In response to this story, we have the following from Greg Griffith:
– Archbishop Akinola was in Virginia last week, when the statement was released. He and Minns spent much time together. It is entirely possible that +Akinola was using Minns’ computer to compose his statement. It is more likely that +Akinola was dictating the statement to Minns. It is far more likely that +Akinola was giving shape and form to the statement, while relying on Minns for the exact wording… in other words, exactly what a trusted confidant and Assistant Secretary of the Global South Steering Committee is for. Surely Jim Naughton, as a diocesan communications director who has no doubt ghost-written more than a few of John Chane’s statements, understands how that works.
– Any notion – asserted both by [Father]Jake and [Jjim] Naughton – that Martyn Minns “pulled one over” on Archbishop Akinola is absurd. There is simply no way the Anglican Church of Nigeria released a statement that was not approved by +Akinola.
– The idea – also asserted both by [Father]Jake and [Jim] Naughton – that Peter Akinola doesn’t possess the intellectual acumen or the command of the English language to compose “Agonizing Journey,” is equally absurd, and tinged with more than a touch of racism. The archbishop is a highly educated man (master’s degree from Virginia Theological Seminary) and is quite articulate.
The important point about the article is that the author has raced to a conclusion without evidence. If I have a word document on my computer written by Bishop Salmon with changes in it (if the Word software indicates so), the changes were made on my computer but by whom they were made is still not known. Indeed, on a number of occasions Bishop Salmon has called me and made changes to the document with me on the phone. He was speaking, and I was typing. Yes, you guessed it, this has happened on a number of occasions. I can think of several where both Bishop Salmon and Bishop Skilton made multiple changes to the final text, which of course they both then signed. Every change came through my computer, but was made by them because they were concerned about every word. This is called care and collaboration, and it happens all over the church all the time–KSH.
Update: Ekklesia [U.K., not to be confused with the U.S. version] has a piece on this which goes even farther over the top.
Further Update: Don’t miss the press release from The Venerable AkinTunde Popoola, Director of Communications for the Church of Nigeria, below in the comments (#41)
Kendall thanks to you and Greg for the voices of sanity and reason. It surprises me that Jim Naughton is one of the reappraisers to get all fussed by this article given his own work as Communications Director for the dio. of Washington.
This whole flap may be more revealing about what it says about the reappraisers who are quick to make accusations here without evidence and against reason than anything about who “speaks” for the Global South. There is such a desire to do anything to discredit +Akinola’s leadership, even if it means grasping at straws, it seems.
Thanks for the needed perspective.
Anyone, by the way, who wishes to contact Bishop Salmon and or Bishop Skilton and ask them about this, they will be pleased I am confident to support what has transpired on several occasions.
It is actually quite agonizing work.
I look forward to a Christopher Johnson, Anglican Investigator’ story on this – and Chris: I know you’re reading, so here’s my sketch –
“A humble priest in Africa sits in his stuffy office, fondly remembering life in his village, then looks up sadly at the grizzled mien of Mugsy Minns and Babyface Sugden as they thrust the paper before him. ‘Sign it, Pete. Sign now – or no more chicken dinners.’
A sad remembrance passes through his mind of the view from the throne of St John the Divine in NYC, and the tender faces of Louie and Frank gazing upon him and the hopes they had invested in him just a few short years ago. Had he sold his integrity for this, a message of chicken pottage? But it was too late now, the grip of evil was inexorable. With infinite pain he struggled to remember the English he had learnt in missionary school.’Where I sign?’ ‘Here’, sneered Marty, ‘on this line, where I’ve pencilled your name.’
The deed was done, and the old priest shuddered at the sudden remembrance of a woodcut from his schooldays copy of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Cranmer thrusting his offending hand into the flames … Mugsy and Babyface snatched up the papers and left, scarcely suspecting that their infamy would soon be rumbled by the textual critics of ‘Thinning Anglicans’, a righteous movement dedicated to slimming down the Communion by ridding it of bigots, fundamentalists and breeders and remaking it in the image of Newark. Remembering their seminary classes in JEDP and The Polychrome Bible, they set to work …”
So what am I to conclude? That when +Chane writes a very critical document Jim Naughton is not consulted? That +Minns is actually ++Akinola lacky, with on his recent visit having ++Akinola wondering around a room, rubbing the bottom of his chin, expounding great thoughts and +Minns recording the dictations?
I’m concluding that [u]Church Times[/u] has about as much journalistic integrity as [u]Weekly World News[/u] (best entertainment you can get for 50 cents).
Get real, every major document my corporation produces is a collaborative effort of top management. It’s standard procedure in industry, because a second mind will be able to catch those ‘stupid mistakes’ when one is tired or rephrase items that maybe clear in ones mind but another can see it’s become internal colloquialism. At the end of the day, it’s the signature at the bottom that the external world cares about.
All this story tells me is that these folks really are sheltered in their own little world and really do need to get out more. It’s standard operating procedure in the real world. Maybe they should not look for a monster in every closet and actually attempt to deal with the contents instead of the process.
Anyone, by the way, who wishes to contact Bishop Salmon and or Bishop Skilton and ask them about this, they will be pleased I am confident to support what has transpired on several occasions.
It is actually quite agonizing work.
Perhaps we could ask Bishop Akinola or Bishop Minns and ask them.
But the more important question is who do they speak for?
The Gordian,
LOL, Thanks, you’ve made a dreary morning brighten a bit.
RalphM
Earlier in my career, I was know as one of the better writers among my group of programmers. (If that isnt “damning with faint praise, I don’t know what is 🙂 ) On several occassions, my manager would direct me to write a letter for her signature. Why is this any different?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
It’s only their template, which makes the African the pawn of the Westerners, which makes them think there’s something strange about this. Otherwise, it’s just silly to be upset about a major statement which bears signs of having been reviewed and edited by several people who work for or with the Archbishop. One would assume that major position statements coming from 815 go through a review and rewrite process among bishops, staff, and the chancellor.
I rather think Akinola relies on Bishop Minns to steer him through the thorny thicket of the American press culture, where strong, Gospel-driven statements are often taken out of context and paraded about for sensationalism or political purposes. Isn’t it indeed quite likely that Minns shapes Akinola’s sentiments, rephrasing Akinola’s precice intent in ways that can’t be used by the adversary? Jesus bids us be innocent as doves but also wise as serpents.
It’s only their template, which makes the African the pawn of the Westerners, which makes them think there’s something strange about this.
That’s exactly it. They can’t get out of the colonialist mindset that sees people from Africa as naturally inferior to their white “betters” and dependent on them. All the while deploring colonialism.
[b]Pay no attention to the man behind the keyboard![/b]
/The great and terrible Oz has spoken.
All it means is that Bishop Minns assists his Archbishop with communications. Anyone who thinks the Archbishop of Nigeria is unclear on where he stands has not been paying attention.
