Oh dear... lovely picture too.

No surprise. makes a change from Sydney!

We really shouldn't be fooled. For these people, its their way or nothing.

I hope this is not a surprise to anyone. This entire conflict has not been about religious values; it has been about power. It is not about homosexuality; it is about property and money. +Akinola is not a monster; he is a fool. The white man has promised him he gets to be the new head of the Anglican Communion and lots of money from America if only Peter will obey. Minns wrote this letter and he wrote the Tanzanian Primate documents. When will you folks stop quoting bible verses at each other, stop praying for patient listening, stop name calling, stop quoting historical arcania, and get real about what this struggle is about. The real monsters live in America and have lots and lots of money. They are going to buy themselves a denomination and a Communion. +Canterbury doesn't have the stones to stop it, so who will.

Interesting to have water-tight confirmation, though hardly a surprise. Akinola's status as cat's-paw for Minns and Sugden has been a pretty obvious for some time now, particularly since the unconcealed goings-on at Dar es Salaam. Many thanks to Pat Ashworth for this piece.

This would seem to make "follow the money" the operative phrase once again. Why is +Akinola willing to let himself be used in this way? Why is he willing to lend his name to things he didn't write? What is he getting out of this?

Reminds me of the infamous White paper on the claimed WMD, redacted by Mr Alistair Campbell of impious memory.

As a Swedish speaker (like Hebrew a language in the indicative) I was intrigued by the lack or Anglicism’s in the subjunctive: sadly, may, it would seem & c.

Did strike me as strange (inauthentic).

This is the same, but the other way around ;=)

Why am I not surprised to have it proved that Peter Akinola is a puppet and Martyn Minns is pulling the strings?

This is all so sad, so much manipulation, so much hypocrisy, so much crisis-mongering, so much lying.

Our Lord Jesus is, tonight, lamenting the violence that is being done to His Church.

Pay no attention to the man behind the keyboard!

Tnis answers my earlier question. It is quite a revelation and incredibly damaging. Now perhaps let them do what they want, and be rid of them, taking as few as possible in addition.

Is there a not-so-underlying and deadly spiritual illness spreading throughout Southern Globalsville and Northern Networkington?

Are we seeing the symptoms/evidence of a new plague that makes one have amnesia, twist fact, manipulate, plot, tell outright lies, attempt to steal property, demonize others/cast blame, generate blind-fear and then would have the victims/groupies think everything is "normal" and "as it ought be" as the followers/everyone are carted off to the ALL NEW Akinolan Anglican Communion?

On Sunday 19 August when Archbishop Akinola’s letter was first posted on TA, I wrote a comment which began:

“Analysis of the text and comparison with Archbishop Akinola’s interview with the interview in The Guardian, Lagos, published 30 July 2007 suggests that, like most of the publications from Abuja, this was written for the Archbishop by his conservative American secessionist friends. It is dishonest. It misrepresents church history and the recent history of the Anglican Communion.”

I am glad to have my analysis confirmed by this revelation to the Church Times, thanks to computer tracking software. It confirms the suspicions Changing Attitude has long held, that many of the documents and press releases issued by the Church of Nigeria and Archbishop Akinola have their origin in or are heavily edited by Bishop Martyn Minns, Canon Chris Sugden and other conservative secessionists.

We need to question the source and reliability of this evidence. If it is a matter of textual analysis the results are a matter of conjecture. If it is an analysis of a log in the published document, it is an invasion of privacy. If it is the result of some kind of internet foresnic investigation, the legality and morality of obtaining this information is open to question. In the end it is irrelevant, ++Akinola signed the letter, he accepted it even if it is not his unaided work, it is his reponsibility. If we tried to analyse who had input into Gordon Brown's statements where woulf that get us. Gordon Brown is his own man, so is Peter Akinola.

David

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Archbishop Tutu told me that the money for all this was coming from wealthy Americans -- more than money, it now appears.

These are grounds for *suspension, investigation, including responses from those accused; and a decision on whether those involved can be allowed to stay in post if found to be in the wrong.
The Anglican Communion is not the one at a brink!

*imagine a social worker, doctor, MD, employee in a private firm etc., or a leader in civic life not being suspeded if they were undermining their organisation, and attacking sister bodies etc ....

President Bush doesn't write his own speeches. It's called teamwork.

Tanzania was not just about written documents, it was about who was in what rooms with whom when and what was done both privately and publicly.

It can be confusing sometimes as to whom is the head and whom is the tail, but I think it is probably like a many headed hydra and even if you eliminated one the others would continue their aggression.

Go for the heart, it pumps blood to all the heads.

Soften hearts, seek peace and compassion. Surely most of the planet has suffered so much violence, accusations and tyranny that they are sick of being told that such manifestations are God's penultimate authority. Those who attack do not come from God.

I'd be interested to know what the 'computer tracking software' is and how this whole process works. 'Invasion of privacy'? Life is an invasion of privacy - relationships are an invasion of privacy. The number of lies and damned lies that have been uttered over the years is staggering. A deftly performed invasion of privacy is probably not the worst thing that cuold have happened - I've got something about things whispered in alleyways being shouted from rooftops running through my head. Nobody needed this sort of hi-tech confirmation of the fact. The same conclusion could have been reached months and even years ago. It's nothing new. Still I'm curious to know how this sort of information could have been achieved by CT and whatever techie has provided them with their facts.

Why did I know, as soon as I saw this story, that it would be causing so much comment on Thinking Anglicans?

Surely we are aware that this sort of thing happens all the time? I often get asked to 'look over' things which are going out under someone else's name, and at times I have made wholesale revisions. I've even been asked to look at things and revise them for Chris Sugden - named in the Church Times article. And it works the other way - I've asked other people to go over things and have accepted their revisions and suggestions.

It happens because people work together - call it a conspiracy if you must - and I can't believe it doesn't go on all the time, everywhere.

Sometimes it is because some people are better with language than others. Often it is because people want to get something right.

Far from being a sign of bad faith, it is surely a sign of wisdom, modesty and a proper working together. Morevoer, if Archbishop Akinola didn't like what they put in, he had the option to take it out again.

Still, it allows a bit more 'excitement', which is what we really love, isn't it? (See my article on the Folly of Commenting on Blogs.)

It's worth reading again Lewis C. Daly's prescient analysis of the recent (IRD-backed) rise of the American Anglican Right, written for the Institute for Democracy Studies in 2001 - http://www.idsonline.org/art/Insights_Vol02Iss02.pdf

The phrase "The American Anglican right is essentially perverting the church’s global communion in order to reformulate the ecclesial status of ECUSA" is particularly apt given the IRD-linked Minns' outing as 'puppet-master'.

"A church that has seen its General Convention resist the Right more thoroughly than any other denomination has also seen the Right undertake a remarkable change in course in response to this very resilience. The international mechanisms of the Anglican Communion—its annual Primates’ Meeting, the decennial Lambeth Conference of Bishops, and the See of Canterbury itself—have been injected into an historically local and national battle against mainline leadership and social tradition, creating a new terrain of conflict, mobilization, and leverage for the religious right.

The American Anglican right is essentially perverting the church’s global communion in order to reformulate the ecclesial status of ECUSA and thereby inflict serious damage on the social progress that was its public legacy in the last century. Among mainline churches, this is a unique story in its international dynamics, a story that is fraught with significant political implications in an age of heightened geopolitical conflict fueled by resurgent fundamentalist belief systems. But it is also a very familiar story in its calculated, sometimes vengeful opposition to the social and intellectual freedoms that have found an indispensable voice in the witness of the mainline churches, the Episcopal Church first among them.

The evangelical drift of the Anglican Communion, and its deployment against ECUSA, is a remarkable recent development within the broader history of anti-mainline politics. Samuel Edwards’ views of the American church are gaining ground among leadership sectors within the Anglican Communion that are already being organized to fundamentally alter the Communion’s relationship to ECUSA. That much is clear. The question now is how far this strategy will take the Right. The rules have changed significantly with the rise of distinctive international and primatial strategies. These developments in particular must be carefully monitored and firmly challenged."

Minns' 2005 post-Dromantine report to his Parish Meeting - http://trurochurch.org/files/2005.02.27%20parishmtg-MM%20on%20Ireland.pdf - also contains the following telling passage. As well as the somewhat patronising tone, one must also ask, who is the 'we' who felt it very important that the African nations needed to be better prepared?!

"One of the ways in which so often the Global South folks have suffered is that they have approached these meetings and have found themselves outmaneuvered in a system and a way of doing business with which they are not familiar. Again, much of the way in which these meetings are held reflects the very kind of British, bureaucratic kind of process which is antithetical to many of the Africans’ way of doing business. So we felt it very important that indeed the African nations and those of the Global South needed to be prepared better so that when they arrived they were not immediately divided and dissipated."

"Invasion of privacy"? Best you can do, David? The "legality and morality of obtaining this information" is in no way open to question - we're talking the "Church Times" here, not "The Sun". The CT hacked no computers to access the material - Minns, Sugden and Akinola freely threw it into the public arena for scrutiny. Wonder what past "collaborative efforts" (Dar es Salaam, anyone?) might be lurking in the shadows.

I imagine that I am far from alone in my anticipation of NP's spin on this one.

Who now is the colonial power, who the colonized?

"If it is an analysis of a log in the published document, it is an invasion of privacy. If it is the result of some kind of internet foresnic investigation, the legality and morality of obtaining this information is open to question. In the end it is irrelevant, ++Akinola signed the letter, he accepted it even if it is not his unaided work, it is his reponsibility."

