The dispute over the secession of the Diocese of San Joaquin has led to the formation of three de facto ecclesiastical authorities for the California diocese: one loyal to Bishop John-David Schofield, one loyal to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, and a third to the diocese’s Standing Committee.
I wonder about the clergy who refuse to follow their bishop after the votes had been taken at diocesan conventions.
Is it all about job security, pensions, medical plans, etc? Are they like the rich man who couldn’t give up his material possessions in order to follow Christ?
Where were they at these conventions? Why weren’t they forthright with their bishop?
I mean, how could all of these events take place in solemn assembly and now have this dissenting group from the Bishop’s Standing Committee? How did they suddenly pop up out of the woodwork and the dark corners? Or did they? Anyone with answers?
You know, any one of us can second guess all we want, but unless we ourselves have stood in the very shoes that these men have, we can’t judge their motives. It’s probable that many of the readers here, if we had been in their situation, would have made the same decision and then regretted it.
You know, San Joaquin could not have known totally what it was getting itself into (good or bad). It had not been done before. Now it has. The “undecided” parishes in Fort Worth are in the process of choosing which side to stand this November. The one thing I’m glad is that they ARE able to at least see what has happened in San Joaquin. Not sure if things will be handled differently, but I hope they might learn something from all this mess before they stick their own feet in it. (And I’m glad I’m on the outside looking in now, but I’m keeping them in my prayers for sure.)
Well, here you have it. The fruits of schism. I have to wonder how many Anglican/Episcopal bishops will claim proper authority for the Central Valley two years from now.
Corie,
Thank you for your prayers. Keep them coming.
RGEaton
The TEC loyal standing committee members are in a bit of a pickle. Nobody wants them, it seems. Their presence presents a thorn for the revisionists, however.
This is a bit of a non-story: it’s all old news. The Episcopal Church has a handful of faithful, and there’s no evidence to suggest that there’s some sort of power struggle taking place between the bishop and standing committee. It doesn’t surprise me that there’s a fight between the presiding bishop and the diocesan standing committee, heretics are naturally schismatic.
SaintCyprian, who are you calling schismatics, the canonically elected leaders of the diocese who refused to leave TEC with Bp Schofield, or the Presiding Bishop who is usurping their legal authority, ignoring the canons and bringing in outside pastoral leadership without approval of the legitimate ecclesiastical authority in the diocese in a complete and brazen violation of the canons she is sworn to uphold? Just wondering.
AF – I think the clergy had concerns about the sudden plan to affiliate with SC. That development was only brought to light within 60 days of the convention. The Standing Committee tried to get “the plan” from teh bishop. I do not think they were successful. Why did they not go with their bishop? I am sure there are many reasons. I think your list is quite judgemental. I think they were thinking about their congregations they were charged to shepard.
Shouldn’t the ABC be most fully in favor of the Standing Committee, based on the overall picture given by his statements? Why haven’t we heard boo from him?
Or will Bishop Schofield somewhat grudgingly be allowed to come to Lambeth?
Then again, will his new Archbishop tell him not to go?
What a mess.
I wonder if those in agreement did share speak up but were not heard.
OOPS…I meant to say…I wonder if those NOT in agreement did share and speak up but were not heard.
#6 has a valid point about this being old news. What this consists of is George Conger’s analysis of the current stand-still conditions. While I respect Mr. Conger’s acumen, it is nevertheless his opinions which are expressed here. Much more interesting would be the analyses first hand from all three of the so-called “factions.” And as a stand-still condition, this situation cannot exist for long. Before the inevitable lawsuits start coming down, it will be wise for the ambivalent churches and rectors to complete their discernment processes and take their final stand. The current situation is sadly conducive to back-door dealings.
