BREAKING: The Bishop of the Diocese of Fort Worth Responds to the Presiding Bishop

This is a GREAT response from Bishop Iker!!

I appreciate the way he gets specific about the nature (attempted intimidation) of KJS’s tactics, and the way he underlines the precedent for voluntary union of the Diocese with the GC of TEC.

Bravo!

ps strong letter to follow

Good for you, Sir, and we are WITH YOU right across the street. 

God’s blessings,

Geek in Dallas

THAT’S MY BISHOP!!!!!

MINE, TOO!!!! YEHAW!!!!You go, Sir!!!

Unfortulately not my Bishope, but my kinda Bishop.

Let’s get ready to RUMBLE!!!! Standing Ovation here in San Joaquin for Bp.Iker.
Intercessor

And mine as well.  He was just awesome at last night’s Common Cause Partnership potluck supper at St. Vincent’s Cathedral!!!  He received several long sustained rounds of applause during his remarks and the question & answer session that followed.
Praise be to God for our faithful Bishop Jack!!!

Very nicely said, Bishop Iker.  I’m happy that it was clarified for her what the clergy actually vows to be loyal to.  I’m also happy to see a clear rejection of the “charges,” an open rebuke for the letter and the misuse of her office, and finally the wrap up with “we brought this diocese into the Church, we can take this diocese right on out of it.” (sounding like a variation on my Dad, now and again, when I was a kid

Stand Firm, Bp. Iker!

As much as I think the ABC is identifying too much with his waffle iron, his confirmation that the diocese is more important than the national church is having wonderful effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_and_take_it

Favorite part:

Your aggressive, dictatorial posturing has no place in that decision. Sadly, however, your missive will now be one of the factors that our Convention will consider as we determine the future course of this diocese …

It almost seems like the whole thing was written to be “quote-proof” versus the next Episcopal Life functionary that tries to headline an article, “Diocese Rejects PB’s Extended Hand of Reconciliation.”  Heh.

Should make for an interesting convention in Fort Worth. Excellent reply!

Woo-hoooooo!  Wow, that was a Monday morning pick-me-up!

Most respected and esteemed Bishop Iker:
An excellent reply to Ms. Schori’s letter of attack. You have my full support !  I and my family are standing firmly with you and our Lord and Savior.
God Bless you at all times, A member of your Diocese
P.S. A short time ago, I wrote an email to Ms. Schori concerning her abuse of you.  I suggest others who support you do the same.

This is a GREAT letter!

I really wish he was my bishop. Heck, I really wish I had a Christian as a Bishop….

I have one of those blog thingies

What a shock it must be for KJS to have to deal with men with backbones after all those years of squids.

Perhaps she forgot she was dealing with a Texan?

My Friends have a bumper sticker that says: Naturalized Texan: Wasn’t born here, but I got here as fast as I could.

As for me…Born…raised…and gonna die here.

Good thing Kevin is going to live broadcast the convention on Anglican TV. It will be the game to watch. Send him money if he needs it so all can watch the fun.

Priceless!! So is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jointcolors.jpg

I know that comparisons can be odious, but I am much more comfortable with the tone and content of this letter than of than those of Bishop Duncan’s letter last week. While admittedly it may be no more than butting his head against a brick wall, Bishop Iker has made the effort to communicate his thoughts and feelings in some detail to the Presiding Bishop (and the wider church), rather than simply offer a curt rebuff. For that I for one am grateful.

Bishop Iker speaks the truth.  He is a true defender of the Faith.  He knows the fate of those that will bow down to the General Convention Religion.  God Bless Bishop Iker!

Preach it Bishop!!!!! Amen!!!!

It would be my hope and prayer that all Bishops read this, and that they learn and inwardly digest what this good Bishop is saying.  It could be an eye opener for many, it also speaks volumes about how the word “INCLUSIVE” isn’t.  Out of one side of the mouth THEY talk about room in the church for everyone, and out of the other side, they say, “IF YOU AGREE WITH US” you can be “IN”.

This letter is useful because it identifies the real purposes and tactics of the Presiding Bishop and her legal advisors. When somebody is doing wrong, simply naming the wrong honestly is a good first step. TEC’s suffocating rhetoric about “reconciliation” and “tolerance” of the orthodox is nonsense, of course. This letter accurately describes what 815 is really doing to the orthodox. Note also that events in the USA are now accelerating.

Not to divert the thread, but I still haven’t heard anything from the ABC other than his passive acquiesence in what Abp. Venables is doing. We are well into November and all we hear from Lambeth is the sound of crickets chirping. Not good enough. The window is closing, Rowan; this is your last chance to save your office.

Don’t mess with Texas!

we here in FW love Bishop Iker, because he has the gift of clarity.  He saw Schori’s letter for what it was, and played it right back at her.
God bless the man

favorite line:
“As you well know, the polity of this Church requires the full participation of the clergy and lay orders, not just bishops, in the decision making process.”
that’s called beating somebody at their own game.

Shub dat in yer pipe an smoke it sistah Kate!

Another great response from another great bishop!  Bishop Iker, it is a pleasure and an honor to stand beside you and count you as a Christian brother!

B I N G O !!!!

Go Bishop Iker!!! Continue speaking the truth in the power of God and of his son Jesus, who is the way, the truth and the life.

“ROAR”, goes Bp Jack Leo the lion Iker. That is a letter of a religious leader as opposed to a bureaucrat of a secular organization.

Question: Who is Jack Leo Iker?
Answer: Bishop of Fort Worth; Unapologetic Defender and Faithful Proclaimer of the True Gospel of Our Lord;  Man with the Right Conviction and a Strong Spine; a true shepherd of the Lord’s flock.

Respectfully submitted by:
Rev. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Vicar and Priest of
St. Philip-the-Apostle
Arlington, Diocese of Fort Worth.

INSANITY: Repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result.

I wonder who’s next on ++Kate’s Hit Parade of Letters?

commandante snarko

Wait till you hear the audio from last night.  No punches pulled, no pussyfooting or episcospeak.  I do love my Bishop!

