Presiding Bishop–no compromise

From George Conger [boldface mine]:

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has rebuffed pleas for compromise from conservatives and rejected calls for the American Church’s House of Bishops to revisit the cases of deposed Bishops John-David Schofield and William Cox, saying the matter is closed.

“I have no ability to reverse or set aside any decision of the House of Bishops, nor does the House once the meeting [of bishops] is adjourned,” Bishop Schori wrote to the Diocese of Central Florida on June 2. However, should the two bishops “wish to re-enter” the Episcopal Church and “seek reinstatement, that is eminently possible,” she said.

Central Florida and four other American dioceses have objected to the procedural irregularities used to remove the two bishops saying it violated canon law. Questions over the legality of the proceedings have dogged the Presiding Bishop after it was revealed she neglected to follow the canons governing proceedings.

A legal justification of the House of Bishops’ actions by the Bishop of Lexington, the Rt.Rev. Stacy Sauls, released last month failed to quell the objections, and failed to ease concerns the Presiding Bishop would continue to use laws created to govern the secession of clergy to the Roman Catholic church to enact her political agenda for the church.

Central Florida, South Carolina, Springfield, Western Louisiana, and Northern Indiana has asked the bishops to conform to canon law in any further proceedings. Bishop Schori has stated she will bring Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh to trial in September for violating church canons.

Requests by conservative bishops that the Presiding Bishop bring the Bishop of California, Marc Andrus, and the retired Bishop of Northern California, Jerry Lamb—who presently serves as the acting bishop of the new diocese of San Joaquin organized by National Church—have been ignored, The Church of England Newspaper was told last month. . .

Read it all.

More thoughts on Bishop Schofield and Lambeth

From Fr. Dan Martins, thoughts on Bishop Schofield and Archbishop Williams and the invitation to Lambeth [boldface mine]:

. . . On balance, I would tend to score this one: Advantage Schofield (and, by extension, Venables, and by further extension, GAFCON). Not point or set yet, and certainly not match. But the Archbishop of Canterbury has manifestly declined to recognize Bishop Schofield's deposition by the Presiding Bishop, and has held open the possibility, through the ongoing work of the Windsor Continuation Group, of in future recognizing the relationship between San Joaquin and the Southern Cone.

Moreover, the strongest negative statement the Archbishop was able to make was that Bishop Schofield's status "remains unclear on the basis of the general norms of Anglican Canon Law." While that may at first blush have an ominous aspect, upon closer inspection it is quite harmless because it is not only true, but completely self-evidently true in a manner that no rational person would contest it. Hence, it isn't even controversial. Not even the most diehard GAFCON-ite would disagree that a province in South America having a diocese in central California is outside the "general norms of Anglican Canon Law."

That's tantamount to saying that rain in the San Joaquin Valley in July is "outside the general norms of local weather patterns." The question is, does such an outside-the-norm arrangement contribute to the greater good of the Anglican Communion. The jury's still out on that one.

Read it all.

"Shameful" is the correct term for this *Update* and *Expanded*

Update and Expansion below.

Well, I've already left the Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Communion is beginning to appear in my rear-view mirror, so I don't know why these things still bother me. I think it's the obvious unfairness - so [Bishop] Lamb, uncanonically "elected," is going to Lambeth, and Bishop Schofield, now under ++Gregory Venables, is not.

I have to ask, why is anyone listening to or trusting Archbishop Rowan Williams? Not that I think he is purposely being untrustworthy, but I think he is inept and why out of his depth politically (or maybe it's happening exactly like he would like) - at this point, it's just all so sad.

From Stand Firm, a letter from ++Gregory Venables to those in San Joaquin:

. . . In addition, I have been in conversation with Archbishop Rowan. Over the weekend I received the following message from him: "I understand that Bishop John-David Schofield has been accepted as a full member of the episcopal fellowship of the Province of the Southern Cone within the Anglican Communion and as such cannot be regarded as having withdrawn from the Anglican Communion. However, it is acknowledged that his exact status (especially given the complications surrounding the congregations associated with him) remains unclear on the basis of the general norms of Anglican Canon Law, and this constitutes one of the issues on which we hope for assistance from the Windsor Continuation Group. Bishop Schofield has elected to decline the invitation to the Lambeth Conference issued to him last year although that decision does not signal any withdrawal from the Communion. I hope there may be further careful reflection to clarify the terms on which he will exercise his ministry."

This statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury is clear, even though we are in somewhat new territory; you remain within the Anglican Communion. Given the rigors of international travel and the work that there is to do in the Diocese, I am in agreement with Bishop John-David's decision not to attend the Lambeth Conference. I am also aware of statements by Bishop Jerry Lamb in which he makes statements and demands that miss the mark of Christian leadership and fall short of what many consider propriety. I would encourage the clergy and lay members of the diocese to ignore this. We are glad to have you as full members of the Southern Cone. As you can see, you are well regarded as members of the Anglican Communion. May God richly bless you!

Read it all.

Update: From FrWes in the comments at TitusOneNine:

Friends,
This is what we were waiting for from the ABC before we could discuss the matter of Bishop Schofield at Lambeth. Our bishop made it clear to us on numerous occasions that he did not want to attend Lambeth this time because it would be almost as hostile as a TEC HOB meeting, little would be accomplished regarding important matters, and it would be very expensive for us to send him. The ONLY reason for him to attend is to be recognized as a legitimate bishop within the Anglican Communion. The letter cited by Abp. Venables recognizes my bishop as a legitimate bishop in the Communion, so now his attendance at Lambeth is unnecessary. I have personal knowledge that this letter is legitimate. This is recognition that was not given to any uninvited bishop. Not a good day for Episcopalians. They wanted a clear dis-invitation or at least words that reject the realignment of the diocese and they got neither.

So everyone gets to make up their own mind, because I don't know. But if this is something positive, ++Rowan Williams once again did not articulate very clearly. (And what in the world is "Anglican Canon Law"?)

Expansion: Of course, Christopher Johnson goes to the heart of it all here:

Three days ago, a commenter at Stand Firm wrote the following:

I regret to say that tonight I have received definite confirmation that Bp. Schofield will NOT be going to Lambeth. I don’t know all the details, but some sort of compromise was worked out where +J-DS will get an official letter from ++Rowan Williams stating that he is recognized as a bishop officially within the Anglican Communion, and in return he will refrain from going to Lambeth. But let their be no mistake; this was a deal forced upon the good bishop. His invitation was withdrawn, at the last minute. I don’t feel free to indicate my source. But it's not longer a rumor. A highly placed source in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin has confirmed it. +Schofield is NOT going to Lambeth. He was disinvited.

No, no, no, no, we were reassured by Living Church and Kendall Harmon among others. Ain't true. Don't jump to conclusions. But today we find out from Schofield's primate that:

In addition, I have been in conversation with Archbishop Rowan. Over the weekend I received the following message from him: "I understand that Bishop John-David Schofield has been accepted as a full member of the episcopal fellowship of the Province of the Southern Cone within the Anglican Communion and as such cannot be regarded as having withdrawn from the Anglican Communion. However, it is acknowledged that his exact status (especially given the complications surrounding the congregations associated with him) remains unclear on the basis of the general norms of Anglican Canon Law, and this constitutes one of the issues on which we hope for assistance from the Windsor Continuation Group. Bishop Schofield has elected to decline the invitation to the Lambeth Conference issued to him last year although that decision does not signal any withdrawal from the Communion. I hope there may be further careful reflection to clarify the terms on which he will exercise his ministry."

This statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury is clear, even though we are in somewhat new territory; you remain within the Anglican Communion. Given the rigors of international travel and the work that there is to do in the Diocese, I am in agreement with Bishop John-David’s decision not to attend the Lambeth Conference.

Given how very nearly perfectly the Stand Firm commenter nailed it, this is going to need to be cleared up the day before yesterday. Did Schofield, in fact, make this decision on his own? If he did, are Venables' stated reasons why he did it? And if he didn't, was he, in fact, forced out?

If Schofield's "exact status...remains unclear on the basis of the general norms of Anglican Canon Law," what does that say about the library of canons that TEO violated in the removal of Schofield and the installation of Mrs. Schori's sock puppet, Jerry Lamb?

Read it all.

