You may recall Charlotte Allen’s LA Times  op-ed in which she lays out the fruit of liberalism in contemporary Protestantism. Her critique was met with a response ad from the Episcopal Bishop of LA, who vaunted their democratic ways, etc. Charlotte scores again, noting the decidedly undemocratic moves Bishop Bruno and his fellows are making against the San Joaquin bishop, who has requested alternate oversight for his diocese.

Who gets to keep the beautiful old church building has always been the burning issue as scores of conservative Episcopalian congregations have broken off from their liberal dioceses over the past thirty years, usually over the issue of female priests and bishops, for which there seems to be no biblical authority. The dioceses usually win—but California judges ruling in these disputes have been increasingly inclined to rely on general principles of property law (such as who’s paying the bills) rather than what the bishop says (see this article in the Living Church). Furthermore, this is the first time that entire dioceses have effectively split off from the national body—and there is no precedent for turning over diocesan property to the national church.

So the bishop of California, William T. Swing, working in concert with Bruno and the bishops of San Diego and northern California, has come up with a novel theory designed to oust Schofield fast: The four bishops are arguing that Schofield intends to “abandon the communion of this Church [that is, the Episcopal Church USA].” And hell, Swing told the Living Church, it’s “unfathomable” that anyone would even try to retain church property after leaving the church.