The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has chosen Bishop Kenneth Price, Jr., as its provisional — temporary — bishop, and declared its departing, part-time shepherd, Bishop Robert H. Johnson, to be “assisting bishop emeritus.”
The diocese is still recovering from a split in October 2008, when a majority of the clergy and laity at its last regular convention voted to leave the Episcopal Church over theological issues.
TEC’s remaining conservatives, eager not to rock the boat, convinced themselves it was reasonable not to oppose Bishop Price because it is only a temporary position. But this very poor excuse has very real consequences . He has all the authority of a diocesan bishop and will set the direction of the diocese for the next two to three crucial years. Not to mention that his views are simply unacceptable to orthodox Christians and to appoint him as leader without a peep is a disgrace. This sends a terrible message to those who hold to traditional Biblical teaching on issues of sexuality. Why should anyone believe that in two or three years those who passively accepted this bishop will object to another like him? Obviously there are no strong beliefs involved here and if two or three years are ok what’s wrong with more?
No one to stand up for Jesus? Not one?
A somewhat more complete newspaper overview of [url=http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09291/1006456-455.stm] the Pittsburgh-TEC Convention[/url].
Bruce Robison
Nevin: what are his views that are “simply unacceptable to orthodox Christians”?
#3 Thank you for that Post-Gazette link Bruce Robison. It says of Bishop Price:
[blockquote] He voted to depose Archbishop Duncan in September 2008 — and signed the order as secretary of the House of Bishops — because he believed that was the only option. But he felt terrible about it, he said. One reason that the Episcopal diocese has offered to “release” the Anglican clergy for ministry elsewhere without deposing them is that he wanted to find a better way to part ways.[/blockquote]
Two actions: the deposition of Archbishop Duncan which failed to followe the canons or receive the necessary consents; and the removal of clergy from ordained ministry in breach of the requirement of the canon that it be in writing and the repetition of the untruth exposed by Dean Munday that there is no other alternative. One can only conclude that he is he closed his eyes to the failure to follow the canons.
Of Archbishop Duncan, Bishop Price goes on:
[blockquote] “I wish that we had had a way to have dealt with him in the way that we’re handling the clergy in this diocese now,” he said. “Since that time we’ve had time to reconsider and realize that there are different ways to do that.”[/blockquote]
Removing him from ordained ministry like Mrs Schori did to Bishop Scriven and now Bishop Ackerman a better way or the only way? Not the case as Dean Munday has demonstrated.
[blockquote]”I did not feel any interference or any obstacles coming out of New York,” he said. “I think there’s a level of trust here for the Diocese of Pittsburgh, for the leadership in Pittsburgh, and I think for me in coming here, too.”[/blockquote]
He is Mrs. Schori’s nominee, I imagine he is trusted to do the job she sent him to do.
[blockquote]Leaders at Episcopal headquarters in New York, including the chancellor to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, have been supportive of a more concilatory approach, he said[/blockquote]
Nothing coming out of Mrs Schori and Mr. Beers can conceivably be described as conciliatory, notwithstanding the uncanonical descriptions of removals from ordained ministry as “release” or “a better way”.
I also see from the bottom of the article:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09291/1006456-455.stm#ixzz0UHyPW1UO
a link to the letter from Bishop Price in which he says this:
[blockquote]The reason I am able to stand here today, confident in the future, is because of the careful and thorough work that your Standing Committee, under the able leadership of Dr. Jim Simons, and the other diocesan leaders, notably Joan Gundersen, have been able to accomplish in the past year. The fact that hard decisions have been able to be made with civility, care and concern is in a large part due to their attitudes and labor.
http://www.episcopalpgh.org/bishop-price-accepts-convention’s-affirmation/
[/blockquote]
We know what Mrs. Schori and Mr. Beers and probably her nominee for bishop are like, Bruce Robison, but what I find extraordinary is the willingness of Christians to act like stooges. What is it which impels Christian clergy and laity to go along with this? The clergy could quite well have spoken out and the laity are under no compulsion whatever. And yet, you have done what you have done, and now having appointed Mrs. Schori’s man he will presumably do what he said and not seek to change your theology, if you are lucky, while proceeding with the job he was sent to do on the legal front….and as the lititigation and the persecution of your former colleagues proceeds, you can wash your hands and say presumably: “What can we do? It’s nothing to do with us”
I hope you don’t mind me calling you on this, Bruce Robison but from what I can see the behaviour of all of you in this convention has been pretty craven and pathetic for Christians.
But look at the good news, Pageantmaster.
They have felt the public relations backlash — they know they look atrocious. And they’re trying desperately to look better.
I think that’s something we can all take comfort in, while at the same time pointing out continuously just how horrible and abusive and corrupt they have been in their collaboration with the continuous violation of canons and the Mouthpiece of 815.
Pageantmaster, I read a lot about politics, but not much about his views. I’m not sure what he believes which will make it difficult for the remaining conservatives.
Bishop Price is a loyal supporter of the Integrity agenda, but I guess that is of little importance to the remaining “conservatives” in TEC Pittsburgh, at least compared with the importance of maintaining good rapport with progressive wing. He voted in favor of D025 and C056 at GenCon ’09 and those votes were consistent with his voting record which can be easily found at Louie Crew’s website. So the new Provisional Bishop is a solid revisionist. I know it’s considered very impolite to mention it now in the new “love fest” (to quote the Post Gazette), but it seems like this should have been a very important issue to those who pretend to support traditional Biblical views of sexuality…
I wrote a comment on October 17th under the other Post Gazette article discussing the ongoing legal disputes. I wrote why I have stopped attending Pittsburgh churches affiliated with either TEC or ACNA. While the entirety of my comments can be found in that post, I wrote in pertinent part:
“As a practical matter, there is little objectivity or sense of Christian values being promoted by either the “new†Diocese or the “Anglican†Diocese. Rather, when you look at what both sides actually say and do, both sides simply posture and make self-serving statements attempting to portray themselves as victims.”
“Both sides are guilty of positioning the dispute in such a manner that protracted and expensive litigation is a virtual certainty. In my view, the leaders of both sides, and in particular the clergy, have a much higher duty than simply advancing the strongest legal arguments and engaging in effective public relations.”
As I read the comments to this article and similar articles, my comments are reinforced. It is almost as though both “sides” of these disputes are secretly working together to make the Episcopal/Anglican tradition completely irrelevant in the US. Keep in mind that TEC and ACNA combined represent less than 1% of the entire US population, and that is counting every person on the rolls, as opposed to those who regularly show up for worship. Despite its extremely limited size, TEC and ACNA regularly receive lots of media coverage – the majority of it discussing schism, lawsuits and property battles. Consider how this must look to people not having any ties to the denomination, particularly those who do not regularly attend a church. Why on earth would any person who has not regularly attended a church ever set foot in a church of this denomination given the bulk of the media coverage?
Given the terrible economy, the lack of hope many have right now, and the dissatisfaction many have with superficial spirituality in other Christian denominations and otherwise, now would be the perfect time to introduce people to the rich Anglican tradition and comfort and hope a church in Anglican tradition can provide. Now would be the best time possible to reach out and bring people into the Church who may never experienced it before. Instead, we are engaged in legal battles, name calling and posturing, which is completely irrelevant to the religious needs of the bulk of the people out there. I have posted again only in the hope that someone in a leadership position in these disputes might read this and realize there are many people out there who are just like me and who will simply walk away if the disputes continue.