15 November 2007

Botswana’s Priorities

Some interesting news out of Botswana today. Apparently there was an article stating that the diocese had passed a vote of no confidence in their bishop, but a letter from the Diocesan Secretary states that this is in fact not true. Although the discussion of another bishop holding meetings within Botswana without consent is of concern from an ecclesiological point of view, to me the more interesting quote backs of what I have believed about many Anglicans in Africa for some time:

…the Bishop still stands by his position that Africa has too many problems (poverty, HIV and AIDS, poor governance, unemployment, etc) to sort out than to spend a lot of time and energy on homosexuality issues, which do not impact on the day-to-day lives of many struggling African people.

I have heard this point of view expressed by others I have met at international events in the past, and I feel strongly that it relates pretty closely to my own views on the issue as well.

posted by Jamie in Ecclesiology, Society, Anglicanism 

This entry was posted on Thursday, 15 November 2007 at 12:15 and is filed under Ecclesiology, Society, Anglicanism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the comments RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

2 Responses to “Botswana’s Priorities”

  1. Michael says:

    “[T]he Bishop still stands by his position that Africa has too many problems […] to sort out than to spend a lot of time and energy on homosexuality issues”

    While I certainly agree that there is an issue of priorities at stake, I think it’s just as clear that the Bishop has chosen his words very carefully to avoid expressing any support for homosexuals, as well. His priorities seem right, but I wonder if perhaps his social politics are as bad as those of the Catholic in Rome. If the wider Anglican Communion wants to remain socially relevant in the Western world, I believe those issues will have to be addressed, and sooner rather than later.

    But that is, of course, no news to you.

    28 November 2007 at 13:20
  2. Jamie says:

    Yes that of course is definitely true, and I would certainly assume that, at least on this social issue, he would probably be very conservative. The question is, would he be willing to continue to work with churches who disagreed, so that together we can tackle these other issues which are really the more life-or-death ones in my opinion.

    If yes, then I think there is some hope for the future there.

    As a side not, Michael, I’m sorry that your comment didn’t get moderated earlier — I feel fairly sure that you have posted here before, and I don’t know why this message got filtered out this time around

    16 December 2007 at 12:07

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>