It's a published document...and if it's publication includes the electronic history (I'm not computer savvy enough to know how that works), then examination of that history is neither illegal nor immoral and certainly not an invasion of privacy.

Yes, having signed it, ++Akinola must accept responsibility for what it says. But the larger question is this: Why is ++Akinola willing to accept responsibility for words that are not his? And, perhaps more importantly, why isn't Minns willing to put his own signature on a document that is clearly more his work than ++Akinola's? Why is Minns hiding behind ++Akinola? Why is ++Akinola willing to act as Minns' beard?

And, perhaps most importantly, who is behind Minns?

"If it is a matter of textual analysis the results are a matter of conjecture. If it is an analysis of a log in the published document, it is an invasion of privacy. If it is the result of some kind of internet foresnic investigation, the legality and morality of obtaining this information is open to question."

The rule of thumb for sending anything electronically is to not write anything you don't want to see as a headline - and that includes edits that remain in the document but are not represented in the texx you see.

And of course politicians and others routinely sign as their own 'ghost-written' material, but when the text and signer rant on and on about neo-colonial attitudes in TEC and Canada, finding out that the ghost-writer is himself a product of such an culture certainly puts a spin on it.

OK.....so, please tell me you think that every letter from the ABC or TEC's PB is written by them alone......with no input from anyone else??

All leaders have advisors and even speech-writers.

WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL??

There would be more of an issue if ++Akinola knocked out the letter himself without consulting his advisors.....

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=43487

I can't help thinking he's right - invite everyone, irregularly consecrated or not, gay or straight and let's sort this unholy mess out. "I'm not coming because Y is invited", "I'm not coming because X isn't invited" - it's schoolyard stuff!

Come on Rowan, get everyone's cards on the table and stop messing around!

This is such a non-story. Everybody knows that Akinola is close to Minns. Though I'm not sure about the comment above, that Minns is pulling Akinola's strings. Far from it I believe.

David is right - the person who signs the letter takes responsibility for it - whoever helps him or her write it is irrelevant.

Be forewarned--some programs, like Microsoft Word, have a built in feature enabling the tracking of changes and authors. It's quite easy: pointand click. Even if turned off, it's possible for someone with the right knowledge of the code to get in and figure it out anyhow.

It beats me why people can't be open about authorship questions like this. Of course, there is ample precedent in:
New Testament letters, like 1 Peter;
Papal encyclicals
Politicians' speeches.
In each of these cases, the person who is purported to have written it, will surely check it to make sure it represents their own mind.

In the modern commercial age, the name of the author or foreword-writer who sells books appears in big lettering; the ghost-writer may be scarcely acknowledged. This is scarcely an honest practice; and in the present instance where money is not an issue it is doubly unnecessary.

"When will you folks stop.....get real about what this struggle is about."

Wrong tense. Most people with eyes to see got this several years ago. The question is why you seem to think prayer is not an adequate part of the response to this.

"Why am I not surprised to have it proved that Peter Akinola is a puppet"

And why am I so surprised? It has been clear to me that one of the things that drives him is a postcolonial anti-western (?anti-white?) bigotry. Thus, it's odd that he would be a puppet of white Western conservatives. He's a very smart, politically savvy man, well educated, familiar with both African and Western societal models. So, I don't think he's so much a puppet of people like Minns. I think he is a good steward of the resources given to him, he knows how to use what and whom to get what he wants. Perhaps, he uses someone he feels has greater ability in English rhetoric, propaganda, and spin, and who is better able to stir up the rich conservative Americans whose money is such a vital part of his putsch. English isn't his Mother Tongue, and we can't be skilled at everything. He can say "We have a serious problem". He needs Minns to make that into "The Church is at a time of decision and faithful Christians must circle the wagons against the heathen hordes. Ho for the fight, boys! Hold the fort!"(do they sing that any more? It sounds great when you're on your second pint!)"

And, again, what specifically have we Canadians done that is so wrong? I would have thought "We will refrain from doing what we think is right out of respect and concern for the feelings of others" to be a rather Christian statement, actually.

The news that Bishop Martyn Minns and Canon Chris Sugden between them rewrote substantial parts of Archbishop Akinola’s letter to the Nigerian Synods raises further questions for Changing Attitude Nigeria (CAN).

Davis Mac-Iyalla, Director of Changing Attitude Nigeria, said today, 24 August:
We believe that large sums of money have been received by the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) from sources outside the country. When will Archbishop Akinola openly tell the world the sources the money is coming from to sponsor his frequent travels and the alternative Lambeth conference that he is planning in 2008?

Not all Nigerian Bishops have access to western press and media and will not be aware of the reports carried by web sites such as Thinking Anglicans. Nigerian Anglicans are not hearing the other side of the debate because the news in Nigeria is being controlled and manipulated by Archbishop Akinola and Bishop Minns

I would like to advise Canon Tunde Popoola, Director of Communications for the Church of Nigeria to make sure this news is given to the Nigerian press and is published on the Church of Nigeria website. This will enable many more Nigerian Anglicans to read about the actions of Archbishop Akinola and Bishop Minns. It will also enable Nigerians to make an honest contribution to the debate about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people in the church and the future of the Anglican Communion.

The reports published in the Nigerian press of the arrest of eighteen gay men in Bauchi has shown once again that reporting about LGBT people in Nigeria is often inaccurate and as a result, very prejudiced against us. The Nigerian press needs to be challenged so that it is not biased or homophobic when it reports about LGBT people. The Nigerian press needs to be more fair and understanding of gay people.

Changing Attitude Nigeria has openly admitted that we receive financial support from Changing Attitude England and other individual supporters. We also received very generous support from the USA which enabled Davis Mac-Iyalla to visit and travel extensively to speaking and preaching engagements in America. Changing Attitude England will publish accounts showing exactly how much money has been raised for Nigeria and how it has been used.

I'm intrigued by David's comment. Fair enough, to an extent - but I think the analogy is imperfect. Nobody expects for a moment that Gordon Brown or George W. Bush will write their own speeches - and, in fact, there's no pretense that presidents and prime ministers don't have speech-writers.
One difference in the Minns/Akinola situation is who's writing the letters - not a hired speech-writer directed by the leader in question, but Northern allies of arguably much greater power to set agendas and shape statements. Another difference is the way authenticity is at stake in these inter-Anglican conflicts. Conservative Northerners have hung a lot of their legitimacy on the idea that Christians in the global South are, independently and freely, supporting their understanding of the Anglican faith. A revelation like this makes such assertions look rather shallow...

Ever heard of an ad hominem attack? Finding that Minns had an input into Akinola's letter, and on that basis dismissing what the letter says is perhaps the most perfect example possible of this logical fallacy. In face, deaconmark has invited us to completely ignore whatever biblical or hermeneutical arguments are being put forward, and instead focus on the ironclad fact that Minns is such a nasty man (I say this with irony, for those who will not get it).

The fact is, in terms of the discussion over the place of homosexuality in the life of the Church (I have tried to use the most neutral name for whatever is going on in the AC), the money, the location, the name, the appearance, none of this matters in terms of how we evaluate the argument being put forward.

The majority of these responses so far on this thread simply buy into the ad hominem fallacy uncritically. When it comes to evaluating arguments, scriptural or otherwise. 'Ignore the man behind the keyboard' is exactly what we must do if we are to think clearly.

You're wrong David. American money and opinion that represents American right wing interests is entirely relevant. To bolster those opinions and interests with an appeal to international primatial authority would be a tactic of sleaze and hubris.

Does this mean Akinola *himself* has been colonised by the 'white' 'west' (north??) ?

Who can save him?

Maybe Tunde can lead a revolution?

"... it is an invasion of privacy." David said.

"Deny what can be denied, if not; change the subject."

;=)

The whole Anglican realignment campaign is too much of USA Christian Reconstructionism redux. New pieces keep falling into place as the realignment campaign kaleidoscope turns, and we keep saying how surprised we all are to see another new pattern which is a variation on the old pattern.

Prophet Rushdoony is having a great belly laugh at our inabilities to spin prog-lib believer gold from con-evo realignment straw using either listening processes or an unhindered call to the Lord's Table.

If con-evo realignment is not solely in charge of listening and the Lord's Table, then exclusive legacy straight privileges are not the sure foundations of our following of Jesus of Nazareth.

And, for the time being at least, nothing will serve to bring out indelible anger from the rightwing believers everywhere like actually praising God for the good gifts that queer folks bring to the table (without having their sexual orientation changed first in the preferred realignment campaign directions).

Whoever writes these pronouncements, Minns or Akinola or whomever, is still spin doctoring to beat the band. And that suggests that somebody is concerned that their audience share, not to mention their firm grip on that audience, could possibly be slipping.

What tools, besides listening, and an unhindered call to the Lord's Table? Well, decode the propaganda enactments, ask always ask for the empirical data, and trace how starting presuppositions automatically lead to traditionalistic realignment conclusions.

Be consistent in identifying the trash talk - as all the rest of us are the targets of it.

The Anglican Mainstream angle on this includes some material on tracking changes:

http://chelmsfordanglicanmainstream.blogspot.com/2007/08/microsoft-word-may-show-you-with-your.html

It is very simple how to get rid of tracking changes: copy the text into a different rich text editor, or into a pure text editor, and then produce that (back into Word fresh, if you like).

