Thursday, February 9, 2012

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Want to advertise on Stand Firm? Click here for rates and info

+Schofield’s Pastoral Letter to be Read Sunday in DioSJ Parishes

Friday, December 14, 2007 • 6:14 pm


Via email:

PASTORAL LETTER TO BE READ IN ALL CHURCHES THE DIOCESE OF SAN JOAQUIN (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” change now?

Faithfully yours, in our Lord Jesus Christ, +John-David Schofield, Bishop


34 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

That’s my Bishop!!! Putting God first..what a novel idea!
Intercessor

[1] Posted by Intercessor on 12-14-2007 at 06:28 PM • top

I hope that some direction will be given clergy, Treasurers, and others about Church Pension Fund assessments and medical insurance. Episcopal News Service reports that the Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori has written Bishop Schofield to inquire about his status in the Episcopal Church with regard to Pension Fund and membership in the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church.

If I read the canons correctly Bishop Scofield and other clergy has a period of time to recant. I hope that for that period of time they will continue to be covered by the Pension Fund. I don’t know whether the Diocese of San Joaquin is part of the national medical insurance program or not.

[2] Posted by TomRightmyer on 12-14-2007 at 07:29 PM • top

If the Diocese is part of the national medical plan, TEC can’t cut them off - there is a federal law with the anacronym “COBRA” which permits anyone who has resigned to continue with the same health insurance (paying full price) for up to eighteen months.  As for the Diocese of SJ, I must confess the sin of jealousy.  They are so fortunate to have such a courageous, Godly leader.

[3] Posted by no longer NH Episcopalian on 12-14-2007 at 07:48 PM • top

I have a rule of thumb about seeking God’s will: money is always a question, but it is never THE question.

[4] Posted by AnglicanXn on 12-14-2007 at 08:14 PM • top

In my own life it seems that the Lord has always led me away from the money.  Several situations that would have resulted in great monetary profits were turned down usually on some vague “fundamentalist” principle.  Later I would find out that if I had gone that way it would have been a a tragedy.  “Savior, like a shepherd lead us, Much we need Thy tender care….”

[5] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 12-14-2007 at 08:49 PM • top

That, Katherine, is how a Christian leader writes a letter.

[6] Posted by robroy on 12-14-2007 at 09:12 PM • top

For readers not aware of the rules of the pension fund, there are federal protections for benefits earned to this point in any priest’s ministry.  Should deposition or other canonical proceedings come into play, benefits are “frozen” at current levels, and not available until the priest reaches the right age for collecting benefits.  But, provided the priest is “vested” (only a few years, maybe 5, I’m not sure) what has been earned can’t be taken away.  Sabre rattling about pensions is a scare tactic designed to intimidate, but it has not teeth.  Benefits may not grow as they would for a priest remaining active and in good standing until retirement, but they won’t go away.  And as for Bishop Schofield’s pension, it has been funded for decades, and is his for the taking at any point he wishes now that he is not in the episcopal church because of his age.  So Katherine is wasting her time in her little friendly note.  And even if his pension weren’t available, didn’t she read the words from St Paul that he quotes in his pastoral letter:  he counts all things as loss compared to knowing Jesus.

[7] Posted by Brien on 12-14-2007 at 09:31 PM • top

You need to realize that the middle age priests are making a big sacrifice in their pension.

[8] Posted by robroy on 12-14-2007 at 10:15 PM • top

Great letter!

[9] Posted by Irenaeus on 12-14-2007 at 10:46 PM • top

In the Prayers of the People, “Gregory our Archbishop” is to appear where the Prayer Book offers intercession “For N. our Presiding Bishop”.

You know, that has to be gratifying.

[10] Posted by oscewicee on 12-14-2007 at 11:04 PM • top

Reading THIS pastoral letter from Bishop Scofield, AFTER reading the latest creepy letter from the Presiding Priestess of Darkness, brought tears to my eyes… The God that we worship—the Savior that we have entrusted ourselves to—is truly awesome! How wonderful it is to bask in the warm light of our Risen Lord!

[11] Posted by bluenarrative on 12-14-2007 at 11:15 PM • top

My understanding is that Bishop Venables is the Presiding Bishop of the Province of the Southern Cone and like KJS is not an Archbishop.  Help me out here, am I correct?

[12] Posted by David Wilson on 12-15-2007 at 07:59 AM • top

NO Longer NH Ep, medical insurance is on a diocese-by-diocese basis anyway, so that’s not a concern.  As Brien so aptly put it, +JD is already of retirement age, so continued contributions are hardly his issue (but I have a feeling that the letter was sent by her for her liberal constituency, not JD.) 

However, robroy’s point is very well taken, and I expect (and certainly pray!) that Dio SJ has alredy made provisions for a plan into which clergy can contribute. 

Great letter here - I am continually amazed at the grace evident in the writings of Godly bishops as opposed to those of their reappraising counterparts.

[13] Posted by MJD_NV on 12-15-2007 at 08:44 AM • top

....‘Presiding Priestess of Darkness’ 
    (Gawd, I love this blog…)

   
For what its worth…I’ve a 3 foot zebra moray eel in a 75 gal tank I’ve christened “Katherine” 

  http://www.aquarticles.com/images/Fish Stores Canada/BigAlsRichmond/p31 Zebra moray eel.jpg

  I know, I know….it’s really not fair.
   
    (the eel really has a very sweet disposition)

  (not actual eel, .....nor PB)

[14] Posted by anglicanlutenist on 12-15-2007 at 09:24 AM • top

Prayers for us all, the diocese of San Joaquin and the Episcopal Church, are found at Lent & Beyond.

[15] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 12-15-2007 at 09:37 AM • top

From Jeremiah 23

1 “Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!” declares the LORD. 2 Therefore this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says to the shepherds who tend my people: “Because you have scattered my flock and driven them away and have not bestowed care on them, I will bestow punishment on you for the evil you have done,” declares the LORD. 3 “I myself will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the countries where I have driven them and will bring them back to their pasture, where they will be fruitful and increase in number. 4 I will place shepherds over them who will tend them, and they will no longer be afraid or terrified, nor will any be missing,” declares the LORD.

[16] Posted by Edwin on 12-15-2007 at 09:19 PM • top

Anglicanlutenist,  I have been severely chastised on another thread (the ABC’s Advent letter) for my use of that phrase—Presiding Priestess of Darkness. I was told it was not Christian to refer to her that way. I’ve used that term ever since I first entered the orthodox blogosphere, but the powers that be on this site seem to feel it is a bit too much; that I should tone it down and be “more polite.”

I am perfectly willing to humble myself and submit to my brothers and sisters in the Lord. But I will NEVER accord her the respect that is implied in the title “Presiding Bishop.”

I first used that phrase without a moment’s thought—in plain and simple English, that is who she is, as far as I can see… But I guess I’ll have to cut it out now… I am genuinely at a loss to know HOW I am supposed to refer to her, if not in this way…

[17] Posted by bluenarrative on 12-15-2007 at 09:32 PM • top

Bluenarrative, I do not recognise the orders of she-who-is-styled-Presiding-Bishop, so I call her by her name: “Dr. Jefferts-Schori.”

[18] Posted by Andrewesman on 12-15-2007 at 10:21 PM • top

She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named

[19] Posted by Christopher Hathaway on 12-15-2007 at 10:53 PM • top

Andrewesman, 

My father was a professor. Though he was usually called “Professor,” as a title of respect, he was also sometimes called “Dr.” He was an important scholar, but also a genuinely good man who had great integrity. My wife is a physician—she saves people’s lives every day—and she also is entitled to be called Dr.

I will NEVER accord this woman the dignity implied by the term “Dr.”

[20] Posted by bluenarrative on 12-15-2007 at 10:55 PM • top

Just some points of information .  1.  COBRA does not apply to religious organizations.  2.  +Schofield’s pension is fully protected but will not grow 3.  Middle aged clergy and their familes will be hurt as to loss of ability to acrue maximum benefits.  4.  Young clergy who have worked less than five years loose everything.  But, having watched the convention, I did not notice any likely to be in this category.

Medical insurance is, I believe, through a diocesan group plan. It could be through the Episcopal Medical Trust.  If so, it would seem that clergy who have left the Episcopal church will be looking for a new group provider.  For those clergy remaining with the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, group protection is likely to continue as the diocese is reconstituted.

[21] Posted by EmilyH on 12-16-2007 at 06:43 AM • top

Just a few comments to EmilyH’s incessant fear-mongering:
1.  COBRA-like extension is available to you for most health insurance plans even though COBRA does not apply to church organizations.  All you have to do is ask.  There has likely been a plan put in place for the diocese of SJ to cover health insurance going forward; I know this is true of CANA district clergy.  Anyone out there in DSJ-land like to comment about the health/medical plan moving forward?
2.  I don’t think bishop Schofield is worried about his pension, unlike some bishops who put money in front of godly leadership.  Thankfully his pension contributions up until the date of his separation from TEC is protected by law.
3.  There are lots of pension and 401k options available to you in any new situation.  If this is your #1 concern - getting an equivalent payout in your pension to what the Church Pension Fund could offer you, you might be in the wrong line of work.
4.  Young clergy don’t ‘lose everything’.  If you’ve been in the system for less than 5 years you lose your vesting in the CPF pension but that can be made up (and more) by other savings and contributed plans later on with some relatively painless financial planning.

