The Prodigal

The Rev. Tom Woodward spoke last Friday night to 66 people in Wichita Falls and to more than 100 people in Fort Worth on Saturday about what is at stake for Episcopalians in the Diocese of Fort Worth.

A synopsis of his speech can be read here at the Fort Worth Via Media web site.

One image in particular from his talk in Fort Worth has stayed with me as I've spent the last couple of days fighting a cold, sore throat, and fever.

Woodward likened the situation between Jack Iker and his followers and The Episcopal Church to that of the older son in the Parable of the Prodigal Son.

The Return of the Prodigal Son (1773) by Pompeo Batoni

You know the story: the younger son takes his share of the inheritance while his father is still living and leaves to squander it in riotous living only to end up as a swine herder -- a terrible fate for a Jew. Finally he decides to return home and throw himself on his father's mercy. He practices his speech asking forgiveness, but hardly gets a chance to deliver it, because his father, seeing him coming at a distance, picks up his skirts and runs to embrace him. Rejoicing in the return of his child, the father orders the fatted calf killed for a celebratory feast.

But the older son, who has remained dutifully at home, watches all this from a distance, jealous at the fuss being made over his feckless brother and angered over the lack of reward for his faithfulness.

His father urges him to join the family celebration:

Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
– (Luke 15:32, KJV)

But the older son refuses the invitation. He cannot embrace this kind of family, one that includes even sinning swineherds. In his righteous indignation he separates himself from the family, holding himself apart from a family he considers contaminated by its inclusion of his brother.

Just so has Jack Iker and those who agree with him chosen to hold themselves apart from The Episcopal Church's inclusion of all the baptized in the life and ministry of the church. They cannot bring themselves to be part of a "family" that includes women ordained as priests and bishops, as well as gay and lesbian priests and bishops [at least one of whom has been open about who he is and who he loves].

So in their pain they are seeking a purer church "family."

And while that is a source of grief for those of us who remain in The Episcopal Church, no one argues with their right to such a search.

What we do argue with is their attempt to take the possessions of the family they are leaving behind with them.

What we do argue with is their willingness to tear other families apart -- parish families as well as actual blood related families -- in their move to a new family.

What we do argue with is their characterization of those who remain with the Episcopal family as unChristian, as "demons," as people who do not love Jesus, as people who are members of a "pagan" church, or at best, a "mythical national church."

Yes, we are sinners -- as are Jack Iker and his followers. Yes, we fall short of the vision God has for us, just as do Jack Iker and his followers.

But in The Episcopal Church we still find our unity in common worship, the Holy Scriptures as the revealed Word of God, the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion, the historic episcopate, and the ancient creeds of the Church.

What this dispute is about is interpretation of scripture and the historic Anglican practice of encompassing and respecting a wide spectrum of theological views.

Jack Iker and his followers wish to impose a much narrower interpretation of scripture, especially in the area of human sexuality, and to exclude those who do not agree with their views.

Having failed to achieve this at General Convention, they now choose to leave the table entirely. And while we wish they would stay at the feast with the rest of us, they can leave. But they can't take the table with them.

San Joaquin Steering Committee Members Fired

See UPDATE below.

Episcopal Cafe has posted a report from Dan Martins that John David Schofield has fired six of the eight members of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin because they won't go to the Southern Cone with him. Martins was a priest in San Joaquin until he was recently called to a parish in Indiana.

Here's what Episcopal Cafe reported:
------------------------------------------------
The message from Bishop Schofield:

"On December 8th at our Diocesan Convention the overwhelming vote to transfer from the Episcopal Church to the Province of the Southern Cone was passed. At that time I became a member of the House of Bishops of that Province. Therefore, the Standing Committee, which is my council of advice, must be composed of clergy members who are Anglican priests of the Southern Cone. This is required by Diocesan Canons and the Archbishop of the Southern Cone of South America, who writes:

“'In welcoming you to the Province of the Southern Cone on December 8th it is my clear understanding that even though you are allowing a period of discernment for those clergy who are still undecided, it would be highly inappropriate for any officer or leader within the Diocese of San Joaquin to be currently undecided or clearly within the Episcopal Church and continue as an officer or leader. The requirement governing each diocese of the Southern Cone is that all members of Diocesan Council, Standing Committee, and those selected as representatives at Synod be recognized Members of this Province.'

"Therefore, this morning I received the resignation of those members of the Standing Committee who do not meet the above qualifications. Communication and correspondence related to the Standing Committee should now be directed to the new President of the Standing Committee, ---------, at the Diocesan Offices."

Then we have this , from the duly-elected president of the Standing Committee:

"During the Standing Committee meeting of January 19th, the Bishop determined that the elected members of the Standing Committee who had not publicly affirmed their standing in the Southern Cone [whose congregations are in discernment, some over the legality of convention's actions] were unqualified to hold any position of leadership in the Diocese, including any elected office. He pronounced us as unqualified. No resignations were given. The question of resignations was raised and rejected. The members of the committee at this morning's meeting were quite clear on this point, we did not resign, we were declared unqualified to hold office. The Bishop's decision affects up to 6 of the 8 elected members of the Committee including all of the clergy members."

The Presiding Bishop's representative and the President of the House of Deputies are scheduled to meet with members of the Diocese of San Joaquin to discuss the future of the church in central California.
------------------------------------

Note a couple of things. Apparently there are no lay people on the steering committees of dioceses in the Province of the Southern Cone.

Therefore, the Standing Committee, which is my council of advice, must be composed of clergy members who are Anglican priests of the Southern Cone. This is required by Diocesan Canons and the Archbishop of the Southern Cone of South America . . .

Note also how quickly the purging has started of those who are still "discerning" what they want to do. According to Dan Martins, these are very conservative priests who were fired by Schofield. Sadly, Martins couldn't resist taking a shot at members of Remain Episcopal as "malcontents."

I suspect these conservative priests will find themselves more welcomed by the "malcontents' in RE as they try to reconstitute their diocese than the RE members ever were in the parishes of these conservative priests.

UPDATE: Apparently there ARE lay members on the Standing Committee. Dan Martins updates his earlier report and gives the names of the preists involved.

Hooray for Bishop Frade!

Here's an update in the schism struggle -- Episcopal Cafe is reporting that Bp. Leo Frade voted to consent to the inhibition of Bob Duncan.

"Dearly Beloved in Christ:
"Greetings from the Holy Land! While leading my yearly pilgrimage of the faithful to the land of our Lord Jesus, I have been asked to comment on the decision of the Three Senior Bishops to unanimously move to inhibit the Bishop of San Joaquin, but not to inhibit the Bishop of Pittsburgh.

"I must state that after carefully examining the decision of the Review Committee headed by the Rt. Rev. Dorsey Henderson of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina, which recommended the move to inhibit both bishops--of the Dioceses of Pittsburgh and of San Joaquin--and after reviewing all the supporting documents that give evidence of their actions, I was astonished that we neglected to take action any sooner on their obvious violation and breach of their oath to engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church.

"I firmly believe that any bishops whose words and actions are in violation of this oath, as stated by church canon, should be equally subject to the appropriate canonical discipline.

"I also believe that it is my episcopal duty to assiduously safeguard both the membership and patrimony of our Church as a whole. The faithful of those dioceses that have been betrayed by their bishops need to know that they are not abandoned by their Church.

The Episcopate must not tolerate such actions as these bishops have taken; they have betrayed the trust that was given them when we, their brother and sister bishops, consented to their election. The seriousness of this betrayal is not mitigated by the fact that in one of the cases the goal of turning away from The Episcopal Church has not been fully achieved. As I have learned to say in America, "You can not just be a little pregnant."

"It was with great sadness that I concluded I had no other choice but to vote to move to inhibit two of my brothers who have betrayed their trust to be faithful shepherds of their dioceses, which are integral parts of our Episcopal Church.

"The beauty and flexibility of Anglican polity has allowed since its foundation disparate and disagreeing parties to remain in full communion. It is my sincere hope and prayer that these two bishops, who once pledged of their own free will to engage to remain faithful to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church, will in a spirit of reconciliation choose to fulfill their previous promises.

"If they are unable to do so, we in the HOB must do our sad duty to discipline them and move in a timely manner to protect and provide for the many remaining faithful of these dioceses.

Blessings,
The Rt Rev Leopold Frade
Bishop of Southeast Florida and Senior Bishop with Jurisdiction of TEC. "
-----------------------------

Here's what really resonated with me:

"The faithful of those dioceses that have been betrayed by their bishops need to know that they are not abandoned by their Church."

and

"The Episcopate must not tolerate such actions as these bishops have taken; they have betrayed the trust that was given them when we, their brother and sister bishops, consented to their election. The seriousness of this betrayal is not mitigated by the fact that in one of the cases the goal of turning away from The Episcopal Church has not been fully achieved. As I have learned to say in America, "You can not just be a little pregnant."

