NEWS

Saints Joachim & Anne

For more information please contact:

Van McCalister
4159 E. Dakota Ave.
Fresno, CA 93726
1.800.498.4159
email

or

Joan Gladstone, APR, Fellow PRSA
Gladstone International
1.949.475.6979 x 204
1.949.633.9900
email

Recommended Reading

Recent Additions:
Lawsuit Response, Venables Encouragement, Bishop's Response to HOB, Charge of Abandonment, Interim Presence, Provincial Support, +John David, You are not alone, Bishop Schofield's Response, Pastoral Letter 2, Response from Venables, Diocese Votes, Bishop's Convention Address, Response to Schori, Invitation, Pastoral Letter, Bishop's Letter

+John-David remains faithful to his calling

The Episcopal Church's assertion that Bishop Schofield has abandoned the communion of this Church is an admission that The Episcopal Church rejects the historical Anglican faith. This is why the Diocese of San Joaquin appealed to the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone of South America for emergency and temporary protection. The majority of the other provinces of the Anglican Communion hold to the traditional faith. It is the primary duty of bishops to guard the faith and Bishop Schofield has been continually discriminated against for having done so while Bishops and Archbishops around the world have affirmed not only his stance but the move to the Southern Cone.

Governing documents of The Episcopal Church do not prohibit relationships between different members of the Anglican Communion, rather they encourage it. The Episcopal Church's action demonstrates that there is an enormous difference between their church and most of the Anglican Communion. Again, this action is a demonstration that The Episcopal Church is walking apart from the faith and its expression in morality held by the rest of the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church's own identity is dependent upon its relationship with the whole Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church should consider whether it is imperiling that relationship by taking such punitive actions.

How is it that over 60 million Anglicans worldwide can be wrong and a few hundred thousand in the American Church can claim to be right?

There is no confusion on the part of the Bishop of San Joaquin or the clergy, people, leadership, and convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin of their status.

The claims of The Episcopal Church to have oversight or jurisdiction are not correct. The fact is that neither the Diocese nor Bishop John-David Schofield are part of The Episcopal Church. The Bishop is a member of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone as of December 8th, 2007. The Diocese is a part of the Southern Cone. Neither the Presiding Bishop nor the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church have any further jurisdiction. Bishop Schofield is no longer a member of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church.

The following is a statement from The Most Reverend Gregory Venables (Archbishop of the Province of the Southern Cone of South America) dated January 11, 2008:

"As of December the 8th, 2007 Bishop John-David Schofield is not under the authority or jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church or the Presiding Bishop. He is, therefore, not answerable to their national canon law but is a member of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone and under our authority.

Un fuerte abrazo.

++Greg

<< top

Diocese of San Joaquin: January 2, 2008

Printable copy here.

You are not alone
34 bishops stand with Bishop Schofield and Diocese of San Joaquin

Dear Bishop John-David,

We, Episcopal colleagues from across the Anglican Communion and across the world, write to salute you on the courageous decision of the Diocesan Convention of San Joaquin to take leave of The Episcopal Church and to align with the Province of the Southern Cone. We know that decision was to a large extent the result of your tenacity and faithful leadership, and for that we give thanks to God.

It has been said that you are isolated and alone. We want you and the world to know that in this decision for the faith once delivered to the saints, we stand with you and beside you.

May Christ abundantly bless you and your diocese with all the gifts of the Spirit and with joy in believing.

Yours in Christ,

The Rt. Rev. Jack L. Iker, Bishop of Fort Worth

and:

The Most Rev. Peter Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney
The Rt. Rev. Matthias Medadues-Badohu, Bishop of Ho
The Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester
The Rt. Rev. Gerard Mpango, Bishop of Western Tanganyika
The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh
The Rt. Rev. Ross Davies, Bishop of The Murray
The Rt. Rev. Keith L Ackerman, Bishop of Quincy
The Rt. Rev. Peter Beckwith, Bishop of Springfield
The Rt. Rev. A. Ewin Ratteray, Bishop of Bermuda
The Rt. Rev. Michael Hough, Bishop of Ballarat
The Rt. Rev. John Broadhurst, Bishop of Fulham
The Rt. Rev. Martyn Jarrett, Bishop of Beverley
The Rt. Rev. John Goddard, Bishop of Burnley
The Rt. Rev. Keith Newton, Bishop of Richborough
The Rt. Rev. Robert Forsyth, Bishop of South Sydney
The Rt. Rev. Andrew Burnham, Bishop of Ebbsfleet
The Rt. Rev. Lindsay Urwin, Bishop of Horsham
The Rt. Rev. Wallace Benn, Bishop of Lewes
The Rt. Rev. Maternus Kapinga, Bishop of Ruvuma
The Rt. Rev. Henry Scriven, Assistant Bishop, Diocese of Pittsburgh
The Rt. Rev. Bill Atwood, Province of Kenya
The Rt. Rev. John Guernsey, Province of Uganda
The Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns, Convocation of Anglicans in North America
The Rt. Rev. David Anderson, Convocation of Anglicans in North America
The Rt. Rev. John Gaisford, lately Bishop of Beverley
The Rt. Rev. Jackson Biggers, lately Bishop of Northern Malawi
The Rt. Rev. Edward MacBurney, lately Bishop of Quincy
The Rt. Rev. Roger Jupp, lately Bishop of Popondota
The Rt. Rev. David Silk, lately Bishop of Ballarat
The Rt. Rev. Nöel Jones, lately Bishop of Sodor and Man
The Rt. Rev. Edwin Barnes, lately Bishop of Richborough
The Rt. Rev. William Wantland, lately Bishop of Eau Claire
The Rt. Rev. Donald Parsons, lately Bishop of Quincy

<< top

Diocese of San Joaquin: December 21, 2007

Printable copy here.

Bishop Schofield's Response to Presiding Bishop's Letter of December 14

Dear Bishop Schori,

Thank you for your letter of December 14, 2007 asking for clarification of my status. Much has happened in the past few weeks that have a bearing on that status.

I am proud of the people of the Diocese of San Joaquin. Last year when the vote was taken to change the Constitution, that first vote was not only required by Canons but, in essence, was a “straw vote”. Little was at stake, for truly no action had –or could– be taken. This year the delegates to the Annual Convention came fully cognizant of what has taken place in Virginia and Southern California where litigation has been pursued vigorously against those who oppose the innovations of The Episcopal Church and who, consequently, have stood up for their faith and remain protective of the property they have built, purchased and maintained with no help either from The Episcopal Church on a national level nor –in most instances– from the local diocese either.

The people of The Diocese of San Joaquin came to the Convention fully aware that years of meetings with the leaders of The Episcopal Church have accomplished little or nothing. They came fully aware, too, that at the meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans this past September a last minute attempt to provide some semblance of oversight was proposed. The sad thing was that those most affected by the innovations of The Episcopal Church had no part in this proposal and to this very day have never seen what such a plan involves. It is true that the vote on Saturday December 8th, 2007, was a protest, but it was much more than this.

