Dr Vinay Samuel responds to Bishop Tom Wright

A pathetic response to a very weak essay by Bishop Wright.

Seems that he could only come up with “how dare you think that Sugden and Minns are central to this plan—since they are white, you are behaving in a racist fashion for suggesting it!”

A stinging rebuke of Bp. Wright by Dr. Samuel.  Of the many perplexing things in the slow motion Anglican disintegration, the most inexplicable to me is the unhealthy fixation that Fulcrum, and to a lesser extent Wright, has with Chris Sugden.  Even the most casual observer can see that the clumsy attacks on Sugden are clearly self-defeating if one is to believe their professed aim of preserving the communion.  They are so effective at driving people away one begins to suspect that that is the objective.

Whatever Graham Kings’ personal animus is with Sugden, one would have thought that Wright was too astute to make the same mistake.  Yet a week after Wright’s unnecessarily paternalistic and shrill attack on the GAFCON leadership, the enduring effect of his bombast is that if one goes to Lambeth instead of GAFCON one will be seen to be submitting to western cultural imperialism:

[If Rowan Williams does not repudiate Wright’s remarks], then those who have accepted the Archbishop’s invitation to go to Lambeth have every reason to believe that they will be entering a world dominated by the spirit of cultural superiority that marks Bishop Wright’s article.

Is this what he intended?  If the Fulcrum crowd has a simple explanation for how this condescending polarization advances their stated goal of preserving the communion, now might be a good time to present it.

Sarah, Dr. Vinay is Indian. His point, I think, is to suggest that +Wright’s contention that a few white guys are at the helm of this thing is false and betrays some racial assumptions on his part. Dr. Vinay’s leading role in planning and organizing is a case in point.

I understand his point, Matt—and I think it’s as pathetic as all the political liberals in the US who wish to claim that any time anyone says anything in a situation that involves “people of color” their statements are misproven by some sort of assumption of “racism”.

No difference here between the statements of Dr. Vinay and the Reverend Jesse Jackson.  No addressing of substance of Dr. Wright’s comments—which are easily rebutted and analyzed—and simply a pathetic cry of racism.

Embarrassing to note.

Substance?

Sarah, thank you for pointing this out.  I was, frankly, wondering why he bothered to write it at all.  If I were A-M or OCMS or the Oxford Centre for Religion and Public Life, I would be embarrassed.

While A-M has contributed some very solid things to the debate, I daresay that both OCMS and OCRPL risk being shrouded in irrelevance through these sorts of communiques.  How very sad.

Sarah, +Wright suggested that Gafcon is being engineered by +Sugden, +Minns and western white radicals. Dr. Samuels answers that by offering himself as counter evidence. That is certainly a substantive point.

Good question Mark, what “substance” there was in +Wright’s article was amply answered.

He said no such thing, Matt.  This is what Wright said:

RE: “To say “scripture is our authority” does not commit anyone to joining the small group represented by Chris Sugden, Martyn Minns, and Peter Jensen. It is clear that they are the prime movers and drafters, . . . “

Nothing at all about “western white radicals”.

And yes—the substance of Tom Wright’s weak essay was amply answered . . . by David Ould.  By me, even in extensive comments under David’s essay.

But not, unfortunately, by Dr. Vinay Samuel.  It was for him to use the Jesse Jackson response—one that seems to be used with increasing fervor now in certain circles whenever anyone’s actions are questioned—and one which I despise heartily.

But not, unfortunately, by Dr. Vinay Samuel.  It was for him to use the Jesse Jackson response—one that seems to be used with increasing fervor now in certain circles whenever anyone’s actions are questioned—and one which I despise heartily.

This from a white woman living in the South(tm).

teeheehee

No Sarah, what you seem to be missing is it is not at all “clear” that the three men named by +Wright are the primary movers and shakers. Why, I wonder, did he leave out ++Akinola, ++Orombi, et al…? It certainly is NOT because they have hung out in the background. ++Wright’s implication was quite clear and it was offensive. These African leaders are being manipulated by Sugden, +Minns, and ++Jensen.

Dr. Viney addressed and answered that assertion well.

I’d take exception to Sarah’s comment and think Matt+ has it correct.

I have known and worked with Archbishops Akinola, Kolini, Mtetemela, Nzimbi and Orombi and Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali for many years.

This is the money quote for me. I think Dr Vinay Samuel may have found +Wright to be extremely insulting and correcting the record in a very measured response. Notice the names of Kolini & Mtetemela which are not often mentioned or portrayed as leaders as well as himself. Dr Samuel feels the need to introduce himself in the introduction.

I think it is a very common mistake we make to place all emphasis on those we know or are seen and miss the multitudes that may be in the shadows. Peter maybe the outspoken apostle but John’s role should not be discounted. I think Dr. Samuel is addressing one of the errors in +Wrights thesis, not all, but one that probably not powerful in the US but extremely pungent to those who remember their colonial period more vividly.

