If those comments prove to be true, an apology alone won't do.

This one is a clear resigning matter.

Good to see a clear statement from the ABC - TEC (USA) better worry if the ABC's long summer away from the day job has given him a new clarity!

Hope ++Akinola deals quickly and strongly with the horrible reported statements from +Isaac....and confounds all those who want to use this to discredit him and anyone else who does not agree with the "agenda" which has been tearing the AC apart for the last 4 years.

Canterbury should be asking why it is so shocked and so many gay and lesbian persons are not. This type of outburst is par for the course, and it's not the first time. It was only a matter of time from dehumanizing words to worse.

“If those comments prove to be true, an apology alone won't do.This one is a clear resigning matter.”—Kelvin H.

Absolutely Right On, Kelvin! If a bishop of the Church said that Jews “are not fit to live because they are rebels to God’s purpose” we’d all know what he was suggesting!

I agree with Kelvin - a mere apology is not enough in this case

I guess the ABC would not comment publically unless his office was pretty sure the original remarks were authentic. Of course, he has not deplored equally vile language from ++Akinola himself ....

Aha, so the Archbishop isn't a jellyfish!

(he has a backbone you see, jellyfish don't)

Just to save time:

SPONG!

There, having now mentioned him, we are free to discuss the ACTUAL events.

I'm neither shocked nor surprised by Bishop Orama's remarks. As far as I'm concerned, the figleaf just fell off.

What will be shocking is if ++Williams does anything, or says anything more about the bishop's remarks beyond this press release. Maybe we should ask Jefferey John about what to expect from the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Why are the Bishop's remarks shocking to anyone? The only difference between his remarks and the frequently quoted remarks of Akinola, or for that matter, Bob Duncan and Martyn Minns, is the clarity and directness of his vocabulary. The others traffic in innuendo and subtlety, but the message is the same.

StandFirm has breaking news that UPI is going to print a retraction on the story. Here, from StandFirm:

In an email communication The Venerable Akintunde A. Popoola, Director of Communications for the Church of Nigeria has stated that Bishop Orama has denied making the statements attributed to him in a September 2, 2007, UPI report. Additionally, the journalist who issued the statement has given a verbal apology for the misrepresentation and has promised to print a retraction.

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/5662/

bb

oh, i see. i suppose a big boy said it and then ran away.

Well, given that some were unable to find the story anywhere else, Tunde Popoola's denial may well be true. Personally, I'd like more reliable proof, for reasons that should surprise no-one here, but I am willing, for now, to acknowledge that he may be right.

Anybody catching themselves hoping the story is true so they can (continue to) use it to attack ++Akinola????

If that is you, you should consider your motivations.

Going to try again to have a break from TA - have a good weekend!

There seems not to be anything on the Church of Nigeria website.

Ah yes. Tunde comes along and tells us it wasn't so.

Tunde's credibility has been badly tarnished, both by his repeated slanders against Davis Mac-Iyalla and by his incompetent attempt to spin the ghost-written letter of last week.

An email communication that conveniently hasn't been reprinted (with full headers, if you please), and a verbal apology that can't be independently confirmed. This is rumor, not news.

I think I'll wait for UPI's actual retraction, if one is forthcoming. Thanks ever so.

Well, I'm not really surprised. Once a respectable competitor to the Associated Press, UPI has been trending toward the Weekly World News ever since its purchase by Moon's Unification Church.

It doesn't matter BB, all Nigerians (and conservatives) are guilty in the eyes of the thought police, whether or not they actually said or did the things that the thought police attribute to them.

"StandFirm has breaking news that UPI is going to print a retraction..."

If so, Rowen still has to answer for his silence on Akinola's well documented and almost equally vicious statements, aswell as his support of harsh anti-gay laws proposed laws in Nigeria that were condemned by every human rights watchdog outfit on the planet.