The San Joaquin lawsuit: An update

From the Anglican Curmudgeon, analysis of the current goings-on in San Joaquin [boldface mine]:

. . . The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, responded to the Diocese’s departure by doing three things: she declared that a motion to depose Bishop John-David Schofield had carried the House of Bishops, and that his see was now vacant; she declared that she refused to recognize the Standing Committee of the Diocese as its Ecclesiastical Authority, or for any other purpose; and she called on short notice a "special convention" of the parishioners remaining in TEC to consent to her designation of the Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb, retired Bishop of the Diocese of Northern California, as Provisional Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin. Once those steps were accomplished, the special convention authorized Bishop Lamb to file suit against Bishop Schofield and the diocesan trust entities he controlled to acquire title to all of the diocesan properties, investments and accounts. TEC joined Bishop Lamb and the newly organized Episcopal "Diocese of San Joaquin" as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to add Merrill Lynch as a defendant, because it was the custodian of the diocesan trust funds. Merrill Lynch has requested the Fresno Superior Court to be allowed to "interplead" all the funds it has in its possession, and to be dismissed from the lawsuit. By turning over the funds to the control of the court, and asking it to determine who is entitled to them, Merrill Lynch is abandoning any role as custodian and leaving it to the court to sort matters out. . .

Bishop Schofield and the diocesan trust entities have now responded to the first amended complaint. First, they have asked the court to strike it, on the ground that it was not drawn in compliance with California Rules of Court. . .

The first ground on which defendants have demurred is that among the funds held by Merrill Lynch which plaintiffs are claiming, are moneys deposited in the names of two individual parishes: St. John’s of Tulare, and St. John’s of Porterville. Plaintiffs, however, neglected to join those parishes as defendants, and thus the court cannot declare who owns the funds without the churches being represented in the lawsuit.

St. John's Episcopal Church in Tulare, however, has voted not to join the Diocese in aligning with the Province of the Southern Cone. Its rector, the Rev. Robert G. Eaton, also has declared his intention of remaining with The Episcopal Church. So let's understand what is actually happening on the ground here. The Episcopal Church and its designated agent, Bishop Lamb, are claiming to own or control money belonging to one of their own parishes that has voted to remain in The Episcopal Church. They are doing so regardless of the consequences, in order to maintain their fiction that Bishop Schofield "wrongfully" relinquished control of these funds to St. John's long after it had grown beyond the status of a diocesan mission. . .

A hearing on the demurrers and on the motion to strike will take place in Fresno County Superior Court the afternoon of August 20.

Read it all.

AAC weekly message from Bishop David Anderson

Via email, from the American Anglican Council [boldface mine]:

Beloved in Christ,

Orthodox Anglicans are under attack from several quarters, with the rise of Islamic militancy in England and the press of homosexual advancement, which affect many areas of everyday life, from the courts to the market place to the schools.

In the first area, we note the disturbing trend in England of Anglican clergy being threatened in their own parishes by militant young Muslims who want to chase them out. We also note that the Church of England freezes like a deer in the headlights of an oncoming automobile whenever Muslim issues are raised. If CofE bishops believe that Jesus is the Way, and the Truth and the Life, and none come unto the Father except through him...and that statement is fairly direct - from Jesus himself, then why will they not allow discussion of evangelization to Muslims at the upcoming Synod? Are they frightened? You would have to think so, but why are the bishops frightened?

Not all are. The bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, has been bold, truthful and prophetic, and many ecclesiastics in England don't want to listen to him. He said there were "No-Go areas" where Christians ventured at their peril. On the other hand, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said that Sharia Law is probably inevitable in some areas. What a contrast!

Now we read of two Christian preachers handing out Christian tracts to Muslims in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham, who were harrassed by the police for allegedly being involved in "hate" activities. My friends, if Western Civilization doesn't get its act together, we will certainly deserve the hell that is visited upon us. Wouldn't you think that someone should have arrested the police officer involved? The West Midlands Police apparently refused to apologize, although an investigation of the officer's actions was promised.

At the other end of the faith spectrum is the press of global homosexual activism. In the US, California's Supreme Court has ruled that the state must provide for homosexuals to marry legally. Meanwhile, a voter-led referendum has been qualified for this autumn's ballot which would put a change into the California Constitution that would limit marriage to between a man and a woman. In California, it often happens that laws and major changes have to be implemented by popular referendum of the people, since most of the public representatives and officials are in the grip of the homosexual lobby. Power to the people!

In England the government enforcement of pro-homosexual rules on adoption threaten to close the Roman Catholic adoption agencies. An article covering this issue points to some new options, however, if the agencies stipulate that their operations will be based on the religious and moral principles of the Catholic Faith. We pray that the RC's strategists will prevail and their agencies' good work will continue.