What I do is consider that there are two processes: one is text processing and one is word processing - the latter for formatting at the end. Best to publish web pages from pure text, keeping control of all code.

Yes, I take it that Akinola has put his name to the document, and it is his - just that in the tracking of changes, the tail might be wagging the dog.

It is very insulting and racist to infer that the Primate of All Nigeria is being dictated to. Is this in continuation of the ‘jamming’ of people opposing the agenda?

I would have believed the ‘computer software’ story were it not for the allegation of ‘minor amendments’ by the Canon Chris Sugden who had nothing to do with the document.

Abp. Akinola informed his senior staff and the Episcopal Secretary the need to highlight efforts at maintaining unity and the intransigence of the revisionists so that the Nigerian community is left in no doubt about who is ‘walking apart’

Along with his PA in Abuja, work started on the gathering of materials and relevant documents on 6th August, 2007. We used in addition to existing statements and my internet searches, Nigerian Episcopal meeting documents and TECUSA resolutions supplied respectively by our Episcopal Secretary, the Rt. Rev. Friday Imaekhia and a CANA priest, the Rev. Canon David Anderson. The draft of the statement was ready for correction by the primate on 9th August, 2007 who was however unable to correct it as he was about to travel.

Abp. Akinola was in the US and Bahamas between 10th and 22nd August 2007. I sent the draft to him through the Rt. Rev Minns with a request for assistance in getting some online references which I could not easily locate.

I fail to see any issue if amendments are then made on Bp. Minns’ computer. Apart from the fact that they were together during the period of the amendment, the Archbishop like many effective leaders who spend little time glued to a desk often phones me and other staffs to write certain things. Such remain his idea and anyone who knows Abp. Peter Akinola knows you can not make him say what he does not mean.

The publication doubting authenticity is another attempt to divert attention away from the carefully researched document which shows that the revisionists are directly responsible for problems confronting the Communion. Instead of chasing shadows, concerned Anglicans should consider the indisputable scenario highlighted in the document and pray for ways to save our beleaguered Communion.

The Venerable AkinTunde Popoola
Director of Communications
Church Of Nigeria

David wrote:
'If it is an analysis of a log in the published document, it is an invasion of privacy'

In what way is the viewing of the information retained *in the document* an invasion of privacy. The way in which MS Word retains information on the author and editing of a document is well known, as are the tools which enable you to remove this data. This is (or should be) standard practice where MS Word docs are made public. This is not the first situation where people have been embarrassed by the comments and editing information in a MS Word document which they would have preferred others not to see. Just say pdf!

Kennedy

Oh my, imagine signing yourself as the 'venerable' so and so.

You would have to be pretty venerable to have the confidence to do that.

Me, I'm just rubbish.

All hail the venerable.

Bring on the revolution Tunde. Purveyor of truth.

And, I have to say with all sincerity, playing the racist card in this instance is not just weak, but filthy. Absolutely astonishing.

Enough to put anyone of organised church, isn't it? Well, it's done it for me good and proper.

Of course, people consult over documents, and of course, people often have documents and speeches written for them, but this was parading itself as a personal and heartfelt account of the feelings of the Nigerian Church. It also specifically refers to the election and consecration of Martin Minns, as though he was not a joint author. It is disingenuous (by that I mean a lie) to say that the alterations happened just because people want to get something right. At the very least, in the interests of honesty, it should have been jointly signed by Akinola and Minns.

We now know that what has been presented to us as the voice of millions of faithful African Anglicans crying out against the Episcopal Church is in fact the voice of a very western, very American master manipulator. One who in the process has gotten for himself a purple shirt, an incredible amount of (undeserved) public attention, and who still whines that he is being excluded from the seat of power.

Astounding, and amusing, to see how many responses to this revealing of conspiracy, manipulation, and fraud have taken precisely the form of an earlier borrowing from the Wizard of Oz, "Pay no attention to the man behind the keyboard!"

Note the bleats of 'racism' from the Nigerians, as soon as someone points out one of their many fallibilities.

Personally, I think Akinola's tactics, views and approach is unacceptable, no matter what his race. And the sooner it is confined to Nigeria and his mates in the so-calles 'Global South', the better for the rest of us.

Re Matthew Hunt. The title "Venerable" is not one that Akin Popoola invented. I hold no brief for such titles, but it is an ancient appellation in the Church, and is used by many ECUSA clerics.

Re John Richardson. "It allows for a bit more excitement" eh? Oh John, it's far more than that. So long as gay Christians are marginalised, pilloried and persecuted in our Communion we must pray and think about this as more than a bit of excitement.

And I know about this. I am a Christian. I am a Priest. I am gay. I have not been marginalised or persecuted, but sure as heck I was pilloried by brother and sister Christians. It wasn't very exciting.

Re Authorship. Nothing wrong with Minns and Sugden being the editors/revisers of the document.

But being truth filled in Jesus might have led them and the Archbishop of Nigeria to acknowledge this upfront.

What is done in secret does tend to be shouted from the roof tops!

Michael Povey

"It is very insulting and racist to infer that the Primate of All Nigeria is being dictated to."
Ah, yes, play the race card when all else fails. Popoola's statement pretty much confirms the worst that has been said about ++Akinola. Why else both.

"the money, the location, the name, the appearance, none of this matters in terms of how we evaluate the argument being put forward."

No, but it certainly dictates HOW the argument is made, how it gets out into the press, what resources one has to organize the troops, and so on. I too would prefer that outside political and monetary influences be ignored and we debate the issue at hand rationally, in a good Christian fashion. Instead, it is true that wealthy American conservatives have contributed large amounts of money to this, based more on their political agendas than any commitment to the Gospel, and the worldwide Anglcian Church is sucked into a much larger maelstrom of Conservative politics that only concerns gay issues in a larger context of conservative political power in the US. +Akinola is no fool. He knows this. It is one of the resources he so intelligently uses. We can ignore this if we want, but we would be naive to do so. The thing is that, having acknowledged it, we need not get involved in it.

And, Tunde, racism? If your stereotype of liberals is that they will run screaming from such an accusation, think again. it is not racist to acknowledge the intelligence, excellent education, and political sagacity of your archbishop. I can't deny he has these abilities, I just don't like the cynical worldly way he is using them. That's not racist.

Thanks for the Lewis C. Daly link, MJ. Revealing and useful. Glad to see the broad consciousness in today's posts that this whole business really is about Power, with religious belief a distant also-ran.

Seems Matthew never heard of 'Chicken dinners' or read Colin's allusion above that an interview conducted in Nigeria by a Nigerian journalist was scripted in the US.

Apart from racism, why will people be looking for who is tele-guiding Africans and never bother about the authorship of non African works?

Anyway let us forget the issue and concentrate on saving the Communion

The problem for the Venerable AkinTunde Popoola is that he has been dishonest in the past.

On 28th December, 2005 he published two consecutive Disclaimers on the Church of Nigeria web site.

The second said:
“The general public is hereby warned of the activities of a person who goes by the name of Davis (David) Mac Iyalla. He claims to be a homosexual member of the Anglican Church but extensive searches revealed that he is NOT registered in any of our over 10,000 local parishes as of the past two years. None of our over 6000 priests recognise him as an active member in any of their parishes.”

On 16 January 2006, Changing Attitude published a statement, documents and photographs demonstrating that the majority of the allegations made by Canon Tunde are untrue http://www.changingattitude.org.uk/news/newsitem.asp?id=9.
Davis Mac-Iyalla is a member of the Anglican Church and was registered in parishes.
Davis Mac-Iyalla is a gay man.
The Venerable Tunde did not contact all of the 10,000 local parishes nor all of the 6,000 priests. Even Bishop Ben Kwashie was unaware of the allegations against Davis when asked at York General Synod in July.

The Disclaimer continued by claiming that Davis defrauded the then dying Bishop of Otukpo under the guise of marrying his daughter, took up an appointment with his then proposed father–in-law from whom he fraudulently obtained some church documents, on the death of the bishop broke off the engagement and made away with large sums of money, and claims he was sacked and victimised for his homosexuality and uses that guise to further defraud unsuspecting foreigners.

Despite repeated requests, Canon Tunde has failed to produce any evidence in support of his allegations. The alleged offence would have taken place in August 2003 when Davis was dismissed from the school in Otukpo but the allegation of theft was never made until then-Canon Tunde published in December 2006.

If the crime was serious, why was no action taken for over two years, until two months after the General Meeting held by Changing Attitude Nigeria in Abuja in November 2005, reported in the Nigerian press and the New York Times.

The Venerable Tunde is still pursuing Davis and making false allegations against him, which have led to death threats. Tunde is not a man to be trusted and there is no reason to believe his account published above is accurate.

Tunde
I think you have completely missed the point of Colin's comment. He is saying precisely that from the literary style of the Nigerian interview it is clear that it was NOT "scripted in the US".

"Apart from racism, why will people be looking for who is tele-guiding Africans and never bother about the authorship of non African works?"
Suspicion of political motives? Tunde, for the record, I think your archbishop is a very intelligent, well educated, politically astute man. I think he is very adept at perceiving the social factors in any issue and capitalizing on them to get what he wants. He would not make himself the servile lapdog of some white North American. His obvious anger and resentment of the effects of colonialism in Africa, and I well underestand where this comes from, would prevent any such thing from happening. If Minns DID write substantial parts of the document, it was because the archbishop asked him to, for whatever reason. See my post above. It is not racism to say that cynical political manipulation, while a good thing in a worldly politician, is not appropriate in a bishop of the Church. Given that we long ago sold out to the state, we have made it necessary for our bishops to have skill in the area of political manipulation, but that makes such skill an unfortunate necessity, not a desirable characteristic in a bishop. Get over it! You are opposing a colonialist attitude that, in so far as it still exists, has changed quite a bit in the days since the colonialist era, though not for the better, and those Americans who support you would probably evidence more of what it has become in the modern day than any of the "liberals" you seek to accuse of racism here.

