The dispute over the secession of the Diocese of San Joaquin has led to the formation of three de facto ecclesiastical authorities for the California diocese: one loyal to Bishop John-David Schofield, one loyal to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, and a third to the diocese’s Standing Committee.

Read it all.

The Rev. Canon Brian Cox, rector of Christ the King Church, Santa Barbara, Calif., has been appointed by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to serve as an “interim pastoral presence” in the Diocese of San Joaquin. He joins the Rev. Canon Robert Moore, who was named in January.

“I think the Presiding Bishop’s desire was to have a balanced pastoral presence as we seek to rebuild relationships on all sides,” Canon Cox told a reporter from The Living Church. He added that he hopes to begin “meeting people from all perspectives” and earning their trust during a listening tour of the diocese Feb. 19-22.

Read it all.

Read it all.

About 250 people came to worship and to hear representatives of the U.S. Episcopal Church and the Fresno-based Remain Episcopal organization. The message was clear: Don’t feel abandoned.

“You are not alone,” Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said in a video message shown during the gathering. “God is always with you.”

Delegates of the Diocese of San Joaquin voted at an annual convention in December to leave the U.S. Episcopal Church largely because of differences with the national body’s approval of same-sex blessings, ordination of gay bishops, the role of women in the church and how to interpret the Bible over such issues.

Among the diocese’s 48 congregations in 14 counties, fewer than 10 remain Episcopal.

Read it all.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on January 25 wrote to inform each member of the standing committee elected at the last convention of the Fresno-based Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin that she does not recognize them as the standing committee of that diocese. She also assured continuing Episcopalians of financial and legal support in reconstituting the diocese.

Jefferts Schori, in a letter delivered January 26 to the committee’s eight members, cited their unanimous vote to disaffiliate with The Episcopal Church (TEC) and their “attempt to organize as the standing committee of an entity that identifies itself as an Anglican Diocese of the Province of the Southern Cone,” actions which violate church canons.

“In light of your recent actions, I find that you have been and are unable to well and faithfully fulfill your duties as members of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin under Canon I.17.8,” she wrote. Canon I.17.8 provides that anyone accepting an office in the church “shall well and faithfully perform the duties of that office in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of this Church and of the Diocese in which the office is being exercised.”

“Accordingly, with this letter I inform you that I do not recognize you as the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin,” she wrote. “I regret the decisions that you have made to attempt to take the Diocese out of The Episcopal Church and the necessary consequences of these actions.”

Read it all.

A national Episcopal leader visited Bakersfield Thursday, heard believers’ concerns about the San Joaquin Diocese’s recent secession from the church and appointed a local clergyman as a temporary missionary priest to serve Bakersfield area believers.

He also said the national church considers the diocese’s Dec. 8 decision to place itself under overseas Anglican rule illegal.

The Rev. Canon Robert Moore, of Seattle, who was appointed by the Episcopal Church’s presiding bishop, the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, as an “interim pastoral presence” in the San Joaquin Valley, spent the day in the greater Bakersfield area as part of a five-day “listening tour” that will culminate in a valley-wide conference in Hanford on Saturday.

At a Thursday night gathering of 60 to 70 believers and clergy at First Congregational Church and hosted by Remain Episcopal in the Diocese of San Joaquin, a faith community opposed to the split, Moore received hearty applause when he announced he had appointed the Rev. Tim Vivian, a Bakersfield resident, to a “temporary pastoral position as missionary priest under my direct supervision, which puts him within the jurisdiction of the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church.”

Read it all.

From here:

We note with great sadness the retaliatory canonical actions of certain members of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, a Province of the Anglican Communion, against a Bishop of another Province of the Anglican Communion, the Right Reverend John David Schofield, Bishop of San Joaquin. We applaud, Bishop Schofield’s Primate, (since December 8, 2007) the Most Reverend Gregory Venables, for coming to the defense of one of his bishops.

We further must call into question the use of the particular Canon pertaining to the abandonment of the Communion inasmuch as the American Province is not a Communion. That particular designation is reserved for the worldwide expression of Anglicanism. In an age when Christianity must be increasingly serious in its endeavors to proclaim the received Gospel of Jesus Christ and to take seriously the Great Commission to “go and make disciples of all nations,” by baptizing, teaching, and obeying all that our Savior has commanded, we are distressed by litigious behavior that inhibits mission ministry.

Forward in Faith North America has endeavored to provide a safe place for orthodox Christians, and has sought a variety of measures, such as Alternative Primatial Oversight, as a means of preserving the “Faith once delivered to the saints.”

