Surrounded

This text was handed to the person identified as the Secretary of Convention for inclusion in the minutes of the Meeting.  The person identified as Parliamentarian (and Chancellor) ruled that it could not be included except by approved Motion from the floor of the Meeting.   To be consistent  with our position of not acting in any legal fashion at the meeting, we chose not to do so, nor to ask anyone else to do our work for us.  We knew that some of the proceedings were being recorded and there would be the potential of some sort of media posting of the protest.  We therefore chose to exhibit the complete prepared text of the protest here on Surrounded.  In posting, a few grammatical errors have been corrected from the hand-written text used at the microphone, as well as, in two places, a one or two-word edit of a phrase where the meaning was not immediately clear .

Presented as a point of personal priviledge before the Special Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin held Saturday, March 29, 2008 in Lodi, California, at approximately 10 am.

St. John Parish, Tulare – Protest/Objection Statement #1

Read by George Sutton:

We greet you all in the name of Jesus Christ.
We are here at this proceeding by choice to be considered as Episcopalians and a part of this Diocese voluntarily signing our allegiance as Episcopalians.
The signing of the allegiance as Episcopalians prior to any Episcopal Convention is an unwarranted and unprecedented act especially for already certified delegates from an Episcopal Congregation or Diocese.
Nevertheless, we have come to publicly state our place in this Diocese and because we do have a place, we object and protest the canonical legality of this meeting as an official legislative convention of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin.

We will not be casting any votes for any measure or resolution presented at this meeting.

By direction of the Canons only the ecclesiastical authority of a diocese can call a special convention if there is no Bishop. That responsibility falls to the Standing Committee as per Title 3, Canon 13. The Standing Committee has not called this special convention. Therefore, it would be our understanding that any decision made today on behalf of the Diocese cannot be implemented because they are null and void.

Read by Gillian Busch:

Beyond the issues we have just raised concerning canonical status of this meeting, we are also very concerned about a precedent of “non-inclusion” set by the Steering Committee. It came to our attention, by un-official notice, that a Steering Committee for the re-organization of the Diocese would be established. In that notice, it was stated that a Steering Committee would be composed of one (1) priest and one (1) lay person from each congregation that chose not to leave the Episcopal Church.
St. John Parish, in Tulare, a Parish in good standing, never having left the Episcopal Church was not included in the Steering Committee process.
As a result, a clear voice for a canonically compliant path for the Diocese was not followed.

George Sutton, Elected Delegate from Parish Annual Meetings (1/07 and 1/08, respectively)
to 2007 Diocesan Convention (held 12/07)
and 2008 Diocesan Convention (canonically scheduled for 10/0
Senior Warden
St. John Parish, Tulare

Gillian P. Busch, Elected Delegate from Parish Annual Meetings (1/07 and 1/08, respectively)
to 2007 Diocesan Convention (held 12/07)
and 2008 Diocesan Convention (canonically scheduled for 10/0
Vestry Member
St. John Parish, Tulare

The Rev. Robert G. Eaton, Clergy Delegate by Canonical Residency
Rector
St. John Parish, Tulare

St. John Parish, Tulare – Protest/Objection Statement #2

Prior to the agenda item of election of Standing Committee members

Regarding the election of Standing Committee members (and similarly of General Convention delegates), I come before you to simply state that I object to and protest the election of any new Standing Committee member who would in effect replace me, a diocesan Standing Committee member (and any Standing Committee member) validly and duly elected at the December 2007 Diocesan Convention (and prior conventions). I have not, nor did I ever leave the (Episcopal) Church, nor have I acted in such a way as to repudiate my place in the Church.

The Rev. Robert G. Eaton, Clergy Delegate by Canonical Residency
Standing Committee Member, elected to 4-year term, December 2007 Diocesan Convention
Rector
St. John Parish, Tulare

Objections were declined by the chair, citing the Presiding Bishop’s earlier explanation regarding such objections

Beryl,

Why don’t you ask me some questions and I’ll try to respond.   I’m posting in this manner right now because I lost a long response to the recesses of “clipboard.” 

I will start though with a few comparable matches to what I know about you — I am 52 and the grandfather to 4.   I have been the rector of the Episcopal parish in Tulare for 18 1/2 years.

Jesus is my Lord.

It was said on another weblog recently regarding the diocese of Northwest Texas, that a rumor was floating that the Nominating Committee/Standing Committee only wanted “liberal” nominees heading into what was to be their May Electing Convention.  The background of the thread Post itself was that only 2 nominees had been selected for an intended slate of 3 to 5.  So the Electing Convention has been postponed a month to give the Nominating Committee more time to get at least a third nominee on board.

Teaching and encouraging and leading others through the election process has been one of my deep concerns over many years, now, including the same conversation with members of my own family who are spread abroad TEC and have been faced with episcopal elections in their own dioceses.  The following, as a result, did not take long to type out, and I am reprinting it here, since San Joaquin is faced with (as some have publicized it) the “election” of a bishop with provisional authority (which is not how the canons describe such approval), and in the long term as a now very small diocese the election of an Ordinary. 
 RGEaton

“I would want to hear that rumor from the Standing Committee/Nominating Committee itself before believing it (searching only for “liberal” candidates). 

“The problem of not having enough candidates is not a new problem!
“So you folks in NWT should not feel alone.  This problem has been made known by readers of StandFirm and TitusOneNine and in other venues for probably 3 to 5 years.  And it is not just a matter of not finding “qualified” candidates (whatever thay might mean these days).  There are simply a lot of clergy (across the spectrum) who are gun shy of “the process”, or are hedging their bets still on TEC, or don’t want to be caught in a small-ish or small diocese with membership decreases (one of the consequences being ongoing funding of the episcopate - the job).
“It would seem the Search Comm is calling out for involvement in the process.  Like [a commenter] mentioned re: Eau Claire on that thread, the reasserter folks in NWT have an amazing, yet very small, window that has opened up to them.   Find the Ackerman, the Lillibridge, the Adams, the M.Smith; find the Love.  : )
They are out there.  Fast and pray for a day or two regarding who they might be and how you might make contact with them.  Take the direction given in your prayer time, get in touch with them, ask them to do the same prayer and fasting, and get back to you.  Make as many contacts as names you have been led to consider.   Then get that nomination form to them, and get the info to the Search Comm.  Pronto.

“BTW, when I say ‘…as names you have been led to consider’, I am not limiting to priests who might be a nominee.  A “name” might be your TEC cousin in some other diocese who is not ordained, and the Lord might be leading you to have a conversation with them because THEY know of someone (even the cousin hadn’t thought about it yet).   Or the name of someone you have never met, but you know of them, and THEY have a contact that should be asked to be a nominee.

“Which leads me to my final thought on this.  The members of the Search Committees of smaller dioceses must give a <b>great</b> deal of time to the matter of specific, Holy Spirit calling and inspiration.  Not that large dioceses must (in my opinion) also.  But beware the priest willing to suffer the lower stipend in a smaller diocese in order to be consecrated a bishop, only to find a better paying bishop job in some other larger diocese, and resign.  Those bishops exist.  Those dioceses exist (”just find someone”, or “who would look best under our mitre”).  Granted, this may have been unforseen consequence, as one recent example suggests.

“It is better to keep postponing the election in order to find 3 or more clergy who are convinced in their own deep discernment, and for the Search Comm to be convinced in their own deep discernment of each of their nominees, that it is the Lord’s Will for each nominee to certain of their place in that election, than to simply find someone who seems to fit the profile.

“How can a Search Committee (and a potential nominee) be sure?  Well, to assist those in discernment (searching for God’s Will, leading and direction), it is important to identify and receive the ministry of Spirit-gifted prophets, and those with the gift of words of knowledge.  It is important to set aside retreat times, making use of a gifted facilitator in Spirit discernment.  It is important to be open to the possibility of a nominee who doesn’t fit the profile, but whose name is strongly present through the Spirit’s leading.  Practicing the presence of God in this way may be something you’ve never really done before — but now you have to step up.   Be led by prayer and scripture.  Understand how the Holy Spirit moves.  Keep your eyes upon Jesus.

“All of this cannot happen without intercession.  I can only hope that any diocese in preparation for an electing convention would have at least 10% of each congregation committeed and engaged in intercessory prayer.”

Regarding the manner of dealing with San Joaquin:

“If the axe is dull, and one does not sharpen the edge, then he must use more strength.

But wisdom brings success.”

Ecclesiastes 10:10

 Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary  :

“10. iron . blunt-in “cleaving wood” (Ec 10:9), answering to the “fool set in dignity” (Ec 10:6), who wants sharpness. More force has then to be used in both cases; but “force” without judgment “endangers” one’s self. Translate, “If one hath blunted his iron” [Maurer]. The preference of rash to judicious counsellors, which entailed the pushing of matters by force, proved to be the “hurt” of Rehoboam (1Ki 12:1-33).

wisdom is profitable to direct-to a prosperous issue. Instead of forcing matters by main “strength” to one’s own hurt (Ec 9:16, 18). “

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary :

“10:4-10 Solomon appears to caution men not to seek redress in a hasty manner, nor to yield to pride and revenge. Do not, in a passion, quit thy post of duty; wait awhile, and thou wilt find that yielding pacifies great offences. Men are not preferred according to their merit. And those are often most forward to offer help, who are least aware of the difficulties, or the consequences. The same remark is applied to the church, or the body of Christ, that all the members should have the same care one for another.”

the Rev. Dr. Leander Harding :

“I think that the decision making process that has taken hold in our church has often been a non-consultative process which relies on finesse and fait de compli and is lacking in the patience required if the church is to know its own mind. This is a critique that I would apply to both sides of the aisle, so to speak.”    

 from a comment following his weblog post “Godly Bishops.”