UPI Pulls Bishop Orama Story

I think the lesson learned here is how very polarized we have become.

Don’t expect any lessons to be learned. Jake and those like him wanted to believe it, and they will do whatever they have to in order to keep the cognitive dissonance working.

Copied from another blog
I would like to personally congratulate David Virtue for not immediately jumping on the Bishop Orama story. Virtueonline may be the only blog that did not take the baited and false upi story which was today repudiated by the Director of Communications for the Church of Nigeria. A veritable online lynch mob had formed around Susan Russell (integrity which has none) and “Father Jake” (who here remembers frsteve?) over the story. Even Kendall Harmon bit without properly checking the sources and appeared ready to hold the coats.

Yes, Mis’ Sarah, it’s LOL all over the place.

My heart breaks for Bishop Orama.  His reputation and good name has been murdered and besmirched by statements that he did not make.  I pray that he will forgive this trespass as his trespasses have been forgiven.

My heart also goes out to Archbishop Akinola.  He has suffered greatly for following Jesus so faithfully.  From the recent Martyn Minns affair where +Minns is falsely accused of unduly “influencing” the Global South by writing ghost articles for ++Peter to this wrongful, false accusation of Bishop Orama.  And all ++Peter did was to help set up shelter and refuge for persecuted biblical Anglicans in America.  And what was his reward?  To be called schismatic by both reappraisers and some reasserters.

This is most unjust.  So I pray for Archbishop Peter Akinola and Bishop Orama, asking that God grant them a heart of forgiveness, longsuffering patience, mercy, grace, courage, strength, wisdom, and love to endure persecution as they take up their Cross to serve and follow Jesus.

Peace and Blessings.

I think the lesson learned here is how very polarized we have become

Actually, I don’t think we’re polarized. I think we are mostly together but I think this issue was one of fair play and there was disagreement about what was fair. As an old guy, I looked for fairness and found excuses. Virtually everyone on StandFirm made excuses as to why this persecution of Bishop Orama was OK. Everyone demanded a denial from, not Bishop Orame, but Archbishop Akinola.

And then, the reasserters piled on and absolutely beat Abp. Orama to death about a statement he did not even make. Essentially, they stoned him. And there was a crowd who joined them in the stoning and they we almost sucessful in killing him. But that was OK because they threw the stones after saying they really didn’t know if it was true.

As Greg said. You can’t unring a bell. Nor can you pull back a stone after it has hit a target.

I am truly impressed here. Basically all I look for is semi-fair play. I respect Greg Griffith, Sarah Hey, Matt+ Kenedy and Jackie Brucchi enormously. But I believe, sadly, that they reacted too quickly and they rallied together to justify their wrongul actions.

Bishop Orame deserves a personal apology from you guys. You can bow your backs up all day ( and pound your chests as well) but this blog went beyond Christianity and accepted (and supported) a report for which there was no confirmation. If you did not libel this bishop, you blasphemed him. And the problem I have is that you, all of you, along with a lot of others, defended youselves as though this was a minor incident and the right thing to do. It was not and it was totally unChristian.

I truly love you all

And TU&D;, I do not understand why, but you and I are always on the same page…always.

God Bless you

So when are certain bloggers (you know who you are) going to retract their claims that some african Bishops are polygamous?

Hmmm?

Been There…

I disagree that the good intentions of Matt, Greg, or anyone else who repudiated the idea that a bunch of sinners (of any stripe) are worthless and unworthy of life. 

“God demonstrated His Love towards us in this:  WHILE WE WERE YET SINNERS, Christ died for us.”

It’s a basic, elemental tenant of the Christian Faith.  To allow the statement to stand unchallenged would be denying the Faith and work of Christ.  That statement was ‘anti-Christian’ regardless of who made (or didn’t make it) - any Christian would repudiate it.

Anthony, there is no sin in being deceived.  The sin is with the deceiver.

Still, it’s a shame we can no longer take anyone at their word anymore.  Not journalists, not scientists, not priests, and certainly not bloggers (not that we ever did).

Marty:

ALWAYS take me seriously… seriously…

To allow the statement to stand unchallenged would be denying the Faith and work of Christ.

