Steering Committee Statement Re: Venables' Visit

Steering Committee Statement Regarding
Visit of Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables

Gregory Venables, Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone in South America, at the invitation of Bishop Jack Iker, spoke at a special convocation of the Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth on May 3 at St. Vincent’s School in Bedford.

Last November the Province had passed a resolution that would “welcome [our diocese] into the membership” of that province. At our own diocesan convention later that month, a resolution was passed directing the “Bishop and Standing Committee [to] prepare a report for this diocese on the constitutional and canonical implications and means of accepting this invitation.”

Following his remarks, Venables held a question and answer session in which he described the possible alignment of our diocese with the province on an “emergency and pastoral” basis of indefinite duration. Venables also made reference to a “larger structure coming into place in which we could all participate.”

Venables graciously and ably presented the fundamentalist case for a literal interpretation of selected scripture. He also continued to misstate the position of our presiding bishop and the Episcopal Church regarding the role of Christ in salvation and characterized Christianity as an “intolerant” faith. While emphasizing that the church is the people, he urged as to church property that, "We must retain what is rightfully ours."

The Steering Committee North Texas Episcopalians (“Steering Committee”), recently created to support the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth as a constituent part of the Episcopal Church, contends that the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth was created by the approval of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, and as with every diocese in the Episcopal Church, exists solely by virtue of its unity as part of the Episcopal Church. Should our bishop and some clergy and laity decide to leave the Episcopal Church, those Episcopalians who remain will continue to be the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and full participants in the Episcopal Church.

The Steering Committee also notes that a visit of this nature by a foreign bishop violates the call in the Windsor Report for a moratorium on interventions by bishops in provinces and dioceses other than their own. This visit ignored the objection of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, who wrote to Venables requesting that he cancel his visit, calling it "an unprecedented and unwarranted invasion of, and meddling in, the internal affairs of this Province."

Those who plan to remain as Episcopalian can check the website of the Steering Committee of North Texas Episcopalians at www.SteeringCommitteeNTE.org and contact the Steering Committee by e-mail at inquiries@SteeringCommitteeNTE.org or by letter addressed to Steering Committee North Texas Episcopalians, P.O.Box 100846, Fort Worth, TX, 76185-0846.

May 4, 2008

Relevant Documents

Sections of the Windsor Report dealing with boundary violations
149. In some instances, this breach of trust has been felt so keenly that a parish or
diocese has found itself unwilling to accept the ministry of a bishop associated
with such contrary action, and has invited bishops from elsewhere in the
province or beyond to provide pastoral and sacramental oversight. In some
cases, there are primates and bishops who have acceded to these requests with or
without reference to the proper authorities of the diocese concerned. We want to
make quite clear that we fully understand the principled concerns that have led
to those actions even though we believe that they should have been handled
differently.

150. In these circumstances we call upon the church or province in question to
recognise first that dissenting groups in their midst are, like themselves, seeking
to be faithful members of the Anglican family; and second, we call upon all the
bishops concerned, both the ‘home’ bishops and the ‘intervening’ bishops as
Christian leaders and pastors to work tirelessly to rebuild the trust which has
been lost.

154. The Anglican Communion upholds the ancient norm of the Church that all the
Christians in one place should be united in their prayer, worship and the
celebration of the sacraments. The Commission believes that all Anglicans
should strive to live out this ideal. Whilst there are instances in the polity of
Anglican churches that more than one jurisdiction exists in one place, this is
something to be discouraged rather than propagated. We do not therefore favour
the establishment of parallel jurisdictions.

155. We call upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to
intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own:
¨ to express regret for the consequences of their actions
¨ to affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and
¨ to effect a moratorium on any further interventions.
We also call upon these archbishops and bishops to seek an accommodation
with the bishops of the dioceses whose parishes they have taken into their own
care.

Letter of the Presiding Bishop to Gregory Venables

Dear Gregory,
I write to urge you not to bring further discord into The Episcopal Church. Visiting a special convocation of the Diocese of Fort Worth with the expressed purpose of describing removal to the Province of the Southern Cone is an unprecedented and unwarranted invasion of, and meddling in, the internal affairs of this Province. I ask you to consider how you might receive such a visit to your own Province from a fellow primate. The actions contemplated by some leaders in Fort Worth are profoundly uncanonical. They also prevent needed reconciliation from proceeding within this Province. I urge you to focus your pastoral ministry within your own Province. May your ministry there be fruitful.

I remain

Your servant in Christ,

Katharine Jefferts Schori

Jesus Loves Me But He's Not So Sure About You

Gregory Venables, presiding bishop of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, spoke to a convocation of our diocesan convention today.

I had a previous commitment and could not be there. But I've interviewed several people who were there, and a couple have given me their notes and gone over them with me. Here's their take on what happened.

Bishop Jack Iker opened by emphasizing that Archbishop [That's what they call him, although their canons call him "presiding bishop." Some priests here also call him "Your Grace.”] Venables was here at Bp. Iker's invitation and that he was not going to try to convince the diocese to join the Southern Cone.

