Press Release Friday, 18 November 2005

Press Release
Friday, 18 November 2005

Our attention has been drawn to some media reports of one or two primates alleging wrongful inclusion of their names in a document they were privy to its formation.

While every person is entitled to a change of opinion, the incontrovertible and indisputable fact remain that at our meeting in El Sukhna, the first draft of the response was circulated to all present to peruse, and give us any additional input or objection. It is pertinent to say NO ONE objected.  All those that responded will see that the final draft reflected their inputs.

The presentation of the Archbishop of Canterbury to us was made public and has been widely discussed by many who were not present at our Encounter. It is only fair that our collective response to that publication should also be publicly available. Our response was released when it was fully ready and timing was not deliberately planned as being suggested.

We find it pitiable that the media spin is drawing attention away from the deep Biblical discussions contained in our response.

This controversy has been brought upon us, by those that would undermine all that we stand for in preserving the sanctity of our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic faith. They are the ones who are dividing the Church. Of course, anyone who wishes to have their name removed from this letter is free to do so. All formal requests to dissociate will be immediately effected.

This information has earlier been communicated to all concerned.

Signed

Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola DD, CON
Chair,
South –South Encounter




____________________________________________
Posted by on 11/08 at 10:44 PM

  1. It seems a bit unfortunate that such a personal and tempestuous public attack was launched just as The Archbishop of Canterbury was suggesting everyone show a little more grace, patience, and understanding.

    Perhaps there needs to be less of a striving by all concerned with this single, fairly limited, issue, in order to better show that the gospel of Jesus Christ is about more than gay clergy. Our Church, across the world, cannot afford to be navel gazing. We have a gospel to proclaim.

    Posted by Laurence  on  11/18  at  11:01 PM

  2. Sorry Laurence . . . it’s too late to say that our church cannot afford to be “navel gazing”. 

    We lost that battle when those who engaged in sexual activity between same genders decided that they wanted approval and affirmation of their behavior, and for it to be named as holy and blessed, rather than acknowledged as sinful and subject to transformation and sanctification.

    Now we’re having to combat the effects of that “navel gazing” by establishing clear doctrinal boundaries in order to prevent further “navel gazing”.

    Posted by  on  11/18  at  11:32 PM

  3. Bishop Akinola and other bishops of the Global South have issued an authoritative call to action that reflects biblical injunctions to separate from those who do harm to the cause of Jesus Christ. Falsehood and spin are the typical response to the authority of Jesus and His Church.

    Posted by  on  11/18  at  11:46 PM

  4. It does seem that +Akinola acts somewhat imperiously towards even his supposed allies.  They were shown a draft and their names were appended as signatories because they made no comment.  Surely only those who personally expressed full agreement and gave specific permission should have been listed as signatories. 

    As is ever the case among extremist Puritans faction and division soon appears.

    Posted by  on  11/19  at  12:39 AM

  5. ++Akinola is posing.  This letter is an utter failure and it has upset several whose names were included.  He should have just apologized; the fact that no one objected does not mean he - or whomever wrote the letter - had the permission to include their names.  To assume that everyone approved because no one objected is such utterly poor logic (and the kind I would expect some Americans to use, but perhaps some Africans and some Americans are on the same intellectual level, sadly).

    I would like to think that this whole thing is a joke, but within Ekklesia Anglicana, it seems that all sorts of things pass as acceptable today.  It comes across to me - and some other Primates - as less gracious than insulting, and less patient than demanding.  It’s not necessary at this time!

    We will all be doing better when Griswold and Akinola are both no longer in their respective sees.

    Best,
    Benjamin

    Posted by benito!!!  on  11/19  at  12:46 AM

  6. 11/18/05

    Folks:

    The Bishops and Archbishops of the Two/Thirds World are all intelligent adults who can speak for themselves. If any of these honest souls have something to say to Archbishop Akinola, they are not likely to communicate by inference through blogs. They can EMail him directly. There is a great deal more cultural diversity, and inclusiveness in the Global South than in the West, and they speak in many more languages. This not withstanding, dispite the spine of liberal blogs, they are far more unified and action oriented than the Western liberals.

    Posted by  on  11/19  at  12:57 AM

  7. I think we do well to not paint the “Global South” with a monochrome brush.  I am sure that they are far more diverse than people recognize, themselves included.  Of course, this in no way allows for whomever wrote this letter to do as they did.  It was underhanded and sneak.  “Where is the repentance...???”

    Best,
    Benjamin

    Posted by benito!!!  on  11/19  at  01:03 AM

  8. I would like to thank Bishop Akinola and the other bishops for asking the questions that most of us in the Episcopal Church in the USA want to ask him.  I am still appalled that he has not used his moral authority to say what he should about the ordination of a homosexual bishop.  This is not a difficult question to ponder.  It is clearly against scripture and is sinful by its very nature.  We should welcome all sinners into our church, but not to preach to us that sin is not sin and then say it is an issue about honoring all humans.  It is a simple question of acknowledging their sins and repenting.

    Posted by  on  11/19  at  01:20 AM

  9. #3 “call to action that reflects biblical injunctions to separate from those who do harm to the cause of Jesus Christ.”

    Akinola et al. do harm to the cause of Christ by such spiteful actions as this (and many others).  By the standard suggested here, Akinola et al. must separate from themselves.  A (Global South) house divided cannot stand.

    Posted by  on  11/19  at  02:01 AM

  10. The whole thing is fictional--no one is being consulted save at the primatical level.

    Posted by  on  11/19  at  03:40 AM

  11. Priase God that He has raised up such a man as Peter Akinola for such a time as this!

    Posted by  on  11/19  at  04:48 AM

  12. I thank God for +Akinola for speaking what needs saying. We will see where people stand as a result. If people want to remove their names, may they do so but I pray God gives them courage not to do so and that they will stand firm.

    Posted by  on  11/19  at  07:46 AM

  13. Wow! This blog is getting off to an interesting start. Almost makes one long for Kendall’s elves.

    Laurence: “a personal and tempestuous public attack.” L.—Give the letter a read. It is clear in what it asks, but respectful of ++Rowan.

    Ray: “extremist Puritans.” Would this be an ad hominem attack or something worse?

    Ben: “++Akinola is posing.” See above. And Ben even knows the meaning of ad hominem.

    Marc: “such spiteful actions as this.” See suggestion to read the letter.

    But Jim--The questions the Global South letter put to ++Rowan were considerably more carefully stated than your formulation: “This is not a difficult question to ponder.  It is clearly against scripture and is sinful by its very nature.  … It is a simple question of acknowledging their sins and repenting.” This is probably the conviction of many GS leaders, but they are approaching this crisis through the structures of the Communion and that is not so simple. R. Gagnon’s book on this, which comes down on your side, takes multiple hundreds of pages to do it.

    Posted by  on  11/19  at  11:26 AM

  14. I couldn’t help but chuckle at all the fire and bluster on re-appraisers’ parts to Archbishop Akinola’s comments angry .
    I wonder if they’d have tried the same nonsense with the Apostle Paul almost 2000 years ago when he wrote to the Corinthians about sexual immorality in the church and his cure for it ala 1 Cor.5:1-13 or when he included the ‘sexually immoral,idolaters,adulterers,men who practice homosexuality,thieves.....revilers and swindlers’ among those who won’t be found in the kingdom of God in 1 Cor.6:9-10.
    Archbishop Akinola is in good company.

    Posted by  on  11/19  at  12:08 PM

  15. Somebody please strip this discussion of the tonnes of verbiage! Is the Bible still the compass for true Christian living? Is homosexuality biblical or not? Has it been proposed yet thaty gay Christians be excommunicated? I thought all of these was brought upon Chrstendom by the insistence of this minority that they not only have a right to ignore the Bible but also have the right to lead us in that direction! Thanks Akinola and Co for standing for that which endures TRUTH

    Posted by  on  11/19  at  05:22 PM

  16. But Remi - a simple question of truth is presented here - did +Handford agree to be a signatory or not -He asserts that his name has been associated with the letter without permission - this is a very serious charge calling into question the integrity of the process of the compostion of the letter.  Perhaps erroneous assumptions were made which led to this error - in which case a simple apology and correction would settle the matter.  The tone of the press release from +Akinola is not helpful.

