More episcopi vagantes consecrated by the Donatist schismatic and heretic, Peter Jasper Akinola, Archbishop, Primate and Metropolitan of Nigeria.

When will ++Rowan Cantuar's foot come down, telling Peter Jasper that his archiepiscopal actions are despicable, violating the decrees of the Council of Nicea and the findings of the Windsor Report, and that Peter Jasper has, by his actions, excluded himself from the Anglican Communion, leaving the Province of Nigeria vacant?

"Stay tuned" ? What is this, the latest episode of a long running saga?

Just how many "bishops" do they need?

>>>Just how many "bishops" do they need?

I think they have decided that there's no need to settle for a mere priesthood of all believers when one can have an episcopate of all believers.

We can't know Archbishop Peter Akinola's motivation for sure, but he is due to retire soon. It is curious from where he has received all this financial support that enables him to fly from place to place while actively supporting the Anglican conservatives in America. This extra support help maintain his own standard of living even though the quality of life of many of his extended parishioners is pitiful by comparison. The archbishop is on his way out no doubt but plans to cause enough confusion for the Communion before leaving. I wonder if Archbishop Gomez will still pal with him after Akinola's retired, as Archbishop Akinola agenda does not favour the Covenant of which Gomez is the Chairman?

Don’t be carried away by his plan to ordain more Bishops in America: His biggest Agenda is to have ordained one of those Anglican Mainstream evangelicals as a Nigerian bishop in England. Don’t doubt me, it will soon happen.

How convenient that the Church of the Epiphany is close to an airport, as noted in the communication from CANA.

It certainly brings a whole new significance to the notion of a flying bishop...

It's all coming out in the wash, I suspect. Time is slowly but surely marching on, even for Anglican believers. One imagines that Duncan of Pburg might have thought, at one point at least, that he was destined to be the new Presiding Bishop of a newly realigned, nothing but conservative TEC.

His latest epistle echoes church reformer Martin Luther: Here I stand, I can do no other. God help us all if the best camp site we can settle is a traditional, heterosexuals-only privilege to trash talk and mistreat non-straight folks.

As even I think Duncan has said in passing - the controversy is about whether there is an unmediated, hermeneutics-free (and therefore, scholarship and study-free) way to read scripture.

I still think this is more about the enduring de factor lens of cultural prejudices and discrimination against non-straight folks, than it is about eternal truths of human nature. Looking askance at queer folks, or transgenders, for example, did not do all that much for anybody even if believers did so in church life for two thousand years or so. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is hardly all that workable, and its fails the ethical smell test in any case.

Once conservatives have predominantly washed their hands of the dangerous and filthy taint of having anybody dare to imagine they rub shoulders with queer folks at work, what target group will be next? This is the real, the enduring gospel question.

More fully armed targeting calls for more adequately weaponized bishops.

Re Church of the Epiphany: Is this congregation one of the ones that has "seceded" from the Diocese of Virginia and "took its property with it," i.e., is squatting in property owned ultimately by that diocese?

If so, the diocese ought to go get a restraining order preventing the consecrations from taking place on what is, at the very least, property in dispute between the diocese and the congregation.

Yes, Church of the Epiphany is one of the Virginia churches that has joined CANA. There is a Faithful remnant that is left, and is in the process of reconstituting.

Now if this CANA breathless news doesn't put you to sleep I don't think counting sheep will either.

drdanfee says "the controversy is about whether there is an unmediated, hermeneutics-free (and therefore, scholarship and study-free) way to read scripture"

I am sure you are aware,Dr, that most biblical scholarship hardly supports the innovations and positions of TEC (on various issues including VGR) but I can see why you would like to spin opposition to what you want as anti-intellectual.

