Writing as a Canadian observer, I am impressed with how Bishop Lowe is acting, with integrity and firmness. He has clearly thought out his position. He is not arguing for the sake of it. He is willing to protect the integrity of his office as bishop. He is also defending the integrity of the Prayer Book, and the traditional, accepted definition of Christian marriage.
This is a sad state of affairs, as the LGBTQXYZ machine that runs TEC is going to grind Bishop Love to dust. They will tolerate nothing but full surrender to their agenda.
Bishop Love is walking bravely to the gallows, pointing out that Canon Law is on his side, but that does not matter to TEC. That is not the law they follow, nor is Holy Scripture.
God bless Bishop Love in his principled stand. It’s a shame he’s taking that stand alone. All remaining orthodox within TEC, take note, and decide your stand accordingly…
Yep. I think you have this exactly right. I applaud his going through the process. He has character. Unless the unforeseen actually comes to pass he and his diocese will be in position to say they did all they could to remain until remaining was not possible. May God give them all grace in this time of upheaval.
Hello Edgarson, I hope you are wrong. I was taking some optimism from George Conger. He was speaking about the partial restriction, saying it was a good thing because there is a new Presiding Bishop, Michael Curry. But, this Bishop Love case is beautifully clear about the authority problem. what is the authority of General Council? What is the authority of a motion passed at GC? Does it have absolute authority? And what is the authority of a Bishop in his diocese? Bishop Love is clear headed. He knows he is in cconflict with this B012 motion. He is indicating he is willing to take a stand, and engage in a public fight. May I add, being a bishop is a difficult task. Is he an administrator? Is a Bishop a pastor, taking care of his clergy? A very complex job. Very few bishops, in my opinion, develop to be mature, theological thinkers. It takes a great deal of confidence to make a public stand. I once had a conversation with Stephen Sykes, back in 1988. Sykes was a theology professor then. I expressed a negative attitude about the church and about bishops. He told me, “Bishops are followers. They have to follow the trends”. He told me, if I am a priest with a congregation, I ought to focus on my congregational ministry, and not get into fights with a Bishop. He was expressing his understanding that authority in Anglicanism is flexible. But his opinion bishops are followers I doubt he would put into a book. So, will other American bishops come and publically support Bishop Love? Will his clergy continue to support him? I admit, I am still with the Anglican Church of Canada, hoping to make changes from within. I truly fear there is a schism happening. In Canada, we do have a few traditional, conservative Bishops in the north. But they haven’t been able to find their voice. The powerful Liberal bishops in the big dioceses are running the show. I think the Liberal bishops have it easy, the conservative bishops have it hard. I suspect there is more fear amongst the bishops than they are publically admitting. That is a guess on my part. But, Edgarson, I agree it is a mess, theologically speaking.
So, will other American bishops come and publicly support Bishop Love? Will his clergy continue to support him?
I think the majority of his clergy definitely support him. Not all, by any means- obviously there are several in open rebellion, and no doubt some who would prefer some form of compromise.
On bishops. it depends what you mean by “American” bishop.
+Love generally has the support of bishops of ACNA, but that won’t help him much. He also has had support from some of the Central American bishops in TEC during the convention and I imagine the several “northern” and indigenous bishop of Canada (who are also Communion Partner bishops) are keeping him in their prayers and offering such comfort as they can.
Of course, within TEC, gay marriage is a done deal in 90 of the 100 domestic dioceses. Even among the Communion Partners, +Love is the only one who has not capitulated. Most of the TEC bishops in the Communion Partners voted in favor of B012 and all but +Love are cooperating to some degree to establish gay marriage in their dioceses- although Howard and Bauerschmitt are not cooperating “fast enough” or to the degree that the revisionists expect, so don’t be surprised if some form of complaint is brought against them as well.
No doubt, at some point, the Communion Partners will issue an official statement of support. But unless one or more of them reverses course, +Love will stand alone. Arguably the last actual bishop of the Episcopal Church, which has now become the Church of the General Convention Resolutions- an organization in which doctrine and discipline will change radically every 3 years, based on the whims of delegates of any particular meeting.
Sadly I think you are right.
At least Michael Curry wrote a letter to Bishop Love! Unlike his predecessor who allowed the DBB to do her dirty work for her in notifying Bishop Lawrence of his ministry being restricted. Also, this is a partial restriction so the minimal punishment that could be given to Bishop Love. I do agree with Edgarson and Ed McNeil…… this is the first step in the process of ridding TEC of Bishop Love and his diocese. My only message to the Bishop Love and his diocese- learn from those who have gone before you done this road. Be smart and wise!