So much for the Big Tent RDW++
Intercessor

Strong as steel yet dripping in grace. Obviously written after much prayer, for I don’t think it’s very nature for any of us to get that combination right.

Well said Bishop Iker.
If the flying monkeys are coming they’d better watch,Ft Worth is waiting with loaded Vulcans(high rate of fire anti-aircraft and ground attack artillery).

As bad as things are for you who are still in TEC, I shudder to think of how much worse it would be without men like +Jack Iker.  God bless him.

How this letter and that of Bishop Duncan’s must pierce the heart of lesser men.

So Fort Worth has only been a diocese for 25 years? Sounds like a case of last in, first out.

In closing, let me be very clear. While your threats deeply sadden us, they do not frighten us. We will continue to stand firm for the unchanging truth of the Holy Scriptures and the redeeming Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, whatever the costs.

love it - Go get ‘em, Bishop Iker.

Ecce sacerdos magnus.  And his clergy and laity, too.

Culey,
Sounds more like the ones bailing are TEC,from the Faith held by the Christian church for 2000 years,not apostolic succession by a long shot,unless you count Judas,Phygelus and Hermogenes in your ‘apostolic succession’.
Paddy

And an inspiration to other bishops!

... as the Presiding Bishop you would misuse your office in an attempt to intimidate and manipulate this diocese.

Grounds for presentment against a sitting presiding bishop??

Culeitreach,
FW was split off from Dallas 25 years ago.
So, in reality, it’s been around 100 years.
So much for red herring fishing.
Jane, Edwin’s wife

Oh how I wish the Central NY Diocese had a Godly leader like Bishop Iker.  Here is what we have:
http://www.syracuse.com/poststandard/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1194861652313660.xml&coll=1

I guess the rest of us just need to have hope in the knowledge that God has a plan.

Bp. Iker is fearless. He also has a gift for hoisting revisionist leaders on their own petards, notably including dialogue, reconciliation, polity, autonomy, outside interference, full participation of the laity.

Since revisionist leaders’ thinking, theology, and rhetoric are so petard-laden, Bp. Iker rightly makes this abundant alternative energy source do some honest work.
PS: For the etymology of “petard”:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/petard

Both +Iker and +Duncan sent outstanding letters.  While not privileged to know either personally, my feeling is that the letters were appropriate to the personalities of the senders.  And to the recipient.

Let me join in the “THAT’S MY BISHOP” chorus :D

I have admired Bishop Iker from the first time I met him, and while I didn’t attend the Common Cause dinner last night, I was at St. Alban’s (for the last time until baby’s born :(  that’s what I get for living in Dallas) when he performed 3 baptisms and a truckload of confirmations (I lost count) yesterday morning.

+Iker is truly a gifted and Godly man.  I have nothing but the utmost respect for him and am very grateful that my husband and I are a part of this diocese.  Those of you in dioceses with liberal bishops are certainly in our prayers.

PS:  There should be a warning to not eat or drink anything before reading this letter.  My sandwich almost went flying across the room when I jumped up hollerin’ while reading.

And that’s my Irenaeus! (Not really mine, but… )
Very funny.

WOOOHOOOO!!! You go, Bishop Iker!!! Talk about clarity! TEC won’t know what to do with it—there aren’t any obfuscations or doublespeak involved!

Take THAT!

The ENS has finally posted a story on Bishop Ikers reply.

I have one of those blog thingies

Hmmm - ENS seems very verbose in reporting +Iker’s concise reply:

Words: ENS = 792;  +Iker = 436
Characters (no spaces) ENS = 4239; +Iker = 2,104
Paragraphs: ENS = 14; +Iker = 7
Lines: ENS = 65; +Iker = 33

Jan Nunley spends a lot of time trying to spin this, maybe she should have just published the letter for IMHO she took many more words to say much less content.

It is interesting the ENS story listed the trial court names or deposition committe or Title IV whatever. Guess they are a little out of joint or as we say in these parts: a tad irritated about the burr under that saddle. Prunes will help.

Yes, good for Bp. Iker.  And, Enlightened, thanks for the link to the Joint Colors.  Semper Paratus! Semper Fidelis!  May we be Always Prepared and Always Faithful!

I went and read the ENS news story about the Rt. Rev. Jack Fort Worth’s reply to the Most Rev. Katherine.  At the end of the ENS story, they outline the procedure that canonical discipline would follow:

The Presiding Bishop could ask the Title IV Review Committee to consider whether the bishops supporting those constitutional changes have abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church. If the committee agreed that abandonment had taken place, the bishops would have two months to recant before the matter went to the full House of Bishops. If the House concurred, the Presiding Bishop could depose the bishops and declare the episcopates of those dioceses vacant. There is no appeal and no right of formal trial outside of a hearing before the House of Bishops.

Members of congregations remaining in the Episcopal Church would be gathered to organize a new diocesan convention and elect a replacement Standing Committee, if necessary. An assisting bishop would be appointed until a search process could be initiated and a new bishop elected and consecrated. A lawsuit could be filed against the departed leadership and a representative sample of departing congregations if they attempted to retain Episcopal Church property.

My question is this: if the realigning Dioceses are trying to do things “by the book,” and thus legally and canonically separate from the federation of dioceses known as the Episcopal Church in the USA (I refuse to call it TEC: I mean, the word “the” should not be capitalized and it is not the only episcopal church in the world—but I digress), would they be able to continue to pursue these Constitutional amendments with revisionist Bishops installed by the Pagan Magesterium (i.e., 815)?

If so, what would that process look like (pardon me if this seems an elementary question—I’m a late-comer to Anglicanism (and episcopal polity (peace be upon it, as some are wont to say here on Stand Firm)) from the Southern Baptist Convention)?

I guess it comes down to this: could a revisionist Bishop stonewall a reasserting dicoeasan convention?  Or is there some parliamentary trick they’d use to re-compose a more favorably-inclined convention to defeat the amendments?

