The following is a roundup of the recent ACNS Digest stories, with reports from Lambeth, the US, Canada and England. The ACNS Digest can be found here:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/digest/index.cfm
(651) 21-July-2006 - News Briefing from Lambeth Palace - Lambeth
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams appeared on the 'today' programme this morning (21st July 2006) to talk about the Middle East. A transcript of the interview appears below.
BBC Radio 4 Today programme interview between Dr Rowan Williams and Caroline Quinn
21st July 2006 0810 hrs
CQ Britain and America appear to be alone in refusing to endorse the United Nations demands for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and the Hezbollah. The Pope has added his voice to those calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities and, in a letter this week the heads of Churches in Lebanon, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has condemned the escalating violence in the Middle East. He joins us in the studio. Dr Williams, good morning to you.
ABC Good morning.
CQ The Pope, as we've heard, joining those international calls for immediate ceasefire. We've heard Tony Blair and some others arguing that Israel has a right to defend itself; do you think that a State ever does have an inherent right to resort to violence?
ABC I think all states have a right to defend themselves and I don't think anyone disputes the state of Israel's right to exist and therefore the state of Israel's right to defend itself. But the question is, morally, whether that right of self-defence allows any and every method and, without for any moment suggesting that there's a sort of equivalence between terrorist activity and the activity of a legitimate state, the question is; what can a state morally do without subverting its own cause in self defence? That's the question which I think people are pressing at the moment in Israel.
CQ Are we talking about proportionality here - can Israel truly say that the damage it's inflicting on Lebanon and the civilian deaths is in proportion to the threat that it faces?
ABC I think there's a real question about the way in which, in calculating methods in any conflict, you define your outcome, you define what needs to be done for that outcome. I think recent history doesn't encourage us to think that conventional aerial bombardment is rapidly successful in dealing with terror organisations; they may be dispersed but they're not destroyed. Now in the light of that, it's hard to see how this becomes a coherent strategy. But can I give an analogy here? We're familiar - horribly familiar - with hostage crises in recent years and of course this recent conflict does begin with, effectively, a hostage crisis, but it's as if you've now got a hostage crisis involving a whole nation. Hezbollah is in effect using the nation of Lebanon as a human shield, as a set of hostages. Now everybody would condemn that kind of activity without reserve; but think of the questions we ask in another kind of hostage crisis - how do the forces of law go in and deal with it; do they go in at fantastically high risk of the slaughter of innocent hostages themselves; do they look for alternatives? And it's as if that's the kind of situation which, blown up on a huge scale, is what we face now.
CQ What is the answer, then; when you've got such intractable conflicts between armies and militias, how should they be resolved?
ABC We have some experience, I suppose, of dealing with hostage crises; not all of them are dealt with by main force; particularly not resolved...
CQ ... but when it's moved beyond a hostage crisis and when it's moved to the sort of open warfare that we're seeing now ...
ABC ... that's why I use the analogy of a large-scale hostage crisis; we attempt to talk, what we do - we attempt to talk, we defer a violent action that puts more innocent lives at risk and that I think points to a ceasefire and the deployment of whatever resources there are for brokerage in the region. Now one of the things I would want to say rather strongly is what's the role going to be of religious leaders in the region - Jewish and Muslim; we try to keep up a dialogue here with those religious leaders and in fact we'll be announcing this weekend the invitation to the Israeli Chief Rabbis to visit Lambeth Palace later this year and that's a dialogue which, as I say, continues. Where are those voices now? It would I think be good to hear them in this context.
CQ And would a visit from you to the region perhaps help?
ABC That I don't know; I'm perfectly prepared to consider it, if it were at all useful - I think every voice that that can be brought in here needs to be brought in with the escalating humanitarian crisis, not only the deaths but half a million people now displaced and the likelihood of more having to leave their homes as we've heard on the latest news. So I think that we have to ask who is speaking for those in this situation who don't have any choices? The people who have not chosen to be identified with Hezbollah, and people on the Israeli side of the border who have not chosen to be identified with the Israeli Defence Force; Israeli Arabs have died in the conflict as well as Jewish Israelis citizens. Who speaks for them and how are their interests to be defended by the world at large?
