Statement from Bishop Jack Iker on Rowan Williams’ Advent Letter

Friday, December 14, 2007 • 4:22 pm

Via email:

The main disconnect for me in the Archbishop’s letter is this: On the one hand, in reference to TEC’s response to the Windsor Report and the Lambeth Resolutions, he acknowledges that “it is extremely unlikely that further meetings will produce any more substantial consensus than that which is now before us.” I believe he is correct. TEC is not going to turn back from its present course. It is not going to abide by the consensus of the Anglican Communion on matters of sexuality.

But on the other hand, he then goes on to call for “professionally facilitated conversations between the leadership of The Episcopal Church and those with whom they are most in dispute” in the hope of somehow gaining “a better level of mutual understanding.” This hope is in vain. TEC does not negotiate with those with whom they are in dispute; they litigate. Numerous meetings have produced no acceptable solution for the minority to remain with integrity within TEC.

The best assistance that the Archbishop can offer to address the situation in TEC is to host a mediation that seeks a negotiated settlement for separation, without rancor or litigation.

+JLI

18 Comments • Print-friendly • Print-friendly w/comments • Share on Facebook

Comments:

What Bishop Iker said.

[1] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 12-14-2007 at 05:22 PM • top

Exactly. See the button.
AP+

[2] Posted by Anglican Paplist on 12-14-2007 at 05:28 PM • top

Bishop Iker’s critique is of course right on point that is if only RW really wants to end the strife. This comes at the expense of RW’s preferred political solution which is a Listening Process that never ends.
Intercessor

[3] Posted by Intercessor on 12-14-2007 at 05:28 PM • top

I’m with AP+...I like Iker.

[4] Posted by johnp on 12-14-2007 at 05:42 PM • top

Amen - I like Iker.

Sadly any hopes of a negotiated departure/divorce are constantly dashed by the litigious Schori whose ultimatums become more and more shrill.

[5] Posted by Fr Ian on 12-14-2007 at 05:51 PM • top

I believe Bishop Iker is failing to live into a dialogue with pluriform truth.

[6] Posted by Christopher Hathaway on 12-14-2007 at 05:59 PM • top

CH,

Thank God for that!

[7] Posted by Chip Johnson, cj on 12-14-2007 at 06:24 PM • top

As always, Bishop Iker is succinct and on target.

[8] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 12-14-2007 at 08:20 PM • top

Thank you, my dear Bishop.
As usual, you hit the nail on the head, saying it far better than I was attempting to do in an earlier posting, in which I said:
“The idea of some “professionally facilitated conversations between the leadership of The Episcopal Church and those with whom they are most in dispute, internally and externally, to see if we can generate any better level of mutual understanding”
is another attempt at keeping the endless talking (process) going on, and on, and on like the energizer battery.”

Fr. Kingsley+
Arlington, TX
(Dio. of FW)

[9] Posted by Spiro on 12-14-2007 at 08:56 PM • top

Yep, +Iker gets it.

In fact, if anything comes across consistently in assessments of the US situation from those across the pond, it is their failure to see a) just how toxic the situation is over here, and b) that said toxicity will not be eased by further conversation.

Marriage counseling is over. Time for discussions on who gets custody of the kids.

[10] Posted by Id rather not say on 12-14-2007 at 09:04 PM • top

“The best assistance that the Archbishop can offer to address the situation in TEC is to host a mediation that seeks a negotiated settlement for separation, without rancor or litigation”. BISHOP IKER! Come now. You surely cant expect the ABC to do THAT! It makes too much sense! No indeed, its “Dither and delay, have an endless conversation which goes nowhere, never discipline apostacy”...Come, Come, Bishop Iker! Get with the program!

[11] Posted by Bob K. on 12-14-2007 at 09:20 PM • top

Yep, “i’d rather not”...and we kids are going with Dad.

[12] Posted by Houseownedbythedog3 on 12-15-2007 at 12:33 AM • top

Good luck with that negotiation to avoid litigation. TEC has too much at stake to give up litigation on the property. To “give up” the property will be viewed by TEC as a tacit admission that they are “wrong” and that homosexual behavior is sinful. They will never, never, never allow this to happen under any circumstances.

[13] Posted by BillS on 12-15-2007 at 06:18 AM • top

I thought that was the job of the ABC.

[14] Posted by MasterServer on 12-15-2007 at 10:41 AM • top

That is, I thought it was the Archbishop of Canterbury’s responsibility to mediate a dispute between constituents within the Communion to a solution in a professional and Scriptural manner.

[15] Posted by MasterServer on 12-15-2007 at 10:45 AM • top

Thank you Bishop Iker once more for faithfully and clearly articulating the truth at hand. Thanks be to God for your leadership.
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Advent message started off so beautifully and ended in a muddle with no potential to solve anything.

[16] Posted by BettyLee Payne on 12-15-2007 at 10:58 AM • top

Bp. Iker: Plain and simple truth. Thank you!

[17] Posted by southernvirginia1 on 12-15-2007 at 10:59 PM • top

I want to live with my Father also!

The alternative: living with the head priestess at 815!!! What an awful thought!!! :0

[18] Posted by bluenarrative on 12-15-2007 at 11:07 PM • top

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

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