The report shows a man consumed by ambition, for which everything he does is related to that ambition, and who polarises, and, it seems, has more time on his hands to bring his less than wonderful touch to the Anglican Communion.

"Some delegates were reportedly lodged in a Hotel in Wuse Zone 2 allegedly at the expense of the departing cleric. And then high level lobbying began. It was a game Onaiyekan and his coterie didn’t understand."

Guess Onaiyekan & Co can't have kept tabs on what went down at Dar es Salaam, can they?

I would be interested to get Tunde's take on all this - are you there?
If so - knock twice - and give us the story from Peter's point of view.

does this mean that ++Akinola is wrong in his opposition to TEC's innovations??

(answer, not necessarily!)

Dramatic interlude---Will the conservative blogs - once again- totally ignore the infighting in Akinola's backyard or will they step up to the plate and discuss his behavior in an open and light filled arena. How much longer can they avoid these news articles on their websites? They should consider this a challenge to their journalistic integrity.

(Cross-posted at Fr. Jake)

Interesting comment in Tony Ashaka's July 1 article in The Sunday Sun:

"Sunday Sun learnt that many factors worked against Akinola during the election. Chief among them, his handling of the fate of Christians in the North, particularly during crises.

"Lamented a source: “He was not talking. If we now make him President and he now decides to talk, our Moslem brothers would say, “okay, you did not talk when your brother (Obasanjo) was there, why are you saying all these now?"

Remember those extremely punitive Nigerian laws that would have made it a crime even to express support for gay rights? According to his supporters in the US, Archbishop Akinola was backing those laws to the hilt to give some relief to Christians in the Muslim north. Shame on us liberals for objecting; we just didn't understand the terrible position northern Nigerian Christians were in, thanks to TEC's support of gay rights.

Now we hear that Archbishop Akinola's own countrymen think he has done nothing for Nigerian Christians in the Muslim North.

So it seems those punitive anti-gay measures were not introduced to support hard-pressed Nigerian Christians. What was behind them, then?

I'd welcome Tunde's comments on this, also.

Not necessarily. Nor does this represent an endoresment of his views.

But it is certainly a condemnation of his way of going about things; a way that seems to have become something of a pattern.

In and of itself, no, NP, though he is wrong - very wrong indeed - on TEC. But taken as a part of the man's ongoing pattern of behaviour, it fully confirms what is already known of his nature.

"Self-seeking, self-glory, that is not me. Many people say I embarrass them with my humility,"

One thing on which the archbishop and I unquestionably agree, relates to his being an embarrassment.

"does this mean that ++Akinola is wrong in his opposition to TEC's innovations??"
(answer, not necessarily!)
Posted by: NP

The real answer is that God knows, I don't and neither does the NP...but I'd bet on God over NP any day of the week.

Ecumenical credibility is important for anyone with the ambition to unite and represent the huge constituency Nigerian Christianity. So, what kind of message is conveyed by Akinola's de-selection? Evidently, not everyone is confident in him, no matter how complex the reasons behind this may be.
So, will those in the Anglican Communion who have rallied behind his banner wake up and realise the power game they've been sucked in to?
It's time we expected better from the Primates who have wasted too much of our support and their time on this little game. The rest of the world laughs with contempt at their inability to stand up and challenge Akinola and his champions. Evidently, his leadership divides. It doesn't reconcile, or harmonise or make peace - on the contrary, it makes victims of faithful people. Where's the good news in this? Who on earth needs or wants this? As a result, the Gospel is betrayed.

Near the end of the paper it comments Akinola's "...abandonment of the five directorates as his Achilles heel. For instance, they claimed that Akinola rendered deliberation by leaders of the various church groups impossible at each meeting."

It would be interesting to find out what this means. I wonder if it was similar to the conduct leading up to this election or at Dar es Salaam where there was a secondary venue with lobbyists planning the next stroke to slow or hijack the agenda and attack alternatives?

It is worth noting that Brother Akinola was not so much defeated as trounced. Less George H.W. Bush (narrowly losing to Bill Clinton in a three way race) than Jimmy Carter (losing to Ronald Reagan and taking only six states and the District of Columbia).

Leonardo - I agree with you on where we should look for authority i.e. up.........so maybe you should take HIS very clearly and consistently expressed views rather than assuming he must have changed his mind to agree with you

Keith - at least read the report!!
He came to the end of his term.....and the whole point was that he tried to get another term and this has not been done before - so he was not deselected so much as not allowed to set a precedent for having consecutive terms.

Maybe he has good reasons for wanting another term.....just a thought.