To understand December 8th’s vote as a protest only would be to misunderstand the courage of the people within the Diocese of San Joaquin. They were saying that no matter what the consequences, they take a stand for a clear reading of Scripture, the faith that The Episcopal Church first received - but from which it has departed - and for Catholic Order within the Anglican Communion. Truly, the vote was for their bishop and diocese to remain in the Anglican Communion with the fullness of the heritage we have received as a part of that worldwide body. Once again, it was much more than this. It was an expression of profound gratitude to the Global South who have expressed support in many ways and more specifically to the Primate of the Southern Cone, his House of Bishops and their Provincial Synod for their understanding of our plight - along with that of many others within The Episcopal Church - and their willingness to offer a place of refuge. Their offer, as you know, was conditional until such time as The Episcopal Church repents of those decisions and actions that have caused a rift in the wider Anglican Communion. Furthermore, I took the Convention’s actions as a request that I provide episcopal oversight of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin under the Province of the Southern Cone of South America. Accepting such an invitation to be a part of the Southern Cone’s House of Bishops may not necessarily define my relationship with The Episcopal Church particularly since this may only be a temporary arrangement. This is true in light of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Advent Letter in which he proposes facilitated conversations not only between us but among others in the Anglican Communion.

The purpose of December 8th’s vote, then, was not to change anything within the Diocese but quite to the contrary. With the status of The Episcopal Church’s membership in the Anglican Communion looking more and more precarious, the people of San Joaquin simply wanted to remain what we have always been, namely Anglican.

On the very day your letter arrived asking for clarification, the Advent Letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury was received. In it he pointed out clearly the distress in many parts of the Anglican Communion caused by the unilateral actions of The Episcopal Church. In his own words he fully understands that “A scheme has been outlined for the pastoral care of those who do not accept the majority view in TEC, but the detail of any consultation or involvement with other provinces as to how this might best work remains to be filled out and what has been proposed does not so far seem to have commanded the full confidence of those most affected.” He continues: “Furthermore, serious concerns remain about the risks of spiralling disputes before the secular courts, although the Dar-es-Salaam communiqué expressed profound disquietude on this matter, addressed to all parties.” Giving thought to the future, the Archbishop makes reference to the upcoming Lambeth Conference during which he trusts: “Whatever happens, we are bound to seek the fruitful ways of carrying forward liaison with provinces whose policies cause scandal or difficulty to others.”

Ultimately, then, it is the Archbishop’s proposal for a course of action in the months ahead that may affect my status. Since everything that the Diocese of San Joaquin has done, it has done with an eye toward remaining Anglican and in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, his proposal should naturally take precedence. As he says, “I wish to pursue some professionally facilitated conversations between the leadership of The Episcopal Church and those with whom they are most in dispute, internally and externally, to see if we can generate any better level of mutual understanding. Such meetings will not seek any predetermined outcome but will attempt to ease tensions and clarify options. They may also clarify ideas about the future pattern of liaison between TEC and other parts of the Communion. I have already identified resources and people who will assist in this.”

Despite the dismal failure of meetings with the leadership of The Episcopal Church over the past two decades, I will remain open to the Archbishop’s proposal and not close the door on anything that the Holy Spirit may accomplish through these efforts. It may well be that in these facilitated conversations my own status and even that of The Episcopal Church vis-à-vis its membership in the Anglican Communion will be clarified. This, then, is both my hope and my prayer.

Sincerely,


+John-David Schofield,
Bishop

<< top

Printable copy here.

PASTORAL LETTER TO BE READ IN ALL CHURCHES (Or, published with attention drawn to it from the pulpit) Sunday, December 16, 2007

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

By an overwhelming majority of nearly 90% (173 to 22), our Annual Convention voted Saturday, December 8th, to uphold the authority of Holy Scripture and thereby preserve our place in the worldwide Anglican Communion and with the See of Canterbury by realigning our Anglican identity through the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of the Americas under the Most Rev. Gregory Venables, Archbishop and Primate.

This historic and momentous decision by our Annual Convention was 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. However, we are no longer operating under the looming shadow of this institutional apostasy because our Annual Convention wisely and prayerfully accepted the gracious invitation for sanctuary from the Southern Cone. Under a plan developed with their House of Bishops and ultimately discussed between Archbishop Venables and a number of other Primates and Bishops we were offered hope by the Southern Cone. I wish to emphasize that Convention’s action is not a schism over secondary issues but a realignment necessitated by false teaching as well as unbiblical sacramental actions that continue to take place in The Episcopal Church. As our new Archbishop so succinctly put it: “Christianity is specific, definable and unchanging. We are not at liberty to deconstruct or rewrite it. If Jesus was the Son of God yesterday then so He is today and will be forever.”

After our Annual Convention voted to accept the invitation from the Southern Cone, the first words to the Diocese of San Joaquin from our new Archbishop were these:
"Welcome Home. And welcome back into full fellowship in the Anglican Communion.
“But whatever things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. But no, rather, I also count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them to be dung, so that I may win Christ and be found in Him; not having my own righteousness, which is of the Law, but through the faith of Christ, the righteousness of God by faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable to His death; if by any means I might attain to the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained either were already perfect, but I am pressing on, if I may lay hold of that for which I also was taken hold of by Christ Jesus. My brothers (and sisters), I do not count myself to have taken possession, but one thing I do, forgetting the things behind and reaching forward to the things before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.”
[Philippians 3:7-13]’

Your Father in God.
++ Gregory”

The orders of all Diocesan clergy have been recognized by the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone and appropriate certificates have already been issued. A period of discernment for those who request it and agreed to by the bishop has been provided for those clergy who desire more time to consider whether or not to accept the invitation welcomed so heartily by the majority of Convention. Likewise, all parishes will be given a similar discernment period. No one is being asked to act against his conscience. Surely, if there is one outstanding mark of this recent decision to realign with the Southern Cone it is freedom from oppression and threat.
As your Bishop, I would ask you to treat those in the minority with graciousness and love and keep them in your prayers. It is a difficult time for all of us. We have to deal with a turn of events that no one wanted. For the majority who travel with the Diocese, however, nothing will change. The familiar ways in which you worship, your clergy, the Book of Common Prayer, Hymnal, lectionary and place of worship will all remain the same with one notable exception. In the Prayers of the People, “Gregory our Archbishop” is to appear where the Prayer Book offers intercession “For N. our Presiding Bishop”. Among those things that will remain the same is the solid teaching of the word of God free from worldly compromise, giving priority to your spiritual well being, faith, and salvation along with a future in the Anglican Communion. You may well discover, too, what it is like to witness to your faith without having to apologize for or feel embarrassed by the decisions of a Church over which you had no control. All of this has been assured by the courage of your Annual Convention, which –in turn– could have done nothing without Archbishop Gregory Venables and his Province of the Southern Cone going before us first and by their taking the bold step of faith they did on our behalf. We shall be forever grateful to them and trust that we will prove as much a blessing to them as they have been for us.
While there may be a degree of uncertainty over the future of our material possessions, we are not to despair. We all know there are no guarantees in this life, only the next. Time and again God has provided us with what we have needed to do His work for the advancement of His Kingdom and the building up of His Church. Why would we question whether the One who identifies Himself as “the same yesterday, today, and forever” would change now?

Faithfully yours, in our Lord Jesus Christ,

+John-David Schofield, Bishop

<< top

Response from the Archbishop of the Southern Cone

"Welcome Home. And welcome back into full fellowship in the Anglican Communion.

