Response to the Interim Pastoral Presence
The following are identical letters to Canon Cox and Canon Moore.
February 15, 2008
It is my understanding that you have been hired by the Presiding Bishop’s Office to be a part of an interim pastoral presence with oversight in the Diocese of San Joaquin. This fact indicates one of the two things: 1) You do not believe that the Diocese was capable of removing itself from TEC in December 2007, and therefore you are intruding into the internal affairs of a recognized TEC diocese; or, 2) You do believe this diocese left TEC in 2007 and you are entering into the internal affairs of a diocese of another province.
In either case, at present, The Episcopal Church has begun attacking both me and this diocese. Your coming here is unconscionable in that you are meddling in the affairs of San Joaquin with neither the courtesy of requesting my permission as bishop nor even troubling to inform me of your plans. Such actions are hardly those of men with honorable intentions.
Even though you have already taken it upon yourself to be in contact with clergy and parishes, under no circumstances are you welcome to hold meetings in this diocese or to ask permission of clergy or other leaders to do so.
If indeed your proposal is to seek reconciliation with the goal to reduce the “threat of law suits” you are approaching the wrong persons. Why do you not come directly to me with your concerns and offers, for such lawsuits ”“ presumably ”“ would be lodged against me?
Should you choose to deal directly with me concerning the above mentioned proposals I would be willing to set aside time to meet with you in my office in Fresno. Apart from this, I ask you to desist from entering this diocese.
I remain, In earnest,
+John-David Schofield
Cc: The Most Reverend Katherine Jefferts-Schori
The Most Reverend Gregory Venables
The proper response to this letter is to turn it blank-side-up, cut it in fourths, and add the pieces to the scratch-paper stack.
Wait, so there are ancient traditions about not intruding on a bishop’s territory? Has Bp Schofield missed some reasserter memos?
Can’t stand it, can you DC? When Nigeria or Uganda violates the ancient standards of Province integrity, why that is a sin equal to adultery, or homosexual behavior. When TEC commits the same sin, ignore it because it does not fit your secular ideology.
The Bp’s 2 alternatives get him nowhere. If #1 is true, then a TEC diocese is being led by leadership that continues to act beyond its power and a Bp who’s ignoring an inhibition — sounds like reason to have an interim pastoral presence to me. On the other hand, if #2 is true, then the DSJ belongs to an entity that purports to be out of communion with TEC, so there’s no reason TEC can’t send missionaries into the area.
And calling “meddling” “unconscionable” seems like dialing up the rhetoric well beyond reality.
BillS, you are to be commended at least for your consistency.
DavidH,
Just for clarity, I do not believe that territorial incursions are a sin, as the Bible says nothing about how the Church is to be organized.
The Bible says a lot about homosexual behavior, the seven “clobber passages” etc, and all of it casts homosexual behavior as sinful. Moreover, there is exactly nothing in the Bible that supports the notion that same sex relationships, monogamous or not, are to be celebrated on par with heterosexual marriage.
Because the Bible says nothing about Church administration, it truly is a human construct that we can change. The historical reasons for geographical provinces was simply that a Bishop could only cover so much territory on foot, or by mule, horse, or whatever.
In today’s world, with speed of light communication and near speed of sound travel, geography is no longer a limiting factor to administration.
As a result, the best solution to the theological differences within the AC is to let parishes and diocese align (with the property) with whoever they choose, so that provinces and diocese are determined by theological agreement rather than geographical proximity.
Because TEC does not want to give up its platform to promote its left wing secular political ideology, this is unlikely to happen.
Honorable intentions? The institution formerly known as ECUSA couldn’t recognize an honorable intention if it slapped the PB in the face. She and her predecessor have already demonstrated their capacity for lying whenever it suits their or their institution’s purpose. (Oops, bad word “lying” – let’s just say “misstating the facts”.)
It seems to me that +Schofields best policy would be to ignore TEC as much as possible. I believe there are still some churches in San Joaquin that want to be affiliated with TEC (for whatever reason). These “visitors” should be allowed to go there. If they attempt to meddle with churches that do not wish to be part of TEC, they should be run off.
It really is either/or. Either TEC offers protection to dissenters or they will have the problems they abhor. i have lost count of the number of opportunities they have had to “come to terms with their accusers” as Jesus put it. They are unable to be tolerant of even the aroma of the faith they received from the Apostles.
