It is highly inappropriate for you to attempt to interfere in the internal life of this diocese as we prayerfully prepare to gather in Convention. The threatening tone of your open letter makes no attempt to promote reconciliation, mediation, or even dialogue about our profound theological differences. Instead, it appears designed to intimidate our delegates and me, in an attempt to deter us from taking any action that opposes the direction in which you are leading our Church. It is deeply troubling that you would have me prevent the clergy and laity of this diocese from openly discussing our future place in the life of the wider Anglican Communion, as we debate a variety of proposals. As you well know, the polity of this Church requires the full participation of the clergy and lay orders, not just bishops, in the decision making process. It grieves me that as the Presiding Bishop you would misuse your office in an attempt to intimidate and manipulate this diocese.
While I do not wish to meet antagonism with antagonism, I must remind you that 25 years ago this month, the newly formed Diocese of Fort Worth voluntarily voted to enter into union with the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. If circumstances warrant it, we can likewise, by voluntary vote, terminate that relationship. Your aggressive, dictatorial posturing has no place in that decision. Sadly, however, your missive will now be one of the factors that our Convention will consider as we determine the future course of this diocese for the next 25 years and beyond, under God’s grace and guidance.
yay for bishop iker! we need more champions like him to speak truth to power. i heard him preach once at all saints-my favourite church in fort worth. he was wonderful. my prayers are with him and the diocese as they move forward in Christ.
#2 now that’s really helpful, isn’t it?
2, is someone’s ox being gored?
#2, Hark! The inclusive voice of tolerance! What a listening process!
Here’s a thought…
+IKER for PB…….
Gloria
He’s certainly right that the letter will figure in the deliberations. I know several people in Pittsburgh who were prayerfully wrestling with the issue before the vote and the Presiding Bishop’s tone certainly did nothing to sway them in her direction. These letters not only don’t seem particularly charitable, but they’re also not very politically astute; they won’t stop separation, just accelerate it.
Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark.
It is clear who is the only group that is not wanted in TEC. KJS wants to pick up TEC and take it home. She would consider it a win to drive orthodox Christians from the ranks. A diocese is a big threat since 815 may not be able to bypass the diocese and go after local property. And the Dennis lien is on the local church and not the diocese. Beers knows this.
Bravo, Fr. Iker! A civil yet firm response that highlighted the attempt to intimidate launched by the PB.
It has already been pointed out on other threads but it’s interesting how revisionists can hoot and howl about the supposed Anglican Covenant. But when it suits their need they can behave like a Borgia pope (although Lucrezia comes to mind here).
My favorite part: “I must remind you that 25 years ago this month, the newly formed Diocese of Fort Worth voluntarily voted to enter into union with the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. If circumstances warrant it, we can likewise, by voluntary vote, terminate that relationship.”
So, really, it’s none of Katherine’s business, and she has no legitimate power to do anything about it.
#6: Good thought, but we won’t give him up!!! I continue to be ever so thankful for +Iker, and look forward to this convention so that we can get on with the work of Christ!
Bp. Iker’s argument is disingenuous when it comes to the business of his diocese “voluntarily” joining PECUSA, as if it were going to do anything else. And he is the last person who should be chiding another person about not promoting reconciliation.
So, #14, the DioFW was compelled to join TEC? Wouldn’t that compulsion mean the vote to do so is itself null and void?
+Iker argues that there is no attempt at reconciliation, however in ++Katharine’s letter she says:
I would remind you of my open offer of an Episcopal Visitor if you wish to receive pastoral care from another bishop. I continue to pray for reconciliation of this situation,
Doesn’t DioPitt have a bishop, Brian? What would they do with another?
It seems to me that there are at least two, possibly three, distinct things here which may legitimately be referred to as “the diocese,” and people aren’t distinguishing them.
One “diocese” is the ecclesial organization centered around +Iker and the priests under his remit.
Another “diocese” is the portion of the Episcopal Church covering that geographical area, which is represented in, and subject to the legislation of, General Convention.
A third “diocese” is the legally incorporated entity that owns properties, bank accounts, letterhead, etc.
+Iker is asserting that the Diocese (sense 1) and the Diocese (sense 3) are one and the same, and that is the construct which wishes to disassociate itself from the Diocese (sense 2). If TEC were to respond by organizing a replacement Diocese (senses 1 and 3) to represent the existing Diocese (sense 2), then presumably +Iker would consider this no skin off his nose.
++KJS, on the other hand, is asserting that the Diocese (sense 2) and the Diocese (sense 3) are the same, and therefore while +Iker in his own person is free to depart — and could even, if he wished, create a new Diocese (sense 1) associated with any larger ecclesial body willing to recognize him — but the Diocese (senses 2 and 3) and its assets (which belong to sense 3) remain firmly within TEC.
I have no idea who is “right” in a legal sense.
No no, williex2 . . . he’ll only take what the courts deem to be theirs.
; > )
Heh.
Brian quoted my Most Favorite Line.
“. . . however in ++Katharine’s letter she says:
I would remind you of my open offer of an Episcopal Visitor if you wish to receive pastoral care from another bishop.”
An offer of a bishop to give pastoral care to another bishop — who didn’t ask for an alternate *bishop*.
; > )
Simply priceless.
[blockquote]will +iker try to steal the buildings and their contents when he leave tec? [/blockquote]
Aren’t all these lawsuits against parishes being filed by their respective diocese under the theory that they are held in trust by the same? If so, then it would appear that when a diiocese wishes to depart TEC, any property would go with it, no?
What a very sad letter.
Well, after he’s been deposed for abandoning communion he won’t be able to do much, will he? He’s provided enough evidence, it’s just a matter of time…
+Iker seems to think that the Diocese of Fort Worth was formerly virgin mission territory; that a group of previously-unaffiliated believers banded together to form their own independent polity, then later agreed to a merger of equals with TEC.