Let those who have ears to hear, hear.

Some reading matter for your long weekend . . .

Please read Jake today.: Is Bishop Iker Engaged in Realignment or Schism?

"Ample evidence for the charges that Bps. Schofield and Duncan have abandoned the Episcopal Church has been made readily available. But it appears that Bp. Iker of Fort Worth has not received such close scrutiny, other than that offered by the members of Fort Worth Via Media. Here's a partial list of actions and statements by Bp. Iker that would seem to be cause for one to question his loyalty to the Episcopal Church. To make it simpler to understand, I'll be using Via Media's USA's Schism Quiz to grade Bp. Iker's performance:

"The Schism Quiz -- Is it "realignment" or schism? "

Bishop Iker scores 100.

Please also read Mark Harris on why the three senior bishops did not agree to inhibit Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh.

Then read Episcopal Cafe's "Does the lack of inhibition of Bishop Duncan matter?"

"There has been a lot of discussion about the meaning of the senior bishops' lack of consent to inhibit The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. The question has been "does this mean the process is stopped or not?" The letter to Bishop Duncan from the Presiding Bishop and Canon IV.9.2 state that the process continues not withstanding the senior bishops' non-consent to inhibition. "

All these will help bring you up to speed on the actions that TEC leadership is taking against bishops advocating schism.

If Fish Could Think

Someone once said that if fish could think, water would be the last thing they would discover. They are so immersed in it that it is invisible to them.

That's what it's like in this diocese these days. Jack Iker has immersed this place in his delusions for so long they are invisible to most of us.

Normally intelligent people are buying into his delusion that he can "take the diocese" AND the property "out of The Episcopal Church" and just plop us all into the Southern Cone.

They are buying into his demand that those parishes who have no desire to "leave" TEC have to petition him for permission to "leave" the diocese and "return" to TEC.

[It's hard to even WRITE this stuff so that it makes sense.]

They are buying into his demand that a supermajority of congregations -- not just vestries -- have to vote to remain in TEC before he will even consider their request to "leave" the diocese and "return to TEC." Gee, I thought we elected vestries to make decisions for the parish .

Or they are buying into his alternative suggestion -- that he "transfer" these parishes into another diocese -- as if the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth of which they are already a member was his to do with what he wishes.

He said as much in his most recent Ad Clerum:

"BISHOP STANTON OF DALLAS AND I had a very good meeting yesterday at St. Vincent’s, where we discussed how to make provision for any parishes in this Diocese that may choose to remain in TEC if the Diocesan Convention votes to separate from The Episcopal Church. We were joined by our Canons to the Ordinary, the Presidents of our respective Standing Committees, and the Chancellor of the Diocese of Dallas. You will be hearing more about this in due course."

Apparently James Stanton is ALSO buying into the delusion that he and Iker can just move parishes about as they will, with no regard for things such as canons.

Folks, repeat after me:

People can leave parishes. Priests and bishops can leave The Episcopal Church. Parishes can't leave. Dioceses can't leave.

The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is a creature of General Convention. General Convention brought it into being and ONLY General Convention can dissolve it.

If you are an Episcopalian today, you will STILL be an Episcopalian in November, EVEN IF diocesan convention passes the proposed canonical changes a second time.

There WILL be an Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth still functioning here no matter what Jack Iker does. If Jack Iker decides to move to the Southern Cone, he may be a bishop in that province, but he won't be a bishop in TEC any more and he won't have authority over TEC properties here.

Just because Jack Iker says he can do this doesn't make it so, no matter how much he and his minions try to dress it up with the appearance of legality.

Just because Jack Iker may truly believe he can do this doesn't mean you have to believe it.

And just because Jack Iker says no one can impose any consequences on him -- or on the clergy who are following him -- for these actions doesn't make it so. There will be consequences.

We are commanded to love the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our strength AND with all our mind.

Let's exercise our minds, folks. It's the only way to see through fog of delusion around here.

Bishop Iker reports and responds

Bishop Jack Iker's comments on the letter he received Tuesday and his comments on the action against Duncan are appended below the Ad CLerum.
-----------------------------------------
From: Suzanne Gill :
Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:30 AM
Cc: Bishop Iker; Canon Hough
Subject: Ad Clerum: A Message from Bishop Iker

TO ALL CLERGY AND CONVENTION DELEGATES OF THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF FORT WORTH:
Yesterday was a rather interesting day, and I wanted to make certain that all of you were aware of the following events:

BISHOP SAM HULSEY, the retired Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Northwest Texas, hosted an organizational meeting yesterday afternoon at his home here in Fort Worth for all clergy of this Diocese who are opposed to the decisions made by our Diocesan Convention in November and who are committed to keeping this Diocese in The Episcopal Church, no matter what. Though I was not given a list of those invited, I understand that only two or three rectors attended and that the rest were a handful of retired priests and a couple of deacons. Of the 14 clergy who voted against the constitutional changes in November, it is believed that half are retired or non-parochial.

I HAVE RECEIVED A SECOND THREATENING LETTER from the Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori. Interestingly enough, it arrived on the same day as the meeting convened by Bishop Hulsey. As you will recall, in a much-publicized letter in November the PB had threatened me with disciplinary charges of “abandonment of the communion of this church” if I permitted the Diocesan Convention to vote on the proposed constitutional revisions that were put before us. This time she threatens me with charges of a violation of my ordination vows if I continue “any encouragement of such a belief” that parishes and dioceses can leave The Episcopal Church. Well, so much for an invitation to dialogue and conversation! It’s all about threats of dire consequences if you don’t comply with the party line.

BISHOP BOB DUNCAN of Pittsburgh was officially charged with abandonment of the communion of the church on this very same day! Though the Review Committee endorsed the charges brought by the PB, the three senior diocesan bishops would not consent to his being inhibited from functioning as a bishop, as they had done in the same charges brought against Bishop John-David Schofield of the Diocese of San Joaquin just last week. The essential difference in the two cases is that San Joaquin approved measures to separate from The Episcopal Church with a second, ratifying vote on December 8th, whereas the Pittsburgh Convention approved of their measures at the preliminary, first reading vote in November, an action which will need to be ratified at the 2008 Convention. Fort Worth is in the same position as Pittsburgh.

BISHOP STANTON OF DALLAS AND I had a very good meeting yesterday at St. Vincent’s, where we discussed how to make provision for any parishes in this Diocese that may choose to remain in TEC if the Diocesan Convention votes to separate from The Episcopal Church. We were joined by our Canons to the Ordinary, the Presidents of our respective Standing Committees, and the Chancellor of the Diocese of Dallas. You will be hearing more about this in due course.

Thank you all for our prayers, encouragement and support during these difficult days in the life of our beloved church.

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

++++

Also, last night Bishop Iker released the comments which are appended below to the press concerning the charges against Bishop Duncan and the letter Bishop Iker had received from the Presiding Bishop. A copy of the letter is being posted on the diocesan Web site.
Suzanne Gill
Director of Communications
The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth

+++
Concerning Bishop Duncan, Bishop Iker said:
I find it tragic and deeply disturbing that the Presiding Bishop would seek to take canonical action against the Bishop of Pittsburgh prior to any final decision by his diocesan convention concerning separation from The Episcopal Church. The fact that Bishop Duncan and the Diocese of Pittsburgh are still a part of The Episcopal Church was clearly affirmed by the refusal of the three senior diocesan bishops to consent to his being inhibited for this alleged offense. The Episcopal Church continually gives lip service to the need for ongoing conversation and dialogue to heal our divisions while at the same time closing off any possibility of continuing conversations by aggressive, punitive actions such as this.

Concerning the letter he received from the Presiding Bishop, Bishop Iker said:

Today [Tuesday] I received a second threatening letter from the Presiding Bishop, this time by regular mail. Unlike her November letter, it did not imply a charge of “abandonment of the communion of this church,” but it said that I would be liable for charges of violation of my ordination vows if I continue “any encouragement of such a belief” (i.e. that parishes and dioceses can leave The Episcopal Church). She also claimed that conservative voices are “disappearing” from TEC “by their own decision and at their own hands.”

+++

You can read the "threatening" letter here.

Read Mark Harris' analysis of the whole situation here.

Read Fr. Jake's take here.

Read the Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh press release here.

From ENS --Duncan has abandoned Communion

The latest in the schism struggle. Note especially paragraphs 8 and 9.
-------------------------------------------------------

Pittsburgh bishop has abandoned communion of Episcopal Church, Title IV Review Committee says
By Mary Frances Schjonberg
January 15, 2008
[Episcopal News Service]

The Episcopal Church's Title IV Review Committee has certified that Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan has abandoned the communion of the church.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori informed Duncan on January 15 of the certification and sent him a copy.

