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-Ã -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
What a gracious and irenic letter. Bishop Jefferts Schori has agreed with Archbishop Williams’ call for further dialogue, and Bishop Schofield also agrees.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC
It appears that Bp. Schofield is very careful not to clarify his status, as the letter from KJS requested. I hope this is because he is aware that her letter was an attempt, for legal purposes, to get a back-door admission that he may somehow be in violation of ecusa canon law.
If he IS aware, and I can only assume that he is, this is an excellent and angelic counter-maneuver. It is a respectful reply that outlines, but does not even come close to specifying, how he and the diocese see themselves as being under a higher ecclesial authority than ecusa and the PB. I think it will serve to encourage the faithful in his diocese, and that is what his first priority should be.
My grandmother would describe this letter as, “talkin’ loud and sayin’ nothin’!”
So isn’t it ironic how #2 likes this sort of wishy-washy unclear language and #3 doesn’t? Doesn’t the [b]exact opposite[/b] reaction happen when Mrs. Shori and the House of Bishops write with wishy-washy unclear language?
Looks like some people want to have their cake and eat it too.
I admire that even in the midst of much tension and disagreement, there seems to be a “calm” nature to this letter. That’s helpful.
However, he does seem to avoid answering any specifics. It seems like he doesn’t answer the direct question because, as he admits, he doesn’t really know. Of course, he should have thought about all of this in advance – I’m guessing he did, but as #2 suggests he’s being very careful with good reason. I’ve yet to hear of any pastoral scheme he’s offering to those in his (former?) diocese who want to remain Episcopalian. If he wants alternative oversight himself, wouldn’t it be wise to lead by example?
+Schofield says: “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.”
Like hell. The ABC’s personal opinions about what constitutes an “Anglican” are of no relevance to whether +Schofield has abandoned the communion of TEC, which he indisputably has. Time for presentments.
The thing which the reasserters posting here seem to admire is a clear and concise avoidance of the truth. The man who claims to follow Scripture has woven quite a little tale about his ‘status.’ The ‘oppressed’ leader of those whose souls he claims to cherish can not even bring himself to declare where he stands. Sad for you all. Sadder still for him.
The bishop’s language is hardly ‘wishy washy’. There are many factor at play here, to which clarification remains to be seen. Clarification from the ABC about his conversations with ++Venables and +Howe; clarification of the oversight question as uniformly recommended by the primates at DES; the offer of temporary oversight by the Southern Cone; the overwhelming dissatisfaction of the direction being taken by ECUSA -overwhelming by the laity and clergy alike, not simply the bishop; the strong desire to remain in communion with the totality of the AC -bnot the impaired communion ECUSA experiences today with many provinces and the the AC at large.
As for ” ‘talkin’ loud and sayin’ little” -bishop Schofield is not only listening loud to his diocese but he has publically stated that he will support the few ECUSA parishes who want to remain with ECUSA and do not feel any desire to follow the majority of the diocese.
You can just hear the revisionist teeth grinding, can’t you? Then again, I think +Schofield has laid out the facts quite clearly here and invited Kate Schori to put her finger on his status. Why is it his job to define how TEC sees him, after all?
Given Mrs. Schori’s past attempts at threatening by mail, her December 14th letter to Bishop Schofield didn’t deserve any response. That he chose to reply so graciously says something quite admirable about the Bishop of San Joaquin. His words, unlike those of Mrs. Schori, are trust-worthy and wise. His letter also suggests that, unlike Mrs. Schori, he does not confuse threats and intimidation with reconciliation.
DC, DC, calm down. You sound almost, well, if this were a religion you were discussing I’d say “Dogmatic”. But you don’t believe in those. Just a matter for better order in the YMCA or the ROTARY.
Charles, DC, and Brian from T19:
I categorically reject the idea that there is anything wishy-washy in the Bishop’s response. The letter is shrewd and appropriate given the climate of canonical, historical and doctrinal re-interpretation and distortion that prevails among the postmod/progressivist TEC/usa intelligentsia. The ArchPresider’s letter was clearly a set-up, and if he were playing the same sinister game that the ArchPresider and her henchmen were playing, he would have told her to simply refer to the San Joaquin Diocesan Convention resolutions and their diocesan canons. He would have also asked for her to clarify TEC/usa’s status with regard to the Primates expectations of a moratorium on same-sex blessings and alternative oversight for alienated traditional diocese and parishes.
