Why is +Akinola travelling on a diplomatic passport, which are for diplomats, consuls and their dependents? Does he possess a governmental, diplomatic or consular position in Nigeria? The requirements for a Nigerian diplomatic passport are a:

"Letter of introduction from applicant’s Ministry, Parastatal or Extra – Ministerial department"

http://www.immigration.gov.ng/passportypes.htm

On the issue of diplomatic passports, an ironic piece from the Leadership Nigeria website:

"According to the permanent secretary, the misuse of the Nigerian diplomatic passport by unscrupulous persons has made nonsense of the document necessitating disrespect and humiliation from immigration and security officials of foreign nations.

Baba Ahmed disclosed that Nigeria has the highest number of people with diplomatic passports worldwide explaining that this development did not augur well for the image of the country. He explained that the federal government was putting modalities in place to enforce strict adherence to the use of passports."

http://www.leadershipnigeria.com/product_info.php?products_id=9151&osCsid=f5ebaea217f23c15ea62860ee

Ah-hahaha!

And the GAFfes CONtinue....?

(I'll get my coat...)

So that little "no comment" comment came back to bite him! See what happens when the locals (and their wishes and feelings) are ignored in all the planning?

They may be unwashed heathen infidels predestined for damnation, but it's their country.

(Re Akinola's denial-of-entry)

Must.Not.Give.In.To.Schadenfreude.
Must.Not.Give.In.To.Schadenfreude.
Must.Not.Give.In.To.Schadenfreude.

;-/

"The official Gafcon explanation" wasn't much of an explanation in my mind.

So much spin, rather.

The story about +Abuja's diplomatic passport reminds us that the Archbishop is a major political player in Nigeria, not primarily a man of God.

Church and State, anyone?

Presumably +Akinola held a diplomatic passport when, as president of the Christian Association of Nigeria, he held a seat on the Nigerian National Security Council. Since he is no longer CAN president, and so no longer holds a seat on the Council, he has presumably simply forgotten to hand it back? Or does he hold another post that entitles him to one? Or was he awarded won for life by the government at some point?

Or is this simply common practice? How many Anglican bishops travel the world on diplomatic passports?

Sorry to harp on about the passport issue, but it is quite curious. A piece on the Leadership Nigeria website tells of the attempt to remove eligibility for diplomatic passports from Nigeria's lower house. They are, it seems, the prerogative of the Nigerian President, drawing from a list of those eligible prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

http://www.leadershipnigeria.com/product_info.php?products_id=25849

In the comments below this piece there is an interesting one by a Nigerian who appears to know what he's talking about:

"Diplomatic passports are given for diplomatc duties only.Even within the diplomatic service not all the staff are given diplomatic passports.Further more,even those given the diplomatic passports are not expected to use it on private journeys. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic and Counsellor Relations of 1961 is very clear on who is entitled to carry Diplomatic Passports. National Assembly members are not expected to carry diplomatic passports,as even if they abuse the usage it will not help them.The case of a national assembly member arressted and detained in Saudi Arabia in 2002 or2003 is a case in point even though he had a diplomatic passport.I remember also that a former Nigerian Ambassador to the UN in New York was denaid visa by the US for using his diplomatic passport to apply,but got it after he used his ordinary passportbecause he was no longer doing diplomatic duties.Diplomatic Passport is to facilitate the work of diplomats uninhindered in the receiving states or for carriage of Diplomatic Bags. It is not a status symbol."

Not expected to use them on a private journey? Is GAFCON official diplomatic business for +Akinola? Or is he abusing his diplomatic passport, however he is entitled to one?

Pot calling Kettle black regarding other souls Nigerian credentials spring to mind.

Bickering souls who plan their schism before they go on a pilgrimage are no longer planners of schism when they arrive in Jerusalem?

Praise that God measures the truth and heart of men's souls, and not their public faces and words of what they purport to be depending on their environment, irregardless of their conduct and machinations where they think they are not being observed.

