Via email:
Greetings in the name of Jesus Christ, our one and only Lord and Savior. By an overwhelming majority of nearly 90% (173 to 22), our Annual Convention voted Saturday, December 8th, to uphold the authority of Holy Scripture and thereby preserve our place in the worldwide Anglican Communion and with the See of Canterbury by realigning our Anglican identity through the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of the Americas under the Most Rev. Gregory Venables, Archbishop and Primate.
This historic and momentous decision by our Annual Convention was 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.
However, we are no longer operating under the looming shadow of this institutional apostasy because our Annual Convention wisely and prayerfully accepted the gracious invitation for sanctuary from the Southern Cone. Under a plan developed with their House of Bishops and ultimately discussed between Archbishop Venables and a number of other Primates and Bishops we were offered hope by the Southern Cone. I wish to emphasize that Convention’s action is not a schism over secondary issues but a realignment necessitated by false teaching as well as unbiblical sacramental actions that continue to take place in The Episcopal Church. As our new Archbishop so succinctly put it: “Christianity is specific, definable and unchanging. We are not at liberty to deconstruct or rewrite it. If Jesus was the Son of God yesterday then so He is today and will be forever.” After our Annual Convention voted to accept the invitation from the Southern Cone, the first words to the Diocese of San Joaquin from our new Archbishop were these: “Welcome Home. And welcome back into full fellowship in the Anglican Communion. “But whatever things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. But no, rather, I also count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them to be dung, so that I may win Christ and be found in Him; not having my own righteousness, which is of the Law, but through the faith of Christ, the righteousness of God by faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable to His death; if by any means I might attain to the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained either were already perfect, but I am pressing on, if I may lay hold of that for which I also was taken hold of by Christ Jesus. My brothers (and sisters), I do not count myself to have taken possession, but one thing I do, forgetting the things behind and reaching forward to the things before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” [Philippians 3:7-13]’ Your Father in God. ++ Gregory” The orders of all Diocesan clergy have been recognized by the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone and appropriate certificates have already been issued. A period of discernment for those who request it and agreed to by the bishop has been provided for those clergy who desire more time to consider whether or not to accept the invitation welcomed so heartily by the majority of Convention.
Likewise, all parishes will be given a similar discernment period. No one is being asked to act against his conscience. Surely, if there is one outstanding mark of this recent decision to realign with the Southern Cone it is freedom from oppression and threat. As your Bishop, I would ask you to treat those in the minority with graciousness and love and keep them in your prayers. It is a difficult time for all of us. We have to deal with a turn of events that no one wanted. For the majority who travel with the Diocese, however, nothing will change. The familiar ways in which you worship, your clergy, the Book of Common Prayer, Hymnal, lectionary and place of worship will all remain the same with one notable exception. In the Prayers of the People, “Gregory our Archbishop” is to appear where the Prayer Book offers intercession “For N. our Presiding Bishop”.
Among those things that will remain the same is the solid teaching of the word of God free from worldly compromise, giving priority to your spiritual well being, faith, and salvation along with a future in the Anglican Communion. You may well discover, too, what it is like to witness to your faith without having to apologize for or feel embarrassed by the decisions of a Church over which you had no control. All of this has been assured by the courage of your Annual Convention, which – in turn – could have done nothing without Archbishop Gregory Venables and his Province of the Southern Cone going before us first and by their taking the bold step of faith they did on our behalf. We shall be forever grateful to them and trust that we will prove as much a blessing to them as they have been for us.
While there may be a degree of uncertainty over the future of our material possessions, we are not to despair. We all know there are no guarantees in this life, only the next. Time and again God has provided us with what we have needed to do His work for the advancement of His Kingdom and the building up of His Church. Why would we question whether the One who identifies Himself as “the same yesterday, today, and forever” change now?
Faithfully yours, in our Lord Jesus Christ,
–(The Rt. Rev.) John-David Schofield is Bishop of San Joaquin
I continue to note how clearly written and clearly reasoned are the letters coming out of parishes, and now a diocese, who’ve voted to leave TEC.
It seems God has blessed these brave people with all kinds of clarity – it even shows up in their writing. There’s a lesson here, I think.
[i]Why would we question whether the One who identifies Himself as “the same yesterday, today, and forever” change now? [/i]
Indeed.
[b]‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’[/b]
Wow, Revamundo, that’s a complete non-sequitor.
[i]Wow, Revamundo, that’s a complete non-sequitor. [/i]
I’m sure that +Schofield thinks so too. SJ had a chance to show love but [b]you did not do it[/b]
Revamundo,
Perhaps if you explained more fully the basis for your claim, we might at least understand specifically what your accusation is. I have no idea from what you have said to whom you feel +Schofield or SJ did not minister in love.
For starters, who is [b]you[/b]? Generally, ‘you’ refers to the reader or listener, while ‘they’ would refer to DoSJ collectively, in that context.