Your aggressive, dictatorial posturing

WHOA!

your missive will now be one of the factors that our Convention will consider as we determine the future course of this diocese

YESSS!!

While your threats deeply sadden us, they do not frighten us.

AWWWRIIIGHHT!!!

Bp. Iker, you da man!  Keep up the good work!

I want to be like +Iker when I grow up. That took guts!!!!

Bishop Iker, in the words on the first Texas battle flag, has just told TEC and ++KJS:
“Come and Take It”
May God bless Bishop Iker and his flock.  Would that the Diocese of Texas had such a Bishop and not it’s “Windsor Bishop”

Man, that’s gonna leave a mark.

Hoo Ha! The right upper-cut (Bishop Iker’s letter) after the set-up left-jab (Bishop Duncan’s reply). W00t!!!

Ms. Nunley seems not to have read the information about the Dio of Fort Worth’s (and Dallas’) constitution about properties being held in trust for the corporation, not for The Episcopal cult.

Defending the faith and guarding the flock - sounds like a Christian Bishop.

Dear Bishop Iker,
Wonderful letter!!  However, there does seem to be one thing missing:  the “CC” to that ditherer across the pond who needs to know how a REAL man of God acts in these extreme circumstances.  Please see that the see of C gets a copy!

Right Reverend Sir,

Thank you, once again, for being our fearless leader and defender of the faith once delivered.  I will be honored to stand with you this weekend at our convention as we move to get on with doing His work.

A magnificent response from a real bishop.

It is a genuine honor to serve under an authentic defender of the Faith.

Well worth my signing on today.

You remain in my prayers +Iker. One must stand firm under the bark of bullies.

This is how an articulate southern gentleman says “Not just no …….” 

I scanned through all the comments and didn’t see anything from “Padre” Wayne or Tom Woodward. Strange.

The real question comes down to this:  Can a diocese, as a body, leave TECUSA after it has been in union with the General Convention?  Well, there is nothing in the Constitution and Cannons concerning a diocese leaving TECUSA.  So, let’s follow the legal reasoning on other subjects about which the C&C;are silent.  Concerning the ordination of men or women who are sexually active outside of marriage, the reappraisers yelled “There’s nothing in the canons to prevent it!”  In the Righter Trial, the court laid out the idea that doctrine can be refined into “core doctrine.”  Since church polity is not part of the core doctrine detailed by the Righter Trial court and since the canons are silent on a diocese leaving TECUSA and transferring to another province, then it should be allowed (following the same logic that reappraisers themselves use). 

Now, once it is accomplished that a diocese formerly in communion with TECUSA leaves, then it follows that those clergy (including the bishop) who wish to continue with the diocese should be removed from TECUSA roles for having left the communion of TECUSA.  They may still be in communion with Canterbury, but they are not in communion with TECUSA.  That, of course, assumes that TECUSA admits that the diocese has left TECUSA.  TECUSA should, then, be free to form another legal entity that is the diocese in communion with TECUSA, but it shouldn’t get the buildings, trust funds, or other things belonging to the diosese that has left TECUSA.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Via Orthodoxy on Where are Woodward and Wayne?
Re:TBW, Schori’s Parfait Gentil Knight, and Wayne, Reappraiser To The Stars.
Even those two may not have the timerity to assault this man of God. Perhaps somewhere in their darkness a tiny glint of light has given them pause.

Pray for their conversion.

Dear Bishop Iker,

Thank you for such a clear statement of what needed to be said.

Rudy+

And along a kind of similar line…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071112/NATION/111120057/1001
us episkies stay in the news. might not care for the slant. but we stay in the news…and the litigation continues forward.

Everytime an Iker or a Duncan becomes more clear and bold, the weakness, timidity, and compromise of allegedly ‘orthodox’ dioceses like South Carolina becomes more evident

Well . . . only for those who believe that “weakness, timidity, and compromise” are automatic for all those who stay in ECUSA and that one can only refrain from being weak, timid, or compromising by leaving ECUSA.

But not in my mind. 

South Carolina—to me—is strong, courageous, and strategic.

I expect those differences in definitions of words may well become more and more common these days as people continue to make decisions.

Sarah,
I would agree with you about S.C., but I’ve been waiting to hear from Texas, West Texas, Western LA, Northern Indiana, Albany, Central Florida etc.  It is only a matter of time before the reformation of revisionism takes hold over a majority of clergy and leaders in those diocese and traditional Christians in those places will last only as long as they have Christian rectors.  I think we are in facing a complete unraveling of TEC in the next five years.  As the ship sinks, I hope there is enought stuff in the water for innocent travelors to hold on too.

I know the easiest thing is for the Bishop to just retire, but i remember somewhere were Jesus talks about how the hierling flees the sheep when the wolf attacks.  The Good Shepherd does not abandon his flock.  I guess things are going to get messy.

God bless.

R+

Defending the faith and guarding the flock - sounds like a Christian Bishop.

Agreed.

Bishops. They are supposed to be shepherds ya know, Kate, not sheep!

There’s mighty Jack Iker, out there swingin a Big stick in defense of his flock like he should be. That is part of the beauty of this faith, in that Christ left us the office of shepherds, our bishops, to stand in his stead on earth and defend us in spiritual battle with all the ferocity and steadfastness of true love, until he comes again.

I’ve said it before and may I get to say it a thousand times more. God bless Bishop Iker and all of our godly bishops.

I still estimate that the half life of “orthodoxy” in episcopal dioceses is 15 years tops.  There will never be another bishop who opposes WO, and the last to oppose the gay agenda is already a priest.  Mark Lawrence took 2 first round majorities to be consented to.  Think he’d have made it at all if he opposed WO?  Think that the balance in the HoB is going to shift AWAY from the gay agenda?  If so, why?

Hi DeanRead,

I’m not certain what you mean by “hear from” those dioceses.  If you are meaning by hear from that you are waiting to hear that they are leaving, maybe they don’t believe that they are called to do so.