Jerusalem gay pride? Genius!

Jim Naughton's observations at Episcopal Café "Lead", which you link, bear repetition.

He reminds us "that Akinola, a fierce critic of Islam, has refused to answer questions about his knowledge of, or involvement in, the retributive massacre of some 700 Muslim in the town of Yelwa in northern Nigeria in 2004.

"The massacre was carried out by a para-militia wearing clothing associating it with the Christian Association of Nigeria of which Akinola was then president. When asked about the massacre by Eliza Griswold, who wrote The Atlantic's story, Akinola refused to comment. He has since ignored requests for clarification. "

This seems a very possible reason for Jordan's action. It is also a matter which continues to scream for clarification. Experience suggests that we're most unlikely to get this from Akinola, but maybe this new incident will attract the attention of a more significant segment of the Western press than followed the initial Griswold story, which was well covered by "The Observer". The Observer piece and Griswold's Atlantic article were dismissed by the religious right, when they were acknowledged at all, on the grounds that Griswold is daughter of the former TEC Presiding Bishop and her story a groundless "revisionist" smear.

As Akinola and Venables were prevented, may it be that this meeting and enterprise is not the will of God.

It seems to confirm a nagging doubt I've had about it. (I could be wrong. I know all our messes can become creative-- but seem so upsetting at the time.

Or maybe the Lord is giving lessons in patience & vulnerability. If so we could all learn from that.

However, my heart did go out to Akinola being detained like that, and presumably tired, hungry and confused.

I should hate to be treated like that.

Are the English bishops who are attending GAFCON going as official representatives of the CofE, or of their diocese?

Or are they travelling as private "pilgrims" and paying their own way and taking it as part of their leave?

Perhaps a journalist might ask.

According to Reuters Africa:

"Fjeldstad said Akinola was not denied entry into Jordan but gave up after several hours' delay at the border.

"He was kept in bureaucratic limbo," he said. "They claimed that, as a diplomatic passport holder, he had to give advance warning that he was coming. He decided to go back to Jerusalem."

http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnBAN943184.html

L Roberts: "As Akinola and Venables were prevented, may it be that this meeting and enterprise is not the will of God."

According to Ruth Gledhill's article,

"Gregory Venables is not in Jordan because his wife is in hospital after complications following a hip operation. He is hoping to join Gafcon in Jerusalem."

I think it's important that we not get carried away, or jump to conclusions, about why certain people didn't show up at GAFCON. Being "barred" is certainly different than a spouse's surgical issues. And regardless of what one thinks about Greg Venables and his tactics, his wife certainly deserves our prayers.

One thing that it's essential to learn during life is that the same thing can mean different things in different countries and cultures...

Passports that might mean one thing in Nigeria might mean a different thing in Jordan.

Scripture that might mean one thing in Nigeria might mean a different thing elsewhere.

Let's hope that this is something that the hapless Archbishop might take home from GAFCON.

For the purpose of information, and out of curiosity as to the response it would elicit, I posted a reference to the Yelwa massacre on a Stand Firm thread shortly after I posted the comment above. The response, from "Pageantmaster", was absolutely what I anticipated:

" Wacky Rabbit
I don’t think that +Akinola’s refusing to be cross-examined by the daughter of his not so trusted former colleague, +Griswold is grounds for believing that an Anglican prelate would condone violence or murder, NO!

"I find the willingness to enlist any argument, any slur [however spurious] against anyone opposed to TEC’s interests disgraceful.

"I suspect there are a good many other prelates who would have shown the stroppy Ms Griswold the door."

None so blind, as we say UP North.

Not so fast, all who cheer the failure of the Primate of All Nigeria and His Realms Beyond the Sea to enter Jordan. Is it not curious that rooms and conference facilities which were previously unavailable in Jerusalem suddenly opened up - at exactly the moment they became necessary?

So now Gaffe Con has a martyr (Akinola) and a miracle (the multiplication of hotel rooms). Not a bad week for them.