Last time I looks, +Durham, Prof McGrath and Dr Goddard were scholars of note (maybe in your league?)....you will not agree with them on certain issues but you do not weaken their scholarly arguments by pretending that opposition to your views are by definition anti-intellectual or "scholarship and study-free". Normally, you play the victimisation card - that ain't that persuasive either......the issue in the AC is the authority of scripture and the reason why so few AC bishops are convinced TECUSA innovations are correct is that TECUSA has failed to make a convincing theological case to justify what it has done re VGR....this is despite having an ally in the old wobbler the Labour party unfortunately appointed as ABC.

There are many criticisms one can make of Rowan Williams (as well as highlighting his strengths), but I don't think "old wobbler" is one of them.

When we are being preached to about sin, what standard of behaviour and language used does this involve from the preacher?

The issue is indeed whether a literalist or other reading of scripture should have the place being given to it, and what was being criticised at the time, and the relevance of that criticism now.

On the subject in hand, whilst what TEC has done is a matter for current processing, once again the Nigerians just carry on ignoring the Windsor Process as it applies to them. It is a process, not a doctrinal or biblical prescription. I oppose the process as centralising, but it is clear when it is being broken by those full of their own pronouncements.

"When will ++Rowan Cantuar's foot come down,"

This is precisely what +Akinola wants. If +Rowan put his foot down, +Akinola would then have the justification to break once and for all. He could then make himself appear truly the staunch defender of the Truth against the heathen white people. He has already laid the groundwork. Demonize a particular group, claim they are not merely wrong, but eggregiously arrogantly wrong, imply, sometimes state, that their actions also contain deep disrespect for his own side, strap on the breastplate of righteousness, then confidently assert that he can, and will if necessary, purify his group of the heathen enemy. All he needs now is for +Rowan to attempt to discipline him to make the final play. Many of the parishes in the US that follow him seem to equate discipline with persecution, so he'd have no trouble rallying the troops if +Rowan got too high handed. +Rowan is being quite cagey here, a very hard thing. He has to give the man enough rope to hang himself while minimizing the damage in the meantime. No easy task, but since +Akinola truly believes himself to be a trumpet of the Kingdom, he doesn't mind showing his true colours, which cannot but put people off. How many of the leaders of his righteous defence of the Gospel will fall away remains to be seen, but ordinary people, whose interest actually IS about the Gospel, not who has the most power, won't be fooled forever.

"play the victimisation card"

"play the victimisation card"

How dare they! Only fundamentalists are allowed to do that!

Ford says "+Akinola truly believes himself to be a trumpet of the Kingdom, he doesn't mind showing his true colours"

Yeah, right - it is disgusting how this archbishop wishes the AC to stick to its agreed positions and not accept one province unilaterally deciding something is holy when the bishops of the AC have said repeatedly it is "incompatible with scripture"...... he is such a renegade and clearly in it to justify his own actions......

"Yeah, right - it is disgusting how this archbishop wishes the AC to stick to its agreed positions and not accept..."

He has agreed them among himself.

Ford,
I think your analysis of +Rowan's strategy is one of the most perceptive I've seen. It comes across to all sides as waffling or dithering, but in his attempts to keep the conversation going and keep all parties at the table, he is indeed giving the extremists on both sides enough rope to hang themselves.

+Akinola certainly has enough hubris to take the rope (and +Kunonga already has taken it). So far, no one on the other side has (though I suspect that if +Spong were still around, he would have).

What +Rowan's strategy does is, rather than expelling anyone, allows those like +Akinola who are dead set to walk apart, to boycott Lambeth and declare that they no longer want to be part of the Communion.

Ford: your sophisticated analysis is convincing, and probably much closer to the truth than the usual claims. ++Rowan is far too intelligent to play either the dithering quisling of the liberal press, or the repentant liberal that the evangelicals portray. I personally think Akinola will need a little more rope yet, but he is already getting restless, and it can only be a matter of time before his patience expires.

NP says: ''Yeah, right - it is disgusting how this archbishop wishes the AC to stick to its agreed positions..."

Your selective amnesia NP is quite disturbing. Akinola has contempt for the agreed position of the AC on a whole range of issues, from respecting provincial boundaries, to permitting polygamy in his church.

