Via Email: Bishop Orama Denies UPI Report

Posted by Kendall Harmon

In an email communication The Venerable Akintunde A. Popoola, Director of Communications for the Church of Nigeria has stated that Bishop Orama has denied making the statements attributed to him in a September 2, 2007, UPI report. Additionally, the journalist who issued the statement has given a verbal apology for the misrepresentation and has promised to print a retraction.

Update: A Living Church report is here.

Another update: UPI has made a statement also.

Filed under:

68 Comments
Posted September 7, 2007 at 12:26 pm

To comment on this article: Go to Article View

The URL for this article is http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/5663/



1. libraryjim wrote:

Praise God for this news!

“The world is a dangerous place to live — not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”—Albert Einstein

September 7, 12:30 pm | [comment link]
2. LTN wrote:

How about apologizing to the Bishop for assuming the journalist statements to be true? You can still condemn the statement just as any strawman statements issued but to rush to judgment on attributing this statement to a black bishop deserves an apology.

September 7, 12:32 pm | [comment link]
3. Reason and Revelation wrote:

Let’s see if the liberal blogs condemn the rank slander that the journalist committed and if they actually publish this statement or if they let the slander keep going.

September 7, 12:52 pm | [comment link]
4. samh wrote:

Kendall,

Again, thank you for responding reasonably to the original report, and for posting this correction.

September 7, 12:58 pm | [comment link]
5. Larry Morse wrote:

#4.Amen. Larry

September 7, 1:14 pm | [comment link]
6. Nick Knisely wrote:

I someone can either post the email - or send a copy to me - I’ll post this statement over at Episcopal Cafe.

September 7, 1:15 pm | [comment link]
7. KAR wrote:

Remember, Kendall condemn a statement without reservation not the bishop. I think you done right on both, the statement is repulsive and now it appears the bishop’s name will be separated from the statement. 

Thank you for both! You have set for us a high standard to emulate.

September 7, 1:15 pm | [comment link]
8. Bob from Boone wrote:

i await to read the bishop’s statement.

September 7, 1:23 pm | [comment link]
9. azusa wrote:

... but surely it bespeaks a certain truthiness?.... smile

September 7, 1:28 pm | [comment link]
10. Irenaeus wrote:

This is good news, but let’s not yet take it as definitive. Journalistic retractions are usually sincere. But reporters sometimes issue retractions for other reasons: e.g., to maintain working relations with an important source. I’ve seen it happen. I’m not saying that’s the case here—-only that we need to read the denial and retraction and make an overall judgment about their credibility. Until we’ve done so, let’s be wary of wielding our verbal bicycle chains against the reporter and those who republished his report.

September 7, 1:38 pm | [comment link]
11. evan miller wrote:

Personally, I think everyone, both reappraiser and reasserter, was WAY to eager to accept the initial report as accurate.  OVerkill on both sides.

September 7, 1:45 pm | [comment link]
12. evan miller wrote:

“Too eager.”  I’ve GOT to start proofing!

September 7, 1:47 pm | [comment link]
13. MJD_NV wrote:

But they will not, Matt.  In fact, Jake has already said he does not believe anything that Canon Tunde says.  And a I bet a sawbuck that EVEN if the JOURNALIST prints a public retraction, the BEST you will get is, “Well, maybe that quote wasn’t accurate, but he was still thinking that, you know he was, so we were right to be outraged.”

The Leftist double-standard is in full swing.

If God is not Father, Jesus is not Lord, the Son is not unique, baptism is not necessary, the creeds are optional, repentance and sin are dated concepts and the atonement is marginalized or even rejected, where do we go from here? The faith remaining will be a very different faith from the Christian faith once delivered to the saints - and I, for one, am not going there!  ~ Bp. Miller, Church of Ireland

September 7, 1:48 pm | [comment link]
14. Ed the Roman wrote:

Lewis wrote of the proper response on hearing that a story of German atrocities during wartime being false was along the lines of “thank GOd even they aren’t as bad as that.”

Which seems a bridge too far for some people.

