Bp. Jack Iker has written to his clergy about the House of Bishops Meeting -- or rather he is letting one of his young priests write to them.
And in what has to be one of the best Freudian slips in recent memory, this young man writes, "Secondly, the House collectively pledged not to endorse any official, pubic rites for same-sex blessings [emphasis added], while clearly leaving a vast amount of room for the continued practice of "private, unofficial" SSBs as a form of "pastoral care" (which "private" same-sex blessings may, of course, be performed in a church in front of 500 people by a priest or bishop in full vestments using language that may sound uncannily like a formal liturgy, just so long as no official text of a rite has been approved in advance by the bishop!). There will clearly be no turning back by TEC."
And didya know that that mean ol' General Convention Church -- the cute new name our guys here in FW use for TEC -- is going to make the ordination of gays mandatory in every diocese -- just like it made the ordination of women mandatory in every diocese. That's what Bishop Iker says.
Oh. Wait. They didn't make the ordination of women mandatory in every diocese, did they? Well, why let facts mess up a good rant?
Anyway, here is Bp. Iker's letter and Randall Foster's blog. Enjoy.
---------------------------------------
Dear Friends in Christ,
So what are we to make of the recent statement issued by the House of Bishops at the conclusion of its meeting in New Orleans last week? Did they comply with the unanimous requests of the Primates' Meeting Communiqué issued in February?
As I was drafting my report to all of you about this, I came across an excellent piece written by one of our bright new priests, Fr. Randall Foster, which captures the essence of what I wanted to say. I am sending it to you with the request that you give it a careful, thoughtful reading.
Fr. Foster is on the staff of St. Vincent's Cathedral Church and School and is a doctoral student in New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Chicago. His blog site can be visited at texanglican.blogspot.com
It is clear to me that The Episcopal Church intends to proceed in the direction we have been headed since at least 2003, with the blessing of same sex unions and the ordination of practicing homosexuals in every diocese of this church. It is simply a question of how long it will take before the General Convention makes it mandatory in every diocese. The New Orleans statement is very carefully worded in an effort to get all American bishops to the Lambeth Conference next summer.
I hope you are praying daily for discernment and courage for our Diocesan Convention to do the right thing in God's eyes when we meet in November.
Yours in Christ,
The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Third Bishop of Fort Worth
++++++++
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2007
My Response to the HOB Statement
The primates of the Anglican Communion, meeting in Dar es Salaam last Spring, asked the bishops of TEC for clarity about the errant US province's teaching and practice on certain matters relating to human sexuality. This weekend's meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans was suposed to give the world just that clarity. Instead, the meeting proved to be more of the same--mendacity and ambiguity that undermine the classic teachings and practices of Christianity masquerading as "social justice" and "inclusion." Essentially, the HOB's final statement yesterday defended the status quo in TEC.
The one thing that was clear from the final statement of the HOBs is that nothing is going to change. Every concern of the primates was brushed aside as having already been dealt with sufficiently in accordance with TEC's polity. For example, the Pastoral Council/Primatial Vicar scheme outlined in the Dar es Salaam Communique was tossed aside without discussion, and a hopelessly inadequate DEPO scheme under PB Schori's direction (announced late last week without details) was endorsed in its place, even though the dioceses that had appealed for APO were never consulted and rejected the new plan as insufficient the moment it was announced.
Of course, two things were included in the HOB statement that might on their face seem to address the primates' concerns. First, the House again pledged to exercise "restraint" in approving future bishop-elects whose "manner of life" posed a "challenge" to the world-wide Communion. But a pledge of "restraint" is not a prohibition, and "restraint" is purely voluntary and subject to termination any time at the whim of the party "restraining " himself or herself. Secondly, the House collectively pledged not to endorse any official, pubic rites for same-sex blessings, while clearly leaving a vast amount of room for the continued practice of "private, unofficial" SSBs as a form of "pastoral care" (which "private" same-sex blessings may, of course, be performed in a church in front of 500 people by a priest or bishop in full vestments using language that may sound uncannily like a formal liturgy, just so long as no official text of a rite has been approved in advance by the bishop!). There will clearly be no turning back by TEC.
My response to all of this is deep sadness. New Orleans was undoubtedly the last chance for TEC to reverse course. I didn't expect the HOB truly to repent and turn away from their path of the last several years, but frankly I had thought they would produce something that went a bit further toward meeting the actual requirements of the primates. Instead they spent their time finding loopholes that allowed them to slip through the wording of the Communique of DES. This was "Anglican fudge" of the finest quality, which was apparently endorsed at the highest levels by officials of the world-wide Communion. No doubt, many leaders of Anglicanism in the industrialized world (especially ABC Williams) will seize on this statement as just enough to hold the Communion together and ensure TEC's place at Lambeth. But I am sure that the Global South primates will not view this response as adequate. Only time will tell if the Communion itself survives.
Even though ABC Williams astonished us all last weekend by insisting that the DES Communique was not an "ultimatum" but rather a starting point for "conversation", and that Sept. 30th was not a "deadline," pretty much everyone I know--reasserter and revisionist--has understood this meeting as "the end of the line" as far as the "Global South" primates go. And many faithful Anglicans still within TEC have also seen this week's meeting as the "make or break" event for their staying within or leaving TEC. If traditionalist leaders do not treat this HOB statement as TEC's last word on the subject I fear the faithful will begin to desert us in droves. After GenCon03 we told them "wait until London," then "wait until Plano," then "wait until Dromantine," then "wait until GenCon06," then Dar es Salaam, and finally--with an actual deadline apparently in hand--"wait until New Orleans." We have all waited far too long for something to be done. Real, robust action to preserve orthodox Anglicanism must be taken now. I am heartened by the meeting of the Common Cause bishops in Pittsburgh going on at present. There may still be a future for orthodox Anglicanism in North America if these godly men have anything to say about it. May God bless their work.
