|
|
|
|
For more information please contact: Van McCalister or Joan
Gladstone, APR, Fellow PRSA
Recommended Reading |
Recent Additions: For video of the Convention please visit Anglican TV. Printable copy here. The Diocese of San Joaquin: June 29, 2008 STATEMENT ON THE GLOBAL ANGLICAN FUTURE Praise the
LORD! Brothers and Sisters in Christ: We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, send you greetings from Jerusalem! Introduction The Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), which was held in Jerusalem from 22-29 June 2008, is a spiritual movement to preserve and promote the truth and power of the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ as we Anglicans have received it. The movement is global: it has mobilized Anglicans from around the world. We are Anglican: 1148 lay and clergy participants, including 291 bishops representing millions of faithful Anglican Christians. We cherish our Anglican heritage and the Anglican Communion and have no intention of departing from it. And we believe that, in God’s providence, Anglicanism has a bright future in obedience to our Lord’s Great Commission to make disciples of all nations and to build up the church on the foundation of biblical truth (Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 2:20). GAFCON is not just a moment in time, but a movement in the Spirit, and we hereby:
·
launch the
GAFCON movement as a fellowship of confessing Anglicans
The Global Anglican Context The future of the Anglican Communion is but a piece of the wider scenario of opportunities and challenges for the gospel in 21st century global culture. We rejoice in the way God has opened doors for gospel mission among many peoples, but we grieve for the spiritual decline in the most economically developed nations, where the forces of militant secularism and pluralism are eating away the fabric of society and churches are compromised and enfeebled in their witness. The vacuum left by them is readily filled by other faiths and deceptive cults. To meet these challenges will require Christians to work together to understand and oppose these forces and to liberate those under their sway. It will entail the planting of new churches among unreached peoples and also committed action to restore authentic Christianity to compromised churches. The Anglican Communion, present in six continents, is well positioned to address this challenge, but currently it is divided and distracted. The Global Anglican Future Conference emerged in response to a crisis within the Anglican Communion, a crisis involving three undeniable facts concerning world Anglicanism. The first fact is the acceptance and promotion within the provinces of the Anglican Communion of a different ‘gospel’ (cf. Galatians 1:6-8) which is contrary to the apostolic gospel. This false gospel undermines the authority of God’s Word written and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the author of salvation from sin, death and judgment. Many of its proponents claim that all religions offer equal access to God and that Jesus is only a way, not the way, the truth and the life. It promotes a variety of sexual preferences and immoral behaviour as a universal human right. It claims God’s blessing for same-sex unions over against the biblical teaching on holy matrimony. In 2003 this false gospel led to the consecration of a bishop living in a homosexual relationship. The second fact is the declaration by provincial bodies in the Global South that they are out of communion with bishops and churches that promote this false gospel. These declarations have resulted in a realignment whereby faithful Anglican Christians have left existing territorial parishes, dioceses and provinces in certain Western churches and become members of other dioceses and provinces, all within the Anglican Communion. These actions have also led to the appointment of new Anglican bishops set over geographic areas already occupied by other Anglican bishops. A major realignment has occurred and will continue to unfold. The third fact is the manifest failure of the Communion Instruments to exercise discipline in the face of overt heterodoxy. The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada, in proclaiming this false gospel, have consistently defied the 1998 Lambeth statement of biblical moral principle (Resolution 1.10). Despite numerous meetings and reports to and from the ‘Instruments of Unity,’ no effective action has been taken, and the bishops of these unrepentant churches are welcomed to Lambeth 2008. To make matters worse, there has been a failure to honour promises of discipline, the authority of the Primates’ Meeting has been undermined and the Lambeth Conference has been structured so as to avoid any hard decisions. We can only come to the devastating conclusion that ‘we are a global Communion with a colonial structure’. Sadly, this crisis has torn the fabric of the Communion in such a way that it cannot simply be patched back together. At the same time, it has brought together many Anglicans across the globe into personal and pastoral relationships in a fellowship which is faithful to biblical teaching, more representative of the demographic distribution of global Anglicanism today and stronger as an instrument of effective mission, ministry and social involvement. A Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, are a fellowship of confessing Anglicans for the benefit of the Church and the furtherance of its mission. We are a fellowship of people united in the communion (koinonia) of the one Spirit and committed to work and pray together in the common mission of Christ. It is a confessing fellowship in that its members confess the faith of Christ crucified, stand firm for the gospel in the global and Anglican context, and affirm a contemporary rule, the Jerusalem Declaration, to guide the movement for the future. We are a fellowship of Anglicans, including provinces, dioceses, churches, missionary jurisdictions, para-church organisations and individual Anglican Christians whose goal is to reform, heal and revitalise the Anglican Communion and expand its mission to the world. Our fellowship is not breaking away from the Anglican Communion. We, together with many other faithful Anglicans throughout the world, believe the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism, which defines our core identity as Anglicans, is expressed in these words: The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. We intend to remain faithful to this standard, and we call on others in the Communion to reaffirm and return to it. While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Building on the above doctrinal foundation of Anglican identity, we hereby publish the Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of our fellowship. The Jerusalem Declaration In the name of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit: We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, have met in the land of Jesus’ birth. We express our loyalty as disciples to the King of kings, the Lord Jesus. We joyfully embrace his command to proclaim the reality of his kingdom which he first announced in this land. The gospel of the kingdom is the good news of salvation, liberation and transformation for all. In light of the above, we agree to chart a way forward together that promotes and protects the biblical gospel and mission to the world, solemnly declaring the following tenets of orthodoxy which underpin our Anglican identity.
