Comments: InclusiveChurch on San Joaquin

YES ! This is what we need to hear ! But not just a trickle but a huge flow. All Anglicans bodies , organisations, people, and clergy need to speak up and speak out. IC is pointing the way ! The CofE bishops especially need to leave their self imposed 'marginalisation' and start providing real leadership.! What has happened to the broad, liberal majority ?

I'd love to hear from Tim Stevens, Laurie Green, John Hind,Bill Ind and Roy Schreech for starters "!

Over to you !.................

Posted by laurence roberts at Monday, 9 October 2006 at 11:07pm BST

An excellent statement of what real Anglicanism is all about. IC names ++Peter Abuja for who he is - a wanton schismatic, ignorant of Anglican tradition, and influenced by well-funded Americans in league with the Bushie Neo-cons, whose aim to to destroy the more liberal mainline denominations in order to consolidate the so-called 'Christian base', cheering on a U.S. President making pre-emptive war on the 'axis of evil' rather than pursue diplomatic solutions by talking to the U.S. adversaries.

Posted by John Henry at Tuesday, 10 October 2006 at 1:03am BST

San Joaquin is not the only apparent place where folks are seeking to dismantle the Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Communion as we know it. Folks might want to look into a conference sponsored by Lay Episcopalians for the Anglican Communion, intended to develop "cadres" to go into Episcopal parishes with "a curriculum" to lead folks out of the Episcopal Church. You can learn about it at their web site, I've had some of my own thoughts on this on my own blog.

While some few seek reconciliation, and high level communications go back and forth, the efforts to disassemble the Episcopal Church are underway. I do not think they will be terribly successful, but I do think they will cause pain and division and confusion along the way.

Posted by Marshall Scott at Tuesday, 10 October 2006 at 1:51am BST

Laurence. I concur with your comments. Am taking debate to most recent thread.

Posted by Cheryl Clough at Tuesday, 10 October 2006 at 2:10am BST

I was a teenage member of the Plymouth Brethren, when I first faced a spiritual and intellectual crisis, upon realising the inadequecies of the evangelical beliefs of the Brethren!
My reading of the bible -- (and by god, did we read the bible in the Bros -- my first two Bibles fell apart with such (over?) use ! Needless to say, no Bible of mine since then has fallen apart! Is that where I'm going wrong? ) ...sorry, my reading of the Bible, did not support their exclusive narrowness -- i couldnt see why nonchurchgoers -- or RCs such be bound for hell ! I think I had intellectual and aesthetic objections too.
I've noticed how evangelicalism when it gets too cocky and loses its head has threatened the integrity of churches to which it has taken root --- entryism. It almost destroyed the Society of Friends in UK, in the 19th century. It must be resisted -- or do I mean ignored ?

On a happier note -- most evos --in my experience--me included! -- grow up and become more open less evo' write books like Honest to this or that.... -- even give up religion -- so do not lose hope !! : - )

The discover of sex can be a great anti-dote to over-religiosity & daftnesses (I found) and Bibles are less likey to be wrecked !

Posted by laurence roberts at Tuesday, 10 October 2006 at 9:49am BST

Will look out for it and for you Cheryl, ta.

Posted by laurence roberts at Tuesday, 10 October 2006 at 9:51am BST

In other words, the more someone reads a bible the worse Christian they are. Just as the more someone reads a medical textbook the worse doctor they are. (Not that the Bible is simply a textbook of course.)

Posted by Christopher Shell at Tuesday, 10 October 2006 at 1:44pm BST

"You can learn about it at their web site, I've had some of my own thoughts on this on my own blog.

While some few seek reconciliation, and high level communications go back and forth, the efforts to disassemble the Episcopal Church are underway. I do not think they will be terribly successful, but I do think they will cause pain and division and confusion along the way." Marshall

This is the same manipulative crowd of righteous "groupies" that Lord Carey of Clifton says are men "known to him" and that he "commends to us" their behind-the-scene plottings that most often cause "division and confusion along the way"...what a dangerous man to our Episcopal Church and overall spiritual health/peace-of-mind the former ABC is.

Posted by Leonardo Ricardo at Tuesday, 10 October 2006 at 2:19pm BST

Christopher, instead I think the correct statement is that the more one reads the Bible *to the exclusion of all else* the worse Christian they might be. The Bible needs to be informed by the world in order to come alive. The Word of God needed to become Incarnate -- alive *in* the world -- before the story was finished. The Bible, divorced from the world, is just a book.