    An altogether more constructive tone is found in +Handford’s press release. He calls for a more sincere involvement in the process recommended in the Windsor Report: “This calls for dialogue between persons on all sides of the debate which recognises the integrity of those from whom we differ. No one party has a monopoly of the truth. All treat scripture seriously and it is essential that we are open to sharing our insights” It would be helpful for all to see the wisdom in this comment. 

    My background and theological training was thoroughly evangelical.  In recent years I have been pleasantly surprised by the serious godly lives of christians who would be viewed as from the liberal camp.  These value the insights found in scripture and feel that a major part of the problem we face today springs from too little study of the Bible. So much can be gained from seeing the way in which Bible writers and early believers struggled with the implications of the gospel of our Lord and it’s application to their life situation.  Such study can be humbling and enlightening.

    Earlier this week the AbofC encouraged C of E synod members to reach outside of their own camp to pray and study with a fellow believer from a different side of the sexuality debate - this could also be of value for those of us not in any synod.

    Posted by  on  11/20  at  07:04 AM

  17. Yes Ray, simple questions of truth. Was the respected President Handford privy to the draft? Did he raise any objections immediately or at anytime before the letter went public. Yes he had to leave before the Encounter ended, but surely he could have conveyed his reservations by phone, fax or e-mail. Letter 20 surely cannot be described as rushed!

    You see, Ray if I prepared a document in the name of a group to which you belong and passed it on to you for your contribution and you chose not to; there are a range of interpretation to give to your action. “Consent”, “indifference” or “time to think required” would all rate higher than “no no”.

    You said nobody has a monopoly of truth and that is precisely the issue. Truth is a monopoly of sort; it is impossible for truth to reside on both sides; certainly not on this issue. One side HAS to be in error. That was why I asked the question whether the Bible remains our standards or not and if it still is does it approve of homosexuality.

    My brother, I agree with you that we can and must benefit from the humility that a deeper study of the Bible affords, but man forever the word of the Lord is settled and no sociological caveats will change its import and essence.

    Thank God for dialogue and prayer across this unnecessary divide. I am all for it and so should we all. But the dialogue is fast becoming that of the deaf! Those pushing the gay agenda are moving full blast ahead as if to make the process irreversible; giving no thought for the possibility that they may have been had by the adversary afterall! Consider this for a moment, Ray.

    You posited that “So much can be gained from seeing the way in which Bible writers and early believers struggled with the implications of the gospel of our Lord and it’s application to their life situation”. How thoughtful! My take on that is this: did they receive any help from the Holy Spirit? Or were they “struggling with the implications...and applications...” all on their own? Ray, my Bible says they were inspired to write and I choose to believe the Bible.

    Posted by  on  11/20  at  12:09 PM

  18. It is wise, when composing and sending a group letter, to obtain the signature of each member of the group on the document or appended to it, so that there are no misunderstandings that are embarrassing after the fact. In addition, it provides a powerful statement of unity.

    Posted by  on  11/20  at  12:19 PM

  19. Sure Ginny. But it is probably wiser not to withhold our opinions for or against a document prepared on our behalf at the first opportunity -if we have any.

    Posted by  on  11/20  at  02:09 PM

  20. Now as a second reply I would like to briefly consider Remi’s points about truth and inspiration.

    The statement that “No one party has a monopoly of the truth” is quoted from Bishop Handford’s letter.  He goes on to acknowledge that “ all treat scripture seriously” but it is true that some statements of scripture, as 2 Peter warns us, are “hard to understand” and need careful interpretation.  Sometime equally faithful christians differ on how scripture is to be understood.

    Yes scripture is inspired of God but that doesn’t mean that we don’t have to engage in the difficult task of discerning its meaning and its relevance for us.