You seem like bright people. You can figure it out.
[i] Let’s keep the comments about the thread and not about commenters. [/i]
Revamundo, it sounds to me like you’re accusing Bishop Schofield of not giving thought to the concerns of those who disagreed with us. If that’s the case, were you there at convention? If you were, and if you had listened carefully to what he said, you’d know that he did, in fact, say a lot about the feelings of those who disgreed with our vote. This is a man who cares very deeply about the concerns of others, but he is also a man who stands by his convictions and who will not give an inch, nor will he ever back down.
I’d just leave it at “non sequitur” and move on along, myself.
When DoSJ shows anything other than adherence to Scripture, Reason, and Tradition, I’ll be the first to criticize them. Right now, their diocesan is showing all the better signs of keeping his eyes on what is important and letting worldly matters take second place.
It would be better, however, to quit with the comparitives to old ecusa. Shake the dust off your feet and go to the next place that God calls you to. In that sense, keeping ecusa always in sight will just cause the DoSJ to have to walk forwards, facing always to the rear. It is behind you now, and you aren’t going back.
[i] Comment deleted as an ad hominem attack. [/i]
The rump end of #12 remains:
“The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that interventions are not to be sanctioned. – Archbishop Rowan Williams ”
For lack of action on ++Cantuar’s part, DoSJ’s action gains legitimacy daily. Sort of like how ++Cantuar’s dithering legitimizes ecusa’s playing loose and free with Tradition, but in this we are just looking at the left and right shoes in a pair.
[blockquote] I wish to emphasize that Convention’s action is not a schism over secondary issues but a realignment necessitated by false teaching as well as unbiblical sacramental actions that continue to take place in The Episcopal Church. As our new Archbishop so succinctly put it: “Christianity is specific, definable and unchanging. We are not at liberty to deconstruct or rewrite it. If Jesus was the Son of God yesterday then so He is today and will be forever.” [/blockquote]
In my book, this is called “hittin’ it clean out of the ballpark”! Would that more orthodox leaders were possessed of such courage and clarity of thought, word & action. Put the statement on Christianity on a lovely plaque, gift wrap it, and mail it to 815 in time for Christmas someone, please.
When one listens to KJS, it painfully awkward. It is obvious that she is choosing her spin words so carefully. In contrast, it is so very pleasant to hear the clarity of this letter instead of the obfuscation. One hears the same in Akinola, Orombi, and Venables. It is my contention that it is not hard to be a Christian leader. It is very hard to pretend to be a Christian leader.
Simply love the Lord and letters like this flow forth. May the good Lord richly bless the people of San Joaquin.
Or to paraphrase, “to hell (literally) with the Anglican Communion led by the recognized Instruments of Communion.” What an isolated diocesan convention and “a number of other Primates and Bishops” decide trumps the official policy of the Communion (although what an isolated General Convention, supported by a number of other Primates and Bishops, decides does not). In order to “preserve our place in the worldwide Anglican Communion and with the See of Canterbury,” we must ignore the explicit teaching and guidance of that See. I haven’t heard reasoning like what recent days have produced from both the reappraiser and reasserter camps since the days of “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”
Admittedly, Windsor used fairly negative language against border crossing. However, Windsor was rejected in 2006 by the TEC. See the [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/8407/ ]”revisit”[/url] that Kendall has just posted detailing this rejection. Thus, Windsor is dead. That is why DeS came to being. The language of DeS was much more accepting with regards to foreign interventions. To paraphrase: “necessary as long as the TEC carries on with its predatory behavior.” Now DeS is dead (especially the APO scheme), but the predatory behavior continues. Thus, Dale’s contention that the diocese of SJ is “ignoring the explicit teaching and guidance of that See” is flat out wrong. The recent communication of Rowan Williams to Bp Howe further undermines this contention.
Destroying the village? One small diocese realigning with a small province? However, I do believe that realignment movement will be more than just a few dioceses in America obtaining alternative oversight from GS provinces. Rather, it will be transformative to the entire communion.
It is a clear communication to a people he loves and would give his life for. He is a shepherd.
God give us more like him!
I have never met Bishop Schofield. I have never talked to him. I have never sat under his nor his pastor’s ministry. But I have inherited a blessing from something he began several years ago. When your will is to obey Christ then you leave a blessing in your wake. It seems that when Bishop Schofield says, “Thy will be done”, he means it.
“Among those things that will remain the same is the solid teaching of the word of God free from worldly compromise, giving priority to your spiritual well being, faith, and salvation along with a future in the Anglican Communion.”
The bishop will protect his flock and defend the faith.
Don
Not surprisingly, I read this letter from a different vantage than Dale. I am very hopeful that the ABC will recognize this, and other Windsor compliant dioceses, who re-align in order to “maintain the highest level of communion possible.” Indeed, I believe that only if TEC reconciled herself to the teaching of the Anglican Communion, these diocese and “protected parishes” would gladly re-join. Sadly, I don’t see any signs of spiritual recovery in TEC, only more dissipation.