September 7, 2:07 pm | [comment link]
15. Fred wrote:

What a bunch of armchair quarterbacking!  Was it a stretch to believe a report about a bishop in a church from a country that condemns gays and calls for their arrest if two or three gather together in public? Is it a stretch to believe a news report about a bishop in a country that has been nailed for human rights violations by the International Human Rights Watch because of their treatment of gays? I think not. If this was a misquote by a journalist, then a retraction should be issued. It happens sometimes in the media game. But, let’s see what the bishop actually said. I’m wondering just how far afield this journalist was.

September 7, 2:15 pm | [comment link]
16. Bob from Boone wrote:

Matt, what Fr. Jake wrote on his blog is the following:
“Tangentially, in regards to the supposed denial of Bp. Orama’s statement by Canon Popoola of Nigeria, do keep in mind that the Canon has a track record of being a false witness. Take his words with a grain of salt.” Readers can go to Fr. Jakes’ site and click the link that gives examples.

A couple of comments. Let’s leave race out of this matter. Let’s await a published statement by the bishop denying that he made these statement and repudiating the sentiments that they convey, before we jump to any more conclusions. It would be a step forward for Nigeria, because unfortunately similar sentiments, not so outrageous, have been uttered by his Primate. Read the Listening Project statment from Nigeria on the AC list (reproduced by Fr. Jake on his blog today), and it is clear that the Nigerian Anglican leadership is hardly in the frame of mind to listen to any gay or lesbian, Nigerian or otherwise, in the spirit of the project.

I also would like to see a written statement by the journalist in question regarding his interview. There is another unanswered question: why would a journalist produce such an inflammatory statement if the bishop had not expressed anti-homosexual views? What was the grounds upon which the statement was crafted? There is more to this matter that awaits exploration.

Obviously the ABC thought the reported comments serious enough to make a public condemnation about them. So this bishop owes it to the ABC and the rest of the Communion to make a public denial and repudiation of the sentiments attached, for his own sake, the sake of Nigeria, and the sake of gays and lesbians who were understandably horrified (hardly gleeful) at such an alledged statement.

September 7, 2:15 pm | [comment link]
17. Susan Russell wrote:

And you can read the “Makes the Heart Sad” part at “Good News …?

September 7, 2:24 pm | [comment link]
18. Mike Bertaut wrote:

I think it only fair to remember that the first line of Kendal’s report on this statement was “if he (Bishop Orama) was quoted accurately….

If he was NOT quoted accurately, then I will issue a collective Emily Latella correction….

“Oh, that’s different!......Never Mind…”

KTF!...mrb

Mike Bertaut
Time to Go

September 7, 2:41 pm | [comment link]
19. Words Matter wrote:

On the other hand, the venom and vitriol unleashed in some of the comments and emails regarding this matter illustrate, once again, the deep divide between what the church says with its lips and what it lives out in its life and witness.

Unleashed by who? The reappraisers were uniformly condemning the statement (with some reservations about it’s veracity) when some (not Ms. Russell or Jake, to be fair) came along and picked a fight. The Anglican Scotist made a fool of himself (herself?), while numerous reappraiser commenters on this blog went ballistic. The comments are there to read.

That good, faithful Christian people could assert that the statements attributed to Orama were, in fact, “more biblical” ...

An issue raised by a reappraiser (or maybe two) and rebutted by reasserters.

Finally, ANY of us who choose to step up and speak out take the risk of being misquoted or misrepresented.

So true, so true.

Words Matter

Reasonable people always fear nascent fascism.

September 7, 2:54 pm | [comment link]
20. MJD_NV wrote:

Ah, Jake is not alone -

The bishop is now denying he made these remarks. That news comes from Tunde Poopola, the canon for communications of Nigeria whom we have learned to distrust, but let’s keep an eye on this for further developments.

Posted by Jim Naughton

If God is not Father, Jesus is not Lord, the Son is not unique, baptism is not necessary, the creeds are optional, repentance and sin are dated concepts and the atonement is marginalized or even rejected, where do we go from here? The faith remaining will be a very different faith from the Christian faith once delivered to the saints - and I, for one, am not going there!  ~ Bp. Miller, Church of Ireland

September 7, 3:02 pm | [comment link]
21. Planonian wrote:

Naughton’s right. Canon Poopola has rather problematic record with the unvarnished truth.

