Welcome to Stand Firm!

Panel of Reference Responds to Fort Worth Appeal [UPDATED]

Monday, January 8, 2007 • 11:01 am

Panel of Reference’s report [PDF]:

Recommendations
17. (a) The Panel of Reference commends to all parties the Dallas Plan which appears to have worked satisfactorily for ten years, and recommends that its procedures continue; that while the Communion is in a process of reception, no diocese or parish should be compelled to accept the ministry of word or sacrament from an ordained woman; and that provision has to be made to meet the conscientious objection to ministry by women. Equally, the proper dignity of women ordained ought to be respected in the life of the Church as a whole, and provision maintained for those who feel called to follow their vocation. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop and the other Primates of the Anglican Communion should publicly commend the adequacy of the Dallas Plan.

(b) The Panel recommends that it be made clear that it is legitimate for a diocese to ask of candidates for election as bishop that they abide by the particular policy of the diocese in relation to the ministry of women, and that theological views on the ordination or consecration of women should not be a ground on which consent might be withheld by the Province/House of Bishops.

(c) The Panel recommends that the Archbishop of Canterbury should discuss with the Presiding Bishop the possibility of the clarification of the ambiguous wording of the 1997 amendment to the relevant canon so as to ensure that the permissive nature of the ordination of women is maintained in any diocese. At the same time the apparent intention of the amendment to defend the interests of women candidates for postulancy, candidacy and ordination in a diocese that does not ordain women would be underscored.

(d) The Panel also recommends that the Archbishop of Canterbury continue discussions with the Diocese of Fort Worth and with the Episcopal Church with the aim of securing the place of Fort Worth in the Communion.

The Dioces of Fort Worth’s response:

Diocese of Fort Worth Response to the
Report of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference


We welcome the report and recommendations of the Panel of Reference in response to the appeal submitted by the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. We are deeply grateful to Archbishop Peter Carnley and the members of the Panel for their hard work and thoroughgoing investigation of our appeal during the past year, and we are especially gratified and encouraged by their affirmation and endorsement of the Dallas Plan (described in paragraph #7 of the report) as an adequate response to the canons of The Episcopal Church on the ordination and placement of clergy. We are gratified that our conscientious position has been vindicated by this impartial, international body of church leaders.

Since the publication of the Eames Commission report on women in the episcopate (1988), we have embraced its principle of “an open process of reception” for the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate. This principle maintains that eventually the whole catholic church may either accept or reject the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate as a legitimate development in the apostolic ministry (see Eames Commission report, paragraph 44). This is a long, spiritual process that may take several generations ultimately to decide. 

The Dallas Plan was implemented as a means of responding positively and pastorally to women in this diocese who feel called to the priesthood and want to test their vocation, as well as to any parish in the diocese that may wish to call a woman to serve in a priestly capacity.  But in 1997 the General Convention attempted to shorten the process by passing amendments to the canons on the ordination of women, making the practice mandatory rather than permissive.  This had the effect of marginalizing our bishop and diocese (and others like us in the Episcopal Church) and outlawing the theological position we maintain.  In our appeal to the Panel, we expressed our concern for the future of our diocese when the time comes to elect a new bishop.

The Panel has affirmed the principle of “an open process of reception” as articulated by the Eames Commission and affirmed by successive Lambeth Conferences, and it has called into question the attempt by The Episcopal Church to bring premature closure to this discernment process by adopting mandatory canons on the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate.

An open process of reception requires that each side be treated with charity and respect, and that time and space be provided for this matter to be resolved in the life of the catholic church as a whole.  The Dallas Plan has worked well for over a decade, and in the Panel’s estimation “has cared positively for those who do not share the majority diocesan view.”

In addition we note the following points in the Panel’s report:

- “...no diocese or parish should be compelled to accept the ministry of word or sacrament from an ordained woman” (#17a) and “non-acceptance of the ordination of women is a recognized theological position” (#13);  and similarly, “provision has to be made to meet the conscientious objection to ministry by women.’ (#17a)

- Any diocese holding this theological position “ought to be able to find a place within ECUSA without a sense of isolation or victimization.” (#14)

- “No diocese should be compelled to elect a bishop who agrees with the ordination of women.” (#16)

- “...theological views on the ordination or consecration of women should not be a ground on which consent [to the election of a bishop] might be withheld.” (#17b)

- “...the Archbishop of Canterbury should discuss with the Presiding Bishop the possibility of the clarification of the ambiguous wording of the 1997 amendment to the relevant canon so as to ensure that the permissive nature of the ordination of women is maintained in any diocese.” (#17c)

- Discussions should continue “with the aim of securing the place of Fort Worth in the Communion.” (#17d)

We regard the report as a very important document, deserving the attention and appreciation not only of this diocese and Province, but of all parishes and dioceses within the entire Anglican Communion. We hope that it will usher in a new period of patient discernment, both in prayer and in study, concerning a question that sadly has tended to be the occasion for enmity, rather than unity in accord with the will of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth
January 8, 2007

UPDATE: ACN approves, and adds:

“It is clearly up to the leadership of The Episcopal Church to choose either to continue pushing faithful Episcopalians who disagree with the majority on this issue out the door, or to accept the constructive work of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference.” said Bishop Duncan. “Within the Anglican Communion Network, we have found that those of us who have embraced the ordination of women to the priesthood and those who have not have been able to work and worship together with great unity once we agreed to respect each-other’s theological convictions on this issue in both word and deed. This is why, at the very beginning, the Anglican Communion Network established its Forward in Faith Convocation to stand alongside its five other convocations, creating a means to enable and strengthen this very outcome. It would be a wonderful thing to see the entire Episcopal Church choose this path.”


24 Comments • Print-friendly • Print-friendly w/comments • Share on Facebook
Comments:

Wow!  The Panel of Reference actually . . . did something.  And they put in their place those who would clamp down on those who don’t want to ordain women.
To say I’m pleasantly surprised may be an understatement.

[1] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 01-08-2007 at 11:31 AM • top

1. This is nice, but I don’t believe ECUSA’s leaders care what the Panel of Reference has to say, unless they agree with a particular ruling.  On those reappraiser blogs that don’t ignore this, you will now see yet another round of screeching, “Anglicanism doesn’t have a Pope,” and, “stay out of our provincial business,” and, “we fought a revolution to have a democratic church.”  Along with the misogyny accusations, natch.

2. As much as I respect Bishop Iker, I had to laugh at this:

This principle maintains that eventually the whole catholic church may either accept or reject the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate as a legitimate development in the apostolic ministry

With respect, Bishop Iker, the whole Church Catholic has already made its decision.

[2] Posted by Phil on 01-08-2007 at 11:37 AM • top

Wow! 
Not only has the catholic position of the Diocese of Fort Worth, and all opposed to ordination of women, been honored but TEC’s attempt to enforce the innovation has been publicly rebuffed.
Hopefully everyone sees this for what it is: that the Anglican Communion believes that it is TEC that is out of line, not the orthodox.  The strong position of the Diocese of Fort Worth is line with Anglicanism, but totalitarian attempts to enforce a revisionist agenda are not!
If they say this on the Women’s ordination issue, just imagine what they will say on the sexuality issues!

[3] Posted by Tony Romo on 01-08-2007 at 11:41 AM • top

This is very good news.  I am sure that TEC will NOT accept this at all.  Remember to TEC, the WO issue is not so much a theological issue, its a justice issue.  This may help TEC to declare themselves out of the Anglican Communion prior to the Covenant process.

[4] Posted by Kevin A. on 01-08-2007 at 11:45 AM • top

Kudos to Bishops Iker & Stanton for working out a plan wherein conscientious objection to WO is handled respectfully and charitably, moreover, a plan held up as a model to the Communion. 

The one thing I don’t see here is Bp. Stanton reciprocating by delegating episcopal oversight to Bp. Iker for FiFNA & other parishes who object to WO.

[5] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 01-08-2007 at 11:46 AM • top

Phil,

I’m not sure if Bp Iker’s statement is laughable as much as it is no statement at all.  Have I said anything if I utter these words: tomorrow it may or may not either rain or shine. ???

My guess is that what Bp Iker was attempting to say is that it’s possible the Catholic Church may rescind its decsion regarding the ordination of woemen at some point in the future.  And I take it that your response is that the likelihood of that happening is zero.  And I think Bp Iker would agree.

[6] Posted by DaveW on 01-08-2007 at 11:53 AM • top

Can’t wait for the primates next month!

[7] Posted by bigjimintx on 01-08-2007 at 11:57 AM • top

Bishop Schofield doesn’t ordain women to the priesthood, but he will refer women candidates to another diocese for ordination to that order.  With the exception of maybe one or two women priests living in our diocese but working in another, this arrangement seems to be working pretty well.

[8] Posted by Cennydd on 01-08-2007 at 12:04 PM • top

Someone check my logic here.  If TEC accedes to the Panel of Reference’s recommendations, then they acknowledge that:

1.  Opposition to WO is “a recognized theological postion.”
2.  So long as women in a Diocese who desire to test their vocation are accommodated (e.g. by reference to another Diocese) then no Diocese should be forced to accept the ministry (services) ordained women.
3.  Therefore those Diocese who oppose WO cannot be forced to accept a woman Presiding Bishop having authority over them (at the top of their “chain of command”) because of their “recognized theological position?”

If this is not entirely sophmoric reasoning, TEC isn’t going to like this.

[9] Posted by Justin Martyr on 01-08-2007 at 12:26 PM • top

First good indication that the Panel of Reference is responding positively to the appeals presented to it from aCommunion perspective. Kudos to the diocese of Fort Worth for packaging their appeal well so that the Panel of Reference could act properly on it.

It would appear that these recommendations should find their way to the agenda for the Tanzina Primate’s meeting. How will this affect the other dioceses’ request for APO?

[10] Posted by garyec on 01-08-2007 at 12:33 PM • top

I am astonished to say the least.  This is very good news.

However, I still remain skeptical about the entire idea of local option.  I don’t want to sound paranoid, but has it occurred to anyone that this very same logic could be used by some wrt homosexuality?  Some dioceses may permit it but others may not while we continue to “dialog” and have a “process of reception” over actively homosexual clergy.  Could this be a communion wide precedent to suggest we should live together despite our theological differences?  If so, then this is not very good news at all.

[11] Posted by Spencer on 01-08-2007 at 12:58 PM • top

This is very very good.

[12] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 01-08-2007 at 01:00 PM • top

That’s because you are a crypto-baptist with no understanding of Anglican ecclesiology.

[13] Posted by James Manley on 01-08-2007 at 01:08 PM • top

Spencer,

The key difference is (or at least, should be) that the communion has come to different conclusions about WO and homosexual behavior. On the former it has decided we can agree to disagree; on the latter, it has decided it is incompatible with Scripture.

[14] Posted by Greg Griffith on 01-08-2007 at 01:11 PM • top

Good one James

[15] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 01-08-2007 at 01:17 PM • top

Greg,
I agree with you.  Yet, I also know there are a great many others who believe we should agree to disagree wrt homosexuality.  The ABC is one of them.

[16] Posted by Spencer on 01-08-2007 at 01:26 PM • top

I’m glad to see +Duncan’s statement here.  I’m in +Jack’s corner on the WO issue but to a great extent it’s already spilt milk.  Let’s get the realignment accomplished, then we can decide precisely what “reception” means.

I would be the last to disagree with Dr Toon or Dr Tighe on the issue, but with (for example) Uganda ordaining women and Nigeria not doing so, any realistically conceivable realignment of the Communion will involve “reception” of the issue, whatever that is.

The priest who taught me the Catechism back in the ‘50s left the church for the continuum twenty years later over WO.  Then his piece of the continuum split again over divorce.  I have the greatest respect for his integrity and faith, but I have to hope that this kind of fragmentation is not what the future holds for the Network…

[17] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 01-08-2007 at 02:25 PM • top

Spencer;

The matter of the Anglican Communion’s teaching on homosexuality was established by Lambeth 1998 resolution 1.10. It is not a local option, it is not in the process of “reception” which would make it a subject that we could agree to disagree on.

ECUSA however has chosen to ignore the offical teaching. That action is an open disregard for the official teaching of the Anglican Communion and not a process of agreeing to disagree. The American bishops who attended Lambeth 1998 were among the few that voted against 1.10. So they didn’t get their way, and in typical American ECUSA fashion decided to not oberve the teaching.

[18] Posted by garyec on 01-08-2007 at 02:30 PM • top

TBTG! I served as Warden in two churches since the 1997 nonsense, and in both places offered the local Bishop the option of declaring me unfit to serve. Neither did. Apparently the Panel of Reference smelled the same rat those two Bishops did. Someone above opined that TEC refuses to see the matter as one of theology, but rather as “justice”. I disagree; I think TEC sees it as matters of equal rights, political correctness, and the feminist agenda, all of which are political secular matters, and none of which have much to do with Christian faith handed down. The huge majority of the church catholic understands it as a theological matter and is not even remotely considering succumbing to this trendy abberation. 
God bless +Iker for Standing Firm!

[19] Posted by Gulfstream on 01-08-2007 at 06:34 PM • top

Hmmm.  I’m shocked.  It’s good news, and in the Cold, Bleak, Bitter, Dark of Winter, too.

I don’t know what to say.

I am very excited for the Diocese of Fort Worth.  Very excited for them.

[20] Posted by Sarah on 01-08-2007 at 06:59 PM • top

None of this news changes anything.  The focus should be on leaving TEC.  There is NO future there.  It is nice to have the Panel of Reference make their statement.  But, it just does not really matter any more.  All I can say is, IT IS GREAT TO BE OUT OF TEC!!!  The rest of you can and should do it too.  Attempting to work something out within TEC is useless.  If you do not understand this now, you will later.

[21] Posted by TENTEX on 01-08-2007 at 09:20 PM • top

I know Lambeth 98 1.10.  My point was that despite 1.10 the ABC still desires us to agree to disagree and stay together.  If he could get what he wants, ++Williams would allow local option on homosexuality despite 1.10!  The only thing stopping him is the GS primates.  Anyway, this is off topic.  I did not intend for it to be discussed this much.

Bottom line.  I am glad that orthodox will at least be tolerated in some respects.  Hurrah for +Iker!  May this give hope and health to +Schofield!

[22] Posted by Spencer on 01-08-2007 at 10:34 PM • top

This reminds me of legislation providing for more generous pensions to Confederate widows.  Some may be pleased when the establishment (evidently growing fearful of more widespread departures) throws them a bone, but they should remember when the HOB at Port St Lucie threw a similar bone back in the late 70’s.
(He who throws a bone can take away a bone.)  Speaking for myself, I prefer a Church which continues steadfastly in the fellowship of the Apostles and retains its Orders has the vast majority of the Christian world still does.  I am not willing to be part of a tolerated minority within a liberal denomination.

[23] Posted by Laurence K Wells on 01-09-2007 at 06:15 AM • top

Bishop Duncan describes the oopnents of WO as:

“faithful Episcopalians who disagree with the majority.”

That says it all.

[24] Posted by Laurence K Wells on 01-09-2007 at 06:21 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.