Tuesday, 4 December 2007

Presiding Bishop writes to San Joaquin

Updated again Friday evening

The ENS report by Jan Nunley is headed San Joaquin bishop asked to ‘reconsider, draw back’ from withdrawal efforts.

Expressing concern for his health and “evident sense of isolation,” Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori urged Bishop John-David M. Schofield of the Diocese of San Joaquin to “reconsider and draw back” from efforts to withdraw his diocese from the Episcopal Church.

As with previous letters to other disaffected bishops, the correspondence with Schofield notified him that such a step would force Jefferts Schori to act to bring the diocese and its leadership into line with the mandates of the national Church.

“You have been clear that you feel your views are dismissed or ignored within the Episcopal Church, yet you have ceased to participate in the councils of the Church. It is difficult to have dialogue with one who is absent,” Jefferts Schori wrote. “…The Church will never change if dissenters withdraw from the table. There is an ancient and honored tradition of loyal opposition, and many would welcome your participation”…

The full text of the letter is included and also appears here below the fold.

Update
Bishop Schofield has responded to this, and his reply can be read here. The diocesan site has it here, but a more permanent URL is this PDF version. The full text of this reply is now also below.

December 3, 2007

The Rt. Rev. John-David M. Schofield
Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin
4159 East Dakota Avenue
Fresno, CA 93726-5227

Dear John-David,

As you approach your next Diocesan Convention, I would like to remind you of my prayers, and those of many other Episcopalians, for you and for the Diocese of San Joaquin. I continue to be concerned for your health, and for your evident sense of isolation. You have been clear that you feel your views are dismissed or ignored within the Episcopal Church, yet you have ceased to participate in the councils of the Church. It is difficult to have dialogue with one who is absent. While there are a number who disagree with you, I believe many more would welcome your participation, particularly as a sign of your faithfulness to your vow to share in the councils of the Church. The Church will never change if dissenters withdraw from the table. There is an ancient and honored tradition of loyal opposition, and many would welcome your participation.

I do not need to remind you as well of the potential consequences of the direction in which you appear to be leading the Diocese of San Joaquin. In this connection I have in mind, among other things, your support of amendments to that diocese’s Constitution that would be plainly inconsistent with the Constitution of the Episcopal Church and that would implicitly reject the Church’s property and other canons, as well as your support for the transfer of the membership of your Diocese to the Province of the Southern Cone. If you continue along this path, I believe it will be necessary to ascertain whether you have in fact abandoned the communion of this Church, and violated your vows to uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of this Church. I do not intend to threaten you, only to urge you to reconsider and draw back from this trajectory.

While you may believe that the Diocese of San Joaquin can be welcomed into another Province of the Anglican Communion, I believe you will find that few parts of the Communion will recognize such a proposal. Such an action is without precedent, violates long-standing principles of catholic Christianity, and can only harm those faithful Episcopalians who only seek to follow Christ. I urge you to consider whether there might not be a more honorable course for you, personally, than seeking to violate your ordination vows and the Canons of this Church. Together with many in this Church, I would very much value your continued and increased presence at the table – both the table of Jesus Christ and the table of fellowship.

You and the Diocese of San Joaquin continue in my prayers, and I remain

Your servant in Christ,

Katharine Jefferts Schori

——-

Bishop Schofield’s response to Presiding Bishop Schori

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop and Primate
815 Second Ave.
New York, NY 10017-4594

Dear Bishop Schori:

Greetings in the name of Jesus Christ, our one and only Lord and Savior.

I have read your letter of December 3, 2007 and thank you for your prayers. There is a pastoral tone to this letter which is much appreciated. Informing me that you are not writing with any threats is most encouraging also. One would hope that this indicates your serious consideration of the Primates’ specific request that deposition and litigation under the present circumstances be abandoned as unacceptable behavior among Christians.

Please know I do not share your feelings that I am isolated. My understanding of the authority of the Holy Scriptures, as well as Catholic Faith and Order are shared by the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches and by some 60 million faithful Anglicans worldwide. It is The Episcopal Church that has isolated itself from the overwhelming majority of Christendom and more specifically from the Anglican Communion by denying Biblical truth and walking apart from the historic Faith and Order.

