Bishop Henry Parsley of Alabama: Bishops didn’t reject Anglicans’ request
Many readers of this blog no doubt have read the article in the New York Times about the outcome of the meeting of the Episcopal bishops sin New Orleans. If you have not seen it yet, this is the response of Bishop Henry Parsley of Alabama to that article, appearing as a letter in the Birmingham News today and titled “Bishops didn’t reject Anglicans’ request”:
I am writing to call attention to the inaccuracy and distortion of the article “Episcopal bishops reject Anglican demands” (The News, Wednesday) from the New York Times News Service about the meeting of the Episcopal House of Bishops. The bishops did not reject the requests of our Anglican partners. We responded with great care, and the truth is, our response takes significant positive steps for the sake of our interdependence and unity in the Anglican Communion.
The article only quoted people who have a divisive agenda and whose assessment of the House of Bishops meeting is intentionally misleading. No one from The News attempted to call me or my office to ask for our view of the bishops’ work before publishing this front-page article. Not a single bishop present at the meeting is quoted. This is disappointing and biased journalism. It is harmful to the church and to the commonwealth.
The meeting of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church included a spirit of compromise and sacrifice for the good of the Anglican Communion, as well as an affirmation of our church’s commitment under God to love and respect the dignity of every human being. I hope our Anglican friends, and maybe even The News, will recognize this in the months to come.
Henry N. Parsley
Episcopal Bishop of Alabama
Downtown
I guess Bishop Parsley and the New York Times are certainly in disagreement about this matter, which I don’t think happens very often!
As much as Parsley would like to make people think that the NYT made the article out of whole cloth they did have at least one reporter in New Orleans. She’s the one that busted Bruno on the question about the same sex rite that occurred just days before his duplicitous comments. Seems like Parsley would remember that.
The NYT is as liberal as the day is long and had the liberal bishops been men and not politicians and stood up on their hind legs and said things more in line with what they actually practice the NYT would probably have run their ball for them. Instead, the Bishops chose to weasel and prevaricate. Vacillating wimpiness on the part of leadership does not garner much respect, not even with liberals.
You know, I think you’re right about that. The NYT had a choice as to which would be a better story, to some extent: to be really supportive, or to actually do an investigative report. If the Bishops had shown some leadership (even if wrongly so) rather than being politicians, I think the NYT would have been supportive.
The obfuscationary statements spewed out by many ECUSA bishops following the “latest” and “most important meeting” (occuring at the rate of about one every six months) was one of the main reasons for my departure back in 2005. I see that “things” are not changing….just kicking the can a little further down the road.
Blessed weekend to all.
After having several conversations with Bishop Parsley, it is easy to see through his B.S.(BISHOP’S SHINOLA.)He has been forced to close Christ-the-Redeemer parish in Montgomery because it fell from 200+members to none. Another suffered membership losses; two Anglicans churches were founded by the departed former parishioners.In Montgomery and Prattville.)
I did not realize Christ the Redeemer had closed. I still don’t understand for the life of me why TEC thinks the Gospel is served by forcing congregations to give up their property in order to leave.
very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce