I saw this article on the ELCA's home page and I rejoiced at it. Bishop McCoid has been a good and faithful Bishop and it is good that, while he is retiring from the ranks of the Bishops, will not be gone from us completely. I agree with your conclusions, Richard. Bishop McCoid is an able churchman and more than qualified to head the Ecumenical office. And yes, Bishop Hanson's humility and prudence is a good thing and needs to be commended in this case.
Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS
Bishop McCoid's ecumenical partners in SW Pennsylvania included Bishop Robert Duncan of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, who is embroiled in the current struggle for faithful orthopraxis in TEC. Bishop Duncan has been a key player in efforts to move several entire Diocese from TEC to some other Anglican structure while remaining subject to the Anglican Communion and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
A very interesting, appropriate, and timely appointment, indeed.
The announcement's a little brief on the "Randy-Lee's-Future-Plans" side of things. So I leap to the groundless assumption that his work has been, in some way, unsatisfactory to the presiding bishop. Bp. McCoid is of an age when his term will effectively coincide with Bp Hanson's. So what are everyone's guesses about the ELCA's medium-term (5 year) goals in ecumenical relations? Does everyone agree that Richard's proposals
(a) Continued conversations with Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches; (b) Serious thinking about what our full communion agreement with the Episcopal Church might mean as the Episcopal Church faces possible schism; and (c) Serious endeavors to resume significant conversations with the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod.
are what the churchwide organization has in mind? Personally, I can't see (c), and there would be a ton of qualifications on (b).
Nonetheless: McCoid is a distinguished churchman, and his appointment is a good thing.