An Open Letter to Bishop Peter James Lee, Diocese of Virginia

5th January 2006
An Open Letter to Bishop Peter James Lee, Diocese of Virginia
The Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee
Diocese of Virginia
Richmond, VA
USA
Dear Bishop Lee,
The Rt. Rev. Benezeri Kisembo, Bishop of Rwenzori Diocese, has my full blessing and support in receiving the Rev. Phil Ashey from Fairfax, Virginia, as a priest of his diocese.  Rev. Ashey is now canonically resident in Rwenzori Diocese and he is a priest in good standing of the Church of Uganda.  We have asked him to continue the good work of church planting he has been doing in the South Riding community in Virginia.
I must object, in the most strenuous terms, to your characterization of Rev. Ashey’s decision to resign as a Missioner of the Diocese of Virginia as a renunciation of his holy orders.  I have seen his letter to Bishop Jones.  Even those of us for whom English is a second language understand his plain English to mean that he has resigned from the staff of the Diocese of Virginia, but not from his priestly orders. 
This kind of re-inventing of the plain meaning of a text is the same problem we are facing today throughout the Anglican Communion with regard to bishops and leaders in ECUSA reinventing the plain meaning of Scripture.  Rev. Ashey resigned from his position in your diocese, but in no way can his letter be construed to mean that he has renounced his holy orders. Like all of our clergy ordained in the Church of Uganda, Rev. Ashey was ordained into Christ’s one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.  He requested our ecclesiastical oversight as a priest, which we gladly extended to him, and we recognize his continuing holy orders.
Your refusal to recognize Rev. Ashey’s holy orders in the Church of Uganda has huge implications for your understanding of the interchangeability of holy orders and the nature of the Anglican Communion.  Accordingly, we accept your written press release of 20th December 2005 as your notice that the Bishop and Diocese of Virginia have broken communion with the Church of Uganda.
We are grieved by the continued unbiblical actions of the leadership of ECUSA that has led it to walk apart from the majority of the Anglican Communion.  We pray for your repentance and the repentance of all the ECUSA leadership, and for your return to the historic faith and communion of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
Yours in Christ,
The Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi
ARCHBISHOP OF CHURCH OF UGANDA.

33 Responses. Comments closed for this entry.

  1. PUKKS Says:

    Your Grace
    We the laity are with ~you and will continue to support you to preach the true Gospel.

  2. PUKKS Says:

    The question I usually ask myself is “What would happen if Christianity would have come to Africa through Arabia or Asia?” It is an open fact that when the West came to evangelise - they also brought Christianity in their culture.  Whe we resisted - we were beaten.  Colonialism helped force people to become Christianity.  Later on we became independent - read the Bible ourselves and started worshipping as God wants to.  Now the West (more so USA and ECUSA in particular) want to bring the Western culture of Homosexuality and coat in christianity.  We have read the Bible and it says “man shall not lie with another man”. Now even prayer books are being changed to accept this deviant western culture. We should love the homosexuals but let us not cheat ourselves that it is a christian behaviour.

  3. mccabe Says:

    Bishop Lee was required to act as he did by the laws of the ECUSA and his own diocese. Ashey had been advised of the consequences of his action by the Standing Committee of the Diocese. Ashey is not an innocent victim but an outlaw by his own free will. If the church of Uganda wishes to accept Ashey as a priest then certainly the Ugandan church is free to do so using the rules of their own church to recognize him as a priest. As a member of ECUSA, I say peace be with him on his journey. I am sorry that Ashey has broken his ECUSA ordination vows and resigned his membership in ECUSA and wish him well as an Ugandan priest. Perhaps Ashey could start a chapel in Uganda to pray for the souls of those slaughtered under Idi Amin.