Also worht pondering, if this turns out to be inaccurate, that the anti-gay rhetoric that comes out of Africa routinely made these statements credible.

Go back and read them, and as someone has suggested, substitute the word Jew for gay.

Regardless of bb's news, I'm not sure that's enough. Tunde has become somewhat devalued currency in the transparency stakes these last few weeks, and one quotes Mandy Rice-Davies 'well he would say that, wouldn't he?'

Where did this story come from in the first place? Why has it taken so long to be dealt with? And I am suspicious of a story which is let loose in the public domain and belatedly spiked. Something is fishy.

The bishops of the AC and others, are sponsoring an anti-gay atmosphere around the world. This can lead to all kinds of terrible words and actions.

In re: the 4:58 post about the "denial" above, keep in mind that UPI is owned by the Washington Times (a very, very hard-right and anti-gay news organization in the U.S.).

The Times is in turn owned by Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. IOW, there was no political-bias reason for printing the story in the first place; the only good reason for it to have been written was that it was true.

The "retraction" is another story....

This part of bishop Spong's letter to Rowan shows how werious is episcopal homophobia in general, what ever the (contested) truth of this reported situation.

'There is clearly an estrangement between that body and you in your role as the Archbishop of Canterbury. I want to share with you my understanding of the sources of that estrangement. First, I believe that most of our senior bishops, including me, were elated, at your appointment by Queen Elizabeth II and Prime Minister Tony Blair. Most Americans are not aware that yours is an appointed, not an elected position. Those of us who knew you were keenly aware of your intellectual gifts, your openness on all of the great social debates of our generation and indeed of your personal warmth. We also believed that the Lambeth Conference of 1998, presided over by your predecessor, George Carey, had been a disaster that would haunt the Communion for at least a quarter of a century. An assembly of bishops hissing at and treating fellow bishops with whom they disagreed quite rudely, was anything but an example of Christian community. The unwillingness of that hostile majority to listen to the voices of invited gay Christians, their use of the Bible in debate as a weapon to justify prejudice, the almost totalitarian attempt made to manage the press and to prevent access to the wider audience and the dishonest denial of the obvious and blatant homophobia among the bishops made that Lambeth Conference the most disillusioning ecclesiastical gathering I have ever attended. The Church desperately needed new leadership and so many of us greeted your appointment with hope. Your detractors in the evangelical camp both in England and in the third world actively lobbied against your appointment. The hopes of those of us who welcomed your appointment were, however, short lived because in one decision after another you seemed incapable of functioning as the leader the Church wanted and needed.' Jack Spong.

The Primus of the Scottish Church said as much at the time himself....

Stand Firm is priviledged to receive an email from the Venerable Akintunde Popoola, indeed, to receive a developing response from the Director of Communications for the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) I can't wait to see what comes next. It's taking some time, isn't it? What will the printed retraction say?

The news of the article, which was published on the 2nd September, broke on Wednesday. It was widely publicised on inclusive and conservative web sites and blogs, including condemnation on conservative blogs. It wasn't until the Archbishop of Canterbury condemned the language in a statement issued earlier today that an email was sent by Tunde indicating that Orama denies making the statements attributed to him, and the journalist made an apology.

The retraction will need to clear up in detail exactly how the journalist came to make his mistake. Did he misrepresent the bishop? Did he fabricate the whole interview?

Nothing less will allay suspicions that the bishop had indeed said something very similar to the words reported by the journalist and the Nigerian hierarchy supported his vicious words, despite critical comments on the internet being published for two days. It was only when the ABC himself urged the bishop to apologise and said that such comments are unacceptable and profoundly shocking on the lips of any Christian that any reaction came from the Church of Nigeria.

Ok, so here we go. More spin. Step one, deny everything. Step two, perform a racist denigration of the quality of professionalism among journalists in Nigeria. Step three, pressure the journalist into a retraction. Meanwhile, continue to pay no attention to the man in purple behind the curtain.