It is true that the House of Bishops has ignored my views for nearly twenty years. After this length of time, one wonders how genuine the offer of change for the Church can be by having the “loyal opposition” present at the table. Despite all of this, we are not pining away here in the Diocese of San Joaquin; we are rejoicing in the truth of God’s word!

The decision to be made by our Annual Convention this Saturday is the culmination of The Episcopal Church’s failure to heed the repeated calls for repentance issued by the Primates of the Anglican Communion and for the cessation of false teaching and sacramental actions explicitly contrary to Scripture. For years, I have tried in vain to obtain adequate Primatial oversight to protect the Diocese from an apostate institution that has minted a new religion irreconcilable with the Anglican faith. Hopes were raised in February 2007 when leaders of the Anglican Communion met in Dar es Salaam. The direction given by them for the formation of a pastoral council would have provided the protection we requested and would have averted the need for the Diocese to seek sanctuary from another Province. You were in Dar es Salaam, and in the presence of the assembled Primates you verbally signified your agreement to this direction. By the time you returned to the United States, however, you denied your public statement and declared you had only meant to bring it back for further consideration. It was no surprise, therefore, when the Executive Council and the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church later denounced the plan for a pastoral council that you went along with them. This was a clear signal that our religious freedom to practice the Historic Faith as this Church has received it would not be protected by The Episcopal Church. My Ordination vows require me to be a faithful steward of God’s holy Word and to defend His truth and “be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations…” I can do no other.

The Anglican Church of the Southern Cone has graciously offered the Diocese sanctuary on a temporary and emergency basis. This action is unprecedented but so, too, are the apostate actions of The Episcopal Church that make these protective measures necessary. The invitation of the Southern Cone is a matter of public record. In essence it embodies the solution agreed upon by you and the rest of the Anglican leaders at Dar es Salaam to provide adequate, acceptable Alternative Primatial Oversight. To endorse this as a way forward need not be a final nor irreconcilable commitment. Should it be the will of the Annual Convention to accept this most generous gift, I will welcome the opportunity implied in your letter to discuss how it impacts our relationship. In the event that the clergy and laity reject this offer from the Southern Cone, I would, of course, follow your recommendation to participate as a dissenter of the present unbiblical course of action being pursued by the House of Bishops. To do anything else would be to abandon God’s people of San Joaquin and, in the end, prove to be a hireling and not a shepherd. For me, at least, this is the honorable course the Lord would have me follow.

You will remain in my prayers,

Sincerely,

+John-David M. Schofield
Bishop of San Joaquin

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 at 7:12am GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA
Comments

Simon has quoted one passage from Schori as commenting "..yet you have ceased to participate in the councils of the Church. It is difficult to have dialogue with one who is absent..."

I found myself smiling at the irony of this comment (no offense to Schori intended).

What some conservatives have been doing for many years is making it impossible for some souls to participate in the councils of the church, thus making it nigh on impossible to have a dialogue with them because they are absent.

Some have acted so vehemently against Gene Robinson because he represents one of those who had been excluded from participation. Others act vehemently (to varying degrees) to ordained women, another group who were made absent.

Thus the comment highlights a fundamental difference, for some the exclusion and disenfranchisement of "lesser" souls is intrinsic to their strategies, and if a communion exists that is going to give them a voice, then they are out of there.

It would be okay if they had treated women and eunuchs and GLBTs with respect, but they have allowed us to be abused, insulted and violated for a long time, and in turn others who they now opportunistically seek alliances with but a few decades ago didn't give a toss about.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 at 8:39am GMT

To take a diocese out of the national structures by which it was created is an extraordinary step - I have indicated as much before. The Presiding Bishop is right to say that it would need to be ascertained in this case whether "the communion of this Church" has been "abandoned".

But abandoning "the communion of this Church" (TEC) does not necessarily entail abandoning the communion of the Church Catholic.

The Presiding Bishop may be right to believe that the Bishop of San Joaquin will find that few will recognize an incorporation into the Southern Cone province. But if significant parts of the Communion do, TEC may be in a conundrum. If John-David M. Schofield were to be still recognized as a bishop by, e.g., the ABC, it could be considered schismatic to declare the see vacant because it would imply that not having a TEC bishop amounts to there being no bishop of the Church Catholic.

