Priest, Youth Minister Dismissed for Not Signing TEC Loyalty Oath

Gosh, I wonder why their receipts are down 12% from the pledges (see page 3).

While I’m fully aware of the situation at All Saints’, I tried to read the entire newsletter as if I knew nothing. There is obviously something very wrong there….vestry members having to be replaced, staff having to be replaced, articles trying so hard to sound like all is well, etc.  I’m thinking Fr. Jambor has already drank the cool-aid, and is serving it up glass after glass.

My, my!  I recall such loud hissing from the Leftists a few years ago over “loyalty oaths” or “litmus” tests purportedly required by reasserters that I thought I was in a snake pit!  I guess this fits Leftist “logic” whereby anything they do and like is obviously rational and everything else is obviously wrong.

I wonder if the local parish became a 1928 BCP only church if the oath would still be in affect?

too bad that the Episcopal church (leaders) don’t have to believe in the Scriptures

This is indeed sad to see.  I was in seminary with Zeke.  He is a good man and a good football coach.  I only knew Fr. Jamber by reputation, but his reputation was that he was orthodox, and I do not know if that has changed.
I can understand why All Saints would want this statement signed, if that is the direction the vestry has decided to go.  After reading Zeke’s statement, it sounds like he would have been leaving All Saints with our without the oath.  I can understand his position as well. 
This is all very disturbing indeed.  I wish that we could leave off the rest, and simply use the final paragraph of the oath, and know that there would be no internal contradiction in that paragraph.  But, that is not where we are.

The other thing I find rather shocking is they come right out and call it a “Loyalty Oath” on page one.  Obviously, they don’t know jack about the Reformation (either the present one, or the former).  The term “Loyalty Oath” is not meant to be complimentary.

If they knew this history, they could have saved a lot of money paying a lawyer to write the one they are using now, and just gone with the old one:

“I, A.B., do utterly testify and declare in my conscience, that the Queen’s Highness is the only supreme Governor of the Realm . . . as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal, &c;. &c;. &c;. So help me God.”

Somehow, it still seems so apt.

Rogers & Maples; men for all seasons.

There is only one loyalty oath that counts and that is to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Anything else made up by man is supect.

Loyalty is not something that is engendered through demand. Loyalty is earned. Good leaders know this.

This all sounds and reads much like something out of the Book of Revelations! Very scary!

I like loyalty oaths! great fun, and give one a sense of belonging. In fact I have signed them for the Mickey Mouse Club, the Mr. Cartoon Show, Captain Crunch Club, and many others…

Quite the tasty little newsletter!  I especially liked the part where they would be explaining why no vote would be allowed by the church members on whether to go/stay with TEC.  I also noted that one of the qualifications to vote at all in the parish meeting was the member had to be “a giver of record in 2008.”  I bet they don’t allow that giving of record to be withheld from the coffers of TEC.  All in all, a depressing display of TEC institutionalism.

Loyalty oaths - coming to an “orthodox diocese” near you in 2009.  Get ready folks.

This stinks.  Father Rogers is a former parishioner of mine and Godfather to my oldest daughter.  He is a priest and a man that has more character and integrity then some entire Dioceses (which I will refrain from naming.)

As for the Rector, he was sponsored by my former Diocese and is a huge disappointment.  Also, as he is quoted in the newsletter,

“We understand and respect that decision, which must have been very difficult for him (Fr. Rogers) and his family.”

Which must have been very difficult?  Is the Rector kidding?  Doesn’t he know for sure?  Hasn’t he spoken with him to have found out?  Has he heard of Pastoral Care for his clergy?  We did teach it to him at Nashotah House, but you couldn’t prove it now by his actions or words.  As I began, this stinks.

I am also helping another Curate in SW Florida, whose only crime was to vote in his Diocese of canonical residence to go to the Southern Cone.  Bishop Dabney Smith now says he needs to leave the Diocese and forfeit his position. Bishop Smith also took a class on Pastoral Care at Nashotah House as I witnessed it when we were both there.  More sadness throughout the Church with more lack of leadership being made manifest each day.  Don’t understand how some of these folks can sleep at night.

“I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine of the Episcopal Church.”  What doctrine—the 39 Articles, the creeds, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, certain GC resolutions?  Without a definition of doctrine, then there can be endless dispute as to whether the signatory is compliant or not.

revrj, I have it on good authority that Zeke Rogers was not planning on leaving All Saints.  He was presented with no choice.  I have known Fr. Rogers (who shall always remain “Zeke” to me) since several years before he went to seminary.  For years, he and his wife, Adeline, were faithful members of a Sunday School class I taught at St. Mark’s Arlington, a class that was very heavily scripture based.  Zeke is a fine, honest, and dedicated Christian man.  Zeke and Adeline are going through a lot of chaos in their lives right now and need our prayers.  This shall pass, and they will come out the other side better than before, but for now it is very difficult.

All Saints is on very shakey grounds right now, both legally and theologically.  Jambor is breaking all the rules—legally, canonically, and spritually—in his attempt to take over the parish and make sure it remains in TEC, even though a majority of All Saints members do not share his opinion.  Notwithstanding this, All Saints is still in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (a fact Jambor refuses to understand), which has left TEC.  Jambor is getting very bad legal advice and very bad theological counsel. . . if he is listening to anyone at all.  This is going to be very messy, and, in the end, Jambor is going to lose much more than All Saints.

It gets much worse. Fr. Rogers and Matt stayed as long as they could but they refused to sign the oath. They were forced out.

The claws of the left are starting to come out with some nasty comments to the conservatives. Forget about “All are Welcome.”

People are starting to resign from their positions. Only the select few are being thanked or acknowledged for their service.

If you so much as criticize TEC, you are sabotaging the church and working towards its destruction. I think they are doing a fine job on their own in that department. So much for diverse opinions.

Check out the article (this is only part of it) that Fr. Jambor wrote:
Charting the Way ForwWard:
“The situation we find ourselves in is not unlike what you’d see following the detonation of a bomb in a populated area,” says the Rev. Christopher N. Jambor, rector of All Saints’. “Through the Pastoral Center set up here at All Saints’ in early December, we’re trying to contact survivors and assess the extent and severity of the damage, so that we can begin repairing and rebuilding what was destroyed.”All Saints’ and other intact remnants of The Episcopal Church must now formally reconstitute themselves as TEC’s authorized diocese within the 24-county region.

I almost forgot. According to the Walking with Integrity website, Fr. Jambor will be getting lots of help from the Fort Worth Integrity group in planning the convention. So the resignations really don’t matter, there are plenty of the folks from Integrity and “survivors” to help.

For any who haven’t seen the entire aticle written by Jambor, here is the link: http://www.allsaintsfortworth.org/ProO/2008/December30_blue.pdf.

Amazing!!!

#4 My initial thought, exactly!!!

During a recent, short conversation with the new rector of our church in which I told him I was considering leaving TEC for the AMiA, he said rather sprightly, “Well, that sounds like you’ve found a place you’ll fit in!” 

After 35+ years of “fitting in” in TEC, it wasn’t exactly a tearful goodbye.  But that’s ok. All I want is to join a church where “Jesus fits in” cause he ain’t welcome at TEC anymore! 

But as for those believers who haven’t left, let’s refrain from judging them.  You never know ...

There was an Episcopal church in Houston, TX, on the brink of extinction for whom God told one spirit filled woman to stay and pray.  The few remaining parishoners wanted her to take her new found faith and leave…but she was convinced she shouldn’t…but they did and before long, the Church of the Redeemer, became a mecca for Charismatics and brought thousands to Christ in the 1970s. I know. I visited there.

So, let each of us do what God tells us to do and not be tempted to judge those believers who stay.

Mrs R….. Right on so many levels…there were many who breathed a sigh of relief when I left my church after 10+ years and so many offices and duties and a few others who cried….I had been crying for years over all kinds of “misunderstandings”....and I ridiculed others when they left before me .. surely others felt the same when I left…but God does have a plan for us all…different timing and different paths.  I totally left my home, my church,my community and my friends. The first thing I was looking for in choosing a new “world” was a good Bible believing liturgical church! My prayers are with us all that we move forward in the new year in the path God has set for each of us.