Instead, he responds in writing as graciously and respectfully as he can, addressing the general subject matter that the ArchPresider has asked him to address, but without forcing himself to live within the unreal parameters of the gnostic religion of the moment that prevails among an ideologically and politically-driven elite. An elite who claim more and more authority for themselves even as they also claim that in religion and spirituality there is no such thing as authority of one person over another – there is simply each persons individual “Truth” coexisting under the meditative power of a meaningless liturgical ritual that keeps us all democratically and liberally “open” to one another’s “Truth” as we share in the sacred ceremonial meal where we eat the Enlightened One’s symbols of the affirmation of our materiality, sensuality and humanness. Why does Bishop Schofield pay no attention to this ever evolving inclusivist semi-epicurean spiritualism? Because his faith is in the Blessed and Undivided Trinity (God the Father; His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, Our Lord; and the Holy Spirit of God, the Lord and Giver of Life) and the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the historic Anglican tradition of the Church catholic. His faith does not lie in the political and rhetorical skill of people who think just like he does or in a ecclesiastical system/polity based on a supposed fidelity to an ever evolving Anglo-American constitutionalism (see Bp. Stacey Sauls or David Booth Beers – any recent presentations or writings) that has nothing to do with the apostolic catholic Faith.
I have to confess that to some extent this has been a rant. But how can supposedly libertarian and democratically-minded progressivists (or middle of the road, go-along-to-get-along Americanized episcopalians) get so upset when some in their religious association decide that, by following the association sub-chapter rules and proper procedures, they want to change their affiliation? After all, it only makes the prevailing perspective of the remaining membership more like their own. Could it be that being libertarian and democratically-minded really aren’t among their top priorities? Maybe, just like most Americans who have had been trained in their legal or business or country club subcultures to have ambition and to devote themselves religiously to their own personal success, their real highest priority is simply to win, wherever they can – and that prevails over everything else.
For the sake of clarity DC, please explain to us how the presentment of the Bishop of San Juaquin is significant? At the stroke of a pen he will be no longer under any obligation to TecusaPecusaTec. I doubt that Archbishop Venables, his new provincial, will be interested in the opinions of the thoroughly disreputable HOB of TEC, nor will he pay the slightest heed to any of their acts. The Diocese of San Juaquin and its Bishop are right where they always were, and their former province is powerless to interfere with that fact.
I see that Mrs. Schori is organizing her new “diocese” in Fresno. This is a clear case of incursion into the territory of the province of Archbishop Venables by Schori and I expect the Primates to condemn this ilicit intrusion into another Anglican diocese and province. Shameless behavior.
[i]Looks like some people want to have their cake and eat it too. [/i]
That is exactly what Schofield wants! He can’t give a straight answer because obfuscation covers up his lies. Remember when he told his flock that the “ABC approved of his plans” and “they would remain Anglican.” Now of course, we know that was just not true. Reasserters should be asking themselves if they really want this guy who is so unfamiliar with candor as a bishop in their new church. Oh wait, I forgot he can do no wrong.
[i] The elves would appreciate less sarcasm. It does not add to the thread. [/i].
“Whatever happens, we are bound to seek the fruitful ways of carrying forward liaison with provinces whose policies cause scandal or difficulty to others.”
Note that +++RW uses the word “liaison” as opposed to “constituence” or “constituent membership”.
Dr. Schori’s letter was legalistic and cold.
JD’s is loving and Christian.
I fail to see what is unclear in this situation.
[blockquote]That is exactly what Schofield wants! He can’t give a straight answer because obfuscation covers up his lies. Remember when he told his flock that the “ABC approved of his plans†and “they would remain Anglican.†Now of course, we know that was just not true. Reasserters should be asking themselves if they really want this guy who is so unfamiliar with candor as a bishop in their new church. Oh wait, I forgot he can do no wrong. [/blockquote]
Revamundo is utterly irony-proof. What, precisely, have been +Schofield’s “lies?”
wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove – it is the proper and frankly irenic steely stuff that I expect from such a godly bishop.
