Video: Anglican archbishop cuts up his collar to protest Mugabe
posted at 4:46 pm on December 10, 2007 by Allahpundit
Big news in the UK. Gordon Brown skipped the EU/Africa summit in Portugal this weekend to protest Mugabe’s attendance, but African leaders lined up behind him and the EU caved and invited him anyway. Enter the archbishop of York, John Sentamu, to raise the moral stakes and see if he can’t put a little steel into the European spine.
According to a CoE spokesman asked about the significance of the gesture, “What he did is a very big deal.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
It’ll always be Rhodesia to me
Ochlan on December 10, 2007 at 5:01 PM
“Be a Man among Men”
Frozen Tex on December 10, 2007 at 5:03 PM
A pity he is so theologically corrupted – he initiated the ordination of women bishops – and has complained about Gitmo, but I suppose we’ll take what we can get from the CoE.
Damian G. on December 10, 2007 at 5:05 PM
He won’t be wearing his collar for a while, unless Mugabe has a heart attack.
mram on December 10, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Corrupting exactly what theology?
peski on December 10, 2007 at 5:14 PM
peski on December 10, 2007 at 5:16 PM
Well, there’s that little matter known as the Apostolic succession…
Damian G. on December 10, 2007 at 5:16 PM
Good for Sentamu. We had a picture of him up in the basement of our old Anglican church.
Allah’s last link has a Dalrymple-worthy–and relevant, given the church shootings– bit at the end:
see-dubya on December 10, 2007 at 5:17 PM
This guy should just go and sit down or find something better to do. how does he suggest they take out Mugabe..nonsense.
Chudi on December 10, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Well, I suppose, in the sense that the Roman Catholic only recognizes the episcopal validity of certain other churches (those that don’t ordain women), but who made them the boss?
I’d be more cautious with terms like “theological corruption”, lest we fall into unproductive discussions such as the “indulgences” thread a few days ago.
peski on December 10, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Which is why I’m going Orthodox – Because the Episcopal Church houses heretics and condescending liberals.
Damian G. on December 10, 2007 at 5:26 PM
We’ll good luck with that. I have to agree that there are many heretics and condescending liberals in the Episcopal Church, but I’m sorry you don’t feel there’s room for a condescending misogynist or two.
peski on December 10, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Damian G. and peski, I would tell you that was a very civilized exchange regarding a very volatile subject but Saint Kansas would call me a faggot again.
brtex on December 10, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Probably would have erupted into a flame war if I was actually an Episcopalian rather than an atheist. Although my WIFE is Episcopalian…. hey wait a minute, put up your dukes!
peski on December 10, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Seriously though, I think the guy’s made quite a statement. I admire him sticking his neck out ;] but I also question how effective it will be.
peski on December 10, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Oh, I am SO not letting you get away with that. There is nothing “misogynist” about honouring two millennia of Sacred Tradition, There are many women who oppose female ordination, but I guess they’re just self-hating, right?
No, I am leaving the Episcopal Church because they are doing what is popular and not obeying the will of God and deferring to the first Christians, such as St. Paul.
There are many good people who have left the Episcopal Church because their Faith has been violated; it has nothing to do with a negative view of women. Those who say otherwise are the bigoted ones.
Damian G. on December 10, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Agreed. It’s just that I sort of look at him the way I look at Bill Clinton condemning the Troofers. Right for once, but otherwise, so wrong.
Damian G. on December 10, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Bravo!
The weakness of the EU, and the unity of the African countries on the side of the hideous villain Mugabwe, is just like what we deal with day in and day out at the U.N.
Buy Danish on December 10, 2007 at 5:53 PM
If everyone in the so-called “international community” behaved like this man then Mugabe would at least be under serious pressure. Mbeki won’t do anything, he’s a Communist who offers sanctuary to al-Qaeda.
aengus on December 10, 2007 at 5:57 PM
While I’m sure the first statement is true, the problem with your sacred tradition is that it’s blatantly misogynistic on it’s face, and it’s not just 2000 years of tradition, it’s much older than that. I personally don’t give a rats patootie, but no matter how old the tradition is its purpose is rather obvious.
peski on December 10, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Agreed, and that’s why he should be applauded.
peski on December 10, 2007 at 6:02 PM
I’m a lapsed Episcopalian female and I oppose the ordination of female Priests, in no small part because I am believe in following tradition. Elizabeth Jeffords Schori confirmed my position on the matter.
What could be more “self-hating” than an Episcopal Bishop who never stops finding fault with Christianity?