In the Episcopal Wars in the USA, the national Episcopal Church (TEC), has launched both a legal and public relations attack on the departed diocese of San Joaquin and the diocesan, Bishop John-David Schofield. Upon discovering that the Diocese of San Joaquin and Bishop Schofield, now affiliated with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, were in the process of moving assets into a Merrill Lynch account, they promptly named Merrill Lynch in the lawsuit already underway. Merrill Lynch, as most brokerages and banks in that position would do, froze the accounts until the court determines who the "rightful" owner is. San Joaquin's mistake was several fold: waiting so long to reposition the assets; putting them in a brokerage or bank that did not already understand the risk of litigation; and putting them in an account where TEC could so easily apply pressure.

Many churches departing TEC have learned the hard way that the first thing that hostile TEC operatives do is to visit the bank of record and present new signature cards. The bank panics and freezes the account until the court tells them which signature cards are the valid ones. Meanwhile the true owners of the bank accounts are unable to access their own money. There are ways to avoid this, of course, if care is taken to prevent this type of seizure, but it involves anticipating what TEC is going to do before they do it.

All of this is accompanied by slanted news releases from the official Episcopal Church party organ, Episcopal News Service (ENS). They are fond of referring to Bishop Schofield as "former bishop John-David Schofield," to convey the idea that their irregular attempt at deposition of Schofield successfully changed his status to that of a layman in the church. TEC seems unwilling to acknowledge that Bishop Schofield was accepted as a bishop into the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, and thereby his status as a bishop was moved from TEC to the Southern Cone. Even if their deposition is finally held to have been effective, they lost jurisdiction over him before the "trial," and could at best only extinguish his right to function as a bishop in TEC. The Province of the Southern Cone holds the jurisdiction over his functioning as a bishop, yet the ENS continues to refer to him as "former bishop Schofield," and then as "Mr. Schofield." Although titles in themselves aren't that important, TEC actually puts great stock in them, and their refusal to use the title of bishop for Schofield, and instead insist on using "Mr." tells us that TEC must think that this is really important. Unfortunately, that makes them not only wrong, but petty.

Midway between those who have left The Episcopal Church and hard-core TEC'ers, a new Anglican group has formed. Communion Partners is made up of those not wishing to or unable to leave TEC, but believing that good things could still come of working with the Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, primus inter pares. The new group says of itself, "The Communion Partner bishops will work together according to the principles outlined in the Windsor Report and seek a comprehensive Anglican Covenant at the Lambeth Conference and beyond." Three or four years ago this would have sounded better to us, but our observation is that neither Presiding Bishop Schori nor Archbishop Williams can be relied upon for any agreement, any implementation, or any safety for those of orthodox faith. We wish the Communion Partners well, and pray that God will protect them from harm and from the duplicity and deceit that many of us have encountered coming from TEC and Lambeth Palace. The Windsor Report was actually a flawed document from the beginning, but we think we could have lived with it if it were fully and strongly enforced across the board... failing that, we would look elsewhere for a better Anglican future.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

The Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin has fully complied with California State Law

From Soundings, the official weblog of the Diocese of San Joaquin [boldface mine]:

The Diocese of San Joaquin: June 4, 2008
Fresno, California

The following facts are given to correct and clarify recently published misunderstandings and misstatements regarding legal claims against the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin

All actions taken by the Diocese of San Joaquin were authorized by its governing bodies, namely, its Standing Committee and its Diocesan Council, along with Bishop Schofield. These actions were done in complete compliance with California law and were done to secure the property until a California court can rule on the issue of ownership. One of these actions was to retitle accounts held at Merrill Lynch; assets were not moved from Merrill Lynch. The property in question is owned by the Diocese and its parishes and not the Episcopal Church. The Diocese expects a favorable ruling by the California court on the issues of property ownership.

The Diocese of San Joaquin is a California unincorporated association that is governed by the California Corporations Code and its own internal Constitution and Canons (akin to bylaws). The Diocese is a corporate person; a legal entity recognized by the civil courts. In California, an unincorporated association is governed by majority vote of its members. There is nothing in the governing documents of the Episcopal Church which forbade or limited the right of the Diocese of San Joaquin from withdrawing and taking its property with it.

On December 8, 2007, the people of the Diocese of San Joaquin exercised their democratic right reserved to them under their Constitution to withdraw from membership in the Episcopal Church and to realign with another province of the worldwide Anglican Communion, the Province of the Southern Cone. The vote of the people of the Diocese of San Joaquin at a duly noticed and convened Annual Convention was overwhelming; nearly 90 percent were in favor of the realignment. Special provision was made for those who disagreed with the majority’s decision: each parish in the Diocese was given the option of staying with the Episcopal Church and those who did were permitted to keep all of their real and personal property with the blessings of the Diocese and its bishop, The Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield. Ultimately, some seven parishes decided to stay with the Episcopal Church.