Venerable is the title of a dean. Matthewhunt, I believe you owe an apology to Tunde for ridiculing him because of your own ignorance.

Oh. Forgive me. I see he expects the literary style of a Newspaper journalist to be like 'most of the publications from Abuja'. Aren’t they are all Africans?

Well, let us get back to the document and choose which way the Communion should go. For or against rewriting the Bible?

"Anyway let us forget the issue and concentrate on saving the Communion"

Yes let's. Let's do as Desmond Tutu advises and agree to disagree. After all, there are so many things in our global community which could be the focus of our energies: human rights; poverty; disease; war. Yet, the focus has been on the God-given sexuality of one bishop in remote New Hampshire, making him feel "less than human". Affirm Gene, and the Communion becomes more human overnight. It's so easy - or should be.

It's odd to talk about schism in a global federation of Anglican churches. Can you imagine a schism in the Commonwealth? No. The minority schism in TEC is being magnified into a global schism, when reality is far from this.

Well done the software sleuth who uncovered the ghost (and ghost-ghost) writers. Seems we have to follow the track changes as well as the money.

Debates about colonialism or racism and who is leading are actually red herrings. They duck and weave, bring forth new players, retire old players, change tactics, doctor evidence, and plagiarize.

My perspective is there is an underlying paradigm that they are seeking to create a holy order that is "the" divine vessel for Jesus and his teachings and is thus above human reproach and therefore all humans are subject to their authoritative teachings and consequences for any transgressions against their holy body.

The beauty of this debate is that in pursuing their goal so openly and vehemently, we get to discuss the moral and theological viability and desirability of what they are seeking.

It's actually pretty ugly.

It's also not consistent with God who gave us free will and encourages us to not only meet God's requirements but to up the stakes when things are down. So Abraham quizzed God about compassion in the leadup to Sodom and Gomorrah and God agreed only ten righteous souls were enough to save this city. So today we challenge Jesus to keep his promise to the Daughter of Zion (Matthew 24:15) and honor God's promised everlasting covenant to her of peace an end to tyranny (e.g. Isaiah 54:12-13).

Sometimes the sword is an insufficient weapon. David's been swinging away, but for every head that's cut off another two regrow. It's time to step aside and allow that highly tempered and polished arrow that God had kept in its quiver let fly (Isaiah 49:2)

It is like the scene from near the end of Lord of the Rings where the beast is attempting to kill the king and a soldier jumps to the fore. The beast gloats "No man can kill me". The Daughter takes off her helmet and says "But I am no man". I prefer arrows to swords, you can take down an enemy from a distant and a Godly polished arrow can cut through any number of heads or any quality of armour.

The Daughter of Zion has arisen and is threshing as promised by God Micah 4:13 and Isaiah 37:22-35

Didn't Tunde MEAN to write:

'Let's forget the Communion and concentrate on saving the issue'?

The issue about which they have been obsessed for over a decade...as it was it in the beginning, is now and sadly it seems shall be for ever.

James is as misinformed as Matthew.

In the Church of England, Cathedral Deans are styled The Very Reverend.

(In America this style is also used for many other kinds of dean, which causes giggles in England.)

Archdeacons are styled The Venerable.

Colin's comment:
“Analysis of the text and comparison with Archbishop Akinola’s interview with the interview in The Guardian, Lagos, published 30 July 2007 suggests that, like most of the publications from Abuja, this was written for the Archbishop by his conservative American secessionist friends. It is dishonest. It misrepresents church history and the recent history of the Anglican Communion.”

Tunde's latest (mis)interpretation:
"I see he expects the literary style of a Newspaper journalist to be like 'most of the publications from Abuja'. Aren’t they are all Africans?"

I believe Colin's original point was that most of the publications "from Abuja" i.e. most of the public statements of the archbishop thereof, are, to a British reader, clearly in a literary style that is quite different from that employed in English-language Nigerian journalism, as typified by the 30 July interview.

I think Tunde raises a very important point. Akinola may very well be financed by rich ultraconservatives. He may very well have had Minns write a great deal of this document - perhaps he thinks that Minns is a good writer, and certainly they agree on a lot of issues.

But the fact remains that Akinola signed off on this. He's a proud man (in my opinion). He's smart, and he's very powerful. I do not think he would let himself be manipulated. I think it is odd that some here are suggesting that Akinola is somehow a puppet. No, he's more a co-equal participant. If not for the IRD's money, he might have fewer resources, but he would still be the same person.

And so, I have to question why Colin said what he said: "I am glad to have my analysis confirmed by this revelation to the Church Times, thanks to computer tracking software. It confirms the suspicions Changing Attitude has long held, that many of the documents and press releases issued by the Church of Nigeria and Archbishop Akinola have their origin in or are heavily edited by Bishop Martyn Minns, Canon Chris Sugden and other conservative secessionists."

we knew this lot were agreed on the issue of homosexuality, and were cooperating on this issue. what difference does it make if Minns and Sugden wrote the documents on behalf of Akinola? Colin seems to be implying that Minns and Sugden are trying to lead Akinola into trying to split the Communion ... instead, I think Akinola needs no leading here. he just found some folks who happened to be of like mind. they happen to be White. no colonialism there, I think.

What a storm in a teacup!

Shock...horror!
an Archbishop has one of his bishops check / draft a public letter!!!

Can you believe such things happen????!?!!!

What is the world coming to! Just shocking.
Next you will be telling me that Rowan Williams has people to help him with his letters and statements.........and would you suggest someone is pulling his strings??? He better write all his own stuff or the TA contributors will be very unhappy and suspicious!

"Archdeacons are styled The Venerable."

When I was a graduate student at the University of Michigan, many years ago, we were required to take a course in Anglo-Saxon language. Fairly far into the course, we were asked to translate a short passage from Bede's history. Our professor said that many generations of grad students had, in frustration, changed Bede from The Venerable to The Venamous. Perhaps some Archdeacons might be so styled.

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/08/whose-is-it.html

Nothing much to add to comments (other than what the more clever students do when plagiarising), except some folks might like my cartoon at the end.

There are many serious problems with the story itself and the conclusions being drawn.

First, there is no substantiation or explanation of what software Pat Ashworth had access to or why Ashworth drew the published conclusions from that access. I have seen enough false stories from the press to want to see substantiated evidence before I accept questionable assumptions drawn from flimsy evidence.

Second, assuming the evidence is valid, it should be realized that it only reveals that the letter was modified on Minns’ computer. It doesn’t - and can’t - tell you who was using the computer.

So let's review:

Prosecution’s evidence: the document in question was substantially modified on Minns’ laptop.

Defence’s evidence: Akinola was in Virginia visiting Minns and did not have a computer. Nigerian church official emails document to Minns so Akinola would have access to it.

So we are to believe that Akinola should have purchased himself a new laptop, or is it reasonable and likely that he simply used Minns’ laptop? After all, Minns was acting as Akinola's host.

Face it, there is more then reasonable doubt about the aspersions being cast about Akinola and Minns. These aspersions wouldn’t even meet the “more likely than not” standard of proof.

Third, let's not forget that - as so infamously put by Bp. Swing - Minns is not a native-born American. He is from England, and his speech and speech pattern is English, not American.

Ford Elms wrote: “It is not racism to say that cynical political manipulation, while a good thing in a worldly politician, is not appropriate in a bishop of the Church.”

Cynical political manipulation is a BAD thing in a worldly politician, Ford!

You all seen to have forgotten that this is the Church; the Body of Christ, not Washington D.C.

BTW I can tell you all that today the leading conservative Swedish daily devotes an entire page to a leader/comment by one of its political op.ed. -ers, “philosopher, author and member of the Catholic church”, living in the USA, about AIDS in Uganda, the dictatorship of Mr (now General) Museveni (who lived in Sweden in exile 25 years ago), headed The Example Uganda demonstrate the Prejudices of the West.

Racism will be the last card in this “culture war” of the Americans, sadly only as a pretext. When this last pretext (which was also the first) has failed, the anti Moderns will have lost.

(remains to be seen, if anything will have happened about racism in America, though… : -(

Tunde wrote: “Oh. Forgive me. I see he expects the literary style of a Newspaper journalist to be like 'most of the publications from Abuja'. Aren’t they are all Africans?
Well, let us get back to the document and choose which way the Communion should go. For or against rewriting the Bible?”

So your ”re-writing” your statements because you don’t want to “re-write” the Bible?

You forget that that re-writing has already been made; the 12th century Scholastic anti the Spilling of Semen Hetero-sexualizations of the Versio vulgata in Latin, the 16th century faithful translations of the same in the Vernacular (though strangely, claimed to be the Byzantine version of the General text), and – not least – the mid to late 20th century Dynamic Equivalent anti Modern Homo-sexualizations...

But this is not about “literary styles”, it's about computer spy-ware ;=)

My earlier comment was in general terms precisely because the Church Times article was not clear on how this information was obtained. If this information was obtained simply by half a dozen mouse clicksI would accept that it is in the public domain. The article did however sugggest a more intrusive forensic process. As the details were not given it is impossible to asses the reliability of the interpretation given which appears to be in large measure spin.