"We can't know Archbishop Peter Akinola's motivation for sure, but he is due to retire soon." Davis Mac-Iyalla

Greetings brother Davis! How good to read you today...I think "we" can know +Akinolas motivation for some of his various slurs and common spiritual hatemongering against humanity (like this one):

http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2005/09/archbishop-akinola-gays-produce.html

But, granted, I would speculate that having a overblown egovision might cause +Akinola to think he ought be GS Anglican Pope instead of retiring...just a "quickie" of a move UP to a higherchair (hopefully a tad closer to a very discriminating and dangerous likeminded God)!

Stay well Davis, we ALL care about you here at the inclusive/welcoming Global Center of Christian/Anglican REAL!

The loving God of ALL humanity sends his best "God Bless!"

As the Prophet Don Alahambra hath said,

There lived a King, as I've been told,
In the wonder-working days of old, . . .
He wished all men as rich as he,
(And he was rich as rich could be),
So to the top of every tree
Promoted everybody! . . .
Lord Chancellors were cheap as sprats,
And Bishops in their shovel hats
Were plentiful as tabby cats--
In point of fact, too many.

Goran.... I know you have translation issues but saying "He has agreed them among himself" is just not true...in 1998, there was a big majority amongst the AC bishops in support of Lambeth 1.10.

If we had the vote again today, there would still be a big majority....this is exactly why the pressure groups who want a change in the position of the church and the Lam Pal bureaucrats are not pushing for another vote.....

You lie or do not know the facts when you say "He has agreed them among himself."..... or maybe you have a Greek version of events and this is your particular translation (which just happens to be at odds with most people)?

NP wrote: "... in 1998, there was a big majority amongst the AC bishops in support of Lambeth 1.10"

You're not getting it, are you?

A majority, even a big majority, is not agreement.

So...?

And because there is no Agreement (haven't been any since the meeting at Naumburg in 1563) you are having the present un-pleasentness.

Schismatics breaking into Provinces, Donatists refusing the Eucharist, and so on and so on...

... and all the lies and spin...

"schimatic" is a word sometimes thrown around TA

See ANglican Mainstream today -

"Augustine’s account of schism:‘By false doctrines concerning God heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe’ (De fide et symbolo, ix).

That is, when people do not believe the same things, then it is not schism. Schismatics “deviate from fraternal charity” though sharing the same beliefs."

this makes sense eg 1 Cor 5:12 is not about schism, but it is about guarding against false teaching and it is not an isolated verse...

NP: you are not correct to imply that theologians are generally against the recent developments in acceptance of human sexuality and gender difference. There is an enormous growth in writing on these topics by theologians at the moment - just look at the Theology section of Blackwells when you are next in Oxford - and you will find very few that defend the conservative view. Intelligent people, theologians or otherwise, have just about completely given up trying to defend discrimination against homosexuals or women. It's a shame the Church is not led by intelligent people on this issue.

"was a big majority amongst the AC bishops in support of Lambeth 1.10."

Actually, NP, they supported the whole document. What's baffling to everyone here is how you seem to be under the impression they voted section by section and only approved 1.10, rejecting all the rest. That isn't what happened, I understand. I believe the document was accepted in it's entirety, so you would need to comply with all of it, you see my boy. Since no-one does that, why is TEC so bad?

NP, quotes Augustine: "By false doctrines concerning God heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe’ (De fide et symbolo, ix)."

Your quote is surely against you?

It distinguishes between
*heresy=false doctrine=wounding faith
and
*schismatics=iniquitous dissensions=deviation from fraternal charity

Heresy is false doctrine, but schism is deviation from fraternal charity. Heresy is a mistake, but schism is a sin, being against one of the great commandments.