Posted by ruidh at Tuesday, 10 October 2006 at 3:13pm BST

ruidh --

I think that the bottom line is that some types of people can't feel safe outside the bubble -- some people "need" the comfort of certainty rather than the challenge of truth -- a few years ago a staffer of the Bush adminstration allegedly said that facts don't matter when you are "faith-based" but it increasingly appears that facts are, indeed, stubborn things.

Posted by Prior Aelred at Tuesday, 10 October 2006 at 4:11pm BST

Indeed, having to actually make ethical choices places a great deal of responsibility on a person -- responsibility many people don't want. It's a lot easier to rely on a series of cut and dried rules. The important thing to remember is that we are already forgiven. We're forgiven even when we make the wrong choices.

Posted by ruidh at Tuesday, 10 October 2006 at 6:01pm BST


The difficulty of forgiveness is with sociopaths. They ask you to forgive them, and then they torture you again. They then quote Jesus to tell you that you must forgive them again (Mathew 18:21-22). You end up being an oxen with a yoke on your back and a vicious farmer wielding a whip.

One minister a few years ago said that Jesus asks us to turn the other cheek. But he doesn't ask us to stand there and take the abuse. In fact we are given permission to walk away. Which is what is happening in the communion right now. The problem is with those who will not allow others to walk away and actually come into their temples to continue to cause harm because it is their "calling" to do so.

I might have forgiven people for what they have done to me, but I do not trust them. Plus I see the whips still be wielded against bound creatures, and therefore the yoke must be broken.

And on the issue of safety, sociopaths don't feel safe unless they are in control, absolute control. Their dehumanised victims (and the rest of Creation) must fit into their obsessive vision or be expunged for threatening their delusional reality.

Posted by Cheryl Clough at Tuesday, 10 October 2006 at 6:39pm BST

Christopher Shell
reading medical text books is on the beginning ! There is disection to be done and study of the living body. Most of all encounters with living people and their minds, feelings and bodies.

The text books themselves are updated at regular intervals, to keep up with developments in medical science and methods of treatment and care.

How often has the Bible been revised ? Or what is our equivalent for keeping abreast of new discoveries, new insights, new ways of caring for body and soul -- for personhood....

worth reflecting on, I reckon.....

Posted by laurence roberts at Wednesday, 11 October 2006 at 12:27pm BST

Being a member of the diocese of San Joaquin Standing Committee, I am less than amused reading through the first two paragraphs alone.
There are a couple of ad hominem unreasonable conclusions in the rest of the document. But if you can't get the first part right, what's the use of trying to argue anything afterward?

1) "1.0 On October 1st, the Diocese of San Joaquin in California gave notice that it is calling a conference on 1st and 2nd December 2006"

Well, no. Can't even get the details right that have been posted publicly. Is there a problem in translating?
Here's how the chronology flowed:

a) At the end of August, it was announced through the bishop's office, having been in consultation with Standing Committee and Diocesan Council, that Diocesan Convention would be postponed from its usual last weekend in October to the 1st weekend of December.
Not just "calling a conference in December", you see?

b) What happened on October 1st was the notification both internally and externally to the diocese of one of the amendment proposals to be dealt with at Diocesan Convention. It included both constitutional and canonical amendments. Because it had constitutional amendments, and the canonically explicit deadline for constitutional amendment proposals is 90 days prior to convention (Dec. 1st minus 90 days = September 1st), and the deadline for canonical amendments is 60 days prior to convention, then at the latter deadline having considered the entire proposal over the month, it was all released to the diocesan community for our conversation, debate and dialogue, giving us 2 months prior to convention.

2) "calling a conference on 1st and 2nd December 2006 following proposals to amend the Diocesan constitution."
I'm not sure of the phrase "following proposals." Is this a colloquialism for "put forward the proposal and then plan a conference around them"? As noted in 1) above that is not the case here.
As well, "the proposal" will only be one of at least two canonical amendments, one dealing with the passing of the 2007 budget and assessments. You haven't asked for that. Would InclusiveChurch care to scrutinize the diocesan budget process? As well, there will be another simple resolution that the Resolutions Committee has not yet released since they are still in review; but it will be released soon so people can talk about it prior to convention. Point: this is our diocesan convention. All the things that go on in convention will go on. It is not a one-item special convention or conference. If InclusiveChurch had paid attention they would know that.