The issue of retractions - of who mis-spoke what? Of who mis-heard what? - still skates elegantly on the wider smooth surfaces of expert con-evo Anglican realignment spin doctoring.

Yes, the true details are partly key in sorting out this particular instance of alleged trash talk from a high church figure in real world Africa. By all means let us get to the bottom of the real world details.

However. Even if it really turns out that the bishop did NOT say it, or did not say it just THAT WAY, don't we all really KNOW already that the Anglican realignment leaders believe various iterations of this sorry stuff, in their heart of hearts? That they conceive of themselves in very high and special fashion as holiness people?

Which so far decodes to mean: exclusively privileged and superior straight con-evo believing people. People who are justly loathe to rub shoulders with queer folks as any sort of competent citizen equals - whether in society generally, or in African and worldwide Anglican church life?

Akinola is on record as to his acute distress at having to be in the same room with a queer man or woman, period. Do we doubt that many believers agree with him? Why else would realignment believers try so hard, so often to ensure that openly capable queer people who think themselves the equals of realignment believers are NOT allowed in the world's rooms with them?

Let us not lose sight of the fact that even if the bishop's negativities were quite subtle and clothed in warm-honeyed tones involving how much he loves queer folks - and therefore is called to save us queer folks from having to be - (aka not up to gold standard snuff?) - it is still, nonetheless, at bottom: trash talk.

Witting or unwitting false witness, preached loudly against the real competent lives that so many queer folks are living among us. At school, in the lab work team, at the office, in the locker rooms of major sport clubs, and in our other institutional venues. But NOT, of course, in open, honest con-evo realignment church life.

Whatever Tunde says, well it is Tunde you see. Maybe Tunde should apologize and step down, after the sad spectacle of his lies about MacIyalla and Changing Attitude Nigeria. But then: Tunde was only doing the king's bidding, the Lord archbishop's bidding?

If someone quoted *me*---or someone under my authority---as saying a group of people "weren't fit to live", I would be ALL OVER IT for retraction so fast your head would spin!

...and yet this denial by mouthpiece Tunde Popoola comes only AFTER a days-later condemnation by the ABC?

I don't presume guilt by +Orama.

I DO charge gross negligence, of the festering, scandalous mess, by ++Akinola!

Yes, that is right. The person who was said to have said it would have got a retraction out in double quick time. He didn't. Up pops Popoola as if it was never said. What was said then? Was it all made up?

Imagine a jounalist in the UK being told to retract a report. The journalist would say boo, sue. Has the journalist retracted the report then? If he has, what was he doing if he fabricated it? Or did he fabricate it at all?

So what DID the bishop say to have been "misrepresented"? Did the journalist pluck the words out of thin air? Perhaps the bishop thought he was merely stating Church policy: note the tone and content of the Church of Nigeria's response to the Listening Process.

It feels as if we've reached a tipping point. The build up has taken a decade or so to manifest itself, from Lambeth 1:10 onwards, but the anti-gay rhetoric has now gone too far. The ABC senses this, and is starting to act.

John

Thanks for Spong. It made me laugh.

There has been suggestions that the quote might be in error over the last week. It is possible. It's one of those times we will never know the truth.

However, there has been a victory. Firstly ABC's office making it clear that the are boundaries on how far anti-GLBT can go. So souls might be vehement in their opposition to interpreting the scriptures in a GLBT tolerant or inclusive fashion, but they are then not to go into actual verbal or physical attacks against their very existence.

Secondly, Nigeria's leadership have demonstrated that they also consider this level of hate incitement to be unacceptable.

That is possibly going to lead to some interesting discussions as they work out how not to be tolerant of GLBTs scripturally, but then not cross the line into advocating death or violence against them. They are similar issues that they might have with others that vex them e.g. Muslims. They might find Jesus' exhortations to "love thy enemy" and "let ye who is without sin cast the first stone" useful.