Iker also said that he, John David Schofield, Robert Duncan and Keith Ackerman initiated the action by going to Buenos Aires last year to visit Venables at his home.

When Venables got up to speak, he said he just wanted to give the meeting information about the Anglican Communion to help the diocese in making its decisions.

Both were making the case that this was not an incursion into this province by the primate of another province. [Well, you can put your boots in the oven but that don't make 'em biscuits. I grew up in West Texas. I know a poacher when I see one.]

Everyone agreed that Venables is an urbane charming man who can be hard -- not unlike Jack Iker. Don't kid yourself. There is a steel fist in that velvet glove.

Venables is quick thinking and uses humor -- he spent a bit of time ridiculing ambiguity, for instance. As in -- if a sign says, "No Smoking," what is there about "no" that you don't understand? Should we have a discussion of what "no" means?

His little jokes were met with gales of laughter from the friendly audience. Only elected delegates and clergy were allowed to speak. Visitors and observers were allowed to watch but not ask questions. Those delegates/clergy who disagreed with him were either silent or very polite when they spoke.

Turns out that our Gregory is an old hippie. Played in a band, loved the '60s, but one day while walking on the beach he found a piece of paper asking what was his relationship to Jesus. He hasn't looked back since.

Venables said that the Southern Cone "believes in freedom," that people should have the freedom to have the church like they want it. He painted a picture of an idyllic province where they have a little bit of everything, from high masses to morning prayer parishes. According to him, the Southern Cone isn't all about rules. The only rules are God's rules, and we all know what they are, so there's no problem.

He frequently waved a bible in the air as he spoke. He said he hoped the audience had bibles with them -- turns out maybe one delegate did. He referenced Acts 2 -- [When the day of Pentecost had come,] they were all together in one place.

It all comes down, he said, to experience of Jesus. When you're following Jesus, you get to be able to recognize other people who are following Jesus. The subtext of this was quite clear -- because they look just like you.

He downplayed the issues of women and homosexuality, focusing instead on measuring orthodoxy by adherence to a biblical literalism that leaves no room for interpretation. [Or for the work of the Holy Spirit.]

He went to some pains to make it clear that the issue is NOT schism. He went back to the Reformation, which he says was over essential issues, and so was not schism. All splits since then have been over non-essential items and so were schism, and thus sinful.

What's he's talking about is NOT SCHISM. It's separation. This is separation, and "they are separating. They've walked away from us."

He made the case for the existence of Absolute Truth. Some people think differently, but there is A Truth. Jesus made this clear because he made intolerant statements, such as "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Venables said that you can no longer be free to do what you want to do once you accept Jesus. If you doubt, you are with Satan. Just look at the Garden of Eden -- Satan sows doubt. Got in a dig at Eve: “My husband may believe all that, but I’m modern!”

Venables is a biblical literalist. Sola Scriptorum. According to Venables, biblical scholarship is all just word games. The message is clear -- every time Jesus answered the question of who he is, he responds with statements that begin "I am."

Venables said that after the Reformation the West [to which he referred often, speaking as if he, a British-born and educated prelate, is not part of the West] turned to Science, to a belief in an "open universe," to "rationalism," in a drive to find a unified vision of the universe. The West made the mistake of separating what you feel in your heart with what you know with your mind. Theologians in the West followed the same false path, which led them to only two choices -- nihilism and relativism.

He said that people talk about Jesus without meaning what HE means when he says Jesus. “You sit beside another primate, and you know he’s not thinking the same things you are when he speaks of Jesus.” He talked about Christianity versus culture, about how the church has given in to the culture. He made the point that doctrinal impurity leads to moral impurity.

Why do we talk so much about sexuality? It's not "essential," but it is very important, he said.

God made male and female. Marriage is Holy Matrimony. It's all about God and what God ordained. [He made no reference to the Old Testament norm of marriage -- which was polygamy.]

He referenced Hebrews -- What we have heard. We have to be careful that we are listening to God's voice or we will drift. He made it clear that to disagree with him is moving away from what God says.

He talked about how he is treated by the "other side" [poorly] and said that while "we" have been totally aboveboard, "they" lie and are deceitful. When he asks "them" to explain what they believe, they can't do it.

[Not sure how he missed the Episcopal Church's presentation to the Anglican Consultative Council or "To Set Our Hope in Christ," written by seven theologians for the Episcopal Church in response to the Windsor Report. And he obviously hasn't talked to Susan Russell, Michael Hopkins, Elizabeth Kaeton, or Gene Robinson, who all can very eloquently talk about what they believe.]

He lamented that the Anglican Communion has no authority over us so we can resolve things. He clearly wants some power to enforce. [He did state that The Episcopal Church has no authority over Jack Iker. Hmmm. I think the House of Bishops might have something to say about that. ]

He said, "Democracy is not good when it contradicts the word of God." Jesus is the ONLY WAY.