Eclipse

I don’t question that. If the statement had been true, the attacks would have been justified. But the statement came from out of the ethric. And, Bishop Orama was stoned for it though no one really knew from whence the statement came.

Had he said it, the reaction would have been justified and appropriate. But, he did not say it and many here stoned him just because the statement was published. We are better and smarter than than and more importantly, I pray that we are more Christian than that.

I just got back from Father Jake’s (where I could not figure out how to comment…sigh) and saw that no one there wants the retraction to be true.  It seems like everyone there is trying to find reasons why the retraction of the article is not valid.

Sad.

Remember when the NYT published the story about the porn star discerning the priesthood? The reappraisers were all over it, saying the reporter did a hatchet job, the story was false, etc., which turned out to be true.

But now that the shoe is on the other foot, they’re trying to claim media purity, that the reporter is being “coerced” into retracting the story, and they have every faith in the government-directed, Nigerian media. We all know why.

And I owe an apology to Matt+ for telling him that his repudiation of the alleged statement had too many qualifiers.  As it ended up, all of those qualifiers were needed.

I was duped, and I am sorry for adding to this miasma.

The reappraisers will not believe that Bp Orama did not say the dreadful things he was alleged to have said—they believe, deep down, that we who disagree with them, do want those with same-sex sexual attraction to be killed.  They believe we think that way, and are simply to politic to say so…  So, they will try to keep the story going, because it validates their fears.

They believe we think that way,

And that’s exactly why we should not(think that way). Sadly, we gave the reappraisers a platform and we gave it to them wrongly. Then, like the reappraisers, we tried to justify the bad things we had done by saying it was “OK and “we be cool” and what we did was justified. IT WAS NOT, And, we have, as a result, crucified Bishop Orama.

I am exceptionally proud.

Been There…

Well unfortunately I have not mastered the art of omnipresence - when I do I will never make mistakes.  The real unfortunate thing is NONE of us have… including Matt, Greg, and Jackie…

We all need as much grace as possible and before we point fingers stating “You should have known” I think it would be wise to think (just today) how many times we have acted on partial information and made bad decisions because of it.  Cut in front of someone in traffic?  Said something inappropriate towards someone who cut in front of you?  Accused your child of loosing something before realizing YOU misplaced it?  Thought someone was trying to hurt you and only realize later that they didn’t even know what you were going through? 

There but for the Grace of God go I… continually in need of God’s grace and your forgiveness.

Been There,

You are on my last damned nerve.

Whether or not you agree with me, this is the way it is: We are not a news organization. We are not once-a-month posters of warm fuzzy reflections. We operate in real-time. We have 50,000 readers a month who come here in no small part because we can be counted on to beat most other news outlets to the punch, and because we give them a place to voice their opinions and let off some steam.

When a respected wire service like UPI reports something, we are obligated by UPI’s long history of reliable reporting to give them the benefit of the doubt - to respond as though the report is accurate, but to leave room for the possibility that it isn’t. That is what I did in my statement yesterday.

When the report in question is that a Nigerian bishop said homosexuals are unfit to live, that is an extraordinary situation. People who check in on the blogs only once a week or once a month descend on this place to see what all the fuss is about. 99% of them come here assuming that the report is true.

Reporters from major news outlets come here immediately, to see what the mood is, and to see if we have any facts they don’t. I know for a fact that Ruth Gledhill and the guys from TLC read the site every day. I know for a fact that the staffs of the AAC and the ACN, hundreds of influential clerics, more than a few American bishops, and at least a couple of overseas primates read the site regularly; Archbishop Venables is a registered member.

So when a report of such an extraordinary nature comes from a source as reputable as UPI, the time we have to let people know where we stand is dramatically shortened. I don’t give a flying you-know-what what the liberals think of me or this site. I *do* care what our allies and supporters think, and I simply won’t leave the 50,000 people who read Stand Firm every month to wonder where I stand on such a matter. To the extent that anyone cares about my opinion as a barometer of where this slice of the Anglican right stands on such a remark, I owe it to them to make my opinion known clearly and quickly. That is what I did, and I stand behind the statement.