Slowly and clearly the world can understand that not all Nigerian Bishops attending Gafcon went there in there own clear consciences as some of them will have been blackmailed into going and threatened if they dare not attend.

Archbishop Akinola’s power game is once more revealing as he now travels with a Diplomatic passport.

How come those who work hard to discredit the Lambeth Conference are all planning vacations and holidays and visiting friends and allies in England at same time as the Lambeth Conference will be taking place?
The truth is that the conservatives now understand that they cannot destabilize Lambeth and they do not have the majority on their side to take control of the Communion

The leaders were using GAFCON as the final solution for the future of the Anglican Communion but now it clear they are moving beyond the Lambeth Conference and pushing their agenda into the future and changing tactics.

I'm sure the purple shirts will blend in nicely with the pink triangles on the 26th.

I seem to recall a saying somewhere that, if we are blind and leading the blind, we may all fall aside in ditches.

Bravo to Jerusalem Gay Pride, I stand with Riazat - brilliant. What God is not being allowed to do through GAFCON, may perhaps be worked through Jerusalem Gay Pride?

Heave on oh spin doctors, you have your work cut out for you now. Pull. Does anybody really doubt that GAFCON was a smashing success from way before the moment it was publicly announced?

I am wondering as to what this Gaffecon débacle really is.

Superficially it looks like a disaster, the Primate of All Nigeria detained for 4 hour’s questioning, denied entry by the authorities due to his questionable diplomatic passport (and probably his anti Muslim activities at Yelwa and other places), and reduced to go to Jerusalem alone…

On the other hand he did not go alone but a few days early with the rest of the Nigerian delegation...

Was Jordan ever on??? or was it merely a ruse to deflect criticism that the Global South leaders had disregarded the opinion of the +Jerusalem and the Primate of the Middle East, who did not want their unsettling presence in troubled times?

It all appeared so vague; first Jerusalem as venue, then “Jordan”, which is a country, not a place and a locality... Then Jerusalem christened a "pilgrimage"...

Which was it?

GAFConites should attend the Parade! Perhaps they could engage in the listening process!

Just read the official GAFCON documents...they could teach you liberals a good deal about fudge and deliberate ambiguity.

On Marriage, " CASUAL " divorce is condemned so as to hide the fact that some in GAFCON are divorced , re-married and believe in it.

The word casual is the KEY to understanding the deliberate fudge.

In the liturgical section, Anglo-catholics are appeased and there is no reference to how Cranmer abolished the Mass, prayers for the dead and to the Saints, adoration of the sacrament and reservation.

The quote from Cranmer is one which Anglo- Catholics and Evangelicals can read their own interpretation into it.

All in all a jolly good fudge, for people committed to " orthodoxy 2 and the truth.

I think 'liberals' should resist the temptation of crowing over Akinola's discomfiture. It all seems ... rather unChristian.

"" CASUAL " divorce"

Is this anything like "excessive interest"? I notice several conservatives here using that phrase in the defence of usury, ignoring the 1500 years in which it was interest, no matter how tiny, that was sinful. They then, of course, turn right around and condemn others for saying something sin't sinful when the Bible clearly says it is. How horrible! We've never done THAT before! So, excessive interest is sinful, not interest in itself, casual divorce(what Gene Robinson and his exwife describe seems the opposite of whatever "casual" divorce means, but I guess it's all casual when it comes to gay people) is sinful, regular old divorce is fine, even, I guess, casual murder is sinful, but if it's done in war or by the State in some fashion, it's OK. By that argument then, it is casual/excessive homosexuality that is sinful. If we are going to excuse certain sins as long as they are done in moderation, what is the fuss about gay marriage, even for those who think it's sinful? Let 'em adopt, too. Dan Savage says that if anyone wants to put a stop to gay sex, they should let gay couples adopt. Nothing puts a stop to sex faster than a newborn in the house.

"So now Gaffe Con has a martyr (Akinola) and a miracle (the multiplication of hotel rooms). Not a bad week for them."

