Thinking Anglicans

US news updates

Updated Thursday morning

The Living Church has published two items which add new information to running stories:

House of Bishops will Address ‘Bishops in Communion’ Plan updates alternative oversight in the USA. Curiously, there has not yet been any mention of this matter on Episcopal News Service.

Switch to Southern Cone by San Joaquin Appears to Violate Canons of New Province updates Southern Cone documentation.

Further to that, the Southern Cone primate is to visit the Diocese of Fort Worth. See official Fort Worth diocesan announcement: Southern Cone Primate to visit Fort Worth Diocese.

Thursday morning update

Episcopal News Service has a very detailed report on developments in California: More San Joaquin congregations opt to remain within Episcopal Church; March 29 special convention anticipated:

A growing number of Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin are opting to remain within the Episcopal Church (TEC), as the Fresno-based diocese prepares for an anticipated March 29 special convention that would elect a provisional bishop.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, in a letter to be distributed via a new diocesan newspaper, notes the proposed convention date and reassures the people of the diocese that work is ongoing “to ensure that you and your fellow Episcopalians may continue to bless the communities around you well into the future.”

“I anticipate convening a Special Diocesan Convention on 29 March, at which you will elect new diocesan leaders, and begin to make provision for episcopal leadership for the next year or so,” Jefferts Schori writes. “That gathering will be an opportunity to answer questions you may have, as well as to hear about plans for the renewal of mission and ministry in the Diocese of San Joaquin…”

Read the whole article for much more information. Also see Remain Episcopal here.

A Response to the Pastoral Presence from Bishop Schofield can be found here.


  • Pluralist says:

    The point is when these folks, oh so loyal, consult other masters about structural and administrative changes – when does pastoral oversight turn into other oversight that effectively means boundary crossing is going on? “We’ll let you know what we are doing” does seem to be a thin basis of difference between all-out attempting to switch allegiance and switching allegiance on a limited basis.

  • Lapinbizarre says:

    “Living Church” again quotes Bishop Howe’s comment “that the Primates involved in this discussion are NOT involved in “border crossing”. Does Bishop Howe need to be reminded of the whereabouts of Drexel-Gomez, a central figure in this latest scheme, on 31st August last, when two new bishops (Atwood & Murdoch)were consecrated as Kenyan “missionary bishops”. Guess Drexel-Gomez & Howe believe it doesn’t count as “border crossing” if you keep your hands to yourself? Just plain preaching ain’t border-crossing?

  • robert ian williams says:

    Southern Cone are also breaking the proviso in the canons of regulating the liturgy by the standards of the 39 articles.

  • JCF says:

    “House of Bishops will Address ‘Bishops in Communion’ Plan”

    That just means that the small group of conservative bishops who “informed” ++KJS of the scheme, plan to bring it up. :-/

  • MargaretG says:

    “Curiously, there has not yet been any mention of this matter on Episcopal News Service.”

    What is curious about this? The ENS has been very selective in its “news” for years now. On some blogs it is less charitably called “Pravda” — but sometimes does seem to be doing its best to live up to the title!

  • Pat O'Neill says:

    What was the “emergency” that required the Southern Cone to violate its own canons? That some poor bedeviled conservative in San Joaquin might have to acknowledge an affiliation with TEC? That constitutes an emergency?

    Talk about degrading the language!

  • Lapinbizarre says:

    Regarding Drexel Gomez and the Atwood/Murdoch consecrations, Stand Firm’s annotated photograph of the event clearly indicates that in addition to preaching at this event, Gomez participated in the actual consecrations. Which leads one to inquire what level of participation in shenanigans of this sort constitutes, by Bishop Howe’s definition, actual involvement in a border crossing. Standing in the back row of bishops means that it doesn’t really count – or do one’s fingers have to be crossed at the same time?

    SF photograph:

  • Doug Chaplin says:

    I note that +Greg Venables spokesman claims that in ignoring the canons “Both the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone and the General Synod decided to go ahead because of the nature of the emergency.”

    I believe that the emergency referred to was +GV getting left behind by Akinola, Orombi and chums in the race to be a contender for the “Not the Archbishop of Canterbury” role. There’s nothing like a few US parishes to help show off the size of your crozier.

  • Malcolm+ says:

    MargaretG: “On some blogs [Episcopal News Service] is less charitably called ‘Pravda’.”

    These would be the same blogs where liberal voices are routinely banned and their posts removed? And where obscenities have been used to describe the Presiding Bishop?

