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.
Ms Schori said to the Bishop of San Joaquin
“I urge you to consider whether there might not be a more honorable course for you, personally, than seeking to violate your ordination vows….”
Maybe, its precisely because of his “ordination vows” that the Bishop of San Joaquin finds it necessary to find a godly primate who still adheres to “the Faith once given” who will lead him and his diocese.
To continue to follow a presiding bishop and to sit in council alongside bishops who no longer unequivocably adhere “to the Faith once given” is to give, as a minimum, tacit approval of beliefs, actions and behaviors that invite accusations of heresy and possibly for some concerned, apostasy.
The Bishop of San Joaquin is responsible for the spiritual welfare of the congregants under his leadership and its is their spiritual welfare that must be his first concern. The bishop would be putting their Salvation at risk by acquiesing to radical and non-Scriptural leadership from ECUSA.
“I do not intend to threaten you”
attached to a press release with these comments:
“A lawsuit would be filed against the departed leadership and a representative sample of departing congregations if they attempted to retain Episcopal Church property.”
That coupled with the general sarcastic tone of the letter is just adding fuel to the fire.
I really wish I thought that there was a substantial body of more private correspondence. But I don’t.
We’ve already seen the form letter for the first round of voting in the letters to Bishops Iker and Duncan. Is this the template for the second form letter? Will we see this again next year when Pittsburgh and Fort Worth consider the issue for the second time?
Stand Firm has found the “template”.
Its here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8113/
Is this the voice of desperation or what? It is pleading and threatening at the same time. This letter tells me wiith complete clarity that Schori is feeling the wind blowing from the grave. LM
I wonder if Bishop Shori means the vow to be loyal to the “doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ [b]as this church [i]has received[/i] them[/b].” The vow does not contain the words “may construe” or “will change them to be” but “has received” – a past perfect tense of the verb. That means that the reception has been completed and is not ongoing.
I don’t believe that we should fracture the communion further and I still hope for a communion solution to this problem. I believe that +Schofield, +Iker, and +Duncan are acting outside of catholic order, but I also believe that if a split is coming, then we should treat each other like Christians. San Joaquin (and Ft. Worth and Pittsburg) should repay (with interest) every penny it received from (P)ECUSA and then 815 should let them go without lawsuit or animosity. They should also feel free to set up a parallel structure for those who want to remain in TECUSA.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I love the smell of “reconciliation” in the morning.
Phillip Snyder–just a question–you say that departing dioceses should repay ECUSA for every cent they’ve received from them. Would you also give them credit for every cent those dioceses have paid to ECUSA? I suspect that annual diocesan contributions to 815 amount to a rather tidy sum.
I want to hold up the diocese in my prayers because this is a serious and costly matter for all of us. I would pray that God be glorified and that he would sustain his people amid their brokenness.
In Newark – I think that the dioceses should receive some credit for the monies they sent to 815. However, much of that money was sent for ongoing operations at 815, not as “startup” or “seed” money. So, to pick some numbers to start negioations with. Say that TECUSA should receive it start up money with 4% interest returned and the diocese should get credit for 25% of its apportionments paid (with a similar rate of return). In reality, this would probably work out to a wash. But no matter how it works out, no one should go to court with anyone else.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
4. And MCJ has found the reply template here: http://themcj.com/3515 Clippy Rules!
[blockquote]”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.”[/blockquote]
I think she needs a better letter writer. First, she concedes awareness of an emotion (you feel), which is simply insulting and implies a disconnect with her ‘reality.’ Why not deal with facts? Second, she hinges her argument on the word “yet” used to communicate “in spite of that.” If the good bishop of SJ were one to appreciate the recognition of the emotion, why would he be persuaded by a simple invitation to resume the very activities that produced the adverse feelings? How weak, how feeble – why bother. Why even bother writing the words? She certainly does not propose anything that might produce a different outcome.
Emotional mish mash aside, of course TEC has ignored and dismissed the reasserters. That is what reappraisers in power do – ‘on with the progressive revolution.’
One would wish for a more irenic tone and approach, so that history might look upon TEC as possessing some modicum of moderation, liberality, or sympathy – but alas, to date that is not the witness.
