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. Yes, I think you could well be right, Remi - The response letter is no great earthshaking document and has little of import that should detain us for long - however the way it was publically released did appear to be claiming a degree of significance which its contents do not warrant, hence the appropriateness of Ginny’s comments.

    But this whole episode did us the valuable service of drawing forth Bishop Handford’s far shorter response which to me does make at least one important point, as I tried to indicate in comment #16 above, which can inform and guide our ongoing family dialogue

    Posted by  on  11/22  at  07:32 AM

  2. I believe I read somewhere that the letter was not sent to the other sites or news agencies. It was posted here and there is a preamble stating it’s primary reasons:
    “This letter is posted here for the benefit of those who attended the Encounter and the people they represent. Archbishop Rowan William’s talk and sharing was appreciated and well received with deep gratitude, though as expected, it will raise some questions as well, some which were conveyed by the delegates to the Primates. This letter is a part of the on-going process of dialogue between Global South and the Archbishop of Canterbury and should not be interpreted in other unhelpful ways.”

    It’s public release then was for Global South folks, who have heard ++Rowan, to be aware of how their Primates are reacting to his position, if I can read the statement correctly.
    I think it is the rest of us which in the way we responded, has distorted the sigificance and effect of the letter.

    Posted by  on  11/22  at  07:41 AM

  3. I am hoping that Remi is right and my comments are hyperbolic. In a charged atmosphere things can take on possibly unwarranted significance. I appreciate the dialogue.

    Posted by  on  11/22  at  07:52 AM

  4. Thanks Ray and Ginny. It was nice “meeting” you. All glory to the King of kings and Lord of lords.

    Posted by  on  11/22  at  12:53 PM

  5. Of all that I’ve read here so far, this strikes me as the most worrisome sentiment:

    “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.”

    I would’ve thought that Jesus’ very raison d’etre was to get as close as he could to everyone who needed him. He mixed with those most ostricised by the religious establishment, and never shied from those who might cause himn difficulty. If you happen to think people who’re homosexual are sinful, then cutting yourself off is perhaps the least biblical thing to do.

    As a Methodist, I sincerely hope and pray all of you - my anglican sisters and borthers - maintain yourself as a viable communion. As we move closer in relationship, it would be terribley sad if I find that there are only factions remaining, with which to share a common life.

    Posted by Laurence  on  11/22  at  11:50 PM

  6. The mind of Christ is that the tares and the wheat must grow together on to the day of harvest.  Cantuar must never be misread.  Formation of new blocs is a wrrong response to the issue of sin in the church no matter its nature.  Let’s heed Chist more than Paul or any of his interpreters.  I plead with the GSA leadership to pray more and act less in their current line.  Enough of these divisions since the St. Louis Concordat.

    Posted by  on  11/24  at  12:26 AM

  7. My faith in and relationship with Christ will long survive the collapse of the Anglican Communion and of the Episcopal Church, but I regard either as a tragic loss to humankind. On the other hand, unless someone is bluffing, one or both appears inevitable.

    And I do not think anyone is bluffing. Best I can tell, all parties believe deeply that they are right and that’s that. Sometimes things fall apart and you just have to accept it.

    So far, no one has asked my opinion, and even if they asked me, my human frailty does not discern a way forward except through faith in God to sort it out in the end.

    Ginny

    Posted by  on  11/24  at  06:00 AM

  8. England’s church Times reports Friday 26th that three Primates never saw a revised draft of the letter before it was sent - not there, not by phone not by email - and neveragreed to their names being attached to it, even as a private letter, still less a public one.

    This is a bad own goal by ++Akinola. Is it him, or are there other players behind him?

    I was wondering if there were any advisers at the GSE in Egypt whose names do not appear on participants lists? Can anyone from GSE comment?

    Posted by  on  11/28  at  08:24 AM

  9. Revjez

    I think everything is out in the open on this site: the releases, the letters, the delegates list etc This site appears to be pretty transparent, perhaps a bit unusual in these days.

    The release of the letter and the process seem like a mistake to me. Why would anyone imagine there is a conspiracy? What would Akinola and co. gain from this public release of the letter? Would it not serve their purpose best if they have kept it private?

    I think being shrewd is not the forte of the GS leaders but I rather trust them (even if they make mistakes) then those who for centuries have been manipulating and influencing the agenda of the Anglican Church through wealth, influence, pressure and voice.

    (And oh, what a communique. Thanks GS folks. I am still chewing on it.)

    Posted by  on  11/28  at  10:45 AM

  10. First off the media in today’s world are famous for their “spin” on any news item. They also come off to me to be anti-Christian as they will jump on any item that is detrimental and worry it to death. How can any thinking man rely on the media as a sole sorce of information when it is blatently biased.

    I thank God for people like bishop Akinola who speak out on this contriversial and most important matter. He, with much honor, has offered to remove any name on the list that now have objections in being included. No one twisted the arms of the signers. I feel the news media, once again, is reporting rumor rather than fact. Let us wait and see how many want their names removed before casting dispersions.

    I pray constantly for Archbishop Williams. He has been handed a giant kettle of fish by the wayward American Bishops who are accomplishing nothing more than to create chaos. You know the tree by the fruit it bears. We all need to pray for the Archbishop and the whole state of the Church, that God’s guidance be forthcomming to all.

    Marlin

    Posted by  on  11/28  at  10:45 PM

  11. Is it ever morally justified to use a personal signature when it has not been specifically authorized by the person. That is considered a crime in some countries. What might ask if this is a case of pretenting that the ends justify the means. Is the show of unity in support of the document more important then clear authorization to sign the document?

    Posted by  on  12/03  at  10:36 AM

  12. There seems to be some misunderstanding here. The article above seems quite clear and offers to remove the name of any one who has changed their mind.

    Then again if they had objections to having their names made public then they should have gone through proper channels themselves instead of going to the press.

    Posted by  on  12/08  at  01:45 AM
    13. Page 2 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