The saddest part, though, is the not-so-veiled racist attitudes of Jim Naughton, the spokesperson for the Diocese of Washington, and others towards the African bishops. They simply cannot beleive that an African could be in charge of anything. Their fury at having their power challenged has let slip their appalling assumptions about race into the open, and I don’t think they even see it. Like those old-fashioned Virginia episcopal churchmen and women who like to privately refer to the CANA parishes as the Nigerians, only pronounced slightly differently and with a hard “g”, their way of thinking is so ingrained they aren’t even aware of it.
Great point, Karen B. For Jim Naughton to be retailing this given his job borders on the farcical.
Maybe he wrote Chane’s line about the Resurrection being a myth?
Very little of the work purporting to be by Abp Runcie was written by him – he had a team of people writing everything from speeches to sermons. Such things are not unknown nowadays…
But this is fantastic news!
Archbishop Akinola is not anguished.
He will be attending Lambeth!
There’s never been any problem!!
The vast right-wing Anglican conspiracy made this whole Anglican Communion “crisis” up!!!
What’s there not to like about all of this?
Over at Father Jake’s blog, I said I didn’t see what the fuss was about. Even if +Minns wrote the whole thing, it wasn’t presented as +Akinola’s original writing or scholarship, it was a polemical position statement. The important thing was not who happened to be the wordsmith(s), but whose “brand name” was on it.
The problem seems to be in the belated disclosure of +Minns’s role, whatever it happened to be. We’ve seen the same problem in politics. There have been occasions when bills passed by Congress, or regulations promulgated by administrative agencies, have turned out to have been wordsmithed almost entirely by lawyer-lobbyists for one or another special interest. That might have been a perfectly sensible way to proceed, but it can look peculiar — and damage trust — when it isn’t disclosed up front.
PWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!! THAT’S the best they can do? “It was written on Minns’ computer!” THAT’S what they’re upset about?
Do these people actually live in the real world? Do they have no clue how the writing/editing process works?
Talk about desperate liberals grasping at straws.
The problem seems to be in the belated disclosure of +Minns’s role, whatever it happened to be.
D.C. why is there a problem at all? If it was announced that the document had been written by … Bishop Chane, perhaps … now there would be a shocker. +Minns is under +Akinola, why is it at all surprising that he might assist him in writing a document? Further, how much information do we really have about how, when and by whom this document was written? I can’t believe the hullabaloo that appears to be going on about this. It must be a slow news day in the Episcopal Church. From now on I think there should be full disclosure on all press releases and official statements. We need to know exactly who wrote them and if it is a collaborative work, then perhaps the words can be color-coded so we can know exactly which words came from each contributor. This is getting beyond ridiculous.
Yes, but D.C., that’s a different situation. The lobbyists are not supposed to be wholly identified with the legislators. In the case of Minns and Akinola, they are well-known to be on the same team. There’s no conflict of interest here, and no need to publish a complete list of who has a look at the statement before it was issued. It’s from the team.
I have a couple of observations. First, in my Army career, I drafted presentations, documents and communications for superiors. I noted that sometimes after they circulated through various staff offices, they would hardly resemble what I had written; other times, I could see scribbled changes in the margin, and note that the final version was almost exactly as I had drafted. Second, without an electronic copy of the statement, how could anyone track changes or determine whose computer was used to compose it? You can’t just scan a hard copy and run it through a software analysis. You can perform statistical analysis of words and syntax, and make an educated guess about authorship, but without an electronic copy, e.g. a computer disk, you can’t do an analysis of changes during drafting. That begs the question, then, how did the so-called analyst get the electronic copy?
In case you’ve not gone to read what Naughton wrote here’s a part: The significance of this development lies less in the fact that Akinola has a ghostwriter–the leaders of many organizations, ecclesial and secular have staff members who handle writing assignments for them.–than that what has long been portrayed as the authentic voice of African Anglicanism is, manifestly, not African, and perhaps never has been.
So, is the point well taken or not?
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/anglican_communion/who_speaks_for_africa.html
D.C. frequently bills in congress are written by staff members, reviewed and edited by staff members (often looking lawyer or policy members). If you write your congress representative, I’ll almost guarentee you’ll receive a letter back, written by a staffer and signed by the representative. Now you now what goes on in Cannon and Rayburn all the time. Shocking as it seems, there is no news here.
Almost everything in Washington, DC, is done by teams of people. I’m sorry if this burst your bubble.
the belated disclosure of +Minns’s role, whatever it happened to be
D.C. – please.
For at least the last three years, the Episcopal left has been unable to refer to Minns without accusing him of being some Rasputin-like puppet master of the Global South. Remember this? Oh, and there was this little consecration a few months ago. And that CANA thing, not sure if you heard about it.
Please – don’t, after all this time, pretend that you’re shocked to learn that Martyn Minns has something to do with the Anglican Church of Nigeria.
Not really, John. In fact, the point is stupid.
#22 Yes, John, the point is very well taken.
The point that is that the voice of “American Anglicanism,” “African Anglicanism,” “Asian Anglicanism”, etc., is immaterial – unless of course one has a non-Gospel agenda. When we are working together as the Church, working together for the Gospel, we speak in unity, in one voice, despite our various cultural differences.
When the ECUSA of +Chane and Naughton becomes known for what it is becoming, a fringe cult of revisionists/progressives that used to be Christian, then the ‘spin attacks’ of its ‘clergy’ will become irrelevant.
I have asserted neither of the things that Greg Grifith says I have asserted. Indeed, I have neither suggested or even implied either of the things he says I have asserted.
The pettiness of the whole “outrage” is just so depressing. Is this all TEC and their supporters have? I mean really, isn’t it just an admission of defeat when you attack the messenger rather than the message?
It appears that the reappraising side needs to drain the lagoon and is filling the spreader before heading out for a day’s chores in the field. Let’s just see how well anything grows.
The next 30-60 days are going to be hard on the olfactory nerves as more of this kind of “news” gets spread around.
Well Jim Naughton, I’m curious what you did assert if Greg’s reading is wrong; that Akinola needed Minns to tell him what to think; or that Minns is the puppetmaster for the GS?
Please enlighten us and tell us how this is not a smear against Akinola, the GS bishops and Minns?
I have not been able to check T19 and SFiF for a while and have just now come upon this kerfuffle. What a non issue. Now, speaking of mystery edits, what would be controversial is if a Nigerian diocesan staffer, under instructions from ++Akinola, logged onto http://www.wikipedia.org to whitewash the bio of a Nigerian bishop to remove references to the bishop’s mishandling of the sexual misconduct of his brother. Now that would be a scandal. But of course that hasn’t happened, or at least not in Nigeria.
#28 Jim Naughton
Are these your words or did a ghost writer write them for you:
“That is why, in the original post, I wrote: “The significance of this development lies less in the fact that Akinola has a ghostwriter–the leaders of many organizations, ecclesial and secular have staff members who handle writing assignments for them.–than that what has long been portrayed as the authentic voice of African Anglicanism is, manifestly, not African, and perhaps never has been.”
