Thursday, September 2, 2010

Welcome to Stand Firm!

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

Titusonenine: Bishop Schofield responds to KJS’ requests for clarity

Saturday, December 22, 2007 • 9:37 am


read it here

...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 communique 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

...more

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

Absolutely clear, to the point and unambiguous. How very
un-Episcopalian.

the snarkster

[1] Posted by the snarkster on 12-22-2007 at 10:03 AM • top

I love it!  Differentiation sufficient to satisfy those of us who are orthodox yet still in the game…I wish my diocese would take such bold action…any bold action…any action at all.

[2] Posted by johnp on 12-22-2007 at 10:15 AM • top

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.

In his address before Common Cause on December 18, Kendell Harmon has requested that we all make our decisions ‘tentatively.’  Bishop Schofield’s response is irenic and non-confrontational, allowing for his diocese to realign with TEC once ‘conditions on the ground’ improve.

I think +Schofield’s response is perfect.

[3] Posted by selah on 12-22-2007 at 10:29 AM • top

Well done, bishop.  Pray his health allows him to attend Lambeth.

Peace,

[4] Posted by miserable sinner on 12-22-2007 at 10:37 AM • top

Talk to the hand -KJS

[5] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 12-22-2007 at 02:34 PM • top

TEC Issues Another Ad

Well, we’ve gone and done it.  Been watching too many Merchant Ivory-followed-by-Clint Eastwood movies latest, but there we are.

Another Dramatic Reading at BabyBlue.

bb
BabyBlueOnline

PS We’ve linked to SF.  Thanks you guys.

[6] Posted by BabyBlue on 12-22-2007 at 03:10 PM • top

Some are intentionally misreading +Bp Schofield’s letter. He is Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, now a part of the Province of the Southern Cone. This is a temporary state of affairs. Should the situation in TEC change such that the Diocese of San Joaquin decide to rejoin TEC, and should the TEC invite the Diocese to rejoin, then +Bishop Schofield will again be a Bishop in TEC.

In the meantime, he is the Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, a Diocese of the Province of the Southern Cone, with ArchBishop Venables Primate. The facts on the ground are that there is no Diocese of San Joaquin in TEC, and Schori can no more depose him than the Pope can depose Schori. He is beyond her control and authority.

[7] Posted by BillS on 12-23-2007 at 08:41 AM • top

Does the expression “fudge” ring any bells?

[8] Posted by Lapinbizarre on 12-23-2007 at 09:35 AM • top

Yes, isn’t it THE word for TEC - with nuts, I understand.

Thank goodness the good Bishop has decided to keep out of it.

[9] Posted by Eclipse on 12-23-2007 at 09:42 AM • top

Apparently, based on several of the interrogative comments on this short thread, some of the commenters are either illiterate, or have some other problem which prevents them reading and comprehending a missive composed in ordinary English.wink Rather bizarre, if I may be permitted the observation.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[10] Posted by H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on 12-24-2007 at 01:54 AM • top

[comment deleted—StandFirm does not accept advertisements for revisionist web sites; reasserters are welcome to inquire about advertisement space from the webmaster]

[11] Posted by Sophia on 12-24-2007 at 11:26 AM • top

[comment deleted—off topic, through no fault of his own since responding to an off-topic advertising link above; revisionists should get their own blogs if they desire more traffic to revisionist blogs]

[12] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 12-24-2007 at 11:45 AM • top

Why should +Schofield define his TEC status for 815?  His diocese disaffiliated itself from TEC and he went with them.  He considers it a provisional measure until TEC’s heretical actions and teachings are repented of and corrected.  Let Kate, Louie and Dave sort it out…do they want to kick +JDS out for good or do they want to return to the fold and welcome him back in?

[13] Posted by Jeffersonian on 12-24-2007 at 11:56 AM • top

Anthony and Mad Potter,

Shouldn’t you two be getting made-up for your liturgical dance performance this evening?