The State of Texas joined the Union in 1845, after nine years of existence as an independent state following the Texians’ revolt against the Mexican government. I wonder if +Iker is unconsciously thinking that this is how his diocese joined TEC in 1983? If so, he has no excuse for not knowing better: the diocese was a creature of TEC from the get-go, having been carved out of the grown-too-big Diocese of Dallas by act of General Convention; in that regard it’s more like Maine, which was carved out of the existing state of Massachusetts as part of the Missouri Compromise, than it is like Texas.
I take the presence of all the new reappraisers on this board as a healthy sign. I can smell the desperation! Quick Willex2, if you come up with a cutting-enough snide remark, your side might still win the day (whatever that means…). Just picture the victory you reappraisers could realize if you could just come up with such a remark — dozens of empty buildings in Fort Worth (after the Christians have decamped) to do with as you please. Gay bars, S&M;clubs, unitarian universalist meeting halls, dry goods storage etc… That real estate would be a gold mine!
[blockquote] Well, after he’s been deposed for abandoning communion he won’t be able to do much, will he? [/blockquote]
+Iker hasn’t abandoned communion and is obviously letting his polity work. By the time the diocese leaves TEC (if it so chooses), he will no longer be their bishop, thus out of reach of their rules.
Brian, the Episcopal visitor plan is presumably for parishes in revisionist dioceses. Are you proposing that Dorsey Henderson (who is squarely in the pocket of 815, see his most recent budget) come to Fort Worth and do what exactly??? Alternate primatial oversight requires an alternate primate not another bishop, especially not an 815 flunky. What a load of horse hockey. It doesn’t even make the slightest sense. It is a total non sequiter. It is silly. It is preposterous… Well, you get the idea.
[i]”+Iker hasn’t abandoned communion and is obviously letting his polity work. By the time the diocese leaves TEC (if it so chooses), he will no longer be their bishop, thus out of reach of their rules.[/i]
Looks like we’ve a bit of a race on, then, don’t we? Who goes first – +Iker or Fort Worth (as if it could!).
[i] The elves request that you not rely on one-liners. [/i]
I’m closing in on 80 years, but this Bishop would fit me well as a roll model.
An outstanding letter from +Iker.
#32, this is uncalled for. +Iker is a humble and Godly man, defending the faith once delivered to the Saints, and working to nurture that faith in his flock. There are many years of tradition and symbolism in his liturgical garments, and everything is there for a reason. You seem troubled by this man’s witness; my best advice is to take it to Jesus.
[i] The original #32 was deleted as off topic, so the numbers won’t be exact. [/i]
[blockquote] Looks like we’ve a bit of a race on, then, don’t we? Who goes first – +Iker or Fort Worth (as if it could!). [/blockquote]
Get ready, because it’s likely going to. When it does, I daresay that +Iker will be invited to stay on as their bishop mere moments later. I predict he will mull over the decision for a few milliseconds and accept, thus removing himself and his parishes from the clutches of TEC. Until that moment, +Iker is a strident critic of 815 and TEC…nothing more…and has not abandoned communion.
The idea of an “Episcopal Visitor” simply will not work, because that “Visitor” will still be under the thumb of KJS. I don’t know how others feel, but we reasserters in OUR diocese don’t like that idea. I don’t think we want any part of it.
[blockquote]my comment was definitely not off topic……..it’s fair to ask his defenders how they defend his pomposity when compared to the humility of our lord. [/blockquote]
That would come as a huge surprise to the moneychangers in the temple. Christ was humble, but he did not shy from speaking truth.
Don’t worry, +Dorsey won’t go to Ft. Worth. I sincerely believe he’s poised to take over the Diocese of SC should +Lawrence not be able to stop them from realigning.
I also believe that ALL of those bishops who volunteered to “help’, are just waiting their orders from 815 to move as soon as KJS gets finished booting out the orthodox.
SC might need to worry, but not Ft. Worth.
Gloria
RE: “What a very sad letter.”
Sad for progressive Episcopalians — happy for reasserting Episcopalians.
Such is the division between those who hold the mutually opposing gospels in TEC.
Pretty standard now.
Can you imagine the howl that would come from the reappraisers if +Cantuar had written a letter to the Diocese of Chicago stating that Chicago’s place in the Anglican Communion would be in question if Lind+ had been elected? +KJS’ letters to +Iker and +Duncan are of the same level (or even deeper level) of interference. The Presiding Bishop has no authority over the Diocesan bishops or any other bishop except those on staff at 815 (such as +Epting or the Bishop for the Armed Forces and Prisons and the Suffragan for Europe).
We need to return to the days when 815 was simply the place where we coordinated internal and external mission and it was not a place full of eccliasial bureaucrats.
BTW, what is the difference between a burrow, a burro, and a bureau? The first is a whole in the ground, the second is an a$$ and the third is a building filled with people who don’t know the difference between the first two.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Maybe I’m completely off base on this, and I’d certainly welcome gentle correction, but I’m not certain that Iker, or any of the bishops so far threatened for that matter, can be accused of doing anything actionable. If a dioese votes to have the option of disaffiliating, that doesn’t mean the bishop is necessarily culpable.
But even if it is actionable, since when does the PB have actual administrative authority over another bishop? I presume that if she, and a sufficient number of other non-presiding bishops choose to bring presentment charges, then they might.
The A-team: Bp’s Atwood, Duncan, Guernsey, Iker, Murdoch, (plus the AMiA bishops), ABp Akinola, Kolini, Nzimbi, Oromibi, Venables.