I wonder how many more rectors and vestries will be requiring loyalty oaths to TEC.  I also wonder at acongregation that will allow faithful people with years of devoted service to be excised like rotting flesh.

It is bad enough that these two servants of the Lord were fired.  It is even worse that supposed Christians allowed it to happen and are supporting the rector and vestry who caused it.

It is bad enough that these two servants of the Lord were fired.

I humbly disagree.  It is GOOD that they have been released from bondage.  The Lord is winnowing His church.  If they are in fact servants of the Lord, then they have a bright future serving His purposes in the place where He leads them.

I’ve never been at all comfortable with the phrase “you’ll fit in,” and I wonder how many others feel the same way?  It smacks of somehow being fit to associate with a particular group of people.

Mad Potter, there you go again with that “perspective” thing of yours.  Perhaps you should have the “perspective” of the members of All Saints parish.  They have not had a chance to voice their desire to stay in TEC or to leave.  Their rector forbids them that choice.  This is not relative perspective but objective, verifiable fact.

Also, if All Saints wants to leave the diocese to go with TEC, there is abolutely no impediment keeping them from doing it. There is, however, as with all things, a process for this to happen.  All they need to do is follow the process.  Oh, but wait, that would mean that there is a right and wrong way to do things, and that violates the relativity of perspective.  It also runs contrary to the “process” of not following the established rules as demonstrated by Katy and her band of followers.

This is so grievious to me. All Saints’ Ft. Worth is where +Pope confirmed me in 1999 and I served as a lay eucharistic minister. I left for another parish in the diocese which was more traditional, but I still have many friends at All Saints’. One thing to remember, this is a very wealthy church. It previously was the cathedral, but a former rector helped nix that amid a big mess. I think TEC would be really sorry to see that source of income dry up! I am not surprised to see who the three new vestry members are….long-time highly vocal opponents of +Iker. The Lord bless the majority of traditional folks still there and may they find their voice on January 25 at the annual meeting!

I can’t resist any longer:

MP why do you persist in ignoring the fact that Bp. Iker is perfectly willing to let these parishes stay in TEC with their property if a supermajority of the congregation votes to do so. He is not trying to hang on to congregations that wish to leave, he is trying to ensure that leaving represents the majority position so as to protect the congregations from being hijacked by a small vocal minority that has risen to power. It seems that All Saint’s Fort Worth may be just such a case in point. The Diocese of Pittsburgh also was willing to allow parishes to stay in TEC with their property. When and if any of the revisionist Dioceses are so Christian as to permit this type of leave taking, then I am sure you will hear lots of support for it on Stand Firm. But it rarely if ever happens. And in moderate Dioceses such as Rio Grande and Virginia that are not leaving TEC, bishops who wish to negotiate with departing parishes apparently are forced to resign or sue. Perspective has nothing to do with it. These are facts.

monika

OK. Now I see your point but I’m not sure I agree with it as far as regards departing parishes. There have been plenty that left the property behind from the get go. And the Virginia parishes tried to negotiate with the Bishop. At least in part that seems an acknowledgment that the Bishop has authority over property. Although I admit that in the first case it is just as likely that they decided not to try to claim the property on the basis of the scriptural injunction not to resort to the secular courts. So now that you’ve gotten your point across, where does this authority of bishops over property come from in your view? God, TEC structure, Diocesan canon, scripture, tradition? Do you think every bishop would cite the same source? And why does it matter anyway (not trying to be rude, just trying to understand why making this point is so important to you).

monika

And doesn’t your point about bishops claiming authority over property apply to revisionist bishops in spades? Why single out conservatives.

monika

I guess what it boils down to is that everyone would like to keep the property if they can. And that’s all I’m going to say lest we take the thread completely off topic.

monika

MP, you continually talk about consistency.  That is simply not the case here.  NO ONE—including +Iker—is trying to keep any parish in this diocese against their will.  If All Saint’s wants to stay in TEC, then let them vote and go.  The problem, Jambor+ is NOT ALLOWING a vote of any kind….he knows he doesn’t have the 2/3 majority, and from what I’ve been hearing lately, probably not even a simple majority.  Let’s try being honest here and not trying to change the subject.

I, frankly, don’t know how Fr. Zeke+ and Matt could stand it as long as they did, except that they were there for the PEOPLE, not the prestige.  It’s hard for pastors and youth leaders to leave their people.  This whole thinks stinks to Low Hades…High Heaven wouldn’t have it.  I KNOW Matt is a Spirit-filled orthodox man.  I don’t know Fr. Zeke+, except from a distance, but he had that Holy Spirit glimmer about him that I now understand.  A GOOD SOLID priest friend also had to leave there because it was getting so silly amongst the leadership.  And a couple of other priest friends probably wouldn’t go back just because the politics are so freakin’ stupid.  Forbidding a vote and forcing this drivel of an oath.  This smacks of desperation and lashing out.  That’s what “baptismal covenant” with fluffy addendums and twisted vows in the ordinal get you.  I always had reservations about this rector, even though he claimed orthodoxy.  Something was off.  He has a lovely wife and daughter…I pray for them.

But at stake is a piece of PRIME real estate in the Crestline area of Fort Worth, practically next door to billionaires and many millionaires.  Also is the influence over the large prestigious All Saints’ Episcopal School.  Dirty dirty dirty…

Well…that’s what’s at stake for TEC…what’s at stake for +Jack Iker are souls…

Oh for crying out loud, MadPotter.  Conservative Bishops are fine with self-determination by individual parishes, but liberal Bishops never are.  It’s kind of a freedom of religion issue… conservatives are down with it, liberals are not.

Also: I am quite amused by the last page of the parish newsletter, where All Saints’ is described as “An Episcopal Parish in the Episcopal Church in the United States of America.” 

Good luck to them as they try to figure out how they are not presently also an “Episcopal Parish in the Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth.”  Because that is what they are—unless they wish to leave, which Bishop Iker has generously allowed them to do.

M.P.—one problem with your example….It’s NOT +Iker’s rule.  It was put forward and passed by quite a large majority at Diocesan Convention in 2007, because WE—the diocese—wanted to try to act in a more Christian manner and avoid all the law suits.  It does not appear that the folks who want to leave our diocese to continue in TEC want to avoid them….I guess those in TEC find law suits more to their liking.  Happy New Year to you, too!

I can tell you clearly what changed Jambor.  Money.  The money at All Saints destroyed the ministry of the previous rector and now it has destroyed Jambor.  Clergy that stay too long around the wealthy and the priveledged in danger their vocation.  Zeke and Matt love the Lord and He will take care of the both of them.

MadPotter, Bishop Iker is NOT claiming control of the property.  He has said if they want to leave with it, they can go.  Thats more than any liberal Bishop has ever said (actually Bishop Lee did say this, until he changed his mind).

Also: Not every congregation that wants to leave has claimed that the Bishop has no authority over property.  Many (some in Florida, in particular) just walked away and said to their bishop, “here are the keys.”

If they were following things in the Pro Omnibus Sanctis, they would know that ECUSA is a passe name…it’s “TEc” now.

We didn’t try to prevent a vote on the floor when our parish left TEC Dallas…it was out in the open…there was open discussion…and a vote.  Of course, in our case, the clear majority of 87% wanting to leave were in the end shafted by the diocese by not getting to take any property, even after a promise of helping us do so at the parish meeting.  It was a small loud nucleus of liberals and institutionalists that succeeded through dirty tricks and probably enlisting some Beers help…kinda reminds me of a large parish in FW with a hard-core institutionalist camp that will stop at nothing.

TXThurifer—Ha.  They probably realized that saying they are an “Episcopal Parish in The Episcopal Church” sounds ridiculous. 

What I think is funny is that without a diocesan bishop, if there’s one thing they clearly are not, it’s “Episcopal.”  But there they are, claiming the name.  Twice.

