Received via email:

Dear Bishop Schori,

Thank you for your letter of December 14, 2007 asking for clarification of my status. Much has happened in the past few weeks that have a bearing on that status. I am proud of the people of the Diocese of San Joaquin. Last year when the vote was taken to change the Constitution, that first vote was not only required by Canons but, in essence, was a “straw vote”. Little was at stake, for truly no action had ”“or could”“ be taken.

This year the delegates to the Annual Convention came fully cognizant of what has taken place in Virginia and Southern California where litigation has been pursued vigorously against those who oppose the innovations of The Episcopal Church and who, consequently, have stood up for their faith and remain protective of the property they have built, purchased and maintained with no help either from The Episcopal Church on a national level nor ”“in most instances”“ from the local diocese either.

The people of The Diocese of San Joaquin came to the Convention fully aware that years of meetings with the leaders of The Episcopal Church have accomplished little or nothing.

They came fully aware, too, that at the meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans this past September a last minute attempt to provide some semblance of oversight was proposed. The sad thing was that those most affected by the innovations of The Episcopal Church had no part in this proposal and to this very day have never seen what such a plan involves. It is true that the vote on Saturday December 8 protest, but it was much more than this. To understand December 8th’s vote as a protest only would be to misunderstand the courage of the people within the Diocese of San Joaquin.

They were saying that no matter what the consequences, they take a stand for a clear reading of Scripture, the faith that The Episcopal Church first received – but from which it has departed – and for Catholic Order within the Anglican Communion. Truly, the vote was for their bishop and diocese to remain in the Anglican Communion with the fullness of the heritage we have received as a part of that worldwide body. Once again, it was much more than this.

It was an expression of profound gratitude to the Global South who have expressed support in many ways and more specifically to the Primate of the Southern Cone, his House of Bishops and their Provincial Synod for their understanding of our plight – along with that of many others within The Episcopal Church – and their willingness to offer a place of refuge.

Their offer, as you know, was conditional until such time as The Episcopal Church repents of those decisions and actions that have caused a rift in the wider Anglican Communion.

Furthermore, I understood the Convention’s actions as a request that I provide episcopal oversight of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin under the Province of the Southern Cone of South America. Accepting such an invitation to be a part of the Southern Cone’s House of Bishops may not necessarily define my relationship with The Episcopal Church particularly since this may only be a temporary arrangement. This is true in light of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Advent Letter in which he proposes facilitated conversations not only between us but among others in the Anglican Communion.

The purpose of December 8th’s vote, then, was not to change anything within the Diocese but quite to the contrary. With the status of The Episcopal Church’s member-ship in the Anglican Communion looking more and more precarious, the people of San Joaquin simply wanted to remain what we have always been, namely Anglican.

On the very day your letter arrived asking for clarification, the Advent Letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury was received. In it he pointed out clearly the distress in many parts of the Anglican Communion caused by the unilateral actions of The Episcopal Church.

In his own words he fully understands that “A scheme has been outlined for the pastoral care of those who do not accept the majority view in TEC, but the detail of any consultation or involvement with other provinces as to how this might best work remains to be filled out and what has been proposed does not so far seem to have commanded the full confidence of those most affected.” He continues: “Furthermore, serious concerns remain about the risks of spiralling disputes before the secular courts, although the Dar- es-Salaam communique expressed profound disquietude on this matter, addressed to all parties.”

Giving thought to the future, the Archbishop makes reference to the upcoming Lambeth Conference during which he trusts: “Whatever happens, we are bound to seek the fruitful ways of carrying forward liaison with provinces whose policies cause scandal or difficulty to others.”

Ultimately, then, it is the Archbishop’s proposal for a course of action in the months ahead that may affect my status. Since everything that the Diocese of San Joaquin has done, it has done with an eye toward remaining Anglican and in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, his proposal should naturally take precedence.

As he says, “I wish to pursue some professionally facilitated conversations between the leadership of The Episcopal Church and those with whom they are most in dispute, internally and externally, to see if we can generate any better level of mutual understanding. Such meetings will not seek any predetermined outcome but will attempt to ease tensions and clarify options. They may also clarify ideas about the future pattern of liaison between TEC and other parts of the Communion. I have already identified resources and people who will assist in this.”

Despite the dismal failure of meetings with the leadership of The Episcopal Church over the past two decades, I will remain open to the Archbishop’s proposal and not close the door on anything that the Holy Spirit may accomplish through these efforts. It may well be that in these facilitated conversations my own status and even that of The Episcopal Church vis-à-vis its membership in the Anglican Communion will be clarified. This, then, is both my hope and my prayer.

Sincerely,

–(The Rt. Rev.) John-David Schofield is Bishop of San Joaquin

Very interesting.

The difference between running and delivering a sermon or leading a flock is …
I might come at it in terms of similarities than in terms of differences. Similarities: there’s some preparation, but most of the work happens when you’re doing it. There’s training to get ready, but most of the work and ministry happens in the middle of it.

You said you like to run on trails. Anything interesting that might have happened in the woods?
Well, you get to see animals if you’re not too noisy. Deer and rabbits and birds and turkeys

Where is the most beautiful or inspiring place you’ve run and what made it so?
I’ve been a couple times in the last few years to Healdsburg, California. There’s a retreat center there where I’ve been to meetings. The places where the trails go in the coast range there are quite beautiful.