The B-team: Andrus, Bruno, Chane, Jefferts-Schori, Tanner-Irish
The contrast is stark. The communications of the first are filled with a bold, courageous zeal and passion for the Gospel. The later’s communications are filled with pharisaic legalism, dissembling, cowardly duplicity, even outright mendacity, most often entirely devoid or with only passing references to the religion they swore to uphold, filled with empty or deceptive terms like [i]inclusion[/i] or [i]tolerance[/i].
There is a wonderful sermon at Anglican TV by Bp Guernsey on the Biblical reasons for evangelism. What I really liked about it, was that he stated that he was very much like me, uncomfortable with evangelism, and he described how he personally overcame this awkwardness. A wonderful Christian homily. This contrasts so strikingly with the vapid spin words that constitute the sermons of Jefferts-Schori which are also available online.
The truth will set you free. The converse of this is that the lies are life sapping chains. How very depressing for the revisionists. Friends, pray for Brian and D.C.
Robroy [#38], thanks for the prayers, but they’d be better directed to asking that scripturalists have their eyes opened to see that they’ve been idolizing a book (and their own wishful thinking), mistaking that idolatry for the worship of the LORD God.
Hmmm… Williex2 is no more. He posted comment #2, which was deleted (as well it needed to be). But now the comments have been renumbered, so my comment (“not helpful”) is now #2 instead of his.
I’m not guilty, folks! Twarn’t me! Honest!
[i] ‘Twas me- Elf Lady. [/i]
#37 Shumanbean says:
Actually, this is one of the powers the PB has. Canon IV.3.23(b):
The Episcopal Curch has split into to factions.
One that follows “the Faith once given” and one that through its head strong drift towards secularism and multi-culturalism is denying the ‘core beliefs’ of “the Faith once given.’
Caught in the middle are cultural Episcopalians who are often poorly informed regarding the dissension within ECUSAand and are ‘pro forma’ in their religious belief or the traditional Episcopalians who are strong in their Anglican faith, but ‘hooked on’ the ‘concept’ of being Episcopalians as opposed to being catechismacally ‘well formed’ Anglicans.
So we are really talking about two churches here. Why don’t the orthodox and the revisionists just agree to disagree and split into two separate churches?
The orthodox will have no problem with remaining in communion with the Anglican Communion and the revisionists can proceed on their current path, probably morphing into some sort of universalist-unitarian episcopal entity.
Lord help us all in the PECUSA and relieve us of the burdens of arrogant leadership in 815.
+KJS suddenly looks upon herself as some sort of hierarchal commanding general who with the wave of the wand of threats can force everybody from Bishops down to us pewsitters to do her bidding. Parishioners are slow to be upset at things outside their parish, as we all know, but I know that pew sitters are becoming more and more alarmed at her arrogance as they find out through web sites like this and seeing with their own eyes how a group of agenda based people are now changing what they have grown up believing is the voice of Scripture into something that is a far cry from it.
Maybe the next generation of parishioners who have been indoctrinated that modern secular-humanism can solve the problems of churches and the state can change what I believe are God’s Laws. I leave their souls alone and will look after my own by not giving a penny to my very liberal church and going elsewhere to worship with true believers. I hate that, but believe too strongly in Scripture and the Church Universal to see my hard earnings go to propagate a false faith.
I know there are some posting at this time who will violently disagree with me and that is fine. I don’t fault you for your convictions, like I hope you won’t fault me for mine, but may both sides pray that the Lord’s Will be done and not ours.
I have to say, from a non-U.S. point of view, revisionist accusations of “abandonment of Communion” nearly beggar belief.
D.C. You wrote: [blockquote] thanks for the prayers, but they’d be better directed to asking that scripturalists have their eyes opened to see that they’ve been idolizing a book (and their own wishful thinking), mistaking that idolatry for the worship of the LORD God.[/blockquote]
While I know others have tried to convey this to you before, “scripturalists”, as you call them, are what the world refers to as “Christians” (they have been called this for nearly two thousand years, so no excuses on not understanding the term). “Scripturalists”/Christians do not idolize a book– they receive the canons of the Old and New Testaments as… canons (measuring rods) against which all teaching is measured. That’s because Christianity is a revealed religion and not someone’s good idea. More, it is revealed by God himself, through his Son and through the Holy Spirit’s providential oversight of the production of those Scriptures which we have in our canon. You can hold a different opinion on all of this– but don’t call it Christian. And if it isn’t Christian, it isn’t Anglican.
The new doctrines and practices percolating amongst the nouveau bishops of ECUSA are contrary to the revealed faith of the Church (Anglican and otherwise). +Iker, +Duncan and company have not moved an inch from Communion. Your lot have.
I am touched by both the boldness of the Presiding Flaminica in offering an Episcopal Visitor to a Bishop obviously interested in having a different Primate, and by the naivete of reappraisers who think that nobody gets the difference.
“Well, after he’s been deposed for abandoning communion he won’t be able to do much, will he? ”
Why not? He’ll still be in communion, just in a different province.
#44 farstrider says:
Your view of Scripture is not, I will note, included in either the Apostles’ or the Nicene Creeds. In fact, neither Creed says much about Scripture one way or another.
In any case, you make an unwarranted leap from “an opinion held by many Christians” to “a necessary criterion for being called a Christian.” If that’s your metric, I think you could build a better case that you can’t be a Christian outside the Roman Catholic church than you could that you can’t be a Christian without confessing the uniformly inspired nature of Scripture.
I do not consider Scripture inspired — at least, not in the way that you evidently do — and I call myself a Christian without qualm. If you consider me not a Christian on that basis… well, I’m sorry to hear that, but it hardly changes my mind.