  4. PUKKS Says:

    I find comments by Mccabe out of context and misplaced. Does it mean that Anglicans should not be in Uganda because Idi Amin slaughtered people?  If that is the argument - we can also argue that perphas Bishop Lee should open plenty of chapels in USA to pray for the millions the USA governments have slaugthered in Vietnam and lately Iraq not forgetting Guatanamo

  5. mccabe Says:

    I didn’t miss the point at all.

    Using his own free will, he decided to no longer be a priest in the ECUSA - thanks be to God! If he wants to be a priest in Uganda and is accepted there as a priest - thanks be to God! The ECUSA is a church governed by laws and he is an outlaw but his own actions. If the church in Uganda is not governed by law then that is just fine with me. I am a member of ECUSA. I love the fact that the bishops in my church are responsible to the conventions and rules established by all members of the church. Not just the ruling elite.

    In any case, this discussion is really about stealing property and wealth from the ‘Church of the West” cloaked in pious nonsense. Thanks be to God, the courts in the USA have always upheld the right of ECUSA to control its’ own property and wealth. The ‘Anglican Network’ has lost every legal case in its’ attempt to take over our property and wealth.

    As for the reference to Idi Amin, we are all sinners in the eyes of God. The ‘Church of the Global South’ really ought to be dealing with issues closer to home and stop telling the ‘Church of the West’ how to manage its’ affairs.

  6. PUKKS Says:

    No body is telling the Church in the West on how to manage its affairs.  All that is being said is that the Church in the West is part and parcel of the body of Christ. When Lambeth met in 1998, it laid down some procedures to guide the Anglican communion.  The church in the West more so ECUSA decided to go its own way.  The laws being referred to here are man/woman made laws.  The laws of God are there and ECUSA seem to be ignoring some of God’s laws.  That of not hurting the body of Christ.  Whenever I visit the USA I make sure I attend services in the nearest ECUSA church.  I enjoy the services and I am usually enriched by the people I meet.  My quarrel therefore is not with the ordinary Christians but with the hierachy who are determined to hurt the communion.  God bless you.

  7. mccabe Says:

    The law that I refer to is the canon law we use to organize our church in the USA. Our revolution freed us from colonial rule by the Unitied Kingdom. At that time, the ECUSA was organized as an independent church. We elected our bishops. Our first bishops were ordained with the assistance of the bishops of the Church of Scotland. We have been an independent church from that point until now. Thanks be to God!

    I am sorry that so many people do not understand that our bishops in ECUSA can not change any part of our canon law or elect a bishop without the majority of laity agreeing to the vote. We govern ourselves in ECUSA by majority rule. Both Houses of the General Convention must approve of a change to canon law or the election of a new bishop. The vast majority of the House of Delegates approved of the election of the Bishop of New Hampshire. The vast majority of bishops voted to approve the election of the Bishop of New Hampshire. It was certainly not a minority movement in the ECUSA. The vast majority of the membership in ECUSA still approve of the changes that have been performed in our church. Thanks be to God!

    A bishop in ECUSA must be elected by a majority of the diocesan convention (both laity and clergy). A bishop in our church must be approved of by a majority of both the House of Delegates and the House of Bishops. This is the work of the Holy Spirit in our church. Thanks be to God!

    Do you not see that we believe that the Holy Spirit governs the church. We do in ECUSA. It is the Holy Spirit that has openned our eyes to see Christ in all people. Thanks be to God!

    Personally, I hope ECUSA withdraw all support to the greater Anglican communion until the communion agrees to support the independence of each member church to organize itself as it will. We are the Anglican Communion not the Church of Rome.

  8. PUKKS Says:

    Indeed almost all Anglican provinces, more so in Africa, elect their Bishops democratically. The laity having the majority role.  In my province the candidates have to first be scrutinised to ensure that they meet the requirements.  They have to look into his life as a christian and his standing in church.  Let us all understand that because one has won a democratic election then one is the BEST candidate.  In the world of politics we have seen that some leaders who won democratic elections went on to become bad leaders.  If ECUSA would have looked at the background of the NH Bishop BEFORE subjecting him to elections then probably he would not be Bishop today.  Someone who sends away his wife to marry anothe man.  Perhaps if he would have been a bachelor in the first place.  What is he teaching about family life? I would like to know that.
    Let ECUSA not threaten the church in Africa with the withdrawal of funds. Being rich is not one of the requirements of going to heaven.  We may not be rich physically but we are rich in spirit and love. The church in Africa is not built on riches, it is built on rock which is Christ.

  9. mccabe Says:

    The Bishop of New Hampshire was questioned on all points regarding his views of ‘family life’ and church doctrine. His answers were found acceptable by a large majority of his own diocese and the General Convention. He is a legally elected and consecrated bishop of ECUSA.

    If his election and consecration is held to be invalid by any bishop in ECUSA then that bishop would be underminding not only his authority but the authority of every other legally elected and consecrated bishop in ECUSA. That is why the minority of bishops in ECUSA opposed to the election of the Bishop of New Hamphire are such a danger to the church in America. They should resign their office as a point of personal honor or be removed from office for their failure to uphold their consecration oaths as bishops of ECUSA.

    As the withholding funds, my comments were not based on the churchs of Africa. The Primates should never have interferred with ACC in asking the ECUSA and The Anglican Church of Canada to be excluded from voting in the last meeting of ACC. The Primates are not members of ACC and have no say in how ACC is governed. ACC is the only membership approved instrument of unity in the communion. ACC is the one place in the Anglican Communion were the laity of the communion can voice their opinions and give approval of funding to communion wide efforts.

    Listen to the voices of the reporting members of ACC to the General Synod in Canada and hear the pain and outrage of those delegates to ACC’s last meeting. Listen to the pain and anger of ACC’s presiding officer in his comments on last summers meeting. All of this is available online in the website for the Canadian church. ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada have every reason to withhold funding for all items that they had no voice in approving.

    In the USA, we fought and won our revolution over the issue of taxation without representation. It is a grand and honorable tradition for us. I will repeat my earlier posted comment(s), the Anglican Networks objectives in underminding ECUSA is about money and power not faith and doctrine.

  10. PUKKS Says:

    If the Bishop of NH was qestioned - what yardstick were they using?  Were they using the Bible or were they using laws made in the USA?  Did they read the qualities of a Bishop expounded by the letter of Paul to Timothy?
    As to the funds, yes the ECUSA can say they can not give funds when they are not represented.  But have they forgotten how the blacks who were there in slavery sweated to make the people of USA rich?  The people of USA have a duty to fulfil.  Africans are not begging.  They just want what is theirs.
    God bless you my brother/sister Maccabe.

  11. mccabe Says:

    PUKK wrote: “Africans are not begging. They just want what is theirs.”

    How can Africans claim ECUSA property?

    I want to thank you for expressing the other dark side of the attack on ECUSA. Racism.

    Greed and racism are the true motivating force of the Anglican Network in the USA. Thievery and greed excused by racism with Africans playing the self proclaimed role of victim. This from Uganda were tens of thousands have died in tribal warfare under Idi Amin.

    Slavery has been a part of African history in all historical periods. Africans practice slavery today. Africans were active agents in the slave trade of the past. Who in Africa is going to pay for these crimes? Will the Africans use the money that they lust after and want to steal from ECUSA to pay for the crime of Africans enslavin Africans today? Who will decide how the money will be divided?

  12. PUKKS Says:

    I have been shocked by the comments of Mccaabe. I wouldnt like to go into details of who created the monsters we have in Africa and who have caused their fellow Africans untol misery.  Idi Amin was a Muslim and for a while was supported by the West.  Mobutu of Zaire now DRC was put into power by CIA.  Let us leave that aside and talk about our beloved Anglican Church. The question we should be asking ourselves is are our actions God driven or human driven.  Human reasoning might have a lot of logic in it and even convincing but - but - is God’s logic also human logic.  Does God think the same way we think?  It is for this reason alone that we should always seek God. I wonder whether a leader involved in any sexual scandal in the West or any other country would be openly elected to be president.  Why then have we allowed it in Church?