But I’ll remain hopeful that the situation is indeed as he’s described it, and await verification from UPI or other, reputable source (surely UPI will post a retraction, if the story isn’t as #10 Irenaeus has possibly described it - i.e. retractions for other reasons).

September 7, 3:17 pm | [comment link]
22. David Keller wrote:

When this story came out, I started to write to you all, “and we have to believe it is true because it was on the internet.”  I wish I had.  This is a very good lesson about believing anything on the net, or in the newspaper, for that matter, which hasn’t been verified.

September 7, 3:19 pm | [comment link]
23. MJD_NV wrote:

Naughton’s right. Canon Poopola has rather problematic record with the unvarnished truth. (sic)

No, dear, Canon Tunde merely has a problem accepting the left’s favorite Nigerian poster boy,  thus he is a “liar”. 

Sigh - as I said in #14, the Left is soooooooooo predictable. wink 9Hey, but at least I’ll get to keep my sawbuck!)

If God is not Father, Jesus is not Lord, the Son is not unique, baptism is not necessary, the creeds are optional, repentance and sin are dated concepts and the atonement is marginalized or even rejected, where do we go from here? The faith remaining will be a very different faith from the Christian faith once delivered to the saints - and I, for one, am not going there!  ~ Bp. Miller, Church of Ireland

September 7, 3:35 pm | [comment link]
24. Ad Orientem wrote:

I think the key thing to be on the look out for is a retraction from any of the reputable news services (notably the UPI) that carried this story.  If they issue anything resembling a retraction than the critics of the alleged comments (including yours truly) are of course honor bound to issue retractions or apologies as appropriate. For now I have followed Kendall’s lead and simply noted the denial on my blog pending further developments.

September 7, 3:38 pm | [comment link]
25. Susan Russell wrote:

#27 ... Beg to differ. The issue with Canon Tunde’s veracitude isn’t just Davis MacIyallya related. Remember that in his last official statement, Tunde said Chris Sugden had nothing to do with Akinola’s Agonizing Journey letter but the “track changes” that he himself released (and were MUCH discussed on this blog and elsewere) said otherwise. So to assert that he’s not to be trusted without deep reservations strikes me as “due diligence”—to put it mildly.

As I said earlier, “I look forward to reading the fuller accounting from the bishop and journalist in question.”

September 7, 3:49 pm | [comment link]
26. Brian from T19 wrote:

Canon Popoola is only as truthful as his boss tells him to be.  Unfortunately, ++Akinola is the Yasser Arafat of Christianity - say one thing to your people and the opposite to the press.  UPI has not removed the story from its site.

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams

September 7, 4:18 pm | [comment link]
27. Planonian wrote:

#27 Sigh - as I said in #14, the Left is soooooooooo predictable.

Heh. But not you guys, right ? :/

I’m with Ad Orientem. Be on the lookout for a retraction from any reputable news service. Otherwise, it’s the same situation you lot were complaining about when the story broke.

September 7, 4:45 pm | [comment link]
28. Bob from Boone wrote:

As Brian notes, UPI has not removed the article from its web site, but it has appended the following statement:
“UPI distributes certain third party submissions from official government news agencies, such as this article. Since UPI does not control the material included in these submissions, UPI does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of the material in such submissions, and UPI does not endorse any of the views or opinions expressed therein.”

If I read this note correctly, UPI got the submission from an “official government news agency”?? Or some other “agency”? This story gets curiouser and curiouser.

September 7, 4:54 pm | [comment link]
29. MJD_NV wrote:

Nope, Planonian, not at all! wink

Actually, several of “your lot” had commented on the incredible depth of charity found amooung reasserting groups when the article first came out. So apparently, we’re not quite as predictible as we seem.

