Latest Anglican News                                             Volume 1, Number 17, 06 December 2007

 This is the second news letter, with today’s date, and has been written because of the apparent importance of an exchange of letters between TEC Presiding Bishop Catherine Jefferts Schori (PBCJS) and TEC San Joaquin Bishop John-David Schofield.

With her 3 December open letter TEC PBCJS, three TEC dioceses (Pittsburgh, Ft Worth and San Joaquin) have been placed on notice that trouble will follow any attempt by them to leave TEC.  In spite of her warning, both the Dioceses of Pittsburgh and Ft Worth have passed resolutions which indicate they plan to leave TEC.   Her latest letter, similar to the other two, is directed to Bishop Schofield, and arrived just four days before that Diocese holds its annual convention.

 PBCJS asks Schofield to “reconsider and draw back" from efforts to withdraw his diocese from the Episcopal Church.  As with previous letters to the other disaffected bishops, she notified him that such a step would force her to act to bring the diocese and its leadership into line with the mandates of the national Church.

San Joaquin's diocesan convention, meeting December 7-8, is set to consider second readings of four constitutional changes that implicitly reject property and other canons of General Convention of TEC.

Excerpts from Schofield’s response, dated 5 December, follow:

“There is a pastoral tone to your letter which is much appreciated…  One would hope that this indicates your serious consideration of the Primates’ specific request that deposition and litigation under the present circumstances be abandoned as unacceptable behavior among Christians.

Please know I do not share your feelings that I am isolated. My understanding of the authority of the Holy Scriptures, as well as Catholic Faith and Order are shared by the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches and by some 60 million faithful Anglicans worldwide. It is The Episcopal Church that has isolated itself from the overwhelming majority of Christendom and more specifically from the Anglican Communion by denying Biblical truth and walking apart from the historic Faith and Order…

The decision to be made by our Annual Convention this Saturday is the culmination of TEC’s failure to heed the repeated calls for repentance issued by the Primates of the Anglican Communion and for the cessation of false teaching and sacramental actions explicitly contrary to Scripture. For years, I have tried in vain to obtain adequate Primatial oversight to protect the Diocese from an apostate institution that has minted a new religion irreconcilable with the Anglican faith. Hopes were raised in February 2007 when leaders of the Anglican Communion met in Dar es Salaam… By the time you returned to the United States, however, you denied your public statement of agreement and declared you had only meant to bring it back for further consideration… This was a clear signal that our religious freedom to practice the Historic Faith as this Church has received it would not be protected by TEC. My Ordination vows require me to be a faithful steward of God’s holy Word and to defend His truth and ‘be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word; and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations...’ I can do no other.

The Anglican Church of the Southern Cone has graciously offered the Diocese sanctuary on a temporary and emergency basis. This action is unprecedented but so, too, are the apostate actions of The Episcopal Church that make these protective measures necessary. The invitation of the Southern Cone is a matter of public record. In essence it embodies the solution agreed upon by you and the rest of the Anglican leaders at Dar es Salaam to provide adequate, acceptable Alternative Primatial Oversight. To endorse this as a way forward need not be a final nor irreconcilable commitment. Should it be the will of the Annual Convention to accept this most generous gift, I will welcome the opportunity implied in your letter to discuss how it impacts our relationship. In the event that the clergy and laity reject this offer from the Southern Cone, I would, of course, follow your recommendation to participate as a dissenter of the present unbiblical course of action being pursued by the House of Bishops. To do anything else would be to abandon God’s people of San Joaquin and, in the end, prove to be a hireling and not a shepherd. For me, at least, this is the honorable course the Lord would have me follow.”

What else can be said?

Rudy Schenken, REC Lay Representative to Common Cause Partners