Lambeth Diary: Nigerian bishop flees

The only Nigerian bishop to register for Lambeth, Cyril Okorocha, Bishop of Owerri, has fled Britain and gone back home for fear of 'reprisals', a source has told The Times. It appears he never even made it to Canterbury. He attended his son's graduation in Manchester, the ostensible reason for his being in the country in the first place, and a few local events in the parish of Oxshott in Surrey which was hosting him. A source tells me that his departure was prompted by an "element" of concern for his wife back home, and of what the Archbishop of Nigeria Peter Akinola's response might be to his being here. The Nation reported that Dr Akinola was threatening sanctions against any bishop that attended Lambeth.

Bishop Okorocha is a nice man, an evangelical with a good heart who used to be on the staff of George Carey at Lambeth and who believes in the unity of the Church. It was brave of him to come over and sadly, probably necessary for him to return.

A friend has just emailed this: 'Cyril was on the staff of the Anglican Consultative Council when its headquarters were on Waterloo Road. He replaced an African who died suddenly; but when funds ran out, Cyril had to return to Nigeria and no other Africans were on the ACC staff in those days. With this development, I think the current ACC staff  have succeeded in their purpose: to give Abp Akinola a black eye.'

Meanwhile, George Austin, former Archdeacon of York and noted General Synod watcher, has sent me this analysis of the voting figures on women bishops. Interesting that at the final vote, the Archbishop of Canterbury abstained. The bishops were equally divided on the Ripon and Leeds amendment with just one abstention - Manchester!

'With the introduction of an electronic voting system at the General Synod in York, it is now possible - happily or for some unhappily - to put names to numbers.

The 14 bishops who voted for the Bishop of Winchester’s motion, including the reaffirmation of the Lambeth 1998 resolution that both sides in the argument on women priests and bishops are ‘loyal Anglicans’ were the Archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of Blackburn, Bradford, Chichester, Exeter, Europe, London, Rochester, Southwell and Winchester, together with the suffragans of Birkenhead, Burnley, and Dover, and the Bishop of Beverley. Those suffragans must have done so knowing that as a result they would never become diocesan bishops.

Orthodox clergy and laity will also wish to know which 31 bishops voted against, unable or unwilling to allow them to be recognised as loyal Anglicans.  They were the Archbishop of York, the bishops of Bath and Wells, Bristol, Carlisle, Chelmsford, Derby, Durham (though Tom Wright did vote against the final substantive motion), Gloucester, Guildford, Hereford, Leicester, Lichfield, Lincoln, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Norwich, Oxford, Peterborough, Portsmouth, Ripon and Leeds, St Albans, St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Southwark, and Wakefield. The suffragans were Basingstoke, Dorking, Dudley, Hulme, Huntington, Willesden and also the episcopal Dean of Windsor. No surprise there, save for the Archbishop of York.

These figures mean that those who hold traditional views on ministry, men and women who believe implicitly in the Catholic faith contained in creeds and scripture, are now apparently not regarded as loyal Anglicans by two-thirds of the diocesan bishops of the Church of England present and voting at the Synod.

Only 7 bishops voted for the most extreme amendment asking for a single clause measure but again there were no surprises: Bath and Wells, Bristol, Derby, Hereford, Liverpool, Portsmouth, and of course Southwark.

On the final substantive motion, the same bishops who voted for the Winchester amendment voted against, with the exception of Canterbury who abstained, and Bradford and Southwell who voted in favour. The Bishop of Durham also joined the Noes.'

(rg writes) Incidentally, one of the Bishops who voted for women bishops was Dr Peter Forster of Chester, who was in jocular mood in the House of Lords on Wednesday:

'My Lords,' he said, 'will the Chairman of Committees express sympathy for all Members on the Bishops' Bench who are at the Lambeth conference over the next two weeks, because of its carbon footprint?'

Lord Brabazon of Tara (Crossbench) responded:

'My Lords, if that were all that I was expected to express sympathy for in the Lambeth conference, that would be easy to do, but I gather that it has other problems.'

Comments

[Anon]

Yes, the whole communion would be at Lambeth if it wasn't for some threats from a few mysterious sources. It has nothing to do with the actions of TEC, and all those bishops went to GAFCON under duress as you can see by all those pictures from that conference.

Believe that if you want...

[Peter Morris]

What was all that about the rationality of different cultures when understanding responses to 'western' debates? I seem to recall the Bishop of Durham making much of the point that we need to understand and take into account others' cultural standpoints including, I take it, the fostering of fear if you deviate from episcopal authority. He also tried to delay the women bishops debate in the interests of unity, completely understanding womens' views about their marginalisation within the church! Oh dear.

