Bishop John-David Schofield’s tone was urgent this month as he exhorted delegates from his Central California diocese to leave the Episcopal Church.
For more than 20 years, Schofield said, he had watched in dismay as the national church strayed from Scripture and made controversial decisions about theology and sexuality, including the role of gays in the church. Now, he told delegates to his diocese’s annual convention, it was time to act.
“God’s timing is essential!” the bishop declared, his voice rising. “Delayed obedience to Scripture is seen as disobedience when opportunities and blessings are lost.”
Schofield has emerged as a pivotal player in the drama surrounding the future of one of the nation’s most influential denominations. At the meeting of delegates from across the Diocese of San Joaquin, he displayed the strong-willed personality that has won him both admirers and detractors.
There was no time to lose, he told the delegates. The national church could put new rules in place to prevent such secession attempts. The moment might never come again, he said.
The measures passed, by huge margins.
San Joaquin, a Fresno-based diocese of 47 parishes, had elected to become the first diocese in the nation to break with the Episcopal Church over theological issues and align with a conservative Anglican province in South America. And Schofield, according to supporters and critics alike, had played the central role in those historic Dec. 8 decisions, propelling his largely conservative flock along a path that could prove risky for all concerned.
The good bishop visited St. Nicholas’ Atwater yesterday.
A remarkably honest piece of reporting. I wish that others would hear his words:
[blockquote]”There was no time to lose, he told the delegates. The national church could put new rules in place to prevent such secession attempts. The moment might never come again, he said.”[/blockquote]
Those that delay condemn their children or grandchildren to the fate having someone like Bp Smith of Connecticut or Lee of Virginia as their spiritual heads.
+Schofield is exactly right about the window of opportunity closing, something the ACI utterly fails to recognize. To delay is to condemn one’s orthodox parish and diocese to perpetual bondage to the apostate host.
WARNING: This post defiantly is off topic.
Merry Christmas everyone!
[i] Ad hominem attack deleted by elf. [/i]
The meaningful content of my previous post was edited out, ostensibly because it contained a link to a heretical site. Mea maxima culpa.
Leaving as an exercise for the discerning reader the location of the complete facts of the case — one really needn’t stop the world to find them — let me just summarize by observing that +John-David visited the mission of St. Nicholas, Atwater yesterday for Sunday services, accompanied by bodyguards, and announced that he was most emphatically not, contrary to rumors, firing the vicar and closing the mission.
He did, however, note that, sadly, this mission congregation was generating insufficient income to warrant employment of a full-time vicar; self-sufficiency being, of course, the long-standing requirement of missions. +John-David magnanimously pledged to send supply priests of his choosing from time to time to minister to the occasional needs of this small, but growing — approximately 30% increase in ASA in one year — flock.
Interestingly enough, the vicar of St. Nicholas did not vote with the good Bishop at the latest diocesan convention and had recently opined out loud that he rather thought the Episcopal Church might be fine place for the congregation to remain, but that, no doubt is merely one of life’s odd little coincidences.
[i] Take care to not go overboard in criticism of the bishop. The elves will deleted anything that sounds like an attack. [/i]
The vicar did not vote for realignment but neither did he vote against it. He bravely abstained. The ASA was up last year but down the preceding. Certainly, the vicar doesn’t expense to be recompensed by the diocese when he writes so uncharitably about the good bishop?
Sophia, thanks for the report (and the indication where one might find more information). I was wondering what would happen when he showed up in Atwater. Apparently he didn’t stay long, but, in defiance of Risard’s demand, it appears he did celebrate and preach. It also looks like supporters showed up from all over the valley, including some carpetbaggers from the Bay Area. I find it slightly disturbing that my own bishop sent a “representative”.
My apologies to the elf. In the spirit of Christmas I will show charity. Christmas blessings to all.
Maybe some reasserters could explain this behavior to me. +Schofield did not pass the peace, did not stay to help distribute food baskets to the poor after being invited to do so, did not stay to visit with anyone after the service but instead went out the back door during the recessional.
Take care to not go overboard in criticism of the bishop. The elves will deleted anything that sounds like an attack.
Oh, dear, far be from me to hint at criticism. I merely seek elucidation. As I am from an apostate diocese long since plunged into darkness, I thought I might turn to my brothers and sisters bathed in the luminescent glow of godly orthodoxy for some insight into the good bishop’s motivations and machinations.
Here’s perhaps another way of looking at the situation: Substitute “Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori” (oh, alright — “Mrs. Schori” per the customary site usage) for “Bishop Schofield” and [your favorite orthodox congregation] for “St. Nicholas, Atwater” in this scenario and see if any thoughts and reactions form.
NB: “S/he hit me first” didn’t work in grade school and is unlikely to be convincing here, either.
[i] Because you appear to be a new commenter, we think it only fair to warn you about the tone
we expect from commenters. [/i]
Dear Revamundo and Sophia,
I do not know what you are intending to insinuate about the the Good Bishop of San Joaquin. Though I have never met him – except through the internet – he appears to be Godly person who actively strives to follow Jesus.