  13. mccabe Says:

    William,

    I based my coments on what is written in the above comments and other material I have read on other church/comminion websites. I gave the quote that prompted this specific comment. I do not feel the need to apologize. I will be happy to amend my statement if you can show me why the claim that Africans are entitled to claim ECUSA property is justified. There is a disturbing underlining concept that people of European origin owe something to non-Eunropean. There are frequent references to the effect that ‘The Church of the West’ is uniquely tainted as a result of its’ historical or ethnic or cultural traditions. All people(s) in the Anglican communion have sin as a part of their heritage.

    I believe that the ECUSA and the entire Anglican communion are guided and under the protecion of the Holy Spirit. I am not sure that all members or leaders of the communion are personally inspired by the Holy Spirit.

    I understand the evalgelical claims for biblical justification. I reject the entire concept of that Biblican justification is the sole basis for moral teaching. I absolutely reject the idea that any Old Testament rule (Jewish law, practice or view point) is binding on the Christian community. I base that belief on the rulings of the First Jerursalem Council (found in the Acts of the Apostles)regarding Gentile converts. I listen but I reject evangelican extremism. We are not like the Baptist church or the Islamic faith. We are Anglicans and have our tradition and reason as tools of faith. We expand the church using those tools.

  14. Chip Johnson+, cj Says:

    Lest the elves boot me off, I cannot let McCabe’s citation of the ‘tools of faith’pass by.

    As Anglicans, we are NOT limited to the two legs of reason and tradition to support our faith.  We must add, as did Hooker, the third leg of scripture, and we must not add the ‘optional fourth leg of experience’, that many is ECUSA have cited as their justification for action.

    The third leg is all that keeps us from being totally self-driven, or self-motivated.  The legs of tradition and reason both address man’s ability to self-rule or self-motivated; while the leg of scripture keeps our focus on God.  And, after all, it is God who empowers us, not we ourselves.

    The third leg of scripture maintains our stature as creatures of the Creator, not standing in our own strength,  not motivated by the insidious doctrines of the last half of the last century: situation ethics and existentialism, but standing on the 4500 more or less years of the inspired Word of God, 2000 of the Christian Era, plus 2500 of the Judaic tradition.

    Surely, the tradition and tenure of God and his Word should bear more heavily on us than (P)ECUSA’s puny 204 years!  I had much more rather stand before judgement as a faithful steward of the faith, than one who has trampled centuries of scriptural tradion under foot.  True enough, our Angan tradition only goes back 450 years, but it was originally based solidly upon the preceeding centuries of Christendom.

  15. mccabe Says:

    Chip,

    Do you really believe that the early chruch was in some sense more Christian then we are today? Is the Holy Spirit not active in our age? Did he die at the end of the Apostolic Age? I refuse to see our age and church as less holy then the early church. We are not really children of a lesser god. We have an obligation to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit in our age and place.

    The NT Bible is a guide to the faith of the early church. The Jewish scriptures our just that ‘Jewish scriptures’. Early church fathers are just that ‘early church fathers’. We are the church. In Christ, we are all a part of his eternal plan for the healing of a sick and broken world under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

    As for our glorious Anglican Communion, I remind myself of how is was founded. A King of England wanted to put aside his lawfully wedded wife so that he can ‘marry’ his mistress. He used all the tools of state to kill all oppossion to his plan to put aside his legal wife including torture, burning and judicial murder. He and his hiers stated centuries of religious wars and persecutions with the slaughter of thousands of innocent ‘subjects’. Oh what a glorious tradition we come from in the Anglican Communion.

  16. Chip Johnson+, cj Says:

    McCabe,

    Yes, I strongly feel that the early church was more Christian than we are today. 

