Friday, 30 September 2005

more Nigerian stuff

From the official Nigerian website:
PRESS BRIEFING BY THE PRIMATE OF ALL NIGERIA, THE MOST REV’D PETER J. AKINOLA ON THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 29, 2005 which should be read in full, but includes this:

To refresh your memories, in Onitsha we took a number of actions to clarify our commitment to the apostolic faith. One of the things we did to strengthen this position was to amend our constitution.

Our amended constitution deleted all such references that hold colonial intonation defining us with the See of Canterbury and replaced them with a new provision of Communion with all Anglican Churches, Dioceses and Provinces that hold and maintain the Historic Faith, Doctrine, Sacrament and Discipline of the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

This action has been largely misrepresented by those who think that schism in the Anglican Church has become inevitable following the disarray the United States and the Canadian Churches brought on the Communion because of their revisionist agenda on homosexuality. And most recently the House of Bishops of the Church of England’s apparent double-speak on the Civil Partnerships Act that comes into force by December 5, this year.

There is also this paragraph towards the end of the much earlier release MESSAGE TO THE NATION

CHRISTIAN ORTHODOX DOCTRINE ON HUMAN SEXUALITY:

The Synod condemns the position the House of Bishops of the Church of England has taken regarding human sexuality which runs contrary to the decision taken at the All Primates Meetings, and commends the untiring effort of our Primate and other like-minded Primates for maintaining their stand on Christian orthodoxy, and calls on all doctrinally alert Anglican to stand up in defence of New Testament Christianity, as opposed to the revisionist theology of ECUSA, the Church of Canada and the Church of England.

And this Open Letter from the Archbishop of Nigeria to his Fellow Anglican Leaders (which I haven’t yet found on the official website)

The press briefing (first item above) has resulted in press reports such as:
Mail & Guardian Online Nigerian archbishop warns of break with mother church
Washington Post Nigerian Warns of Split From British Church
Reuters Nigeria archbishop sees pro-gays leaving Anglicanism

An earlier report, in the Church Times of last week, is here: Nigerians distance themselves from Canterbury

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 30 September 2005 at 11:52pm BST
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Anglican Communion
Comments

The triennial Synod of the Church amended the language of our constitution so that those who are bent on creating a new religion in which anything goes, and have thereby chosen to walk a different path may do so without us.

The Big Lie, once more. Of course, I want a church in which not anything goes. Among other things, I want a church in which bigotry most certainly does not go.

Akinola, as Official Chief Bigot of the Anglican Communion (or what's become of it) would of course be welcome, for he and I disagree about what "going" amounts to. I mean that the church would preach and teach against bigotry, including his form of it, but the bigots, himself included, are, well, included.

That doesn't mean that everything goes; what it means is that everyone is loved. Love is manifest in actions, not press releases or declarations. Love is manifest in acts of kindness and gentleness, acts of listening and partnership, not in acts of condemnation, schism, and--yes--dishonesty.

Posted by: Thomas Bushnell, BSG on Saturday, 1 October 2005 at 4:15am BST

Actually the plain reading of the press conference release is that Nigeria has thrown in the towel.

They will decide the members of the true faith.

We'll see when they publicise exactly who is who.

They "broke communion" years ago over OW and, I suspect, will never return.

YMMV

Posted by: Tim Stewart on Saturday, 1 October 2005 at 4:19am BST

Well, given that the definition of being Anglican is looking towards canterbury, I think this is doublespeak.

What they are saying is that the CofE isn't really Anglican any more. That is simply an impossibility.

What they also mean is that they will attempt to portray their Communion as true Anglicanism, defined by conservative theology, suggesting that the CofE is no longer Anglican.

I just wish they would get on with it. And that Reform , Anglican Extreme and their acolytes will go with them.

Posted by: Merseymike on Saturday, 1 October 2005 at 11:03am BST

Yes, how dare the African colonists have the temerity to think and act for themselves.

Of course when the Americans by their unilateral actions placed themselves outside the bounds of traditional Anglcanism, that was to be praised and cheered on.

Posted by: Dave C. on Saturday, 1 October 2005 at 2:25pm BST

Archbishop Akinola opens his briefing by referring to "the Anglican Communion, where by the divine providence, I serve to lead and lead to serve." This seems to be an emphatic assertion of personal leadership in the whole Anglican Communion which I have not seen him make before.