But my #14 refered to an anticipated lack of charity from the Left, and a lack of charity was what we got.  The feeding frenzy on the original (hack-job w/no verification) article followed by a no-it’s-not-good-enough-cuz-we-don’t-like-Canon-Tunde reponse is the EXACT lack of charity I expected. 

I am afraid I sound a little smug about it - I apologize for that; actually, I am very, very saddened.  I wish it were different.  You have no idea how hard I prayed when I wrote #14 that SOMEONE would prove me wrong & claim that sawbuck. 

The offer, BTW, still stands…

If God is not Father, Jesus is not Lord, the Son is not unique, baptism is not necessary, the creeds are optional, repentance and sin are dated concepts and the atonement is marginalized or even rejected, where do we go from here? The faith remaining will be a very different faith from the Christian faith once delivered to the saints - and I, for one, am not going there!  ~ Bp. Miller, Church of Ireland

September 7, 5:08 pm | [comment link]
30. Paula Loughlin wrote:

I posted the following on Stand Firm in response to the article about Abp Wms investigating the matter.
I just reread the UPI story on Bishop’s Orama’s interview.  Two things strike me.  First I find it hard to believe that the same man said these two statements “ “Homosexuality and lesbianism are inhuman. Those who practice them are insane, satanic and are not fit to live because they are rebels to God’s purpose for man,’’ and “The aim of such fight is to provide a safe place for those who want to remain faithful Anglicans and Biblical Christians,’’
The two statements show very different language structures.  I am not sure if structure is the correct term.  I mean how a sentence is put together, its grammar, syntax and overall clarity. 

Secondly I am fairly certain the latter quote is what Archbishop Akinola said in defense of CANA and other such consecrations by African Bishops.  If it is not the exact quote it is very similar.

I am grateful that Abp Williams is looking into this matter.  No Christian ever need fear the Truth, even if it puts a fellow believer in an ugly light.  It is Christ who truly leads us and He alone is perfect.

In an earlier post on the topic of Bp Orama’s interview I had expressed my doubt over its accuracy.  Not because I thought it was impossible for the Bp to have said such a thing ( even the best of us sometimes unbridle our tongues with more malice than charity).  But because I was unable to find any confirmation for the interview.  This, along with the crudity of language set up a red flag.  I look forward to a more in depth explanation for this whole mess.

September 7, 5:09 pm | [comment link]
31. Brian from T19 wrote:

Bob

The quote was from an interview done by the News Agency of Nigeria.  NAN is described as:

NAN is owned by the Nigerian government, established by law in 1976. Its mandate includes the gathering, processing and dissemination of news and news material to media and non-media clients within and outside Nigeria.

It has offices in all the 36 states in the country as well as in other parts of the world.

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams

September 7, 5:13 pm | [comment link]
32. Bob from Boone wrote:

Matt Thompson, you got to it before I did, as I just caught up with the fact that NAN was the agency in question. I went to their web site, but as you have informed us, you cannot get any stories from them. I agree with your statement about such sentiments coming from Nigerian clergymen, having seen similar statements before.

September 7, 5:16 pm | [comment link]
33. Baruch wrote:

Not everyone assumed the worst. Having given many interviews I long since learned that the majority of those who pass as journalists fail what the editor of the paper I once worked for said was a reporter’s duty. Who, What, When, Where, and Why, without editorial modification. Most people out of journalism schools now answer, when asked what they do, “I make the world better.” My old editor would never hired them.

September 7, 6:19 pm | [comment link]
34. Mark Johnson wrote:

Interesting.  So, this comes out three days ago with much hoo-hah, but it’s not until the Archbishop of Canterbury weighs in that they finally claim “oops, he never actually said that”???  I’m suspicious.  I wouldn’t be surprised if “someone” weighed in and told them to claim it was never stated.  I hope he didn’t say it, but what does it say about the Diocese of Nigeria that we all more or less accepted that it could have been stated by one of its bishops?

