An ENS article on the Latest in San Joaquin

Posted by Kendall Harmon

A growing number of Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin are opting to remain within the Episcopal Church (TEC) as the Fresno-based diocese prepares for an anticipated March 29 special convention that would elect a provisional bishop.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, in a letter to be distributed via a new diocesan newspaper, notes the proposed convention date and reassures the people of the diocese that work is ongoing "to ensure that you and your fellow Episcopalians may continue to bless the communities around you well into the future."

"I anticipate convening a Special Diocesan Convention on 29 March, at which you will elect new diocesan leaders, and begin to make provision for episcopal leadership for the next year or so," Jefferts Schori writes. "That gathering will be an opportunity to answer questions you may have, as well as to hear about plans for the renewal of mission and ministry in the Diocese of San Joaquin."

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalEpiscopal Church (TEC)TEC ConflictsTEC Conflicts: San Joaquin

47 Comments
Posted February 29, 2008 at 5:16 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. jamesw wrote:

The list at the end of the ENS article tells you all you need to know about how broad the support is for TEC’s new “Diocese of Remain Episicopal”.  How will this group hope to fund a bishop and diocesan structure?

February 29, 7:25 pm | [comment link]
2. Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) wrote:

17 congregations who have opted to remain with TEC

Last time I looked at the Remain Episcopal website they were claiming seven churches, plus a scattering of outlier worship groups and St. Nicholas. Have they since added nine churches and not updated the website?

February 29, 7:38 pm | [comment link]
3. robroy wrote:

Mousetalker, I am sure it is the usual find a handful of disgruntled and call it the parish faithful.

February 29, 7:54 pm | [comment link]
4. Little Cabbage wrote:

robroy, you focussed on exactly the correct question:  How did 815 determine the ‘17’ congregations?

Anyone have an insight?  Those who know the ‘facts on the ground’ should report in.  Thanks.

February 29, 8:49 pm | [comment link]
5. TLDillon wrote:

St. Nicholas I think is in process of being non-existant! So, who might this “Provisional bishop????” be?????
Nedi Rivera?????...he! he! he! WOW! Good luck with that!

February 29, 9:21 pm | [comment link]
6. TLDillon wrote:

There is
1. St. Nicholas, Atwater (almost dead)
2. Avery, St. Clare of Assisi
3. Holy Family Fresno
*St. Columba, Fresno (????)
4. Church of the Savior, Hanford
5. St. John’s, Lodi
*St. Paul’s, Modesto (????)
6. Christ the King, Riverbank
7. St. Matthew, San Andreas
8. St. Anne’s, Stockton
*St. John’s, Stockton (????)
*St. John’s, Tulare (????)
*St. Paul’s, Visalia (????)
There arre approx. 32 churches left in the diocese that are with the bishop in the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. So those above even with the asterix if they decide to sat with TEC, still doesn’t make 17 churches! Adnsome of those above may have debt owed to the diocese and are in mission status so that must account for something as well!

February 29, 9:37 pm | [comment link]
7. Cennydd wrote:

If any mission or parish owes money to the diocese, they cannot leave without Bishop Schofield’s written permission.  I doubt they’d get it.

February 29, 10:11 pm | [comment link]
8. TLDillon wrote:

You are very correct Cennydd! And I think that those that are still in discernment that finally decide to go with TEC still need to let the Bishop know as well!

February 29, 10:18 pm | [comment link]
9. Vintner wrote:

If any mission or parish owes money to the diocese, they cannot leave without Bishop Schofield’s written permission.  I doubt they’d get it.

Heh.  As if Schofield has any such authority over these churches…as if Schofield will soon retain any official standing in his diocese…as if Schofield will soon retain his bishopric in the Episcopal Church…  Oh, Cennyd, that one was rich…

You are very correct Cennydd! And I think that those that are still in discernment that finally decide to go with TEC still need to let the Bishop know as well!

Or not.

