Thursday, May 28, 2009

Bishop Lamb Confirms Lack of Quorum to Elect Him

From the Anglican Curmudgeon -

May 27, 2009

Bishop Lamb has finally provided proof that there was not a sufficient quorum of clergy canonically resident in the Diocese of San Joaquin who were present at the "Special Diocesan Convention" which was held in Lodi a year ago March 29. Today he acknowledged that last Friday and this Tuesday, he signed certificates with the intent of deposing 61 clergy in the Diocese for having "abandoned the Communion of this Church" in leaving to follow the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield and his Diocese out of ECUSA. (H/T: VirtueOnLine.)

The full article is here


Alan Rogers said...

Please forgive my ignorance, Van, but I don't understand the point about the number of clergy canonically resident last year. Are you saying Lamb's appointment is in question, or are you saying that there were'nt enough clergy to have any kind of convention at all?
I too am sorry about the depositions. As usual, this is another manifestation of the bi-polar mess that used to be the church I loved. I don't follow or support either faction now, and never will.

Fr Van McCalister said...


You are not alone. I think that Haley's (the Anglican Curmudgeon) "revelation" may take several people by surprise. You can follow the link and read his full analysis but this is my understanding - in brief: TEC and Bp Lamb needed to do one of two things to properly accomplish (re)establishing the diocese and electing a new bishop and standing committee, which requires a minimum of 1/3 of the clergy for a quorom per the canons. 1. Immediately recognize the transfer of all of Bp Schofield's clergy into another province. So that they would no longer be canonically resident making it possible to have a reduced number for a quorom. Or, 2. Wait until the House of Bishops had completed the inhibition & deposition process of Bp Schofield and then wait until Bp Lamb had completed the inhibition/depostion of the priests and deacons, which would have then taken our clergy off of the canonical roster and allowed the remaining clergy to establish a quorom. Even the second strategy is wrought with problems, because it does not take into account the fact that there was already a duly elected standing committee that has the responsibility of electing another bishop after one has retired or been deposed. And, it is the Standing Committee that must determine whether or not an inhibition/deposition may go forward or not.

By not following the canons' due process, they acted without a quorom because the clergy were neither transferred, nor deposed. Therefore, we were part of the count needed to establish a quorom. And, yes the convention should not have gone forward - there was no quorom to elect a bishop or a standing committee. There is good reason why most churches and organizations follow rules regarding quoroms; so that a minority number can't stage a coup.

You are right. It is a shameful mess. I pray that you have been able to find healthy Christian fellowship elsewhere.

lost-sheep said...

My question is this...why are blogs constantly being used as "news" sources on this website/blog? You refer to two blogs in your post. I think at least you should inform your readers that they are heading into opinion websites that may or may not contain facts. While not all news stories are the best, they are different than blogs. A quick Google search provided these two:

Now, forgive my possible ignorance, but I am trying to get to the 82 number that Hayley claims and am having trouble. If 52 were recently deposed and 21 were present... I can only get to 73. I know I must be missing something. Can you point me to the other nine?

Thank you.

lost-sheep said...

I think I found my answer re: the 82 number. I was confused by the 36+16 versus the stated 61, I think.

Fr Van McCalister said...


I can't speak for other blogs but as the editor/administrator for Soundings, my goal is to provide information that I believe will be of most interest to our readers, which I suppose to be mostly those who have some connection or interest with the Diocese of San Joaquin. We do not claim/attempt to be a news outlet, other than when we offer an official news release from Bp Schofield. Also, we are consciously trying to offer more articles that have nothing to do with the politics of the Church. That is why I have asked Deacon Dale Matson to write for us. I look forward to having more writers of his caliber, who will help us to provide a broader offering, while still being relevant to those who share our local interests.

Actually, I think that Ron Orozco (Fresno Bee) and Sue Nowicki (Modesto Bee) generally provide a fairly accurate & balanced report on these stories. That's because they have followed the issues for three years now. That is not the case with most other reporters, who frequently show in their stories that they haven't done their homework well.

We have included articles by George Conger also, who is a journalist who is published in American and British papers. Many of our posts are source news releases, which are what the journalists read and provide edited versions of. I just think the source material is more interesting. You are right that the legal analysis by A.S. Haley (Anglican Curmudgeon) are opinion pieces/editorials. However, Haley is a well respected attorney who is also an expert on Canon Law and the current situation within The Episcopal Church. So, his articles are included as one would an expert consultant rather simply the emotional ramblings that you find in many of the blogs.

Frankly, I am appalled by some of the vitriolic and rambling posts that we see in many of the blogs and I don't plan on publishing any of that kind of nonsense.

Thank you for your question.

Alan Rogers said...

Dear Van
Thank You for your thoughtful answer to my query.
This all goes to prove what my parents tried to teach me, that there are always at least two sides to a story.
I am sorry for you, and other honest clergy who have spent considerable money and time to become ordained, then find themselves occupied with business that has nothing to do with the Gospel. It must be very disillusioning and painful.
Thank You also for your concern that I find another Christian body. I have not, as they are all basically the same. I think this is my lot in life, which is okay. Jesus and the disciples could not function in the established church of their day either. God bless you!