    And, yes, the Hebrew scriptures were the Hebrew scriptures…but, Christ was a good, practicing, orthodox Jew. 

    And, yes, the early church fathers were just a bunch of old men and women who loved God supremely, who practiced their religion devoutly, and who met together to discuss and defend the problems areas of the Way, to perfect the faith that we hold so dear today. 

    And, yes, we as Anglicans have a lot of outright schism, rebellion and stupidity to overcome.  As Dr. Allen Guelzo said at TESM some time ago, we as Anglicans are rebels from the outset. 

    But, until now we have not rebelled vehemently against the Word of God.  We have not taken it upon ourselves to completely rewrite scripture, in order to justify our perversions, and not just in terms of human sexuality, either.

    We do have a glorious Anglican Communion; if it is so repugnant to you, why not leave?  Those of us who choose to stay in the Communion, whether under Canterbury, or Kenya, or where ever the epicenter might land, choose to do so in order to remain faithful to:
    1.the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, and,
    2.to the faith that was once delivered to the saints.

    “I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”  -Ghandi
    Pax Christi †,
    Chip+

  17. PUKKS Says:

    Chip - God bless you I could not have put it better.  I am a layperson an not well versed in theology.  But I do read my Bible.  But when one takes one verse and reads it out of context then what are we left with.  When we alter the word of God to the extent that in the end we are left with our own words then what are we worshipping? My argument is that if you join a club and you find rules are not accomodating then you leave and join one which suits your taste.  The Church in USA wants to run the church according to human rules not according to God’s rules. Perhaps ECUSA should also visit other christian churches and find out how they are dealing with the issue.

  18. Chip Johnson+, cj Says:

    PUKKS,

    You are absolutely correct!  ECUSA has become the colonial imperialist that GB once was.  I minister in the area of the Lakota and Cheyenne peoples, who were sorrowfully mistreated by the Episcopal, Wesleyan, Quaker and Roman missionaries in the mid-1800’s.  We work with Lakota people, trying to right the wrongs, in some way, whatever way we can.

    I am out of ECUSA now because of their cavalier attitude toward the Word, and the Lord of the Word, and their idea that scripture and tradition are THEIRS to change as they see fit.

    I am sorry, but in none of my many translations of scripture do I see that privilege given to man.  I feel that this is the main reason we all are having problems with Islam now- our own treatment of Christ and the Word.

    Just my early morning ramblings, scusi.

  19. mccabe Says:

    I would remind you that unless you are anointed by the Holy Spirit you are not a true member of the Body of Christ. Use your powers as the new Phariees to find Paul’s opinion on Baptism by water alone.

    Evangelicals talk about the inspired word of God and forget the power of the Holy Spirit to guide and teach in all ages. Should we memove all references and prayers for the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit from our services? Are you really saying that the Holy Spirit is locked in the past and we have no need for him today? Isn’t that a denial of Christ’s own promise to send us a comforter and protector for all ages? If the Holy Spirit is not still here with us today then is the trinity a myth? Is the new Evangelical Trintiy the Father, Son and Bible with the Holy Spirit banished from the church?

    I am a Pentecostal member of ECUSA and you confirm my worst fears about the Evalgelical movement. You preach rules alone and do not have the Holy Spirit to guide you. Please, when you are done looking at what Paul said about not receiving the Holy Spirit in Baptism, you really ought to meditate on Christ’s parable on the Day Laborers in the Field and the wages paid to all the workers.

    ECUSA is a member of a voluntary communion of free and independent churches. I feel that it may be time for us to consider what Christ himself told his disciples to do when preaching. When you preach in a town that will not listen to you. Leave the town. Go to the its boundaries, remove your sandals, shake the dust from them and move on to the next town.