3) "The amendments would “place the Diocese of San Joaquin in an ideal position to be part of any ecclesiastical structure that the Archbishop of Canterbury and Primates might design”."
This would be the "first reading". "It" is open for amendment, or even defeat. It can pass by a simple majority, but you know it will also be a vote by orders, right? It will take a "second reading" since it has to do with constitution and canons. The second reading does not allow amendments, and it must be passed by 2/3 majority. Your implication is that December is it, and the diocese is what, "gone"? Wrong.

4) "There can be little doubt that we are witnessing the rolling out of a carefully planned and well-funded strategy to create a church-within-a-church. If San Joaquin is successful, it will probably be followed by the other Dioceses seeking Alternative Primatial Oversight (APO). From there, it is likely that..."

a) The phrase "there can be little doubt" has been spoken out and proved wrong so many times in the last 3 years that it is almost laughable to hear anybody say it.
b) But the content of what the authors refer to as little doubt, namely "carefully planned" and "well funded strategy", what a crock. Yeah, I see money being spent - their own to get to one of those meetings. MY own. Yeah, I see and hear conversations and meetings taking place, but they have to because from week to week the unexpected is normative now and there is no stability in such finely crafted plans.
Now, there is a consistency and a stability to most of what is being talked about in quiet corners or on blaring blogs, and that is the agony of being a disciple of Jesus and seeing his very Word being trounced on day after day, sermon after sermon. THAT's what's holding things together - the desire to be in official fellowship with those who in the name of Jesus hold to catholic biblical teaching.

c) "If San Joaquin is successful, it will probably be followed by the other Dioceses seeking Alternative Primatial Oversight (APO)."
"Probably"? Does InclusiveChurch know something from "the inside circle" about some domino effect? And unless you are referring to a particular phrase already posted, then you need to be aware of the acceptance of the word "Relationship" out there, rather than "Oversight". Gives it a different flavor.
d) "From there it is likely...."
Likely? You have no idea what is going to happen. Nobody knows what is going to happen. It could very well be a 'happening' that brings us ALL to great joy. What is truly "likely" is that there will be people out there in Anglican-land who will read this document and start quoting portions of it as if it were gospel truth.
And all it is is the result of sloppy reading and unfounded speculation.

And THAT is something the Anglican Communion desperately does not need right now. In that regard, I show no favoritism no matter what group may be currently claiming the Anglican high ground if it is based on the flimsy foundation of speculation.
Like any other group, InclusiveChurch needs to be a part of the solution, not a part of the ongoing problem.


Posted by Rob Eaton+ at Friday, 13 October 2006 at 1:06am BST

Let me be so bold as to ask all of you the following questions: How many of you live in the diocese? How many of you are intimately familiar with us? How many of you know Bishop Schofield?

Posted by Cennydd at Friday, 13 October 2006 at 1:08am BST

Probobly as many as live in New Hampshire, know Gene Robinson and still don't want him for bishop. Most likely more than live in New Jersey and want Martin Minns for their bishop. If you're telling people to butt out of your diocese's business, then you might want to direct your attention to ++Akinola as well.

Posted by Ford Elms at Friday, 13 October 2006 at 11:50am BST

RGEaton's criticism of the statment above sounds a little hollow. Yes, there will be a convention in December and it will consider constitutional amendments which are without precedent in an Anglican diocese. Yet, our correspondent from the standing committee worries about a few minor inaccuracies in the timeline and ignores the big elephant in the romm -- the insipient schism.

He dithers that the proposals might be amended or might not be adopted because it's a 2/3rds vote by orders. The fact that they are being considered, and seriously considered, in the first place gives reason for grave concern.

We've all seen the various steps outlined in Chapman memo come true one anfter another. The wek cries of protest do not deny that a schism is in the works and that we should expect SJ to violate the Canons and Consitituion of TEC by Christmas.

Posted by ruidh at Friday, 13 October 2006 at 3:52pm BST

CAN they do that ? (Violate them)

Posted by laurence roberts at Saturday, 14 October 2006 at 11:39pm BST
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.