San Joaquin Diocesan Convention, Saturday

Update- 10:00 San Joaquin time

For those just coming in, they debated an alternate resolution that would postpone the vote to erase TEC from their constitution and cannons for one year, and this resolution was defeated.

They are now debating the big one, whether or not to go through with what they began last year, and reallign with the Southern Cone.

For those who know, are the cameras off for this for security reasons, or is it just a technical thing?

Yours in Christ,
jacob

Interesting, is there a technical problem with the transmission?  It completely cut out for me just as we got to debate on the main motion which is what I most wanted to hear?

Wow, the sound went from awesome to really bad. Was something or someone repositioned?

The sound went from great to horrible and they were playing basketball with the camera.  What gives?

10:  San Joaquin time

They took a moment in silence before God, before announcing the results, and Schofield addressed the crowd on what it means to be a minority, recognizing specifically Geralyn Wolf of Rd Island, and that we are each brothers and sisters, needing to reach out to each other.

They made the decision.

Every priest in the diocese is now part of the Southern Cone, the Bishop promises to release any priest back to TEC.

Yours in Christ,
jacob

Wow. clergy voted 79% yes, laity 90% yes

I have a blog thingy

PS: The time was 10:42, by the time the official results were released

Yours in Christ,
jacob

Congratulations to the people of San Joaquin!!!!!! And God’s blessings as you journey to a new place!

111 lay delegates are registered at the council.  113 of them voted?  Cool!

No, they cleared that up. There were two late registrations. It’s immaterial anyway—the vote was overwhelmingly yes.

No, late registrations not reported to the Chair…..
It was determined before proceeding that all 113 were correct and eligible.

It appears that two people registered late. One clergyman asked as a matter of personal privilege that he and others who voted no be listed in the journal and the bishop agreed that his letter requesting that would be included in the journal.  Another clergyman said that he would be requesting transfer to Northern California. The cynical side of me wonders if the man who wanted his no vote recorded was announcing his interest in becoming the net bishop of the General Convention diocese. But I’m not there and don’t know him and the more trusting side of me grieves at this division.

Tom Rightmyer in Asheville NC.

Does anybody have the exact wording of Article 2 as passed?

Just think of the tremendous savings on money KJS wil have to spend on Christmas Cards this year.

Sure wish I was in this diocese, sigh. But I live close enough to Ft. Worth to feel hopeful!

After having listened to Archbishop Akinola address our inaugural CANA Council meeting this morning, and coming back to hear this news, pretty much validates the presence of the Holy Spirit working among us.

God bless all.

Daniel

Does anyone know what else is scheduled for today?

Yay! Can we say welcome Southern Coneheads?

  For the Unity of the Church

Almighty Father, whose blessed Son before his passion prayed
for his disciples that they might be one, as you and he are one:
Grant that your Church, being bound together in love and
obedience to you, may be united in one body by the one Spirit,
that the world may believe in him whom you have sent, your
Son Jesus Christ our Lord; who lives and reigns with you, in
the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen. (BCP Various Occasions No. 14))

Pray for the Church.

RFSJ

My goodness. Out of ECUSA and into the Southern Cone, all in one day.

I have a blog thingy

Dear Elves - I think they save the best for last: the budget, . . .

THANKS BE TO GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On bended knee..Intercessor

Best wishes and prayers to the Diocese of San Joaquin.  Thank God for the leadership of +John-David.

I thought it was interesting when the priest who is also military clergy brought up the question about his standing with the military now that the diocese has left TEc.  For those who missed it, it had already been worked out that such clergy could be under the Reformed Episcopal Church as one of the Common Cause Partners who, apparently, already have their own relationship with the military for providing clergy. 

Common Cause Partnership in action.

I am confused on the vote for extending the boundaries of the Diocese.  Anyone got any clarification?.......I would appreciate it.

The courage shown by the Diocese of San Joaquin should be an encouragement for all American Christians, Anglican and non-Anglican alike.  May God bless these wonderful folks in their new journey of faith.