As a statement by our Standing Committee released yesterday made clear, the leadership of the diocese of Fort Worth has determined that a strong sentiment exists here to move forward with realignment now. No other path now seems viable to me either. I believe it will simply be too difficult for our diocese to remain a faithful witness to Jesus Christ within our heritage as Anglican Catholic Christians if we continue to be a constituent unit of "the General Convention church" following the Great Fudge of New Orleans. The HOB meeting has made it clear that nothing will change for the better. They have set their faces like flint in the direction of radical inclusion and will not be turned aside. That means the dire situation for the orthodox still within TEC will only get worse. As uncertain as our diocesan future may be, I do not see a faitful way forward for Fort Worth that keeps us within 815's fold in light of this week's failure in New Orleans. Our future must clearly be charted by our November diocesan convention. Let us pray hard for wisdom and discernment.
May God bless the leadership of my diocese and the faithful leaders of the Common Cause Partnership, and all the faithful people and clergy of the world-wide Anglican Communion, as difficult decisions are made in the months ahead.
Fr. Randall Foster
Sunday, September 30, 2007
William Tell Overture for Moms
This may be the funniest thing I've seen in years. Do NOT have anything in your mouth when you watch this.
Friday, September 14, 2007
CANA, Bishops, and the Refrigerator Box
In the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta The Gondoliers, the Grand Inquisitor arrives at the palace to find everyone has been promoted to nobility. Outraged, he declares, "When everyone is somebody, then no one's anybody".
When I heard that the Archbishop of Nigeria had announced the election of four more bishops for the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), I started laughing, because this whole thing is starting to sound like a Gilbert and Sullivan show – either that, or a group of 9-year-old girls.
According to reports on the Internet, CANA currently consists of approximately 60 congregations and 80 clergy in 20 states. CANA will soon have 80 bishops for 60 congregations.
I’m not sure what the collective noun is for a bunch of bishops [A miter of bishops? A bevy of bishops? A crosier of bishops? An interference of bishops? If we have a pride of lions, do we have an ego of bishops? And if we have a murder of crows, do we have an admonition of bishops?], but this seems to me an excessive number of bishops.
All this reminds of The Summer of the Refrigerator Box.
When I was about 9 years old, someone in our small town in West Texas got a new refrigerator. The truck delivered it in a giant box, which the lucky recipients left in their yard after they hauled the refrigerator inside.
Four other little girls and I confiscated it immediately and dragged it to the corner of an empty lot where it became our sanctuary from boys, especially my brothers, and indeed, anyone we did not deem worthy, which was everyone but us.
We immediately formed a club and made lot of rules, all of which were aimed at making us special and everyone else not so special. We got to decide who got into the club. Heck, we got to decide who got to come inside The Refrigerator Box.
We were very very picky.
We all had grand titles. Being a Roman Catholic, I was really good at titles, so my Baptist playmates deferred to me. We called ourselves things like Reverend Mother In Charge, and High Holy Potentatetress, and the Very Reverend Benefactor of all Animals, and Her Eminanence the Snack Getter, and Her Majesty the Queen of Main Street.
Even we, however, couldn’t say them with a straight face. We’d very grandly announce our titles to any girl petitioning to join our exclusive little group, and then we’d fall over laughing. We were laughing at the titles. It was only at a more mature age that I realized all those little girls thought we were laughing at them.
And with good reason. We were acting like pills.
We never let anyone else into our club. No one was good enough to join us.
Our special little circle played inside The Refrigerator Box all that summer. Because it is very dry in West Texas, the sturdy cardboard box with its corners reinforced by wood stood up very well to the constant coming and going of five girls and our dogs.
But we never did let anyone else into our club. After all, we’d found it, we’d dragged it to the empty lot, and we’d created the club.
My brothers occasionally would launch attacks on The Box, but we always repelled them with dirt clods, loud shrieks, and threats to tell on them.
One little girl courted us all summer, bringing us cupcakes and other snacks. We’d take the food, but we never let her into The Box or the club.
Like I said, we were being pills.
Finally that long hot dry summer ended. It rained really hard one night, a real gully washer that caused flash floods all over the county. It was both the beginning of the end of the drought, and the end of The Refrigerator Box.
When the rain stopped and our parents let us out to play, we ran to check on The Box. It hadn’t washed away. Instead, it had simply folded in on itself to make a big mushy wet heap.
The combination of the loss of The Box and the start of school ended our prissy little club.
But also, we had gotten very bored with our own company. We’d learned that the Grand Inquisitor was right -- when everyone is somebody, then no one's anybody
But there is one difference between what we did and what CANA is doing.
We were only 9-years-old.
When I heard that the Archbishop of Nigeria had announced the election of four more bishops for the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), I started laughing, because this whole thing is starting to sound like a Gilbert and Sullivan show – either that, or a group of 9-year-old girls.
According to reports on the Internet, CANA currently consists of approximately 60 congregations and 80 clergy in 20 states. CANA will soon have 80 bishops for 60 congregations.
I’m not sure what the collective noun is for a bunch of bishops [A miter of bishops? A bevy of bishops? A crosier of bishops? An interference of bishops? If we have a pride of lions, do we have an ego of bishops? And if we have a murder of crows, do we have an admonition of bishops?], but this seems to me an excessive number of bishops.