He refers to "colonial intonation defining us with the See of Canterbury". Yet Canterbury as the focus of unity is the underpinning of the Anglican Communion even in the Windsor report: it has nothing to do with "colonial intonation". Was it "colonial intonation" when Canterbury, long before a British Empire, before even a British state come to that, before even the split from Rome, took precedence over York? It is mischievous to equate ecclesiastical order with colonialism.

He complains of misrepresentation "by those who think that schism in the Anglican Church has become inevitable". But he goes on to say "We have chosen not to be yoked" to provinces which appear to include, at least, "the United States", "the Canadian Churches" and "the Church of England".

It is also striking how *fast* he is moving in all of this.

Posted by: badman on Saturday, 1 October 2005 at 5:28pm BST

Merseymike, "What they are saying is that the CofE isn't really Anglican any more. That is simply an impossibility."
Really?
You mean the CofE could potentially deny everything Anglicanism stands for doctrinally and expect to still be regarded as Anglican?! I guess that would mean that to be "Anglican" was totally meaningless.

Badman, I reckon 2 years since the Gene Robinson affair kicked off is not moving *fast*. It is incredibly patient and restrained - and it is clear that aciton is not precipitative but is reluctant.

Posted by: Neil on Saturday, 1 October 2005 at 6:23pm BST

Yes, Neil. Churches are Anglican if they relate to the See of Canterbury, nothing more.

If those churches choose to move away from that, they will no longer be Anglican. They may call themselves Anglican, as I am sure Akinola will christen his new denomination in that fashion, but they will be no more Anglican than any o0ther break-away

Its clear enough that a break away, disguised as 'continuing Anglicanism' is on the cards, so can we make it quick please - cancer does have this habit of spreading, and an excision would be preferable.

Posted by: Merseymike on Saturday, 1 October 2005 at 10:33pm BST

Sorry Merseymike, but, if you were right, that 'church' would bear no resemblance whatsoever to the Church of God. And God would spit it out of His mouth.

Posted by: Neil on Saturday, 1 October 2005 at 11:31pm BST

"Of course when the Americans by their unilateral actions placed themselves outside the bounds of traditional Anglcanism, that was to be praised and cheered on."

What on earth do you mean by "unilateral"? Do you mean that there are no supporters of the Episcopal Church across the Anglican world?

More of the Big Lie.

Posted by: Thomas Bushnell, BSG on Sunday, 2 October 2005 at 4:29am BST

Thats your conservative evangelical opinion, Neil. I take it that you will be joining Akinola as he departs from Anglicanism?

Posted by: Merseymike on Sunday, 2 October 2005 at 2:53pm BST

No, I do not mean there were no supporters (but all four Anglican instruments of unity were against it, Abp. of Canterbury, Lambeth Conference, the Primates, the Anglican Consultative Council). That a tiny percentage of Anglicans outside the US did support it does not affect the comparison I was making, and that is, why are there now such apoplectic fits by those who approved the American action when the Nigerians dare to do something on their own?

Posted by: Dave C. on Sunday, 2 October 2005 at 7:07pm BST

One word (among others) that comes to mind as I read the words and hear of the works of Abp Akinola is "irascible." I grow weary of the shell-game of bluster followed by explanation. Clearly the Archbishop is "in a mood."
Check in by month's end to see how far the towel has been thrown, the relative width and chilliness of the Rubicon versus the Tiber, and whether Iacta Ale[xandri]a est!

Posted by: Tobias Haller on Sunday, 2 October 2005 at 9:45pm BST

"That a tiny percentage of Anglicans outside the US did support it..."

Bean-counting: *irrelevant* to discerning the Truth.

[It *is* relevant to democratic structures---i.e., majority-rule---but ONLY where those structures are so *constituted* (such as the General Convention of ECUSA). Majority-rule can be deeply WRONG, or course. But the same democratic process can then, at least, correct such errors (unlike Primatial monarchism, where "L'iglese ce moi'"). Would that *every* Province of the AC had such democracy!]

Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Sunday, 2 October 2005 at 11:20pm BST

Merseymike: "Churches are Anglican if they relate to the See of Canterbury, nothing more"

Sorry Merseymike, it seems that definition is changing to:

"Churches are Anglican if they were started directly or indirectly by the Church of England AND remain in the teachings recorded in the Holy Scriptures first and foremost, with the Articles, and ordinal of 1662 as additional guides."