Finally, neither I not Matt “crucified” Bishop Orama, and you’re out of line to accuse of doing so. +Orama is a public figure. He is a bishop in an Anglican province that is a lightning rod for the most severe crisis in the communion’s history. He is also a grown man, and when you talk to reporters, and talk to them about homosexuals, at this moment and in the midst of this debate, you have to be prepared to be misquoted, taken out of context, or otherwise having your remarks mangled. HE WILL GET OVER IT.

As for you, I am now taking as insults on my character your continued harping on this matter. Proceed with that understanding.

Eclipse,

I appreciate your defense, and I thank you for standing up for us. However, Matt and I did not make a mistake. We didn’t say Bishop Orama had made those statements. What we said - repeatedly - is what we thought should happen if it turned out his remarks were accurately reported. Our statements cannot be compared to cutting someone off in traffic, or accusing our child of losing something we misplaced ourselves.

Best listen to him.  The last guy to cross Greg, well, we have pictures.

I have absolutely no problem with Stand Firm’s coverage of this story. None.  My advice is to ignore your detractors…

BB,

Let me be clear - I loves me some Eclipse, but Been There has posted his next-to-last smear against Matt or me.

Over at the Cafe we have the “Argument Clinic”  for what we call “the cream pie throwers.”  I can give you the keys if you like.  Been There may need to sit there a spell.

bb

I would agree that I don’t see how this could have been handled any better. It could have been much worse, just read Fr Jake.
Everything was correct, even handed and there was no mistake made as far as I can see.
Harping about a mistake or the need for an apology suggest Greg, et al were thinking badly of the Bishop and I don’t believe they were.
In fact I would lay money they were praying it was false.
I do think they would think badly of some one who did make such statements as were originally reported and still would if they were accurate. The comments and commentators were accurate, it’s the story that was false.

There are plenty of people here, me too , commenting on the ridiculousness of Spong’s latest missive. If it turns out that he never wrote such a letter are we to ring our hands over Spong being crucified? False reports, and the comments they breed, go with the territory.

At the very least you can say that when someone Google’s this story a year from now the only thing out there won’t be Fr Jake. Had Greg held off like Virtue there would be nothing instead of a fair account of what’s taken place. On balance the whole thing was a positive for Stand firm IMHO. I’ll bet Jake wishes he could say the same.

As for you, I am now taking as insults on my character your continued harping on this matter. Proceed with that understanding.

Greg—I apologize. I had intended stopping my commentary on this subject sometime ago, but several commenters kept addressing me. When I addressed you directly and it was not my intention to defame you.

Let me be clear - I loves me some Eclipse, but Been There has posted his next-to-last smear against Matt or me

Also, I am truly sorry. I did not realize that disagreening with you was a “smear.”  I have said steadfastly that I have the greatest respect for all of you. I reiterate that now. We have disagreed on this subject and we have iterated our arguments. I have conceded that you are covered and protected because you say you are.

And just because I think you are wrong and say so, in my opinion, is not a “smear.” I would never intentionally “smear” any of you…I have too much respect for you. But, you are not perfect nor am I. And for some strange reason, I thought we could disagree without being disagreeable.

I thank you for allowing me my next to last comment. I am truly sorry for offending you.  I did not intend to do so.

Greg:

No, sorry, one problem of blogging - I didn’t mean to infer that you had made a mistake.  I personally (like Rocks) think you did the very best you could with the information you had.  You and Fr. Matt were in the “d____ if you do and d____ “if you don’t situation.  Say something and you are going to be accused of ‘not being charitable’ - don’t say something and be accused (and you were) of trying to ignore it.

And the statement - if true - was completely Antithetical to the Faith for which we have worked so hard, fought so long, and have given so much for.  Who would in a conversation let such a statement stand?  It would be like denying Christ Himself.

What I was trying to say is that we always (reality of being finite and human) work on the basis of partial information… no matter where we are or what we are doing.  God does not hold us accountable for what we do NOT know - He holds us accountable for what we DO know. 

My field is education - so I am constantly trying to re-frame situations into a way for people to understand them from a different perspective.  However, sometimes those analogies fall a little short.
Seems this was the case here - sorry about that.