All this reminds of The Summer of the Refrigerator Box.
When I was about 9 years old, someone in our small town in West Texas got a new refrigerator. The truck delivered it in a giant box, which the lucky recipients left in their yard after they hauled the refrigerator inside.
Four other little girls and I confiscated it immediately and dragged it to the corner of an empty lot where it became our sanctuary from boys, especially my brothers, and indeed, anyone we did not deem worthy, which was everyone but us.
We immediately formed a club and made lot of rules, all of which were aimed at making us special and everyone else not so special. We got to decide who got into the club. Heck, we got to decide who got to come inside The Refrigerator Box.
We were very very picky.
We all had grand titles. Being a Roman Catholic, I was really good at titles, so my Baptist playmates deferred to me. We called ourselves things like Reverend Mother In Charge, and High Holy Potentatetress, and the Very Reverend Benefactor of all Animals, and Her Eminanence the Snack Getter, and Her Majesty the Queen of Main Street.
Even we, however, couldn’t say them with a straight face. We’d very grandly announce our titles to any girl petitioning to join our exclusive little group, and then we’d fall over laughing. We were laughing at the titles. It was only at a more mature age that I realized all those little girls thought we were laughing at them.
And with good reason. We were acting like pills.
We never let anyone else into our club. No one was good enough to join us.
Our special little circle played inside The Refrigerator Box all that summer. Because it is very dry in West Texas, the sturdy cardboard box with its corners reinforced by wood stood up very well to the constant coming and going of five girls and our dogs.
But we never did let anyone else into our club. After all, we’d found it, we’d dragged it to the empty lot, and we’d created the club.
My brothers occasionally would launch attacks on The Box, but we always repelled them with dirt clods, loud shrieks, and threats to tell on them.
One little girl courted us all summer, bringing us cupcakes and other snacks. We’d take the food, but we never let her into The Box or the club.
Like I said, we were being pills.
Finally that long hot dry summer ended. It rained really hard one night, a real gully washer that caused flash floods all over the county. It was both the beginning of the end of the drought, and the end of The Refrigerator Box.
When the rain stopped and our parents let us out to play, we ran to check on The Box. It hadn’t washed away. Instead, it had simply folded in on itself to make a big mushy wet heap.
The combination of the loss of The Box and the start of school ended our prissy little club.
But also, we had gotten very bored with our own company. We’d learned that the Grand Inquisitor was right -- when everyone is somebody, then no one's anybody
But there is one difference between what we did and what CANA is doing.
We were only 9-years-old.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Saddling Mean Horses
“Saddle your own horse.”
This old Texas saying was the last piece of advice Bonnie Anderson had for the people at the "Episcopalians for the Future" meeting sponsored by Fort Worth Via Media and Brite Divinity School on September 8.
"Always saddle your own horse" also is the unofficial motto of The Cowgirl Hall of Fame in Fort Worth.
It means taking responsibility for yourself.
What the president of the House of Deputies was telling us was that The Episcopal Church leadership can’t “rescue” us. They can help us, but they can’t rescue us.
We – the laypeople and clergy in the Diocese of Fort Worth who intend to remain Episcopalian should our bishop and others leave TEC -- have a responsibility to get informed, get organized, and get busy.
Some of us who have been saying the same thing for nigh on fifteen years or more felt like standing up and cheering.
But I also understand why people here are waiting for the TEC cavalry to ride over the hill and rescue them.
There is a deepseated culture of passivity in the church here, a culture that’s been carefully nurtured by the clergy and bishops here for decades and that has been buttressed by carefully crafted rules and policies.
Lay people have been told for the entirety of this diocese’s existence that lay people can pray, pay, and obey and that’s it. Only the clergy can actually do things in the church. Only the clergy have power. The clericalism of this diocese has to be experienced to be believed.
In this, the Fatherland of The Episcopal Church, lay people are assured that Father knows best and that one questions him at one's peril. Only those lay people who toe the doctrinal line are allowed to have any position of influence.
In most of our parishes it is very hard for lay people who disagree with the bishop to have any power. We can urge people to run for vestry and for convention delegates until we are blue in the face, but often when they try, they run up against the “policies” of their rectors and the Bishop’s Customary.
What is the Bishop’s Customary? It’s the twenty-two page-long set of rules that run this diocese. You can find it on the diocesan web page.
http://www.fwepiscopal.org/customary/Customary2005.html
For example, here is how the national canons define a communicant in good standing:
***************************
CANON 17: Of Regulations Respecting the Laity
Sec. 3. All communicants of this Church who for the previous year
have been faithful in corporate worship, unless for good cause
prevented, and have been faithful in working, praying, and giving for
the spread of the Kingdom of God, are to be considered
communicants in good standing.
***************************
Here is how the Bishop’s Customary defines a communicant:
***************************
Communicant:
(1) Communicant In Good Standing A baptized person who has been confirmed or received by a Bishop of this Church and who receives Holy Communion on a regular basis in the Episcopal Church is a communicant of this Church. All communicants whose names are duly recorded in the Parish Register where they are attending, who for the previous year have been faithful in corporate worship, unless for good cause prevented, and have been faithful in working, praying, and giving for the spread of the Kingdom of God, are to be considered Communicants in Good Standing.
***************************
This old Texas saying was the last piece of advice Bonnie Anderson had for the people at the "Episcopalians for the Future" meeting sponsored by Fort Worth Via Media and Brite Divinity School on September 8.