'But whatever things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. But no, rather, I also count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them to be dung, so that I may win Christ and be found in Him; not having my own righteousness, which is of the Law, but through the faith of Christ, the righteousness of God by faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable to His death; if by any means I might attain to the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained either were already perfect, but I am pressing on, if I may lay hold of that for which I also was taken hold of by Christ Jesus. My brother (and sisters), I do not count myself to have taken possession, but one thing I do, forgetting the things behind and reaching forward to the things before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.'
[Philippians 3:7-14]"

With my prayer and affection
Your Father in God,

++ Gregory

<< top

Printable copy here.

The Diocese of San Joaquin: December 8, 2007

Diocese of San Joaquin Votes to Disassociate with The Episcopal Church

Convention Accepts the Invitation to Align with the Province of the Southern Cone

FRESNO, CA – Today at its annual convention the Diocese of San Joaquin took an historic step and voted to disassociate from The Episcopal Church. The convention also accepted an invitation from Archbishop Gregory Venables and the bishops of the Province of the Southern Cone of South America to be welcomed into their membership.

According to Bishop John-David Schofield of the Diocese of San Joaquin , “This is the first time in American Anglican history that a diocese has realigned with a like-minded province.” He added, “The vote was a resounding affirmation by our clergy and laity to remain within the worldwide Anglican Communion with its heritage and universally accepted teaching based on the word of God.”

Delegates and clergy attending the 48th Annual Convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin voted overwhelmingly in favor of amendments to the diocesan constitution, which removed references to The Episcopal Church, expressed the intention to maintain fellowship with the greater Anglican Communion accepted the invitation to become a diocesan member of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. The vote reaffirmed a first vote at the December 2, 2006 convention in which a more than two-thirds majority voted in favor of the constitutional amendments.

“For 20 years and more we have watched The Episcopal Church lose its way, straying, at first from Scripture to the point of dismissing the Word of God, in some instances as mere historical documents,” said Bishop Schofield. “In the end, this decision is all about freedom. It is about freedom to remain who we are in Christ. It is freedom to honor the authority of Scripture.”

Bishop Frank Lyons of Bolivia read a statement from Archbishop Gregory Venables, “Welcome Home. And welcome back into full fellowship in the Anglican Communion.”

The Diocese of San Joaquin was founded as a missionary diocese in 1911 and became a full autonomous diocese in 1961. The Diocese encompasses 47 parish churches and mission churches in the counties of San Joaquin, Alpine, Stanislaus, Calaveras, Mono, Merced, Mariposa, Tuolumne, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kern and Inyo.

<< top

Printable copy here or video format

Diocese of San Joaquin: December 7, 2007

The Bishop’s Address
48th Diocesan Convention
St. James’ Cathedral, Fresno

Thousands of years ago two men stood before Pharaoh and said, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Let my people go...’ (Exodus 5.1) Pharaoh’s response? He increased the work load and took away the resources that the people of Israel had come to depend on.

You know the story as well as I do. And, as one of our young priests reminded me recently, after the plagues, the exodus from Egypt, followed by the great deliverance at the Red Sea, when the Promised Land came into view, Moses sent the heads of each of the twelve tribes to spy out the land. Upon returning to report on what they had seen, they dissuaded the Israelites from entering the Promised Land. “We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes,” they said, “ and we looked the same to them” (Numbers 13. 33) The people refused to take what God was offering to them. So, the Lord declared: “Forty years – one year for each of the forty days you explored the land – you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you.” (Num. 14. 34)

One man had stood alone, Caleb of the Tribe of Judah. It was he who declared: “We should go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it.” (Num. 13. 30) The end result was God’s blessing: “Because my servant Caleb has a different spirit and follows me wholeheartedly, I will bring him into the land he went to, and his descendants will inherit it.” (Num. 14. 24)

Timing matters. GOD’S timing is essential! Delayed obedience in Scripture is seen as disobedience when opportunities and blessings are lost.

For twenty years and more we have watched The Episcopal Church lose its way: straying, at first, from Scripture... to the point of dismissing the Word of God, in some instances, as mere historical documents – of value, perhaps in bygone eras – but no longer applicable to us, to appropriating powers to itself through the General Convention it had never had and, finally, on to unilateral decisions about theology, sexuality, and ordination potentially cutting itself off from the Anglican Communion. J. I. Packer, the eminent British Theologian now living in Canada, puts this in clear perspective when he says: “Liberal theology as such knows nothing about a God who uses written language to tell us things, or about the reality of sin in the human system, which makes redemption necessary and new birth urgent. Liberal theology posits, rather, a natural religiosity in man (reverence, that is, for a higher power) and a natural capacity for goodwill towards others, and sees Christianity as a force for cherishing and developing these qualities. They are fanned into flame and kept burning in the church, which in each generation must articulate itself by concessive dialogue with the culture pressures, processes and prejudices that surround it. In other words, the church must ever play catch-up to the culture, taking on board whatever is the “in thing” at the moment; otherwise, so it is thought, Christianity will lose all relevance to life. The church will inevitably leave the Bible behind at point after point, but since on this view the Bible is the word of fallible men rather than of the infallible God, leaving it behind is no great loss.”

For years organizations such as Episcopalians United, Episcopal Synod of America, American Anglican Council, and finally the Anglican Communion Network have been founded to explore ways to keep orthodox believers within the liberal Episcopal Church and to allow some measure of freedom to believe, worship, and practice the faith. The newest organization, the Network, went out of its way to declare itself operating under and within the Constitution of The Episcopal Church. However the gap has only widened; and Episcopalians have begun to do what we have always done... leave quietly. This drain was not mentioned at first, but one could hardly help but notice how a Church that had once claimed 4 million members was now announcing itself to the news media as a 2.5 million member Church. The leadership in New York still clings to this public image even though, by its own statistics, there seem to be fewer than 900,000 parishioners nationally in church on any given Sunday.

Individuals leaving did not seem to cause a problem at first...that is, until they left together as whole congregations. Within a short time two newcomers appeared: the Anglican Mission in America (AMia) whose original bishops were consecrated by overseas Primates and the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) sponsored originally by the Primate of Nigeria whose own membership numbers 20 million or more. These two organizations along with others who have fled for protection to the Bishops of: Bolivia, Peru, Argentina, Uganda, and Kenya account for more than 360 congregations or the equivalent of some SIX medium sized dioceses. These congregations are reporting amazing growth.

The rector of a newly formed congregation in Garland, Texas visited my office within the last two weeks. He recounted how he had been given 48 hours to vacate his church premises and find somewhere else to worship. With 80% of his congregation, they moved in that time period. Now, less than a year later, they have tripled in size, purchased six acres of land, and have in hand the money for a new church that will be larger and provide opportunities for ministry never part of the old structure. These faithful Anglicans, along with the Dioceses of Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, Quincy, Springfield and San Joaquin, lumped together with thousands who have simply stopped attending church altogether have been called “the Fringe” or the “insignificant and marginal minority” by the Presiding Bishop’s office... and dismissed. If this were so, one wonders why we seem to be worthy of intimidation, depositions, and law suits. Why not let this insignificant minority go? Why not forget Christ Church, Plano – the largest parish of the Episcopal Church, 20 parishes in Virginia, the Pro-Cathedral of El Paso, Texas who had to buy their way out of The Episcopal Church for $2 million, or the growing number of parishes in Los Angeles and San Diego who are looking for ways to depart? Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that every month several more parishes leave while 1,000 parishioners depart WEEKLY for an African Anglican jurisdiction. Growing, while all this is going on, also are the congregations associated with the Network who now see our numbers swelling to over 250,000 members. Again, why is it that within the past year four of our bishops have retired only to become Roman Catholics while another has joined Cana? This has never happened before! Something is drastically wrong!