Oh, and one other thing (which i assume is my last comment) I have agreed with you and Matt+ on about 98% of the things you have promoted on this blog. Matt+ stuck his neck out and did the WO commentary. I don’t think he did it for me, though i did request it. I think he did it for all of us. Matt+ speaks to me in the language that all of the priests in TEC and the Anglican communion should be speaking. I agree with him 100% of the time. Interestingly, I agree with you 99.5% of the time as well. I find you and I to be theologically in sync.

The only person I agree with more is TU&D;.

So I really don’t understand this threat. But, as I’ve said numerous times before, it’s your blog and you can run it as you see fit. I truly believe this and accept it. So do what you have to do. And God Bless you regardless of your decision.

I think TUaD and Been There are missing the point. It all worked out very well:
1)  Reasserters have clarified to Reappriasers that they do not think homosexuals are less than fully humans or deserving of death.
2) Reasserters have set a clear standard that bishops who betray the Word of God may not keep their positions of authority and have shown their willingness to apply the standard across the board without deference to party.
3) The ABC took notice and assumed responsibility to investigate serious breaches.
3) The Nigerian bishop has been cleared of making such statements.

The implications are:
1) Reappraisers can no longer make claims that Reasserters think homosexuals are less than fully humans or deserving of death. This argument is should now be officially dead.
2) Reappraiser bishops can now be held to the same standard that Reasserters were willing to hold for their own bishops. Bishops who betray the Word of God may not keep their positions of authority
3) The ABC can now expected to investigate other breaches.
4) Statements of other bishops will now be expected to be investigated and a determination made.

[comment deleted—off-topic after warning]

Commenter banned.

[comment deleted—off topic]

Anthony comments,

... That needs to be a lesson for all of us: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Mmmpf.  For myself, anyway, given the bedrock cynicism of 20 years of ‘net newsgroups and a couple of political campaigns, I’d revise that slightly:

Any claims require extraordinary evidence.

In a world where the NYT has reporters making up stories, TV news is treated as an entertainment ratings game, the UPI automatically tosses anything from any official source anywhere onto its wire, and the internet is ... well, the Internet, anyone who has actually lived a life and is moderately observant can find a dozen serious errors in reporting every day in our media-saturated society.  Skepticism is always in order.
<hr width=50% align=center>
As for Greg, Matt+, Kendall, and the SF/t19 crew, I think they’ve handled a bad situation as well as one could possibly expect, particularly given their workload and priorities.  If this had turned out to be true, someone would be carping and I-told-you-soing about too much qualification in their posts. 

If SF had said nothing for the 48 or so hours it’s taken to straighten out, they’d be criticized for ignoring outrageous statements from our side. 

As it is, there’s been some moaning about how we were simply piling on to an innocent and Godly bishop. (If it’s any comfort, I’m sure that +Orama has enough problems with poverty, Islam, and official corruption to place explosions of hot air in the blogosphere quite low on the list of things keeping him awake at night.) 

Hindsight is always 20-20 and Monday morning quarterbacks never get sacked. Besides, it’s bad manners to tell your host he put too much parsley on the steak…

Upon hearing that a friend/family member/colleague has done something reprehensible, there are three degrees of qualifications of a response:

Underqualified response: The guy is a doink.
Overqualified response: In the extremely unlikely event that the outrageous and incredible allegations are true, then it may be possible that the guy is a doink.
Just about right: See Matt, Greg, and Kendall.

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell

1) Reasserters have clarified to Reappriasers that they do not think homosexuals are less than fully humans or deserving of death.

Except for those who want to believe it so desperately [because it serves their agenda to do so] that no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway them. [see Jake’s blog]. I would love to know just who it was that manufactured this evidence for them in the first place.

Greg, it occurred to me after my last post above that perhaps some here have gotten to the point that the ‘reappraisers’ have cried wolf for the last time. I am rapidly approaching that place myself. I have begun to think that some ‘reappraisers’ are going out of their way to find ways to smear orthodox African clergy and by extension the supporters of the same. Look at the this and the last ‘scandal’ - forgive me if I’m wrongly discerning patterns among our ‘worthy opponents’ but if some here have finally stopped taking seriously the charges hurled by ‘reappraisers’ then it might be difficult for them to see why the rest of us still do. Just sayin’...