We commend Bishop Schofield, as one of the founding members of Forward in Faith North America.

Read it all.

The call for patience in the 30-year battle for the soul of the Episcopal Church does not resonate as loudly as it once did, however, as the doctrinal differences between the liberal and conservative wings of the church deepen.

For the diocese of Fort Worth, Bishop Jefferts Schori’s Christmas card epitomized the two faiths co-existing within the Episcopal Church. The card sent to all of the church’s bishops shows a mother and child surrounded by three wise women. No mention of Jesus appears on the card, while the card speaks of “wise women throughout time and in every culture know themselves to be seekers and seers of the divine.”

This card “defies explanation” the diocesan leadership said. Bishop Jefferts Schori is an “intelligent woman, so this re-interpretation of Scripture to exclude masculine images must be intentional. This card illustrates in many ways the core problem of the General Convention Church. Scripture cannot be made to conform to us, we must conform our lives and our faith to Scripture,” the diocese said.

Read it all.

The Diocese of San Joaquin and its Bishop, John-David Schofield, will not participate in any ecclesiastical disciplinary action brought against them by The Episcopal Church, according to statements released by the diocese and Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables, Primate of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone.

Read it all.

Meanwhile, Diocese of Utah Bishop Carolyn Tanner Irish said January 13 she “deeply regret[ed] the necessity of this inhibition.”

“Yet I am in full support of our Presiding Bishop’s actions. When the Body of Christ is broken by the departure of any of its members, we are all diminished,” the bishop said in a statement emailed to Episcopal News Service. “Yet I know that our Presiding Bishop has taken courageous steps to ensure the long-term future of our beloved Church, whose structure must be respected as we live out our common life. Bishop Schofield has chosen to violate the authority and canons (church law) of the Church that called him into the ministry of bishop. We cannot do otherwise than to hold him accountable to the vows he took the day he was ordained.”

Irish said in her statement that Episcopal bishops from western U.S. dioceses who concluded a three-day meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, on January 10 were unanimous in their support of Jefferts Schori’s action.

“While we have tried over the years to be in collegial fellowship with Bishop Schofield and to work productively with the Diocese of San Joaquin, he has consistently refused to join in our conversations,” Irish said. “The Episcopal Church is actively supporting and ministering to those persons who wish to remain members in San Joaquin, and our prayers and thoughts are with them as they suffer abandonment by their bishop and fellow Christians. We trust good things will come for them through the comforting ministry of the Holy Spirit at this challenging time.”

Read it all.

Bishop Schofield said, “Even though the American Church is threatening us with all sorts of things, they no longer have jurisdiction over us.”

The decision to split came after several years of disagreements over same-sex unions and the roles of homosexuals in the national church. Bishop Schofield says the Valley’s view of the Bible is more traditional and orthodox.

“We’re dealing with two different teams with two different rules for the game” said Schofield. Schofield also said those differences could easily turn into a battle over who has legal ownership of the church and estates in the Valley. “Unfortunately, the liberal side is mean and ugly and going for the money and the big time” said Schofield.

After news of the split the national church issued a statement saying a lawsuit could be filed if Schofield and his congregations try to keep Episcopal Church property. But Schofield said the national church wasn’t there when he and other clergy raised money for church and the property within those sanctuaries.

Read it all (or watch the video).

First, make sure to see the report of the Title IV Review Committee here and the Inhibition itself there.

Second, note the articles from the LA Times, the Bakersfield Californian and the Fresno Bee. An AP article began this way.

The Episcopal Church banned a California bishop Friday from practicing his religious duties until March after he led his congregants to secede from the national church.

Bishop John-David Schofield drew sharp criticism from the U.S.-based denomination when he urged his conservative diocese to sever its ties to the church last month in a fight over the Bible and homosexuality.

Clergy and lay members of the Diocese of San Joaquin became the first full diocese to break from the U.S. wing of the 77 million-member worldwide Anglican family when they voted to secede Dec. 6.

Schofield cannot give sermons, do confirmations or perform any religious rites until the national denomination’s leaders meet to determine a final judgment by March 13, said the Rev. Canon Charles Robertson, canon to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.

Read it all also.