Her letter told Duncan that she sought the canonically required permission from the House's three senior bishops with jurisdiction to inhibit him, based on the certification, from the performance of any episcopal, ministerial or canonical acts.

"On 11 January 2008 they informed me that such consents would not be given at this time by all three bishops," Jefferts Schori wrote.

"Pursuant to the time limits stated in Canon IV.9, the matter will not come before the House of Bishops at its next scheduled meeting in March 2008, but will come before the House at the next meeting thereafter," the Presiding Bishop wrote in her letter.

"I would, however, welcome a statement by you within the next two months providing evidence that you once more consider yourself fully subject to the doctrine, discipline and worship of this Church," Jefferts Schori wrote in her letter to Duncan.

The three senior bishops with jurisdiction -- Leo Frade of Southeast Florida, Peter Lee of Virginia, and Don Wimberly of Texas -- did give their permission on January 11 for Jefferts Schori to inhibit Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin Bishop John-David Schofield in another case where the Title IV Review Committee certified an abandonment of the communion of the church. The House will consider the case matter involving Schofield in March. The time limit to which Jefferts Schori referred is a two-month period afforded to bishops subject to such a certification to retract their acts, demonstrate that the facts alleged in certification are false, or renounce their orders by way of Title IV, Canon 8, Sec. 2 or Title III, Canon 12, Sec. 7.

The Title IV Review Committee told Jefferts Schori on December 17 that a majority of its nine members agreed that Duncan had abandoned the communion of the church "by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline or Worship of this Church."

The Review Committee's certification from Upper South Carolina Bishop Dorsey Henderson, committee chair, said that the committee received submissions alleging Duncan's abandonment of communion from "counsel representing individuals who are either clergy or communicants in the Diocese of Pittsburgh" and from the Presiding Bishop's chancellor, David Beers, and his colleague, Mary E. Kostel. They asked the Review Committee for a determination.

Some 40 pages of material submitted by Pittsburgh counsel, which allegedly "trace the course of Bishop Duncan's actions from the meeting of the General Convention in 2003 through the most recent Annual Convention of the Diocese" in early November, is included in the committee's certification and is available here.

Pittsburgh's diocesan convention November 2 gave the first of two approvals needed to enact a constitutional change to remove language in the diocesan constitution stating that the diocese accedes to the Episcopal Church's Constitution and Canons as the church's constitution requires.
The Presiding Bishop sent Duncan a letter prior to the convention, asking him to retreat from his advocacy of the changes.

The first section of Title IV, Canon 9 says that a bishop abandons the communion of the Episcopal Church if he or she takes one of the following actions:
"open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of the Church;"
"formal admission into any religious body not in communion with thesame;" or
"exercising episcopal acts [which include primarily Holy Orders and Confirmation] in and for a religious body other than the Episcopal Church or another Church in communion with the Church so as to extend to such body Holy Orders as this Church holds them, or to administer on behalf of such religious body Confirmation without the express consent and commission of the proper authority in this Church."

In addition to Henderson, the 2007-2009 Title IV Review Committee includes Bishop Suffragan David C. Jones of Virginia, Bishop C. Wallis Ohl Jr. of Northwest Texas, Bishop Suffragan Bavi E. Rivera of Olympia, Bishop James Waggoner of Spokane, the Rev. Carolyn Kuhr of Montana, the Very Rev. Scott Kirby of Eau Claire, J.P. Causey Jr. of Virginia, and Deborah J. Stokes of Southern Ohio.

I will, with God's help

NOTE: The next Fort Worth Via Media meeting is Monday, January 28 at 7 p.m. at the Southwest Regional Public Library, in the 4000 block of South Hulen [north of I-20]. It was originally scheduled for Jan. 21, but since that is Martin Luther King Day, the library will be closed.
---------------------------------

I've been thinking a lot about baptism lately. This Sunday's lessons about the baptism of Jesus added to my sense of urgency on this subject.

Why?

Because I've been listening to a lot of lay people in my diocese who are feeling helpless, who feel they have no voice -- nay -- no right to speak up as our diocesan leadership steadily increases the pressure on clergy to commit to the bishop's plan to leave The Episcopal Church and take the property with him. In turn, the clergy are increasing the pressure on the lay people in their parishes.

These lay people are struggling against an epidemic of learned helplessness, a condition carefully cultivated by the clergy here. There are several ways the clergy do this:

There is the "Father knows best" group, who pat lay people on the head and tell them to sit down and be quiet.

There is the "How dare you question me/the bishop" group, who are much more forceful in their silencing techniques, using public shaming and even verbal abuse to shut people up.

There is the "Heads in the Sand" group, who have dealt with the conflict in the diocese by pretending it's not happening. They have allowed no discussion of it in the parish, they have held no forums on it, and they quickly label as "troublemakers" those who try to discuss it, or to ask questions. These well-meaning rectors see this as being "neutral," while the reality is that their silence has helped maintain the status quo; ie, the bishop's position.

Lay people are not without responsibility in this.

Many have assisted the clergy in this by declaring they "don't want to get involved in church politics." They have been doing the equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears and humming every time someone tries to talk to them about it. They don't want to know. It's too painful. They have friends on "both sides." They just want to go to church and worship, not fight.

Well, can you blame them? It IS painful. It IS more peaceful to just worship and not struggle with political decisions. And who wants to take on their priest week after week, much less their bishop?

All this has essentially reduced the role of the laity here to that of children doing what the adults tell them to do, a situation that suits most of the clergy here just fine.

But a whole lot of the "children" have finally had enough. They are finding their voices, and they are seeking ways to speak up. And as they do, they are taking on the mantles of their baptisms.

Then they wonder, "What do I do now?"

The answer is, pray and pray and pray, get informed, and then get political.

Because what we are facing in this diocese is a political struggle, for all the bishop tries to frame it as a theological battle with the forces of "good" [Bishop Iker and his allies] ranged against the forces of "evil" [TEC].

Make no mistake.
This is a struggle for power and control with issues of
scriptural interpretation being used as weapons of mass distraction.

This is a question of church governance and as such, it is political. I believe that to opt out of that political struggle is to abdicate part of our baptismal vows. The catechism teaches us that "Holy Baptism is the sacrament by which God adopts us as his children and makes us members of Christ's Body, the Church, and inheritors of the kingdom of God."

As members of the Church, we have a responsibility to help govern it. By virtue of our baptisms, we are one of the four orders of ministry. Indeed, we are the first order, and the largest. But in this diocese the role of the laity has been largely reduced to rubber stamping what the bishop and the clergy have decided.

We can change that. Our baptisms don't just confer responsibilities on us. They also confer authority. Baptism is an ordination we share with Jesus himself. It is the ONLY ordination Jesus had before he began his public ministry.

I have pasted the Baptismal Covenant below. Please take time to read it, think about it, pray about it.

Fellow blogger Marshall wrote, "There is a distinct contrast between seeing faith primarily in action, as in the Baptismal Covenant; and in seeing faith primarily in acceptance of the necessary content."

Faith primarity in action can include challenging clergy, including bishops. Disagreeing with Bishop iker is NOT disobedience. It is NOT a sin.

This is the month we have our annual parish meetings in this diocese. At those meetings vestries are elected. Delegates to convention also are to be elected at these meetings, although at some parishes the delegates are elected from among the vestry by the vestry. Budgets are approved, reports are given. At some parishes, awards are given out. Some are held as business meetings, some are banquets.

For years, in most parishes here, rectors have essentially appointed vestry members, since people weren't standing in line to be candidates. In fact, that was discouraged. Rectors preferred to have only enough candidates to fill the empty slots, so if there were three vacancies, there were three candidates. The excuse given was that it prevented hurt feelings. It also prevented discussion and diversity.

One of the biggest tools the clergy use to control vestries is the Bishop's Customary. The customary, which you can read here, is interpreted by most rectors as giving them the right to "strike" any candidate with whom they feel they cannot work. This provision has been used almost always to keep people who disagree with the bishop off these slates of candidates. These rectors also do not allow nominations from the floor.

Now are you begining to understand why votes at diocesan convention are so lopsided?

But the people elected are delegates, not deputies. They are delegated to be the voice of their parish -- ALL their parish -- at diocesan convention. So no matter who is elected to your vestry and no matter who is elected as your delegates, you have a right to talk to them, to express your opinions and to expect that your views be heard and represented.

Yes, we are heading into unknown territory. But be of good cheer. Remember-- there WILL be an Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth no matter what happens.

Once Bishop Iker and his followers leave, those of us who remain will reconstitute our diocese. We will be given an interim bishop by the presiding bishop who will help us reorganize and eventually elect a new bishop. The diocese may be smaller at first, but it WILL grow. We may not all be worshipping in the buildings we are used to, but we will be worshipping.

There will be court battles, and there will be loss. We will have much to grieve over. But we also will have much to celebrate. We will survive, with God's help.