I view the threatened action to be a form of instrument destruction, a vestige from the 1960s. Like Pete Townsend, she will attempt to smash the instruments of the Dio of S. J. and departing parishes in an ugly display of immoderation. Of course, it is an added feature if the instrument is left too damaged to be of use by any other musician.
He is a template for response to the Presiding Bishop’s letter:
[blockquote] 14 Hezekiah received the letter from the messengers and read it. Then he went up to the temple of the LORD and spread it out before the LORD. 15 And Hezekiah prayed to the LORD: 16 “O LORD Almighty, God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth. 17 Give ear, O LORD, and hear; open your eyes, O LORD, and see; listen to all the words Sennacherib has sent to insult the living God. 18 “It is true, O LORD, that the Assyrian kings have laid waste all these peoples and their lands. 19 They have thrown their gods into the fire and destroyed them, for they were not gods but only wood and stone, fashioned by human hands. 20 Now, O LORD our God, deliver us from his hand, so that all kingdoms on earth may know that you alone, O LORD, are God.” 21 Then Isaiah son of Amoz sent a message to Hezekiah: “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Because you have prayed to me concerning Sennacherib king of Assyria, 22 this is the word the LORD has spoken against him: “The Virgin Daughter of Zion despises and mocks you. The Daughter of Jerusalem tosses her head as you flee. 23 Who is it you have insulted and blasphemed? Against whom have you raised your voice and lifted your eyes in pride? Against the Holy One of Israel! –Isaiah 37:14-23 [/blockquote]
I have a question for somebody. I see many references to “the Faith once Given,” including the reference by Anglican First in Comment #1 above. Could somebody put some meat on that phrase, i.e., what exactly does it mean? It reads like a bumper sticker and a cliche. I gather that I’m supposed to know what it means, and I think I could probably guess from the context in which most people who recite the phrase use it. However, it’s never been part of the vocabulary of my nearly five decades of churchgoing experience, which has encompassed Episcopal Churches across the theopolitical spectrum. Where does it come from, and who started using it?
#6 Could not be better put. Thank you.
Phil,
Just in case you have missed the discussion going on around the case Virginia, the Presiding Bishop made it plain that any congregation (read parish, diocese, etc) that choses to depart and attempt to retain it’s property would be met with litigation regardless. So regardless of what happens, the Diocese of San Joaquin can expect litigation over the property of the church.
While I agree with you in some points, I don’t agree that we should give more funds to 815. They will only use it to further litigate against those faithful orthodox that choose to leave later. If 815 wants the money then let them negotiate for the property and get the money there instead of spending who knows how much on litigation.
Another issue who has given the Presiding Bishop this authority? Canonically she doesn’t have the authority according to what I have read. General Convention has not given her that authority. So where is it coming from? Inquiring minds would like to know.
#14 Dallasite says:
It’s from Jude: Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who long ago were designated for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Reasserters seem to have adopted this phrase to highlight their conviction that the “faith” — by which I think they mean not only Scripture but the core doctrines articulated by the ecumenical councils of the early church — was delivered to us by revelation, and therefore cannot be questioned or changed.
Reappraisers such as myself are more likely to see doctrine as an evolving human attempt at understanding ineffable mystery, and therefore something that must be continually questioned.
16. I presume Beers gave her the authority. After all, his firm is handling the litigation and stands to do very well, moneywise at least.
14. Regarding, “the Faith once Given,†I grew up a Presbyterian and became an Episcopalian after college and in both instances it meant the faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ as given to us in the Gospels, confirmed by the Epistle writers,and later by various early church councils like the Council of Nicea.
Ross has answered Dallasite; personally, I’m more familiar with the Jude passage in the KJV, but have no quibble with the version cited:
[blockquote]3Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. [/blockquote]
Also, since KJS mentions the vow the Bishop of San Joaquin took, it is important to read it:
[blockquote]DO you think in your heart, that you are truly called, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and according to the Canons of this Church, to the Order and Ministry of Priesthood?
Answer. I think it.