Do you have a favorite Bible passage that inspires you to get out and run?
There’s a wonderful passage in the Psalms that says, “Beautiful are the feet of one who brings good news.”

Do you have any favorite pre- or post-run meal?
Well, back in the days when I was training for things, a good, long Saturday-morning run was followed by a refrigerator-drawer omelet. Everything that’s in there in terms of vegetables and leftovers.

And cheese?
Absolutely.

What do you like the most and dislike the most about running?
Well, it’s hard work, but you feel great afterwards, or even in the midst of it.

Read it all.

Dear Bishop Schori:

Greetings in the name of Jesus Christ, our one and only Lord and Savior.

I have read your letter of December 3, 2007 and thank you for your prayers. There is a pastoral tone to this letter which is much appreciated. Informing me that you are not writing with any threats is most encouraging also. One would hope that this indicates your serious consideration of the Primates’ specific request that deposition and litigation under the present circumstances be abandoned as unacceptable behavior among Christians.

Please know I do not share your feelings that I am isolated. My understanding of the authority of the Holy Scriptures, as well as Catholic Faith and Order are shared by the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches and by some 60 million faithful Anglicans worldwide. It is The Episcopal Church that has isolated itself from the overwhelming majority of Christendom and more specifically from the Anglican Communion by denying Biblical truth and walking apart from the historic Faith and Order.

It is true that the House of Bishops has ignored my views for nearly twenty years. After this length of time, one wonders how genuine the offer of change for the Church can be by having the “loyal opposition” present at the table. Despite all of this, we are not pining away here in the Diocese of San Joaquin; we are rejoicing in the truth of God’s word!

The decision to be made by our Annual Convention this Saturday is the culmination of The Episcopal Church’s failure to heed the repeated calls for repentance issued by the Primates of the Anglican Communion and for the cessation of false teaching and sacramental actions explicitly contrary to Scripture. For years, I have tried in vain to obtain adequate Primatial oversight to protect the Diocese from an apostate institution that has minted a new religion irreconcilable with the Anglican faith. Hopes were raised in February 2007 when leaders of the Anglican Communion met in Dar es Salaam. The direction given by them for the formation of a pastoral council would have provided the protection we requested and would have averted the need for the Diocese to seek sanctuary from another Province. You were in Dar es Salaam, and in the presence of the assembled Primates you verbally signified your agreement to this direction. By the time you returned to the United States, however, you denied your public statement and declared you had only meant to bring it back for further consideration. It was no surprise, therefore, when the Executive Council and the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church later denounced the plan for a pastoral council that you went along with them. This was a clear signal that our religious freedom to practice the Historic Faith as this Church has received it would not be protected by The Episcopal Church. My Ordination vows require me to be a faithful steward of God’s holy Word and to defend His truth and “be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations…” I can do no other.

The Anglican Church of the Southern Cone has graciously offered the Diocese sanctuary on a temporary and emergency basis. This action is unprecedented but so, too, are the apostate actions of The Episcopal Church that make these protective measures necessary. The invitation of the Southern Cone is a matter of public record. In essence it embodies the solution agreed upon by you and the rest of the Anglican leaders at Dar es Salaam to provide adequate, acceptable Alternative Primatial Oversight. To endorse this as a way forward need not be a final nor irreconcilable commitment. Should it be the will of the Annual Convention to accept this most generous gift, I will welcome the opportunity implied in your letter to discuss how it impacts our relationship. In the event that the clergy and laity reject this offer from the Southern Cone, I would, of course, follow your recommendation to participate as a dissenter of the present unbiblical course of action being pursued by the House of Bishops. To do anything else would be to abandon God’s people of San Joaquin and, in the end, prove to be a hireling and not a shepherd. For me, at least, this is the honorable course the Lord would have me follow.

You will remain in my prayers,

Sincerely,

+John-David M. Schofield
Bishop of San Joaquin

As with previous letters to other disaffected bishops, the correspondence with Schofield notified him that such a step would force Jefferts Schori to act to bring the diocese and its leadership into line with the mandates of the national Church.

“You have been clear that you feel your views are dismissed or ignored within the Episcopal Church, yet you have ceased to participate in the councils of the Church. It is difficult to have dialogue with one who is absent,” Jefferts Schori wrote. “”¦The Church will never change if dissenters withdraw from the table. There is an ancient and honored tradition of loyal opposition, and many would welcome your participation.”

The first of the letters was sent to Bishop Robert Duncan of the Diocese of Pittsburgh on October 31. A second letter was sent to Bishop Jack Leo Iker of Fort Worth on November 8.

San Joaquin’s diocesan convention, meeting December 7-8, is set to consider second readings of four constitutional changes that implicitly reject property and other canons of General Convention.

Schofield, who was traveling at the time the letter was sent, has not yet issued a response, according to the Rev. William Gandenberger, Canon to the Ordinary in the Diocese of San Joaquin.

Read it all.

Bp. Schori has elsewhere expressed the view (also reported here) that, “if all sides in the current debate over sexuality and Scripture could ‘hold their truths more lightly,’ they might yet find a way forward.”

Well, okay, if you want to try holding your “truths more lightly,” here’s a place to start. Let’s assume that Gamaliel is right (and he certainly has been proven right about the beginning of Christianity). These Anglicans are as much a division in the Episcopal Church over a difference in religious views as the early Christians were from the Jews. How about applying Gamaliel’s test to our present situation? How about dispensing with all the lawsuits and, instead, start negotiating settlements with departing Anglican congregations? “For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

Or am I being too biblical?

In testimony before a Virginia court last week, US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori stated she had directed the Diocese of Virginia to sue the clergy and lay leaders of 11 congregations after they had quit the Episcopal Church for the Churches of Nigerian and Uganda.

In video taped testimony presented to the Fairfax County Circuit Court, Bishop Schori said she ordered Virginia Bishop Peter Lee to break a verbal agreement allowing the 11 parishes to withdraw from the diocese so as to prevent “incursions by foreign bishops.”

Bishop Schori’s testimony during the four hour deposition, recorded on Oct 30 and presented in evidence on Nob 15, did little to engender the sympathy of the court, as observers noted she carefully parsed her words, and at one point was directed by the court to answer a question.

Read it all.

“She’s playing hardball, and that’s not going down very well, in this country or in the communion,” said the Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon, a leading church traditionalist from South Carolina who runs a popular Episcopal blog. “She’s apparently opted for a power strategy and a public legal strategy, and that’s a great disappointment.”

But Jefferts Schori explains her strategy in different terms.

In her Nov. 9 meeting with about 100 leaders of the El Camino Real Diocese, she said she believed strongly in reaching out and listening to Episcopalians frustrated by what they see as the church’s too-liberal direction.

“I think there are many in our church who feel beleaguered, and often they don’t hear from other parts of the church that they, too, are beloved,” the bishop said during the conversation with diocesan leaders in the sanctuary of St. Stephen’s in the Field Church. “If we can ratchet it down a little, we may find a way to live together even if we don’t agree.”

Moving easily up and down the church’s center aisle as she spoke, Jefferts Schori said she understood that individual Episcopalians might choose to leave the church, as others have before them. “I think we have to honor the idea that faithfulness may lead us in different directions,” she said.

Read it all.

Update: Get religion has some comments on this article here.

At issue in this Convention today are constitutional and canonical decisions about how we shall chart our course as a Diocese for the next 25 years and beyond. We are preparing a future for our children and our grandchildren. As you know, by way of background, the chancellor to the Presiding Bishop, wrote my chancellor on Oct. 19, 2006, declaring that certain provisions in our diocesan Constitution and Canons were contrary to those of the Episcopal Church and needed to be changed, or else the Presiding Bishop would “have to consider what sort of action she must take in order to bring your diocese into compliance.” The following month, on Nov. 15, the Executive Council of the General Convention received a task force report identifying Fort Worth as a “problem diocese” that needed to be monitored. On June 14, 2007, this same Executive Council declared certain constitutional and canonical amendments in this Diocese to be “null and void.” Our Standing Committee and I replied by pointing out that such declarations exceeded the authority of the Executive Council, which is responsible for the program and budget of the General Convention, and that they had no legislative or judicial authority to make such a pronouncement. The Council’s declaration about the legitimate legislative process in this Diocese is, in fact, null and void.

And then just last week, the Presiding Bishop sent me an open letter, that she quickly posted on the internet, threatening disciplinary action against me if I did not prevent this Convention from acting on certain legislative proposals. I believe all of you have seen my reply. What you may not have seen is the Episcopal News Service story saying that if I did not heed her warning it would (and I quote) “force her to take action to bring the diocese and its leadership into line with the mandates of the national Church.” Now hold on there a minute. I don’t want to force her to do anything, but I must object to the claim that the Presiding Bishop has any canonical authority in this Diocese or any legitimate power over the leadership of this Diocese. She has no authority to bring Fort Worth into line with the mandates of a so-called “national Church.” There is no such thing as “the national Church.” We are a confederation of Dioceses, related to each other by our participation in General Convention. From the earliest days of the beginnings of the Episcopal Church in this country, including the formation of dioceses and eventually the creation of the General Convention itself, there has been a strong mistrust of centralized authority that is deeply rooted in our history as Episcopalians. We do not have an Archbishop in this Church, who has authority over other Bishops and their Dioceses. Instead, we have a Presiding Bishop, with very limited canonical responsibilities, mainly administrative in nature. We must object to the tendency in recent years in this Church to create some sort of central bureaucracy at the top that holds power and authority over the various Dioceses of this Church. We do not have a Curia that dictates policy and dogma in this Church. We do not have a Presiding Bishop with papal authority over us, nor do we believe in the infallibility of any Bishop or any council or, indeed, of any General Convention. If I may be so bold to speak on your behalf, dear friends: the leadership of this Diocese does not need to be brought into line with the mandates of some mythical “national Church.”

Read it all.

I had high hopes for Katharine Jefferts Schori when she was elected Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA. Although she appeared to be on the extreme ”˜left’ of the Anglican spectrum in many of her actions and statements, it was clear that here was a person of great depth, and a hinterland beyond church politics. There was a possibility at one stage that she might even attempt to lead the Episcopal Church into a process of reconciliation internally and with the Anglican Communion, at least temporarily stalling the lemming-like dash of her Church into heterodox oblivion.

