Pungent piece by Bates. Two reservations: (1) the sneery end; (2) SB represents a rather common phenomenon - the liberal or liberal Christian - who keeps cheering on liberal Angicanism from the side - but won't actually DO anything to support it (like, e.g., actually joining the Anglican Church). (Yes, I know he's an RC, but the principle applies.)

Ah, not-to-worry, the ABC in his second Presidential address makes it clear that it is HE and supporters of LGBT Christians that are fighting off being "demonized!"

Does this man ever incoporate "common sense" into his thinking?

Reminder to John,

There is not o n e Anglican Church, only several Anglican churches spread over the world, having different editions of the BCP and so on ; = )

One word comes to mind:

COWARDLY

Sincerely,

RJKeeney+

A good article about not only a Nigerian tail that keeps wagging the all too willing dog, but an absent tail that keeps wagging the dog - especially the nose at the front.

"Since Nigerian dioceses get financial support from the central church based on diocesan membership there is every incentive to inflate numbers."

This is the first I've heard of this: thank you, Stephen.

[Not that I suppose it'll give the bean-counting "Demographics equal Godliness!" crowd any pause...]

Actually Leonardo, they are being demonized, just like we are. Their support of LGBT people has opened them up to being painted with pretty much the same brush as those who they support. There is a good deal of demonizing going around, if only to prevent the off chance of an actual meeting of the minds.

Dear John,
Why on earth would I join the Anglican Church, or should I? I support its members when I comment on it and point out its strengths and, alas more often its weaknesses, in articles and a book such as my Church at War. I don't have to join it to do that.
As it happens, my wife Alice - who is an Anglican - is today providing the support you seek by hosting a group of the bishops' wives on their visit to Burrswood Christian Hospital, where she works in Kent.

From my own experience Bates piece is very accurate and a fair assessment of reality. +Akinola has been far more successful in growing his own authority and membership in the House of Bishops than the Church. All current statistics are highly inflated. The Church of Nigeria is much closer to 4-5 million than 18 million. The revolving door of membership has seen people leaving in droves for the prosperity gospel and Apostolic/Aladura groups. Many of Akinola's bishops (probably more than 50%) wanted to attend Lambeth but feared his autocratic retaliation. Perhaps some of those bishops will be seeking asylum next.

Dear Stephen,

I've read that book. I enjoyed it and valued it. I do think there is an awful lot of vicarious displacement activity going on when 'outsiders' like yourself peer into the entrails of Anglicanism.

Best.

Stephen Bates:

Never mind John and his ilk. Your reporting is a very valuable contribution, and I for one am glad to have "outsiders" such as you and Riazat Butt taking such care to report as fairly as you both do. I can't expect you to get every nuance exactly correct, but nor can I think of a time when you haven't. And I can think of plenty of other "outsiders" who report "authoritatively" without a single evident clue as to what they are saying.

Keep on doing your job as well as you do and many of us Anglicans will be very pleased to read you.

Thank you for your insight, and the high quality of your reportage and commentary.

'the press officer of the Nigerian archbishop Peter Akinola shamelessly claimed that Mac-Iyalla had embezzled church funds - an allegation for which he provided no proof, which Mac-Iyalla denied and which the Nigerian police have never investigated.'

Unfortunately, the said shameless press officer who made the false allegations has now been appointed a bishop. What better example of episcopal inflation run riot?

What better example of corrupt Hierachies?

No doubt s o m e momey is missing from somewhere...