Comments: BBC Sunday item on Coekin

Maybe I'm missing something, but apart from training at Trinity, Bristol, what is impeccably evangelical about the credentials of Nick Baines?

Posted by John Foxe at Monday, 12 June 2006 at 1:54am BST

Well, he was at Holy Trinity Leicester, albeit for only a year.

Posted by Sam Roberts at Monday, 12 June 2006 at 9:13am BST

Archbishop Rowan would have been wise to have acted alongside instead of against Southwark Dioces, and relied on the experience that Bishop Nick Baines and Bishop Tom Butler have of dealing with Richard Coekin. For whatever Lambeth Palace may claim, the reality is that Archbishop Rowan has undermined Southwark Diocese and the wider Church.

It's a shameful contrast with Archbishop Rowan's continued failure to take action against Archbishop Malango's and Bishop Kunonga's oppression - the word is no exaggeration - of faithful Anglicans in Zimbabwe. And then there's the matter of Lake Malawi...

Archbishop Rowan's concern for "due process" and "careful consideration of important points of canon law," as Christopher Smith, Lambeth Palace Chief of Staff, put it in his Guardian letter, seems to be absent when he looks at the Province of Central Africa.

Maybe the lesson that Lambeth Palace urgently needs to learn is that, to quote Rudyard Kipling:

"That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane."

Posted by Rob Hall at Monday, 12 June 2006 at 9:17am BST

In his interview + Baines notes that there are some who call themselves anglican who are 'in reality nonconformists' - an excellent assesment !

Posted by Edward at Monday, 12 June 2006 at 9:39am BST

Sometimes consecration makes labels come unstuck!

Posted by Rupert Standring at Monday, 12 June 2006 at 10:10am BST

Baines is an impeccable follower of Tom Butler, from the diocese of Leicester to Southwark, onwards and upwards!

Posted by Alan Marsh at Monday, 12 June 2006 at 10:10am BST

Nick Baines ducked two important questions in his interview:
1. If the Bishop of Southwark was right to revoke Richard Coekin's licence was the Archbishop right to make him give it back?

2. If the Bishop of Southwark's actions were referred to as "seriously flawed", "disproportionate", and "inappropriate" then they weren't reversed because of a technicality?

Posted by Rupert Standring at Monday, 12 June 2006 at 11:55am BST

+Croydon said: "Some people who claim to be Anglicans are really non-conformists"... I think that in the end, most evangelicals submit to the authority of Scripture before the authority of Bishops and the church's synods. So the further the HoB allows the church to drift away from Scriptural/Traditional faith and morality, the less conformist we will become! But the abandonment of Scripture is not Anglican.

There are some people who claim to be Anglicans who don't even believe the historical Creeds, Bp Baines! At least non-conformists are Christians...

Posted by Dave at Monday, 12 June 2006 at 8:20pm BST

Nick Baines gives a partial and misleading version of the facts - as does Tom Butler's statement on the Southwark website

The principle reason given for the decision to reverse Coekin's suspension is that it was a disproportionate response. The technical flaws in "due process" are a secondary matter

Posted by Peter at Monday, 12 June 2006 at 11:29pm BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.