It seems I was mistaken. So far she has shown the same adaptability of her predecessor. Like Bishop Frank Griswold she’s signed statements at Primates’ Meetings and then gone on to reject them in every particular. It always struck me as the height of absurdity that Bishop Griswold could sign the Primates’ Communiqué from the October 2003 meeting of the Primates, warning his own Church that to consecrate Gene Robinson would result in the ”˜tearing of the fabric’ of the Communion and then to preside at the consecration of Robinson himself only a month or two later. His adaptability owed itself to his oft-expressed belief in ”˜pluriform truths’. Consequently, he could enter into the opposing truths of the Primates, and the Episcopal Church, simultaneously. Most people would call this duplicity, his defenders would probably call it ”˜postmodernism’.
Interestingly enough, while ditching the nauseating term ”˜pluriform’, Katharine Jefferts Schori has taken a similar trajectory. At the Primates’ Tanzania meeting she assented to a communiqué calling on the Episcopal Church to put in place moratoria on same-sex blessings and consecrations, to cease lawsuits, and to provide a system of ”˜alternative primatial oversight’ which reported to an international Anglican panel, of which she herself would be a member. Months later, it turns out, that she didn’t mean this at all. Sure, the American House of Bishops have promised some restraint over elections of practicing homosexual bishops, but they’ve said nothing meaningful about either samesex blessings or instituted any real changes to their system of ”˜extended’ Episcopal visitation which is rejected by the very people it is intended to serve. But the area in which she has most betrayed the very same statement which she once signed up to, is on the matter of lawsuits. It feels impossible to keep count of the number of priests deposed by dioceses, or the number of disputes over property throughout the Episcopal Church. The biggest, of course, will be over dioceses extricating themselves from the Episcopal Church and linking to other Anglican provinces. It seems clear that Southern Cone is preparing to take dioceses under their wing, but there may also be African provinces prepared to offer similar ”˜oversight’ to so-called ”˜network’ dioceses. These dioceses argue that to be part of the Episcopal Church is a voluntary agreement, and testify that the diocese is the fundamental unit of the Church and the Bishop’s link to the Anglicanism through the recognition of the Archbishop of Canterbury is unrelated to the Provincial structures. So far three dioceses: San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Pittsburgh have taken steps to remove clauses relating to unqualified accession to the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church from their own diocesan constitutions. These steps require votes at two diocesan conventions. It is by no means certain that these moves at the second convention will gain the required votes, but Presiding Bishop Schori is out to get them.
In recent open letters to the dioceses she has threatened the bishops with deposition, under the almost summary procedure of a canon on the abandonment of communion. The canon is a housekeeping exercise, a way of deposing priests, and bishops separately who have already departed the Episcopal Church to another church completely. There is no trial, no ecclesiastical court, just a determination of abandonment of communion by a communion, a period of two months to recant, a hearing at the House of Bishops and a vote by the bishops. Ordinarily this canon shouldn’t be used until a bishop has actually departed communion, but the Presiding Bishop intends to use this measure, rather than presentment and a trial of a bishop, in order to hasten matters along. She will then declare the dioceses vacant, gather the parishes which remain loyal and have them elect a new bishop. Furthermore, it is the intention of the Episcopal Church to make sure that no churches, or dioceses, align themselves to any other part of the Anglican Communion and take their property with them. So the path she has chosen is not to seek reconciliation and peace with priests and bishops opposed to the direction of the Episcopal Church but to threaten them – thereby alienating them further. There is no doubt that this will be read widely as a further abandonment of the Anglican Communion by the Episcopal Church. But it may also be a sign that at last their true colours are being revealed and the dominant liberal faction in the Episcopal Church is resigned to accepting the logic of their position and going it alone.

–This article appears in the Church of England Newspaper, November 16, 2007 edition, page 12

It is highly inappropriate for you to attempt to interfere in the internal life of this diocese as we prayerfully prepare to gather in Convention. The threatening tone of your open letter makes no attempt to promote reconciliation, mediation, or even dialogue about our profound theological differences. Instead, it appears designed to intimidate our delegates and me, in an attempt to deter us from taking any action that opposes the direction in which you are leading our Church. It is deeply troubling that you would have me prevent the clergy and laity of this diocese from openly discussing our future place in the life of the wider Anglican Communion, as we debate a variety of proposals. As you well know, the polity of this Church requires the full participation of the clergy and lay orders, not just bishops, in the decision making process. It grieves me that as the Presiding Bishop you would misuse your office in an attempt to intimidate and manipulate this diocese.

While I do not wish to meet antagonism with antagonism, I must remind you that 25 years ago this month, the newly formed Diocese of Fort Worth voluntarily voted to enter into union with the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. If circumstances warrant it, we can likewise, by voluntary vote, terminate that relationship. Your aggressive, dictatorial posturing has no place in that decision. Sadly, however, your missive will now be one of the factors that our Convention will consider as we determine the future course of this diocese for the next 25 years and beyond, under God’s grace and guidance.

Read it all.

The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church warned the leader of the conservative Fort Worth diocese this week that he could face discipline if he continues to back proposals to separate from the U.S. church.

The warning was issued in advance of a meeting next week in which Fort Worth will consider taking steps to leave the national church over deep differences in biblical interpretation.

“I call upon you to recede from this direction and to lead your diocese on a new course that recognizes the interdependent and hierarchical relationship between the national Church and its dioceses and parishes,” Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said in a letter Thursday to Fort Worth Bishop Jack Iker.

Read it all.

THE BISHOPS of Chester, Chichester, Exeter, and Rochester issued a statement on Tuesday in support of the Rt Revd Robert Duncan, the Bishop of Pittsburgh, after the warning letter sent to him by the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori.

