The Seattle Times runs a long profile of Episcopal priest Ann Holmes Redding. Redding has converted to Islam. “Until recently,” she was director of faith formation at St. Mark’s Episcopal Cathedral in Seattle. She doesn’t hold an ecclesiastical position at the moment, though she appears not to have been a believing Christian even when she did. Quoth the bishop:
Redding’s bishop, the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner, says he accepts Redding as an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, and that he finds the interfaith possibilities exciting. Her announcement, first made through a story in her diocese’s newspaper, hasn’t caused much controversy yet, he said.
Quoth Doug Thorpe:
Doug Thorpe, who served on St. Mark’s faith-formation committee with Redding, said he’s trying to understand all the dimensions of her faith choices. But he saw how it deepened her spirituality. And it spurred him to read the Quran and think more deeply about his own faith.
He believes Redding is being called. She is, “by her very presence, a bridge person,” Thorpe said. “And we desperately need those bridge persons.”
Coincidentally, Mark Steyn introduces his column today with additional news from the Anglican theological front: “Beware of government as the last action hero.” Via Lucianne.
UPDATE: In the Forum, The Drill Sgt. notes the fundamental doctrinal incompatibilities between Christianity and Islam and concludes: “How can a Muslim be a Priest? The Bishop may be very flexible, I doubt the Imam is.”
JOHN adds: This story gives us a clue as to why the Episcopal church is not exactly thriving these days. The linked column by Mark Steyn is one of his best; it ranges from religion and same-sex marriage to global warming, health care and illegal immigration. An excerpt:
The illegal immigration question is an interesting test of government in action, at least when it comes to core responsibilities like defense of the nation. When critics of this “comprehensive” immigration bill demand enforcement of the borders, the administration says: Boy, you’re right there! We’re with you on that! We want enforcement, too. But we can’t get it as long as you’re holding up this “comprehensive reform.”
Why not? There are immigration laws on the books right now, aren’t there? Why not try enforcing them? The same people who say that government is a mighty power for good that can extinguish every cigarette butt and detoxify every cheeseburger and even change the very climate of the planet back to some Edenic state so that the water that falleth from heaven will land as ice and snow, and polar bears on distant continents will frolic as they did in days of yore, the very same people say: Building a border fence? Enforcing deportation orders? Can’t be done, old boy. Pie-in-the-sky.
In such a world, let us salute a far rarer politician than Nanny Bloomberg: “What is at risk is not the climate but freedom,” said the Czech president Vaclav Klaus this week. “I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.”
To comment on this post, go here.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.