Ian Montgomery +
#17 Unperson Schofield’s goldsteinist untruths are at:
http://ecusania.blogspot.com/2007/12/malreport-san-joaquin.html
Jeffersonian,
Here are some of his lies:
1. That he has it on impeccable authority that the ABC supports the secession (although this may simply be an unintentional misrepresentation as it came out before the Advent Letter)
2. That he, his secessionist priests and seceding former members of the Diocese continue to be members of the Anglican Communion
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. the status of The Episcopal Church’s member-ship in the Anglican Communion looking more and more precarious
6. 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
and the BIG one
7. (The Rt. Rev.) John-David Schofield is Bishop of San Joaquin
#20 Brian- you obviously disagree with the letter, but such disagreements do not constitute lies when these opinions are dependant on the viewpoint of the reader.
Your #7 is a case in point. ++Venables obviously disagrees with you and agrees with +Schofield. Similarly, Pope Benedict would disagree that Rowan Williams is the actual Archbishop of Canterbury. Now Benedict could use the same polemic style as you in his addresses to Rowan, but that would be indeed in poor taste.
Suddenly differences of opinion are “lies?”
Try the decaf next time, Brian.
I love that site, #19. The guy in back is creepy.
That image was off an Apple Computer advert for a Superbowl about two decades ago. The one where the female athlete ran into the mass indoctrination and tossed the hammer at the image. One of the best advertisements in the last decades, in my opinion.
So good in fact, that a Barak Obama staffer took the Big Brother image out of the frames and inserted Hillary doing some boring speech. Same ad, just a different big brother. Hillary’s campaign actually got Obama to fire the staffer, but here it is still:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo
Ah yes, I remember being bowled over by that ad at the time….January 1984, the launch of the Mac.
Maybe somebody can clarify something for me. Just why, exactly, does Bishop Schofield care about his status in ECUSA at all? Why not just answer the question “Yes, I hereby resign from the HoB?” Is he allowing for the possibility of reconciliation, be it for reason of a change in ECUSA’s direction, or in case the mutiny somehow ‘fails’, whatever that would mean? Or is he just trying to force ECUSA to go through the scene of a trial? Is there a pension issue here?
Sour grapes, Revamundo? Sure looks like it! We won, and you lost! The score so far? The AC 20 or so, TEC 0.
Brian, I didn’t know there had already been an inhibition and deposition of the good Bp Schofield. Yes, I know it will come, and your side will look terrible for it. But the revisionists can’t stop their march of folly.
I think this is actually a rather shrewd letter. He doesn’t directly answer the question and appeals to the mediation suggested by the ABC’s Advent Letter. If +Schori goes ahead and deposes or sues before waiting for that mediation, it will look like she is rejecting the ABC’s offer of mediation. She can certainly do that, and claim it is merely and internal TEC matter. But it puts the onus on her to accept or reject mediation, and could show bad faith if the latter. I don’t know whether mediation, even with Cantuar will solve anything, but I think it is an interesting strategy on John-David’s part. And you gotta know he had lawyers review his response.
Some people give the impression that they think that The Episcopal Church is logically prior to bishops of dioceses, despite the fact that the Episcopal Church, historically, is a creation of bishops of dioceses. It certainly is not The Church the way Lenny Bruce described the RCC as being the only The Church. On its own terms, it is a branch.
I’m not Anglican, never have been, so I don’t actually have a dogma in this fight. But watching revisionist Episcopalians treat their province of the Anglican Communion and its PB as if it were the Church Universal and she were Innocent III just makes me laugh.
Sidney- See #29, but also, the concern might be for the position of the diocesan of San Joquin. Right now, ecusa thinks that the state corporation should be run by somebody other than the Standing Committee of the last Diocesan Convention, with Schofield as its bishop and president. Schofield is presenting the idea that there might not be an easy answer to that, and that whatever the answer is now might change based on external factors such as what happens within the Communion.
As has been said before, with Schofield being a very senior cleric, there is no pension issue concerning his vested benefits. As with all legal issues, that is a matter for the courts, federal in the case of pensions. In almost all cases bishops are fully vested.
