This Akinola chap seems a strange person. I can't help but conflate his approach with a rant I was unfortunate enough to hear in my one and only visit to an evangelical church when things were heating up about Reading, a couple of summers ago. There was the same problem there: a public attack on someone not present to defend himself (which, even if true in this case, I note with interest Akinola's response *in kind*), and choosing to insist all the further on his own brand of interpreted Scripture. This approach does not scale; if it's homosexuality this decade, it'll be food-with-cloven-hooves next, and so on. Where will he draw the line? When it starts causing division in his own church? Why doesn't he just learn to play well with others who may have differing views, rather than cause dis-unity?

Yet again Akinola goes public at speed. But his statement is astonishingly unpersusasive - indeed, it makes no attempt at persuasion.

What does he mean when he complains that Eames has "chosen to address me personally"? Akinola is not mentioned by name or referred to as an individual or, indeed, at all in either of the Eames lectures at Yale and Virginia - which both refer, correctly, to the actions of the Church of Nigeria.

What is his basis for suggesting that a "Provincial only" view of the faith is being imposed on the whole communion by ECUSA? He does not say. How does he defend himself against the charge of a "Provincial only" view of the faith arising from the Nigerian constitutional changes? He does not say. He simply denies it.

The "colonial" and "yoke of imperialism" jibes are not very well directed towards Eames, who is neither English nor British.

In what sense can the majority but certainly not unanimous Lambeth resolution 1.10 be elevated to dogma such that even those who disagree with it must, not merely respect it, but "fully embrace" it as "our current agreement on matters of human sexuality"? He does not say. And where does he find this as "the underlying assumption of the Windsor Report"? Presumably he describes this as an "assumption" because it is not stated anywhere in the report.

The mere assertion that the careful presentation of ECUSA, in particular, at Nottingham had "little or no reference to the plain teaching of the Holy Scriptures" does not begin to engage with the thoughtful exposition of scripture in that presentation.

There is nothing in this open letter to demonstrate that Akinola is, as he claims, "continuing to work" to the end of "seeing the torn fabric of our beloved Anglican Communion restored."

Perhaps another interpretation?
Badman, you're right, absolutely no persuasion sought here. Not sure I could blame Akinola for being tired of trying to reason with those who are so closed.

"There is nothing in this open letter to demonstrate that Akinola is, as he claims, "continuing to work" to the end of "seeing the torn fabric of our beloved Anglican Communion restored.""

Ultimately it is surely in the hands of those who have deliberately and premeditatively ripped the fabric to mend it.

And Eames seems to have allied himself with them - and "started" taking public pot shots at the rest of the Communion! :(

As Bishop Roskam, one of the presenters at Nottingham has put it, the Ecusa presentation went out of its way to avoid the suggestion that other provinces were being asked to change their mind. In this way what Akinola says is also true, the passages of scripture normally used to establish the conservative case were not tackled in any detail. There was thoughtful exposition, but not of the scriptures ++Nigeria has in mind.

If Dr. Peter Akinola felt he had been wronged by Dr. Robin Eames's public remarks about conservatives' money being directed to more traditionalist African prelates and causes, why resort to a very public letter? Couldn't, or shouldn't, the Primate and Metropolitan of All Nigeria have taken the 'high' (and Christian!) road of bringing the matter to his fellow-primate's attention in private? Why go public and exacerbate the divisions further?

Then, in regards to "the passages of scripture normally used to establish the conservative case" obadiah, maybe y'all will be demanded to justify these innovations? Not to mention +Akinola's "And we all know that..." *gnosticism*? (I'm not holding my breath)

When will +PJA realize that his notion of "plain teaching of the Holy Scriptures" is a *non-starter*: killing dialogue before it even begins?

There could be unity in the Anglican Communion, but only if we all recognize the faithfullness of each other while we are in disagreement. Akinola, Duncan and their followers have made it clear that they have no intentions of doing that. Until that happens, we will continue to get closer and closer to realignment and a possible formal split, which, after all is what they really want.

Let's try to read the tea leaves, shall we? Akinola and company are going to set up their communion within a communion at the end of this month. The ABC will attend. In his words at the ACC he is trying to see if we can "remain friends" since it is obvious that we all cannot feast "at the same table." The conservative national churches are forming their own group. All national churches who are left out of the conservative group will find themselves in a progressive group simply because they are not part of the conservative one. It seems that the ABC's plan right now is to remain in communion with both groups. The two groups will not meet together and hopefully will fight less.

Do you all agree that this is the current plan of the ABC? Do you think he has basically worked it out with Akinola? Or do you think Akinola and company will just go ahead and sever ties with mother England?