I must disclose that I am Filipino and am a seminarian at Yale Divinity School – where it is excessively self-proclaimed as liberal, progressive, and social-justice oriented — These people claim to help the poor. Yet, in their so called Christian claims — they do not. They are so caught up with their studies that they do not even notice the people around, let alone the poor in their midst.
Coming here to Yale has made me realize that the “liberal” bias is just a smokescreen for people to be self-serving, unauthentic, and fake. Not to mention that they are mostly middle class whites. Liberals as experienced in this environment are not into self-criticism, openness, or diversity.
I am not glorifying the conservative position either – they have their issues too. Liberal or conservative — I do not care . . . I am fully relied on God. The Scriptures are indeed the Word of God and My hope is in Christ Jesus.
For He alone is Lord and He alone can save us from this mess.
Merry Christmas
Sophia- perhaps facts, not opinions, would not trigger the elvish censors?
The problem with opinions being that, if unsupported by facts, the other readers cannot sympathize with your subjective interpretations. I would take #11 as a counterexample proving the point, as it really is only a hypothetical opinion, and hence did not suffer censorship.
Meantime, I’d commend this reporter, who does exactly his job: reporting. There being two sides to every issue, he actually reported those sides without great interpretation.
#10 Maybe he had another appointment?
I donno… wasn’t there and I’m not the episcopal secretary.
#6 Sophia- another issue your post brings up: ASA isn’t everything. Diocesan support of a monetary nature is mandated by a lack of pledging units and $/pledge (ergo, total pledges). ASA is a leading indicator at best, and I could show from my own mission, a rather poor one.
What any diocese has to see is how a mission will grow into a self sufficient parish. That sufficiency is both monetary and theologically determined, for a parish with no legitimate clergy is no parish at all. Hence, how would St. Nicholas pay a rector, in the first place? Then, how would that rector fit into the DoSJ? If either of these cannot be answered, then Schofield’s episcopal reply “to send supply priests of his choosing from time to time to minister to the occasional needs” (assuming you are citing him accurately) is entirely appropriate. As I pointed out in another thread, Schori is doing Risard+ absolutely no favors in not appointing a mission bishop over St. Nicholas or putting that mission under another diocese. Risard and that mission do not need to be fighting 815’s battles for them as they have neither the standing nor means to do so.
Dear Aristotle, thank you for the note. I will be in the Philippines next month on a medical mission, Samar to be specific. My first time.
I am a conservative but the call to serve Christ through serving others is central to my faith. But my take on it is that Jesus said, Love God (with all that entails: faith, repentance, obedience) then love ones neighbors (the social gospel). If one tries to do the social gospel without the faithfulness, obedience and penitence, then the social gospel becomes a means of self-justification. “I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.” When I read about the likes of Bp Schofield, [i]”he also rises each day at 4 a.m. to pray, attend early church services and visit the widely scattered parishes he leads”[/i], I realize how far that I have to go in this faith journey.
Have a very blessed Christmas.
The attendance and revenue numbers for St. Nicholas’ Atwater are available on the website of The Episcopal Church. As I’ve been edited today already for referencing theologically suspect websites, I’ll not hazard a link, though the genuinely curious can know doubt find the information they seek with a modicum of effort.
But my confusion does not arise around the issue of whether the people of St. Nicholas “deserve” their church and vicar, but why the bishop of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin chose to make what all impartial observers must agree is a rather drastic decision about this priest and this church at this time.
If I read +John-David’s response to queries about the status of his relationship to The Episcopal Church correctly, he may or may not be part of it, depending upon this action or that taken or not taken in response to events that may or may not occur. I’m paraphrasing, of course. Quibble as you may about the precise reading, it seems clear the bishop regards himself (and one assumes the diocese with which he is associated in this somewhat indeterminate manner) as being in a state of transition.
Would prudence not suggest that precipitous actions of any sort in this period — but especially those that could possibly be construed by the uninformed as vindictive or petty — should be deferred until the relationships between the various stakeholders are brought into sharper focus? I think a period of two months might be appropriate, but others might press for a more contracted interval, which is certain understandable in light of this baffling episode.
But, again, I’m not privy to the thoughts of the good bishop and he has offered no public rationale for his actions. I am certain there must be a plausible rationale beyond the rather ugly and unfair conclusions one might be tempted to draw in the absence of a reasoned explanation, which will no doubt be forthcoming.
In the meantime, I remain confused and would appreciate any insights those better-informed in the ways that reasserters wield episcopal power might care to offer. To my way of thinking, it looks remarkably like the rightly deplored tactics of the reappraisers — though they tend toward the slow strangle, rather than the quick throat slit — but, again, much of this is beyond my ken.
Thank you and a Merry Christmas to all!