February 29, 11:25 pm | [comment link]
10. Sue Martinez wrote:

Don’t forget that TEC has a devious way of counting parishes that no longer belong to it.  My parish is one of the Los Angeles Three that left in 2004.  Our information and statistics can still be found on the diocesan and national websites as if we had never left, with the numbers for 2003 copied across. (That also means that the membership for the entire Los Angeles diocese is being overstated by about 1,000.)  As far as we know, those in our parish that claim to still be Episcopalian number two—the very ones in whose names we’re being sued for the property.

March 1, 12:49 am | [comment link]
11. remaining wrote:

OneDayCloser, personally I think your question of the count is right.  It’s gotta include some of the new starts that RE posted like in Turlock, Bakersfield, etc.  But it Still doesn’t add up.  Some of us are wondering what’s goin’ on.
I redid your count, though, kinda more chrono, and added a comment or two.  I checked on Stockton, too.

There is for sure
1. Holy Family, Fresno (rector R.E.)
2. St. Anne’s, Stockton (rector R.E.)
3. St. John’s, Lodi (big debt, and interim after Ric Matters left)
4. Christ the King, Riverbank (not sure if rector sees himself as R.E., or not)
5. St. Matthew, San Andreas (rector R.E.)
6. Church of the Savior, Hanford (other issues not related to R.E., reasserter interim)

7. Avery, St. Clare of Assisi (not a parish)
8. St. Nicholas, Atwater (folks “in exile”)

but I don’t think these guys have been counted—
*St. Columba, Fresno (????) - reasserter, “discerning”
*St. Paul’s, Modesto (????) -    ”      ,    “
*St. Paul’s, Visalia (????) -      ”      ,    “
*St. John’s, Tulare -          ”      ,    ”  (rector said WAY back he wasn’t leaving TEC, and i’m pretty sure I saw deputies vote against Southern Cone move)

and *St. John’s, Stockton (website says “St. John’s Anglican” - pretty sure they’re Southern Cone)

March 1, 2:17 am | [comment link]
12. Martin Reynolds wrote:

But there is no “Southern Cone” link - that would be expressly excluded by the principles the Southern Cone has enshrined in the articles that govern its association - No?

March 1, 6:59 am | [comment link]
13. DavidH wrote:

ODC, for those congregations that owe money to the diocese, the question will soon be “who’s the diocese?”—the +Schofield SC entity or the soon-to-be-formed Episcopal entity?

March 1, 8:51 am | [comment link]
14. Cennydd wrote:

St Nicholas’ Atwater has been in a precarious position for three or four years, and the last time I was there, I got the impression that not everyone was enthusiastic about the thought of remaining Episcopal.  This is a mission which is and always has been heavily dependent upon the diocese for financial support, and which is now in danger of being closed…..the alleged decision to remain with TEC notwithstanding.

March 1, 11:55 am | [comment link]
15. TLDillon wrote:

Remaining,
Your list is much better than mine. I am just a lay person with little knowledge but try very hard to keep up. I have brothers and sisters in all the chuches that I pray for all the time that in some RE churches are only staying because they have been there for so long, and the families have had events such a as weddings, baptisms, conformations, and family members intermed in the columbariums, etc… So, they compromise hugely with their own moral consciences weighing those above factors. My heart is heavy for them. I know a few of those churhes above that are in discrenment are coming very close to having their vestry vote on their decision soon.

DavidH,
Since we are incorporated and property laws here in CA. are far different than in the east or midwest, I have no worries of who the “mission churches” belong to. They belong to the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin! You and many may debate this all you want to, but in the end we shall see who had it more correct. You or we here in the San Joaquin!

March 1, 12:24 pm | [comment link]
16. Choir Stall wrote:

Comment deleted for unnecessary sarcasm.

March 1, 1:10 pm | [comment link]
17. John Wilkins wrote:

One split leads to lots of little splits.  I wonder what Bishop Schofield expected - that a vote would settle the matter and all the parishes would follow? 