#22 Jeffersonian, differences of opinions are only lies when reappraisers disagree with reasserters, especially over things legal.
When reasserters disagree with reappraisers, especially about Scripture and Tradition, reappraisers are not lying, they are doing a New Thing.(TM)
Have you learned nothing over the last four years?
Just why, exactly, does Bishop Schofield care about his status in ECUSA at all? Why not just answer the question “Yes, I hereby resign from the HoB?†Is he allowing for the possibility of reconciliation, be it for reason of a change in ECUSA’s direction, or in case the mutiny somehow ‘fails’, whatever that would mean? Or is he just trying to force ECUSA to go through the scene of a trial? Is there a pension issue here?,/i>
Several reasons actually
1. He does not want to give up the illusion of power and status that he now has. Once he is deposed, he becomes another in the long line of breakaways who have left the Anglican Communion. Being a part of the Continuing Anglican movement isn’t all that special.
2. The pension. You see, no matter how much the secessionists blather about Scripture and Tradition, in the end it is all about power, money and real estate. It’s about having your cake and eating it too. Hold on to everything and sacrifice nothing. The difference between TEC and the secession ists is that we admit we want the power, money and real estate. They simply think that Jesus needs the power, money and real estate. It’s a movement of the Spirit really.
3. A simple lock of conviction. An inability to fully embrace the ‘truth’ that the secessionists have fabricated.
Brian from T19:
So much of what you have said on this thread is laughable, and really deserves no response. But c’mon, do you really think it’s Anglican to call a bishop a liar seven times and provide no evidence to back it up? And do you honestly believe that Bishop Schofield is duty-bound to treat KJS and General Convention as authorities that he must submit to, yet KJS, the HOB, and company have the right to simply ignore the spiritual authority of the Primates and the Communion as a whole?
Finally, you cooked up this gem –
[blockquote] You see, no matter how much the secessionists blather about Scripture and Tradition, in the end it is all about power, money and real estate. [/blockquote]
How much power, money, and real estate does anyone end-up with in all of this? No one knows, but it is certain that no individual or parish ends up rich (unless someone get a book deal, of course) from how this all shakes out. They ARE taking a risk here. Furthermore, where the California Supreme Court’s ruling will leave property and property rights distributed is simply anyone’s guess and things could be up in the air for some time. No seceding bishop is going to end up ensconced in a mansion with a diocesan chef, manicurist, theological jester/dictationist, and housekeeping staff at his disposal, along with a 24-hour hotline to the Pope. Please get real – most of your commentary appears to be just flat-out slander.
There is no pension issue besides whether DoSJ can or cannot make [i]continuing contributions[/i] to the Episocpal Church Pension Fund on behalf of Schofield. Whatever resolution accrues to that question, the long term effects of that on Schofield’s financial situation at his age would be minimal. The obvious alternative, after all, is to put the funds into another retirement vehicle of similar risk profile. The net effect, outside of transaction fees, would be negligible.
I cannot see what Brian’s basis is for the preceding bullet 2 in #33.
But c’mon, do you really think it’s Anglican to call a bishop a liar seven times and provide no evidence to back it up?
Actually 6 times as I believe #1 was probably an honest mistake on his part since ++Venables and +Lyons lied to him. Everything I have said is fact-not opinion. I think it is a duty of those who profess to follow Jesus to be honest when so much is at stake. Not sure if it is Anglican.
And do you honestly believe that Bishop Schofield is duty-bound to treat KJS and General Convention as authorities that he must submit to, yet KJS, the HOB, and company have the right to simply ignore the spiritual authority of the Primates and the Communion as a whole?
I think that each person is an individual and it is not a “you did this, so I’ll do this” game. If ++Katharine and/or the HoB lie or show a lack of integrity, that is on them. The same goes for the reasserter side. And yes, as an autonomous Province, our PB has just as much spiritual authority as anyone else.
How much power, money, and real estate does anyone end-up with in all of this?
It is not about certainty, but rather the possibility. Someone who claims to follow Scripture would “wipe the dust from their feet.” Jesus doesn’t need your buildings. If +Schofield is right, then the Lord will provide – or maybe my Bible has it wrong.
There is no pension issue besides whether DoSJ can or cannot make continuing contributions to the Episocpal Church Pension Fund on behalf of Schofield…I cannot see what Brian’s basis is for the preceding bullet 2 in #33.
It is an economic concept called compound interest.
“It is an economic concept called compound interest. ”
This comment is silly. By pension law, vested interests all receive the same treatment. The pension managers have to treat Schori’s and Schofield’s and Joe Priest Down the Street’s account exactly the same. Otherwise the managers get fined or even jailed. They cannot differentiate. The only issue is whether the person is a continuing employee, or has left their employment position. That was the narrow basis of Schori’s letter to Schofield. Schofield is merely saying that there are bigger issues involved that just pensions, which can be retroactively adjusted anyway. Schori knew all this when she wrote, otherwise a junior clerk at the pension fund could have written the diocesan payroll clerk to get an answer on Schofield’s status.
“Who is the bishop?” is not so easy to figure out, so if you want to work on something that isn’t insignificant, worry about something other than pensions.
Hmmm . . .
Brian opines that this is a lie: “2. That he, his secessionist priests and seceding former members of the Diocese continue to be members of the Anglican Communion”
I guess it all depends on whether Rowan Williams revokes Bishop Schofield’s invitation to Lambeth. The tea leaves — especially in the Advent Letter to the Primates, backed up by the Howe letter — seem to imply that this revocation will not occur and that, in fact, *dioceses* who leave for another province will be recognized.
I await Rowan’s decision with great interest. Very great interest . . . and I have no idea which way he’ll leap.
As to this second opined lie: “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.”
I think it’s apparent to all — including Brian From T19 — that no traditional diocese in ECUSA ultimately will be allowed to maintain “the fullness of the heritage that we have received” and this is most initially apparent with the three Anglo-Catholic dioceses, although no doubt a decade hence it will be apparent for the remaining 15 or so evangelical dioceses.
That’s one of the things people need to continue to recognize — the General Convention, wholly owned by raving, foaming at the mouth revisionists, occurs every three years. Every three years now further . . . shall we say . . . “immoderate” and embarrassing idiocies will be revealed as the “HerChurch-type” deputies are unleashed with all of their decision-making grandiosity.
Every three years, moderate rectors will have to step up into their pulpit and explain these actions or pontificate on them or triumph in them [rarer and rarer these days, since in moderate dioceses, parishes that have such rectors plummet in attendance and rarely recover] or deny them wholesale or determinedly ignore them [also increasingly difficult].
It’s just not gonna get any easier for the moderates to keep a brave face on things. Honestly, I look forward to each and every General Convention with keen anticipation.
RE: “I’ve yet to hear of any pastoral scheme he’s offering to those in his (former?) diocese who want to remain Episcopalian.”
I’m surprised that Mark Johnson has not read the repeated and clear statements coming from this diocese that parishes who desire to remain in TEC are welcome to do so and keep their property.
Just a trifle different from the attitude of revisionist bishops — but that’s to be expected and no suprise.
Sarah
I agree with almost everything you have said. The only point where I disagree is hat no traditional diocese in ECUSA ultimately will be allowed to maintain “the fullness of the heritage that we have received.â€
As for General Convention being wholly owned by raving, foaming at the mouth revisionists, that is something that the reasserters ceded long ago. You mention 3 Anglo-Catholic Diocese, 15 Evangelical and an unspecified number of moderate – where are their bishops and deputies? Why aren’t they voting? Kendall+ does.
Hi Brian . . .
Let’s stick with the 18 or so dioceses . . .
And, uh . . . there are 110 dioceses. So that probably puts the 18 or so into stark contrast there. ; > )
So you know . . . their bishops and deputies are lost at GC.
Like I’ve said since before GC 2006 — the breakdown of deputies at the General Convention [unlike, for instance, most dioceses and parishes and individuals in the church] is approximately as follows: 50% Raving Revisionists [damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead], about 35% Institutional Revisionists [let’s drop anchor here and hope they all fall asleep again . . . or “we need a surviving host to carry our ideas — don’t kill the host yet”], and about 15% conservatives.