The other thing for both ABC's office and the Nigerians to contemplate is that hate crimes do and have occurred against GLBTs. Sometimes at horrific society levels e.g. under the Nazi's. Like it or not, some souls will move to protect them, because if we don't protect them first, the heterosexual Christians will be screaming that they are being attacked by already known thugs later. We stop the thugs at their first blow, not when the blows start raining down on "pure" Christians.

Re Caritas's post above on the UPI/Washington Times/Moonie connection, by coincidence (I say this without irony) the daughter of a certain "canon doctor", closely involved with Messrs. Akinola & Minns, was a Washington Times intern earlier this year. Odd how things may sometimes appear to interconnect, is it not?

According to UPI the report came from the News Agency of Nigeria, a government news feed. UPI has pulled the story and put up a caveat in its place. They take no responsibility for it, whether rightly or wrongly, and say the UPI tag on the front of it was an error. I haven't seen anything from the News Agency of Nigeria. But the story has not been on their website and I started looking Tuesday night. Hopefully they will come out with something. It seems possible to me that Bishop Orama was unaware of the story. He doesn't necessarily read Thinking Anglicans every day. His diocese does not even have a homepage. But you would thing the C of N would have been more aware of the blogosphere. And note that this story was ONLY on the blogs, not in any major news media (including the UPI home page which did not carry it.)

I find it rather amusing that the Abp of Canterbury should use his office respond to a unsubstantiated and widely blogged second-hand report from UPI. The work of the ACO, we suppose?

Pluralist:

Have you heard of this saying: "Lost in translation?"

It is often racial prejudice that causes misinterpretation. I cannot imagine any church leader of good standing saying something like what was reported. I doubted it the first time I read the report.

Sometimes I wonder if we in the West completely grasp what the conditions are for internet communications in Africa. Here in the west we can sit on a train and read the internet with our Apple phones and Blackberries. We can stop in to Starbucks and open up our Powerbooks and check our e-mail. We can even ride through a city Metro and text message what time we'll be home for dinner. But this is not the case in Africa - where even landline phone coverage can be challenging.

We are a spoiled lot, aren't we?

bb

Terry, those of us who live outside the GS mind-set are representing the Christian faith to an audience which rather dislikes hate-language. As soon as this story went public, any reputable organisation working in our cultural milieu has to do something if the faith is to retain any respect. The 'If..then...' language of +++ROwan is appropriate. With regard to the story itself, 'creatio ex nihilo' is an attribute of God alone. I would love to know what's really going on.

BabyBlue,
I'm not sure what you're saying: that the Africans cannot have picked up the news item because of poor Internet access?
Davis Mac-Iyalla and Changing Attitude in Nigeria seem to be able to follow all news stories on time all the time.
Surely, the official church cannot be worse equipped than a man living in hiding?

Terry wrote "I cannot imagine any church leader of good standing saying something like what was reported."

Your sentiment is wonderful.

However, religious leaders in the past formed the hub of the Klu Klux Klan; justified attempted genocide of Australian Aboriginals and their culture; designed, implemented and maintained Apartheid; participated in the the Nazi holocaust; turned a blind eye to child and spousal abuse within parishioners and/or within boarding schools.

Don't tell us that the Titanic can't sink. It did. As have numerous theologies on numerous occasions in numerous cultures over numerous millennia.

Telling us not to speak from conscience because "it couldn't happen" tells us you are too illiterate and ignorant to be able to protect us. Worse, it tells us that if one of your allies was to do such atrocities, you would turn a blind eye unless forced to acknowledge the errors through either litigation or civil uprising.

Your comments tell us that we can't trust you, and why.

I've visited The Gambia, Ghana, Togo and Tanzania, but not yet Nigeria. I have experienced parts of Africa at first hand. I know how difficult communication can be sometimes, and also how remarkably easy at others. Cybercafés and cell phones enable people living in towns and cities to communicate with ease, despite the fragility of the power supply - there are always generators.

Inability to access the news can't be the reason why it took 2 days for the Church of Nigeria to produce any response to the report of Bishop Orama's comments which were being widely reported online. We know Archdeacon Tunde is an avid reader of TA. It is unthinkable that he hadn't read the report.

Therefore he must have decided that it wasn't serious and wasn't worth commenting on or issuing a press statement clarifying the position of the Church of Nigeria in relation to the attitude expressed by the Bishop.

I think this is because the comments do express the feelings Tunde and Akinola have for gay people(though not Bishop Martyn Minns, and how sadly revealing of his authority in the Church of Nigeria that he has been silent this week).

I have been reading personal stories written by members of Changing Attitude Nigeria this week. They describe the violence, brutality, bullying, isolation, abuse, shootings, that gay and lesbian people in Nigeria commonly experience.

The conservatives don’t understand how extensive is the abuse of LGBT in Africa, and that is why CA holds them to account. Their adherence to their particular interpretation of the Bible about homosexuality means they are unable to accept the evidence about the abuse and murder of gay people in Africa. The violence and abuse won’t stop until the attitudes of conservatives change. The work for the full inclusion of LGBT will not stop until change has been achieved, to the point that church and society respect and protect their LGBT members.

Terry wrote "I cannot imagine any church leader of good standing saying something like what was reported."

Terry, can I remind you that the Diocese of Singapore, under the NCCS, not only called on the continued criminalization of homosexuals, but also called on legislators to make lesbian acts criminal too. Furthermore, lets not ignore the rhetoric of your colleague the Rev'd Derek Hong in characterizing advocates for lesbian and gay rights as being used by the devil to destroy the church.

http://www.methodistmessage.com/mar2007/penalcode.html
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2007/son-788a.mp3

I doubt that we will hear anything more about this story from Tunde. I doubt that the reporter is going to step forward, identify himself and open himself up to questions. Same with Orama. In a matter of days we will be awash in news about the HoB meeting and all that follows. No need to give this story legs now.

But the bottom line does not change. The position of the extremists means death to gays (spiritual and physical)the world over. It does not, can not provide a platform for pastoral care - it is an excuse for continued abuse.

Western reasserters are beginning (and it is just beginning) to feel the weight of the Akinola et al anvil around their necks -the rest of us need to cut the rope.

BabyBlue has a point, of course. When Archbishop Akinola has to fly the Atlantic just to find a pc on which he can edit the draft of a communiqué, things have to be pretty desperate over there. And no Starbucks! The Horror!

It is true that we are projecting our own worldview on a part of the world that likely doesn't have the communications infrastructure that we have, so the timing to me does not seem strange. There are indeed places in the world that do not have good and reliable phone service, internet access, and even mail delivery. My parish works with some parishes and individuals in India for which this is indeed the case; there are very poor and remote (either geographically or financially) places in the world. Five days' response time does not surprise me.

However: what would be the motive for the reporter to make up the story? Keep in mind again who owns the UPI. It's also important for "reasserters" to recognize that stories like this are credible to us because we've heard things like this before - and because the rhetoric and actions of the Archbishop of Nigeria over the past few years have helped lend this story believability.

And of course, we haven't seen any "retraction," yet, either. If the Bishop was misquoted, he's the one who should be offered an apology. Otherwise, it's just another day in the Anglican Communion - one of the overall most homophobic religious groups on earth.

Colin,

It's not simply conservatives who don't undestand this extent, but many moderates who really don't want to know the extent and are quick to look for any way to see this story go away.

'Charity and common sense rarely convince people whose prejudices are bolstered by dubious exegesis and a morbid interest in others’ sex lives. The Bill thus failed dozens and dozens of times. It was discussed in Parliament and in the pulpits. It features in numerous novels and plays, running from Felicia Skene’s marvellously prurient The Inheritance of Evil (1849) to George Bernard Shaw’s Major Barbara (1905).'

