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
I think of the three Bishops’ responses – this one is by far the best. Wow! Again I think the faithful out to take out full WSJ ads to reprint the letters side by side.
Amen!
Off topic, but does anyone know what’s up with the ABC’s Advent letter to the Primates? Wasn’t that supposed to address the adequacy of the HOB NO response to DAR?
John-David M. Schofield, Bishop of San Joaquin gives a great summary of how TEC got us into this mess and how he and his diocese are striving to help as many faithful as possible to get out of it!. Keep up the good work. We should all be praying for you this weekend.
http://www.pwcweb.com/ecw
Great letter from Bishop Schofield!
Last year’s advent letter from the ABC was posted on 12/14…so I guess we will see it this Sunday or the next.
[i]”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.”[/i]
This is a very good point. By failing to give APO — which could have averted a lot of mess — they find it forced upon them in a much more unhappy form. From the start, they have given nothing, nothing, nothing, of honest regard for the welfare of conservatives. They will wish they had.
A very fine letter.
I like the way he responds to the PB’s cordial tones in kind but he also does not budge an inch. The greeting says a lot as well.
A good reply!
[blockquote] To endorse this as a way forward need not be a final nor irreconcilable commitment. [/blockquote]
Thats a good place to start some real negotiation. “We will separate for a time, but remain together as a diocese under the AC umbrella. If at some point in the future our paths re-align, we can reunite.”
The ball is now in TEC’s court. They can adopt the “take no prisoners” role and ruin any hope of future reconciliation. Or they can say “you know what, this Diocese hasn’t contributed to TEC for years anyway, we won’t really miss them financially or otherwise. Let our brothers and sisters in Christ go in peace, and hopefully we can reconcile in the future”.
Then have negotiated process of withdrawal, where TEC gets a concession that this diocese won’t cross boundaries into TEC, and in return TEC recognises them as a fellow AC diocese, and drops all the rhetoric and lawsuits. Wouldn’t that be a happy day all around?
Question: [i]If[/i] the DioSJ meets in convention and votes to ally with Southern Cone, what happens to individuals and/or parishes who wish to remain faithful within TEC? Has a provision been proposed?
Wayne, yes a provision has been proposed. +Schofield has said there are at least three parishes that wish to remain in TEC. He has said they are welcome to go, provided they have no debt to the diocese (and then if they negotiate payment of the debt they can go). At least two of these, Lodi and Stockton, are adjacent to my own diocese, Northern California, and could probably be annexed. I don’t know if they’ve constructed a mechanism for all of this, but +John-David has said he would negotiate.
No one else has said it so I think I will: this letter from Bp. Schofield is a superb example of speaking truth to power.
#11 – it would be great to watch SJ gracefully allow the parishes who want to stay in ECUSA do so. It would serve as yet another marker of the differences between ECUSA and the ACN.
Bishop John-Davis is not just a godly man which is his greatest virtue, he is also a courageous Christian leader of the Church Catholic.
Padre Wayne, I assume they’ll be treated as well as orthodox Anglicans in, say, Newark or Connecticut.
The letters to the PB from +s Duncan, Ikers, and Scholfield, taken together as one, really sum up the whole. Though impossible to put all three, or even one, on a sweatshirt, it is one we could wear which states our cause. Thank you gentle men (note the space between gentlemen)……
Phil – surely that’s tongue in cheek? SJ would never be abusive like +Smith of CT.
What a powerful statement – full of truth and yet done with grace. Reminiscent of “speaking the truth in love.”. But only with a little punch to the nose here and there. God Bless Bishop John David Schofield!!!
Now that three truly Anglican Bishops have spoken up so courageously maybe those others who have been “silently “courageous” will follow suit…..those who profess to be Anglican (Windsor Bishops) but whose actions speak otherwise.
The diocese gained about 6 percent in membership from 1996 through 2002 and then lost about 5 percent in membership from 2002 through 2006. Plate & Pledge increased a robust 45 percent from 1996 through 2002 but a meager 11 percent in Plate & Pledge from 2002 through 2006. A pattern similar to many dioceses which attests to the fact that the rain falls on the good and the bad. Just as groups in parishes must consider leaving TEC while they still have a viable group so must a diocese. The diocese may well be at that place. Fair winds and a following sea. Statmann
Alta Californian: “+Schofield has said there are at least three parishes that wish to remain in TEC. He has said they are welcome to go, provided they have no debt to the diocese (and then if they negotiate payment of the debt they can go).”
Go? It is my impression that they will [i]stay[/i]. There will still be an Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, with its see vacant.
“…I can do no other.”
Ahhh, the echo of St Peter and Martin Luther flow into contemporary history….!
And, #21, precisely three parishes within it.
#21 PadreWayne
If TEC declares the see vacant and installs their own bishop, that would be causing schism and that new bishop would be unlikely to be recognised by most members of the AC, as there is already an AC bishop in that diocese. A far better solution is to let them merge into existing dioceses, as they won’t have the numbers to support a new bishop anyway.
Observing #24, One cannot (or can one?!?) schism a schism. I truly (admittedly, from a progressive standpoint) do not believe that the “new” Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin will be recognized by most members of the Anglican Communion. And by that I refer to the number of [i]provinces[/i] that would grant such recognition.
#23, Jeffersonian, maybe in the end it will be more than three. We won’t know until some time down the pike, will we…
HOOO-AH!!
Would somebody please email this to +Bill Love
I guess you missed the memo Wayne, but protestantism is chock full of “schisms of schisms.”
Well, Nikolaus #27, you are certainly right (thus my “or can one?”) and it is sad the schism tends to breed schism… But #24 said that the election of a new bishop of The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin would be an act of schism — and I don’t think that’s exactly right. The EDSJ remains as a geographical and ecclesiastical entity no matter what happens at convention. People (bishops, priests, deacons, and laypeople) may leave, tragic as that truly would be, but dioceses remain. IMHO, that is, and the official position of The Episcopal Church.
+Bill is godly and faithful and sound and one size does not fit all.
PadreWayne,
To answer your question as asked (although it seems clear at this point you don’t care except to argue polities):
Every congregation in the diocese will be given an opportunity to formally petition the bishop not to be included in the diocesan corporate move, if it comes to such (a congregation in debt might leave by walking, but not with their facilities). Many congregations have already discerned for themselves whether no action is necessary, or to petition for release.
Now, once that happens there of course will be individuals from the congregations who will choose to be a part of the diocesan corporate move, or not, with or without their own congregation. Contingencies for such will not be easily seen until the last of the petitions are received.
That part will be messy, as has been said many times. But the dust will settle and everyone will have their spot.
What you don’t understand, Wayne, is that not only will the corporate diocese be recognized as an entity of an Anglican province in communion with Canterbury, but so will the now bishop-less entity, as a fully functioning diocese in TEC.
There will not be one conservative Anglican diocese and one dismembered revisionist shell, but there will be two reasserting Anglican dioceses, one a part of TEC, and one that TEC has left behind.
I might add, the ONLY fight between the leadership groups of these two dioceses will be over the name.
This will be a model, if it happens, of how to do it, if it has to happen at all, in a Christian, biblical manner.
Perhaps, Wayne, you’d like to come and join us.
RGEaton
YAWN! I can do no other.
PadreWayne, what makes you think that a new Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin “wouldn’t be recognized by most members of the Anglican Communion?” Be specific, please.
I’m just glad someone finally invoked the Great and Reverend Polity Of This Church (peace be upon it). I was starting to wonder what had happened to it.
I was under the impression from the Constitution that the diocese was the basic entity — TEC does not outline a geographical area, declare it a diocese, and invite parishes to elect an episcopal structure; a diocese forms (however it may) and petitions for membership in TEC. Which of course implies (if this is correct) that when DioSJ departs, there won’t be a TEC see there for 815 to declare vacant; it will simply be terra incognita where one or more (missionary?) dioceses might be formed and petition for membership per [url=http://www.churchpublishing.org/general_convention/index.cfm?fuseaction=candc]Canons[/url] I.10-11 and [url=http://www.churchpublishing.org/general_convention/pdf_const_2006/Constitution.pdf]Constitution[/url] V.1.