For the first time publicly, at least, leadership within The Episcopal Church is showing signs of concern. An Interim Report, prepared by the House of Deputies Committee of the Episcopal Church, shows –according to news reports– the denomination continuing to decline with a 41% attendance drop... attributed directly to congregations departing over the sexual innovations in the church. Worrying – at LAST– about identity, mission, and organization, the report states: “We cannot be leaders within our Church nor in the global community if we are unsure who we are or where God is calling us to go. Criticisms that we need to be more proactive... or that we are aggressively reactive ... both relate to our understanding and embrace of God’s kingdom and the Salvation we are offered in Jesus Christ – or to our LACK of such understanding and engagement.” (Emphasis added)

On November 16 and 17, 2006 the Steering Committee of the Global South, meeting in Chantilly, Virginia, asked two things of Anglicans representing both those within the Episcopal Church and those who had left. They were: 1) To select a single spokesman who has the trust of all and is able to represent the many voices of orthodox Anglicans in North America; and 2) To bring together in a single body as many like-minded Anglicans as possible. (It had been confusing for overseas bishops to hear the voices of so many who were claiming to speak on behalf of orthodoxy.) Those two requests were met. The Rt. Rev’d Bob Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh and Moderator of the Network was chosen unanimously as spokesman. Shortly thereafter, Bishop Duncan called together the first meeting of Common Cause Partners. What a wonderful response he has had. Representatives of the Reformed Episcopal Church, Amia, Cana, and a number of Continuing Anglican Churches have come together. This Fall over 40 bishops of Common Cause met in Pittsburgh to affirm The Articles of the Common Cause Partnership and its Theological Statement.

Following the historic meeting in Chantilly, the Primates of the Global South insisted that Bishop Duncan be included in the larger meeting of all the Primates at Dar es Salaam where directives were given to protect orthodox believers within the Episcopal Church. There were unanimous decisions of the Primates to which Katherine Jefferts Schori publicly agreed. These included:

The Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention; and
2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent
unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion.

[Further]
The Primates request that the answer of the House of Bishops is conveyed to the Primates by the Presiding Bishop by 30th September 2007.
If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion.

[And]
On property disputes
The Primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation. We also urge both parties to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny the use of that property to those congregations.

Despite the attempt made to show that the House of Bishops and, therefore, The Episcopal Church, had met all the requirements and were Windsor Compliant, a surprising number of American bishops have continued to state publicly they will not be bound by overseas interference and will continue to permit the blessing of same-sex unions. Even though not elected as bishop, the Diocese of Chicago nominated a lesbian candidate contrary to the directive in the Dar es Salaam Communique. And one has only to read the newspapers to see that litigation is being pursued vigorously in Virginia and California with threats to do so again in the recent letters by the Presiding Bishop to Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh, Bishop Jack Iker of Fort Worth, and this week to me in San Joaquin.

What are we to make of this duplicity? Surely the Primates are aware, as are we, that a major part of the House of Bishops in The Episcopal Church –along with members of their dioceses– have no intention of complying with the requests of the greater part of the Anglican Communion. Pride alone would suggest that the rest of the world will eventually see the validity of what is being done in the United States. Therefore, we are being prophetic in our actions. It might also suggest that there is a wholesale indifference to what the rest of the Anglican Communion thinks. Whichever it is, WE in San Joaquin need to ask the Lord what WE must do as Anglican Christians both evangelical and catholic.

Today we stand at a critical juncture in history. It would be myopic to imagine that the rest of Christendom, let alone the Anglican Communion, is not watching and praying as we deliberate. Pray that the Holy Spirit will lead us in the momentous decisions that lie before us.

It is only natural to experience fear, for what we are considering takes the Diocese of San Joaquin into unchartered waters. The leaders of the General Convention have expended enormous energy to spread their mantra: “Individuals may the leave the Church, but Parishes and Dioceses cannot.” No one seems to know who dreamed up this idea. What we DO know is that it is simply not true! During the time of the Civil War in the 1860's when this nation was torn apart, dioceses in those states called the Confederacy withdrew from what was then known as The Protestant Episcopal Church. During the war years they held their own conventions, developed their own Constitution, had there own House of Bishops, elected a Presiding Bishop, and consecrated a bishop for one of their dioceses. Nothing could be clearer. The southern dioceses had departed and had created a separate church. Today we might call it their own Province.

Unlike many of the Protestant denominations, however, it didn’t make sense to Episcopalians to maintain the separation when the war ended. Not only were the southern bishops and their dioceses welcomed back, the newly consecrated bishop was recognized, and no punitive action was taken against anyone. Presumably the southerners had taken their property with them when they left. And, they would not have been the first to do this.

Centuries before, King Henry VIII, with the help of Parliament prevented all English money from going to Rome. This action was followed up by taking all the property of the churches, including the monasteries and shrines –many of which he dismantled and sold. Today, were you to go to Ireland in search of a name or a tombstone of anyone buried before 1540, your search would have to be in Anglican –not Roman Catholic– churches and cathedrals. Somehow the Pope never asked that they be returned to him...and they weren’t.

Colonial churches, especially those in Virginia, whose existence pre-date not only The Episcopal Church but the United States itself, were never given back to the Lord Bishop of London nor to the Archbishop of Canterbury when, after the American Revolution, Anglicans identified themselves as Episcopalians. They took their property with them.

History is replete with instances in which dioceses, too, have moved from one Province to another – no matter how it was accomplished. Liberia moved from The Episcopal Church to the Province of West Africa, Venezuela moved from the West Indies to The Episcopal Church. Mexico has moved back and forth from The Episcopal Church more than once.

Historically, Provinces, such as The Episcopal Church, are not, and never have been, an essential part of Catholic Order. On October 14th this year, Rowan Williams, our present Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote to Bishop John Howe of Central Florida: “...Without forestalling what the Primates might say, I would repeat what I’ve said several times before – that any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such.” Later, in the same letter, Archbishop Williams strengthened what he had said already by adding: “I should feel a great deal happier, I must say, if those who were most eloquent for a traditionalist view in the United States showed a fuller understanding of the need to regard the Bishop and the Diocese as the primary locus of ecclesial identity rather than the abstract reality of the ‘national church’.” (Emphasis added) Abstract realities do not own, nor have they ever owned, property.

There is no question that what we are considering today will be called Schism. We will be told that unity trumps theology. We shall be told that we are doing is destructive and against history and Catholic Order. Once again, the words of J.I. Packer are most helpful. He notes: “Schism means unwarrantable and unjustifiable dividing of organized church bodies, by the separating of one group within the structure from the rest of the membership. Schism, as such, is sin, for it is a needless and indefensible breach of visible unity. But withdrawal from a unitary set-up that has become unorthodox and distorts the gospel in a major way and will not put its house in order as for instance when the English church withdrew from the Church of Rome in the sixteenth century, should be called not schism but realignment, doubly so when the withdrawal leads to links with a set-up that is faithful to the truth, as in the sixteenth century the Church of England entered into fellowship with the Lutheran and Reformed churches of Europe, and as now we propose gratefully to accept the offer of full fellowship with the Province of the Southern Cone. Any who calls such a move schism should be told they do not know what schism is.”

For those of us who are facing the unknown, Provinces and Property seem to be among the top concerns. As bishop, I would like to suggest to you that a ‘NO’ vote at this convention will not provide the imagined protection needed to get on with our lives uninterrupted. Many do not realize that for 40 years, with the first twenty under Bishop Victor Rivera, and now nearly twenty years with me, as bishops we have been able to provide a buffer for our people from the innovations that abound in dioceses all around us. A quick trip north, south, east or west is all that it takes to wonder if we’re in the same church with those folks. Years ago, it was the moderate Bishop John MacArthur of West Texas who first stated clearly that “we are two churches under one roof.”

A ‘NO’ vote would require my retirement in two years. No reasonable person could expect an orthodox successor. One has only to look at what happened to South Carolina when our own Mark Lawrence, bless him and Alison, went through two separate electing conventions and were close to being unanimously elected at each convention on the first ballot.

The Lectionary, where we draw our biblical lessons from for public services, has already been changed. The fact that you may not have noticed a difference is due directly to the permission I have given to our clergy to continue to use the Lectionary we all know. This along with many other innovations not only would –but will– come about under a new bishop.

If it is property that seems to be your main concern, if you are incorporated and a parish, you own your own property. You, or others before you, bought the land, built the church, have maintained the buildings and grounds, and your name is on the title deed. A ‘NO’ vote might seem to be the “safe” way to go. The effect of such a vote, however, would be to guarantee that this moment in time will NEVER come again before the General Convention meets in 2009. We should need two Annual Conventions to insure the protection we have before us today. With a ‘NO’ vote, everything reverts back to where we were before last December’s Convention. By the summer of 2009 no reasonable person could believe that Canon Laws will not be introduced... making it impossible for dioceses and parishes to leave. There are no such laws now. Property that once belonged to parishes and dioceses will belong to what the Archbishop of Canterbury rightly describes as the abstract reality of the “national church” for whom it will be held in trust. Without a single law suit, it will all be accomplished. Freedom to have the bishop you want, freedom from innovations that are contrary to Scripture, freedom to hold your own property will disappear. A ‘NO’ vote will inevitably bring about the worst of what we have tried to avoid...even if it were to take two years. Job sums it up for us: “What I feared has come upon me; what I dreaded has happened to me.” (Job 3.25)

Finally, lest anyone thinks a ‘NO’ vote would keep the diocese in tact and very much the same is living in a fantasy world. There is good reason to suspect that many of our brothers and sisters’ conscience is at stake because of the major departures from Christianity The Episcopal Church continues to make unabated. Why would San Joaquin be spared the massive exodus of priests and congregations now going on in Central Florida, Texas, Rio Grande, Colorado and California? Many of these dioceses are experiencing a loss that could easily challenge their viability financially. Were we to lose a major portion of parishes where the Gospel is truly believed as God’s revelation and where tithing is accepted as a Scriptural mandate, the Diocese of San Joaquin could be hard put to continue to provide even the basic services most parishes now depend on. No, it is not a matter of “stay the same and be safe” or “leave and face the unknown”. Quite the opposite is true. We are in that critical moment where a ‘YES’ vote tomorrow with a majority brings us into union with a faithful Province, places us under a real Archbishop and Primate who is a holy man of God, and keeps us in the mainstream of Anglicanism. For my part, THIS is worth fighting for!

In the end, it is all about freedom. It is about freedom to remain who we are in Christ. It is freedom to honor the authority of Scripture and to keep the Lectionary we now have. It is freedom to worship with the Prayer Book we know and freedom from innovations and services that are contrary to the Word of God. It is freedom to hold and practice the faith that the Episcopal Church received as a precious gift. It is freedom to “Go” ...to witness, to welcome churches who are looking to us in hostile areas, to plant new churches – in a word, freedom to respond to Jesus’ own command: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28. 19,20) Can we not do these things now? We can, but for how long? A ‘NO’ vote would place us under the authority of those who admit they do not know where they are going and who tell us all relates “to our understanding and embrace of God’s Kingdom and the Salvation we are offered in Jesus Christ– or to our lack of such understanding and engagement.”

This is the time to know who we are in Christ, where we are headed, and to heed the words of Jesus: “Go ye...”

God, give us the different spirit of Caleb who cried out “go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it.” Amen.

<< top

Printable copy here.

Diocese of San Joaquin: Friday, December 5, 2007

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

<< top

Diocese of San Joaquin: Friday, November 16, 2007                         

Diocese of San Joaquin Invited to Join Anglican Church of the Southern Cone

FRESNO, CA - November 16, 2007 – The Diocese of San Joaquin today announced that the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of South America has extended an invitation to offer the Diocese membership on an emergency and pastoral basis.

The announcement comes three weeks before the Diocese is scheduled hear the second and final reading of Constitutional changes first adopted on December 2, 2006. Should the second reading of the Constitutional changes be approved at the Diocesan Convention on December 8, 2007, the Diocese is free to accept the invitation to align with the Province of the Southern Cone and remain a diocese with full membership within the Anglican Communion.

According to the Rt. Rev. John-David M. Schofield, Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, “We welcome the invitation extended by the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone. The invitation assures the Diocese’s place in the Anglican Communion and full communion with the See of Canterbury.”

He added, “This is a sensible way forward and is by no means irrevocable. During the 1860’s, the Dioceses of the Southern States left the Episcopal Church and then returned after the Civil War. As the Southern Cone invitation makes clear, the Diocese may return to full communion with the Episcopal Church when circumstances change and the Episcopal Church repents and adheres to the theological, moral and pastoral norms of the Anglican Communion, and when effective and acceptable alternative primatial oversight becomes available.”

The Bishop’s pastoral letter will be read in churches of the Diocese on Sunday, November 18, 2007.  For a full text of the letter, visit www.sjoaquin.net or contact Joan Gladstone, jgladstone@gladstonepr.com.

The Diocese of San Joaquin was founded as a missionary diocese in 1911 and became a full autonomous diocese in 1961. The Diocese encompasses churches in the counties of San Joaquin, Alpine, Stanislaus, Calaveras, Mono, Merced, Mariposa, Tuolumne, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, Kern and Inyo.

<< top

Printable copy here.

