About 500 people from 18 congregations gathered at St. John the Baptist Church in Lodi, Calif., March 29 to declare themselves the representatives of The Episcopal Church in California’s Central Valley and to elect a provisional bishop.
Delegates were certified from 17 congregations previously belonging to the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin and one new mission congregation; 42 former Episcopal congregations had no delegates certified.
The action by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and the remaining parishioners could become a model for dealing with breakaway dioceses, Bishop Jefferts Schori told TLC during a break in the convention.
“This is the first time this has happened, but it could become a pattern for other places,” she said.
A starting-from-scratch diocese that on a Saturday only amounted to 500 people from 18 congregations? Look for a lot of yoked ministries and laity demoralized by exhaustion.
The reported attendance keeps growing.
The first report I read had it at about 200.
Then a day or two later, it was 300.
Now it is 500.
I’m sure the lady is correct about this special diocesan convention being a pattern of things to come. Other dioceses will be leaving and a pattern is now established to “undo” things. One can only wonder just how many times it will eventually be repeated. As the Episcopal Sect continues its reign of terror, I’d bet a lot more dioceses that we could guess will be on the way out in due time.
I heard directly from a pro-TEC/Remain Episcopal parishioner of St. John’s, Lodi who was in physical attendance during the afternoon of the Saturday session. She put the most positive spin on the whole event, but even she estimated the crowd at not more then 300. She also said that there were many, many people from surrounding dioceses and other farther flung dioceses in attendance. So draw your own conclusions.
Well, its also beginning to dawn on the various liberal blogs/lists that starting a “new” diocese might not be the best answer in the long run, considering the “expense”. LOl
Also, one note on the above, in one of the many stories, I also read a list of “visitors” from various other dioceses and even states. These folk are called ‘ringers”, seen almost always at parishes at the first service after the majority of the parish flees.
Gloria in SC
She says that like it’s a good thing.
A hundred years or so ago, when I entered first grade, I was required to demonstate my ability to accurately count objects. I was also expected to be truthful. Just exactly what is the educational level of these people “reporting” the news?
Well, in ONE respect, this could be a good thing! For example: Let’s say the Dioceses of Pittsburgh and Dallas……and probably a couple more……decide to leave TEC: That’s enough to constitute a new province, isn’t it? Food for thought?
As I pointed out in the comments several posts below … a sea of grey hair. Not an auspicious beginning.
The only pattern the I see repeating for other places is as as KJS continues to show her true colors, more dioceses will follow San Joaquin’s actions.
Jamesw, I think you’re right. Knowing this bunch as I do, nothing they say surprises me. I’d say the probable number is closer to 300 people. I looked at the pictures, and I saw a couple of familiar faces from the Diocese of El Camino Real……my former diocese.
Playing fast and loose with the constitution and canons at her whim is already her established pattern.
[i] Comment edited by elf. [/i]
[blockquote]A starting-from-scratch diocese that on a Saturday only amounted to 500 people from 18 congregations?[/blockquote]
That’s how many people were at the convention, not how many people are in the diocese. Good gracious, my parish has an ASA of 400 and only about a dozen go to the diocesan convention. As for the estimate, this was a report by Timothy Roberts of [i]The Living Church[/i] News Service, who did not attribute the head count to somebody else but presumably reported on what he saw. Perhaps he’s not as skilled at estimating crowd size as you are, Frances.
Are the elves going to admonish [#12]in the same manner others were for using the title “Mr.” in reference to [a certain bishop]
[i]Yes. We don’t always catch name calling or belittling titles, but when we do, we edit and admonish, as has been our stated policy for 4 years.[/i]
My goodness she must be completely certain that her moral views are in accordance with God’s will because she is prepared to destroy the church for them.
“‘San Joaquin ‘Could Become a Pattern for Other Places’”
Carthage? Lidice? The Ostland? Srebrenica?
My, my, my …. Kendall, I thought I’d do a little post-Easter check in and see how the Holy Week Hiatus had done to improve the tone and timbre of the comments here.
Looks like, “Not so much.”
As for questions regarding the all important attendance count, the number in question appears to come from a TLC reporter … perhaps asking him where he got his numbers would be an option.
Dresden? Hiroshima? My Lai? Wounded Knee?
How can one not believe in the miracles of the multiplication of loaves and fishes et alia when one sees the wonder of attendance at the illegally, non-canonically, PB-ally alleged re-constitution of the Diocese gone to the Southern Cone in its quasi-episcopal character. In fact, the Resurrection’s a breeze after this, isn’t it?
[i] The elves request that the sarcasm from all the commenters end. [/i]
what’s happening with the property out there? does each church get to decide whether they go with ECUSA or Southern Cone?
To me, the really telling thing about the events of March 29 is that the PB went ahead with her plans for a rump diocese even though this depends entirely (in terms of canonical validity) on the prior deposing of Bishop Schofield. And the HoB completely botched that up, leaving him technically still in office (though he doesn’t want to be). What a farce!
All of this makes abundantly clear that the PB and David Beers and all their despicable ilk really don’t care at all about the holy Constitution and Canons of TEC that they keep talking about as if they were sacrsanct. All they really care about is their “progressive” agenda.
I have no respect for the Presiding Bishop. None whatsoever.
David Handy+
Word has it that this will happen next week. I hope the real DSJ (not DSJ-RE) is aware. Expect the locksmith to show up unannounced.
Please, please everyone, don’t worry about whether it was 300+, 500+, or what. This rigged event should be left to crumble upon itself after the PB and others head back to New York. I believe the whole thing is a farce and put on for show as a part of 815’s effort to crush the ever-growing numbers of solid believers in Jesus Christ Our Lord who are sticking up for the the Truth. 815 cannot win, but they will try men’s and women’s souls. KEEP THE FAITH!
Know that the secular humanist, feely-good agenda now preached by the the Presiding Bishop is no match for the Gospel of Our Lord that has been brought down through the ages by Godly Bishops, clergy, believing men and women in the True Church of Jesus Christ. We may not live to see the day when the ECUSA of old, replaces the TEC of today and our church returns to God, but it will happen, for false doctrine always falls before the hand of God.
Just say: In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Yes, Susan and others, that needed to be done, and I have. After it gets through moderation, it will pop up over at TLC.
However, I’ll just post it here for now:
Robert Eaton writes:
Tim, “500 people from 18 congregations”? I’ve seen 350 and 400 in print. Where did your stat come from? It would be a simple thing to ask the registrar how many delegates and clergy actually were there on Saturday. Is that what you did? It did look like about the same number of folks were sitting in the visitors section. Just double delegate registrations for Saturday and you’ve got your Saturday attendance. No big deal, but it be nice to get it right and verify it for all future reports.
This statistical information you wrote is a lot more important: “Delegates were certified from 17 congregations previously belonging to the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin and one new mission congregation; 42 former Episcopal congregations had no delegates certified.” It would be more factual to say that delegates were certified from 7 or 8 congregations (which should include the counting in of St. John’s, Tulare) which “belonged” to the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin prior to the December Convention; that 9 or 10 groups representing disenfranchised members of former congregations were certified as able to be seated and recognized with voice and vote as the “continuing” remnants of those former congregations; and that none of the congregations who now form what is known as the “Anglican” Diocese of San Joaquin made any attempt to register or be in attendance.
Otherwise, one is left with the question, “To be, or not to be.” The way you wrote this up it implies there was some sort of quorum game being played (perhaps for canonical validity purposes).
Next, you wrote, ““The only ecclesiastical authority that can authorize the calling of a convention when there is no bishop is the standing committee,†said Fr. Eaton. St. John’s Church has about 145 active members, down about 20 since December, Fr. Eaton said.” On “The only ecclesiastical authority…..”, I believe you are quoting the protest given by George Sutton. I have said it myself, but at the meeting it was George. St. John’s has now fewer than 145 active members, down about 20, yes, but not since December. This is the number of folks who have left the parish since our parish family decision February 17 not to accept the decision made at Convention to accede to the Constitiution and Canons of the Province of the Southern Cone, nor to the episcopal authority of their Primate, nor the episcopal authority of the “Anglican” diocese of San Joaquin.
Finally, you wrote: ““This convention is not canonical or valid,†Fr. Eaton said in a follow-up interview with The Living Church. He cannot recognize Bishop Lamb as bishop “until the House of Bishops gets its act together,†Fr. Eaton said, referring to the deposition of Bishop Schofield.”
Yes, I believe the meeting to not be canonically valid. And, yes, the House of Bishops needs to straighten out its deposition vote if they really want Bp Schofield and Cox deposed, and this has direct implications regarding the interim bishop for San Joaquin. What I did NOT say – and this is important because your statement, even though not a direct quote, could still be used in slanderous ways against me – was that I don’t recognize Bp Lamb as (a) bishop. Bp Jerry and I and our family go way back; we have a good rapport. I attended his consecration as bishop in Sacramento. He is a bishop, and I recognize him and his episcopal ministry. He and I have some theological and ecclesiological differences that will probably provide for a spirited lunch together when he’s here full-time mid-April. I could easily invite him to Tulare (as other bishops have been in Tulare), as a bishop. And the rest of our relationship, for the time being, is a consistent, principled consequence of the protest that was made at the meeting.
The rest of the article representing the statements, actions and opinions of others at the meeting(s) seems quite fair. Thank you.
RGEaton
Well, sarcasm or no sarcasm, this seems like “new math” to me:
[blockquote] Delegates were certified from 17 congregations previously belonging to the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin and one new mission congregation; 42 former Episcopal congregations had no delegates certified. [/blockquote] By my math, that adds up to 59 parishes in the pre-vote, undivided diocese. That number seems to be growing also.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
Fr. Rob,
Thak you or putting that reporter straight! Can you or someone address this little ditty please!
[blockquote]Then there is the matter of a discretionary fund for the new provisional bishop. At his seating March 29, Bishop Lamb announced that half the offering would be donated to the Diocese of Louisiana and half would go to his discretionary fund.[/blockquote]
Half going to Louisiana? Seems to me that if one is startingwith noting then at the least 3/4 should stay nd 1/4 should go to Louisiana if it is for the Relief Fund and I am assuming that it was?
Where will Bp Lamb be in mid April? Your church in Tulare?
And the PATTERN will be a huge diocese of dozens of scattered parishes throughout a region, say “The Midwest”, or “The Mid-Atlantic”. This PR disaster won’t end soon. This will go on for years folks, unless and until the ASA is reduced to 500,000 from its current 800,000. Then some sort of crisis meeting will be called to find out what happened. Somebody might even interview what’s left of the churches. Shouting into hearing aids will be heard all over America as the average age of Episcopaliadom will be about 75. Way to go “new thing”! WOOO HOOO!
RE: “I thought I’d do a little post-Easter check in and see how the Holy Week Hiatus had done to improve the tone and timbre of the comments here.
Looks like, “Not so much.â€
I hope that with these negative words from Susan Russell, Kendall Harmon can take heart over the improvement in the tone and timbre of the blog comments now. Nothing is as hope-inducing and encouraging as disapproval from certain people.
Thanks Sarah…
Intercessor
ODC..I too question the truthfulness of Jerry Lamb stating he has no discretionary funds. Here Kate funnels 500k in small unmarked bills as seed money for a shadow entity and he can’t buy lunch for the office? Sure….
Intercessor
I don’t have any reason to believe that any “discretionary funds” Bp Lamb might have acquired from the offering aren’t indeed the first of their kind. Going to Louisiana, and to prime the bishop’s fund, would be up to him. And this would have been the first designation publicly of such a fund. The budget showed that there are funds available for his use at his discretion, if you will, but that’s different. No traction here for making any kind of real complaint. In my opinion.
If you’re referring to the phrase “when he’s here”, then understand I meant in the diocese, full-time, office probably in Stockton. I believe he’s full-time as of April 11.
Otherwise, thus “in mid-April” I have told Bp Lamb I will invite him to lunch. That’s what I was saying. We’ll probably have to meet half-way. Maybe “George’s” in Fresno for a nice Armenian meal?