Even you must agree that makes much more sense. If in doubt, Try Jer. 7: 8 -14 for clarifications.

Posted by: Tunde on Monday, 3 October 2005 at 11:03am BST

I have just read this series of comments and would like to add my own.
It seems to me that when I read the words of Bishop Akinola - in his press releases and in his letters - there is a particularly unpleasant slant to his language. I cannot imagine Jesus saying similar things were he here today.
Yet when I read the writings of the Bishops of the USA and Cananda, I find a very restrained, even humble approach to how they represent this problem.

I am inclined to judge the validity of the sides by the way in which they represent Jesus in the world - the work of the Holy Spirit in people produces the fruit of the Spirit in their lives. So my vote has to go with the so-called revisionists.

But I do agree with the comment that says let the split be quick.

Posted by: kath on Monday, 3 October 2005 at 1:05pm BST

What is all the fuss really about? The Anglican Church of Nigeria has made their decision based on their beliefs, or should I say interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, just as ECUSA, the Church of Canada and the CoE. The question of who's right and who's wrong doesn't arise in my opinion, because how do I or anybody else for that matter, know who's right and who's wrong. Should the Anglican Worldwide Communion split, which it is unlikely to do, more it is going to take a new shape, is more likely than not the fault of Church itself. One of the fundamental weaknesses of our Church, I have always believed, is that it has never had centralised authority over the Provinces, despite the many differences of opinion and interpretation, you've never heard of a likely schism being talked about with regards the Roman Catholic Church. At the end of the day, the bible's teaching is clear and unambigous, tolerance, love and compassion does not in my book, mean accept. Compromise begets evil, that's what I believe. What the world will accept, the Church should not, for we are commanded to "stand as a light in the world, against sin the world and the devil", how can we do that if our action mirror those of the world. Abp Akinola should be commended for standing up for what he believes, after all Christ himself stood up for the Faith without compromise, alteration or modification. He built on but did not change the fundamental teaching of the Old Testament. ECUSA, the CoC and CoE have chosen not to build on but to change.

Posted by: Kat on Monday, 3 October 2005 at 3:07pm BST

The issue is one of power as well as about how the church views and accept homosexuality. Mr. Akinola appears to be using the second to pursue the first. On his return Jesus will no more wear a cross than allow more people to be crucified. I will pray for Mr. Akinola and all leaders to become calm and reasoned, and slow to anger and rejection. I will also pray that we can become comfortable with disagreeing as a status quo for the time being.

Posted by: Jimmy Cannuck on Monday, 3 October 2005 at 6:36pm BST

Kath wrote:

"Yet when I read the writings of the Bishops of the USA and Cananda, I find a very restrained, even humble approach to how they represent this problem."

That may be because you agree with 'em, Kath! I find their style rather irritating in its Uriah Heapish sanctimony. "We're ever so 'umble, and ever so reasonable, but we'll carry on doing what we like."

Posted by: Alan Harrison on Tuesday, 4 October 2005 at 12:01am BST

It is unbelievably baffling that so-called believers have chosen not to believe in the standards of Christ, but in wordly standards. Am I to believe that there is no difference between the two? Or are we to say, o well, there is no difference between the two? I am deeply worried about Christianity, especially the Anglican branch.

Posted by: Ralph on Tuesday, 4 October 2005 at 1:30am BST

Archbishop Yong's reported comments in Nigeria (where he was a guest speaker) are also very concerning "I am not going to let my pulpit get defiled by people who don't accept the gospel. If you want to preach in my province I will allow you as long as you are from Nigeria. But if it is from America I have to check. Even from England now, I may have to check". This is a highly irresponsible statement from a man 6 months away from retirement. Under what authority does he feel he can ban American and US preachers, not only in his own Diocese, but in the rest of the Province - including the more traditionally Anglo-Catholic Diocese of Kuching? We must hope and pray that both Diocesan Bishop Elect Albert Vun, and the new Archbishop (I assume Bishop Lim of West Malaysia) distance themselves from the more extreme expressions of the current primate.

Posted by: Graham on Tuesday, 4 October 2005 at 12:59pm BST

“Yes, how dare the African colonists have the temerity to think and act for themselves.”-- Dave C.