Enlightened,

They added de-limiting language so that they can provide safe haven to parishes fleeing ECUSA.

extending the boundries may make DSJ non geographical which opens the doors for churches in other TEC dioceses to join them.
Just a guess

right mousetalker

ops mousestalker….

Here all this time I’ve thought you had a special gife of talking to mice.
You hunt them instead.. noble work.

Heh.

I really need to change my ‘handle’. It’s a legacy of a much more primitive internet.

I have a blog thingy

This should strengthen the position of the churches in Virginia, that a schism has, in fact, taken place in the TEC.

Let’s give a standing ovation to Kevin for enabling us to be witnesses to these historic events! 

Matt+ started it at GC 06 with live blogging; Kevin took it farther with live, audio-visual coverage for our sakes and for the sake of the Kingdom. 

Kevin also needs our financial support to get to Orlando to cover the next step the Common Cause Partners will be taking December 18th. He needs $500 this week, according to the graphic at AnglicanTV.org.  To make a donation, go to http://www.anglicantv.org/blog/index.cfm .

+Schofield was previously presented, and the review committee unanimously found in his favor.  Since that time, the Chantilly agreement (circa Nov. 16th 2006,) was revealed, he has actively supported the withdrawal of his diocese from TEC and today actually spoke in opposition to an amendment that would have delayed for at least a year its withdrawal.  He has actively supported the joing of his diocese to Southern Cone, visited with others in planning for such an attachment and partnered with Common Cause.  TEC’s Canon, which I realize he sees as irrelevant reads:

Be Presented and Tried, and Of Inhibitions
Sec. 1. A Bishop, Priest, or Deacon of this Church shall be liable to Presentment
and Trial for the following offenses, viz.:
(a) Crime.
(b) Immorality.
(c) Holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any
doctrine contrary to that held by this Church.
(d) Violation of the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer.
(e) Violation of the Constitution or Canons of the General Convention.
(f) Violation of the Constitution or Canons of the Diocese in which the
person is canonically resident.
(g) Violation of the Constitution or Canons of a Diocese of this Church
wherein the person may have been located temporarily.
(h) Any act which involves a violation of Ordination vows.
(1) If a Charge against a Priest or Deacon alleges an act or acts
which involve a violation of ordination vows and specifies as
the act that the Priest or Deacon has disobeyed or disregarded
a Pastoral Direction of the Bishop having authority over such
person, the Charge must be made by the Bishop giving the
Pastoral Direction or by the Ecclesiastical Authority of that
Diocese or by another Bishop if the Bishop who issued the
Pastoral Direction has resigned, retired, died or is unable to
act and shall set out the Pastoral Direction alleged to have
been disregarded or disobeyed and wherein the disregard or
failure to obey constitutes a violation of ordination vows.
Unless the Charge by the Bishop and the Presentment by the
Diocesan Review Committee comply with the foregoing
provisions, no finding of a violation based on an act of
disregarding a Pastoral Direction of or failing to obey the
Bishop having authority over the person charged may be
made.
(2) In order for the disregard or disobedience of a Pastoral
Direction to constitute a violation of ordination vows the
Pastoral Direction must have been a solemn warning to the
Priest or Deacon; it must have been in writing and set forth
clearly the reasons for the Pastoral Direction; it must have
been given in the capacity of the pastor, teacher and
canonical overseer of the Priest or Deacon; it must have been
neither capricious nor arbitrary in nature nor in any way
contrary to the Constitution and Canons of the Church, both
national and diocesan; and it must have been directed to
some matter which concerns the Doctrine, Discipline or
Worship of this Church or the manner of life and behavior of
the Priest or Deacon concerned.

  He has been twice warned in writing.  Assuming that inhibition, presentment and removal is imminent, it seems that the question twice asked by deputies at the Convention, i.e. is the Steering Committee in charge is relevant.  +Schofield has insisted that the actions taken by the +Venables in welcoming San Joaquin into his province are emergency, pastoral and temporary, but, in fact, who made the determination that they are so and, on what basis?  What are the ecclesiastical and civil law ramifications for this?  I realize that, should the civil authority support +Schofield, in accordance with the amendments, +Schofield is a corporation sole (like a Roman Catholic bishop, I assume as soon as he files as such) with tremendous fiduciary rights and liabilities?  What claims can +Venables make on the assets of the diocese should he wish to do so?  Will the US courts honor what may, in fact, be simply a gentlemen’s agreement?  If cash is involved, that’s one thing easily transferred to one’s new province, but real property is quite another.  It just seems that there are a lot of devils in the details and, in haste to escape TEC, much may have been overlooked which will be regretted at leisure.