She wrote to Bishop Duncan on Wednesday of last week, asking him to lead his diocese “on a new course that recognises the interdependent and hierarchical relationship between the national Church and its dioceses and parishes” (see above).

If his course did not change, she wrote, “I shall regrettably be compelled to see that appropriate canonical steps are promptly taken to consider whether you have abandoned the Communion of this Church . . . and whether you have committed canonical offences that warrant disciplinary action.”

The English bishops’ statement, which was instigated by the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, read: “We deeply regret the increase in the atmosphere of litigiousness revealed by the Presiding Bishop’s letter to Bishop Duncan. At this time, we stand with him and with all who respond positively to the Primates’ Dar es Salaam requests. We hope the Archbishop’s response to Bishop John Howe of Central Florida will also apply to Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh.”

The Bishop of Chester, Dr Peter Forster, said on Tuesday that the statement gave personal support to Bishop Duncan. He described the Presiding Bishop’s letter as “aggressive, inappropriate, and unfortunate”. “They are acting as if it is the OK Corral. This is the North American culture: it is a managerial rather than a pastoral approach.”

Read it all.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has released a letter to Bishop Jack Leo Iker in which she writes that a step to withdraw the Diocese of Fort Worth from the The Episcopal Church would force her to take action to bring the diocese and its leadership into line with the mandates of the national Church. The letter is similar to one sent to Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh on October 31. Episcopal News Service reports that letters to other bishops will follow.

Read it all.

The Editor The CEN

Dear Sir,

We write to inform you that we are sending the following letter of support to Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh and his fellow Bishops in the Common Cause Council of Bishops following the letter last week to the Bishop of Pittsburgh,

Dear Bishop Duncan and Bishops in Common Cause

Warm greetings from the UK.

We have read the letter from Presiding Bishop Schori to the Bishop of Pittsburgh. We want to assure you, your dioceses and parishes of our prayers and fellowship as you take your stand on our shared Anglican heritage, accepting the Holy Scriptures as the rule and ultimate standard of faith, contrary to those innovators both in the British Isles and in the Americas who wish to give primacy to the demands of contemporary culture.

We are outraged by the threat and implementation of court actions against faithful Anglicans in the United States by the current leadership of The Episcopal Church who appear to be unitarian and universalist in theology, and coercively utopian in social practice.

Read it all.

Read it all.

Two senior Anglican bishops are facing legal actions from their own church in the US.

In Pennsylvania, the liberal diocesan bishop Charles Bennison has been suspended by the Primate, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, while accusations that he concealed a relative’s abuse of a teenage girl are investigated.

And in Pittsburgh, the conservative diocesan bishop Bob Duncan has been warned that he could face disciplinary procedures under Canon Law over proposals that his diocese seccede from the wider pro-gay Episcopal Church.

Both actions have stunned Episcopalians, who have been left in no doubt that their leader, a formidable woman who was formerly a marine biologist, is determined to take whatever steps necessary, both to stamp out abuse and also to maintain unity.

Read it all.

The head of the Episcopal Church has warned Pittsburgh Bishop Robert W. Duncan Jr. that he will face civil suits and possible expulsion as bishop if a proposed resolution enabling the diocese to leave the denomination passes during today’s diocesan convention.

A diocesan spokesman said the letter from Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, sent by fax to the Pittsburgh Diocese office late Wednesday, was “intended, honestly, to intimidate the convention.”

The 142nd annual convention is being held today and tomorrow in Johnstown.

Read it all.

Mr. [Peter] Frank reported little to no additional communication to the diocesan office after the Presiding Bishop’s letter became public late yesterday. Support for Bishop Duncan and the direction in which he is leading the diocese is both broad and deep, Mr. Frank said.

Although a public response to the Presiding Bishop’s letter is not expected until tomorrow, Mr. Frank said there have been no changes to the convention agenda and none are anticipated. Following his address, Bishop Duncan will read aloud to convention his response to Bishop Jefferts Schori, he added.

Read it all.

Letter from the Presiding Bishop to Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan

The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan
Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA

Dear Bob,

There have been numerous public references in recent weeks regarding resolutions to be introduced at your forthcoming diocesan convention. Those resolutions, if adopted, would amend several of your diocesan canons and begin the process of amending one or more provisions of your diocesan Constitution. I have reviewed a number of these proposed resolutions, and it is evident to me that they would violate the Constitutional requirement that the Diocese conform to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. It is apparent from your pre-convention report that you endorse these proposed changes. I am also aware of other of your statements and actions in recent months that demonstrate an intention to lead your diocese into a position that would purportedly permit it to depart from The Episcopal Church. All these efforts, in my view, display a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between The Episcopal Church and its dioceses. Our Constitution explicitly provides that a diocese must accede to the Constitution and Canons of the Church.

I call upon you to recede from this direction and to lead your diocese on a new course that recognizes the interdependent and hierarchical relationship between the national Church and its dioceses and parishes. That relationship is at the heart of our mission, as expressed in our polity. Specifically, I sincerely hope that you will change your position and urge your diocese at its forthcoming convention not to adopt the resolutions that you have until now supported.

If your course does not change, I shall regrettably be compelled to see that appropriate canonical steps are promptly taken to consider whether you have abandoned the Communion of this Church — by actions and substantive statements, however they may be phrased — and whether you have committed canonical offences that warrant disciplinary action.