Food for thought ...

"....... though not Bishop Martyn Minns." Have you some insight into Minns' private opinions that the rest of us lack, Colin Coward? When you say that is "sadly revealing of his authority in the Church of Nigeria that he has been silent this week", to what extent have his responses of this past week been in any was different to any earlier response to homophobic garbage spurting out of Nigeria? "Bad company is a disease", Colin.

The other thing that bemuses me is I wonder how some souls would react if the statements and suggested solutions were pointed at them?

Souls pray that Christians not be persecuted nor apostates put to death nor their be forced conversions. Wonderful.

How about taking on the behaviours within their own communion that they don't like being imposed upon them. The phrase "physician heal thyself" comes to mind.

I am trying to protect heterosexual/celibate Christians who attempt to live lives free from sin and suffering. But to protect them, I must also protect those who are more likely to be attacked before them e.g. GLBTs, ethnic minorities, children, the elderly, women, other faiths.

It is also really, really hard to stop thuggery from others when some or our own are amongst the worst thugs in the world. There are others who can respond that they are merely acting in self-defence on in anticipation of the need for self-defence. Whilst the arrogant might dismiss such claims, that complacency ignores that such paradigms strike a chord with other potential victims.

At the moment the bangs, smoke and debris from squabbling has filled the air so nearly all are blind and it is almost impossible to hear the small quiet voice. The cycles of tyranny and repression have to end both within the Anglican/Christian communities as well as in the "others". If we want peace, we have to model peace; if we want hospitality, we have to model hospitality; if we want forgiveness, we have to forgive. As Christians we are meant to know peace, hospitality and forgiveness. If we who know it can't show it then how can others do it if they have never seen it? We are meant to be leading the blind so that they can see, teaching the deaf so they can hear, blessing feet as they walk on level paths of peace.

Lee Tuck-Leong

Many will disagree with the apparent remark reported in UPI. Me too.

However, the actions of NCCS and the Diocese of Singapore (forbidding those public offences need to be understood within the framework and concerns of S'pore society - esp to protect the young and families).

To debate it, this is not the forum.

And what my colleague Derek Hong said - isn't that obvious that this perspective is shared by many conservatives in the Anglican Church?

Actually, it is good to see what is happening in other dioceses, it helps us to see the big picture and who endorses what kind of teachings and methods of enforcement.

That in turn helps us understand who they have allied with, and why. That in turn enables us to contemplate where their theology will take us.

Will it take us into a tranformative process that leads to fulfilling God's promised everlasting covenant of peace; or will it take us into further tyranny and accusations?

It worries me that souls are told not to share what is going on. My observations are that souls that demand ignorance as a strategy usually have a selfish agenda that is at the expense of someone else.

When you say that "forbidding those public offences need to be understood within the framework and concerns of S'pore society", you mean, in Western terms, "within the framework of a paternalistic, semi-authoritarian society". Singapore's political system is widely recognized, in liberal democracies and elsewhere, as manifesting these symptoms. This, I suppose, is why someone raised under such a system might react by saying "To debate it, this is not the forum". This web page is sited in Western Europe, Terry. Within the limits set by the proprietors of this site (essentially relevance and avoidance of openly abusive language when confronting other posters), we can discuss what WE think fit, not what our political overseers inform us is appropriate for discussion. Sorry, Terry, but this IS the forum.

"To debate it, this is not the forum."

Why ever?

"To debate it, this is not the forum."

Yes, and for many years this was essentially George Carey's admonish to those of us in the C of E (at that time) calling for, open, mutual sharing, discussion and ultimately change of heart by the Church. Valuable crucial years were wasted, leading to the current situation in the AC. Any successor of Carey's would have faced the results of the lid finally blowing off, rather than being gently eased off gradually, over time.

1988 was a lost opportunity to begin to listen ...

