Please help Links stay afloat. Donate what you can!
Click on Links masthead to clear previous query from search box
Recent comments
- Revolutionary Nepal
19 hours 34 min ago - sraeli Communists Thank Hugo Chávez
21 hours 5 min ago - Calcutta News: Israeli army are cowards says Chavez
21 hours 8 min ago - El Salvador: Take Action to Oppose Dirty Campaign!
1 day 48 min ago - Norway: Unions strike over Gaza
1 day 1 hour ago - Africa takes to the streets on Israel massacres in Gaza
1 day 1 hour ago - Media disinformation on Hamas
1 day 1 hour ago - Nasrallah: Arabs have much to learn from Chavez
1 day 1 hour ago - Lessons for the NPA from the SSP/Solidarity experience
1 day 9 hours ago - Requesting list of Israeli & Palestinian attacks.
1 day 9 hours ago
Class war and the Anglican schism
July 29, 2008 -- Dramatic events within the worldwide Anglican Communion (the international association of national Anglican churches) have revealed a “cold split” with the potential for a complete collapse of the Episcopal formation. Superficially, the debates have centred on the right of women and homosexuals to be priests and bishops, and on gay marriage. However, while theological arguments dating back centuries are being mouthed, behind them are class-war elements of more recent vintage, including some connected with the era of US President Ronald Reagan’s backing of Central American death squads in the 1980s.
African
bishops have led the charge against modernity, but they are funded and
organised by right-wing US think tanks and the Sydney Anglicans’ arch-reactionary
Archbishop Peter Jensen. Another player is the
Christian soldiers marching to civil
war
The
Anglicans are approaching a three-way split. Jensen’s fundamentalist grouping
established at the Global Anglican Futures Conference (GAFCON) in
Establishing
(``planting’’) churches in other Anglican provinces is regarded as tantamount
to open conflict within the Communion. The Sydney Anglicans have been quietly
doing it for some time in
The
Sydney Anglicans have been ransacking the coffers of Anglican social welfare
organisations to fund the rapid expansion of their missionary resources. Archbishop
Peter Jensen’s proclaimed objective is to get 10% of
Jensen’s
holy-war missionaries, trumpeting their view of faith, which consists of
mouthing chapter and verse of the Bible,
identifying each by number in bingo caller fashion, are fanning out across
Parallel churches
The
international face of this reactionary wave, the GAFCON grouping, has set up
its own leadership structures, including a primate's council, which is made up
entirely of Africans (at this stage), rivalling that centred in England. Mouthing
modern anti-Orientalist arguments, Jensen has said that this represents a
natural evolution of Anglicanism away from its imperial roots, similar to the
development of the
It
looks certain that the
The
Previously,
dissident High Church Anglican priests who seceded to
“A
number of the Anglicans who moved to
Lurking in the background
are such organisations as the American Anglican Council, the Institute on
Religion and Democracy (IRD) and the Association for Church Renewal funded and
directed by weird homophobes like Howard F. Ahmanson Jr. and the Bradley,
Coors, Olin, Scaife and Smith-Richardson right-wing “charitable foundations”.[3]
For decades these groups
have donated billions of dollars to what the US National Committee on
Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) in a 1997 report calls "an extraordinary
effort to reshape politics and public policy priorities at the national, state
and local level". Part of their agenda is the smashing up of progressive
Christianity.
The NCRP says that their
money supports “a network of regional and state-based think tanks and advocacy
institutions [working] to transform the social views …of the nation's religious
and philanthropic leaders”.[4]
Protestant schisms are
not historically unusual but internationally organised, politically motivated
and externally funded splits are unprecedented.
Anglicanism’s imperial heritage and painful evolution
Ever since King Henry
VIII established the church as a fig leaf covering the English aristocracy’s
theft of church property during its primitive accumulation of capital,
Anglicanism has been the ideological voice of the English (later British)
ruling class.
It also uncomfortably
stitched together two strands of Protestantism, known as Low Church and
Low Church adherents grew
out of more radical aspects of the protestant reformation, influenced by
Europeans like the Swiss theologian Huldrych Zwingli, the Anabaptists and the
Mennonites. Their theology reflected a class divide in the development of
English capitalism. From within Low Church Anglicanism came the Puritans and other
radical sects, which formed the shock troops of Cromwell’s 17th century
English capitalist revolution.
Today, Peter Jensen’s
Sydney Anglicans self-consciously continue the Low Church tradition, basing
themselves on Queen Elizabeth I’s 39 Articles of Religion, not on Cromwell’s
revolutionary tradition.
Just as there are Marxist
sects that trace their existence from arcane organisational splits at a certain
point in history, continually harking back to establish their authority, the
Sydney Anglicans look back fondly to 1563. To describe these people as
reactionary is an understatement.
Gathering every 10 years
at the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Communion has evolved painfully through
the periods of post-WWII decolonisation and the cultural and political changes arising
from the 1960s onwards. In practice, global Anglicanism remained very largely
white-run until recently. Black bishops formed a majority only after 1988.
“The tone of these conferences
was gently reformist”, Theo Hobson, writing in the British Catholic newspaper The Tablet, reported on July 12. “In
1958 artificial contraception was agreed to be permissible and racism was
denounced; in 1968 the ordination of women was gently mooted.”[5]
When some women were
ordained the 1978 Lambeth Conference decided that each Anglican “province”
could decide the matter for itself. The same conference also recognised the
"need for deep and dispassionate study of the question of
homosexuality" and the 1988 conference reiterated it.