We sadly disagree on true doctrine (although I see more humility on one side of the argument than on the other), but those promoting splits (schism is Greek for split, you know that of course) are the ones like Martyn Minns fostering dissensions through CANA and the like and, using the most extraordinary language in some cases (Akinola has some choice examples on record), sadly lacking in fraternal charity for those with whom they disagree.

badman, such condemnations can never apply to one who is valiantly standing for the Gospel against the heathen, one is not deviating from fraternal charity, one is protecting God from His enemies. NP has already succinctly stated he sees no need to feel any fraternal charity for those with whom he disagrees. Indeed, he backs that up with "a Scripture". So, in his view, we have the heathen striving for the destruction of the Church against the valiant remnant resisting the rush to barbarism and ruin. He isn't the only one here to feel that way. One cannot be accused of deviating from the Gospel when one is defending it against such a threat, surely!

badman....if you do not know, many see heresy in TEC HOB and have done so for a long time....

Ford...so funny how you cannot get round 1 Cor 5:12! Sorry, we are to judge what is false in the church and are never taught to accomodate false teaching.....are we???

"so funny how you cannot get round 1 Cor 5:12!"

I'm not trying to "get around" it.

NP, I know you and others say there are "heretics" in TEC - this lazy and inaccurate point has been repeated often enough after all.

The point I made, based on your own quote from St Augustine, is that schism is worse than heresy. Heresy is a mistake, schism is a sin. Heresy may be corrected, schism is always (history demonstrates) permanent.

Do try and keep up NP.

badman asserts "schism is a sin"
-pls prove...from the bible, badman.

Think you will find that false teaching is sinful and we are never told to tolerate or accomodate it....schism ain't avoiding false teaching. We are not told never to split...that is, in the bible we are not told never to split....we are told to avoid false teaching.

People have relied on Anglicans not being willing to call false teaching what it is (out of politeness) but TECUSA has pushed everyone too far and now there are many, even the "open" evos like Fulcrum, who have to call out what they see as false given it contradicts the scriptures.

"People have relied on Anglicans not being willing to call false teaching what it is (out of politeness)"

Well, I will: Evangelicalism! There. Happy now? An Anglican is coming out and calling false teaching what it is. Because it is what I truly believe, NP. So am I now supposed to go and organize a group that can speak loudly and plot and scheme to get you ejected from the Church, slander you every chance I get, quote dubious "science" that says that people who believe as you do are emotionally stunted, immature, insecure, and unable to cope with life? (Such "studies DO exist, you know). That you actually need therapy and ought not to be able to make decisions in the Church? Should I start an "ex-Evangelical" ministry in my parish to rescue those struggling with Evangelical tendencies? Claim that anyone thus struggling is not fit to be ordained because there is "science" that shows they suffer from a mental defect, not to mention their obvious disobedience of Scripture, and, it seems, quoting that same Scripture to justify their disobedience, thereby revealing the falsehood of their beliefs? Is that what I am supposed to do now that I have called you false? What does that get us? Or do I wash my hands of you since your refusal to listen shows that God has abandoned you to your sins? Or is it evidence that you are not among the Elect, God being quite happy to create people for the express purpose of torturing them for all eternity, apparently. How do I treat you, my false believing brother?

NP: Jesus also strongly condemns those who become stumbling blocks for others. If by their harshness Conservative Evangelicals cause just one gay person to lose their faith, then they are acting against the Spirit of God. How many gay people are feeling demoralised and on the point of giving up as a result of the fatuous and graceless treatment they are currently receiving at the hands of those you argue for? What a trampling on God's image in the gay people He created!

Mark - nobody can cause a person to lose their faith...but sometimes people will not repent in response to God's grace (a la Romans 6:1) and so exclude themselves....but you are not helping a single person if you tell them their sin is acceptable to God and they do not need to repent....that just ain't true and cannot be justified from scripture.

Ford/Mark - you may find St Paul helpful on all this:

http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=1+Cor+9

On whether "schism is a sin", NP says:
"-pls prove...from the bible, badman."

Easy. Let's take St Paul, for example, since he writes most about the Church (which didn't exist as such in Gospel times).