D.C. #39:
You and your ilk are the problem. It is not idolatry of a book but rather belief in the Message delivered in those writings that the reasserters hang fast to. You have made an idol of all things current in our culture with no filter because it just “feels good”. Following Jesus the Christ doesn’t necessarily always “feel good” in the sense that you have of those words as it requires strength, discipline, and denial of that which is sinful.
Scripturalist? I guess the -ist is suppose to be pejorative. I am a Jesusist.
Another sad “leader” of the revisionists is Bennison who stated that “we wrote scripture and we can rewrite it.” Again, it is pathetic (in the sense of deserving sincere sympathy) that the revisionists have such leaders when compared to the good and godly Bp Iker.
[blockquote]14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Tim 3:14-17[/blockquote]
Scripture states that scripture is inspired. That is circular logic, of course. There is no way to join this dance standing on the side unless one jumps into the middle of the dance floor. But when you do, the gift is wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
No DC, I don’t worship the book but the One who breathed the words and give thanks to Him for the wonderful gift of scripture.
Reader: The Word of the Lord.
People: Thanks be to God.
I’m wondering if the most Christian thing to do would be to “give our coat”s to the people that ask for them. To turn our other cheek when the one is slapped. Not gonna happen, I know, but would provide a helluva witness to the world.
Is +Stanton not acceptable as an alternative episcopal visitor? Do you all believe that he would buckle under the pressure?
#51, Brian: What is keeping you from understanding that Fort Worth does not need a “visiting” or “alternate” Bishop? They already have a Bishop.
Instead, it appears designed to intimidate our delegates and me, in an attempt to deter us from taking any action that opposes the direction in which you are leading our Church. It is deeply troubling that you would have me prevent the clergy and laity of this diocese from openly discussing our future place in the life of the wider Anglican Communion, as we debate a variety of proposals. As you well know, the polity of this Church requires the full participation of the clergy and lay orders, not just bishops, in the decision making process. It grieves me that as the Presiding Bishop you would misuse your office in an attempt to intimidate and manipulate this diocese.
This is factually false. ++Katharine has never stopped +Iker or the Diocese from expressing their differences. No one has stopped theuir votes at GC or in the HoB. +Iker is just ‘playing for the cameras’ to try and gain some sympathy for his untenable position.
Rolling Eyes,
What is keeping me from understanding your point is its fallacy. They requested alternative primatial oversight. A primate (especially in TEC) holds no position greater or lesser than any other bishop. ++Rowan is just as much of a Bishop as +Iker. So, yes, they need a bishop.
Brian, that is not what +Iker is saying. He is accusing her of trying to influence those votes, or to act in a way that keeps those votes, and voices, from being heard.
Once again, you are inaccurate.
“A primate (especially in TEC) holds no position greater or lesser than any other bishop. ”
So you agree that Katherine is overstepping her powers, and that +Iker is right in his letter? Good!
Again, Brian, if there already is a Bishop of the Diocese of Forth Worth, how do they then need another Bishop?
If all Bishops are equal, “especially in TEC”, then what’s with all this talk from Katherine about “polity” and “hierarchy”? Seems like a moot point.
Ross wrote: [blockquote]Your view of Scripture is not, I will note, included in either the Apostles’ or the Nicene Creeds. In fact, neither Creed says much about Scripture one way or another.[/blockquote]
The view of Scripture I delineated was carefully stripped down to its most basic components so that it might represent Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical views (all of whom would say that Scripture is inspired). Whether the Nicene Creeds say much about Scripture is neither here nor there. The Creeds were never meant to be the sum total of all Christian doctrine. The Church Catholic in all of its expressions has always believed as +Iker and +Duncan believe. It is not a matter of mere “opinion held by many Christians”; it is a matter of Christian teaching. Any teaching that departs from the faith once and for all handed down, however, [b]is[/b] mere opinion. If the choice we are being given is that between what the Church has always understood to be God’s word or anthropocentric philosophies, worldwide Anglicanism will continue to choose the former. It is those who choose the latter who will be departing from the Anglican Communion, not those who hold fast.
D.C., the Nicene Creed says “He [the Holy Spirit] spake through the Prophets.” This isn’t the same view of Scripture, granted, as that held by modern rigid scriptural literalists, but few Anglican conservatives actually hold such a view themselves.
I was surprised, when I first began reading a little bit about the early Church Fathers, at how immersed in Scripture, both Hebrew and Christian, their writings are. Somehow, being ignorant, I had thought only Southern Baptists read Scripture that closely.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Brian, you know that Jesus, guy. He [i]was just ‘playing for the cameras’ to try and gain some sympathy for his untenable position.[/i]
[blockquote] ++Katharine has never stopped +Iker or the Diocese from expressing their differences. No one has stopped theuir [sic] votes at GC or in the HoB.”
[/blockquote]”
Hello, Mr. Strawman! Bp Iker is talking about the [b]present[/b] uncharitable and un-Christian letter that is obvious to everyone but Brian in its attempt to sway the [b]current diocesan convention[/b]. That is why the good bishop used the present tense in his response letter.
Again, what do you imagine Bishop Iker [b]and[/b] Bishop Stanton are going to do together in Fort Worth? Play dominoes and drink beer? (Admittedly, that is a pretty enjoyable pastime.)
justinmartyr: see my note #49.
#57 farstrider says:
There are a lot of ways of expressing the fundamental differences between reasserters and reappraisers, but I think this is one of the deeper ones.
From where I’m sitting, looking back at the last two-thousand-some years of church history, there is no such thing as “the faith once and for all handed down.” Church doctrine on everything from the nature of Christ on down has evolved over the years, often radically. There has always been a tension between innovation and preservation, just as there is today. The early church wasn’t handed a set of instruction on how to organize themselves; they made it up as they went along.
And I bet that the second time the church met after Pentecost, there was some guy in the corner muttering, “This isn’t the way we did it last week!”
