One day after the Diocese of San Joaquin became the first in the country to break ties with the Episcopal Church, the Rev. Keith Axberg sought to reassure and cheer up his congregation, the only one in this city that is expected to remain with the national church.
“There are things that are going to take time and much we don’t know,” said Axberg, rector of Holy Family Episcopal Church in northeast Fresno. “But our purpose is to gather here to worship God . . . and I’m thankful you are here.”
Delegates to San Joaquin’s annual convention finalized Saturday an earlier decision to remove all references to the Episcopal Church from the diocese’s constitution, the latest twist in a bitter, years-long dispute about theology and the role of gays in the church. The conflict between liberals and conservatives escalated sharply in 2003 when the church consecrated an openly gay priest as bishop of New Hampshire.
In another unprecedented step, the convention delegates, made up of clergy and lay leaders from area churches, also formally accepted an invitation from Anglican Archbishop Gregory James Venables of Argentina to place their Fresno-based diocese under his authority.
The dual actions thrust all involved — church leaders and parishioners, theological liberals and conservatives alike — into uncharted waters, many said, with the immediate future far from clear.
The irony is that if these three churches are part of a new Episcopal San Joaquin diocese or are merged into a neighboring diocese (Northern California or El Camino Real), it will constitute the dreaded border crossing and violate ancient traditions. I understand the desire of +Schofield and ++Venables to be gracious, but ancient traditions are sacrosanct. Perhaps, the TEC border crossing into the diocese of San Joaquin, Southern Cone (DoSJ, SC) will give DoSJ, SC due authority to cross into El Camino Real and Northern California and California and LA and San Diego and Oregon and …
The question has been asked on Mark Harris’s site “An equally significant question is: did the Dean [Mark Lawrence, bishop elect of SC] attend the [San Joaquin] Convention, and if so how did he vote on the question? (And, for that matter, given that this was second reading, how did he vote last time?)”
Can anyone in these parts shed light on these questions?
The salient point is that they have a choice.
The DSJ should change its name to Anglican Diocese of USA or North America of the Province of South Cone of America, it should also change its name to Anglican Province(Church) in the Americas. The churches in US under the Peru, Bolivia, Recife should join these diocese also.
#2, I can testify as an eyewitness that Mark Lawrence was not in Fresno when the vote was taken on the first reading. As to his whereabouts this past weekend I have no direct knowledge, though I did watch most of the proceedings on the webcast and never saw him, so I would be surprised to learn that he was there.
By its actions the Diocese has dragged these parishes without their consent into a foreign province. Does that seem fair?
Then again, by the actions of TEC it has dragged all of us into a foreign faith.
Gosh, I sense symmetry.
Robroy, the diocese has decided, itself, to violate the borders of the US. essentially, by disaffiliating (whatever that means), they’ve said that there is no diocese.
I didn’t know it was such a small diocese.
#6 Christopher — I don’t think it’s appropriate to say that anyone has been unwillingly dragged into another province. There was a vote by delegates sent by the parishes and missions of the diocese signifying their willingness to follow this course of action. As for those who don’t wish to go, Bp. Schofield has indicated that they will be permitted to follow their own courses without any interefence from him. I can’t think of a more fair arrangement than that.
C Heenan [#8] writes: “As for those who don’t wish to go, Bp. Schofield has indicated that they will be permitted to follow their own courses without any interference from him.”
That’s magnanimous of him. But the issue doesn’t even arise unless (1) the SJ dissenters derive(d) their membership in TEC solely derivatively, through the Diocese of San Joaquin, and (2) Saturday’s actions were in fact an actual secession of the Diocese per se. Per 815’s view (apparently), the Saturday actions were ultra vires acts whose only ‘legal’ effect was the voluntary departure of certain individuals. If the secular courts adopt that view, life will go on as before at the dissenting parishes, at least as soon as arrangements for new episcopal leadership (and/or adjustment of diocesan boundaries) can be arranged.