Remember earlier he had stated that the Southern Cone believes in the freedom to have church the way you want it? Well, not if you want ordained women.

In response to a question, he said that the ordination of women is not an "essential thing." He thinks the ordination of women "happened too fast" [several hundred years is too fast?] and that the Southern Cone has not resolved that issue yet.

He believes in a physical resurrection and those who do not are not orthodox. Also made it clear that those differing from "orthodox Anglicans" don't believe in the divinity of Christ.

He doesn't think a Covenant will do what he wants -- set up an authority that can demand accountability and mete out punishments -- because it's like the Creed. People don't all believe the same things. People can say the Creeds, but you don't know if they really believe in it the same way you do. A Covenant would be open to "interpretation."

He dismissed property issues as unimportant, saying "We'll do all we can to work it out."

He said we all are not really part of the same Body. The West cannot agree with "us." The West just believes too differently from the way people like him believe.

He talked about how "they" vilify "us" and how the media always gets it wrong.

But not to worry, he said. God has not lost control. God is in control.

Control was the subtext of everything he said -- control by the proper authorities is what Venables wants, and those proper authorities clearly include him.

As a friend pointed out, "the bishop's arguments are not new. They're a rehash of the old argument between Jerusalem and Athens, between revelation and reason, a tension both St. Paul and St. John saw at once as a wonderful motor to spread the new--and mostly undefined--gospel through the Europe of their day, indeed a powerful tool in the hands of the Holy Spirit.

"Bishop Venables, loth to deal with ambiguity and awash in certainty, chooses to lop off half that engine and fall back on revelation--as he understands it. That has happened regularly throughout the history of the West, every timesome hitherto unchallenged 'truth'--like the divine approval of slavery--has been challenged."

NOTE: The inspiration for the title of this blog came from a song by the Austin Lounge Lizards, entitled Jesus Loves Me, But He Can't Stand You. You can read the lyrics here. As one bishop noted, "It preaches."

A Preview of Venables' Speech

A friend of mine who is blessed with more patience than I have listened to this week's address of Gregory Venables, presiding bishop of the Southern Cone, to the group calling itself the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin.

She sent these excerpts to me as as "preview" of what we can expect when Venables addresses our convention delegates/clergy in a special convocation tomorrow.
----------------------------------------
"God is calling us to move on. The Lord Jesus knows where we are going and he will get us there. We are not following an institution....I don't know what the realignment will look like in a few years.....We are in Christ. Those who have left are those who have denied who Jesus is. This is not about women and human sexuality."

He went on to say the we (the neo-liberals) suffer from doctrinal impurity (false teaching). And later said we are morally impure.

Near the end of his talk he said that the problem with the Anglican Communion is that it doesn't have a pope with ultimate authority and that Rowan has no authority.

-----------------------------------------

So our own bishop calls us vigilantes and idolaters and the presiding bishop of the province to which we may go says that those of us who choose to remain in The Episcopal Church have "denied who Jesus is," and that we are morally impure.

Sure makes me want to spend more time with them.

The PB and the Pope

In the eyes of some, mostly men, in this church, our presiding bishop can do nothing right. Their latest accusation against her is that she stood up the pope when he visited the U.S.

Jan Nunley of the Episcopal News Service and an excellent reporter AND a former resident of Fort Worth and now a priest, was AT the event that some conservatives are excoriacating the PB for missing. Here's what SHE says:
**************************************
People, listen. I was there.

The Episcopal Church's Ecumenical Officer, Bishop Christopher Epting, was there.

THERE WAS NO "MEETING" WITH THE POPE.

It was an EVENT. A MEDIA event. Not much different from the Yankee Stadium Mass, except much, much smaller and no Mass.

Three hundred some odd Christian ordained and lay leaders packed like sardines into the pews of a church in Yorkville that had been spruced up for the occasion . . . The back row was filled with cameras and reporters.

His Holiness walked in, sat down, ecumenical prayers were said, hymns were sung, he delivered a 20-minute address from his chair, a dozen or so "representatives" of various faith groups were announced (including the Episcopal Bishop of New York), walked across the dais and shook the Pope's hand, exchanged a few niceties, sat back down, we prayed and sang again, and he left.

No one from the Vatican or the Archdiocese of New York was nonplussed that the Presiding Bishop of the ELCA sent a representative, and no one was nonplussed that the Presiding Bishop of TEC was represented by two Bishops--the local Episcopal Bishop, +Mark Sisk, and Bishop Epting--a member of her communications staff, and quite possibly others I did not spot in the crowd (mea maxima culpa).

Again: There was no "MEETING." No exchange of ideas and common concerns. Nothing more than "Welcome, Your Holiness, good to see you, glad to have you here, have a good time, try the cheesecake while you're here, it's fabulous." He was in, he was out, that was it.

There. Was. No. Meeting.

NO. MEETING.NONE. NADA. NO, NIX, NEIN.

