funds and medical teams have made alternate arrangements to send them to the same geographic area through another relief agency, or perhaps have already set out to another location where their help is needed?

2005-04-03

Simeon

D.C., I suppose it’s all well and good that we well-fed and healthy Westerners can sit around and have our disputes of the “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?” variety. The bishop in question himself, I’m sure, is a lot better off than most of his fellow citizens.
But King’s point, and yours, are much more fundamental. This whole mess is exposed as shallow, cold-hearted political game playing when contrasted against the real needs of real, suffering people. The bishop and his “conservative” Western allies should hang their heads in shame.
You have nothing to apologize for.