  • Margaret says:

    No, Malcolm — I wasn’t thinking of either Susan Russell’s or Elizabeth Kaeton’s sites — which are the only ones I know that exercise really tight censorship and where people get very personal and abusive about folk on the other side of the debate.

    I was actually thinking of other sites where the comments are not vetted before they are posted — (though they may be “elf-ed” afterwards if they breach the clearly stated rules of posting) and where any banning is done publicly rather than secretly.

    The correlation of tight and secret censorship and “liberal – ‘I believe in a wide tent’ ” status, and immediate posting, with public controls and “conservative – ‘I believe in strict adherence’ ” status always intrigues me. It seems inconsistent — but that is just my view, and obviously not shared on this blog.

  • badman says:

    Thanks for the photo link Lapinbizarre. I had not noticed before that Archbishop Malango was one of the consecrators.

    Malango is, of course, the primate who has protected a bishop charged with incitement to murder (Bishop Kunonga, a Mugabe henchman).

    Amazing that the likes of Kunonga are, not only in the company, but honoured officiators, whilst bishops who supported the consecration of Gene Robinson are beyond the pale.

    There’s something very odd about this.

  • Pat O'Neill says:

    Schofield just doesn’t get it, does he? Or is the problem that he gets it, but won’t admit it?

    TEC’s position is the same as it has always been–persons can leave the church, parishes and dioceses cannot. Therefore, there is still an Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, filled with faithful Episcopalians, despite the fact that its former Bishop and a good number of his clergy and laity have announced they are joining the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.

    That being the case, the PB has no choice but to prepare to minister to those remaining Episcopalians in San Joaquin (and there appear to be far more of them than Schofield anticipated).

  • Lapinbizarre says:

    Out of curiosity, Margaret, were you able to write that with a straight face? Thanks for the giggle, either way.

  • ettu says:

    Margaret – In my fairly lengthy and deep observation of the religious blogs I am astounded by your statements – we must be looking at different blogs and/or using different colored lenses in our glasses. I feel the conservative blogs are extremely controlling – sometimes by the elves but more commonly by the tightly wound, often overwrought fellow bloggers. It is akin to a talk show where shouting is acceptable and is even encouraged by the host of the show. True this is just one opinion but it is a well considered one.

  • Fr Mark says:

    badman: Yes, you’re right. Of course Bishop Kunonga gave as his reason for departing from his province that he could not remain in communion with those who were as notoriously liberal on homosexuality as they are (!).

  • JCF says:

    Oh, I understand now, Margaret:

    Liberals remove a post (due to ad hominems, sexual slurs, four-letter words), it’s “censorship.”

    Whereas when conservatives remove a post (and the poster, permanently) because they disagree w/ the FAITH expressed, it is to “elf” (How cute!)

    Very simple for you, to live in such a Black&White world. Me? I’ll keep the gray . . . and all the other God-given COLORS! 🙂

  • Lapinbizarre says:

    For those interested in the secessionist history of breakaway US Episcopal churches, the following piece, from the May 7th, 1965 issue of “Time”. throws light on a comparatively little-remembered incident. In 1965, St. John’s, Savannah, daughter church of Christ Church, Savannah, which recently voted to place itself under the Anglican Province of Uganda, voted 785 to 75 (this starting to sound familiar?) rather than integrate the church and admit African-Americans to worship. Led by segregationist rector Ernest Risley, they “left” the Episcopal Church, returning five years later, under a new rector. The “Time” piece makes interesting “dèja vu all over again” reading.,9171,898756,00.html

  • The Times piece is indeed interesting reading.

    We (human race) never learn, do we?

  • Cheryl Va. says:

    Platitudes only change perception for the inexperienced. Those of us on the sharp edge of censorship know the truth. TA is the wrong website to purport that censorship doesn’t happen.

  • Merseymike says:


    You are allowed to post here, are you not?

    However, I was banned from one conservative blog, supposedly because the webmaster didn’t like the fact that I had my own blog! The real reason was his dislike for what I had to say.

    There are others here who have had much the same treatment – I think you ought to be encouraging your own side to get their house in order before you start to lecture those who run this blog.

  • Malcolm+ says:

    Margaret, the word “Orwellian” isn’t sufficient to describe your abuse of the language. Perhaps “Margretian” should be the new word to describe those whose use of the language is so blatantly dishonest.

  • L Roberts says:

    Good heavens !

    That really is a conservative site, if they still subscribe to the agency of the elves !

    I was banned from there too –but I was under no misapprehension as to the source of agency involved !

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *