All Saints Fort Worth Demands TEC Loyalty Oath of All 2009 Vestry Candidates

The right answer is for a candidate to refuse to sign this document, and simply stand for election anyways.  If his candidacy is disallowed, that fact will be noted by the congregation.  If the congregation is 75% conservative, and they want to elect a vestry that will leave, this kind of maneuver will only alienate the congregation.  If they don’t want to leave, then this maneuver isn’t necessary.  But they can’t rig the process so that it is impossible for people who want to leave to act upon that desire - at least not so long as it is done in the open where people can see.

carl

Hey! Did Jerry Lamb come to Ft. Forth? I wonder if they don’t sign it will they get a letter of disassociation from the Bishop? Bishop Lamb deposed all the clergy in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin after they refused to sign and respond to his letter of request to state their loyality!

At least they did not muck up the loyalty oath with all that Christ stuff like those needless Creeds. Nice work there BeerKat…Mother Jesus and all that.

Gee, it’s great that you don’t have to believe anything to be an Episcopalian, right?

I thought that Joe McCarthy was an RC.

Yes…All Saints’ FW has been a war zone for quite a while.  An orthodox clergyperson there had “Via Media” people pounding on his desk and screaming at him for not towing the TEC line and the “inclusive” heresy it entails.  It’s long been a cardinal Anglo-Catholic parish…and at one time was the acting cathedral.  A former bishop of Northwest Texas in recent years has been there…practicing, I would imagine.  I can see why TEC would want to have their hands on some very prime real-estate and influence over the large All Saints’ Episcopal School…a prestigious institution.  Unfortunately the orthodox people of many cardinal parishes don’t seem to want to rock the boat…after all, the wood carvings, organ, stained glass, and such are so pretty…to say “peace, peace”, when there is no real peace.

If indeed the rector and vestry are requiring the prospective candidates to sign this drivel, then they are seeking to hijack the ability of the parish to make its own judgment of nominating candidates and of elections.  The liberals are very rowdy and very vocal there.  Lord, have mercy on All Saints’.

Shades of the punitive measures to come toward laypersons, especially once General Convention 2009 passes it’s “Ubuntu” canons…aka “Menace”, to go with the “Dennis”.

If they feel they must do this, then they must be worried about the votes. This should be war within the congregation; lawful steps taken to remove Vestry members that approved this, and lawful steps taken to elect Vestry members who refuse to sign the document. Members of the congregation should stop sending any money to the congregation until this is fixed.

The funny thing about this for me is that if you were in an Episcopal church and ask for a letter of transfer to an Anglican church they won’t give it to you. So once you are in the Episcopal church it is impossible for a lay person to leave anyway. And what, too, is the penalty for disobedience, or prophetic witness as it is called in some circles?

I promise to obey the Party in all things and the orders of Our Great Leader.

Cross my heart and hope to die…

If the parish Bylaws governing the election of Vestry members and delegates do not require this loyalty oath, then I believe members of the parish can simply invoke the wording of the Bylaws allowing nominations apart from the nominating committee. The standards for election can’t be changed by a “thus saith the Rector.” If the Bylaws are not honored, then I believe the Bishop has grounds to step in. Can someone get a copy of the Bylaws?

I wade in out of an interest in parliamentary fairness.

Every Diocese and Church are divided.  The question is how divided are they.  However, insisting on an oath of loyalty is not wise.  To me, this comes across as trying to control the uncontrollable.

This is just unwise.

I don’t blame them. All candidates for vestry or any teaching position and all candidates for rector in the future must according to Good Shepherd bylaws accede to the CCP Theological Statement and to the 39 Articles of Religion. In the future they will need to accede to the ACNA constitution as well.

I think all parishes need to build this sort of thing into their bylaws for future protection.

Matt—Fine, but this has to be done by way of amending their Bylaws properly. No doubt their current Bylaws spell out who is eligible for office. And this particular move by the rector is a clear effort to subvert the role of the qualified voters in the parish. As I understand this, the current move is a pronouncement by the rector (and perhaps, current Vestry).

“but this has to be done by way of amending their Bylaws properly.”
agreed

Does this not violate the canons of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth?  It is certainly not authorized under any national canon I am aware of. 

Beyond the issue at this particular parish, we can almost assume the same thing will be tried in every parish currently going through a discernment process in Ft. Worth, Quincy and Pittsburgh.  And as we have discovered to our chagrin, vestries and diocesan conventions around the country frequently are not representative of the congregations they pretend to serve.

Reminds me of a quote from a movie…

“...sign ze paperz, that prove you hav confessed to the charges against you, of your own free will…” (heavy German accent).

(Response) “...I can’t…you’ve broken my fingers…”

My own experience with a previous church was that it was “conservative” in conversation, but would not rock the boat.  If the congregation stands for this power grab, then the die is cast.  Without leadership from the rector, they will remain in TEC until the church is no longer viable. 

