According to The Living Church, it appears that the bishops of California, Los Angeles, and San Diego are preparing a presentment against the bishop of San Joaquin. The article doesn't explicitly identify the grounds for the presentment (which is the ecclesial equivalent of initiating an indictment hearing), but one assumes it must be abandonment of the communion of the Church. This presumably would be based on San Juaquin's renunciation of the priority of national over diocesan canon law, and its refusal to submit its next bishop-elect to the consent process. At least, that is the rumor I've heard. We shall see.
This is complicated by the bishop of San Joaquin, the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield, being in such poor health. Ironically, Bishop Schofield served as a priest in California under Bishop Swing's leadership, and received strong support from +Swing when the necessary consents to +Schofield's election as bishop appeared doubtful. Perhaps even more ironically, Bishop Schofield is a "recovering homosexual" committed to celibacy: the kind of gay bishop that Archbishop Akinola can accept. Then again, Dean Jeffrey John is also a gay man committed to celibacy, but he was found unacceptable for the episcopacy.
You really couldn't make this stuff up.
While I understand Bishop Swing's concern (see his Communists, Counterfeits and Catholics) to challenge the threat of San Joaquin leaving along with the property that generations of the faithful provided to support the mission of the Episcopal Church, I remain unconvinced that this is the high road in this situation. I'm of a mind to let the diocese go and take the properties of those congregations that wish to leave. It provides a wonderful new mission opportunity for the Episcopal Church in the Central Valley.
As my friend Elizabeth Kaeton+ is fond of saying, "Dead wood splinters." So, let the chips fall where they may. Why sap our energy embroiled in legal battles over buildings instead of focusing on mission?
Enough already. Let them walk apart with our blessing.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Why let them walk with gifts given to our church? After all the hurtfull things they've done? No way! Sue 'em high, sue 'em low, but sue 'em.
Fr John
You are so right. Let them go with our blessing. All of the effort to prevent one another from ministering according to our own conscience and call is worse than wasted. Litigation will destroy the church.
Hi John, I know it's nit picking, but it is spelled San Joaquin. Susan Hedges
You might also give the man some dignity and spell his name right. It's "John-David," not "Jon-David."
Yes. The fixation on property is ugly and irrelevant. In secular terms it is also self-defeating: we spread the good news by attraction. Who want to join to a community devoted to perserving its holdings and litigating at every turn?
Wow. +Schofield being self-loathing would explain a lot, but would you indulge an East Coaster and a new Episcopalian here? This is the first time I've heard this, so has the bishop's orientation been documented or discussed anywhere else? Thanks!
While we are nitpicking, it is Jeffrey JOHN without an S
Pisco Sours,
"Wow. +Schofield being self-loathing would explain a lot, but would you indulge an East Coaster and a new Episcopalian here? This is the first time I've heard this, so has the bishop's orientation been documented or discussed anywhere else? Thanks!"
I'd like to know what the proof for +Schofield's 'self-loathing' is. Where did this rumour come from and has anyne substantiated this?
Pisco, I'm half Peruvian. I take it you have visited Peru. Mi bebida favorita!
Hi Fr John
Is this report as reliable as your profile where you say you run a "growing" congregation whereas the parish stats show every single variable going downhill since you arrived -- membership, attendance and giving.?
http://12.0.101.88/reports/PR_ChartsDemo/exports/ParishRPT_1125200693710PM.pdf
Dear Anonymous,
I arrived at St. John's in March 2003, following a serious parish conflict in which the previous rector and vestry were forced to resign by the bishop. Attendance and giving were decimated by the conflict. In the course of my time there, I cleaned up the membership roster, which was seriously inflated, and began tracking attendance, etc. with greater accuracy.
The parish largely has recovered from that experience, with about a 50% turnover in membership being part of the fallout. New members are joining, though slowly, and they do not give initially at the same rate as longer time members.
We face most of the challenges of inner city parishes, but have a lively, faithful community of disciples newly re-engaged with evangelism. That is beginning to bear fruit. So, yes, we are growing, or rather, God is giving the growth.
As to Bishop Schofield's sexual orientation - that is one of the worst kept "secrets" in the Church.
Ooops, a correction: I arrived at St. John's in March 2004. March 2007 will be my three year anniversary at St. John's.
Thank you for your explanation, but it still doesn't explain how you can describe a congregation where every variable is going south as "growing".
I think your "facts" in this case are what any librarian would regard as fiction -- ie wishful thinking in the face of the hard evidence.
Your post shows the same kind of attitude towards truth.
I will grant you one bouquet though - at least you post uncomfortable comments. On the "broad-minded" and "inclusive" blog over at An Inch at a Time, they are never given any room. It is an interesting display of "inclusiveness".
Post a Comment