Unwilling to abide by the decision of the majority, the seven stay-behind parishes, in concert with the Episcopal Church, purported to hold their own “re-vote” to reverse the 90 percent majority decision of the Diocese and have filed papers proclaiming themselves to be the “true” or “real” Diocese of San Joaquin and seeking all of the diocese’s real and personal property. These assertions are not legally tenable.

Bishop Schofield remains a fully ordained bishop and is a member in good standing of the House of Bishops of the Province of the Southern Cone, a constituent member of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Furthermore, at least five dioceses within The Episcopal Church have rejected or questioned the legality of the Presiding Bishop’s actions in deposing Bishops Schofield and Cox.

Check it out.

Merrill Lynch freezes disputed San Joaquin diocesan accounts pending court ruling

From EpiscopalLife Online [boldface mine]:

Merrill Lynch has frozen the financial accounts it manages for the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin until the courts decide the rightful owner of those accounts, an attorney for the financial institution said June 3.

"Merrill Lynch has placed an immediate freeze on those accounts held in the name of the Diocese and related entities," according to Eric J. Glassman of Mennemeier, Glassman & Stroud, in a letter to [Episcopal] diocesan chancellor Mike Glass, and to Russell VanRozeboom, who represents former bishop John-David Schofield.

The San Joaquin [Episcopal] diocese, along with The Episcopal Church (TEC), on June 2 amended an earlier lawsuit against Schofield, "on the basis of new information gathered about recent transfers of real and personal property and assets to entities formed by Mr. Schofield and his attorney sometime in early April of 2008," Glass said.

According to the amended complaint, Schofield had been transferring real property and investment accounts into a non-Episcopal entity called the Anglican Diocese Holding Company. The holding company was also added as a co-defendant in the June 2 amended complaint. . .

Read it all.

Bishops Schofield, Lamb both attending Lambeth

From the Living Church:

Bishops Jerry Lamb and John-David Schofield both report having accepted their invitations to next month’s Lambeth Conference.

Bishop Lamb, who was nominated provisional Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, said he received his invitation on May 27.

“This a clear sign from the Anglican Communion that the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin is the only Anglican diocese in all of inland Central California,” Bishop Lamb wrote in an internet column he maintains. “I received this invitation because I am your bishop and, therefore, entitled to attend the Lambeth Conference as the Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.”

But Bishop John-David Schofield of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin also will be attending the conference. He has received his Lambeth study materials and has begun familiarizing himself with them, according to the Rev. Canon Bill Gandenberger, canon to the ordinary of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin.

“Bishop Schofield received and accepted his invitation to Lambeth shortly after the invitations were first issued,” Canon Gandenberger said. “Shortly thereafter he received the study material common to all the bishops.”. . .

In a related development, the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin amended its civil complaint against the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin on June 2, adding Merrill Lynch and the “Anglican Diocese Holding Corporation” as defendants. . .

Read it all.

"and the real (Anglican) Bishop of San Joaquin is ... ???"

From Dan Martins comes this info:

I don't yet know what to make of this, but it's interesting. From here:

Dear Friends,

I received great news three days ago from the office of the manager of the Lambeth Conference. The e-mail says "we are expecting you at the Lambeth Conference". I was wondering when the invitation would arrive or even, some days, if it would ever come to Jane and me. Well, it is here and we are making plans to attend. We attended the Conference in 1998 when I was the Bishop of Northern California.

I am pleased to be going, but I am more pleased because this a clear sign from the Anglican Communion that the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin is the only Anglican Diocese in all of inland Central California. I received this invitation because I am your Bishop and, therefore, entitled to attend the Lambeth Conference as the Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

We have much work left to do in bringing this Diocese back together. But, rejoice, sisters and brothers, your faithfulness has been recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury and by the Anglican Communion.

Rejoice, again I say, rejoice.

In peace,
+Jerry A. Lamb
Bishop of San Joaquin. . .

Read it all.

AnglicanTV: Interview with Archbishop Gregory Venables, Southern Cone

Goodness, Kevin has been busy! Here's his interview with Archbishop Gregory Venables - watch and enjoy!

Who will stand up for what is right?