    One evangelical archbishop discussing the recognition of the canon of scripture by the church and the work of the spirit in determining the limits of the canon suggests that “In theory at least, it may be possible for a forgery to be discovered (say among the Pauline letters)and discarded from the canon” He says this in the context of stressing the need for us to continue to conside what speaks to us as God’s word.

    Yes the Bible is inpired but we mighr be mistaken about the limits of the canon, we might disagree about the interpretation and application of scripture.

    Remi, you make it sound so simple, you remind me of the certainty of the Jehovah’s Witness who tell me that it’s wrong to have a blood transfusion because doing so goes against the plain meaning of scripture (Lev 17 Acts 15 etc)

    If archbishops struggle to interpret correctly the silences or statements of their colleagues. What hope do we have in developing a scripturally adequate Christocentric theology of human relationships.  But in faith I believe that we can do just that. It will take time and a willingness to submit party loyalties to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  Lets walk this path together.

    Posted by  on  11/21  at  07:41 AM

  21. I’ll take the liberty of submitting two replies:

    One to Remi’s and Ginny’s points about the inclusion of Bishop Handford’s name as a signatory of this letter.

    Bishop Handford himself said that this was done without his permission.  Now Remi, you suggest that if a document is circulated a non-response can be interpreted in at least 4 different ways.  Ginny offers a simple administrative procedure that could prevent any misunderstandings.  It is a pity that the issuers of the letter did not think so clearly.

    Posted by  on  11/21  at  07:48 AM

  22. Thanks Ray, but I think it is more the pity that
    even at such levels people can either not make up there minds to accept or reject a document they are privy to as early as the draft stage or chicken out later when the impact becomes felt! Ginny’s administrative procedure is great wisdom - after the event! Can we expect some courage among men who lead?! Akinola and Co must be wondering now who to trust.

    Posted by  on  11/21  at  08:11 AM

  23. Alas, it is an unfortunate feature of human nature that humans do not perceive, much less recall, events in the same way. So much communication is nuanced and so many thoughts and mental reservations unspoken, that is hard to speak or act confidently for another, or to fully know the mind of another. Short of an intense intimacy, writing is as close as we can come. I think that is why wills, deeds, powers of attorney, treaties, and other important documents must be in writing and signed by the makers.

    Think of the power of all those signatures on the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers would have gone berserk if someone had just passed around a draft and then issued it to the British (ironic, isn’t it?) with someone’s name on it without writing affirmation. The Revolution would never have gotten off the ground as the FFs quarreled among one another.

    Then compound that with the realities of different cultures, different customs, even different languages and rhetorical habits among those present, and bang, it’s just dangerous to assume consent from silence even if it seemed perfectly reasonable to the person who decided to do that.

    Ginny

    Posted by  on  11/21  at  08:56 AM

  24. the anglican brotherhood is becoming more of an ideological ‘ism’ than the body of Christ. The present embattlements is an exercise in vanity fair.  The foundation of the Lord standeth sure with the inscription; ‘the Lord knows those who are his’ Our disagreements are sure proofs of our imperfect state.

    Posted by  on  11/22  at  12:26 AM

  25. Ginny we are getting carried away ain’t we - with all that analogy of DI and the FFs. Letter 20 is not exactly a UDI ala Rhodesia! It is and remains, no matter all posturings to the contrary, a civil continuation of the family dialogue over a very contentious issue. I suspect that if its intent had been otherwise, the procedure would have been more legalistic. In the event, those who hold the content of the document as having been vitiated by the Handford disclaimer may well have read it as the first step in the direction of a revolution; for which the formidable size and cohesion of the rebel army must be on display to intimidate the opponent. No, I dont think, (indeed I pray) it will ever come to that.

    And thanks Fyneface, we all need to be reminded of our imperfections.

    Posted by  on  11/22  at  06:48 AM
    26. Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: About this Global South Anglican Web

Previous entry: Mission News: A Nigerian Bishop was consecrated to serve as a Missionary Bishop in the Congo

<< Back to main