Living Church: San Joaquin Pushes Back Convention to December

Posted by Kendall Harmon

The Rev. Van McCalister, public relations officer for the diocese, said the change in date was primarily made to give the voting members of convention time for prayer and careful consideration of the unusually large number of important events scheduled this fall. These include the fall meeting of the House of Bishops, at which the bishops are expected to consider requests made of The Episcopal Church by the primates of the Anglican Communion.

“We are very aware of the fact that this is a very important transitional moment, no matter how the vote goes,” Fr. McCalister said. “We’re just in a ‘wait-and-see’ mode right now, however.”

Last year diocesan clergy and lay delegates approved the first reading of controversial changes to remove language acknowledging the diocese as a constituent part of The Episcopal Church from its constitution and canons. In order to be approved, the changes must pass at two consecutive conventions. If approved it is possible that the diocese would face a legal challenge.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal • Episcopal Church (TEC) • TEC Conflicts • TEC Conflicts: San Joaquin • TEC Polity & Canons

11 Comments
Posted August 29, 2007 at 10:05 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Br_er Rabbit wrote:

All the dominoes are getting lined up.

August 29, 11:39 am | [comment link]
2. Br_er Rabbit wrote:

When will the first one topple?

August 29, 11:41 am | [comment link]
3. Fr. Shawn+ wrote:

Sadly, it’s been on for sometime. The real question is how much more can we attack one another, insult one another, threaten one another, and still have the audacity to call ourselves Christians?

August 29, 11:50 am | [comment link]
4. Phil wrote:

Fr. Shawn, you should best address that question to David Booth Beers and Katharine Schori.

August 29, 12:36 pm | [comment link]
5. The_Archer_of_the_Forest wrote:

Giving people time to think is never a good idea wink

August 29, 2:44 pm | [comment link]
6. David Wilson wrote:

The date puts them beyond the date consents have to be submitted for San Joaquin priest Fr Mark Lawrence to become canonically approved as bishop of SC.  Maybe one reason for the change was to not hinder in anyway Mark getting approved before all the stuff hits the fan.  OTOH, it may not matter and Mark may be consecreated Bishop of SC sans the consents

August 29, 2:56 pm | [comment link]
7. Cennydd wrote:

DDW:  Correct!  We’re giving TEC a little more rope with which to hang themselves.

August 29, 3:56 pm | [comment link]
8. Daniel Lozier wrote:

Fr. Shawn, it is not uncommon that in the midst of battle someone calls the other unchristian.  Yet, I could have never imagined that even those within the liberal side of TEC would reject Christ as The Savior and deny the authority of Holy Scriptures.  It was only 3 or 4 years ago that I believed TEC would end up in 20+ years as a gay Unitarian denomination.  Who could have imagined the “slippery slope” would be so steep and come so fast?  It is truly evident that when the anointing hand of God, and His Son Jesus Christ, is lifted from a people…the decline is immediate and severe.

August 29, 6:05 pm | [comment link]
9. Scotsreb wrote:

“If approved it is possible that the diocese would face a legal challenge.”

Ya Think?

David Booth Beers, call your office….

August 29, 7:30 pm | [comment link]
10. Br_er Rabbit wrote:

I Agree, Dan, it’s mind-boggling.
Apparently someone has grease the skids.

The Rabbit

August 29, 9:20 pm | [comment link]
11. w.w. wrote:

This whole business with the San Joaquin diocese is hugely important for more reasons than affect just that single diocese. If SJ withdraws from TEC, there you have it: judicial proof positive that division exists in TEC.

For example, the first issue a Virginia judge is to decide in the matter of the departure of 11(?) Va. churches to CANA is whether a division exists in the Episcopal Church. This is important, because if the judge decides that it does, it’s all over. The churches get to keep their property under Va.‘s corporate “church division” statute , and everybody can go home. (Pending an appeal, of course.)  If San Joaquin’s exit had already occurred, that would be something the judge could sink his teeth into.  Now, who knows….

w.w.

August 30, 12:50 am | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.



Next entry (above): Ken Howard Chimes In

Previous entry (below): The Economist: Does America need a recession?

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)