From the Anglican Curmudgeon, a call to action [boldface mine]:

The matters discussed in this post will seem utterly fantastical to some and overly technical, or even irrelevant and incomprehensible, to others. I place this warning at the outset to save either group from having to struggle through what follows. But if you are one of those who is increasingly concerned by the lack of accountability on the part of the leadership of The Episcopal Church, then by all means read on. If you agree with the conclusions I draw, I would ask that you forward a copy of (or a link to) this post to your diocesan Bishop. And if you are one of the very few in a position actually to do something, it is my prayer that you will take what I say here to heart.

The recent publication of a memorandum analyzing the serious violations of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church (and of the Diocese of San Joaquin!) by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, and the report of a simultaneous sabotage of the site where it was originally published, following denouncements of motives and demands by TEC loyalists for the name of the memorandum's author(s), has significantly raised the procedural ante within The Episcopal Church.

On the one side we have the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor, along with her Title IV Review Committee, who have charged the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh with having "abandoned the Communion of this Church" in supposed violation of Canon IV.9. (For a full analysis of why such charges against a Bishop like +Duncan, who has no intention of leaving the Anglican Communion, constitute an abuse of this Canon, see my earlier posts here and here.) Despite the fact that the three senior bishops of the Church refused to agree to the inhibition of Bishop Duncan, the Presiding Bishop has continued to say that she intends to bring a resolution before the House of Bishops at its next meeting to vote on his deposition.

On the other side we have the canon lawyers, who (with the exception of the Presiding Bishop's Chancellor David Booth Beers and his firm) have been unanimous in their opinion that Canon IV.9 cannot be read to allow a vote to depose a Bishop who has not first been inhibited. . .

Read it all.

How to follow the canons in San Joaquin

From the Anglican Curmudgeon:

There seems to be so much confusion about what is going on in the Diocese of San Joaquin that it is probably too optimistic to expect that another post on the subject will assist anyone in understanding the situation. In considering how to approach the subject, and on how to place the current lawsuit in context, it occurred to me that one viewpoint that has not yet been seen is that of a chancellor's advice to a Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church who genuinely wants to honor and to follow TEC's Constitution and Canons. So let the following memorandum (which will appear in three parts) speak for itself. . .

Read it all.

AnglicanTV: +Venables in San Joaquin

From AnglicanTV, two videos with Archbishop Gregory Venables, one his teaching on Anglicanism and one his sermon to the Diocese of San Joaquin.

Watch them both!

"Burning Bridges"

From Dan Martins at his blog, Confessions of a Carioca [boldface mine]:

. . . The acrid odor you are smelling is the aroma of bridges being burned. As I have already noted more than duly in this space, the executive leadership of the Episcopal Church has tragically chosen an ideological purge over not only canon law and not only common sense but even over their own long term self-interest. They want a Diocese of San Joaquin that is a showcase for the brand of liberal puritanism that has become the order of the day, and they're not interested in the care and feeding of any conservative POWs. (Some had raised a white flag, but were quickly chased off to Argentina, which welcomed them with open arms.)

But the bridges are being torched from both ends. Some seventeen months ago, when I was still resident in San Joaquin, I proposed an "amendment to the amendment" of our constitution that, even as it helped set the pins for an potential departure from TEC (as it indeed eventually did), would have at least acknowledged that the diocese's ongoing life, whatever shape that might take, would be in organic continuity with the life and history of the Episcopal Church. My amendment went down like the Hindenburg, so toxic was the expression "Episcopal Church" in the family system of the diocese by that point. I have a strong enough ego to still contend that the convention, in rejecting my proposal, was acting against its own enlightened self-interest. At any rate, the perception of toxicity has only grown since that time. The breach that has occurred, even though Bishop Schofield proclaims it extraordinary and temporary, will never, I am convinced, be healed in my lifetime. . .

Read it all. And further comment from Northern Plains Anglicans:

. . . The Episcopal Church, in its crazed effort to get rid of clergy and people who live under the authority of the Bible and traditional Christian interpretation of its teachings, is spending well over $1,000,000 this year alone to sue dissenting congregations.

What you are not being told is that many of these congregations have offered to pay for their freedom - to negotiate a fair market purchase of their properties and to provide other financial considerations to the Episcopal Church in order to join Biblically faithful Anglican bodies.

Stop and think about that - what your church gives to your diocese, your diocese turns around and gives a good chunk to the Episcopal Church, which is using this money to sue congregations, clergy and lay people. Is this why you give?. . .

H/t to Northern Plains Anglicans.