This is, of course, not a situation foreseen in the Canons, so the legal and canonical fencing will be extremely interesting.
Diezba,
I did try to work that one in….
: )
# 31: Go back to sleep, Brian. This is a job for vigilant Christian folk.
O dang, schnap!
Craig,
Good morning. Here is an example of the fencing, although 815 doesn’t have much of a canonical leg to stand on.
There is no doubt this will not be a clear cut issue. In one sense, 815 has no choice but to recognize the existing, duly-elected-by-convention-before-any-withdrawal-takes-place, ecclesiastical authority of the diocese they say cannot leave TEC. In another sense, that same “remaining” ecclesiastical authority, not recognizing any abandonment of (this) Communion by the bishop, would not be inclined to present the bishop for any inhibition, which is what would have to happen for any other presentment purpose. And that leaves 815 dealing with (and thus recognizing the authority of) the existing ecclesiastical authority in the (temporary) absence of the bishop.
In effect, 815 has to say “We do not recognize the authority of the bishop, clergy, and people that have placed themselves under the authority of another Anglican province as a TEC entity. We recognize those clergy and people who have not done so.” If the DSJ Standing Committee is intact, then there is your ecclesiastical authority recognized under the C & C’s, and you have terra cognita.
We’ll just have to wait and see how it all goes.
RGEaton
#28 Rowan Williams has clearly stated
[blockquote] [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/7039/] I would repeat [/url] what I’ve said several times before – that any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such [/blockquote]
So this diocese remains part of the AC regardless of if it is recognised by TEC or not. They are still Anglicans, and numerous primates have backed up this view. Leaving TEC does not mean they leave the AC. The primates have not been sitting idly by watching TEC wipe out the orthodox members of the AC. This has been a deliberate, careful process where TEC has been given every opportunity to deal with this persecution of the orthodox within their own structures. Instead they continue to tell congregations they cannot hire othodox priests (search the comments on this blog to find loads of examples), they prevent orthodox bishops from being elected, and the orthodox continue to leave not just TEC, but the AC in droves. The primates are putting structures in place to ensure that those leaving remain united as Anglicans. One of those structures is the alternative oversight being offered by the Southern Cone, which it has been reported has the acceptance of Rowan Williams as making the best of a bad situation. So I think its clear that whatever TEC does, this Anglican diocese and the people in it remain part of the AC.
PadreWayne writes [#21], in part,
[blockquote] There will still be an Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, with its see vacant. [/blockquote]
I hate to tell you, Wayne, but in about 100 years all the TEC dioceses will be nothing more than [url=http://tinyurl.com/39t7bq]Titular Sees[/url], albeit not vacant and possessing splendid cathedrals. In the meantime, the Anglican Communion in the United States will be united, thriving and carrying the good news of Christ crucified, Christ risen, Christ coming again.
I hate to tell you, William, but in about 100 years all the TEC dioceses will be lively, alive, and healthy. Inclusive, spreading the enormous love of God in Christ to the hungry, the poor, the dispossessed, the marginalized. In the meantime, the ACUS will be a sad, sad place populated by an unhappy cadre of negativism.
But to those who provided good, thought-provoking scenarios above, thank you. I pray that the faithful remnant will be treated with courtesy and compassion. And I know there are enough kind and pastorally sensitive conservatives to do so. I don’t paint you all with one broad stroke, and I hold you in my prayers.
” If the DioSJ meets in convention and votes to ally with Southern Cone, what happens to individuals and/or parishes who wish to remain faithful within TEC?”
If the shoe were on the other foot, ECUSA would hold them hostage for use as tradebait.
For a deconstruction of +John David’s letter, read the analysis by Anglican Scotist at http://anglicanscotist.blogspot.com/.