Wednesday, 9 January 2008

San Joaquin development

Remain Episcopal carries news of this:

Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin Listening Tour

The Rev. Canon Bob Moore, appointed by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as an interim pastoral presence in the Diocese of San Joaquin, will make a 5-day “Listening Tour” of the central valley.

From January 21st through the 25th, Canon Bob will travel the valley meeting with both clergy and laity who wish to remain in the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of San Joaquin. At stops in Stockton, Lodi, Fresno, Hanford, Bakersfield, and other towns in between, Canon Bob will listen to the stories, concerns and hopes of the Episcopal faithful in San Joaquin. To assure that your parish, clergy or laity group is included in the Listening Tour, please contact us at contact@remainepiscopal.org…

…At the conclusion of the Listening Tour, the Rev. Canon Bob Moore, interim pastoral presence in San Joaquin appointed by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, will keynote a day-long gathering at the Church of the Saviour in Hanford on Saturday, January 26th, 2008. Canon Bob will be joined by special guest Bonnie Anderson, President of the House of Deputies of the Episcopal Church. This will be Bonnie’s second visit to San Joaquin following an event in Lodi held in February, 2007. Both Canon Bob and Bonnie will address those gathered and have additional time set aside to take questions.

There was also a report on Episcopal News Service In San Joaquin, Episcopal Church ‘alive and well’.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Wednesday, 9 January 2008 at 6:26pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA
Comments

This is wonderful news. My prayers are that both types of congregations are allowed to prosper and grow as God sees fit. My prayers are especially with those that others tried to deprive of a home and I am grateful that the TEC is taking steps to succour them.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. Clough on Wednesday, 9 January 2008 at 7:35pm GMT

So good to hear about something in this diocese besides how the rest of us are going to hell in a hand basket because we differ or even dissent from the closed views the former diocese preached were the only possible Anglican views.

De facto, it seems clear that the old diocese is no longer - doubled up contrary claims by the former constituents notwithstanding - and so as always, life goes on. TEC wasn't supposed to exist in the first place, owing to the upstart former colonies who had rejected the crown and the empire. Like VGR who was not expected to survive as a baby, either, we are blessedly living on the borrowed, gifted time of God's grace.

Posted by: drdanfee on Wednesday, 9 January 2008 at 10:58pm GMT

I do hope Canon Bob has asked permission of the Bishop.

Posted by: Joe on Wednesday, 9 January 2008 at 11:50pm GMT

"I do hope Canon Bob has asked permission of the Bishop."

Why? Schofield is no longer the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. He is the bishop of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin of the Province of the Southern Cone. Canon Bob doesn't need his permission to visit Episcopal churches in his domain, anymore than he would need the permission of the Roman Catholic bishop for the diocese covering that area.

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Thursday, 10 January 2008 at 11:28am GMT

Besides, Joe, no permission is needed for a "listening tour" nor is permission required even for priestly sacramental or liturgical acts unless carried out for more than two months.

Posted by: Tobias Haller on Thursday, 10 January 2008 at 3:27pm GMT

"Canon Bob doesn't need his permission to visit Episcopal churches in his domain, anymore than he would need the permission of the Roman Catholic bishop..."

Oh, so you're saying that TEC is not part of the Anglican communion? Such hypocrites! You can't have it both ways: claiming border violations on the one hand and then doing it on the other.

The end is near...

Posted by: Joe on Thursday, 10 January 2008 at 4:16pm GMT

"Oh, so you're saying that TEC is not part of the Anglican communion? Such hypocrites! You can't have it both ways: claiming border violations on the one hand and then doing it on the other."

Who is violating what border? There is no bishop in San Joaquin. Their former bishop abandoned them and moved to the Southern Cone. He is attempting, so I understand, to organize a diocese of the Southern Cone in the territory of the TEC diocese of San Joaquin. I have no idea how far along he is in this process. Even when he has done so, TEC will not need his permission to minister to their flock in the territory of their own diocese. Presumably, the former bishop of San Joaquin will not need the permission of the TEC bishop to minister to HIS flock in that territory, since they are living in another diocese that just happens to share boundaries with a TEC diocese. How is this hypocrisy? How is this hard to understand? Are you confused by the fact that two Churches each have a diocese with the same boundaries? I know, it's irksome, but that's what happens when people's brokenness trumps their Christianity. But, Schofield will have no more authority over TEC members in whatever the territory of his new diocese turns out to be once he gets it organized than does the Orthodox bishop of the West, he is a bishop from another Church, with authority over his own flock, but none over anyone else's. By going to the Southern Cone, he declared that the faithful Anglicans left behind are not of his flock, so there is no boundary crossing when those charged with the care of that flock seek to care for them.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Thursday, 10 January 2008 at 7:05pm GMT

Okay, right back atcha Mr. J.

One cannot be logically consistent as one violates a province or diocese - and even at the parish level, as one attempts to take money and property out of the given existing diocese/province - while at the same time one claims that (1) the Anglican Communion as a whole is somehow morally and theologically (let alone legally, institutionally?) separate from the parts one either wishes to raid and control or wishes to exclude and destroy; nor while further claiming (2) that the categorically separated whole justifies mistreatment (let alone destruction by so-called Anglican realignment) of the parts which comprise the whole.

Adoption by the Southern Cone is just as rarified and mistaken as a course of alleged moral-theological action, as is removing the diocese from TEC in the first place. Many of us also suspect for good reasons that such a drastic maneuver conveys quite a bit of impotent frustration about any signs that traditionalists are losing ground in the global discussions of some of our hot button Anglican issues.

The current Conservative Realignment Campaign is way too much like claiming that the traditionalistic conservative surgery was a great success but the liberal patient died. Or way too similar to the traditional arguments that claimed sexual assault could not by definition take place, between two married straight folks.

This entire new realignment campaign idea that somehow the Anglican family can exist apart from its open gay members (or its catholic members? or its liberal members?) is contributing to the mis-defined perception of the problem in the first place. Small wonder that the solution only intensifies the error, and elaborates the conservative definitional error.

But the rumors of the demise of progressive believerhoods are entirely exaggerated, a familiar conservative means to conservative self-service ends. Contrary to realignment claims, conservative Anglicanisms do not innately trump all the other prevalent, co-existing Anglicanisms.

What trumps is what has always trumped: Love of God, and love of neighbor. And love of neighbor these days must minimally include basic respect for the human equality of the neighbor and service to the neighbor - all as moral and theological enactments of love - God's love pre-existent and our love called forward by God's love.

Posted by: drdanfee on Thursday, 10 January 2008 at 8:04pm GMT

""Canon Bob doesn't need his permission to visit Episcopal churches in his domain, anymore than he would need the permission of the Roman Catholic bishop..."

Oh, so you're saying that TEC is not part of the Anglican communion? Such hypocrites! You can't have it both ways: claiming border violations on the one hand and then doing it on the other.

The end is near... "

The only border violation that occurred here is when the province of the Southern Cone admitted Schofield and his followers into itself. There is still an Episcopal diocese of San Joaquin, one that, for the moment, has no bishop--hence the PB appoints Canon Bob to oversee it until a new diocesan convention can be called.

Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Thursday, 10 January 2008 at 8:54pm GMT

Even if the Southern Cone annexation were valid (which it ain't) the former Episcopal bishop resident in Fresno as an Anglican Bishop has already stated that he accepts the continued presence of continuing Episcopalians. Thus, even if John David were a bishop in the Anglican Communion (which is now canonically dubious) he himself has established that the case is comparable to the overlapping jurisdictions in Europe.

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Saturday, 12 January 2008 at 6:17am 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.