Ther is quite a lot on that miracle to be seen on Stand Firm. God w a n t e d Gaffecon to be in Jerusalem!

But was it ever intended to be elsewhere?

I wonder how the bishop of Jerusalem likes this development. They moved part of the conference to Jordan for his sake. Will he be crying on Jon Bruno's shoulder now that the whole conference will be where it was originally scheduled?

When God closes a door, he often opens a window! I have seen this many times of the medical mission trips that I have been on. Carry on godly Christian warriors:

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

I was once the holder of an "official" passport. An official passport indicates that you are travelling on business realted to the issuing government, but that you do not hold the same privileges and immunities as a person travelling on a diplomatic passport.

I was required to hold a separate personal passport. On any occasion I was to travel with the official passport, I had to turn in the personal passport to get it, since one cannot (normally) hold two passports at once.

I was advised that it would be improper to undertake personal travel using the official passport. Official and diplomatic passports advise the receiving state that the person is travelling in an official capacity on behalf of the issuing state. To imply such a thing when it is not true would constitute an infringment of internatioal agreements, and possibly an offence under international law.

I fail to see how this attempt to destroy the Anglican Communion could possibly be considered official business of the Nigerian state.

From The Telegraph of all places. GAFCON is a 'shambles', 'semi-fiasco', 'relative failure'.

"The truth is that the conference has so far been a shambles. Its leader, the belligerent Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, has been denied entry to Jordan. Other conservative church leaders are missing because they have chosen not to attend. Significant absentees at Gafcon include the Rt Rev John Chew, Primate of South-East Asia, and Dr Mouneer Anis, Presiding Bishop of Jerusalem and the Middle East and treasurer of the “Global South” group of conservative provinces. And even those leaders who are attending the conference make up a volatile compound. Gafcon, in other words, is far from the united force it claims to be, and it does not fully represent Anglicanism in the developing world...
...[T]he semi-fiasco of Gafcon means that Dr Williams still has a chance of keeping the conservative Christians of, say, Uganda, in dialogue with the liberal provinces of the United States and Canada...
...Gafcon is dominated by the single issue of homosexuality; its relative failure should remind us that ordinary Anglicans – and especially members of the Church of England – are not obsessed with sexual mores or gay marriage."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/20/dl2001.xml

Robroy:

You think it's OK to hold this kind of meeting without the approval...indeed, with the express disapproval...of the local primate?

"Carry on godly Christian warriors"

Warriors fighting whom? Come on, give it up, you're not being persecuted, much as you want to be. Is there any need to be such a drama queen? Do you really need to concoct this myth? What's the base of it, anger making you fearful, or fear making you angry? As to the Bishop of Jerusalem, I imagine he's worrying what this will do in his already tense diocese, probably a bit upset that his stated concerns were so rudely ignored by people he thought were his friends. But concerns about peace must take second place to self-aggrandizement.

Reading the GAFCON book further...they aplaud ecumenism ( inc with Rome!), acknowledge Anglican compehensiveness and diversity of worship, and completely ignore the area of female headship. This must certainly irk some trads , Protestant Sydneyites

The parade news was one of those joyous coicidences that only God can contrive with aplomb.

On John's Christian concerns. Recall Jesus at Matthew 7:2 "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

So the Nigerian church has in recent years released press releases internationally warning of fraud and misrepresentation by souls who purport to have a history with their church. Did the church, aware of these possible anomalies, proceed to investigate all members of its church (from the least to the greatest)? Or did they perhaps launch an indirect slander attack against one or two souls whom made them feel uncomfortable, whilst ignoring the possible anomalies on those that were approved by their highest authorities?

Jeremiah 18:17 "My eyes are on all their ways; they are not hidden from me, nor is their sin concealed from my eyes."

Hosea 5:3-5 "I know all about Ephraim; Israel is not hidden from me. Ephraim, you have now turned to prostitution; Israel is corrupt. Their deeds do not permit them to return to their God. A spirit of prostitution is in their heart; they do not acknowledge the LORD. Israel’s arrogance testifies against them; the Israelites, even Ephraim, stumble in their sin; Judah also stumbles with them."