Or maybe there’s some other reason they have not announced anything, I dunno. 

Or maybe you mean something else when you say “hear from” other than “we are leaving”?  If so, I hope that you will clarify.

You know . . . just three months ago people were persistently and repeatedly and vociferously claiming “There will never be another bishop” about a priest called Mark Lawrence—some on this very blog—proving to me that the reports of people’s prophetic accuracy are greatly exaggerated.

+Iker to KJS/DDB/TEC:“You’re fired, we’ll take our business elsewhere.”

I find myself with nowhere else to go. Why should I leave the church of my ancestors and my childhood. I think Sarah is right. I also believe that Micaiah has a point. Four years ago I fired the institutional cardiologists who were certain I was beyond help and took my business elsewhere.

Note:  There have been questions as why few reappraisers have posted here.  Seems that they are all over on T19 posting.

Thanks for the head’s-up, BillB. I’m having a good evening and will avoid T19 until tomorrow. I have to watch my BP.

A man with such strength and Christian Faith in Caterbury not only could heal the Anglican Communion but also bring the rest of the catholic church rushing to our sides.  Duncan and Iker display how a Christian bishop leads.  Others who wear the purple and want the same respect and honor should go and do likewise.

ok, ok. read the whole thing.  They really don’t have anything to say, do they?
Peace. Hang-tight, The Lord will provide.
Tex

Tell it like it is, Bishop Iker!  Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DeanReed,

+Wemberly has said on many occasions his desire is to remain Episcopalian AND remain in communion w/ Canterbury as long as possible. For better or worse, he has not given any indication that he plans on spending the final two years in office leading DioTex out of The Error-prone Church.

What +Wemberly is giving us orthodox is time and a clear mandate for what we need to do - get ourselves organized and ensure our next bishop is actually Christian!

Sadly, I do not posses the christian charity of men like +Jack Iker.  IMO his letter was too polite.  In his address, he even recognized her as PB.  Where did that come from? OK, she is the PB of TEC, granted, but I thought he didn’t recognize her as “his PB”.  Or maybe he has already reached the position of admitting that he is no longer a member of TEC.  Anyway, he was gracious to a fault in my opinion.  I liked +Bob’s letter better.  But I would have preferred an even shorter renunciation.

Maybe a quote from William F. Buckly: “I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence.”

I find it fascinating that the official “scenario” keeps shifting. It is apparent that they will pursue charging my bishop with abandonment of the communion of this church. But then comes the foggy bit. And the part that keeps changing. Remove the Standing Committee. ?Call for a new convention. How then do you remove a Standing Committee? The canons presume that the Standing Committee becomes the Ecclesiastical Authority in the absence of a bishop. Where is the canonical authority given to the PB to interfere in the internal affairs of a diocese? It isn’t. She can’t call a diocesan convention. How would you decide who can vote in a new convention if you could call one? Who is going to guard the door? I’d be interested in hearing the chapter and verse in the canons that say how this can be implemented. Until that can be laid out clearly, it is just bluff and bluster.

As you well know, the polity of this Church

Lol! Hoist by their own petard, eh?

Sadly, however, your missive will now be one of the factors that our Convention will consider as we determine the future course of this diocese for the next 25 years and beyond, under God’s grace and guidance.

And again…

In closing, let me be very clear. While your threats deeply sadden us, they do not frighten us.

Bravo!

We will continue to stand firm for the unchanging truth of the Holy Scriptures

favorite line:
“As you well know, the polity of this Church requires the full participation of the clergy and lay orders, not just bishops, in the decision making process.”
that’s called beating somebody at their own game.

mine, too.

I love this.  I liked bp duncan’s response but I love this.  It calls her out on everything, including the way she’s tried to manipulate polity to make it authoritarian when it’s convenient and yet we-can’t-do-anything-without-consulting-general -convention democratic when that suits.  And I’d disagree that it’s too polite.  It’s politely devastating.  There’s no chance she’ll miss the point.  None whatsoever.  Meanwhile, he hasn’t stooped to mere rudeness.  It’s absolutely freaking brilliant.  What a bishop.

And I’d disagree that it’s too polite.  It’s politely devastating

Nicely put.

It’s absolutely freaking brilliant.  What a bishop.

I wonder if ENS will give credit to Bishop Minns?

This is a superb and courageous letter, saying what needed to be said exactly the way it needed to be said.

But I would hesitate to use it as a stick to beat other Windsor bishops.  FW has, I’m sure, spent quite a while studying their own history, Texas law, the political situation of their Via Media opponents, the firmness of their SC, their diocesan resources available for courtroom battles, and so on.  I fearlessly predict that if ++Rowan finally decides to back the Global South and discipline TEC while making some provision for retaining Windsor dioceses in the Communion, the improved legal and canonical situation will allow the rest of the Camp Allen/Windsor group to take a more aggressive stance towards 815’s kindergarten totalitarianism. 

Nonetheless, the Crosier Cowboy deserves our deepest gratitude, blessings, and admiration for this response.  Oak leaf clusters for the ten-gallon miter…

This is beautiful! I don’t remember ever reading a more coherent, precise, well-thought out and powerful message anywhere! God bless Bishop Iker. This’ll teach Katherine not to mess with a Texan!! Bishop Iker’s letter couldn’t have been stronger or clearer. He not only stood up to her, he reprimanded her! I love it! After this, the diocese had better separate, or their life within ECUSA will be miserable.

From the entrails of a less than courageous Diocese:
God, I miss being in Fort Worth!

Sarah:
I recognize and respect your position. However, haven’t you found evangelism to be a bit compromised by continued association with a national entity that appears to many to be outside the spectrum of accepted Christianity? Given that our main purpose as a church is the salvation of souls the need to explain that we believe in the saving power of Jesus Christ while at the same saying that “Yes, we are Episcopalians but we really don’t accept the heretical teachings of the Episcopal Church ” (tough even to write without getting my tongue tied in a knot) by definition makes the task at hand damned near impossible, eh?

Ryan, don’t know if you are still around but I tried to get down for the convention but simply couldn’t get the funds. God bless and keep the faith! I’ll be watching and praying for you!
John+
AP

RE: “However, haven’t you found evangelism to be a bit compromised by continued association with a national entity that appears to many to be outside the spectrum of accepted Christianity?”

No.  The reason is that I don’t think that seekers and pagans have a flying clue about ECUSA, nor do they ask these questions.  Further, I have no qualms—never have—about sending folks to other churches, if they get to a point where church is a helpful next step.  Depending on whom I am speaking with, I recommend all sorts of churches—even [gasp] some seeker churches of various denominations.

I customize my conversations with pagans and seekers constantly, and certainly customize my church recommendations for them.

I also question your statement that “our main purpose as a church is the salvation of souls”.  I think that is the Holy Spirit’s main purporse.  I would say that the main purpose of Christians is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

The ways we glorify God are many—and not all of them are very spiritual sounding.  We may glorifiy God by our excellence in trash pickup in the city sanitation department.  We may glorify God by our excellence in designing a corporate brochure.  We may glorify God by our political campaigning for an elected office.

I think that the strictures and stagnation, in fact, in Christian thought and practice have a lot to do with the one-note samba sung unfortunately by so many Christians that “soul-winning” is our one goal. It is not my job to “soul win”—it is my job to glorify God and as such to witness to Jesus Christ in word and deed.

Should someone engage me in conversation—as they often do—they will not find me slack in pointing to Christ, I hope—and as friendships progress, into helping them explore various types of churches so that they may further seek Jesus.

Fr. Cantrell-
obviously, to continue their strategy they would have to depose the Standing Committee priests for having abandoned the Communion of the Church, as well.  The problem is that that still leaves the lay members of the SC, who I don’t think they can depose, although I’m sure they’ll come up with somehting.
The way I understand it then, is that the laity could then elect more priests, who are faithful orthodox priests to their SC, and then TEC will have to depose them, too.  And the cycle would then have to continue until all of the faithful priests in FW are deposed.  So, you’re point is good.  What can they really do?  Do they think that they can depose the whole Diocese?  And then after that, people are going to be so endeared to KJS that they will simply hand over all the land and churches to her?
Schori is a smart woman.  I don’t see how she really thinks that she can do anything here.  She should have negogiated.

I understand that C.S. Lewis once preached a sermon based on the collect for the Fourth Sunday after Trinity (BCP 1928)/Proper 12 (BCP 1979). That collect begins “O God, the protector of all that trust in thee, without whom nothing is strong, nothing is holy….”. In The Screwtape Letters Screwtape tells Wormwood that, indeed, without God, Nothing is a force, a force that is very strong, stong enough to destroy human lives and souls.

We should reread Bp. Iker’s letter in light of Lewis’ interpretation of how strong Nothing is. In that light, Bp. Iker has truly abandoned, as the Presiding Bishop has truly embraced, Nothing

A lawsuit could be filed against the departed leadership and a representative sample of departing congregations if they attempted to retain Episcopal Church property.

Would those be the congregations departing the Diocese of Fort Worth?

Publius,

What a wonderful comment! I hadn’t thought about that particular bit in “Screwtape” for years, but it bears serious re-reading, in light of current events! Thank you!

—Matthew

Sarah Hey,

Your comment is thoughtful and incisive. I am reminded of a letter that Martin Luther once received from (I believe) an ex-monk. The foundational ideas (the full scope of denontations and connotations) behind the word “vocation” had been rigidly fixed for centuries, prior to the Reformation. With the coming of the Reformation, all of these ideas were now—quite literally—up in the air and in play… So this ex-monk, sincerely confused and wondering what to do with himself now in this “new world,” wrote to Martin Luther and asked him how a reformed Christian should approach the question of vocation and/or actually pursue a vocation. Martin Luther’s reply was wonderful. He said that the Christian’s TRUE VOCATION was nothing more and nothing less than the people that God would bring into our lives every day, whether they were strangers to us or the same people that we saw day after day. Luther said that a true Christian should simply strive love these people and to love God. Everything else—including how we earn our living or how we professionally identify ourselves—is irrelevant… I think if Martin Luther had access to the Westminster Catechism, he might well have employed the phraseology found there—to know God and enjoy him forever. But I also think that he would have defined the act or process of “knowing God” as entailing, to a large degree, the demonstration of sincere and sacrificial love to others… Anyway, sarah, thank you for a great comment!

A friend of mine, reading the exchange between the Presiding Flaminica and Bishop Iker, called to mind the following exchange, which he thought both analogous and explanatory:

“Back in 1978, in the House of Commons, senior Labour Minister Dennis Healey, having been criticised by mild mannered Conservative Foreign Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, remarked that the experience was ‘like being savaged by a dead sheep’.”

Thank you, Sarah, for responding. It has been my experience as a priest that the first question I encounter from the unchurched and/or inquirers from other churches focuses on all the Hoo Haw concerning the CGC (especially the sexuality thing and, surprisingly, Jesus as the only way to the Father). I, too, do not care where they attend church as long as the church is a Christian body where their faith can be fed. As a matter of fact if high Anglo-Catholic liturgy does not feed their spirituality (and I cannot teach them the importance of metaphor, symbolism and the Sacraments) I am always glad to suggest an alternative and will still be their brother or sister in Christ.

As to the purpose of the church you are right. To worship and praise God is most important. However I would like to point out the Holy Spirit does nothing in a vacuum ....... it is always accompanied by the Father and the Son, and we are God’s eyes, ears, hands and mouth. He witnesses through us and, I believe, given the great antipathy of the culture and the invisibility of the Christian family unit (for most of the population) we have enough of a problem evangelizing without the added burden of a heretical CGC.

Whether we like it or not (and I include myself in this quagmire) when we continue to belong to a church whose hierarchy and governing bodies take heretical positions and refuse to acknowledge
Holy Scripture as God’s Word we are a part of the problem.

