By now you must be aware that the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin is meeting for the second (actually the third time) since the split. A couple of parishes have now rejoined us (TEC diocese of San Joaquin) which will make this an interesting convention. In addition, we have one of the illustrious Communion Partner Rectors in this diocese as well. If you do not remember who the Communion Partners are look them up on the web at www.communionpartners.org. There you will find our own Rev. Rob Eaton. These are the folks who think they can be Episcopalian and not live by the constitution canons and prayerbook of TEC. With this cast of characters located in the heart of the "get us out of the United Nations" territory we have the following three resolutions:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dfc_attachments/public/documents/421/ResolutionR-09-01EqualityCommission.pdf
This resolution continues the Equality Commission from our first formal convention in which the delegates, tired of John David Schofield's mean-spiritedness authorized the beginnings of a change to reconcile those previously marginalized including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender persons, women, and various ethnic communities. Unfortunately the handicapped are still not included, at least not in this resolution. Father Rob Eaton and the gang from the Communion Partners tried to gut this resolution when it hit the floor by providing a substitute resolution but it did not work. Their representative to this commission quit in a huge huff. Should be exciting.
Then there is this one:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dfc_attachments/public/documents/424/ResolutionR-09-04AffirmD025.pdf
This is a resolution to affirm the GC Resolution D025.
Then there is this resolution:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dfc_attachments/public/documents/425/ResolutionR-09-05AffirmC056.pdf
which affirms the General Convention Resolution C056.
Please pray for the convention delegates because these issues are so very important and we are such a fledgling diocese and 10 things can go wrong and 9 of them are not very good.
More as things unfold. Check back beginning on Friday night.
A Place for Discussion
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Convention Daze
[Delegates for the 50th Annual Convention are showing up early this year.]
It is that time of the year again! Yep, the 50th Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin wi8ll begin Friday Night! The nugget hidden within the three days is meant to be the visioning process. This will be something akin to "What do we want to be when we grow up?", or at least an answer to that question. That will occur on Saturday. Friday night will be a friendly get together with goodies and of course a little nectar. Along with that will be the vendors row and a series of workshops. along with "Where are we Now" and "Episcopal Health and Pension Benefits" will be "Education for Ministry". Friday night will be interesting but the main business will be done on Saturday. A couple of issues will be up for discussion including a report by a commission on the marginalization of many groups including LGBT and handicapped groups. What has been done in the past and what we ought to be doing. Also, from a practical standpoint, I think we will get a glimpse of what a "shared diocesan administration" might look like. Saturday night we will have an evening repast accompanied by a report from General Convention delegates on GC 2009, that should spark some interest!
I will try to post from the convention floor, or balcony or sidewalk or street corner depending on how close some folks will let me get to the action.
Keep watch as this may be an interesting second go-around for us. We have many issues that will begin to collide inclduing the first couple of groups back from "the dead" as it were. Yes, we have had two parishes return to the fold and will have full voting rights for this convention. This action should make for some interesting discussions on the floor!
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Nothin' from Nothin' Leaves Vatican
Well, something is amiss. Everybody is talking about the "opportunity" to have an ordinariate within the Roman Catholic Church. As Fr. Mark points out,
"This process is presented as part of the ecumenical hope for the reunion of Christians into one body, but it really is that hope made a dream, the Roman dream that all Christians might finally return to one church, the Roman Catholic Church. It is a dream of the past, not of the future. The ecumenical hope is not reunion with Rome, but reunion with one another in Christ. This thing is no part of it."
Here is the first verse:
Ode To Pope Benedict
Nothin' from nothin' leaves the Vatican
You gotta have somethin'
If you wanna be with me
Nothin' from nothin' leaves the Vaticn
You gotta have something
If you wanna be with Benny
We have done this to ourselves. Yes, because we, the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, were unable to use the process of reflective and prayerful consensus effectively we now have choices like:
1, be devoured by ACNA,
2, be devoured by the Roman Church, or
3, drift into oblivion.
All really great choices folks. I would like to start by thanking my clergy, particularly the deposed bishop and his cronies for a major portion of this screw up. We could have sat in convention and when faced with difficult decisions prayed and then returned to discussion. What's that you say, that would never work? Well I have been on at least 3 different vestries that worked on prayerful consensus and it ALWAYS worked!