This is a manufactured controversy and it's a shameful waste of bandwidth and time. There really are more important things going on in the world and in the Church (both universal and particular). Get to them, for Jesus' sake, and stop majoring in the minors. Please.

*Honestly.*

**************************************
And here is a reply from (The Rev. Cn.) Mary June Nestler of the Diocese of Utah to some of the attacks on the PB.

Posted with permission:
Friends,

Today's posting by Dr. Phillip Turner showcased on Kendall Harmon's website (The Presiding Bishop: Does She Know What She is Doing?) contains the statement "To be specific, her decline of an invitation to greet the Pope on his present visit calls into question her understanding of the office of Presiding Bishop."

I hope the following information will finally put the bed the notion that Bishop Jefferts Schori was somehow avoiding the Pope or neglecting the duties of her office. I am posting this on the HOBD list because I called the Anglican Communion Institute to get Dr. Turner's email address to write to him directly and was told they don't give it out because of "a great deal of unpleasant email traffic."

I was advised simply to fill out their online form. I think I'd rather get the facts out more widely, as I've seen allegations of her supposed "dereliction of duty" in other internet material as well.

FACT: Bishop Carolyn Tanner Irish wrote to the Presiding Bishop on April 17, 2007, to invite her to come to the Diocese of Utah to lead our Spring Weekend April 18-19, 2008. The Presiding Bishop accepted.

FACT: Beginning in May, 2007, considerable efforts began in Utah to prepare for the Presiding Bishop's visit. Facilities were reserved, planning committees began meeting, and expenses relating to the visit commenced. People across the diocese marked their calendars and planned to attend.

FACT: The press release announcing the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to New York was published by the Archdiocese of New York on November 12, 2007, half a year after the Presiding Bishop accepted Utah's invitation.

The Presiding Bishop kept her long-standing commitment to the Diocese of Utah by leading our Spring Weekend as planned. She was, in fact, doing some of the work The Episcopal Church called her to do and pays her to do: visit dioceses as Presiding Bishop, teach, preside and preach, bless and encourage Episcopalians and speak to the wider community. She worked incredibly hard while in Utah to keep up with our demanding schedule. While we wish she could have been both in New York greeting the Pope and in Utah leading our conference, we are nonetheless deeply grateful that she was present with us in Salt Lake City making a visit which at every moment revealed to us what an extraordinary leader she is and how capably and prayerfully she exercises the duties of her office.

I believe authors who would criticize her for this either don't understand the facts or are plain mean-spirited.

(The Rev. Cn.) Mary June Nestler
Canon for Ministry Formation, Member of the Planning Team for the Presiding Bishop's visit to Utah C1, Diocese of Utah
******************************


Of course, if she HAD cancelled the commitment with the Diocese of Utah to meet with the pope, they would be complaining that she was neglecting her responsibilities as presiding bishop and insulting the diocese.

Here's more information:
******************************

I've already received several emails sent to me privately insisting that the Presiding Bishop's proper course of action would have been to cancel her visit to Utah and to meet the Pope in New York. I look forward to hearing, should it ever be planned, that the Presiding Bishop will be received at the Vatican, which will be a much more powerful visit and statement than her being one of many religious leaders to encounter him in New York.

I have just this minute received a telephone call from the office of the Papal Visit at the Archdiocese of New York in response to my call earlier today. The office gave me the following information.

The press release issued in November, 2007, announcing the Pope's visit to the U.S., did not contain specifics of the Pope's visit or even his location. "As with all papal visits, " said Ellen in the office, "the Pope's actual destination and detailed schedule are released only one month prior to the visit. We knew from the Papal Nunzio only that he would be coming to the United States in November."

Ellen also told me that the Pope did not receive any ecumenical religious leader privately on his visit to New York or Washington. She said the only opportunity would have been for our Presiding Bishop to attend the ecumenical service scheduled for Friday night, April 18th, where she would have been one of many guests.

This means, in effect, that the Presiding Bishop would have had only one month's notice of the Pope's schedule. This means, in effect, that a year's worth of planning and a great deal of expense would have had to be blown off should she have cancelled her visit to Utah--to attend a group event.

Yes, it's critically important that she and the Pope meet. I want to be the first to get the photo of the two of them! But are the critics really suggesting that an entire diocese and state be stood up and a great deal of money squandered? She was not in Utah simply, as one person suggested, to dedicated the new Episcopal Church Center of Utah. That took 20 minutes. She met with 65 civic, religious, academic, and philanthropic dignitaries, before whom and 500 others she gave an address on "Religion and Civic Life." I wish you could have seen the Roman Catholic Bishop of Utah and other religious dignitaries sitting in the front row at the Holy Eucharist and her address following. The previous day she taught 310 people for 3 hours in formal lecture and question-and-answer. She was received by the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which may not seem like much compared to the Pope, but in Utah it's HUGE, and her visit was widely covered by Utah press. She met with the editorial board of the Deseret News and had private interviews with other reporters. In Utah, where the role of women is a major public and religious topic, the visit of our Presiding Bishop was major evangelism for the status of women in church and society. Some 40% of Utah Episcopalians are former members of the LDS Church, and for them the visit of a Presiding Bishop who is female was a watershed in their spiritual lives and growth--our own bishop who is a woman notwithstanding!