Perhaps that comment about “aroma” is uncharitable. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that they are actively closing the kitchen.
Sorry, BillS, your logic doesn’t hold. It’s not TEC that has declared itself not in communion, but the rebel reasserting provinces. DavidH’s points (in #4) still stand; TEC is not violating provincial integrity; DSJ is either part of TEC, or has fled to an organization that has declared itself not in communion. In either case, it’s reasonable for TEC to have a presence in DSJ. No consistent parallel argument can be made for the legitimacy of a Nigerian or Ugandan incursion into other dioceses in TEC.
First, it is stunning that parishes and diocese who want to continue to worship as they have traditionally, who refuse to adopt the new theology of TEC are considered “rebels”.
Secondly, if DioSJ is part of TEC and +Bp Schofield has been inhibited, then the Standing Committee is in charge. If DioSJ is part of the Southern Cone, then TEC is committing the same “sin” of crossing borders that they complain and sue about when the Nigerians or Ugandans do it.
So which is it?
As I stated above, a solution that allows parishes or diocese to align with Provinces with which they are in theological agreement regardless of geography makes the most sense, but we have passed the point where anything TEC does makes logical sense.
Did the bishop not inform parishes that they could “opt out” of the transfer to the Southern Cone? And for those who did opt out, should they not turn to the national church for support and guidance in proceeding forward–whether in being adopted by another diocese or in reconstituting DSJ? Or would the bishop expect them to remain as orphans? Frankly, I thought his “opt out” offer was gracious, and this new message seems much less so.
BillS,
We’re drifting off topic here, but nobody is requiring the conservatives to leave; they are choosing to leave. The “parishes and diocese who want to continue to worship as they have traditionally” are more than welcome to stay. It’s the conservatives who are not willing to come together at the table, or to allow a diversity of theological views, as has long been the hallmark of the Anglican tradition. They are choosing to leave, and in doing so they who are breaking violating boundaries and historical tradition; that’s why they are the ‘rebels’.
#11—Correction Bill..the Standing committee does not exist according to the PB. She has invoked… you know it is Canon number…..well it’s in there somewhere so just move on OK?
Intercessor
Denbeau,
There is also a historical tradition, rooted in the Bible, of not blessing same sex relationships, nor consecrating those who openly engage in homosexual behavior as priest or bishops. TEC unarguably has changed the theology of what it means to be an Episcopalian from what it was 30 or 40 years ago. Those who are forced to leave in order to keep doing what they have been doing for centuries are hardly rebels.
Only within the warped theology of today’s TEC are those who want to continue to worship and believe as they always have considered rebels.
This letter from Bp. Schofield sounds eerily like recent issuing from PB Schori and Archbishop Hiltz of Canada…definitely not the response I would like to see from the Bishop right now
Intercessor,
Thanks for your gentle reminder about Canon…well we all know it is there somewhere. As I recall it is next to the part where Anglicans have allowed a diversity of theological views, as has long been the hallmark of the Anglican tradition. Can’t find it for the moment, but I am sure that it is in there.
#16..the Bishop is quite clearly responding to the hollow shrill of TEC that he could not have it “both ways”…remaining a bishop in dual Provences while conveniantly ignoring many historical instances of such standings. Now TEC wants it both ways but the good Bishop is to remain mute? That is not what a defender of the the Faith does.
Intercessor
#13 What is, of course, disingenuous in your analysis is that TEC is not allowing conservatives to function by Canon, fiat, and culture. They will not and are not getting through ordination processes. They are abused in seminaries if they even get there. They are mocked and vilified and stymied by the official organs of dioceses. No, and you know it, this alleged “tolerance” of dissenters is merely the incrementalism to all is accomplished. And of course, nor are we to appeal to the Communion of which we are told we are a constituent member in our own Constitution.
I believe that our bishop has done nothing more than “turn the tables” on TEC. How I would treat these visitors to our church doors is no different than I would others……..so long as they don’t attempt to influence me or my family. They’d be politely told to leave if they did.