It grieves me that any bishop of this Church would seek to lead any of its members out of it. I would remind you of my open offer of an Episcopal Visitor if you wish to receive pastoral care from another bishop. I continue to pray for reconciliation of this situation, and I remain

Your servant in Christ,

Katharine Jefferts Schori

Read it all.

Jefferts Schori also reported briefly on the September meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans. Noting the presence of members of the Joint Standing Committee (JSC) of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion at the New Orleans meeting, she said “the bishops heard some very challenging words from the visitors.”

She said that she was pleased with the statement the bishops issued to the Anglican Communion at the end of the meeting. “Not everyone was comfortable where we stood, but we stood together,” she said.

The JSC also recognized that the Episcopal Church has a “vocation in this season to keep the issues of human sexuality before the communion,” Jefferts Schori said, adding that not all of the JSC members like that situation, but she said they do recognize the Episcopal Church’s vocation.

The communion is involved in a “signal shift” these days, Jefferts Schori said, back to mission questions and “basic living issues.” She cited the recent communiqué from the Council of the Anglican Provinces of Africa as an example.

Read it all.

“It just makes it clearer that the group of bishops is finding that the number of congregations in The Episcopal Church who want to affiliate in that way is shrinking and they are looking for partners with similar philosophy and theology outside The Episcopal Church. I think it would be remarkable if they could all gather into one body. They have such a history of splitting that it would be a sign of the Spirit’s moving if they could gather into a coherent whole…”

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori speaking of Common Cause.

“We met intentionally in New Orleans, as an act of solidarity with the people of Louisiana and the Mississippi Gulf coast, so that we might represent the prayers and concern of the whole church, and offer a small contribution to the rebuilding effort,” Jefferts Schori said in her opening remarks of the one-hour webcast, anchored by the Rev. Jan Nunley, executive editor of Episcopal Life Media. “We were told that 100,000 housing units were lost during Katrina and its aftermath, displacing nearly 250,000 people. Of those housing units, only about 4,000 have been made habitable once again.”

Many of the bishops, their spouses, “as well as a number of our Anglican Communion visitors,” Jefferts Schori said, “participated in various rebuilding efforts on one day of meeting.”

“We pounded nails, placed dry wall, distributed sandwiches, and listened to the stories of despair and hope,” she said. “Faith communities, including the Episcopal Church, are the backbone of ongoing relief and rebuilding efforts, and it appears that their primary role will continue to be vital.”

She described the first part of the meeting as “an opportunity for the bishops to hear from our Anglican Communion visitors, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to share our own joys and concerns with them.”

Read it all.

From several emails.

My brothers and sisters:

I am grateful for the considered way in which the House worked together in New Orleans, and for our demonstration of solidarity with the people of Louisiana and Mississippi. I am finding that most of you would rather focus on the latter!

I have received from Rowan both a thank you for his time among us, and a copy of the Joint Standing Committee report. This has been posted online in a number of places, and I hope you have seen it by now.

Rowan is asking that I report to him by the end of October the sense of this Province, precisely on the following:

“…how far your province is able to accept the JSC Report assessment that the House of Bishops have (sic) responded positively to the requests of Windsor and of the Dar es Salaam message of the Primates. The report sets out clearly for us the requests that were made, both in the context of the Windsor Report and of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué; there are other issues that have been raised in general discussion around the Communion, and indeed in the TEC communiqué, but I hope you will concentrate on the very specific matters put before the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops. I shall welcome not only your reactions but also proposals for any next steps we should take together. My intention is firmly to honour the discernment of all the primates and the wider Communion at this juncture…”

Let me note that consultation in your Diocese will undoubtedly be helpful, and if you can give me an indication of what that looked like, I would be most grateful. I have finally had time to read all of the submissions on Communion Matters, and I am struck by the breadth of comment received and its coherence. Henry Parsley and the Theology Committee are to be deeply thanked for their effective work on this, in a short time-frame.

Please note the relatively short time available to do this – let me suggest that Monday, 29 October would be a helpful target – and that what is most needed are your brief impressions following conversation in your diocese.

I remain

Your servant in Christ,

(The Rt. Rev.) Katharine Jefferts Schori

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori opened an hour-long live internet interview with a prepared statement recapping the events of last month’s House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans and its controversial response to the primates’ communiqué.

Wearing reading glasses and a dark jacket and looking directly into the camera, she acknowledged on Oct. 16 that progressives and conservatives had been disappointed by portions of the statement, but that its scope was intended to be broad. “That is an Anglican stance,” she said. “It recognizes that the body is larger than any one of us.”

She defended continued membership in the Anglican Communion, tying it to the church’s ability to witness to a broader audience on behalf of the normalization of homosexuality. She concluded the statement by declaring, “There will be no outcasts in this church, whether because of sexual orientation” or theological belief.”

Read it all.

Jefferts Schori, who was in San Francisco to help celebrate the Feast of St. Michael and All Angels, voiced her support for gays and lesbians several times during her visit. However, at a church forum Sunday morning, parishioner Christopher Hayes ”“ who’s in a long-term same-sex relationship ”“ told her, “I want to hear that we’re not satisfied with where we are right now.”

The Reverend Susan Russell, president of Integrity, a national organization of LGBT Episcopalians and their straight friends, told the Bay Area Reporter the bishops’ pledge treats gays and lesbians as “expendable.”