Here is the ENS/ELO Article:

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_92524_ENG_HTM.htm

If Schofield is considered to have abandoned the communion of the church, he would have two months to recant his position. Failing to do so, the matter would be referred to the full House of Bishops. If the House were to concur, the Presiding Bishop would depose the bishops and declare the episcopates of those dioceses vacant. Those remaining in the Episcopal Church would be gathered to organize a new diocesan convention and elect a replacement Standing Committee, if necessary.

“We are prepared to work with the Episcopal Church to reconstitute our diocese,” she said. “I feel this is what we are called to do. I am so convinced of this.”

I have no concern for +Venables or +Schofield in respect to these decisions…both are godly men following the wisdom of God.  As for the threats of TEC…worldly wisdom is a dangerous thing, and I have no doubt the threats are real from this neck of the woods, but we should be willing to sacrifice everything for the Gospel of Jesus Christ…Praise God for the Diocese of San Joaquin!

Emily, maybe they will be found foolish to trust +Venables, but now they are working on trust.  Trust that was lost with regard to TEC.  I am guessing the people of San Joaquin have more trust in +Venables than in +Schori or the House of Bishops.  That’s what years of obfuscation has done.

From the canon EmilyH cited, the number of bishops and priests who could be “presented” is nearly 100% of the total in ECUSA. ((d) Violation of the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer.)

And we would not be in the trouble we are in if the clergy of the church had been careful about: (c) “Holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any doctrine contrary to that held by this Church.”

The TEC House of Bishops deposing +Scholfield is akin to the British Parliament “deposing” the President of the United States.  They no longer have jusrisdiction.  This will be tied up in courts for years.  By then, San Joaquin will be joined by Ft. Worth, Pittsburgh and likely Quincy.

San Joaquin has a pretty strong legal argument against ECUSA. Much stronger than a mere parish. This is where Goodwin Procter really starts to earn their fees.

If ECUSA and those running it had any semblance of what it means to be a Christian, they would have negotiated all this ahead of time. It’s not as though dioceses haven’t left before, after all. If ever there were a church that has lost its way, its PECUSA/ECUSA/TEC.

I have a blog thingy

I see a 4 to 6 month time frame for the dust to settle.  The it will get VERY interesting.

For AnglicanX Your comment: “Holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any doctrine contrary to that held by this Church”  I think the authors of the TEC canons meant TEC as the church.

For Rob Eaton+  I think 4-6 months but clearly before Lambeth.  What will be interesting is if +Lyons +Jakasi and +Venables + Harvey etc. get their invitations rescinded.

Note that in the ENS article the following language, which is 815’s, not Bishop Schofield’s:  “Although the move makes San Joaquin the first diocese in the nation to separate from the Episcopal Church . . . . “ That is 815 in a statement that surely they were most careful with, acknowledging what they know to be the truth: the diocese is gone (and is the “first”—meaning that it would be possible for others to do what they heretofore said was not possible).  I am still patiently waiting for the statement from 815 heralding the democratic nature of our polity.

VaAnglican, looks like it was just a reporter getting a story out. I am sure that the attorneys will correct it to read “attempt to secede”.  It’s hard on the weekend….

Oh, puh-lease, Emily.  Like everyone at 815 is in their La-z-boys this weekend??  They are on a war footing, with their attorneys.  This thing was lawyered to the hilt, and this is what came out.  Rotten lawyering—maybe.  But no lawyering?  Not a chance.  And this is NOT a reporter: this is a writer in the employ of the Episcopal Church.  The PB herself called this a “house organ” in her deposition.  Was this unintended?  Yes, it was: people cannot lie all the time, after all, and here the truth slipped out.  They said was is obvious to all.  For the PB to say (as she said in the same story—more evidence this thing was run by counsel) that “members” had left is laughable.  Yes, you’re right: they’ll pull this story soon enough, or correct it.  And that will only highlight their dishonesty.