The Road Ahead We believe the Holy Spirit has led us during this week in Jerusalem to begin a new work. There are many important decisions for the development of this fellowship which will take more time, prayer and deliberation. Among other matters, we shall seek to expand participation in this fellowship beyond those who have come to Jerusalem, including cooperation with the Global South and the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa. We can, however, discern certain milestones on the road ahead. Primates’ Council We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, do hereby acknowledge the participating Primates of GAFCON who have called us together, and encourage them to form the initial Council of the GAFCON movement. We look forward to the enlargement of the Council and entreat the Primates to organise and expand the fellowship of confessing Anglicans. We urge the Primates’ Council to authenticate and recognise confessing Anglican jurisdictions, clergy and congregations and to encourage all Anglicans to promote the gospel and defend the faith. We recognise the desirability of territorial jurisdiction for provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion, except in those areas where churches and leaders are denying the orthodox faith or are preventing its spread, and in a few areas for which overlapping jurisdictions are beneficial for historical or cultural reasons. We thank God for the courageous actions of those Primates and provinces who have offered orthodox oversight to churches under false leadership, especially in North and South America. The actions of these Primates have been a positive response to pastoral necessities and mission opportunities. We believe that such actions will continue to be necessary and we support them in offering help around the world. We believe this is a critical moment when the Primates’ Council will need to put in place structures to lead and support the church. In particular, we believe the time is now ripe for the formation of a province in North America for the federation currently known as Common Cause Partnership to be recognised by the Primates’ Council. Conclusion: Message from Jerusalem We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, were summoned by the Primates’ leadership team to Jerusalem in June 2008 to deliberate on the crisis that has divided the Anglican Communion for the past decade and to seek direction for the future. We have visited holy sites, prayed together, listened to God’s Word preached and expounded, learned from various speakers and teachers, and shared our thoughts and hopes with each other. The meeting in Jerusalem this week was called in a sense of urgency that a false gospel has so paralysed the Anglican Communion that this crisis must be addressed. The chief threat of this dispute involves the compromising of the integrity of the church’s worldwide mission. The primary reason we have come to Jerusalem and issued this declaration is to free our churches to give clear and certain witness to Jesus Christ. It is our hope that this Statement on the Global Anglican Future will be received with comfort and joy by many Anglicans around the world who have been distressed about the direction of the Communion. We believe the Anglican Communion should and will be reformed around the biblical gospel and mandate to go into all the world and present Christ to the nations. JerusalemFeast of St Peter and St Paul 29 June 2008 The Diocese of San Joaquin: June 16, 2008 Bishop Schofield's letter to Bishop Lamb
The Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb Re: St. Andrew's Anglican Mission Dear Bishop Lamb: Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. This will reply to your June 1, 2008, letter to Father Charles Threewit concerning St. Andrew's Anglican Mission in Taft, California. Our records indicate that St. Andrew's Mission validly adopted Anglican bylaws on March 23, 2008. These bylaws cannot be amended without my consent (which was not requested and not given) and without a properly called meeting of the Bishop's Committee. Title to the Mission's real property is held by the Anglican Diocese Holding Corporation. We do not have any first hand knowledge about the meeting you conducted where you say "an overwhelming majority vote" was recorded by those present to remain with the Episcopal Church. We do know that whatever meeting took place was not properly noticed and that a voting quorum of the Bishop's Committee was not present. Following your meeting, you apparently caused the locks on the Mission doors to be changed and you and your agents have taken physical possession of the building. These actions are all very irregular and, in my opinion, unlawful. On top of it all, you apparently asked one of our priests who holds Anglican orders, Father Upton, to conduct services. Father Upton has asked my permission to conduct services on a temporary basis and I have granted his request to stabilize the situation for the time being. The Anglican contingent of the Mission can be ministered to by our three thriving Anglican parishes in Bakersfield until we can sort this matter out. It is not our intention to rush back in and change the locks, as you have done, and cause further upheaval in this small mission. Our actions, however, are not to be construed as a waiver of any rights on our part. The civil courts and our ongoing investigation will ultimately settle the matter of title to the real and personal property of the Mission. To this end, it would be helpful if you would forward to us the minutes of the meeting you conducted so we can review them. We will also permit your use of the Mission computer under the same reservation of rights and with your implicit agreement that it will remain at the Mission until a final decision is made by the courts or by our agreement. Father Threewit, the priest in charge, temporarily removed the computer because he suspected something was afoot but he did not know what it was. He thought it wise under the circumstances to remove the computer so its contents could be copied. That has been accomplished and we will make arrangements to get it back to the Mission. While I in no way agree with or condone your actions, nevertheless, may the peace of God be with you In Christ,
The Rt. Rev. John-David M. Schofield, SSC JDS/jw The Diocese of San Joaquin: June 14, 2008 TEC Seizes Property in Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin Bishop Schofield is grieved by the aggressive and disturbing behavior exhibited by Bishop Lamb, his agents, and the leadership of the Episcopal Church in the USA. Despite having signed new by-laws in March 2008 declaring themselves an Anglican Mission of the Diocese of San Joaquin, and confirming that within a document sent to the Diocesan Chancellor from the Bishop’s Committee Clerk, we are informed that some eleven members of St. Andrew’s Mission, Taft, held an unpublicized meeting in late May with The Rev. Canon Mark Hall, Canon to the Ordinary for Bishop Jerry Lamb, wherein a majority apparently illegally voted to join the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. Neither the Priest, nor the Wardens nor Bishop Schofield were advised of this meeting, and therefore the gathering, held on church property, was without the authority reserved to the Priest in Charge. We are told that the Jr. Warden discovered that the meeting was to take place only one hour prior to its occurrence. Subsequent to that meeting the Junior Warden and Treasurer each resigned, although for differing reasons. Soon thereafter, a phone call was received by the Priest in Charge (appointed there by Bishop John-David Schofield many months earlier) from Canon Hall, informing him that his position was terminated at St. Andrew’s. That priest immediately notified Bishop Schofield of that conversation. Letters written by Bishop Lamb, dated