"Always saddle your own horse" also is the unofficial motto of The Cowgirl Hall of Fame in Fort Worth.
It means taking responsibility for yourself.
What the president of the House of Deputies was telling us was that The Episcopal Church leadership can’t “rescue” us. They can help us, but they can’t rescue us.
We – the laypeople and clergy in the Diocese of Fort Worth who intend to remain Episcopalian should our bishop and others leave TEC -- have a responsibility to get informed, get organized, and get busy.
Some of us who have been saying the same thing for nigh on fifteen years or more felt like standing up and cheering.
But I also understand why people here are waiting for the TEC cavalry to ride over the hill and rescue them.
There is a deepseated culture of passivity in the church here, a culture that’s been carefully nurtured by the clergy and bishops here for decades and that has been buttressed by carefully crafted rules and policies.
Lay people have been told for the entirety of this diocese’s existence that lay people can pray, pay, and obey and that’s it. Only the clergy can actually do things in the church. Only the clergy have power. The clericalism of this diocese has to be experienced to be believed.
In this, the Fatherland of The Episcopal Church, lay people are assured that Father knows best and that one questions him at one's peril. Only those lay people who toe the doctrinal line are allowed to have any position of influence.
In most of our parishes it is very hard for lay people who disagree with the bishop to have any power. We can urge people to run for vestry and for convention delegates until we are blue in the face, but often when they try, they run up against the “policies” of their rectors and the Bishop’s Customary.
What is the Bishop’s Customary? It’s the twenty-two page-long set of rules that run this diocese. You can find it on the diocesan web page.
http://www.fwepiscopal.org/customary/Customary2005.html
For example, here is how the national canons define a communicant in good standing:
***************************
CANON 17: Of Regulations Respecting the Laity
Sec. 3. All communicants of this Church who for the previous year
have been faithful in corporate worship, unless for good cause
prevented, and have been faithful in working, praying, and giving for
the spread of the Kingdom of God, are to be considered
communicants in good standing.
***************************
Here is how the Bishop’s Customary defines a communicant:
***************************
Communicant:
(1) Communicant In Good Standing A baptized person who has been confirmed or received by a Bishop of this Church and who receives Holy Communion on a regular basis in the Episcopal Church is a communicant of this Church. All communicants whose names are duly recorded in the Parish Register where they are attending, who for the previous year have been faithful in corporate worship, unless for good cause prevented, and have been faithful in working, praying, and giving for the spread of the Kingdom of God, are to be considered Communicants in Good Standing.
***************************
here is some of what the Bishop’s Customary says about election of Vestry members:
***************************
In most parishes, the rector usually appoints the outgoing members of the vestry to serve as a nominating committee. It is their duty to present nominees who will bring additional know-how to the vestry, so that its membership will reflect a broad spectrum of expertise ranging from the legal and fiscal to such fields as communications, teaching, social work, etc.Many nominating committees prepare a slate of more names than there are positions to be filled to offer a choice to the parishioners and to forestall any embarrassment among the losers. A person's commitment to the parish is utmost in determining his/her willingness to service. . .
In some parishes, it is customary to supplement the nominating committee's list by making nominations from the floor of the meeting. Others provide that this be done in advance, by petition with a prescribed number of signatures. Whatever procedure is followed, you will want to be sure that all candidates know what election to the vestry will mean in terms of their time, energy, and imagination.Although many priests are reluctant to do so, it is quite within the rights of the local clergyman to make suggestions to the nominating committee and most especially to express his previous relations with the nominees, and possible difficulties or problems which could be encountered if they were elected to vestry membership.
BASIC CRITERIA FOR VESTRY NOMINATION ARE THE FOLLOWING:
1. Does the nominee meet or exceed the canonical requirements of Communicant status in this Church?
2. Is the nominee a consistent, concerned steward? Does he/she make a pledge each year and pay that pledge?
3. Does the basic lifestyle of the nominee conform to Christian expectations and is it consistent with his/her evaluation by the community and parish?
4. What lay ministry have they performed?
5. Is the nominee hopeful about the life of the parish, the Christian faith, and life in general?
6. Can the rector work with the nominee?
****************************
Pay attention to numbers 2, 3, and 6. These are the rules invoked in most parishes in this diocese when anyone who disagrees with the bishop is nominated to run for vestry. If the rector can’t scratch him or her because his or her pledge isn’t all paid up, then he can get the person on the lifestyle rule, by labeling him/her argumentative and confrontational. And as a last resort, he can always simply announce, “I can’t work with this person,” and that person is stricken from the list of nominees.
In most parishes, the annual meeting is presented with a slate of nominees and that’s it. Some rectors, such as the rector of All Saints Fort Worth, forbid nominations from the floor.
Here is what the Bishop’s Customary says about the election of Convention delegates:
***************************
Convention Delegates:
Delegates and Alternate Delegates to the annual conventions of the Diocese of Fort Worth are elected at the annual parish meeting of the congregation and serve until their successors are elected. The annual meeting of each parish shall be held no later than the 31st of January. Delegates and Alternate Delegates must be communicants in good standing of the parish they are to represent and at least 18 years of age. The number of delegates to be elected is determined on the basis of the size of the congregation as determined by Canon 1 of the Diocese of Fort Worth. If a Delegate cannot serve and no elected Alternate Delegate is available, the rector may certify another person to serve in place of the elected delegate.
***************************
Here again, if a person isn’t pledging, they are declared not a communicant in good standing and cannot be nominated. Additionally, in many parishes, including my own, convention delegates are not elected at the parish meeting. Rather, they are chosen by the vestry, often from among the vestry. This has tremendous potential to increase the control a rector has over convention delegates and lessens the number of lay people who can play a role in the governance of their parish and diocese.
