Submitted without (much) comment, the latest-greatest on Episcopal reaction (particularly in Colorado) to the Windsor Report. From the Post and the Rocky.
Mercifully, nobody felt the need to mention my parish in a “just this past spring …” local interest colorizing of the news. It was more entertaining (if that’s the word) reading Rev. Armstrong’s snarky (I cannot think of a more charitable word) comments, such as:
“Rob is going to try to spin his way out of this but it’s clear from this report that bishops like O’Neill will have to repent,” Armstrong said.
Granted, it’s a quote from the Rocky (“All the Juicy If Misleading Bits That are Fit to Print”), but if accurate, I really have to wonder why Rev. Armstrong continues to stick around …
21 view(s)
Ummm…
A bit of a problem on the RMN link. It goes to an article titled:
“Water panel may refund surcharges”
Rrg. Wrong URL. Fixed.
Our bishop was interviewed for the Chicago Trib (subscription required) and he came out with a positive, supportive statement. This was a relief, as our mission parish just welcomed a new priest-in-charge who is gay. This is the second time around for us, but oddly it was still a Big Deal to some. I’m not sure why – perhaps because our previous priest was female, it was harder for them to accept a woman priest, and her sexuality was a non-issue.
The wording of Bishop Griswold’s statement was very careful, but I doubt it’ll cut much ice with the other party.
Doh! Meant to say “Bishop Persell” but it actually works either way. In any case, regrets for the rift but not for the action seem to be the response of the day.
NYTimes write-up here.
“Where is the language of rebuke?” Archbishop Peter Akinola, the primate of Nigeria, said in an statement released on Tuesday. “It fails to confront the reality that a small, economically privileged group of people has sought to subvert the Christian faith and impose their new and false doctrine on the wider community of faithful believers.”
Exsqueeze me? What the hell does the “economically privileged” (i.e., “First World”) nature of ECUSA have to do with this particular doctrinal conflict?
As to Armstrong…Sounds like he’s bucking to be O’Neill’s replacement if something should, you know, happen to him. Plus Torkleson gives him a platform at every opportunity, so why not spout off and play to your audience.
And Akinola is just up set that no-one in the ECUSA has been willing to help him move the $10,000,000us he has.
I know, bad joke…
While it seems at times that Rev. Armstrong considers himself to be the bishop-in-opposition in the diocese (though he was not on the slate of candidates in the most recent election), it seems unlikely that he’d ever be chosen for the job. (I’d much rather have Rev. Dr. Radner, were I to vote for a conservative.)
However, should some sort of parallel Anglican province be set up in the US, he would certainly seem to be a major contender for a formal leadership role in it. While he has not left the Episcopal Church, I honestly cannot understand how he feels he can remain a part of it, given his quoted opinion on his episcopal leaders.
Though, to be sure, the Rocky is always willing to highlight anything provocative he has to say. He is quoted much more temperately in the Post.