CQ These problems have of course happened time and time again and if you've seen the front page of the Times today, it shows Israeli soldiers taking a break from their bombardment in order to pray. How do you feel when you see a picture like that, almost showing the incongruity of war and a religious belief?
ABC It's sadly an incongruity which is part of a history we share; Christians do this, Muslims do this, Jews do this; they do take a break from military activities to pray; they do try and relate what they're doing and I'm sure there are many people trying to act in good conscience in this setting but it whether it's done by Christians Muslims or Jews it's that unhappy impression that God is somehow content with the killing of innocents.
CQ I'm interested to know how you view it - you say that both sides need to talk, there needs to be negotiation, there needs to be an end to the killing, of course; that is a widespread agreement but going back to the origins, do you think that Hezbollah are to blame for starting it; has Israel overreacted? Do you share the views of those who say that the Israeli response is disproportionate?
ABC I think it's clear that the provocation here comes from actions by Hezbollah; I don't think there's much dispute about that. Overreaction? I think the difficulty is that many of us see the reaction that there's been as contributing not to the short and middle term security of the state of Israel and its citizens but to further destabilisation and that to me is near the heart of the problem. What Israel needs more than anything I think is stable neighbours and regional security and while I fully see that the presence of terrorist and terrorist groups in the region constantly undermines that, where is the activity that builds up stable neighbours? Because that would seem to me to be the proper proportional response to a crisis like this.
CQ And just finally, in terms of international reaction; do you think that the only way there could be an immediate ceasefire is if there is united international support for the United Nations call for that - for an immediate ceasefire?
ABC I'm not sure that even that would necessarily produce the effect, but I don't think it's going to happen without that united support and I think here we really have to ask whether the governments of some Western countries are catching up with the consciences of their own people.
CQ What do you mean by that?
ABC I mean that the major players in this at the moment who are not supporting the ceasefire - our own government and the United States government - may perhaps have to reckon with a rising level of public despair and dismay at the spiral continuing and I hope very much that they will bring their influence to bear in moving towards a ceasefire.
CQ They need to change their minds?
ABC They need to change their minds.
CQ Dr Rowan Williams, thank you very much.
ENDS.
permalink.
http://www.aco.org/acns/digest/index.cfm?years=2006&months=7&article=651 &pos=#651
(650) 21-July-2006 - Presiding Bishop signs statement on Gaza, Hezbollah-Israel conflict - USA
Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold has signed a letter to President George W. Bush, issued by Churches for Middle East Peace, calling for a diplomatic solution to the conflicts in Gaza and between Hezbollah and Israel.
The full text of of the statement follows:
July 20, 2006
The Honorable George W. Bush The White House Washington, DC
Dear President Bush,
Mr. President, while attention is rightly focused on the Hezbollah-Israel conflict, we write with growing concern for the situation in Gaza and appeal to you to do everything possible to calm the crisis and restore hope for a diplomatic solution to the conflict. We condemn the capture by Palestinian militants of Cpl. Gilad Shalit and pray that he will be released by Hamas without further delay and returned safely to his family.
The escalating violence and regional dimension of the conflict is alarming. It is urgent that you call on all the parties to restrain from using force and, rather, to trust a diplomatic process.
We urge the sustained intervention of the United States at the highest level with both Israeli and Palestinian officials and with the cooperation of Egypt and the Quartet. We ask you to work closely with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz toward a diplomatic solution which will not further impoverish and burden ordinary Palestinians. Our churches and institutions in Gaza struggle in despair to try to meet the needs of the people - both Muslim and Christian. We endorse the call by the church-related humanitarian and development aid agencies for the urgent protection of Gaza's civilians, as specified by the Fourth Geneva Convention, as well as immediate and unobstructed access for the delivery of critical humanitarian aid and supplies necessary for basic human needs.
