Tuesday, 5 May 2009

Ugandan delegate refused admission to ACC, correspondence published

One of the Ugandan delegates to the ongoing Anglican Consultative Council in Jamaica has been refused admission on the grounds that he is part of the Ugandan 'cross border' intervention in the US. The Archbishop of Uganda has appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and released the correspondence into the public domain. It can be accessed here:

Orombi appeals to Canterbury over refused Uganda delegate to ACC: Correspondence

In his letter to Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Uganda writes,

We, therefore, appeal to you, in your capacity as Chair of the Primates Standing Committee and President of the ACC, to help the Joint Standing Committee understand the limits of their authority and to recognize the appointment of the Rev. Philip Ashey as clergy delegate to ACC-14 from the Church of Uganda, and to accord to him every courtesy expected of any delegate from any Province of the Anglican Communion. This is a matter of urgency, and I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest opportunity.

If the Church of Uganda’s appointment of Rev. Philip Ashey is considered by you to be unacceptable, then we will be forced to take the steps necessary to bring this unbiblical, unjust and unconstitutional precedent to the attention of the rest of the Communion.

(Presumably the release of this correspondence represents those 'necessary steps'.)

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.


  1. I dont know if you noticed that the UK government is publishing a list of those they wont let into the UK - I thought this was interesting becuase it shows that the government implictly recognise that exclusivity has its place - so why all this hatred of excusivity in christianity? MR Lovell, South London

  2. PS

    Further to my email yesterday I should perhaps have left my email.


  3. At least some of us in the US welcome the decision. The Windsor Report requested that border-crossing bishops stop, but that request has been ignored (unlike the requests to ECUSA). Now the consequences of ignoring such a request become clear and I am pleased that there appears to be a more even-handed response to those whose actions were criticized in the WR.