So if your rector won't let you have informational meetings at your parish, have them in your homes. Invite your fellow parishioners to come listen to a speaker, read a book, or discuss blogs.

Use the Internet. There are vast resources for you out there. Set up a yahoo group for your parish, so those of you who want to stay in TEC can find one another and support each other.

If you are in the north part of the diocese, attend the gathering "You Can Choose to Remain Episcopalian" in Wichita Falls on Friday, Janaury 18 at 7:00 p.m. at First Christian Church, 3701 Taft, Room 1-A, Wichita Falls. Use the Chapel Entrance, South Doorway. It is sponsored by North Texas Remain Episcopal. The Rev. Tom Woodward will speak and several members of Fort Worth Via Media will be there. There will be a Q&A session after the address.

Or come hear "WHAT IS AT STAKE FOR EPISCOPALIANS IN THE DIOCESE OF FORT WORTH?" at 2 p.m., Saturday, January 19, at the Sid Richardson Hall, Lecture Hall 2, TCU. It's at 2840 W. Bowie Street. The Rev. Tom Woodward will speak. His address will be followed by a Q&A session.

Come to Fort Worth Via Media meetings. The next one is Monday, January 28 at 7 p.m. at the Southwest Regional Public Library, in the 4000 block of South Hulen [north of I-20].

Join the FW Via Media Yahoo Group. Send an e-mail to Barbi Click at bgclick@gmail.com and ask her to add you to the list. It's a great place to stay informed and find like-minded souls.

Note: Fort Worth Via Media is an organization of lay people and clergy who intend to remain in The Episcopal Church. You don't have to agree with everything TEC has done. You don't have to agree with everyone in the group. It does not matter where you are on the theological spectrum. The only "requirement" for membership is a desire to remain in The Episcopal Church.

From the beginning the move to separate this diocese from The Episcopal Church has been a clergy-led movement. It is well past time for the voice of the laity to be heard.

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

The Baptismal Covenant

Celebrant: Do you believe in God the Father?
People: I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

Celebrant: Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?
People: I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

Celebrant: Do you believe in God the Holy Spirit?
People: I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.

Celebrant :Will you continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers?
People: I will, with God’s help.

Celebrant: Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?
People: I will, with God’s help.

Celebrant: Will you proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ?
People: I will, with God’s help.

Celebrant: Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?
People: I will, with God’s help.

Celebrant: Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
People: I will, with God’s help.
-------------------------------------
Here was yesterday's Collect

Father in heaven, who at the baptism of Jesus in the River Jordan proclaimed him your beloved Son and anointed him with the Holy Spirit: Grant that all who are baptized into his Name may keep the covenant they have made, and boldly confess him as Lord and Savior; who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, in glory everlasting. Amen.

We CAN do this -- with God's help.

From ENS -- Presiding Bishop inhibits San Joaquin bishop

Presiding Bishop inhibits San Joaquin bishop
Action comes after Review Committee says Schofield has abandoned the Episcopal Church

By Mary Frances Schjonberg -->January 11, 2008

[Episcopal News Service] Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on January 11 inhibited Diocese of San Joaquin Bishop John-David Schofield.

In the text of the inhibition, Jefferts Schori wrote: "I hereby inhibit the said Bishop Schofield and order that from and after 5:00 p.m. PST, Friday, January 11, 2008, he cease from exercising the gifts of ordination in the ordained ministry of this Church; and pursuant to Canon IV.15, I order him from and after that time to cease all 'episcopal, ministerial, and canonical acts, except as relate to the administration of the temporal affairs of the Diocese of San Joaquin,' until this Inhibition is terminated pursuant to Canon IV.9(2) or superseded by decision of the House of Bishops."

Jefferts Schori acted after the Title IV Review Committee certified that Schofield had abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church.

On January 9, Upper South Carolina Bishop Dorsey Henderson, committee chair, wrote to Jefferts Schori, telling her that the nine-member committee had met that day and that a majority agreed that the documentation provided to them "demonstrated that Bishop Schofield has abandoned the communion of this Church by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline or Worship of this Church."

Jefferts Schori needed, in accordance with Title IV, Canon 9, Sec. 1, the consent of the three senior bishops of the church with jurisdiction (as opposed to being retired or not in diocesan seats) to issue the inhibition. She noted in the inhibition that Leo Frade of Southeast Florida, Peter Lee of Virginia, and Don Wimberly of Texas gave their consents January 11.

"I think what is crucial for us is that the bishop was presented with potential consequences of his actions long ago and repeatedly, and now the review committee has indeed made their determination, which will go forward to the House of Bishops," the Rev. Dr. Charles Robertson, canon to the Presiding Bishop, told ENS. "The three senior bishops have given their consent to his inhibition and, again, the ministry of the Episcopal Church continues and moves forward."

At Schofield's urging, the convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin voted December 8 to leave the Episcopal Church and to align with the Argentina-based Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.

Jefferts Schori warned Schofield of the possible consequences of his actions prior to the convention via a letter and then asked him on December 14 to confirm her understanding that he had left the Episcopal Church and was no longer functioning as a member of its clergy.
Mike Glass, a San Rafael, California attorney who represents congregations and individual Episcopalians who wish to remain in the Episcopal Church, welcomed the actions.

"The Title IV Review Committee's certification of abandonment is the first step in clarifying and resolving John-David Schofield's canonical status. The accompanying inhibition will provide safety and assurance to those who are working toward the continuance of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin in the Episcopal Church," Glass said. "The inhibition also provides a safe space for those who wish to remain Episcopalian, but may have otherwise felt they could not speak their true heart for fear of retribution. My clients, Canon Robert Moore and I will use this time to continue our efforts to reach out to those individuals, missions, and parishes."

Moore was appointed by Jefferts Schori as an interim pastoral presence in San Joaquin. He, Glass and House of Deputies President Bonnie Anderson plan to gather with Episcopalians in the diocese at a previously planned January 26 event titled "Moving Forward, Welcoming All." The event is being organized by Remain Episcopal, an organization that has been a rallying place for San Joaquin Episcopalians who did not want to follow Schofield out of the church.

Anderson first came to the diocese to support those Episcopalians in February 2007 at Remain Episcopal's invitation. Since then she has been in contact with the organization on a regular basis to provide the members spiritual, pastoral and organizational support.

"I know that this clarification of the bishop's status will be a relief to many Episcopalians in the diocese," Anderson said. "That clarity will help them in their ministry to each other and beyond in the continuing Diocese of San Joaquin. I look forward to being back in the diocese on January 26, and I hope that people will see this meeting as a chance for them to join with other Episcopalians who want to participate in rebuilding the diocese."

On the afternoon of January 11, the Presiding Bishop called Schofield at the diocesan offices in Fresno, California, to notify him of her action, Robertson said. Schofield was not in the office and Jefferts Schori left a message with a staff member, telling the bishop that he would receive copies of the certification and inhibition yet that day via email and fax, and by overnight mail on January 12.

"To everyone involved and everyone throughout the church, again, our focus has been and continues to be the mission of the church in spreading the good news of God in Christ, of feeding the poor, of helping the marginalized, and that work has not stopped and will not stop within the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin and throughout the larger church," Robertson said.

Schofield now has two months to recant his position or renounce his orders by way of Title IV, Canon 8, Sec. 2 or Title III, Canon 12, Sec. 7. He can also declare that the Title IV's assertions are false.

The two-month time frame refers the days remaining until the House of Bishops' next meeting March 7-13 at Camp Allen outside Houston in the Diocese of Texas. "The House of Bishops will review and vote on the findings of the review committee," Robertson said.

If a majority of the House concurs, the Presiding Bishop must depose Schofield and declare the episcopate of the diocese vacant.

Those remaining in the Episcopal Church would be gathered to organize a new diocesan convention and elect a replacement Standing Committee, if necessary. An assisting bishop would be appointed to provide episcopal ministry until a new diocesan bishop search process could be initiated and a new bishop elected and consecrated.

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

The first section of Title IV, Canon 9 says that a bishop abandons the communion of the Episcopal Church if he or she takes one of the following actions:
open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of the Church;
formal admission into any religious body not in communion with thesame; or
exercising episcopal acts [which include primarily Holy Orders and Confirmation] in and for a religious body other than the Episcopal Church or another Church in communion with the Church so as to extend to such body Holy Orders as this Church holds them, or to administer on behalf of such religious body Confirmation without the express consent and commission of the proper authority in this Church.

In addition to Henderson, the 2007-2009 Title IV Review Committee consists of Bishop Suffragan David C. Jones of Virginia, Bishop C. Wallis Ohl Jr. of Northwest Texas, Bishop Suffragan Bavi E. Rivera of Olympia, Bishop James Waggoner of Spokane, the Rev. Carolyn Kuhr of Montana, the Very Rev. Scott Kirby of Eau Claire, J.P. Causey Jr. of Virginia, and Deborah J. Stokes of Southern Ohio.

Good News From Wichita Falls

The efforts of Episcopalians in Wichita Falls to Remain Episcopal has made front page news in the Thursday Wichita Falls Times Record. You can see the story here.

The headline reads "Meeting on neutral ground, Episcopals to hold gathering to address rumors."

NOTE: We "Episcopals" clearly have some education to do, but I remind everyone that reporters do NOT write the headlines for their stories. The copydesk does. All in all, reporter Jessica Langdon has done a good job of reporting the facts in this story.

Here's an excerpt from the story:

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

As the diocese that oversees the Episcopal churches in Wichita Falls tries to distance itself from the Episcopal Church as a whole, some members of the three congregations in the city are planning to meet on neutral ground to take a closer look at the future of their faith.

A group that calls itself North Texans Remain Episcopal is sponsoring a meeting Jan. 18, to give attendees a chance to ask questions and hear from the Rev. Thomas B. Woodward, an Episcopal priest who lives in Santa Fe, N.M., and who has served as a priest for 42 years.

Woodward has found constructive ways in his diocese to deal with conflicts, and will offer insight to members of the Wichita Falls congregations during the event, said Owanah Anderson. Anderson is part of the Remain Episcopal group and a longtime member of All Saints Episcopal Church.

“I’m a Remain Episcopalian,” said Anderson, who worked for the Episcopal Church’s national office in New York before coming back to Wichita Falls to retire. “I intend to remain an Episcopalian. I’m not going to transfer my allegiance to anything outside the Episcopal Church.”

[snip]

Several issues, particularly those related to homosexuality within the church, have created a split among Episcopalians and prompted some of the dioceses to leave the larger congregation.
Members of all three churches in Wichita Falls — All Saints, Church of the Good Shepherd and St. Stephen’s — are collaborating on the meeting, which will take place at First Christian Church at 7 p.m. Jan 18. That church is separate from the Episcopal faith to ensure the meeting doesn’t raise problems for the churches, Anderson said.

[snip]

In addition to Woodward, writer Katie Sherrod of Fort Worth and George Komechak, president of the Fort Worth Chapter of Via Media, will attend the meeting. Via Media USA is a group dedicated to protecting and promoting the Episcopal Church and its unity, life and faith, Anderson explained.

She encouraged everyone to attend the program and ask questions. One of the goals is to provide more information, she said.

“There are lots of rumors that the Episcopal Church is attempting to revise the Book of Common Prayer,” she said. “That is not true.”

There are also rumors about scriptural incorrectness, she said.

The Diocese of Fort Worth, which includes Wichita Falls and other North Texas areas in its Northern Deanery, is among three of 110 dioceses that do not ordain women, Anderson said. Headlines over the past several years have also put a spotlight on issues related to homosexuality.

“There are those of us who believe God loves all the people,” she said.

The meeting is designed to address rumors and to answer questions, she said.
---------------------------------------------

Some of you will remember Owanah from her work with the Native American Ministries desk at the Church Center in the late 1990s. She retired in 1998. But she clearly has not retired from advocacy work. She has been a major source of common sense in her area of our diocese.

Note that the meeting is not being held in an Episcopal Church "to ensure the meeting doesn’t raise problems for the churches." This is true everywhere. With very few exceptions, rectors are afraid to allow Fort Worth Via Media or any other group who questions the bishop's plans to meet in their parishes for fear of retaliation from the bishop/Standing Committee.

I thank God for Owanah and others like her. Pray for us all, especially for our clergy.

What's At Stake

From Fort Worth Via Media:

WHAT IS AT STAKE FOR EPISCOPALIANS
IN THE DIOCESE OF FORT
WORTH?

2 P.M., JANUARY 19, 2008
SID W. RICHARDSON HALL, LECTURE
HALL 2, TCU
2840 W. BOWIE STREET
FORT WORTH, TX
SPONSORED BY FORT WORTH
VIA MEDIA

A small group unhappy with decisions made by the majority within The Episcopal Church has been working to undermine the church for nearly two decades. The leadership of The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth has been an active part of that effort. They have begun the process of unilaterally taking the diocese and its property out of The Episcopal Church and aligning it with another Province in the Anglican Communion, an action certain to result in expensive litigation. But many Episcopalians in the diocese have no wish to leave The Episcopal Church.

The Rev. Tom Woodward will talk about what is at stake for them on Saturday, January 19, at 2 p.m. in the Sid W. Richardson Hall, Lecture Hall 2, Texas Christian University, 2840 W. Bowie Street. His address will be followed by a question-and-answer session.

The Rev. Woodward has served The Episcopal Church as priest for more than 40 years. He worked as a chaplain at four different universities, and recently retired as rector of St. Paul's, Salinas, California (John Steinbeck's parish church) where he worked closely with the farmworker community and a sister congregation, San Pablo, with which St. Paul's shared its space. He and his wife, Ann, now live in Santa Fe, New Mexico where they are members of St. Bede's Episcopal Church.

He is passionate about the necessity for the Episcopal Church to resist efforts to denigrate or weaken it. He recently was awarded The Bishop's Cross in the Diocese of El Camino Real for leading similar efforts. He now writes regularly for The Episcopal Majority (www.episcopalmajority.blogspot.com), a web site that stands up for the Episcopal Church and against the distortions of those who call themselves "orthodox." That organization recently published his four part series on "The Undermining of the Episcopal Church," which will be available at the meeting. He is the author of two books published by Seabury Press and is currently finishing a third, "The Parables of Jesus from the Inside.” He has taught Scripture and courses on the performing arts for over two decades at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley and in other seminaries and conference centers.

Admission is free, but reservations should be made at http://www.fwviamedia.org/ to insure adequate seating. For further information, please contact Fort Worth Via Media:
Lynne Minor, PR Chair, 682-429-7763
George Komechak, President, 817-229-7257

DIRECTIONS: The Sid W. Richardson Building is located one block north and one block east of the new TCU Bookstore at the NE corner of Berry and University. There are large parking lots NE of the Sid W. Richardson building. The closest one is east of the TCU Library, but there are others N and NE of there. On Saturdays, the only "Reserved" parking spaces are the ones that are marked "Reserved 24 Hours." The building is accessible for wheel chairs with ramps and an elevator.

Reactions of the Standing Committee Report

The Fort Worth Standing Committee's report on the Southern Cone has elicited reactions from around the church.

The Episcopal News Service has its report here. It includes a mention of Fort Worth Via Media's January 19 event feaaturing Tom Woodward.

Read Mark Harris' take here. His Pollyanna Assessment of an Invitation is an excellent analysis. Here is an excerpt:

"It would appear that the Standing Committee of Fort Worth is gladly and cheerfully headed down the path to accepting the invitation from the Province of the Southern Cone. They are glad for the invitation, glad that everything in the Southern Cone is orthodox and wonderful, glad to be rid of the Episcopal Church. Glad, glad, glad.

"You can read the whole of the report HERE, and HERE, and HERE.

"Or you can read a few corrections to the gladness of the day, here:

"They said in the report, "The leadership of TEC has threatened us with false claims of canonical power to correct and discipline us while condoning or even promoting in other dioceses false teaching and sacramental actions explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture."

"The fact of the matter is the leadership of TEC, that is the Presiding Bishop and her staff, have not threatened but rather have pointed out the implications of actually withdrawing from union with the General Convention. That was done prior to Fort Worth taking their first vote so that it would be clear to all that voting to leave the Episcopal Church was canonically invalid. The accusation that the leadership of the Episcopal Church is "condoning or even promoting....false teaching and sacramental actions explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture" is rot.

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

Could he make it more clear? The accusation by our diocesan leadership that TEC is "condoning or even promoting . . .false teaching and sacramental actions explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture" is "rot."

Please read it all.

A commenter on Mark's blog said...
" Fascinating. They expressly acknowledge that their diocesan "autonomy" within TEC is *limited*; indeed, they cite this as part of why they want to go to the Southern Cone's purportedly more autonomy-friendly polity.Yet they seem not to understand that this acknowledgment of having only limited autonomy in the first place *contradicts* and *undercuts* their claim to have sufficient autonomy in the first place to *leave*.Apparently, logical argumentation and consistency are not among the strong suits of that diocese's leadership."

Other reactions and observations also are interesting.

Jake puts the report in a wider context here. He reports on the Anglican Church in Canada's response to the Southern Cone poaching in its dioceses and parishes. They don't like it at all.