As religious leaders in the United States, we are deeply moved by the July 7 statement by the Bishops and Patriarchs of Jerusalem. They condemn the abduction of the Israeli soldier and the killing of the young settler by Palestinians, but consider Israel's response - the destruction of bridges and a power station, the deprivation and deaths of civilians and arrests of Palestinian officials - as without proportion. 'Things have gone too far. We call on the International community to intervene and insist on a diplomatic solution to this conflict. All Authorities must change course, and with unflinching International pressure and presence, they have to negotiate in order to reach the just and definitive peace.'
We share and support your vision of a two-state solution. If the Hezbollah-Israel crisis, which threatens to expand into a regional war, continues it could end all hope for a solution that brings peace and security to Israel and the future state of Palestine and their suffering peoples.
We hold you in our prayers as you seek a way toward peace in these challenging times.
permalink.
http://www.aco.org/acns/digest/index.cfm?years=2006&months=7&article=650 &pos=#650
(649) 21-July-2006 - A statement from the Primate of Canada - Canada
Once again the peoples of the world are compelled to witness violence, hatred and pain in Israel and Lebanon. This is by no means a new phenomena and even the psalmist centuries before the birth of Christ called upon his community to, 'Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.' None of us must ever become complacent about the pain anxiety and sheer terror that many innocent people on both sides of the border have and are experiencing as they flee from their homes to an uncertain future. In the past few days the escalation of violence has greatly disturbed me and all parties involved in the conflict need to be able to pause, take a step back and look for other solutions than those of guns tanks and bombs. It will take far more courage to do this than to continue in the conflict.
Our country has a proud history of peaceful intervention and I call upon those in positions of leadership and influence particularly our Prime Minister to seek ways to bring peace into the violence of this situation.
No matter how hopeless the prospects of peace may seem to the world we, as Christians must pray as our contribution to the process of peace and reconciliation. I call upon all Anglicans and each of our parishes to include a specific time of prayer for peace in the weeks ahead. I will be meeting with Archbishop Clive Handford the President Bishop of the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East in Coventry England later today and will convey to him our concern and prayers for his ministry and for people of all faiths that they will find the instruments of peace rather than of war.
The Most Reverend Andrew S. Hutchison Archbishop and Primate
Article from: The Anglican Church in Canada
permalink.
http://www.aco.org/acns/digest/index.cfm?years=2006&months=7&article=649 &pos=#649
(648) 21-July-2006 - Anglican women in Africa: 'the priority is for life' - England
Anglican women in Africa: 'the priority is for life'
Kenya's Dr. Esther Mombo lectures at women's ordination conference in Manchester
The impact of Christian women on African society was the focus of Dr. Esther Mombo's closing lecture, titled 'We see them and hear them...but has it made a difference?' at a conference on women's ordination hosted by the University of Manchester's Lincoln Theological Institute July 12-14.
Mombo, dean of St. Paul's United Theological Seminary in Limuru, Kenya, acknowledged that the present church leadership is extremely vocal on issues of sexuality, but insisted that for women in Africa that is not a priority.
'The priority is for life,' she said. 'We are not having the discussions that we see in public, such as human sexuality, but discussions of life and death issues.'
One of the world's largest continents, Africa accounts for about 14 percent of the total population and boasts vast ethnic and cultural diversity, but some countries are roiled with conflict, and HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases continue to pose life-size challenges.
Recent statistics suggest that 42 million people in the world are living HIV/AIDS, with 25.8 million of those cases in Africa. 'Although Africa has 14 percent of the world's population, it has 62 percent of the world's HIV/AIDS cases,' Mombo said.
For women in Africa, the problem is with heterosexuality not homosexuality, she said. 'It is the heterosexuals who will rape small children in the hope that [such a myth] will rid them of HIV/AIDS.'