In this diocese, rectors are expected to be in control of their vestries. At the last diocesan convention, Bishop Iker said from the podium, only half jokingly, that any rector who can’t control his vestry isn’t worth his salt. The idea that the rector and the vestry should serve as a system of checks and balances on each other is considered novel indeed -- or subversive.
And should a person who does not agree with the stated theological positions of this diocese manage to get elected a convention delegate, and dare to offer a resolution or to speak from the floor, he or she will almost certainly be attacked, humiliated and publicly shamed by other delegates, or even by the bishop from the chair.
All it takes is people witnessing that a few times and they aren’t apt to offer themselves up as sacrificial lambs.
Still, in spite of all this, more and more people are willing to speak up and are working to change things.
But, please, do not underestimate the challenges facing those of us in this diocese who wish to remain in The Episcopal Church.
It’s hard to saddle a horse that's trying to bite you.
***************************
In most parishes, the rector usually appoints the outgoing members of the vestry to serve as a nominating committee. It is their duty to present nominees who will bring additional know-how to the vestry, so that its membership will reflect a broad spectrum of expertise ranging from the legal and fiscal to such fields as communications, teaching, social work, etc.Many nominating committees prepare a slate of more names than there are positions to be filled to offer a choice to the parishioners and to forestall any embarrassment among the losers. A person's commitment to the parish is utmost in determining his/her willingness to service. . .
In some parishes, it is customary to supplement the nominating committee's list by making nominations from the floor of the meeting. Others provide that this be done in advance, by petition with a prescribed number of signatures. Whatever procedure is followed, you will want to be sure that all candidates know what election to the vestry will mean in terms of their time, energy, and imagination.Although many priests are reluctant to do so, it is quite within the rights of the local clergyman to make suggestions to the nominating committee and most especially to express his previous relations with the nominees, and possible difficulties or problems which could be encountered if they were elected to vestry membership.
BASIC CRITERIA FOR VESTRY NOMINATION ARE THE FOLLOWING:
1. Does the nominee meet or exceed the canonical requirements of Communicant status in this Church?
2. Is the nominee a consistent, concerned steward? Does he/she make a pledge each year and pay that pledge?
3. Does the basic lifestyle of the nominee conform to Christian expectations and is it consistent with his/her evaluation by the community and parish?
4. What lay ministry have they performed?
5. Is the nominee hopeful about the life of the parish, the Christian faith, and life in general?
6. Can the rector work with the nominee?
****************************
Pay attention to numbers 2, 3, and 6. These are the rules invoked in most parishes in this diocese when anyone who disagrees with the bishop is nominated to run for vestry. If the rector can’t scratch him or her because his or her pledge isn’t all paid up, then he can get the person on the lifestyle rule, by labeling him/her argumentative and confrontational. And as a last resort, he can always simply announce, “I can’t work with this person,” and that person is stricken from the list of nominees.
In most parishes, the annual meeting is presented with a slate of nominees and that’s it. Some rectors, such as the rector of All Saints Fort Worth, forbid nominations from the floor.
Here is what the Bishop’s Customary says about the election of Convention delegates:
***************************
Convention Delegates:
Delegates and Alternate Delegates to the annual conventions of the Diocese of Fort Worth are elected at the annual parish meeting of the congregation and serve until their successors are elected. The annual meeting of each parish shall be held no later than the 31st of January. Delegates and Alternate Delegates must be communicants in good standing of the parish they are to represent and at least 18 years of age. The number of delegates to be elected is determined on the basis of the size of the congregation as determined by Canon 1 of the Diocese of Fort Worth. If a Delegate cannot serve and no elected Alternate Delegate is available, the rector may certify another person to serve in place of the elected delegate.
***************************
Here again, if a person isn’t pledging, they are declared not a communicant in good standing and cannot be nominated. Additionally, in many parishes, including my own, convention delegates are not elected at the parish meeting. Rather, they are chosen by the vestry, often from among the vestry. This has tremendous potential to increase the control a rector has over convention delegates and lessens the number of lay people who can play a role in the governance of their parish and diocese.
In this diocese, rectors are expected to be in control of their vestries. At the last diocesan convention, Bishop Iker said from the podium, only half jokingly, that any rector who can’t control his vestry isn’t worth his salt. The idea that the rector and the vestry should serve as a system of checks and balances on each other is considered novel indeed -- or subversive.
And should a person who does not agree with the stated theological positions of this diocese manage to get elected a convention delegate, and dare to offer a resolution or to speak from the floor, he or she will almost certainly be attacked, humiliated and publicly shamed by other delegates, or even by the bishop from the chair.
All it takes is people witnessing that a few times and they aren’t apt to offer themselves up as sacrificial lambs.
Still, in spite of all this, more and more people are willing to speak up and are working to change things.
But, please, do not underestimate the challenges facing those of us in this diocese who wish to remain in The Episcopal Church.
It’s hard to saddle a horse that's trying to bite you.
Fort Worth Via Media Responds to Bishop Iker
A response from Fort Worth Via Media concerning Bishop Jack Iker’s statement about the “Episcopalians for the Future” forum held in Fort Worth on September 8, 2007.