Advice to those who are unhappy: You can first vote with thine wallet, then with thine feet.  However, if you want to avoid years of anger, walk now.

RE: “I believe members of the parish can simply invoke the wording of the Bylaws allowing nominations apart from the nominating committee.”

Precisely.

Nominations would come from the floor at the parish meeting, most likely.

Unless they have succeeded in amending their bylaws, which certainly is possible.

Here’s what they’re bargaining on.  They’re bargaining on:

1) The majority of the church wanting to leave TEC and thus being a bad pool for vestry nominees.
2) Winning the vestry vote to stay.
3) Daring the majority of the church to leave the building and grounds and begin anew.
4) Hoping that some of that majority that wish to leave TEC will stay and help support that building and grounds.
5) And of course, hoping for money from the national church to support their buildings and grounds in the event of a departure of a large group of parishioners.

I might suggest that for any orthodox at All Saints, step one is contact Bishop Iker and the Standing Committee.  They are the proper authorities to deal with this issue.

I’ve been in All Saints many times for various meetings over the years. It’s a beautiful place and I’ve found God while just standing in silence alone in the nave. It is sad to know there is division there and really has been for years that began with All Saints giving up being the Cathedral Church because of a disagreement with Bishop Iker. Not all were happy with that move by the vestry and the rector who lead that left not long after.

I talked to an All Saints member who I’ve known for some time at the Fort Worth Convention. He said at least 50 percent of the church would leave TEC and move to the new province. Now someone on here is saying as much as 75 percent. This in many ways does not surprise me. Many members of All Saints are old money, movers and shakers of Fort Worth business and society and you can’t push or scream at them and get your way very often.

With this oath that must be signed the church members will know just where everyone running for vestry stands.  That is not a bad thing.

May our Lord watch over and protect everyone running for office.
Bob+

#17 RalphM
The Rector is choosing to stay in TEC. There are I believe four priest and maybe a couple of deacons on staff, I’m not certain but I believe some of this staff will be leaving TEC.

Greg wrote:

As has been noted many times on this site and elsewhere, Bishop Iker’s position regarding whether a parish stays or goes is that he will abide by the decision of the rector and the vestry.

Well, not quite. A rector and vestry may ask to have their parish released from membership in the diocese. Our canons then direct the bishop to make a determination that it truly is the will of the parish to separate. Acknowledging that the chances of 100% agreement are slim, the agreement to separate from the diocese needs to be ratified by 2/3 of the qualified voters of the parish.

TEC has directed their loyalists here to have nothing to do with our canonical procedures. They intend to try an all or nothing assault on diocesan property.

The loyalty oath demanded of vestry candidates has also been required of current vestry and staff. Three members of the vestry have resigned, refusing to participate in the farce. It’s still unfolding.

Fr. Christopher T. Cantrell+
Standing Committee, Fort Worth

In regard to Matt’s comment, I would suggest requiring a statement of faith, or covenant, is the best path.  In fact, some of the new Anglican churches are doing that for membership, much less Vestry.  Membership should mean something, and people should have to think as to why they are a member of a particular church.

Fr. Chris, based on the size of All Saints they should have twelve vestry members right?
If three resigned and three seats would be up for election of new members no wonder they want a TEC oath signed. TEC loyalists can’t have six new members who might choose to leave TEC and rock their boat.

There is nothing in the diocesan canon that requires a parish member that wishes to stand for vestry nomination to sign any document. The requirement is simply “shall be Confirmed Communicants in Good Standing of at least eighteen (18) years of age, canonically resident in the Parish, and who were financial contributors to the Parish in the preceding year as shown on the records of the Treasurer.”

See: http://www.fwepiscopal.org/resources/canons2007ii.html#c25

Consequently the issue is getting past the nominating committee. This leave floor nomination as an option. And this requires that floor nominations be permitted. Definitely a problem that may require bishop or standing committee intervention.

Another danger that exists currently is that under the canon the vacant seats can be filled by the current vestry to fill out the vacancy term.

I would not sign such a document regardless.

Conservatives might consider signing it, and then when they vote to leave and are later accosted by the rector and liberal vestry members, explain that they signed it not because they agreed with it, but simply because they were “receiving it.” Or perhaps say they didn’t realize it would cause such a fuss, since it was purely a “private matter.”

Steal from the best, I always say.

The German Army used to use this oath, before August 2, 1934: 

“I swear by almighty God this sacred oath:
I will at all times loyally and honestly
serve my people and country
and, as a brave soldier,
I will be ready at any time
to stake my life for this oath.”

You probably know what happened when they changed it.

Might I suggest that if you are a duly elected member of the vestry who is confronted with this type of thing, the one thing you should NOT do is resign.  Certainly not until it is clear if your successor will have to swear a loyalty oath.  If you’re already on the vestry, for crying out loud, STAY ON THE VESTRY.

