[received via e-mail]
News Release
Diocese of San Joaquin: March 12, 2008
Contact: Fr. Van McCalister, (559) 244-4828, Diocese of San Joaquin
The Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield, bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, a member diocese of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone of South America, was disappointed by today’s decision of the Episcopal House of Bishops but he was not surprised by it.
“It is a shame that the disciplinary process of The Episcopal Church has been misused in this way,” Bishop Schofield said in responding to the news that the Episcopal House of Bishops voted to depose him. “The disciplinary procedures used by the House of Bishops, in my case, were intended for those who have abandoned the Faith and are leading others away from orthodox Christianity, as held in trust by bishops in the Anglican Communion ”“ and which The Episcopal Church had previously upheld also.”
“The question that begs to be answered by the House of Bishops,” said Bishop Schofield, “is, why bishops who continue to teach and publish books that deny the most basic Christian beliefs are not disciplined while those of us who uphold the Christian Faith are?” He added, “At least I am in good company. It is a privilege to know that I am standing along side of one of the outstanding theologians of our time, J. I. Packer, who is under similar discipline by the Canadian Church and who, also, has placed himself under the authority of the Southern Cone.”
“I have not abandoned the Faith,” Schofield observed. “I resigned from the American House of Bishops and have been received into the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone. Both Houses are members of the Anglican Communion. They are not ”“ or should not be ”“ two separate Churches. It is the leadership of The Episcopal Church that is treating itself as a separate and unique Church. They may do so, but they ought not expect everyone to follow teaching that serves only to undermine the authority of the Bible and ultimately leads to lifestyles that are destructive.”
“The fact remains,” Schofield observed, “that a canon law specifically designed to protect the people of God from wrong teaching and schismatic movements has been used in a clumsy way. I do not think it is a coincidence that the canon that was used, was the one that involves the least due process. The decision to act against me was not made by the House of Bishops as a whole. It was made behind closed doors by a small review committee and, only then, presented to the larger body for an ‘up or down’ vote.” The bishop added, “Tragically, what drives this action of The Episcopal Church is neither the Christian Faith nor the Communion they say I have abandoned. In the end, it appears as though the real motivation behind all of this is the use of raw power and coveting property. If this is so, then any attempts by The Episcopal Church to seize our property directly ignore Saint Paul’s warning not to take a fellow Christian to a civil court. [1 Corinthians 6:1-8]”
Bishop Schofield resigned from the House of Bishops as of March 7, 2008. “I am still an active Anglican bishop, and I continue to be the bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin,” Bishop Schofield affirmed.
“The disciplinary procedures used by the House of Bishops, in my case, were intended for those who have abandoned the Faith and are leading others away from orthodox Christianity, as held in trust by bishops in the Anglican Communion – and which The Episcopal Church had previously upheld also.â€
But they are also for abandonment of discipline and worship, not just faith.
why bishops who continue to teach and publish books that deny the most basic Christian beliefs are not disciplined while those of us who uphold the Christian Faith are?
That’s a perfectly fair question and one that the orthodox need to answer. It’s obvious that the revisionists are not going to bring a presentment against +Spong for his denial of ‘core doctrine’ (i.e. Trinity). So where are the Windsor Bishops or the other orthodox voices?
Brian brings up a good point about +Spong but that seemed to have been settled with the last reasserter vs reappraiser presentment – the Richter trial. There is no core doctrine therefore no cause for presentment. The only cause for presentment is violation of polity.
[blockquote] So where are the Windsor Bishops or the other orthodox voices? [/blockquote]
What would be the point? The few remaining orthodox voices in the sea of revisionists would be ignored. The revisionists are in complete control and quite comfy with Spong.
Are Windsor bishops orthodox voices…? And answerable question based on historical data. No.
Next question.
Brian. Could you explain your comment “It’s obvious that the revisionists are not going to bring a presentment against +Spong for his denial of ‘core doctrine’ (i.e. Trinity).”
Why not? Do they not also defend the faith?
The revisionists aren’t just “quite comfy” with Spong……they’re in bed with him!
Brian,
How has he abandonded the worship? Doesn’t he still use the ’70 Prayer Book?
Brian #1 asks, “So where are the Windsor Bishops or the other orthodox voices?”
Cowering, as usual.
‘scuze me, I meant [b]79[/b] Prayer Book. I thought I hit the nine, but it’s next to the zero, so, you know.
Wasn’t there a move to bring charges against Spong at one time, but the Presiding Bishop at the time (Browning? Griswold?) blocked it?
Brian (#1), without any “doctrine” to follow, just what is the point of “discipline” and “worship”? Weren’t the worshipers of the Golden Calf demonstrating their loyalty to discipline and worship without doctrine?
We are sad to see men of your faith and passion (in the spirit of J. I. Packer for whom I have the deepest respect)go.
There is no core doctrine therefore no cause for presentment.
Well, that’s not entirely true. The core doctrine is the nature of Jesus, His Divinity.
What would be the point? The few remaining orthodox voices in the sea of revisionists would be ignored. The revisionists are in complete control and quite comfy with Spong.
I disagree. I think, like +Bennison, he is a ‘thorn in their side.’
Brian. Could you explain your comment “It’s obvious that the revisionists are not going to bring a presentment against +Spong for his denial of ‘core doctrine’ (i.e. Trinity).â€
Why not? Do they not also defend the faith?
Because it’s too much trouble. They see him as a renegade who garners minor press attention. As for defense of the faith, we have a different view of that than reasserters.
Brian,
How has he abandoned the worship? Doesn’t he still use the ‘79 Prayer Book?
It’s not about abandoning all three. Abandoning one is enough.
Wasn’t there a move to bring charges against Spong at one time, but the Presiding Bishop at the time (Browning? Griswold?) blocked it?
He was up for presentment after +Righter, but the charges were pulled by +Stanton et al.
Brian (#1), without any “doctrine†to follow, just what is the point of “discipline†and “worship� Weren’t the worshipers of the Golden Calf demonstrating their loyalty to discipline and worship without doctrine?
An oversimplification. Just because our doctrine differs does not mean that it does not exist. The worship of the calf developed its own doctrine as well.
“The question that begs to be answered by the House of Bishops,†said Bishop Schofield, “is, why bishops who continue to teach and publish books that deny the most basic Christian beliefs ”
When addressing the HOB, the good Bishop must not use phrases that do not translate into Episcospeak, it just befuddles and vexes them.
Brian, you need to brush up your history. There can be no discipline for heresy because PECUSA judged that to be an irrelevant category back in 1967. There simply is no core doctrine on the divinity of Jesus or the personal nature of God. The only thing left at the “core” is power, naked power backed up by canons interpreted by those in power.
To the victorious go the spoils.
Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!
And, some “court”, (secular?) found “there was no core doctrine”.
Could have been a ECUSA trial court, but I can’t remember.
Gloria
Elves, why was my entire post deleted? It contained a serious observation that since Pike’s trial, there is no core doctrine in TEC that will be defended.