I’m new to blogging, so forgive me if this gets mangled. I’m hoping to reply to the comment by Alta Californian, Comment #8 above.(http://http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/8644/#162599).
I don’t know who the representative is that Alta Californian may be referring to, but it may be me, based on an error widely reported in other places. If so, I’d like to make clear to everyone that the report that Bishop Beisner of Northern California sent a representative, namely me, is incorrect. It was misreported, not maliciously, just innocently. Bishop Beisner sent no representative. He did not send me. I was at St. Nicholas Episcopal Church on Sunday morning, December 23 representing only my little old self.
Hope that helps, just in case the reference was in fact to me. If not, delete.
However I will say that Bishop Beisner has said to me and to many others on many occasions that he has the warmest regards for and holds deeply in his heart the concerns of his brothers and sisters in the Diocese of San Joaquin. Nothing more; nothing less.
A blessed Christmas to all!
This is off thread so the elves may X this, but I can’t other place to put this information which I think the blog readers will find interesting.
My son is in an class set up by the Univ of Cal for Chinese students who are already competent in the language. So Canaan is now attending classes in Qing Hua University. This gives him access to all sorts of places, and on Christmas Eve, he went to an Anglican cathedral in Beijing. (I didn’t know there WAS such a thing.) He said it was solid full, something in the order of 1500 people. He said there was little recognizable ritual but the priests were dressed like bishops, in black and red. There was no communion, about which he said that even if there had been, he doubted anyone there would have known what to do. There was a Santa Claus going up and down the isles with a bag full of goldpaper wrapped peanuts which he was giving out free. So anxious are the Chinese to get somethiing for nothing that, he said, there were people standing up during the service and snapping their fingers to get Santa’s attention. The service was of course in Chinese, but he said he was astounded to hear the Alleluia chorus in Chinese. Mercy! The hymns were in Chinese too but he didn’t recognize them. Interestingly, in that massive crowd, solid filled with cell phones of course, for the Chinese love cells, there were very few phones going off, and he said the Chinese, usually very noisy and talkative, were unusually quiet, but he added that there were people getting up and leaving (and coming in) all the time, regardless of the service. He tells me that the Bible is an enormous seller in China. I should like to have seen this with my own eyes. Larry
Dr. Backlund, it is you I was referring to, based on the spurious reports you mention. Thank you for correcting the record. I’m sure the people at St. Nicholas’ appreciated your presence. I appreciate Bishop Beisner’s support for loyalists in San Joaquin. But I thought the notion of sending an official representative to be awfully confrontational. Now I know it was not so.
I appreciate the responses of those who cared to comment on this situation. Thank you.
Sadly, it appears that neither the hosts of this site nor the other major reasserter site have seen fit to raise discussion of this episode to its own “top level” topic. Curious.
However, I must commend the elves of T1:9 for at least allowing some small discussion to exist, even if it be in an out-of-the-way corner. The other site rather forcefully supressed any comment the issue.
Again, best wishes for a glorious Christmastide to all!
It appears at this there will be no other relevant area established on T1:9 to discuss the situation at St. Nicholas Atwater, so I will add the following update, in the interest of completeness, to what is likely an unread topic.
On December 25th, an email from Canon Gandenburger of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin was sent on behalf of Bishop Schofield notifying the deacon (and an individual named “Jo” whose role is unclear to me) of St. Nicholas Atwater that (a) Father Risard had been removed as vicar, (b) locks on the buildings, priest’s office, and file cabinets were to be changed, (c) financial records of any account over which Father Risarad had signature authority were to be “retrieved”, and (d) minutes of the Bishop’s Committee meetings for the past three months were to be forwarded to Canon Gandenberger.
Further reports indicate that the locks have been changed and Father Risard has removed himself from the premises.
The congregation of St. Nicholas Atwater has arranged an alternate location for Sunday’s worship services.
I suppose that means that somebody now has to figure out if they have legal standing to sue DoSJ. If nobody sues, then this history becomes legally moot.
It is important to note that deacons are Diocesan employees, paid by the episcopal budget, assuming that they are paid at all. So don’t shoot the messenger, “Jo”.
Tom Roberts, it’s a very real question who has the right to control the episcopal budget. I won’t second-guess 815 and its lawyers, but I sort of wish they’d gone into court with lawyers blazing, seeking to evict the former bishop and his fellow trespassers and reclaim rightful control of TEC’s property. Under the law governing preliminary injunctions, though, with every passing day it becomes less likely that the courts would agree to take quick action along these lines. Their rationale is, “obviously you didn’t think the matter was important enough to warrant moving swiftly; we will take you at your word on that point.“
Agreed, especially in cases where the parties involved are not corporate persons with deep pockets to sustain their own suits. Risard+ might be able to get some illegal firing suit underway, but that will not affect the diocesan/provincial situation. What ecusa needs in this case is a counter claim by another bishop for the same property, and the longer they wait, but more tenuous the claim.
but more ==>> the more