September 7, 6:30 pm | [comment link]
35. MJD_NV wrote:

The UPI link is now pulled

If God is not Father, Jesus is not Lord, the Son is not unique, baptism is not necessary, the creeds are optional, repentance and sin are dated concepts and the atonement is marginalized or even rejected, where do we go from here? The faith remaining will be a very different faith from the Christian faith once delivered to the saints - and I, for one, am not going there!  ~ Bp. Miller, Church of Ireland

September 7, 6:31 pm | [comment link]
36. MJD_NV wrote:

No, Mark Johnson, the ABC & the CofN were basically weighing in at the same time…mostly because it took people three days before they had the common decency to even ask the bishop or the CofN if this was true.

So much for Christian charity from the left…

If God is not Father, Jesus is not Lord, the Son is not unique, baptism is not necessary, the creeds are optional, repentance and sin are dated concepts and the atonement is marginalized or even rejected, where do we go from here? The faith remaining will be a very different faith from the Christian faith once delivered to the saints - and I, for one, am not going there!  ~ Bp. Miller, Church of Ireland

September 7, 6:42 pm | [comment link]
37. Brian from T19 wrote:

MJD_NV

Mark may be wrong, but for a different reason.  That is that ++Akinola doesn’t care for ++Rowan.

As for charity, it is for those who seek it.

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams

September 7, 6:50 pm | [comment link]
38. MJD_NV wrote:

“As for charity, it is for those who seek it. “
Wow, now there’s an interesting gospel. Spoken like a true Pharisee, my friend.

Is it just me, or are y’all more upset that the story is now showing every sign of NOT being true than you were when you thought that it WAS true?

If God is not Father, Jesus is not Lord, the Son is not unique, baptism is not necessary, the creeds are optional, repentance and sin are dated concepts and the atonement is marginalized or even rejected, where do we go from here? The faith remaining will be a very different faith from the Christian faith once delivered to the saints - and I, for one, am not going there!  ~ Bp. Miller, Church of Ireland

September 7, 7:26 pm | [comment link]
39. AnglicanFirst wrote:

The meeting of ECUSA’s bishops with +++Williams is less than two weeks away.  The September 30 deadline is just over three weeks away.

Doesn’t it seem strange that a bishop of the Anglican orthodox/traditional community would do something illogically damaging that would negatively sway the outcome of +++Williams visit with ECUSA’s bishops in the direction of the goals of ECUSA’s revisionists?

The situation does not meet the ‘test of reasonableness.’ 

I am fairly sure that ++Akinola, an orthodox primate who strongly supports episcopacy, would not permit one of his bishops to negatively impact the world-wide efforts of orthodox/traditional Anglicans who are striving to preserve “the Faith once given.”

No, I believe that there may be something else going on here.  Unless the bishop who allegedly made the homo-phobic statement is a nut case, a foolish man or an agent-provocateur.

September 7, 8:48 pm | [comment link]
40. Drew wrote:

I hate to say “I told you so,” but . . .
For the record, I didn’t necessarilly agree with the quote as it supposedly appeard (although, as I pointed out, on at least one level it was true—we all deserve God’s wrath).
What troubled me—and still does—was the eagerness of the orthodox to separate themselves from it without further clarification.

September 7, 8:50 pm | [comment link]
41. Connecticutian wrote:

So, it doesn’t seem to matter whether +Orama said or did not say what was alleged.  It is enough to think that he, or others in his position, probably might say it.  So he’s guilty anyway.  Is that the way it works Bob, Matt, Mark?

September 7, 9:37 pm | [comment link]
42. Bob from Boone wrote:

#47, whether or not Bp. Orama said something that led this NAN reporter to attribute such words or sentiments to him (and it is hard for me to believe that the reporter invented them out of whole cloth), the fact remains that rather strong anti-homosexual statements have come out of Nigeria, in particular from its Primate. Would you deny that?

The fact also remains that in Nigeria homosexuality in the Church is very much a doctrinal matter and hardly at all a pastoral matter. The Church insists on one part of Lambeth 1998 1.10 and virtually ignores another which is no less a recommendation. If it were truly a pastoral matter, the Anglican Church there would not be supporting legislation that, if it becomes law, criminalizes even public meetings or private conversations about the topic. Instead, it would invite its faithful gay Christian members into dialogue and listen to them, not merely harangue them about their wickedness, which is what the Nigerian statement about the listening project so much as says.