Yesterday's Salt Lake Tribune published this letter to the editor (with an unfortunate error stating the prayers of the people we used came from the Prayer Book). Her visit is still being praised!

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9110971?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltrib.com

(The Rev. Cn.) Mary June Nestler
C1 Utah

Mark Harris Speaks on Baptism, Bishops, Politics, Mission

Mark Harris, priest of this church, author of the well-read blog Preludium, member of Executive Council and Canon of the Church of the Philippines, spoke on Saturday, April 26, at Trinity Church at the invitation of Fort Worth Via Media at an event sponsored by FWVM and Steadfast Episcopalians, a group of conservative Episcopalians.

Harris began by placing himself in context as all of the above, as an assisting priest at a parish in Lewes, Delaware that was formed in 1682; as a retired priest, and as a besotted grandfather. He has a Doctor of Divinity degree, but he uses no title on his business card as a way of breaking out of the “ranks” of Christians.

He spoke without notes for two hours.

He said that our church is in a struggle to maintain that baptism is the core, not merely an entry rite.

“Baptism is much more than that [an entry rite]. It unites us all at the core of what we are as Christians,” he said. If baptism is only an entry rite, then we end up with “ranks” of Christians, starting with the lowest – the laity – and ending with the highest – bishops, archbishops, popes.

In this system, “The more titles one gets the better, the holier one is,” Harris said.

In this way of thinking, baptism simply means, “You’re in.” The laity are “just baptized,” and do not have enough license to speak truth to the church.

But the license to speak the truth is for everyone, Harris declared. Baptism is what makes us part of the struggle.

If baptism is the core of Christianity, than that’s all we need. If baptism is the core, the “business of whether women can be priests is already solved”, as is the question of whether we ordain people with disabilities, or people with a homosexual orientation.

How can we be a church where people have different roles and give honor to our priests and bishops, but still don’t leave anyone out?

“I’m proud to be part of a church struggling with how to live into this,” Harris said. “`Laity’ means being the people of God. In a diocese like San Joaquin and Fort Worth, there is emerging a new sense of mission that is being developed by the people of God,” the laity.

“We honor our bishops because we put them there. Sometimes we have to take our lumps; we get what we get. This is part of the suffering and joys of life,” he said.

He said, “We need to be willing to a church that is political.”

He said that politics is not a dirty word or a bad thing, that politics is integral to our system – ‘we are not an absolute monarchy. We are a church that organizes itself along democratic principles.”

People having conversations about how it’s going to work – that’s what “political” means, he said.

“Politics is integral to what it means to be Christian. Politics becomes the way we work out how to become a Christian community,” he said.

He said he had heard a lot of the accusations made against Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, with whom he has worked on Executive Council.

“We don’t elect people who aren’t Christian to be the presiding bishop of The Episcopal Church. We might elect quirky people, or complex people, but they are all Christian.

“I feel good about our PB. I feel she’s a fine, upstanding Christian. She is complex and informed from all her roles in her life and her gender. I am astounded by her ability to stay focused.”

He pointed out that the buildings and the heritage held in trust for the larger church by local dioceses is part of the domestic mission of The Episcopal Church, also known as The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society.”

Offices of The Episcopal Church have a missionary and a fiduciary responsibility to hold that trust, he said.

These local areas [dioceses] were first states, then as the church population grew, they broke into smaller areas. There will always be an Episcopal Church as a domestic mission here, not just some “hole” left after a bishop tried to take a diocese out of TEC.

Jurisdiction by a contiguous land mass is a residue from the English system, Harris said, which has civil as well as religious implications. The earliest bishops, including Hobart, determined that wherever there was a United States of America, there would be an Episcopal Church gathered in a diocese.

So TEC has a missionary impetus to be here.

“Even if all the property was taken, even if only seven people were left, TEC would be here. This would become, if necessary, a missionary district,” he said.

Then he reminded everyone, “God is not found in the shrines. God is found in the mission.”

“Think of yourselves as a religious community. The Episcopal Church is our answer to being Christian. We are here as a religious community and the mission of the national church is to see that we remain here,” he said.

For those who want to stay in The Episcopal Church, the question they should have for Bishop Iker is, “Bishop, do you care for us? If you do care for us, how that manifest?”

He reminded the audience, “We are people under authority, not raw power.”

Bishops have authority because we give it to them.

Once you decide the power resides beyond the people who work and pray together, there is a problem.

A bishop gets his or her authority from the laity, including the clergy. When they abuse that authority, or resort to raw power to enforce their authority, they lose their authority. Such a bishop has no authentic authority any more, just raw power.

[Canon 32 is an example of raw power being used to in this way.]

