The adversarial relationship between this Diocese and the leadership of The Episcopal Church was
exacerbated by two decisions made by the Executive Council of TEC at its meeting last week.
I. The Council’s refusal to participate in the Pastoral Scheme developed by the Dar es Salaam Primates’
Meeting has deepened our sense of alienation from TEC. Instead of “waging reconciliation,” the Council
has failed to respond to the expressed needs of those dioceses appealing for Alternative Primatial
Oversight, pushing us further apart from TEC. They have claimed that the Pastoral Council proposal
violates the polity of TEC, but they have been unable to substantiate this by citing any constitutional or
canonical provisions to that effect.
II. Claiming an authority that our polity does not give, the Council has declared certain amendments to
our Diocesan Constitution “null and void.” To this, we respond, first, that it is not within the scope of
duties assigned to the Executive Council to render findings as to the legality or constitutionality of
actions by the several dioceses of The Episcopal Church; and second, that resolutions adopted by the
Council, or even by the General Convention, are non-binding. Therefore, this resolution is nothing more
than an opinion expressed by those individuals who issued the statement. It is itself “null and void“ ”“
unenforceable and of no effect. This action is another example of the heavy-handed tactics being used by
those who do not have the right to interfere in the internal constitutional process of the dioceses.
While the Council’s resolutions on a range of subjects may excite debate, that does not guarantee their
opinions are consistent with the Faith, the law of the land, or the Constitution of The Episcopal Church,
much less that they establish precedent. That the Council would attempt to interfere now, nearly 20 years
after this diocese first amended its Constitution, is evidence of an illegitimate magisterial attitude that
has emerged in the legislative function of TEC. Sadly, the one thing the resolution does show is that there
is no desire on the part of the Council for reconciliation with those alienated by the recent actions of
General Convention.
The Council’s threats may continue, but we will continue to stand for the historic biblical faith and our
Lord Jesus Christ’s call to extend His Kingdom. We regret that a further deterioration in our relationship
with TEC has been effected by these decisions.
The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth
The Very Rev. Ryan S. Reed
President, Standing Committee
June 19, 2007
It sounds like Fort Worth is coming to the realization that their opponents are not simply well-intentioned persons having good-faith disagreements, but true believers. Many years ago, I noticed that certain types of persons talk a certain way when they are not in control. Then it’s all “teamwork”, “dialogue”, :flexibility” and so on. You know the drill. Once these same folks gain power, it’s pretty much “my way or the highway”. There are, of course, well-intentioned reappraisers who are perfectly willing to leave the parish down the road to their quaint beliefs. However,that’s not the people in charge of TEC at the moment. They are zealots, possessed of the Gospel of Inclusion and they will not rest until all oppposition is silenced.
Sha-ZAM!
I’ve addressed this issue in my latest blog “On Polity” to be found at http://www.wvparson.blogspot.com. The rather naive belief that merely because a councilor committee is elected it therefore cannot become tyrannical is an erroneous and strange belief. Democratic elections produced a Nazi government in Germany and Hamas in Palestine.
Again if only GC may speak for TEC -which means there is no voice -how come the EC is issuing fatwahs on its own authority?
#3, are you asking reappraisers to defend or explain their actions and beliefs in a logical manner?
You’ll be waiting for some time because they are incapable, for many reasons.
It’s War.
Striking point, isn’t it, that ++Iker and +Reed make about the fact that they’ve been amending their constitution for 20 years and nobody said “Boo” about it until it crossed a reappraiser line in the sand. Pretty sad, I’m thinking.
Thank God for Ft. Worth, though. I can almost feel the righteousness radiating from their letter!
KTF….mrb
Tha’d be meekness radiating from the Fort Worth letter. It’s the “gospel of inclusiveness (TM) righteousness” radiating from the EC – you know, like the Dark Side of the Force in Star Wars?
Ha! Gotcha dwstroudmd, good stuff! But I was being literal, so I’m going to stick with Webster’s on this one:
righteous:1 : acting in accord with divine or moral law :
KTF!…mrb
Instead of taking action to defuse the situation, the Executive Committee is pouring fuel on the fire…..and they’re doing it deliberately and with malice aforethought. In the process, they’re making themselves look foolish, in my opinion, since I see no way that they have any authority to act.
