Happy freakin' Easter, Uganda

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Tiassa, Mar 27, 2005.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Help Us, But Only If You're Good Enough For Us
    Anglican bishop in Uganda refuses aid

    Today's Washington Post includes an article from Colbert I. King, "A Tainted Easter Message". Apparently, an Anglican Bishop in Uganda has refused $353,000 worth of aid from the Episcopal Diocese of Central Pennsylvania.

    Pennsylvania Epsicopals gave money, and even set up prayer partnerships with between members of the American and Ugandan congregations. Everything seemed to be as upbeat as possible when human suffering is involved.

    So what happened?

    That's right. Bishop Tembo only recently learned of Bishop Robinson's appointment. Apparently, that makes all the difference in the world.

    King points out that Bishop Tembo and his wife "are the parents of five children who don't have to fend for themselves". What a blessing.

    Ah, the love of Christ. So warm and beautiful.

    At least the good Bishop knows what's important, eh? The people should thank God for such a wise Bishop.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    King, Colbert I. "A Tainted Easter Message". Washington Post. March 26, 2005; page A15. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2215-2005Mar25.html
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2005
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    I am quite sure the Church in Pennsylvania can donate regardless of what this man feels is right. If they are doing this for some humanitarian reason, I don't see why giving the money to a secular beneficiary or sending a team down themselves would be too difficult.

    From our high and mighty chairs, it is easy to look at Bishop Tembo and criticize him for his apparent cold heartedness. Chances are he has been doing something to help the community for quite a while and we must take that in regard before passing judgement.

    He who is without sin, let him throw the first stone.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Ten points for irony.

    I think it's real simple:

    "Please help us!"
    -- Okay, here you go.
    "No, not you. I don't like you."​

    Since we're all sinners, I don't see the point of refusing help from sinners. What would Jesus say? Would Tembo refuse Christ's direct help because Jesus forgives sinners, and that includes homosexual bishops in America?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    I was telling Jolly Rodger yesterday of how pointless it is to judge another culture's moral system using one's own. Here we see a similar thing.

    A priori, I'm sure if a black man extended a hand to a drowning white man and was rejected, we would all sit in our high chairs and pass judgement. All I'm trying to say is let's not be so quick to criticize others before we know their reasons - no matter how foreign and unsensible they may seem in our own eyes. I am willing to be reasonable and say the bishop must have had some rather strong inner convictions which overrode the pleas of the suffering Ugandans. When you use your own moral system to judge and criticize one founded on different principles, this is what happens.

    Some think the devil's hand is black.
     
  8. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Example:


    You owe a large sum of money.
    Your friend offers to pay your debt.
    You find out that the money is stolen.

    Will you take that money to pay your debt?
    If you do, you thereby incriminate yourself.

    I think this is the reasoning Bishop Tembo used: the money offered was of dubious origin (according to him) and accepting it would mean incriminating himself.
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Water

    I think the equivocation is too broad. Whether or not Bishop Tembo sees it that way, well ....

    (1) Who can help? What sin disqualifies a giving hand? Stolen money is stolen money, but mere money from the hands of sinners? Who can give, then, if we're all sinners?

    (2) Turning away from Christ. I think the Bible is fairly clear: And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' (Matthew 25.40, RSV) Now, just ... just work with me here: Bishop Tembo has turned away Christ's brethren. Bishop Tembo has turned away the compassion of Christ's brethren. Has Bishop Tembo turned away Christ's compassion as well? It would seem so, according to the Bible: "No, your compassion is not good enough."

    (3) Lack of faith, Matthew redux. Bishop Tembo ought to trust in God. Consider the Sermon on the Mount: Matthew 6 thematically reminds the faithful to trust God; Matthew 7 opens with an admonition against judgment. Is it that the good Bishop does not trust God to see and know what is in these sinners' hearts? Turning away $353,000 in assistance on this point is certainly not what Jesus meant when he said, "Suffer the little children". Even if other biblical translations aren't enough to make that clear, common sense should suffice.

    Stolen money is not another's to give. But what money is rightfully the sinner's most certainly is that person's to give. I don't see the two situations as the same. Bishop Tembo seems to be putting himself before the people he serves in the name of God.

    • • •​

    §outh§tar

    Indeed.
     