I think it was a very persuasive point that Akinola made, that it is not Nigeria, or the other orthodox provinces, that are making uni-lateral changes. Restating that one is staying with the biblical/traditional beliefs and practices cannot credibly be said to be a unilateral change!! Nor *only* driven by the local socio-cultural circumstances. Whereas the current attempted liberal revisions are exactly that! In fact I would go so far as to suggest that, because extreme liberals think of religion as primarily a socio-cultural phenomenon, that is all that their religion has become..

ps ABp Eames and likeminded folk are being highly hypocritical if they now criticise ABp Akinola for making public comments on Eanes' public comments!!

badman said: The "colonial" and "yoke of imperialism" jibes are not very well directed towards Eames, who is neither English nor British.

Dr Eames is a life peer and as such a member of the House of Lords in the UK Parliament. He is not English....

Akinola's explanation here of the "mission" to North America as analogous to the C of E in Europe and the American Convocation is inaccurate, and doesn't reflect the language he used earlier this year in his original explanation. See http://www.anglican-nig.org/prlttr_northamerica.htm

Clearly it is not a question of overlapping jurisdictions, but of "safe harbors" for those who have no church -- according to Akinola. The analogy to Europe is completely false, as English and US clergy fully support and work with each other.

Commenting on Fr. Tobias S. Haller's remarks about the overlapping CofE and ECUSA jurisdictions on the European Continent, I noted the other day on the Old Catholic, Diocese of Bonn, Web site that both Bishops, Gibraltar and Convocation of American Churches in Europe, are listed as "honorary Bishops Suffragan" of the Old Catholic Bishop of Bonn as far as their overlapping jurisdictions in Germany are concerned. Collaboration between all three jurisdictions is more than amicable.

I wonder which member of Anglican Extreme wrote that little missive?

I can't really see why the planned new conservative grouping would wish to stay in communion with Canterbury, to be honest.

Just one more nail in the coffin of the AC.

The questions I still can't answer about Archbishop Akinola's convocation in the US is where it exists and who are its members. The last time I looked into this there was one parish in Oklahoma City that proclaimed allegiance to him, and pictures on its Web site did not indicate a large Nigerian membership.

That doesn't prove there aren't others members of the convocation, but Akinola "founded" it on a visit to the US a year ago. So, to date, the response of Nigerian ex-pats does not seem to support the notion that they are clamoring for him to intervene.

The above is true also for Sweden.

There are several Anglican Chapels in Sweden who for centuries have catered to Scots and Englishmen in Sweden and their descendants.

And the Swedish Church in London Ulrica Eleonora was built in 1710. One of the deeds presented to King Charles XII at the time was precisely a letter from the Bishop of London soliciting the construction of a Swedish Church.

The Swedish congregation in London until then had met at a small Dissenters chapel.

So Anglican Parishes in Europe are not the fruit of hostility and political ambition but of friendship and cooperation.

To Dave,

"Public comments" in a lecture and press conference and "public comments" in an open letter adressed to an individual is not the same thing.

Try to be fair!

Goran:""Public comments" in a lecture and press conference and "public comments" in an open letter adressed to an individual is not the same thing."

Your completely false distinction is what is unfair - the result is the identical.

So now we're doing Teleology Ethics, are we?

Methinks Jim and co actually led ++Eames into the trap of advising ++Akinola in the interview only to have him later make allusions to ‘church leaders in the developing world’ under financial inducements all in a bid to elicit such a response.

What I do not understand is why some are really spoiling for a split? Are they all out to make those that seem to be ‘sitting on the fence’ take sides? If so, CONGRATS! You have succeeded in putting some distance between the two Archbishops.

I weep (really) for the Church.

Wade Bond:

I do not think your analysis of reasons for the split is accurate, but I agree with your overall prognosis. On the prognosis, I don't believe that anything is arranged between the ABC and Akinola at this point. At best, the ABC seems to be trying to ride the wave and arrive at some type of accommodation that would put him in the intermediate position you describe. However, I think that ship left the dock a long time ago.

Steven

Fascinating comments. They reveal more about their authors by their tone than by their content.

Put yourself in Nigeria's place. Your colleague and brother, who also is the chairman of the group putatively trying to put Humpty back together again, publicly expresses his belief that you are taking bribes from American conservatives to promote their agenda.

If false, this is a terrible slander. What do you do to clear your good name and to express the depth and sincerity of your beliefs? A private letter won't suffice, because the slur is public. A press release would be the tool of a political campaign, not the appeal of a brother.

It strikes me that ++Nigeria did about the only thing he could in the situation. Why is it that no one has noticed the uncharitable and unbrotherly manner in which ++Ireland's quite devastating charge was made?

Dr. Akinola went public because, thanks to ENS, Eames had a public forum for his libels. As for the charge that Dr. Akinola was not personally addressed, that is quite true. But any honest person who can read the English language knows who Robbie meant.

Yes, Tunde, I do think there should be a split.I want nothing to do with the revolting opinions expressed by Akinola and the Nigerian church.