BillS,
The world and the church both change. They changed in the 19th century on slavery, they changed in the 20th century on the position of women, and they will change in the 21st century on homosexuality. In every case, there is text in the Bible that can be used to challenge these changes. There will always be honest and legitimate differences of opinion and interpretation. I’m sorry, but those who are not prepared to allow others to hold different interpretations within the common Anglican traditions, those who are not prepared to come to the table, those who are not willing to follow their own traditions while remaining open to other voices, including the Holy Spirit; these are the rebels. None are ‘forced to leave’. And to refer to those whose theological perspective differs from yours as having ‘warped theology’ is neither gracious nor Christian.
Denbeau,
Yes, interpretations change. But when TEC declares that God is doing a new thing, and that they hear a new voice, and that they are being prophetic, and have not and cannot theologically justify same sex blessings, or consecrating gay clergy, this is beyond an interpretation. This is just making stuff up to be politically correct within the current culture.
For instance, where in the Bible is there any justification to recognize. bless, or ceonsecrate same sex relationships as equivalent to heterosexual marriage?
#10. Denbeau,
Subject: Legitimacy of Church of Nigeria / TEC
Sorry, Denbeau. I am in a CANA church and we have declared ourselves in communion with the AC through the Archbishop of Nigeria. He did not intrude into our territory. We sought his help and “lifeboat” support. Boy are we glad we did. We are out of TEC which in my opinion has turned rotten to the core. It may be universalist, it may be unitarian, it may be humanitarian; but it certainly is not Christian. Further, it gives no sign of Christian leadership for either now or the future.
Integrety is a word that TEC recognizes only in a certain way. Otherwise they would not have a clue regarding integrety.
Our need to be linked thru Nigeria could rapidly disappear if the AC would directly recognize CANA. ++Akinola has no desire or need to shepherd us any longer than absolutely necessary. Similiarly, our need to be linked thru Nigeria could rapidly disappear if the whole AC dissolves and a new, Christian, communion is established.
If you say CANA has withdrawn from communion and caused all this trouble for TEC and now CANA is to blame, you need to point your finger in a different direction. You need to be waggeling it at The Lord God Almighty, for he is the one who has moved CANA and He is the one who assures us that we are still in communion with Him, and He is the one who continues to move CANA in a powerfully evangelistic way.
And may I remind those who speak about being “a bishop in both provinces” that bishops are prelates of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the idea of restricting a bishop solely to one province is not what Christ had in mind? It is, after all, HIS Church, isn’t it? And who are WE to claim otherwise?
BillS,
How about Mark 12:28-31?
CanaAnglican,
One of the few things that really makes me angry is when others deny my Christianity. No one, until I stand at final judgment, is in a position to judge my heart, my faith, or my commitment to Christ.
Dunbeau,
You state: “but those who are not prepared to allow others to hold different interpretations within the common Anglican traditions, those who are not prepared to come to the table, those who are not willing to follow their own traditions while remaining open to other voices, including the Holy Spirit; these are the rebels.” We must examine the fact that TEC has violated the “common Anglican traditions” when it violated the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10. And TEC is the one who is becoming the rebels. I am sorry, the Holy Spirit will not teach or give voice to anything that is contrary to Scripture, no matter how much TEC says it will. I believe that Scripture si clear that the Holy Spirit will teach and guide but will always point to Christ. Therefore TEC is becoming the rebel since it is not willing to abide by not only the mind of the communion, much less the authoritative word of God. And as far as different interpretations go, we can not pick and choose the parts of scripture we want to follow, we must take all of it or none of it, and it seems that TEC has decided it wants nothing to do with Scirpture and it is willing to sacrifice those who hold to the truths of Scripture.
Denbeau:
The world may change but Christian doctrine cannot change. No one in the church has the authority to change Christian doctrine. When Jesus gave the great commission, he told the 11 disciples, now the 11 apostles (sent ones) to go make disciples (imperative/command) of all the nations. Then Jesus told the apostles how to make disciples. Disciples are made by baptizing and teaching. What I want you to focus on is what are the disciples to be taught? Jesus said, “all that I have commanded you.†Luke noted in Acts 2 that the disciples continued steadfastly in the “apostles’ doctrine.†The 12 apostles were the personal representatives/delegates of Jesus Christ. They were the only ones with the authority to bind and loose when it comes to doctrine. As opinions arose in the church that were contradictory to apostolic teaching, the presbyters were to defend the apostolic deposit from corruption, not accept the contradictory teaching. In fact, the Apostle John in 1 John 4:6 mentions how one can determine truth from error. He says, “We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.†It is the teachings of the Apostles that we are to listen to and obey.