The Venerable AkinTunde Popoola has been branded as a liar in previous comments. Why are such offensive comments allowed in a moderated discussion? Does Changing Attitude have a monopoy on the truth?

David

Maybe we could have a trial or an appeal. Maybe you could tell me how someone who feels they have been mistreated by their diocese should appeal?

To the lay leader who is doing it, their minister who repeats it, their bishop who ignores it, their diocese who refers you back to the bishop, the archbishop who at the time was also country's Anglican head, or Lambeth Palace who have no portal entry and advise in policy that you must go back to the local leadership.

We don't have to worry about a kangaroo trial such as Jesus had, because we don't have any kind of trial process.

Go over and read the Wycliffe threads.

If souls want to be given justice, maybe they should try meting out in kind.

The other thing is that the posting was not just comments, they substantiated their claim with actual evidence. Something else that the Anglican Communion and Theological Colleges seem to have developed a knack of never seeing, destroying or dismissing out of hand. (Including evidence of their shenanigans to do same).

Maybe ABC and their cohorts should go back and reread Rowan Williams' "Christ on Trial: How the Gospel Unsettles Our Judgement". http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/5603 They might find it useful to read the gospel and Acts too. Then contemplate how their own conduct and choices over the years and current conflict parallel that of the teachers of the law in Jesus' time.

To all you apologists who say there is nothing unusual about having a shared input into this kind of document - fine. What matters here are the characters behind the scenes - and they are now revealed to have more influence over the church in Nigeria than the (far too many!) local bishops. The story seems to be moving on from an attempted coup to take over the Anglican Communion to what is clearly a successful takeover of one province in Africa by trad Americans.

David wrote: "The Venerable AkinTunde Popoola has been branded as a liar in previous comments. Why are such offensive comments allowed in a moderated discussion? Does Changing Attitude have a monopoy on the truth?"

Certainly not. I have challenged Colin Coward myself on one occasion when he was peddling entirely false rumours. He refused to retract. The words 'pot' and 'kettle' sprang to my mind when I saw his comments on this thread.

James Crocker wrote: “Venerable is the title of a dean. Matthewhunt, I believe you owe an apology to Tunde for ridiculing him because of your own ignorance.”

AkinTunde Popoola, the spin master of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) just recently was titled and styled the Reverend Canon.

http://www.anglican-nig.org/contact.htm or

http://www.sarahlaughed.net/anglicana/2007/06/and_brother_wil_1.html

It changed 19 hours ago: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/5286/

What’s ridikkulus here, is a post Colonial adherence to pre Colonial attitudes and to the pre Modern expressions of those attitudes. The exposed alignment of a definitely late Modern spin master to the attitudes, philosophy, styles and titles of the wet dream of Hellenists/Platonists down the ages (pre dating Christianity, you know); an Hierarchic society – with themselves on top ;=)

Ridikkulus.

Neil

While I can empathise with your sentiments, it takes the responsbility too far away from the Nigerians and others.

The treatment of women in Africa is appalling, female circumcision is a scandal, the AIDS pandemic is terrible because in many parts women are seen as little more than cattle. (I saw one appalling article last year where a husband beheaded his wife because she wasn't behaving suitably and the community's males thought this was an okay parallel to putting down an unruly piece of cattle).

Do not give these souls the opportunity to escape responsibility for documents published under their own names, for the state of their own nations nor continent.

Have no illusion that the reason some of the financial sponsors' nations have not deteriorated to the same degree is not because they have better theology, but because society manages itself better (despite and not because of such theologians).

Neil

While I can empathise with your sentiments, it takes the responsbility too far away from the Nigerians and others.

The treatment of women in Africa is appalling, female circumcision is a scandal, the AIDS pandemic is terrible because in many parts women are seen as little more than cattle. (I saw one appalling article last year where a husband beheaded his wife because she wasn't behaving suitably and the community's males thought this was an okay parallel to putting down an unruly piece of cattle).

Do not give these souls the opportunity to escape responsibility for documents published under their own names, for the state of their own nations nor continent.

Have no illusion that the reason some of the financial sponsors' nations have not deteriorated to the same degree is not because they have better theology, but because society manages itself better (despite and not because of such theologians).

"... the money, the location, the name, the appearance, none of this matters in terms of how we evaluate the argument being put forward."

Sorry, but it seems to me Deaconmark indicated these points precisely.

"the money, the location, the name, the appearance"

"Cynical political manipulation is a BAD thing in a worldly politician, Ford! "

No, Goran, cynical manipulation is the way politics operates. In order to be a successful politician, one has to be a good manipulator of public opinion, one's colleagues, indeed everyone and everything. I come from a place where we all know the only honest politician is one who hasn't been caught. It is in this sense that I used the word 'good'. I did not mean to imply cynical manipulation was a good thing, merely that, in the world of politics it is a necessary skill, and one's aptitude for it directly determines one's success. It is not good in a bishop because bishops are called to higher things. Politicians are "called' to lower things. The fact that bishops have had to play this game for 1700 years just goes to indicate the error of selling out the state all those years ago.

A Google Blog Search on 'Minns' and 'Akinola' reveals that apparently there was a post addressing the current issue, 'Choosing What we Believe', on the 'Anglican Action' blog - http://anglicanaction.blogspot.com/ . This is the blog of Ralph Webb, Director of Anglican Action at the Institute of Democracy and Religion (IRD). However, if one wishes to read an IRD view, one finds that the post is gone. Now, this is not a particularly active blog, so Ralph Webb must have been moved enough to compose a piece and post it, only then to remove it again. Surely if one feels strongly enough to post on the issue, one would keep it up? Perhaps those who blog can speculate on the reasons why they remove posts? Change of mind? Not happy with it? Asked/told to remove it? Stay out of the issue / keep a distance? Pity. It would have been interesting to hear an IRD view. All we're left with is:

"It wasn't too long ago that many of them considered Minns to be a puppet of Akinola -- and delighted in insulting Minns as a consequence. Now, they're jumping up and down, proclaiming the CANA bishop and other western evangelicals to be ..."

"David wrote: "The Venerable AkinTunde Popoola has been branded as a liar in previous comments. Why are such offensive comments allowed in a moderated discussion? Does Changing Attitude have a monopoy on the truth?"

Andrew and Davis,
All Changing Attitude has ever done is ask Tunde to provide evidence, any kind of evidence, even a small shred of evidence, for his allegations.
Is it no longer customary for accusers to provide proof?

Andrew Carey accuses Colin Coward of false witness, yet he does not give any evidence of this. I'm all for free speech, even here, but it's a bit cheap to make an accusation like that without even trying to substantiate it.

Ralph Webb's piece on the the IRD's 'Anglican Action' blog is now back up - http://anglicanaction.blogspot.com/2007/08/choosing-what-we-believe.html . Maybe the 'ghostwriters' were having a go :-)

Thanks for some reason David.

I am beginning to think there are better ways for me to waist my time than hoping anything of worth is accomplished on these forums.

Same ol’ shoutin’ match differ-ent subdjict.

Lord deliver us from the schizophrenic episode of our collective mind!!
We have come to take comfort in the predictability of our various voices.

If it all comes crashing down, what part will this forum be able to claim:

1)Antropological:a documentation of our differences.
2)Activist: A catalyst for entrenchment.
3)Communal: An honest attempt to come to understanding.

I wrote this myself, though I asked my Dog, Thor, if I should send it. He didn’t think it was wise, but I never listen to good advice either.

Surey, Scott, this blog is a very good reflection of the situation. What other would you expect prior to a likely schism?

Problem is, Scott, you want and expect us to agree with you. There are fundamental differences which mean we never shall.

The question is simply: do we co-exist in one organisation, content to disagree , or not?
There isn't really a way of 'coming to understanding', because we do not believe the same things.

So 'venerable' means archdeacon. I wasn't asking matthewhunt to apologize for not knowing what it meant, I was asking him to apologize for ridiculing Tunde. Apparently my misunderstanding of the term 'venerable' is more important than this.

Merseymike, Pluralist, Others,

I do not want and expect you to agree with me. I am trying to get a feel for our communion and my future place in it. I was recently accepted as a postulant in our diocese. Hard as it may be to believe, I have only come to knowledge of the details of our rift in the last few months. I knew something was going on but had no idea how divisive. I think this is common for the average lay and clergy at least here in BC. There is a great capacity for pretending all will be well. I often ask a priest if he has heard such and such and he, a self styled Liberal, is mostly unaware of the details of what is going on.

So I ask very honestly if we can present our different views and organize ourselves in a way to accommodate them. I do not mean by this question that we can. I am more curious if there is any will to find out if we can. Makes me a bit of a Pollyanna I guess.

Merseymike,

I appreciate your clarity:

There isn't really a way of 'coming to understanding', because we do not believe the same things.

We often get the impression, where I am from, that we are having a big fuss about chair arraignment.

If what you and others say is the case, and I find it hard to disagree, that focuses our efforts. I have no interest in arguing ideas at this point.

Scott,

This is not about chair arrangement. This is about people's lives, and it's about the very nature of God. People are murdered and criminalised and abused because of their sexual orientation. Akinola, by his words and deeds, encourages this. As a church we must make it clear that we will not be party to this unchristian violence.

Scott, so you are a postulant in the diocese, and have since discovered the level of disagreement in the Communion.