[Stephen Marsden]

'These figures mean that those who hold traditional views on ministry, men and women who believe implicitly in the Catholic faith contained in creeds and scripture, are now apparently not regarded as loyal Anglicans by two-thirds of the diocesan bishops of the Church of England present and voting at the Synod.'

Let me see if I've got this straight, Ruth. These bishops - who now think that I'm not a loyal Anglican - were, by their voting, in turn demonstrating their loyalty as Anglicans by saying that Resolution III.2 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference no longer applies.

Still, given that our cousins across the pond have ignored Lambeth Resolutions for years, small wonder that our bunch of second-rate no hopers thought they'd take a lea out of the Ameriacn book. After all, most of them haven't had an original thought since they left primary school.

No Wonder ++Rowan is so anxious that this year's circus passes no resolutions!

[robroy]

"Fled"? How about simply stating that the bishop was reminded that his presence at Lambeth would be a sign of disunity and please return home.

After all, we can't have disunity...right?

[John Omani]

The voting pattern during the synod debates over women bishops was shocking. Whatever happened to the hollow cries of these liberal bishops for tolerance and latitude, so loudly proclaimed against the Gafconites?

In a number of respects, this debacle will be more damaging to the Church of England than the whole homosexuality crisis, since it marks the death knell for a whole wing of the Church: those who wish for the restoration of communion with the historic Catholic and Orthodox churches. Without this wing, the Church of England cannot lay claim to be a comprehensive and apostolic church, and should be disestablished quickly.

True Anglo-Catholics will now have to wait and see what Benedict XIV may permit by way of shelter in the Catholic communion, or join the marvellous Western Rite Antiochan Orthodox Deanery in Britain, which welcomed the first wave of traditionalists in 1995.

[Andy Armitage]

"the ostensible reason for him being" (my emphasis)? What sort of English is that in The Times, of all papers?

(rg writes: now corrected, thank you. It wasn't in The Times, where we have excellent subeditors who pick these things up. This is merely blog hosted on The Times website, sometimes written at considerable speed, and where I rely on readers to sub my mistakes!)

[John]

"These figures mean that those who hold traditional views on ministry, men and women who believe implicitly in the Catholic faith contained in creeds and scripture, are now apparently not regarded as loyal Anglicans by two-thirds of the diocesan bishops of the Church of England present and voting at the Synod."

That's not really true, now is it? All we can say is that those two-thirds voted against the motion in its entirety. They may, in fact, agree with that point but have disagreed with another point and so have felt obliged to vote against the whole thing.

pax et bonum

[Chris Feuillade]

Ruth,

From a careful reading of the first paragraph of your post, I understand that there are two separate reasons why Bishop Okorocha has decided to return to Nigeria:
(a) he has 'an "element" of concern for his wife back home'
(b) 'what the Archbishop of Nigeria Peter Akinola's response might be to his being here'

Unfortunately, the single sentence in which you report these two elements has the effect of conflating them. An unwary reader might easily be left with the impression that, if Bishop Okorocha did not return to Nigeria, then the subsequent response of Archbishop Akinola would justify concern for the Bishop's wife.

I cannot believe that, under any provocation, Archbishop Akinola would do anything to negatively affect the well-being of the Bishop's wife.

I do, however, find it believeable that in a country very hostile to Christians in certain areas, mainly as a result of persecution by members of another religion, the Bishop may very well be concerned for his wife during an extended period when he is not there to protect her.

Chris

[David]

Andy - it isn't in The Times. It's a blog.

[John]

Actually, two-thirds of the bishops voted FOR a motion which has the effect of excluding its historic Catholic constituency, by turning the Church of England into a liberal sect.

They knew exactly what they were doing, and so did the two archbishops who pleaded in vain for them to draw back from the disastrous consequences of the motion which they, the House of Bishops, had proposed.

[George Parr]

No change here - African clergymen whistling past; fleeing to or from somewhere or other, according to how their diverse views are regarded and by whom and when. May I suggest holy roller skates, for speedy access and egress...

I hope he was here long enough for a beer in The Bear at Oxshott...!

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Why read such negative conclusions into what has happened? Most of us have set out at some time in our lives on a course of action, and it is better to think again than to press on with something which is inappropriate or even wrong.

Bishop Cyril ought to be commended for taking the right decision, even if it was at the eleventh hour.

[Fr. Van Windsor]

Are you suggesting that this bishop's wife was hostage (by implied threat or action)to Akinola's displeasure? Not that I would find that hard to believe, but is this founded in fact?