When we follow another teaching, we are not following Jesus Christ. If you follow another teaching, then you cannot be a disciple of Jesus Christ. The conservative churches are seeking to remain faithful to the apostolic deposit. Yes, it’s true that the church from time to time has stumbled away from the apostolic deposit on the issues of slavery and women. It’s the church that departed from the truth, not a discovery of new truth.
In the early church, when teachers taught contrary to apostolic teaching, they were excommunicated. Why? Because, false doctrine spreads. When churches do not discipline false teachers, their doctrine spreads. What are those faithful to the apostolic deposit suppose to do? Just sit there and marinate in heresy? NO! They are to cut communion with those who have departed from the faith and reconstitute a church they follows apostolic teaching.
-Vincent
#21 Denbeau,
We came to the table for years and no one would listen. No one would open the Scripture with us to talk about it. None of the others at the table seemed to know much about Scripture. (Now we learn that it is taught for only 12 credit hours in Episcopal seminaries. And, almost not at all to lay people. And the parts put into the Prayerbook have outtakes for the parts dealing with repentance or other unpleasantnesses.)
Our Bishop refused to listen to us and even said: “heresy is better than schism”. He told members of our church to get of the Episcopal Church as a way of preventing schism. When you are given no voice but hear those dicta, it is time to “get out of Dodge,” and let the Bishop live with his heresy.
If you wish to persist in calling us rebels, so be it. However the real rebel is the one who rebels against the Word of God. I, for one, would rather be labeled a ‘rebel’ than an ‘heretic.’
By the way, there is plenty of Scriptural support for the changes of the 19th and 20th centuries regarding slavery and WO. I have not found any for giving communion to Buddists, declaring Christ was not really virgin born, or God, or raised from the dead. There is none for blessing gay sex. There is none for ordaining non-celibate gay people, just like there is none for ordaining non-celibate unmarried people. There is none positive about getting into snits over borders.
#25. Denbeau, I do not question your committment to Christ. I am only saying it is not in the “official” TEC. There appears to be no committment to Christ evidenced by the leaders of the TEC.
I apologize to you and the million or more real and committed Christians I have offended. Please accept my apology, and realize I am only talking about the way the TEC looks and how we have been treated.
You know, as a progressive, I’ve made my peace with the idea that reasserters will leave. Godspeed, I say.
I accept the idea that the departing congregations and their former Episcopal diocese should approach property disputes with generosity of heart on both sides.
I know that in five years many towns in America will have both an “Anglican” church (associated with the Global South) and an Episcopal church (aligned with 815), just like many town right now have a Presbyterian (USA) church and a Presbyterian church (PCA).
What I don’t understand and cannot accept is the “have it both ways” attitude of men like Bishop Schofield, who on one hand loudly proclaim that they are leaving the Episcopal Church, that they aren’t in communion with the Episcopal Church, that they can’t even share the host in the Episcopal Church, but then demand that the Episcopal church cease to exist as an entity in their locale.
There are people in San Joaquin who want to remain Episcopalians. They deserve to have church buildings, rectors, and pastoral oversight. Bishop Schofield is not a member of the Episcopal Church. He no longer has any say in the lives of the loyal Episcopalians in San Joaquin, and the Episcopal Church is not compelled to dissolve the diocese, or ignore those who have stayed.
Schofield’s argument is like a man who divorces his wife, and then writes her a letter demanding she never remarry, that for her to remarry is “unconscionable.” And closing by saying “Why didn’t you come to me with your plans to find a new husband? I demand you desist!”
#28 AMEN, CanaAnglican! Well said!
Dan Ennis, I demand that KJS and Company cease and desist their efforts at intimidation via lawsuits, but will that do any good? I doubt it. None of this would ever have happened if TEC hadn’t taken the course that they did, and we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in today.
Are we rebels? Against the unwarranted punishment handed out to us by KJS and Company, yes! Against the Word of God? NO! Is our bishop a faithful servant of Our Lord? Yes, he most certainly is! Is he one of the most respected and highly-regarded bishops in Christendom? Yes! Can you say the same for KJS?