In addition, the word “subordinate” does not begin to capture the nature of the realtinship that Minns has with Akinola.
If this are your words and they are not to be understood as Mr. Greg Grifith asserts they are to be understood, would you mind restating exactly what you mean …ah … possibly using the “Revisionist Dictionary” that our colleague Ireneaus was able to discern from numerous writing, exactly what you mean for this court of public opinion.
I have to agree, this is nothing to get worked up about.
The only thing that might have been faintly surprising is that ++Akinola would have turned to +Minns to flesh out his document (or take dictation, or whatever) rather than to one of his Nigerian staff, who would likely have spent more time with ++Akinola over the years and be more familiar with his mind than +Minns. But if ++Akinola happened to be in Virginia at the time, as Greg indicates, then it’s perfectly natural that he would assign this task to +Minns.
So: meh. I still think the most interesting thing about the statement is that, after calling out the two “paths” that ++Akinola believes the reasserting side is facing, he stops short of saying exactly what he plans to do in order to walk his chosen path. That may well be a strategic move — so as not to reveal his hand before Sept. 30th — because I find it hard to believe that he doesn’t have a pretty solid idea of what he’s going to do in the event of what seems the most likely outcome from the HOB meeting.
Mr Naughton, I submit these quotes by you from your website and ask, just what do you think this implies about ++Akinola?
“The significance of this development lies less in the fact that Akinola has a ghostwriter…than that what has long been portrayed as the authentic voice of African Anglicanism is, manifestly, not African, and perhaps never has been.”
“This revelation is likely to damage Akinola’s already sagging prestige in Nigeria, where he may now be perceived as a mouthpiece for wealthy Westerners. And it is likely to damage his credibility with his fellow Primates, who were already weary of his practice of interupting their meetings to take counsel from Minns and Sugden.”
Personally, I think Greg pretty much hit the nail on the head. But if not, I give you chance here to rebutt. Something you and every report about this so-called controversy NEVER gave to +Minns or ++Akinola prior to crowing about it long and hard.
Thank you #33 KAR, it was that point in Jim Naughton’s recent comment on the post at Episcopal Cafe that led me to believe it was an attempt to show that Minns and Sugden are the grand puppetmasters of all Africa. As if Akinola, Orombi, et al cannot think for themselves and need sopmeone smart to lead them around.
Archbishop Akinola: the man they love to hate. A lightening rod because he refuses to compromise the Gospel. He reminds me of the Apostle Paul. May God continue to bless Peter Jasper Akinola and those for whom he takes spiritual responsibility.
Props to Ross for making a comment on the substance of the statement, rather than the architecture of Microsoft Office.
This by contrast is not the same,
http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2007/08/are-windsor-bishops-attempting-to.html
because these bishops do not report to the ABC.
[blockquote]The idea – also asserted both by [Father]Jake and [Jim] Naughton – that Peter Akinola doesn’t possess the intellectual acumen or the command of the English language to compose “Agonizing Journey,”…[/blockquote]
Odd, I don’t see either Jim Naughton or Fr. Jake asserting any such thing. What [i]is[/i] noticeable is the sudden change in style — ++Akinola has a very plainspoken, direct way of speaking (you might even say Lincolnian), while +Minns has a very wordy way of speaking.
(Funnily enough for the whole flamefest, I’d say ++Akinola’s the much better communicator of the two, even if I may disagree with him. So I find it a bit amusing that +Minns should be rewriting his work. +Minns should kindly well leave it alone, if you ask me.)
But to play the racism card is a tad wide of the mark, indeed it makes the person leveling the charge look pretty silly.
I think Naughton’s point is a fair one: that what has been held up so much as the “voice of Africa” apparently isn’t. (And as noted above, if you ask me the real voice would be better off if the, ah, interlocutor wouldn’t get in the way.)
PRESS RELEASE
24th August, 2007
RE: Software suggests Minns rewrote Akinola’s Letter –Church Times
It is very insulting and racist to infer that the Primate of All Nigeria is being dictated to. Is this in continuation of the ‘jamming’ of people opposing the agenda?
I would have believed the ‘computer software’ story were it not for the allegation of ‘minor amendments’ by the Canon Chris Sugden who had nothing to do with the document.
Abp. Akinola informed his senior staff and the Episcopal Secretary the need to highlight efforts at maintaining unity and the intransigence of the revisionists so that the Nigerian community is left in no doubt about who is ‘walking apart’
Along with his PA in Abuja, work started on the gathering of materials and relevant documents on 6th August, 2007. We used in addition to existing statements and my internet searches, Nigerian Episcopal meeting documents and TECUSA resolutions supplied respectively by our Episcopal Secretary, the Rt. Rev. Friday Imaekhia and a CANA priest, the Rev. Canon David Anderson. The draft of the statement was ready for correction by the primate on 9th August, 2007 who was however unable to correct it as he was about to travel.
Abp. Akinola was in the US and Bahamas between 10th and 22nd August 2007. I sent the draft to him through the Rt. Rev Minns with a request for assistance in getting some online references which I could not easily locate.
I fail to see any issue if amendments are then made on Bp. Minns’ computer. Apart from the fact that they were together during the period of the amendment, the Archbishop like many effective leaders who spend little time glued to a desk often phones me and other staffs to write certain things. Such remain his idea and anyone who knows Abp. Peter Akinola knows you can not make him say what he does not mean.
The publication doubting authenticity is another attempt to divert attention away from the carefully researched document which shows that the revisionists are directly responsible for problems confronting the Communion. Instead of chasing shadows, concerned Anglicans should consider the indisputable scenario highlighted in the document and pray for ways to save our beleaguered Communion.
The Venerable AkinTunde Popoola
Director of Communications
Church Of Nigeria
Walsingham, *is* there an authentic “voice of Africa” or of any nation? I find that term rather meaningless. About as meaningless as this whole furor and the learned observances on stylistic differences between Minns and Akinola. The latter seem like a rather frail attempt to find *something* to complain about.
Greg Griffith [#24] writes: “For at least the last three years, the Episcopal left has been unable to refer to Minns without accusing him of being some Rasputin-like puppet master of the Global South. Remember this? Oh, and there was this little consecration a few months ago. And that CANA thing, not sure if you heard about it. Please – don’t, after all this time, pretend that you’re shocked to learn that Martyn Minns has something to do with the Anglican Church of Nigeria.”
Greg, you sure do know how to respond to an offered olive branch. I was siding with you guys on this issue, and saying so, but I guess in your view I was also committing the grievous sin of trying to understand why the “reappraisers” might be reacting the way they are. Your conciliatory response (not) has certainly snapped me back to reality about who my friends are.
This really DOES seem like a big game of bait and switch. Introduce a new topic to avoid having to discuss or respond to the CONTENT of ++Akinola’s statement.
