I find the use of the term “candidate” misleading. He will be the next Bishop. They don’t have a choice. Anyone still in TEC in Fort Worth know of write in’s? Are they allowed?

The second link is dead.

bob+, bob+, bob+... the appointed bishops movement is sweeping the country. If your not on board the train, you’ll get left behind. Heil!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPhBwsWB2qk&feature=related

Ohl Well…Guess they never learn until the money runs out…
Intercessor

I think this will be good news if he is confirmed, and it looks as if he already is. I believe it is good because of his track record. He left the Diocese of Northwest Texas economically unstable; he deminished attendance that continues to slide away; he planted enough clergy who can’t think theologically and has lost their moral compass; there is no church growth happening now nor is it possible; the Diocese of Northwest Texas had trouble finding candidates that would go through the whole election process for the episcopate so they had to settle on a local rector from one of the few parishes that can actually pay for a rector and now bishop. By fact and by example, he is just what the rump diocese needs and deserves.

The second link is still dead. He single handedly destroyed Holy Trinity Church in Midland

You can find the stat chart here.

Here is the base for all the charts for TEC.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

BTW, I believe that they should roll the TEC Diocese of Fort Worth back into Dallas and/or NW Texas.  Just as in TEC SJC, there is simply not the critical mass of people there to support a diocese.  They will spend huge resources on administration and overhead and litigation to prop up the “new” diocese. 

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

#2 Festivus…Festivus…Festivus.. While I’m from Fort Worth I’m not in either of the dioceses here. I jumped off this train back in 95…Had the station been built then??? No worries about being left behind.

Anybody know which diocese is hosting the premier of “Springtime for Schori?”

Te Deum, why do you rejoice in the appointment of an ineffective bishop?  I do agree that Bishop Ohl is not what the Diocese of Fort Worth needs.  The people who chose not to follow Bishop Iker deserve better and should have a shepherd that will allow that diocese to flourish. 

I have to say that I find your glee disheartening and distasteful.  Tell us your home parish.  If your happiness is dependent on the misfortunes of others, let us know so we can avoid it.

FWIW, I am not a fan of Bishop Iker and would not attend one of his parishes if I lived in Fort Worth.  I realize that many people here are, but I don’t agree with his leadership of his diocese or his actions as bishop.  I have nothing against the man personally, however, and wish his diocese well.  I don’t desire that it fall on its face.

[off topic comment deleted—commenter given final warning]

I believe that Bishop Ohl is a good person but a true “company man”. He may personally disagree with TEC policy but will loyally enforce that policy. He will not break ranks with the PB. His record in Northwest Texas is indeed dismal. From 2002 through 2008, the diocese lost 16 percent of Members, 31 percent of ASA, and Plate & Pledge fell 21 percent when adjusted for inflation. Based on a composite of changes in Members, ASA, and Plate & Pledge, I would rank the diocese 91 out of the 95 dioceses considered. But TEC may consider that being already a bishop and retired and a loyalist is more important.  Statmann

Dallasite-
I am in the (real) Diocese of Fort Worth, the one in majority, under the true Bishop Iker. I’m not quite sure why you don’t like Iker. I know the man pretty well, and he is truly a lion for the faith. Anything and everything he has done has been out of Christian morals and teachings. When it comes to the (other) Diocese of Fort Worth, i find the diocese to be terribly terribly hypocritical. For example they hosted an event called “the Green blade riseth” and other meetings in which they could all complain and whine about how terrible we traditionalists are, and how they “learned so much” from leaving us. We gave them their property. The four churches that had a majority of members that wished to stay with TEC, we just let them have it, but they aren’t satisfied! They turn around and sue the rest of us! Doesn’t it seem hypocritical how they feel so emotional about how they no longer have a place to worship because they are the minority, but at the same time they are trying to take OUR property from US?
Did I mention that on Saturday at our convention we welcomes 5 new parishes to our diocese? hmmmmmm… lets compare that to growth in liberal dioceses…...