Buy Danish on December 10, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Only in the face of politically correct mores. Because the priesthood is sanctioned by the Divine and not men, then by mortal social standards, God is misogynist.
Damian G. on December 10, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Thanks, BD. Remember, though, that there is a big, big difference between human tradition, which is fallible (such as, We’ve always had slavery! etc.) and Sacred Tradition.
Great point about Schori, BTW. She is the epitome of heresy – how ironic her home State is Nevada. (No offence to any Nevadans here present!)
Damian G. on December 10, 2007 at 6:11 PM
You all do realize how this whole mess started, right?
When Mugabe took power, he stripped all the white farmers in the country of their farmland. The people he gave the land to had no idea how to farm. . . so the farms did not produce like they did under the white farmers (which fed the population).
Now, what do you think the international and media reaction would have been had a white government confiscated black people’s land?
Of course they didn’t start starving until the year after he confiscated the land. . . but the crime began when he took the land from the people who were using it to benefit the community because of their skin color. It’s as racist as they come. . . but it isn’t ‘apartheid’ so nobody cares.
I figure everyone commenting on here about the irrelevant theological differences between Christians knew this history. But Christianity is about Jesus, not anything else idolized by and created by mankind (ie. a collar, or ‘apostolic succession’). I do applaud this man for recognizing a serious human rights issue that has evolved into an unnecessary humanitarian crisis.
ThackerAgency on December 10, 2007 at 6:15 PM
There are many Christians who do not believe this. I will not comment on it further. I am just stating it.
ThackerAgency on December 10, 2007 at 6:18 PM
peski on December 10, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Show me a Sacred Tradition, and I’ll show you the man (or woman) who invented it.
peski on December 10, 2007 at 6:22 PM
By the way, let me be more pedantic than usual a moment: “Anglican” and Episcopalian” are not the same thing. All Episcopalians are Anglican (unless they are ejected from the Anglican Communion by the Archbishop of Canterbury, which was discussed a while back) but not all Anglicans are Episcopalian. Episcopalian refers to churches that belong to the Episcopal Church, USA–which is bland, watered down liberal theology we make fun of here quite a bit and which is splintering off all over the place.
There are a lot of Anglican churches in the US which have no affiliation with the ECUSA. Usually they’re more theologically and or/liturgically conservative than ECUSA churches (although some also take on a more evangelical, “low church” approach). These are often called “the Continuing Church” and many of them use the nice old 1928 Prayer Book.
There are also Anglican Rite Catholic Churches, like this one in Houston, that use a modified version of Anglican liturgy but are still considered Roman Catholic.
Anyway, all this to say don’t assume that every Anglican church signs off on the worst excesses of ECUSA. And if you are looking for traditional, reverent worship with some theological punch to it, look into the Continuing Anglican Movement.
(Resuming ordinary level of pedantry)
see-dubya on December 10, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Correct.
peski on December 10, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Speaking of the Bishop Shori, here is a link to Mark Steyn’s modern classic: Quartet of ladies shows where we’re headed, with the relevant excerpt:
She’d be very welcome by some Australians.
Buy Danish on December 10, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Right. A lot of people don’t get that difference. I was just using the American name, since I’m, well, American. My parish is a strong supporter of the Diocese of Northern Malawi, in Africa, which is nothing like its wayward Western cousins.
Damian G. on December 10, 2007 at 6:30 PM
I don’t know that I’d describe the Episcopal Church as “bland” but to say that it is “watered down” is an understatement.
Buy Danish on December 10, 2007 at 6:34 PM
Good post see-dubya. Also, and this may go without saying, but many Episcopal churches are themselves still very traditional and on the whole pretty conservative. The national organization is pretty detached and on its own PC-bent that doesn’t really reflect on what goes on in the individual churches, which seems to be the case with many of the national organizations of various denominations.
brak on December 10, 2007 at 6:35 PM
You’ll never find me defending this tool, and my defense of Episcopals is really only half hearted, because I don’t believe any of this crap. But as ThackerAgency on December 10, 2007 at 6:18 PM noted, the Christian tent is a lot bigger than that allowed by the “Sacred Tradition” of the papist line.
peski on December 10, 2007 at 6:38 PM
I agree completely with everything you wrote, except that the national organization does exert pressure at the local level, mostly through targeted placement of priests.
peski on December 10, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Forget the religious pedantry. The archbishop understands something that I wish more black Americans understood: that having lower expectations of good behavior for blacks of any nationality is one of the most pernicious forms of racism.
baldilocks on December 10, 2007 at 6:45 PM
So true. In fact, there was a time that a parish could select any priest they wanted. Now, they must select from a list that the Bishop puts together, and if none of the priests suits their fancy, then T.S.