This problem is of course always present (for those who hold to the geographical principle) where a diocese is established in a territory which already has (Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox) bishops.

But in the case of RC bishops, establishing an Anglican diocese "merely" confirms a schism rather than creates one. The case with Lutheran bishops is more complex because of Eucharistic fellowship between some Anglican and some Lutheran churches. How much more troublesome would it be to appoint a (TEC) bishop where there is already not just a RC bishop, a Lutheran bishop and maybe one or two Orthodox bishops, but even an Anglican bishop!

TEC could claim that "we have been there first" but I am not sure this is quite as credible in the case of a bishop and a diocese, rather than a priest and local congregation, leaving. Of course, if Benjamin Twinamaani is right, all that matters in American eyes might be that TEC's legal structure was there first. But since when are buildings more important than people and national legal structures than bishops in apostolic succession?

I am not writing as someone who claims to have the answer but of course for most people in the debate "the schismatic is always the other" and this doesn't wash with me.

Posted by: Thomas Renz on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 at 11:16am GMT

Correction: "The Diocese of San Joaquin, founded as a missionary diocese in 1911, became a full diocese of the Episcopal Church in 1961." So apparently the diocese was not created by the national structure, as I had assumed.

This doesn't change the fact that the Anglican Communion is a fellowship of national churches and that the assumption is that an Anglican diocese becomes part of a national church (which is why TECUSA dropping the USA seemed to me odd).

Posted by: Thomas Renz on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 at 11:30am GMT

Actually, Thomas, "The Diocese of San Joaquin, founded as a missionary diocese in 1911, became a full diocese of the Episcopal Church in 1961" means EXACTLY that it was founded by the national structure. Missionary dioceses are created by the national church and funded by them; they become full dioceses when they are well enough established to run and finance themselves...just as missionary parishes are created by the diocese and may eventually become self-financing.

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 at 11:58am GMT

"But abandoning "the communion of this Church" (TEC) does not necessarily entail abandoning the communion of the Church Catholic"

It's the church he's got, as far as I know. The church into which he was recieved and which ordained him and made him a bishop.

Without it he is plain Mr Schofield.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 at 12:32pm GMT

"Correction: "The Diocese of San Joaquin, founded as a missionary diocese in 1911, became a full diocese of the Episcopal Church in 1961." So apparently the diocese was not created by the national structure, as I had assumed."

Missionary dioceses are just as much a creation of the Episcopal Church as are constituent dioceses.

Posted by: ruidh on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 at 1:04pm GMT

If it happens that there are two Anglican Communions, one that is more narrowly based than the other, then presumably in many places there will be two such bishops, one representing Anglicanism and its breadth, and one representing a narrow interpretation according to the basis by which it broke away and organised itself.

Posted by: Pluralist on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 at 2:36pm GMT

"...the Anglican Communion is a fellowship of national churches and that the assumption is that an Anglican diocese becomes part of a national church (which is why TECUSA dropping the USA seemed to me odd)."

The Episcopal Church includes territories outside of the USA.

There are two official alternate names. The historic name is the Prostestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America; the late 1960's the alternate name the Episcopal Church was authorized. USA was dropped because Province 9 of the Episcopal Church consists of Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, and Puerto Rico.

Posted by: Swick on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 at 2:52pm GMT

Thomas: "The Presiding Bishop may be right to believe that the Bishop of San Joaquin will find that few will recognize an incorporation into the Southern Cone province. But if significant parts of the Communion do, . . ."

Oddly, there doesn't seem to be much recognition of Southern Cone's Bishop of Recife - only of Brazil's.

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 at 3:27pm GMT

Thanks, Pat and ruidh. This makes sense. So my original assumption was correct.

Göran, I think this was my reaction when the news first came out. It may be true but now I am not so sure. A bishop does not only represent the national church but the Church Catholic. Normally, the wider church would not consider someone a bishop who is no longer recognized by the body through which he or she was made a bishop but this is manifestly no longer true universally.

If no-one recognises John-David M. Schofield as bishop, he isn't a bishop. This much is clear. But if he is received as a bishop by the Province of the Southern Cone, he is a bishop - within the Province of the Southern Cone. Highly irregular, to be sure, but it seems to me no easier to claim that a non-TEC Anglican bishop on US-American soil is not a bishop, as it is to say that a Lutheran bishop is not a bishop.