Romans 1:29 including "debate" amongst "all unrighteousness"

Romans 14:1 against "doubtful disputations"

Galatians 5:14-15 "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another."

Galatians 5:20 including amongst the works of the flesh "variance" and "strife"

1 Corinthians 1 "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"

2 Corinthians 12:20 "For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults"

"What a trampling on God's image in the gay people He created!"

God's image?!? In a gay person?!? You must be kidding. God's image is to found in human beings, and some have made it quite clear that homosexuality is "inhuman". Thus, we are not made in the image and likeness of God. They won't actually put it that bluntly, of course.

"How do I treat you, my false believing brother?"

With love. What else is there?

While you're right about the fundagelicals in principle and can freely speak out against their beliefs, you still treat each individual with the love that Christ shows them.

We can see the hardened hearts, the closed minds, but we cannot know what hardened and them, so we cannot, must not judge. God will judge, with love and compassion and mercy, and I believe he will eventually open their hearts and make them truly receptive to his love.
If, until then, they walk in emotional and spiritual darkness, they are to be pitied, not judged.

You only have to look at the aggression, the hatred, the fear and the bitterness being poured into some of the posts here to know that this is not a way of life you'd wish on your worst enemy.

NP: I think from your posting here on the nature of faith, that you are actually a Calvinist. You would perhaps be happier belonging to a Calvinist church rather than the C of E.

I know, Erika, I was trying to see if NP understood the concept of agape as something other than a title for a Billy Graham tour. I have also not been practicing that too well, I'm afraid.

NP, you've lost me. What does the passage you cited, and which you seem to think I have never read, do with what we are discussing?

Ford - the passage I linked to contains a message from ST Paul which is clearly about running a race to win and fleeing from sin....people saved by grace live to please God, right? Paul tells us to try very hard...like an athlete aiming to win a race........and he mentions holiness in this regard.

badman...glad you are quoting the bible...so, you will know that we are consistently told to not allow false teaching any space......I am still convinced St Paul would say to me that VGR is fully qualified to be leader in the church given he condones behaviour "incompatible with scripture" as our own bishops have always said.

Mark - I have a lot of sympathy with Calvin when what he says is from the bible.

NP,
My question was how you think I should respond to you given that I believe you follow a false message that grossly misunderstands what the Gospel is. Or are you saying that, given that I believe your teaching to be false, I should be trying to get you Evos kicked out of the Church? That I should flee from your "sin"? Are you actually saying that you don't appreciate my tolerance in being willing to share the Eucharist with you? Oh, and by the way, Paul's reference to a race is NOT about running from sin. Whoever told you that? It is about treating the Christian life the way athletes treat their sport: they dedicate their entire lives to training, nothing takes precedence. Thus we too should train all our lives for the Christian life, practicing constantly, letting nothing take precedence over perfecting ourselves. That's why monks are called spiritual athletes. Do they actually teach this stuff at HTB? Talk about preaching "another Gospel"! I doubt it, honestly. I think it's just you making it up as you go along. All the same, this, combined with the assertion recently from someone else claiming the Parable of the Talents is justification for usury strengthens my belief that at least some of you Evos just don't get it.

NP: I can see you have a lot of sympathy for Calvin, it shows through in all your posts. But, my dear, the C of E is emphatically not a Calvinist church, and never has been. That is why Oliver Cromwell disestablished it. I think perhaps your posts indicate that a part of the problem behind all this power-posturing by Con Evos is that the C of E has lazily allowed a lot of Calvinists to operate within it for years, without ever challenging their theology. So now, those Calvinists, having kept themselves pure and separate from any other contaminated Anglicans for so long, think they are the only True Believers around. Such has happened very often in the history of Calvinism elsewhere. I think the rest of us Anglicans with a bit more sense of the institution and its historic theology need to take on these Calvinistic premises rather more boldly. The alternative is generations of bitter fighting and splitting over who is purer than pure on any given theologial issue.

"I have a lot of sympathy with Calvin when what he says is from the bible."

And then there is the small matter of translations...