Diocese of San Joaquin: Friday, November 16, 2007

Pastoral Letter to be Read in All Churches of the Diocese of San Joaquin Sunday, November 18 and Sunday, November 25, 2007
III.12.3(b)

Dear Friends in Christ,

By overwhelming affirmative vote, last year’s Diocesan Convention, meeting in Fresno, December 1st and 2nd, 2006, adopted a constitutional change that will realign our Anglican identity so that the “Diocese shall be a constituent member of the Anglican Communion and in full communion with the See of Canterbury.” To secure our place in the Anglican Communion, last year’s Diocesan Convention mandated the following Resolution:

“The Bishop, Council and Standing Committee to assess the means of our affiliation with a recognized Ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican Communion and bring to the 48th Convention of this diocese a detailed plan for the preservation of our relationship with the Anglican Communion”

The members of both Standing Committee and Diocesan Council appointed a sub-committee to accomplish this task which they have done. The Diocese’s place in the Anglican Communion and full communion with the See of Canterbury has been assured through an invitation extended by the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone which is offering the Diocese membership on an emergency and pastoral basis until the Episcopal Church, among other things, repents and complies with the requests of the Windsor
Report and accepts the pastoral plan proposed by the Primates of the Anglican Communion in Dar es Salaam in February 2007. The pastoral plan, created in Dar es Salaam was designed to protect the orthodox faithful of the Episcopal Church, including our Diocese, and was unanimously endorsed by all the attending Primates in February 2007, including the Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori. Sadly, when this plan was presented to the Executive Council and the House of Bishops of the
Episcopal Church it was rejected.

Our Anglican brothers and sisters within the Province of the Southern Cone have now responded to the situation by offering us the protection intended by the Primates at Dar es Salaam. At its meeting in Valparaiso, Chile November 5-7, 2007 the Provincial Synod of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of South America adopted the following resolution:

We recognize with great thankfulness the dioceses and parishes, clergy and laity of the Episcopal Church in the USA who have continually made clear their desire to remain faithful to the historic faith and order of the Anglican Communion.

Given that resolution 1.10 of the Lambeth Conference of 1998 articulated the clear teaching of the Anglican communion with regard to human sexuality, and that this

teaching has been widely ignored by many dioceses, parishes and clergy of The Episcopal Church in their life and teaching;
Given that The Episcopal Church, against the clearly expressed voice of the Primates at their meeting in October 2003, notoriously consecrated as bishop a priest who was in a known homosexual relationship, an act which has torn the fabric and trust within the Communion;
Given the failure of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church to give a clear and unequivocal response to the Windsor Report;
Given that the House of Bishops and the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church have rejected the pastoral scheme proposed by the Primates in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania in February 2007;
Given that September 30, 2007, has come and gone – the date set by the Primates in Dar Es Salaam for a response from the Episcopal Church – and that no adequate response has been made, and that a significant number of the Bishops have publically expressed their intention to permit the blessing of same sex unions;
Given the widespread use of lawsuits and threats against dioceses and parishes, as well as bishops, clergy and laity who seek to remain faithful to the historic faith and order of the Anglican Communion;

Until the Episcopal Church:
• repents and complies with the requests of the Windsor Report;
• respects the conscience of the parishes and dioceses which wish to adhere to the theological, moral and pastoral norms of the Anglican Communion, once held also by the Episcopal Church;
• and its Presiding Bishop and officers cease to pursue and intimidate these dioceses and parishes by means of lawsuits, confiscations and depositions;
Or
Until adequate, effective and acceptable alternative primatial and episcopal oversight be offered as recommended by the Primates in Dar Es Salaam;
Or
Until the Archbishop of Canterbury takes clear action and responds effectively to the legitimate and urgent concerns of the “alienated” parishes and dioceses of The Episcopal Church offering pastoral leadership to protect them;

We, the Provincial Synod of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of South America meeting in Valpariso, Chile in November 2007, welcome into membership of our Province on an emergency and pastoral basis, those dioceses of the Episcopal Church taking appropriate action to separate from The Episcopal Church.

We do this in order that such dioceses may continue in the mainstream of the Anglican Communion and be faithful to its Biblical and historic teaching and witness; and we pray for God’s grace and help to resolve the painful and critical situation in our beloved Anglican Communion.



On December 8, 2007, at the 48th Annual Convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin the clergy and lay delegates will be asked to vote on the second reading of the Constitutional changes first adopted on December 2, 2006. The changed texts read:

Article I
Title and Territory
This Diocese shall be known as the Diocese of San Joaquin. Its territory shall embrace but not be limited to all that portion of the State of California included in the counties of San Joaquin, Alpine, Stanislaus, Calaveras, Mono, Merced, Mariposa, Tuolumne, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, Kern, and Inyo.

Article II
Anglican Identity
The Diocese of San Joaquin is constituted by the Faith, Order, and Practice of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as received by the Anglican Communion. The Diocese shall be a constituent member of the Anglican Communion and in full communion with the See of Canterbury.

Article III
Sec. 2 The Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese is the Bishop. In the Bishop’s absence or inability to act, the Bishop Coadjutor shall be the Ecclesiastical Authority. If there is no Bishop Coadjutor or if the Bishop and the Bishop Coadjutor are absent or unable to act, or if the Episcopate becomes vacant, the Standing Committee shall be the Ecclesiastical Authority

Article XII
Sec. 1 All Diocesan trust funds now or hereafter created shall be vested in the Corporation Sole of which the Bishop of the Diocese is the incumbent. The terms of any trust shall be the sole measure of the extent and use to which it may be put.



Should the second reading of the Constitutional changes receive the necessary two thirds of each order voting affirmatively next month, this will mean that the Diocese is free to accept the invitation of the Province of the Southern Cone. This enables us:
1) to receive the protection contemplated by the Primates in Dar Es Salaam that was originally agreed to by the Presiding bishop, but later rejected by the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church; 2) to remain a diocese with full membership within the Anglican communion where the orders of our clergy are recognized; and, 3) to assure that we remain within the Anglican Communion through a Province in full communion with the See of Canterbury. According to well-informed sources, the Archbishop of Canterbury has been fully informed of the invitation of the Province of the Southern Cone and described it as a “sensible way forward.” Indeed, it is the sensible way forward and a

decision by the Diocese to move in this direction is by no means irrevocable as was seen during the 1860’s when the Dioceses of the Southern States left the Episcopal Church and at the conclusion of the Civil War returned to the Episcopal Church without punitive action. As the Southern Cone invitation makes clear, the Diocese may return to full communion with the Episcopal Church when circumstances change and the Episcopal Church repents and adheres to the theological, moral and pastoral norms of the Anglican Communion, and when effective and acceptable alternative primatial oversight becomes available.

Membership in the Southern Cone will not adversely or significantly impact our rules of governance. Similar to the Dioceses of Argentina, Northern Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Peru, and Bolivia who each maintain their own Constitutions and Diocesan Canon Laws in separate nations, our Canon Law and the requirements we have that are unique to being citizens of the United States of America will be fully honored.

At the upcoming Diocesan Convention our voice will be heard by the orthodox faithful throughout the Anglican Communion who pray for a momentous decision that will enable the people of San Joaquin to retain all that is precious to Episcopalians: our Book of Common Prayer, the orthodox faith based on Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, as well as to know that the high calling of God to live in accord with His moral and ethical dictates will be honored without compromise. Free, too, shall we be to respond to the Great Commission where Jesus commands:

“Go forth therefore and make all nations my disciples; baptize them everywhere in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all that I have commanded you.” - Matthew 28:18-20


Faithfully yours, in Christ,

The Rt. Rev. John-David M. Schofield, SSC
Bishop of San Joaquin

<< top

Printable copy here.