"Leonardo - I agree with you on where we should look for authority i.e. up.........so maybe you should take HIS very clearly and consistently expressed views rather than assuming he must have changed his mind to agree with you"

-- and so it all comes back to biblical fundamentalism about Sodom, Judges 19, Leviticus, Romans 1 on lesbian love and idols etc. This "extraordinary obsession" as Bishop Tutu calls it is ascribed to no less a personage that G-D! The more the fundamentalists go on and on, the less traction their rhetoric holds.

"The whole point was that he tried to get another term."

The WHOLE POINT is the way that he that he attempted to twist the system so that he could get another term - the same tactics he and his minions used to railroad the Dar es Salaam Diktat through the Primates Conference.

"does this mean that ++Akinola is wrong in his opposition to TEC's innovations??

(answer, not necessarily!)"

NP, what said Jesus when asked how to tell the true prophets from the false ones?

Ford - your question is not relevant here.....

firstly, ++Akinola is not a prophet (just an archbishop trying to get his church to stick to its own scriptures and agreed positions);

secondly, as I have said many times, whether he is good, bad or a saint matters little - we need to focus on the key issues at stake and stop being distracted with attacking him or KJS or anyone else....we don't have much time to come to agreement or split so we should focus on the issues.

NP,
By their fruits you shall know them. That's pretty clear. If anyone tries to tell you he has the Truth, you will know him by how he behaves. +Akinola does not behave, as far as I can see, as someone who knows the Truth. You seem unable to critically judge those who are on your side in some sense. Sad, since I assure you the world can, so you end up discredited in the long run. BUt, having listened somuch, you surely already know this.

Answering Ford's question, myself, then: "By their fruits you shall know them."

I don't really see why it isn't relevent here. ++Akinola has been largely responsible for determining which "key issues" are "at stake" over the past few years. And there's every reason for believing that he sees himself as having a prophetic mission.

++Akinola's errors regarding TEC would still be errors even if he were a man of embarrassing humility. The basis of disagreement is not ad hominem, but objective, and goes back to his tragic misunderstanding of both God and humanity.

Tobias Haller,
I don't have anything close to a theological education. Thus, since I am undecided on the issue from a more "academic" or "learned" approach, I am left with this. Which side behaves in the most Christian fashion, showing love for God and neighbour? It ain't all that difficult to see who's bearing the fruit of the Spirit in this.

Ford Elms, I agree that the fruit of the Spirit is an important indicator, as well as general behavior and demeanor, beyond the issues at hand. What I intended to say here is that I think Akinola++ is off base _not only_ in his approach (which is to my eyes uncharitable and proud) but is _also_ in error in substance. He is certainly no model of patience, forbearance, tolerance, or charity; and he is also prone to misuse Scripture. (How many caught in the snippet contained in the Moyers/KJS interview, Akinola's misquotation of Scripture, claiming it says "neither shall woman lie with woman." Obviously he has a different manuscript of Leviticus from the rest of us...) No, I have long put Akinola in the class of the "superapostles" who bluster and thunder against their brothers and sisters; puffed up and soon deflated.

Ford says "By their fruits you shall know them."

I agree! Please show me where it says someone should not be a bishop if the try to get a second term running an ecumenical organisation? What is the big deal - did he kill or bribe someone?? Storm in a teacup, this CAN election stuff - just distracts from the issues which matter for the AC.

By their fruits you shall know them....indeed - and you think VGR should be a vicar let alone a bishop??? (serious question)

NP,
people live in hiding and in fear for their lives because of the legislation this man tries to push through. Does that count as fruits in your book?

And would you say that a bishop who consistently ignores various Lambeth resolutions, which represent the mind of the Anglican community, is behaving entirely morally sound?

And, seriously, if the selection panel responsible for VGR's ordination thought he was indeed called by God (!) to serve, then I have no reason to doubt that. Neither you nor I know him personally, so we have to trust the process that brings about priests and vicars in the Anglican church.

NP,
I'm not sure what happened to this, so here's a second try, tamed down.

+VGR: believes himself called to the Episcopate, won't be bullied out of that belief, is gay.

+Akinola: believes himself called by God to the Episcopate, won't allow himself to be bullied out of that belief, is not gay. In addition, reviles his fellow Christians, makes false and slanderous statements about gay people and refuses to learn anything about homosexuality, claims to be concerned about interfaith relations in northern Nigeria but other Nigerians differ, schemes and plots against his fellow bishops in order to get his way, claims to be concerned for the salvation of gay people, but seeks to throw them in jail where they will in all likelihood be beaten to death.

I'm sure there are other sins on the part of both of these men, NP, but tell me, why are you OK with an unrepentant reviler in a miter, but not an unrepentant homosexual?

"Serious question". In contrast to which other questions,NP?

"We have stories of people in England and America and England who have been transformed. Who were once homosexual but who are now changed to heterosexual."

We have tall tales too.