In a departure from traditional Islamic teaching, [Ann Holmes] Redding holds that Jesus was crucified and was resurrected. She argues that the Koran doesn’t explicitly deny that Jesus was crucified but only that the Jews did not crucify him.
However, Imam Abdul Hameed of the Islamic Center of Rhode Island disputes her reading. The Koran, he says, makes clear that Jesus was not crucified or killed, but was “lifted up” to God.
“I think she is a little confused. There is no possibility for one to be both a Muslim and a Christian,” Hameed said. “If she doesn’t believe that [Jesus] is the son of God, she is not Christian. And she can’t be a Muslim if she believes Jesus died on a cross.”
Redding says she prefers to stay away from some of the constructs theologians have built to help decide “who is in and who is out, who is going to heaven and who is not.”
“The Trinity is a wonderful way of thinking about God. ”¦ But will I reduce God to a formula? No.
“There is no possibility for one to be both a Muslim and a Christian,†Hameed said.” So that is the word from the imam.
This poor woman is lost on both sides trying to create some kind of “middle ground” that doesn’t and can’t exist.
Pick one, Ann. But no, everyone is wrong about god except you.
“If she doesn’t believe that [Jesus] is the son of God, she is not Christian. And she can’t be a Muslim if she believes Jesus died on a cross.â€
Interesting that at least one Muslim Imam has a clearer understanding of Christian faith than does Episcopal Rev. Ann Holmes Redding.
As a person who followed the Ann Holmes Redding scandal from the very beginning, let me say that I am very disturbed by this newspaper account. Not for what it says about the apostate priest AHR, but what it implies about Bishop Geralyn Wolf.
What the article clearly implies is that the first Bishop Wolf ever heard of the AHR story was when Wolf went to the Sept 2007 meeting of the HOB. Furthermore the article claims that the first Wolf realized that AHR was under her authority was shortly after that HOB meeting.
Especially disturbing is that the reporter clearly implies that he got this account directly from a recent interview with Bishop Wolf.
It’s disturbing because these claims are demonstrably false. If the reporter got them from Wolf, and reported their conversation accurately, I am having trouble seeing how Wolf didn’t tell him deliberate lies.
The true history of the scandal is that it broke June 3 (2007) and was picked up by the Seattle Times on June 17. By June 22 it had become a gigantic scandal with people all over the country commenting on it, including people like Jim Naughton. By the end of June it had become such a scandal that it was appearing in major secular media.
Finally, when no one in TEC could pretend not to have heard about this, and when it became clear that the story was going to not die but only get worse, Bishop Wolf came forward (July 5, 2007) and publically announced that she was suspending AHR for a year.
I was skeptical even then about the timing of Wolf’s response. It would have been a lot more encouraging if she or her diocese had said something earlier — if they had at least expressed concern and indicated that they would be having a conversation with AHR.
Even then I was concerned that later articles would rewrite the history of what happened and say that Wolf had no idea that this was going on.
It’s disturbing to see that I was apparently right. Is it really true that Wolf told this reporter that she knew nothing about this until Sept 2007?
Jon, thanks for the helpful review of the chronology. It does raise some questions. Although this elf also has certainly followed the Ann Holmes Redding story very closely, the discrepancies hadn’t caught my attention.
For those who want to read Bp. Wolf’s original statement on this matter from July 2007, the link is here:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/4193
Newspaper articles are often inaccurate in details like this, more often that we know. I don’t see that the errors change the substance of the story. Unless somebody discovers some good reason for lying about these dates, I think the most likely explanation is reporter error, or perhaps Gerlalyn Wolf’s mixing up the timeline.
I think Bishop Wolf is doing the right thing. She is actually using deposition for what it is meant to be, the leaving of one faith for another. The article does move the timeline forward about her knowledge, however, she did issue a statement in July 2007 and one that plainly, yet pastorally, stated that Redding could not be a Muslim and uphold the Christian faith, that she needed to seek discernment. She then inhibited her.
She did this in the face of the Bishop of Olympia who was fine with Redding’s embrace of the two mutually exclusive religions.
There are a lot of things I disagree with Bishop Wolf on, however, she has handled this situation exactly as a bishop should.