“Some San Joaquin Episcopal churches aren’t joining their diocese’s decision”
Yes, there are graves enough in Egypt.
[i]Comment removed at commenter’s request due to factual errors[/i]
[blockquote]7. John Wilkins wrote: ” . . . the diocese has decided, itself, to violate the borders of the US. essentially, by disaffiliating (whatever that means), they’ve said that there is no diocese.” [/blockquote]
You’re assuming, most likely erroneously, that the Diocese is a subset of TEC. By its own Constitution, TEC was formed as an ecclesiastical confederacy. It would appear that the ABC’s pronouncement that “the diocese constitutes the core unit of the Church” is more important than Provincial affiliation.
So, just where is it written that DSJ is no longer a diocese? Who made that decision? Was it General Convention, the P.B., or the Church Chancellor who made such a dictate?
C. Heenan, agreed. But I think you missed my point. Symmetry.
#13 Christopher,
Sorry, it’s Monday and not all brain cells are engaged.
Craig
#11 raises a very serious issue. We possibly have here the first secondary split (a congregation that has split from TEC voting to split from a second jurisdiction). This is entirely consistent with the theology and psychology of local autonomy that has both led TEC as a province to act at variance with the Communion as a matter of conscience and led dioceses and congregations to act at variance with TEC as a matter of conscience. Once we admit the idea that individual judgment trumps institutional loyalty, there is no logical stopping place short of congregationalism. A bishop whose oversight extends only to those who welcome his guidance is hardly exercising oversight at all. That raises the question whether a bishop with no meaningful [i]episcope[/i] is really a member of the historic episcopate, even as adapted to local conditions.
#12 states as fact that “TEC was formed as an ecclesiastical confederacy.” That seems to be a debatable proposition, as [url=http://www.edow.org/dator/]one of the few serious historical studies of the formation of the TEC Constitution[/url] concludes that “PECUSA was created as a unitary and not a federal government … Neither is there any other evidence to indicate that the Constitution is one of a confederation. Indeed, as far as the written Constitution is explicitly concerned, the Church’s government is unitary” (p. 54). Although this dissertation was written in 1959, the author was [still [url=http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/episcopal_church/episcopal_church_is_not_divisi.html#more]sticking by his conclusions[/url] in 2004.
[i]Once we admit the idea that individual judgment trumps institutional loyalty,[/i]
So what is the lower level entity to do, once the higher level entity has gone it’s way?
15. Dale Rye – Sorry, but I have to challenge your assertion that there was any overarching structure or absolute centralized polity within the PECUSA during the first 100+ years of its existence. To the contrary, Bishops and their dioceses were very protective of their turf and authority and the infighting amongst them was notorious.
As I’m certain you know, a PhD. dissertation published in 1959 does not translate into the definitive authority on this subject. As I recall, there were at least three different and often hostile parties within PECUSA in it’s early years, hence, the term “association” presents a far more accurate description of reality of the relationships diocese had with each other in early Episcopal Church. On the other hand, “unitary” is a much more elusive, shall we say “political” term which one would expect from a late 1950’s doctrinal candidate from the American University School of Government in Washington, D.C.. Indeed, I would maintain that the whole concept, as presented by James Allen Dator, presents a Twentieth Century theoretical approach to Church governance, reflected in more recent efforts to cast TEC as a national Church governed exclusively by its General Convention.
As I’m sure you know, Dator’s dissertation has been run up the flagpole by nearly every reappraising blogger you can think of, as well as some the liberal leadership in TEC. No doubt, that’s where you came up with it. And why not attempt to redefine Episcopal Church governance in secular political terms, considering how secularized TEC has become?
Incidentally, one of the definitions for “confederacy” is:
[blockquote]A group of people united in a relationship and having some interest, activity, or purpose in common: association, club, congress, federation, fellowship, fraternity, guild, league, order, organization, society, sorority, union.[/blockquote]
Thanks for the info., Fr. Martins.