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

"In light of these provisions, as well as of ancient canons of the church, statements of successive Lambeth Conferences, the Lambeth Commission on Communion (the Windsor Report), and the 2005 and 2007 communiqués from the Primates, we believe that recent interventions by another province in the internal life of our church are unnecessary and inappropriate. Our concern was voiced publicly in recent statements by the Council of General Synod (Nov. 16, 2007) and in a joint Pastoral Statement from myself and the Canadian Metropolitans (Nov. 29, 2007). I have appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury in his capacity as one of the Instruments of Communion and as chair of the Primates' Meeting to address the very serious issues raised by this intervention and to make clear that such actions are not a valid expression of Anglicanism..."

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


The continuing silence of the Archbishop of Canterbury on the incursions of the Southern Cone doesn't please the Canadians either.

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

"...It is in this context that we deplore recent actions on the part of the Primate and General Synod of the Province of the Southern Cone to extend its jurisdiction into Canada through the Essentials Network Conference. This action breaks fellowship within the Anglican Church of Canada and the Anglican Communion.

We affirm the statement unanimously agreed to by the Council of General Synod which appeals to the Archbishop of Canterbury “to make clear that such actions are not a valid expression of Anglicanism.” We too appeal to him in his capacity as one of the instruments of communion and as chair of the Primates' Meeting to address the very serious issues raised by this intervention.


The actions by the Primate of the Southern Cone are not necessary. Our bishops have made adequate and appropriate provision for the pastoral care and episcopal support of all members of the Anglican Church of Canada, including those who find themselves in conscientious disagreement with the view of their bishop and synod over the blessing of same-sex unions. These provisions, contained in the document known as Shared Episcopal Ministry, were adopted by the House of Bishops and commended by the panel of reference appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.


The actions by the Primate of the Southern Cone are also inappropriate. They contravene ancient canons of the Church going as far back as the 4th century, as well as statements of the Lambeth Conference, the Windsor report and the Communiqué from the Primates' Meeting earlier this year. Furthermore these actions violate Canon XVII of the Anglican Church of Canada which states that “No Bishop priest or deacon shall exercise ordained ministry in a diocese without the license or temporary permission of the Diocesan Bishop.”


Any ministry exercised in Canada by those received into the Province of the Southern Cone after voluntarily relinquishing the exercise of their ministry in the Anglican Church of Canada is inappropriate, unwelcome and invalid. We are aware that some bishops have, or will be making statements to that effect in their own dioceses..."


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

Please take time to read these articles. It will help make sense of the events unfolding here in the Diocese of Fort Worth.

So off we will go to the Southern Cone . . .

So here it is -- the announcement of where our leadership is going to "go" when they take all the toys and leave because they can't get their own way in The Episcopal Church. No surprise that it is the Southern Cone, although one wonders how all these highest of the high church Anglo Catholics in Fort Worth will get along with the lowest of the low church evangelicals of the SC.

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

A Preliminary Report from the Bishop and Standing Committee on the Invitation to Join
the Province of the Southern Cone

In accordance with the Resolution adopted by our Diocesan Convention, this is our preliminary report on some of the implications of accepting an offer which we received from the Southern Cone shortly before our Convention.

The Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth in November 2007 took the first step toward dissociating itself from actions of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church. This decision was made in response to TEC's failure to heed either the repeated calls for repentance issued by the Primates of the Anglican Communion or the recommendations of the Panel of Reference. The leadership of TEC has threatened us with false claims of canonical power to correct and discipline us while condoning or even promoting in other dioceses false teaching and sacramental actions explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture.

In early November we received an invitation from Archbishop Gregory Venables, on behalf of the Province of the Southern Cone, stating that, as an emergency, pastoral measure we and others like us would have a welcome place within that Province until such time as TEC either changes its direction or a new ecclesial structure within the Anglican Communion is established in North America.

The Province of the Southern Cone includes the countries of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. With a membership of around 27,000 persons, it is one of the smallest provinces of the Anglican Communion in terms of numbers, but among the largest in geographical size.

Following Anglican missionary work in the region during the 19th century, missionary dioceses were formed in each of these South American countries, and bishops were appointed to serve under the direct metropolitical oversight of the Archbishop of Canterbury. In 1981 these dioceses came together to form the new Province, focused on carrying out the Great Commission and maintaining a strong commitment to the traditional teachings of the Church in
all matters of faith and morals. It is led by an elected Presiding Bishop who serves as the Primate and Archbishop of the Province. This office is currently held by the British-born bishop of Argentina, The Most Rev. Gregory James Venables. He is a principal leader of the traditional, orthodox movement in the worldwide Anglican Communion and has taken an active role in the Primates Meetings in recent years.

At its November 2007 Synod, the Province adopted a resolution to extend the offer of membership to traditional dioceses electing to leave revisionist provinces. In December, the Province received the Diocese of San Joaquin in California. Archbishop Venables has also received several retired TEC and Canadian bishops into the Province. It was in that context that he recently declared: Christianity is specific, definable and unchanging. We are not at liberty to deconstruct or rewrite it. If Jesus was the Son of God yesterday then so He is today and will be forever.

We have now had opportunity to review the Constitution and Canons of the Province of the Southern Cone; an English-language edition of those documents is being edited and will be released shortly. Based on our review, we have concluded 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. This autonomy would be evident most specifically in the areas of property ownership, liturgy, holy orders, and missionary focus.

While nothing will change in the day-to-day operations of the churches in the Diocese of Fort Worth, we expect a significant change in attitude and focus of the clergy and people of the diocese. Becoming a member Diocese of the Province of the Southern Cone would allow the Diocese of Fort Worth the opportunity and freedom to continue to practice the Faith once delivered to all the saints without being constantly distracted by the controversies and
divisions caused by innovations hostile to traditional Christian norms. Instead, it would allow the Diocese to concentrate on the call of Jesus Christ to preach the Gospel and make new disciples, while at the same time assuring our continued place in the mainstream of Anglicanism, an assurance The Episcopal Church is unable to give.

Presented by The Bishop and Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth
January 9, 2008

The Way to the Father: The WORD

In the January issue of The Parish Paper, the newsletter of my parish, Trinity Fort Worth, our rector responded to the accusation being made repeatedly by Bishop Iker, members of the Standing Committee, and others in our diocese that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori does not believe Jesus is the only way to salvation. Indeed, some have been saying she denies the divinity of Christ.

I am sharing what Fred wrote because I think he does an excellent job of putting this issue to rest, and to make it available to others in our diocese who have been told the same thing about the presiding bishop.
---------------------------------------------
The Way to the Father: The WORD
By Fr. Fred Barber

The Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, has taken a lot of grief over a brief answer she gave in a Time interview.

When asked if belief in Jesus is the only way to get to heaven, she responded, “We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.”

Katharine gave that answer in July of 2006, and it has been a favorite quote of the conservatives in our church who say that we cannot stay in a church where the chief pastor has such thoughts.

Personally, I would be astounded if the past several presiding bishops did not agree with her thinking. And let me go further, I believe that most priests and most lay people in the Episcopal Church would also agree with her. And, you would find a good number of Christian, orthodox theologians who would find her statement acceptable.

Of course, some of those anxious to leave the Episcopal Church would only say this is more proof that the church is filled with heresy and must be abandoned.

Still, God’s plan for non-Christians is a theological point that ought to be addressed, and not avoided. Does not our Lord say in John 14 that “no one comes to the father, but by me”? How then can our presiding bishop talk about “other ways”? Or how can Pope
Benedict XVI say, “Since Christ embraces all humanity, he cannot be foreign to anyone’s spiritual experience”?

“No one comes to the Father, but by me.” But who is “ME”? Is “ME” simply Jesus of Nazareth?

Then it is logical to assume that all persons who do not believe in Jesus of Nazareth as the Savior do not have a passage to the Kingdom of Heaven.

But wait. Jesus says this in only one gospel—John. And in John (Chapter 1) we have the concept of the Logos … the light of God … the WORD becomes flesh. The very essence of the Trinity is based on the Jesus that we find in John’s gospel. The WORD is pre-existent with the Father from the beginning of time. The WORD creates all things. Revelation about God comes from his WORD. The WORD is God’s LIGHT bringing knowledge of God. In Jesus the WORD becomes flesh, but the WORD has been before, and will be after the fleshly Jesus. When Moses went into the tabernacle to “talk with the Lord,” we believe it was the WORD he talked with.

When the prophets heard the WORD of God, it was that same WORD (that would become flesh).

So, when Jesus says “no one comes to the Father, but by me,” it is not a saying of narrowness, but of astounding inclusiveness. Any person who comes to know God and comes to the Kingdom, comes via the WORD. There is no other way. As Christians we know the WORD in a perfect way because we have the WORD in flesh—Jesus. Others who know of God have the WORD in a less perfect way, but the WORD has confronted them.

And it is of great interest that Jesus says “no one comes to the Father, but by me” not after he is glorified by the cross, but before. Significantly, when Jesus speaks these verses in John’s gospel, the salvation event of the cross has not happened. But the WORD has already saved the faithful men and women of the Old Testament.