Hey Been There ..., TU&D;& LKW - May the Lord keep to His word and forgive you as you have forgiven others (Kendall+ & Greg) and show you as much mercy as you have shown then in your stance for truth. He desires mercy rather than sacrifice and knowledge of Him over burnt offering.

TUAD, and Been-There..

Along with Paula L and David Ould I voiced skepticism about the UPI article, before the statements were officially retracted. 

In other words, the three of us (were there more?) went beyond what Greg and +Matt did with qualifying their statements. 

I’m not saying this to toot my own horn, I’m saying this to (there’s that word again) qualify what I have to say next:  I think Greg and +Matt reacted justly in everything they did in the ++Orama controversy of late. 

++Orama wasn’t crucified by +Matt and Greg.  The alleged statements were repudiated.  And ++Akinola and ++Orama, now that they have set the record straight, have emerged with their reputations in tact. 

I beg you.  I entreat you.
..Drop this.

“...The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one’s first feeling, “Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,” or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything - God and our friends and ourselves included - as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.”

That Lewis guy knows some stuff.

If the story turns out to have been false, then Jake, et al have some serious crow to eat, in my opinion. But I should probably take care that I don’t wish for black to be a little blacker as well.

TUAD,

This is your only warning.  Cease taking this thread off-topic.

[comment deleted—off topic]

[Note from blogger—perhaps you should read the threads in their entirety, then read our comment policy about off-topic comments, warnings, and what happens after warnings are repeatedly violated.]

Nan1938,
Being the official news reporting agency for a govenment does not mean the government released this story.  It was the reporter who either misquoted/misunderstood/misrepresented (take your pick) and has offered to print a retraction.

I’m bored. What do y’all think about Sept 30th? How ‘bout those Mets? Are we going to have some late season hurricanes? (That was a desperate attempt to take it off topic. I am moving on to other threads. Luv ya, guys. Group hug time.)

rob-roy:

Re: Quote

Thoreau would have said it this way, “Thus, every man tracks himself”

The question is - should we?

[comment deleted—off topic]

Robertf: Good for you for finding that Lewis quote!  I was thinking of it myself, but you saved me the trouble of hunting through my books to find it.  And remember, when he writes of “filthy atrocities”, he’s probably thinking of wartime, where people are often pulled (and pushed) by loyalty to their own side and the gravity of what’s at stake to give in to passions that they would be able to control in a peaceful situation.  I think there may be some of that “war” fever gripping people as Sept. 30 approaches.

Dr M suggests our “freaking out” may be due to war fever.

Nope.  <a >Too</a> <a >much</a> <a >Roquefort</a>.

TonyinCNY, please stop taking threads off-topic. 

This is your one warning.

Greg,

With regard to your response to Been There, I think you are very exactly and precisely correct.

That having been said, I think the way this story has played out is a very good illustration to all of us who read and post in response to published threads, to “think twice” and “bite our tongues”, the latter at least for a few minutes of reflection, before going of half cocked. It has taken me a long time (decades) to learn the value of spending time reflecting on what, exactly, was stated before drafting AND submitting a written reply. And even given that time frame, I do not always remember to follow my own advice. But I continue to pray and work to be more thoughtful before replying, and I commend doing so to everyone.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Perhaps one lesson learned is this:

In the land of TEC, orthodox Anglicans / Episcopalians have become so used to bishops that fall off the low end of the scale for what a bishop of the one holy catholic church should be that many of us would more quickly (if provisionally) trust the allegations of an unknown news source (not the UPI of our parent’s day, but the UPI pass-through of today) rather than trust that an Anglican GS province would elect bishops of better quality than the purported and now retracted “news” invention claimed.

I do not have any proposed solution for this problem in the land of TEC, except increased involvement with the GS Anglican world. Those of us who have had even a slight connection over the years with African or Asian Anglican Christianity know that the Anglican leaders in the GS fit the ancient model of bishop so much more closely than most (but not all) TEC bishops that we can have substantial trust in them, even those we do not know personally.