As a point of clarification, there is no confusion on the part of the Bishop of San Joaquin or the clergy, people, leadership, and convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin of their status. The claims of the Episcopal Church to have oversight or jurisdiction are not correct. The fact is that neither the Diocese nor Bishop John-David Schofield are part of The Episcopal Church. The Bishop is a member of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone as of December 8th, 2007. The Diocese is a part of the Southern Cone. Neither the Presiding Bishop or the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church have any further jurisdiction. Bishop Schofield is no longer a member of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church.

A statement from The Most Reverend Gregory Venables, dated January 11,2008:

“As of December the 8th, 2007 Bishop John-David Schofield is not under the authority or jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church or the Presiding Bishop.He is, therefore, not answerable to their national canon law but is a member of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone and under our authority.

Un fuerte abrazo.

–The Most Rev. Greg Venables, Archbishop of the Southern Cone

It comes as no surprise that the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church has initiated canonical actions against the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield to remove him from office. However, the matter is complicated by the fact that Bishop Schofield and the Diocese of San Joaquin, by constitutional action of their Convention, are no longer a part of The Episcopal Church. They now function under the authority of the Province of the Southern Cone. Disciplinary actions cannot be taken by this Province against a Bishop who is a member of another Province of the Anglican Communion.

The House of Bishops of TEC can indeed prevent Bishop Schofield from functioning as a Bishop in congregations of The Episcopal Church. However, they cannot invalidate his consecration as a Bishop in the Church of God, nor prevent him from functioning as such in congregations that welcome and affirm his ministry as their Bishop.

The Bishop of San Joaquin has my friendship, my support, and my prayers during this time of turmoil in the life of our church.

The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth
January 12, 2008

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on January 11 inhibited Diocese of San Joaquin Bishop John-David Schofield.

In the text of the inhibition, Jefferts Schori wrote: “I hereby inhibit the said Bishop Schofield and order that from and after 5:00 p.m. PST, Friday, January 11, 2008, he cease from exercising the gifts of ordination in the ordained ministry of this Church; and pursuant to Canon IV.15, I order him from and after that time to cease all ‘episcopal, ministerial, and canonical acts, except as relate to the administration of the temporal affairs of the Diocese of San Joaquin,’ until this Inhibition is terminated pursuant to Canon IV.9(2) or superseded by decision of the House of Bishops.”

Jefferts Schori acted after the Title IV Review Committee certified that Schofield had abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church.

On January 9, Upper South Carolina Bishop Dorsey Henderson, committee chair, wrote to Jefferts Schori, telling her that the nine-member committee had met that day and that a majority agreed that the documentation provided to them “demonstrated that Bishop Schofield has abandoned the communion of this Church by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline or Worship of this Church.”

Read it all.

A January 26 gathering of continuing Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin and national church leaders, “Moving Forward, Welcoming All,” will focus on reconciliation, inclusion, and celebration, event organizers said.

“We are just so encouraged; we’re looking forward to welcoming more people,” said Cindy Smith, president of Remain Episcopal, a group which opposed the December vote to realign the Central California Valley diocese with the Argentina-based Province of the Southern Cone, which has about 22,000 members and encompasses the South American nations of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay.

Former Bishop John-David Schofield had urged the realignment, approved by 42 of the diocese’s 47 congregations. Clergy approved the split 70-12 and laity voted 103-10 for realignment.

But in recent weeks, momentum and enthusiasm have spiked as additional people and some congregations “have thought about what has happened, what it means to not be part of the Episcopal Church anymore” and sought out continuing communities of faith, said Smith.

Read it all.

Read it all.

[i]Note from the elves: We’ll accept further comments to the thread by e-mail: T19elves@yahoo.com[/i]

Diocesan spokesman [Van] McCalister said the posting was accurate. But Abbot Joseph of Holy Transfiguration called it “outdated and not entirely accurate.”

Holy Transfiguration, said Abbot Joseph, is traditional and contemplative; but, he said, “the previous abbot (now deceased) gave Holy Communion to Fr. Schofield (who has not visited our monastery since he became a bishop many years ago.)” The monastery’s practice in administering communion, said the abbot, “is stricter now, and we simply follow the rules of the Church.”

As for being charismatic, the monastery once had “a weekly prayer meeting (very low key by charismatic standards),” said Abbot Joseph, “but we discontinued it years ago.”

The abbot called it “inaccurate” to call Schofield an “extern member” of the monastery (akin to an oblate in Latin monasteries). Holy Transfiguration’s contact with Schofield is “quite infrequent,” said Abbot Joseph, “though we consider him a friend and hold him in respect, and I’m sure he relies on our prayers. He has no canonical relationship to our monastery, but simply a spiritual affiliation.”