Denbeau:
‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ justifies gay sex and gay “marriage”?
That certainly is creative, and how is that in 2000 years of Christian worship and history that no major Christian denomination has advanced your interpretation based on this Scripture?
This letter truly serves no purpose. It is only meant to antagonize. +Schofield no longer has the right to exercise his role as Bishop. The Diocese needs someone who can function in that capacity. His 2 “options” are red herrings.
‘His 2 “options†are red herrings.’
Hey, I bet he’s got the five loaves too! It all depends on *who you give ’em to!
CanaAnglican,
Thank you, and I only wish that we (not just you and I, but all of us), could agree to disagree, and get on with spreading the Good News.
Dear CanaAnglican,
Please do not use “get out of Dodge.” That sounds like you are in my Diocese and I made the statements you refer to in your comments. Thanks. +James, Western Kansas, home of Dodge City.
My, it certainly seems that the inhibited bishop is irked. If he wasn’t, why would he respond? March is coming.
#36. Denbeau,
It is good to find an evangelical brother or sister. Christ will draw people to Him if lifted up. Amen and Amen.
Brian from T19:
We have a Standing Committee, duly elected. The PB has chosen not to recognize them (based on Canon ???). I would also point out that +Bruno had a “missionary” priest in Bakersfield for three years! How does that work? I think DSJ should pull in the DLA parishes that left and see how +Bruno likes that.
Dear +James,
Again I am at place where I offer apology, this time to you and all the good people of Dodge City. I think, as a Lubbock Texas born boy that inappropriate phrase was probably passed to me by my forebearers. I suspect some of them were rustlers who ventured up as far as Dodge City and had good reason for totally appropriate use of the phrase —- if you catch my drift. Well, I may as well apologize for them too, as far as I know the steaks were really good! I will try to never use the term again (I love all of Kansas, I even bought my plane there) and I promise absolutely that I will never rustle anywhere near Dodge City.
BillS
Just for clarity, I do not believe that territorial incursions are a sin, as the Bible says nothing about how the Church is to be organized.
The Bible says a great deal about how the church is to be organized. But what I find interesting is that you eschew Tradition and then say:
There is also a historical tradition, rooted in the Bible, of not blessing same sex relationships, nor consecrating those who openly engage in homosexual behavior as priest or bishops.
Brian,
Please quote the relevant passages from the Bible that outline how we are to be structured, ie that we are to have Provinces, Bishops etc.
Bp Adams,
I remember going to visit Dodge City (Western Kansas) as a kid with my family (we lived at Ft. Riley for one year). If I remember right, there was a souvenir brick “from the old ‘original’ sidewalk” that was identical to a brick also found in Abilene (“Eastern” Kansas, Hey! Jerry+!) including the following statement:
“Don’t spit on me.”
I appreciate all you are doing to keep folks on opposite sidewalks from spittin’ on each others’ bricks.
RGEaton
Let’s be realistic on TECs position. Unlike +Schofield, they don’t change it every week.
1. +Schofield is inhibited.
2. His inhibition makes the DioSJ Standing Committee the ecclesiastical authority
3. +Schofield dismissed the majority of the DioSJ Standing Committee on Saturday January 19th after his inhibition effective Friday January 11th.
4. The remaining members of the Standing Committee could not be removed by an inhibited Bishop, therefore, they remained as the ecclesiastical authority.
5. TEC argues that between December 8th and at least January 18th, the Standing Committee “attempt[ed] to organize as the standing committee of an entity that identifies itself as an Anglican Diocese of the Province of the Southern Cone”
6. On January 25th, ++Katharine wrote: “In light of your recent actions, I find that you have been and are unable to well and faithfully fulfill your duties as members of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin under Canon I.17.8”
7. On February 1st, the Standing Committee wrote: “While you may hold any personal opinion you wish as an individual, the office of Presiding Bishop does not have the legal, canonical or moral authority to proclaim for the Episcopal Church non-recognition of duly elected members of a diocesan Standing Committee. Without having any canonical or constitutional authority to refuse to recognize us, we cannot accept your opinion as changing our status as the canonical Standing Committee of the Diocese. ”
8. In January and February interim pastors were appointed for the vacant Diocese
At this point, the challenges that can be brought are:
1. +Schofield can challenge his inhibition
2. The Standing Committee can challenge ++Katharine’s ruling
If the SC is correct, then there is no need for interim pastors. If ++Katharine is correct, then there is no SC.