Additionally, there is nothing in the canons to support moving parishes from one diocese to another as a bishop-to-bishop agreement. It must be a General Convention decision. To date, General Convention has voted “for” this arrangement only if the churches were on the borderline of two dioceses or within about five miles or less.

[None of the above applies to St. Christopher’s, All Saints, Trinity and St. Luke’s Stephenville, the four parishes Bp. Iker is trying to force to move to the Diocese of Dallas.]

Harris pleaded with those who intend to remain in The Episcopal Church to continue to reach out to those who plan to leave TEC with Bishop Iker.

“Pray for them. We know them too well to abandon them,” he said.

And he ended with this reminder: “The first piece of mission is liberating the voice of the baptized.”

That is the mission of the lay people of the diocese of Fort Worth.

Desperate Efforts

Here's the latest desperate effort to discredit our presiding bishop and distract everyone from the weakness of the arguments of Bishops Iker and Schofield about their attempts to take TEC property.

The Living Church reports that "Sufficient legal grounds exist for presenting Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori for ecclesiastical trial on 11 counts of violating the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, according to a legal memorandum that has begun circulating among members of the House of Bishops.

"A copy of the April 21 document seen by a reporter representing The Living Church states Bishop Jefferts Schori demonstrated a 'willful violation of the canons, an intention to repeat the violations, and a pattern of concealment and lack of candor' in her handling of the cases of bishops Robert W. Duncan, John-David Schofield and William Cox, and that she 'subverted' the 'fundamental polity' of The Episcopal Church in the matter of the Diocese of San Joaquin.

"Prepared by an attorney on behalf of a consortium of bishops and church leaders seeking legal counsel over the canonical implications of the Presiding Bishop’s recent actions, it is unclear whether a critical mass of support will form behind the report’s recommendations for any action to be taken, persumably as a violation of the Presiding Bishop’s ordination vows."

I don't think it's unclear at all. This action has no credibility at all.

Plus, as one person on the Fort Worth Via Media list asked, "How can they bring ecclesiastical charges against someone they do not acknowledge as clergy?"

You can read what the PB wrote about the canons in a letter that was issued BEFORE this news story by the Living Church broke here. She lays out the situation very plainly, and in doing so quite effectively cuts the legs out from under this transparent effort to smear her and change the subject.

The boys are getting desperate.

Mark Harris Reveals Details of The Fort Worth Plan

If you want to see the details of our diocesan leadership's plan to rid themselves of troublesome parishes and rectors who intend to remain in The Episcopal Church, please go read Mark Harris' blog Preludium.

He has the documents and a wonderful commentary on this plan to make faithful Episcopalians refugees in their own church and make it easier for Bp. Iker to abscond with TEC property.

Mark writes, "This last weekend I received an anonymously sent and unsolicited copy of a Draft proposal for "The Fort Worth Plan" dated 4/09/08, and marked Confidential, although without any attribution as to author or source of the request of confidentiality. Accompanying that was a draft of "Canon 41, Associated Congregations" which is referenced in "The Fort Worth Plan" as a proposed canonical change in the Diocese of Dallas."

Go check it out.

Cowboying Bishop

Stand Firm has posted this letter from Bp. Jack Iker and "the sovereign Diocese of Fort Worth" to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori [The letter is also posted at the diocesan web site]:

************************************
Dear Katharine,

I am shocked and saddened by the rude letter you released yesterday to Archbishop Greg Venables, concerning his visit this weekend to the Diocese of Fort Worth. Far from being "an unwarranted interference," he is coming at my request as an honored visitor and guest speaker.

You should know that under the canons this does not require either your approval or your support. You have no say in this matter. A diocesan bishop is free to invite other bishops to visit and speak in his diocese.

There are no efforts at reconciliation proceeding within this Province, which is one reason why faithful people continue to leave TEC in droves. Your attitude and actions simply reinforce alienation and bring further discord.

Once again, you are the one meddling in the internal affairs of this diocese, and I ask you to stop your unwelcome intrusions.

Faithfully in Christ,

The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth

cc: The Archbishop of Canterbury
*******************************

Ooooooooo, the bishop does NOT like it when anyone interfers in "his" diocese, does he? Remember the temper tantrum he threw when Bonnie Anderson had the temerity to come here at the invitation of Fort Worth Via Media?

But it's NOT OK when the primate of this province objects to another primate interfering in her province.

And while the canons may not say anything about it, the Windsor Report certainly does. And so do Anglican custom, collegiality and good manners.

But good manners aren't nearly as much fun as cowboying about to the cheers of the Stand Firm crowd.

Bp. Iker Calls Steering Committee "Vigilantes" and Idolaters

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has a story this morning on the formation of the Steering Committee.

Walt Cabe, the Steering Committee president, is quoted as saying, ""We might not agree on every position or action, but it's that diversity that has attracted us to remain Episcopalians. That's an important witness."

