The Schism Begins

It was not unexpected, but still disheartening to read of the votes of the Diocese of San Joaquin to leave the Episcopal Church and realign with the Province of the Southern Cone. Of course, most of us in the Episcopal Church would say that since a diocese is created by General Convention and is not its own independent entity, that the PEOPLE of the diocese can leave, but the diocese proper cannot. In any case, the legalities will be wrangled out over the course of years if not decades at the cost of millions of dollars. The Episcopal Church simply cannot let the schismatics take all the property and go, since there is a sizable number of parishes that have indicated they wish to remain in the Episcopal Church and since the Diocese of San Joaquin was an investment on the part of the national church.

More disturbing to me is the spiritual dimension of this. The Powers and Principalities seem to have won a round by once again dividing the church over something that simply is not core to the Christian faith. Oh, Bp. Schofield makes claims that the Episcopal Church is now following a "New Faith" and that we have abandoned historic Christianity, but I'll again ask the two questions:

1. Who are these revisionists he speaks of?
2. Does anyone with a basic grasp of Episcopal Church history actually think that Unitarian leanings are new? Unitarian thought has been a minority opinion within the Episcopal Church since before the American Revolution, but it does not reflect majority opinion.

If they beleive the Episcopal Church is awash in heterodoxy, it's because they have withdrawn for so long into their conservative ghettos that they can't see what's actually going on in the church right now (not twenty years ago), which from my perspective seems to be a post-modern embrace of "Generous Orthodoxy." Schofield and the other schisimatics can attempt to paint it any way they want, but what it really comes down to is disagreement over the ordination of women and issues of human sexuality.

It's generally agreed that schism is completely unacceptable except in matters essential to salvation. When Martin Luther stood against the church's Magesterium, the most important point was the abuse of the sale of indulgences, which put a price tag on salvation. Women's ordination is accepted in principle by the entire Anglican Communion, and it's very hard to argue that the current debated questions about human sexuality rise to the same level of doctrine as the Incarnation, Trinity, or Resurrection. Therefore, schisimatics need to fabricate (for themselves as much as for others) the fiction that somehow the entire Episcopal Church is heading down a heretical path.

This allows schismatic clergy to feel justified in their violation of their ordination vows that they will be "loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them." The honorable course would be to renounce their vows, since they are no longer loyal to the doctrine and discipline of Christ as our constitution, canons and General Convention set them forth. Scofield seems to think that his vows meant "As I believe the doctrine and discipline ought to be." His writing seems to be very self-centered, despite his rhetoric about "catholicity."

It's no wonder that the Vatican has recently dashed hopes that disaffected Anglicans might be taken in as a personal prelature of the Pope. If people leave the Episcopal Church which interferes very little with internal diocesan politics, how could they be Roman Catholic, whose magesterium is much more hands-on? (It needs to be pointed out that NO ONE was being forced to elect gay bishops or perform same-sex blessings. In fact, the Episcopal Church has been remarkably patient with Bps. Iker and Schofield over the issue of women's ordination. Some analysts point out that the rhetoric would be nowhere near as heated were it not for the interference of outside political groups, which see a value in breaking apart the mainline denominations.)

I grieve for the church. It is really too bad that the concept of "Loyal Opposition" has given way to "I'm taking my ball and going home." I think it reflects current American politics more than any scriptural or theological principle. At a Gen-X clergy gathering a decade ago, a colleague of mine told then Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, "Just don't let the church be destroyed before we get a chance at it." It looks as if we're not going to get that chance, at least with the Episcopal Church as we know it.

David+

Comments

[John-Julian, OJN]

David:

Thank you: excellent clarity and spot on conclusions - with a minimum of rant.

It is going to be very difficult to hold one's breath for this space of time before TEC can take its canonical actions and clarify the muddy ecclesiastical landscape. (I believe that canonically +Schofield will have two months to recant.....it is going to seem like two decades to the poor Episcopalians in San Joaquin who don't know where to turn.)

And I do hope that the clergy (especially the young ones) who used to be in the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin (and are now in the diocese of...what?... Schofieldania?) will find the pension plan and medical coverage in the Province of the Southern Cone adequate and sufficient for themselves and their families. My hunch is that there will be a number of returnees when (excuse the mixed metaphors) the reality on the ground finally hits them between the eyes.

[Peter Hall]

Your comments on this blog are very interesting! especially comments about
"clergy to feel justified in their violation of their ordination vows that they will be "loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them." The honourable course would be to renounce their vows, since they are no longer loyal to the doctrine and discipline of Christ"

If you look at the last line of the quote it is more the case that anyone who openly defies the scriptures ie homosexuality should be the ones to denounce their vows.

[toujoursdan]

If you look at the last line of the quote it is more the case that anyone who openly defies the scriptures ie homosexuality should be the ones to denounce their vows.

As you no doubt know, there is hardly unanimity in the church ecumenical (as well as Jewish circles) on what the Scriptures say about monogamous homosexual relationships. Biblical scholars in all major denominations - Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox - have looked at the "clobber verses" in their historical and cultural context and come to differing conclusions. Books that deal with the subject have been published over the past 40 years and can be found in most major bookstores.

[FrDavid]

The point is, "as this Church has received them." General Convention determines what the doctrine, discipline and Worship of the Episcopal Church constitute, and it has always been so. If you disagree with General Convention and cannot by conscience remain a "loyal dissenter," then the only honorable course is renunciation.

To claim that your interpretation as a presbyter or bishop is more correct than the mind of the entire church, that you represent the "true" strain of Anglicanism, and that you then have the right to break apart the Body of Christ because having people of an opposing viewpoint in the same church makes you uncomfortable is pure hubris.

Ordination vows are very specific. They are as much "for better or for worse" as the marriage ones. If you are no longer a minister in the Episcopal church, you should renounce your vows. It's not a matter of doctrine, it's a matter of discipline.

David+