Bishop. Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain all Doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? And are you determined, out of the said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge; and to teach nothing, as necessary to eternal salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture?
Answer. I am so persuaded, and have so determined, by God’s grace.
Bishop. Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God; so that you may teach the people committed to your Cure and Charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same?
Answer. I will so do, by the help of the Lord.
Bishop. Will you 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, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your Cures, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given?
Answer. I will, the Lord being my helper.
Bishop. Will you be diligent in Prayers, and in reading the Holy Scriptures, and in such studies as help to the knowledge of the same, laying aside the study of the world and the flesh?
Answer. I will endeavour so to do, the Lord being my helper.
Bishop. Will you be diligent to frame and fashion your own selves, and your families, according to the Doctrine of Christ; and to make both yourselves and them, as much as in you lieth, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ?
Answer. I will apply myself thereto, the Lord being my helper.
Bishop. Will you maintain and set forwards, as much as lieth in you, quietness, peace, and love, among all Christian people, and especially among them that are or shall be committed to your charge?
Answer. I will so do, the Lord being my helper.
Bishop. Will you reverently obey your Bishop, and other chief Ministers, who, according to the Canons of the Church, may have the charge and government over you; following with a glad mind and will their godly admonitions, and submitting yourselves to their godly judgments?
Answer. I will so do, the Lord being my helper. [/blockquote]from here: http://tinyurl.com/2yua9y
#16 – Yes, I am aware of the litigation in Virginia and my proposal that a departing diocese send money to 815 is part of a negioated solution and not part of a litigated one. I believe that all +KJS will do with her litigation is transfer the wealth of TECUSA (815, the dioceses and their parishes) to trial lawyers. I believe that a scorched earth policy only gets you scorched earth – in which little can blossom for quite some time. The litigation of 815 and many dioceses strikes me more as coming from the proceedings of a spurned and angry spouse in divorce proceedings where the spouse has no concern for the children, his/her only concern is for making the other spouse suffer as much as possible for the real or perceived hurts suffered in the days/months/years preceeding the divorse.
Better to be adults and work so that both spouses can continue to live in peace and where the children (the ministries and members of TECUSA and the departing parishes/dioceses) are harmed as little as possible and given the best chance for a productive life.
Ross – I disagree that reasserters see the faith as completely static. However, changes in the faith come from within the received revelation. They agree with the canon (=rule or measure) of Scripture. Just as the BCP says, we understand new truths as being taught by the Holy Spirit when they agree with Holy Scripture.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
In searching for a response to Dallasite, I searched the 1662 Prayer Book for the phrase and looked in the Articles of Faith. I did not find the phrase, but I was reminded again that Anglican doctrine is founded upon the Articles.
Below are the three Articles of Faith that pertain to the visible Church. I am persuaded that the current Primates of Canada and TEC, along with the General Convention and General Synod assemblies, have erred in matters of faith. I am also persuaded that either by omission or commission they have authorized ceremonies that are contrary to God’s word written (SSUs) or that expound one part of Scripture that it is repugnant to another (Love-in style communion prayers that avoid God’s parental warnings). I pray for repentence, mine included, but I do not hope for immediate results, including for myself.
XIX. Of the Church.
THE visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.
XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
THE Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ: yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.
XXI. Of the authority of General Councils.
GENERAL Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes. And when they be gathered together, forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and word of God, they may err and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining to God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.
The Church does have the authority to rule in controversies of faith. In the case of sexual ethics and morality, there was no controversy until we sinners decided we didn’t like the standards of behaviour.
All the posturing by Ms. Schori isn’t really going to get anywhere in California. We have a case pending review on several issues, one of which (paraphrased) is whether California should revert to implied trust theories or continue applying neutral principles of law in church property disputes–as it has in the past 30 years?
The results of this review should be complete within 1 1/2 to 2 years. The Diocese of San Joaquin is in no different legal position than the Southern California parishes who have disaffiliated from TEC. When it comes down to it, the diocese as with the parishes are equal corporations under California law.