That was the intriguing thing about 06 . . . it was the [i]first time[/i] that the famed Broad Center [as defined by Bishop Lee, himself an institutional revisionist] found themselves in the minority . . . and the result wasn’t pretty for them, nor were they particularly happy as they rode into their dioceses to write their fuming letters about the “divisive conservatives on the fringes” who totally ruined their General Convention. ; > )
As that 15% continues to shrink, the truly interesting battles will be between the Raving Revisionists and the Institutional Revisionists. We’re already seeing the interesting results of that battle in Executive Committee, and certainly in the HOB.
I wholly agree that reasserters ceded involvement in the political processes of the church long long ago, except on a purely local level in some regions.
Sarah, you forgot to mention that any parish wanting to leave DoSJ can do so, as long as they don’t leave the diocese with any indebtedness. If they’re in hock to the diocese, they can forget it.
#42 I really don’t think that anybody has said explicitly:
“If they’re in hock to the diocese, they can forget it.”
the [url=http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2007/12/8/presiding-bishop-eyes-new-leadership-for-diocese-of-san-joaquin]TLC implies that is very much up in the air.[/url]
If you have some citation that says otherwise, please provide it.
I found this on the Anglican Scotist’s (a revisionist) site:
[blockquote]Sure, TEC could turn that around, as we have the Message and a target audience very well-suited to hear the way we have received the Gospel. But that is not where we are putting our energy. That is not where the funds are going. TEC has been suckered into taking “the Global South’s” Provincial Two-Step seriously enough to waste an enormous amount of time and energy on it. That is–in my opinion–a big mistake. Why?
[a] When there’s a shouting match in front of the store, people will be disinclined to come in. They won’t have the time or energy to figure it all out and to see what is going on–they’ll move away from the margins to somewhere else: not in all cases, but in enough cases that we should be worried.[/blockquote]
I suggest everyone to read the whole thing found [url=http://anglicanscotist.blogspot.com/2007/11/hypotheses-on-schism.html ]here[/url]. He is not correct that they have the “message.” Look at the story at SF about the contracture of the United Church of Canada. Inclusivity is a death sentence for a church. What will happen is that the contracture will occur much more quickly. Inhibiting and deposing 70 year old godly bishops does not make for good PR. I wonder if there are others who are echoing the Anglican Scotist that the lawsuits are a nightmare for the institutional revisionists.
Whether or not +John-David is brought up on presentment and deposed will make absolutely no difference to Archbishop Venables, his House of Bishops, his Synod, and certainly not to us in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin. It will amount to nothing more than whistling into the wind, and will be totally useless……an exercise in rhetoric.
#45, it would seem to be simply an acknowledgment of what +Schofield has been at some pains to make clear, namely, that he is no longer a bishop under the authority of the Episcopal Church.
It is a good letter, as forthright as it can be, given how uncertain the times are for Anglicans in North America. Bishop Schofield is a man of spiritual authority and personal integrity. May God continue to bless him and the people he serves!
“Inclusivity is a death sentence for a church”. Well said RobRoy – sucinct and accurate.
I disagree with Sarah however about the 15 or so Evangelical diocese. I think they will quickly splinter like N. Florida and currently Central Florida – many parishes will depart – some intact some in splinters – to the Common Cause or a second province will create new missions or organice parishes inside the Evangelical Dioceses.
I do think GC 2009 is likely to be a real show stopper unless the institutional liberals can rein in the crazies – if they adopt same sex blessings all bets are off.
Hey Chips, my comment here — “As that 15% continues to shrink” — is similar to what you said about the 15 or so Evangelical dioceces. In the absence of differentiated leadership from bishops and clergy, many parishes will indeed depart. So we may not necessarily disagree, unless I have misunderstood your comment.
This letter is filled with weasal words. +Schofield has left TEC but doesn’t have the integrity to come out and say so. The entire letter is an insult to the Church. He should be formally deposed as soon as possible.
Deposed from the DoSJ as part of the Southern Cone, or ecusa? Your asserted need for deposition doesn’t directly say, but as “+Schofield has left TEC”, logically the reader can only presume the former.
But I find the likelihood of ++Venables deposing +Schofield to be vanishingly small.