The bishop and Diocese of San Joaquin putting themselves under the umbrella of the Province of the Southern Cone would produce a highly irregular situation but it would not relate to schism in the same way as the establishment of a diocese parallel to an existing and functioning TEC diocese. In principle, all other things being equal, a San Joaquin situation can be mended more easily than a CANA situation.

And so, maybe in San Joaquin "it takes two to schism," the schism being complete only once TEC sets up an alternative diocese.

Posted by: Thomas Renz on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 at 4:11pm GMT

Swick - thank you, I am not sure I knew that there was a whole province outside the USA. The CofE has a diocese and congregations outside England but not a province. It seems to me that when you've got a province outside your national borders, there are two options: either work towards the establishment of national churches or drop the geographical qualifier from your name. Anglicans have traditionally opted for the former, by dropping "USA," TEC seems to have opted for the latter.

Fair point about Robinson Calvacanti, Malcolm+, although "Twinamaani's law" (just made up, with reference to the essay cited recently) may apply, it's one thing for something to happen in Africa, Brazil or Cambodia, another thing for it to happen in the USA.

We may soon know, unless John-David M. Schofield had been invited to Lambeth 2008 but has already declined the invitation.

Posted by: Thomas Renz on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 at 5:12pm GMT

Title IV, Canon IX, Section 1:

"If a Bishop abandons the communion of this Church ..."

"this Church" clearly refers to TEC (aka PECUSA) NOT the World Wide Anglican Communion (which is not a "church")

Posted by: Prior Aelred on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 at 5:31pm GMT

"And so, maybe in San Joaquin "it takes two to schism," the schism being complete only once TEC sets up an alternative diocese."

Say Wha???

Thomas R, TEC will NOT be setting up "alternative diocese". TEC will simply be restoring Episcopal---and episcopal---oversight to the same ol' Diocese of San Joaquin it always was: same cathedral, same altars and, God willing, the same people. Plus a whole bunch of new ones, drawn to the GOOD News! Maranatha! :-D

Posted by: JCF on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 at 6:58pm GMT

"And so, maybe in San Joaquin "it takes two to schism," the schism being complete only once TEC sets up an alternative diocese."

Why would TEC set up an alternative diocese? There already is a Diocese. The bishop may need to be replaced and perhaps some clergy but the Diocese already exists.

If there is an "alternative", it will be whatever the secessionists set up. There is no schism. Only a bunch of people who have left TEC to do whatever they want to do.

Posted by: PseudoPiskie on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 at 6:58pm GMT

Please remember that the so called Anglo-Catholic dioceses are in fact abberrations from Mainstream Anglicanism....their theology is not traditional Anglicanism, but stems from the ritualist movement of the late nineteenth century.They teach a Gospel which contradicts classsic evangelicalism in several key areas about the nature of the eucharist, prayers for the dead and to the Saints.

Bishop Gene may be unacceptable in Sydney, but so would Schofield if he tried to introduce his tradition there and preach from the pulpit of the Cathedral.

Posted by: Robert Ian Williams on Tuesday, 4 December 2007 at 11:07pm GMT

An anecdotal incident of persecuting the orthodox:
While closing up my church in a tourist town on Maui, a young atractive couple approached the door to look in. I welcomed them with aloha and the wife said she was in seminary and they were at the hotel down the street. "Wonderful!" I said, "Which seminary are you attending?" "Ambridge", she replied. I know the code game but didn't want to play it, so I asked, "Which seminary is that?" "Trinity, the only orthodox seminary in the Episcopal Church!" was the reply. I said surely there must be others and for me orthodoxy may permit differing opinions. I said, "I hope to see you at our Eucharist tomorrow [Sunday]". I thought it was a futile hope and it was. I was saddened when they didn't show up.

The persecution? Obviously disagreeing that my seminary wasn't unorthodox and having the effrontary to invite them to the Lord's Table. That's how it is now in parts of the USA folks.

Posted by: Kahu Aloha on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 at 2:49am GMT

Thomas Renz wrote: “If no-one recognises John-David M. Schofield as bishop, he isn't a bishop. This much is clear. But if he is received as a bishop by the Province of the Southern Cone, he is a bishop – within the Province of the Southern Cone. Highly irregular, to be sure, but it seems to me no easier to claim that a non-TEC Anglican bishop on US-American soil is not a bishop, as it is to say that a Lutheran bishop is not a bishop.”