June 1, 2008, were soon delivered to the Priest’s home and the Senior Warden’s home informing each that they were no longer appointed to their prior roles, and that Bishop Lamb had appointed new Wardens and an entirely new Bishop’s Committee. He also re-appointed the Treasurer who had resigned just days before despite the fact that this individual is no longer a member of St. Andrews having transferred her membership to the Diocese of Hawaii. On June 4th Bishop John-David Schofield, Anglican Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, a recognized member Diocese of the Province of the Southern Cone of South America, was informed that some of the members above changed the locks on the doors without any court order, thereby seizing the property and preventing Anglican members from entering freely as they had been able to before. Additionally, we were to understand that Canon Hall was to preside at services held on that Sunday, June 8th, at the direction of his Episcopal Bishop. Bishop Schofield is grieved by the aggressive and disturbing behavior exhibited by Bishop Lamb, his agents, and the leadership of the Episcopal Church in the USA. Established protocols exist within the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin to assist churches to rightly discern the mind of their members, yet none of these seem to have been considered and Bishop Lamb appeared to follow no protocol at all as he reached out to seize this Church. It might be considered abusive behavior that many of the members of St. Andrews received no knowledge of that meeting about to take place. This was not an informed congregation nor could an informed decision be made as, apparently, two strong personalities within their body manipulated the situation so that only those who could be counted upon for affirmation were notified of the meeting and called upon to vote accordingly. No Canons or By-Laws were followed to provide the congregation proper notification of a Parish Meeting (normally 30 days notice), to confirm the qualifications of those voting, minutes of said meeting, or any other ecclesiastical standards. While this is a very small congregation averaging only 18 in attendance on a Sunday (according to 2007 parochial reports submitted), it appears that a vote of 9 to 2 is not a simple majority of those qualified to vote, but only a majority who had the select knowledge and opportunity to be present at this secret meeting of church members. On December 8, 2007, the people of the Diocese of San Joaquin exercised their democratic right reserved to them under their Constitution to withdraw from membership in the Episcopal Church and to realign with another province of the worldwide Anglican Communion, the Province of the Southern Cone. The vote of the people of the Diocese of San Joaquin at a duly noticed and convened Annual Convention was overwhelming; nearly 90 percent were in favor of the realignment. Special provision was made for those who disagreed with the majority’s decision: each parish in the Diocese was given an indefinite period of discernment and the option of staying with the Episcopal Church, and those who did so were permitted to keep all of their real and personal property with the blessings of the Diocese and its elected bishop of nineteen years, The Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield. No decisions have been formally made concerning future actions of the Bishop, Standing Committee, or Diocesan Council regarding this matter. Many here rejoice in the graciousness of Bishop Schofield to the people and clergy who have determined to remain part of the Episcopal Church, and to those at St. Andrews Mission, noting the contrast of his behavior to the divisiveness of the appointed Provisional Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese who verbally claims to seek reconciliation while actions say otherwise. We mourn the fact that leaders within The Episcopal Church continue to behave in ways that cause damage to the Body of Christ by initiating ecclesiastical actions and litigation against Bishop Schofield and this Anglican Diocese, and proceed to further tear the fabric of the world-wide Anglican Communion. The Diocese of San Joaquin: June 4, 2008 The Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin has fully complied with California State Law The following facts are given to correct and clarify recently published misunderstandings and misstatements regarding legal claims against the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin All actions taken by the Diocese of San Joaquin were authorized by its governing bodies, namely, its Standing Committee and its Diocesan Council, along with Bishop Schofield. These actions were done in complete compliance with California law and were done to secure the property until a California court can rule on the issue of ownership. One of these actions was to retitle accounts held at Merrill Lynch; assets were not moved from Merrill Lynch. The property in question is owned by the Diocese and its parishes and not the Episcopal Church. The Diocese expects a favorable ruling by the California court on the issues of property ownership. The Diocese of San Joaquin is a California unincorporated association that is governed by the California Corporations Code and its own internal Constitution and Canons (akin to bylaws). The Diocese is a corporate person; a legal entity recognized by the civil courts. In California, an unincorporated association is governed by majority vote of its members. There is nothing in the governing documents of the Episcopal Church which forbade or limited the right of the Diocese of San Joaquin from withdrawing and taking its property with it. On December 8, 2007, the people of the Diocese of San Joaquin exercised their democratic right reserved to them under their Constitution to withdraw from membership in the Episcopal Church and to realign with another province of the worldwide Anglican Communion, the Province of the Southern Cone. The vote of the people of the Diocese of San Joaquin at a duly noticed and convened Annual Convention was overwhelming; nearly 90 percent were in favor of the realignment. Special provision was made for those who disagreed with the majority’s decision: each parish in the Diocese was given the option of staying with the Episcopal Church and those who did were permitted to keep all of their real and personal property with the blessings of the Diocese and its bishop, The Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield. Ultimately, some seven parishes decided to stay with the Episcopal Church. Unwilling to abide by the decision of the majority, the seven stay-behind parishes, in concert with the Episcopal Church, purported to hold their own "re-vote" to reverse the 90 percent majority decision of the Diocese and have filed papers proclaiming themselves to be the "true" or "real" Diocese of San Joaquin and seeking all of the diocese’s real and personal property. These assertions are not legally tenable. Bishop Schofield remains a fully ordained bishop and is a member in good standing of the House of Bishops of the Province of the Southern Cone, a constituent member of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Furthermore, at least five dioceses within The Episcopal Church have rejected or questioned the legality of the Presiding Bishop’s actions in deposing Bishops Schofield and Cox. Diocese of San Joaquin: April 25, 2008 Statement from the Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin to Clergy and Parishioners To the clergy and parishioners of San Joaquin - We recognize that the news of a lawsuit from the Presiding Bishop and the representatives of Remain Episcopal in Stockton may be unsettling. However, please be assured that we have been expecting this litigation and the contents contain no surprises. Please know that our legal team has been