Dale, the [i]village ain’t there.[/i]
Or at least, it isn’t what we thought it was.
[blockquote] it is not hard to be a Christian leader. It is very hard to pretend to be a Christian leader.[/blockquote]Well put, RobRoy
Now all we need is for all those who are sitting on the sidelines to get in the game and create a winning phalanx to make an unmistakable and sacrificial witness to the truth and claim a final victory over the heretical church that has so abused and oppressed us…
22. Don Armstrong:
My first thought was that “You are a ‘phalanx’.”
But it is the Holy Spirit, in the end, that is irrepressible, and it will be those who truely and earnestly pray, “Not my will, but thine be done” who must own the true ministry.
I think that we are scattered sheep just now. One might think that we have been scattered in the last 30 years but I believe that The Episcopal Church has been scattering sheep for over 100 years.
It is time to gather the crumbs together.
Don
If anybody is interested in the specifics on why #20 might be correct, in
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8430/
+Howe seems to describe the evanescent village locus rather well.
explicitly contrary to Scripture.
It’s long past time for liberals to hit back, and hit back hard on this. By their own standards, no conservative believes that Deut 23:19 or Ex 22:25 are the Word of God (anti-Interest laws). NONE. There is NO evidence that this law is not still binding on us, if it ever was. NONE.
Conservatives do not believe scripture is the Word of God, by their own standards. It is is simple as that – it really is.
Sidney- you are of course correct, as the NT injunctions against storing up unneeded wealth for the future when God might call you home tonight indicate. But the problem you specifically bring up isn’t one of “conservatism”, as you semantically put things. It is rather with how we all order our lives. By merely having an interest bearing checking account we are literally accumulating unneeded wealth.
There are similar issues in how we prioritize our lives wrt even more basic injunctions like “keep the Sabbath holy”. I went out and bought tree lights on Sunday afternoon, requiring somebody at Home Depot to be there working to man the store. In a truly righteous life and society, I wouldn’t be shopping on the Sabbath, due to it contravening both OT and NT.
[blockquote] By their own standards, no conservative believes that Deut 23:19 or Ex 22:25 are the Word of God (anti-Interest laws).[/blockquote]
Sidney, the answer to this red herring is in Hooker. And it is not in the fine print.
Sidney,
further clarified in the Articles of Religion:
VII. Of the Old Testament.
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises.
Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.
Sidney (#25),
That’s a rather shellfish argument, don’t you think?
+Schofield is a true man of God. The revisionists can say what they wont about him. Who cares.
Sidney, it is not that simple. For many of us the current controversy has less to do with the specific levitical proscriptions and more to do with general and pervasive statements about marriage. Their may be few verses of the former (which should be considered), but there are many verses, all over scripture, including some attributed to Jesus himself, on the latter. It is our theology of marriage, in all its depth and richness, that is really at stake.
Many of us would really like to find a way; we feel for our GLBT brothers and sisters, and would really like to find a faithful, scriptural justification for their viewpoint. But we just can’t find it. “Usury” and the “shellfish argument” just aren’t sufficient.
#28. nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth
I see no reason that commandments on economics must be classified as civil law. They seem pretty moral to me.
#29. I think the case against interest is rather similar to the case against homosexual activity, frankly.
——–
It seems to me that the history of Christianity is one instance after another of one generation deciding it does not like certain commandments of scripture – from St. Paul to Hooker up to today – and then coming up with silly apologetic reasons why their position is acceptable. Which of course is no problem when the majority approves. The official reasons, no matter how illogical, do not matter to the masses. The gay crowd is just the latest in a long tradition of this. I fully agree scripture is against them. I don’t need Hooker to see that. But they will lose, of course – not because they are any more illogical than any of their spiritual ancestors – but because they are a minority and most people just don’t want to deal with them. They will lose even if God is entirely on their side.
Why would we question whether the One who identifies Himself as “the same yesterday, today, and forever” change now?
What does it mean that God is the same yesterday, today and forever? That his commandments never change? (Surely not!) But what else could Schofield be implying by this statement?
#32 “What does it mean that God is the same yesterday, today and forever? That his commandments never change? (Surely not!) ”
vs.
Matthew 5
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
#33 Tom, you’re making my point for me. I know those verses well. And I am sick of the laughable rationalizations that Christians have accepted through the centuries that say those verses are perfectly consistent with, say: (courtesy #28)
Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men
If it walks like illogic, and talks like illogic, and quacks like illogic, my conclusion it that is IS illogical.
It’s simple really, the ceremonial and ritual law was put out of commission (i.e., fulfilled) on the Cross. That’s why we do not have to subscribe to them, and why we don’t sacrifice sheep, goats, bulls or doves in church services today. St. Paul and the writer of Hebrews states as much.