tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post112975524109351229..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: Some thoughts on influence peddling.Mark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1129892920147226812005-10-21T07:08:00.000-04:002005-10-21T07:08:00.000-04:00I note with relief Eames' response to Akinola. I ...I note with relief Eames' response to Akinola. I am not surprised by it, since he has always seemed above this kind of nonsense to me. But I am gratified to see it, nonetheless. Since it is brief, I quote it below, and give the link <A HREF="http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/digest/index.cfm?years=2005&months=10&article=483&pos=%23483" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/><I>"The current debate within the Anglican Communion is a theological debate and I find myself very disturbed by any speculation around the role that money may play in determining outcomes. Such speculation makes genuine communication difficult. I feel that when money or assistance is raised in any part of the Anglican Communion and offered for use where it may extend Christ's kingdom, it should be offered and accepted in those terms alone.<BR/><BR/>"I in no way question the sincerity and integrity of the leaders of the Global South. As they are well aware, I have personally endeavoured at all times to maintain and understand the integrity of their argument. I categorically state I have never believed that any financial offer was accepted by any of those who represent the Global South on any other than terms of Christian outreach. I have communicated this response to Archbishop Akinola this morning."</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1129890549334036852005-10-21T06:29:00.000-04:002005-10-21T06:29:00.000-04:00Actually, Akinola did not say he received no money...Actually, Akinola did <B>not</B> say he received no money from conservative Episcopalians. He said he received no <B>financial inducements</B> from conservative Episcopalians. I presume we are all aware of the formation of ARD by the ACN, and I would presume various charities of the Province of Nigeria benefit from this. Is there something wrong with that?<BR/><BR/>I'm not a fan of Akinola. I agree with Mark that some of his assertions about homosexuals are over the top. But even if I was, what of it? You've answered my remarks with more ad hominem arguments: dismissing my comments because you take me to be a fan of Akinola rather than dealing with what I actually <B>said</B>. <BR/><BR/>Akinola has a point. If you have any real evidence that he has been bought, perhaps you should produce it. I read your article, and I saw no such evidence. If you have nothing more than knowledge of a few wealthy conservatives who could have made the attempt, then perhaps you should stick to the issues, and avoid ad hominem arguments and libelous statements (isn't that what this is?). Again, I appeal to Mark's own principle of mutual regard, which would be a discipline well worth working toward, though more difficult than presumed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1129866359425333712005-10-20T23:45:00.000-04:002005-10-20T23:45:00.000-04:00It appears rb is a fan of Akinola. Good for you.T...It appears rb is a fan of Akinola. Good for you.<BR/><BR/>That does not mean we can simply dismiss the new issue which is presented now; the issue of Arbishop Akinola's integrity.<BR/><BR/>He has now claimed he has received no funds from the conservative North Americans. One would have to have their head in the sand to not know that is an untruth.<BR/><BR/>To tell such an unnecessary lie reveals much about the Archbishop who has delusions of becoming the new Alexandrian pope, does it not?Jakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13579571802576738609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-1129862338452561242005-10-20T22:38:00.000-04:002005-10-20T22:38:00.000-04:00Mark:I have an even better idea for treating each ...Mark:<BR/><BR/>I have an even better idea for treating each other with personal regard. I suggest we stick to the <B>issues</B>, rather than trying to dig into someone's personal motivations and finances.<BR/><BR/>I suggest you re-examine the old <I>argumentum ad hominem.</I> What you, Father Jake, and even Eames lay out is in fact the ad hominem (circumstantial), as explained at <A HREF="http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php" REL="nofollow">this website.</A> (Please note the example given there, "We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they are being funded by the logging industry.")<BR/><BR/>Frankly, I think it much more likely that the Province of Nigeria has lost much more than it gained by cutting itself off from ECUSA's much deeper pockets. But I don't know, and neither do you, from what I gather here.<BR/><BR/>I need to know as much about Akinola's funding as I need to know about what contributions have been made that covered whatever salary you have received as a priest. Which is to say, I need to know nothing at all about either. They are not relevant to the discussion, and asking about them calls into question the other's personal integrity (with very little basis). It's a cheap shot, and <B>so</B> easy to do. We could start raising questions about Integrity's funding, Via Media's funding, and on and on. Where does it stop, and what does it prove?<BR/><BR/>Though Eames' remark was not intended to be malicious, it was in fact a thoughtless personal attack. Nothing better. It should be treated as that and nothing more.<BR/><BR/>C'mon, Mark. You're better than this. If you mean what you say about mutual regard (and I believe you do), this is the place to start.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com