I wish that those who are so adamant to pull away from TEC and align with the Southern Cone would realize the damage they do to people who simply want a place to worship God without controversy or involving themselves in any fight. The actions of the previous councils of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth affect us all, especially as we try to prepare people for membership in our parishes. Lay people struggle with whether to believe in a church of bishops, if bishops lead only to schism. People reject church experiences where there is fighting over anything, and rightfully so.
What I cannot agree with is the pretense that there are two Episcopal dioceses of Fort Worth. Bishop Iker needs to come to terms with the fact that his argument is an emperor without clothes. The historical position of all our bishops for centuries is that there cannot be two different ecclesiastical authorities over one geographical area. Bishop Iker knows that if an Episcopal priest failed to show up for services or at any diocesan function he would be compelled to remove that priest. Likewise it is the duty of the Presiding Bishop to remove any bishop who is not participating in the life of the Episcopal Church. There are priests in Texas who claim to be Anglican but not part of the Episcopal Church (TEC). I guess I could pretend to be Roman Catholic but it would not make it so. At the very best these congregations are “faux Anglican.” The Archbishop of Canterbury has never approved a separate Province inside the US. He cannot without violating all historical precedents and furthering schism. I do not doubt that Bishop Iker is a good man who has done wonderful things in his ministry. How sad, it is most likely that history will record him now solely as a schismatic bishop.
“I wish that those who are so adamant to pull away from TEC and align with the Southern Cone would realize the damage they do …”
Unfortunately that statement made me see red. The door swings both ways, as my children used to tell me. ECUSA should have realized the damage it was doing years ago, to those who hold to the faith as it has been practiced for eons, instead of watering it down and denying Truth Himself as the very source of our being. I resent being driven out of my home.
T
“How sad, it is most likely that history will record him now solely as a schismatic bishop.”
That all depends upon your point of view. The Roman Church probably considers Martin Luther a “schismatic”, but all he wanted was to bring the Church he loved back to Holy Scriptures. The reformation taking place today is much the same.
My reaction in reading something like this is just sadness. I sincerely wonder whether Wylie Miller has spent a lot of time with people in the diocese of Fort Worth and asked whether he is actually representing them accurately.
Father Miller says those in Fort Worth are “so adamant to pull away from TEC.†I do not think they believe that. This is Fort Worth. They have a very strong ecclesiology. What they are adamant about is distancing themselves from false teaching and doctrine which is increasingly prevalent in TEC, especially from those in leadership. TEC will not provide a way for them to have the theological distance they want and have a viable future. Alas, thus far, neither has the Anglican Communion. They are understandably frustrated—this has been going on for them for a long time.
Father Miller also writes: “The historical position of all our bishops for centuries is that there cannot be two different ecclesiastical authorities over one geographical area.†I just marvel at statements like these. First of all, this will come as news to the many other bishops in Fort Worth (and Dallas for that matter) in the Lutheran, Methodist, and Roman Catholic Churches, just to cite a few. Second, it is an appeal to history and tradition, but of course it was precisely the “historical position†of the Anglican Communion (and the Roman Catholic and Eastern orthodox Church and many others) that was completely overturned by the General Convention in 2003 when the Episcopal Church approved someone in leadership in a non-celibate same sex relationship. So how do appeals to “the historical position†have meaning in a church like that exactly? The double standard is outrageous.
And where, one has to ask, is the creativity and the leadership to help Fort Worth in this crisis? Stuart Dunnan, for example, writing in the February 8th Living Church, asks: “What would happen if the Presiding Bishop, with the support of the House of Bishops, were to welcome the formation of a new province for ‘traditionalists’ within the Episcopal Church, allowing every diocese, parish, and church institution to join this province with a two-thirds vote by the appropriate parish meeting, convention, or governing body?†Or Does Father Miller have a better solution than the present situation where things are getting things worse as time goes on?
RE: “The reactions of the Anglican Communion Network and some African Bishops have forced a quick and equally deep conviction of progressive Episcopalians in favor of the argument that no one chooses to be homosexual, but rather was born that way.”
What on earth is this man talking about?
The “progressives” way way way back in 1994 signed Bishop Spong’s Statement of Koinonia stating precisely that.
Has Wylie Miller read it?
All the ACN and “some African bishops” did was to bring out into the open the dire conflict between the two gospels within TEC. By their resistance and by the resulting publicity of that resistance, the conflict was indeed heightened, rather than what so many clergy and bishops wanted — which was to keep their people ignorant of just precisely the actions of General Conventions and the House of Bishops and the Executive Council.
Praise God for the now gone Anglican Communion Network and “some African bishops.”
They certainly did not force “a quick and equally deep conviction of progressive Episcopalians in favor of the argument that no one chooses to be homosexual, but rather was born that way” — that erroneous “conviction” was back in 1994.
Maybe Wylie Miller should read Bishop Spong’s statement if he has not:
[blockquote]We believe that sex is a gift of God.
We believe that some of us are created heterosexual and some of us are created homosexual.
We believe that homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally neutral, that both can be lived out with beauty, honor, holiness, and integrity and that both are capable of being lived out destructively.
We believe that wherever sexuality is lived out destructively this church must witness to its negativity. We oppose all forms of promiscuous sex, predatory sex. sex that does not honor one’s partner or that does not hold that partner in commitment and love.
We believe that marriage is to be held in honor and that marriage represents that highest form of human commitment that a man and a woman can make to each other. We believe that through marriage both the husband and wife are called to holiness.
We believe that celibacy is an honorable vocation for some of God’s people and that those who have chosen to live in celibacy for whatever reason have gifts to give that will enrich both the church and the social order.
But we also believe that those who know themselves to be gay or lesbian persons, and who do not choose to live alone, but forge relationships with partners of their choice that are faithful, monogamous, committed, life giving and holy are to be honored. We will continue to relate to these couples with our support, our pastoral care, our prayers and our recognitions, in whatever form is deemed appropriate, that God is indeed present in their life together.
We also believe that the ordained ranks of the church are open to all baptized Christians and that through our regular screening process, we will determine who is both called and qualified. We are aware of the presence in the church of gay and lesbian clergy. We bear witness to the fact that they have served and continue to serve this church with effectiveness and integrity. Some of them are single, many more of them are living in committed partnerships. They serve this church today as bishops, priests, and deacons. In all these orders they have won the respect of their ecclesial communities. Like the gay and lesbian population as a whole, many of our gay and lesbian clergy have gravitated into urban areas, where they live out their priestly vocations. In some urban areas the number of gay and lesbian people exceeds thirty-five per cent of the total population. These gay and lesbian clergy work heroically and successfully in difficult assignments. By their willingness to accept and acknowledge their own sexual orientation and by the very witness of the committed nature of the lives they live with their partners, they have brought both the hope and love of Christ to communities of people long oppressed, long denigrated, and long judged by various religious authorities as inadequate human beings in whom the image of God is somehow flawed.
We pledge to these clergy, whom we honor as part of this church, our support and protection and we will continue to hold them to no standard higher than that we would hold any heterosexual priest whether he or she be single or married.
We also recognize that by canon law the choice of fit persons to serve in the ordained ranks of the church is not the prerogative of bishops alone, but of the whole church. We pledge ourselves to ordain only those persons whom the testing and screening process reveals to be wholesome examples to the flock of Christ. But let there be no misunderstanding, both our lives and our experience as bishops have convinced us that a wholesome example to the flock of Christ does not exclude a person of homosexual orientation nor does it exclude those homosexual persons who choose to live our their sexual orientation in a partnership that is marked by faithfulness and life giving holiness.[/blockquote]
What a shame that a Dallas priest should so try to laughably blame the ACN and “some African bishops” for resisting [and thereby causing] what has been a long and formerly quiet and ugly agenda by the progressive activists in The Episcopal Church.
As to various other assertions of Wylie Miller:
RE: “The historical position of all our bishops for centuries is that there cannot be two different ecclesiastical authorities over one geographical area.”
I agree. So why is Ted Gulick prancing around in Fort Worth, then?
No — the assertion that Wylie Miller is really making is that whole Episcopal dioceses cannot realign with other Provinces.
And that — contrary to Wylie Miller — will be decided in court, thankfully.
RE: “There are priests in Texas who claim to be Anglican but not part of the Episcopal Church (TEC). I guess I could pretend to be Roman Catholic but it would not make it so. At the very best these congregations are “faux Anglican.”
Only if one assumes that one must be a member of the Anglican Communion in order to be “Anglican.”
I, on the other hand, count Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori as a “faux Anglican” even though she is a part of the Anglican Communion.
And I assert differently about those Anglicans who are outside of the Anglican Communion.
Here’s the cool thing. Most of us won’t be still living when the word “Anglican” and what it entails is sorted out in the U.S. I, and Wylie Miller, have no idea who will ultimately achieve [or debase] Anglican identity. His words about who is and who is not Anglican sound like short-term wishful thinking. But I don’t think any of us can be confident about the definition of that word two decades from now.
RE: “How sad, it is most likely that history will record him now solely as a schismatic bishop.”
I think it highly unlikely.
But time will tell.
Many thousands of people — people in The Episcopal Church — count Bishop Iker as a true hero of the faith.
I am one of them. I believe that it will be hard for history to count out the opinions of so many, and record only the opinions of a church that will — every single year — lose membership, lose ASA, and lose influence.
He lost me early on. If his mischaracterization of those in DioFW is unintentional, then he certainly must be describing himself when he states:
One would hope that those in the proximity of traditional anglicanism might at least be able to offer a bit more sophisticated (less self serving?) characterization and what it entails – even if they reject it.
🙄
And I wish that those who are so adamant to trash the historic faith and moral teachings of Christianity would realize the damage they do to people who simply want a place to worship God without controversy or involving themselves in any fight.
I have known Fr. Miller since he was a seminary student and I count him as a friend. He, and I, are part of the great middle of the Episcopal Church, and that middle is being fought over by those on both extremes. Wylie has always been a bit more progressive than I am on issues of church politics, but he is a good priest, and I respect him even when when we don’t agree.
The whole issue is one big mess.
This mess, to me shows that the “new thing” (calling homoerotic sex “blessed”) cannot be of the Holy Spirit.
See my take at [url=http://deaconslant.blogspot.com/2009/02/new-thing-and-fruits-of-spirit.html]The Deacon’s Slant[/url].
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
From the article:
“People reject church experiences where there is fighting over anything, and rightfully so.”
How could someone possibly say such a thing? If there is nothing to fight for, then there is nothing to live for. If there is nothing to live for, then why does this “logical atheist” attend worship?
One more evidence why I can properly call TEC, “TEClub”.
Don
I have taken the liberty to fix the paragraph:
“I wish that those who are so adamant in pursuing a narrow, unbiblical agenda would realize the damage they do to people who are searching for the redemptive message of the Gospel. The actions of the TEC affect us all, especially as we try to prepare people for membership in our parishes. Lay people struggle with whether to believe in a church of bishops, if bishops lead only to heresy. People reject church experiences where the Gospel is trivialized or ignored.”
RE:”I wish that those who are so adamant to pull away from TEC and align with the Southern Cone would realize the damage they do to people who [b]simply want a place to worship God without controversy or involving themselves in any fight[/b]…”
Huh? Like it or not, the world is a battlefield and the souls of it’s inhabitants are sought by both God and the forces of darkness. Doesn’t this individual realize that the damage he speaks about has already been done by those who seek and have sought to preach a gospel limited by the bounds of the flesh?
Palagious,
You should post that on the originating site comment board.
Thank you, Kendall, for your kind evaluation of our bishop and our diocese.
I would “amen” the suggestion of Stuart D….for what it’s worth. The PB and the HOB of TEC apparently cannot get “off script” and accept that there is any other way than “depose and sue”. The recovery definition of “insanity” would seem to describe this condition pretty well!!
Regarding the “new” diocese in Ft. Worth: At their convention, the PB used her hermeneutical skills to slyly suggest that the gathered convention was in response to the “violence” and “rage” resident in the diocese of Ft. Worth. Of course, those two words are defined (functionally) as “disagreeing with TEC’s positions on WO and the homosexual agenda”. That is ideology…not rational discourse.
Fr. Stuart Smith
Rector, Good Shepherd Episcopal Church, Granbury TX
justice1 wrote:
First, in response to Miller’s statement that:
[blockquote] People reject church experiences where there is fighting over anything, and rightfully so. [/blockquote]
An elementary reading of Scripture, Old and New Testaments, reveals without any fog whatsoever, that the Triune God and his people are caught up in a battle. It is both cosmic, worldy, and fought in the domain of the Church. Indeed, this is why we have much of the New Testament, particularly the epistles. My point? If Rev. (Fr.?) Miller is not teaching his people or new members that Christianity is not a cake walk, and that we are all called, even Anglicans, to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, then what is he teaching in such a time as this? Frankly, God is not concerned with the “experience” his flock is having, nor with a version of Church that is free of conflict. Is life?
Also a comment on this point:
[blockquote] The historical position of all our bishops for centuries is that there cannot be two different ecclesiastical authorities over one geographical area. [/blockquote]
I hate to state the obvious, but taken to it’s logical conclusion, this statement pulls the rug out from under Anglicans and Episcopalians. Are there not Catholic ecclesiastical authorities over the same geographical areas within which we minister? If this is the higher ground, then we should all tuck our tails and head back to Rome. And what of all the others – Pentecostals, Baptists, Brethren, Methodists, Presbyterians…. Are we to invalidate their ministries? Of course not. The real stick in the mud here is that there is not to be more than one [i] Anglican [/i] expression of Christianity in one geographical area. I agree, such overlap has its problems. We have it my diocese. But one wonders who the real Anglicans are when many of those who claim ecclesiastical authority refuse to stand up for the faith once delivered to the saints, while those who do are kicked around and treated worse than a neighbor.
[Comment transferred from another thread – Elf]
[blockquote] RE: “The reactions of the Anglican Communion Network and some African Bishops have forced a quick and equally deep conviction of progressive Episcopalians in favor of the argument that no one chooses to be homosexual, but rather was born that way.â€
What on earth is this man talking about? [/blockquote]
I’ll also add, Sarah, that it is an axiom on the progressive Left that gender is nothing more than a social construct, a fabrication of those in power to manipulate us. Now it appears that gender is only socially constructed among heterosexuals…among homosexuals it is assumed to be hardwired, immutable and permanent.
Re: “People reject church experiences where there is fighting over anything, and rightfully so”
I remember the Anglican Scotist making a similar statement, “No one wants to come into your store, if there is a gang fight going on in the parking lot.” I found this hopeful. But like Rev. Miller, the Scotist quickly fell into line with “it’s the conservatives fault.” I find it remarkable how the revisionists fail to question the “leadership style” of Ms Schori. Her “my way or the highway” gave her the worst population adjusted decline of any domestic diocese and to no one’s surprise the national denomination is the fastest declining.
Yet, they continue with their idolizing of her. I really don’t understand.
Fr Wylie and others like him knew full well of the impact of the so-called “progressive” movement in ECUSA, and yet he blames Bishop Iker and other faithful bishops and clergy for situation in which his Church now finds itself? He would’ve had to be deaf and blind not to know what was happening, unless he was in on the scheming which brought on the situation to begin with!
Not a SINGLE ONE OF US left his Church for light and transient reasons. Most of us would’ve preferred to remain in his Church, but at what cost to our souls and those of our children?
Better to be in His Church than her church…
I really liked what Kendall wrote. Right on!
Based on his letter and the comments above, I am convinced that Fr. Miller is confused. As Vicar of a mission that from 2002 through 2007 lost about 50 percent of its Members and ASA, while having a 50 percent increase in Plate and Pledge, I would be confused also. Statmann
Statmann,
Fr. Miller is relatively new to his mission, so the decline in membership and ASA can in no way be laid at his feet.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I wouldn’t say that Fr. Miller is “confused.” I would say that he is, like a great many in TECUSA, “conflicted.”
I feel the conflict as well. I love ECUSA. I love the Church I was born in, re-born in, confirmed in, grew up while serving at the altar. I came to know Jesus in this Church. I am feed with the Sacraments and with sound teaching. I love the beauty of Anglican worship in all its flavors and colors. I love Evangelical Zeal, Anglo-Catholic Tradition (the capital is important) and Charismatic Enthusiaism.
I also know that the leaders in the Church are, to a large extent, heterodox, heretical, or apostate. So what to do? Do we leave to find or found a church where the leaders are not (currently) apostate? Do we stay and witness to the truth and show the Joy of knowing Jesus Christ and participating in the life and dance of the Trinity? Do we stay and fight? Do we stay and refuse to strike back? Where do we go? I look at what the great reformers did. I look at what men of God did in ages past and they stayed and fought or stayed and refused to fight, but witnessed to the Grace of God and the Power of the Holy Spirit.
So I choose to stay. I choose to witness. I choose to fight with whatever weapons God places in my hands.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Sarah: why do you afford Bishop Spong such weight. I’m a continuing “conservative” (don’t like the term, don’t think it explains much outside of the secular political realm, but it’s the lingua franca frequently spoken around here) Episcopalian and I hardly pay him no mind at all. He’s just one guy talking.
NoVa,
To YOU he may be “just one guy talking”, and YOU may hardly pay him any mind, but to others, he’s the greatest theologian since James Pike and up there with Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg!
Even KJS admires him, or at least thinks enough of him to have him speak at her retreats (IIRC from previous postings). I knew people in a parish I used to attend who would put his “latest book” on the bookstore pre-pub waiting list. One parish delegate to a convention he attended as guest speaker couldn’t say enough about how thrilled she was to be seated at his table for talks and meals.
He has a following. It’s unfortunate that he also had a great and detrimental effect on Christian theology in the late 20th century, and is hardly even now out of the picture. His books are still available at any bookstore.
In Christ’s Peace
Jim Elliott <>< Florida
It would be a great shame on Protestantism if the Pope were to have to convene the equivalent of the Nicean Council (325 AD) to deal with the same heresies which we all thought had long along been been decided. With all apologies to the ABC it seems as though the Pope is exercising more spiritual authority and clarity in doctrinal matters.
Dear Phil: I did not mean to blame Fr. Miller regarding the 2002 through 2007 record of his mission. I merely pointed out how confusing they were. As regarding confused versus conflicted, I don’t deal much in words. As it has been said: your future is the demographics. In 1955 it “took’ 31 Baptized Members to “produce” one Baptism. In 2006 it “took” 59. In 1955 there were 1.86 Baptisms per Burial. In 2006 there were 1.12 per Burial. These data are neither confusing nor conflicting. Statmann
Um . . . NOVA Scout . . . I guess, you really are simply unaware, aren’t you?
Simply tragic.
RE: “Sarah: why do you afford Bishop Spong such weight.”
NOVA Scout.
27 diocesan bishops signed that statement.
90 total bishops of the Episcopal Church.
Including our then Presiding Bishop.
So no. It wasn’t simply one diocesan bishop of 1994.
[i]It was 90.[/i]
90 TEC bishops, NOVA Scout, 27 of whom were sitting diocesan bishops at the time [along with the PB].
Which just goes to show. People are completely ignorant — and I mean just [i]bone ignorant[/i] — of our church’s past methodical march towards heresy and moral corruption. I assume that Wylie Miller is as well when he can so brazenly and wrongly claim that it was the reaction of the ACN and “some African bishops” that somehow forced “a quick and equally deep conviction of progressive Episcopalians in favor of the argument that no one chooses to be homosexual, but rather was born that wayâ€.
What a laughable statement by Wylie Miller.
“…people who simply want a place to worship God without controversy or involving themselves in any fight”.
What, another armchair pacifist? That vile brand of complacency and “let someone else do the work” attitude is exactly how traditionals got into this mess and allowed God’s and their Church to be hijacked.
I don’t agree at all with the activists, but note they are “active”.
We’ll see how Fr. Miller feels when GC says he HAS to do SSB’s/”marriages” or “get out”, unless he already agrees with that brand of “theology”. Then maybe he’ll have some respect for people who voted with their feet on heresy and such.
I went over to Florida State University yesterday, and walked past the Chapel of the Resurrection, Episcopal Campus Ministry. What I saw on the chapel saddened me.
There, above the doors of the chapel, covering the beautiful high (clear) glass windows from one end to the other with no gaps were two placards made of six (amateurishly) painted 8 foot high sheets of plywood (such as a grade school Sunday school class might do):
The one on the left had the Episcopal shield with the logo “The Episcopal Church welcomes you”
In the middle hand lettered “The Chapel of the Resurrection”
And on the right, bolder and brighter than the other two, the ‘great seal of the diocese’ with the statement “A Ministry of the Episcopal Diocese of Florida”.
These had never been necessary or even considered when I was a student there. Just another shot fired from the diocese to show who is in charge.
In His peace,
Jim Elliott <>< Florida
edit: I went back by again today, on closer look, the lettering and logos looked more professionally done than I first took them for.
But again, the reason WHY still eludes me. In the front, on the road, is a nice professional sign that says Episcopal University Center with the shield. That should suffice so an 8′ high sign over the doors of the chapel would not be needed. 🙄