Diocese of San Joaquin: Friday, November 16, 2007

From the Bishop's Desk

Hardly a day goes by when I am not asked the question: “Are you going to take us out of the Episcopal Church?” Such a request indicates that the individual is unaware of the limits of power or authority a bishop in The Episcopal Church has. And, limits there are!

A bit of history might help us understand what is going on today and what is possible. At the time of the American Revolution there was not a single bishop in the Colonies. If one wanted to be confirmed or ordained it meant putting up with the dangers and difficulties of crossing the Atlantic in a small sailing ship. In deed, once the first priest ever to be elected as bishop on American soil considered what he would need to do to be consecrated, he knew that he would have to set sail for England. This is precisely what Samuel Seabury of Connecticut did.

Once in Britain, Seabury approached the bishops of the Church of England. His welcome, if you could call it that, was hardly a warm one. He was seen as one of the ‘up-start’ American Revolutionaries. Legally, a great hurdle stood in his way. Until that moment all bishops consecrated in the Church of England were required to swear allegiance to the Crown. This was precisely the one thing Seabury could not do. Consequently he was left to cool his heals for two years. During this time of discouragement he wrote letters back to friends and family in the newly forming nation. (To my knowledge these original letters are preserved, unedited, in Scotland to this day.) There seemed to be no way forward; and his strongest temptation was to turn around, unconsecrated, and return to the United States. At the darkest moment, however, the unexpected happened.

In Scotland, the Episcopal Church had been established quite separately from the State Church, which was Presbyterian. (Strangely enough as monarch over that country when the Queen of England is resident at her summer palace, Balmoral, she worships as a Presbyterian while in Scotland.) It was Scottish Bishops who came to Seabury. In exchange for certain promises, they offered to consecrate him a bishop. In accepting their offer he effectively tied the Church in the New World to Scotland. He promised: 1) to use the Scottish (not the English) Book of Common Prayer; 2) to change the name of the new Church from “the Church of England in the Colonies” to the EPISCOPAL Church thereby removing a name which could never be popular to those who had fought against England and no longer considered themselves colonials; and, finally, 3) to adopt the insignia or pale blue shield with the white cross of St. Andrew (Scotland’s Patron Saint) rather than the white flag of St. George (England’s Patron Saint) with its bold red cross. The unintended consequence of this action by the Scots eventually led the British to change their laws so that they could consecrate the next two American bishops. In so doing, perhaps without realizing where this would all lead, they created the first autonomous province of what would become our present day Anglican Communion .

There is a chapter in Church history that often remains untold yet continues to influence The Episcopal Church. While the war of the American Revolution raged on, many members of the Church wanted to remain loyal to the Crown. Their numbers were significant; and many of them escaped to re-locate in Canada leaving the American Church decimated. Those who remained in the colonies fighting for independence had little use for England with its pomp and ceremonies often connected to bishops who were members of the House of Lords. Many of these clergy were known to maintain large palaces at great expense. The colonists, on the other hand, found that they had been able to get on very well, thank you, WITHOUT BISHOPS for years. It was noted, too, that not a single bishop from England had ever felt called to travel to the colonies. Now that a new government was being formed for the United States, titles, royalty, and a class system with preferment so familiar to those in Great Britain was scorned. Feelings in the new southern states were intense. Strong arguments were made to abandon the whole idea of bishops altogether!

When the first General Convention of the new Church met, there were no bishops. To this day when the General Convention of The Episcopal Church convenes every three years, it is the House of Deputies that is called “The Senior House”. Bishops are frequently reminded that they are only members of “The Junior House.” On a more serious level, however, it should be noted that even though the traditional role of the bishop is to be chief pastor, teacher and leader, when it comes to making important policy for the whole Church bishops cannot do this by themselves. Rather it takes the approval of both houses of General Convention.

Recently, then, while the House of Bishops in England voted to approve the Windsor Report produced by the 38 Archbishops and Primates of the Anglican Communion requiring the Episcopal Church to cease from blessing same-sex unions and electing men or women as bishops whose life-styles caused scandal, it was pointed out in the American House of Bishops (who happened to be meeting at the same time) that the Junior House could NOT make policy decisions unilaterally. for the Church unilaterally. For this reason, The Episcopal Church was given extra time to reach a decision. We were allowed to defer our vote until the summer of 2006 when the matter could be brought before both houses of General Convention.

The first vote taken by the House of Bishops refused to ratify what was requested of us by the rest of the Anglican Communion. After a hurried all night meeting, a handful of bishops cobbled together a motion to be presented on the last day of Convention. Rules of Order were overlooked. Pressure to pass the motion in order to remain a constituent part of the Anglican Communion and to guarantee a seat at the Primates’ next meeting for the newly elected Presiding Bishop was unprecedented. What came out of the General Convention was woefully lacking and unacceptable. Given all of this, the Primates demonstrated an amazing generosity and charity.

Meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania the Primates were willing to “go the extra mile” to preserve the Anglican Communion. They gave the American Church an additional six months, until September 30th –in fact– to revisit their request. There was no question that this date was a deadline. No-one knew what the consequences of rejecting the Primates’ request might be. Some have speculated that the Anglican Church of Canada –far more liberal than its American counterpart– saw the handwriting on the wall. Fearing, perhaps, they might be removed from the Anglican Communion they voted against publishing rites and ceremonies for the blessing of same-sex unions. Yet, as one Canadian bishop has warned, all is not what it seems, for at the same time they passed resolutions affirming the wholesomeness of homosexual unions.

It was an American bishop who invited the Archbishop of Canterbury to participate in the September meeting of the American House of Bishops in New Orleans. Significantly, this meeting was scheduled to conclude only days before the September deadline. Along with the Archbishop of Canterbury members of the Primates’ Steering Committee and the Anglican Consultative Council were invited. The Rt. Rev. Henry Luke Orombi, Archbishop of the Province of Uganda, spoke for some of them –however– when he announced he would decline this invitation because he knew that the American bishops would say nothing new. He spoke prophetically. What he could not have known was that the Archbishop of Canterbury would declare the date of September 30th had never been intended to be a deadline but only a point at which dialogue from different positions could begin. Since that announcement, it is likely that more than one Primate has spoken to the Archbishop, for he has modified what he said. The Global South, however, has not wavered. Those bishops knew what they had said in Dar es Salaam; and they are standing firm.

So, where does all this leave us? Two dioceses have positioned themselves to remain in the Anglican Communion should the American Church be asked to leave or be given a secondary status. “But,” you might ask, “what about us?” We have come full circle to where we began. The question “Are you going to take us out of The Episcopal Church?” has a simple and straightforward answer. “No.” No matter what I might believe is the right thing to do, I cannot take the diocese out of The Episcopal Church. I have never been able to do this. This is NOT because the present day mantra from New York is correct when it states, “Individuals can leave but Dioceses and Parishes cannot”. Such a notion has only recently been dreamed up. There is no Canon Law to substantiate this. Why? No-one ever contemplated the possibility of a diocese or a parish WANTING to leave.

