Here’s an excerpt:<\/i><\/p>\n
Today we stand at a critical juncture in history. It would be myopic to imagine that the rest of
\nChristendom, let alone the Anglican Communion, is not watching and praying as we deliberate.
\nPray that the Holy Spirit will lead us in the momentous decisions that lie before us.<\/p>\n
It is only natural to experience fear, for what we are considering takes the Diocese of San Joaquin
\ninto unchartered waters. The leaders of the General Convention have expended enormous energy
\nto spread their mantra: \u201cIndividuals may the leave the Church, but Parishes and Dioceses cannot.\u201d\u009d
\nNo one seems to know who dreamed up this idea. What we DO know is that it is simply not true!
\nDuring the time of the Civil War in the 1860’s when this nation was torn apart, dioceses in those
\nstates called the Confederacy withdrew from what was then known as The Protestant Episcopal
\nChurch. During the war years they held their own conventions, developed their own Constitution,
\nhad there own House of Bishops, elected a Presiding Bishop, and consecrated a bishop for one of
\ntheir dioceses. Nothing could be clearer. The southern dioceses had departed and had created a
\nseparate church. Today we might call it their own Province.<\/p>\n
Unlike many of the Protestant denominations, however, it didn\u2019t make sense to Episcopalians to
\nmaintain the separation when the war ended. Not only were the southern bishops and their dioceses
\nwelcomed back, the newly consecrated bishop was recognized, and no punitive action was taken
\nagainst anyone. Presumably the southerners had taken their property with them when they left.
\nAnd, they would not have been the first to do this.<\/p>\n
Centuries before, King Henry VIII, with the help of Parliament prevented all English money from
\ngoing to Rome. This action was followed up by taking all the property of the churches, including
\nthe monasteries and shrines \u201d\u201cmany of which he dismantled and sold. Today, were you to go to
\nIreland in search of a name or a tombstone of anyone buried before 1540, your search would have
\nto be in Anglican \u201d\u201cnot Roman Catholic\u201d\u201c churches and cathedrals. Somehow the Pope never asked
\nthat they be returned to him…and they weren\u2019t.<\/p>\n
Colonial churches, especially those in Virginia, whose existence pre-date not only The Episcopal
\nChurch but the United States itself, were never given back to the Lord Bishop of London nor to the
\nArchbishop of Canterbury when, after the American Revolution, Anglicans identified themselves
\nas Episcopalians. They took their property with them.<\/p>\n
History is replete with instances in which dioceses, too, have moved from one Province to another
\n\u201d\u201c no matter how it was accomplished. Liberia moved from The Episcopal Church to the Province
\nof West Africa, Venezuela moved from the West Indies to The Episcopal Church. Mexico has
\nmoved back and forth from The Episcopal Church more than once.<\/p>\n
Historically, Provinces, such as The Episcopal Church, are not, and never have been, an essential
\npart of Catholic Order. On October 14th this year, Rowan Williams, our present Archbishop of
\nCanterbury, wrote to Bishop John Howe of Central Florida: \u201c…Without forestalling what the
\nPrimates might say, I would repeat what I\u2019ve said several times before \u201d\u201c that any Diocese compliant
\nwith Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the
\nCommunion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The
\norgan of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial
\nstructure as such.\u201d\u009d Later, in the same letter, Archbishop Williams strengthened what he had said
\nalready by adding: \u201cI should feel a great deal happier, I must say, if those who were most eloquent
\nfor a traditionalist view in the United States showed a fuller understanding of the need to regard the
\nBishop and the Diocese as the primary locus of ecclesial identity rather than the abstract reality
\nof the \u201d\u02dcnational church\u2019.\u201d\u009d (Emphasis added) Abstract realities do not own, nor have they ever
\nowned, property.<\/p>\n
There is no question that what we are considering today will be called Schism. We will be told that
\nunity trumps theology. We shall be told that we are doing is destructive and against history and
\nCatholic Order. Once again, the words of J.I. Packer are most helpful. He notes: \u201cSchism means
\nunwarrantable and unjustifiable dividing of organized church bodies, by the separating of one group
\nwithin the structure from the rest of the membership. Schism, as such, is sin, for it is a needless and
\nindefensible breach of visible unity. But withdrawal from a unitary set-up that has become
\nunorthodox and distorts the gospel in a major way and will not put its house in order as for instance
\nwhen the English church withdrew from the Church of Rome in the sixteenth century, should be
\ncalled not schism but realignment, doubly so when the withdrawal leads to links with a set-up that
\nis faithful to the truth, as in the sixteenth century the Church of England entered into fellowship
\nwith the Lutheran and Reformed churches of Europe, and as now we propose gratefully to accept
\nthe offer of full fellowship with the Province of the Southern Cone. Any who calls such a move
\nschism should be told they do not know what schism is.\u201d\u009d<\/p>\n
For those of us who are facing the unknown, Provinces and Property seem to be among the top
\nconcerns. As bishop, I would like to suggest to you that a \u201d\u02dcNO\u2019 vote at this convention will not
\nprovide the imagined protection needed to get on with our lives uninterrupted. Many do not realize
\nthat for 40 years, with the first twenty under Bishop Victor Rivera, and now nearly twenty years
\nwith me, as bishops we have been able to provide a buffer for our people from the innovations that
\nabound in dioceses all around us. A quick trip north, south, east or west is all that it takes to wonder
\nif we\u2019re in the same church with those folks. Years ago, it was the moderate Bishop John
\nMacArthur of West Texas who first stated clearly that \u201cwe are two churches under one roof.\u201d\u009d<\/p>\n