RGEaton
Thank you Fr. Rob for your clarification. I am not looking for a complaint, rather just found it odd that since there was a $500,000 fund set up for this “diocese” that maybe a small portion of that money would be allocated for the Bishops Discretinoary fund. The fact that half of the offering was being given to Louisiana just seemed odd since this “diocese” needs $ to get them started! That is all.
George’s is a fantastic place to eat! What a treat that will be for you both. I pray that there will be no tactics on Bp. Lamb’s part in trying to lay claim on any of the churches that have gone to the Southern Cone. Since Bp. Schofield was gracous enough to all those who wished to stay in TEC to retain and keep their own churches and assets (except those that owe a debt, of course). This divison, for lack of a better word, can IMHO be done in a friendly, Christianly manner on both sides. We in the Anglican Diocese wish all in the RE Diocese well and pray for you all. I hope and pray that it will be the same for the RE Diocese side towards us as well. Bishop Schofield has not tried to retain all the property as stated above, but we should be able to keep ours who have decided to go to the Southern Cone. I so pray that the RE Diocese, Bishop Lamb, and KJS do not get greedy but see this as a way to allow all to go their own way and be about God ‘s business. After all, we are all in the Anglican Communion together connected to the See of Canterbury!
Many Blessings Fr. Rob
ODC
Festivus, we’ve got our own locksmith……so let ’em try to lock us out! Lotsa luck!
Fr. Rob…While at George’s please enjoy the Leg of Lamb.
Intercessor
Do I understand that Bishop Lamb is being criticized for using his discretion to donate half of the money given to his discretionary fund at this event to people who are still struggling to rebuild their shattered lives in a disaster zone? Not only is the gift a blessing to the church in Louisiana, it’s a timely reminder to look beyond our own petty quarrels to serve those who have an even greater need. I thought it was very well done, indeed.
Ladytenor,
No you do not understand correctly! The [b]question[/b] was asked by me why half? This is a “reconstituted diocese that claims to need funds, even though they were given $500,000 from TEC! It was never even said that the funds that were given weere actualy or Katrina Relief, it was just assumed! Don’t get in a twist! Facts and clarity is all that is being sought here. No criticism!
Now I am confused. Are you saying that he is giving away half of the $500,000 grant from the national church? That’s not how I read it at all! Here’s what the article said:
[blockquote]At his seating March 29, Bishop Lamb announced that half the offering would be donated to the Diocese of Louisiana and half would go to his discretionary fund.[/blockquote]
The “seating” took place during a church service. My reading of that sentence is that the plate offering at that service, customarily given to the new bishop as seed money for his discretionary fund, was to be divided with Louisiana. Now if there were 350 people at that service (split the difference between the low and high crowd estimates) and each one put and average $10 in the plate, that would be about $1750 for Bishop Lamb’s discretionary fund and $1750 for Louisana.
[blockquote]It was never even said that the funds that were given weere actualy or Katrina Relief, it was just assumed! [/blockquote]
True enough. I suppose it’s possible that the diocese of Louisiana will spend that money on liquor and loose women. 😉
Well, one positive is that this farce enables us to pray for our enemies.
Susan Russell’s talents are not getting their due recognition. I long for the day that she leaves All Saints as “just one of the staff” and takes the lead as the rector in her own parish. Now is the time for her kind of leadership to shine in the reconstituted diocese of San J. It will be something to see!
#39 — Aw, shucks … appreciate the affirmation but I’m actually feeling quite called to stay right where I am for the moment. It will be interesting, however, to see those who ARE raised up into leadership in a diocese taking a giant step forward in more fully including all the baptized into the Body of Christ.
[blockquote] rector in her own parish[/blockquote] Nay, look for her to be one of the nominees for the new +DioSJ.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
[i]Come’on all. ‘Fess up. How much is Susan Russell paying for each comment about her? We want to get in on the action!
[irony off].
All kidding aside, this thread is NOT about Susan Russell. Continuing to make personal comments about her or to respond to any tangents she may have introduced will put you in the elves’ bad graces. Trust me, not the place you want to be! 😉
–elfgirl[/i]
Sorry. Mea Culpa.