We regret that Bishop Iker chose to respond to our event, “Episcopalians for the Future,” with an angry letter of protest posted on the diocesan web site Saturday evening. Sadly, however, we are not surprised, as this has been the pattern of response of our diocesan leadership to any move by the laity to get organized and informed ever since Bp. Iker became bishop coadjutor and then diocesan bishop. In his view, disagreement is disobedience and disrespect. Our diocesan leadership always moves quickly to try to suppress any sign of dissent with intimidation, public shaming, and misinformation.
The bishop’s statement is only the latest example of this. Even though we did not need his permission to invite Bonnie Anderson to Fort Worth, and she did not need his permission to come, as a courtesy we informed him in mid-July of the meeting and invited him to attend. He thanked us for the invitation but declined because he had an ordination on that date. He made no objection to the event at that time.
We also want to emphasize that, contrary to the bishop’s statement, Fort Worth Via Media has never claimed that we “alone are the true ‘loyal Episcopalians‘ here in Fort Worth.” We know there are many loyal Episcopalians in Fort Worth, indeed, many times more than were at our meeting.
We also find some irony in his concern about the protocols and polity of “The Episcopal Church.” After disregarding protocol and polity to call for alternative primatial oversight after the new Presiding Bishop was legitimately elected in accordance with the procedures of the Church, and stating that she is not welcome in this diocese, and after stating that he is out of communion with anyone who had anything to do with the election and consecration of Gene Robinson, and after attending the consecrations in Africa of US priests to minister to Episcopalians in America, we find his sudden concern about protocol and polity surprising.
After enduring years of his constant denigration of The Episcopal Church – the most current example his references to The Episcopal Church in recent statements as “the General Convention Church” -- we find his complaint that we failed to be reconciling rings hollow.
Neither Bonnie Anderson nor Fort Worth Via Media is the entity that has “sought to further divide the people of this diocese rather than to promote reconciliation.” It is the unyielding demands of our leadership that everyone in the diocese conform to “the stated theological positions of this diocese” and their complete refusal to allow a loyal opposition to function that has led to the divisions here. What they want is capitulation. We are working for reconciliation.
The Executive Committee of
Fort Worth Via Media
Contact: George Komechak, 817-229-7257
We regret that Bishop Iker chose to respond to our event, “Episcopalians for the Future,” with an angry letter of protest posted on the diocesan web site Saturday evening. Sadly, however, we are not surprised, as this has been the pattern of response of our diocesan leadership to any move by the laity to get organized and informed ever since Bp. Iker became bishop coadjutor and then diocesan bishop. In his view, disagreement is disobedience and disrespect. Our diocesan leadership always moves quickly to try to suppress any sign of dissent with intimidation, public shaming, and misinformation.
The bishop’s statement is only the latest example of this. Even though we did not need his permission to invite Bonnie Anderson to Fort Worth, and she did not need his permission to come, as a courtesy we informed him in mid-July of the meeting and invited him to attend. He thanked us for the invitation but declined because he had an ordination on that date. He made no objection to the event at that time.
We also want to emphasize that, contrary to the bishop’s statement, Fort Worth Via Media has never claimed that we “alone are the true ‘loyal Episcopalians‘ here in Fort Worth.” We know there are many loyal Episcopalians in Fort Worth, indeed, many times more than were at our meeting.
We also find some irony in his concern about the protocols and polity of “The Episcopal Church.” After disregarding protocol and polity to call for alternative primatial oversight after the new Presiding Bishop was legitimately elected in accordance with the procedures of the Church, and stating that she is not welcome in this diocese, and after stating that he is out of communion with anyone who had anything to do with the election and consecration of Gene Robinson, and after attending the consecrations in Africa of US priests to minister to Episcopalians in America, we find his sudden concern about protocol and polity surprising.
After enduring years of his constant denigration of The Episcopal Church – the most current example his references to The Episcopal Church in recent statements as “the General Convention Church” -- we find his complaint that we failed to be reconciling rings hollow.
Neither Bonnie Anderson nor Fort Worth Via Media is the entity that has “sought to further divide the people of this diocese rather than to promote reconciliation.” It is the unyielding demands of our leadership that everyone in the diocese conform to “the stated theological positions of this diocese” and their complete refusal to allow a loyal opposition to function that has led to the divisions here. What they want is capitulation. We are working for reconciliation.
The Executive Committee of
Fort Worth Via Media
Contact: George Komechak, 817-229-7257
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Bishop Iker is Unhappy.
Bishop Iker is very unhappy. Again.
Seems some of us people in his diocese dared to get together to talk about our future in The Episcopal Church. And what’s more, we had the gall to invite one of the leaders of the church to come answer questions for us. Yes, it’s all true. Fort Worth Via Media and Brite Divinity School did invite Bonnie Anderson to come to Fort Worth.
And I confess that, while we did inform Bishop Iker of her visit and invite him to attend two months before the event, we did not ask his permission. Why? Because we didn’t need his permission.
And, I might add, Bishop Iker did not indicate any displeasure over the visit in his note declining the invitation. [See below for copies of the invitation and Bp.Iker's reply.]
Turn out, though, he's really really really really really unhappy about it.
In http://www.fwepiscopal.org/news/andersonvisit.pdf Bishop Iker writes:"It is a clear effort on her part to recognize and empower a small group of people who dissent from the stated theological positions of this diocese and who claim that they alone are the true 'loyal Episcopalians' here in Fort Worth."
The bishop got part of it right. Bonnie Anderson DID recognize the existence of people in this diocese who disagree with "the stated theological positions of this diocese." She DID give out information that will empower people. I helped arrange all this. I was one of the speakers. So shoot me.
However, the bishop got part of it wrong. At NO time did anyone in that room claim to be the ONLY true "loyal Episcopalians" here in Fort Worth. Fort Worth Via Media has never claimed that.