Here some more info:
If you sign it, get elected to vestry, don’t adhere to it then you will mostly likely be sued and asked to resign. If you disagree with TEC on any issue you are sabotaging the church. Someone asked the rector about the oath and he told them to go talk to his lawyer. It is much worse than what you think. It has been suggested on the Steering Committee’s website that the convention will probably be held at the school. Ithink they have lost their minds. There is no way that parents would allow that. The rector is following the Steering Committee’s Vestry handbook. So according to the handbook, there will be no vote and an oath is required.
All of this can be found on their website. I don’t think the vestry members are liberal it is just that some are blinded in their loyalty to the rector and in addition they have had to listen to the lawyers at their vestry meetings and executive session for months.
There are 15 members on the vestry.

Here is the link for the handbook:
http://www.steeringcommitteente.org/handouts/vestryhandbook.pdf

To change the bylaws at All Saints from their website:
ARTICLE IX
Amendment of Bylaws
These Bylaws may be amended, altered, changed, added to, or repealed by the affirmative vote of the majority of the membership of the Corporation present at the Annual Parish Meeting. Such changes require an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Vestry members at a regular or special meeting of the Vestry, provided notice thereof has been given at a preceding regular or special meeting of the Vestry.

I thank ya’ll would all do well to read Animal Farm if you either did not do so in school or school is so long ago that you have forgotten the lessons to be learned. I think I will buy a copy for my mother in law - our batttle during her last visit ended with my wife in tears.  Apparently my calling my mother in law a limosine liberal left a mark.

The current vestry was told that they had to vote according to canons and constitutions of the Parish and TEC or face individually liablity, 2-3 of conservative members have resigned, 2 more expected this week. Heard that all priest are being required to sign an oath, did confirm youth minister resigned and one other expected. This is a large, old parish with many that are very conservative-a large percentage (75%) do not allow tithe to go to TEC. Pledge income down 44% this year.  Sad times.  PB expected to be at the “new” diocesian convention in February.

Gary, I would love to know the identity of that youth minister. He sounds like someone with some convictions, and who should be on the short list for a job among one of the new Anglican churches.

I’m simply stunned by the blatant contradiction present in this oath.  Frankly, only a systemically challenged idiot could honestly sign it at all.  How on earth can you reconcile:

I do solemnly declare that I do believe The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to to be the Word of God and contain all things necessary to Salvation

with

I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Episcopal Church.

At this stage of the game, you cannot reconile the one with the other at any level, can you?  Or am I missing something?

KTF!..mrb

Greg # 26:  Or they could say they thought it wasn’t really a rule, it was more like guidelines…

KTF!..mrb

33 comments and only two Nazi remarks. We’re above this, all.

#31 Thanks. Changes to Bylaws are initiated in the parish meeting. Rally the troops All Saints conservatives and resist any move to make this oath part of the Bylaws. And resist any move to take away your other rights. Ask a good parliamentarian to sit with you in the parish meeting.

Surely the Bishop will step in to protect the rights of the majority of the parish.

</b> It is my understanding from being a Deputy that such an oath has been in vogue in TEC since at least the 2000 GC.

Martin5 (#31)—Please give the link to the Bylaws on the All Saints’ website.

To be fair to the Germans, the revision to the oath brought it back into line with the old Royal and Imperial oath of the Prussian and German Armies: it just treated Hitler as the King-Emperor.  That’s one of the reasons that Germans did not see it as a big deal.  It was not really new.

Going Home
I hope my priest already has him.

If you do not like references to the old Nazi regime, perhaps a reference to the CURRENT Russian regime might be in order. Russia’s about to roll out some new legislation that should just about complete the silencing of the opposition to Putin. Opposition leaders in Russia say that the new law, if passed (and since the Russian Parliment is Putin’s rubber stamp, it WILL pass), will place Russia right back into the Stalin years, where open discussion, dissent, a questioning mind will be met with persecution, punishment, disgrace, dismissal, and in many cases, death…
...Sound familiar (other than the death part…)?

Matt, we may be “above it”, but it was the west’s ignorance, and the sheer folly of appeasement with Hitler that got us in that mess in the 1st place. This is a lesson we best NEVER forget…

place Russia right back into the Stalin years, where open discussion, dissent, a questioning mind will be met with persecution, punishment, disgrace, dismissal, and in many cases, death…
...Sound familiar

Sounds like Russia for most of the last 100 years.

Be interesting to know if All Saints, like other ‘Episcopal” churches allows people not know to be members to go to the Communion rail.  Many episcopal churches have an open rail policy and cannot even say whether the people they allow to come to the rail have even been baptized.
Odd that such a policy would demand loyalty to the structure and not the Scripture- oh thats right it is all about bricks and mortar! But then the Scripture has something to say about swearing oaths as I remember.  Jesus had an opportunity to swear by an oath and choose not to do so.
If one swears an oath whereby they agree to honor an organization that perpetuates heresy that person may by in peril of loosing their salvation.
The last paragraph is in direct conflict with the prior and one cannot serve both mammon and the Lord.

This is nothing more than a blatant attempt at “government by diktat,” and is a way of effectively silencing all potential disagreement.  “It’s OUR way or the highway,” and it is NOT a Christian attitude!

I think my Animal Farm analogy was better than facism.  The pigs stole the farm from the farmer (ie all of the odds and ends that took over the Episcopal Church as it existed in say 1960) and then brought on a reign of terror among the fellow animals.
As to the Germans, it was American folly that got rid of the Hollenzollerns - the Germans needed a constitutional Monarch on the Windsor model. Then, the Prussian aristocracy army officers would still have been pledging their ultimate duty to the Kaiser.  I believe it would have prevented Hitler from gaining absolute control.  Looking forward to the upcoming film.

To clarify a few things. The youth minister resigned om Friday but the rector said he only knew about shortly before the vestry meeting. This is, apparently, his reason for not mentioned the youth minister’s resignation. The youth minister has another opportunity. God always seems to provide for His faithful at the right time!
Communion is not ‘open’ but an on an honor system. It is stated if you take Communion in your own church ...
This is a wonderful church that, unfortunately, has been taken over by a handful of individuals. Some who will be surprised come Sunday morning!

Here is the link to the church’s bylaws:
http://www.allsaintsfortworth.org/bylaws.pdf

Thoughts from reading the Bylaws of All Saints: Current conservative Vestry members—DON’T SIGN, BUT DON’T RESIGN. The Vestry itself will fill the vacancies as they wish. And for you, make them try to “fire” you if you don’t sign.

Thanks for the link martin5.

Here’s the wording on nominations from the floor: “Nominations may be accepted “from the floor” in addition to those presented by the Nominating Committee, but they must be submitted in writing before the close of business on the last business day preceding the Annual Parish Meeting, so that their canonical qualifications may be verified. (ARTICLE XIII: Standing Committees; F. Nominating Committee; 3. Procedures; b. Nominations may be accepted “from the floor” ....

Nominees are to be communicants in good standing and supporters of the parish in person and in finances. If they try to twist this, go down swinging.

All Saints’ is losing an amazing man in this youth minister.  He is also a key youth leader for the whole diocese.  And youth ministers don’t traditionally make a huge living, so he is really walking out on faith.  I hope someone picks him up soon, so he can continue to support his precious young family.  I have seen him at worship and church events and I KNOW he is solid.  These lefties made it very hard, as much as I am sure he didn’t want to leave the youth.

The Episcopal Church welcomes you and you and you, but not you, unless you shed your inconvenient convictions…

I think it is very appropriate to have the elected leadership sign off on a theological statement.  At St. Andrew’s (Fort Worth), anyone who aspires to serve either on our vestry or our associate vestry signs off on this credo:

“I believe the Holy Scriptures to be the written and inspired word of God. By faith, I acknowledge Jesus Christ as God incarnate, the Lord by whose name all must be saved, and receive him as my personal savior.  I believe he rose bodily from the grave on the third day. I pledge to promote and adhere to the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of historic Anglicanism and St. Andrew’s Parish as represented by the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and the historic Prayer Book tradition.”

Consistency with that credo obviously leads one away from a slavish commitment to TEC which has very different values and toward a deep appreciation for and support of our wonderful Orthodox bishop, +Jack Leo Iker.  Our leadership is 100% unified—I mean that literally, 100%.  And we thank God every day in our prayers for “Jack the Steely-Eyed Iker.”

“The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion.” (Prov. 28:1)

Bill+
(rector)
http://www.st-andrew.com/

<blockquote> began with All Saints giving up being the Cathedral Church because of a disagreement with Bishop Iker.</blockqote>

#20—That disagreement was with +Pope, I believe.  The parish has been in some form of upheaval off and on ever since then.

Dear Greg/Fr. Cantrell,
We have no Bishop in the Diocese of Ft. Worth, nor do we have a Standing Committee. They have all left for the Southern Cone. Therefore there is currently no one in the Diocese with the authority to vacate any vestry or take any action affecting a parish within the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. Perhaps the former Bishop and Standing Committee did not count the cost of their actions when they left and assume that they still have authority within the diocese.
This might be taken as one just sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting “I can’t hear you” but the reality is that the former Bishop and Standing Committee only has the authority we choose to recognize. We that have chosen to remain in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth also choose not to recognize their assumed authority.
In that the Bishop and many of the clergy and parishioners choose to leave the Episcopal Church we are currently in the process of reorganizing the diocese.  I wish those that left well and hope that they find peace and the blessings of our Lord in their new Diocese/Province or any other entity they choose to join. They will be missed. Their voices added much to the life of the church and have certainly caused me to examine my position on many issues.
Their leaving has brought much sadness to the Diocese and friendships that have spanned decades have been torn asunder. May the Holy Spirit heal and comfort us all.
Harold Parkey
Christ the King

I was under the impression that the clergy had to request release from Bp. Iker so thay could stay with TEC. Have all these priests done so? Till then why would they not be under +Ikers authority?
Also Harold you sign yourself a member of CTK, but it was my understanding that CTK was going to the Southern Cone with Bp. Iker. What did they decide?