at work for some time. They are optimistic and remain unperturbed by The Episcopal Church's most recent action. What our legal counsel has accomplished on our behalf is already proving most helpful in defense of property and assets despite the fact that this preparatory work had to be done without the benefit of seeing what the Episcopal Church intended to do. Furthermore, I want to remind you that in spite of the claims by The Episcopal Church, nothing in their current Constitution and Canons prohibits a diocese from leaving one province and moving to another. Also, just as we stood together for the sake of our witness to the Gospel at our Convention in December, so now will we continue to stand together for that same witness. I will continue to respond to those who disagree with us in a Christian and charitable manner and I trust that you will, as well. Thank you for the trust that you have placed in me as your bishop and senior pastor, and know that I will continue to honor that trust with God's help. Faithfully, yours in Christ, +John-David Diocese of San Joaquin: March 12, 2008 Encouragement from Archbishop Venables Dear Bishop John David, Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. God has called us to faithfully represent Christ in a difficult time in history. To bear faithful witness to Christ, however costly for us, is less of a price than that which must be paid by those who deny His saving grace. We are deeply honored to have you as Bishop and your Diocese as full members of the Southern Cone. We will continue to proclaim the Gospel together as brother bishops. May God richly bless you and give you peace. Yours in Christ, +Greg Diocese of San Joaquin: March 12, 2008 Printable Copy here. Bishop Schofield responds to the HOB decisionThe Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield, bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, a member diocese of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone of South America, was disappointed by today’s decision of the Episcopal House of Bishops but he was not surprised by it. “It is a shame that the disciplinary process of The Episcopal Church has been misused in this way,” Bishop Schofield said in responding to the news that the Episcopal House of Bishops voted to depose him. “The disciplinary procedures used by the House of Bishops, in my case, were intended for those who have abandoned the Faith and are leading others away from orthodox Christianity, as held in trust by bishops in the Anglican Communion – and which The Episcopal Church had previously upheld also.” “The question that begs to be answered by the House of Bishops,” said Bishop Schofield, “is, why bishops who continue to teach and publish books that deny the most basic Christian beliefs are not disciplined while those of us who uphold the Christian Faith are?” He added, "At least I am in good company. It is a privilege to know that I am standing along side of one of the outstanding theologians of our time, J. I. Packer, who is under similar discipline by the Canadian Church and who, also, has placed himself under the authority of the Southern Cone." “I have not abandoned the Faith,” Schofield observed. “I resigned from the American House of Bishops and have been received into the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone. Both Houses are members of the Anglican Communion. They are not – or should not be – two separate Churches. It is the leadership of The Episcopal Church that is treating itself as a separate and unique Church. They may do so, but they ought not expect everyone to follow teaching that serves only to undermine the authority of the Bible and ultimately leads to lifestyles that are destructive. "The fact remains," Schofield observed, "that a canon law specifically designed to protect the people of God from wrong teaching and schismatic movements has been used in a clumsy way. I do not think it is a coincidence that the canon that was used was the one that involves the least due process. The decision to act against me was not made by the House of Bishops as a whole. It was made behind closed doors by a small review committee and, only then, presented to the larger body for an 'up or down' vote." The bishop added, "Tragically, what drives this action of The Episcopal Church is neither the Christian Faith nor the Communion they say I have abandoned. In the end, it appears as though the real motivation behind all of this is the use of raw power and coveting property. If this is so, then any attempts by The Episcopal Church to seize our property directly ignore Saint Paul's warning not to take a fellow Christian to a civil court. [1 Corinthians 6:1-8]" Bishop Schofield resigned from the House of Bishops as of March 7, 2008. “I am still an active Anglican bishop, and I continue to be the bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin,” Bishop Schofield affirmed. Diocese of San Joaquin: March 1, 2008 Bishop's Response to Charge of Abandonment
Feast of St. David, Bishop of Wales
The Most Rev. Katherine Jefferts Schori, and Dear Bishop Schori and Members of the House of Bishops, Greetings in the name of our Lord and only Savior Jesus Christ! Please accept this letter as my formal response to the charge of abandonment of the communion that has been lodged against me. On December 8, 2007, the Diocese of San Joaquin was forced to make the painful decision to leave The Episcopal Church. This action enabled the diocese to participate in the provision of the Province of the Southern Cone of South America to become a member diocese on an emergency, temporary and pastoral basis. This drastic action was necessary because The Episcopal Church failed to heed years of warnings from all quarters of Christendom to turn back from false teaching and to accept Holy Scripture as the supreme authority for life. On September 25, 2007, The Episcopal Church and, specifically its House of Bishops, vetoed a plan created by the Anglican Communion Primates, and previously agreed to by Presiding Bishop Schori while in Dar-es-Salaam, that would have offered a spiritual safe harbor to the Diocese of San Joaquin and other orthodox dioceses. This defiance of the collective will of the Anglican Communion clearly demonstrated that The Episcopal Church fully intends to remain on a path that is irreconcilable with God's word and the Anglican Faith. The evidence in the public record reveals that the Diocese of San Joaquin was left with no choice but to separate from The Episcopal Church to preserve Biblical truth and the historic Anglican Faith and Order. It is important to note that this is separation and not schism. Separation, by definition, is the Biblical answer to unrepentant and public false teaching and immorality. The Diocese of San Joaquin consequently made the appropriate and courageous decision at its Annual Convention by an overwhelming vote in both clergy and lay orders (Pro 173 to Con 22) to realign itself with an orthodox province of the Anglican Communion made possible through the heroic action of both Archbishop Gregory Venables and the Provincial Synod of the Southern Cone of South America meeting in Valparaiso, Chile November 8, 2007. Immediately after
the Diocese of San Joaquin voted to accept the
invitation of the Southern Cone, the Annual Convention
was greeted by these words of Archbishop Venables:
“Welcome home. And welcome back into full fellowship in
the Anglican Communion.” It is my hope and prayer that
one day The Episcopal Church will hear these same words.
After the Diocese of San Joaquin had voted to become a
member diocese of the Southern Cone, I was received into
membership of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone
as the Bishop of San Joaquin. At this moment, therefore,
I am a bishop in the House of Bishops of the Southern
Cone, and I am the Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin.