Then I would like to thank the current clergy and power structure of the Episcopal Church and more specifically the now, Archbishop of Canterbury (and the entire Anglican communion), soon to be priest in charge. Faced with devastating issues in multiple diocese, San Joaquin, Forth Worth, Pittsburgh, etc. as well as worldwide issues and challenges from small-minded, narrow thinking, petty little men, we have seemed to flounder and stumble through at least the beginnings of these times allowing the "ship" to drift aimlessly -- at least for a while, and we have never recovered (yet) from that drift. As a result, the Roman Church has seen our folly and "come to our rescue".
Next, let's thank ARCIC (both Roman and Anglican) for leaving us hanging with but one more issue to resolve. It would have been so simple for the ARCIC to simply agree to bring the Anglican Communion on board as a "Rite" such as the Coptics. We could have been the "English Rite" and been reunited in a heart beat (and on an equal footing) but, we began to fight publicly. Oh and, no one has the guts to deal with the Pope. Talk about the elephant in the room. Read Garry Wills. There weren't just bad popes, there were evil popes, there were popes who bought the office, who were married into the office and who gained the office by birth(?). Now, the one stumbling block becomes the vehicle by which we are "saved"?
So, here is the next verse:
I'm not tryin' to be your hero
'Cause that zero is too cold for me, Brrr
I'm not tryin' to be your highness
'Cause that minus is too low to see, yeah
So the arm that is outstreatched has a poison apple in it -- All one needs to do is take a bite -- and sleep for the rest of your life!
Nothin' from nothin' leaves the Vatican
And I'm not stuffin'
Believe you me
Don't you remember I told ya
I'm a soldier in the war for oppression, yeah
Yes, I am
Well, here ya go:
So, here we sit. Shall we just take a bite and end it all or shall we get serious and begin to resolve what ails us, build on our strengths and step out in faith. We are certainly, as I believe the Episcopal Church is certainly, overdue!
"This process is presented as part of the ecumenical hope for the reunion of Christians into one body, but it really is that hope made a dream, the Roman dream that all Christians might finally return to one church, the Roman Catholic Church. It is a dream of the past, not of the future. The ecumenical hope is not reunion with Rome, but reunion with one another in Christ. This thing is no part of it."
Here is the first verse:
Ode To Pope Benedict
Nothin' from nothin' leaves the Vatican
You gotta have somethin'
If you wanna be with me
Nothin' from nothin' leaves the Vaticn
You gotta have something
If you wanna be with Benny
We have done this to ourselves. Yes, because we, the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, were unable to use the process of reflective and prayerful consensus effectively we now have choices like:
1, be devoured by ACNA,
2, be devoured by the Roman Church, or
3, drift into oblivion.
All really great choices folks. I would like to start by thanking my clergy, particularly the deposed bishop and his cronies for a major portion of this screw up. We could have sat in convention and when faced with difficult decisions prayed and then returned to discussion. What's that you say, that would never work? Well I have been on at least 3 different vestries that worked on prayerful consensus and it ALWAYS worked!
Then I would like to thank the current clergy and power structure of the Episcopal Church and more specifically the now, Archbishop of Canterbury (and the entire Anglican communion), soon to be priest in charge. Faced with devastating issues in multiple diocese, San Joaquin, Forth Worth, Pittsburgh, etc. as well as worldwide issues and challenges from small-minded, narrow thinking, petty little men, we have seemed to flounder and stumble through at least the beginnings of these times allowing the "ship" to drift aimlessly -- at least for a while, and we have never recovered (yet) from that drift. As a result, the Roman Church has seen our folly and "come to our rescue".
Next, let's thank ARCIC (both Roman and Anglican) for leaving us hanging with but one more issue to resolve. It would have been so simple for the ARCIC to simply agree to bring the Anglican Communion on board as a "Rite" such as the Coptics. We could have been the "English Rite" and been reunited in a heart beat (and on an equal footing) but, we began to fight publicly. Oh and, no one has the guts to deal with the Pope. Talk about the elephant in the room. Read Garry Wills. There weren't just bad popes, there were evil popes, there were popes who bought the office, who were married into the office and who gained the office by birth(?). Now, the one stumbling block becomes the vehicle by which we are "saved"?