"Gafcon is dominated by the single issue of homosexuality"

This is a manifestation of the issue, not the issue itself. They "tolerated" women in collars in other dioceses, they "tolerated" liturgical reform, they even tolerated a growing political liberalism. Much of what upsets them cannot be made into communion breaking issues. But, gay people are hated enough around the world that, for the vast majority of the human population, demonizing us, ejecting us from the Church, jailing us, is not seen as anything other than righteousness. So, we are a "safe" rock, at least in their own jurisdictions, on which to founder. No conservative of any stripe is going to see this as a human rights issue. They won't even acknowledge the violence that, even in the West, is an integral part of our lives. They lie, they propagandize, they misrepresent, they demonize. They refuse to acknowledge that their stereotypes are wrong. They go to extreme, usually ridiculous lengths to defend their position. They refuse to acknowledge that their rhetoric endangers us. Perhaps they are actually secretly glad of it, if they speak badly enough, perhaps someone will be kind enough to kill us all, and spare them having to do it themselves, which even they couldn't defend as Christian. Everyone who tries to tell them something different from their prejudices of us is part of some great liberal conspiracy to take over and destroy anything that is good and decent in society. We're all in on it: scientists, bishops, news people, governments less conservative as the Bush Republicans, everyone. This feeds into the romantic myth of the poor righteous remnant embattled by the evil world. They are clearly, in their own minds, fighting something, and everyone who isn't a conservative like them is fighting for the other side.

"Carry on godly Christian warriors"

I doubt he has any idea how this sounds in the ears of most Americans after 8 years of GW Bush and his adoring apocalyptic fundamentalist Red Guards dominating the teevee.

Onward Christina Soldiers,,,right into Baghdad and Abu Ghraib.

Malcolm noted that "I fail to see how this attempt to destroy the Anglican Communion could possibly be considered official business of the Nigerian state."

Well, perhaps it is the official business of the Government of Nigeria. Maybe they actually do want to destroy the Anglican Communion and have sent their Archbishop to do the job. :-)

Re the concern about casual divorce, obviously the concern is sartorial in nature. One can be divorced in a dinner jacket (that's "tuxedo" to you in North America), but certainly not in casual attire.

"Well, perhaps it is the official business of the Government of Nigeria. Maybe they actually do want to destroy the Anglican Communion and have sent their Archbishop to do the job. :-)"

Is it so far off the mark? We know IRD has been funding these people. We know IRD is supportive of, and supported by, elements in America that are hostile to any religious voice that opposes their ultraconservative positions. Indeed, the main support for the Bush Republicans has been ultraconservative Fundamentalist Christians who believe nonfundamentalists are not Christians at all, are going to Hell, and are the enemy, indeed, are harbingers of, if not arms of, the AntiChrist. We know +Akinola has been very close to government in his own country. We know many African GAFFEPRONE have made statements reflecting a deeply held, understandable, resentment against the descendants of those who colonialized Africa. What we don't have is a link between the Nigerian government and IRD directly. So, maybe it isn't so much the Nigerian government, but there is certainly a confluence of ultraconservative Africans bent on punishing the descendants of those who enslaved their ancestors, their American, and to an extent British, coreligionists who hate and fear anyone more liberal than themselves and who have vast amounts of money, a shadowy lobby group that gives hefty financial support to any conservative movement that supports the Bush Republicans, and scattered other conservatives who are willing to put aside, for the moment, their sizable theological differences from these others in the mistaken belief that their sexual conservatism and moralizing will protect them from the inevitable purge that will come once there is no longer an outside distraction from their own relative holiness WRT one another. (Try reading that sentence in one breath!) I can't call it some sort of conspiracy, more like a fortuitous coming together of several different political and societal elements at the same time, able to make common cause (where have we heard that term recently?) with each other for the time being.