Sacred Tradition is not a solely Roman Catholic concept. The Anglican Church followed it until just the last few decades. Also note that the Orthodox Church is the largest “anti-Papist” denomination in the world. Far be it from me to defend the right of the Pope to claim the role of the Vicar of Christ!!!
Damian G. on December 10, 2007 at 6:48 PM
If men like (the retired) Bishop Spong of New Jersey are running the show, if you live in a place like New Jersey you’re pretty much outta luck getting past the “PC-bent”.
I think it has more to do with a visceral hatred for the Colonial powers and Western Civilization than racism. The African nations who support Mugabwe are not much different in their thinking than the average Hollywood celebrity or liberal College professor.
Buy Danish on December 10, 2007 at 6:50 PM
I went to an Episcopalian private school in Virginia. I was under the understanding that the American Episcopalian Church was derived from the Church of England. After the Revolutionary War, they couldn’t very well keep the name of ‘Church of England’ so they changed it to Episcopalian and lots of the upper crust belonged. I could be wrong, but that’s my understanding of the American Episcopalian history.
And the school which I loved and still love gave me a poor impression of the Episcopalian faith. . . though I am still appreciative of the Christian nature of it.
ThackerAgency on December 10, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Correct. In fact, the full name, the Protestant Episcopal Church, confuses people into believing that the Church is Protestant in the sense that Lutherans, Baptists, etc. are.
The Protestant title was used to note that the Church was not Roman Catholic. Most text books still call Anglicanism a Protestant denomination, but traditionalists believe its roots lie not with Henry VIII but with the Church founded by missionaries in the late second century. As such, we consider it to be Catholic in the same way Orthodox and Christians are Catholic in that they can trace their origins to the first Christians through an unbroken Apostolic succession and in keeping all seven Sacraments.
And referring to the Episcopal Church’s “Christian nature” is an brilliant way to describe it. The nature of it is there, but it’s not the same as actual Christianity. (Note that this is regarding the pagan rituals that have been adopted as of late, as well as the refusal of Bishops to declare Christ the one true means of salvation, not just priestesses.)
Damian G. on December 10, 2007 at 7:02 PM
Some interesting comments on this from Times of London online:
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2007 at 7:17 PM
Un-freakin-believeable.
Here’s a man who is taking a stand against one of the most brutal dictators on the continent of Africa and all you guys want to do is debate his religion. What freakin difference does it make?
I guess all of the homeless vets whose homes Mugabe bulldozed will sleep better tonight knowing the Bishop is not quite up to par.
BacaDog on December 10, 2007 at 7:52 PM
mugabe progressive leftist monster
jummy on December 10, 2007 at 7:55 PM
A lot of them don’t expect civilized behavior from black people either (remember the Free Mumia/Save Tookie types.)
Thank you.
baldilocks on December 10, 2007 at 8:13 PM
I’m quite passionate about this topic. I’ve been in and out of Zim for over 20 years and I have never seen anything like it.
I have very good friends still living there and it is a very hard life right now. In Harare, power is off most of the day now (except for Mugabe’s various homes), the basics such as meat, water, fresh vegetables, bread and fruits are practically non-existent as Mugabe froze prices below cost.
Even on the black market, most basic staples are almost impossible to find.
Inflation is projected to exceed 100,000% this year, and the shilling is as worthless as monopoly money.
Robert Mugabe has taken the breadbasket of Africa and turned it into an improvished nation where people are starving by the millions.
The fact that a man of some note will stand up and decry this human disaster is noble, regardless of his religion.
BacaDog on December 10, 2007 at 8:28 PM
This might have something to do with the fact that Bp. Sentamu’s counterpart in Zimbabwe, a Bp. Kunonga, is an apologist for Mugabe:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200712050017.html
I’m a cradle Episcopalian and I like Sentamu. I think he’s a positive influence on the C of E and the whole Anglican Communion. And the C of E instituted women’s ordination (properly, IMHO) long before Sentamu came along.
There has been a lot of misinformation about what the Episcopal Church teaches here on this site. If you want to know what the teachings really are, google “book of common prayer” and look for the section titled “an outline of the faith, commonly called the catechism”.
masuwerte on December 10, 2007 at 9:01 PM