Updated again Monday evening
Episcopal News Service has published: Presiding Bishop comments on San Joaquin actions:
…I lament the actions of the Bishop and Convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin to repudiate their membership in the Episcopal Church. While it is clear that this process is not yet complete, the fact that the Bishop and Convention have voted to remove the accession clause required by the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church would seem to imply that there is no intent to terminate this process before it reaches its full conclusion. Our task as the Episcopal Church is God’s mission of reconciling the world, and actions such as this distract and detract from that mission.
I deeply lament the pain, confusion, and suffering visited on loyal members of the Episcopal Church within the Diocese of San Joaquin, and want them to know of my prayers and the prayers of many, many others.
I continue to consult with others involved in responding to this extracanonical action…
Update The ENS report of this also includes additional comment by Bonnie Anderson, and other information, see here.
On the East Coast, the Washington Post has a report Episcopal Churches To Vote on Departure by Michelle Boorstein.
Earlier, the Washington Times had Episcopalians warned against leaving diocese.
On the West Coast, the Fresno Bee has this report Valley diocese votes to separate by Ron Orozco.
Episcopal Majority has published a letter it has received from Rowan Williams, in reply to two letters sent by Bill Coats. Read all the correspondence at The Archbishop Responds.
Update The Living Church later reported on this correspondence here.
Doug LeBlanc wrote a column in Episcopal Life about Why Canterbury matters.
Sarah Dylan Breuer wrote a commentary on current events in San Joaquin and elsewhere, titled increasing chaos among breakaway movements.
Here is the Falls Church’s report:
http://www.thefallschurch.org/clientimages/29455/realignment/iwillwelcomeyou_final_12106.pdf
The Falls Church rpt is interesting, and to quite some extent, fairly representative of the definitional/presuppositional false witness that is so effortlessly born against the rest of who are presumptively ‘outside the fold of true followers of Jesus.’ It is a long report and so deserves attention and space, more than a blog entry can sustain. One glaring definitional/presuppositional error continues to be: (1) the fatal and closed confusion of Jesus’ gospel message with closed penal frames for atonement as the core if not the whole of the good news. Sadly, there is little self-critical or open-ended intellectual residence inside… Read more »
AB Venables speaks to S. Joaquin.
At:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1586/
“I lament the actions of the Bishop and Convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin to repudiate their membership in the Episcopal Church.”
The diocese is the basic unit of the Anglican church, and that’s the democratic decision of that diocese, taken at its Convention.
The Diocese is not the basic unit of the Anglican Church (any more than a parishioner is the basic unit of a parish). The “basic unit” in Anglicanism is the Province or “national” church. Alan is confusing sacramental theology (in which a diocese gathered around its bishop embodies the sacramental fullness of the church in all its orders of ministry) and polity, or church government, which describes how these various elements interact under canon law.
I’m rather surprised no one had commented on this line from Rowan Cantuar:
“This conclusion is sufficiently widespread to give some ground for thinking that the Quadrilateral may need some glossing or expansion.”
This is *extremely* disturbing. As far as I’m concerned, The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral IS Anglicanism (or else the whole project ain’t worth a d*mn).
“Glossing or expansion”?
Here, I think St. John had something pithy to say about it: “if anyone adds to them, God will add to him … plagues” >;-/
Tobias is entirely correct — the WWAC comprises “provinces” not dioceses.
JC —
I understand that it is quite common in Central Africa to use animal crackers & tea at the Holy Communion — maybe ++Rowan is suggesting that the Quadrilateral be glossed so as not to exclude this Africans who are not using “the elements ordained by him.” (Of the course the usefulness of the Quadrilateral is that it does not define things — the more you define, the more you exclude).
I hadn’t known of the use of tea and crackers. I do like the idea of of this kind of exploration-in-action; and cultural contextualisation. One of these days lgbt groups will be invited to share their explorations of worship and discoveries from their own cultural milieux.
I rather think sacramental theology trumps canon law when the chips are down, as they clearly are here, and no amount of posturing by a national convention meeting every three years can override the express wishes of a diocese, still less override the stated concerns of the Anglican Communion. Unless you are saying that ECUSA is a business rather than a church?
Contextual crackers: One of the reasons for the great Schism in 1054 was a big discussion in the 1st Millennium between the East and West over the bread used in the Eucharist: leaven or unleaven (Maze). Rome also demanded the use of white candles made from bees-wax (from Bougie in present Algeria), but Northerners -with or without “permission” from Rome – used candles made of brownish wax, or even lamps filled with local oils. In the North Atlantic islands, the very fat young birds of certain species were burnt alive for candles. Also in parts of the North where wine… Read more »
The conclusion being, that Indo European Philosphy – like it or not – trumps “the elements ordained by him”: the Bread of Life becoming, not a living bread but a dead one; subject to Heathen Ideas on chastity and sex-lessness, but that finally, the Context of God’s Good Creation trumps everything ;=)
An interesting theory, Goran, that Jesus wrote the canons for ECUSA! It might explain the extraordinary way in which ECUSA exalts its canons…
May I suggest a pair of Goggles?