Jack Leo Iker is Bishop of the Diocese of Fort Worth. I spoke with him on Saturday, September 23rd.
Greg Griffith: Matt Kennedy and I have made a lot of people upset by characterizing the Camp Allen statement as a failed response to Kigali. Matt termed it a "rebuff of our allies." I said, "I'm looking for an explanation as to how these guys didn't sell us down the river."
Bishop Iker: Everyone needs to keep in mind that Camp Allen wasn't designed to be a response to the meeting in Africa, or even something that was being done in conjunction with it. They were two meetings happening for different purposes, in different places.
Camp Allen was an opportunity for some bishops to stand up and be counted as Windsor bishops. General Convention didn't give us that opportunity in an official capacity, so we created this one. When a group of us visited the Archbishop of Canterbury in May, we said we were concerned that General Convention's response to the Windsor Report might end up being inadequate. If that turned out to be the case, the archbishop said he would like a "head count" of those bishops who were willing to abide by the terms of the report. Was it five of us? Ten? Fifteen?
Look at what came out of this meeting: Twenty-one bishops who occupy a wide variety of positions on the questions before us, agreed to four plainly-stated points:
First, that General Convention didn't make an adequate response to the Windsor Report. Second, that we as a group affirm, embrace, and submit to the report. Third, that we all recognize the perilous position many of our congregations find themselves in; some have already left, some are on the verge of leaving, while many others continue to struggle with the question; and that they all need a safe place. And fourth, that there is a need for different levels of disassociation from what ECUSA is doing.
One of the remarkable things about Camp Allen is that all 21 bishops were able to agree that these dioceses need such a relationship with another primate, whatever you decide to call it. For some, it's APO. For others, it's joining the Network. We were delighted to learn that the Kigali statement recognized the same thing. But quite simply, the Global South primates have had it with ECUSA. Having to deal with our problems is a huge distraction from their mission and ministry.
Greg Griffith: Some people are concerned about the change in language from "alternative primatial oversight" to "alternative primatial relationship." Can you explain to us what that change means?
Bishop Iker: At the New York City meeting, PB-elect Schori responded to our inquiries about alternative oversight by saying that she couldn't give to another primate what she didn't have, which was oversight of our dioceses. Leaders in the Diocese of Springfield said that was correct - that technically, the Presiding Bishop doesn't have what we define as "oversight." Rather, the dioceses that are appealing for alternative "oversight" are looking to place ourselves in an ecclesial relationship with an orthodox primate of the Anglican Communion. So the word "relationship" was suggested as a replacement for "oversight."
Greg Griffith: One of the lines in the statement has caused a lot of concern. It's the one that says you all pledge to work within ECUSA, which many of us we see as the cause of the problem, not the source of the solution.
Bishop Iker: One draft of the statement made mention of "work with our colleagues within ECUSA and the primates," but some of the more centrist bishops objected on the grounds that it might be interpreted to endorse border crossing, so we changed it. There's an interesting story there, as well. The final statement was originally phrased, "We pledge ourselves to work with our episcopal colleagues..." with "episcopal" spelled using a lower-case "e." Somewhere between our agreeing to the statement, and it getting released to the public, that lower-case "e" became a capital "E," implying that we were limiting our scope of partners only to colleagues in ECUSA.
Greg Griffith: Did the bishops at Camp Allen have knowledge of what the Kigali statement contained?
Bishop Iker: A summary of the points in the Kigali statement came to some of us via telephone.
Greg Griffith: When did that happen?
Bishop Iker: I believe it was late Thursday afternoon, but I didn't see the complete, official statement until Friday afternoon.
Greg Griffith: But there was never any intention to respond to it through your statement?
Bishop Iker: No. Again, this meeting was held not to craft a reply to Kigali, but to signal, in an official capacity, our desire to remain a part of the communion under the terms of Windsor. This was a letter from bishops who want to comply with Windsor, to other ECUSA bishops, that said, "For the sake of the communion, we think you should join us." That's why Bishop Wolf, who voted for Gene Robinson, was able to sign it - because while she might have personal differences with Lambeth 1.10, she recognizes that it is nonetheless the mind of the communion, and that Windsor is the way forward in communion. It's not unlike Archbishop Williams, about whom it's been reported that he has personal views more accommodating of the homosexual movement than are expressed in Lambeth 1.10, but he recognizes that it is the mind of the communion right now, and institutionally, he's going to support it.
Greg Griffith: So there was none of the compromise that we all dreaded, and which we talked about before the meeting?
Bishop Iker: I don't believe so. I had my own misgivings about the meeting, because I think anyone who wants to be Windsor-compliant needs to be a member of the Network. I told my fellow bishops, "I'm willing to go to Camp Allen and talk to non-Network bishops who want to be Windsor compliant, but I first want to know why they haven't joined the Network."
Greg Griffith: Do you think the statement the bishops signed will cause more bishops to join the ranks of the Windsor-compliant?
Bishop Iker: I don't know. I just don't know.
Greg Griffith: Bishop, thank you for your leadership, and thank you for taking the time to talk with us.
Bishop Iker: Thank you for what you and your folks are doing.
90 Comments •
Comments:
- too much speculation among people, who should know better, about what is going to be addressed at these various meetings. This has fostered an atmosphere akin to that among the major network news organizations about being the first “out” with the “scoop.” It is time that we all learned (I think Greg & Matt have learned a lesson on this one) to be a bit more thoughtful about how we react to things. The Camp Allen statement says what it says. Try to read it in its own context without insisting that it has anything to do with other meetings. Once you have done that, and thought about it a bit, then you can see if it might have anything to say about any other situation. Camp Allen was clearly focused on the issues within the Episcopal Church. It did not really touch on any internation issues other than as a response to the Windsor Report and the Dromantine Communiqué. It was a grievous error to think that this statement saind anything in relation to the Kigali meeting. If you read it closely, you might nothice that Kigali was not even mentioned!
Bill Channon said, “I believe that the responsibility for encouraging the laity and giving them enough information to allay fears and increase resolves of patience is in the hands of the bishop of each diocese.”
Bill, my bishop is Wimberly and he will allay no fears for his diverse diocese…anything he says will create fears among some of his flock…and I understand that, on my good days…like you, I don’t need to know every detail, but there appear to be two paths the orthodox might take and I want to follow the GS path…my bishop doesn’t approve, which is, I suppose, why he hasn’t joined the network…and why he is working with the ABC to create another path…a path that is troubling to me as I currently understand it…maybe I just need to know more, but that won’t be forthcoming either I suspect. This isn’t the classical Roman period nor is it the medieval period…these types of debates will take place on the internet and they will not take 100 years to resolve whether we wish we could be that patient or not…like BillK, I am willing to be patient through February, I was in Pittsburgh and heard the impatience of the Global South and now we are a year later, and while we may have made progress so much is behind the scenes that the progress appears too little or too fragile to be sustained in the face of counter-pressures. I know appearances can be deceiving, but not everyone is willing to hold out till February, I hear the pleas by people like my friend Gayle and I know that each time we have these nuanced understated cautious statements there are a few more that lose hope…I come to Stand Firm for that hope…for the wisdom provided by +Matt and Sarah and Greg and the rest of you…and I come to relieve the stress that builds up as I find my patience tested…I even come for the fellowship so that I remember that I am not in this alone and that many face worse obstacles than living with the silences of Bishop Wimberly who I can count on to be faithful to the ABC. Where do we go next? How about a little hope or a piece of strategy to keep the mind busy till February and to help us persevere through November…we have gotten this far together surely we can continue to press forward toward the goal that is dimly visible in front of us…