VaAngican, I’m sure EmilyH knows that better than anyone here.

Folks, I can’t keep up with bishops changing scenery.  Am I omitting anyone?
3-07 Bena (retired suffragan of Albany)—-CANA
3-07 Cox (retired suffragan Maryland and assisting Oklahoma)—Southern Cone
3-07 Herzog (retired Albany)—-Roman Catholic
6-07 Fairfield (retired North Dakota)—-Uganda
8-07 Pope (retired Fort Worth)—Roman Catholic
9-07 Steenson (Rio Grande)—-Roman Catholic
11-07 Lipscomb (retired Southwest Florida)—-Roman Catholic
11-07 Itty (Western Oregon)—age 44, announces retirement
11-07 Harvey (retired Canada)—-Southern Cone
11-07 Harding (retired Canada)—-Southern Cone
12-07 Schofield (San Joaquin)—Southern Cone

Emily H wrote:

“Holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any doctrine contrary to that held by this Church” I think the authors of the TEC canons meant TEC as the church.

Possibly the authors of the TEC canons did not foresee the possibility that (c) Holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any doctrine contrary to that held by this Church could ever be in conflict with (h) Any act which involves a violation of Ordination vows. Unfortunately, such a conflict now exists, between the “Gospel of Inclusion and Tolerance” currently advocated by TEC and the Gospel of Christ, which all Priests and Bishops have vowed to uphold.

I’m just looking forward to the sputtering response from the Presiding Plaintiff and her henchmen.  The sand slips through Darth Schori’s fingers…

“Holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any doctrine contrary to that held by this Church” I think the authors of the TEC canons meant TEC as the church.

And how is Bishop Spong these days, anyway?

EmilyH said

What will be interesting is if +Lyons +Jakasi and +Venables + Harvey etc. get their invitations rescinded.

EmilyH, what does it say to you if the invitations are not rescinded?

In case anyone is wondering who is causing schism here, consider today’s reading from the Daily Office lectionary, from Jude 17-25:

“But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.  They said to you, ‘In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.’  It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.  But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. And have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.  Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.”

Apt, eh?

BTW, the full text of +Schofield’s address from yesterday is posted at the Dio SJ website, and we’ve got it linked on T19

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/8231/

Jill,
To add to your list, Ohl of Northwest Texas is retiring.

Only General Convention can declare a division, according to Schori and Beers.

Looks like General Convention just lost a chuck of his army, an entire division it seems.

I think the authors of the TEC canons meant TEC as the church.”

We know, EmilyH!  Isn’t it funny? 
But we do recognize that The General Convention Church (TGCC) worships its canons with great reverence.  Second only to the MDG’s.  Please give our best to Kate and Dave.

I love the systemic blindness of the PECUSA/EUCASA/TECies. EmilyH treats us to a lengthy quote from the canons of an apostate and now irrelevant social club,  TEC. Its the irrelevance that strikes me. The writ of Authority of Her Presidingness runs no longer in Fresno Emily. Can you “embrace that concept?” Can you “live into that idea?” Can you “reconcile to that fact?” Here is what you really need to “get your arms around”: The only Anglican Diocese in Fresno is still just that. It hasn’t changed an iota. It hasn’t moved its cathedral, offices, trust funds, bank accounts, boxes of crayons in the class rooms. It has simply joined another Province. Quoting the resolutions of the previous, and discarded, province has the same effect as quoting of the Acts of the Congress of The Confederate States of America. Amusing, but hardly germane. By all means, PECUSA/ECUSA/TEC should go ahead and set up another chapter in the Fresno area, appoint a “bishop” and hire out some store fronts. There are 10 or 20 people there who would join up. I hear Tom Woodward is rather at loose ends. If the money’s right, you might get him to be “bishop.”