Those are really the only issues.
I think that the good bishop is tracking the comments of the 6 Standing Committee members who did not wish to leave TEC. Schofield is saying to 815 “please decide what your narrative is for what happened with the DSJ and then be consistent with that.”
Schofield is suggesting that what 815 is doing (and he is correct in his accusation) is acting as if the Diocese of San Joaquin has, in fact, as a unit, departed TEC. Yet, 815 has declared that this is not possible. But it is only through that narrative, can 815 legitimately do what it is now doing.
If one accepts that TEC’s stated narrative is its actual belief (i.e. that dioceses cannot leave, only individuals can), then it is clear that the diocese as a whole did not leave and that only those individuals who have chosen to leave did, in fact, leave. And the 6 members of the SC that did not leave would thus remain the unquestioned ecclesiastical authority in the diocese once Schofield is actually deposed. And don’t forget, Schofield is only inhibited at this point, not deposed.
I am guessing that this letter is most likely intended for the ears of Rowan Williams, moderate TEC bishops and Primates, and Brian Cox, in an attempt to demonstrate the utter hypocrisy and duplicity as regards TEC’s application/abuse of its canon law.
BillS
You stated the Bible says nothing about how the Church is to be organized.
There are so many verses that I could not list them all. But start with Titus 1 – where this blog’s name comes from. Titus talks of the structure of the hurch in Crete. You could also refer to Acts as a good starting point. Also every single letter by Paul says something to the churches about their organization. They may not list Provinces, but they talk about orgainization, which is what you said.
You also say [t]here is also a historical tradition, rooted in the Bible,… How about the historical tradition, rooted in the Bible and confirmed at Niceae of geographical boundaries?
Brian: I agree with you except for your treatment of KJS and the Standing Committee. Even if KJS was correct, she still would need to follow through the proper canonical course to have the SC members declared to have abandoned communion. And she did not do that.
Brian and James,
I don’t think the Presiding Bishop has the authority to address whether Standing Committee Members have abandoned communion. Of course the PB is taking a lot of authority upon herself that the neither the Constitution and Canons give her. In addition she is attempting to take authority that is extra canonical and has not been given to her by the General Convention of the church, much less the Constitution and Canons of the church. Maybe someone needs to bring her up on presentment charges.
It will not make one iota of difference whether or not our bishop is “deposed, ” since he will be deposed by The Episcopal Church and NOT by any other province of Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. He is a bishop, and he will REMAIN a bishop until God calls him home! Any further talk of what KJS and Company will do to him or to us…….the people of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin in the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone of the Americas is useless and foolish.
Our separation from TEC as a diocese is an accomplished FACT, and to claim otherwise is nothing more than a pointless exercise in futility. It is OVER…….a DONE DEAL…….finito!
Get used to it.
Brian from T19…
This is something of particular interest to me today, so I would be obliged for some specific scripture references as to “church organization.” I don’t disagree with you, I simply lean toward the notion that while scripture clearly delineates the nature and purpose of the church, organization is more bound in tradition. But maybe we’re splitting hairs…maybe what you see as organization, I see as orders of ministry.
Denbeau, your use of Mark 12:28-31 seems positively scandalous to me. I am willing to be wrong, but I suspect that you come at this from the viewpoint that the truth of scripture is discerned only in present, like-minded community, and that since we fallible humans can’t completely discern the truth of God, we must muddle through on our own interpretation of God’s truth. I hardly think that citing the Holy Spirit is useful, since if the Holy Spirit wasn’t able to get it right in the transmission of scripture, how could we, or why should we, depend upon him now? Neither seems to place much faith in God’s ability to communicate lasting truth to his people. At any rate, two pieces of scripture that immediately spring to mind are Matthew 5:17,18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets…” and Romans 6:1 “Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound?”
seminarian – yes, that is my point. The PB can’t just declare that the Standing Committee has abandoned communion and so fire them. She must instead actually go through the process dictated by the canons to commence abandonment procedures against the relevant individuals.
