The Protest text
March 30, 2008 by rgeaton
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 10/2008 )
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 10/2008 )
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
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Fr Rob, you and your people have earned stars in your Heavenly Crown by your witness. You are truly “martyrs” in the truest sense of that word. May you go from strength to strength and glory to glory.
OK, so you said your piece. It was a good one. I wouldn’t go so far as Father Dan. Cranmer, Ridley and Lattimer still have one up on you.
But, my question is what next? In particular, the whole equation has fundamentally changed. I think that it would be proper for your church to hold another vote in this new light. Pastorally, I think it would be a disaster for your sheep to be led into the wolves’ den.
It’s great you showed up, claimed your place as Episopalians and participated.
But martyrs? Don’t go getting your heads measured for halos just yet.
When there are two entities purporting to be the Diocese of San Joaquin, one loyal to a South American outfit and one to the U.S. Episcopal Church, what exactly was your objection to the pledge of allegiance you voluntarily signed?
It may have been unprecedented, but it was hardly unnecessary. Nor was it onerous; “tell us which church you’re loyal to.”
You may have some notion of who the legal Standing Committee was prior to the reorganizing convention, but no one else had any clue. First JDS declared “everyone’s now in the Southern Cone,” then some people asked for more time, then JDS decided to fire most of the former TEC Standing Committee, leaving a few members no one knew what to do with—because no one heard from you.
In the vacuum, the Presiding Bishop withdrew her “recognition,” whatever that means. And your response? A nasty public letter denouncing the Presiding Bishop.
A new convention was called, all parishioners invited, 18 parishes attended, everyone signed their allegiance forms, and the convention elected officers and a new provisional bishop. You could have declared yourself a loyal member of the present Standing Committee AND a candidate for the new one. But no, you’re still clinging to a former reality that no longer exists, when nothing in the canons is directly relevant to this unprecedented situation.
So you threw monkey wrenches instead, with not one but three process objections. I suppose you were within your rights.
But truly loyal Episcopalians would recognize that the Episcopal Diocese needed to be reconstituted immediately, and might have tolerated a faulty process (if indeed it were). You don’t seem to have offered a positive alternative course of action, and refused to vote on anything before you.
The effect of your behavior is simply to raise new questions about your intentions.
Meanwhile the reality is that there are two Dioceses of San Joaquin, and you belong in one or the other. May God reveal to you in prayer which is your proper home.
The Episcopalians had a great time in God this weekend. I’m sorry you didn’t let yourself share in that, but sulked in the corner instead.
Were those Christians you saw weeping tears of joy, or not?
So the Remain Episcopal people who profess reconciliation and inclusiveness of all things and people really showed just how reconciling and inclusive they truly are when you and your delagtes delivered their misconduct in the protest statements! Valiant effort I will give you that but, now what?
They are not going to budge from the path they are on. They have been plotting for a long time to get to where they are now and no one or ones, just like yurself and the good parishioners of St. John’s or anywhere else is going to be heard, listened to or adhered to by them. You will either agree with them, or be thrown to the lions. Just look at what Fresno Mark of Holy Family said to you on the Beryl thread. He gave you your three choices:
1. Agree with us and walk with us
2. Go to Schofield
3. Walk Alone
That says volumes to me and anyone with any reality of sight and truth in hearing can figure out that this ctooked path of apostacy of TEc and Remain Episcopal is not a path of God!
But you all are in my prayers Fr. Rob
May the Lod bless you and yours in all that you do. Your witness has been and will be heard.
Was any thought given by folk to show up and vote at this special convention and simply put the same members back in as the SC? Surely there are more of this crowd than the Remain Episcopal crowd. What was KJS gonna do, call in the police to remove them? Now that would have been a sight to see…
You are truly “martyrs” in the truest sense of that word.
Except that they didn’t actually die.
Big Red,
Thanks be to God.
I believe when Fr. Martins used the phrase, “in the truest sense of the word”, he was specifically referring to the original sense of the Greek word. Moving into the New Testament canon, the word was then used to describe those early Christians who testified and witnessed to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in the face of all trials, or perhaps no trials at all. You see it in Acts 22:20 as the Greek word martusreferring to Stephen, and invariably translated in its original sense as “witness” or simply as “martyr” (with the hopes one would know what it means or find out). But the complete phrase in 22:20 is “And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.’ (NIV). There you have a lasting connection in the reader’s mind between “blood” and “witness”, or “martyr.” Fox’s “Book of Martyrs” helped perpetuate that connection as inevitable.
But it is important to see as you read that verse, the implication that if Stephen had not been stoned to death, he still would have been a “martyr” because he was a witness (in this context to a rather hostile crowd that couldn’t handle the witnessing) to the Messianic Lordship of Jesus Christ. Thus, a Christian martyr is one who witnesses to Jesus.
Still, the seed was laid for the modern use of the word which is usually only defining someone who HAS actually died as a consequence of their beliefs, whatever they might be (the word is used broadly, as you are aware, well beyond being confined only to Christian references).
If you want to cease the voice of the martyr, what you for SURE don’t want to do is to shed their blood unto death.
I might add that when I first saw Fr. Dan use that phrase on his blog, I objected exactly because we were not yet dead. In the context of the charismata, the “spiritual gifts”, C.Peter Wagner and others have so identified “martyrdom” (the killing of a martyr). In that case, martyrdom is a one time gift, don’t you think?
I believe my comment is still posted on that thread. If not there, it is somewhere else in response.
Dear Fr. Rob:
You and your congregation are in my prayers.
Your colleagues in Sequoia Deanery are gathering tomorrow for clergy fellowship at noon at St. John’s Porterville. Fr. James and I would be ever so delighted to see you if you are able to join us.
Grace and Peace
Francie+
Deacon Francie,
Thank you for the invitation and the prayers. I love you guys and what we had for so many years as a caring, encouraging, accountable, trusting clericus.
Sadly, I will not be attending.
Finally the lesson has been learned; if you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas! If you can’t rid yourself of the fleas you leave. What is the problem?