I have taken the position that no, we are the REAL Episcopal Church and that NO, all the crud that TCGC says for far too long, I am afraid. To paraphrase Shakespeare, “Methinsk the good Padre protesteth too much.”

God bless,
AP+

all the crud that TCGC says for far too long, I am afraid.

should read “all the crud that TCGC says is not part of the real church ,,,”

Sorry. Single digital search and destroy typing method.
AP+

RE: “It has been my experience as a priest that the first question I encounter from the unchurched and/or inquirers from other churches focuses on all the Hoo Haw concerning the CGC . . . “

Well, I guess we are in very different contexts.  The unchurched that I speak with do not know the word “Episcopal” or “Anglican” nor do they particularly care.  I’m afraid that the word “pagan” accurately describes their level of ignorance about “things Christian—and indeed one of my friends brightened up considerably at the word pagan, and thought that that might be a very good description of where she stood.  So when I use the word “pagan” I don’t mean it pejoratively.  They simply have no knowledge whatsoever of church, scripture, nor even terms of speech that we may think “common to the culture” such as “the prodigal son”—[and yes, they really don’t know the story of the “prodigal son” nor what on earth the word “prodigal” means.]

RE: “Whether we like it or not (and I include myself in this quagmire) when we continue to belong to a church whose hierarchy and governing bodies take heretical positions and refuse to acknowledge Holy Scripture as God’s Word we are a part of the problem.”

I wholeheartedly agree with you.  I also grant that I am a “part of the problem” with all of the other organizations that I am a part of—like the US Tennis Association, and the United States of America, for instance, many of whose highest elected officials have no concern at all about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

I continue to work hard to be a part of the solution—as my membership in various organizations—though my membership in the numerous organizations of which I am a part does indeed also make me “a part of the problem.”

Thankfully, I am not entirely in charge.  God is—for all of these organizations.  I can only live as faithfully as the Holy Spirit enables me to and as I allow Him to and pray for miraculous intervention in all aspects of our lives here in the US and in the Anglican Communion.

As a reformed Christian I have no illusions about the purity of any Christian organization that claims to be the church-visible on this earth, however.  Thankfully, Christ’s work has made me a member of that eternal body, the Church, which shall be delivered to the Bridegroom, ultimately, without spot or blemish.

I would say that the main purpose of Christians is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

Thanks again, Sarah. Always a joy to read your missives. Keep up the good fight.
AP+

Time to pack my bags and move to Texas!!  Bp Iker seems to have a complete grasp of the situation and is not afraid to act.  Now that’s a man with ....

Sarah’s comment is a must read that shows up (at least on my computer) “Posted 11-13-2007 at 09:54 AM” and begins:

RE: “However, haven’t you found evangelism to be a bit compromised by continued association with a national entity that appears to many to be outside the spectrum of accepted Christianity?”

 
I, for one, would love to see her comment in response to the question extended into one of her Stand Firm essays.
(But even Sarah makes a spelling error now and then.
“I think that is the Holy Spirit’s main purporse.”
Perhaps she really odes have dolphins and porpoises on her mind.)

Not to beat a man after he’s gone but Ed Salmon’s “strategy” is not worthy of Bishop Iker’s shoestrings.

Different strokes for different folks I guess, Appletree—I think Ed Salmon’s strategy rocks up a storm, and is the better of all the Network bishops.

But that just goes to show that people with differing values on these matters are going to go for differing strategies.

A paraphrase, (with a nod to my friends in the Lone Star State)

“Hey BeerKat,  Don’ mess wid TEXAS.”

I especially enjoy Bishop Iker’s use of Schori’s words, i.e. “It grieves me…”  As much as I love this reply, I loved Bishop Duncan’s reply just a bit more.

The difference I see with Sarah is that she is doing something about the problem.  This is the huge difference as compared with many in ECUSA.  I hate to say this but as Gregg puts it Sarah is one of the few in the DUSC who “mans up” and she is obviously a female. I do fear that because these stakes are eternal that the time will come that MSGD&J;will have to, for the sake of their souls, depart, IMVHO.

I mostly agree with you Sarah but I think the isolationism strategy of Ed Salmon s somewhat self centered.  The diocese of lower SC could be much more of a leader and I believe he has let his friendship with Henderson allow many in Upper SC to be left out in the cold.  Having said that, I do admire him greatly.

GO Bishops….
I too find that when I get a chance to discuss God, Jesus as savior, and church, to someone unchurched, unregenerate -  TEC is an impediment. You’re asked as a matter of course “what’s your church.”

Folks I speak to have seen the headlines if not read the media news that we (TEC) have a “homosexual” rejection problem.

To explain, to describe the nuances, to overcome the ‘reportage’ problems, is difficult and at times becomes an embarrassment. It hurts the Christian witness - God have mercy on TEC.

(Getting into the ‘polity’ problems is even worse - my knowing Christian friends wonder why we don’t just ‘throw the bums out.’)

I hate to say this but as Gregg puts it Sarah is one of the few in the DUSC who “mans up” and she is obviously a female.

Hmmmm, maybe we need to stick with the backbone, stand firm metaphor? Not only does “mans up” fail in cases such as Sarah, but it also exposes the site to the Viagra jokes.
Naah, I think Greg and others (bluenarrative, for example) commenting on this site are closet (possibly subconscious) Jungians. All the guns and the cannons ... we get it.
When someone uses the masculine / feminine typology and says, for example, Sarah “mans up”, most understand (at least subconsciously) it to mean she has an amazingly strong (masculine) forceful energy (animus).
Stand Firm is the best site for those who love metaphor and Christianity.
(But we have to be a little careful so we don’t get accused of gnosticism.)

“ENS seems very verbose in reporting +Iker’s concise reply”

ENS has to dilute Bishop Iker’s letter so it won’t burn so badly. Not just dilute it but perform a titration on it. Otherwise reading it might be like having a vampire convention at the Gilroy Garlic Festival.

Stand Firm is the best site for those who love metaphor and Christianity…. and Irenaeus’ sense of humor.

“We have to be a little careful so we don’t get accused of gnosticism”
—-Deja Vu

Or culturo-ideological priapism.

Be careful what you make up. They might like it!

Now next year at the American Academy of Religion conference there will be a whole session of papers on various aspects of culturo-ideological priapism. And dissertation topics coming out of Sewanee and EDS.

Great one Deja Vu!

I wonder if the elves will let that one go, Irenaeus?

Sarah writes: “As a reformed Christian I have no illusions about the purity of any Christian organization that claims to be the church-visible on this earth, however. Thankfully, Christ’s work has made me a member of that eternal body, the Church, which shall be delivered to the Bridegroom, ultimately, without spot or blemish.” Thank you, Sarah, for that clarity.

Sarah, the Salmon “stategy” failed in one very important way.  It left out the people who matter the most.  Parishioners were always left, following his visits on the weekly potato salad circuit, in the dark, unknowing, uninformed, while he dangled the carrot of “I’ll know more after my next visit to London, Pennsylvania, etc. etc.”  Meanwhile, “stay the course.”  Some say he was merely keeping a low profile, and hoping everyone else would do the same.  It wasn’t just low, it was non-existent.  You may sit there knowing something I don’t know.  If you do, you’ve simply proven my point.  In times like these, we do not need Edspeak.  We need the truth.  Bishop Iker recognizes this, while Bishop Salmon thinks (thought) the truth is something we can’t (couldn’t) handle.

Deja Vu—“odes” to a porpoise?
(Posted by Deja Vu on 11-13-2007 at 12:20 PM [link])

heheh…

must be the Song of the Dolphin.

I think that I rather like being called a subconscious Jungian, even if I don’t quite approve of the either substance or direction of Jung’s thinking. It sounds sort of sexy to me. 

bluenarrative,
I’m glad you are not offended. Actually, the line for those offended by me tends to form to the left and I didn’t think you favored that direction.

Frfiddle,

I suppose that, in some ways, I might well be classified as “semi-orthodox.” Certainly if you asked me to rank the doctrinal, theological, and liturgical perils faced Anglicans in North America, I would NOT place the ordination of women at the top of my list… having said that, however, I must also say that I am genuinely sympathetic (and largely in agreement with) those you would term the more truly “orthodox.”

I do not really think you need worry yourself too much about the “semi-orthodox.” I see ample and very concrete evidence that many, if not most, of the most prominent “semi-orthodox” (people such as Bp. Robert Duncan, the good folks at CANA, etc.) are more than willing to eventually accomodate your needs. For me, personally, this issue (WO) doesn’t matter much, one way or the other, in the larger scheme of things. But I can easily envision how we might well be on the threshold of a moment in Anglicanism that will see (at least among the orthodox) the gradual rolling backwards on the issue of WO… And maybe on a few other issues (divorce, etc.), as well… Unlike the false humility that is sometimes seen as an integral part of one posture or another struck by the PB and the crowd at 815, it seems to me that there is a genuine humility at work among those of us standing in opposition to the revisionists these days. I know personally know MANY of the heavy-hitters among the orthodox and what you term the “semi-orthodox.” Offhand, I cannot think of any “semi-orthodox” (including quite a few women who have been ordained, yet who are also—first and foremost—orthodox) who would not sacrifice WO as the price to pay for doctrinal, theological, and liturgical unity in the newly emerging province…

Maybe, in the end, it will all play out differently than I imagine. But I think that for MOST of the “semi-orthodox” the issue of WO is just NOT a very big deal, one way or the other… I know it sounds astonishing from the perspective of current events in the Anglican world, but I can fairly easily imagine ways in which we eventually end up with a province which is truly comfortable for ALL of us—high and low church together… It is only among the revisionists, as far as i can tell, that WO is a fetish… Among true Christians, following Jesus always comes first.  And if He leads us into a province where women are NOT ordained, I just do not believe believe too many of us—of other sex—are going to be unduly disappointed or bitter… on the contrary…

Athanasius sort of didn’t have a choice about whether to stay and be faithful among the Arians…being exiled and all.

Or maybe we should all have remained in the synagogues back in the beginning, and been faithful there among those rejecting the truth.

“Athanasius sort of didn’t have a choice about whether to stay and be faithful among the Arians…”

Not true

“...being exiled and all.”

And not relevant.

His exiles were sporadic.  What is relevant to consider, rather, is how during his exiles and his travels he intervened uninvited in the dioceses not only of outright dogmatic Arians, but of those “trimmers” in the episcopate who tried to brush aside these tiresome and irrelevant dogmatic squabbles and get on with the “practical business” of the Church, in obedience to the Emperor (what good Episcopalian bishops they would have made, had they lived today!); see:  http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-03-036-f

But the greatest advantage that Athanasius had was that the orthodox who followed him were not modern post-Reformation “every man his own church” Protestant individualists.  So far as we know, nobody ever told Athanasius “we both share the same struggle, but while you are called to fight it from outside, I am called to stay in ans work to change the Arians” and it is amusing to imagine how that imperious propugnator of orthodoxy would have responded to anyone who tried to pull such a line on him.  I am pleased to agree with Fr. Fiddle’s request that “if you really ... plan on hanging around TGCC indefinitely, could you at least try to convince them to take Athanasius off their silly little calendar if for nothing other reason than just a little tiny bit of consistency?” but since whitewashing the sepulchres of the prophets whose words and deeds they have themselves buried in oblivion is characteristic of “churchy” liberals I wouldn’t hold my breath till it happens.

Bishop Iker’s “fan mail”—see comment #3 here:

http://mcj.bloghorn.com/3475#Comments

The article is a delight, too.

RE: “In time the “Communion Conservatives” will either learn this for themselves or capitulate.”

Well, this particular ComCon already knows just precisely how revisionists treat their opponents—and I have no intentions of capitulating.  So it appears that the either/or that you postulate is somewhat limited. 

RE: “Unless you really believe that what Athanasius should have done is stay and work to change the Arians.”

