A follow-up to this.
Y’know, when I first read the Presentment, I kind of skimmed it.
Tonight, over dinner, I read it in detail.
Oh. My. God.
I served four years on the vestry of one of the largest parishes in Colorado — though one still smaller than Grace & St Stephen’s (and thus one you would expect would be not quite as professional in managing our budget and finances as they should be). I simply cannot imagine a responsible vestry, in good faith, allowing the sorts of shenanigans that are alleged in the Presentment, demonstrating the lack of oversight, the lack of basic accounting standards, the lack of familiarity with church canons, etc.
We on the vestry were very involved in budgetary matters, we always voted (with minutes taken) on any salary items related to the staff (including the rector and asst rector), and when there was any question, we had the matter dug into. Sure, that one of our parishioners is a chancellor for the diocese helps, but there was as much or more attention paid to stuff from a purely fiduciary standpoint as a canonical one. Folks wanted to be sure it was done right, up and up, by the books, responsibly, as representatives of the parish.
If even a fraction of the charges are true, Rev Armstrong considered his parish funds to be his own personal slush fund, and the vestry and staff either allowed it or colluded with him in it.
Or, as Margie put it, “Maybe the reason they didn’t contribute anything to the diocese for so many years is because they didn’t have anything left to give.” After all those college loans to the kids, and car repairs, and parking tickets paid off, and tipping the freaking cable guy $200 out of the rector’s discretionary fund, it wouldn’t at all surprise me.
If the charges are borne out, Rev Armstrong will have done more to hurt his parishioners, and the image of the Episcopal Church, than any of the theological brouhahas he’s railed against over the years.
Apparently the Junior Warden isn’t the only former vestry member questioning how Armstrong ran the church.
And while some of it may be butt-covering at a late date, those former vestry members indicate — backed up by Armstrong himself — that the vestry did little more than approve an overall budget, and that all financial decisions were made by the rector (Armstrong), and the senior and junior wardens. Which is sort of a parallel to the weak “boards of directors” in the business world in the 90s that led to so many financial scandals there …
You did’t read the whole thing?
Dave, Dave, Dave….
Yeah, it was an eye opener for me and it was why I had such a strong negative reaction, and I am waiting with worm on tongue to see what story he and Torkelson concoct to answer the items presented in the…erm….Presentment.
I do find it odd that both Torkelson and Armstrong have been strangely silent for as many days as the have been considering her breathless stenography for the several days before and after he decided that Nigerian Bishops were a good thing.
Actually, this was a Torkelson column — and one that wasn’t very “Poor, Persecuted Don Armstrong” in tone. Which was … kind of interesting.
I guess I missed that one.
Okay did read a bit of what Rev. Ephraim Radner had to say at his site, now I am curious as to what his thinking is right now on Armstrong and the timing to jump ship to Nigeria.
Radner’s in a bit of a hard place right now. He’s friends with Armstrong, and is suddenly under a lot of scrutiny for his association with some groups that are turning out to be significant in the whole jumping ship movement — which is ironic, given his longstanding reputation as someone encouraging conservatives to stay in the church (though he’s been making opposite noises more of late).
He’s also been a big voice in the Anglican Covenant drafting committee, which has also raised some eyebrows in some quarters, and reports were that his presentation on the subject was met with tepid response at the House of Bishops meeting a few weeks back.
I still have a fair amount of respect for the man — and think that, if nothing else, his sensibilities and stance are based on his thinking, not on his desire to exercise power over others.
I can’t see any positive outcome from having Radner involved as a serious player in the Covenant draft as long as he’s connected to the IRD. They’re bent on a kind of hostile reformation from within.
It’s funny how Grace and St Stephen’s money was commingled with the ACI’s, yet another group with a snappy acronym bent on reform from within. And in general, it’s the large, well-financed conservative congregations headed by long-term conservative incumbents who are at the heart of the reasserting movement. It’s like they’re localized cults of personality, dotted over the landscape.
It remains to be seen whether all these American Big Men can get along with each other when they’re gathered under the tent with all the Global South’s Big Men. In the long run, it can’t last.
Yeah … I’d really like to be in the room when Abp. Akinola and Rev. Armstrong play “You’re Not the Boss of Me Now” — I suspect neither of them are likely to get what they want out of the situation.
As mentioned before, I’ve met Radner — he was a candidate for Bishop in Colorado a few years back — and I respect him for his learning and intellect and sincerity. I don’t agree with all his positions, obviously, but I respect them. His involvement with the IRD is more than a bit unfortunate.
The letter from the 19 former vestry members is up here, though the story behind it is not yet published (it actually is headed as being part of today’s Opinion section, p.19, but is not in the online edition).
On the other hand, Rev. Radner seems to be getting a bit testy.
Another Springs media voice:
ACI dismisses any claims of a significant association with Grace & St Stephens — and formally severs any ties there are for the time being.
It’s co-signed, btw, by Rev. Radner, as a “Senior Fellow” at the ACI.
A formal pre-response to the Presentment and the 19 vestry folks (including a bit of counter-accusation) here. Basically restating previous opinions and claiming that some of the folks in the letter knew all about some of the arrangements which were, of course, perfectly legal.