This diocese has a companion link with a diocese in Rwanda. Last night we had a visit from Meg Guillebaud a CMS Mission Partner from the diocese in question who came and gave an excellent presentation about life in that country.
Over the last few years, I’ve met quite a few people connected with Rwanda – students studying aquaculture, aid workers, people studying Rwanda itself and those involved in Christian mission activity. They tell the most extraordinary stories. They tell of things that happened during the genocide which chill the blood. They also often tell of more hopeful examples of reconcilliation. Talk to someone from Rwanda and you often seem to hear of the best and the very worst of what it is to be a human being.
The more you hear, the more sympathy for the country you tend to have. As I’ve learnt about Rwanda, I’ve certainly found my sympathies growing. At the same time, I’ve learnt about the Anglican Church of Rwanda and I find increasingly my sympathies for that church evaporating.
Last week, we saw a further move from the Rwandan Archbishop to promote schism in the church. (It is important to recognise that the Gafcon movement is a schism within a schism – it is primarily a break away movement not from the Anglican Communion but from the Global South). The ugly words of the schism leaders are the ugly words of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. They are a reminder that almost half of the bishops of the Rwandan Church are now white Americans working in America to split the Church.
The news that our companion bishop from Rwanda was in Jerusalem for the Gafcon (ie alternative Lambeth) Conference (for which we are indebted to Gadgetvicar) turned my stomach.
In St Mary’s we are increasingly asking people to think about how they spend their money. That means thinking about fair trading practises. It means thinking about the environment when shopping. We recognise that what we do with our money is to express our values.
I find that I don’t much want to invest money in anything involving the Anglican Church in Rwanda any more. I’m happy to pray with them, share friendship with them, share bread and wine with them and all that. When in comes to money though, my money has more than just financial value attached to it. If I feel inspired by the stories of Rwanda to invest in that country I would prefer to do so through agencies which share the values that I have. Given the opportunity to invest in sending priests of the Rwandan church motorcycles so that they can get around the diocese faster, I find myself thinking that if I wanted to make a difference, I’d rather give a motorcycle to a local doctor than to the clergy of that church.
These are hard things to say and I’ve no doubt that they were not nice things for Meg to listen to last night. But the Rwandan church is making it clear where it stands.
Time for us to do the same.
My apologies, Kenny – I think I misread your response, and that you were actually speaking about denying the sacraments to ordinary Rwandans by not paying for the motorcycles which we would otherwise have given.
Yes, it’s a problem, and I’m torn. Of course they are our friends, but on the other hand I have gay friends too. I’ve even met Gene Robinson, heard him preach and received Communion at his hands. He doesn’t have horns and a tail and he doesn’t smell of sulphur!
I can’t accept Archbishop Kolini’s view of gay people. I think it’s dehumanising, horrible and un-Christian. And yet, I’m sure you’re right and that the ordinary Rwandans we’re speaking about do worry about where their next plate of rice is coming from, rather than about the “theology” of Akinola & Co.
Do we have to decide to betray and punish one side or the other? Is it as bad as that? Do we help to feed, spiritually as well as physically, our Rwandan brothers and sisters while helping to uphold a creed that dehumanises and persecutes others? Or do we stand up for what we believe to be true as regards the humanity of gay people even if it means that others will go hungry and will go without the Eucharist?
There’s no easy answer to this. Whatever we choose to do, it seems to me, involves us in collaborating with sin.
The decision to give money to those in need always involves choices. Rwanda has many problems, many of which seem to have come from colonial policies of European countries. Those policies included sending missionaries like those who travelled with CMS. The influence of such mission societies on the current African schism has gone largely unexamined.
Though there are people who live in poverty in Rwanda, it is not the poorest country in Africa and its people are not the most needy right now. (Think of Zimbabwe).
Indeed, one of the things that Meg was telling us about the other night was about developing micro-credit systems to allow people to pool their resources and develop with their own resources. It was imaginative and exciting to hear about.
The fact remains that we have choices as to whom we wish to invest in. Are we concerned primarily with poverty or with church growth in Africa? Our response to that question and other uncomfortable questions like it will determine what we do with our money.
The suggestion that by not wanting to invest in that hypothetical motorcycle one is denying people the sacraments is an emotive one that I understand only too well. The bishops of Rwanda are currently trying to deny me and people like me the sacrament of ordination and by consequence trying to deny the sacraments to the people whom I serve.
This schism is not nice. No schism is nice. These kind of moral questions are the reasons why the church has always regarded schism as one of the greatest of sins.
I don’t want to invest in the growth of a church which is increasingly looking as though it is run by Donatist leaders. I don’t want to invest in schism or schismatic leaders.
That is not a position that will be agreed on or understood by everyone. But it is a moral position that can be defended today not only through arguments about the actions of our so-called friends, but also using arguments drawn from the wider heritage of the churches, not least in the life of St Augustine of Hippo.
So let’s just invest in poor countries where all the Bishops and priests agree with us and our liberal views. Kelvin, I’m glad you are ordained, but the people of St Mary’s would still be receiving the sacraments without you. The fact is the motorbikes ensured that priests in Rwanda could actually minister to these people far more effectively. s “Godspell” says, “God save the people!”
> I’m glad you are ordained, but the people of St Mary’s would still be receiving the sacraments without you.
Sounds like I’m expendable then.
This might sound naive, but is there any chance that – if informed of your concerns- Rwanda’s church authorities would alter their position if the SEC threatened to withdraw money?
“Easily replaceable”, Kelvin, as we all are. We are lucky to have so many good and hard-working clergy. It’s not something they have in abundance in Rwanda. Hence the need to mobilise the clergy they have.
Shame on you Ryan! Colonialism again. We give you money and you believe in “our” theology. This whole thread stinks. Denying money to our linked Diocese is obscene, and extremely naughty of Kelvin to even suggest it.
Kenny, blessed are the peacemakers and all that; I doubt Kelvin found it easy to suggest withdrawing money and I am just wondering if there is perhaps a third way. Are there no precedents for dioceses altering their financial relatioships? I wouldn’t be suprised if there were placed that didn’t want to be linked to the SEC due to its inclusive policies (or at least practise). Kelvin doesn’t seem like the sort of person who’d be naughty without a good reason.
As to your other concerns, why can’t the SEC send “expendable” priests over to Rwanda if lack of ordained bodies is the problem? Surely lots of you guys would be up for gap years?
But Kenny, what do you do if you believe that your linked diocese is teaching things which dehumanise others?
When you give money to charity you have hope and faith that the money will be spent on all the people who need it.I agree you can’t dictate terms and then hold the money as ransomTherefore you choose charities and groups that reflect your beliefs and if they don’t you as an individual don’t support that group.However this group is part of our family so it makes it trickier,we can disagree with our families but they are still our families.Providing the Rwandan church is caring for all groups and treating all with compassion and not discriminating and they do not lose sight of what is important-the people in need -then we should support them.(The hypothetical motorcycles could be shared by medics and clergy.)I’m not too sure Jesus would worry too much much about the sacraments at first while people are starving ,I’m sure he would just get on with the practicalities of caring
If you truly don’t believe they will do all this then you must give your money to an agency who you believe will