The Episcopal Church has no jurisdiction or authority to
affect my status in any of these capacities. This leaves
only my status as a member of the House of Bishops of
The Episcopal Church to be determined. Rather than force
the House of Bishops to a vote, I herewith tender my
resignation as a member of the The Episcopal Church and Bishop Schori will remain in my prayers and the prayers of all parishes and missions in the Diocese of San Joaquin. The door of reconciliation will always be open. May God bless you
and keep you. Diocese of San Joaquin: February 19, 2008 Printable copy here. Response to the Interim Pastoral Presence The following are identical letters to Canon Cox and Canon Moore. February 15, 2008 It is my understanding that you have been hired by the Presiding Bishop’s Office to be a part of an interim pastoral presence with oversight in the Diocese of San Joaquin. This fact indicates one of the two things: 1) You do not believe that the Diocese was capable of removing itself from TEC in December 2007, and therefore you are intruding into the internal affairs of a recognized TEC diocese; or, 2) You do believe this diocese left TEC in 2007 and you are entering into the internal affairs of a diocese of another province. In either case, at present, The Episcopal Church has begun attacking both me and this diocese. Your coming here is unconscionable in that you are meddling in the affairs of San Joaquin with neither the courtesy of requesting my permission as bishop nor even troubling to inform me of your plans. Such actions are hardly those of men with honorable intentions. Even though you have already taken it upon yourself to be in contact with clergy and parishes, under no circumstances are you welcome to hold meetings in this diocese or to ask permission of clergy or other leaders to do so. If indeed your proposal is to seek reconciliation with the goal to reduce the “threat of law suits” you are approaching the wrong persons. Why do you not come directly to me with your concerns and offers, for such lawsuits – presumably – would be lodged against me? Should you choose to deal directly with me concerning the above mentioned proposals I would be willing to set aside time to meet with you in my office in Fresno. Apart from this, I ask you to desist from entering this diocese. I
remain, In earnest, Cc:
The Most Reverend Katherine Jefferts-Schori Diocese of San Joaquin: January 29, 2008 Entire Province supports Diocese With the arrival this morning of signatures of the entire House of Bishops of the Province of Papua new Guinea, the total number of signatures has reached 41 - 2 Archbishops, 15 Diocesans, 11 Suffragans, 9 retired and 4 others. Please visit www.forwardinfaith.com for more updates. Diocese of San Joaquin: January 14, 2008 +John-David remains faithful to his calling The Episcopal Church's assertion that Bishop Schofield has abandoned the communion of this Church is an admission that The Episcopal Church rejects the historical Anglican faith. This is why the Diocese of San Joaquin appealed to the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone of South America for emergency and temporary protection. The majority of the other provinces of the Anglican Communion hold to the traditional faith. It is the primary duty of bishops to guard the faith and Bishop Schofield has been continually discriminated against for having done so while Bishops and Archbishops around the world have affirmed not only his stance but the move to the Southern Cone. Governing documents of The Episcopal Church do not prohibit relationships between different members of the Anglican Communion, rather they encourage it. The Episcopal Church's action demonstrates that there is an enormous difference between their church and most of the Anglican Communion. Again, this action is a demonstration that The Episcopal Church is walking apart from the faith and its expression in morality held by the rest of the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church's own identity is dependent upon its relationship with the whole Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church should consider whether it is imperiling that relationship by taking such punitive actions. How is it that over 60 million Anglicans worldwide can be wrong and a few hundred thousand in the American Church can claim to be right? There is no confusion on the part of the Bishop of San Joaquin or the clergy, people, leadership, and convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin of their status. The claims of The Episcopal Church to have oversight or jurisdiction are not correct. The fact is that neither the Diocese nor Bishop John-David Schofield are part of The Episcopal Church. The Bishop is a member of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone as of December 8th, 2007. The Diocese is a part of the Southern Cone. Neither the Presiding Bishop nor the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church have any further jurisdiction. Bishop Schofield is no longer a member of the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church. The following is a statement from The Most Reverend Gregory Venables (Archbishop of the Province of the Southern Cone of South America) dated January 11, 2008: "As of December the 8th, 2007 Bishop John-David Schofield is not under the authority or jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church or the Presiding Bishop. He is, therefore, not answerable to their national canon law but is a member of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone and under our authority. Un fuerte abrazo. ++Greg Diocese of San Joaquin: January 2, 2008 Printable copy here.
You are not alone Dear Bishop John-David, We, Episcopal colleagues from across the Anglican Communion and across the world, write to salute you on the courageous decision of the Diocesan Convention of San Joaquin to take leave of The Episcopal Church and to align with the Province of the Southern Cone. We know that decision was to a large extent the result of your tenacity and faithful leadership, and for that we give thanks to God. It has been said that you are isolated and alone. We want you and the world to know that in this decision for the faith once delivered to the saints, we stand with you and beside you. May Christ abundantly bless you and your diocese with all the gifts of the Spirit and with joy in believing. Yours in Christ, The Rt. Rev. Jack L. Iker, Bishop of Fort Worth and:
The Most Rev. Peter
Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney Diocese of San Joaquin: December 21, 2007 Printable copy here. Bishop Schofield's Response to Presiding Bishop's Letter of December 14 Dear Bishop Schori, Printable copy here.
PASTORAL
LETTER TO BE READ IN ALL CHURCHES (Or, published with attention
drawn to it from the pulpit) Sunday, December 16, 2007
Response from the Archbishop of the Southern Cone "Welcome Home. And welcome back into full fellowship in the Anglican Communion. 'But whatever things were gain to me, those
I counted loss for Christ. But no, rather, I also count all things
to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my
Lord, for whose sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and
count them to be dung, so that I may win Christ and be found in Him;
not having my own righteousness, which is of the Law, but through
the faith of Christ, the righteousness of God by faith, that I may
know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His
sufferings, being made conformable to His death; if by any means I
might attain to the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had
already attained either were already perfect, but I am pressing on,
if I may lay hold of that for which I also was taken hold of by
Christ Jesus. My brother (and sisters), I do not count myself to
have taken possession, but one thing I do, forgetting the things
behind and reaching forward to the things before, I press toward the
mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.'
With my prayer and affection ++ Gregory Printable copy here. The Diocese of San Joaquin: December 8, 2007 Diocese of San Joaquin Votes to Disassociate with The Episcopal Church Convention Accepts the
Invitation to Align with the Province of the Southern Cone Printable copy here or video format Diocese of San Joaquin: December 7, 2007
The Bishop’s Address Thousands of years ago two men stood before Pharaoh and said, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Let my people go...’ (Exodus 5.1) Pharaoh’s response? He increased the work load and took away the resources that the people of Israel had come to depend on. You know the story as well as I do. And, as one of our young priests reminded me recently, after the plagues, the exodus from Egypt, followed by the great deliverance at the Red Sea, when the Promised Land came into view, Moses sent the heads of each of the twelve tribes to spy out the land. Upon returning to report on what they had seen, they dissuaded the Israelites from entering the Promised Land. “We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes,” they said, “ and we looked the same to them” (Numbers 13. 33) The people refused to take what God was offering to them. So, the Lord declared: “Forty years – one year for each of the forty days you explored the land – you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you.” (Num. 14. 34) One man had stood alone, Caleb of the Tribe of Judah. It was he who declared: “We should go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it.” (Num. 13. 30) The end result was God’s blessing: “Because my servant Caleb has a different spirit and follows me wholeheartedly, I will bring him into the land he went to, and his descendants will inherit it.” (Num. 14. 24) Timing matters. GOD’S timing is essential! Delayed obedience in Scripture is seen as disobedience when opportunities and blessings are lost. For twenty years and more we have watched The Episcopal Church lose its way: straying, at first, from Scripture... to the point of dismissing the Word of God, in some instances, as mere historical documents – of value, perhaps in bygone eras – but no longer applicable to us, to appropriating powers to itself through the General Convention it had never had and, finally, on to unilateral decisions about theology, sexuality, and ordination potentially cutting itself off from the Anglican Communion. J. I. Packer, the eminent British Theologian now living in Canada, puts this in clear perspective when he says: “Liberal theology as such knows nothing about a God who uses written language to tell us things, or about the reality of sin in the human system, which makes redemption necessary and new birth urgent. Liberal theology posits, rather, a natural religiosity in man (reverence, that is, for a higher power) and a natural capacity for goodwill towards others, and sees Christianity as a force for cherishing and developing these qualities. They are fanned into flame and kept burning in the church, which in each generation must articulate itself by concessive dialogue with the culture pressures, processes and prejudices that surround it. In other words, the church must ever play catch-up to the culture, taking on board whatever is the “in thing” at the moment; otherwise, so it is thought, Christianity will lose all relevance to life. The church will inevitably leave the Bible behind at point after point, but since on this view the Bible is the word of fallible men rather than of the infallible God, leaving it behind is no great loss.” For years organizations such as Episcopalians United, Episcopal Synod of America, American Anglican Council, and finally the Anglican Communion Network have been founded to explore ways to keep orthodox believers within the liberal Episcopal Church and to allow some measure of freedom to believe, worship, and practice the faith. The newest organization, the Network, went out of its way to declare itself operating under and within the Constitution of The Episcopal Church. However the gap has only widened; and Episcopalians have begun to do what we have always done... leave quietly. This drain was not mentioned at first, but one could hardly help but notice how a Church that had once claimed 4 million members was now announcing itself to the news media as a 2.5 million member Church. The leadership in New York still clings to this public image even though, by its own statistics, there seem to be fewer than 900,000 parishioners nationally in church on any given Sunday. Individuals leaving did not seem to cause a problem at first...that is, until they left together as whole congregations. Within a short time two newcomers appeared: the Anglican Mission in America (AMia) whose original bishops were consecrated by overseas Primates and the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) sponsored originally by the Primate of Nigeria whose own membership numbers 20 million or more. These two organizations along with others who have fled for protection to the Bishops of: Bolivia, Peru, Argentina, Uganda, and Kenya account for more than 360 congregations or the equivalent of some SIX medium sized dioceses. These congregations are reporting amazing growth. The rector of a newly formed congregation in Garland, Texas visited my office within the last two weeks. He recounted how he had been given 48 hours to vacate his church premises and find somewhere else to worship. With 80% of his congregation, they moved in that time period. Now, less than a year later, they have tripled in size, purchased six acres of land, and have in hand the money for a new church that will be larger and provide opportunities for ministry never part of the old structure. These faithful Anglicans, along with the Dioceses of Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, Quincy, Springfield and San Joaquin, lumped together with thousands who have simply stopped attending church altogether have been called “the Fringe” or the “insignificant and marginal minority” by the Presiding Bishop’s office... and dismissed. If this were so, one wonders why we seem to be worthy of intimidation, depositions, and law suits. Why not let this insignificant minority go? Why not forget Christ Church, Plano – the largest parish of the Episcopal Church, 20 parishes in Virginia, the Pro-Cathedral of El Paso, Texas who had to buy their way out of The Episcopal Church for $2 million, or the growing number of parishes in Los Angeles and San Diego who are looking for ways to depart? Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that every month several more parishes leave while 1,000 parishioners depart WEEKLY for an African Anglican jurisdiction. Growing, while all this is going on, also are the congregations associated with the Network who now see our numbers swelling to over 250,000 members. Again, why is it that within the past year four of our bishops have retired only to become Roman Catholics while another has joined Cana? This has never happened before! Something is drastically wrong! For the first time publicly, at least, leadership within The Episcopal Church is showing signs of concern. An Interim Report, prepared by the House of Deputies Committee of the Episcopal Church, shows –according to news reports– the denomination continuing to decline with a 41% attendance drop... attributed directly to congregations departing over the sexual innovations in the church. Worrying – at LAST– about identity, mission, and organization, the report states: “We cannot be leaders within our Church nor in the global community if we are unsure who we are or where God is calling us to go. Criticisms that we need to be more proactive... or that we are aggressively reactive ... both relate to our understanding and embrace of God’s kingdom and the Salvation we are offered in Jesus Christ – or to our LACK of such understanding and engagement.” (Emphasis added) On November 16 and 17, 2006 the Steering Committee of the Global South, meeting