[size=2][color=red][url=http://resurrectiongulfcoast.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
As I recall, the reason “the Southern Cone option” seems to have been “sprung” on the folks in SJ on short notice had to do with the fact that the Province of the Southern Cone had not met to formally issue such an invitation to join them until just a few months before SJ’s December synod. Until the Southern Cone had done so at its Valparaiso meeting in the fall of 2007, no public announcements in SJ about such a “plan” would have been appropriate. And I gather that there could have been some leaks of confidential info about future prospects for the orthodox dioceses early in 2007 out of DioSJ that may have caused Bishop Schofield to play his cards closer to the vest than he would have preferred until PSC’s formal invitation was issued. (Remember the controversial thread early last spring on “Confessions of a Carioca” about just such a proposal to depart for an oversea’s province? That was news about proposed actions that was divulged to the world by a then-member of the SJ Standing Committee, was it not? No wonder the bishop was “once bitten, twice shy” about saying anything more until all the cards were on the table in South America!). So, because the formal “welcome” from Southern Cone came only a few months before the second vote in SJ was scheduled to take place as a result of the timing of the two meetings (i.e., PSC and SJ’s synods), the short notice in SJ could not have been avoided. And my guess is that a delay of the second vote to depart (and hence to join PSC) until a later SJ conention was not an option. Don’t constitutional plans have to be approved by two successive synods to become effective? Putting off the vote in December might have torpedoed the entire effort, might it not, forcing them to begin again from scratch? (I would appreciate some help on that point from someone in SJ.)
BTW, from what I have seen of the members of Fort Worth’s Standing Committe, I have no doubt that all of them will follow our convention’s lead this year on the PSC question, should we vote to depart and join that worthy province at out 2008 meeting. And support for our bishop on our Standing Committee is 100%, from everything I have seen.
Texanglican, the Province of the Southern Cone will, I’m certain, welcome you all with open arms…….just as they did us. To answer an earlier question about how many bishops will claim authority in the Central Valley: There will likely be several, but the only one who will really matter is our own bishop: +John-David Schofield. The others will only be pretenders.
I’m not so sure that we can take all this at face value. It is my belief that this is a brilliant statagey by +JDS and the Dio of SJ. It seems to me that Kate is blocked in every avenue of attack. She can’t depose what ain’t hers… has no authority over the SC… as long as the SC is in place she can’t form “another SJ Dio”. Just a thought…
So here’s my hard question for you…(My kids tell me I always have my ‘mom’ look when I ask them the hard questions…)—-
When did Jesus ever work in secret to accomplish God’s work in the world? The Pharisees did. Judas did. But Jesus didn’t. And so I’d ask us to consider (here comes the hard part)…Is the work that we are trying to accomplish running into roadblocks because its methods are not honoring God? Secrets have great power. They can alienate. They can bring confusion. They can hurt. And, in the end, they usually cause greater harm than good. And, as a mom, wife, neighbor, friend, watching all of this evolve from the pews of one of the churches that has chosen to leave TEC, I’m concerned that the methods are overpowering the message. The
“world” focused on the secretive nature of the memo that was leaked to the Washington Post and shared the negatives it perceived were being done without the knowledge of others. And I don’t know the specifics of San Joaquin but, again, things done in secret, even with the best intentions, leave others in the dark.
I understand that our times and its situations are incredibly difficult.
But secrets don’t strengthen…they separate. Jesus didn’t keep secrets…He bore what He did with He arms open, sharing all He was with the world.
#16, I hate to say it, but Jesus’s secrecy is one of the more prominent themes of the synoptic Gospels, what has come to be known as the “messianic secret”. He’s always healing people and telling them not to say anything to anyone about it.
#16, You are correct in what you say but I believe extenuating circumstance can’t allow the “up-frontness” you desire. Would it be wise to reveal ones strategy thereby making it much easier for the opposition to thwart your efforts all for the sake of transparency? I think not, especially when its peoples souls we’re talking about! As a small example…. How did the British redcoats make out in battle during the Revolutionary War, playing by the “rules”? Loud drumming (here we come), bright red jackets, lined up in neat rows. It only works when BOTH sides play by said “rules”.
#16, don’t misinterpret me, the orthodox church never has any reason to hide what it does, only to show a limited amount of discretion in order to defend the vulnerable. There’s a difference between transparency and airing dirty laundry, in other words.
#7 This bishop and diocese adhere to the catholic and orthodox faith: they acted in such a way as to avoid schism. The Episcopal Church, on the other hand, is a schismatic organisation because it has placed itself outwith the life and doctrine of the Church.
Hmm, one Standing Committee each for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Would the Athanasian Creed be of any use here, ya think?
11 Writingmom, I was a delegate who voted in favor of the move to the Southern Cone. You asked if anyone in opposition spoke up against the vote, and the answer is yes…….but there were few…….VERY few, as I recall.
#15 Gordy,
That was my first thought, too: brilliant strategy that covers both the front door and the back door, whether devised in advance or not. 😀
w.w.