Such discoveries often come at the wrong time. They did when I had a year training to be a Unitarian minister. I knew about traditional chapel Unitarianism, but assumed that all shared basic fundamentals about freedom of belief and not acting in closed locally doctrinal manner - and I discovered I was wrong. One piece of advice after the event was I should have travelled and observed rather than been asked to do the more active training of preaching, and residential sessions - by which I put my foot in it; on the other hand, it is better to know something beyond theory and assumptions by putting your foot into it, because the constraints (in this case of small chapel culture) might be too constraining.

You are discovering a higher level disagreement that is becoming obviously quite fundamental. The question is how that higher level disagreement works downwards. For example, in the Unitarians, I always knew it was bipolar at high level, but failed to see how it worked amongst its conservatives at lower level.

Where I live in the Anglican world, I can see ho the higher level party atmosphere maps at the lower level. I see where there is negativity, and where there is managed variation and toleration. I also see levels of knowledge and ignorance about these matters. There are many people on blogs who write knowledgably on matters not well known among some others locally, and there is always the chance for leaders to exploit.

There is no way that the profound goings on at higher level, including likely division, will not affect parishes and positions on the ground. There will be effects, and worse still tugging at many marginally positioned churches. One of the points of these blogs is to analyse, and see the moves ahead, but often neglected is the effect at lower level.

A great deal at lower level will look and feel the same - the same people turn up and do the same. But the constraints and expectations, and relationships beyond, will change. Perhaps you should examine this in your own case.

These are not chairs being rearranged. They are considerable disagreements.

We are a hundred and fifty years or so down the line from the initial impacts of German biblical criticism, and much has followed since. We are a similar distance from The Origin of Species, and going beyond the worlds of subatomic physics. Secular sociology shows not just intellectual thought changing, but ordinary thought which is practical and straightforward - that explanations are now natural and we solve problems. There was industrialisation and urbanisation that changed everything, and now a kind of technology lifeworld that provides solutions.

Into this remains an ancient faith, and whereas science alters its paradigms according to new mathematics and discoveries, the Christian paradigm is like a rolling tradition.

This simply cannot be treated in an absolute way: the scriptural texts are simply ancient texts of people with completely different world views, indeed several world views before this one. The tradition is a resource, not an absolute.

However, we have those abroad, in situations of developmental stress and signs and wonders, who tell us that the approach ought to be absolute about the text and about the tradition. There are some of Western sectarian mind - who put a distance between how we think normally and the rules of the religious tradition - who agree with those abroad. However, there are a great many of us who either want to reconcile this tradition and its truths with the broader lifeworld we have, and more radical are those who think the tradition should be understood in a different, revised, manner.

This is more than arranging chairs. There are some "liberals" on the ground who are just of moderate temperament who carry on following the rules and expectations as they are. They ignore the big issues, or do not reflect them down on the ground. When threatened (as a communion division will) then they react. Some of us, however, see that there is a huge difference of world view going forward, and will defend the space to adapt, and not have a new constraint being imposed.

A big fuss about a pretext, Scott.

Politicking, power plays.

Not at all Theology, or the Bible, or even Christianity, but Culture.

Changing Attitude does not have a monopoly on the truth. As but one member of Changing Attitude, I admit to making mistakes on occasion. Andrew Carey implies that I have no moral authority to question the integrity of others because I have, in his words, “peddled false rumours in the past”. I have done no such thing, I hope. I have been in error sometimes and I have admitted and accept that I have.

I believe in truth-telling, integrity, honesty and openness as critical human and Christian virtues and I hope CA embodies these values.

The question raised here is, are either Davis or Tunde (or Colin) truthful about who we are and what we report?

Davis has provided evidence to prove that everything Tunde accused him of was untrue, with one exception.

The exception is the allegation about Davis’s activities in Otukpo, when, Tunde says, Davis stole documents and money and falsely promised to marry the bishop’s daughter.

Davis is unable to provide evidence to demonstrate his innocence because the allegations are without foundation.

It was Tunde who first accused Davis of fraud and theft, over two years after the events were supposed to have occurred. The diocese had never and has never accused Davis of theft and fraud. Neither have the bishop’s wife and daughter made any allegations. Tunde alone accuses Davis.

Tunde has made very specific allegations and NO evidence has been produced. Nothing.

If Davis has told the truth in every other respect, I have no reason to doubt that Davis is telling the truth about Otukpo. The implication of this is that Tunde has invented false and malicious accusations for his own motives.

Someone is lying about the theft and fraud and I don’t believe it is Davis.

This saga has clear implications for the authority and status of the person who is the Director of Communications for the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) and for his role in defending the integrity of the letter sent by his Archbishop to the Nigerian Synods.

Tunde represents a group who claim moral, scriptural and historical superiority over those who work for the full inclusion of LGBT people in the church. He has published false allegations which led to death threats. Because of this, his legitimacy should rightly come under very serious scrutiny.

Colin, like myself you admit to human inadequacy and the possiblity that you make errors as a result.

There are others on TA who have done 180-degree turns on their positions, with no acknowledgement of their change in position and thus that either position was an "error".

Before God you are more righteous than them because you honestly acknowlege your limitations.

You are the woman who offered up the baby lest it be lost, whilst other woman never acknowledged she was prepared to lose both babies rather than admit her selfish contrivances.

Andrew

I have twice reminded Tunde on this blog that bearing false witness against a neighbour is a breach of the Ten Commandments, and that much higher standards are required of us under the new covenant.
Yet Tunde still has not provided evidence to substantiate his allegations nor retracted them.

I'm disappointed that I have to remind you of the same - I'm a simple soul, so please supply evidence of Colin Coward peddling false rumours and refusing to retract them, so that I can judge this for myself. Pots and kettle indeed Andrew.

Liddon, Pluralist,

I would hope that my post made it clear that I do not think this is about chair arrangement.

Pluralist,

I appreciate your insight. I think we see the big organizational picture similarly, but have very different takes on solutions or basic theology. I am yet to go to seminary, but I have studied philosophy in my undergrad work. I have read various theologies but I do not have a deep comprehensive understanding. I am not afraid to learn or understand. I think there is something missing from the ‘traditionalist’ side; I think there is something missing from the ‘progressive’ side. I have some understanding of the motives of both. I hold in myself, both in my history and presently, both of these motives. I have the negative impulse of legalism from traditionalism and the negative impulse of lawlessness from the progressive. Both are works of the flesh. We are all subject to their allure of immediate gratification. I sense the positive gift of stolid faith that comes from ‘traditional’ teaching, and I am compelled by the positive action to love by the ‘progressive’. I cannot bring myself to believe that one side is wholly or mostly correct. In that sense I agree with ++Tutu. (Which means I should be posting this on the other thread). The time is too soon to split. But unless we are willing to sit down and let our self protection down we will only remain in the violent tension that is often so well documented on these threads at TA and elsewhere.

Go:ran,

As it is clear that I do have the training to engage you in conversation, I will not waist you time or the movement of my fingers on my keyboard.

Liddon, Colin and Brenda. Back in December Colin Coward posted the following on Thinking Anglicans.

"We continue to hear rumours from inside Nigeria, rumours that Peter Akinola is trying to get Anglican Nigerians in the UK to set up independent congregations and that a certain George Carey is frequently on the phone to Abuja (Andrew, as disinterested person, I'm sure you'll deny this on behalf of your father).
Posted by Colin Coward at Monday, 18 December 2006 at 2:40pm GM"

I checked with my father and he confirmed to me that this claim about 'frequent' phone calls was entirely false. In fact he'd had no contact with ++Peter Akinola since his retirement. When I informed Colin of this both publicly on Thinking Anglicans and privately by email he refused to publicly retract. His public response on Thinking Anglicans follows:

"Too many threads and too many comments flowing on TA for me to keep up with them all. I'd missed Andrew Carey's challenge to me to withdraw what I described as a rumour about the previous Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, being in frequent contact with Archbishop Akinola in Abuja.
I've returned to my sources in Nigeria, and they confirm that what I wrote was true. Therefore I should withdraw the word 'rumour', and if Andrew says he's checked with his father, and he hasn't made contact with Peter Akinola once since he retired, then I am being lied to by the Nigerian contacts. And, for the benefit of Nigerians reading this, I said 'if'.
Posted by Colin Coward at Friday, 22 December 2006 at 12:53pm GMT"

This was part of a longer post in which he complained about widespread dishonesty. Well, I think that Colin is complicit in that dishonesty by spreading unsubstantiated gossip. That is why I used the words 'pot' and 'kettle'.

Ok Scott, fair enough; let's see what happens.

Scott,
I am assuming you are politically conservative(in the "who forms the government" sense) and an Evangelical. I am politically liberal and come from a middle of the road background, though I'd now consider myself Anglocatholic. Yet we have very similar approaches. While I am on the other side of the fence, I guess, I do not see anything to disagree with in your last post. I would identify 'compassion' as missing from the "traditionalist" side, and 'reverence' from the "progressive" side. Unlike you, I see the lion's share of the misbehaviour on the right, but that's just my perception, and it certainly doesn't mean the left is blameless. I have long believed we need another group, one that speaks for the true Anglican mainstream, the one that is in the middle of all this, watching it all play out around them. The purpose of this group would be to tell both sides to shut up and sit down and let more moderate voices have a say for once, it isn't all about which of their two sides is shown to be the most holy. We could call it by an old Newfoundland statement of frustration: "For the Love and Honour of God!" Pretty much says it all.

