Letter: Church rector criticizes article
 |
 |
| Advocate Columnists |
 |
Print
Email
Save
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
I am disappointed with your article of June 21 titled “An Anglican mission: African bishop encourages Baton Rouge church.” I believe that the article could unnecessarily confuse or offend some readers. I wish to clarify some items.
Episcopalians are Anglicans and are recognized as such by the worldwide Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church is the official representative of the Anglican Communion in America. It is erroneous to suggest otherwise.
The Anglican Mission of the Americas Church mentioned in the article is not recognized throughout the Anglican Communion in this way. It should not have been suggested through the comments of the interviewees alone what the Episcopal Church teaches.
To wit, the Episcopal Church does not deny the Resurrection or Deity of Jesus Christ. The article could seem to suggest otherwise. Belief in the Resurrection and the Divinity of Christ are the bedrock of the Episcopal faith.
The Anglican bishop featured in the article did not have (or seek) permission from the local Anglican bishop as is required to even be present on official church business. His presence violates protocols among Anglican dioceses and bishops, and violates the Windsor agreement in which bishops were asked not to do what this bishop did in visiting this congregation.
The bishop’s comments about the Episcopal Church are also unfortunate and divisive. It is scandalous that an Anglican bishop would foment division in this way.
I believe that your article is unbalanced and misleading in its reporting of the Episcopal Church. While this is likely unintended, nevertheless a reader could easily be confused by its content. Certain teachings presented in the article could be understood by readers to be factual teachings of the Episcopal Church. The article suggests in comments that the Episcopal Church is heretical and disintegrating. On the contrary, the Episcopal Church affirms its faith in the Resurrection and the Deity of Christ, is growing in many areas and is doing much good ministry among the faithful.
In fact, the Episcopal Church and this diocese have been leaders in the post-Katrina recovery in our state. The author should have made it clear that the statements made by those interviewed do not necessarily reflect the teaching of the Episcopal Church. He should have mentioned that this bishop violated protocol. He should have also mentioned any attempt (if any) to corroborate certain facts with a responsible authority of the Episcopal Church.
It is wrong to feature one church while allowing another to be unfairly criticized and impugned. Perhaps The Advocate could obtain a response to this article in regard to the teaching of the Episcopal Church and comments made about the Episcopal Church in the article, and perhaps feature the significant and good work being accomplished by this church.
The Rev. Ken Ritter
rector, Trinity Episcopal Church
dean, Baton Rouge-South Deanery, Diocese of La.
Baton Rouge
Episcopalians are Anglicans and are recognized as such by the worldwide Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church is the official representative of the Anglican Communion in America. It is erroneous to suggest otherwise.
The Anglican Mission of the Americas Church mentioned in the article is not recognized throughout the Anglican Communion in this way. It should not have been suggested through the comments of the interviewees alone what the Episcopal Church teaches.
To wit, the Episcopal Church does not deny the Resurrection or Deity of Jesus Christ. The article could seem to suggest otherwise. Belief in the Resurrection and the Divinity of Christ are the bedrock of the Episcopal faith.
The Anglican bishop featured in the article did not have (or seek) permission from the local Anglican bishop as is required to even be present on official church business. His presence violates protocols among Anglican dioceses and bishops, and violates the Windsor agreement in which bishops were asked not to do what this bishop did in visiting this congregation.
The bishop’s comments about the Episcopal Church are also unfortunate and divisive. It is scandalous that an Anglican bishop would foment division in this way.
I believe that your article is unbalanced and misleading in its reporting of the Episcopal Church. While this is likely unintended, nevertheless a reader could easily be confused by its content. Certain teachings presented in the article could be understood by readers to be factual teachings of the Episcopal Church. The article suggests in comments that the Episcopal Church is heretical and disintegrating. On the contrary, the Episcopal Church affirms its faith in the Resurrection and the Deity of Christ, is growing in many areas and is doing much good ministry among the faithful.
In fact, the Episcopal Church and this diocese have been leaders in the post-Katrina recovery in our state. The author should have made it clear that the statements made by those interviewed do not necessarily reflect the teaching of the Episcopal Church. He should have mentioned that this bishop violated protocol. He should have also mentioned any attempt (if any) to corroborate certain facts with a responsible authority of the Episcopal Church.
It is wrong to feature one church while allowing another to be unfairly criticized and impugned. Perhaps The Advocate could obtain a response to this article in regard to the teaching of the Episcopal Church and comments made about the Episcopal Church in the article, and perhaps feature the significant and good work being accomplished by this church.
The Rev. Ken Ritter
rector, Trinity Episcopal Church
dean, Baton Rouge-South Deanery, Diocese of La.
Baton Rouge
 | ||||
| Most Popular | Most Emailed | Hot Topics | ||