The story reported "Cabe said that the steering committee is a way for several Episcopal groups to bond and work with the national church to stay intact. He said it should not be categorized as liberal or conservative. 'We want a more tolerant attitude toward one another, a willingness to engage in informal adult conversation and eliminate fear and intimidation," he said."

The story also included Bp. Iker's response: "Fort Worth Diocese Bishop Jack Iker said in a statement Tuesday that the steering committee is 'a self-selected vigilante group whose only stated purpose is 'to remain in The Episcopal Church' no matter what -- and regardless of what TEC believes or practices. They espouse a blind institutional loyalty that borders on institutional idolatry.'"

Iker's statement is also quoted as saying "that the diocese's main purpose is to be faithful to biblical teaching and that the annual diocese convention, composed of elected lay and clergy leaders from every diocese congregation, is the only body that can act on behalf of the diocese."

The story also includes Suzanne Gill, the diocesan director of communications, describing the diocese's "generous" offer to let those parishes who want to stay in The Episcopal Church keep their property.

To which Cabe replied "property issues 'are at the heart of the tangible consequences' that might result if the diocese aligns with another province."

I'd say he hit that nail on the head.

This is indeed a strange place when Episcopalians are called vigilantes for seeking to keep an Episcopal diocese in The Episcopal Church, but a bishop who invites the primate of another province to come persuade our convention delegates to "move" to his province is called "Windsor compliant."

It's also sad that while Bp. Iker insists that those who oppose him do not vilify him, he is free to call members of his diocese idolaters and vigilantes.

Vigilante is an interesting word. It is Spanish for "watchman" or "watcher." It came into the English language through the Southwestern United States, where many Spanish words are used daily. The term has gotten a bad rap because some vigilante groups in our history have resorted to violence when those in positions of power failed to deliver the justice they thought was needed.

But mostly those in power don't like vigilante groups because they are "watchers." People who are walking on a thin line of legality particularly do not like "watchers." I think it is a very interesting choice of words by Bishop Iker.

Katharine Tells Gregory To Quit Meddling

In a letter in her characteristic straightforward style, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has told Southern Cone Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables that his May 2-3 visit to the Diocese of Fort Worth is "an unwarranted invasion of and meddling in the internal affairs of this Province."

You go, girl!!

Read it all here, where the story also reports on the founding of the Steering Committee North Texas Episcopalians. There is one error -- the Steering Committee did not begin to work to identify people who wish to remain Episcopalians immediately after the last diocesan convention. Some people who are now members of the Steering Committee began to do that work. The Steering Committee did not begin to come into existence until about six weeks ago.

Here's the story:
*********************************
Fort Worth visit an 'unwarranted invasion,' Presiding Bishop tells Southern Cone primate
Episcopalians organize to counter moves to re-align Fort Worth diocese

From staff reports April 29, 2008 [Episcopal News Service]

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has advised Southern Cone Presiding Bishop Gregory J. Venables in an April 29 letter that his planned May 2-3 visit to address a special convocation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth "with the expressed purpose of describing removal to the Province of the Southern Cone is an unwarranted invasion of, and meddling in, the internal affairs of this Province."

"I write to urge you not to bring further discord into The Episcopal Church," Jefferts Schori told Venables, who was, according to reports, scheduled to be in Central California on April 29 to meet with church leaders who last year voted to disaffiliate with the Episcopal Church and align with his Argentina-based province.

"The actions contemplated by some leaders in Fort Worth are profoundly uncanonical," Jefferts Schori wrote. "They also prevent needed reconciliation from proceeding within this Province."

The full text of Jefferts Schori's letter, copied to Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, follows.
***************************
Dear Gregory, I write to urge you not to bring further discord into The Episcopal Church. Visiting a special convocation of the Diocese of Fort Worth with the expressed purpose of describing removal to the Province of the Southern Cone is an unprecedented and unwarranted invasion of, and meddling in, the internal affairs of this Province. I ask you to consider how you might receive such a visit to your own Province from a fellow primate. The actions contemplated by some leaders in Fort Worth are profoundly uncanonical. They also prevent needed reconciliation from proceeding within this Province. I urge you to focus your pastoral ministry within your own Province. May your ministry there be fruitful.
I remain
Your servant in Christ,
Katharine Jefferts Schori

**************************

During the past year, the Presiding Bishop and Fort Worth Bishop Jack Iker have exchanged letters about the vote of Fort Worth's convention last November in which delegates gave the first of two required approvals of canonical changes to amend its constitution and remove accession to the Constitution and Canons of General Convention, as well as several canonical amendments that eliminate mention of the Episcopal Church.

Jefferts Schori has continued to emphasize the possibility of reconciliation between Iker, the diocese and the wider Episcopal Church, said the Presiding Bishop's canon, the Rev. Dr. Charles K. Robertson.

Meanwhile, a group called the Steering Committee North Texas Episcopalians has been formed to help Episcopalians who are opposed to efforts to align the diocese with a province of the Anglican Communion other than the Episcopal Church.