I do appreciate that he is trying to save souls.  But until then, it looks like he’s just created lots of little civil wars.  And I imagine that this demonstrates how irrelevant we are to the secular world:  that our brotherhood doesn’t mean much to us.   

I suspect that Remain Episcopal will do well.  They’ll be energized.  They’ll have found a new connection with the Episcopal church.  And the schismatic virus will not be part of their DNA.

March 1, 4:08 pm | [comment link]
18. TLDillon wrote:

And the schismatic virus will not be part of their DNA.

No! They’ll just die out and off! At least Bp. Schofield accepted along with the diocese, some 32+ churches, to accept an invitation for temporary shelter from an Anglican Province in the Anglican Communion. Unlike those that will leave the diocese and affiliate with an AMiA or CANA continuing acronym that the See of Canterbury is not really recognising. Not that those affiliations are not good, they are so don’t get me wrong, but it sure leaves the churches that left more wide open to lawsuits by TEc and then there is that question of being recognized by Canterbury!

March 1, 4:15 pm | [comment link]
19. Vintner wrote:

Actually, it leaves all the churches that go with the Southern Cone, or the acronymn of your choice, wide open to lawsuits from TEC.  And none of the above, to my knowledge, is being recognized by Canterbury.  And isn’t this the month when the HOB will be meeting?  So once Schofield is officially deposed, none of the churches that wish to remain Episcopal will have to worry about any futher demands from his office.  And my prayer is that more and more of the churches that first voted “yes” will change their minds, much to the consternation of others.

March 1, 4:44 pm | [comment link]
20. Cennydd wrote:

Smuggs, read this:  The Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin is now part of the Anglican Province in the Southern Cone of the Americas, which is a recognized province of the Anglican Communion, and since this province IS recognized, that means that the See of Canterbury…..not necessarily ++Rowan himself, but the Office…..in effect…..recognizes the diocese, since our Archbishop, the Most Rev Gregory James Venables…..says that we are one of his dioceses.

May I suggest that you discuss this with him directly?

March 1, 6:18 pm | [comment link]
21. Cennydd wrote:

And as for our local congregation “changing its mind?”  Lotsa luck!

March 1, 6:19 pm | [comment link]
22. Cennydd wrote:

LittleCabbage, I have neither seen nor heard of anything in this diocese which substantiates TEC’s claim of 17 “congregations.”  Not a single thing!  And I’m very active in this diocese.

March 1, 6:23 pm | [comment link]
23. TLDillon wrote:

Ditto for us Cennydd. The cathedral has moved on and we aren’t lookin’ back…. only forward!

March 1, 6:23 pm | [comment link]
24. Cennydd wrote:

And with respect to our diocese’s being part of the Province of the Southern Cone, it does not make one bit of difference what Katherine Jefferts Schori has to say about it, since we and our bishop are not a part of The Episcopal Church.  Her ruminations about our actions being illegal and without foundation are meaningless, and she is wasting her breath.  We are legitimate, and TEC is apostate.

March 1, 7:15 pm | [comment link]
25. Choir Stall wrote:

OK, elf-folk, let me try this:
Now would be a good time for reappraisers (particularly some of the more vocal ones) to take the helm and lead parishes in the reconstituted diocese. They can show us what benefits occur when there is little to no opposition to their positions. I doubt that an opportunity like this should be let to pass by.

Good Save.

March 1, 7:41 pm | [comment link]
26. Vintner wrote:

The Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin is now part of the Anglican Province in the Southern Cone of the Americas, which is a recognized province of the Anglican Communion, and since this province IS recognized, that means that the See of Canterbury…..not necessarily ++Rowan himself, but the Office…..in effect…..recognizes the diocese, since our Archbishop, the Most Rev Gregory James Venables…..says that we are one of his dioceses.  May I suggest that you discuss this with him directly?

Cennyd, you’re too much!  Once Schofield is deposed this month by the HOB, I fully expect the ABC to withdraw his invitation and to grant unto the same status as Minns and the other bishops with the various initials.  Then what will you do?