Quietly, Anglican
homophobes began preparing their counterattack. “Leaders of the conservative
wing of the Church have worked since at least the 1990s to develop
international alliances”, says The Washington Window, newspaper of
Washington DC Episcopal Diocese.[6]
In 1998 the conservatives
struck: Lambeth again voted to “listen” to homosexuals but added that
homosexual practice was "incompatible with Scripture". Tablet says of the resolution: “It was
supposed to be a classic piece of Anglican fudge. But it was hijacked by a
lobby of bishops from the developing world, which had formed in the mid-1990s,
resolving to contest Anglicanism's drift to the condoning of homosexuality.”
The attack of the killer think tanks
In fact, while African
bishops have been the spokespeople for the homophobic wing, the money and
organisational clout has come from US and Australian right-wingers.
In 1999 the Canadian
diocese of
While the Canadians were
moving in one direction, in
The
The IRD’s method was illustrated by a campaign it mounted after Nicaraguan
President Daniel Ortega praised health and literacy work conducted by the
Nicaraguan Council of Protestant Churches. The IRD dishonestly described the
development workers as Sandinistas —
After helping to drown
The IRD coordinates a
network of conservative
Homophobic, reactionary and rich
One of the major
bankrollers is Howard F. Ahmanson, heir to a banking fortune, who funded the
1994 Republican takeover of the California Assembly, opposed gay marriage and
affirmative action in California and is behind the Discovery Institute, the
basis for the anti-evolution “intelligent design” movement,.
In a 1985 interview with
the Orange County Register, Ahmanson
proclaimed his goal “is the total integration of biblical law into our lives".
On
Ahmanson personally
attended the GAFCON gathering to help shepherd through his right-wing politics.
Naughton noted that
prominent African GAFCON spokespeople archbishops Akinola of Nigeria and Orombi
of Uganda have serious theological differences with other churches in the
Anglican Communion. “But the fact is that much of the money comes from the
West, the statements are written almost exclusively in the West or by
Westerners”, he said. “What just happened in Jerusalem is that bishops from
some of the poorest countries on the planet got together for a meeting to make
a great contribution to the church and what emerged was a document that did
nothing to improve the life of the average African, but did much to advance the
interests of wealthy Americans, Australians and people in the United Kingdom.”
Naughton was dismissive
of statements such as Peter Jensen’s that GAFCON is giving voice to the ``global
south’’. “The Institute on Religion and Democracy was basically founded to
attempt to denigrate and undermine the liberation theologians of
[1] The New Puritans, Muriel Porter, Melbourne University Press, 2006,
p.10
[2] Why
the Pope is not rejoicing at the split, Paul Vallely, The
London Independent,
[3] Following
the Money, A Special Report from the Washington
Window, newspaper of the Washington DC Episcopal Diocese, http://www.edow.org/follow/, p.1.
[5] It's
good to talk, Theo Hobson, The Tablet,
[6] Following
the Money, p.3



Comments
“Simplistic” charge an avoidance of the issues
For those who are interested, visit Steve’s blog at http://methodius.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-i-am-not-marxist-class-war-and... and see the engagement between us. It has not been very fruitful.
Steve describes himself as “not-a-marxist” and when he posted the first two paragraphs of my article he gave me quite a hammering. I looked forward to being told all the shortcomings of my article, from which I could raise my standards through debate.
So far I’ve been told that there’s one typo in it. Then it was revealed that Steve hadn’t read more than the first two paragraphs before forming his initial opinion that it is condescending and racist towards African Anglicans.
Of course, Steve is entitled to his opinion, and to not shift from it even after reading the full article. But the charge is not supported by the text and certainly my analysis reflects that of many others, about whom he remains silent.
In the introduction I state that “African bishops have led the charge…” Later, I back that up by quoting the British Catholic newspaper The Tablet saying that ” a lobby of bishops from the developing world” had “hijacked” the debate around homosexuality after the 1998 Lambeth conference. Is The Tablet condescending in saying that?
I further describe African bishops as “the spokespeople for the homophobic wing” of the church.
But the point of the article is that the organisation and money for the GAFCON movement are part of an “internationally organised, politically motivated and externally funded” operation by the IRD.
Canon Jim Naughton of the Washington, DC Episcopalian Diocese summarised the situation in a nutshell in saying that at GAFCON “much of the money comes from the West, the statements are written almost exclusively in the West or by Westerners”.
Steve, having to backtrack from his initial, extravegant charges against me, grants that the IRD is “shadowy” and is exploiting the situation. That is, he is claiming a difference of degree from me in the matter. Great! Steve, please back it up with facts about the complexities as you see them, facts that I have missed, nuances that could be drawn out.
Your suspicion that the IRD is an “agent of modernity” is wrong. The IRD campaigns for the most strident form of neo-liberal economics, absolutely no-holds-barred laissez faire capitalism. More than that, Ahmanson wants to return America (and presumably the world) to Old Testament Biblical law. That stuff about the stoning of homosexuals mentioned in the article isn’t a joke.
The rights of women and homosexuals to function freely in all areas of society are democratic rights not yet fulfilled even centuries after the great democratic revolutions. Women and homosexuals have not waited around to be granted their rights from on high. They’ve gone out and fought for them, God bless ‘em.
In that sense, people who oppose that liberation movement are fighting against “modernity”. Ahmanson and the IRD represent possibly the most reactionary wing of the US ruling class, which wants to drag humanity back centuries.
Moreover, Steve, having tasted blood in this operation within the Anglican Communion what will hold the IRD from more international split and wreck jobs? Will you be counted in the ranks of those who take a stand? Your equivocating stand on this article doesn’t bode well, does it?
All in all, this schism is a fascinating development in the history of cultural imperialism. It stymies any who unthinkingly hold to a “four legs good, two legs bad” simplistic Third Worldist politics.
Post new comment