Interestingly enough the Mullins Deposition published by Father Mark Harris over at Preludium is not identical to the document submitted to the California Courts. Well, it is in substance but the length of the deposition submitted here was quite different (longer) than the one submitted in Fort Worth. The Mullins document (document will be used to distinguish the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin submission from the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth [deposition]) was used in the move to summary judgement sought and won by the EDSJ. My best guess is that in each diocese that is under attack the Mullins document/deposition will take on the flavor of the diocese, i.e., it will meet the unique needs of that Episcopal diocese but the sum and substance will remain the same. It is that sum and substance that I will address in this series of articles.
What exactly do I mean by sum and substance? Well, I do not wish to take on the historical nature of the document as much as I would like to address the issues raised by the now infamous Mr. John David Mercer Schofield. I wish to address the history, recent history of this diocese and its actions based on the issues raised by the wannabe Anglicans (far as I know they are not accepted as part of the Anglican Communion even though they think they are). In other words, I will track the deposition and the actions of TEC and then compare them to the actions of John David Schofield and his minions in what is now some far fetched church that claims to be in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury but has not been recognized as such.
So, let's begin with the entire document. The document describes in excruciating detail the history and corresponding legacy of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. It speaks to the General Convention, the Canons and the Constitution and the prayer Book. It discusses every aspect of the life and times of the Episcopal Church in the United States. It provides clear rationale for every action generally contested by those who would tear apart the fabric of The Episcopal Church.
The major opening point to be made here in the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin is that despite the determination to ordain women years ago JDS refused to do so. This did not lead to much of anything on either side of the aisle BUT when The Episcopal Church elected a female Presiding Bishop, suddenly, he and his cronies just had to leave. Make no mistake and do not be mislead by what one says. What one says and what one does are two very different things. He/They say the issue is one of moral issues having to do with LGBT but nothing ever really happened until ++Schori was elected. The fact is there are a group of men in our church that just cannot take orders from women and they will go to great lengths to avoid it. Before, JDS and cronies said all sorts of things but that was under Frank Griswold. They parried but never did anything seriously. Suddenly, after ++Schori's election, the "issues" become too great and they MUST leave. keep in mind that the issue of sexual orientation was decided in 1994! But, they MUST leave now, after the election of a women. Methinks ye doth protest too much Mr. Schofield, Mr. Duncan and Mr. Iker.
Much more later.