So, here is the next verse:
I'm not tryin' to be your hero
'Cause that zero is too cold for me, Brrr
I'm not tryin' to be your highness
'Cause that minus is too low to see, yeah
So the arm that is outstreatched has a poison apple in it -- All one needs to do is take a bite -- and sleep for the rest of your life!
Nothin' from nothin' leaves the Vatican
And I'm not stuffin'
Believe you me
Don't you remember I told ya
I'm a soldier in the war for oppression, yeah
Yes, I am
Well, here ya go:
So, here we sit. Shall we just take a bite and end it all or shall we get serious and begin to resolve what ails us, build on our strengths and step out in faith. We are certainly, as I believe the Episcopal Church is certainly, overdue!
Friday, October 16, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Mullins - San Joaquin - Bishops
Mullins in his deposition in Fort Worth (he also submitted a similar document in the San Joaquin case) establishes The Episcopal Church as a hierarchical church. Much has been made of this by the orthodites but the fact remains, The Episcopal Church is a hierarchical church. The General convention, the Constitution, the canons and the Book of common Prayer are THE KEYS to the TEC kingdom.
Much these days is being written about bishops. See Father Jake's post or Preludium At Father Jake's place he asks about "your impressions of bishops". Here, we are going to do a little more than that.
William White, in his writings really questioned the need for a bishop. Initially at least he leaned toward the concept that bishops were superfluous at best and a hindrance at worst. White, in his work The Case of The Episcopal Churches Considered was the chief architect of the House of Deputies, i.e., legislative body that included laity. Keep in mind that the first convention actually met without bishops. Fortunately, or unfortunately, it was the Connecticut church that insisted on an episcopacy. It was their movement that culminated with the consecration of Seabury by Bishops in Scotland. After that, the bicameral legislature of the General convention was established with the House of Bishops.
So we have Bishops and they have a significant say in what goes on. They are, subject to the following," to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church" and "to share with [his or her] fellow bishops in the government of the whole church". Here is a question I have: How did we get from a "pastor to the pastors" to running a national church? What classes in seminary do they take to make them particularly gifted in governance? What classes do they take that make them particularly gifted in administration? Are most bishops selected for their "pastoral abilities" ? We go from gee we need a bishop to handing over the keys to the car? Let's look at a couple of these.
The now bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin spent more time in the last 4 or 5 years outside the diocese than inside. He worried less about pastoring to the clergy, his primary job, to "wordsmithing" fraudulent corporate documents (The Protestant Episcopal Church In the United States of America, articles of incorporation). He stacked the clergy inside the diocese of San Joaquin and just what classes and what experiences made him qualified to do personnel selections?
How about the esteemed +John Guernsey? Wanted to be bishop so bad he could taste it. The perceived power, the real power, the ability to flaunt and to be arrogant are hard to pass up for some folks. He simply took advantage of the opportunities presented to become a "powerful person" in the church.
Now, from personal experience I grew up with at least one bishop. A Maryknoll that was focused on one thing, pastoring to the millions of folks who needed it. He was quiet, unassuming, and a blessing from God. So yes, I do know bishops that are everything they are supposed to be.
So, let's par down to a lot fewer bishops and let's make the position a servant-leader position as opposed to what it is today. Perhaps, since some folks like "numbers" one bishop per state. That ought to keep them all busy all day every day. Secondly, let's relegate the House of Bishops to a lessor status and elevate the House of Deputies to a more influential status with more lay participation. Bishops should be pastors to the clergy, let the regular priests do confirmations and the likes, let the bishops take care of the clergy. Let parishes hire and fire clergy without any consent from the bishop. Let the General Convention take care of the rest.
Much these days is being written about bishops. See Father Jake's post or Preludium At Father Jake's place he asks about "your impressions of bishops". Here, we are going to do a little more than that.
William White, in his writings really questioned the need for a bishop. Initially at least he leaned toward the concept that bishops were superfluous at best and a hindrance at worst. White, in his work The Case of The Episcopal Churches Considered was the chief architect of the House of Deputies, i.e., legislative body that included laity. Keep in mind that the first convention actually met without bishops. Fortunately, or unfortunately, it was the Connecticut church that insisted on an episcopacy. It was their movement that culminated with the consecration of Seabury by Bishops in Scotland. After that, the bicameral legislature of the General convention was established with the House of Bishops.
