Bishop Gregory Venables has written a letter to Bishop Schofield and others in San Joaquin, which has been published in full here as a PDF file. It includes the following:
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Tuesday, 15 July 2008 at 8:59pm BST | TrackBack…In addition, I have been in conversation with Archbishop Rowan. Over the weekend I received the following message from him: “I understand that Bishop John-David Schofield has been accepted as a full member of the episcopal fellowship of the Province of the Southern Cone within the Anglican Communion and as such cannot be regarded as having withdrawn from the Anglican Communion. However, it is acknowledged that his exact status (especially given the complications surrounding the congregations associated with him) remains unclear on the basis of the general norms of Anglican Canon Law, and this constitutes one of the issues on which we hope for assistance from the Windsor Continuation Group. Bishop Schofield has elected to decline the invitation to the Lambeth Conference issued to him last year although that decision does not signal any withdrawal from the Communion. I hope there may be further careful reflection to clarify the terms on which he will exercise his ministry.”
This statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury is clear, even though we are in somewhat new territory; you remain within the Anglican Communion. Given the rigors of international travel and the work that there is to do in the Diocese, I am in agreement with Bishop John-David’s decision not to attend the Lambeth Conference. I am also aware of statements by Bishop Jerry Lamb in which he makes statements and demands that miss the mark of Christian leadership and fall short of what many consider propriety. I would encourage the clergy and lay members of the diocese to ignore this.
We are glad to have you as full members of the Southern Cone. As you can see, you are well regarded as members of the Anglican Communion. May God richly bless you!
It's answers like this that indicate why the wheels are coming off the wagon. The answer says he is in the Anglican Communion but his status depends on canon law. Venables jumps at the first part of the answer and hails Schofield as full member, everything wonderful. That was not what was written. Somehow, what gets written needs to be clearer, and less open to running off with half the answer as if there has just been a victory declared.
Posted by: Pluralist on Tuesday, 15 July 2008 at 10:20pm BST"although that decision does not signal any withdrawal from the Communion."
Ah! That's interesting, the Global South recognise a failure to come to Lambeth does then signal a withdrawl from the Communion ......
Note that what Venables quotes from Williams says nothing about the status of the Diocese of San Joaquin, only about the status of Bishop Schofield.
And does anyone have specifics on what Jerry Lamb said that has Venables' knickers in a twist?
Venables appears to have added two and two and made fifty.
Nothing has been said about the diocese as a whole being part of the communion, simply Schofield, and given that Anglicanism is Episcopal, and the status of the Bishop uncertain,. the same is also the case for the diocese.
Posted by: Merseymike on Tuesday, 15 July 2008 at 10:42pm BSTReading ++Rowan's note to ++Greg, I can't help but think of someone: General Robert E. Lee, who was a military genius who had difficulty communicating his orders to his less-gifted subordinates. Only a very few officers could really understand Lee's ideas and effectively communicate them to the others.
Now, maybe I'm fancying myself the Stonewall Jackson to ++Rowan's Robert E. Lee, but it seems to me that ++Rowan is ever so gently and politely telling ++Greg that what he and +Schofield have been up to is against canon law (which, frankly, it is) and by the way that he's rather relieved that +Schofield won't be showing up to complicate things.
And +Schofield's absence will hardly help his cause of recognition of the "Anglican" Diocese of San Joaquin. If anything it looks to me like they're hanging on by their fingernails at best. Not being at Lambeth will be a body blow to their recognition by the WWAC.
++Greg's "see? they recognize you!" remark in the letter was, frankly, faintly pathetic. Grasping at anything to make his position look less shaky. Note that much of the rest of the letter is furiously trying to portray GAFCON in a better light (where I view it as a single solitary embarrassment in spite of my sympathy for conservatives and traditionalists).
Posted by: Walsingham on Tuesday, 15 July 2008 at 11:36pm BSTAmnesia? Certainly we all ought remember that this is the same +Greg Venables who advised us that the Archbishop of Canterbury had advised him (during a very private-in-person meeting) that his poaching "convention takeover" scheme at TEC Diocese of San Joaquin "was the way to go" when developing northernish territory in the The New World/Western Hemisphere far above The Province of Southern Conealone.
+Venables needs to find a new PR firm/translator (English to English) and should drop his professional "interpreters of REAL" in Laguna Beach who constantly leaves Venables vulnerable and "in" way over his head.
Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Tuesday, 15 July 2008 at 11:54pm BSTRe what has Bp. Lamb done over which Presiding Bishop Venables "has his knickers in a twist", see this from The Friends of Jake
http://friends-of-jake.blogspot.com/2008/07/bishop-jerry-lamb-asks-clergy-to.html
Maybe Simon can put it in better than I seem to have, but at least I'm trying. Bp. Lamb has asked the clergy of the Episcopal Dio. of San J. to declare their allegiance to TEC so they all know where everyone stands. I believe it is to this request PB Venables is referring when he tells the clergy they don't have to say anything to Bp. Lamb.
Posted by: Lois Keen on Tuesday, 15 July 2008 at 11:54pm BSTDidn't ARChbishop Venables do the same thing once before, claiming to quote the Archbishop of Canterbury? He has not learnt his lesson....and that is why Bishop Lamb is at Lambeth . If there was confusion about canonical stattus surely Bishop Lamb would not be there.
Posted by: Robert Ian Williams on Wednesday, 16 July 2008 at 7:12am BSTLois
The full text of Bishop Lamb's letter is in a PDF at
http://s3.amazonaws.com:/dfc_attachments/public/documents/63/LetterToClergy071008.pdf
Two words:
Perceptual Set
Who has any respect for the "invader" from the Southern Cone? Half-truths and spin. May the good Lord deliver North American Christians from such deceiving Anglican primates. They disgrace Christ's Church.
Posted by: John Henry on Wednesday, 16 July 2008 at 6:17pm BSTListening to Bishop Venables on BBC radio, it did occur to me that he is, in voice, views, and even looks, something of an episcopal Norman Tebbit. Less the Chingford Strangler than the Buenos Aires Boundary-Crosser, though not quite as catchy, perhaps?
Posted by: Fr Mark on Wednesday, 16 July 2008 at 9:18pm BST