What is in Kelvin's Head?

The Questions about Uganda

26/01/2013

Just before Christmas, the Primus of our church visited Uganda. Since there have been a number of comments made on his blog justifying the trip in terms of it being important to deal with those who have different views.

I’ve not heard anyone question the idea of a Primus dealing with those of different views. After all, clergy deal with people with different views all the time.

There are plenty of unanswered questions about bishops from here going to Uganda for formal events though and there are certainly some of us in the Scottish Episcopal Church who are surprised that Bishop David was encouraged by the College of Bishops to accept this invitation.

There are those in the Ugandan churches who are complicit in incitement to violence, hate speech and using their influence to try to pass laws which would persecute and imprison fellow members of the body of Christ.

The question any bishop faces when thinking about going on a formal visit to Uganda is whether they might be seen by it to be standing alongside those who are subject to violence, persecution and torture or whether they might be seen to be standing alongside those might be said to be encouraging it.

Dealing with difference doesn’t come into it.

This video caught my eye this week. It says in just a few minutes more than I can say on here and is well worth a watch.

David Chillingworth, LGBT, Primus, Uganda

7 responses to “C of E Border Crossing”

Eamonn

15/07/2010

I’m fizzing too! It’s not helped, either, by those of our own members who refer to us as ‘the English Church’.

Reply
agatha

15/07/2010

That is completely outrageous! Maybe the SEC should have talks with the Muslims and then we could declare Fatwas.

Or is this the CoE’s off the wall attempt to solve the women bishops/gay bishops question by moving to nae bishops?

Reply
FrPaulB

16/07/2010

As an English Anglican I’m pretty embarrassed. So much for the “Anglican Communion” we’re supposed to be busy preserving by setting up covenants and writing letters.

Reply
Martin Ritchie

16/07/2010

Well, maybe this is a good thing for the SEC? At least we are not being lumped in as “Church of England” which is perhaps a step forward. The future for “state” churches in the UK seems to me to be shaky to say the least, so perhaps it’s to the benefit of the SEC to not be part of that! It is rather surprising that there is no mention of the SEC in the “history” part of the paper, other than a cursory reference to the continuing episcopalian element after 1690. Maybe all this means that we should feel completely free to reject the Anglican covenant as totally irrelevant and a hindrance to the mission of the SEC?

Reply
fr dougal

16/07/2010

I’m heading for the West Port to saddle up! Bring back Clavers and the dragoons!

Reply
John Lindsay

21/07/2010

The CofE CofS meetings have been going on for a very long time as two national churches. The recent report is actually designed to include the SEC – check facts with ICRC or read the report itself!

Reply
kelvin

21/07/2010

Hi John, nice to hear from you.

I’ve read the report and was not impressed by it. I suppose I am glad that the SEC is to be included next time, something that I acknowledged above that was to happen.

I’m entirely unimpressed with the C of E appointing one of their bishops as an emissary to the C of S though. Very much border crossing. Very inappropriate.

Reply