#37 Like Paul, folks are still arguing about what he actually wrote. Maybe the Jesus Seminar can be called in to vote on this matter.
#40 said: “But to play the racism card is a tad wide of the mark, indeed it makes the person leveling the charge look pretty silly. I think Naughton’s point is a fair one: that what has been held up so much as the “voice of Africa†apparently isn’t.”
Nice try. That was one of Naughton’s points, but it proves too much. It does not make sense to make that point if all he was saying that Minns assists Akinola, or even that Minns works with Akinola. We knew that. No, the only way that point makes sense is if the author is trying to assert that the educated American was able to manipulate the crude African to replace the African voice with an American one.
Didn’t fool me. Apparently didn’t fool AkinTunde Popoola. Don’t think you can fool anybody else as to what the message was. Though I understand why the sources of it might want to backtrack and attempt to explain away their remarks once they realize what they have said. It really was appalling.
Some have responded to the content first, including pointing out the inaccuracies (lies?):
http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2007/08/most-agonizing-case-of-false-witness.html
Now that we discover that Bp. Minns wrote this, the false accusations are even more appalling, since he was present for GC2006.
Blow this off if you want. I would not expect anything else from this crowd.
But do keep in mind that for many folks, the next time they hear Abp. Akinola’s loud voice claiming to speak for the majority of Anglicans in Africa, they will be aware that the voice they are hearing is not coming from another continent across the ocean, but from an office in Virginia.
FrJake, I think you should read the rebuttal above (#41) I find it deeply offensive that you claim ++Akinola can’t speak for himself, especially on such flimsy “evidence” as this. Disagree with the man all you like, call him a liar if you will, but must you also patronize him?
Okay FrJake, prove it!!
Prove to me that ++Akinola is +Minns puppet. How can you say it’s not the other way around and when we hear +Minns say anything we’re not REALLY hearing ++Akinola speak?
#46:
Actually, I think Naughton’s got a good point anyway. Forget about the race issue. I really don’t care about it myself one whit (and like I said personally I think +Minn’s not doing ++Akinola any favors with the rewrites anyway — ++Akinola’s a fantastic speaker and writer). What matters here, I think, is authenticity. Who is it I’m speaking to and listening to?
In particular it seems that ++Akinola’s original message seems to be less inflammatory than +Minn’s version. That makes me kinda scratch my head a bit and wonder what’s going on here. It’s not about “pulling strings” or playing sock puppet. I’d genuinely like to know what ++Akinola thinks. Wouldn’t you?
++Akinola [i]is[/i] an intelligent man and a good speaker. Yes, I disagree with him a fair bit, but I still like to hear what he has to say, and I’d like to hear the original, thankyouverymuch.
#47 FrJake:
Fr. Jake, I’m not one of “this crowd,” if by that you mean “reasserters.” But even I don’t think there’s much to get worked up about here.
Whoever actually composed the document — and Jim’s article does not suggest that +Minns wrote it, merely that he edited substantial parts of it — do you honestly think that ++Akinola would allow a statement to go out under his name without approving it first? I may disagree with the Archbishop about a whole lot of things, but he’s clearly a sharp guy and he doesn’t strike me as the kind to tolerate his staff doing end-runs around his authority. If it came out on the official web site with his name signed at the bottom, then I think we can safely assume that this is his “voice.”
Think of it this way: when the President makes a speech, everyone takes it for granted that the speech was actually written by a professional speech writer on the President’s staff. But you will search the papers in vain the next day to find any quote from that speech attributed to “…one of the President’s writers said.” It’s assumed that if it comes out of the President’s mouth when he’s in front of the press, then it represents the President’s views… and if it doesn’t, then it’s the President’s fault for not paying attention.
Even if it were the case that +Minns had written this entire statement from scratch, and that ++Akinola had signed it without altering a single word, then either the statement really is what ++Akinola intended to say or he’s just not paying attention to what goes out under his name. Which do you think is more likely?
How about some examples, Walsingham, some comparisons to show why you think the words you find inflammatory are the words of one man and not the other.
RE #41, The Rev. Canon Anderson mentioned would be this one,
http://www.dioceseofyork.org.uk/cgi/news/news.cgi?t=template&a=1138
I thank Canon Popoola for his clarification of the matter.
This isn’t much more than sheer idiocy from Jake and Jim Naughton. In the American military, e.g., too, junior officers draft correspondence and research documents for senior officers all the time. “Prepared for their signature” is the phrase. As Kendall outlines above, it signifies a relationship of mutual trust. If the junior violates the trust, he/she gets taken to the figurative woodshed. I’m not a fly on the wall, but it looks to me like the relationship between Bishop Minns and Archbishop Akinola is just fine.
Perhaps Jake and Jim would do better with a good dose of boot camp and service etiquette. They’d really learn a lot.
I really see no point in trying to make smoke where there’s no fire. All it does is make one look desperate.
Blessings,
TS
D.C.,
I wasn’t rejecting your olive branch – I was just pointing out the absurdity of the revisionist crowd, after three or four years of their non-stop demonization of Martyn Minns as the real power behind the throne, being SHOCKED to find out that he may have helped his archbishop compose a statement. Y’all have been telling us the whole time that Minns and Akinola are thick as thieves… why the surprise now?
Who cares who wrote what on whose computer. What this illustrates is that Akinola is a pawn and puppet of Minns. It illustrates that the American defectors are running the schism…..and are we shocked? Hardly!!! We’ve known it all along!
Greg … Neither shocked, nor sadly, surprised.
[sigh…]
Fred, you really haven’t been paying attention, have you?
Fr. Jake – You and your merry band of 815 apparatchiks have really jumped to conclusions that are not based on the evidence. As a responsible blogger, I think you really need to take a step back and consider things. Attempting to smear someone based on unsubstantiated assumptions is a less-then-Christian behavior.
You stated
No, the evidence presented does not show this.
The various pieces of evidence show:
1. that many revisions were made using Minns’ laptop computer.
2. that Minns and Akinola are both part of the same organization.
3. that Akinola was in Virginia at the time this statement was written.
Reasoned speculation can tell us some further points:
4. it is highly likely that Akinola and Minns spent a good deal of time together in Northern Virginia, with Akinola very possibly staying as a guest in the Minns’ home.
5. it is highly likely that Minns’ laptop computer would be the most convenient computer for Akinola to use (unless he has one himself which he brought).
6. it is highly likely that Minns is valued by Akinola as someone to run important English language documents by. Minns always strikes me as being politically very savvy and well spoken.
7. it is very likely, therefor, that Minns would have been a reviewer of the document.
Based on the evidence and reasonable speculation, the soundest explanation of the evidence is that Akinola and Minns worked together to edit, complete and polish this document.
The Naughton/Fr. Jake theory – that Minns essentially wrote the document – is not supported by the evidence, nor is that the most reasonable conclusion to draw from the evidence. Their theory doesn’t even meet the “more likely then not” test.