Everyone who is saved is saved by the WORD … the LIGHT of God …the LOGOS. As Christians, we affirm and believe that that light is shown most perfectly in the WORD made flesh—Jesus. But the WORD has shown itself in other times and places.

Paul affirms this in Romans 1:20. The whole Old Testament affirms this.

There is but one path to the Father, and that is through the SON … the LOGOS … the WORD of God. We have the most perfect revelation of that LOGOS, but we do not have the only witness.

My friend the Rabbi will be saved because he has been confronted by God’s WORD, and he has responded. There are doubtlessly other persons and other religions where God’s WORD has made itself known, and God is working with people.

If this is so, then why do we do evangelism? Why convert people to Christianity?

Because we have the WORD made flesh. We have the gold standard of God speaking to man. We have a better way.

There will always be Christians who want to present the Christian faith, or a certain verbal formula, or even a certain Church, as the ONLY way that God is working with man. There will be Christians who will make it a point of doctrine that when Jesus said “no one comes to the Father, but by me,” he left all non-Christians out of the Kingdom.

But there is another way. The way that I personally believe John the Evangelist expressed in his gospel. The way the Episcopal Church has followed. No one comes to the Father except through his WORD.

And so, before you start to write the Presiding Bishop off as someone who should have stayed an oceanographer, you ought to understand that (in my view) she has a pretty profound grasp of Christian theology.
----------------------------------------

You can read the entire Parish Paper here.

Can't Even Swim

This is a joke:

The Archbishop of Canterbury urged the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Fort Worth to try to get to know Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori better. After MUCH discussion, the Standing Committee decided to invite the Presiding Bishop on a fishing trip. They just knew she'd refuse to come, and if she did come, she'd have no gear and be all girly about baiting her hook.

But to their surprise and dismay, she agreed to come.

So very early on the morning of the fishing trip, Katharine arrived at the lake in her pickup truck along with her well-used fishing gear.

They all greeted each other and loaded the gear into the boat. They set off into the middle of the lake and found a likely looking spot. Everyone began baiting their hooks. Ryan Reed asked Katharine if she wanted him to bait her hook. She graciously declined, expertly baiting her own hook.

Ryan and Chris Cantrell exchanged looks.

Everyone cast their lines into the water and settled in to wait. After about a half hour, a brisk breeze sprang up and it got decidedly colder.

Katharine said, "Oh, I left my jacket in my truck."

Reed muttered to Cantrell, "Oh great. Now we have to go all the way back to shore to get her jacket."

But Katharine just said, "No. I'll be right back."

Then she got out of the boat and walked across the water to shore, got her jacket, and started walking back across the water to the boat.

Reed and Cantrell watched this for a moment, then looked at each other and said simultaneously, "See? Can't even swim."

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

This is not a joke:

-----Original Message-----


From: Suzanne Gill [mailto:sgill@fwepiscopal.org]Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 5:49 PM


Cc: Bishop Iker; Canon Hough; Tom Hightower; Ryan Reed; Christopher T. Cantrell


Subject: Ad Clerum: A Comment from the Standing Committee

To the Clergy and 2007 Convention Delegates,

The members of your Standing Committee thought you should be aware of this.

The Presiding Bishop has done something which defies explanation. This is the Christmas card she sent to Bishop Iker and presumably other TEC bishops. Given the increasing polarization in TEC (and the Anglican Communion) today, the only reason we can see for her to make this choice is that she is only interested in pushing the polarization just that much further.

The Presiding Bishop is an intelligent woman, so this re-interpretation of Scripture to exclude masculine images must be intentional. This card illustrates in many ways the core problem of the General Convention Church. Scripture cannot be made to conform to us, we must conform our lives and our faith to Scripture. We will continue to stand for the traditional expression of the Faith.

The Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth
------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the card.

The text says,

"Epiphany"

Wise women throughout time and in every culture know themselves to be seekers and seers of the Divine. In Janet McKenzie's interpretation of the Magi, women around the world find an image of the Epiphany that includes and validates their encounters with the One Who Saves, celebrated here in the powerful, protective, and tender manifestation of a mother and her child, embraced and nurtured by a loving community. Here is global inclusiveness and a vision of mutuality and interdependence -- the giving and receiving of the three gifts essential to life itself: presence, love, and daily bread. Epiphany proclaims again and anew: Christ for all people. God's favor extends to all!

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

The only decent comment in this statement from our Standing Committee is "The presiding bishop is an intelligent woman." It goes rapidly downhill from there.

Here's how these men and the women who follow them see the world:

First of all, there's the phrase "wise women." This is an oxymoron as far as our leadership is concerned.

Then there's the statement that women know themselves to be seers of the Divine. Who are we kidding. Only men get to see the Divine. Women can only have authentic encounters with the One Who Saves through the male priests who lead them.

And then there are the heretical statements -- "Epiphany proclaims again and anew: Christ for all people. God's favor extends to all!"

Not in the Gospel according to the FW Standing Committee. Christ is for straight white males and the males of color who agree with them. God's favor extends only to those these males deem worthy.

I'd laugh if I didn't feel like weeping.

What would be lost if TEC pulled out of the Anglican Communion?

Louie Crew has responded to the question, "What would be lost if The Episcopal Church pulled out of the Anglican Communion."

I asked permission, which he graciously granted, to post his response on my blog because I think he gives us all much to think about.

Here's what Louie wrote:
_________________________________

A gay professor who is a good friend asked me:

What would be lost if these meetings did not happen? What would be lost if the ACC was taken over by the Primates? What good comes from the ACC meetings? What would be lost if they held Lambeth, and we ignored it?
I guess I'm back to my earlier point. We can still do the work of feeding the poor and taking care of the widow. But why do we need the meetings?

Here is my answer to him:

We would forfeit our participation as interdependent and autonomous in a world-wide communion. We would set our own course without the benefit of others in the Communion to tell us how they see us.

It is an enormous benefit to have to be accountable to Anglicans outside TEC. I don't want TEC to be insular. I don't want us to demand control as a price of our remaining: that's terribly American but not Christian, whether we do it or whether our adversaries do it. Love does not insist on having its own way.

TEC would lose our ability to tell others in the Communion how we see them.

If TEC left, we would lose our influence with other Anglicans regarding ills that we see in their parts of world.

Ills are often not seen as ills up close. Everyone benefits from the point of view of those at a distance. Likewise, things seen as ills from afar are often discovered not to be ill when viewed up close, with local understanding. The dynamic tension when points of view differ can nurture the interdependence those who disagree. We can grow when we are stretched.

TEC would lose our ability to speak for all whom we see as marginalized by local blinders throughout the Communion. Anglicans elsewhere would lose their ability to call The Episcopal Church to account for the enormous American abuses of power throughout the world.

TEC would lose ready access to the network of personal relationships built and nurtured over decades -- relationships which play an enormous part in facilitating our mutual exchange of gifts and services.

Communion networks now facilitate Anglican work for peace and justice.

We would lose direct access as peers to persons of great spiritual depth.

Why would anyone want to cut off from being in the same church with Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela? Or in the same church with Bishop Ding in China? Or with Bishop Baharona in El Salvador? . . .

Why would anyone want to cut off from being in the same church with Bishop Akinola in Nigeria or Bishop Orombi in Uganda? They do not grow snouts just because they disagree with us. We might be wrong. They might be wrong.

I am especially close to all with whom I have struggled. When ++Peter Akinola told the London Times (Christmas 2006) that he jumped back "with wonder and horror" when I introduced my husband to him, he revealed a great deal more than he realized. St. Francis did not jump back from the leper: he embraced him. Jesus did not go around trashing drunkards and sinners; he took on their stigma by becoming their friend.

In this wondrous faith of ours, ++Peter Akinola and I are locked in a holy embrace in which each will be judged not by how right he is, but by how kindly each can treat the one with whom he disagrees.

When ++Henry Orombi traveled all the way to my home state of Alabama to stir up discord against TEC for its kindness to gay people like me, I went to hear him, delighted to see white folks welcome a black spiritual leader into that historically segregated parish. In advance I called up the Bishop of Alabama to urge him to be there, where he too was not particularly welcome,and he did come.

Archbishop Orombi and I are sealed as brothers for all eternity. I have been amazed by the number of Ugandans, gay and straight, who have connected with me as a result of our encounter. Archbishop Orombi has not always been hostile. He took on stigma in behalf of gay people when he was just a bishop and not yet a primate. With God's help, the archbishop will not always be chiding.

Love well your enemies of today, for soon they will be your friends.

A parish in Fort Valley, Georgia asked me to leave to "find a parish more in sympathy with your concern for gay people" in 1976. How rich an experience it was when they invited Ernest and me back in the late 1990's to help them celebrate an important parish anniversary.