In the Lutheran tradition Bishops are the bene esse of the Church. He/she stand for good order God’s gift (Creation you know), but he is not the church and he is not the diocese. They remain in situ even if the bishop personally doesn’t.

Having 2 bishops in one place is not good order, but neither is having 2 different churches. But that is reality. The Church is split in several, as it was in several autonomous pars before the Empire of Constantine (who, as you know, wasn’t a Christian despite later claims).

The unified Church split in 1054 because of somebody’s stupidity (namely the insistence on a “unity” which never was) and the lust for power (the Bishop of Rome wanted to replace the Emperor as Vicarius Christi). It split successively in the 16th century because of several people’s insistence on a doctrinal “unity” which never had been was.

The situation you paint is schism. Not irregular, but the normal state. It is schism because persons in their insistence on a “unity” which isn’t and lust for power w a n t schism. They want their funny hats – and they want the Right to tell people “how it is”. Against them.

To formalize this schism a treaty declaring orders and offices and ordinations and baptisms and sacraments mutually valid is needed. Pending that, Bishop Schofield remains Mr Schofield.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 at 8:44am GMT

I still think that a diocesan convention voting to separate the diocese from the national structure of TEC is not quite the same as a bishop and a bunch of people leaving. Sure, the legalities need to be examined but even if it proves true that legally there still is a TEC diocese even after such a vote, what have you gained, if you won the legal argument (and the properties) but lost the people?

Examining whether Bishop Schofield, in supporting such a move, has abandoned "communion with this church" is necessary but it strikes me as insufficient in assessing the status of the diocese. There is more to the diocese than the bishop.

Posted by: Thomas Renz on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 at 11:16am GMT

"Sure, the legalities need to be examined but even if it proves true that legally there still is a TEC diocese even after such a vote, what have you gained, if you won the legal argument (and the properties) but lost the people?"

It will be interesting to see just how many people will be lost. So far bishops and priests have made claims on behalf of their dioceses and parishes but we have heard very little from the people in the pews.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 at 1:26pm GMT

"I still think that a diocesan convention voting to separate the diocese from the national structure of TEC is not quite the same as a bishop and a bunch of people leaving. Sure, the legalities need to be examined but even if it proves true that legally there still is a TEC diocese even after such a vote, what have you gained, if you won the legal argument (and the properties) but lost the people?"

Would you truly lose ALL the people? You think it's likely that 100% of the Episcopalians in San Joaquin, Fort Worth, or Pittsburgh want to leave TEC for the Southern Cone (or wherever)? I don't think it's likely that even 100% of the parish vestries would so vote if asked.

Which leads to an interesting counter question: What preparations has any of those dioceses made for the Episcopalians in their areas who do not wish to split from TEC?

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 at 2:39pm GMT

I am one of the people in the one of the pews in the diocese of San Joaquin, and I am just sick over the choices being made by Bishop Schofield. There are many who follow the Bishop in his choices, but there is a strong minority who feel we have lost the life of the Episcopal church, that is of our understanding, in this diocese. After many years with a Bishop who will not allow women to serve as priests, and who denigrates and derides the national church every chance he gets, we are really weary of the animosity. We are looking for someone to come in and restore the presence of the Episcopal Church here.
Beryl Simkins

Posted by: Beryl Simkins on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 at 2:43pm GMT

I always understood that both RC's and Orthodox believed schism could only be from the Church --Anglicans and others who work with a broadly "catholic" ecclesiology believe schism is within the Church.Adrian Hastings doctoral thesis,published as "One and Apostolic" is very enlightening here--not least as he changed his mind!
On a totally different note--I think there were plans for a province of the Andes to take in Ecuador/Colombia/Venezuela/Peru?/in the late 80's presumably it hasnt happened because the Churches arent strong enough or viable.