Naughton, Fr. Jake, Fred, Russell – I just hope that if any of you are ever wrongfully accused of committing a crime, that whatever jury is trying your case are more careful in the conclusions they draw from evidence then either of you two have been.
Re: #41, You have heard the definite word on this matter from The Venerable AkinTunde Popoola, who is the Director of Communications of the Church Of Nigeria. He, like Archbishop Akinola, does not lie. Remember! It is TEC’s heretical leadership that has chosen to walk apart and perpetuates this crisis.
#50 said: “I’d genuinely like to know what ++Akinola thinks. Wouldn’t you? ++Akinola is an intelligent man and a good speaker. Yes, I disagree with him a fair bit, but I still like to hear what he has to say, and I’d like to hear the original, thankyouverymuch.”
I don’t think Naughton, Fr. Jake et al can get off the hook so easily. Why the concern that Akinola does not think exactly what the statement says? Why does Fr. Jake say he cannot believe “the voice they are hearing”? Well there are two possibilities. First is that it is somehow a bad thing to work with others to develop statements, because it is then not entirely your voice, no matter how much you agree with it. As noted repeatedly above, this happens all the time in lots of other situations, inside and outside the church. (Do you not think that when Schori refers to the current Anglican developments that Booth Beers, her litigation partner, among many others, reviews and comment on her remarks? Do you not think they still represent what she thinks? If you don’t, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.) I don’t hear anyone saying this is a concern in any other sphere. So I don’t find if very convincing when someone puts forward that the concern that the statement is that it is not someone’s authentic voice. Particularly after Akinola’s communications director has said that Akinila stands behind it. Or perhaps you choose not to believe him, either.
The other possibility is that the arguer thinks Akinola is a dupe. And that holds clear racist underpinnings, whether intentional or unintentional, and is equally clearly the only reason episcopalcafe and others thought this was news. Trying to walk it back to some argument about the authenticity of someone’s voice is understandable, but not very believable from the folks who previously claimed the global south bishops have been bought with chicken dinners.
The people tearing into the authorship of this statement are the same ones who deny the authorship of books of the Bible, deny that it says what God really wants it to say, deny inerrency, deny inspiration, etc. Since they do not understand how the Scriptures are written it is not surprising they do not understand how other things are written.
and tinged with more than a touch of racism
It is very insulting and racist to infer that the Primate of All Nigeria is being dictated to.
On a different note, I am always amused when people on the right accuse the left of racism. The reason is that they still have no idea what racism is!
Greg Griffith and Tunde seem to believe that race is defined byv what country you are from. Does a white citizen of Nigeria automatically become black? Is there a race called Nigerian? It seems that the person that doesn’t know English all that well is Greg Griffith, not ++Akinola;)
He will be attending Lambeth!
Ah, but Sarah, ++Akinola has never said explicitly that he will not attend Lambeth. He did sign the document that ++Orombi reads that way, but he has carefully stepped around a definitive statement that he will not attend. He is far too shrewd for that.
Which brings up another interesting point about the left and these accusations of racism. We on the left don’t want to diminish ++Akinola’s culpability for his destructive actions. By relegating him to a “puppet” or as “uneducated” we would be giving him a pass for his actions. He knows what he does and he is accountable.
I am always amused when people on the right accuse the left of racism …
For me, it’s the opposite, especially since it was the Democrats who fought the Civil Rights Act and Democrat politicians who loosed the dogs, firehoses and truncheons on civil rights protesters in the ’60s.
#63 – Amusing? Perhaps. But being on the left is not a free pass.
By the way, there is a reason I do not participate in the secular political discussions on Anglican blogs, and one should not assume that all orthodox are on the political right.
Some apparently think “race” is defined by whether a person agrees with them or not. And that’s pretty ugly no matter the political persuasion involved. Being “left” doesn’t grant immunity from racism, alas.
#63 Racism was rampant and epidemic among liberal Bay Area Episcopalians (San Francisco to most folks) after the last Lambeth meeting. It was nauseating to hear one TEC priest after another or one lay person after another speak dismissively about and castigate those “barely educated, just out of the jungel Africans” for telling us what do. “Who do they think they are” and “How dare they” were the common refrains on the left coast. I don’t think these left coast Episcopalians were talking about white Africans, do you? Once people stray from the liberal reservation just watch the racist remarks fly from the mouths and flow from the pens of their leftist cultural imperialist overlords. It is really frightening in its arrogance and hubris and I know, I was there and heard with my own ears and read it with my own eyes.
wamark
Once again, that is not racism. For proof, just look at the horrific remarks made about the African delegations from one of TECs liberal black bishops
Um, that sounds like another “proof” that proves nothing.
I still maintain my original position. The whole “controversy” is just plain petty in both the supposed relevance and truthfulness of the accusations. Biased in the so-called reporting of the “controversy” with no apparent effort to get the response of the “accused”. And finally pathetic in the gleefulness of the original authors and such luminaries as Susan Russell herself, all who would have a very difficult time recognizing integrity if it slapped them in the face.
Wait – #69 actually thinks that “barely educated, just out of the jungle Africans” is not a racist statement? I am stunned. Stunned that ECUSANs say such things in 2007. I am left shaking my head. But at least you are honest.
By the way, be sure and put that in a letter to Episcopal Life and post it on episcopalcafe. I think it will help everyone to understand things a lot better.
It was the butler in the library with a candlestick.
I, for one, am not in the least surprised at how Naughton, Jake, Russell, et.al. are spinning this. It all has to do with one of the reappraisers great myths. The myth is this:
“Liberals are the people’s vanguard against the oppressive white male patriarchy.”
Liberals need to believe that Africans are poor, uneducated victims of the Western oppressive white male patriarchy. Africans are victims who are manipulated and who need protection by liberals, they are not actors who take action, especially when that action is counter to liberal ideology. Accordingly, whenever an African initiates action that runs counter to liberal ideology, an alternative explanation must be found.
When Lambeth 1998 happened, this directly challenged this liberal myth, and an alternative explanation had to be found. “Aha! said the liberals, we can say that the Africans are just being tricked and further manipulated by the Western white male patriarchy, of whom Minns, the IRD, etc., and the dark leaders.” And this has been the theme since.
The problem was that the Africans didn’t buy into this myth, and they kept on intiating actions that challenged the Myth. Gradually, the “poor manipulated uneducated savage” became the “wicked, tricksey and false savage” (witness the demonization of Akinola), but the preferred Myth has always been the former.
The liberals who are falling over themselves with this story are simply resurrecting that first Myth. Problem for them is that it is no more true now then it was then.
How much is whatever Jake and Jimmie are using?
Ah, racism is whatever “Brian from T19” says it is. Of course! This goes with the new Bible interpretation technique “it says whatever I want it to say”. Therefore the note from Akinola can say whatever I want it to say also. So who cares who wrote it, what he is REALLY saying is that he loves the new TEC! It’s just a matter of proper interpretation.
