An “election” with only one candidate? I think that’s how they used to do things back in Lenin’s day. Or, is that usual procedure for “electing” a provisional bishop? And would such an “election” need to be ratified by bishops and standing committees?
Generally provisional bishops are elected with a single nominee, with the ballot simply providing yes/no options. Consents are not necessary, because provisional bishops are by canon always already bishops.
Judging from his voting record available for review on Louie Crew’s website, this bishop is solidly committed to the GLBT agenda. That makes Jim Simons, “committed to orthodoxy”, two for two in picking revisionist bishops. Given that Bishop Price will have ecclesiastical authority as a Provisional Bishop and will serve two to three years- the direction of the diocese seems to be firmly set. The “orthodox” in TEC Pittsburgh seem to be rolling over without a peep…
Whatever you do, laity, don’t google the name Kenneth L. Price.
That would be [i]A Terrible Thing To Do[/i] .
[blockquote]Our old culture would now start to throw stones. It would “Google†the Bishop’s name and begin to collect writings and voting records, it would be mistrustful and suspicious. It would dwell on the deficits and not the benefits. Perhaps some from whom we are separated will do this.
We need to not do that. Rather, we need to trust that those who have been raised up to leadership have everyone’s best interest in mind and that this is not just a human answer to a situation but a godly one as well. We need to see this appointment as God’s
way of moving us forward, to recognize it as another stone we gather in the rebuilding of our common life.â€[/blockquote] http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/18680
Nevin . . . you “need to trust that those who have been raised up to leadership have everyone’s best interest in mind” . . . you need to [i]Cease All Googling[/i], if you are Truly Spiritual.
[i]Rather, we need to trust that those who have been raised up to leadership have everyone’s best interest in mind and that this is not just a human answer to a situation but a godly one as well. [/i]
And what exactly about that statement wouldn’t be true of Bishop Duncan as well?
Thanks Sarah for reminding of Jim Simons convention address last year… I wasn’t sure what the lowpoint was, his cringing apology to the liberals in the diocese for his role as mean Bishop Duncan’s henchman in creating the “culture of fear” or this appeal to “trust and not verify”. At any rate I recall violating his appeal and checking out the voting record of Assisting Bishop Johnson and remarking on his solid liberal voting record. And, no surprise, he just voted yes on D025 and D056. I guess this is what passes for needing “to see this appointment as God’s way of moving us forward”, although I didn’t realize Jim Simons endorsed the Integrity agenda. But, given that he has now made another selection, for a longer term and with more authority, that is solidly in the GLBT camp I can only conclude that his claim of being “committed to orthodoxy” must be seriously called into question… This kind of “orthodox” leadership is a major reason I decided to leave TEC Pittsburgh.
#2 Bruce+ As a Communion Partner rector, will you vote yes or no to the consent of Bp Price? Can you explain your decision? It seems to me that Pittsburgh is a bellweather of the direction of the CPs. The direction that the TEC diocese in San Joaquin and Fort Worth are taking are expected–but with Jim+ as the President of the Standing Committee and with your own visible ministry, I had hoped for a different direction to be manifest in Pittsburgh.
Still waiting on the Lord and watching what He will do.
LCF+ — I understand we will have the opportunity to meet and talk with Bishop Price and the Standing Committee before the convention. I’m going to refrain from judgment until we’ve had that opportunity. I am disappointed and had hoped that our Standing Committee would have been able to find a suitable candidate with a better track record of support for orthodox Episcopalians. There are a lot of problems that come forward in any event with the appointment of a provisional bishop, and in fact I’ve been arguing that we would be better off in Pittsburgh by continuing with an assisting bishop. We’ll just have to see.
According to The Living Church Bishop Price was selected based “upon the recommendation of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori”. Is further commentary needed?
An “election” with only one candidate? I think that’s how they used to do things back in Lenin’s day. Or, is that usual procedure for “electing” a provisional bishop? And would such an “election” need to be ratified by bishops and standing committees?