I would also argue that for the most part the opposition in the AC to the ordination of gays/lesbians in committed relationship approaches the matter almost entirely from doctrinal considerations. I recognize that many opponents have sincere intentions to minister pastorally to homosexuals, but if the statements of some GS Primates and the commentary on some blogs is any indication, there is little concern generally about the latter and much more about doctrinal issues. I think that part of the problem, besides the high decibel volume of the shouting matches here and elsewhere, is that people who have taken different positions on this matter too often talk past one another. I believe that the great majority of TEC members have taken a strong pastoral position, but the Church has also responded to doctrinal challenges with its reasons, however much opponents may reject them. There needs to be a Listening Project among reasserters and reappraisers. I’m not sanguine about that possibility at this point among provinces because positions have hardened (or else we would not be getting a new bishop a week), as they have among many whose stories appear on this and other blogs (not to mention us who comment).

September 7, 10:12 pm | [comment link]
43. Brian from T19 wrote:

Is it just me, or are y’all more upset that the story is now showing every sign of NOT being true than you were when you thought that it WAS true?

My saw buck is on the fact that it is true and the only thing that will convince me is:

1. An official retracvtion from the reporter

AND

2. A direct statement made by +Orama and read in all of the Churches in his diocese saying that homosexuals are NOT insane, are NOT satanic and they ARE fit to live

AND

3. The same statement from ++Akinola.

If I don’t see it, I don’t believe it As far as I am concerned, a statement from Canon Popoola is entirley worthless.

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams

September 7, 10:48 pm | [comment link]
44. Brian from T19 wrote:

The situation does not meet the ‘test of reasonableness.’

Reasonable to whom?

I am fairly sure that ++Akinola, an orthodox primate who strongly supports episcopacy, would not permit one of his bishops to negatively impact the world-wide efforts of orthodox/traditional Anglicans who are striving to preserve “the Faith once given.”

++Akinola isn’t concerned about the AC or its future.

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams

September 7, 10:50 pm | [comment link]
45. Wilfred wrote:

“Bishoporama” sounds like a cool term for the next Lambeth conference.

September 7, 11:17 pm | [comment link]
46. Eclipse wrote:

Bob from Boone :

whether or not Bp. Orama said something that led this NAN reporter to attribute such words or sentiments to him (and it is hard for me to believe that the reporter invented them out of whole cloth)

So, Bob - I’m going to quote you as saying that “I was behind the bombings on 9/11 and actually have visited Bin Laden in my spare time.”  This MUST mean you really have done such things, right?  Because I couldn’t just make them up, COULD I?  No, there has to be some truth to it, right, since I said it… that is reality of the logic you have just used in making the statement above.

Re:  B. Akinola

You know, this has been gone over time and time again… reality is that (gasp) Nigeria isn’t America and has different political dynamics going on.  B. Akinola has been clear that he cares about ALL people - including ALL us sinners (including those struggling with homosexuality).  He’s stated it many times - it’s been said by many credible people many times - but just like Jake you just CHOOSE to believe B. Akinola is evil.  No one can dissuade us from CHOOSING to believe something that clearly isn’t true… we get to decide that one for ourselves.

September 7, 11:27 pm | [comment link]
47. Irenaeus wrote:

“The only thing that will convince me is . . .”—-#49

If only I could, by threatening to shut my eyes and cover my ears, get the world to dance exactly to my tune.

September 8, 12:17 am | [comment link]
48. Christopher Hathaway wrote:

The truth is that our honorable opponents on the left…...

Pardon me. I just threw up a little in my mouth….

Our opponents on the left hold us and our African compatriots to be guilty in our hearts of whatever blackness they can imagine (and since they are extremely photophobic spiritually the range of darkness in their imagination runs rather high), and consequently we are guilty until we prove ourselves innocent. Since the only proof of not hating homosexuals and wishing their death which would satisfy them appears to be renouncing all serious theological and moral orthodoxy we are always going to be guilty in their eyes, eyes which I have already stated are incapable of seeing correctly. So why should we care?

