Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola (pictured) talking with George Conger about the Lambeth conference.Just a question, but if Lambeth is immaterial then why would you need to discipline a Bishop who went?
"Initial claims that a Nigerian bishop had bucked his Church have proven false.
However, Archbishop Peter Akinola told ReligiousIntelligence.com the whole issue of who was or was not at Lambeth was immaterial. “At this point it is a non-issue for us. After Lambeth, any Nigerian who may have chosen to flout our provincial and collective decision will have to answer to the general synod. Its as simple as that.""
http://www.religiousintelligence.com/news/?NewsID=2361
3 comments:
Your point is well taken. I had been wondering the same thing myself.
Perhaps I am dead wrong, but I cannot imagine PB Jefforts Schori acting in such a way.
I think difference between the latitude of acceptance between AB Akinola and Jefforts Schori explains much about the difference in polity between the two churches each heads.
Blessings to you.
Ask Bill Cox about that. He was deposed (perhaps in violation of the canon) for the crime of responding to a request from another bishop of the Anglican Communion to act for him in a parish that had withdrawn from the Episcopal Church and negotiated a settlement with the Episcopal diocese. Or ask John-David Schofield about San Joaquin.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC (and formerly in Maryland when Bishop Cox was Suffragan there.)
Amen, Thom, or ask Bishop Duncan about the National Church trying to depose him for allowing parishes to keep their property and for permitting Cox to confirm people in the Pittsburgh Diocese. Are people really that blind?
Yours,
Marty Rice
Post a Comment