March 1, 9:05 pm | [comment link]
27. TLDillon wrote:

Smuggs,
Won’t you be a great sight with egg on your face if he (Rowan) doesn’t disinvite our bishop! I woud pay money to see that picture of foul upon your face! smile
Be at peace as it won’t effect your life one way or the other Smuggs!

March 1, 9:15 pm | [comment link]
28. Vintner wrote:

Fowl, ODC, fowl ~ as in chicken fowl.  Or maybe you really meant it the other way…

All yolking aside, ask yourself this: how many of CANA’s bishops, who are serving in the USA, have been invited?  How many of Uganda’s bishop’s?  AmIA’s bishops?  At last count, that number was zip, zero, nada.  Now…why are you thinking that JDS is somehow different from them?  Because he already received an invitation when he was a non-inhibited TEC bishop?  But egads, what happens when he is deposed?  Well, let’s see, has any ABC invited any deposed bishop?  Probably not.  Oh, you will say, but he’s not deposed…he’s a card carrying bishop of the Southern Cone.  Then let’s go back and revisit those first questions again.  How many bishops under African rule who are serving in the US are being invited to Lambeth?  Zero…zip…nada.

Sunny side up!

March 1, 9:36 pm | [comment link]
29. TLDillon wrote:

Smuggs,
Thank you I meant FOWL!!!!! Just my charm!

Now for your clarification, we did not join AMiA. Nor did we join CANA. We are UNDER THE PROVINCE OF THE SOUTHERN CONE!!!!!
What part do you not understand! Deposed from TEc is merely a breathe of Fresh Air! smile But, since AB. Venables recognises him as a bishop in the Southern Cone not AMiA not CANA, but the PROVINCE OF THE SOUTERN CONE and all bishops in the PROVINCE OF THE SOUTHERN CONE are recognised then ....well…. you ask yourself the question! Andthat’s all I got say about that to you!

March 1, 9:45 pm | [comment link]
30. Vintner wrote:

Well, what good is it if you ask me a question and then say that that’s all you have to say?

I have asked myself that question and I’ll respond with a question myself: where are the bishops from AMiA and CANA from?  Mars?  What did the primates of Rwanda and Uganda (maybe Nigeria) say when those bishops weren’t invited?  (I’m paraphrasing here): “If all OUR bishops aren’t invited, then none of OUR bishops will attend.”  These acronym groups are from THEIR province.  They may be trying to start a new province in the good ol’ USA but, for now, they are under the authority of the provinces which sent them.

Now…all of the bishops of Nigeria (I think…I forget where the renegade foreign bishop who wasn’t invited is from) were recognized as bishops…but nope, Minns still hasn’t been invited…  So I don’t see how the argument of “bishop by association with the Southern Cone” applies when it doesn’t apply elsewhere.

March 1, 9:52 pm | [comment link]
31. TLDillon wrote:

Smuggs,
You have ears but do not listen. You have eyes but do not see. You have a brain but you only use one portion of it! We shall see just what is what very soon, won’t we?
Have a nice night!

March 1, 9:56 pm | [comment link]
32. Vintner wrote:

Thanks, I am having a nice night and hope you are too.

But you’re not responding to my response to your question as I laid it out.  Of COURSE you disagree with me.  Most of the time, I’ve come to expect that.  But don’t tell me about my ears, eyes, and brain which my doc says are fine.  Show me in the logic that I laid out where you think I am wrong and you think JDS’s invitation will not be rescinded.  Why does he get different treatment than other bishops associated with African provinces?  How is he different from them?  What would make the ABC say that the Southern Cone can officially take up resident in a province of another Anglican territory?

March 1, 10:00 pm | [comment link]
33. Vintner wrote:

RESIDENCE.  Dang, it’s catching.

March 1, 10:01 pm | [comment link]
34. Cennydd wrote:

Okay, now that all of this has been said, there are two more dioceses (possibly three or more) waiting to decide whether or not to affiliate with the Southern Cone.  If they do, that means that a couple of things could very well happen.  A.  Their bishops will certainly be deposed.  B.  They will still be bishops of the Anglican Communion, but in the Province of the Southern Cone of the Americas under Archbishop Venables.