(rg writes: No I am just reporting what I was told, I have no idea of what the nature of the threat was, nor did the source.)

[Malcolm+]

Despite the constant whinges about nasty liberals persecuting the puir wee "conservatives," the facts do point otherwise.

I am aware of only four cases on clerics being sanctioned for actions which did not clearly violate canons. These are:

- Uganda's deposition of a "pro-gay" bishop for no reason other than his position on that issue,
- Central Africa's denial of consent to a bishop elect for no reason other than his previous membership in an organization the then Primate declared "suspect,"
- Nigeria's explicit threat of sanctions against a bishop who dared plan to attend a conference to which he had been invited,
- +Saskatoon's deposition of a priest who responded to a hypothetical question about what he would do if approached by a same sex couple seeking to marry.

Yet let one "conservative" be sanctioned in any way, no matter how many canons have been violated, and the cries of oppression spring forth.

YAWN.

[Anon]

I am greatly dismayed to hear that Bishop Cyril is not now going to Lambeth. .... Lambeth will greatly miss his godly and constructive contribution, and indeed that of the other bishops who are staying away.

[RPNewark]

And George Austin would appear to have got it wrong when he quotes the voting record of the Bishop of Southwell, who, according to the table at Thinking Anglicans, took no part in the voting after amendment 72 including not voting on the final substantive motion. If I were you, Ruth, I think I'd trust Peter Owen and TA before George Austin who cannot be described as being totally unbiased.

[4 May 1535+]

"ostensible reason for him / his being" -- I can't answer for English in the UK--which seems, for example, to have given up entirely on the subjunctive in sentences expressing desire or command--but in the US, "him being" and "his being" are both correct, differing slightly in emphasis.

[Jenny]

Ruth,

You are getting desperate, aren't you? Face it, he flew in to attend his son's graduation, didn't even attempt to go to Canterbury, yet you need to spin it to serve the interests of the anti-Christians whose water you are paid to carry.

It's just like earlier today. You try and pretend Bishop Chane was with the African Anglicans, brothers together against the big bad. You neglected to mention that Chane smeared their brethren as "demonic". I no longer will continue to consider you a rational, responsible journalist. You have no respect for those who struggle against an attempt to destroy the faith they cherish and hold dear.

You are a drone.

(rg writes: clearly you don't read The Times. My report of what Bishop Chane said is here. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4350682.ece
As for Bp Cyril, the Anglican Communion Office confirmed he was the only Nigerian bishop to accept his invitation to Lambeth.)

[Michael Stevens]

Akinola would appear to be a very authoritarian figure if any of the stories about his past are true.

The voting patterns of the bishops in England, well as one who loves and respects the Catholic teachings that are an integral part of the Anglican faith, I am dismayed.

[Tom]

Reprisals in Canada Malcolm+ ??? You must be joking as ++Hiltz says all is hunky dory ....

Don't worry... be happy as ++Fred is loud, proud, in charge & wants his revenge.

[NewbieAnglican]

This episode does indeed smell of a cheap effort to give ++Akinola a black eye.

[George Parr]

Jenny, you are very rude and seemingly cannot detect a balanced view if you see one.

[robroy]

Newbie Anglican, you mean that, once again, the press is trying to vilify ABp Akinola and the Church of Nigeria on the slightest of evidence with flights of creative writing? I am shocked!

[saint]

Has anyone bothered to ask Bishop Cyril?

[John]

I am surprised that you include Bp Peter Forster among those who voted for women bishops, as he was not in York for the Synod.

[Lapinbizarre]

"..the press is trying to vilify ABp Akinola and the Church of Nigeria on the slightest of evidence with flights of creative writing."

We're still waiting, Robroy, for Akinola to make ANY statement dissociating himself and the "Christian Association of Nigeria", which he then headed, from the 2004 massacre of more than 600 Muslim men, women and children at Yelwa. Aklinola's observation "They know where we stand. I've said before: let no Muslim think they have the monopoly on violence" is less than exculpatory, wouldn't you say?

[Malcolm+]

Ruth,

I erred in including events in Saskatoon in that list. There was a factual error, as well as an incorrect (though unintended) implication. I explain it fuly at:
http://simplemassingpriest.blogspot.com/2008/07/climb-down-and-apology.html

Tom,

There have been no "reprisals" against conservatives in Canada. Nor have I ever been presented with any evidence to support the claims of "reprisals" anywhere else. In every single case I've seen held up, the cleric in question was (primae facie) guilty of a canonical offence - such as denying their bishop access to the parish and / or declaring themselves to be out of communion with their bishop.

Tell me the truth, Tom - if a priest in Abuja decalred himself out of communion with Peter Akinola, would Peter Akinola take no action?

Hint. To say that Peter Akinola would take no action would be both a false and a foolish thing to say.

[Nike Olafimihan]

No Nigeria Bishop has EVER been involved in the killing of Muslims in Nigeria. Yelwa, being a core Muslim area in Northern Nigeria, it is impossible for 600 Mulsims to have been killed there by any other group, not to talk of Christians, who are killed reguarly by Muslims. Akinola's threat was most unfortunate, but was widely seen as 'empty' and a means to trying to stop the constant killing of Christains by Muslims in Nothern Nigeria.
My parents, being Nierian Anglicans, I can say, (from them), that the AC in Nigeria is lively, with diverse opinions and even strife sometimes. But, on this issue, Akinola reflects his church, and is not the tyrant being painted by the West. I also consider RD's insinuation concerning Bishops Cyril's wife, shocking. If it was said anywhere, it should not have been repeated on a site like this.

[Malcolm+]

Nike, it was reported that those involved in the massacre of Muslims at Yelwa were wearing Christian Association of Nigeria nametags and t-shirts.

When asked about this, Archbishop Akinola's response was "no comment."

God knows, I'd prefer to believe that Archbishop Akinola had nothing to do with those events - or at the very least that he condemned them.

"No comment" rather fails to anser the question, don't you think?

I choose to believe that the Archbishop has (or had) a fool for a media relations adviser.

The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

[Fr Mark]

Ruth: when you write: ...Orthodox clergy and laity..; don't you mean ..."Orthodox" clergy and laity...?

I don't think attitudes to ordained women have been regarded as defining "orthodoxy" in the history of doctrine, much as it might suit the extremists to make it appear so. If this were the definition of orthodoxy, then most of the RC faithful across Europe would not be "orthodox"...

[Beth]

"a source has told The Times"
not a reliable source, just a "source".
I guess this means the "source" has not been verified but the information is so tempting to the news media that it just begs to be printed?

(rg writes: we prefer on the record quotes but when sources request anonymity, we respect that. Most often, anonymity is requested because of some risk to the speaker for their life, livelihood, etc were their name to be published. In such cases, they speak to us anyway out of a conviction that certain information should be in the public domain.)

[John]

There is nothing orthodox, Orthodox or "Orthodox" about ordaining women. The messages from the leaders of the RC and Orthodox churches ought to provide "Fr Mark" with a clue. If there are extremists around, he would appear to qualify.

[Paul H]

Canterbury??? Rome??? Antioch!!!

Hello,

For those Anglo-Catholics, who've been let down and betrayed, simply cannot envisage any future in the C of E, but do not feel drawn into swimming the Tiber, there is a Third Way; to Antioch- where the disciples were first called Christians (Acts 11:26).

I am one of thousands of ex-Anglicans who has made a very happy new home in the Orthodox Church. I am able to maintain my Catholic Christian Faith in a truly supportive, deeply spiritual environment, unhindered by the distractions of C of E secularisation or intrusive Roman Legalism.

It was initially hard to leave the church of my birth, but it is unequestionably the right decision for me and my family. The best thing we've ever done. I am in Love with Christ all over again!

The Antiochian Deanery is very welcoming, has a strong sense of Mission, its services are in English, and it has a truly international, multi-ethnic congregation - something we all could benefit from. My former C of E parish consisted mostly of white-Anglo-saxon ladies in their sixties; here my fellow worshippers are from the West Indies, Greece, Belarus, France, Syria, Rusia, the Ukraine, Rumania, Serbia, Armenia, the UK and elsewhere...and of all ages from babies upwards.

I apologise if this sounds like a recruitment drive, it's not meant too (honest, guv!). Neither is this in anyway "official". I just know from my own experience of 1992-93 just how much some of you are hurting at the moment and I sincerely wish to let you know of a way out into a whole new world, a way back to the One True Faith.

I sincerely hope and pray that some who leave the C of E will come to Orthodoxy, rather than go to Rome or lose their Faith.

If you want more info, please email me or check out:

www.antiochian-orthodox.co.uk/

Or look up many of the conversion stories online.

Thanks for your time.

Yrs in XP,

Paul

[Nike]

The Christian Association of Nigeria has neither name tags nor t-shirts. The story sounds very suspicious. I will carry out investigation. Can you please tell me when this Yelwa nassacre occured?