AnglicanTV live streaming from the Diocese of San Joaquin

From Kevin Kallsen at AnglicanTV:

Please stay tuned and remember all times are Pacific. At 2:00 pm I will be live streaming a Personal Seminar with Archbishop Gregory Venables. He will be speaking from St James Anglican Cathedral in San Joaquin. This will be a two hour event. Then at 7:00 pm I will be broadcasting a Festal Eucharist with Archbishop Venables and Bishop David Schofield.

Episcopal church sues deposed San Joaquin bishop

From the Associated Press via the San Diego Union-Tribune [boldface mine]:

The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin is suing a deposed bishop who led a secession last year prompted by the church's ordination of women and gays.

The diocese said in its lawsuit, filed Thursday in Fresno County Superior Court, that John-David Schofield breached his duties to the church and demanded he vacate his offices and turn over diocesan property and financial accounts.

National church leaders removed Schofield as the head of the Fresno-based diocese after he led parishioners to align themselves with the conservative Province of the Southern Cone, an Argentina-based member of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
Last month, Jerry Lamb, a bishop loyal to the U.S. church, was elected to head the San Joaquin diocese. Schofield, however, maintains he is an Anglican bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin under the worldwide church.

The U.S. Episcopal Church is also part of the 77 million-member Anglican Communion, a global fellowship of churches that trace their roots to the Church of England, but the national denomination has faced increasing scrutiny for its liberal-leaning stance. Most Anglicans are traditionalists who believe Scripture bars gay relationships.

Lamb said in a statement Friday that there was no other viable way to recover church property but to seek court intervention. . .

Read it all.

"Skulduggery in San Joaquin?"

From the Anglican Curmudgeon, what's going on in San Joaquin? [boldface mine]

Something mysterious (well, not really---but read on) has happened with regard to the corporate entity recognized under California law as the religious corporation sole associated with the Diocese of San Joaquin. Under California law, a "corporation sole" is a special kind of corporation---with just one shareholder, one officer and one director, who are all one and the same person---that can be formed by "a bishop . . . of any religious denomination, society, or church, for the purpose of administering and managing the affairs, property, and temporalities thereof." (Calif. Corp. Code section 10002.)

There has been a corporation sole for the Diocese of San Joaquin in California ever since 1911. Each time a new bishop is elected, there is an amendment to the articles filed by the new bishop, naming him as the successor to the position. When the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield was elected Bishop in 1988, the articles were amended (albeit in 1992); and preceding the first convention vote in December 2006 to change the Diocesan Constitution, the articles of the corporation sole were amended in March 2006 to change the method of electing his successor. (That amendment caused four other Episcopal Bishops in California to issue an ultimatum to Bishop Schofield that they would file a presentment against him unless he rescinded the changes---the documents may be seen here.) On January 22, 2008, Bishop Schofield filed another amendment to the articles, changing the name of the corporation from "The Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin, a Corporation Sole" to "The Anglican Bishop of San Joaquin, a Corporation Sole."

Now, quietly and without any fanfare, the Secretary of State's Web site lists the corporation again under a new name as of April 8, 2008: the name has changed back to "The Protestant Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin, a Corporation Sole". Further research with this filing shows that it lists the sole member of the corporation as the Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb, in Stockton, California, and that its agent for service of process is attorney Michael Glass of San Rafael, California.

Without its amounting exactly to "a shot heard round the world," it thus appears that an opening salvo in that new, non-Pauline but chiefly Episcopal sport---of suing each other in secular courts---has been fired. In order to file the amendment with the Secretary of State, the law requires that:

The chief officer of the corporation shall sign and verify a statement setting forth the provision of the amendment and stating that it has been duly authorized by the religious organization governed by the corporation.

(Section 10010; emphasis added.) In other words, the Rt. Rev. Jerry Lamb has sworn to the Secretary of State that only he has the right to govern the Diocese of San Joaquin, and that there is also only one such Diocese---namely, the one that elected him a provisional bishop on March 29, 2008. Where does this leave the unincorporated Diocese of San Joaquin that has withdrawn from The Episcopal Church? As far as the official record appears at this moment, the amendments which made Bishop Schofield the bishop of that Diocese are no longer in effect, since they have been changed by Bishop Lamb, who swears he has the authority to make those changes.

We must realize that the Secretary of State is just a middleman here, responsible for filing and indexing duly notarized documents---indeed, if they are presented in the appropriate form, the Secretary cannot refuse to file them. By this same token, Bishop Schofield could file new amendment papers tomorrow changing the name back again, and there could ensue a meaningless paper war. Which just means that this will have to be sorted out in the courts. . .