Terry: I'm sure you will agree that the reported comment does violence to the 'imago dei' in homosexual persons but let me bridge the analogy by locating the violence elsewhere: the utterance draws on disproportionate force of social and tribal prejudice on African lesbian and gay people who have no recourse for redress.

Similarly, the diocese's call for the criminalization of *private* sexual expression and public positive representations of the homosexual personhood uses a disproportionately violent force on Singaporean lesbian and gay folks.

I'm not so sure if you want to extend Rev'd Hong's theological views to the conservative spectrum - consider what is said about homosexual relapse of ex-gay men as the result of generational curses and the bedroom being a conduit of demonic activities. It is bad psychology, just as much as there is bad theology.

We need to break out of our tribal definitions of 'conservative' and 'liberal' so that we can recognize that there's bad theology among 'us' as there is among 'them'.

Our diocese has refused to dialogue respectfully with 'them'; how then can we know that we possess the truth rather than clinging on to our cultural neuroses?

I'm afraid I trust Minns no more than his puppets. Its always instructive when people say what they really think rather than wrapping it in warm words, though....

I agree that the "keeping face" strategy that Carey and others use have exacerbated the current problems. They have also aided and abetted child abuse, extremely violent sect behaviours, becoming complicit with cruel and repressive regimes... That is why there are passages in the bible warning souls against scheming machinations e.g. Psalms 9:15-16 & 69:5 & 78:1-8 & 140:5 & 142, Jeremiah 16:17 & 18:22-23, Isaiah 29:15 & 48:1-11, Daniel 2:22, Ezekiel 28:2-9, Ecclesiastes 12:14

I just did another posting on another TA thread and removed the reference back to this thread to get within word count
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002597.html#comments

The comments made there are also relevant here, I won't put all of it in, but in case souls don't flick over to the other one here are the relevant passages:

One type of camp appears to want a complete communications embargo. Do not talk about our mistakes or debates, especially in public. Do not present the alternative theology in a reasonable manner. Do not countenance fraternizing or speaking civilly about or to "unholy" ones. Do not question whether or not we have exaggerated, hyperbolized, misrepresented, overgeneralised, misconstrued, overlooked, obstructed or just outright lied.

It is a very authoritative approach. It is the "head of the household" bringing order to the family through power of position. There will be no crying in public, there will be no complaints, you will be happy, you will shut up, or you will be on the streets and in hell!

Another word of caution, the trait to keep the organization/family running smoothly by affirming the existing principles and paradigms works on one core assumption: that the model is still viable on an ongoing basis. Sorry, but if your farm is about to be swamped by rising sea levels, it doesn't matter how good your farming practices are, they are irrelevant and you would do better to build yourself an ark or go to higher ground.

If we want to end war, tyranny, repression, poverty, famine, disease, abuse - we need to go to higher ground. The old paradigms have kept us in these cycles way too long and there won't be any humans or farms unless we stop squabbling and grow up.

To date, I have neither seen nor heard of the retraction theat Tunde assured us was coming.

Frankly, it was silly of Tunde to promise it since he would clearly have no control over it's issuance and delivery.

What amazes me in this story (and in the story of Akinola's letter) is not so much the positions of the Akinolist faction, but the utter ineptitude of Akinola's primary commuications / public relations council.

Twice now, he has managed to give legs to damaging stories.

Tuck (and also responding to other comments)

Reason I say this is not the forum for our debate is because this is not one frequent by S'poreans.

I don't myself agree with every aspects of my colleagues' theology. That is to be expected.

The National Council of Churches and Trinity Theological College will continue to participate in the discussions. Likewise the RC Church here.

Malcom - Tunde knows the name of the reporter. He could easily tell us who he is. But he wants to bury this story. (I am assuming that he HAS actually spoken to him). When the retraction does not come next week, I think Tunde should be forced to give up his name. It isn't the first time that the PR (cover -up) becomes the story itself. And how come Tunde says the statement was made at a synod when the original report says it was made to the reporter directly?

