No Lying Down with The Lamb for The So. Cone

Last month, Bishop Greg Venables (Province of the Southern Cone, based in Argentina) wrote to gone-but-not-really-gone deposed Bishop David Schofield (San Joaquin Diocese, CA, formerly a Bishop in The Episcopal Church (TEC)) in regard to Schofield's position in the Anglican Communion and his plans to attend the Lambeth Conference which ended this past Sunday.

After Schofield was deposed, Bishop Jerry Lamb was installed as TEC's San Joaquin Bishop while Schofield was taken on by Venables. Schofield has made it perfectly clear he intends on taking TEC property and assets with him something now to be decided by California courts.

Shortly before leaving for Lambeth, Bishop Lamb wrote to all Diocese Clergy asking for them to kindly clarify their desire in relation to their standing in TEC.

Meanwhile, Venables instructed So. Cone clergy not to respond to Lamb. Ping pong.

Apparently, however, San Joaquin Bishop Schofield, the Standing Committee and Diocesan Council felt the need to send a letter to Bishop Lamb which, in context, just basically sticks it's tongue out at Bishop Lamb saying, we're not part of TEC, we don't recognize you, we don't recognize Schofield's deposing, and if there's anything else you think is true, well we don't believe it that either. So there.

"Therefore, as the lay and clergy leaders of the Diocese of San Joaquin, within the Province of the Southern Cone, we accept the recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury of our Bishop and reject any purported authority of The Episcopal Church, or Bishop Jerry Lamb, over any of our ministries. Our obligation is to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the world-wide Anglican Communion."

So, no news there. It is unknown whether any clergy has responded to Lamb.

What I find interesting, though, in a slap-you-in-the-face sort of way, is Schofield's apparent post-Lambeth thinking (since he did not attend Lambeth it might be Venables thinking, after all) that somehow they are conforming to a different Anglican Communion than TEC. This is particularly odd since a number of Bishops NOT recognized by Archbishop Rowan Williams, and thus not invited to Lambeth, now allege to the Southern Cone, as well. Another issue, of course, is that the Southern Cone's own documents prohibit them from accepting a church, let alone a whole diocese, from outside their province boundary.

I suspect that the letter is probably just another legal iteration of their departure and detachment from TEC given the litigation, however, the letter (as all their letters seem to be) is very odd.

In yet another statement, the letter insists, "We do not recognize the uncanonical actions of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church in moving to depose Bishop John-David Schofield. " The day Schofield announced his and the diocese intentions to depart TEC and their affiliation with the Southern Cone, Schofield claimed, in an amazing if confuzzled statement, that he was a Bishop in both TEC and the Suthern Cone. That press release was snapped up quickly, and Bishop Venables announced that Schofield was NOT a Bishop under TEC but under the Southern Cone. When presentment was brought against Schofield, he did not even bother to protest it. Then after, Schofield and his odd minions protested his deposing, a matter TEC's Presiding Bishop and her Cannon Lawyer said was over... done.

In other words, Schofield belongs to a Province that does not allow for his presence and even he cannot seem to figure out where he belongs but insists that he isn't part of TEC while not recognizing his removal. Yes, it is odd.

So in writing to Clergy in San Joaquin, Bishop Lamb is both leaving the door open for any who choose to return, but is also, apparently, trying to allow clergy to self-identify where they think they belong or choose to belong, though they were instructed not to respond by Venables.

And you thought the news from Lambeth was often confusing and odd?

San Joaquin (CA) Diocese Bishop John David Schofield: In or Out of Anglican Communion?

Several reports on the web today are addressing the alleged comments of Rowan Williams to Archbishop Greg Venables (Argentina) in regard to (former?) Bishop John David Shofield. Shofield (once a Bishop of TEC, now a questionable Bishop of the Argentina-based Anglican Province of the Southern Cone) never really "went" anywhere, except in name. He remains perched in TEC's San Joaquin Diocese. Schofield retained the keys to parishes, the assets of the diocese and, last month, tried to change asset bank accounts rightfully held by TEC to another corporation, a move blocked by TEC.

The quotes and text for this matter are within a letter issued July 14, 2008 to David Schofield from Archbishop Greg Venables and can be read here, and also the original copy here.

The text pertinent to Schofield reads:

In addition, I have been in conversation with Archbishop Rowan. Over the weekend I received the following message from him:

“I understand that Bishop John-David Schofield has been accepted as a full member of the episcopal fellowship of the Province of the Southern Cone within the Anglican Communion and as such cannot be regarded as having withdrawn from the Anglican Communion. However, it is acknowledged that his exact status (especially given the complications surrounding the congregations associated with him) remains unclear on the basis of the general norms of Anglican Canon Law, and this constitutes one of the issues on which we hope for assistance from the Windsor Continuation Group. Bishop Schofield has elected to decline the invitation to the Lambeth Conference issued to him last year although that decision does not signal any withdrawal from the Communion. I hope there may be further careful reflection to clarify the terms on which he will exercise his ministry.”

Now i don't know about you, but I did NOT read that Schofield is accepted as a Bishop in the Anglican Communion. What I read is, gee we don't really know if he is in the Anglican Communion and the Windsor Continuation Group is going to have to try to figure this out for us.

There are two problems here:

1. Schofield was found to have abandoned TEC. Clearly he is not in TEC. Not only that, Archbishop Venables claims Schofield as one of "his".