Emily would like it to sound like you should never leave the mother ship because your financial lives would be in peril.  That is clearly not true (much as she would like it to be) and moreover your spiritual lives will be much better off anyway.

[22] Posted by anglicanhopeful on 12-16-2007 at 09:53 AM • top

Emily is correct that the COBRA does not require religious organizations to provide transitional health insurance. As a small business owner, I would provide it anyway. I would do the right thing even if not required by law. Sad that the diocese of Colorado pharisees do not feel the same way.

[23] Posted by robroy on 12-16-2007 at 10:14 AM • top

“Some trust in chariots, some trust in horses*, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.” 
Psalm 20:7

*(pensions, COBRA, polity, canons, lobbyists, press releases, lawyers…)

“Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the LORD Almighty.”  Zechariah 4:6

“But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” Matthew 6:33

[24] Posted by Cathy_Lou on 12-16-2007 at 10:25 AM • top

anglicanhopeful and robroy - thank you for the clarification.  If Emily H. wasn’t a Christian, I would think she was a really mean spirited person.  On another note, her misinformation reminds me of when I was in a TEC church and we were searching for a priest.  The deployment officer (I used to call her loose Canon - although she wasn’t ordained and I don’t know how you an be a Canon without being ordained, but then NH has a bishop who is in violation of canonical law) insisted we could not ask any candidate their sexual orientation b/c of federal law.  Well, in fact, religious institutions are exempt from that federal law.  But the Vestry wouldn’t listen to me, (even though the information was given to me via an attorney who had researched the issue) it was more important to them to bow to the Gods of TEC. So, as usual, TEC uses the law when it benefits them and throws it out when it doesn’t - just like it does with canonical law.

[25] Posted by no longer NH Episcopalian on 12-16-2007 at 11:09 AM • top

Emily is correct that the COBRA does not require religious organizations to provide transitional health insurance. As a small business owner, I would provide it anyway. I would do the right thing even if not required by law. Sad that the diocese of Colorado pharisees do not feel the same way.

I agree it is sad that religious organizations can act even more petty than secular society. These laws were created because some folks were money-grubbing and petty, I think it speaks volumne about character of how you Robroy use your exemption and how +Colorado used his. Sad when the world shows more charity than a religious organization.

[26] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 12-16-2007 at 11:19 AM • top

I wonder if Ruth Gledhill will be able to keep her insurance once EmilyH gets her fired.

[27] Posted by James Manley on 12-16-2007 at 11:36 AM • top

EmilyH,
“Young Clergy” is almost an oxymoron in TEC
Besides that point, vesting of pension has nothing to do with whether or not one is of more youthful age.  Pension has to do with when one is ordained, whether “young”, or more like the national average of age at ordination which is around 45.
Your comment about what you “saw”, presumably an attempt at being slightly derogatory, is indicative of the entire denomination, and not only TEC, but other mainlines, too.
It was an unnecessary jibe.

[28] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 12-16-2007 at 04:50 PM • top

There are many clergy who are 15 years into it and are sacrificing a great deal. Instead of retiring at 65, they are looking at delaying their retirement now. In this, they have acted heroically in their vote to realign. For this, we should be very grateful and hold them up.

[29] Posted by robroy on 12-16-2007 at 05:20 PM • top

Emily is correct that the COBRA does not require religious organizations to provide transitional health insurance. As a small business owner, I would provide it anyway. I would do the right thing even if not required by law. Sad that the diocese of Colorado pharisees do not feel the same way.

Pathetic, isn’t it, when a “church” can’t even come up to the standards of business in capitalism.

[30] Posted by sanjuan on 12-16-2007 at 05:36 PM • top

even more pathetic when a church can’t demonstrate any morals or scruples.

[31] Posted by no longer NH Episcopalian on 12-16-2007 at 05:56 PM • top

Did I miss something?  What is “the tongue lashing” that Bishop Schofield gave?

[32] Posted by no longer NH Episcopalian on 12-16-2007 at 08:00 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.