The Diocese of San Joaquin is a part of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. The diocese currently stretches from just south of Sacramento, to the top of the Grapevine, south of Bakersfield; from west of I-5 including Coalinga and Los Banos, to the Nevada border.
This weblog has been an offical part of the communications for and by the diocese. It is currently an un-official weblog within the diocese. It is administered by the Rev. Robert Eaton, the Rector of St. John Episcopal Parish in Tulare, CA.
Decisions made at the December, 2007, Diocesan Convention have resulted in the consequent existence of a Diocese of San Joaquin, a member of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone of the Americas, and the Diocese of San Joaquin, a member of The Episcopal Church in the United States of America.
For further information there are two websites you can look at:
I am confused… if YOU are TEC, why do you have the SCone site here with a link?
Sherry,
Your shorthand is disturbing, and unhelpful.
But I’ll respond.
First, to your point, I hope:
after clearly stating from which diocese this weblog transmits, I clearly stated that there are in existence two dioceses with the same name. This IS confusing to all, both inside and outside the Church. Then, exhibiting a clearly Anglican (which all Episcopalians can claim) trait, I shared information that could possibly assist the enquirer.
Second, to your shorthand:
Be careful with antonyms. I am a priest in “TEC”, as you also might be a layperson or clergyperson in TEC. I am not The Episcopal Church, as you wrote, “if YOU are TEC”. If I were TEC (embodied), things would be different than they are now.
Also, I do not have the SCone site here with a link. Rather, I have a link here to the SCone site. If it would assist your sense of priority, I would be glad to place the SCone link after the other.
As to the larger implication of your note, –which unfortunately I have found to be very pervasive among many in the remaining diocese and is thus the reason I am responding at all — I am not a radical segregationist. Any Anglican (read also Episcopalian) who is, is not really Anglican. Consider the Racism training still of high priority within various leadership units in TEC.
From a pastoral perspective (although you didn’t request such from me, even though that sometimes is the requirement of being pastoral) I advise you to re-read and re-consider the words of Jesus, “love your enemy.” Please place “Be reconciled” at the top of your priority list. No one said this would be easy. But occultation is not the answer.
I’m sorry, but there are not two diocese of San Joaquin. The Canons and Constitution of the Southern Cone do not allow for receiving, creating, or recognizing a diocese outside the geographical area as defined in the constitution of that province. Nor does it permit the acceptance of a bishop of that province who is not canonically resident in that province. All such acts are illegal under the Southern Cone’s Canons and Constitution.
That means there is only ONE Diocese of San Joaquin, and that diocese is part of the Episcopal Church.
Spin the facts as Mr. Schofield and Presiding Bishop Venables wish, the facts speak for themselves.
James,
The Lord’s peace be with you.
I’m not sure whether you are suggesting some action to me, or just venting. Let me know.
In the meantime, if you are looking for some sort of motivation on my part, it seems inherent if not clear there are two groups of people in the same geographical area each identifying themselves with the same moniker; offering an un-annotated link to both websites might be all the information people need to not be so confused. For instance, I think you’d agree that for all the intelligent folks in San Luis Obispo, very, very few of them know the intricacies of the San Joaquin situation, much less could maintain any clarity when faced with quoted ecclesial Canons! But intelligent folks know how to take offered resources and find the info they need to be informed. Really, I think that’s all there is to this page.
If you are needing more specific whatever, for whatever your objection might be, then look to the definite articles.
rge
Father Eaton, I welcome your hospitality and peaceful gesture in providing links to both dioceses. I hope more in your own diocese have been inspired here to do as you have, and extend a gesture of dialog. Too often it’s assumed that people in different churches can’t talk, when tensions have occurred. We in the AES support both TEC and ACNA to the extent that they abide by the ecumenical principles of the Anglican Communion. Your gesture of peace and dialog is certainly something that I personally support. I believe that your fellow Anglican clergy in the other diocese share your views here – it makes little sense for the people of either diocese to try to discourage contact with, or disfellowship, those of the other diocese.
James, I live in Europe and am a part of the Church of England. Even over here, some are aware that there was a great degree of questionableness around the creation of the San Joaquin diocese which is now a part of TEC – there are reasonable suggestions that a number of different cannons were violated in the process. You might want to read up about these problems yourself. The Anglican Curmudgeon has some excellent postings on the legal intricacies of these purported violations. You could also have more sensitivity toward Fr. Eaton, as he was marginalized and excluded from the Standing Committee in one such move by the Presiding Bishop. You should be careful before you throw stones and claim that the other does not exist.
On the other hand, I hear good news, and it sounds like the new Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin worships the Risen Christ. With people like Father Eaton choosing to remain in the diocese, I have great reason for hope.
I write as an individual and not for the AES.