Henry it was a long time ago but I still believe it was after Bp. Iker took office.
However you are correct about the conflicts at All Saints continuing since then.

Christ the King is not listed on the Steering Committee’s website for worship locations.

#58 It was before +Iker took office I thought.

The simple fact is that the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, through the action of its diocesan convention, has ceased to be in union with the General Convention of TEC. But clearly, we still exist. The only thing that has changed is our provincial affiliation.

The repeated mantra of “individuals may leave, but parishes and dioceses may not” is the perfect example of Harold’s image of the one with their fingers in their ears and shouting. I hear that there is a meeting planned in early February for the organization of a new TEC diocese in these parts. The beat goes on.

Christ the King is a split parish, much like All Saints.  It’s rector and some of the leadership wish to stay with +Iker and the Diocese of Ft. Worth.  The rest of the leadership wish to stay in TEC.  My understanding is that the majority of the “in the pew” members want to stay with the rector, bishop, and diocese, but I don’t know what the breakdown is.  I do know that a majority of the vestry (like 5 - 3 or something like that) want to stay in TEC.  They also recently voted to refuse to repay a loan from the diocese that they got just last summer—knowing full well what was going to happen at convention this fall.

It is my understanding that the current rector of All Saints’ refuses to have any open discussions about the questions leading up to the diocese separating from TEC and furthermore, refuses to let the parishioners vote on the matter of staying or leaving. What is this giant of a man afraid of?  Those afraid of discourse usually have a reason ... they know they will lose.

#62 That is not ethical.

This is is truly a sad day for the Diocese of Fort Worth. I grew up attending All Saints Parish Day School, and owe much of my spiritual growth to All Saint’s and her Anglo-Catholic ethos. I was a United Methodist kid who chose to be baptized in the Methodist Church so that I could be admitted to Holy Eucharist at All Saint’s School at 8 years old. It was after college that sneak visits to daily Mass at All Saints brought me back to Anglicanism.  To see the leadership of that venerable parish abuse their vestry, abuse their bishop, and cast their lot in with these duplicitious and unabashed secular institutionalists is just sad. Alot of orthodox people will find their parish changing quickly in favor of sick heterodoxy, and the “New Mother Jesus”. It won’t be long before the good catholics at All Saints will find themselves readjusting to a new and improved BCP, busy celebrating other-ness and dealing with a new Wedding Customary that includes how to handle Same-Sex Blessings. The faithfull little old ladies that attend Mass every morning at 7:00 am will be desperately wondering what happened to their parish. It is a shame and a sham.

Mateo Clemente

#63 Exactly. During the prayers of the people, we still prayer for the bishop ... just not by name.

#65 The Steering Committee’s website states that the convention will probably be at All Saints’ School.

http://www.steeringcommitteente.org/convention.htm
A special Convention of the Diocese will be held, probably at All Saints’ School, on Saturday, February 7, 2009, pending the final approval of the Presiding Bishop.
The convention committee, headed by the Rev. Chris Jambor, is already at work. You will soon receive notice regarding details including the process for the election of delegates and the agenda for the convention.

Memory is not as good as it should be. I bow to Martin5 and Henry for when the change took place.

I thought it interesting that All Saints website does not have a history of the church on it.

News of CTK and how divided they are not a surprise either. It’s been that way longer than All Saints. Maybe with the split a healing will take place.
Terrific old building that is a wonderful place of worship. I wish them well.

Evidently, Mr. Jambor is selling his soul in exchange for the color purple. He was in the right place at the right time to replace the former rector. Now he is standing in the wings to replace Bishop Iker. Someone should ask him why the former rector left.  This isn’t the first time church leaders have been gagged.

I remember one time I asked him when I met him…“Would you like me to call you Fr. Christopher+ or Fr. Jambor+?”  Coolly, he said, “Fr. Jambor+”.  He was one of the associate priests when Fr. Bob Bosworth+ left(who was universally known as Fr. Bob+).  Wow…All Saints’ has changed in the little time since then.  It’s become a “cooler” place…not in a good way.  The former bishop of NW TX might be wanting the bishop spot, though…we’ll see.

I propose that all dissenter from this outrqgeous proposal show up w

wearing yellow Stars of David on arm bands the same way that Danes protested Nazi requirments to identify oneself as a Jew.

We have no Bishop in the Diocese of Ft. Worth, nor do we have a Standing Committee. They have all left for the Southern Cone.