And indeed, not everyone who was in that room "dissents" from "the stated theological positions of this diocese." Some agree with them, but aren't sure they are ready to leave TEC. Others agree with some of them, but not all, but do not want to leave TEC. Some disagree vehemently with those positions and are SURE they don't want to leave TEC. So? Where in all this have we "violated" the protocols and polity of The Episcopal Church?
I’m surprised he made that mistake. You’d think Bishop Iker would be an expert on violating the polity and protocols of TEC, wouldn’t you?
Indeed, recent actions by our bishop involving just those protocols have raised the anxiety level of people in the diocese to higher levels than usual. People wanted information from more than one source. Radical idea, huh?
But the idea for this event started long before the recent consecrations in Africa and our bishop's latest statement about "The Realignment Moves Forward." http://www.fwepiscopal.org/bishop/fromthebishop.html
People have been desperate for information for a long time. The response was the event that has so ticked off the bishop. "Episcopalians for the Future," sponsored by Brite Divinity School and Fort Worth Via Media, was held Saturday on the campus of Texas Christian University.
The purpose of the event was to inform people about national canons, especially regarding property, and to give them information from a viewpoint other than the bishop about recent events in our church and in the Communion, something not readily available in this diocese.
It also was designed to empower lay people by telling them of ways to stay informed and to get involved on the parish and diocesan level. We also discussed ways to put people in the various parishes in touch with one another, including setting up a listserve not unlike the HOB/D list so they can share information and ideas.
Again, let me emphasize that Bishop Iker WAS informed of Bonnie's visit to Fort Worth AND invited to the event several weeks prior to yesterday. He declined to attend, saying he had an ordination to do that day. He did not indicate any displeasure at that time.
Suzanne Gill, the diocesan communication director, attended the entire day, taking photos and notes like the good reporter she is.
In spite of the fact that the diocese refused to publicize the event, and despite the effort by some clergy to discourage people from attending, 250 people showed up -- the room was filled to capacity.
This was emphatically NOT a Bash Bishop Iker event, although he WAS inevitably mentioned. I heard no disrespect for him, only disagreement with him. Last I heard, disagreement with one's bishop still is permitted in TEC.
This was an event designed to give information about the national church and the Anglican Communion [pointing out, for instance, that none of the "Instruments of Unity" have any power to force TEC to do anything], about what help might be available to people and parishes who want to remain in The Episcopal Church, about what happens if a bishop attempts to take an entire diocese "out of the church."
Bonnie Anderson was the keynote speaker.
I then talked about the Anglican Communion and gave information about the Windsor Report, the Primates' Communiqué, invitations to Lambeth, etc. My talk will be posted on the Fort Worth Via Media web site later today.
Two lawyers from Houston talked about canon law.
My rector and one of the vestry members at Trinity Episcopal Church talked about ways lay people can get involved.
Then there was a Q&A session with Bonnie Anderson.
The event was completely transparent. It was open to anyone who registered, and was all videotaped. We sent a mailing to every priest in the diocese and attempted to get information to every parish -- a difficult task indeed with no cooperation from the diocese. Members of FWVM worked very hard issuing one-on-one invitations via letter and e-mail to people we know personally in the diocese.
As I said, not everyone in the room disagreed with the bishop -- indeed some of his fans were there -- but the exchanges were all cordial and everyone listened to everyone else politely.
Apparently such a gathering is very threatening to our bishop.
That fact alone should help everyone understand why it was so desperately needed here.
*****************************************
Here's the invitation and the bishop's reply:
On Jul 17, 2007, George Komechak [President of Fort Worth Via Media] wrote:
The Rt. Rev. Jack L. Iker, D.D., SSC
The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth
2900 Alemeda
Fort Worth, TX 76116
Dear Bishop Iker,
On behalf of Fort Worth Via Media, I am writing to invite you to hear Bonnie Anderson, President of the Episcopal Church House of Deputies, speak at the Dee J. Kelly Alumni and Visitors Center on the TCU campus on Saturday, September 8, 2007.
The program schedule is presently being developed, but we expect the event to start in the morning and continue to early afternoon. Ms. Anderson will be the keynote speaker as well as participate in a question-and-answer session at the end of the event. For now, however, we simply wanted to inform you of her visit to Fort Worth and to extend an early invitation.
We also will send details of Ms. Anderson's visit to Suzanne Gill as soon as arrangements are complete, so that she can inform the entire diocese of this opportunity to hear Ms. Anderson and to participate in a question and answer session with her. .
Yours in Christ,
George Komechak
cc: Canon Charles A. Hough, III, SSC
Ms. Kim Tucker, Asst. to Bonnie Anderson
-------------------------------
From: "Bishop Jack L. Iker"
Re: An InvitationDate: Thu, 19 Jul 2007
To: George Komechak
Thanks for the invitation, but I have an ordination that day. +JLI
Seems some of us people in his diocese dared to get together to talk about our future in The Episcopal Church. And what’s more, we had the gall to invite one of the leaders of the church to come answer questions for us. Yes, it’s all true. Fort Worth Via Media and Brite Divinity School did invite Bonnie Anderson to come to Fort Worth.
And I confess that, while we did inform Bishop Iker of her visit and invite him to attend two months before the event, we did not ask his permission. Why? Because we didn’t need his permission.
And, I might add, Bishop Iker did not indicate any displeasure over the visit in his note declining the invitation. [See below for copies of the invitation and Bp.Iker's reply.]
Turn out, though, he's really really really really really unhappy about it.