#6… I can’t really agree that Wolf handled this “exactly” as a bishop should. I think reasserters have systematically had their standards and expectations so lowered in TEC over the years that we are wildly grateful when a bishop makes any move, however tentative, and however reluctantly, toward affirming anything approaching orthodoxy.
If Wolf had handled it exactly as a bishop should, she would have weighed in much earlier — at least clearly expressing concern and her intention to speak with AHR. The delay Wolf took increased the scandal, giving the impression that she was hoping it would die down and then she wouldn’t have to do anything. We can’t know that this was her motivation, but by waiting until it was so shaming that she simply HAD to do something, it increased the image of TEC bishops, and women bishops in particular, as being heterodox.
Since Wolf’s clearly announced conversation with Redding (July 2007) Wolf has also been dragging her feet about doing anything, giving Redding more extensions all while Redding has been holding public promotions of her apostate views.
Wolf’s delay in acting initially and her additional delays in acting subsequently are not exactly what an ideal bishop should do, though of course certainly better than what the then bishop of Olympia would have done. That we are inclined to use apostate bishops as our measuring stick for comparison just goes to show what I said about our lowered expectations nowadays.
Like Mr Forrester and his willynilly misappropriation of Zen Buddhism, Mrs Redding joyfully revises both Christianity and Islam with equal abandon. They’ve shown me that Revisionism is a pan-heresy, not just a theological style.
Perhaps Redding can get a job in her local mosque where they will no doubt be more in tune with her.
Whether or not (still pretty likely not!) she is deposed, one thing is certain, more than a compass pointing north, more than the sun coming up in the morning: She will still be an Episcopalian in good standing. No human on the face of the earth would be refused communion in any ECUSA parish, anywhere. Muslim, Hindu, Mormon (Do we really have to mention that bishop in Utah? Didn’t think so.), Atheist. No difference whatever. That is what makes it so meaningless.
When ECUSA starts deciding what makes a *layman* then its problems about clergy will be figured out. I notice they mentioned Bishop Warner. A man with no bachelor’s degree and no seminary degree. A high school diploma can still get you places, can’t it?
Jon, your assertion that Wolf only acted because “no one in TEC could pretend not to have heard about this, and [because] it became clear that the story was going to not die but only get worse” is not consonant with my memory of the early stages of the fuss. The fact that it was Wolf and not the bishop in Seattle who was this woman’s superior did not come out immediately; indeed, part of the initial fuss was that the bishop in Seattle didn’t think there was anything wrong with her, uh, bispirituality.
And I don’t see the point in making an issue out of the discrepancy between the newspaper account and the fact that Wolf acted far earlier than that account indicates.
#11… when a reporter claims that a bishop said X, and the bishop didn’t, that’s really important. If the reporter is falsely claiming that the bishop said a number of things to him in an interview, that’s important.
If on the other hand, the bishop lied to the reporter about matters of clear public record, that’s important too.
I think she is answering her own questions at the end of the article. The jig is about up. Even in such a deluded organization at TEC currently is, most (not all, of course) people can see this is the product of personal pain rather than spiritual wisdom.
I was just wondering when Redding’s year to think things over was up. Wolf was extremely kind, doing the bare minimum necessary. Redding’s obviously not sorry so time to cut her loose and say goodbye.
Sorry but I’m not surprised that a confused boomer liberal Protestant is as flaky a Muslim as she was a Christian, playing with both faiths and offending both.
I guessed as much when I learnt of her mosque in Washington. Sunni Islam is as diverse, shall we say, as Protestantism. And entirely congregational. Redding’s group are Sunnis but very westernised liberal ones.
[url=http://home.comcast.net/~acbfp/index.html]High-church libertarian curmudgeon[/url]
Jon, I’ve had to deal with reporters making a hash of what they were told; it’s possible that Wolf’s recollection to the reporter was inaccurate, but it’s also possible that the reporter made a mess of it. In any case, the version of events we have documented is more favorable to Wolf than the version from the article, so I do not see the point other than trying to play “gotcha!” against her.
#15… I don’t know what it means “to play gotcha” with someone.