Posted by: Perry Butler on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 at 3:06pm GMT

“Please remember that the so called Anglo-Catholic dioceses are in fact abberrations from Mainstream Anglicanism....their theology is not traditional Anglicanism, but stems from the ritualist movement of the late nineteenth century.They teach a Gospel which contradicts classsic evangelicalism in several key areas about the nature of the eucharist, prayers for the dead and to the Saints.” Robert Ian Williams

Rubbish! Anglo-Catholics have existed as “Mainstream” within Anglicanism since Elizabeth I, who after all, was an Anglo-Catholic, not a Calvinist.

In particular, within the American Church, the High Church tradition existed as a major force long before the Tractarians, and probably influenced them (e.g., Bishop Hobart, the Rev. Dr. Muhlenberg, etc.). Low Church Latitudinarianism in Virginia, Pennsylvania and elsewhere has also been a significant element within American Episcopalianism. If anything, it’s Evangelicalism that’s an aberration from “Mainstream Anglicanism” in America.

As for Sydney, maybe “Flogging Parson” Evangelicalism is normal there, but it is hardly “Mainstream.”

Posted by: Kurt on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 at 6:49pm GMT

Two points about the Episcopal Church. first to answer Swick -- Province IX of the Episcopal Church is made up of dioceses all of which are outside the bounds of the U.S. The Episcopal church used to have more such dioceses, but as the churches in certain places reached a point where they could be viable as a separate province, TEC has overseen that process. Examples of this would be the Provinces of Mexico, Central America (all but one diocese had been part of TEC), and the Philippines.

Second, Since dioceses in the Episcopal church are integral administrative units of TEC, they can't leave on their own vote any more than a subsidiary of Ford Motors could decide to go its own way without permission from the Board of Directors of Ford. In TEC people may leave since it is a voluntary association (not an established church), but the administrative units of the Church - the parish and diocese do not. The Church septs in and oversees a process of electing new leadership and then the Church goes on.

Posted by: Joan Gundersen on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 at 11:04pm GMT

Bishop John-David Schofield, in his response to the PB's letter, certainly knows how to twist the truth:

To quote him: "The Anglican Church of the Southern Cone has graciously offered the Diocese sanctuary on a temporary and emergency basis. This action is unprecedented but so, too, are the apostate actions of The Episcopal Church that make these protective measures necessary. The invitation of the Southern Cone is a matter of public record. In essence it embodies the solution agreed upon by you and the rest of the Anglican leaders at Dar es Salaam to provide adequate, acceptable Alternative Primatial Oversight" (Episcopal News Service, 5 Dec. 2007).

Posted by: John Henry on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 at 11:54pm GMT

Yes Bishop Sch. has replied to KJS, and his answer is a rather resounding - I am headed to the Southern Cone, thank you very much - though in this instance the word, headed, means symbolic affiliation and membership rather than the brute physics of real travel.

One of the really, really, really interesting questions is: What exactly will all these varieties of strict, slightly varied and even contradictory at points, and above all meanly animated conservative folks do - once they have slipped the filthy bonds of the modernity and the Anglican liberalisms they so say they despise and doubt?

Is Sch. a conservative episcopal knight in shining spiritual armor, as, say, StandFirm would have it? Someone more admired even than Duncan of Pittsburgh? Someone so fine, just like Akinola The Humble?

Or more of a clone for, say, the deposed bishop of Recife? These conservative kids are trying to do just a fine job of tearing down the house in order to get sufficiently at their three favorite targets, i.e., queer folks, educated women, and progressive citizens of many different sorts. But in tearing down the house, we may discover that only their ruins are left behind, and then the rest of us will just have to move on, pilgrims, praying, praising God in Jesus of Nazareth, and changing for the better as often as we can understand how to do so, one day at a time.

Posted by: drdanfee on Thursday, 6 December 2007 at 1:22am GMT

"Second, Since dioceses in the Episcopal church are integral administrative units of TEC, they can't leave on their own vote any more than a subsidiary of Ford Motors could decide to go its own way without permission from the Board of Directors of Ford."

YES!

Don't know about elsewhere, but in the US, CocaCola has a new soda called Coke Zero. A series of funny TV ads has actors consulting a real lawyer [who is not aware he's being filmed] about suing Coke Zero on behalf of Coke. Lawyers puzzled by this. But you're the same company, they say. The actors say, But we're on diffreent floors!

Not quite a match, but close enough.

BTW, where is the ABC;s Advent nessage?