Tom Jackson is the president of Oasis, the LGBT ministry of the Episcopal Diocese of California. The diocese consists of San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa and Marin counties, and part of Santa Clara County. The diocese, which has 27,000 members, has seen many blessings for same-sex unions over the past 30 years.

The church’s next general convention is in July 2009. Jackson said the bishops’ controversial pledge has “energized a lot of people.” Russell said Integrity is working with other organizations to address same-sex unions at the convention. Many have expressed optimism that things will change after that meeting.

Read it all.

The Episcopal Church will make sure that any property it sells is not intended for use by parishes that plan to affiliate with other Anglican provinces, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said Sept. 30 on a visit to Grace Cathedral in San Francisco.

Asked if she were satisfied with the agreement by the Diocese of the Rio Grande to sell St. Clement Pro-Cathedral in El Paso, Texas, to the congregation, Bishop Schori said she had recommended two stipulations.

“I’ve told them that my two concerns are that the congregation not set up as another part of the Anglican Communion and that there is some reasonable assurance that it’s a fair sale,” she said.

Bishop Jefferts Schori spoke to reporters before appearing on Grace Cathedral’s Forum, a weekly program, broadcast on the Internet. Bishop Jefferts Schori appeared on the program with the Bishop of California, the Rt. Rev. Marc Handley Andrus. She also preached at the 11 a.m. service.

The issue of control over property is becoming an increasing concern as parishes disaffected by The Episcopal Church’s stance on homosexuality and other matters affiliate with more conservative bishops in other provinces.

Bishop Jefferts Schori’s concerns evidently have not been written into the sale agreement. Bishop Jefferts Schori said she has made herself clear to Bishop Jeffrey Steenson and the diocese, but that it’s “too soon to get a response.”

Read it all.

The 27,000-member Diocese of California, based in San Francisco, has ordained more gay and lesbian clergy than any other. Priests in the diocese – which includes San Francisco, Marin, San Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa counties and part of Santa Clara County – have blessed same-sex unions for more than three decades.

Those practices, once on the margins of the Episcopal Church, have become the mainstream.

The church’s House of Bishops gathered in New Orleans last week to discuss how to respond to the communique. They chose to maintain the status quo: They would “exercise restraint” by not consecrating any gay, partnered candidates for bishop, and they would not authorize “any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions.”

For conservatives, the statements were hollow because it allows priests to privately bless same-sex unions.

“This is neither prohibition nor restraint,” said a statement issued Wednesday by the Right Rev. John-David Schofield, bishop for the Fresno-based Diocese of San Joaquin. “It is simply turning a blind eye.”

Read it all.

As is well known, the Episcopal Church radically altered its theology and practice at its General Convention in 2003. As a result a significant amount of unrest has gone on in the TEC community which the leadership has tried to downplay or deny.

It is important to understand that those who are deeply opposed to the new theology fall into not one but four groups, each of which is engaged in different things.

(1) There are people who are voting with their feet, and departing from the Episcopal Church to Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Free Church Protestantism.

According to the Christian Century, “the Episcopal Church has suffered a net loss of nearly 115,000 members over the past three years “with homosexuality issues fueling the departures.” Kirk Hadaway, the denomination’s director of research, noted that “it is a precipitous drop in losing 36,000 in both 2003 and 2004, and now 42,000 in 2005.” The numbers for 2006 have not been released yet, but they are sure to show this trend continuing, and indeed probably increasing as the departure of large portions of whole parishes or indeed nearly all of some parishes begin to be reflected in the numbers.

Also, the level of struggle is well indicated by a recent national church publication in which we learn:

“The proportion [of parishes] with excellent or good financial health declined from 56% to 32% between 2000 and 2005.”

And: “The proportion in some or serious financial difficulty almost doubled, increasing from 13% in 2000 to 25% in 2005.”

(2) There are whole parishes or portions of parishes which through different means have sought to leave the Episcopal Church but to keep their ties to the Anglican Communion through a relationship with another Anglican Province. At present, these groups are in a state of flux and in seemingly nearly constant motion but it is possible to delineate some sense of their numbers:

Anglican Mission in America (Rwanda), some 100-115 parishes
CANA (Nigeria), some 60 parishes
Uganda, some about 30 parishes
Kenya, some 20-30 parishes
Southern Cone, some at least 50 parishes

Now, not all of these parishes consists of former members of TEC as some are church plants, but many of them contain sections of former TEC folks and in a number of cases nearly the whole parish came over from TEC (Christ Church, Plano, Texas, being a recent example, in that case of a church who joined AMIA/Rwanda)

(3) There are parishes or sections of parishes who are on the verge of deciding along the lines of group 2 in some way by the end of 2007/early 2008, depending on the outcome of the Tanzania Communique, the House of Bishops meeting, and the response of the Anglican leadership thereto. Saint Clements, El Paso, one of the largest parishes in the diocese of the Rio Grande, just voted by an overwhelming margin to leave TEC on Sunday, September 16th. It needs to be emphasized that many of these people and parishes do not wish to depart, but feel if the Anglican Communion leadership continues to fail to provide a safe place for them, they have no other choice.

It must also be noted that three dioceses Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, and San Joaquin, appear to be considering moves in this direction. I am not aware of any time in the history of the Episcopal Church when three dioceses as whole dioceses sought to consider these kinds of momentous decisions. (It will of course be noted that the dioceses are not monolithic-no diocese is-and there are smaller groups within the diocese that feel differently. Nonetheless the contemplated collective diocesan action is significant).

(4) There is a considerable group of other individuals, parishes and dioceses who are completely opposed to the new theology and practice of TEC’s leadership, but who wish to find a way to stay connected to the Anglican Communion as they continue to stand in radical opposition, and are not sure what the way forward is. Two examples would be the diocese of South Carolina, and the parish of Saint Martin’s Houston, which claims the largest membership in the country and which made clear in its last call process that their new rector would need to stand solidly for the theology of the Anglican Communion and the Windsor Report.

The national leadership’s way of treating this problem is to give the most narrow definition as possible to group two, and then to try to minimize the problem.

Unfortunately, for example we see things like this:

Note on Dioceses, Congregations and Church Structure

· Dioceses and congregations remain part of the Episcopal Church even when local leaders and/or a number of parishioners opt to leave the denomination as a matter of personal choice.
· Dioceses are created by the General Convention and cannot be dissolved without action of the General Convention in accordance with the provisions of the churchwide constitution and canons. Congregations, likewise, are created by a local diocese and continue within that structure unless otherwise decided by the local bishop in consultation with other elected diocesan leaders.
· According to a September 2007 update from director of research Kirk Hadaway, out of some 7600 total Episcopal Church congregations, located inside and outside the U.S., since 2003:
32 have LEFT–and by that we mean the majority of the congregation expressed a desire or voted to withdraw from The Episcopal Church, the bishop declared the congregation abandoned and notified the national office, where the church is now listed as non-filing/closed.
23 have VOTED TO LEAVE–meaning a significant number, usually including the clergy, have expressed a desire to withdraw from The Episcopal Church.

(And one immediately notes in passing that the national church office managed to get THESE numbers updated and out before the House of Bishops meeting, but that they still do not have the numbers out from 2006 in terms of overall membership numbers. Hmmmmm. I wonder why.)

Or this, which ran in April 2007 with the headline “Episcopal Bishop says few leaving over same-sex issues”:

The Episcopal Church’s presiding bishop on Wednesday downplayed the notion of a denominational schism over homosexuality, saying only a tiny fraction of congregations have moved to break away.

In an interview, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said the congregations had “gotten a lot of attention and been very noisy,” but accounted for less than 1 percent of the country’s total number of parishes, which she put at 7,500.

“The Episcopal Church is alive and well,” she said. Jefferts Schori was in Virginia Beach on Wednesday to speak at the Episcopal Communicators annual meeting at The Cavalier Hotel.

You can see what is going on, they are playing games with numbers and categories. “Few” leaving actually means “congregations,” and congregations means congregations defined as a whole. This is collapsing all four categories into a very narrow and misleading picture of group number 2.

People know that in reality it is very difficult to get whole parishes or dioceses to take significant decisions about ANYTHING, much less something as important as this. Given the degree of opposition and hostility faced in numerous quarters from diocesan and national leadership, and given how many Anglican reasserters (such as your blog convenor) have been advocating a stay and be opposed but be faithful stance, it is actually surprising that the numbers from the four categories are this large.

The key point is, taken together the four groups illustrate a VERY SERIOUS problem. Good leadership owns the actual situation and then tries to deal with it, it does not try to redefine it narrowly and pretend it is less than it is–KSH.

Update: the above article was written before and independently of this one by Simon Sarmiento but the information seems to be of a similar type.

Presiding Bishop’s sermon at Christ Church Cathedral, New Orleans
Jefferts Schori calls all to be ‘trumpeters of good news’

here’s an excerpt with her take on the Gospel reading (Luke 9:1-6) [Note: +KJS used alternate readings for the feast of Philander Chase, Sept. 22]

This morning’s gospel has Jesus sending his disciples out to move around, to bring hope and healing wherever they go. He charges them to drive out division and to heal. Proclaiming the kingdom of God is about reconciling the world; driving out demons is about removing all the forces that seek to divide ”“ and they’re both are essential kinds of healing. Those who are sent out get quite direct and simple instructions ”“ travel light ”“ and some other, more puzzling instructions, about entering and leaving houses and towns.

And here’s her conclusion:

So what does it take for us to travel light? Less than a lot of us think we need, especially as the signs of new life around here are the result of many people discovering they can live with less ”“ both by sharing their abundance or letting go of unimportant things. What does it take to travel light? More than nothing, to judge from the grief that is so widespread. If we ourselves are to be trumpeters of good news, banishers of disease and division, and proclaimers of the presence of God in our midst, we have to know something of home and community. We have to know that we belong to somebody else, that someone and some people care enough for us to work for our well-being, to help us sing lament, express our grief, and get in line. This parade is going to dance to the beat of good news, but it needs all of us in the line, not just those in this space this morning, but every other human being on this planet, black, white, brown; poor, destitute, and those with more than enough to share; grieving, ill, and those who know the blessing of restored health. This procession is going down to the grave, and it’s going to dance away on the other side, but only when we join the traveling throng. None of us is going home until all of us have a place to lay our heads, and music for our grieving hearts, and a feast for the belly and for the soul. When the saints go marching in, it’s going to be with every last one of us.

You can read it all here.

Chip Webb attended the service where +KJS preached, and has an interesting commentary on this sermon at his blog Anglican Action.