Um, err, Dave—the Africans, Akinola included, are not “colonists.” They are native born Africans. (Unless, of course, you were talking about the Afro-American colonists of Liberia, in West Africa, for example; the Americo-Liberians. Established by the American Colonization Society, and various American State manumition and colonization societies, Liberia was the only African nation to be founded by Americans).

“Of course when the Americans by their unilateral actions placed themselves outside the bounds of traditional Anglicanism, that was to be praised and cheered on.”—Dave C.

I would agree with you that more consultation and consideration of the feelings of our friends in other countries would be good for the American Episcopal Church. “Unilateralism” is somewhat of an American national trait, and not one that I particularly am proud of. On the other hand, we have to do what the Spirit guides us to do, even if that angers others. We are not going to treat some people as second-class citizens for Akinola or anyone else—HM the Queen, included.

The Anglican Communion is as much a product of Americans—and Canadians after 1787—as it is the peoples of the British Isles. The first American Anglican was baptized in 1587; we have parishes which were founded before the English Civil War; we received the gift of the episcopate from bishops of the Scottish Church in 1784. We have, in turn, have sent Anglican missionaries to all parts of the globe during the past 200 years. An "Anglican Communion" without the American and Canadian Churches is about as unthinkable as one without Canterbury.

It's time for Akinola and his supporters to go--whether they be in Nigeria, Pittsburgh, or Manchester.

Posted by: Kurt on Tuesday, 4 October 2005 at 3:32pm BST

Tunde: "Churches are Anglican if they were started directly or indirectly by the Church of England AND remain in the teachings recorded in the Holy Scriptures first and foremost, with the Articles, and ordinal of 1662 as additional guides."

By definition, that excludes the CofE (as that church cannot have been started by itself...)

Anyway, 'Anglican' can only mean 'of England', which is why churches in the USA and Scotland use 'episcopal' as a description. A church not in communion with the Church of England cannot be described as 'Anglican', whatever else it may share in doctrine or history.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the ECUSA and Canadian actions that seem to be at the root of this, Abp Akinola is using the language of all those who change allegiance in the political world - "I didn't leave the party, the party left me and all those who uphold the true values of the party" (see the late Social Democratic Party, the unfortunately still breathing Democratic Unionist Party and any number of floor-crossers for the past fifty years in the UK)

Posted by: Richard M on Tuesday, 4 October 2005 at 4:01pm BST

"It's time for Akinola and his supporters to go--whether they be in Nigeria, Pittsburgh, or Manchester."

"I take it that you will be joining Akinola as he departs from Anglicanism?"

We don't seem to be getting this do we?

Akinola is Anglican whether you like it or not.
Those who uphold and "contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3) are not leaving.

It is those who insist on denying the basic foundation of Anglicanism who have already left Anglicanism.

Posted by: Neil on Tuesday, 4 October 2005 at 5:34pm BST

No, Neil. Wrong.

Anglicans are those in communion with the See of Canterbury.

Should Akinola decide to do that, he will no longer be an Anglican, whatever he decides to call his proposed new Fundamentalist Reformed Protestant Conservative Communion.

if you follow him out of a church looking towards Canterbury, then you will no longer be an Anglican either.

Posted by: Merseymike on Tuesday, 4 October 2005 at 11:13pm BST

"Akinola is Anglican whether you like it or not."--Neil

I would argue that the members of the “Continuum” are also Anglicans. They are just not members of the Anglican Communion.

When Akinola and his followers leave the Anglican Communion, I for one, will still consider them Anglicans. I will be very thankful to God, however, that they have left. Hopefully Duncan et. al. in the United States will follow them out. I don't know of any "Network" supporters within 100 miles of New York City; perhaps there are some outside of Hartford, CT.

Posted by: Kurt on Tuesday, 4 October 2005 at 11:46pm BST

The Episcopal church in America is called episcopal in order to set it apart from England (not to necessarily cut it off) after the American Revolution since England was no longer popular due to the Revolution. It does not mean that the Episcopal church was not Anglican but was an attempt to americanize the church.