[14] Posted by JimmyMac on 12-24-2007 at 12:05 PM • top

RE: “Martial Artist, your mother must be real proud that you can use the word “interrogative” in a sentence . . . “

Hmm.  Wonder why this is so special.

Guessing that in revisionist families mothers have children with limited vocabulary, since in reasserting families it’s not a particularly special world!

You learn something new about “the other” every day, I guess.

But despite our differences, I also wish you a Merry Christmas!

[15] Posted by Sarah on 12-24-2007 at 12:20 PM • top

RE: “this is nothing short of bizarre…”

Even more bizarre is the thought that the good bishop expresses that TEC might return to the faith and repent of their false gospel.

But I guess that is why he’s a bishop . . . people as holy as that often are touchingly hopeful and non-cynical.

[16] Posted by Sarah on 12-24-2007 at 12:22 PM • top

Probably, Martial Artist’s mom was more proud when he got his MD rather than when he used the word “interogative”. Interogative? Hardly, sesquipedalian. I would add a Merry Christmas to Mad Potter as well.

[17] Posted by robroy on 12-24-2007 at 12:27 PM • top

Hardly, sesquipedalian.

I’ll say!

- Moot
(Unsure if his own antidisestablishmentarian heritage)

[18] Posted by Moot on 12-24-2007 at 01:06 PM • top

[comment deleted—off topic; you’ll need to find another way to get the news out, Sophia—this post is about Bishop Schofield’s letter to KJS]

[19] Posted by Sophia on 12-24-2007 at 01:42 PM • top

[comment deleted—commenter, through no fault of his own, is responding to an off-topic comment]

[20] Posted by oscewicee on 12-24-2007 at 01:50 PM • top

Sophia, please cease mis-using StandFirm in order to get whatever story you are trying to get out to your audience.

This is a warning.  There will be no further warnings on this or any other thread.

Thanks.

[21] Posted by Sarah on 12-24-2007 at 01:55 PM • top

Wrong as you are, Mad Potter, thank you for staying on topic.

[22] Posted by Sarah on 12-24-2007 at 01:57 PM • top

[comment deleted—off topic]

[23] Posted by Sophia on 12-24-2007 at 01:57 PM • top

[comment deleted—through no fault of his own, commenter responding to off-topic comment]

[24] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 12-24-2007 at 02:00 PM • top

My apologies for the apparently off-topic remarks. As there is no discussion at all on this site of the situation I’ll not mention again, it seemed that this might be the most appropriate place. I’ll wait until the managers of Stand Firm choose to open the appropriate topic and comment there.

In the meantime, Merry Christmas! And Happy New Year! And a most blessed Epiphany!

[25] Posted by Sophia on 12-24-2007 at 02:08 PM • top

Sarah, You are welcome…Now once again, what part of….. he quit the Episcopal Church and joined another province…am I not getting.

+Schofield’s diocese disaffiliated with TEC and he went along with it.  +JDS considers it a temporary measure, to be reversed if and when TEC repents of its apostasy.  So, MP, the answer to the Presiding Plaintiff’s inquiry is to be found within her and her House of Bishops.

[26] Posted by Jeffersonian on 12-24-2007 at 03:13 PM • top

Does one automatically give up membership in one’s own Province when one provides alternative episcopal oversight to a diocese in another?

[27] Posted by James Manley on 12-24-2007 at 04:31 PM • top

MP: Merry Christmas!  I hope you enjoy tracking Santa this evening.

As to the more minor point at hand, I think this line:

Furthermore, I understood the Convention’s actions as a request that I provide episcopal oversight of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin

implies that +JDS is making exactly an AEO case.

+JDS is providing episcopal oversight to a Southern Cone diocese.  Does that mean that he has left his own province to do so?  That’s not a rhetorical question—I think that is an open question to be decided at some point in the future.  It just seems to me that this is +JDS’ answer to +Schori’s question—he seems to say “The diocese I previously served left and asked me to provide oversight.  So you tell me—does that mean I left the TEC HoB to do so?”

[28] Posted by James Manley on 12-24-2007 at 05:26 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.