Forward in Faith is appalled by TEC Primate Jefferts Schori’s continued attack upon Bishop Jack L Iker, a bishop of the Province of the Southern Cone. The actions of Jefferts Schori are an embarrassment to Christians and all of Anglicanism. Her actions clearly demonstrate her disregard for other provinces of the Anglican Communion and the canons of her own denomination. Clearly her statements misrepresent the facts. Bishop Iker has not renounced his orders, nor has he abandoned the Communion.
FiF is appreciative of Bishop Jack Iker’s leadership and willingness to stand for biblical truth and the faith and order of the undivided Church. Forward in Faith applauds Bishop Iker’s leadership in the Diocese of Fort Worth, in our worldwide Forward in Faith organization and in the further establishment of the Anglican Church of North America. We offer prayers of thanksgiving for Bishop Iker’s faithfulness and ask our Lord Jesus to continue to bless his ministry as a bishop for the further spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
–(The Rt. Rev.) John Fulham is Chairman, Forward in Faith International
He was attacked? I can’t find anything. Are they referring to him renouncing his orders?
To which attacks does this refer?
[i] Off topic, sarcastic, and joking comments will be deleted by the elves. [/i]
As I commented over at SF concerning the FiF reaction:
Now, imagine how that would have read without the British diplomatic tact and reserve. One very interesting turn of phrase: [blockquote]Her actions clearly demonstrate her disregard for other provinces of the Anglican Communion and the canons of her own denomination.[/blockquote]Note the term “her own denomination†rather than “her own provinceâ€. One does not generally think of, say, the Church of Wales as being a separate “denomination†from the Church of England, now does one?
Bishop Iker didn’t officially renounce his orders. [ [i] The Presiding Bishop [/i] ] just hallucinated that he did.
[i] Slightly edited by elf.[/i]
Elves, you don’t find referance to the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church as [i] nickname [/i]on an Episcopalian’s blog to be sarcastic? I’m just ask’n.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
[i] A measure of latitude. [/i]
Elves, you are violating your own well publicized guidelines by permitting a reference to the duly elected Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church by simply her first name. Unless, Chris Johnson is on a first name basis with Bishop Schori and holds such rank, the comment is inappropriate and should be edited. Chris shows his bias by referring to Bishop Iker with appropriate ecclesiastical deference and should do the same for Bishop Schori.
Each time Mrs. Shori acts in such a fashion, she is admitting that the Episcopal Church is no longer in communion with most of the Anglican Communion. Nothing more, nothing less. It has no bearing on the priest or bishop’s ministry, just a nice trophy to hang in the foyer.
So the renunciation claim is the “attack?” Perhaps tjmcmahon is incorrect that they are trying British diplomatic tact. It does seem strange to use such a strong word when it can at least be argued that he did resign from TEC, if not his orders. But I imagine we can at least all agree that +Iker no longer desires to be a bishop of TEC, can’t we?
6 & 8 may have a point: A question of propriety is raised as to whether or not one should use a “Christian name” in reference to Bishop Schori.
[i] #11 you are correct. I will fix it. [/i]
IF the disputedly-referred-to-by-name were as diligent in regard to the words of canon laws as the elves to propriety, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in. Same goes for predecessors Browning and Griswold, to lay the pavement of their errors at their feet and will.
But, for God’s sake (apparently) do let us get the *nomen* in good propriety and never mind the prevarications made by the same variously-named that are factually incorrect and fall short of propriety or truth in equal measure. We must keep priorities, now. We must.
She should be Catherine Nevada
When I served in Army there were fellow officers, both subordinate and superior, whom I neither liked nor respected. I’m sure the feelings were mutual; however, we always respected the legitimate rank of that person. He or she was always “Colonel Brown or Major Jones, etc.” It was a mark of being an officer and a gentleman not to refer to others by derogatory nicknames. While no longer in service, I’ve always thought it proper to recognize duly appointed or elected titles, e.g., Archbishop, Bishop, Canon, etc. Those who have to resort to denigration by referring to PB Jefferts Schori (or Abps. Akinola, Orombi, et al) in terms direspectful of their lawful offices simply diminish themselves, in my opinion. What is possibly lost by addressing one another respectfully and with due deference?
It does become rather tiresome to continually add +, Bp., etc., to names, and sometimes the individual referred to is not acceptable in the position to the commenter. I have decided to consistently refer to them ALL by their proper surnames according to their several preferences: Duncan, Akinola, Jefferts Schori, and so on.
I do occasionally refer to our host as “Kendall,” although I don’t know him personally, but he posts that way, and I hope he doesn’t mind.
On the subject of the post, I agree with #4 tjmcmahon that Fulham’s use of “her denomination” is a careful use of the word.
trouble is #15 the officers you dealt with did not have dubious orders.
I strugle tp use episcopal prefix in this case as it seems as hollow as calling a man in a dress by a woman’s name.
In both cases manners and the popluarist zeitgeist might request me to do so….but in both cases I cannot in all conscience refuse to see beyond the office and dress to what lies beneath.
I guess attack is in the eye of the beholder. Of course, some reasserters see an attack on Bishop Ike by the Presiding Bishop Katherine Jeffert Schori when she states that she has accepted Bishop Iker’s renunciation of his orders when he did no such thing. Canons require that said renunciation must be in writing. Bishop Iker has responded to the Pb’s comments and said he never renounced His Holy Orders and is now under the authority of the Province of the Southern Cone. A. S. Haley and the ACI have provided solid argument how the PB is once again violating the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Thus, from this point of view, this is an attack, unsubstantiated, and unfounded attack.
Let me second Katherine’s position. The titles become aggravating because Anglicans have title coming out their noses. Fewer titles and nice distinctions would be helpful. I don’t object to proper titles, mind you. I could never call my deacon by his first name. But there are limits. Schori is to me Schori, but I suppose I will run into trouble again for this practice. Still and all, Katherine is right. Larry
If referring to someone by their proper title is a sign of respect, what are those of us who have no respect for [insert name] supposed to do? I will never refer to Spong, Pike, Righter, et al respectfully and the same goes for [insert name]. I would sooner not refer to them at all.
the snarksterâ„¢
Perhaps we should start referring to the OB as “Dr. Schori;” thereby easing the problem which so many of us have in referring to her as a bishop.
I meant to say “PB.”