Oh…I should add that while I think Bp. Schofield’s letter could have been a bit more charitable, I think his biggest mistake was in putting this in a letter form to be held up for public scrutiny.
Shumanbean,
Yup.
The Holy Spirit always gets it right. It’s the humans to whom she speaks (sorry … couldn’t resist that) that have trouble understanding, transcribing, translating, etc.
Sorry .. it wasn’t my intention to scandalize.
but James,
There are no canons that give her that right. There are no canons that allow the PB to remove a standing committee. She doesn’t have that authority unless she brings presentment charges up on the priests. The only person that can do that is a diocesan bishop or ecclesiastical trial court. She has no authority to do that.
This is really a big mess!
I hope that the Common Cause churches in their reorganization of the church fully returns to the early church form of church government. Standing committee this and committee that just isn’t biblical. If the bishop is inhibited, the standing committee is the authority in the diocese?!! Isn’t the standing committee composed of lay people as well as clergy? Church government is suppose to be in the hands of the presbytery (the bishops + the rest of the presbyters), not lay people. We really have made a jumble of the Lord’s work. I think the Lord is really showing us how inappropriate church organization hinders the effectiveness of the gospel.
When will we ever learn from our past mistakes and follow the example the Scriptures and the early church has given us?
-Vincent
seminarian – I quite agree with you. My point (like yours) is that the PB can’t just take unilateral actions, but must work throught the canonical process. If the canons do not permit her to remove the existing Standing Committee, then she needs to work WITH them.
Brian,
Thanks for the reference. Here is part of what Titus says;
If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
Please note the part about husband of one wife. That would seem to eliminate Robinson as qualified to be a Bishop (along with some others).
Vincent, my answer to your question is “Probably never.” And by the way, I happen to agree with you.
#57 Vincent Lerins,
Your comment is the only comment, besides Cennydd and Intercessor, that I find to be worth reading. And you are right….we humans make major messes and when we attempt to fix our messes it just gets worse! But, I know that Bishop Schofield is doing his best to do what he can. After all this is uncharted waters we are in and no one has the perfect answer. But, Thanks Be to God he, Bishop Schofield, is doing something instead of nothing and allowing the Holy Spirit lead him and he keeps his eyes on Jesus.
Jesus when commisioning the apostles told them to teach all that he had taught them. Is all of that in Scripture? As Article 6 states, Holy scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, etc; that las part “nor may be proved thereby”, allows lots of elbow room. Bill S – certainly the Bible is inspired because the Church that wrote it, is inspired. the Church and its Apostolic ministry ontologically precedes Scripture. The Church and its “organization” are not man-made. I do understand that you have a standard Protestant view of Scripture.
I believe that the position of TEC in regards to whatever entity is occupying central California right now is something like this:
1) By removing the accession clause from their constitution, the former Diocese of San Joaquin effectively disorganized itself as a diocese of TEC.
2) TEC does not recognize the ability of other provinces of the Anglican Communion to organize dioceses within the United States without the permission of TEC; so whatever +Schofield is involved with right now, it’s not a legitimate diocese of PSC in the eyes of TEC.
3) Therefore, as far as TEC is concerned, what exists in that area is an Episcopal diocese that is in great disarray because its bishop and executive officers abruptly abandoned it. TEC is responding by offering assistance to those interested in re-organizing the machinery of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin.
Since +Schofield has been at some pains to demonstrate that he has shaken the dust of TEC from his sandals, I don’t know why he’s getting bent out of shape about this.
Shumanbean
Ecclesiology helps us to understand the role of the church and our role in the church. It teaches us about the ordinances of the church, how church leadership is to be chosen and structured, and what the church is to be doing in regards to believers (worship and discipleship) and unbelievers (ministry and evangelism). A Biblical understanding of Ecclesiology would go a long way to correct many of the common problems in churches today. Above all, we must understand that the church is the Body of Christ and that each of us has a specific function and role within that body.
A key Scripture on Ecclesiology is Acts 2:42, “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”
This is from a webpage on ecclesiology and has several links to Scripture
http://www.gotquestions.org/Ecclesiology.html
There is simply so much in the Scripture about church governance and structure (including orders of ministry) that I can’t list it here, but there are several good books and reference works on the subject.
