A response to Orombi

Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi, the leader of the Anglican Church in Uganda recently wrote a piece for the journal First Things. He made the following claim:

The younger churches of Anglican Christianity will shape what it means to be Anglican. The long season of British hegemony is over.

He also stated:

The preface to the Book of Common Prayer states, "It is a most invaluable part of that blessed 'liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free,' that in his worship different forms and usages may without offense be allowed, provided the substance of the Faith be kept entire; and that, in every Church, what cannot be clearly determined to belong to Doctrine must be reffered to Discipline."

And yet, despite this clear distinction, contemporary Anglicans are in danger of confusing doctrine and discipline.

This second statement embeds the imperialism inherent in the spread of Christianity throughout the world into the very teaching, suggesting that British culture has heretofore been the main informant of the church’s discipline. This, of course, is the primary source of defense for his statements, and the wedge with which he will separate himself from the West. This of course comes out in the crucial statement:

So let us think about how the Word of God works in the worldwide Anglican Communion. We in the Church of Uganda are convinced that Scripture must be reasserted as the central authority in our communion. The basis of our commitment to Anglicanism is that it provides a wider forum for holding each other accountable to Scripture, which is the seed of faith and the foundation of the Church in Uganda.

He isn’t merely suggesting that Scripture is the central authority, but the tool by which he is able to condemn his neighbor. He suggests that the very basis for giving Scripture primacy is to “[hold] each other accountable”. It isn’t to maintain Christian love or to propose a proper relationship or to even know God better—it’s to smack your neighbor upside the head. He then suggests that this “is the seed of faith and the foundation of the Church in Uganda.” Using Scripture as a club is the seed of faith? Your church is founded on aggressive, violent use of Scripture?

But Orombi spends the majority of the article defending the Ugandan form of Anglicanism and rejecting all other streams. His words, which would seem to be intended for North America, hit all of the church that isn’t missionary-founded. This creates an intriguing divide. He further narrows down belief to these two elements:

Theologically, Ugandan Anglicans share much in common with our evangelical brothers and sisters, yet we have retained the historic threefold order of ministry: bishops, priests, and deacons.

What seems funny to me is that what separates us today (besides oceans) is ideology, not practice. The above telling statement points out the chasm of difference between the so-called ‘Global South’ and the rest of the communion. Orombi’s attempts to suggest that he’s in the mainstream and that his is the moderate opinion come off like the Bush Administration when asked about Medicare reform. Orombi is suggesting that our practice and canonical resemblance in maintaining the episcopate is the only commonality between Uganda and the West. Does Anglicanism real boil down to this? The answer, of course, is YES! Orombi’s inability to recognize this is both striking and disappointing. Relationships with other denominations and faiths that recognize the richness of Christianity and the principles of our faith help remind us of who we are to be. To pigeon-hole ourselves into narrow definitions of Christianity, informed not by a corporate history, but of a solely national (and missionary) perspective, is our most dangerous tendency. Like the Archbishop, the American church has attempted to show the influence of its origins have had on the debate, though he seems to have interpreted this suggestion as a slap in the face.

This missionary identity not only serves to inform, but serves to interpret the Archbishop’s understanding of apostolic ministry, suggesting that the only way to interpret the great commission is through missionary work. This view is, of course, as he might say ‘incompatible with Scripture’, for the example shown us in Acts is of different interpretations. Look no further than to compare Paul with James. Clearly, Paul covered the most real estate, converted the greatest numbers, and served the Lord zealously. James’ ministry was Jerusalem. Paul could only cover most of the Mediterranean because James was in Jerusalem. Global ministry allows for different ministries, different understandings of evangelism, and different understandings of obedience to God. Missionary ministry, as understood in a Ugandan context is not the only or ‘true’ interpretation of Scripture any more than ‘the frozen chosen’ is. He further argues:

In the absence today of such a convenient infrastructure, the future of the Anglican Communion is found in embracing the key Reformation and evangelical principles that have had such an impact in Uganda.

So here’s the real question: if this is the only way of finding our future, how do we keep “key Reformation and evangelical principles” paramount while also maintaining the ‘centrality’ of Scripture? How can we keep two things central? Reformation and evangelical principles aren’t the only way of understanding Scripture, nor are they the most obvious! Rt. Rev. Orombi is setting forth an ideological agenda that he is passing off as the only means of understanding the Word of God. And he thinks Western thinking is Gnostic…

I do not intend to make my response to Orombi toxic, nor do I intend to encourage ill will. I am solely interested in the hypocrisy, inconsistency, and willfully politicizing of Lambeth as a means of punishing, humiliating, and breaking up the West, most notably the Episcopal Church. This article that the Archbishop has written is intended to defend his decision, and the decision of the bishops of his diocese, to not attend the September meeting of the American House of Bishops. This stance, directly related to the stance that ‘the Global South’ has taken of non-attendance flies in the face of the very nature of Church, the origins of the Episcopate, and the Scriptural tradition of the church being represented by its bishops in communion. By discouraging some bishops from attending, or by avoiding attendance oneself, s/he is not only disrupting communion, but willfully jeopardizing the fundamental principle that binds the church together! Further, the grave insult that may only be directed at God and likewise to Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit at withdrawing from Eucharist with one’s partners in Christ, or worse, to use the Eucharist as a weapon or a means of ‘discipline’*, must be understood as an act of aggression. Regardless of Orombi’s theology, which we remember is there to hold other Christians accountable, this offense is the nuclear warhead of responses. This is not the first choice of the rational, but the last resort of the wicked. For the Archbishop to use this offense so willingly is both frightening and pitiful. I pray that the Spirit may help him see another way and that its reconciling love may fill his heart.

*I choose to use the word as Orombi does in his article: a telling alternative use of the word that further muddies his argument that the West is confused over the nature of doctrine and discipline in the Church.