  20. PUKKS Says:

    Mccabe - what started all this in the first place is the issue of homosexuality in Church and which some of us are saying in unbiblical. Note that I use the word unbiblical NOT illegal. Now just for one moment think of this, when two men leave together and are joined sexually, dont you think that is strange?  When two men marry we do not expect any offspring from that union.  Where do they expect to recruit their number? Let people legislate for homosexuality. It is thier right. But let God be God. Homosexuals should be allowed in church BUT should NOT be in any position of leadership. As for me, a man who takes another man and turns the man into a wife would find it difficult to convince me that God loves me.  How can he counsel a married couple (man and woman).  I had pulled out of this debate because it seems we have taken sides we are not ready to change. Perhaps Mccabe probably we just respect each others position and leave it that way - God bless.

  21. mccabe Says:

    The discussion of homosexuality is part of a complex, lengthy discussion of inclusion in the membership of ECUSA.

    The debate started long ago when certain elements of the church thought slavery practiced by individuals in ECUSA was both acceptable and biblically justified. My ancestors fought a very bloody war to defeat that concept and won.

    In my parents time, elements of the ECUSA thought that the exclusion of any persons of color from ‘regular’ ECUSA churches was both acceptable and biblically justified. My parents fought to defeat that concept and won.

    In my time, elements of ECUSA believed and thought that it was acceptable and biblically justified to keep women as second class members of the church. I (and my family) fought that concept and won.

    Once again, there are elements in ECUSA that will not grant gays full membership in the church. They say it is biblically justified and acceptable. We have fought this concept and won. We have already won the war.

    The Holy Spirit continues to lead us to victory after victory in the battle to include all batized members of ECUSA to full membership in the household of God. A fundamental aspect of Christ’s mission in this world was to be with and serve the unclean, the sinner and the excluded. The Holy Spirit is showing us how to continue the work of Christ in our own time and place.

    It was exactly what Christ did to earn death at the hands of the Pharisees and Temple Priesthood of his time. We will stand with Christ. We will defeat any attempt to stop the work of the Holy Spirit who leads us in bringing all God’s children to the love of Christ. We will defeat all attempts to stop us from bringing Christ to the outcast living in our sick and broken world.

    In Isaiah we read God saying: “I stand in the market place with my hand outstretched and call to a people that will not listen”. Thanks be to God! We will listen to God calling us to love Him even when He is in the form of the outcast standing before us.

  22. Chip Johnson+, cj Says:

    membership and care, no problem;
    positions of leadership, no way.

    We cannot countenance sin (of any shape, form or color) in positions of honor and trust.
    We are enjoined by Christ to loe the sinner; but to hate the sin, and work toward repentence and amendment of life.

  23. PUKKS Says:

    Dear All
    Our God tells us not to rejoice over the misfortunes of another.  However I want to bring to your attention that Bishop Gene Robinson who the first active openly Gay Bishop is not the first openly alcoholic Bishop.  Bishop Robinson has checked into a clinic to try and dry him off alcohol.  My point here as it was then - was he the right person for the post of Bishop.  If a Bishop has taken to the bottle - what hope is his people going to have. Let us continue to pray for Bishop Robinson to see the real Christ.

  24. PUKKS Says:

    To all
    The Bible tells us not to rejoice in the misfortunes of others.  But I was not surprised to learn that Bishop Gene Robinson has checked into an alcoholic rehabilitation clinic. Not only is Gene Robinson the first openly active Gay Bishop but also the first openly active alcoholic Bishop.  The question we should ask now as we asked in the past is - was he the right choice?

  25. PUKKS Says:

    Please note that Alcoholism is sin full stop.  Drinking alocohol is NOT sin.  As christian we are supposed to live a life of moderation. Yes we can have our beer or two but when one goes to the length of taking too much to the extent of being an alcoholic and if that person is a christian and not even a christian - a cleric then that is inexcusable.  Where is the power of prayer? Where is the spirit?  The Gay Bishop Robinson was not wrong to drink but was wrong to go to the path that eventually made him an alcoholic.