Brian, Your rationalizations about racism simply prove my point. Racism is alive and flourishing in a liberal church challenged by people of color who profess a vibrant and living faith. And undoubtedly, you mean that disreputable character from Long Island who styles himself a bishop and lives to cover up the sex scandals in his diocese. Poor Long Island I once lived there. What tragic times it has fallen on.
You guys do yourselves no credit by trotting out the racism card every time someone dares to criticize one of your African heroes. Commenter “Harry” at Father Jake nails it:
Note “Harry” at Father Jake is not me! He is violating my copyright on the name Harry.
As for your comment D.C. – there is nothing conservative about racism, and I don’t think liberals have a copyright on the term although they certainly act like it. Liberals are just as prone to racism as anyone else, and you’re fooling yourself if you think otherwise.
We have the stripes and the wounds of standing against racism–
D.C., sorry, but some of us here have the “stripes and wounds,” too, which is why we object – reasserters are not all cut out with some imagined redneck/conservative cookie cutter. In fact, conservatives aren’t all racists either. Really. Maybe you need to live into tension of people not being so easily categorized and dismissed.
++KJS denies involvement in Wikipedia scandal.
_HTM.htm
Thank you, Sherri (# 80)!
A bit north in the thread, “Brian from T19” wrote:
Greg Griffith and Tunde seem to believe that race is defined byv what country you are from. Does a white citizen of Nigeria automatically become black? Is there a race called Nigerian? It seems that the person that doesn’t know English all that well is Greg Griffith, not ++Akinola
Without addressing the particulars in this pseudo-query, this might actually demonstrate the real poverty in our constructions of “race” based on skin color. Far better to my mind to construct these sorts of things on the basis of culture, not genetics (and far less skin color) – then the idea of “white” and “black” Nigerians is hardly nonsensical. What else would a person (admittedly in this case, not Dr Minns) be who was born and grew up in Nigeria, fully immersed in the culture in which he was born? (This is certainly the case with “white” friends of mine born in old Zaire, who consider themselves Africans – and Zairoise – before they are Americans.)
D.C. – to be sure many liberals fought against the oppressive racial structures that existed in America during the 1960’s and 70’s. And that was good work. But racism is something greater in scope then just that.
Racism also is the belief that white Americans are more enlightened than black Africans. That is what is coming through Jake, Naughton et.al. The belief that Akinola is really a poor bemused black savage who is being tricked and led about by the astute and tricksey Martyn Minns.
Reverse the situation D.C. Let’s say that Martyn Minns had issued a statement under his own name, and let’s say that computer records suggested that it was written on Akinola’s computer at the same time that Minns happened to be visiting Nigeria. Would there be a “scandal”? No. Would anyone be suggesting that Minns was being tricked and led about by Akinola? No. Why not? Because it would never occur to Jake, Naughton or any of these others that a white American could possibly by manipulated by an African.
That, D.C., is racism. It’s not enforcing segregation, but it’s racism just the same.
All of the comments so far reinforce the fact that ++Peter Akinola (Nigeria) and + Martyn Minns (CANA) are seen by those commenting as persons of paramount importance in the post-Dar Es Salaam situation.
Why? Because these two men are strong leaders within the Anglican Communion who are ‘listened to.’
++Ainola, Communion-wide and +Minns within the Episcopal/community of North America.
But why do the revisionist/progressive commentors worry about ++Akinola and +Minns?
Because these two bishops are key leaders of those orthodox/traditional Anglicans within ECUSA who will tolerate no further heresy and apostasy among the revisonist/ptrogressive clergy of ECUSA who are leading ECUSA out of the Anglican Faith and out of the Communion of those who are true to that faith.
So my analysis of these comments is that the revisonists/progressives are really beginning to internalize the fact that they, as heretics and apostates, are goin to be ‘left out in the cold.’
Maybe the revisionist/progressive (RP) ‘deep freeze’ is going to start soon after September 30.
I also perceive that the RPs are beginning to realize that the blandishment of large amounts of American money (witness Trinity Wall Street’s recent effort) are not going to sway most third world members of the Anglican Communion.
You should never send or post a word document anywhere; you can see everything amended and deleted. Always use acrobat or convert it so none of this sort of mischief-making will arise.
Ask Downing Street!
Wanting to know more about the authorship of a significant policy letter such as Akinola’s is not racist. It strikes me as due diligence at least to wonder who is pulling the strings, to require clarification as to the authenticity of the statement, and to understand from whom these pronouncements originated.
The Akinola defense seems to take three forms: Minns is an Akinola subordinate just doing his job; Minns was really channelling Akinola who was in the room or on the phone; it doesn’t matter anyway because they always speak the same truth.
The first one doesn’t really hold water because, unlike the analogy in this thread about attributing a Presidential speech to his speechwriters, Minns is not a speechwriter and presumably was not consecrated by Akinola to handle writing duties. If the president of the Senate sent out a letter written by another Senator as his/her own, that would be a closer analogy…and would certainly draw scrutiny.
The second idea — that Akinola spoke and Minns typed — may be true, although there are relatively tortured explanations of how this might have happened. Given that this story has appeared in some mainstream publications as well as thundered around the blogosphere, it seems easy for Minns to throw water on this fire. I guess we wait on that one.
The final idea — that Akinola and Minns are so tight that it doesn’t really matter who authored the statement — seems fundamentally difficult to believe. In my experience, even people who see things very much the same way on Church matters, differ in details and would prefer to express themselves. The letter was not particularly long, nor did it depart in a new direction, and I find myself wondering why Akinola would want his thoughts and feelings stated by Minns, rather than stating them himself.
It seems pretty fishy to me….
Wait – #69 actually thinks that “barely educated, just out of the jungle Africans†is not a racist statement? I am stunned. Stunned that ECUSANs say such things in 2007. I am left shaking my head. But at least you are honest.
By the way, be sure and put that in a letter to Episcopal Life and post it on episcopalcafe. I think it will help everyone to understand things a lot better.
pendennis88 and Harry Edmon
Are you seriously arguing that there is a race called Nigerian? How about African-is that a race to you? Do you know what race means? Have you had anyone ever explain it to you? It is pretty simple really. In case you need further help – African and Nigerian are NOT races. Caucasian, Black, Asian – those ARE races. If you still don’t get the difference, ask around. You could also refer to Todd Granger’s correct distinction between race and culture above.
And undoubtedly, you mean that disreputable character from Long Island who styles himself a bishop and lives to cover up the sex scandals in his diocese. Poor Long Island I once lived there. What tragic times it has fallen on.
Actually I was referring to a comment attributed to +Barbara Harris where she allegedly said that the conservative Bishops were getting the African bishops to agree with their position by providing them with fried chicken dinners. I can not attest to the veracity of the allegation, but if true, then the statement was from one black bishop about other black bishops. The only distinction was culture.
