Sunday, January 13, 2008

Bishop John-David Schofield Inhibited

For a while now, I've been wanting to write about the drama coming out of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, California, but I put it off, because it seemed a daunting task, due to the long and convoluted nature of the story. Belatedly, here's my attempt.

Bishop Schofield, of the Diocese of San Joaquin, California, had been complaining for some time that the Episcopal Church had gone off the track, had lost its way, and that he was going to leave. In December 2007, according to the Episcopal Majority:

The people meeting in the diocesan convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin voted this month to leave the Episcopal Church and affiliate, instead, with the Province of the Southern Cone (which encompasses some far-flung parishes in southern and eastern South America). In the lead-up to this convention, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori warned then-Episcopal Bishop John-David Schofield that an affirmative vote would constitute an actionable breach from the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin.

In the next step, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori, on December 17, 2007, requested that the Title IV Review Committee of the House of Bishops meet to consider whether Bishop Schofield had abandoned the Episcopal Church. The committee met and certified that Bp. Schofield had abandoned the Episcopal Church, following which Bishop Katharine, on January 11, 2008, inhibited Bp. Schofield from exercising his ministry in the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. He will have two months to recant, and then the House of Bishops will meet to decide if Bp. Schofield has abandoned TEC. If they agree that he has, then he could be deposed and the see of the diocese declared vacant. The diocese will then reorganize under a new Standing Committee, and an interim bishop will be appointed to serve until such time as a search and the selection of a new bishop are complete.

The bishop and others who want to depart from the Episcopal Church believe that they can take the diocese out of the Episcopal Church, but the constitutions and canons of TEC (The Episcopal Church) do not permit a diocese or parish to remove themselves from the church. Anyone can leave TEC at any time, bishops, priests, the laity, but a diocese or parish may not leave. Those who leave may not take the property with them. The property does not belong to the members of the diocese or to the parishioners, but is held in trust for present and future members of the Episcopal Church.

What about Episcopalians in San Joaquin who wish to remain in TEC? They have organized as a group called Remain Episcopal and are receiving on-the-scene advice from representatives from the offices of the national church. They are also accepting donations at their website. During the difficult interim period, those who wish to remain part of TEC are under rather severe financial strain.

My prayers are with the faithful Episcopalians in San Joaquin and with those who have departed. I pray for an amicable settlement of the property issues, but I fear this will not be the case. That the Episcopal Church is not a congregational church, seems plain to me, but there will likely be litigation.

I'm relieved that some of those who have been threatening to leave have finally made the break, and that the faithful remaining in the Episcopal Church may, before long, start afresh with new leadership. Here in the South (and perhaps in other places) we have a saying, "Either sh*t, or get off the pot." That has been my thought for some time, now.

I regret the departure of those who want out of TEC, for the body is poorer in their absence. We need each other, and I believe that we could have continued to live and work together, but apparently they did not want to try, and the continuing threats to leave had become tiresome.

God knows there may be mistakes in this long post, and if there are, they are mine and are not the fault of my sources. I am no expert in any of the subjects under discussion here. I tried my best to be as accurate as possible. Writing the post has been a good exercise for me, because I have learned much in the process.

If you want more information than you find here, I'm listing several websites where you can get more information:

Fr. Jake Stops the World (on his right sidebar, information on the Diocese of San Joaquin is grouped together.

Episcopal Life

The Episcopal Majority

11 comments:

  1. Thank you Grandmere. As an outsider, I don't always understand certain details, but I do understand that this is heartbreaking.

    Having followed it - mostly at Kirstin's (love that woman!) I pray for TEC and give my support to the church "in-exile" although it does not seem to be in exile. Or is it?

    Having read KJS letter and other posts and comments... Apparently Schofield doesn't feel like the entity of the Diocese of SJ still exists?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fran, Bp. Schofield believes that he is still the bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, but that the diocese is no longer part of the Episcopal Church. He has placed himself under the authority of Bishop Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone Province. But that is not possible. Bp. Schofield can leave, however, he cannot take the diocese with him. There is no provision for removing a diocese to another province.

    He is still a bishop, but he and the priests and people who followed him out will have to leave the buildings and set up shop somewhere else, because the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin will have a new bishop.

    What Schofield will be bishop of, I have no idea, but the Episcopal Diocese of SJ will continue under another bishop loyal to the Episcopal Church.

    The priests and people of church-in-exile will be the membership of the Episcopal Diocese of SJ.

    I hope this makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well said. I think you did a fine job of summarizing the messy story in a straightforward way. And I concur with you in lamenting this mess. I wish (most of) the folks would stay and work within our church.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good, concise summary. So many sad stories as the church is being transformed and reformed ...

    ReplyDelete
  5. We will end up with two ecclesial bodies in the central valley of California: (1) Diocese of San Joaquin (TEC) and (2) Diocese of San Joaquin (Southern Cone). The Coneheads will have most of the people and property, at least initially. The Episcopalians will have most of the mission opportunities.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for good words, Lisa and Rev SS.

    Ormonde, I can't help thinking that any day now, the Coneheads, or the members of the Southern Cone, will charter planes and head for their proper place in South America. But perhaps they won't do that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What a sad, sad mess. Even so we have to believe that God is at work in there somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Even so we have to believe that God is at work in there somewhere.

    DP, amen!

    And I have only written a short account of Episcopal Church polity. I have not even touched upon the reasons behind the disputes and divisions. How long a post that would be!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks- that is what I thought but it was not clear who was what or where.

    I can't believe to know the mind of God, but I must imagine that Jesus would throw his hands up in the air at this...

    And that's not even bringing what my lot into the fray!

    Seriously, what a tragedy.

    My prayers for all of our churches.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So you call fellow Christains names now (Coneheads) because they do not agree with you. Sounds more like politics then religion. God is at work, breaking the faithful away from a church going down the wrong path and teaching a sinful life style.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous, there is a note on my sidebar to the effect that anonymous commenters must make up a name and sign their posts.

    I generally do not use name-calling, and I was wrong to do so here, but nothing else I've said is changed. Obviously I don't agree with you about my church.

    If you comment again, make up a name or I shall delete your comment.

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous commenters, please sign a name, any name, to distinguish one anonymous commenter from another. Thank you.