I agree, CB, that Tunde wants the story to go away. But in trying to bury it, he has actually managed to give it legs. You are exactly right that cover-up always makes the story bigger. In fact, no competent PR counsel would ever suggest cover-up since cover-up always fails.

As noted before, my secular job is public relations. I'm amazed at how inept Tunde seems to be at the job.

I've already offered Tunde the first two rules of effective PR:

- Don't lie. Not only is it wrong, but more importantly, it doesn't work.
- When at the bottom of a deep hole, stop digging.

Perhaps it is time to offer him a third:

- When a negative story has started to die down, don't rev it back to life.

Ok, so here we go. More spin. Step one, deny everything. Step two, perform a racist denigration of the quality of professionalism among journalists in Nigeria. Step three, pressure the journalist into a retraction. Meanwhile, continue to pay no attention to the man in purple behind the curtain.

"When at the bottom of a deep hole, stop digging."

Even better, take the advice of Chief Wiggum"

"Dig up, stupid!"

Terry

In my previous job as Manager Staff Development for a high profile government policy arm, managers would complain that people they didn't even know had opinions about what they did, how or why.

My comment to my manager was that is part of the territory. The higher you go, the more people are likely to be interested in what you do and the more likely they are to think they have a right to an opinion and to express that opinion.

That is particularly so in organisations that are purportedly there for the sake of the masses. That applies to government agencies, but it also applies to religious and welfare communities, as well as the private sector elements who claim to be working for the benefit of their communities.

Nor is this a new phenomenom. In my previous parish, we had a minister who was responsible for missionaries around the world. He came back from one tour with glazed eyes, because my name and activities had gotten to South America. (He didn't know that they already knew of me from the 1980s because God told me to go to ground and be "ordinary" for at least a decade). The minister quoted from 1 Thessalonians 1:8 a few weeks later "The Lord’s message rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia — your faith in God has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about it..."

When you are working under God's grace and are moved by Spirit, your deeds and words spring out, for better or for worse. God does not keep secrets, God also knows I've had to fulfill Job to prove that the feminine can also endure suffering, as do my enemies. I'm sure they share each and every one of my faults and errors at every possible opportunity. That is par for the course.

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Or as my children said after watching the movie Gremlins "Never upset a mummy in the kitchen!"

Dave

Is is dig up, or dig sideways and make a set of steps? Then you can simply walk out, as can others behind you.

Mind you, there are times when souls are meant to be lifted out. Jeremiah and Joseph twiddled their thumbs at the bottoms of wells. Job's lot just kept getting more and more miserable until witnesses realized he was being used as an example (one form of prophecy) and restored his dignity and standing in the community. God knows that for every step I took to restore our circumstances, my previous husband would take several to dig the pit deeper (often doing it by stealth so I did not know it was happening until the ground gave way yet again).

There are times God wants souls in a pit. Not because he wants to punish the soul (although some powerful lessons can be learnt whilst there), but because he wants witnesses to learn.

Also, there is a redeeming factor about taking responsibility for helping someone else out of the pit. It is the antithesis of Adam's sulky response before being chucked out of Eden. "Don't blame me, it's her fault" tranforms into "Let's get you out of the pit, cleaned up and then get on with fixing the other mess around here". The former is like crashing into an island and sitting around complaining about whose fault it was that you got there; but you've got no shelter, are tired, cold, hungry and insecure. The latter is accepting that the accident has happened, but you need a fire, somewhere safe to sleep, food and acceptance that you can be content with whatever is thrown your way. There is also the realisation that you can either build a healthy family/community by forgiving and making the most of the situation; or you can tear the family/community apart by accusations and recrimations for past acts which can not be undone. The latter shows a fundamental lack of trust, the former shows a faith in God's capacity to heal and restore even in desparate circumstances.