MP - ok, so what is your point?

monika

Mad Potter,
I understand your argument and frankly, I wish all congregations held the deed to their property and had the power over their property. Forget the bishop. The fact is a handful of people are not allowing the congregation to vote. They decided bt themselves the fate of the parish. It should be a 2/3rd vote to leave the Diocese/TEC but as far as they are concerned nothing happened. A group calling themselves the “Fort Worth Episcopal Diocese” voted to leave TEC but the Diocese though it lacks people now, didn’t leave. People are just beginning to realize that the church is no longer under +Iker.

#16,

TEC going in to 2009 has zero core doctrine.

Happy New Year from Fort Worth!

The grapevine reports that Jambor and some of the other priests loyal to ECUSA in the Diocese of Ft. Worth have visions of purple shirts in their future as their reward for hijacking this parish and keeping it in ECUSA.  I expect to see either Jambor and/or Barber on the short list of candidates for the reconstituted diocesan convention.

#52, hopefully not a new “bishop” that is “consecrated” by KJS…although +Hulsey is in the running, too…ewww…

A “bishop” that is “consecrated” by Dr. Schori has WAYYYYYYY LESS chance of ever being recognized by the rest of the Church Catholic than the run of the mill traditional Anglican bishop…

I went to high school in Dallas with Zeke and worked for awhile here in FTW with him in the Order of St. Luke. He’s a great person and pastor. My prayers are with him and his family.

I wonder where in all this another priest at All Saints, Fr. Johnson Shannon is?

Fr. Shannon+ recently joined the staff at All Saints in 2008, I believe.  He was recently a vicar/rector of a country parish in the Diocese of FW for a number of years after being at St. Alban’s in Arlington when Fr. Cannaday+ was rector there in the 90’s/early 2000’s.  I am not judging…and I am not sure of his leanings…but since he recently joined ASFW, it could appear he is staying in TEC.

#59 & 60—My sources say that +Hulsey is THE candidate for the “interim” job (since he is already here)—like +Lamb in San Juoquin, and both Jambor+ and Barber+ have a terrible case of “purple fever” and both think they are shoe-ins for the elected position.

#63—Fr. Shannon is a nice guy, but he has bought into Jambor’s+ agenda—hook, line, & sinker!  I was a bit surprised.  My thought when he first went to All Saint’s was that he would be the pastor to the folks wanting to stay with the diocese, but that is not the case.

Even though Fr. Madison+ got a new position at All Saints’ School and left the parish as one of their curates, I think he is also technically tied to the parish by virtue of employ at the school.  He is very intelligent and will make his own decision, I’m sure.  I like him a lot…extremely genuine and personable.

But Madison+ is a Jambor+ man (unfortunately!).  He has been quoted with some very unkind comments about other clergy who are staying with the diocese.  Their response was, “I thought he was a friend”.  They were genuinely hurt.

Is DeWolfe+ staying???  This has got to be interesting for him, with his family’s history there, and as rector emeritus.  Pigeon+?  Bridge+?  But I don’t know them.

Good one Fr.Van (#12).  Your comment and the All Saints’ oath brought to mind the Cub Scout oath I took a long, long time ago—something about agreeing to “obey the law of the pack,” which is great for wild grade school kids but not appropriate for adult Christians. Submitting to the “law of the pack” is where TEC has headed.

Good Lord! What a mental case! A witness told me that a few months ago Jambor pounded his fist on the pulpit and yelled, “We are under attack.” Now, he is ranting about bombs being detonated in highly populated areas, and a search for survivors. Is he suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? Maybe he should seek help at his own pastoral center. His defenders keep whining about this man being “attacked”. Does his inflammatory, manipulative,  rhetoric not imply that those transferring to the Southern Cone are terrorists? Who is attacking whom? Since Jambor relishes military jargon, why don’t we ask him about the spiritual napalm he has detonated in his parish? How about the stink bombs enveloped in his sponsored newspaper ads in the Star Telegram?

Hellcat I have avoided the Star-Telegraph since it’s last ownership change. What ads are you talking about?

In almost every case, Virginia being the exception, the DIOCESE holds the deed to all property “IN TRUST”.  Therefore you DO have to go throught the Bishop to get permission to leave with your property.  The TEC in 1979 passed the “Dennis Cannon” to give them (alleged) authority over all property, but in my opinion the jury is still out if the Dennis Cannon will hold water.  Probably will vary from state to state (NY and NJ will rule for the Dennis Cannon, other states will rule against it). 

It should be noted that in the new American Anglican diocese, this is not the case; property will be held by each PARISH, so each PARISH can decide where they want to roost.

So MP, once the bloodbath of lawsuits, initiated by the TEC leadership, is over and the PARISHES and DIOCESES that join the American Anglican province will not have this problem in the forseeable future.  Of course, over time things change - those who set up the TEC cannons never thought things would degenerate to the point they have…but I think this is a step in the right direction.

More on topic - “The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers”...

Got your loyalty oath RIGHT HERE! 

#68—Fr. Pigeon has been serving as the interim at St. Stephen’s, I believe it is, and is staying.  I don’t know about Fr. Bridge.  Isn’t he at the school and not the parish?

God have mercy! This looks like pure common sense to me. Why would anyone take on a position of leadership in TEC if they have plans to leave our church anyway? There would be no point in it.

I realize that God can call people into different situations, and places all the time. That’s understood. But, I can’t imagine taking deliberate steps to leave a denomination, and then trying to serve on a vestry or church council at the sametime. At the very least, surely there would be a conflict of interest.

However, it does seem to me that at the very top of the qualification list for leadership in any church should first be a personal committment to Jesus Christ as Savior, and Lord, and “loyalty” to the gospel.

In many churches that I have served in 42 years of ordained ministry there have been Baptised Christians who were not actually Episcopalians who served on the vestry and served well - would they be forced to resign???

vrmjws, I’ve been a member of several Episcopal churches and serves on vestries and three of them. In EVERY case a vestry member must be a pledging member of the church. That means they have been confirmed or recieved into the Church by the Bishop. I though all diocese require this in the Canons for vestries. Maybe national Canons as well. Well we know how those are followed these days. Where have you servred?

Grace, this appears to be next to impossible to explain because the premise from which those who have been “instructed” by Jambor & Company is inaccurate, if not downright purposely deceptive.  Even so, this Eternal Knight will forge on into the frey to try to right this wrong.

All Saints is not still in TEC.  All Saints is still in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, which voted to leave TEC, such vote applying to the entire diocese, not just to those who voted yes to the motion to leave.  This is reality.  Jambor, apparently, has become almost totally dillusional about this, telling his parishioner that they are still in TEC and without a bishop.  Until All Saints actually votes, and that means the members, not just the vestry, must vote to leave.  Jambor is not allowing any such vote to take place.

Why would anyone take on a position of leadership in TEC if they have plans to leave our church anyway? There would be no point in it.

There is no attempt for anyone who seeks election to the vestry at All Saints to take a “position of leadership in TEC,” because All Saints is not in TEC.  At present All Saints, along with every other parish in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is in the Province of the Southern Cone.  All Saints has to take affirmative action to alter that status, which Jambor refuses to allow to happen.  His conduct is doing nothing but making the situation impossible to be resolved without court action, which, apparenlty, is the intent of TEC in all cases.

Once again, for everyone’s benefit, please understand that All Saints is not in TEC at the present moment.  I’ll use an analogy I’ve used before.  To follow Jambor reasoning, if I voted for McCain for President instead of Obama, I am now under the authority of McCain.  When we elected a President, we elected a President for the whole country.  Just so, when the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth—to which even Jambor will agree All Saints belonged prior to the Diocesan Convention, November, 2008,—voted to disassociate from TEC, the entire dioese was disassociated.  The vote effected the entire diocese.  All Saints cannot now claim that the vote did not apply to them.  Think where that would lead if every one who was on the losing side of a vote at the Diocesan Convention, or the Parish Annual Meeting, decided that the vote of the majority did not apply to them.  That would result in chaos and confusion, and God is not the author of confusion. (1 Cor. 14:33)

For more on this, visit http://commonwealthreport.blogspot.com

I certainly agree that any loyalty oath should include a confession that Jesus is Lord.

in answer to 78 - I have served in PA - NJ and Albany Dioceses - all allow vestry to serve without being confirmed - the requirement to pledge mentioned by 78 souinds like a by law and not a canon - I have never seen such a by law

I would only sign an oath if it was based on Scripture.

Why won’t Jambor+ allow a vote?  Until he does, I would think that AS is presently part of the SC.  Is the rector afraid of the results of a parish vote?  A vote at the annual meeting this month would clarify things.

#78 Bob+—In this diocese, the canons require one to be confirmed to serve on a vestry, but that is not the case in many dioceses, where they only have to be a member… which no longer means confirmed.  Also, one does not have to pledge to serve, but be a giver of record—or as the old way of saying it was, “be known to the treasurer”.

#79 Immortalitas Equestris—thank you for that very clear explanation.  I have tried to come up with a way of saying that very thing, but kept sounding ugly, so did not post it.

B. Hunter, it is very simple. Due to the accession clause a parish or diocese does not have the right to vote to leave The Episcopal Church. It does not matter if 100% of the people in a parish or diocese are in opposition of any perceived or real changes within The Episcopal Church. The only legitimate action they can take is to leave the Episcopal Church and join another church or form their own religious entity. At that point the law of natural consequences will ensue. The Episcopal Diocese will go on, sadly, without those individuals. The remaining members of the Episcopal church and the Parishes and Diocese will survive as the entity it was before.  There will be changes due to a reduction in people and pledges and that will have to be dealt with and it could be fatal to a diocese or parish.
I believe it is +Iker’s illegitimate claims that are what has brought us to this point. If individuals such as +Iker and others cannot abide by the constitution and canons of the church then they are free to leave. But they go just as they came. They came to a parish or diocese as individuals with no claims to property and they leave with the same.
When I give my pledge or have the privilege of serving at God’s altar I do it with no expectation of any earthly favor or claim to any material goods. It is done for the glory of God. The denomination I have chosen as a place of worship and to express my faith is The Episcopal Church. As such I have chosen to work within the bounds of the Constitution and Canons of that church. If at some point I no longer agree with the doctrine or direction of the Episcopal Church I will leave for another. If I choose to leave I will take nothing with me save for the grace of God.
As for the loyalty oath, it is unfortunate that it has come to this but I see no other way to assure that a individual seeking a position within an Episcopal parish or diocese is not a member of another denomination. After all would a Methodist be allowed run for the vestry of an Episcopal Church? Those who have chosen to leave the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth for the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone no longer have the right to any office within the Episcopal church.
The tragedy of all this is that it has diverted us from our mission of mercy to the world and provided ample fodder for our critics.

Jambor+ claims that A.S. has not left TEC with the diocese, so no vote needed.  This is a smoke-screen.  He will not allow a congregational vote because he does not have the 2/3 majority, and maybe not even a simple majority.  He has managed to stack the vestry, so they are on his side, and with this loyalty oath, will try to keep it that way.  Problem, he does not have to authority to change the rules to require a loyalty oath, so I’m hoping the steadfast will stand up to him at their annual meeting.

munkirench, which clause is that?  The “accession clause?”  Can you point out exactly which clause you mean.  I want to read where it says a diocese or parish does not have authority to leave TEC.  That is a new one to me.

Mad Potter, you don’t really want to begin a debate with me on the U.S. Constitution.  I stand by my analogy, which relates to the effect on those who find themselves on the losing side of a vote.  The majority vote is what stands, and those who are in the minority cannot, with any deifinition of rationality, deny that the vote applies to them.

Munkiwrench, you say that “The Episcopal Church will go on,” and you’re correct, but if things continue to go on as they are now, the Church WILL go on….but only on paper.  A look at the ASA figures for the past few years tells me that attendance is falling rapidly.

If you do not want to be in the TEC, you should leave.  If you want to be in the Southern Cone: go.  Why is there any question here? 

You can not be in the TEC if you do not want to be!

But if you stay in TEC, you should be willing to say you will not try to leave and take things (property, money, people) with you.

No problem here for honest people on both sides of the issue

Wasn’t it just last year that 815 put out that ad about the “Episcopal Church. marking a milestone…moving forward…” And the California Dioceses one???  BabyBlue has a very amusing rendition of those in her dramatic reading of it…care to revisit?!!!  http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/search?q=dramatic+reading+california

15">http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/search?q=dramatic+reading+815

#89—I would love to see that, too.  It simply does not exist except in the minds of those who wish it to be there.

#92 My understanding is that the canons permit, indeed demand, oaths from clergy. Laity have not sworn to obey the canons,  have never been asked to do so and are not subject to the disciplinary provisions of the canons.

Thus these oaths have no canonical force. If a lay Vestry member changed their mind about this matter they are quite entitled to do so (as about any other matter) and no one as I understand it, not Rector, not other Vestry members, not Bishop has a canonical right to remove them from the post to which they have been elected. Of course, one can imagine that plenty of bishops will uncanonically take action anyway. Indeed a few have done so already - without waiting for uncanonical “loyalty oaths” to be demanded from the laity.

This is contrary to the traditions and polity of the Episcopal Church and, furthermore, constitutes duress. If I were to be asked to sign such a thing, I would happily do so, knowing that any such ‘agreement’ which I may sign under duress is ethically voidable at will. In observant Judaism it’s not wrong to even lie to someone who is unjustly threatening you in order to get you to agree to something which is wrong. Sort of like the Marranos -Jews threatened with death unless they got ‘Baptized’.

Happy New Year, Bob+! The Steering Committee of North Texas Episcopalians has been taking out quarter-page ads in the Star Telegram since the convention. The one that really struck me was published around Dec 3rd, First Sec. A, Page 9A. Part of it reads, “The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is still a part of the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Presence in the United States of America, despite the recent decision of SOME* to affiliate with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.”
* my emphasis-“some” was 80 percent to be exact

Yeah…go listen to BabyBlue Anglican’s Dramatic Readings of various TEC announcements and ads…they seem to always say “some members”...a “few people”.  Whatever, TEC!!!  Yeah…87% of us left our TEC parish…and we were called “some”...“minority”...“several”...“small group”...blah blah blah…

Here is the link to the Fort Worth Let’s Pretend “Diocese”. Notice that Fort Worth Integrity is not listed on their links. Perhaps it’s just an oversight. I hope Louie Crew will be an honored guest along with KJS. He can read some of his poems to the remainders. A real stand out is his poem about Jesus Christ’s first wet dream. Read it for yourself on his website. By the way, one of the board members of this cobbled together group, has said that Crew is her hero and a saint.

http://www.episcopaldiocesefortworth.org/contact us.htm

Thank you Immortalitis. 
This sounds like a sad, beyond confusing situation.
Prayers ascending!!

hellcat, thank you for the link to the faux episcopal diocese of fort worth website.  The thought occurs to me that the real and legal Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth should file an restraining order against the unauthorized use of it’s name and logo, and following a hearing, secure a permanent injunction.  Jambor, Schori & Associates are clearly outside the law here.  Does that make them outlaws?  Methinks it does!

It is amazing to me that these folks think they have authority to amend the documents of the Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (“Corporation”).

From the faux diocese website:
The Constitution and Canons Committee has met to draft a resolution for consideration of the Special Diocesan Convention to declare null and void certain provisions of the governing documents of the Diocese.

Surely, surely, these people have consulted an attorney with an actual license to practice law.  Since NONE of these people hold offices in the Corporation, they have no more authority to amend the Corporation’s governing documents than they do to amend the governing documents of Pier One Imports, Inc.  The audacity of this group is truly amazing.

Here’s the best part about the Ft. Worth group’s website: “Confused by our Canons and Constitution? If you need clarification concerning the Canons and Constitutions of the Episcopal Church or of our diocese, submit your questions to Fr. Bill Nix.” It should go on to say “...who chose to flee to Amarillo rather than stay at All Saints’ Ft. Worth and work things out amicably with his bishop.” Yep, that’s who I’d want to go to for help!
I pray the Lord shows His will to these people and they are receptive to our Father in Heaven!

Well, I guess they will have to change their name from All Saints.

Heck, since bowing down to TEC is a now a requirement for staying there, they are getting rather close to No Saints.

MP, ahhh I just love a New Year - don’t you? I am interested in how you moved from your previous stances into the “perspective” thingy! As to you comments about bishops behaving as if they owned the “property” in the diocese. Since the majority of the folks in question allow for the purported role of the bishop as controller of the property in the diocese it is only meet and right that Iker speak to the allowance in a way they can best understand - same with all the other “conservative” bishops. Since it only the concern for a just and equitable division of property where there is some dispute in a parish that drives qualifications against the “free to take your stuff with you” approach, I can see where you would be confused. But since you come from the TEC college of obfuscation - this is perfectly understandable - and hence you shift to the perspective model of reference. Wherever possible we should eschew obfuscation, and allow good Christians of whatever Anglican stripe to live into the surety of the diversity that best represents the God in all of us, regardless of path, affectation or debenture. You see? It has all the essential qualities of nonsense that it’s practitioners intend - and is the sand upon which you build your arguments.

So now let’s revisit some of your comments in light of this: only bishops who are in TEC should be concerned with or speak to the dispensation of properties, or discuss/assume any ownership concerns. Conservative bishops regardless of concern for, or sense of equity, should not speak to any property issue. I could go on, but since your aim apparently is not to provide reasonable discourse or enlightened discussion but depend solely on rhetorical flourish and conceptual legerdemain the above must suffice, until you are prepared to set aside the toys of your debate and take up real tools to forge a reasonable understanding. And a Happy New Year to you as well.

I just want to say, FWIW, it didn’t work that way Mad Potter during the Reformation. Insofar as there is any precedent from that time - entire dioceses “left"the Catholic church with their assets intact. The catholics left behind were, so to say, marooned.

109 Yes, and you are STILL worshipping in OUR churches. Where our saints and bishops are buried.      Despite that, there are more of us in church in England on any given Sunday than there are of you. 
**********************************************************************************
I think Iker should go to that annual meeting and take the floor and insist on a vote right then and there.   
And doesn’t he have the right to inhibit this priest who is taking over one of his parishes?  Once he finds out what the majority of people in that parish want, he should take such steps if the priest continues doing what he is doing now. 
Aren’t we supposed to be as wise as serpents as well as innocent as doves?  And what is that quote about the children of darkness being wiser in their day than the children of light?  (Is that right, is it darkness and light? )
Well, that is what I think.  I hate to see this sort of thing be successful.  And isn’t that loyalty oath self contradictory?  Scripture and the current doctrine and discipline of TEC? 
Forgive this Papist for intruding with her opinion on your affairs. 
Susan Peterson

MP you succeeded in hijacking this thread.  Lets review three points which you have so far ignored:

1. No Revionist Bishop has made ANY allowance for parishes to leave. None, Nada.  They claim the property.

2. Moderate Bishops have made allowance for parishes to leave and then retracted those (i.e. Virginia, Central Florida, etc.).

3. Reasserting Bishops have made provisions for parishes to leave the diocese with their property.  The Bishops have asked for a clear majority in any leaving parish to justify leaving.

Your arguments are facetious because you constantly keep ignoring these points.  The heretical, revisionist Bishops are wrong but not for wanting to keep the property; they are wrong for being heretics and very un-Christian.

Now in part to the case at hand, All Saints - Fort Worth.  The parishes of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth that want to remain in TEC, have apparently been advised by Mrs Schori and company not to follow the process so as to lay claim to all the property of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth of the Southern Cone.  Following the departure process would nullify that claim. 

On to Fr. Zeke Rogers, I knew him when I was at St. Mark’s Arlington, Texas.  I am glad that he is now in the ordained ministry.  And I can understand his resistance to signing a loyalty oath to TEC.

My prayer is that all the revisionist will repent and return to the Truth.

BillB

MP, the clergy of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth have been received into fellowship of the Province of the Southern Cone, and they continue to be licensed by Bp. Iker in that capacity.  So, you can cease worrying about that point.

I had hoped my comments might make you think, but I’m afraid they don’t.  You seem stuck in one spot.  But that is your privilege.  I have absolutely no problem with those people in the parishes of the Episcopal Diocese of FW reconstituting a diocese to accommodate their decision to stay in TEC.  That is their privilege.  I don’t want anyone to be where they don’t want to be.  Having said that, you can’t simply snap your fingers, or click your heals, and by some miracle be somewhere else.  And you can’t hijack the legal structures built by others and lay claim to them yourself.  That is theft.  There is a process, an orderly and legal process, for this to happen, and, unfortunately, Jambor+ & Company are trying to violate those rules.  THAT is what bothers me.

Why do I care?  I care because I am one of those who is fed up with TEC and it’s heretical ways.  I’m fed up with bishops who scatter their flocks, violating the rules of decency and the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  I’m fed up with a house of bishops that lacks the will to discipline priest and bishops, who violate the Constitution and Canons of the church by ordaining practicing homosexuals and consecrating them as bishops, who proclaim that Jesus is a way but not THE way, who proclaim that the resurrection is probably not literally true, and basically deny the authority of Holy Scripture and its author.  At the same time, they depose, in violation of their own Canons, those bishops who are standing firm on the foundation laid by the great cloud of witnesses who have gone before, who are standing firm on the faith once delivered to the saints.  How can I not care is a better question!

MP, it appears clear to me that you have your “perspective” and nothing I, or anyone else here, can say will move you to see what we see.  It’s not that we don’t undertand your point of view.  It’s that we don’t agree with you.

#110 Yes - as a catholic priest once said to me “what goes around comes around”. The Vatican thinks in centuries, so they say. Wait a little longer…

All current and former members of St. Mark’s posting on this thread, let’s have a big huzzah! for Zeke and Adeline.

monika

monika, you can count me in on that huzzah.  And a great big HURRAH, too!!! Hope Zeke and Adeline are getting to see all the love pouring forth for them here.

monika, you can count me in on that huzzah.  And a great big HURRAH, too!!! Hope Zeke and Adeline are getting to see all the love pouring forth for them here.

Amen.
truthseeker

All the love pouring forth for Zeke and Adeline is wonderful. They do need more than good wishes. It breaks my heart that their supporters didn’t put up a fight for them. Do they have a soft place to land?

The oath is interesting - it makes it clear that if (unlikely I know) the TEC is taken over by Calvinists the vestry members would still be prevented from trying to get the church to leave it - they promise never at any time in the future to try to get it to leave. And you can replace ‘Calvinists’ with any descriptive you like and the same remains true - satanists, Muslims, dogs, invaders from mars, etcetera - sensible and stupid.

Who would sign something which refuses to allow them to forsee a perfectly justifiable reason (as if the current sitaution wasn’t!) to leave TEC?

A couple of things seem rather obvious. Firstly, the ‘loyalty oath’ gambit seems to be a desperate act. Hitler demanded personal ‘loyalty oaths’ from German officers because he was not sure of their loyalty. That put Hitler ahead of homeland, and rendered the oaths rather meaningless, as they were not voluntary.

Secondly, the proper and fair way to do this, it would seem, is to have a vote of the congregation to see where the parish stands. (I have no clear idea where they stand). This whole ‘loyalty oath’ thing reeks of “If you disagree with me, you must leave the parish, for staying in TEC is more important than following the will of the parish, and we must load the vote to make sure we prevail.”

Haven’t I seen quotes in the past from BeerKat and the PHIPS decrying any sort of “litmus test” for church membership, righteousness, being called a Christian, or basically anything else?  Aren’t the words “litmus test” banned from TEC?

And isn’t a loyalty oath a litmus test of sorts?

What am I missing here?...KTF!...mrb

# 85 munkirench: ” If at some point I no longer agree with the DOCTRINE or DIRECTION of TEC I will leave for another.”

Fair enough munkirench, but would you kindly inform the posters on this website exactly what the doctrine of TEC currently is comprised of? As for its direction…..allow me to inform you: straight toward oblivion and total irrelevance as a member of God’s Holy Church. If I were you,
I would “leave for another”......sooner rather than later.

Irishanglican, the “doctrine or direction” of The Episcopal Church is something we’ve all been puzzled about for years!  Actually, I would modify that phrase to read this way:  “doctrine or discipline,” because we know very well the “direction” that the Episcopal church is headed in:  straight to Hell!  The “discipline” you mentioned is that which is dished out to those who disobey Schori’s rules.

Cennydd: Yes you are (as usual) quite correct. I certainly can relate to KJS and her cohorts’ “discipline”, as one of her staunchest allies (Bishop Locksmith of CT) has succeeded in ruining (at least) two orthodox parishes under his care with his heavy-handed and non-Christian discipline. It truly astonishes me how anyone who professes a belief in The True Anglican Way can continue to be affiliated with a denomination that disregards so many foundational precepts of the historic Christian Faith. It seems that the leadership in TEc gets more extreme and heretical with each passing day. My home parish and yours are now part of a new, vibrant, and evangelical Anglican entity (ACNA) that I have every confidence will become a full-fledged member of the World Wide Anglican Communion at sometime in the future. In the meantime, let us pray for its continued growth and for its uncompromising adherence to a biblical world view. Blessings to you and all the orthodox believers in CA.

#117 It would not have made any difference and could have made matters even more difficult for them. They landed softly and safely. They have known they are much loved and appreciated.

Is David Booth Beers an Episcoplian? Does anyone know where he goes to church?

Here is Beers profile. Notice his educational background:
http://www.goodwinprocter.com/People/Beers - David Booth.aspx

The link doesn’t work. His educational background is University of Berkeley. That says it all.

Beers is on the board of an “evangelical” organization that appears to be connected to the Episcopal Church.

http://www.ees1862.org/06-newsletters/Final - Winter 08.pdf

External links must be disabled. Beers is Assistant Secretary on the board of the Evangelical Education Society. This outfit is connected to the Episcopal Church. My guess is that he belongs to TEC.

#127:
St. Misstate and All Angles…Church of the Insurrection…Church of the Unholy Trickery…Our Lady of Perpetual Litigation…St. HELLena’s…St. Lawyerence…Church of the Unprecious Bloodsucking…Church of the Disfigure-a-Nation…Church of the Condescension…Church of the Robbing of Peter to Pay Paul…Church of the Unholy Whitewashed Sepulchre…All Taints…Church of the Unholy Dross…Church of the Unvenerable Greed…Church of the Captivity…St. Shark the Fee Vandalist…Church of the Red Beamer…St. Shames…Unholy Apostates…St. Con the Decline…

Heist Church…

The links work if you highlight them from beginning to end and paste them to your browser.  The hypertext coding is missing at the end.

Mad Poter, I will try this one last time to try to communicate with you about the status of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.  There in no “new” and “old” diocese.  There is at the present time only one Episcopal/Anglican diocese.  Since no “new” diocese has been formed, the one and only diocese that has been formed, the one you refer to as “new” was created in 1983 out of the Diocese of Dallas.  That is the diocese that voted to depart TEC and affiliated temporarily with the Province of the Southern Cone.  If the Episcoplians who are resident in the only Episcopal/Anglican diocese in existence in this region of Texas wish to remain in TEC, they must take some action to do that, because the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (“EDFW”) has voted that the ENTIRE diocese depart TEC.  Therefore, those people who are members of EDFW (they are still presently members of EDFW) will need to form a new diocese.  There is no “old” diocese.

Perhaps part of the problem for you, and others, is the feeling that a diocese is somehow a spiritual entity that is not anchored to a physical locus.  The one holy catholic church is such an entity.  The universal church is made up of Christians no matter where they may be found.  Not so with a diocese.  A diocese has always been a specific entity within a specific church that contains a specific group of local congregations or parishes.  It is not a spiritual entity, such as the universal church, but a legal entity.  In order for the entity to exist, flesh and blood people have to get together and form it from a collection of congregations or parishes.  The EDFW was so formed in 1983.

Now, since the vote of the EDFW at the Diocesan Convention, November, 2008, has removed the EDFW from affiliation with TEC, if Episcopalians who reside in the EDFW wish to remain in TEC, they must create a new diocese from a collection of parishes.

The problem at All Saints (“ASFW”), getting back to the subject of this tread, is that Jambor+ has been misinforming his parishioners about their relationship with the EDFW and with TEC. He has been telling them that they are still in TEC and that their diocese no longer has a bishop. 

Jambor+ and company have planned, along with other misinformed clergy and bishops, to hold a special convention to restore the EDFW to its previous position prior to the Diocesan Convention, 2008, and to choose a new bishop.  Jambor+ apparently hopes to be chosen that new bishop.  Of course, since the business of the EDFW is governed by the charter, bylaws, constitution, and canons of the Corporation of the EDFW, and since it is a legal corporation, and since NONE of the participants in this special convention hold any office of authority in the corporation, their actions will have absolutely no effect upon the corporation.

In addition, Jambor+ refuses to allow his parishioners to have a vote about whether they want to remain in TEC or go to the Province of the Southern Cone.  If the parish does not vote legally, according to the canons of TEC and EDFW and the bylaws of ASFW, they are affiliated with the Province of the Southern Cone and not TEC.  If they wish to change that, the parish has to vote—not just the vestry—at a parish meeting to effect that change.  At present Jambor+ is operating illegally, according to his own parish bylaws.

The result of Jambor’s+ illegal action, he has forced a priest and a youth director to leave and three vestry members have been forced out because they refuse to sign the new and illegal loyalty oath.  He is attempting to stack the vestry with parishioners who are loyal to him and willing to continue along the illegal path he has chosen.  He, along with his allies and attorney, have concocted a “loyalty oath” requiring vestry candidates, delegate candidates, and church staff to pledge allegiance to TEC.  Ironically, the oath contains the same erroneous understanding of where ASFW stands because it states that the person signing it understands that ASFW is in TEC. 

Until the Episcopalians in the EDFW have a voice by voting to declare their desire to remain in TEC, the default position is that they are temporarily in the Southern Cone.  I have absolutely no problem with them voting to remain in TEC and establishig a new diocese.  I have a huge problem with anyone simply trying to take over the EDFW.  They lost the vote and the result of the vote applies to the ENTIRE diocese.  The only solution for them is for them to create a new diocese.

My apologies to all for the length of this comment.  But since I don’t intend to try to communicate this again to MP, I wanted to do the subject justice.  For anyone wishing to delve into this further go to: http://commonwealthreport.blogspot.com.

From the newsletter:

Come to the forum and get answers to questions such as:<ul>
<li> Why are vestry and convention-delegate nominees being required to sign an oath to uphold the constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church?
<li> Why will there be no vote at the annual meeting on whether to leave or remain in The Episcopal Church?
<li> What role is All Saints’ playing in the effort by continuing Episcopal parishes, missions, and faith-communities to reconstitute the Diocese of Fort Worth?
</ul>Led by Fr. Jambor, the first session of the forum takes place on Sunday, Jan. 11, at 10:00 a.m. The second and concluding session will be Sunday, Jan. 18, at the same time.

Both Sundays, pre-registration for the annual meeting will be conducted from 9:00 a.m. until noon.

I sincerely hope that some roisterer will attend and provide a full report.  These are fascinating questions.

Munki #85:

“Now, Maude, it says here in the bylaws that every local chapter must have a booth at the annual Metropolitan Area Garden Association show.”

“But last year every local club’s theme except ours was ‘the ecology of compost heaps’ and the stench was awful.”

“You realize, of course, that this would mean that your Swizzlestick Falls club couldn’t be part of the MAGA any more!”

“Well, as a matter of fact, I’ve been meaning to talk to you about that ...”