The Episcopal Church is made up of autonomous dioceses who have voluntarily joined with others creating the General Convention. This was true from the very beginning when the first Convention was called. No National Church or General Convention has ever created an autonomous diocese. Dioceses need to exist prior coming into union with others. The reason that neither I nor any other bishop can remove a diocese is that this decision belongs only and properly to the clergy and people of the diocese. When a vote is taken, I will not be among those casting a ballot. Clearly it will be the will of the diocese as a whole and not that of a single person or even a small group of leaders.

The vote before us, as it will be before other dioceses, is not to leave The Episcopal Church. Rather, it will be to remain within the worldwide Anglican Communion with its heritage and universally accepted teaching based on the word of God. To this end, Primates in other parts of the world have been giving serious and prayerful consideration to welcoming into their Provinces dioceses that want to remain in the solid, biblical, traditional teaching of the Church down through the centuries and who want to continue to worship God through the liturgy we have always known. Those who claim they want to remain Episcopalians but reject the biblical standards of morality, the ultimate authority of the Bible, and the biblical revelation of God to us in His Son the only savior of mankind, will –in the end– be left solely with a name and a bureaucratic structure.

What is it, then, that we should be seeking? Where is the Lord in all of this? What is His perfect will? How can we glorify Him and advance His kingdom? Apart from these questions which lead us into His reign are not other concerns, ultimately, distractions? As we wait on Him to speak to our hearts, how essential it is to remember those who have asked the same questions in earlier times, whether during the American Revolution, the Civil War, or our present circumstances and have, indeed, heard His voice and been given the grace to be obedient.

+John-David Schofield

<< top

Printable copy here.

Diocese of San Joaquin: Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Diocese of San Joaquin responds to House of Bishops’ Meeting

What did the House of Bishops accomplish?

The clear message of the September 25^th House of Bishops (HOB) statement is that they are determined to stay on the exact same course that they have been on all along.

Although promising “not to authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions” sounds like a prohibition, in reality it is a “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy in practice.  This has been demonstrated by Bishop Bruno’s recent comments that he has not authorized such blessings, while priests in the Diocese of Los Angeles do so without hesitation.  If this were a prohibition, priests who conduct such blessings would be inhibited by Bishop Bruno.  To date, this has not happened.  Not authorizing “a public rite” means that The Episcopal Church (TEC) will not authorize and publish an official prayer book service for same-sex unions.  In other words, clergy in dioceses who wish to perform same-sex unions may continue to do so, so long as it is not an official public rite.  This is neither prohibition nor restraint.  It is simply turning a blind eye.

Likewise, the promise to “exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church” is a proclamation of intent that falls far short of repentance, and is no guarantee of cessation.  At best this is a pause, not a change in direction.  Were this a change in direction, a lesbian candidate for the Diocese of Chicago would be removed from the list. What did the HOB statement say about ordaining practicing homosexuals to other clerical orders? Nothing.

The Presiding Bishop has finally authorized Episcopal visitors for dissenting parishes.  However, many, if not most, of the requesting parishes are no longer members of TEC because they have already transferred their canonical residence to other Anglican primates.  Although the Presiding Bishop accepted eight volunteers from the HOB, she has offered no plan.  This is too little, too late.

The Executive Counsel of TEC deplored “incursions into our jurisdictions by uninvited bishops” while at the same time they have unabashedly supported incursions into autonomous dioceses by bringing lawsuits against parishes, priests and parishioners who have faithfully used their hard-earned tithes to build their own churches and ministries in their local communities.  The HOB calls for an “immediate end” to incursions from other bishops; are they willing to end the oppressive lawsuits that have necessitated these so-called “incursions”?  Additionally, the HOB statement is an open rejection of the primates’ request that these lawsuits come to an end.

Fr. Van McCalister
Spokesman for
Diocese of San Joaquin
(559) 244-4828
van[at]sjoaquin[dot]net

<< top

The article below has come to my attention and I feel it is an outstanding proposal worthy of our prayer. I commended it to you for your prayer.

- Bishop John-David Schofield

An open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury from the House of Bishops of the Church of Nigeria meeting in Osogbo, Osun State

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the one and only Lord Jesus Christ.

We write to you out of profound love for our beloved Anglican Communion and recognition that this current crisis in our common life together is an unrelenting source of anguish for you and for all concerned.

We have reviewed the paper  “A Most Agonizing Road to Lambeth 2008” that was made available to us by our primate, the Most Rev’d Peter J. Akinola. We found it to be a compelling summary of many of the key events and meetings of the past ten years. It highlights the intractability of our current crisis.

We are persuaded that a change of direction from our current path is urgently needed and write to assure you of our willingness and commitment to work towards that end. We have noted your desire that the proposed Lambeth Conference be a place for fellowship and prayer and an exploration of our shared mission and ministry – all of these are of course commendable aims.

We all know, however, that the pressures of the present situation would adversely affect the outcome of the conference unless there is a profound change of heart; for how can we as bishops in the Church of God gather for a Lambeth Conference when there is such a high level of distrust, dislike and disdain for one another? How can we meet as leaders of the Communion when our relationships are so sorely strained and our life together so broken that we cannot even share together in the Lord’s Supper? It would be a mockery and bring dishonour to the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ.

We are also concerned about the abuse directed towards those who hold to traditional views on matters of Human Sexuality. The spate of hostility in the UK is alarming.

We are all witnesses to:

• The presence of placard carrying and leaflets distributing campaigners at the last Lambeth Conference distracting Bishops who travelled thousands of miles for fellowship. These protesters effectively shifted the focus of the conference to human sexuality - as if that was all that mattered.

• The physical assaults against clergymen with opposing view, such as your predecessor attacked in his own Cathedral pulpit, and a Kenyan bishop assaulted by two people dressed as clergymen.

• The occasion when your own General Synod was disrupted by protestors angry over the handling of the Canon Jeffery John issue.

• Recent attempts to mandate unbiblical views in the UK through force of law and the protests and attacks by activists determined to disrupt and intimidate any group that seeks to uphold biblical teaching.

In truth anyone who does not embrace revisionist views is a potential target.  We know it is possible to provide some security to minimize such occurrences but is the additional cost justifiable? Would the resultant atmosphere of fear and uncertainty be conducive to the goals of such a large gathering of bishops?

These are all matters of concern but in our opinion there is a way forward.

The proposed Anglican Communion Covenant is the one way for us to uphold our common heritage of faith while at the same time holding each other accountable to those teachings that have defined our life together and also guide us into the future. It has already received enthusiastic support from the majority of the Communion. Therefore we propose the following action plan:

As a matter of utmost urgency, call a special session of the Primates Meeting to:

a)      Receive the responses made by The Episcopal Church to the Dromantine and Dar es Salaam Communiqués and determine their adequacy.

b)      Arrive at a consensus for the application of the Windsor Process especially in Provinces whose self-understanding is at odds with the predominant mind of the Communion.

c)      Set in motion an agreed process to finalize the Anglican Covenant Proposal and set a timetable for its ratification by individual provinces. This cannot be done at the Lambeth Conference because it is simply too large and, we all know, the Anglican Covenant requires individual provincial endorsement and signature.

Postpone current plans for the Lambeth Conference (as has been done before). This will:

a)      Allow the current tensions to subside and leave room for the hard work of reconciliation that is a prerequisite for the fellowship we all desire.

b)    &nb