Read it all.

This picture seems to reduce the discussion to one of whether homosexual conduct is acceptable either on the individual or the pastoral level. While the issue of homosexuality itself figures prominently in this debate, the orthodox dioceses appear to be deeply concerned about the overall direction of the Episcopal Church. The complaints appear to be extensive and include everything from criticisms of Episcopalian seminary programs to questions as to whether the church is remaining true to the scripture on the issue of salvation occurring only through Jesus Christ ”“ and the list goes on.

Nonetheless, no one I have interviewed denies that the trigger point for the present crisis was the 2003 consecration of V. Gene Robinson, a man alleged to be living with another man in an openly homosexual relationship, as the Bishop of New Hampshire. For many, this was the “last straw”.

Read it all.

Read it all.

About two months ago, Risard said, the bishop summoned him to Fresno. He took along a church official.

“He started building a case as to why he was getting rid of me,” Risard said. “I asked him, ‘What’s this all about?’ He said, ‘We already talked that you’re going to leave at the end of ’08.’ He said, ‘The bottom line is you have to go because we’re not going to have the money to support the mission. If we vote up (to leave the Episcopal Church USA and join Anglicans elsewhere), we’re going to lose the liberals and their money, and if we vote down, we’re going to lose the conservatives and their money.’ ”

The diocese office in Fresno was closed this week. The bishop and other officials could not be reached for comment. But an e-mail from the bishop’s assistant, the Rev. Canon Bill Gandenberger, sent to two St. Nicholas officials on Dec. 25, reads in part:

“The attached document is the letter notifying Fr. Risard that his deployment at St. Nicholas is now over. We wish you to know that the Bishop and the Diocese are fully behind the continuation of your church in Atwater and we will do all that we are able to support you during this transition.”

It also says the “most important directions from the bishop” include changing the exterior locks “immediately,” as well as locks “to the priest’s office and any file cabinets”; retrieving bank statements; forwarding minutes from past committee meetings (“This is especially important if there are commitments made to Mr. Michael Glass, an attorney referenced in the letter of Fr. Risard to the Bishop”); and an assumption that the church’s deacon can “lead worship for a short period of time, especially this next Sunday.”

Despite the loss of his church, Risard isn’t bitter.

“The bishop hasn’t defrocked me. He’s just asked me to go away and leave him alone. He’s the one who priested me and tried to form me in his way, so I still have some affection for him.

“I believe as a priest that Christ calls us to love one another as friends. I sign my letters to the bishop ‘faithfully, your friend in Christ.’ He really is a Christian, maybe operating in a particular way these days, but he truly means well.”

Read the whole article.

Bishop John-David Schofield’s tone was urgent this month as he exhorted delegates from his Central California diocese to leave the Episcopal Church.

For more than 20 years, Schofield said, he had watched in dismay as the national church strayed from Scripture and made controversial decisions about theology and sexuality, including the role of gays in the church. Now, he told delegates to his diocese’s annual convention, it was time to act.

“God’s timing is essential!” the bishop declared, his voice rising. “Delayed obedience to Scripture is seen as disobedience when opportunities and blessings are lost.”

Schofield has emerged as a pivotal player in the drama surrounding the future of one of the nation’s most influential denominations. At the meeting of delegates from across the Diocese of San Joaquin, he displayed the strong-willed personality that has won him both admirers and detractors.

There was no time to lose, he told the delegates. The national church could put new rules in place to prevent such secession attempts. The moment might never come again, he said.

The measures passed, by huge margins.

San Joaquin, a Fresno-based diocese of 47 parishes, had elected to become the first diocese in the nation to break with the Episcopal Church over theological issues and align with a conservative Anglican province in South America. And Schofield, according to supporters and critics alike, had played the central role in those historic Dec. 8 decisions, propelling his largely conservative flock along a path that could prove risky for all concerned.

Read it all.

“The Diocese of South Carolina and I face a very different set of challenges and opportunities, and l’m looking forward to how we can affect positively the life of the Episcopal Church,” [Mark Lawrence]… said.

He said that, with the exception of a couple of occasions, he has not preached church politics from his pulpit at St. Paul’s.

“I use the pulpit to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” he said.

He did, however, at one time defend “the San Joaquin Diocesan Standing Committee’s posture for an appeal for an alternative primatial oversight,” by a leader other than Jefferts Schori.

“That was not a move to leave the Episcopal Church,” Lawrence said. “That was the overture that seven or so dioceses were asking from the Archbishop of Canterbury.