Women's ordination in Africa plays a vital role in helping to overcome gender inequality, poverty, violence and HIV/AIDS, Mombo explained, as 'it provides an important place for women to contribute to the wellbeing of people in society.'
African Christianity, she said, has created its own unique flavor of religion and has assumed a more charismatic character. It tends to be described as conservative, especially in light of its proactive evangelistic mission, but has long been presented as vital and growing. The 12 Anglican provinces in Africa account for almost two thirds of the world's 77 million Anglicans.
'When you look at the ordinary Christians, they have an incredible faith just as if God is walking with them," Mombo said. "They never let go even when death is wiping them out ... Because Jesus saves!'
Mombo explained that women have been ordained in Africa for nearly two centuries, 'but it is not uniform, just like Africa is not uniform,' she said. 'One side of a country may ordain women when another does not.'
In addition to the practices, policies and leadership of the church, the ordination of women in Africa has been affected by its history of colonialism and conflict. Education and female literacy levels have also played a significant part.
Offering a historical account of the ordination of women during the time that missionaries were delivering Christianity to Africa, Mombo said, 'Mission Christianity, which began in North Africa, was always fourfold, through evangelism, education, health and industrial training. Through this framework the missionaries found a way of liberating women in what they saw as oppressions.'
The Anglican-run Mothers' Union, the Presbyterian Church's Women's Guild, and other denominational women's organizations, have consistently been the backbone of the church, Mombo added, as they are the groups that carry the social welfare banner.
The 1950s and 60s in Africa saw the liberation struggles that brought independence to both the churches and countries, and women began to receive the education that prepared them for roles in business and the government.
'The church lagged behind in terms of women's leadership because of its historical context and women weren't given the education to prepare them to become church leaders,' she said. 'The churches at the time would also say no to women's ordination because of theological reasons,' a more common one being that Jesus never appointed a woman as one of his disciples.
Through ecumenical initiatives, the churches began to address the ordination of women. The All Africa Conference of Churches (AACC) began discussions on the subject in 1963 when a consultation in Kampala, Uganda, welcomed a conversation on the place of women in the church. The World Council of Churches held a consultation in 1970 that had an impact on the African churches.
A further AACC meeting in 1974 resolved to urge the formation of an advisory committee of men and women to draw a program for the inclusion of women in society, and in 1980, another conference called for equal rights for women in the church and for them to be ordained into full pastoral ministry.
Before the 1978 Lambeth Conference - the once-a-decade meeting of Anglican bishops - a number of African Anglican provinces were already discussing the ordination of women.
In Uganda in 1974, the issues were raised at the provincial synod. One of the bishops asked why the province couldn't wait until the Church of England had made a decision on women's ordination. According to Mombo, one bishop replied, 'if you wait for the Church of England, you'll wait until doomsday.'
In 1975, some Kenyan bishops brought a motion to their Provincial Synod, which affirmed the principle of women's ordination. It was decided that any possible candidates should undergo theological training and that there should be further consultation with the House of Bishops before any ordinations took place.
In 1979, one Ugandan bishop ordained a group of women as deacons and four years later, ordained three as priests.
Today, six of the 38 Anglican provinces do not allow women's diaconal, priestly or Episcopal ordination. They are Central Africa, Jerusalem & Middle East, Melanesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea and South East Asia.
'The women pioneers' story is a mixed bag,' Mombo said. 'Some of them left ministry because the church was not ready for them, some have continued to study and work and to serve the churches today.'
She noted that, in terms of members, they may be small, 'but the disciples of Jesus were small in number yet they turned the world upside down.'
Article from ENS by Matthew Davies - international correspondent for the Episcopal News Service.
permalink.
http://www.aco.org/acns/digest/index.cfm?years=2006&months=7&article=648 &pos=#648
___________________________________________________________________ ACNSlist, published by Anglican Communion News Service, London, is distributed to more than 8,000 journalists and other readers around the world.
For subscription INFORMATION please go to:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/acnslist.html