I Like Iker
YBIC
-Texaspiper

Bob+,
Any language referring to the desire to establish a bishop of provisional authority that implies any sense of the normal search and election of an Ordinary is misleading.  It is all in the hands of the Standing Committee.  If I remember, though, the “Standing Committee” asked for names, which would be their prerogative.  But there is no “election” except as an internal vote of the Standing Committee.  Then a Convention ratifies the Standing Committee’s desire to have a bishop with such authority.  Affirmation by the Convention of the Standing Committee’s choice of a particular person is helpful. But it is not an election by the Convention, and thus “write in’s”, or even, “nominations from the floor”, are not appropriate nomenclature.
Still, Roberts rules do allow for the minority to have their voice, and it would be interesting to think through how an individual or a group would challenge the Standing Committee’s choice for the bishop they want to have provisional authority from the floor of a Convention.

Te Deum at #5 - concur. Its hard, yes, but only fair.

Looking at Ohl+ voting record, he appears more conservative than Gulick+. I thought Gulick+ was going to stay on longer. Perhaps, it wasn’t a good fit after all. I hope Ohl+ serves them well.
The rump diocese has many issues to overcome. I wish them well but I wish they would stay out of our school.

BTW, I believe that they should roll the TEC Diocese of Fort Worth back into Dallas and/or NW Texas.

Whatever do you have against the Diocese of Dallas, Philip to wish this on them?

The TEC Diocese may have some issues, but we in THE Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth are doing just fine!

TexPiper, I disagree with Bishop Iker on the issue of women’s ordination.  I disagree with his handling of his relationship with the larger Episcopal church.  His choice to insulate himself and his diocese from the denomination diminished both him, the Diocese of Fort Worth (both of them) and The Episcopal Church.  I don’t agree with the decision by his diocese to leave the Episcopal Church, and I think his (your) diocese’s decision to keep the Episcopal name in its legal name is misleading.  These are a few of my quibbles with the Bishop.  I don’t know him personally, and have heard him preach only once, at an Ash Wednesday service; the sermon was fine, and could have been delivered by just about any priest of any political stripe.

They’re not losing any time ordaining their first woman priest.

Dallasite (#20 comment)
“and I think his (your) diocese’s decision to keep the Episcopal name in its legal name is misleading.”

So the Scottish Episcopal Church or
the Episcopal Church of the Philippines or the Episcopal Church of the Sudan are also being misleading by using the name Episcopal in their official name?
Let me know what you think?

Let’s see. An unincorporated voluntary association named “The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth” was organized in 1983, adopted a governing constitution and canons and elected various officers. Annually the membership of the association met in convention, elected various officers, made amendments to its governing rules as provided in those rules and otherwise conducted business for the association.

In 2007 the duly elected lay and clergy delegates met in convention and proposed constitutional amendments which would alter its relationship with the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. And in 2008 duly elected lay and clergy delegates adopted those amendments. This is the procedure set forth in its constitution and canons. These votes were by overwhelming majorities. How is it that the corporation has to change the name it had been doing business as for decades?

Also, for the record, this was not Bishop Iker’s doing. He had no authority to do it under the dioceses’ constitution and canons. It was done by majority votes of the lay and clergy delegates in convention. And the lay delegates were elected by majorities of the laity in their various parish annual meetings.

And also, for the record, it should be pointed out that the duly elected lay and clergy delegates in convention elected Iker to be their bishop precisely because of his stand for the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as received and against the innovations of TEC such as the ordination of women.

Not that I care or anything, but what became of Sam Hulsey as TEC bishop to be of rump Ft Worth? He seemed to be a shoe in months back….

Via Orthodoxy Just speculation…. he was deemed to be too liberal.

I hope this isn’t too far off-topic, but just in case you are wondering what the real Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth is doing:

To the clergy, convention delegates, Executive Council, and vestry members,

What a joy and delight it was to participate in our diocesan convention this past weekend! I can tell you that after 35 years of ordained ministry, having attended annual conventions year after year, both here and in two other dioceses, seldom can they be described as joyful or delightful! Too often they are contentious, boring, and frustrating! But let the record show that this one was indeed very different! It was a great experience, and I think that everyone who attended will agree.

All six resolutions were adopted unanimously and without dissension! Gone were the contentious debates of the past between opposing sides! We spoke with one mind and one voice. Likewise, everyone was in agreement about the need for the proposed amendments to the diocesan Constitution and Canons. We even agreed on the adoption of a budget of over $1,981,000 and parish assessments to support it, without one dissenting vote!

In the 27-year history of diocesan conventions here in Fort Worth, this was the first time we ever seated five new congregations. We didn’t just talk about church growth - we saw it! Eleven new clergy were introduced and welcomed. Also unprecedented was the presence of ecumenical guests from both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church who brought us greetings and assured us of their prayers and partnership in the Gospel. Archbishop Dmitri spoke to us on behalf of the Orthodox Church in America, and Fr. James Hart read a letter to us from Bishop Kevin Vann of the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth. Resolutions calling for dialogue on church unity with both bodies received the unanimous support of the clergy and lay delegates.

The recurring themes in the various reports made to the Convention echoed the points in the sermon of Nashotah House Dean Robert Munday at the opening Eucharist: world mission, evangelism and youth ministry. How blessed we are to be in a diocese that is so clearly mission-minded, focused on sharing the Good News with others, and committed to ministry with our young people!

While maintaining our membership as a diocese in the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, we acceded to the Constitution and Canons of the newly organized Anglican Church in North America. We give thanks to God for the continuing primatial oversight of Archbishop Greg Venables and for the godly leadership of Archbishop Bob Duncan. United with them, let us move forward together in mission in the coming year, standing firm in the faith once delivered to the saints!

May the work of this diocese continue to be a joy and delight in all the days ahead!

The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Third Bishop of Fort Worth
Feast of St. Leo the Great
November 10, 2009

Septuagenarian…
not to mention, Bishop Iker does not have a vote in Convention and did not cast a vote in either 2007 or 2008.  As you state, it was the duly elected delegates and duly appointed clergy of the 50+ congregations and missions. 
“Sacrasm on” If the Holy Spirit speaks through a majority vote at General Convention, what is to limite Him from speaking through a majority vote in a local convention? “off” I agree with everything you point out in 23 just wanted to add the part about the Bishop not having a say.

And still waiting to hear back from Dallasite…

The Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East - misleading?
The Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil - misleading?

back in the states:
Charistmatic Episcopal Church - misleading?
Episcopal Missionary Church - misleading?
The United Episcopal Church of North America - misleading?

Waiting to hear back Dallasite…unless you can prove otherwise, no one has a trade mark on the term Episcopal.
The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth which existed prior to being recieved in union with General Convention still exists as a legal entity after dissolving its union with General Convetion.  What is misleanding about that???

rreed enquires

If the Holy Spirit speaks through a majority vote at General Convention, what is to limite Him from speaking through a majority vote in a local convention?

As you know, there are a variety of spirits at large in the world. Not all of them are holy. Which is why the apostles taught that Christians must be discerning of spirits.

There are many prophets as well. Not all of them speak for God. Which again requires discernment on the part of Christians. Torah offers two tests of prophesy. One of them is whether or not the words of the prophet are congruent with Torah.

Yes, RReed . . . I wonder where Dallasite is to respond to your pointing out the other Anglican Communion churches with the word “Episcopal” in the name.

Here’s my bet.  Dallasite wasn’t even aware of other provinces of the Anglican Communion’s use of the word “Episcopal” in their formal names.

You might be right Sarah or perhaps he has yet to turn on his computer in the last 20 hours and will provide excellent reasons why the legal entity that is The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that began before its admission into the General Convention of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America cannot still use its legal name after it disaffliated from said convention.  I’m sure there will be some good arguments or perhaps all those other bodies are misleading wanna be like TEC fraudualnt bodies?  I don’t know.

Under his logic, all anglo catholic must drop the word catholic because there is a Roman Catholic church. Likewise, stop using evangelical to describe yourself because the Evangelical Luternan Church of American owns that word.  What would the city of Buffalo say to me selling buffalo wings in Texas? 

Sept:  I was “speaking tongue in cheek” about the GC and the Holy Spirit.  God’s Spirit can speak to us individually and corporately but He never contradicts Himself so the direction we beleive we should be going must always be in comformity with His revealed Word.  I completely agree with what you said.

2nd link is still dead but I know the asa/membership plight of NW Texas.  Look about as bad as 85 other diocese in The episcopal Church.