Christianity is a religion of revelation, yes — but it seems to me that that revelation is the person of Christ, and pretty much everything else has been left for us to figure out on our own. The Bible seems on the face of it to be pretty much like anything else earnest and prayerful human beings have written down — glimpses of truth, lots of stabs in the dark, and not a few outright mistakes. I’ve seen nothing that indicates to me that the Bible is anything else… or that God would be likely to give us anything else. Everything I’ve experienced about God says that God provides quick help in times of trial and comfort to the weary and oppressed, but is frustratingly hands-off when it comes to letting us figure out the rules.
If there is a faith that was delivered to the saints, it was not a delivered the way the UPS guy delivers a package. The faith of the Church was delivered as a baby is delivered; and for two thousand years that faith has grown, and evolved, and changed, and had tantrums and sulked, and learned and wondered at the world, and all the other messy and imperfect nonsense that living things get up to.
Whether we reappraisers are right or wrong about the present issues, what we’re doing — questioning and testing the faith, seeing if this new direction is Godly or not — that is what the Church has always done.
Ross,
There are points in your last post where we would, at least in part, agree. The [i]formulation[/i] of Christian doctrine [i]has[/i] evolved over the last two thousand years– but always along a certain trajectory. The fundamental difference between reasserters and reappraisers is located in this last modifying clause. The Creeds of the undivided Church were embraced because they were in accord with the “deposit of faith” (i.e. the teaching of the Apostles and their followers as recorded in Holy Scripture and reflected by the [i]regula fidei[/i]).
The innovations of the reappraising camp (both in doctrine and practice) do not follow the trajectory of the faith once and for all handed down to the saints. The early church’s reflection on the divine unity and the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit leads naturally enough to the doctrine of the Trinity– that’s trajectory; many of the new doctrines we see coming out of America (and Canada) resemble Hinduism more than Christianity. That is not following the same trajectory at all. While the example is extreme, it applies all the way down.
Incidentally, no orthodox person would deny that Jesus is God’s ultimate revelation. We also believe that God has revealed himself through the witness of certain followers in Scripture.
Also, significantly, any faith in and knowledge of Christ that you have comes from the same Church that tells you that Scripture is God’s word (and not a “stab in the dark”). Without the Bible and the teaching of the Church, “Christ” is nothing more than a useful name to hang on whatever god it is that we want to make in our own image.
#46 – [i]”Well, after he’s been deposed for abandoning communion he won’t be able to do much, will he? “
Why not? He’ll still be in communion, just in a different province.[/i]
The TEC Canons are clear that when they say ‘abandoning the communion of the Church’ they mean TEC. In words and action +Iker has shown his intention on leaving TEC, and trying to take Fort Worth with him, to join a Church (Southern Cone) that has declared itself not in communion with TEC. It will be on the basis of failing, as a TEC bishop, to uphold the discipline of TEC that charges will be brought. The PB has merely informed him of the consequences. If deposed, he will become just like the ex-bishop of Recife – perhaps recognised by the Southern Cone, but not recognised by Canterbury.
No. 63 – Do we have detailed minutes of councils such as Nicaea and Chalcedon? I ask this because I don’t think that the convening bishops said “lets consult Scripture on the nature of the person of Jesus, and his relation to the Father and the Spirit, or on the Holy Catholic Church, or on the relation of Mary to her Son and the Father. Of course they would have used appropriate available scriptural texts, as did the Arians and Nestorians and others who lost out. The Creeds do in fact serve pretty much as a summary of what must at a minimum be believed.
Rolling Eyes
Again, Brian, if there already is a Bishop of the Diocese of Forth Worth, how do they then need another Bishop?
If all Bishops are equal, “especially in TECâ€, then what’s with all this talk from Katherine about “polity†and “hierarchyâ€? Seems like a moot point.
You don’t believe this ridiculous argument. If you did, then how do you explain +Iker’s request for alternative prinatial oversight?
Brian, you know that Jesus, guy. He was just ‘playing for the cameras’ to try and gain some sympathy for his untenable position.
You can not possibly be trying to compare +Iker to Jesus.
Hello, Mr. Strawman! Bp Iker is talking about the present uncharitable and un-Christian letter that is obvious to everyone but Brian in its attempt to sway the current diocesan convention. That is why the good bishop used the present tense in his response letter.
Grammar is not the issue. The issue is whether +Iker and/or the Diocese of Ft. Worth can express their disagreement without resorting to a putsch.
Again, what do you imagine Bishop Iker and Bishop Stanton are going to do together in Fort Worth? Play dominoes and drink beer? (Admittedly, that is a pretty enjoyable pastime.)
I assume +Stanton would be helping real bishops and not hanging around with deposed ones.
Rob K [#65] writes: “The Creeds do in fact serve pretty much as a summary of what must at a minimum be believed.”
Uh, not quite. The Thirty-Nine Articles suggest that the CofE’s ‘founders’ regarded the Creeds as a mnemonic or a crib sheet summarizing the maximum that church authorities may demand by way of belief.
A) To put the matter in context, the authors said in Article VI that “whatsoever is not read therein [in Scripture], nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man,that it should be believed as an article of the Faith ….” This, of course, was a rejection of various doctrinal barnacles that had accumulated in the Roman church.
B) In Article VIII, the authors recommended that the Nicene, Athanasian Creed, and Apostles’ Creed “ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture” (emphasis added). Note that the article’s authors did not flatly declare that those three particular creeds are proved by Scripture and therefore must be believed, whereas in other articles they did not hesitate to make just such flat declarations about the nature of God, Jesus, sin, etc.