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Thursday, 6 December 2007 at 1:51am GMT

Well, in "apostate TEC", the Commandment (one of 10) to NOT "bear false witness against thy neighbor" still holds. In xJohn-David's new religion, apparently, not so much...

Lord have mercy!

Posted by: JCF on Thursday, 6 December 2007 at 8:01am GMT

"The invitation of the Southern Cone is a matter of public record. In essence it embodies the solution agreed upon by you and the rest of the Anglican leaders at Dar es Salaam to provide adequate, acceptable Alternative Primatial Oversight" (Bp. Schofield)
So now, wait a minute - does that mean San J. is NOT leaving TEC, but rather merely seeking (temporary) alternative primatial oversight? Way to muddy the waters, John-David.
Lois

Posted by: Lois Keen on Thursday, 6 December 2007 at 10:37pm GMT

I loved + Schofield's letter to apostate TEC. Rather condemnatory to say the least... and deservedly so! But I'm sure that any legal action TEC takes won't be over that lettrer; I doubt they could win a suit claiming slander.

But TEC do have form for sacking priests and sueing churches for the assets. They'll just focus on legalistically on their canons, not on Truth or on the people of the churches.
Ecclesiastical legalism seems to be all that TEC have left to cling to!

Posted by: David Wh. on Friday, 7 December 2007 at 12:12am GMT

We have another NP here it seems.

When you modify your nouns with words like "apostate", it would seem that you very little thinking to contribute here on this blogsite.

The Episcopal Church is engaging in ecclesiastical legalism because people like you wish tear it apart over a man in New Hampshire. Refusing to act in a Christian and charitable manner results in this. So you all asked for it.....

Posted by: choirboyfromhell on Friday, 7 December 2007 at 10:21pm GMT

I think you will find that the disappearance of NP and DW's arrival is no coincidence - I have seen this sort of organised anti-gay campaign on other sites. I would suggest that one or two people are involved in supplying all the comments using different names

Posted by: Merseymike on Monday, 10 December 2007 at 12:48pm GMT

Agreed Merseymike. And this one can't even use the English language properly.

Posted by: choirboyfromhell on Monday, 10 December 2007 at 6:26pm GMT

No kurt is wrong...there was a high church tradition from the 16th century on, but it was Protestant. For instance Archbishop laud refused to pray to saints and regarded the ordinations of non episcopal Protestants as valid. He wrote most strongly against transubstantiation and the Eucharist as being a propititiary sacrifice.

Anglo-catholicism is an off shoot of the ritualist movement of the nineteenth century.

Posted by: Robert Ian Williams on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 at 9:18pm GMT

"Anglo-catholicism is an off shoot of the ritualist movement of the nineteenth century."

You know, Robert, conversion from one Church to another is usually accompanied by a great deal of pain, rejection, anger, and a lot of other negative emotions that colour our response to the group we have abandoned. I'd suggest you think about how you are still angry at Anglicanism. I say this because I was once there. I was very angry at Canadian Anglicanism. Had there been an Orthodox church here, I would have angrily tried to convert. I say tried, because the Orthodox tend to take the attitude that one should convert out of love for Orthodoxy, not anger at what one is leaving behind. I do understand the level of hurt and anger, but you don't need to be so blatant and insulting about the beliefs of others just because you yourself are angry at the institution in which they practice those beliefs. It really isn't helpful. Why should it be a matter of scorn if the Catholic tradition slumbered for centuries in Anglicanism, then was reawakened? It's the same attitude I have to take WRT Rome. Much of basic Christianity slumbered in that tradition for centuries, what with warrior Popes and all, yet I don't deny their Catholicity.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 2:51pm GMT

"Anglo-catholicism is an off shoot of the ritualist movement of the nineteenth century."

Why should it matter?
Whichever expression of Christianity leads you closer to God is surely right for you, regardless of its origins.

Posted by: Erika Baker on Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 4:14pm GMT

You are certainly not on the NP/DW theory, Merseymike.

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 8:25pm GMT

Meant to say "certainly NOT alone", MM. Always proofread!

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Thursday, 13 December 2007 at 9:26pm GMT

Please may we have no more conspiracy stories without evidence. NP and david wh are different people.

Posted by: Peter Owen on Friday, 14 December 2007 at 9:57am GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.