Meeting in convention today, the Diocese of San Joaquin has done something or other, but I am not quite sure what. The AP story is here. Father Jake and some others commentators are calling this a move toward session. But I am not persuaded they are right.
At first glace, at least, it seems to me that after weeks of proclaiming its desire to shake the dust of the Episcopal Church off of its feet, the diocese has instead expressed its disdain for dust and pronounced its feet clean.
Note this paragraph: The resolution was noticeably weaker than an amendment pulled this week that would have given delegates the choice to formally split with the U.S. denomination, which would have set off a legal battle over the diocese’s millions of dollars in real estate.
Whatever the case, Bishop Schofield’s convention address is worth reading because it gives one such a vivid sense of the man.
At second glance, there may be more here than I originally supposed, but I’m not sure I’ve got the background to figure it out. I still think the resolution to which we’ve paid the most attention (the beginning of Article II as I recall) is not particularly consequential. But elsewhere in Simon Sarmiento’s extensive links I came across a resolution that, if passed on second reading next year, would declare the diocese a corporation sole. If that action were taken, and allowed to stand by the courts, it would establish diocesan sovereignty in matters of property. That would, obviously, be a radical departure from our current understanding of how we have organized ourselves, and I think Network strategists should note that it cuts both ways. Yes, diocesan ownership would trump national ownership, so in Network dioces that might be beneficial. But it would also trump congregational ownership. So in non-network dioceses it would harm the larger cause.
At least that is my not especially educated read. It does seem to me that San Joaquin is trying to force the national church to take them to court. I hope we here something from 815 or Bishop Saul’s property committee soon, because this is a confusing situation.
Here is The New York Times story which comes with an erroneous headline. The diocese didn’t vote to seceed, it appears to have voted to put itself in a position to seceed at its next convention. What is especially curious is that the Times teased this story on its front page. In what universe does the fact that a dioces with 7,000 people might vote to seceed from the church next year at this time constitute front page news?