Do understand that this is only a temporary restriction in place while Bishop Love awaits trial (will they try the 2 charges together or in separate trials?). It seems (unless TEC is willing to admit that B012 has no authority, which seems highly unlikely) most likely that he will be convicted on one or both counts, and at that time he will be “sentenced” as shall please the court. From the PB’s letter
Bishop Love’s conduct in this regard may constitute a canonical offense under Canon IV.4(1)(c) (“abide by the promises and vows made when ordained”) and Canon IV.4(1)(h)(9) (“any Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy”), and that conduct has been referred to the Rt. Rev. Todd Ousley, Bishop for Pastoral Development and Intake Officer for disciplinary matters involving bishops.
Additional charges could also be filed by parties inside or outside the diocese, or the HoB could act on its own at a future meeting. So, this is likely only the first sanction.
Now, as to why the PB is enforcing this resolution of GC 2018, and not the several hundred other resolutions (have all the bishops planted their trees as required by A010 or has the President of the United States yet faced excommunication for refusing to follow GC orders to cut off aid to Israel per D038?). For that matter, what about the canonically required deposition of the 60 odd bishops who knowingly permit communion of non-baptised persons?
In a real justice system, Bishop Love would probably win on the grounds of selective prosecution (that is, they don’t prosecute others for comparable or greater offenses, so it is prejudicial). But TEC left justice behind a long time ago, when they abandoned truth, and even fact, in their deliberations and theology.
TJmcmahon, Yes I understand…… did you not read my comment? “This is the first step in the process……..”. I am well aware of how the process works having experienced here in the Diocese of SC. At least Bishop Love got a letter. Let’s not forget that KJS already knew the DBB’s decision while Bishops Lawrence and Waldo were trying to negiogiate a way out for the Diocese of SC.
SCBluCatLady, I did indeed read your comment. Your closing advice was wise, and the diocese would be well advised to heed it.
Let’s say I was trying to clarify some of what you said. I was responding to “this is a partial restriction so the minimal punishment that could be given to Bishop Love”- no one has gotten to the “punishment” yet. It was only after the deposition of +Lawrence that TEC developed this “show trial” process for removing orthodox or uncooperative bishops (Bruno, for instance). I can’t imagine the outcome is any more in doubt than in KJS days, it will just be a bit longer, and TEC will do all in its power to create the illusion that +Love has actually done something wrong, while minimizing the obvious fact that he is following the literal words of the Book of Common Prayer, 1979 (just “memorialized” in another resolution of the same General Convention).
Writing as a Canadian observer, I am impressed with how Bishop Lowe is acting, with integrity and firmness. He has clearly thought out his position. He is not arguing for the sake of it. He is willing to protect the integrity of his office as bishop. He is also defending the integrity of the Prayer Book, and the traditional, accepted definition of Christian marriage.
This is a sad state of affairs, as the LGBTQXYZ machine that runs TEC is going to grind Bishop Love to dust. They will tolerate nothing but full surrender to their agenda.
Bishop Love is walking bravely to the gallows, pointing out that Canon Law is on his side, but that does not matter to TEC. That is not the law they follow, nor is Holy Scripture.
God bless Bishop Love in his principled stand. It’s a shame he’s taking that stand alone. All remaining orthodox within TEC, take note, and decide your stand accordingly…
Yep. I think you have this exactly right. I applaud his going through the process. He has character. Unless the unforeseen actually comes to pass he and his diocese will be in position to say they did all they could to remain until remaining was not possible. May God give them all grace in this time of upheaval.
Hello Edgarson, I hope you are wrong. I was taking some optimism from George Conger. He was speaking about the partial restriction, saying it was a good thing because there is a new Presiding Bishop, Michael Curry. But, this Bishop Love case is beautifully clear about the authority problem. what is the authority of General Council? What is the authority of a motion passed at GC? Does it have absolute authority? And what is the authority of a Bishop in his diocese? Bishop Love is clear headed. He knows he is in cconflict with this B012 motion. He is indicating he is willing to take a stand, and engage in a public fight. May I add, being a bishop is a difficult task. Is he an administrator? Is a Bishop a pastor, taking care of his clergy? A very complex job. Very few bishops, in my opinion, develop to be mature, theological thinkers. It takes a great deal of confidence to make a public stand. I once had a conversation with Stephen Sykes, back in 1988. Sykes was a theology professor then. I expressed a negative attitude about the church and about bishops. He told me, “Bishops are followers. They have to follow the trends”. He told me, if I am a priest with a congregation, I ought to focus on my congregational ministry, and not get into fights with a Bishop. He was expressing his understanding that authority in Anglicanism is flexible. But his opinion bishops are followers I doubt he would put into a book. So, will other American bishops come and publically support Bishop Love? Will his clergy continue to support him? I admit, I am still with the Anglican Church of Canada, hoping to make changes from within. I truly fear there is a schism happening. In Canada, we do have a few traditional, conservative Bishops in the north. But they haven’t been able to find their voice. The powerful Liberal bishops in the big dioceses are running the show. I think the Liberal bishops have it easy, the conservative bishops have it hard. I suspect there is more fear amongst the bishops than they are publically admitting. That is a guess on my part. But, Edgarson, I agree it is a mess, theologically speaking.