in Chantilly, Virginia, asked two things of Anglicans representing both those within the Episcopal Church and those who had left. They were: 1) To select a single spokesman who has the trust of all and is able to represent the many voices of orthodox Anglicans in North America; and 2) To bring together in a single body as many like-minded Anglicans as possible. (It had been confusing for overseas bishops to hear the voices of so many who were claiming to speak on behalf of orthodoxy.) Those two requests were met. The Rt. Rev’d Bob Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh and Moderator of the Network was chosen unanimously as spokesman. Shortly thereafter, Bishop Duncan called together the first meeting of Common Cause Partners. What a wonderful response he has had. Representatives of the Reformed Episcopal Church, Amia, Cana, and a number of Continuing Anglican Churches have come together. This Fall over 40 bishops of Common Cause met in Pittsburgh to affirm The Articles of the Common Cause Partnership and its Theological Statement. Following the historic meeting in Chantilly, the Primates of the Global South insisted that Bishop Duncan be included in the larger meeting of all the Primates at Dar es Salaam where directives were given to protect orthodox believers within the Episcopal Church. There were unanimous decisions of the Primates to which Katherine Jefferts Schori publicly agreed. These included: The Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House
of Bishops of The Episcopal Church [Further] [And] Despite the attempt made to show that the House of Bishops and, therefore, The Episcopal Church, had met all the requirements and were Windsor Compliant, a surprising number of American bishops have continued to state publicly they will not be bound by overseas interference and will continue to permit the blessing of same-sex unions. Even though not elected as bishop, the Diocese of Chicago nominated a lesbian candidate contrary to the directive in the Dar es Salaam Communique. And one has only to read the newspapers to see that litigation is being pursued vigorously in Virginia and California with threats to do so again in the recent letters by the Presiding Bishop to Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh, Bishop Jack Iker of Fort Worth, and this week to me in San Joaquin. What are we to make of this duplicity? Surely the Primates are aware, as are we, that a major part of the House of Bishops in The Episcopal Church –along with members of their dioceses– have no intention of complying with the requests of the greater part of the Anglican Communion. Pride alone would suggest that the rest of the world will eventually see the validity of what is being done in the United States. Therefore, we are being prophetic in our actions. It might also suggest that there is a wholesale indifference to what the rest of the Anglican Communion thinks. Whichever it is, WE in San Joaquin need to ask the Lord what WE must do as Anglican Christians both evangelical and catholic. Today we stand at a critical juncture in history. It would be myopic to imagine that the rest of Christendom, let alone the Anglican Communion, is not watching and praying as we deliberate. Pray that the Holy Spirit will lead us in the momentous decisions that lie before us. It is only natural to experience fear, for what we are considering takes the Diocese of San Joaquin into unchartered waters. The leaders of the General Convention have expended enormous energy to spread their mantra: “Individuals may the leave the Church, but Parishes and Dioceses cannot.” No one seems to know who dreamed up this idea. What we DO know is that it is simply not true! During the time of the Civil War in the 1860's when this nation was torn apart, dioceses in those states called the Confederacy withdrew from what was then known as The Protestant Episcopal Church. During the war years they held their own conventions, developed their own Constitution, had there own House of Bishops, elected a Presiding Bishop, and consecrated a bishop for one of their dioceses. Nothing could be clearer. The southern dioceses had departed and had created a separate church. Today we might call it their own Province. Unlike many of the Protestant denominations, however, it didn’t make sense to Episcopalians to maintain the separation when the war ended. Not only were the southern bishops and their dioceses welcomed back, the newly consecrated bishop was recognized, and no punitive action was taken against anyone. Presumably the southerners had taken their property with them when they left. And, they would not have been the first to do this. Centuries before, King Henry VIII, with the help of Parliament prevented all English money from going to Rome. This action was followed up by taking all the property of the churches, including the monasteries and shrines –many of which he dismantled and sold. Today, were you to go to Ireland in search of a name or a tombstone of anyone buried before 1540, your search would have to be in Anglican –not Roman Catholic– churches and cathedrals. Somehow the Pope never asked that they be returned to him...and they weren’t. Colonial churches, especially those in Virginia, whose existence pre-date not only The Episcopal Church but the United States itself, were never given back to the Lord Bishop of London nor to the Archbishop of Canterbury when, after the American Revolution, Anglicans identified themselves as Episcopalians. They took their property with them. History is replete with instances in which dioceses, too, have moved from one Province to another – no matter how it was accomplished. Liberia moved from The Episcopal Church to the Province of West Africa, Venezuela moved from the West Indies to The Episcopal Church. Mexico has moved back and forth from The Episcopal Church more than once. Historically, Provinces, such as The Episcopal Church, are not, and never have been, an essential part of Catholic Order. On October 14th this year, Rowan Williams, our present Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote to Bishop John Howe of Central Florida: “...Without forestalling what the Primates might say, I would repeat what I’ve said several times before – that any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such.” Later, in the same letter, Archbishop Williams strengthened what he had said already by adding: “I should feel a great deal happier, I must say, if those who were most eloquent for a traditionalist view in the United States showed a fuller understanding of the need to regard the Bishop and the Diocese as the primary locus of ecclesial identity rather than the abstract reality of the ‘national church’.” (Emphasis added) Abstract realities do not own, nor have they ever owned, property. There is no question that what we are considering today will be called Schism. We will be told that unity trumps theology. We shall be told that we are doing is destructive and against history and Catholic Order. Once again, the words of J.I. Packer are most helpful. He notes: “Schism means unwarrantable and unjustifiable dividing of organized church bodies, by the separating of one group within the structure from the rest of the membership. Schism, as such, is sin, for it is a needless and indefensible breach of visible unity. But withdrawal from a unitary set-up that has become unorthodox and distorts the gospel in a major way and will not put its house in order as for instance when the English church withdrew from the Church of Rome in the sixteenth century, should be called not schism but realignment, doubly so when the withdrawal leads to links with a set-up that is faithful to the truth, as in the sixteenth century the Church of England entered into fellowship with the Lutheran and Reformed churches of Europe, and as now we propose gratefully to accept the offer of full fellowship with the Province of the Southern Cone. Any who calls such a move schism should be told