Forward in Faith UK FiF Response on ‘on Civil Partnerships’
Reform BISHOPS’ PROPOSALS ON CIVIL PARTNERSHIP ACT ‘FLAWED AND UNWORKABLE’ SAYS REFORM
CEN Andrew Carey Andrew Carey on the C of E Bishops Approach to Civil Partnerships
Agape Press Kendall Harmon Church of England’s Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Compromise Has Theologian Concerned
Simon Barrow BEING CIVIL ABOUT PARTNERSHIPS
Sean Doherty Civil Partnerships in the Church of England
Other bloggers have commented on the previously reported response of Archbishop Peter Akinola
(some of these blog entries also have interesting comments)
Fr Jake C of E Threatened with Suspension
Simeon in the Suburbs Pope Peter I of Alexandria
Oh my goodness, the *cachet* of being linked to by Thinking Anglicans – and in the august company of Fr. Jake and the Rev. Mark Harris no less 🙂
However, just to nip something in the bud, please note that I am not NEARLY as fine as person as our host here and that my blog does not exist as a place for “conservatives” to vent their collective spleens. Please see:
http://simeon-in-the-suburbs.blogspot.com/2004/12/ground-rules.html
if you have any questions.
It is sobering to see that absolutely no one has a kind word for the House of Bishops’ pastoral advice. But it is also obvious that a pattern is developing in comments from the “orthodox” that will give Peter Akinola the support he is looking for. The last time we saw this threat was in the immediate aftermath of the Windsor Report. In the light of paragraph 146 we gave the Report a cautious welcome. The “orthodox” panicked and were about to reject it – then Blessed Tom Wright was sent on a mission to redefine the Windsor Report and… Read more »
Martin:
I think that the kindest thing one can say about this pastoral advice is, “In the circumstances, it was probably the only thing they could have said”.
‘So many Injuns, Tonto, what are we gonna do?’
‘What do you mean “we”, white man?’
Martin R, do you think your comment about ‘Blessed Tom Wright’ is fair? I agree with you that the English bishops’ pastoral advice is completely off beam.
Yes Martin H, I do believe that I have described the post Windsor strategy accurately. The matter turned on Akinola’s departure from the Primate’s steering committee (with a flourish) the day after the launch of the Windsor Report. Up to that momment there had been considerable unanimity as to how to move forward and behind the scenes consultations were working well. Indeed Akinola had been fairly positive up until he went off for a “briefing” by the ususal suspects. In very short time the process changed, Blessed Tom was giving interviews to everyone and doors that had formerly been open… Read more »
The HoB advice is simply the outcome of an untenable policy, which is itself the outcome of an untenably divided and diverse denomination.
Martin R there’s a tendency to see conspiracies all over the place. Tom Wright’s view of the Windsor Report never changed as a result of any supposed briefing to ++Akinola. Furthermore, I think LGCM should be very careful about suggesting in a neo-colonialist way as you have done here (and in that disgraceful press release) that Africans are in the pay of American conservatives. Such allegations could easily be construed as racism and I know that is not your intent.
Sorry Andrew if my piece above was unclear. I was referring to the launch of the Windsor Report and what happened immediately after when the steering group of the Primates was to take place. I was saying that Peter Akinola seemed firstly to be at peace with the process, he then had a meeting with, shall we call them advisors and friends, the atmosphere changed and he left the Primates steering group and returned home denouncing the Windsor Report like this http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/39/00/acns3902.cfm . It was then that the Windsor report appeared to be in jeopardy and I am saying that… Read more »
Martin Reynolds wrote: “then Blessed Tom Wright was sent on a mission to redefine the Windsor Report and reinterpret it in a very conservative way”
Wright was sent on a mission to reinterpret a document he basically wrote?
Surely you are not suggesting that Anglican Mainstream wish to have any influence over the activities of the so-called ‘Global South’ (right- wing-speak for Africa?)
Andrew,
Do you have a similar view of those who have expressed the notion that Desmond Tutu is a pawn of “the New York homosexuals who paid for his cancer therapy” or that Ndungane is the “pet African” to the liberal west?
Martin you may be talking about wealth and power and how it is used. The effect of your comments is to suggest not only that shadowy, unnamed and wealthy individuals are misusing money and power, but that the Primates you are talking about are manipulable in this way. It’s a double ad hominem aimed at two particular classes of people and continues a trend of insults that began at Lambeth 1998. Such allegations are serious and the fact that you are passing them on, based on nothing more than tittle tattle, speaks volumes. As for your view of ++Akinola’s reaction… Read more »
Mike, the Global South also includes the churches of the Indian sub-continent, SE Asia, the Southern Cone and Sydney. Not a few of these churches provide the actual spiritual and intellectual leadership (Jensen, Ying), besides the African leaders. By the way, the African bishops are, on the whole, more highly educated than the Ecusa bishops, to judge by the number of PhDs among them. I concede they probably don’t know much about mixing cocktails.
Tish Tosh Andrew! The effect of my comments is to suggest no such thing, unless it is in your mind! I am not talking about shadowy figures, all the people I have in mind are those who seem to enjoy the limelight and whose views and aspirations are well known to all. The only thing they seem so shy about is their management of the situation. Goodness, these people are quite happy to hand Primates questions and speeches in plain view, it’s just that they are not so forthcoming about their role when asked! It was the Sunday Times who… Read more »
Jeremy, I take a very dim view of any attempts to smear people in this kind of way. I’ve been privileged to meet both ++Njongonkulu Ndungane and ++Desmond Tutu and think such comments are contemptible – both men are independent, admirable and strongminded characters. I disagree with both of them on some matters, as I do with ++Akinola, but I’ve never seen any sign that any of these men are manipulable in the way Martin Reynolds alleges.
Given that your father appointed most of the current Lambeth Palace bureaucracy, you should know, Andrew!
Martin, it’s absolutely clear from what you’ve posted before that it’s hearsay. Your source wasn’t present at any meeting in which ++Akinola was ‘managed’ in the way you suggest so it’s absolute nonsense to suggest that your source is ‘unimpeachable’. You’re simply peddling rumours. I note that you haven’t tried to defend your ridiculous press release – is that because it’s indefensible?
In all the conversation I almost forgot to mention that I am now ever more earger to see who is summoned back from Skeggy to convince the world of the Church of England’s homophobic credentials and save the day.
Some wit has emailed me that based on my past performance I would be a good candidate !! Silly Billy!!!
You are quite right Andrew I was not at that meeting. As to the Press Release, well I thought I had dealt with that by way of Andrew Goddard’s comments to The Tablet. He explains clearly what should have happened, what we all expected to happen, the friends, advisors, strategists, campaign managers, handlers, speech writers, close confidants, supporters, fellow travelers were supposed to convince the Primate of Nigeria not to do what he has done. I am as much at a loss as you are as to how that did not happen. It was, after all, what we predicted was… Read more »