What a blessing it was in July 2006 to be invited at the specific request of the deceased to be a reader at the funeral of Rt. Rev. Bennett J. Sims who 30 years earlier had used the ATLANTA JOURNAL to summon me for discipline for "disturbing the peace and good order of the church."

I believe in the Holy Spirit. I have seen the Holy Spirit happen.

Don't flee your enemies: love them. Forgive them. Hold them accountable.

Hold yourself accountable, especially when others challenge you to.

Ours is a strange religion indeed. In it the last will be first and the first will be the last. That protocol is very hard for us to take as Americans. Were I not gay, I would likely have missed it.

God's priorities are easier to understand if we have suffered, as lgbts have suffered.

Unmerited suffering is always meant to be redemptive, Dr. King taught.

In Christianity you gain your life only when you lose it. Witness the life you gained by giving up the safer life of the closet. Imagine yourself still back in that suffocating "protection."

Christianity is about a peace that is no peace, the marvelous peace of God.

The Anglican Communion is a legacy of slavery and colonialism. It's the ecclesiastical infrastructure those great evils left behind. Dare we throw away this marvelous opportunity for connecting merely because of the current unpleasantness?

It would be so much easier to love our neighbors as ourselves if we could just pick and choose them. But that's not the way it works, as the Chanaian hymn puts it best for me:

Refrain:

Jesu, Jesu,
Fill us with Your love, show us how to serve
The neighbors we have from You.

Kneels at the feet of his friends,
Silently washes their feet,
Master who acts as a slave to them.

Refrain

Neighbors are rich and poor,
Neighbors are black and white,
Neighbors are near and far away.

Refrain

These are the ones we should serve,
These are the ones we should love;
All these are neighbors to us and You.

Refrain

Loving puts us on our knees,
Serving as though we are slaves,
This is the way we should live with You.

Refrain

Kneel at the feet of our friends,
Silently washing their feet,
This is the way we should live with You.

Refrain

(The tune is here.)

Through the Anglican Communion that hymn can be a reality, not just a vision. Let it begin in me.

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

Thank you, Louie, for letting me reprint this.

But thank you most of all you do in reminding us to love one another.

Bugs and Windshields

[NOTE: See UPDATE at bottom.]

When I was a young reporter, an old cowboy friend would occasionally share his wisdom with me. My all-time favorite is "Don't squat with your spurs on."

Another is, "Jest remember, some days you're the bug and some days you're the windshield."

One might make a case that the planners of the Global Anglican Future Conference [GAFCON] are the bugs today, and the bishop of Jerusalem is the windshield.

It turns out that the fact that this meeting will be held in Jerusalem came as a surprise to the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem. Apparently they failed to consult with him at all before they started inviting like-minded people to come to his diocese to talk about dividing the communion.
And he's not at all happy about it.

Episcopal News Online has a story about it here. The headline is "Jerusalem bishop objects to conservative Anglicans' planned Holy Land pilgrimage" and it's written by Matthew Davies from the new ENS London Bureau.

I've excerpted it below with my comments.

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

"A group of conservative Anglican leaders, including several Primates, who met in Nairobi in December, have announced that they will invite bishops, senior clergy and laity from every province of the Anglican Communion to attend a June 15-22 Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) in the Holy Land.

"But the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem, the Rt. Rev. Suheil Dawani, has objected, saying that he was not consulted about the planned conference that is set to be held in his diocese.

" 'I am deeply troubled that this meeting, of which we had no prior knowledge, will import inter-Anglican conflict into our diocese, which seeks to be a place of welcome for all Anglicans,' Dawani said in a January 2 statement urging the organizers to 'reconsider this conference urgently.'

. . .According to organizers, the GAFCON conference is not intended as a specific challenge to the Lambeth Conference, but it 'will provide opportunities for fellowship and care for those who have decided not to attend Lambeth.'

"Dawani said that it is his understanding that the Anglican Primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East, Dr. Mouneer Hanna Anis, is also concerned about the event. 'His advice to the organizers that this was not the right time or place for such a meeting was ignored,' said Dawani, who was enthroned April 14, 2007 as the 14th Anglican bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem.

'Dawani also expressed his concern that the Sydney Archbishop Peter Jensen, one of GAFCON's organizers, is encouraging clergy and lay people from the Jerusalem diocese to attend the conference.

"The conference, Dawani says, could have 'serious consequences for our ongoing ministry of reconciliation in this divided land. Indeed, it could further inflame tensions here. We who minister here know only too well what happens when two sides cease talking to each other. We do not want to see any further dividing walls.' "

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

The news story also points out that this conference, the theme of which is "A Gospel of Power and Transformation" is only for "Anglicans from both the Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic wings of the church," according to a December 24 news release from the conference organizers.

I agree with Colin Coward, head of the U.K.-based LGBT advocacy group, Changing Attitude, who is quoted in the story as describing GAFCON as "an event for the like-minded."

"A gathering of the like-minded is very specifically not a Christian ideal nor part of the teaching of Jesus Christ," the Changing Attitude release said.

" 'The Lambeth Conference indeed has a different agenda. It will be a more authentically Christian conference. Lambeth will bring together bishops from every Province and from radically different backgrounds. It will focus primarily on equipping bishops to fulfill their leadership role in God’s mission and will continue to engage with the conflict in the church focused on homosexuality.'

The news story also points out that Changing Attitude "is challenging GAFCON's interpretation of numbers, taking on their claim that they represent more than half the Anglicans in the world. Colin Coward also points out that not all the Global South bishops agree with everything Peter Akinola says.

" 'The global south conservatives have had to prepare for the reality that many of their bishops will attend Lambeth against the wishes of their Primates. The GAFCON press release concedes this," the Rev. Colin Coward, director of Changing Attitude, said in a December 31 news release.

" "It is a significant change of strategy from the original claim that they would boycott Lambeth if The Episcopal Church bishops were invited.' According to Changing Attitude, the Church of Nigeria bishops voted 'by a significant majority to attend the Lambeth Conference' despite earlier claims by their Primate, Archbishop Peter Akinola, that they would be boycotting the conference. 'The conscience of the Nigerian House of Bishops is divided,' Changing Attitude said.

"Present at the Nairobi meeting, where GAFCON was finalized, were the Primates of Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, the Southern Cone, and Uganda, as well as several bishops, some who have been irregularly consecrated to provide oversight to conservatives in North America. Pittsburgh Bishop Bob Duncan, who serves as moderator of the conservative Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (NACDAP), was also present."

Since Southern Cone Primate Gregory Venables is trying to hijack us all under his "protection" --ahem-- Episcopalians in Fort Worth are paying close attention to what he says.

The news story quotes him:

" 'While there are many calls for shared mission, it clearly must rise from common shared faith," said Southern Cone Primate Gregory Venables, who has recently offered oversight to dioceses outside his South American jurisdiction, despite repeated calls from for such unauthorized actions -- known as "boundary crossings" -- to cease. 'Our pastoral responsibility to the people that we lead is now to provide the opportunity to come together around the central and unchanging tenets of the central and unchanging historic Anglican faith.

" 'Rather than being subject to the continued chaos and compromise that have dramatically impeded Anglican mission, GAFCON will seek to clarify God's call at this time and build a network of cooperation for Global mission,' Venables added."

Don't you just love it when the people causing the chaos use it as an excuse to cause more chaos?

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

UPDATE: George Conger posted on the House of Bishops/House of Deputies list links to Jerusalem Post stories on GAFCON here and here, and says, "Since these were filed with the Post, the GAFCON organizers released a statement saying they had contacted Bishop Suheil on Dec 24."

No, apparently they did not contact the Bishop of Jerusalem on Dec. 24. What they did was send a letter to him on the very same day they issued a press release announcing the meeting they are planning to hold in his diocese.

Conger reports that the head of the Anglican Church in the Middle East, Bishop Mouneer Anis of Egypt, also raised concerns about the meeting:

"The head of the Anglican Church in the Middle East, Bishop Mouneer Anis of Egypt, has also urged caution about the date and venue of the Jerusalem meeting. In correspondence with the meeting's chief organizer, Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, Anis cited internal Anglican political considerations in opposing a June gathering. "

The story quotes Bishop Anis saying, "'It is my region, and I know it better than you,' Anis told Akinola, cautioning against an overt pro-Israel spin to the meeting. "To say we will do a pilgrimage to attract bishops, and [that] yet it is not entirely a pilgrimage, is not right in my point of view.'

So that's two bishops protesting GAFCON being held in Jerusalem. And we all know how much importance Peter Akinola places on bishops consulting one another before making decisions that might affect other provinces.

So are they canceling GAFCON or moving it to a another location?

Well, no. Gonger writes, "Akinola responded that the organizers had considered the Egyptian bishop's concerns, but had come to the 'unanimous conclusion' to go ahead with the Jerusalem meeting."