D.C.,
I’d like to see some of the “stripes and wounds” those folks at Jake’s are referring to. Skipping your [i]Feminist Ideology in Marxist-Leninist Thought 101[/i] midterm to march on the student union with the campus chapter of the SNC ain’t exactly firehoses and German Shepherds.
Thing is, we know exactly what Jake and Jim Naughton mean when they “wonder” whether “we” can trust that future statements by the archbishop actually reflect his own thoughts and opinions. All we have to do is speculate on their reaction should it be revealed that a Katharine Schori statement was authored in part by a trusted African-American who held a high-ranking position in the Episcopal Church, and I “wondered” publicly whether “we” could trust that future statements by her actually reflected her own thoughts and opinions. They would not consider it even for a moment. They would immediately rule it preposterous. Surely they understand by now that conservative theology is not proof of intellectual inferiority – after all, we have on our side intellectual giants such as Kendall Harmon, Ephraim Radner, N. T. Wright, Robert Gagnon, and the list goes on and on.
Katharine Schori is, to say the least, not even remotely in the same theological league as Peter Akinola; thus the only thing left is that Katharine Schori is a white American, and Peter Akinola is a black African.
QED.
I await Jake’s and Mr. Naughton’s replies.
Really, all that needs doing is to verify that the comment #41 above is from the Venerable AkinTunde Popoola, as stated, and the whole controversy becomes nonsense. The document was unfinished when Archbishop Akinola left Nigeria, it was sent at his request via email to Virginia, and it was completed there on Minns’ computer. Who did the typing is immaterial, since Akinola was there and has issued the statement with his signature and on his authority.
Revisionist/progressive writers, unaware of these facts, made wrong conclusions based on the editing traces. All they have to do is say, “Sorry about that,” and all sides can stop calling each other racists.
This is a lesson on reporting. The apparent story, American authorship of supposedly African statements, fit the revisionist/progressive template, so they ran with it. The facts don’t support this story. We should all hold our fire just a little longer on items like this, and ask more questions, before opening up.
#32, FYI, http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_89447_ENG_HTM.htm
Rick D: Actually there are more explanations then the three you mention. The evidence from the computer program only reveals that the letter was modified on Minns’ computer. It doesn’t – and can’t – tell you who was using the computer.
Prosecution’s evidence: the document in question was substantially modified on Minns’ laptop.
Defence’s evidence: Akinola was in Virginia visiting Minns and did not have a computer. Nigerian church official emails document to Minns so Akinola would have access to it.
So we are to believe that Akinola should have purchased himself a new laptop??? Or maybe he used Minns’ laptop?!?! Nah, that idea is way too tortured and far-fetched. Why would Akinola ever think of borrowing his host’s laptop???
Face it, there is more then reasonable doubt about the aspersions cast by Jake and Naughton. Naughton and Jake’s theory wouldn’t even meet the “more likely than not” standard of proof.
And why is it racist (and if Akinola was a white bishop in Nigeria, this wouldn’t be an issue and y’all know it)? Based on very flimsy evidence, Naughton and Jake are alleging that the poor uneducated savage “darkie” is being led down the garden path by the clever, wicked and tricksy white male. They might not use those words, but the implication is clear.
Greg (88) wrote:
[blockquote]I await Jake’s and Mr. Naughton’s replies.[/blockquote]
I’m afraid, Greg, that you might have to wait till hell freezes over…
It is difficult to excuse DC’s (78) comments as arising from ignorance, given his level of education. But for whatever reason he seems unaware that it was a Republican President and Congress that enacted all of the original Civil Rights legislation in the 50’s after a key decision by a Supreme Court led by a former Republican governor. The same R president used the National Guard to begin enforcement of school integration. Continued Republican pressure during early forced Kennedy, then Johnson to embrace the civil rights issue, lest the R’s completely wrest the issue from the D’s. Even with the support of the D president, the 63-64 legislation passed with much stronger support by R’s than D’s. And one famous R opponent, Barry Goldwater, was opposed only due to methodology, having personally done more for integration than any other member of Congress, when he integrated the Arizona Guard before Truman integrated the US military.
By contrast, D’s have given us such racist pieces of legislation as the Davis-Bacon Act. While the prevailing wage provision pretended to be to protect quality in public contracting, the real motivation was to prevent cheaper black labor from “stealing white jobs”.
So please, let’s stop with the tired, discredited canards about conservatives being racist. The facts really get in the way.
I am at a loss to understand this whoop-de-do. The argument is that Minns created the document, put Akinola’s name to it, who did not see and approve this document, and then, in essence lied about its author? If this is the accusation, isn’t the evidence almost non-existent? Then Akinola, having discovered this deception, was not angry and acquiesced to its publication, knowing that if this deception was observed, he would be pilloried as would Minns. And that Minns did not figure this out himself? Doesn’t this strain everyone’s credulity?
I take it tht the evidence is stylistic, the argument being that Akinola does not write like that, that it was far too literate for him, and that Minns was therefore the ONLY one who could have produced this text? All of this may be true, and pigs may fly. This is a tempest in a teapot, quite manufactured, wherein evidence is almost entirely lacking. Larry
Brian from t19 said:
[blockquote]Are you seriously arguing that there is a race called Nigerian? How about African-is that a race to you? Do you know what race means? Have you had anyone ever explain it to you? It is pretty simple really. In case you need further help – African and Nigerian are NOT races. Caucasian, Black, Asian – those ARE races.[/blockquote]
Brian, if one is going to pick nits, it might be helpful to actually know what one is talking about. Strictly speaking it is incorrect to refer to any ethnic demographic as a “race,” and is merely a hold over from the time when people spoke of “the Jewish race” or “the English/Anglo-Saxon race” or “the Japanese race.” Read some 19th century writing for some good examples. Few historians or sociologists will actually refer to “race” in their academic writing, though they may use it in the popular (though incorrect) sense when writing in publications where people would be confused by other terms. It is much preferable to speak of ethnicities. And, while there may not be a single Nigerian ethnicity, there being many different ethnicities in Nigeria, the statement that so and so are “barely educated, just out of the jungle Africans” [b]does indeed fit the popular definition of racism[/b]–I’d invite you to compare it to similar statements by 1960’s segregationists. But perhaps self-critique is a little too much to ask from the self-righteous left who throw accusations of “chicken dinners” around, yet think it’s only “racist” when it comes from the mouth of a conservative.
So perhaps it would be better to term the statement “ethnocentric,” (especially since the main thrust derives from a criticism of the African’s social location) and since, by definition the use of the term “racism” may be racist in that it affirms the existence of race–which you did in your last post by referring to caucasians etc.. as separate races. To use something that has become a bit of a cliche, though true: “There is only one race, the human race…” :-p.