Andrew,

I think Colin has more than answered this earlier. BTW, why has your own blog died?

Ford,

I am not sure what I am politically. I expect little from politicians. I agree with a libertarian conservative ideal generally. But in a poorly prepared community liberty becomes a screen for tyranny. I do not find most contemporary liberal theories antidotes to tyranny, however. They tend to place us in contrived moral space; an ‘if we just’ utopianism.

I expect somewhat more from church leaders, but am not surprised when they fail. There is something systemically corruptive about large scale leadership. That is what I find so offensive about the tactics and responses to this post. Is stinks of scandal mongering. I don’t really have an opinion about Akinola yet. He may be too political for my liking. But this whole church is somewhat compromised by its imperial past. Many crave seats at the highest tables.

I am economically radical, but not a Communist. Capitalism is not easily derived from the Gospel, though market economics may be able to be co-opted for the real good of the many more so than a centralized economy. I wish the TA powers that be would post some discussions on economic theory!

I attend the only Anglocatholic parish on Vancouver Island. Though I think you are right I am an Evangelical at heart, and may have to admit this one day.

My caution about division comes from what I have been taught about the Anglican Church. When does God divide us? We cannot know. Even the whole mix of sects is part of the one body. At least there are some from each that are in Christ. If our Church is an attempt to allow for diversity without division, then we need to make the arrangements necessary to make this real. We are not just talking about Catholics and Protestants anymore. I do not hold this view because I think everyone is right, but, like a good Theist, because I think we are all mostly wrong. And like Pluralist wrote, I want the ability to “defend the space to adapt, and not have a new constraint being imposed.”

Shock, horror..... a bishop edited / drafted a letter for his Archbishop!!!

This thread really does not deserve as many responses as it has got as it is non-news..... there is no gun, let alone a smoking gun!

Very revealing.....so many here want desperately to discredit ++Akinola and will jump on nothing to try to do so.....I wonder why, especially when I am repeatedly told on TA that ++Akinola is an extremist in the AC with no influence and TWR is not binding etc???

It would have been news that a bishop helped his archbishop edit/draft a letter if:

a) there was any suggestion that ++Akiola did not agree with the final letter....but there is not;
b) the said bishop was a TEC bishop...but Minns is a CANA bishop;

I really would not be surprised if some people were going further to try and discredit ++Akinola..... eg trying to dig for dirt on his private life etc - ....if people are trying to discredit him, they obviously have not found anything yet or we would have heard about it......and nearly a hundred comments on a TA thread would be justified! As it is, please relax, a bishop helping his archbishop draft a letter is NOT news!

The pot and kettle apologises unreservedly to Andrew and his father for having published something in the public realm that was told to me as fact, not as rumour. Clearly my informant didn’t tell me the truth.

I had a conversation with Andrew at GC in Columbus 2006 about his father’s involvement in certain parishes and dioceses in the USA. We disagreed. I still disagree with Andrew. Lord Carey’s involvement risked undermining the present Archbishop of Canterbury and many believe his involvement has been unfortunate and damaging.

But the present question on this thread is whether the Venerable AkinTunde Popoola, Director of Communications for the Church of Nigeria, is telling the truth about the authorship of his Archbishop’s letter. I question his truth telling because he has previously published untrue statements about Davis Mac-Iyalla. Tunde has never apologised to Davis despite the evidence published to show that Davis told the truth. Tunde has never produced evidence to support his allegations about Otukpo, despite repeated requests.

When Tunde makes statements about the authorship of the Archbishop’s letter, his previous actions can rightly be introduced as evidence that he is not to be trusted.

The problem for Lord Carey’s association with the conservatives in the USA is that he connects with a section of the communion that is determined to undermine and replace the Episcopal Church in the USA, to destroy the unity of the Anglican Communion, to undermine the authority of Dr Rowan Williams and to redefine the polity of the Communion.

The destructive force is but a fragment of what should truly be called the global south - the majority of Anglicans across the world who remain faithful to historic Anglicanism and to God who loves and blesses all. The self-proclaimed ‘Global South’ coalition does not represent 20 million Nigerian Anglicans nor the majority of members of the Anglican Communion. If Andrew’s journalistic information is accurate he will know this to be true.

My primary concern is to protect Davis’ life and ensure that the lies told about him are understood to be exactly that - lies. I have also asked repeatedly for Tunde to apologise for the distress he has caused Davis and the damage such lies about a gay Anglican create for the integrity of the church and for all of us working for the full inclusion of LGBT in EVERY Province of the Communion.

"I really would not be surprised if some people were going further to try and discredit ++Akinola..... eg trying to dig for dirt on his private life"

For some reason, somewhere in the back of my mind a little bird keeps chirping "Desmond Tutu's Mansion; Desmond Tutu's Mansion; Desmond Tutu's ......"

Lapin - that is just a fact....write to Tutu and ask him.....he has a very expensive house in Cape Town (big Nobel Prize money etc) ....does this discredit him in your eyes??

Colin....you talk about truth a lot above (in relation to the great scandal of a bishop drafting a letter for his Archbishop!!)....do you think vicars should tell the truth when they make vows to uphold the teaching of the church and obey its requirements on them as priests?? We see some in the CofE who seem to have lied when they made those vows as they do not obey certain requiremtns on them.....some of the behaviour we see does not seem to be in close relationship to the truth, I am sorry to say.

Scott,
I'm a Newfoundlander, so I'm about as far from a libertarian conservative ideal as one can get, I think:-) The only other place where I would quibble is your statement about

"contrived moral space"

I see "reasserters" firmly occupying that space. They assume a kind of "Ozzie and Harriet" morality among straight people, mine the Bible for justification, and ignore anything that would contradict this assumption. Particular sins, especially economic ones, are elaborately justified while the "other side" is reviled as making "fudges" of the Gospel for the sake of worldly popularity. I see claims of having listened from people who obviously know nothing about gay people. I see propaganda touted as science in order to paint us out as sick, even dangerous, creatures. I see duplicity and double dealing while the "other side" is accused of this very thing. I see a total unwillingness to do anything other than condemn and embrace whatever will justify condemning us, regardless of its veracity. I see denial of the faith of anyone who would dare to disagree. Pointing out this hypocrisy is taken as "justification" of the other side's view!
I see self righteousness on both sides, and arrogance. I do, however, see the worst offenders on the right. I'm no more comfortable than you with the "pro-gay theology" so far put forward. But when I look to the ways people's lives show forth the Gospel, since "by their fruits shall ye know them" I really don't see such actions in the movers and shakers in the "reasserter" camp.

NP, I do write a lot about truth. The truth is setting me free, from the deep and damaging prejudice of the church towards LGBT people. We are all tempted to distort truth for our own reasons, sometimes. I will not be oppressed by a secessionist group of Primates, bishops and lay people who claim a truth about me which I reject, and abuse truth themselves in pursuing their campaign against people like me.

One truth among many, conflicting truths, about the church into which I was ordained is that it did, does, and always has, ordained gay people, some or many of whom were in love. Love is a godly, holy, healthy human emotion. I love someone of the same gender. According to you, this love is taboo according to 7 or so verses or passages in the Bible.

If the church into which I was ordained believed what you do about homosexuality, I wouldn't have been ordained. The church has changed in the 30 years since I was ordained. So have I. I am now more open and honest about myself. The church is being driven, according to you, to be more faithful to the Bible. I believe the church is being driven to be more honest about, and to, people like me and to the millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Anglicans spread across every Province of the Communion.

I was ordained into a don't ask, don't tell church which was more truthful to the complexity of scripture but not very truthful about me.

This is changing rapidly, praise the Lord, and will continue to change, whatever mantras you and other conservatives continually repeat here.

The outcome of our present turmoil will be a church which changes its attitude to LGBT people. It will welcome and integrate us as ordinary members of the Christian community and it will honour and bless our relationships.

Actually NP, life in these parts being what it is, I'm a bit curious as to whether trying to "discredit ++Akinola..... eg trying to dig for dirt on his private life" is a simple generic put-down, or whether it might be a preemptive measure, based on what is rumoured about the archbishop in evangelical circles, planted to discredit any allegations that might be made against him. Highly unlikely, of course, but odder things have happened - who, for instance, could have invented the Aiken/Wycliffe business?

Ford says "But when I look to the ways people's lives show forth the Gospel..."

How exactly?

- breaking vows to uphold the biblical teaching of the church?

- deliberately going ahead with actions that cause strife and schism in the AC??? (this shows the self-sacrificial nature of the gospel???)

- ignoring the bible when it is not convenient i.e. lives which show and encourage hypocrisy?
- being involved in social action around the world.....but everyone does that (eg TEAR Fund etc);

- tearing the AC apart by going ahead with unilateral actions and then saying "we are for unity, we accept everyone" even though when it mattered (in 2003), there was no concern for accepting the views of most of the AC?
province? (this shows the truthfulness of the gospel??)

Even if you respect one side more than the other, you have to ask if they are right or wrong in God's eyes (you have his word to see what he wants)....this is what matters.

I think that Akinola is discredited by his views and beliefs - they are quite enough.

NP wrote: "... do you think vicars should tell the truth when they make vows to uphold the teaching of the church and obey its requirements on them as priests??"

There are no vows on human sexuality nor is there any teaching on it, chastity (which is neither abstinence nor celibacy) apart.

Sorry NP.

There is no scandal in the fact that Minns drafted or edited Akinola's letter.