It is my hope that his superior distances himself from the spirit evidenced in Bishop Wright’s remarks. If he fails to do so, then those who have accepted the Archbishop’s invitation to go to Lambeth have every reason to believe that they will be entering a world dominated by the spirit of cultural superiority that marks Bishop Wright’s article.

  I think this is an olive branch in one way, but also making clear in British civility that I’m insulted by +Wright’s arrogance, I hope ++Williams will be active to distance himself, if not than anyone going to Lambeth ‘08 is a collaborator. This is pretty much the meaning G.W. Bush said about nations dealing with terrorist, just “W” has a Texan bluntness that Dr. Samuel is wrapping in a British sort of way.

RE: “++Wright’s implication was quite clear and it was offensive. These African leaders are being manipulated by Sugden, +Minns, and ++Jensen.”

No—but Dr. Vinay Jesse Jackson Samuel certainly has made that implication.

And yes, it’s offensive that Dr. Samuel “responds” to something that Bishop Wright did not say.  Bishop Wright points out that central to Gafcon are Jenson, Sugden, and Minns.  It is Dr. Samuel who opines racism for that.

It’s a pity that, given the high, hanging slow ball that Bishop Wright offered in his weak essay, right over the middle of the plate, that Dr. Samuel has to cry race.

Sarah, he may not “cry race,” it is possible that he truly is offended.

So, why is it that Bp Wright centered on Sugden, +Minns and ++Jensen? On what basis does he conclude that they are runnign things? How can he isolate these three. It is quite a feat considering the prominent Africans on the leadership team. Why the selectivity? How on earth is it “clear” that these three are running things? It is not. It is not clear at all. Why would +Wright suggest such a thing? Is it because he is racist. I don’t think so. Is it because he would like to echo the criticism of the revisionist left that Gafcon is a puppet act and that the Africans are being used. I think that is far more likely.

I think that Wright centered on these three because he is hitting out at them because he knows they are working with their Southern brothers and sisters in restoring and protecting the Communion, whereas he is completely marginal/peripheral to the whole exercise.  He has the gifts and abilities to help them and yet he spends his time attacking them.

Unfortunately, racism of this sort is not spelled out in sentences, it is written in nuance and shady comments.  So, it was more than right, it was Vinay Samuel’s responsibility to speak out against such arrogance.

Hi Matt, it’s a good question.

My guess is because he focused on the leaders of the various FedCon organizations, for which many suspect that Gafcon is the international event.

So you’ve got Sugden—leader of Anglican Mainstream, Minns—leader of CANA, and Jensen, who is on record anyway as wanting a Federation of loose and informally bound Anglican provinces.

It’s more interesting to me whom he left out.

If one totted up further organizations that at least in action are FedCon, one has the AAC [Anderson], the Network [Duncan], and the AMiA [Murphy].  But he didn’t name those three.

Of course, if he had, I assume that he would have been Doubly Racist, since that would have added three more white men to the list. 

I’ve got to be away from the blog for a couple of hours, and so can’t skirmish further.  But in the interests of demonstrating what I’ve learned from Dr. Samuel in the arena of reasoned argument, I just have to say . . .

Matt Kennedy and Hosea 6:6 are sexist, chauvinist pigs for disagreeing and debating with me about the meaning of this response!

; > )

Signed,

Jesse Jackson Gloria Steinem Dolphin-Like Affirming Sarah

Hee ... I suppose I may actually be offended, except I’ve been desensitized by being called that since I was eight.

Dr Samuel has known and worked with Dr Sugden for many years too, of course.  They have co-authored various books and pamphlets together, including publications in their joint names in 1981 (Current Trends in Theology), 1982 (Evangelism and the Poor), 1983 (Sharing Jesus in the Two Thirds World), 1987 (The Church in Response to Human Need), 1989 (Lambeth 88), 1997 (A Reader for the Lambeth Conference 1998), and 2000 (Mission as Transformation), for example.

Hate to join the boys on you here, Sarah, but I think Matt’s correct.  Wright was claiming “chicken dinners” at best, racism at worst, and Dr. Samuel has a right to be upset.

It’s time for Wright to excuse himself, apologise, and offer in the spirit of reconcilliation to pay for some Lambeth tickets, if that’s truly what he wants.

FWIW, +Duncan’s take:

The point I want to make is that his critique of the leadership of this movement; that it is being planned and brought into being by +Minns, Sudgen and ++Jensen, white, western, progressives. +Wright sees the situation in terms of colonial structures. That is his framework.

But Dr. Samuels who happen to be an Indian scholar has said you’ve got it wrong and your words show where you are thinking incorrectly. You think that anywhere white people are involved they have to be in charge. Despite the presence of all these GS leaders it has, you assume, to be the colonials who are leading.

Rem, racism in the rest of the world is not quite the same as racism in America.