After Bishop William Love released a strongly worded letter definitively rejecting gay marriage in the Episcopal diocese of Albany – and directly opposing the stance of the national church – those who agree with the bishop and those who disagree considered the future of the diocese.

The big question: What next? Parishioners leaving churches? Or even whole churches splitting away, complete with legal and property disputes? The short answer: No one knows. Much will depend on the formal response from the U.S. Episcopal Church, which has not yet taken specific action or suggested what such action might entail.

But Love himself has already heard intimations that some are pushing for a move against the bishop via Title IV, the grouping of canons – i.e., church laws – governing discipline.

“It has come to my attention through formal channels that inquiries have been made about how to bring Title IV charges against me,” said Love in an email responding to Times Union questions regarding his pastoral letter and its potential ramifications. “The final outcome is still yet to be seen. . . . I am trying by God’s grace to be obedient to what I believe He is asking of me, whatever the outcome.”

From the start, Love was vocal in his opposition to B012, the resolution issued by the national church at its General Convention in July. At the time, eight dioceses were outliers within the Episcopal Church on the matter of gay marriage, which was endorsed nationally at the previous convention in 2015 but rejected by the bishops of Albany, North Dakota, Florida, central Florida, Dallas, Tennessee, Springfield, Ill., and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Five of those eight ultimately accepted the compromise.

The new resolution was passed as a compromise that extends the sacrament of marriage to gay couples in those dissenting dioceses while allowing individual priests and bishops to recuse themselves. Love’s letter definitively quashes that possibility, saying B012 “shall not be used anywhere in the Diocese of Albany by diocesan clergy” and affirming the diocesan canon restricting the sacrament to heterosexual couples.

Although the national church has not yet decided on a move in response to Love’s stance, prominent voices within the national Episcopal Church have issued statements. “Along with other leaders in The Episcopal Church, I am assessing the implications of the statement and will make determinations about appropriate actions soon,” said Michael Curry, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, in a statement that affirmed the church’s commitment to providing “full and equal access to, and inclusion in, the sacraments for all of the baptized children of God, including our LGBTQ siblings.”

Curry said he has been – “and will continue to be” -- in dialogue with Love, who also noted communication with the presiding bishop in his Nov. 10 pastoral letter. According to Love, he met with Curry a few weeks ago “to once again share my concerns regarding B012 and the tremendous damage I believe it will cause not only in the Diocese of Albany, but throughout The Episcopal Church and wider Anglican Communion.” He reiterated this worry in his letter to the TU, foretelling “very serious consequences” for himself and the church.

Louis Bannister, a gay member of Albany’s Cathedral of All Saints, used much the same language to express a different set of concerns. “There will certainly be consequences,” he said, noting that he’s already heard from people “explaining that they no longer feel that they are able to support the cathedral – and some of these are people who’ve worshipped there for 60 years.” So the impact “will be far-reaching, not only for the diocese and for people, but I also believe for Love himself.”

Bannister, who knows Love and has served alongside him at the Cathedral altar, believes the bishop is “interested in being nothing more than a martyr for his cause. His colleagues in the House of Bishops have spoken, and they’ve spoken with overwhelming support of a majority people in the Episcopal Church. I would not be opposed to a mechanism being put in place to have Bishop Love defrocked,” he added. “And I think it will get to that, to be quite honest with you.”

A second statement from the national Episcopal church was released by Rev. Gay Clark Jennings, the president of the Episcopal House of Deputies – one of two legislative houses, along with the House of Bishops, in the General Convention. Without quoting Love’s letter directly, Jennings’ statement refutes it by recognizing “the Holy Spirit at work in the marriages of LGBTQ people.” It also points to “fidelity and service to the world” among those those living in committed same-sex unions, which are “based on holy love and the gift of seeing Christ in one another. When we celebrate these marriages, the entire church is blessed.”

In his Nov. 10 pastoral letter, Love characterizes such views as well-meaning but misguided. He rejects both B012 and its inherent blessing of gay sex, and he cites scripture and church tradition in defining marriage as a union between man and woman -- and prohibiting extramarital sexual intimacy of any kind.

While acknowledging “the sincerity or the well intentions of many in the Episcopal Church” who support same-sex marriage, he asserts his belief that gay and lesbian Episcopalians are better served when encouraged to “repent and seek God’s love and healing grace.” Those who disagree “have been deceived into believing a lie that has been planted in the Church by the ‘great deceiver’ – Satan. . . . Satan is having a heyday bringing division into the Church over these issues and is trying to use the Church to hurt and destroy the very ones we love.”

The bishop’s message “was extremely pastoral, loving and based on the word of God. And what more could you possibly want?,” said Ginny Ogden, rector of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Canajoharie Ogden. A supporter of Love and his stance on gay marriage, she welcomed the letter. “As I said to my friends, I felt like Jesus had a big smile on his face.”

Photo: Courtsey Of John White Photo: Bishop William Love (photo By Amy Biancolli)

Bannister, by contrast, was dismayed. “His assertion that God’s blessing has been removed from the denomination by the denomination’s embrace of same-sex marriage is absolutely obscene. It’s obscene.” Regarding the references to Satan, “You know, that’s not who we are,” he said. “That’s not who we are in the Episcopal Church.” Of the bishop, he said, “I honestly sort of think he’s like a book at the library that’s been mischaracterized. He’s on the wrong shelf.”

On Sunday at the St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church in Albany, some parishioners burned the letter at the steps. “It is too soon for me to comment” on the missive or its possible ramifications moving forward, said the church’s rector, Mary Robinson White, in an email. “And speculation about the future would not be helpful at this point. However, St. Andrew's continues to support the decisions of The Episcopal Church.”

“Everybody’s kind of wondering where it’s gonna go. . . We’ve gotta see what the reactions are at the national level, and it’ll play out,” Ogden said. “There isn’t really anything you can plan on or do.” As she told her congregation on Sunday, “It’ll play out in the court.”

Love himself declines to speculate. “It is not yet known how The Episcopal Church will ultimately respond to the position I have taken regarding B012. I know there is a strong desire by the Presiding Bishop’s Office that we figure out some creative way forward,” he said in his email to the TU. “The problem is we have a different understanding of what that might look like.”