It is not these scarecrows, these hollow men, with whom we should be arguing and seeking to convince of the rightness of our cause. Nor is it the fainthearted reeds that blow with them and think their councel has some merit. We waste our time arguing with fools and only make ourselves look foolish to the rest of the world that still has some sense.

No, it is the that rest of the world, both Christian and non, that has not given their minds to madness and debuachery, to whom we must make our case, a case that Anglicanism here, and maybe worldwide, is worth something. Let us argue with our brothers in Africa about what language is appropriate. But let us be done trying to look good to the fools and godless whom we used to call brothers.

I am done with them. Let them go to the destruction that they seem to willingly destine for themselves. Perhaps the appraoching flames will at last awaken some vestige of sense in them. But as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow I know that no argument of ours will do a thing to wake them up. They have traveled beyond our reach.

Dust and Sandals, anyone?

September 8, 12:30 am | [comment link]
49. Katherine wrote:

(1) We must all be very careful when reports appear on the internet or even in professional news services.  If the report is very negative to someone, on our side or the other one, we should verify its accuracy first before jumping up in indignation.

(2) Some of the liberals’ responses to this denial of the quote are very disappointing.  Because these folks think we really do hate gays and want to hurt them or kill them, they don’t believe the denial.  It’s guilty until proven innocent, and the level of proof is set very high.  I applaud those liberals who are taking the high road.

September 8, 7:00 am | [comment link]
50. Brian from T19 wrote:

Because these folks think we really do hate gays and want to hurt them or kill them, they don’t believe the denial.

We don’t think that you hate gays, but rather that hatred is systemic to the Church of Nigeria as a result of its leadership.

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams

September 8, 8:09 am | [comment link]
51. KAR wrote:

#49—IMHO you seem to be convinced of anyone who differs from you in guilt until proven innocent, but you still don’t believe it. The systematic logic of your mental processes seem to constantly circle around to you are always right even when proven wrong. That’s an observation from many threads. In the end, like the boy who cried wolf so many times, I rarely give your post much attention because I realized you where not in a discussion rather a monologue desiring an audience.

Good for Cannon Harmon for doing the right thing when unsure but this story was from a reputable wire service and without other avenues of verification, good for Cannon Harmon for the retraction. His ethical example remains high bar to follow.

September 8, 8:24 am | [comment link]
52. Brian from T19 wrote:

KAR

And you, as usual, are stuck in your single-mindedness.  Kendall+ did bot make a retraction or an accusation.  He is simply putting up the reports on what is a very troubling issue.  The problem is that you are loyal to ++Akinola to a fault.  I am certainly willing to admit when I am wrong and have done so in the past.  I am also able to admit when people who share my views are wrong.

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams

September 8, 8:32 am | [comment link]
53. RevK wrote:

#51 Wilfred:  How about “PurplePalooza”?  We could have a steel cage match like in the WWF.

September 8, 8:48 am | [comment link]
54. Katherine wrote:

And there you are, #56.  Disagreement = hatred.  Nigerians bad.  Whatever happened to the liberal insistence on differing cultural contexts?

The Nigerian church teaches, as do the vast majority of Christian authorities, that desire for sexual relations with persons of the same sex is inherently disordered.  That’s the basic disagreement here.  Traditional Christians agree with the teaching of Scripture and two millennia.  Moderns disagree with Scripture and tradition.  Calling this “hate” won’t solve the disagreement.

September 8, 9:06 am | [comment link]
55. Brian from T19 wrote:

Katherine

As I said at the beginning of that post, not all people hate homosexuals (perhaps the vast majority of Traditional Christians do not).  However, that does not mean that there are not some people who do.  From many, many statements and reports we have seen that the Church of Nigeria devalies homosexuals to the level of subhuman.  Obviously there are those within the Church of Nigeria who strongly oppose this and would condemn the sin only.  However, because the problem is coming from the top down, the issue becomes institutionalized.

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams

September 8, 9:16 am | [comment link]
56. MJD_NV wrote:

From many, many statements and reports we have seen that the Church of Nigeria devalies (sic) homosexuals to the level of subhuman.

Um, no, we haven’t.  We HAVE seen that Nigerians have a very, very different view of what homosexuality is, but since they do not, in general, believe the heinous lie that you are what you want to sleep with, to them “homosexual” as a noun is an impossibility.  They also do not beleive that being pastoral to someone includes helping them in their sins instead of out of their sins.  Hence, a lot of those views do not square with a Western worldview.  It does not make them any more or less hateful than you are.

Why you believe the above is obvious….because Leftists believe the worst possible spin on any statement coming out of Nigeria, which proves that Nirgerians are hateful, and because Nigerians are hateful, it’s only right and good to assume the worst possible spin on any statement that comes from Nigeria.

Can you say circular logic, boys and girls?  I knew you could.

Oh, but please keep on posting, Brian.  You’re such an excellent example of circular logic, we’d hate to lose you. grin

If God is not Father, Jesus is not Lord, the Son is not unique, baptism is not necessary, the creeds are optional, repentance and sin are dated concepts and the atonement is marginalized or even rejected, where do we go from here? The faith remaining will be a very different faith from the Christian faith once delivered to the saints - and I, for one, am not going there!  ~ Bp. Miller, Church of Ireland

September 8, 10:02 am | [comment link]
57. RevK wrote:

Brian #61

From many, many statements and reports we have seen that the Church of Nigeria devalies homosexuals to the level of subhuman.  Obviously there are those within the Church of Nigeria who strongly oppose this and would condemn the sin only.  However, because the problem is coming from the top down, the issue becomes institutionalized.

I have seen many statements from Nigeria that condemn homosexual acts (as well as heterosexual acts outside of marriage), but I have not seen any that call homosexuals less then human.  Can you give me some links so that I can read them for myself?

September 8, 11:06 am | [comment link]
58. Phil wrote:

Brian #56 -
I guess that’s fair; some of us think hatred is systemic to the Episcopal Church as a result of its leadership.

September 8, 11:34 am | [comment link]
59. Rolling Eyes wrote:

Joe Reappraiser: “See, that quote just PROVES that all conservatives hate homosexuals, blah blah blah…”

Uh, actually, the quote was not accurate, and a full retraction has been posted.

Joe Reappraiser: “Oh.  Uh, well, it just SEEMS like something I think a conservative would say.  So, they’re still guilty, and this retraction means nothing.”

Pathetic.

Just sayin’...

September 8, 4:19 pm | [comment link]
60. Brian from T19 wrote:

and a full retraction has been posted.

Where did you see a full retraction posted>

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams

September 8, 6:11 pm | [comment link]
61. Ad Orientem wrote:

I will second Brian’s question.  If a retraction has been posted by any reputable news service I would like to see it.  Until then I remain neutral on the question of whether or not the alleged comments were made while strongly condemning them if in fact they were uttered.

September 8, 7:30 pm | [comment link]
62. Larry Morse wrote:

A simpleminded question: Who is one to believe and why? I don’t understand this mess at all. Surely there is outside evidence of what Orama did or did not say?  Larry

September 8, 7:56 pm | [comment link]
63. KAR wrote:

#58—You typo had me laughing ... I’m sure Kendall+ is not a bot, he’s very dynamic, however you I’m not sure for each post has a dogged determination and does not seem to *listen* to others ... fess up, are you a bot?

September 9, 12:23 am | [comment link]
64. KAR wrote:

Wow, I make a typo that declares you not a “bot” but a ...

September 9, 12:24 am | [comment link]
65. Derek Smith wrote:

Christopher Hathaway (#54)

You took the words right out of my mouth.

September 9, 1:01 am | [comment link]


© 2014 Kendall S. Harmon. All rights reserved.

For original material from Titusonenine (such as articles and commentary by Dr. Harmon) permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com


<< Back to main page

<< Return to Mobile view (headlines)