Every diocese is semi-autonomous and free to make their own decisions, and neither the Presiding Bishop nor the Executive Committee have any authority to interfere with any diocesan decisions, as far as I know.
I seriously doubt that this threat will have the slightest impact on any of the four dioceses mentioned; in fact, it may very well steel their resolve!
I’m not 100% sure, but I think the issue is trying to separate themselves from the Episcopal Church. We can pass any parish bylaws we want as long as they don’t run contrary to the diocese or to the National Church. Thus I would imagine that the National Church wouldn’t care what Ft. Worth did with its constitution UNTIL it tried to disassociate itself from it. In that regard, if that is correct, I can see what the fuss is about. But I agree. The decision is not going to have any impact. Bishop Iker, through his absences at HOB meetings and at consecrations of other bishops in his former province, hasn’t had much to do with the Episcopal Church in a long time.
I admire and respect +Iker.
However, one does not need to be a Bishop to understand what he says in this note. It should be obvious to everyone that the Council is waging no reconciliation. The Council is taking such steps as would indicate their support of the notion that the Church consists of buildings, along with all the offerings which are made in those buildings, which TEc will continue to claim that it owns outright. The failure to even consider Alternative Primatal Oversight suggests (although it does not prove) that the only issue in view is money.
The demand made on those of us who value Jesus and hold to the Ancient Creeds to participate in listening is apparently a one-way operation. We are to listen to them, but they are under no expressed obligation to listen to us, to the Primates of the Southern Cone, or even the Spirit which some of us still think of as Holy. The leaders of TEc now have their own spirit, which teaches them things which have been declared abominations for, oh, 3500 years or so. When former PB Griswold said they were doing a new thing, it was really an old thing. As old as humankind.
+Iker skewers the Council on their own ground. His observation that the polity of TEc does not permit the Council to declare anything null and void is strictly on point. The notion that a Diocese is, in effect, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the national church is absurd on its face. The magisterial attitude is not manifested solely toward the Diocese of Fort Worth, of course. The same attitude is present throughout the dealings of TEc with anyone with whom they disagree.
Onward Christian Soldiers marching as to war with the cross of Jesus going on before. By the way Democratic voting may have started Germany on the right road – briefly. But an Austrian madman took a hold of things and led a nation to war and ruin.
Executive Council joined this to promote abortion in the name of every Diocese: http://www.rcrc.org/about/members.cfm
Twenty year old constitutional changes probably put up a better fight than in utero humans!
Mike Bertaut, only the canons can be taken literally, DUDE. And only the canons that are chosen can be taken literally-er! And only the really, really important canons can be literalest! And no canon exists to justify rejection of the Primatial Vicar Scheme per Dr. +++Schori, but the HOB says it does and that must be taken most literal-est-ist!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bp Iker for some years is consistently thoughtful, steadfast and articulate. This statement and recent others from his diocese cut with clarity through the murk (one might well say muck) incessantly churned out by those in control of TEC: a surfeit of verbiage (listening, healing, reconciliation, richness of diversity, etc ad nauseum) that cloys and clogs which words mean, like Humpty Dumpty’s in Through the Looking Glass, exactly what they choose them to mean – neither more nor less. During the many years that I have known him, I’ve observed him respond with courtesy and charity to people who have not reciprocated. More recently it appears that he has accepted what many have long felt to be the case. Opponents of orthodox (small o) Christianity have no intention of being the listeners. Or of being fair, let alone charitable. Or Christian, in my judgment.
#3 wvparson
Executive Council executes what is the will of the adjourned General Convention. Its actions are illegitimate if
1. they are specifically inconsistent with the resolutions of GC
2. non canonical (which is subtly different than #1)
The issue with this current situation is that both sides are legitimately correct, as far as canon law is concerned. EC is doing GC’s bidding, and I’m convinced that GC will back them on this if it ever came to a vote. But that doesn’t say that such an action will be justified by canon, as dioceses are organized with substantial autonomy. Schori put matters well in a related subject when some months ago she said that the PB’s office didn’t have much power. So if EC and the HoB cannot restrain priests and bishops who do SSUs and all manner of other extraordinary rites and liturgies, then they probably cannot restrain Ft Worth.