Posted by: RG on Wednesday, 5 October 2005 at 2:12am BST

The Windsor Report contains a useful description of the Anglican Communion:

"Various different but interlocking descriptions of the Anglican Communion exist amongst us. The Lambeth Conference has described the Anglican Communion as a fellowship of churches in communion with the See of Canterbury[26]. Individual provinces express their own communion relationships in a variety of juridical forms, as: bipartite (in communion with Canterbury)[27]; multipartite (in communion with all Anglican churches)[28]; or simply through the idea of “belonging to the Anglican Communion”[29]. Communion is therefore a relationship between churches (institutional or ecclesial communion) as well as between individual Christians (personal communion)."

26. Lambeth Conference 1930 Resolution 49
27. e.g. “The Church of Ireland will maintain communion with the sister Church of England”: Ireland, Constitution, Preamble and Declaration, III.
28. e.g. “The Church of Nigeria shall be in full Communion with the See of Canterbury and with all dioceses, provinces and regional Churches which are in full Communion with the See of Canterbury:” Nigeria, Constitution, Chapter 1.3(1).
29. e.g. “The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America ... is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion”, a fellowship of churches “in communion with the See of Canterbury”: ECUSA, Constitution, Preamble

I would have to say that, by any of these definitions, in cutting themselves off from Dioceses and Provinces which remain part of that Communion, Akinola, Yong, Venables et al have themselves already left that communion.

Posted by: Graham on Wednesday, 5 October 2005 at 8:33am BST

I guess the real problem affecting the Anglican Communion is that no one, in the hierarchy that is, is willing to open their eyes and acknowledge what is clearly written on the wall. The Communion as espoused in all former resolutions and reports no longer exists, squarely because of the ECUSA and the unability of the ABC to restrain them.

Look no further than practise, in a communion one would expect that the same priviledges and courtesies are extended to all members, according to their offices, yet there are Anglican Churches of the South that have not, since the ordination of women became a practise, recognized nor extended to women priests the same courtesies and privileges they would their male counterparts, the same goes for women bishop's. This is when the communion really ceased to exist in everything but on paper.

The events leading up to, surrounding and after homosexual priests, a homosexual bishop and homosexuals in general, can probably be equalled to the an eruption of a volcano rather than the tremors preceeding it, and that none of the leaders of our church are willing to accept this, says much.

I guess it is more prestigious to allege to lead a Global communion than to admit that you actually lead a hemispheric one or a continental one at that. Lambeth has no authority, persuasive or otherwise over ECUSA and CoC and is in my opinion desperately trying to hold onto that it has over the Churches of the South, who, it might be construed, as a sign of their own weakness, appear to lack the will to go their own way.

+Akinola for his part, has dared do what his fellow Abps have lacked in courage to do, he has spoken for what he believes, however what he needs to do now is to act, just as the ECUSA and CoC spoke and acted, so too must the South act. Make no mistake, he has spoke for their majority, what is needed now if for them all to band together on the frontline and act. The time to end this marriage of convinience is now, the time for the Primates of the so called Worldwide Anglican Communion to get together to change their definition of Communion is long past and the communion long dead, it's now time to pull the plug and lay it to rest.

Posted by: Kat on Wednesday, 5 October 2005 at 11:22am BST

From the opposite point of view, I agree. I think it would be greatly preferable if Akinola and his followers started an alternative denomination.

Posted by: Merseymike on Wednesday, 5 October 2005 at 9:42pm BST

Kurt - "I don't know of any "Network" supporters within 100 miles of New York City; perhaps there are some outside of Hartford, CT."

Lucky you. Wish I could say the same about my Diocese (Dallas), but you can't throw a rock around here w/o hitting one.

As far as "Pope Peter the First of Alexandria," I'll have to agree with MM, et al. If you're out of communion with the Abp. of Caterbury and the CoE, then you ain't Anglican. It's like calling your church "Roman Catholic" while being out of communion with the Vatican...

Would they still be Christian ? Of course, but Anglican ? Hardly.

Posted by: Simeon on Wednesday, 5 October 2005 at 11:32pm BST

First of all, thanks Kurt for the comment on the American role in building the Anglican Communion in the first place. This is what we mean by the words "constituent member" in our Preamble (admittedly a late -- 1967 -- addition to our Consitution.) That means that should the Episcopal Church be exiled from the Anglican Communion, the Communion will cease being what it was -- that's what happens when you remove constituent parts of things.