  10. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Well, that's how people are. Not everyone is good enough to help you -- and since this is very hard to justify, the issue can be sometimes transfigured into a valid moral objection ("It's the same as if the money were stolen").

    * * *

    Accepting help means you connect yourself with the helper somehow, you feel obliged to them. If you take something, you are grateful for it, and after that, a bond exists between the helper and the helped.

    But: "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers," it is said. Hence, don't accept help from those that aren't of the same moral convictions as you; for accepting that help will bond you with them, and you don't want to be "yoked together with unbelievers".
     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    I agree there's a human-nature issue here, but I have a hard time seeing its validity. Of course, that doesn't matter in the abstract, although I think it does to God.

    Again, a human-nature issue that, while real, may not be valid.

    After all, Christians are not to give with the expectation of return. I don't see why they must (aside from natural human compulsion) expect to return what is given to them in a similar manner.

    They've been running recently on Cartoon Network a chapter of The Hi Hi Puffy Ami Yumi Show in which Yumi saves Kaz's life, and the annoying servitude begins. Do we save another's life expecting a slave? Why should we pause when the hand is outstretched, and debate whether or not it's worth accepting the help, since death might be a better option than a lifetime of servitude?

    Is that the choice God put before you when He pushed you off the cliff to hang by a failing root?

    That's Paul's problem.

    Henry Mahan, of the Thirteenth Street Baptist Church puts it in terms hardly complimentary to the Christian intellect:

    Are Pennsylvania Episcopals nonbelievers? Or, to grant Bishop Tembo his objection to the elevation of Bishop Robinson, or is the issue one of metaphorical strangeness, sickness, and bondage?

    I think you're overstating the value of 2 Corinthians; this is something covered more directly by Christ.

    In the meantime, infidels should note that this, apparently is how Christians look at the world. You have no need to care about what happens to Christians, and no need to support them materially, spiritually, or even as your fellow human beings.

    After all, it's never been easier to not offend a Christian. All you have to do is let the suffering continue, leave 'em to die. You need not give them drink, need not welcome them, need not clothe them against the cold night, need not comfort them in illness, and certainly do not need to visit them in prison. As Paul explained, f@ck Jesus Christ.

    In fact, the only finger infidels will have to lift is to do some research to make sure that wherever they're giving, no Christians are receiving benefit.

    And for some reason, yes, I think a world so divided would please Paul immensely. It is, after all, what he wanted.

    Then again, if Tembo is pushing away the sinner for 2 Corinthians, what of the Christian evangelicals in the U.S. and their political alliances with the GOP? I mean, it's not like the Dems will do much better for them, but, as Paul puts it, Why would they seek such an alliance?
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Mahan, Henry. "Be Not Unequally Yoked Together With Unbelievers". GraceForToday.com. See http://grace-for-today.com/2cor614.htm
     
  12. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    I am sure God will judge as God sees fit.


    Why do you think that it may not be valid? Because of

    We could be in the field of the discussion about what defines a Christian again.


    As it is sometimes said, it doesn't take a lot to give a gift, but it takes a lot to accept it.

    I think that if both the giver and the receiver (or receiver-to-be) walk in God, then the above dilemma that you mention should not arise. The giver gives in the name of his service to God, and the receiver accepts it as help sent by God. If anything, they are both slaves to God, but not slaves to men.

    But as soon as either the giver or the receiver doesn't walk in God, the issue of slavery to a fellow man opens up.
    A giver who doesn't walk in God may give, expecting a slave.
    A receiver who doesn't walk in God may think he has admitted his weakness and worthlessness when he accepted help, and becoming a slave seems a valid option to him.


    What do you mean? Do you think that God pushes people off the cliff to hang by a failing root?


    Sadly, journalists are rarely acquainted with biblical arguments, so they may not be able to ask questions answering which would lead to the actual answer Bishop Tembo has to why he refused the help.
    But so far, "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers" seems to be his argument.


    I think you are perverting the issue into an "you don't have to help". As if the default would be "you have to help no matter what".

    If someone *asks* for help, this is essentially different from helping them *without* their asking.
    If they asked, they know what they are doing, and are willing to bear the cosequences of their actions (ie. we are to account that they know what they are doing, and are willing to bear the cosequences of their actions).
    But if they're not asking, and you (try to) force your help on them, they have the right to reject it.



    How about asking them?
     

Share This Page