From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
[blockquote]Racism, [i]also reacialism[/i] any action, practice, or belief that reflects the racial worldview—[b]the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races,”[/b] that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral features, and that some races are innately superior[/blockquote]
Ahh… I got so distracted by the side discussion that I forgot to comment on the article.
Basically this is much ado about nothing. Akinola obviously agreed with the statement–who cares who edited it.
I agree with Jody.
What’s the fuss, really?
The authentic voice of the Church of Nigeria is not just Akinola’s, nor has it ever been; the Nigerian bishops might see Minns as one of their own well-equipped to do battle with TEC, having been part of TEC for so long. After all, Minns is part of the Nigerian church (at least in some capacity) now.
Some parts of the Angllcan left might be shocked to see Akinola emerge as “Minola”, his authorial voice in reality merged to some measure with Minns’–but why exactly? It’s as if they were doing a chant together, Minns’ voice practiced in this kind of performance backing up Akinola’s.
I think some might belive Minns secretly scotched opportunities to reconcile that Akinola would have otherwise been happy to join in. That would require proof that just is not there. The Akinola who was friendly with Griswold pre-2003 is the same man as the Akinola who wields the sword in the name of post-2003. He is wise to recognize Minns’ talent and devotion.
The issue perhaps is how Akinola and others in teh GS-faction expected Lambeth 98 to be received. It seems to me they genuinely believed Griswold and others would stands with them, holding the line–and when things proved to go to the contrary in 2003, they took it as–among other things–a matter of personal betrayal.
What would have helped defuse Akinola’s indignation, perhaps, is teh emergence of a conservative leader in TEC’s episcopate who could speal of holding the 98 line and who has both power in 815 and a proven record of holding the 98 line.
Such a leader, to have power at 815, would have to posess the support of the Episcopal left.
Some will say this is just impossible–that it cannot be, and that is a measure of how polarized TEC has become. They are wrong. I think there is such a leader already in TEC with surprising credibility on the left, and some on the right: John Howe.
#98, Anglican Scotist,
I agree with you as well. People seem to forget that Akinola was a critic of ++Kolini and ++Yong when the AMiA first came about, and that Griswold made a very public visit to Nigeria and was warmly received.
The following article by Doug Leblanc chronicles the changes in relationship:
[url=http://aacblog.classicalanglican.net/archives/000842.html]Out of Africa[/url]
In some ways I think Akinola has been demonized in the US precisely because he started out by criticizing intervention and then came to see it as necessary.
#99 shows his typical ignorance of life among reasserters in suggesting John Howe fits the bill he speaks of. He does no such thing but is sadly increasingly mistrusted by traditionalists, even within his own diocese.
Wanting to know more about the authorship of a significant policy letter such as Akinola’s is not racist. It strikes me as due diligence at least to wonder who is pulling the strings,
Rick D, I take it from this that you believe presidential speechwriters have been running the U.S. for decades? It’s the assumption that some white man must be pulling a black archibishop’s strings that strikes one as racist. If the speech had been written on a black bishop’s computer would we be hearing any of this noise?
Sure, Howe is not a Separatist; that is besides the point.
The point is he will hold the 98 line–and nothing will move him off it.
If he had similarly minded disciples of Christ at the Bishop level–and he might?–the HoB could, if it were minded to start with a freeze on the GC2003 moves, act with credibility even among members of the GS faction.
Of course, events may have already moved well beyond that point for some in the US who have already crossed the Rubicon.
But for the TEC HoB, that should not matter. Minns, Akinola, et al took a large risk in pre-emptively creating facts on the ground prior to 9/30. TEC’s HoB need not play along and escalate.
Look at the above and tell me when you have seen less productive debate. LM
Jody,
I don’t know, but I’d bet part of Akinola’s conviction stems from a sense of deep personal betrayal.
He might have been counting on help with Nigeria’s deep seated interfaith/political/economic troubles–as he does not seem to see these as artifically separated from the Gospel–and he might have even thought he could develop a close relationship sending evangelists over here to help us out, as some in TEC have “companion dioceses” abroad with ongoing exchanges.
Instead, he got stuck–four years running now–leading the resistance to GC2003 et al of all things. And he has taken big risks.
At one time before 2003, he probably hoped for different things. No doubt he will continue to do what he sees he has to do. Making use of Minns talents–and having this found out–won’t change that.
Re #91, jamesw: I agree with your point that it may have happened that way (Akinola collaborates with Minns — either Minns types or Akinola uses Minns’ computer). But it’s also true that it may not have happened that way. It’s an easy thing for either or both of them, or their offices, to put to rest.
Re #102, Sherri: not sure if you read my post. You write:
[blockquote][i]Wanting to know more about the authorship of a significant policy letter such as Akinola’s is not racist. It strikes me as due diligence at least to wonder who is pulling the strings, [/i]
Rick D, I take it from this that you believe presidential speechwriters have been running the U.S. for decades? It’s the assumption that some white man must be pulling a black archibishop’s strings that strikes one as racist. If the speech had been written on a black bishop’s computer would we be hearing any of this noise?
[/blockquote]
I mentioned nothing about race, ethnicity, national origin, or the like. I did point out that your and others’ analogy to speechwriters does not hold, because Minns’ position is not that of speechwriter. The points in #86 hold regardless of the demographic attributes of either person.
[i] Comment edited by elf. [/i]
And actually, Larry Morse #104, I agree with you. (That should get me a reward in heaven, dontcha think? 🙂
RickD #106 – there are naturally many [i]possible[/i] explanations based on the evidence. There always is. The question is what is the most reasonable explanation based on all the evidence. In this case, the most reasonable explanation does [b]not[/b] justify the accusations that are being made by Ashworth, Jake, Russell, Coward et.al.
What I see is a group of liberal activists fabricating accusations based on extremely flimsy evidence. And those accusations (that a clever white man is really calling the shots and manipulating a dumb black man) reveal an ugly racist streak in those making the accusations. That, to me, is the real story here.
Katherine, #89, wrote: “Really, all that needs doing is to verify that the comment #41 above is from the Venerable AkinTunde Popoola.”
I can verify this as I have had several personal communications with Tunde who speaks in an official capacity, unlike PadreWayne.
[i] This elf can verify that the email address belongs to The Venerable AkinTunde Popoola. [/i]
-Elf Lady
The facts created on the ground, Anglican Scotist, were by TEC in various diocese since the 1970’s who in contravention of the teaching of their own province, never mind that of the Communion, acted anyway in ordaining non-celibate same sex partnerered clergy.
That pattern continues with TEC’s continued defiance of what they were asked to do since 2003 in numerous instances such as the diocese of Arkansas, which occurred after GC 2006.
What no one seems to see is that their is virtually no evidence that care undergird a judgment. This is much like whathisname in Colorado who is accused of misusing church funds. There were a ton of entries, all of them resting on nothing but speculation, and the case is no different here. The attitudes of the authors is clear enough, but their charge is made out of fog and a little rain. Why carry on so. You have virtually nothing to work with.
LM