In http://www.fwepiscopal.org/news/andersonvisit.pdf Bishop Iker writes:"It is a clear effort on her part to recognize and empower a small group of people who dissent from the stated theological positions of this diocese and who claim that they alone are the true 'loyal Episcopalians' here in Fort Worth."
The bishop got part of it right. Bonnie Anderson DID recognize the existence of people in this diocese who disagree with "the stated theological positions of this diocese." She DID give out information that will empower people. I helped arrange all this. I was one of the speakers. So shoot me.
However, the bishop got part of it wrong. At NO time did anyone in that room claim to be the ONLY true "loyal Episcopalians" here in Fort Worth. Fort Worth Via Media has never claimed that.
And indeed, not everyone who was in that room "dissents" from "the stated theological positions of this diocese." Some agree with them, but aren't sure they are ready to leave TEC. Others agree with some of them, but not all, but do not want to leave TEC. Some disagree vehemently with those positions and are SURE they don't want to leave TEC. So? Where in all this have we "violated" the protocols and polity of The Episcopal Church?
I’m surprised he made that mistake. You’d think Bishop Iker would be an expert on violating the polity and protocols of TEC, wouldn’t you?
Indeed, recent actions by our bishop involving just those protocols have raised the anxiety level of people in the diocese to higher levels than usual. People wanted information from more than one source. Radical idea, huh?
But the idea for this event started long before the recent consecrations in Africa and our bishop's latest statement about "The Realignment Moves Forward." http://www.fwepiscopal.org/bishop/fromthebishop.html
People have been desperate for information for a long time. The response was the event that has so ticked off the bishop. "Episcopalians for the Future," sponsored by Brite Divinity School and Fort Worth Via Media, was held Saturday on the campus of Texas Christian University.
The purpose of the event was to inform people about national canons, especially regarding property, and to give them information from a viewpoint other than the bishop about recent events in our church and in the Communion, something not readily available in this diocese.
It also was designed to empower lay people by telling them of ways to stay informed and to get involved on the parish and diocesan level. We also discussed ways to put people in the various parishes in touch with one another, including setting up a listserve not unlike the HOB/D list so they can share information and ideas.
Again, let me emphasize that Bishop Iker WAS informed of Bonnie's visit to Fort Worth AND invited to the event several weeks prior to yesterday. He declined to attend, saying he had an ordination to do that day. He did not indicate any displeasure at that time.
Suzanne Gill, the diocesan communication director, attended the entire day, taking photos and notes like the good reporter she is.
In spite of the fact that the diocese refused to publicize the event, and despite the effort by some clergy to discourage people from attending, 250 people showed up -- the room was filled to capacity.
This was emphatically NOT a Bash Bishop Iker event, although he WAS inevitably mentioned. I heard no disrespect for him, only disagreement with him. Last I heard, disagreement with one's bishop still is permitted in TEC.
This was an event designed to give information about the national church and the Anglican Communion [pointing out, for instance, that none of the "Instruments of Unity" have any power to force TEC to do anything], about what help might be available to people and parishes who want to remain in The Episcopal Church, about what happens if a bishop attempts to take an entire diocese "out of the church."
Bonnie Anderson was the keynote speaker.
I then talked about the Anglican Communion and gave information about the Windsor Report, the Primates' Communiqué, invitations to Lambeth, etc. My talk will be posted on the Fort Worth Via Media web site later today.
Two lawyers from Houston talked about canon law.
My rector and one of the vestry members at Trinity Episcopal Church talked about ways lay people can get involved.
Then there was a Q&A session with Bonnie Anderson.
The event was completely transparent. It was open to anyone who registered, and was all videotaped. We sent a mailing to every priest in the diocese and attempted to get information to every parish -- a difficult task indeed with no cooperation from the diocese. Members of FWVM worked very hard issuing one-on-one invitations via letter and e-mail to people we know personally in the diocese.
As I said, not everyone in the room disagreed with the bishop -- indeed some of his fans were there -- but the exchanges were all cordial and everyone listened to everyone else politely.
Apparently such a gathering is very threatening to our bishop.
That fact alone should help everyone understand why it was so desperately needed here.
*****************************************
Here's the invitation and the bishop's reply:
On Jul 17, 2007, George Komechak [President of Fort Worth Via Media] wrote:
The Rt. Rev. Jack L. Iker, D.D., SSC
The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth
2900 Alemeda
Fort Worth, TX 76116
Dear Bishop Iker,
On behalf of Fort Worth Via Media, I am writing to invite you to hear Bonnie Anderson, President of the Episcopal Church House of Deputies, speak at the Dee J. Kelly Alumni and Visitors Center on the TCU campus on Saturday, September 8, 2007.
The program schedule is presently being developed, but we expect the event to start in the morning and continue to early afternoon. Ms. Anderson will be the keynote speaker as well as participate in a question-and-answer session at the end of the event. For now, however, we simply wanted to inform you of her visit to Fort Worth and to extend an early invitation.
We also will send details of Ms. Anderson's visit to Suzanne Gill as soon as arrangements are complete, so that she can inform the entire diocese of this opportunity to hear Ms. Anderson and to participate in a question and answer session with her. .
Yours in Christ,
George Komechak
cc: Canon Charles A. Hough, III, SSC
Ms. Kim Tucker, Asst. to Bonnie Anderson
-------------------------------
From: "Bishop Jack L. Iker"
Re: An InvitationDate: Thu, 19 Jul 2007
To: George Komechak
Thanks for the invitation, but I have an ordination that day. +JLI
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)