As to Nigerian congregations in the US, I can say that there are a number of Nigerian members in my own congregation; and we have been working to begin having a liturgy in Igbo once a month. The members respect and work with me as their pastor, in a parish that proudly proclaims that all are welcome regardless of sexual orientation. Some of them have talked with me about Archbishop Akinola and they consider him something of an embarrassment. As the one put it, "He does not speak for me, and his concerns are not my concerns." He also pointed out that the tribal tensions between Igbo and Yoruba people in Nigeria have been a source of tension in the church as well -- and the recent Nigerian Synod actions addressing "tribalism" witnesses to this. (One might note that the other Synod actions promoted a tribalism of a different sort...)
The long and short of it is, I very much doubt there are many Nigerians in the US longing for a church that is any more doctrinally pure than mine is; which is to say, preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than a neo-Puritan retread of Victorian sexual morality as the center of the faith.

Christopher Johnson's "But any honest person who can read the English language knows ..." sounds much like +PJA's "And we all know that..."

Pray tell from *whom* is all this GNOSIS coming? (Because that's a spirit that deserves *testing*, IMO)

Now, according to the news pieces above, AB Eames said nothing of "bribes" in his press conference/interview.

But it has been reported over the last few years that Uganda and other Central African Provinces would no longer accept grants from ECUSA. Just read Virtueonline.

As to AB Akinola being addressed, AB Eames twice in his lecture said "Nigeria" having said the Anglican Church of Nigeria once. And then he was talking of the change in the constitutions of this Province, not of "bribes" or of AB Akinola himself.

"The Anglican Church of Nigeria has announced changes to its Constitution. Originally its Constitution stated that "the Church of Nigeria shall be in communion with the See of Canterbury and with all the dioceses, provinces and regional churches which are in full communion with the See of Canterbury." This wording is now superseded by the omission of reference to the See of Canterbury and speaks of communion with "all Anglican Churches, Dioceses and Provinces that hold and maintain the historic Faith, Sacrament and Discipline of the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."

To me this means that Nigeria has broken with the Anglican Communion, putting "historic Faith, Sacrament and Discipline" in place of the traditional reference to those "in full communion with the See of Canterbury".

This makes Nigeria's communion one based on adherence to a particular doctrinal outlook, which seems all the more problematic, as there cannot be two Parishes in Christendom having the same "Discipline" ;=)

"Methinks Jim and co actually led ++Eames into the trap of advising ++Akinola in the interview only to have him later make allusions to ‘church leaders in the developing world’ under financial inducements all in a bid to elicit such a response." So wrote Tunde, whom I believe is Archbishop Akinola's communications director.

I am not quite sure I follow this sentence. I asked Archbishop Eames if he was concerned about the role that individuals and foundations--many of them from outside the Church--were having on the debate over the Church's future. He said he was and elaborated in the manner quoted in the story. He never mentioned Archbishop Akinola's name, nor the name of any other individual. What has followed from Nigeria is an effort to make Archbishop Eames back down from things he never said. The word "bought" was nowhere in my notes and nowhere in my story.

Archbishop Eames' other comments, in which he "advised" Archbishop Akinola came during a public question and answer session after one of his speeches. The story says this explicitly.

I guess I should be flattered than anyone would think I'd have the smarts to lead Archbishop Eames into a trap. But I find Tunde's speculation on my motives in questionable judgment.

But Tunde, if I have your attention, can I point out that you and your Archbishop do not seem to be on the same page about this money business. When my story first appeared on this blog, you wrote, in part, as follows:

"For years, wealthy ECUSA churches like Trinity Wall Street bankroll churches in developing countries (and dare I say even the Communion) with no eyeballs raised. Some 'poor churches' feel it is immoral to collect money from those they do not agree with. Those that agree with the position of the poor are coming to their aid and some guys feel that is not moral.

Before such statements are made, Leaders should consider what the poor are receiving and what they are missing. Which is greater?"

This posting can be viewed at http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/001356.html#comments

This part here: "Those that agree with the position of the poor are coming to their aid" sure reads to me like an admission that conservatives in this country are helping your church. And the question you end with "Which is greater?" sure seems to suggest that the aid from new donors is greater than the aid from former partners like The Episcopal Church.

Is Archbishop Akinola denying this? That is certainly the way his leeter has been interpreted. And neither you nor he have come forward yet to challenge this interpretation.

My own sense is that Archbishop Akinola is not denying that your church accepts large amounts of money from supporters in the US and UK. He is simply saying that he isn't being "bought."

Which is why I think this whole thing has devolved into misleading confusion. Eames hasn't accused Akinola of taking money--or said that there would be anything wrong with it if he did. And Akinola hasn't denied taking money.

That said, it would be a service to the Communion if Archbishop Akinola came forward and explained his relationship with American donors and the organizations like the American Anglican Council and the Network.

Huh. I hadn't said anything more on this thread 'cause I was hoping to see a response from poster Tunde. Here's a perfect public venue to clear up the potentially mistaken record. Such a shame that the explanation requested by Mr. Naughton has not yet materialized...