On a related matter, with all the excitement about the excision of references to Canterbury from the Nigerian Constitution, I think the really telling excision was the removal of the latter half of the clause: "The Church of Nigeria shall be in full Communion with the See of Canterbury and with all Dioceses, Provinces and Regional Churches which are in full Communion with the see of Canterbury."

This brought Nigeria into conformity, ex post facto, with its earlier declaration that it was no longer in Communion with the Episcopal Church or the Church of Canada. It also opens the door to any other declaration the Nigerian leadership deems -- in their sole judgment -- prudent to make as they dice and mince the Communion to their liking.

Posted by: Tobias Haller on Thursday, 6 October 2005 at 12:25am BST

I find myself in agreement with Kat on one point, and one point only; we should promptly dissolve the bonds between Nigeria and its supporters, and Canterbury and its supporters. This has become a struggle between those Anglicans who see the Church as formed in the love of Christ, or the Church of the Good Shepherd and the Good Samaritan, versus those Anglicans, such as the Primates of Nigeria and Southwest Asia and Rwanda, who can only see the Church as formed by a pharisaical approach to scripture. This goes way beyond the homosexual "compatibility-with-Christianity" issue, and gets into the heart of what Jesus was trying to teach to stubborn hearts and minds. Archbishop Akinola seems to think that he is a new Anglican Pope, who is entitled to define, for the rest of the Anglican Communion, just what is true and what is not true, and just who is acceptable and who must be shunned. Interestingly, nobody in authority, to my knowledge, in Canada or in the US or in England, is making a case for sexual license, whether heterosexual or homosexual. But Archbishop Akinola seems to be really hung up on homosexuality of any kind, whether in committed relationships or not. As a heterosexual and happily, and faithfully, married father of three, I have witnessed committed homosexual relationships of one set of neighbors, and one set of business-based friends; the latter have adopted two girls from China, and are loving and caring fathers. They are no more excluded from the love of Christ, than is the dear Archbishop, despite his lack of love for people like them. I understand homophobia, and the cultures, such as that of Nigeria, that can breed that, but that does not mean that we should let people like the Archbishop, and his relatively few fans on the fringes of the Episcopal Church, define the future of the Anglican Communion. I wish him well, but, please, leave as soon as possible so that the rest of us can get on with the real mission of the Church of Christ.

Posted by: Gerard Hannon on Thursday, 6 October 2005 at 12:46am BST

What holds the Anglican Communion together? There are 4 instruments of Anglican unity. Imperfect as they are, they are what we have. The American actions were opposed by all 4 instruments. How many are opposed to the actions of the Nigerians? We as individuals can sit around pontificating all we want, but it seems to me if we are talking about unity of the Anglican Communion, the discussion needs to incorporate the view of the 4 instruments of unity.

Posted by: Dave C. on Thursday, 6 October 2005 at 5:58am BST

Linguistically, this is getting difficult. I think we need to distinguish between who is in communion with what See(s), and what heritage a church has grown out of. As an American Episcopalian, I am in full communion with my Lutheran brothers and sisters in ELCA - but not Lutherans in the Missouri Synod. I am in full communion with those European churches in communion with Utrecht. But if the Nigerian church will not allow Bishop Robinson to celebrate the Eucharist in their churches, then it is impossible for me to see myself as being in communion with the Anglican Church of Nigeria.
Churches in the Missouri Synod, or the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, are not in communion with ELCA, or the Lutheran World Federation. But they are surely "Lutheran" in their heritage. The Reformed Episcopal Church, or the various "continuing" Anglican churches, are not in communion with the See of Canterbury, but they are surely "Anglican" with regard to their heritage.

Posted by: John Schuster-Craig on Sunday, 23 October 2005 at 11:05pm BST

"It seems to me that when I read the words of Bishop Akinola - in his press releases and in his letters - there is a particularly unpleasant slant to his language. I cannot imagine Jesus saying similar things were he here today."

Please remember the unpleasant slant to Christ's language when He spoke of the corrupt religious leaders in His day. Being in Apostolic Succession to Christ's Apostles, Archbishop Akinola has a right and duty to speak harshly of heresy in faith and practice in Christ's Holy Church. Our God is Unchanging and so is His hatred of the shameful practices being accepted in ECUSA.

Posted by: William on Friday, 28 October 2005 at 2:37am BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.