The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, a legal entity with formal bylaws and a constitution, voted by a wide margin in a duly constituted convention, such vote being made by duly elected delegates, to separate the entity from TEC.  Unfortanately, those who were on the losing side of that vote continue to think they are the entity.  How can they come to this conclusion?  Only by denial.  If the Board of Directors of Pier One, a Fort Worth corporation, held a stockholders’ meeting, duly called according to the bylaws and charter of the entity, and if a majority of those stockholders voted to merge with the Bombay Company, another Fort Worth corporation, would those who voted against the merger remain the Pier One corporation while those who voted to merge had to go out and form a new corporation?  This is absurd! 

The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth still exists, and it’s Bishop is Bp. Iker.  If those who want to stay in TEC wish, they may form a new diocese and apply for membership in TEC.  That is exactly what some are doing in North Texas. If a parish wants to remain in TEC, the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth passed canons that provide for an amicable separation from the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth—without litigation and rancor—with blessing and prayer.

This is done!  No amount of denial will cancel it.  Now, it would seem the prudent thing is to move forward, either toward the Anglican Church in North America, or toward TEC.  Sitting in the hall after the dance and dreaming it continues is delusional.

May God grant Bp. Iker wisdom as he leads, and may the orthodox Anglicans at All Saints be strengthened. 

Delight yourself in the Lord, and He will give you the desires of your heart. Psa. 37:4 If we put God firstplace, truly put Him firstplace, He will provide the answer.

I would like to compliment the previous posters on their relatively calm discussion of the local actions of the duly elected vestry of All Saints’ Episcopal Church (FW). 

My impression is that both sides are thinking they are playing “musical chairs” with only one chair.  That chair being the “Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth” and various real property.  When the dust settles (in our Grandchildren’s lifetime), I pray that the sense of Bishop Cranmer’s three legged stool of Scripture, Wisdom, and Tradition will still be alive in this geographical area of Texas. (Personally, as a sailor, I prefer the simile of a three-strand rope with Scripture being the strongest strand by itself.  But it is vastly strengthened by the other two.)

In the meantime there are “Faith Communities” staying with TEC who have been seperated from their parishes, and those who are following +Iker, who feel they have been seperated from their parishes, should look to forming their own “Faith Communities.”  The various presentations of Anglicanism will live on!

Hum, Well I know all too well how we (Anglican’s) are treated by some staying Episcopalians. After a funeral service of a friend and parishioner yesterday we had many, and I do mean many who refused to acknowledge we were ever there. But you know my husband and I choose to only give oaths The one and Holy Trinity (God The Father, God The Son and God The Holy Spirit). No where in The Holy Bible does it say we must give an oath to the mother church (TEC). Katherine must be getting aweful worried about now. Families are leaving in droves, churches are closing down and families are unemployed. Her grand scheme is falling apart as we speak. GOD will not be mocked.
In His Service,
WC

#61
Dear Fr. Cantrell,
We don’t need to organize a new TEC Diocese, the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth already exists and has not changed any provincial affiliation. We just have to get a new Bishop and Standing Committee. I know you really like to think that those of you who left are still the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth but you are not. You may be an “episcopal” entity but you are not the “Episcopal” Diocese of Fort Worth. You, Bishop Iker and other individuals may have ceased to be in union with the General Convention of TEC but you no longer hold any title or rights concerning the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. Yes, Fr. Cantrell, you still exist but you are no longer part of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.

#73
Dear Lonestarbill,
I believe your analogy is flawed. I see it more as Pier 1 being a subsidiary of Acme Imports, which is the parent company. Pier 1 would be subject to the bylaws and charter of Acme Imports. As a subsidiary of Acme, the board of directors of Pier 1 could not unilaterally vote to merge with the Bombay Company without the approval of the parent company. Those on the board of directors and stockholders of Pier 1 who for what ever reason are unhappy with the direction the Acme Imports is going they may quit or sell their stock. If the board members choose to quit they would become unemployed and seek a position elsewhere. The stockholders could simply sell their stock and invest into another company more to their liking. Acme Imports with its subsidiary Pier 1 would continue without them.
We do not need to apply for membership in the TEC, we are already members. We do not need to establish a new Diocese, we already have a diocese. Bishop Iker has renounced his position in the Episcopal Church. Perhaps it is time for him to take his miter and crosier and move on just as those of us remaining in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth are.  May God bless and strengthen all of us in these trying times.

Psalm 71:20-21 You have showed me great troubles and adversities, but you will restore my life and bring me up again from the deep places of the earth.

Well, munkirench, let me throw a monkey wrench into your scheme here.
The “loyalty oath” is a violation of several national canons.
Under the canons, any person baptized, confirmed or received into the Episcopal Church is a member of the Episcopal Church.  Voting membership in some dioceses requires a minimum of financial support as well.

Under the canons, a parish is not a member, it is a parish, therefore the phrase “All Saints Episcopal Church is a member….” is nonsensical.  Members are individuals.

Under the canons, individual parishes join dioceses, not the national structure.

A baptized layman cannot “abandon the communion” of TEC- it is impossible.  Any person baptized in the Trinitarian formula may receive communion in a TEC church.  In many dioceses (including the one I reside in) even baptism is not required.

There is no such thing as “The Episcopal Church of the United States of America.”  The name was canonically changed to “The Episcopal Church.”  The legal entity is the “Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society.”  So, they are being required to swear fealty to a former DBA.

Munkiwrench, I believe you’re a tad bit confused.  You see, none of us in the Anglican Church of North America….Canadians and Americans alike….left our respective Churches; YOU left US….long ago! 

May I humbly suggest you take a long look at your Church’s history of the past forty years, and in particular, that since 1973.  A long litany of departure from Church tradition, including your Presiding Bishop’s open statement regarding her questioning of Jesus’ divinity, the “ordination” of women to the priesthood, and the open promotion and sanctification of non-celibate homosexuality and the scandalous disregard of the Church’s traditional teaching about Holy Matrimony, tells a story of clear departure from the faith of Christ crucified.

The plain truth is that it is the modernist teachings of The Episcopal Church which have caused the rift between us.  That fact is known throughout Christianity, and it has caused untold suffering and persecution of Christians the world over, but especially in the Middle East.  It has caused a split in the Anglican Communion which, if immediate action is not taken to reverse its effects, will prove fatal.

Social justice at the expense of everyone else is no justice at all, but persecution of those whom one is trying to influence.

Munkiwrench, your amendment of my analogy is broken.  In order for Pier One to be a subsidiary of Acme Imports, Acme Imports would, by definition, be the majority stockholder, if not the sole stockholder.  In such a case, there could be no vote except by Acme.  In TEC, there is no such thing.  In EVERY case, parish’s are affiliated with and constitute a diocese, which is the basic and fundametal entity within the Anglican Communion.  The Archbishop of Canterbury understands this:

We welcome the comments from the Archbishop of Canterbury, contained in a recent letter to the Bishop of Central Florida, where he reminds us that “the organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such,” calling this a “basic conviction of Catholic theology.” He goes on to say:

“I should feel a great deal happier, I must say, if those who are most eloquent for a traditionalist view in the United States showed a fuller understanding of the need to regard the Bishop and the Diocese as the primary locus of ecclesial identity rather than the abstract reality of the ‘national church’.”

A Statement from the Bishop and Standing Committee, Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth

It is the legal entity of the diocese, not TEC, that forms the foundation of “ecclesial identity”, and thus ecclesiastical authority, within the Anglican Communion.  This a “basic conviction of Catholic theology.” If a diocese votes to voluntairly join TEC, it can vote to volunatarily disassociate from TEC.  This is the law of associations.  This is the law in Texas.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3885458/Archbishop-of-Canterbury-warns-recession-Britain-must-learn-lessons-from-Nazi-Germany.html

I guess history does have a way of repeating itself.

I think many of you objecting to this “loyalty oath” are getting unnecessarily worked up.  It is wholly appropriate, as Bill+ pointed out, to have requirements for service on the vestry that are not in violation of the national or diocesan canons. This church is attempting to present candidates that have made a decision that is a very ot-button topic in the diocese.  Part of the problem in the Episcopal Church is that our churches have such low standards required to serve on the vestry that many very low-committed, low-discipleship people get elected to the vestry.

In this case, it is all about control. That is the problem. The last part is added as a way to get scripture in there. Count how many times they write ‘Episcopal Church’ in the first paragraph.
I like St. Andrew’s oath. The docrine of TEC is a bit fuzzy at the moment in some areas.

But a loyalty oath to what???  To whom???  It’s a little bit late to turn that boat around and pretend we can all “mean” something different when it comes to the C&C;‘s and stay in the same harbor, don’t you think???  It’s one thing to have standards of conduct and to be bound to Scripture…and quite another to make one bound FIRST to the constitution and canons of TEC THE litmus.  How much have they helped??? Nada.  If TEC had been obeying SCRIPTURE and Tradition, they would have ended up obeying their own canons anyway…BUT THEY DON’T and haven’t for eons!!!  But TEC is now much MORE than the Constitution and Canons…there is more to it…on their own the C&C;‘s seem harmless…okay…but,it’s the c**p that almost always comes with them in the form of a corrupt sytem that make me NEVER desire to make vows in TEC again.  I thought the Lord brought me into TEC to join in with brothers and sisters on a solution to the problems.  But it only took two years for me to be shown that I was being taught what NOT to do….being given a good hard look at what frogs in kettles do.  People I saw as partners in the effort turned out to be uncharitable, ruled by fear, ruled by money and the bottom line, etc.  Oh yes, pretend 815 is not there…pretend they desire to allow you to remain the same…pretend…pretend…pretend.  Sometimes the dust has to be shaken off.  Since when did TEC really care about schism anyway???  They have taken so many steps to assure that many barriers now exist between unity with the rest of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  This sudden cry of “sinful schism!!!” has no credibility.

