Kendall was very quick to get out the news of Ruth Gledhill’s interview with Archbishop Peter Akinola, posting the news the evening of July 3rd. When we saw the post the following morning, we added the update indicating that there was more info available on Ruth Gledhill’s blog.
We never, however, mentioned that there were several video portions of Ruth’s interview with Archbishop Akinola available. So, for those who might have missed them, or might not have had time to watch them yet and would appreciate a reminder, here are the links:
The videos
Archbishop Akinola talks about Lambeth 2008 (6 minutes)
Dr Peter Akinola, Primate of Nigeria (4 minutes, he talks about his call to ministry)
Archbishop Peter Akinola and a threat of ritual sacrifice (2 minutes)
The articles
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2026348.ece
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2007/07/peter-akinola-w.html
[thanks to Scott at Magic Statistics for the nice roundup post which reminded us about the videos]
A question for the elves or whomever…why do you give ++Akinola respect for his title but you do not give Most Rev. Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori respect for hers. Okay, so we’re at odds. Does disrespect make things better?
I’m not an elf but I can say the two are not valid comparisons in any way. There are many folk around the Anglican Communion who would not even recognise Katharine’s ordination as valid, let alone her consecration as a Bishop. The fact that she is then a false teacher means orthodox Christians are not just “at odds” with her, they cannot accept her since in biblical terms she is a wolf amongst the sheep.
Being courteous towards her is of course a Christian thing.
But to compare her with the godly and orthodox and Spirit-filled leader who is Peter Akinola just is just a non-starter.
#2: sorry but I believe the majority of folks in the Anglican communion believe in the ordination of women. To disrespect someone is not the way so-called reasserters should act. Whether we like it or not she is the PB of the ECUSA and ECUSA is still in the Anglican communion (for now).
By the way all reasserters in ECUSA are in communion with the PB. We can not just pick and choose with whom we are in communion. This is not an individual thing, but a church thing.
If am not mistaken there are only three provinces that have admitted women to the episcopacy: ECUSA, Canada and New Zealand. England may be joining them shortly. So it is true that the majority of Anglican provinces would not recognize Jefferts Schori’s episcopal orders even if they did acknowledge her as a priest.
I do not like personnel attacks based purely on race, gender or creed. +KJS wrote a memo to +Akinola that deserved some harsh comment for it’s grammer. The PB should be able to do better. I have attacked her for her lack of a cogent Christology. I do not think we should disrespect people because they are reappraisers, reaserters etc. People who post are fair game for critical comments related to their arguments or positions in arguments or lack there of. Lets at least be respectful to one another as is fitting Christians.
#4: OK I was not clear: just because a Province does not have women Bishops does not mean that they do not recognize our PB as a Bishop in the Church. Otherwise all the Provinces sans women Bishops would be out of communion with ECUSA: and that is not the case. (and just because an AB does not come to the table with USA Bishops does not mean that Province is out of communion with us).
This does of course bring up the question of whether or not the “reasserter Province in USA ” willl ordain women. And if not will there be two “reasserter provinces”. And will they further split over prayer books, Anglo-catholic matters, charismatic matters etc. I must admit one of the reasons I feel comfortable in the ECUSA was that we do not argue about these things like some of the smaller presbyterian churches do. But I fear a small reasserter province will spinter several times and the unity of the church (such as it is) will be further broken.
#1 no disrespect intended in anything I’ve written about the Presiding Bishop.
I don’t always use plus signs. Usually only if I have stripped away full name and title.
Please remember. This is a blog. I’ve been volunteering to help Kendall and doing this on top of a real job and various ministry responsibilities. That means that sometimes an entry gets posted quickly squeezed in between several other responsibilities.
It is not formal official communication. Sometimes that means there are shortcuts and certain protocol stripped away. But Kendall insists on respectful tone. Apologies if there seemed to be some discrepancy in how bishops are referred to.
Now can you all stop with the off-topic discussion. If this turns into a thread on women’s ordination, this elf is going to go on blogging strike and take the weekend off. You’ve been warned!
I think we all ought to use complete honorifics plus alphabet soup degree acronyms behind everybody’s name in order to increase Rev. Canon Kendall[+, BA?, MA?, DD?]’s bandwidth. :->
On a more positive note, any idea on who took the clips? ++Akinola’s office or Gledhill? Just wondering.