It takes three dioceses to form a province, and three bishops to ordain and consecrate another bishop.  Those….now four….bishops can then choose one of their number to serve as the primate of a new province.  After that new province is publicly proclaimed and recognized by others of the Communion, Rowan Cantuar would look utterly foolish if he didn’t extend his personal recognition to them.  If the majority of the Communion chooses to recognize the new province, that would amount to schism of the highest order.

March 1, 10:31 pm | [comment link]
35. Vintner wrote:

  B.  They will still be bishops of the Anglican Communion, but in the Province of the Southern Cone of the Americas under Archbishop Venables.

Bishops, yes, but of the Anglican Communion?  How is one “recognized” as a bishop of the Anglican Communion if they are not recognized by the ABC?  Or are you proposing that the Anglican world is all of a sudden going to tell the ABC that he isn’t going to get to call the shots anymore?  In any case, it’s such a shame for those dioceses.  More American jobs going to foreign places…I would think you would be opposed to that, Cennyd.

After that new province is publicly proclaimed and recognized by others of the Communion, Rowan Cantuar would look utterly foolish if he didn’t extend his personal recognition to them.

Cennyd, can you share an instance where the Anglican Communion has allowed a province to be created inside another existing province?  Do you honestly believe that the MAJORITY of the Anglican Communion is going to go along with that?  Obviously, you do.  But I don’t know what you’re basing those numbers on.

March 1, 10:47 pm | [comment link]
36. PadreWayne wrote:

Umm…ODC #29…“and all bishops in the PROVINCE OF THE SOUTHERN CONE are recognised then”...isn’t there an invitation issue with the (Bishop) of Recife (now Southern Cone)?

March 1, 11:19 pm | [comment link]
37. TLDillon wrote:

Last time I post on this….
Bishop of Recife was already deposed when he went to the So. Cone, unlike Bishop Schofield who is not yet, and wasn’t at the time he went! It would certainly be an upset for many in the Anglican Communion, albeit not for yours and Smuggs side, if his invite was rescinded, but bottom line…if it is then there will be much hoopla from many on our side, if it isn’t then there will be much hoopla from the other side, that would be your side. But, if it isn’t rescended my gut tells me he won’t go anyway since he is going to GAFCON…... the place to be! smile
Good Night!

March 1, 11:28 pm | [comment link]
38. Cennydd wrote:

Smuggs, in answer to your question, the answer is:  Not yet, but there IS a first time…....and believe me, that first time is coming…....and sooner than you’d obviously like!  But don’t worry:  We’ll all pray for you.  Good night!

March 2, 1:20 am | [comment link]
39. Cennydd wrote:

Oh, and Smuggs…....Smug?  Perhaps your screen name gives you away.

March 2, 1:22 am | [comment link]
40. jamesw wrote:

John Wilkins - anyone who knows the situation in the new Diocese of Remain Episcopal in California, knows that this new diocese has virtually no chance at all of surviving as its own diocese.  It simply doesn’t have the money nor the people to make it economically feasible.  Naturally TEC will have to make a show of the DRE electing a new bishop, but nobody doubts that within a couple of years, the remaining parishes in the DRE will be folded into the surrounding dioceses.

Smuggs, Cennydd, ODC - for what it’s worth, I think that Rowan is likely to let the WCG make the decision as to whether JDS retains his invitation.  But I personally expect JDS’s invitation to be withdrawn.  But I don’t think that will really matter anymore.  Unless Rowan Williams takes firm action soon, the Anglican Communion as we know it will become a paper tiger for a period - remaining intact on paper, but in reality a Federation - while the liberal northern Provinces die out and the Global South Provinces mature in their increasing power.  in 10-20-30 years (God willing) the Global South will inherit the paper tiger and the orthodox Anglican Communion will live once more.