  26. mccabe Says:

    I have looked for two days and I have not been able to find any news reports about this event. Would you provide the source.

    How is Bishop Robinson’s problem related to The Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi - ARCHBISHOP OF CHURCH OF UGANDA’s unchristian invasion of his brother Bishop’s Diocese? 

    In point of fact, there is very good evidence that certain forms of alcohlism are genetically linked from the father to his sons. A high risk father has an almost 100% chance of passing the risk to his sons. My grandfather, father and brother have been the victims of this genetic trait. My doctors informed me of the risk that I face. I have been spared this affliction by pure random genetic good luck. I was not as lucky on the genetically inherited heart disease that also runs in my family. My grandfather, father and brother were lucky enough not to inherit that genetic trait.

    Which of us is the blessed?

    Perhaps we should ask God why he engineered our genes this way.

  27. Johnny Says:

    So, it ain’t Gene, just the genes.

  28. PUKKS Says:

    For one to claim that alcoholism is in the genes is presposterous!!  If that claim is true then we might as well believe the rumour that has been going around in the third world that HIV/AIDS was created in the laboratories of the USA tested on the Homosexuals of the USA then unleashed to Africa to control the exploding populations.  I know in my heart that is not true and that is why the story about genes and alcohol to me does not simply wash.

  29. PUKKS Says:

    My fellow Anglican - here is the news about the alcoholic first openly active gay Bishop. If you want more news on this guy sorry gay then go to Google and type “diocese new hampshire” and you will find a loadful of news - including one that he has checked into a hospital.

    By Anne Saunders
    ASSOCIATED PRESS

    1:30 a.m. February 15, 2006

    CONCORD, N.H. – In an e-mail written from a treatment center, the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson, said he is receiving treatment for alcoholism.
    For years, Robinson said in the e-mail sent to clergy, he considered it “a failure of will or discipline on my part, rather than a disease over which my particular body simply has no control, except to stop drinking altogether.”



    On the Net:
    http://www.nhepiscopal.org
    http://www.virtueonline.org

  30. mccabe Says:

    I never said that genetics was the sole basis of alcoholism. I did say that there is a group that is in fact genetically prone to become alcoholics. That is factual and not a matter of opinion.

    Thanks for the news service links.

    I do repeat:

    How is Bishop Robinson’s problem related to The Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi - ARCHBISHOP OF CHURCH OF UGANDA’s unchristian invasion of his brother Bishop’s Diocese?

    You seem to be more interested in the sickness of one man then you are the moral issues related to spiritual fraud. Were are Orombi’s sermons on the geneocide in the Sudan? What action is he taking to solve that problem? Show me (on this site) were the Global South is addressing the on going tribal and political genocide in Nigeria, Central Africa the Sudan and a half dozen other ‘hot spots’ in Africa?

    Why is he coming to the US to support Americans breaking Canon Law when there is such a great need for Christian leadership and moral teachings in Africa itself. His own contry certainly could use real moral direction and leadership. What did he do during the Idi Amin years to fight the evil in his homeland?  Healing is needed in his own neighborhood of the world; why is he invading Bishop Lee’s Virginia diocese and not serving Christ in his own nation?

  31. Gillian Says:

    “All who love are born of God and know God.” (1 John 4:7)  Please note that it doesn’t say only heterosexuals.

    Why, oh why, is there not more of Christ’s compassion being shown?

  32. Gillian Says:

    Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps it is the persecution Bishop Robinson has faced that has made it harder for him to resist alcoholism?  By the way, the scientific research is leaning heavily on the side of genetics as a major cause.

    May God have mercy on Bishop Robinson.  And bless him so he can quickly return to his ministry.

    As for the letter writer who said we can’t have sinners in positions of leadership, well then, that rules out all human beings, doesn’t it?

  33. John Boy Billy Bob Says:

    Thank you, Gillian!  Perfectly stated.