Immortalitas Equestris (#135): I suspect that someone in the Diocesan leadership who reads this blog will correct me if I am mistaken, but it’s my understanding that the Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese is a separate entity from the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, the latter being an unincorporated association. The corporation was created to hold title to all real property acquired for the use of the church in this diocese. It is governed by a board of trustees consisting of the Bishop and five trustees elected by the Diocesan Convention. Article 14 of the Diocesan Convention refers to church property being under the control of the Diocese acting “by and through” the corporation. Since it doesn’t make sense to refer to something as acting by and through itself, that indicates that we’re talking about two distinct (but related) entities.

One of the questions before the court when the probably inevitable lawsuits are filed may very well be which “Diocese of Fort Worth’s” convention has the authority to elect trustees to the corporation.

PaulR, one could read this the way you have, but I believe if an entity can act “by and through” a corporation, then the two are so related as to constitute one legal entity.  I have a copy of the Articles of Incorporation and the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation of the EDFW.  I do not have a copy of the Bylaws of the Corporation, which set out how Trustees are elected and by whom.  My belief is that the delegates to the Diocesan Convention make this election, which would mean that the Corporation and the EDFW are one and the same entity.  I do not believe that EDFW is an unincorporated association.  If the founders had the presence of mind to incorporate, surely they would not have left the diocese unincorporated for one purpose but incorporated for another.

I am certainly willing to be educated on this matter.

I.E., do you have any objection to my replying to this on your blog? I’d like to avoid derailing the conversation on this thread.

Mad Potter,

What’s it like to live on your planet?  Just curious.

Why can’t TEC simply accept the fact that another legitimate Anglican province will exist side-by-side with them on this continent, and there is nothing that they can do to prevent it….Rowan Cantuar’s recognition or non-recognition notwithstanding?  After all, all that is required for recognition is a majority of the primates, is it not?  Not being invited to Lambeth isn’t exactly the end of the world, is it?

And I know all about the “polity” issue, which seems to be so all-important to Schori and Company.  The truth is that they can’t stand the idea of someone else on their “turf.”

Cennydd,

OMGosh!  You’re post #144 made me suddenly think of the seagulls from Finding Nemo:  Mine! Mine! Mine! Mine!

Scene mentioned in my comment above:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDStBhQAxZU&feature=related

(Sorry for being off-topic, sort of, but I really needed the laugh and thought others might, too.)

PaulR, no objections at all.

#136 The answers will something like ....
Question 1 and 2: Because we are an Episcopal parish in The Episcopal Church called All Saints Episcopal Church which is part of The Fort Worth Episcopal Diocese that remained in The Episcopal Church, which is not to be confused with those non-Episcopalians that left with their Bishop.
Question 3: Someone needs to find all those Episcopalian survivors and we the Episcopal parish of The Episcopal Church called All Saints Episcopal Church ... can find them and welcome them home ....

Please see the CommonWealth blog re: property dispute http://commonwealthreport.blogspot.com/2008/12/episcopal-diocese-of-fort-worth.html?showComment=1231213200000#c6999846290554828917at

The saga continues at All Saints’:
http://www.allsaintsfortworth.org/InfoNews/CurrentEvents/index.htm
http://www.allsaintsfortworth.org/InfoNews/CurrentEvents/ASEC_vestry_letter.pdf

Christine (martin5) the saga only continues because of Iker and his very few loyalist.  All Saints has been full every Sunday for eucharist and even fuller in the Adult forum.  Today the very large group ended the adult forum by clapping showing their support for the stance All Saints has taken. I think the saga only continues for Iker who remains powerless over All Saints.

What I meant by saga, is the back and forth of letters from both sides, except from Fr. Jambor. Glad to hear that All Saints has been full every Sunday for Eucharist and the adult forums.

#143 Cennyd wrote:

“Why can’t TEC simply accept the fact that another legitimate Anglican province will exist side-by-side with them on this continent, and there is nothing that they can do to prevent it….Rowan Cantuar’s recognition or non-recognition notwithstanding?  After all, all that is required for recognition is a majority of the primates, is it not? 

  I believe the answer is no which is why +Rowan has asked Duncan/Gafcon primates to prepare their letter for the Anglican Consultative Council.  In addition, with regard to the admission of a new province, I recall that is with the consent of the province out of which it is being created.  I do not believe Mexico, Canada or the US will approve of a new North American province.

TEC is playing the double standards game, with their overseas jurisdictions alongside that of the Church of England;  The American Churches (Episcopal) in Europe, for instance.  There is nothing in the constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council nor anywhere else in the Anglican Communion which gives TEC sole claim as the representative of the Anglican Communion in the United States.

The Anglican Church in North America….the new Anglican province….is already in existence, and no amount of denial is going to change that, and we will be formally launched this June, following ratification of our Constitution and Canons.  It would be nice to have Canterbury’s approval, to be sure, but do we really need it?  No, we don’t!

Everyone knows that KJS will do her damndest to torpedo our new province, since she seems to have such overriding influence on the ACC, and she thinks she runs things.

HumbleServant4J, whenever I hear reports hear of large crowds in revisionist churches, I have learned to press further. Has ASA actually increased at All Saints? How many of your clapping attendees were from other churches? 

I have yet to see a single revisionist parish demonstrate healthy ASA growth.  Maybe this is the first.

First, All Saints is not a revisionist Church.  We remain to be who we were before Iker abandoned us.  We are a Church full of all sides who choose to worship together.  We have chosen to pickup where Iker abandoned us and work within the polity of the TEC for change. 
The Church has lost maybe 10 percent of parishioners.  But many more have become active again to fend off Iker and his hopes to get our Church property and school.

When did +Iker bring the school into this?

That is the whole reason he wants All Saints.  He wants to sell the school to fund his litigation expenses.

The only time I have known when the school was drag into this, was when the Steering Committee announced on its website that the convention will probably be held at the school. Those plans have since changed, which is a good thing. The convention would have done serious harm to the school.

He wants to sell the school to fund his litigation expenses.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
HumbleServant4J,
I am beginning to think that the “J” in your moniker may actually stand for Judas nor Jesus! If you are going to continue to make these outlandish accusations…then prove up! Give us your hard factual proof of Bishop Iker wanting to get the school of All Saints to sale it for litigation defense against TEc and KJS! If you have none then you are under obligation to us, Bishop Iker and Jesus to repent and ask for forgiveness in bringing false witness against Bishop Iker!

correction nor Jesus should be “not Jesus”
My apologies!

Relax ODC…it’s only Father Jake.
Intercessor

Well Iker was told no also about having diocesan convention at the school.  However Iker attempted to discredit school by publishing a self serving letter on his website that was picked up by some news services.  Steering committee listed the school as a possible site.  They were quickly told no.

The school controls its own property. The church can’t even touch it. This is just more untruths. Like I said, the saga continues ...

The school is a separate corporation with one shareholder, All Saints Church.  The vestry of All Saints Church can dissolve the School board with or without cause.  It is all in the by-laws of the school.  Sorry you are wrong.

Told no, but not quickly. The school should stay neutral in all of this. However, it seems that it has entered the conversation again but not by the Bishop.

Dissolve the school board and the ramifications would hurt the school. Is that what you want? Now who is threatening the school?

The vestry of All Saints Church can dissolve the School board with or without cause.

Then maybe the school should be more wary of you and your vestry than Bishop Iker!
I’m still waiting for your proof of your accusations!

The school is part of TEC because All Saints is part of the TEC pursuant to the by-laws.  The best way for the school to be neutral is for Iker and his few “insiders” at All Saints to move on.

The best way for the school to be neutral is for Iker and his few “insiders” at All Saints to move on.

How inclusively christian of you HumbleServant4J! Your true self is really shinning through!

No. The best way would be for it to be left alone. Bishop Iker isn’t the one that is threatening to dissolve the Board. Perhaps the school should change its bylaws, so it can’t be threatened by the church nor TEC.

My response was to martin5 that stated All Saints does not have control over the school.  Dissolving the board is an example of control allowed under the by-laws.

Iker knows if he gets control of All Saints he gets the school.  Iker needs money to fund his litigation against TEC.

There is nothing to substantiate that.

Of course one can argue anything. Some evidence for one’s argument is generally what persuades others.

HS4J….WHERE IS YOUR PROOF OF YOUR ACCUSATION?

Iker needs money to fund his litigation against TEC.

I just answered this quote, but it didn’t post for some reason…hope it doesn’t double post.  Anyway, this accusation is totally false.  He does not need the money to fund litigation against TEC because he is not planning any—they are planning it against us.  Also, some really “deep pockets” have offered to cover the cost if/when TEC files suits on us.  So, your argument holds no water.

Where is your proof that he is not????

Proof—is Iker has sent a canon 32 letter to All Saints.  What other proof do you need.  He has spoken to people at the school (not episcopalians or anglicans) about ability to raise money to buy the school.

Why does Iker want All Saints so bad?  Power, ego, Money!!!!!

In general, the one making an argument needs to provide evidence to persuade others of the plausibility of their case.

1. For those of us who are ignorant, what is a canon 32 letter?

2. Your claim was that the Bishop wanted to sell the school. Your hearsay evidence (in general rather a weak kind of argumentative support) is that he wants to buy it. Which is it?

Canon 32-  Iker’s putative ability to resolve a dispute between a rector and vestry.  He thinks he can disolve the current vestry and then appoint his own. 

If Iker can get control of All Saints he will spin off the school.  Sell not buy.

Canon 32 is a legal way for TEC parishes to leave the Diocese. It comes from the Diocese of Dallas. Here is the link: http://www.fwepiscopal.org/resources/canons2007ii.html

Parishes can take their property out of the Diocese and stay with TEC but there has to be a vote to leave. However, the leadership of All Saints will not allow a vote. Why? Check out the Steering Committee’s website on the the Vestry Handbook. There is to be no Canon 32, nor a vote of any kind. The problem, is that this has caused a great division at the church. We have lost a great many members, we have had difficulty in filling in volunteer spots for the past year and people are starting to resign from their positions. Not all is well and therefore, Canon 32 has been invoked. I am glad that things are great on your side of the fence, HumbleServant but not everyone is happy. Frankly, I am getting tired of the whole thing. Is it true that TEC’s Christ The King used the school property for worship. I hope not because then the school is not remaining neutral is it?

Christine,
There is no split at All Saints.  You should have been at the adult forum.  An out pouring of support for the Vestry and Fr. Jambor. Controversy at All Saints where????

I’m afraid I must be missing something. I understand the tension, if you believe Bishop Iker plans to dissolve the Vestry. (If that were to be so, sadly, he wouldn’t be the first Bishop in the midst of this conflict to do so. I would genuinely love to think that you felt so strongly about other vestries that have been dissolved elsewhere in TEC).

But what has lead you to believe that even if he were to attempt to do so that he plans to sell off the school? Perhaps I misunderstood your hearsay evidence - has the Bishop communicated that he has possible buyers?

In a situation of conflict it is very easy to think the worst of one’s “opponent” and looming canonical or legal disputes can cast conflict in a terribly adversarial light. But FWIW it seems to me that hearsay evidence is weak (if any) support for your claim.

driver8,
There must be some rumor going around that HumbleServant is bought into. More fear tactics from TEC. I see no proof. There is division in the church. All Saints is an orthodox parish that appears to be going down the revisionist fast track if things don’t change soon.

Well, as an utter outsider, your own tone communicates that some conflict is underway. The request for loyalty oaths and the public show of support for your priest at the Adult Forum indicate the presence of some conflict. (Of course, it may well be that the underlying conflict is between a majority and a smaller or larger minority - but such is the case often in conflicts in parish life).

Not to mention, 3 vestry members resigning along with a priest and youth minister ....

No proof from HS4J! I must say….we need to stop feeding this servant of something as it has now become a three rig circus with this servant of something as I am sure it is not Christ Jesus! TEc….KJS…..possibly….he has no proof and is running in circles like a dog chasing its own tail….time to either move on or close the thread! IMHO!!!!

I’m sorry to hear the bitter words that are arising out of this conflict. As one sinner to others, please let me urge you to remember your love for those with whom you disagree. Faithful witness must surely be borne and truth spoken (and truth will show the darkness of our world for what it is) but love never ends. Whatever we do - we must genuinely love those with whom we disagree. If we do not genuinely love them - better to remain silent.

Also Driver8,
If one cannot back up with valid factual proof of ones accusations then one must also keep silent on the issue unless they contribute in a positive way to the disagreement or give proof of their accusations. It is damaging to continually let someone rant and rave accusations around of which they cannot give factual proof. I believe our Lord said something regarding that.

I agree driver8. I have no bitter words, nor do I like bitter words to be spoken.

#191 Yes - I think that’s right. Hearsay is not a strong basis on which to make an argument. Perhaps in due course there will be other and better evidence and the argument can reasonably be made again. But until then it does seem to me that the damage that might reasonably be thought to be being done to the Bishop’s reputation by making such a case on the basis of such weak evidence, is uncharitable.

HumbleServant4J (#171),

The school is part of TEC because All Saints is part of the TEC pursuant to the by-laws.  The best way for the school to be neutral is for Iker and his few “insiders” at All Saints to move on.

Perhaps you can explain this passage from the Articles of Incorporation of ALL SAINTS EPISCOPAL SCHOOL OF FORT WORTH, secretary of state filing # 138870001 filed on February 20, 1996:

Article IV.
In the accomplishment of such purposes, the corporation shall operate an Episcopal School to be known as ALL SAINTS EPISCOPAL SCHOOL OF FORT WORTH, sponsored by ALL SAINTS EPISCOPAL CHURCH (“the Sponsor”).

In the accomplishment of such purposes and subject to the terms and conditions hereof, the corporation shall (a) recognize and accede to the authority of the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese of Fort Worth (as the same now exist or may be amended from time to time hereafter, the “Constitution and Canons”)...(b) receive real property, title to which shall be vested according to the Constitution and Canons;

How is it now that that the school is part of TEC? How is it that ALL SAINTS EPISCOPAL CHURCH is part of TEC? The school corporation operated by the vestry of the church is required to accede to the AMENDED C&C;of Diocese of FORT WORTH (not TEC) by its Articles of Incorporation. There is no argument that the C&C;of Diocese of Fort Worth were not legally amended by a vote according to the C&C;. In fact, you are claiming just that. While you may dissent from that vote, under the Articles of Incorporation of the school you must recognize and accede to it.

RE: “There is no conflict in our parish.”

RE: “There is no split at All Saints.”

Heh.

Heh heh.

—we believe you completely”]Of course not, HumbleServant4J [sic]—we believe you completely.

http://www.allsaintsfortworth.org/InfoNews/CurrentEvents/ASEC_vestry_letter.pdf
There are three vestry members listed that failed to “respond”. Does this mean they didn’t sign onto the letter to Bishop Iker? Where is the documentation to substantiate the vestry’s allegations about the school?

Hellcat—Wow.  Thanks for providing that link.  What a bunch of petulant children.

Also: Bishop Iker, I hope you’re dealing with the Diocese’s 28th share in the University of the South in a similarly direct and appropriate manner.

HumbleServant4J:
There is a split. I left. I’m sure I’m not the only one.

That is an incredibly rude letter.  The contradiction is funny, though:  if there is no law that allows the action voted on at the convention, as these people claim, then nothing happened at the convention, and +Jack Iker is still these fine folks’ bishop, and their rector is still bound to obedience to him.

Re: the Vestry’s Letter to Bishop Iker.  You know, they have those computer programs you can run on a text that will help you try to figure out who authored it.  The computer looks at lexicon, syntax, that kind of thing, and compares it with documents that you know have been authored by a certain person.

I’m not sure we need such a program here, though.  Do we HumbleServant4J?

Heh - “you’re not the boss of me!”

CarolynP I was also struck by the wording of the letter. One would think they could put four sentences together that didn’t sound like it was written by sixth graders.
I guess they didn’t run it by the lawyers first in their eagerness to get it to Bishop Iker.