One can always expect Jean Torkelson at the Rocky Mountain News to get the most “controversial” coverage of anything having to do with Episcopal Church here in Colorado. Her after-the-fact coverage of last weekend’s diocesan convention — consisting, it seems, mostly of interviews with the Rev. Don Armstrong, seen by many (including, it appears, himself) as the leader of conservatives within the diocese — accentuates the, well, negative (“Dissension, deficit conflict diocese” trumpets the headline). Which stands in contrast to my own view of the convention, not surprisingly.
After discussing the (very old) news that giving to the diocese dropped substantially in 2004 in the aftermath of General Convention 2003, Torkelson quotes Armstrong:
The Rev. Don Armstrong, of Colorado Springs, from the church’s most conservative wing, said he left the state convention discouraged because Bishop Rob O’Neill went on record again saying he personally supports gay rights although that view has been severely criticized by an international church body.
One must wonder what would have not sent Rev. Armstrong home “discouraged.” The bishop’s changing of a course as to his personal opinion? The bishop falling silent? The bishop resigning?
It’s ironic that a convention that, to my mind (and, apparently, many of the conservative and liberals in the state) ended in such a positive and unifying note, would have ended so disappointing to Rev. Armstrong.
I’ll note that the Rev. Armstrong did not, to my knowledge, speak at the convention last week, either from the podium, or from the floor. If this was so discouraging, I wonder why he was more willing to talk about it with the newspapers than his fellow Episcopalians.
Torkelson does give a brief (if still misleading) summary of the controversial resolution at the convention — at the very end of the article, after her other “coverage” of the meeting.
Last weekend, in a statement to delegates and during a local newspaper interview, O’Neill said, despite his personal views, he is committed to upholding [the Windsor report] and to work for unity throughout the Anglican Communion. “It’s fair to say that I fall on the liberal side of moderate,” O’Neill told the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel.
An odd conflation of how the various events occurred last weekend. It certainly makes it sound like the bishop went out of his way to express his personal opinions to the convention, and initiated the discussion over his previously stated support of the Windsor Report. (Torkelson also leaves out some important bits of what Windsor instructs — including asking foreign bishops to stop poaching for conservative parishes in the US — and the broader question of what Windsor represents — how the authority, accountability, and interdependence among the provinces of the Anglican Communion are actually constituted.
However, having a bishop with a “divided mind” makes it hard to raise money and draw people into the Episcopal Church, said Armstrong, pastor of Grace and St. Stephen Episcopal Church in Colorado Springs, one of the largest among the dioceses’ 116 parishes.
I’m glad that Rev. Armstrong’s personal views are in such utter accord with all the tenets of the Episcopal Church — or his own interpretations thereof, since, obviously, he disagrees with some actions by the church’s elected lay and clerical leadership, e.g., some of the events of the General Convention in 2003.
So, in fact, Rev. Armstrong seems to have a “divided mind” between his own beliefs and the actions of the Episcopal Church. I hope that doesn’t cause his congregation too many problems with raising money and drawing in people. Perhaps a shortage of money is the reason his congregation, one of the largest in Colorado, has decided to not contribute anything to the diocese for a number of years now.
Armstrong predicted a split in the Episcopal Church USA after next summer’s next national convention, with conservatives and moderates winning control largely because they have the backing of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
Armstrong somehow seems to think that the Anglican Communion (or at least the Global South provinces) have a vote at Convention. I don’t think that’s how the Episcopal Church is actually legally arranged. This is also the first time I’ve heard anyone suggest that, if there’s a split in ECUSA after next year’s convention, that it will be the liberals breaking away from the national church.
If Torkelson was actually at the convention last weekend, I don’t see any sign of it. While I’m not a journalistic professional, I might strongly suggest to her that before she actually provides coverage, even in the “religion” column, of such a gathering, she either attend it (seats were, in fact, set aside for the press), or at least interview someone other than (or in addition to) an individual who not only declines to provide support ot the diocese, but who has frequently criticized its bishop, no matter how tempting and tantalizing his sound bites are.
Just a thought.