Generally provisional bishops are elected with a single nominee, with the ballot simply providing yes/no options. Consents are not necessary, because provisional bishops are by canon always already bishops.
Bruce Robison
Judging from his voting record available for review on Louie Crew’s website, this bishop is solidly committed to the GLBT agenda. That makes Jim Simons, “committed to orthodoxy”, two for two in picking revisionist bishops. Given that Bishop Price will have ecclesiastical authority as a Provisional Bishop and will serve two to three years- the direction of the diocese seems to be firmly set. The “orthodox” in TEC Pittsburgh seem to be rolling over without a peep…
Whatever you do, laity, don’t google the name Kenneth L. Price.
That would be [i]A Terrible Thing To Do[/i] .
[blockquote]Our old culture would now start to throw stones. It would “Google†the Bishop’s name and begin to collect writings and voting records, it would be mistrustful and suspicious. It would dwell on the deficits and not the benefits. Perhaps some from whom we are separated will do this.
We need to not do that. Rather, we need to trust that those who have been raised up to leadership have everyone’s best interest in mind and that this is not just a human answer to a situation but a godly one as well. We need to see this appointment as God’s
way of moving us forward, to recognize it as another stone we gather in the rebuilding of our common life.â€[/blockquote]
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/18680
Nevin . . . you “need to trust that those who have been raised up to leadership have everyone’s best interest in mind” . . . you need to [i]Cease All Googling[/i], if you are Truly Spiritual.
[blockquote]Perhaps some from whom we are separated will do this.[/blockquote]
Well played, Sarah. I’d forgotten just how prissy and sanctimonious this sounded.
Not to mention how Oz-ian.
[Comment deleted by Elf]
[i]Rather, we need to trust that those who have been raised up to leadership have everyone’s best interest in mind and that this is not just a human answer to a situation but a godly one as well. [/i]
And what exactly about that statement wouldn’t be true of Bishop Duncan as well?
I can’t think of a single thing!
Thanks Sarah for reminding of Jim Simons convention address last year… I wasn’t sure what the lowpoint was, his cringing apology to the liberals in the diocese for his role as mean Bishop Duncan’s henchman in creating the “culture of fear” or this appeal to “trust and not verify”. At any rate I recall violating his appeal and checking out the voting record of Assisting Bishop Johnson and remarking on his solid liberal voting record. And, no surprise, he just voted yes on D025 and D056. I guess this is what passes for needing “to see this appointment as God’s way of moving us forward”, although I didn’t realize Jim Simons endorsed the Integrity agenda. But, given that he has now made another selection, for a longer term and with more authority, that is solidly in the GLBT camp I can only conclude that his claim of being “committed to orthodoxy” must be seriously called into question… This kind of “orthodox” leadership is a major reason I decided to leave TEC Pittsburgh.
#2 Bruce+ As a Communion Partner rector, will you vote yes or no to the consent of Bp Price? Can you explain your decision? It seems to me that Pittsburgh is a bellweather of the direction of the CPs. The direction that the TEC diocese in San Joaquin and Fort Worth are taking are expected–but with Jim+ as the President of the Standing Committee and with your own visible ministry, I had hoped for a different direction to be manifest in Pittsburgh.
Still waiting on the Lord and watching what He will do.
LCF+ — I understand we will have the opportunity to meet and talk with Bishop Price and the Standing Committee before the convention. I’m going to refrain from judgment until we’ve had that opportunity. I am disappointed and had hoped that our Standing Committee would have been able to find a suitable candidate with a better track record of support for orthodox Episcopalians. There are a lot of problems that come forward in any event with the appointment of a provisional bishop, and in fact I’ve been arguing that we would be better off in Pittsburgh by continuing with an assisting bishop. We’ll just have to see.
Bruce Robison
According to The Living Church Bishop Price was selected based “upon the recommendation of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori”. Is further commentary needed?
Nope!