So we have Bishops and they have a significant say in what goes on. They are, subject to the following," to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church" and "to share with [his or her] fellow bishops in the government of the whole church". Here is a question I have: How did we get from a "pastor to the pastors" to running a national church? What classes in seminary do they take to make them particularly gifted in governance? What classes do they take that make them particularly gifted in administration? Are most bishops selected for their "pastoral abilities" ? We go from gee we need a bishop to handing over the keys to the car? Let's look at a couple of these.
The now bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin spent more time in the last 4 or 5 years outside the diocese than inside. He worried less about pastoring to the clergy, his primary job, to "wordsmithing" fraudulent corporate documents (The Protestant Episcopal Church In the United States of America, articles of incorporation). He stacked the clergy inside the diocese of San Joaquin and just what classes and what experiences made him qualified to do personnel selections?
How about the esteemed +John Guernsey? Wanted to be bishop so bad he could taste it. The perceived power, the real power, the ability to flaunt and to be arrogant are hard to pass up for some folks. He simply took advantage of the opportunities presented to become a "powerful person" in the church.
Now, from personal experience I grew up with at least one bishop. A Maryknoll that was focused on one thing, pastoring to the millions of folks who needed it. He was quiet, unassuming, and a blessing from God. So yes, I do know bishops that are everything they are supposed to be.
So, let's par down to a lot fewer bishops and let's make the position a servant-leader position as opposed to what it is today. Perhaps, since some folks like "numbers" one bishop per state. That ought to keep them all busy all day every day. Secondly, let's relegate the House of Bishops to a lessor status and elevate the House of Deputies to a more influential status with more lay participation. Bishops should be pastors to the clergy, let the regular priests do confirmations and the likes, let the bishops take care of the clergy. Let parishes hire and fire clergy without any consent from the bishop. Let the General Convention take care of the rest.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Mullin's Deposition, The prayerbook and San Joaquin
Part II of our continuing discussion of the Mullins Deposition and its meaningfulness to the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin begins with the prayerbook. John David Schofield has on many occasions and in various public and private settings complained longly and loudly about the 1979 Prayerbook. Let's examine this complaint in light of the deposition given by Bruce Mullin. This deposition is available on Preludium and I urge you to read it all. I also encourage everyone to read The History of the Episcopal Church by Manross.
Mullins states,
Then Bishop John David Schofield comes along, some 20 to 30 years later and says he personally has significant issues with the Book of Common Prayer. During the last four or so years before the schismatic move JDS he railed on three major issues: Women's Ordination; LGBT full inclusion, and the errant Book of Common Prayer. The prayerbook creates uniformity in worship. Apparently JDS did not like the uniformity and so, lo and behold the GAFCON people adopt the 1662 prayerbook as their official Book of Common Prayer. In effect, not only does he reject a major governing document established from the beginning of the Episcopal Church (1789) but rejects the American Revolution and goes back to swearing allegiance to the crown of England!
Can a bishop do this? Can a bishop that does this stay a bishop in the United States? Does this person now fall under the Patriot Act? These are all questions that will be answered in the near future.
Folks in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin -- is this what you wanted to do?
Mullins states,
"The General Convention meets at least once every three years to establish the policies, rules, and programs of the Church. It has adopted and from time to time amends the Church's governing documents, its Constitution, canons, and Book of Common Prayer."Further in Mullin talks about the ability of any diocese to use a proposed/revised Book of Common Prayer only until such time as the First General Convention. Clearly the Book of Common Prayer is one of the governing documents of The Episcopal Church in the United States of America.
Then Bishop John David Schofield comes along, some 20 to 30 years later and says he personally has significant issues with the Book of Common Prayer. During the last four or so years before the schismatic move JDS he railed on three major issues: Women's Ordination; LGBT full inclusion, and the errant Book of Common Prayer. The prayerbook creates uniformity in worship. Apparently JDS did not like the uniformity and so, lo and behold the GAFCON people adopt the 1662 prayerbook as their official Book of Common Prayer. In effect, not only does he reject a major governing document established from the beginning of the Episcopal Church (1789) but rejects the American Revolution and goes back to swearing allegiance to the crown of England!
Can a bishop do this? Can a bishop that does this stay a bishop in the United States? Does this person now fall under the Patriot Act? These are all questions that will be answered in the near future.
Folks in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin -- is this what you wanted to do?
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Mullins Deposition: San Joaquin Style
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)