Fr. Reed and Sarah, I am well aware of Episcopal Churches in Scotland, the Phillipines, Sudan etc.  The last time I checked, Fort Worth wasn’t in any of those places, nor am I aware of other Episcopal Churches in the US, other than the Methodist Episcopal Church, African Episcopal Church and the other examples that Fr. Reed so helpfully provides.  I’m not aware that Bishop Iker and his diocese has adopted any of those additional descriptors to its name (THe Southern Cone Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, for example). My point is that Bishop Iker’s diocese has until recently been a part of what is commonly known as and recognized the Episcopal Church in the United States (yes, I know that isn’t the legal name, so please don’t give in to your respective snark reflexes to point that out).  Legalities aside (I recognize that the Iker Diocese can call itself whatever it wants and its legal name is whatever it is, and that TEC, as far as I know, has no copyright or trademark on the Episcopal church name), my point is that it seems that the Fort Worth Diocese wants both to be distinct from TEC but at the same time trade on the brand that the Episcopal Church has.  Given that Bishop Iker and his followers hold TEC in such monumental contempt, it surprises me that they want to keep the name.

legalities aside, we have always been a diocese of congregations governed by a bishop, hence the term Episcopal in our legal name. 
We are no more trading on the brand of TEC (officially changed just 3 years ago) than we are the brand of the Charismatic Episcopal Church or the Episcopal Church of Scotland.
IF TEC where still branded at DFMSPECUSA would we be having this converation?  Was this conversation had with the 13 or so pre existing “Episcopal” diocese that came together and created General Convention or the 9 “Episocpal” Diocese that withdrew from PECUSA during the Civil War and came together under a southern church?
The basic unit of the church is not General Convention or the local congregation but the diocese.  That is what holds us together and that is what makes us Episcopal.  Already several dicoeses stand alone outside any province like the diocese of Bermuda (i think) and they are Episcopal diocese (governed by bishops in the Anglican Communion) and yet they have no submission to General Convention.

Fr. Reed, We’ll agree to disagree on this.  I acknowledge that the DioFW (SC) can call itself whatever it wants.  I understand that the diocese is a small e episcopal church, but also understand that it is not a part of the large E Episcopal Church as it is commonly understood in this country.  I also stand by my view that it is, intentionally or not, confusing.  Given the animosity of your diocese towards TEC, I would not expect you to claim that you are trading on the TEC brand.  Nonetheless, it still strikes me that your diocese is trying both to retain the Episcopal (TEC) identity while going your own way.  Even if you are correct about the basic unit being the Diocese (I’ll take your word on that one), the Episcopal Churches in this country (not counting the separately named Episcopal branches, such as Charismatic, Methodist, etc) have, as far as I know, identified themselves as The Episcopal Church [name a Diocese].  If I’m at a convention in Fort Worth and see St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church from my room at the Omni, am I being unreasonable to expect that it’s an Episcopal Church that’s part of TEC? 

Why not call yourselves the Anglican Diocese of Fort Worth?

Will agree to that.  We are episcopal by nature (reflected in the name of our diocese) but not part of the Episcopal Church.  Since part of the court case lodged against the diocese from TEC has to do with name, shield, etc…I guess a judge will resolve are disagreement for us.  Thanks for responding back.

rreed and Dallasite, your discussion seems to be winding down and I don’t really want to stimulate it much more, but +Iker’s diocese actually does own the name.  It is legally incorporated in the state of Texas under that name.  The judge in the recent skirmishes even said that +Iker could go to court to stop the rump diocese from using it, but +Iker has not done so, probably because he is a decent guy and also he doesn’t want to shake the hornet’s nest. 

I don’t doubt that DioFtW will eventually change its name to the Anglican Diocese of Ft. Worth, but they have to wait until all the lawsuits die down.  There will be a significant expense also associated with the change, but I think that he will do it because it has become somewhat of a “stinky” name to have on your church now that TEC is known as “the gay church”. Please, I’m not trying to start another argument, I’m just calling it like I hear it on the street.  Many of the member parishes (including mine) have already made the substitution.

Did anyone notice my #26?  I am so happy that our diocese has returned to normal and is laughing and growing again.  It’s great to see +Iker in such a great mood as he was when he wrote that letter.  We have been gloomy and distracted from our mission long enough. I honestly am beginning to think of TEC as a thing of the past with a corresponding reduction of the anger and heartbreak that has filled our lives for so long.  It’s like a divorce, I suppose: now that we are parted, I can think of my ex-church more objectively and actually wish it well (though not with its “mission” of destroying my orthodox friends who remain in it).