C) Even more significantly, the American church, when splitting from the CofE, deleted the Athanasian Creed from Article VIII’s list of recommended beliefs (BCP p. 869). This is noteworthy in view of the American church’s founding declaration that it was “far from intending to depart from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship …” (BCP p.11). Presumably the American church would not have felt free to delete any of the three creeds if the Church of England had regarded those creeds as a minimum set of compulsory beliefs.
So Rob K, if you want to argue that the creeds are required to be believed, it would appear you’ve got some work to do to support that view.
RE: “and I call myself a Christian without qualm. If you consider me not a Christian on that basis… well, I’m sorry to hear that, but it hardly changes my mind.”
Yes — I call myself a Blonde Buddhist all the time and the fact that some Buddhists have pointed out to me that I do not believe the Noble Truths, nor do I meet various criteria required to be deemed blonde by some or Buddhist by others, means little to me.
Which gets us right back, of course, to a part of what is being fought over in the Anglican Communion and that is what *group* allows members and disallows others.
Anybody may form their lips and teeth into the word “Christian” about themselves. What matters is what group are they a part of. I may call myself a Buddhist and if no Buddhist accepts me for a Buddhist, I may still call myself a Buddhist.
The Anglican Communion will continue to debate who may be a member of its quite large group. And gradually, over the years and decades, those forming their lips and teeth into the word “Christian” will be separated out, either in two different organizations, one calling itself the Anglican Communion and the other calling itself something else . . . or discipline will slowly and grindingly be exacted.
The end result — which we all already see — is that some people who form their lips and teeth into the words “Anglican Christian” will be in one organization and some in another.
And so it goes.
Nobody cares whether Ross or DC or PB Schori form their mouths and lips into the words “Anglican Christian” — what matters is church discipline and regardless of how long or grindingly that occurs, it will all play itself out and the two gospels represented by the two different kinds of “believers” in ECUSA will ultimately be in different places.
And that’s as it should be when foundational worldviews that are mutually opposing attempt to duke it out in one entity.
Brian, you provided the comparison with your cynicism, not me.
[blockquote][b]straw man[/b] – A logical fallacy that occurs when someone attacks a less defensible position than the one actually being put forth.[/blockquote]
You are the one that argued that KJS hadn’t tried to influence clergy in the [b]past[/b] (at GC and HoB meetings), which has nothing to do with the assertion that the present threatening, uncharitable, unpastoral letter of KJS is trying to influence clergy and laity of Fort Worth in the [b]present[/b]. Straw man.
“I assume +Stanton would be helping real bishops and not hanging around with deposed ones.” Aaah, I see. The real purpose of the Episcopal visitor plan is for replacing orthodox bishops deposed by 815. I wonder if Bp’s Salmon, Stanton, and Howe know about this. I am quite sure the doting Dorsey Henderson would be willing to participate. Perhaps that is why he pledged to double the diocesan amount sent to 815. Quid pro quo? This certainly fits with the national church’s idea (and yours, I suppose) of [i]waging reconciliation[/i]. And it certainly undermines your contention that the was something/anything in the reprehensible letter of KJS that could be construed as conciliatory.
Folks, you are wasting your time arguing Christianity with Ross, DC and Brian. They are simply not Christian as creedal Christians understand the term. Irenaus in “Against Heresies” points out the the primary function of a bishop is to safeguard the transmission of the Faith so that that the Gospel flows with out deviation from the Apostles to us. Likwwise Irenaus affirms the Spirit inspired nature of Scripture that preserves the Apastolic teaching. Those who deviate from this Apastolic teaching are not Christian. Thus Valentinus, Decundus, Cerdon and Marcian (Gnostics) later Arius and now DC, Brian and Ross.
[blockquote]15. Brian from T19 wrote:
+Iker argues that there is no attempt at reconciliation, however in ++Katharine’s letter she says:
I would remind you of my open offer of an Episcopal Visitor if you wish to receive pastoral care from another bishop. I continue to pray for reconciliation of this situation, [/blockquote]
Brian, are you insinuating that putting a family fox in the chicken coop is an act of reconciliation and pastoral care?
Br. Michael writes: “Those who deviate from this Apastolic teaching are not Christian.”
Actually, Br. M., the ones who aren’t Christian are those who cling to the apostolic teaching instead of being open to the truth, whatever that turns out to be (paraphrasing the Rev. Barbara Brown Taylor). To decline to consider that the apostles might not have had the complete, final answers; to reject the possibility that we might be able to use our God-given brains to collectively come to new insights; is to be like the servant in the parable of the talents who was afraid of his master, and therefore hid the talent that had been entrusted to him instead of putting it to good use.
[i] This thread has strayed off topic. Please return to comments about the letter written by Bishop Iker. [/i]
-Elf Lady
One might ask how +Iker can reconcile this:
[i]“In the Name of God, Amen. I, N., chosen Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in N., do promise conformity and obedience to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. So help me God, through Jesus Christ.â€[/i] BCP 1928
[i]“… I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church.â€[/i] BCP 1979
with this:
[i]“There are three Forward in Faith dioceses in the United States, and the three bishops of those dioceses have come to a common conclusion that we have no future in the Episcopal Church. Our conventions in those three dioceses, Fort Worth, Quincy, and San Joaquin, will be taking constitutional action to separate officially from TEC. Because it is a constitutional change, it must be passed at two successive annual conventions.â€
“…Our plan is not only to disassociate, then, from the Episcopal Church, but to officially, constitutionally re-affiliate with an existing orthodox province of the communion that does not ordain women to the priesthood. These conversations are very far along but cannot be announced until the province that is considering our appeal has made their final decision public.â€[/i]
And before someone starts on about ‘heretical’ (presiding) bishops – if that was really the case, why do you not bring heresy charges?
Might be because most of the jurors are believed to be unwilling to return convictions for heresy as a general rule. Sort of like opponents of the death penalty in capital murder trials.