Read it all.

Seattle: Interview with the presiding bishop

From the Seattle Times, an interview with the presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori - unfortunately, the questions are not very strong and there seems to be little follow-up to her answers:

. . . Q: You recently went to the San Joaquin Diocese in California (which voted to secede from the Episcopal Church) to speak with those who remain Episcopalian. You said that healing is possible. How, when the issues seem so intractable and the divide getting wider?

A: The experience of the people present at the convention in San Joaquin is that healing is happening there. In groups of people with a variety of opinions about some of these hot-button issues, it's remembering what it is that originally calls them together.

Q: Property disputes with breakaway churches are a big issue and getting bigger. What do you say to people who feel it's unbiblical to take fellow Christians to court over issues like property?

A: We have a fiduciary and a moral responsibility as leaders in this church to use and steward the gifts ... for the purposes for which they were given. ... Generations before us gave permission in the name of the Episcopal Church and intended them (gifts and properties) for the benefit of communities and generations to come. (The breakaway churches) are clearly saying they're no longer part of the Episcopal Church.

Q: What about the argument of the breakaway churches and diocese that the Episcopal Church left them?

A: The church has changed repeatedly throughout history. The church has struggled with the place of African Americans in the church, the place of slavery in the church, the place of children in the church, women in the church, immigrants in the church, and today, the place of gays and lesbians in the church.

Q: What do you think is the proper role for the Episcopal Church to play in the Anglican Communion on the issue of ordaining gay men and lesbians and same-gender unions?

A: It appears to be our vocation in this day and age to encourage conversation, to encourage theological reflection about how we're created, what the holiness of life looks like.

Q: Some people find it hypocritical that church members in some parts of the world who are so outspoken against ordaining gays are allowed to have multiple wives. Are they allowed to, and if so, what are your thoughts on that?

A: The (1988) Lambeth Convention (the once-a-decade gathering of the world's bishops) made pastoral provisions for polygamists to be received into the church. ... It seems to me that the church throughout history has made different provisions in different provinces for circumstances that aren't universal.

Q: Do you see the upcoming Lambeth Convention this year as settling any of these issues?

A: The Lambeth Convention's intent is to gather bishops in community and to meet each other as individual human beings. It's never been intended to settle issues.

Read it all.

San Joaquin; Episcopalians greet their bishop

From the Union-Democrat:

"This is an historic day," the Rev. John Shumaker of St. Matthew's Episcopal Church in San Andreas said Sunday. "Presiding bishops just don't go to churches this size."

Katharine Jefferts Schori, presiding bishop of the National Episcopal Church, officiated at an evensong service in San Andreas, then stayed for a reception afterward, visiting personally with the nearly 150 people in attendance.

"I always come to the small congregations," she said. "That's who the Episcopal Church really is."

And that's really all the Episcopal Church will be, too.

It was larger than normal Sunday, however, with people from both Tuolumne and Calaveras counties packing the pews. . .

Read it all.

Episcopal diocese reorganizes in Lodi, might allow gay priests

From the Lodi News-Sentinel:

Pledging unity and inclusiveness to all of God's people, the Episcopal Church's San Joaquin Diocese elected Jerry Lamb as provisional bishop at a special convention Saturday before a crowd of about 300 at St. John's Episcopal Church in Lodi.

Lamb replaces John-David Schofield, the controversial conservative bishop who was deposed on March 12 by national church leaders, who ruled that he had "abandoned" his post as bishop. Due to a disagreement in biblical interpretation of homosexuality, Schofield took the diocese out of Episcopal Church USA and moved to the more conservative Southern Cone province of the Anglican Church based in Argentina. . .

The change in leadership means that St. John's, who is looking for a priest to replace Father Rick Matters, who left the Lodi parish in May 2007 for a church in Carmel, has the flexibility for the first time to appoint a woman as its priest.

In addition to opposing gays as priests and bishops in the Episcopal Church, Schofield forbid women from serving as priests in his diocese. Lamb supports woman priests. As for gays entering the priesthood, it will be a conversation that clergy and church members will need to have before a decision is made, Lamb said.

"At least these for these people in the diocese, we can talk about it," said John Ledbetter, senior warden at St. John's. "At least we can have an intelligent adult conversation.". . .

Of course, the paper's headline is not reflective of the article at all, but I guess the Lodi News-Sentinel is trying to grab reader interest, unfortunately. Read it all.