“At that time, the question was, ”˜How can we differentiate ourselves in such a way from the leadership in the Episcopal Church in order that we may maintain our place within the Episcopal Church?’” he said.

Read it all.

“You are talking to someone who loves the tradition of the church. It is my heritage,” Bishop Schofield said during an interview with a reporter from The Living Church. “I don’t have any personal antagonism toward The Episcopal Church or its leaders, but day by day they seem to depart more and more from what is asked of us in scripture.

“It is not my wish to leave The Episcopal Church. If I saw signs that they were returning [to the historic faith] it is possible I would approach my convention about revisiting this decision.”

Bishop Schofield said he has grown frustrated with those who continue to characterize the current division in the church as the work of a small minority.

“Thousands of members are leaving The Episcopal Church every week,” he said. “San Joaquin is not the point. That just happens to be where a majority of evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics are concentrated. For more than 20 years they have tried to drive us away. As a protest movement, I would hope that this would have an effect on The Episcopal Church.”

Read it all.

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

the Diocese of San Joaquin has welcomed the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Advent letter to the Primates, seeing it as a validation of its secession from The Episcopal Church to the Church of the Province of the Southern Cone.

“I find it difficult to imagine any other reading of Canterbury’s Advent letter than the intent to recognize ”” or maybe I should say, to allow San Joaquin to be recognized as a legitimate member of the Anglican Communion,” Diocesan spokesman the Rev Van McCalister (pictured) told The Church of England Newspaper. In his Dec 14 Advent letter to the Primates, Dr Williams distinguished between the various responses made by North American traditionalists to the disputes over doctrine and discipline.

Read it all.

The Rev. Fred Risard, vicar of St. Nicholas’ Church, Atwater, Calif., has written to Bishop John-David Schofield of San Joaquin, informing him that the congregation has retained legal counsel, and asking for clarification regarding a planned visitation on Dec. 23.

“If you do decide to come, please let us know in advance your purpose and your status as a bishop of The Episcopal Church,” Fr. Risard wrote. “Will you be coming as our Episcopal Bishop, having repented of your actions at diocesan convention, seeking forgiveness and reconciliation? Or will you be coming to worship as a visiting foreign bishop seeking to reconcile with your former congregation and vicar, and, following the Mass, to join us as we take groceries and coats to the poor?”

In an interview with a reporter for The Living Church, Fr. Risard said he is concerned that Bishop Schofield was planning to relieve him of his responsibilities as vicar at St. Nicholas. Fr. Risard said he wants to remain a priest of The Episcopal Church. He abstained from the votes to leave The Episcopal Church and from the one to affiliate with the Southern Cone on Dec. 8 during diocesan convention.

Read it all.

Check it out.

The [ENS article by] Schjonberg… goes on to state that Canterbury never endorsed such a plan leaving the reader with the impression that Bishop Schofield might have released false information in order to influence the delegates’ votes in favor of secession. A closer inspection of the facts, however, does not support such a damning implication and clearly vindicates Bishop Schofield.

The statement attributed to Bishop Schofield (“According to well-informed sources, the Archbishop of Canterbury has been fully informed of the invitation of the Province of the Southern Cone and described it as a ”˜sensible way forward’”) is not something the Bishop invented. Rather it echoes a London Times article of November 9, 2007 by Ruth Gledhill, the Times Religion Correspondent.

When I asked Canon Jim Rosenthal of the Anglican Communion Press Office about the Times article and about Dr. Williams’ position as laid out in the ENS article, he responded in a tersely worded statement that “There is no endorsement from Dr Williams on the matter. Bishop Venables is keenly aware of this as well.” Canon Rosenthal did not, however, respond to the substance of the Times article or address the issue of possible informal discussions having taken place between the Archbishop of Canterbury and Archbishop Venables of the Southern Cone regarding the problems of the Episcopal Church and its dissident orthodox dioceses.

Archbishop Venables, responding to a question from El Bohemio News as to whether he had discussed the issue of alternative oversight with Dr. Williams, released the following statement through the press office at the Diocese of San Joaquin: “We neither sought nor claimed the endorsement of the Archbishop of Canterbury. We [Abp Venables] did however share our plans with him and would not have wished to proceed without doing so.” It would be hard to believe that this “sharing” of plans did not include some attempt on the part of both Dr. Williams and Archbishop Venables to resolve the crisis in the best way possible.

Read it all.