Rob K:
I believe that Article 6 of the 39 Articles is referring to issues that are salvific in nature. However, I do not believe it is giving permission to have variant beliefs on fundamental Christian doctrine. Feast days, liturgical rites, vestments, issues of that nature that are not commanded in scripture are the issues we can have variant opinions on because there is no scriptural mandate for them. Yes, there is church tradition and it’s a good guide; however, one cannot be required to follow it because they have no scriptural mandate. But, even there it gets a bit tricky. When you have variant beliefs in a church, whether over essentials or non-essentials, you have factions, divisions and heresies (I‘m using heresy in the New testament sense as that of variant opinions). That’s not how the church is to operate. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians central theme is unity and unity amidst diversity. Paul also stressed in that letter that we are to be of the same mind. In the ancient Greek world you had philosophers who established variant schools of thought or wisdom. You had a similar division within Judaism with the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc. When one came a disciple of a particular school or sect, you would come under the authority of that school. The Corinthians were dividing themselves among the various Christian evangelists, whether it was Apollos or Paul. That’s why Paul asked the Corinthians, if he died for them or if they were baptized into him. In the church, there is only one true teacher. That’s Jesus Christ. We are disciples of his “school.†When one teaches doctrine contrary to his established teaching, you are in essence establishing your own “school†and making your own disciples.
-Vincent
To speak more directly to the events in San Joaquin, Canada and other cities, I have a possible solution for orthodox Anglicans:
1) Stay where you are as a church.
2) A group of 20 or so members of your parish should establish a new mission with an orthodox Anglican church. They should continue attending services with the first parish, maybe the mission can have services in the evening.
3) The clergy and vestry should not be involved with your new mission. The mission is a laity driven endeavor. The orthodox Anglican group you have affiliated with should provide an interim church planting staff for the new mission.
4) Continue to grow your new mission to full church status by evangelizing the unchurched or those from other faiths.
5) When you have gotten your mission to church status, the original church should then try work out a way to leave their diocese. If they can, then they now have two churches in the city. If the original church cannot leave the diocese, then they should peacefully leave the building and join the mission church. The interim church planting staff can move on to the next mission and the leaders at the original parish can take over.
6) For dioceses, you could implement the plan of a diocesan scale. Each church that wants to leave should create a new mission outside of the Episcopal church.
-Vincent
Compromises are of no use now. This battle must be fought to the bitter legal and ecclesiological end because so much is at stake, not merely possession of property, but of the power and authority of centralized church organization. And remember, TEC is fighting for its life now and it risking much, much in these power struggles. At the heart of the struggle, as so many have observed, is the role of scripture, received practice, the role of the past, the identity and function of Christianity in a secular society, the unification or exacerbated division between scientism and religion.
The Enlightenment has run its course at last. In the last part of the last century, we had Louis XIV, and now we coming to the end of the reign of Louis XV and Voltaire; the atheists are crying “Ecrasez l’infame” at the top of their lungs and many listen. The warfare in the Christian churches is part of t he above, and we are waiting for new voices, new ideas – perhaps a new Rousseau, a new Goethe, a Wordsworth – to set our society on a new course. I suspect the new Goethe will be a green one who will provide the humanities, presently moribund in the universities, with a new vitality. This is not a reformation nor a renaissance, but something else again. Larry
Vincent of L – I was responding to another post that was assuming a very Protestant, instrumental view of the church. I don’t think you hold such a view, do you? I don’t think that anyone disagrees, assuming that all hold a catholic ecclesiology, that any belief that is necessary for salvation must be in accordance with Scripture, whether one is RC, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, or any other. But there is a lot of wiggle room there. The Roman Catholic can find scriptural justification for all its doctrines consedered “necessary”. They also happen to be backed up by tradition. But let’s just take the example of the doctrine of the Trinity, certainly one that is “necessary”. That doctrine was never stated in Scripture. The Church had to put it together, using Scripture to justify it, but also knowing what its experience and tradition was. This was a case of something “proved thereby”, as the Article states. But there was much in Scripture that would reasonably have justified Arius’ view of Christ as somehow subordinate. It was the Church in Council that was able to arrive at this doctrine in which all must believe.