There has been a furore among local churches over the election of an openly gay bishop in a homosexual relationship - Canon Gene Robinson of the Anglican Church in America.

Prior to this, Archbishops Peter Akinola of Nigeria, Bernard Malango of Central Africa, Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda, Yong Ping Chung of South East Asia and Peter Jensen of Sydney, Australia, had written a letter to the Anglican Primates of the Global South asking for their agreement with a statement that they had drafted which reported their extreme dissatisfaction with the election of Canon Gene Robinson.

Yong Ping Chung is the Primate of South East Asia and Bishop of Sabah. Archbishop Yong had also, along with the Bishop of Kuching, West Malaysia and Singapore, written a statement stating intention to terminate communion with Reverend Michael Ingham in Canada who authorised a public rite for the blessing of same sex unions.

It is certainly true that the overwhelming majority of Malaysian members of the Anglican church believe that the scriptures prohibit same sex marriage, and even relationships. However it also a known fact that the Anglican Church in Nigeria is accommodating of members who practice polygamous relationships which is widely accepted in their culture.

The majority of Malaysian Christians also believe that scripture prohibits polygamy. So why is same sex marriage unacceptable but polygamy tolerated in this instance ? Surely Archbishop Yong should be threatening to break with the Diocese of Nigeria, instead of cooperating with them?

A possible argument could be that the church should be a bit more accommodating to local cultures in order to attract more members.

If that is the case, then anybody who has not had their head buried in sand for the past five years would be fully aware that there are many parts in the Western world today where gay relationships are fully accepted as part of the local culture. So why not allow a Western church to adapt to the culture in its own environment as well?

Certainly I can understand the consternation with the election of an openly gay bishop (which is a whole ball game altogether), but why should blessing of same sex unions as a cultural practice be condemned while polygamy as a cultural practice be accepted?

One would do well to heed the words of the Archbishop of Cape Town, Ndungane Njongonkulu, who has said that it was wrong and contrary to the Anglican Tradition and understanding of Canon Law to presume to interfere in the affairs of another province, and the integrity of each province should be respected.

Furthermore, as Josh Hong in his article has pointed out, no Malaysian Anglican Church has spoken out against the government to call for a review of the mala fide ISA, which has been identified by most Malaysian human rights organisations such as Suaram and Hakam as being in violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No church has also spoken out against the government's treatment of the Burmese Rohingya refugees.

Quoting Resolution I1 of the 1998 Lambeth conference which is binding upon all Primates of the Anglican Communion:

On the fiftieth anniversary of its proclamation in December of 1948, this Conference

(a) resolves that its members urge compliance with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the nations in which our various member Churches are located, and all others over whom we may exercise any influence; and

(b) urges extension of the provisions of the Declaration to refugees, uprooted and displaced persons who may be forced by the circumstances of their lives to live among them.

We note therefore that the Malaysian Anglican church has violated both points in the first (and probably most important) Resolution of the Conference as well as Resolution I5 on Uprooted and Displaced Peoples.

Strangely enough, these violations appear to have conveniently lapsed from the memory of the Malaysian Anglican Church leaders when they vociferously condemn their Western counterparts for violation of parts c and d of Resolution I.10. Perhaps our local Anglican leaders might like to ponder for a while on verses Matthew 7:2-4 from the Bible.

Certainly it can be argued that Malaysian churches need to act in accordance with the current political scenario in order to safeguard the welfare of their members. Of this, I am in complete agreement.

Yet surely by the same token they can also extend this understanding to their fellow counterparts in the States who operate under completely different cultural and political settings, and who may also need to make their own adjustments to their local environments.

After all, there is nobody forcing the Malaysian churches to bless same sex unions or elect gay Bishops. They can operate very safely within the boundaries of the resolutions of the Lambeth conference without ever having to even discuss or think about the issue of homosexuality.

What does it really say about a Church when its leaders are intensely obsessed with what goes on between two mature adults behind closed doors 5000 miles away, but are blind to the illegal imprisonment of citizens or deportation of refugees back to possible torture and death that happens in front of their eyes?

It might be useful for the Anglican Church leaders to rethink their threat of breaking with the diocese of New Hampshire and pursue a more fruitful endeavour instead, such as obtaining basic sex education from their local physicians.