Ms. Schori can certainly begin litigation and waste money but all San Joaquin or any other disaffiliating parishes need do is to defend themselves until the California Supreme Court renders its judgment. We’ll know then who will win. If TEC “wins,” I guess they’ll have to maintain 50+ near empty church buildings. If TEC loses (likely to be the case as the judicial system rarely reverts to older rules of law), they lose big and look even more stupid, vengeful and wasteful.
TEC continues to look pathetic. Do they think that a whole diocese will not expend a few hundred thousand dollars to defend themselves as they await the decision of the California Supreme Court? I think that God has hardened TEC’s rookie leadership so that His might could be further amplified when the orthodox faithful win at the California Supreme Court level.
I applaud San Joaquin and hope that the Diocese of SC will follow suit. Talk does nothing to the reappraisers, the only thing they understand is money. You can talk until you’re blue in the face, but the only thing that might bring about repentance is drastic action. Thankfully, none of my contribution to the Church goes to TEC. If more dioceses would do the same, we might see some response.
++Katherine did what she must to in order to be faithful to her charge as Presiding Bishop. The letter is measured, yet clear in stating the consequences of the impending action of San Jaoquin. +John David and his supporters in the diocese give her no other choice.
I should like to see something besides litigation, but one option is out of the question: let the dissidents just walk away with property and leave faithful Episcopalians of all stripes who choose to remain in the Church bereft. That is what so many of them are determined to do, especially on the diocesan level. This, like all divorces, is a tragedy, and neither side will come out of it unbruised.
#17: Right you are about the *source* of the expression.
And, consider how wonderfully well the entire quote ties the significance of a Faith “once entrusted to the saints” with the sexual immorality St. Jude addresses! Behold: moral theology as a litmus..or, if you will, a thermometer…to indicate doctrinal sickness.
This is why reasserters keep reasserting the primary issue underneath the (important but not ultimate) sexual moral theological concerns: A sexual morality which is disobedient to God is a symptom of the disobedience to the revealed religion/doctrine of Who God is, who we are, and how we are called to obedience to Him.
#24: The “dissidents” are the holy people of God known as the Diocese of San Joaquin. Re-read your church history and follow it up to the present ABC’s reminder that *the diocese* is the basic unit of catholic theology…not the so-called ‘national church’, a voluntary Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society prior to its pretensions of being “THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH”. A majority vote at a national convention in the late 1970s which purports to establish a beneficial interest by the national church in property it never has or will “own” is a pathetic attempt at ecclesiastical Newspeak.
Thank for the references.
Another question apropos of San Joaquin, Fort Worth, etc.: How is allegience to The Episcopal Church different than allegience to, say, Caesar? If the properties are part of “The Episcopal Church” or a subset thereof, why not, render unto the Episcopal Church that which is the Episcopal Church’s, and render unto God what is His?
To the South Carolina commenter, I don’t think many Reasserters listen, either.
Many denominations, including TEC, turn to civil law to benefit them in regards to protection from unlimited liability (dba as a corporation) and tax exemption to name a few. If TEC wants the benefits of civil law, they should also be subject to the determination of such law.
In California and until changed, the diocese or TEC does not own most parish properties. Unless a parish submits to an irrevocable trust (which would make the diocese and TEC liable for all acts and liabilities of the parish), the parish can choose to associate or disassociate with their properties.
Here, TEC cannot be equated with “Ceasar.” The state is the “Ceasar.”
Sorry…”Caesar”
Dallasite,
If the property were paid for and maintained by TEC, then I would have no problem with leaving it to TEC. I agree that a lot of people gave money to these dioceses and congregations for the use of faithful Episcopalians. But, what is a “faithful Episcopalian?” I submit that 815 2nd Ave no longer represents a faithful church because it is violating the teachings of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion – let alone what the rest of Christianity believes. The faithful Episcopalians are those who are trying to maintain their connection to the Anglican Communion and to follow its teaching and the teachings of the Episcopal Church – as they have been received (see my #6) not as they may be construed by a body designed to determine budges and operational things.
Now I have a question for you. Why is +KJS willing to sell a building to Baptists or Buddhists or Secularists or even as a nightclub or other endeavor, but not willing to sell to people who are trying their best to live out Anglican theology and practice?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder