The good bishop has it wrong. Or so I think. Which bishop, you ask? That’s the point. Which bishop indeed?
As one who is not a part of the Episcopal side of the Christian family, I look on as a concerned outsider. But perhaps that is the best vantage point to hold in the midst of a family squabble (See: “Reorganized diocese elects new bishop,” Feb. 8).
There is no doubt that the unity of the whole church includes both sides of this unhappy family, because our unity ”” not uniformity based on sameness ”” is based on God’s love manifested in our common life in Christ.
But after making this most basic of Christian affirmations, we must say that this dispute, as so many others, is not new to Christian history. In fact, it is not new to any other of the living religious traditions, either.
[blockquote] But what do I know? I’m not even an Episcopalian [/blockquote] Exactly what I was thinking–what do you know????
He may not be an Episcopalian, but his “church history made E-Z” sounds a lot like what some TEC bishops deliver. Maybe he’s courting a change.
“There is no doubt that the unity of the whole church includes both sides of this unhappy family, because our unity — not uniformity based on sameness — is based on God’s love manifested in our common life in Christ.”
A bizarre statement from any historical perspective. To be coherent and consistent, he would have to say the same of Arians and Niceans, Donatists and Catholics, Marcionites and Catholics, Unitarians and Trinitarians and any other heretics one can think of.
They are in a sad case who have to defend heresy by nonsense — or, in this case perhaps, to defend nonsense by nonsense.
Dr Tighe,
You do have a way with words.
Btw, I wrote #3 without reading the whole article, only the bit excerpted above. Now that I’ve just read the whole thing, I’ve found it so jumbled and incoherent in its “argument” that it really is a case of “defending nonsense by nonsense,” as coherent heresy seems far above its reach.
[blockquote] But the rule of thumb is — and one by and large supported by civil courts when it comes down to that nasty action — that the ones leaving don’t take the assets with them. They go out empty-handed because it’s their choice. Especially good church bylaws and rules of order prohibit this from happening. [/blockquote]
By that reasoning, the Church of England should return much of its property to Rome, but I don’t think the Pope is holding his breath waiting.
Mr. Carson “just happened” to attend the faux diocesan convention?
Oh, really? Is that a sarcastic tone? Or, perhaps, Mr. Carson is a writer who holds the same theology as the PB and the shared-bishop of Ky?
Whatever else this article is, it is not a genuine “objective” reflection on what is going on in the diocese of Ft. Worth.
I certainly hope that Remain Faithful, Ft. Worth will respond to this hogwash.
I sent this rebuttal to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on 2/13. We’ll see if they publish it.
———————
In his Feb. 12 commentary on the division in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, University Christian Church senior minister Tim Carson claims that as a “concerned outsider†he holds “the best vantage point†for his observations.
Well, hardly.
Carson reveals an astounding ignorance of facts in his commentary, which is largely an attack on the Rt. Rev. Jack L. Iker, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.
First, he alleges that Bishop Iker “has withdrawn from the established Diocese of the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A.,†and he challenges the legitimacy of the body of which Bishop Iker is chief pastor.
But Carson ignores the fact that at the November 2008 convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, a resolution to realign with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone was adopted by a 78 percent majority of the clergy voting and 80 percent of lay delegates. This was the second such vote in two years, as any amendment to the constitution of the Diocese requires a concurrent majority of the vote of both orders, clergy and lay, in two consecutive conventions.
This was not the unilateral action of the bishop. Nor was it the creation of a “newly founded†diocese, as Carson claims. It was, in fact, the consitutionally legitimate action of the diocese “that has been here all along†(to use, ironically, the words Carson intended as sarcasm).
Carson then alleges that “it only seems right to the good bishop [Iker] that all of the assets and congregations should stay with him, even if he cashes in his chips, leaves the mother ship and affiliates with an African one.â€
Here again, Carson ignores facts. On Feb. 2, the bishop and the Standing Committee of the Diocese, both legitimately elected and acting in accordance with its constitution, [i]released four parishes[/i] in which the vestry and rector had expressed an intention to remain in union with the General Convention of The Episcopal Church (TEC), and in which significant majorities of parishioners supported that intention.
On Feb. 5, acting within the authority of the office to which he was elected, Bishop Iker released 23 clergy members — most, if not all, of whom had been [i]previously named[/i] appointees to or candidates for positions within the new TEC diocese — from canonical residence in the Diocese of Fort Worth, declaring them to “have been clergy in good standing in this diocese and … eligible for transfer to another jurisdiction.â€
And what are we to make of Carson’s reference to Africa? First, the Diocese of Fort Worth has realigned with a province in South America, not Africa. But what if it had aligned with its African brothers and sisters in Christ? A July 15, 2008, BBC special report titled [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/3226753.stm]“Anglican Church Around the Worldâ€[/url] puts the growing number of Anglicans in Africa at over 38 million, dwarfing the approximately three million members in all of North America, a number that continues to decline. Yet implicit in Carson’s reference to Africa is the smug notion, shared by TEC Presiding Bishop Katherine Schori, that the Church in this part of the world has so much to teach the rest.
Carson alleges a “revisionist sense of history†on the part of Bishop Iker, saying that the bishop “was appointed by the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A.â€
No, Bishop Iker was elected by the convention of the Diocese of Fort Worth (and his election received the consent of other bishops). Any notion that he was appointed by The Episcopal Church is a revision to history.
Even Carson’s statement that “it just so happened that I dropped by†the TEC-sponsored convention in Fort Worth on Feb. 7 seems disingenuous. This was a tightly controlled affair whose organizers required advance notice of one’s intention to attend, with no guarantee of admittance.
There, Carson says he witnessed “lots of Episcopalians worshipping and acting like church,†with “much confession, affirmation of our basic unity, prayers for healing and encouragement to be the whole church in the world.â€
But [url=http://episcopaldiocesefortworth.org/misc pdfs/pbhomily.pdf]here’s what Bishop Schori of TEC was saying[/url] at the same venue at the same time: “I’ll warrant that there’s a lot of anger and rage in this part of the church right now. I suspect that it’s been the norm here for a long time. Given the stories I heard in San Joaquin last week, I would guess that leadership here has looked like control, fear-mongering, and intimidation used to keep people in line.â€
I [i]suspect?[/i] I [i]would guess? Given the stories I heard[/i] elsewhere?
Suspicion, guesswork and gossip are no firmer a foundation for Ms. Schori’s commentary on the state of the Diocese of Fort Worth than Tim Carson’s purportedly insightful vantage point outside it.
Carson concludes his commentary with the acknowledgment that he’s “not even an Episcopalian,†and asks rhetorically, “What do I know?â€
As his lack of command of the facts reveals, not much.
[i]Todd Marchand is a member of the Church of the Holy Apostles in Fort Worth.[/i]
Excellent letter, Mr. Marchand. I hope it gets published, but with the Star Telegram, you never know!