2. While taken into the Province of the Southern Cone, that Province's bylaws do not allow for this. So, technically, he cannot be a Bishop there, either.

Leading us back to the obvious question again, where does Schofield belong, if anywhere, right now?

Earlier this year, Schofield was invited to Lambeth. Later, after being appointed as TEC's Bishop of the San Joaquin Diocese, Bishop Jerry Lamb was also invited. Lamb will be at Lambeth while Schofield will not (for whatever reason... some reasons are being tossed about).

Bishop Schofield's game of musical provinces may have left him without a seat. Mmmm.

UPDATE: You can also read Mark Harris on this topic, here.

UPDATE: You can also read Father Dan Martin's take on this letter. Martin was a priest in the San Joaquin Diocese until fall of 2007.

Bishop Lamb Counts Heads

Bishop Jerry Lamb is the Episcopal Bishop of the San Joaquin Diocese (CA). This, of course, is a relatively recent event.

In a brazen move, now-deposed former Bishop Shofield removed the entire diocese (however, a trip to the San Joaquin Diocese site above denotes churches that did not follow) from The Episcopal Church (TEC) last winter--buildings, candlesticks and assets--claiming a new home under the Argentina-based Province of the Southern Cone. Bishop Lamb was then appointed to take over the Diocese last spring.

Many of the Diocese clergy followed Shofield out the door. Many did not. At this point, given the ongoing litigation (you can read about this at the Diocese site pointed to above, under "news") and the recent GAFCON/FOCA revelations, head counting is ever in order.

As with most organizations, it is prudent to know who is on your team, and who is not. You won't find liberal democrats, for instance, in the Bush White House. Nor will you find paid Angel players batting for the Yanks. In this case, there is also a more urgent reason.

While Shofield made the "on paper only" jump southward to the Southern Cone, it is worthwhile to note that this Province's bylaws do not allow for the region to extend into the United States. But who cares about bylaws, right? Wrong. Bylaws are important pieces of the fabric of a corporation, whether a church corporation or a for-profit corporation. In either case, the bylaws set forth the terms under which the entity will exist and operate.

At issue is not only where Shofield "exists" as a Bishop (under whose authority), but "if" he exists and whether he has the right to "act" in that position. He most certainly, today, does not hold that right in TEC as he was deposed, without his own objection. Under the terms of the Southern Cone's bylaws, he doesn't exist there either. So who IS this masked man, Shofield, administering sacraments?

For anyone disinterested in whether someone can or cannot administer sacraments, the point is irrelevant. It is NOT irrelevant, though, for a Christian being baptized, or one accepting communion from the hand of a happy wanderer potentially under no ones authority to do so. Is that baptism valid? Can one accept communion under Shofield? And if clergy, likewise, have followed into this no-mans-land (literally: there are no women clergy under Shofield), those receiving anything sacramental may be in the exact same position.

Clergy now is being given the opportunity to clarify, themselves as individuals, whether they ARE in service under TEC or not. And it is being done in a kind and gentle way with several options: Remain and serve TEC, leave TEC as Clergy, or remain in TEC but chose to no longer exercise your ordination in ministry under TEC (but not leave, thus giving the opportunity to return).

Bishop Lamb is doing the right thing for the church and everyone in it. As Christians and Episcopalians, it is vital that the sacraments be properly administered.

God Bless and keep you, Bishop Lamb.

Sending Out An SOS: What's Wrong With This Picture?

Episcopalians across the United States have voiced wonder at just how far a Diocean Bishop of the church can go when deciding to abandon the church. For a Bishop to just move on without the church assets seems to be a concept of the past as Bishop David Shofield (former Bishop of the San Joaquin Diocese in California) clearly shows.

Shofield departed (on paper only). After front-loading the politics for a couple decades, his final act was to stuff church property and financial assets--the whole shebang--into his lunch box and scamper off to the Province of the Argentina-based Southern Cone where he is free to discriminate against women and gays. With the new requirements of GAFCON's FOCA doctrine (which the So. Cone adopted), the requirement for use of the 1662 prayer book is a little post note but given the fracas over the 1979 Prayer Book (U.S.), it exemplifies just how far back this problem goes.

To say this did not go over well with faithful Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin is an understatement. But what seemed to perplex so many, there and elsewhere, is why nothing was done to prevent the act from occurring in the first place. It was hardly like the train light could not be seen from the other end of the tunnel.

Members of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, however, have reacted with vigor in protecting their church's assets from "quitter" Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan who is facing charges of abandonment this fall by the U.S. House of Bishops. Calvary has been pro-actively protecting their church for several years in various ways including through the court. Duncan's words and actions have made his intentions to exit TEC with the church assets quite clear.

There is a certain love, respect and brotherhood among the Bishops of TEC, no question. One can only wonder, though, if that love and brotherhood has rendered many a diocese helpless while the church and the Title IV Review Committee send coded messages that lay members can hardly understand. The Committee agreed that Duncan had formally abandoned the church, but did not give Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori their 3-vote nod to inhibit. To inhibit Duncan would have prevented more collateral damage.

Given his plan of action to depart which is hardly a secret, and the finding he had abandoned the church by the Title IV Committee, many of us have to wonder WHY the Bishop is allowed to continue in his role (inhibition would have stopped this) until that finding of abandonment is voted upon by the House of Bishops. Are the lay people in the pews so unimportant that they deserve to be caught in the middle like this? This from a church which alleges to value their lay members and their participation in Episcopal process? One can only wonder.

Read more here.