Posted on 09/11/2007 4:17:43 PM PDT by wagglebee
Anglican churches in Zimbabwe have expressed their intention to pull out of the Central African province in opposition to other churches which were in favor of homosexuals.
Three of five dioceses in Zimbabwe had "unanimously agreed" to sever ties with dioceses in the Central African province, saying it will not "stand with homosexuals," a cleric at Harare diocese, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told Agence France-Presse.
The cleric noted that according to the Diocesan Act adopted by the Harare diocese in August and put into effect on Aug. 4, the Zimbabwe church body will "dissociate and sever relationship with any individual, group of people, organization, institution, diocese, province or people who indulge in or sympathize or compromises with homosexuality."
On Saturday, the provincial synod of the four national church bodies that make up the Anglican Communion’s Central African province drafted a resolution reaffirming its opposition to homosexuality. The Anglican province of Central Africa is comprised of Botswana, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
However, the Harare diocese – still not convinced by the resolution as the province has been accused of failing to censure some bishops dabbling with homosexuality –withdrew from the province, according to The Herald, a publication of the government of Zimbabwe.
Once one diocese withdraws, the province becomes null and void and will have to be reconstituted under a new name and structure, according to the Standing Orders of the Province of Central Africa, as reported by The Herald.
"We have taken a position as a diocese and the position has been necessitated by the issue of homosexuality," Bishop Nolbert Kunonga of Harare told The Herald. "We totally reject homosexuality; it is an abomination, it is totally against the law of God, and it diminishes the dignity of the human being.
"We also believe in the supremacy of the Scriptures – the primacy of the Scriptures – and there is nowhere where homosexuality has been condoned," he added.
Currently, homosexuality is illegal in Zimbabwe. Sexual acts – including holding hands, hugging or kissing – between two people of the same sex are considered a criminal offense.
"So when we look at all the angles – the religious life, the cultural side, the political system in which we operate – there is no institution that embraces homosexuality," said Kunonga.
In response, Malawian Archbishop Bernard Malango, who serves as the Anglican head of the Central Africa province, has expressed his stance against gay bashing and stated that he believes that "gays and lesbians are God's people so that they deserve as much love and respect as do heterosexuals" – a view held by the majority of Christians.
However, like many other conservative Christians, Malango is opposed to the consecration of gay clergy, noting that homosexuality should not be encouraged as it is sin according to the Bible.
Malango was among the African Anglican primates who vehemently opposed the consecration of openly gay bishop Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire.
"We also believe in the supremacy of the Scriptures – the primacy of the Scriptures – and there is nowhere where homosexuality has been condoned," he added.
I'm not Anglican, but I believe it is better to have a schism than to validate sin.
Anglican Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
TA Ping
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
“However, like many other conservative Christians, Malango is opposed to the consecration of gay clergy, noting that homosexuality should not be encouraged as it is sin according to the Bible.”
I’m confused (not unusual) - but it seems everyone mentioned agrees the homosexual act is a sin. The Primate also says homosexuals are children of God and worthy of God’s love and ours, but their way of life is not consistant with Holy Scripture - therefore not accepted by the church. As I understand it, that is the official position of the worldwide Anglican Communion (including the USA)- is it not?
That’s the official position yes, but clearly the US Episcopal Church’s majority of bishops disagrees—by allowing the consecration 4 years ago of Vicki Gene. This is why, after Lambeth ‘98, the Windsor Report, etc. etc., and finally the agreement of Dar al Salaam, has given them until the end of this month to do two (relatively minor) things: Agree not to allow more active homosexual bishops, and secondly, agree not to keep granting “same sex blessings” (done in some of the most liberal Episcopal churches). These, the bishops look like they are not about to do...instead relying on PR, and misleading media (like that of this article) attempting to draw the African bishops away from putting their foot down.
My prayer, is like that of last summer’s general convention: That the revisionists of the US Episcopal Church, if they will not repent, will become hardened and arrogant in their position against the supreme authority of scripture—so the worldwide Anglican Communion — led by the 3rd world bishops, will have no choice but to throw them out.
This and this alone perhaps will get some of their attention—and hopefully the attention of many lax (but still orthodox) laity.
They shouldn't be. The Bible makes God's stance perfectly clear.
Oh, for Heaven's sake. If this is an accurate statement of the legal situation, it's absurd.
The way I read it, this is the status of the law in Zimbabwe, not of Anglicanism.
Yes, that's what I understood. It's still bats, though.
Is it any more absurd than a legal situation in which Adam and Steve can “marry”?
That’s a toss-up. Is declaring holding hands a “sexual act” more absurd than saying two men can be married ...
I think it would take large amounts of Guinness to get to the truth of the matter!
Guinness, schmuinness.
My homebrewed Brown Ale is better.
Both are extremes ... but at least the Zims are extreme in the right direction.
I can’t agree that prosecuting people (if they do - we have only the author’s statement for it) for holding hands or hugging is “the right direction.” I’m inclined to think that if the government of Zimbabwe does something, the opposite course is probably the right one.
Opposing the Sodomisation of society is definitely the right direction. The Zims may have gone too far ... but its better than celebrating perversion.
There’s a lot of middle ground between “celebrating perversion” and arresting people for holding hands. Supporting the latter makes us look like gnoofballs.
I agree. The bible admonishes us to banish the sinner from among us (meaning, in context, the one who is in sin but refuses to repent).
Sodomy, for instance, is still a criminal offense in many parts of the world. The police seldom arrest two men living quietly together, however. Rather, the law is a statement of what society considers to be morally legitimate. The idea that law has a uniquely punitive function is not correct. It also has an educative function and historically at least, civil law has been based on the moral law.
If one looks at how the homosexual rights movement has evolved in the west, I think one can see certain distinct periods. The concept of homosexual "marriage" did not evolve out of thin air. There were certain stages and amongst the earliest were those that involved public displays of affection. What is holding hands, if not a display of affection, yes? To criminalize such a public display, is to say that it is not a legitimate form of affection. On the other hand, if it is perfectly legitimate to hold hands in public, according to the law, then why not kiss? If I can hold my boyfriends hand, then I may kiss, him, yes? If this is acceptable, then it means our affection is legally legitimate. So if our affection is legitimate in the eyes of the law, then why will the law not let us "marry"? My point is that your "middle ground" rapidly disappears in the face of law which decriminalizes public homosexual affection. Indeed this is one of the reasons why homosexual activists are now pushing the "idea" of marriage for all it's worth.
We can laugh at the Zimbabweans and God knows they have their problems but in the longer haul, it will be interesting to see how their culture survives compared to ours.
There are many kinds of affection other than erotic affection. In many cultures worldwide, it is common for friends of the same sex to hold hands, hug, and sometimes even kiss in public. (Why, even St. Paul said, "Greet one another with a holy kiss," and this is the same St. Paul who said, "It is well for a man not to touch a woman.")
I'm not laughing at Zimbabwe; it is a death camp masquerading as a country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.