I think the majority of his clergy definitely support him. Not all, by any means- obviously there are several in open rebellion, and no doubt some who would prefer some form of compromise.
On bishops. it depends what you mean by “American” bishop.
+Love generally has the support of bishops of ACNA, but that won’t help him much. He also has had support from some of the Central American bishops in TEC during the convention and I imagine the several “northern” and indigenous bishop of Canada (who are also Communion Partner bishops) are keeping him in their prayers and offering such comfort as they can.
Of course, within TEC, gay marriage is a done deal in 90 of the 100 domestic dioceses. Even among the Communion Partners, +Love is the only one who has not capitulated. Most of the TEC bishops in the Communion Partners voted in favor of B012 and all but +Love are cooperating to some degree to establish gay marriage in their dioceses- although Howard and Bauerschmitt are not cooperating “fast enough” or to the degree that the revisionists expect, so don’t be surprised if some form of complaint is brought against them as well.
No doubt, at some point, the Communion Partners will issue an official statement of support. But unless one or more of them reverses course, +Love will stand alone. Arguably the last actual bishop of the Episcopal Church, which has now become the Church of the General Convention Resolutions- an organization in which doctrine and discipline will change radically every 3 years, based on the whims of delegates of any particular meeting.
Sadly I think you are right.
At least Michael Curry wrote a letter to Bishop Love! Unlike his predecessor who allowed the DBB to do her dirty work for her in notifying Bishop Lawrence of his ministry being restricted. Also, this is a partial restriction so the minimal punishment that could be given to Bishop Love. I do agree with Edgarson and Ed McNeil…… this is the first step in the process of ridding TEC of Bishop Love and his diocese. My only message to the Bishop Love and his diocese- learn from those who have gone before you done this road. Be smart and wise!
Do understand that this is only a temporary restriction in place while Bishop Love awaits trial (will they try the 2 charges together or in separate trials?). It seems (unless TEC is willing to admit that B012 has no authority, which seems highly unlikely) most likely that he will be convicted on one or both counts, and at that time he will be “sentenced” as shall please the court. From the PB’s letter
Additional charges could also be filed by parties inside or outside the diocese, or the HoB could act on its own at a future meeting. So, this is likely only the first sanction.
Now, as to why the PB is enforcing this resolution of GC 2018, and not the several hundred other resolutions (have all the bishops planted their trees as required by A010 or has the President of the United States yet faced excommunication for refusing to follow GC orders to cut off aid to Israel per D038?). For that matter, what about the canonically required deposition of the 60 odd bishops who knowingly permit communion of non-baptised persons?
In a real justice system, Bishop Love would probably win on the grounds of selective prosecution (that is, they don’t prosecute others for comparable or greater offenses, so it is prejudicial). But TEC left justice behind a long time ago, when they abandoned truth, and even fact, in their deliberations and theology.
TJmcmahon, Yes I understand…… did you not read my comment? “This is the first step in the process……..”. I am well aware of how the process works having experienced here in the Diocese of SC. At least Bishop Love got a letter. Let’s not forget that KJS already knew the DBB’s decision while Bishops Lawrence and Waldo were trying to negiogiate a way out for the Diocese of SC.
SCBluCatLady, I did indeed read your comment. Your closing advice was wise, and the diocese would be well advised to heed it.
Let’s say I was trying to clarify some of what you said. I was responding to “this is a partial restriction so the minimal punishment that could be given to Bishop Love”- no one has gotten to the “punishment” yet. It was only after the deposition of +Lawrence that TEC developed this “show trial” process for removing orthodox or uncooperative bishops (Bruno, for instance). I can’t imagine the outcome is any more in doubt than in KJS days, it will just be a bit longer, and TEC will do all in its power to create the illusion that +Love has actually done something wrong, while minimizing the obvious fact that he is following the literal words of the Book of Common Prayer, 1979 (just “memorialized” in another resolution of the same General Convention).