they do not know what schism is.” For those of us who are facing the unknown, Provinces and Property seem to be among the top concerns. As bishop, I would like to suggest to you that a ‘NO’ vote at this convention will not provide the imagined protection needed to get on with our lives uninterrupted. Many do not realize that for 40 years, with the first twenty under Bishop Victor Rivera, and now nearly twenty years with me, as bishops we have been able to provide a buffer for our people from the innovations that abound in dioceses all around us. A quick trip north, south, east or west is all that it takes to wonder if we’re in the same church with those folks. Years ago, it was the moderate Bishop John MacArthur of West Texas who first stated clearly that “we are two churches under one roof.” A ‘NO’ vote would require my retirement in two years. No reasonable person could expect an orthodox successor. One has only to look at what happened to South Carolina when our own Mark Lawrence, bless him and Alison, went through two separate electing conventions and were close to being unanimously elected at each convention on the first ballot. The Lectionary, where we draw our biblical lessons from for public services, has already been changed. The fact that you may not have noticed a difference is due directly to the permission I have given to our clergy to continue to use the Lectionary we all know. This along with many other innovations not only would –but will– come about under a new bishop. If it is property that seems to be your main concern, if you are incorporated and a parish, you own your own property. You, or others before you, bought the land, built the church, have maintained the buildings and grounds, and your name is on the title deed. A ‘NO’ vote might seem to be the “safe” way to go. The effect of such a vote, however, would be to guarantee that this moment in time will NEVER come again before the General Convention meets in 2009. We should need two Annual Conventions to insure the protection we have before us today. With a ‘NO’ vote, everything reverts back to where we were before last December’s Convention. By the summer of 2009 no reasonable person could believe that Canon Laws will not be introduced... making it impossible for dioceses and parishes to leave. There are no such laws now. Property that once belonged to parishes and dioceses will belong to what the Archbishop of Canterbury rightly describes as the abstract reality of the “national church” for whom it will be held in trust. Without a single law suit, it will all be accomplished. Freedom to have the bishop you want, freedom from innovations that are contrary to Scripture, freedom to hold your own property will disappear. A ‘NO’ vote will inevitably bring about the worst of what we have tried to avoid...even if it were to take two years. Job sums it up for us: “What I feared has come upon me; what I dreaded has happened to me.” (Job 3.25) Finally, lest anyone thinks a ‘NO’ vote would keep the diocese in tact and very much the same is living in a fantasy world. There is good reason to suspect that many of our brothers and sisters’ conscience is at stake because of the major departures from Christianity The Episcopal Church continues to make unabated. Why would San Joaquin be spared the massive exodus of priests and congregations now going on in Central Florida, Texas, Rio Grande, Colorado and California? Many of these dioceses are experiencing a loss that could easily challenge their viability financially. Were we to lose a major portion of parishes where the Gospel is truly believed as God’s revelation and where tithing is accepted as a Scriptural mandate, the Diocese of San Joaquin could be hard put to continue to provide even the basic services most parishes now depend on. No, it is not a matter of “stay the same and be safe” or “leave and face the unknown”. Quite the opposite is true. We are in that critical moment where a ‘YES’ vote tomorrow with a majority brings us into union with a faithful Province, places us under a real Archbishop and Primate who is a holy man of God, and keeps us in the mainstream of Anglicanism. For my part, THIS is worth fighting for! In the end, it is all about freedom. It is about freedom to remain who we are in Christ. It is freedom to honor the authority of Scripture and to keep the Lectionary we now have. It is freedom to worship with the Prayer Book we know and freedom from innovations and services that are contrary to the Word of God. It is freedom to hold and practice the faith that the Episcopal Church received as a precious gift. It is freedom to “Go” ...to witness, to welcome churches who are looking to us in hostile areas, to plant new churches – in a word, freedom to respond to Jesus’ own command: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28. 19,20) Can we not do these things now? We can, but for how long? A ‘NO’ vote would place us under the authority of those who admit they do not know where they are going and who tell us all relates “to our understanding and embrace of God’s Kingdom and the Salvation we are offered in Jesus Christ– or to our lack of such understanding and engagement.” This is the time to know who we are in Christ, where we are headed, and to heed the words of Jesus: “Go ye...” God, give us the different spirit of Caleb who cried out “go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it.” Amen. Printable copy here. Diocese of San Joaquin: Friday, December 5, 2007 Bishop Schofield's response to Presiding Bishop Schori The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori Diocese of San Joaquin: Friday, November 16, 2007 Diocese of San Joaquin Invited to Join Anglican Church of the Southern Cone FRESNO, CA - November 16, 2007 – The Diocese of San Joaquin today announced that the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of South America has extended an invitation to offer the Diocese membership on an emergency and pastoral basis. The announcement comes three weeks before the Diocese is scheduled hear the second and final reading of Constitutional changes first adopted on December 2, 2006. Should the second reading of the Constitutional changes be approved at the Diocesan Convention on December 8, 2007, the Diocese is free to accept the invitation to align with the Province of the Southern Cone and remain a diocese with full membership within the Anglican Communion. According to the Rt. Rev. John-David M. Schofield, Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, “We welcome the invitation extended by the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone. The invitation assures the Diocese’s place in the Anglican Communion and full communion with the See of Canterbury.” He added, “This is a sensible way forward and is by no means irrevocable. During the 1860’s, the Dioceses of the Southern States left the Episcopal Church and then returned after the Civil War. As the Southern Cone invitation makes clear, the Diocese may return to full communion with the Episcopal Church when circumstances change and the Episcopal Church repents and adheres to the theological, moral and pastoral norms of the Anglican Communion, and when effective and acceptable alternative primatial oversight becomes available.” The Bishop’s pastoral letter will be read in churches of the Diocese on Sunday, November 18, 2007. For a full text of the letter, visit www.sjoaquin.net or contact Joan Gladstone, jgladstone@gladstonepr.com. The Diocese of San Joaquin was founded as a missionary diocese in 1911 and became a full autonomous diocese in 1961. The Diocese encompasses churches in the counties of San Joaquin, Alpine, Stanislaus, Calaveras, Mono, Merced, Mariposa, Tuolumne, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, Kern and Inyo. Printable copy here.Diocese of San Joaquin: Friday, November 16, 2007 Pastoral Letter to be Read in All
Churches of the Diocese of San Joaquin
Sunday, November 18 and Sunday, November 25,
2007 |