DC, thank you for proving my point. You reject Scripture and look to another authority.
#66, Brian, that wasn’t an argument. It was a question.
He left out: “now be gone, before someone drops a house on you too”.
Brother Michael
You lum p us in as non-Christian, but your argument is that we are because we do not believe in Scripture? Just because we are not Biblical literalists does not mean that we reject Scriptural Authority. In addition many of us have no problem with the Creeds.
[i] The elf reminds you that this is not a discussion about Christians and non-Christians. [/i]
Aside from all this name calling – what ever happedned to free speech. I know we are not supposed to yell “fire” in a crowed building but for anyone including the PB to tell us what we can and what cannot discuss in an open meeting is just flat out wrong!!!
[i] Comment deleted. A one-liner [/i]
.
Harvey
1. Only the government can be enjoined from violating your Free Speech rights.
2. She has no problem with discussions, the problem is with action. It is one thing to disagree, it is another to take action to alienate the Diocese from its Church. They can pass a resolution saying that they don’t consider her or the Church Christian anymore, but once they enact resolutions to do something about that, they have gone too far.
Cynic’s hat squarely on head. How about this for a P.S.
P.S. Thank you again for your generous offer of an Episcopal Visitor. While I respect the Godly bishops already on your list, we in Fort Worth think to limit ourselves to ECUSA bishops would put us in “too small a box”. Therefore, we hereby request +Gregory Venables to be our Episcopal Visitor.
Blessings,
She has no problem with discussions, the problem is with action. It is one thing to disagree, it is another to take action to alienate the Diocese from its Church. They can pass a resolution saying that they don’t consider her or the Church Christian anymore, but once they enact resolutions to do something about that, they have gone too far.
This is why I will never be for democracy. The minority are NEVER in control of their destiny. They are always at the mercy of the tyrannical majority. Brian, you of all people should see the injustice in this action.
#84: “She has no problem with discussions, the problem is with action.”
But is she is no more important or powerful as +Iker, as you said previously, then what right does she have to be upset by the actions of another Diocese?
“It is one thing to disagree, it is another to take action to alienate the Diocese from its Church.”
But, Brian, it’s “Church” is NOT TEC. It is the “One, Holy, and Apostolic Church”, of which there are many valid expressions and provinces. A Diocese leaving TEC does not necessarily equate that Diocese leaving the Church.
“They can pass a resolution saying that they don’t consider her or the Church Christian anymore, but once they enact resolutions to do something about that, they have gone too far.”
Says who? You? Katherine? Hardly authoritative. If they can enact resolutions joining said Province, why can’t they also enact resolutions changing that status? Again, Brian, I don’t say that as an argument, so please don’t insult me because you don’t like it. I post that as a question that begs an actual response.
#84: “She has no problem with discussions, the problem is with action.â€
But is she is no more important or powerful as +Iker, as you said previously, then what right does she have to be upset by the actions of another Diocese?
“It is one thing to disagree, it is another to take action to alienate the Diocese from its Church.â€
But, Brian, it’s “Church†is NOT TEC. It is the “One, Holy, and Apostolic Churchâ€, of which there are many valid expressions and provinces. A Diocese leaving TEC does not necessarily equate that Diocese leaving the Church.
Rolling Eyes, no matter how many times you try to say it, you know the answer to these 2 questions. But since you seem to be preoccupied, I’ll say it again. I never said “she is no more important or powerful,” I said “A primate (especially in TEC) holds no position greater or lesser than any other bishop.” The distinction is in her role.
As for your second question, there is no “One, Holy and Apostolic Church.” If you don’t believe me, ask the Pope.
“They can pass a resolution saying that they don’t consider her or the Church Christian anymore, but once they enact resolutions to do something about that, they have gone too far.â€
Says who? You? Katherine? Hardly authoritative. If they can enact resolutions joining said Province, why can’t they also enact resolutions changing that status? Again, Brian, I don’t say that as an argument, so please don’t insult me because you don’t like it. I post that as a question that begs an actual response.
The canons allow for the joining of TEC because they presume a Diocese exists prior to membership. This is the same theory as when a business adopts contracts made prior to its incorporation on its behalf. There is no allowance in the canons for leaving.
[blockquote][i]Says who? You? Katherine? Hardly authoritative. If they can enact resolutions joining said Province, why can’t they also enact resolutions changing that status? Again, Brian, I don’t say that as an argument, so please don’t insult me because you don’t like it. I post that as a question that begs an actual response. [/i]
The canons allow for the joining of TEC because they presume a Diocese exists prior to membership. This is the same theory as when a business adopts contracts made prior to its incorporation on its behalf. There is no allowance in the canons for leaving. [/blockquote]
SO, TEC is like the “Hotel California”? [i]You can check out but you can never leave[/i]? Why is that? I don’t think any group, be it diocese or social club, should have that much power over it’s constituent members.
#65 (Rob K) [blockquote]Do we have detailed minutes of councils such as Nicaea and Chalcedon?[/blockquote]
[blockquote]
Actually, we pretty much do… well, not minutes so much as commentaries (and the canons of the Councils themselves). For example, we have a document from Theodoret that was written to those bishops who were unable to attend the Council of Nicea. The debate concerning the deity of Christ began with the following words:
[blockquote]“For the gospels†(continued he), “the apostolical writings, and the oracles of the ancient prophets, clearly teach us what we ought to believe concerning the divine nature. Let, then, all contentious disputation be discarded; and let us seek in the divinely-inspired word the solution of the questions at issue.â€[/blockquote]
Theodoret continues…
[blockquote] “The bishops convened in council being desirous of refuting the impious assertions invented by the Arians, that the Son was created out of that which was non-existent that He is a creature and created being, that there was a period in which He was not, and that He is mutable by nature, and being all agreed in propounding the following declarations, which are in accordance with the holy Scriptures; namely, that the Son is by nature only-begotten of God, Word, Power, and sole Wisdom of the Father; that He is, as John said, ‘the true God’ 1 Joh. v. 20 and, as Paul has written, ‘the brightness of the glory, and the express image of the person of the Father, Heb. i. 3.†[/blockquote]
Throughout the various Councils and the debates that surrounded them the orthodox appealed to Scripture and to that which had been handed down to them from the Apostles and Fathers of the Church. This is the trajectory I spoke of… it is there for all to see.