The only problem I have with this is that it took so damnably long to get accomplished. I hope the next 11 dioceses who I understand are considering the same move can pick up the pace. I am getting tired of this.

Nicely put, Teddy Mak.

I might add, in a similar vein to the name change of PECUSA to TEC, why not change the name of the dioceses of San Joaquin to Diocese of California, Southern Cone? Or perhaps, Diócesis de California de la Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur? Or perhaps, even better, Diócesis del Oeste de los Estados Unidos de la Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur? or even better still, Diócesis de los Estados Unidos de la Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur?

EmilyH and Brian from T19, this summary of DioSJ’s convention statements is for you:

+Schofield and overwhelming majority of clergy and lay delegates to Katherine Jefferts Schori and TE"C” - “You can’t fire me, YOU quit, long ago!”

robroy wrote: 

Or perhaps, even better, Diócesis del Oeste de los Estados Unidos de la Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur? or even better still, Diócesis de los Estados Unidos de la Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur?

I think having the name in Spanish is very appropriate for a diocese of the Province of the Southern Cone. (Aside: does anybody know why it’s a “cone”?) But maybe Bp Schofield should stop at Diócesis del Oeste. I would think that everything west of the Continental Divide is about as much territory as one bishop could cope with.   

Besides, that way there will be some left for Bps Iker (Diócesis de Tejas y del Sur) and Duncan (Diócesis del Norte). But seriously, haven’t both those other dioceses begun the process of removing any reference to geographical boundaries from their constitutions? I thought I remembered first passage of constitution changes to that effect from the coverage of their conventions.

I am so delighted with this news. It’s been a long time coming and oh, the victory is sweet.  Emily have fun at the Sunday Social of the TEC country club.  When your spirit withers, your energy fails, your “wisdom” is no more - in essence, when you get to the end of yourself, come see us in the Anglican Church for spiritual health, renewal and life.

Because that part of South America which includes the countries in the Southern Cone is shaped like a cone. It is also referred to as the cone of South American, geographically.

EmilyH,
BACK OFF OF MY BISHOP! ACT LIKE A CHRISTIAN IF YOU ARE ONE AND QUIT TRYING TO STIR UP TROUBLE. ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE ILL WILL IN THEM AND ARE HEARTLESS NO GOODERS DO THAT! SO BACK OFF AND GO PLAY TWITTLEY WINKS OR SOMETHING! BUT LAY OFF OF MY BISHOP!

ODC,
You do realize that all EmilyH wants is a little attention…
please don’t gratify her warped sense of mission by taking her so seriously and yelling at her…

Heartafire,
After the two days I have had I have earned the right to do so. I worked this Convention, watched every lay & clergy face from up in front not in the back, heard every word said at the microphones, and watched while the jackels from Integrity & Remain Epsicopal were there handing out thier invites to a church to meet and group for their plans to press forward in staying within TEc who are so liberal and ungracious to our Bishop that they resort to verbal abuse of him at any and every turn. I was there for two days and silently praised the Lord for the faithful who voted YES to go and accept the Southern Cones invitation. I & the masses feel very free and liberated from the TEc opression that we can finally breathe. But, for all that we have gone through I know that our Bishop has done so too but in double time and people like EmilyH talk with out knowledge and speak falsehoods. Thay have that right true enough but she and others like her need to just back off and act like the Christians they profess to supposedly be. And by the way Bishop Schofield is in fine health and doing great!

ODC,

God bless you and keep you. Whether you can appreciate it, being so close to the action and all, your bishop’s grace in dealing with those who wish to leave is a powerful testimony.

Especially when contrasted with the the dissidents’ conduct. To read their account of how they are being treated (‘spiritual violence’ is the most risible phrase used) and then to actually see, courtesy of Kevin Kallsen, how these despicable deeds of grace, courtesy and charity are being perpetrated against them is strong stuff indeed.

The great thing about this whole sequence of diocesan conventions is the stellar work of a layman at Anglican TV who is showing the world what we are really about. Our Worthy Opponents have lost the power to spin. And thanks be to God, they’re too clueless to have realized it yet.

I have a blog thingy