I don’t know any ComCons who are trying to change the revisionists in ECUSA.

RE: “When we have such a clear choice, then it is difficult to see how any orthodox Christians can stay in the heretical sect.”

The clearer the Common Cause choice becomes the less likely it becomes that I will be any part of it.  Should I leave ECUSA I will be a part of some other body, probably non-denom or Presby.

However . . . the topic of how dreadful it is for people to stay within ECUSA is not the subject of this post, and furthermore, ugly comments about those who stay within ECUSA or leave ECUSA are in violation of our comment rules, as has been made abundantly and frequently clear on this blog.

Please do not do so again.  This is a warning.

RE: “ENS has to dilute Bishop Iker’s letter so it won’t burn so badly. Not just dilute it but perform a titration on it.”

Heh.  ; > )

A classic Irenaeus line.

As to Bishop Iker’s fan mail on mcj, it is not for the overly sensitive.  Believe me this is not the first time the good Bishop has been blasted with profanity. This was my response to him:

Good Bishop,
Lovely invective. Perhaps if, by private missive, you could let me know who this is I might pay him a visit. Methinks the boy could use some attitude adjustment. Now I suppose I’ll make Ms. Sherrod’s blog AGAIN. Ah, well.

In the mean time consider the slander a jewel in your heavenly crown. It’s the type of language Satan uses when he thrashes in pain in the presence of God’s holy servants.

God bless and keep the faith (I know you will!)
AP+

I am seeing a new phenomena among lay people in my area, and that is a nationalism about the Episcopal Church. What I mean is that even conservative Christians are flocking to defend the Episcopal Church from the intrusion of Anglican Bishops outside the TEC. They have been Episcopalians all their lives, and many for multiple generation, and they will die an Episcopalian. How dare anyone from outside involve themselves in causing trouble for us (TEC) is there thinking.

I am not always convinced that just because we may feel passionately about the hot-bottom issues of the day here on STAND FIRM that most people in our pews do. My observation is that most do not, and if they see those from outside messing with us they rally to the defense of the motherland.

I am sure this is what the PB and the HOB liberals are counting on. Has anyone else seen this phenomena?

a little off thread… SARAH why Presby.?

Forever Anglican,

My experience has been just the opposite. Especially among self-professed “liberals” on an array of social and political issues, beyond the current fray in the Anglican fold here in North America… Almost invariably, the fact that AFRICAN bishops are establishing a “missionary presence” here seems to make a LOT of people sit up and take notice. Most of the dyed-in-the-wool Episcopalians that I know, regardless of where they stand on the hot-button issues dividing the church today, find the idea of African bishops to be rather “cool.” (That is actually the term that I have heard used repeatedly and consistently by all sorts of people who would seem to be more securely on the revisionist side of things, in reference to the African bishops) ...So, if the PB and the revisionist majority within the HOB are counting on “good liberal” people being put off by the presence of African missionary bishops, it is probably NOT going to be an effective strategy… The people in the pews are ALREADY voting with their feet and their wallets. 815 is doing their best to put some good pr spin to things, so that they can retain institutional (and financial) control—the PB earns MORE THAN $1000,000.00, for example—but the ONLY thing that they can possibly WIN, at this stage of the game, is a very diminished and financially exhausted institution that is totally irrelevant to almost everybody but the pansexual and gnostic few who derive an income from that institution. At least 97% (probably more) of the people in this world are NOT homosexual. At least 97% of those cradle-Episcopalians are NOT homosexuals. For many—indeed, for most—of these people, the aggressive posture of the PB is an enigma. As soon as most people realize that their tithe is being spent on the promotion of a pansexual agenda, they stop giving. By any objective measure, 815 is already in dire financial straits—to say nothing of doctrinal, theological, and liturgical difficulties. They are no longer even pretending to be Christian—they are ferociously fighting for the carcass of a church (TEC) that is ALREADY DEAD… It enrages them no end to see a NEW PROVINCE emerging, and so they legally harass the faithful mercilessly. But all you have to do is look at Bishop Duncan’s reply to the threatening letter from the PB, as well as Bishop Iker’s reply to an almost identical letter from the PB, to realize that THE WAR IS ALREADY OVER… and, any way that you want to cut the mustard, the revisionists have LOST the war…

  I am not always convinced that just because we may feel passionately about the hot-bottom issues of the day here on STAND FIRM that most people in our pews do. My observation is that most do not, and if they see those from outside messing with us they rally to the defense of the motherland.

I am sure this is what the PB and the HOB liberals are counting on. Has anyone else seen this phenomena?

Posted by Forever Anglican on 11-14-2007 at 12:26 AM

I have seen it. As long as the current priest of whatever bent is at the parish, all-is-well. And, “I’m not gonna be under some African.” And among some of a certain age, it is all about being buried by their church. Period.

If Athanasius had had the consistent support of the emperor, the situation and therefore his behavior would have been quite different.  That’s really all I’m saying.  He didn’t have that consistent support—yes, I know his exiles were sporadic—and so the situation was what it was.  I do think it’s relevant that he lived in a completely different cultural and historical context, during a time in which things like exile did happen, and therefore that attenuates any comparison we can draw between that situation and our own.

Thank you for reminding me why I no longer do patristics nor wish to converse with people who do.

SouthernVirginia
I would concur with you, especially in congregations with a long history and a more settled population. It seems a love of the old Church building, and the present priest makes commitment to anything beyond their parish fairly light weight. It saddens me to see so many cultural Episcopalians. I think that is why they have been so ripe for the plucking by the liberal faction at 815. They simply do not pay all that much attention to the political aspects of National or Diocesan Conventions. Some Diocesan Conventions don’t even have a full slate of candidates for the offices voted on. Baptized, Marry and Bury is all the demand and of course keep doing what they are use to. Maybe the ax is at the tree???  Forever Anglican

Forever Anglican,

And yet, a cry of that kind of congregationaiism would rate a, “who me?”

we are something…