“Dear Mr. Bussee:

Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the Southern Nevada Health District. We were completely unaware of Canyon Ridge Christian Church’s partnership with Pastor Martin Ssempa or his stance on criminalizing homosexuality. The health district is absolutely opposed to the stated efforts of Pastor Ssempa and plans to evaluate and strongly consider any future partnership with Canyon Ridge based on this new information.

However, due to the timing of the testing event, and the outreach efforts that have already occurred related to this testing site, we do not feel we can cancel this venue for next week’s event. We do not condone the church’s continued partnership with Pastor Ssempa; however, we feel the immediate risk of canceling this venue just days before the scheduled event takes precedent at this time. If just one person shows up at a canceled event and decides to delay getting tested, that will be one person too many.

We share your concerns regarding this issue and remain committed to promoting testing in an environment that is comfortable for our clients. Thank you again for your input and for bringing this important issue to our attention.

Stephanie Bethel

Southern Nevada Health District

(702) 759-1393

bethel@snhdmail.org

This appears to be a form letter being sent in response to calls or emails.

Blessings

Makes me want to believe that the spirit of Christ is in evidence there.

I hope for all the good things that you hope for.

But I doubt all the quesswork that seeks to justify their public inaction.

And I denounce with vehemence the implications that they are to be commended for not being about expediency.

Finally, I am troubled by an instinct that seeks to create from whole cloth admirable qualities in the suppositions about imaginary conversations which we have no reason to assume are occurring, “feelings” notwithstanding.

It is NOT admirable to continue supporting Ssempa.

Yes, they have elected to handle it in their way. Their was is worthy of public condemnation, protest, and outrage.

I seriously hope that they HAVE responded….that they’ve tried to discuss the issue with Ssempa and his wife…that they’ve tried to explain that both the death penalty and life imprisonment are too severe–not based on ‘Western influence’ but from a more complete understanding of the Scripture. I know you feel the conversation needs to go much further, that it needs to address decriminalization as well. But I see that as pointless until they can get him to budge on this first step.

I also believe that their public silence may be due to the fact that they see how public statements are being examined and regurgitated as tools of the ‘Western pressure’ effort. Sensing Ssempa’s and Uganda’s distaste for the jaded ‘Western influence’, perhaps they feel that, although it’s difficult, it’s best that they keep their own voice private and separate.

It would be expedient for them to make a public break with Ssempa…it would boost their image here in the states and silence most of the presumptions and judgements. I get the feeling, though, that they aren’t about ‘expedience’ and although I’m certain they care about how they are perceived, they’ve elected to handle it their way.

Someone more optimistic than I am would say “Hey, at least they didn’t show support for Ssempa by discontinuing their participation in the free HIV/AIDS screening day as a gesture of solidarity or oneness.”

Let me see if I can clarify where I see the difference.

It is my opinion that when faced with the facts about Ssempa’s campaign, the only moral response is to separate oneself from endorsing Ssempa.

Perhaps the first step would not necessarily be to loudly denounce him, but the least that could be expected would be to put the website endorsement on hold until more information could be reviewed. And then, it is not unreasonable to expect that a review be conducted without delay, certainly by now.

I find their public inaction to be worthy of criticism.

Based on your words it appears that you do not find it unreasonable that CRCC has done nothing publicly at all in response to Ssempa’s activism. And you think that those who criticize their public inaction are guilty of presumptions.

I see fault in CRCC for their continued public affiliation with Ssempa. You see fault in those who would criticize CRCC for their continued public affiliation with Ssempa.

That is where we differ.

I think I’ve said that 3 or 4 times now in this post and I’ve also expressed it as a major concern in our dealings with Uganda numerous times. We’ve had a gazillion threads on this issue…some focussed on Ssempa, Bahati, Buruto…this one however is about Canyon Ridge. I noted that people are making rather public presumptions based only on the fact that they have not separated themselves publicly from Ssempa. That is all. If you want to try to understand me, start with what I’ve said.

Perhaps it would help me understand if you were to address my questions about whether your response would differ if Ssempa’s target was another tribe, Lutherans, or women.

My comments went to nothing other than assigning and presuming motives when we don’t have all the facts. I feel that those are significant issues to call people out on because they only contribute to the breakdown in dialogue and communication. I don’t feel that we can have the real conversations that need to take place when we are constantly reading into the actions/words or non-actions/words of others AND constantly trying to put words and motives into people’s mouths and hearts that they did not speak. (That includes me.)

I will answer for the words I write. You can hypothesize, presume, judge and guess all you want about me but I’ve answered to your presumptions and judgements before and it led nowhere. I can accept that you ‘just don’t get me or where I’m coming from’. My prayer is that you will accept that too.