March 2, 1:43 am | [comment link]
41. TLDillon wrote:

#40 jamesw,
Why then wouldn’t Rowan just do it now? What is he waiting on, deposement from TEc? Either way he goes he comes off bad with one of the two camps! He is in a catch twenty-two situation. Oh well! As we have said before Bp. Schofield is going to GAFCON….that’s the real place to be! We here in teh Anglican Dioces of San Joaquin have moved on!

March 2, 2:32 am | [comment link]
42. remaining wrote:

One Day closer, jamesw,
This all seems so off the point of the post -  but anyway -
Bishop Schofield said at one of the deanery presentations that +Venables had given him teh choice to go to both if he wanted, both Lambeth and GAFCON.  I think he said he was planning to go to both.  That doesn’t answet the question of invitations!  But the bishop is thinking both are open to him!

March 2, 3:51 am | [comment link]
43. Cennydd wrote:

Dear remaining:  Yes, +John-David did say that he would attend both.  I was at the deanery meeting at St Matthias’ in Oakdale February 24th, and he was upbeat about GAFCON, but didn’t say much about Lambeth…..except that he was planning to attend.  It remains to be seen whether or not he’ll actually go at this point.

March 2, 11:01 am | [comment link]
44. TLDillon wrote:

remaining,
I too went to our Deanery meeting and he was asked and he never said he was going to Lambeth, but that at this time now his invitation is still open to him and that he was going to GAFCON. I have no idea what Deanery you are in, but Bp. Schofield said in ours that he had gotten his invitation and that at this point he is still openly considering it. That doesn’t mean he will go. IMHO, it would be to his benefit to be disinvited and not for the reason of recognisibility from the ABofC, but for the message it would truly be sending to the Anglican Communion as whole.

March 2, 12:03 pm | [comment link]
45. jamesw wrote:

Cennydd and ODC:  I base my statement on a response which Rowan Williams made to a question asked him at a news conference a couple of weeks back as to what was Schofield’s status vis a vis the Lambeth invitations.  The Living Church account contained this quote:

Regarding the attendance of San Joaquin Bishop John-David Schofield, inhibited by the Presiding Bishop earlier this month, the archbishop said he is “waiting on what comes out of the American House of Bishops’ discussion of that. It’s not something I’ve got a position on yet. At the moment he still has an invitation.”

It is this quote that turned me from an opponent of the Lambeth boycott into a supporter of the boycott.  The reason being that if Williams rescinds Schofield’s invitation he is engaging in the very unilateral decision-making about Anglican status which he claims prevents him from rescinding the invitations of those who are clearly in violation of Windsor, etc.

BTW, I know your good bishop personally and have only the highest of respect for him.

March 2, 2:39 pm | [comment link]
46. Vintner wrote:

“Why then wouldn’t Rowan just do it now? What is he waiting on, deposement from TEC?” ~ Well….yeah….

Cennyd, my screen name has nothing to do with my feelings.  Perhaps it’s because you can’t argue with what I’m saying which makes you want to criticize something totally irrelevant to the discussion?

March 2, 3:28 pm | [comment link]
47. jamesw wrote:

Smuggs - I think that you have your head too firmly in the past.  Who Rowan Williams invites for tea at the Lambeth Conference may soon become an irrelevancy as the Anglican Communion enters into a “dark age.”  Rowan Williams’ invitations, his blocking of discipline, etc., etc., cannot and will not stop the increasing bleeding of members and money from the liberal western Provinces.  The only power the liberal west has Smuggs, is the power of destruction.

The overall narrative is quite clear.  At some point in the future the liberal Western Provinces will lose so many members and money that they will lose their control over the Communion structures.  When that happens, the Global South will inherit the Communion.  The question to be decided is simple:  how much destruction can the liberals cause before this happens?

March 2, 7:44 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): An announcement about an Upcoming Trial of Bishop Charles Bennison

Previous entry (below): Dan Balz: Clinton’s Daunting Road Ahead

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)