But it is amusing that the Venerable Director of Communications is so reluctant to admit it.

In my secular life, I work in public relations. I offer the following observation to Tunde, one communications professional to another.

Often times, the best way to make a story go away is by admitting it is true and then moving on.

Colin,

not only was Carey a disaster as ABC, he is now a mailign influence in the Angican Communion, making mischief as he supports those who are destabilising it. It's a shame that he has chosen to ignore the convention of not interfering in the place he has left.

I see, NP, so trainee vicars go to colleges or residential courses, learn the varieties of theologies and biblical criticism, realise it isn't all according to those historical statements, and then ought to - what - say, "Well thanks, I resign"? No, they know, like everyone ought to know, that these statements that keep the good ship Anglican moving are historical, hand-me-downs, that give approximate guideposts to the faith, for which some take them more literally and others more symbolically. The good ship Anglican knows that they are not books of rules and have not been for hundreds of years. The language is symbolic in nature, pointing beyond itself, and this has long been understood. your rule book, MP, is not the book of rules.

The fact that Minns may have ghostwritten or edited Akinola's letter is neither here nor there.

But if I might offer some PR advice to Tunde (my secular employment is in public relations).

It would have been simpler to admit off the top that Minns drafted and or edited the letter and moved on. The tempest in the teapot would have been done by now.

It is your gymnastics that have given this legs.

"breaking vows to uphold the biblical teaching of the church?"

Something done by the accusers as well as the accused. No justification, but "remove the beam that is in thine own eye, that thou mayest see clearly to take out the mote that is in thy brother's eye." That means the same as "people who live in glass houses ought not throw stones, and it IS in the Bible.

"deliberately going ahead with actions that cause strife and schism in the AC???"

We agree on this point, but see the above point? Do you actually believe that the more extreme antics of some Evangelicals are accepted? Again, if we don't break communion over +Akinola's desire to jail the innocent, why this? Besides, this shows pretty clearly that for you, it ain't about the Gospel, truth, or anything else except punishing those who don't comply.

"ignoring the bible"

Stop telling lies. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

How about forgiving people who threaten one's life, NP? Or trying to work out our differences together? How about not lying and scheming and plotting? I know you think TEC has committed some heinous crime. The sad part is you seriously think the right is blameless. Your Fishtianity is showing.
As for social action, the list is too long to print.

"The pot and kettle apologises unreservedly to Andrew and his father for having published something in the public realm that was told to me as fact, not as rumour. Clearly my informant didn’t tell me the truth."

I'm thankful for this, though I wish you had said this eight months ago.

As for my father's ministry which you and Liddon so eloquently complain about it really doesn't matter what we disagree about. There is nothing substantial in any accusations of interference and there never has been.

Ford Elms wrote:

"as for social action, the list is too long to print".

The list of what - liberal social action or evangelical social action? I suspect both lists are too long to print. No section of the Church has any sort of monopoly on social action, though some liberals like to claim they do.

Oh Ford...come on, you are one of the people who know what the bible says round here.....you know some people ignore what you call "the clobber verses"....

Now, I have many times agreed with you that all sides are sinners and many times replied that only one side is trying to redefine a sin (according to "the clobber verses") and say it ain't a sin.....that's the difference. We are all sinners but one side says it does not need to repent of one particular sin because they have some special authority to ignore the bible, it seems.

Also, I have agreed with you on ++Akinola's faults.......so what do you want us to do? Allow others to teach heresy and reject the morality of the bible because ++Akinola is a sinner???

++Akinola is a sinner, I am sure he would agree, but this does not discredit Lambeth 1.10 or The Network in the US or most of the bishops of the AC who would vote again for Lambeth 1.10 (except liberals are too scared to have another vote and lose again next year!)

Come on Ford....you are not one of those who knows little except what they want to justify or someone who just wants to hurt the AC until it adopts secular standards. I agree with you that there are faults on both sides but the difference is that one side will repent and the other claims it somehow it has authority to decide what is and what is not a sin

"you are one of the people who know what the bible says"

The why do you keep telling me to read it as though I never have?

"only one side is trying to redefine a sin (according to "the clobber verses") and say it ain't a sin"

And why do you repeatedly ignore the times I have shown you this is not true, the Church has repeatedly done so? Why is an elaborate fudge that allows remarriage after divorce acceptable when one that allows gay clergy is not? Why is the ancient compromise that allowed for usury acceptable when a modern compromise is not? You do realize that in the Middle Ages, it was considered sinful, right?

"what do you want us to do?"

You are not a priest nor a bishop, nor God, though you presume to speak for all three. I expect you to do as we are told in Micah 6:8. Now, let's see:
denying the faith of your opponents and ascribing to them motives they do not have.....no, I wouldn't call that justice.
Calling for the resignation of a priest who is alleged to have stolen money with no regard for his repentance and redemption. Seeking the punishment of TEC rather than seeking reconciliation...Not mercy. Or maybe repentance and redemption for you mean abject grovelling and crying about how one broke the Law? Still, not mercy.
And, seeing that you presume to speak for the Anglican Communion, Evangelicals who think like you do, even God Himself, and arrogantly deny any post Biblical part of the Christian faith as "following the traditions of men" as though the Fathers had no more understanding than you, certainly not "walking humbly with your God." Three strikes.

Funny really. Face to face I have heard people put such propositions as NP does before, but only a minority, and at present I cannot think of anyone I encounter who'd call themselves Christian who presents such views. Maybe I move around in odd company - who knows who I attract or repel - but if NP's position represents the Anglican Communion then it is pretty remote or minor. The other point is that the argument he presents (in so far as it is: it always sounds like a baseline for propositions) has no impact at all; I never get any sense that it might be right. It takes very little work on the historical Jesus or on the construction of the Bible content (via the various modes of critical methods) to find that this approach presented by NP simply slides off and away.

Andrew,

It is not only his actions after leaving office that cause many of us to regret Carey's behaviour. It was his conduct of the office itself. Still, why has your own blog died?

Ford - and you walk humbly with God by ignoring some of his commandments?

The sin and hypocrisy of others does not give anybody a free pass to sin......this just does not follow.

So, your judgment on me is that I am not humble ....not like TEC and VGR ignoring the repeated pleas of all the AC Primates not to bring schism in the AC!

Yes, I am very arrogant, Ford....wanting to stick to the creeds (when KJS preaches pluralism) and agreed AC positions (eg Lambeth 1.10) which still have the support of the vast majority of the AC.....breathtaking arrogance????

Pluralist says " It takes very little work on the historical Jesus or on the construction of the Bible content (via the various modes of critical methods) to find that this approach presented by NP simply slides off and away."

I know you are a "great" academic, Pluralist, but you do realise that your wisdom has escaped most of the bishops of the AC (that is why Lambeth 1.10 stands)......maybe we need to get you lecturing them all at Lambeth 08 since you most of them clearly do not understand the scriptures or the faith a well as you.....

As for me, I will not take on an intellectual giant like you but will continue to trust the Primates (who may have some theological education between them?) - all the AC Primates have responded exactly as I would wish in TWR and Tanzania......maybe they too are not as clever as you???

NP, you constantly tell us that the vast majority of the AC support Lambeth 1.10. Could you provide the evidence for this assertion, please.

A majority of bishops voted at Lambeth '98, and you might claim the majority of Primates in support (though they have never voted on it), but that a vast majority in the Communion support 1.10? Is that an honest claim - given that much of this thread has focussed on honesty?

How about propping up your accusations with some quotes, NP?

Credibility, you know...

Dear Colin

1)as you say, there was a huge majority for 1.10;

2)now I see 1.10 reaffirmed in The Windsor Report;

3) I see the ABC saying 1.10 still "represents the mind of the communion";

4) also, I see those who would overturn it do not have the courage to have a vote next year.....preferring instead lots of small groups and to avoid rather than address issues which divide.....I suspect you would be pushing dear old Rowan for a vote if you think you could win it but you know you have not persuaded many in the AC of the rightness of the changes your group advocates....but that is just my suspicion. Please correct me if I am wrong and we can join together and campaign for a vote - I would certainly like to see such a vote (as long as all of commit to respecting the decision this time)

As for "listening" - I feel the ABC and all our English bishops have been listening respectfully and thoughtfully to your group's views for a long time - would you disagree? Despite this, I am confident that a majority of the CofE bishops would still stand by 1.10....again, I would like to see a vote in the CofE. VGR is dead right when he criticises the CofE for dishonesty sometimes....we need honesty, even about our differences.Shall we start campaigning for this? Me and you fighting for clarity and honesty in the CofE?

N

Liddon I regard your comments about my father as boorish and rude the way they've been given on this thread as blunt assertions. As for my blog I've been asked to put my latest CEN column on it by Graham Kings - so I'll do that shortly. The Anglican blogosphere seems so crowded that I haven't felt there's a gap in the market for my stuff.

Colin, do you seriously believe that Lambeth 1.10 wouldn't carry the majority support of the Anglican Communion - laity and clergy alike. It strikes me that you're mixing too much with likeminded people. Some of my friends from London often comment about the sea-change of attitudes towards homosexuality in Britain. They're only aware of opinion in middle class metropolitan circles. However in most parishes throughout the country pretty traditional attitudes remain.

I said it takes very little work, not something that requires an intellectual giant: anyway, according to NP, I have one presiding bishop on my side. NP has never heard of the phrase: "the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith"? I bet these primates have.

"The sin and hypocrisy of others does not give anybody a free pas