Worked up???  This oath for vestry members is nothing but politics.  It has little to do with being “appropriate”.  Everyone and their mother has known that FW as a majority was intending on leaving TEC.  Everyone knows All Saints’ is divided…it has been for a long while.  Everyone knows that if you PURPOSELY require this, that NOBODY duly nominated and elected by the congregation, who desires to leave TEC, will truly have their votes matter.  It’s a power grab to eliminate any opposition.

The declaration about Holy Scripture doesn’t belong in that “loyalty oath”. It is contradictory to the other demands. It would be more consistent to strike that portion, and add a section that states they will not hold the rector or his handlers accountable for ANYTHING.  Like his predecessor, Jambor will be able to do as he pleases with no consequences.

RE: “This church is attempting to present candidates that have made a decision that is a very ot-button topic in the diocese.”

And the loyalty oath is attempting to allow the rector to present candidates that have made a decision that is a very hot-button topic in the diocese as well.  ; > )

Jambor and his handlers may want to review Resolution B001. The majority of TEC bishops refused to affirm that Holy Scripture was the Word of God-including his presiding bishop.  They would be unable to sign his loyalty oath. How about this quote: “Heresy implies orthodoxy, and we have no such thing in the Episcopal Church.”  The Rev. William Rankin, Former Dean of Episcopal Divinity School

Company Loyalists and Conservative Reformers of TEC…if you want to stay…then stay.  God bless you!!!  But don’t keep blocking the way of others who could equitably and peacefully take the parish and diocesan(in four cases)resources with them to expand the Kingdom outside TEC.  That’s the Spirit of Control operating and it is wrong.  If you believe so much it will work and that things can turn around in TEC, then take what you have left in the diocesan coffers and assessments of staying parishes, trust God, and press in and press on inside TEC.  But don’t imprison others for YOUR vision or create a Glorious Fiefdom of Orthodoxy in TEC.  Many leaders have become prideful and vainglorious that “are the holdouts and fighting the good fight in TEC”...“WE few will turn things around” and such.  If your arguments are “schism”, then listen patiently to Orthodoxy and Rome for a few minutes.  If your arguments are “fiduciary responsibility to TEC/dead endowers”, then get real.  Is it REALLY about the Kingdom to you???  If you believed as you say you do, then exercise faith and open your fists.  My parish and many others were forced to let go after promises were broken by diocesan authorities.  I hope other parishes won’t have to…but maybe that is sometimes allowed and used by God to revitalize and wake people up.

To those wanting to leave:  sometimes it’s worth it to walk.  But discern…fast…pray…seek the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

Neal (#81)—The only thing I’m worked up about is the legal matter of the rights of the majority of members under their Bylaws. The qualifications for Vestry are put in the framework of the Corporation—a legal entity—in the Bylaws of All Saints (FW). However it all goes in the end, a majority of the qualified voting members have a right to have their say for Vestry—their Corporation board.

“In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, I, N.N., chosen Bishop of the Church in N., solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church.”

This would be the declaration of a bishop as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.
Oh, and the bishop-elect makes this declaration before the Presiding Bishop or his (or her) designee.
And then the bishop-elect signs it.

Appears there is some precedent for this loyalty oath.

Y’know, it’s too bad that TEC’s bishops haven’t taken the words of this oath to heart!

I especially meant to refer to “.....that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation…..”

Which BCP???
Who is the Presiding Bishop these days?  I know of a Dr. Schori keeping the seat warm until one takes office, but no bishop.

Cennydd…you are correct, sir.  The “oath”, after the semi-colon, is meant by the revisionists as any new thing TEC revises itself to be.

I left All Saints’ in October 2007, although the primary reason at the time was to find a church closer to home, as I lived 21 miles away from All Saints’. But looking back now, I don’t regret leaving, seeing everything that has happened since then.

I do recall, before I left, that Father Jambor said he did not want to put anything to a vote (whether or not to leave TEC) because he “didn’t want to drag the parish through this” (or something like that). That didn’t bother me, per se. But the thing that DID bother me was that the entire four years I was at All Saints’, I had no clue as to which side of the fence Father Jambor was on. My hunch was that he supported TEC (and that hunch was right). That “fence-straddling” position was always frustrating to me. I felt like he was avoiding the issue, and I knew, when the vote finally came down in a couple years, this parish would split down the middles, because there were people on both sides.

As for me, after I left, I went back and forth between pro-TEC parishes and pro-Iker parishes for a while. I was very conservative, but I didn’t care to follow Iker to the Southern Cone. So I found myself in a no-man’s land. Well, after that I began the process of converting to the Catholic Church (not so much because of what happened to TEC, but because I had wanted to be Catholic for so many years). So I will be received in the Catholic Church in April. So, what happens in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth doesn’t really affect me anymore, aside from I have friends on both sides. They are all in my prayers.