An April 27 news release from the steering committee said the group began work immediately after the November 17 Fort Worth convention.

Since that time, Iker and the diocesan Standing Committee have said that "the structure and polity of the Province of the Southern Cone would afford our diocese greater self-determination than we currently have under the General Convention of The Episcopal Church."

The Southern Cone has about 22,000 members and encompasses Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. Its provincial synod, meeting in Valpariso, Chile, November 5-7, 2007, agreed to welcome into the province "on an emergency and pastoral basis" Episcopal Church dioceses "taking appropriate action to separate from The Episcopal Church."

The Fort Worth diocesan convention is set to vote on the changes for a second time when the convention meets in November.

"In the wake of the first vote, many people immediately set to work to identify and empower those who intend to remain Episcopalians," the steering committee said in its release. Those people include members of Fort Worth Via Media, North Texans Remain Episcopal in the northern part of the diocese and Remain Episcopal of Granbury in the southwestern part of the diocese as well as by a group in the mid-cities area and a group of diocesan clergy, the release said. Another group, Steadfast Episcopalians, was recently organized explicitly to reach out to conservative Episcopalians.

"There were also individuals representing almost all parishes and missions who had self-identified as wishing to remain Episcopalian," the committee said.

"These groups and individuals realized they needed to work together" and so they formed the steering committee, according to the release.

"The inclusion of individuals representing all points of view is crucial as we move forward in mission together," said Robertson, canon to the Presiding Bishop.

Walter Cabe is president and Courtland Moore is vice president. Margaret Mieuli is treasurer and Bruce Coggin is the committee's clerk. Other executive committee members are George Komechak, Kathleen Wells, Victoria Prescott and Fred Barber.

"The primary objectives of this combined group are to remain in the Episcopal Church and to continue the work of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth as a constituent part of the Episcopal Church," Komechak, who is also president of Fort Worth Via Media, said in the release. "Identifying additional persons in diocesan parishes and missions who support staying in the Episcopal Church is one of the Steering Committee's first items of business."

People who will remain Episcopalians can send information to Steering Committee North Texas Episcopalians, P.O. Box 100846, Fort Worth, TX, 76185-0846. A website is under construction.

The committee has been recognized as a Texas non-profit corporation by the Secretary of State, and has adopted bylaws and a statement of mission and beliefs.

According to recent parochial reports, the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is comprised of more than 18,100 active baptized members in some 55 congregations in north central Texas.
********************************
It's interesting to note that very recently our bishop and other diocesan leaders have begun to drop a little bomb into discussions. Bishop Iker said at a recent meeting at All Saints Church that we shouldn't get too wedded to the idea of the Southern Cone. We may not be going there.

His sidekick Dean Christopher Cantrell said the same thing at a Fort Worth West Deanery meeting last night. So what's up with that?

Are we hedging our bets? Are we looking to negotiate a better deal with Venables, who would love to have our numbers and our money in his teeny province?

I think they are just jerking folks around, keeping the anxiety level high while maintaining as much an air of mystery as possible.

Why? Because they are trying to fly this airplane while they're building it. They are making this up as they go along. They know the legal underpinnings of what they are trying to pull off are non-existent. The legal "arguments" they put forward to justify it are tissue-thin.

Katharine has started to call their bluff.

It's long past time someone did.

Sowing Hope

Two busloads of Episcopalians from the Diocese of Fort Worth left Trinity Church's parking lot at 1 p.m. today to travel to Dallas to see the presiding bishop at St. Thomas the Apostle.

In addition to the people on the buses, there were others who came as individuals from Fort Worth, as well as twenty from Granbury and fifteen from Wichita Falls. Not bad for a Monday afternoon. Many more wanted to come but could not get off work.

We all wore these identifying badges to erase any doubt about why we were there.

Katharine was there to bless St. Thomas' new community garden. They are "growing food to fight hunger where we live." The garden was an outgrowth of their commitment to the Millennium Development goals.

Read the Dallas Morning News story and watch the video here.

It started last May with a group of people wanting to do something with the vacant lot the church owned next to their parking lot.

People starting donating time, money and equipment and now two large pantry plots are growing food to be donated to the North Dallas Shared Ministries and the Resource Center of Dallas. Gardeners in 16 private plots are growing food for themselves with a promise to donate 10 percent to local food banks.

The garden is beautifully laid out and promises bumper crops this summer.

Those of us from Fort Worth came not only to celebrate the new garden, but also to see and hear Katharine. We needed to feed a different hunger, one for connection to the larger church, and for reassurance that we won't be forgotten.

Katharine delivered on both counts. The liturgy blessing the garden was lovely and well done, and her remarks and answers to questions at the reception that followed were handled with her usual calm gracefulness.

We give thanks for the wonderful hospitality of the people of St. Thomas, and for their outreach to the hungry.

And we give thanks for Katharine's leadership.

Many seeds were sown today, seeds that will feed many kinds of hunger.