With regard to your statement as to the creeds providing us with a minimum standard of belief… I agree that it is necessary to believe everything that the creeds declare; however, there are many things that Christians must believe (lest they want to become heretics) that are not contained in the creeds.
D.C. (#68) The 39 articles do say that the Creeds are to be believed– I have no idea what leap you took to arrive at the idea that the Articles teach that the Creeds are the maximum that the Church authorities demanded.
You also write: [blockquote]”…the ones who aren’t Christian are those who cling to the apostolic teaching instead of being open to the truth, whatever that turns out to be (paraphrasing the Rev. Barbara Brown Taylor).”[/blockquote]
Fascinating definition– revealing rather than revelatory, I think. Can I define any word any way I like, then, and expect everyone to accept my new definition? But I digress, Christians believe that the Truth guided the apostles to write as they were led by the Spirit. To paraphrase Scripture, it’s a [i]hell[/i] of a lot easier to follow the way of world than it is to follow the way of God (Matt 7:13-14). Thus we remain open to the One who is Truth.
Guess I have yet to figure out how to do block quotes properly.
Farstrider [#90] writes: “I have no idea what leap you took to arrive at the idea that the Articles teach that the Creeds are the maximum that the Church authorities demanded.”
I apologize; I thought I had done a pretty good job of carefully explaining my reasoning [#68], but obviously it wasn’t good enough.
————
Farstrider writes: “Can I define any word any way I like, then, and expect everyone to accept my new definition?”
I dunno; can you? It’s certainly not anything I proposed.
———–
Farstrider writes: “Christians believe that the Truth guided the apostles to write as they were led by the Spirit.”
Assuming this to be true for the sake of argument, it doesn’t mean the apostles “got” it all, nor that they understood it entirely correctly, nor that things haven’t changed and rendered their understandings out of date. Given the complex- and ever-changing configuration of the Creation, it’s hard to see how folks could think that anyone could declare that Human Insights X, Y, and Z, even insights of the sainted apostles, is THE Complete And Final Truth, for all times and places. History overflows with counterexamples.
[i] A reminder that that off topic remarks will be deleted. [/i]
Brian, I have seen you say repeatedly that a primate is no greater than any other bishop in our polity. Whose polity are we talking about: TEC’s polity or Anglicanism’s polity? If Iker wants to replace the PB with a better individual to function as primate how could he choose a bishop who is in TEC? Is there any polity in the world where a bishop can function as a primate without being one? You might as well suggest he seek primatial oversight from a Senior Warden.
It is clear Iker wants primatial oversight from without TEC, not from within, for it is TEC that is the problem. Stanton, having his primatial oversight from the PB, would still put Iker ultimately under the PB, with all the problems involved.
D.C.: “Given the complex- and ever-changing configuration of the Creation, it’s hard to see how folks could think that anyone could declare that Human Insights X, Y, and Z, even insights of the sainted apostles, is THE Complete And Final Truth, for all times and places. ”
Creation changes, as does our understanding of it. That is true. However, God doesn’t change, nor does the image in which He created us. The Bible is dripping with proof that homosexuality (which, lets be honest, is really what you’re talking about here, and many apologies to the Elves if this is too off-topic) is contrary to God’s very image and His creation. The reasserters position on the topic is NOT determined solely on the opinions of the Sainted Apostles. To claim that it does, as you have, shows evidence of staggering ignorance.
Hmmm. All I can say about Iker’s letter is, [b]liar, liar, pants on fire.[/b]
Iker’s letter, is, of course, genius. The reason the revisionists are all in a dither is because Jack uses their best arguments – canons & polity – against them – and all they can do is blather and insult. Quite amusing, really.
BTW, all of those angling to get Iker deposed, you do realize that the ecclesial authority will then be the standing committee and there is NOTHING that Schori could do with them? Be careful what you wish for…
And here (comment #3) is a note from Bishop Iker himself:
http://mcj.bloghorn.com/3475#Comments
But, as the MCJ Blogmaster himself wrote, BAD LANGUAGE ALERT!
(The posting itself is a marvel, too, fisking as it does so well that Anglican Godot, the Archbishop of Canterbury.)
Wow, William, as one of the other posters put it, I wouldn’t be surprised if this were one of the MILDER letters he’s received.
The sender of that letter need a lot of prayers ascending on his behalf.
Semes is a sad character, as well as a nutcase, as you can see here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/7601/
There is no point in reconcilliation. TEC and the Diocese of FT Worth share a history not a theology. The national Church’s theology has become corrupt – Bishop Iker and apparently the Diocese have decided to separate and take their chances. If TEC prevails they will get a lot of empty buildings and +IKer and co will start afresh. It is the souls that count – a new province with many few or no former TEC parish property will still accerlerate TEC’s decline into irrevalency. +KJS’ letters are posturing designed to intimidate the fence sitters and take prelitigation positions/paper trails. TEC forgot how to act like a church a long time ago – it is now more left wing polical organization/club and a very valuable real estate holding company. I am sure whatever the near future brings the Anglican Diocese of Fort Worth will not only survive but prosper.