Breaking up is hard to do. Just ask the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth ”“ both of them.
There was one diocese until November, when a large majority of clergy and lay delegates voted to withdraw from the Episcopal Church. They left over what they saw as the denomination’s departure from orthodox faith, including such issues as ordaining women as priests and accepting an openly gay bishop.
The withdrawing group ”“ led by Bishop Jack Iker ”“ still calls itself the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, though it has realigned with a conservative, Argentina-based province of the Anglican Communion.
On the other side, a handful of Fort Worth-area churches and contingents of several more are sticking with the Episcopal Church. They, too, are calling themselves the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.
The groups are contesting not only the name but ownership of church buildings and other assets across the 24-county diocese.
[blockquote]The Episcopal Church maintains that local church assets are held in trust for the denomination and its dioceses. This weekend, Jefferts Schori is expected to indicate her legal strategy for holding on to properties claimed by Iker and his group. [/blockquote]
When I play tug-of-war with the dog, I growl at her and say “Gimme Dat!”
I can just see Mrs. Schori saying the same thing to Mr. Iker!
Same question as in Pittsburgh: Why do the departing brethren wish to continue to use the term “Episcopal”? I would think the general desire would be to be well clear of that affiliation and reference.
Not certain I understand your question NoVA. It’s been the position of these dioceses that the diocese is the central unit of the church — and not 815 or some “national” office.
So . . . they wish to maintain their identity. Why should heretics and those who do not believe the gospel get to keep the name “episcopal.” It’s a perfectly good word, in and of itself, and perhaps those two dioceses, along with others, will be able to rehabilitate its real meaning and beauty.
Given the GC leadership’s attitude towards bishops, primates, and other [i]episcopoi[/i] in the Church, one must wonder why it hangs on so desperately to the name. I guess “congregationalists in fancy clothes” lacks some of the status implied by churches with Apostolic succession, but it more accurately reflects the attitude and working theology in the current leadership.
The preference for “Anglican” terminology is very strong in Virginia and some other places where there have been departures. Because of distaste for all (or many) things associated with TEC, most departing congregations have bailed fairly quickly on the “Episcopal” label. My question is why this is not the case in Fort Worth and Pittsburgh.
Sarah’s point has a compelling logic. Heretics and infidels have no rights. It’s easy to know exactly who they are. If one can walk out with the physical property and assets, might as well take the name. Saves on signage.
The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is currently keeping the name because that’s the name of the Texas corporation of which Bp. Jack Iker is the head. Perhaps at some time in the future the corporation will see fit to legally change its name, but there is no need to do so. It emphasizes the fact that the upstarts (the parishes that with to remain yoked to TEO/GC) are not the diocese and won’t be *any* diocese until they form a Texas corporation (can’t be The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth since that name’s taken) and then petition GC for admittance.
Not matter what the PLO (Presiding Litigation Officer) does, she can’t change by fiat the legal structure without properly abiding by the rules of The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (a Texas Corporation) or proving in court that said corporation had violated its by-laws and the relevant section of the Texas law pertaining to corporations.
The word “Episcopal” is overrated anyway.
“Heretics and infidels have no rights.” Ouch!
Don’t the Taliban say those sorts of things?
I do wonder what the “casual” Episcopalian in North Texas thinks….
Our local outlet listed itself in the phone book as “Anglican”. It left TEC when the diocese did. Then, after a blitz of phone calls saying that the parish would loose everything, it voted to return to TEO. In last week’s paper, and this morning’s paper, they have a box ad, complete with picture, announcing the services and describing themselves as “Episcopal”. Funny, for years they didn’t have the money for notices in the paper except at Christmas and Easter, now two weeks in a row, a big box ad with photo. Go figure.
Dumb Sheep.
[blockquote] But Walter Cabe, president of Steering Committee North Texas Episcopalians, called Gulick an “ideal candidate” who is supported by Fort Worth-area Episcopalians who didn’t necessarily agree with the Robinson vote.
“When intelligent, mature Episcopalians look at the challenges ahead of us,” Cabe said, “it’s just not a litmus test.”
[/blockquote]
Walt Cabe makes it clear that if one is “Intellegent and Mature” they can’t disagree with the Robinson vote. It is unfortunate to hear this kind of veiled insult from Walt who was my fellow parishioner for many years.
I do wonder what the “casual†Episcopalian in North Texas thinks….
Probably what casual Episcopalians everywhere think: I hope that’s the right fork.
The Fox News outlet here just ran a bit on the TEC diocesan meeting today, with footage and the address of the meeting (Trinity,FW). I was looking for the presiding bishop, saw Bp. Iker, then realized they were showing the SC diocese convention. 🙂
In order for the PB and Walt to “take over” the Fort Worth corporation, they would have to file a new list of directors and board members with the State of Texas. The courts in Texas will need to decide the legality of such a move. Is anyone interested in a hostile takeover of Exxon? How hard can it be?
RE: “Heretics and infidels have no rights.”
Again — not certain I understand your meaning NOVA Scout.
Of course heretics and infidels have rights — along with schismatics and homophobes.
But really . . . not all that relevant to our little exchange — other than to vent your anger and spleen . . . which is fine of course.
RE: “Don’t the Taliban say those sorts of things?”
Indeed, JW. But really — NOVA Scout, I think, could not be characterized accurately as “the Taliban.”
He was merely trying to communicate his anger over my pointing out that the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth [Southern Cone] did not have to surrender the word “episcopal” merely because the heretics and other-gospel 815ers demanded it.
Thankfully, all of this will be adjudicated by the secular, and far more objective and just, courts.
Win or lose, it is a mercy that it is not 815 that is in charge of such matters.
http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1191352.html
A good story on yesterday’s convention; Terry Goodrich has been really even-handed and fair in reporting the Episcopal diocese split.
John Wilkins: my Taliban-ish statements were intended to be arch, but were, I thought a fair parody of Sarah’s rationale that people can take things to keep them from falling into the hands of people whom the absconders consider to be theologically defective.
Sarah: my suspicion is that Pittsburgh and Ft. Worth departing elements are not clinging to the term “Episcopal” out of love for the term or a desire to keep it from falling into the unworthy hands of “heretics” and “those who do not believe . . .” (Sarah’s phrase not mine, although I shortened the latter term to “infidels”). I think it has everything to do with positioning to take control of real and personal property. I have absolutely no anger/spleen over the word itself. “Anglican” is a term that I find perfectly compatible with the history and liturgy of the Episcopal Church – the labels aren’t very important to me. I continue, however, to find it base and unethical for those who depart (an action that I consider perfectly defensible for those who have irreconcilable theological differences with The Episcopal Church) to attempt to wrest property away from those who elect to stay (an action that I consider perfectly defensible for those who do not think this splintering is necessary or good for the Church). I continue to believe that those who depart have done so in such numbers that they can, with little discomfort, build or purchase their own church property. I also think it would be a more pure statement of spiritual principle to separate their decision to depart TEC from efforts to cling to sticks and bricks.