Bp. Iker Explains It All

Bishop Iker lays out his agenda very clearly in this speech.

You can listen to the speech for yourself on the Internet at
http://www.forwardinfaith.com/news/na07.html
Scroll down to Bp. Iker's photo and click on it.

[I have added the emphasis in the text below].

He makes it clear that it is indeed, all about Bp. Katharine Jefferts Schori being a woman. This is in direct contradiction to all the speakers at last year's diocesan convention in Fort Worth who kept assuring everyone that the request for alternate primatial oversight wasn't because she was a woman, it was because of her "theological views."


He also narrows it down as to where he plans to "take the diocese."


"Our plan is not only to disassociate, then, from The Episcopal Church, but to officially, constitutionally re-affiliate with anexisting orthodox Province of the communion that does not ordain women to the priesthood. These conversations are very far along but cannot be announced until the Province that is considering our appeal has made their final decision public."

Given that, as near as I can determine, these are the Anglican provinces Bishop Iker has to choose from, since they do not ordain women to any of the three Holy Orders (deacon, priest, bishop):


Central Africa, Jerusalem and the Middle East, Korea, Melanesia [may be ordaining women to the priesthood now, but can't confirm it], Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, and Southeast Asia.


These are the provinces that ordain women only to the diaconate:

Indian Ocean, Southern Cone (in South America), and Pakistan.


All the other Anglican provinces ordain women to the priesthood.



My money is on the Southern Cone, especially since Greg Venables, Archbishop of the Southern Cone, was the Bible teacher for the Network's Annual Council Meeting in late July in Bedford, a suburb of Fort Worth. More on that below.



-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bishop Jack Iker’s Address to the Forward in Faith International Assembly in London

– October 20, 2007



Thank you very much for that welcome.



Madam Chairman, members of the Assembly, it’s a privilege to have this opportunity to briefly report on the state of affairs of Forward in Faith in North America.



I bring you warm greetings and assurances of our prayers and best wishes from all the members of Forward in Faith there, especially our national council and our president,Bishop Keith Ackerman.



I ask you to keep Bishop Keith in your prayers. As some of you may have heard, he has had some illness over the past year, some of it most recently related to high blood pressure, and he’s not able to be here to make this presentation himself, not because of his health but because he is presiding at his diocesan synod at this very time.



I’d like to make my report to you in two parts. First, I want to speak about the situation with the Forward in Faith dioceses and our relationship with The Episcopal Church. And then the second part of my report will deal with the Common Cause Partnership and the role that Forward in Faith plays in that new venture.



There are three Forward in Faith dioceses in the United States, and the three bishops of those dioceses have come to a common conclusion that we have no future in The Episcopal Church. Our conventions in those three dioceses, Fort Worth, Quincy, and San Joaquin, will be taking constitutional action to separate officially from TEC. Because it is a constitutional change, it must be passed at two successive annual conventions.



As you may know, the Diocese of San Joaquin passed on first reading their secession clauses last year, and they will take the second vote on the first Saturday of December. The Diocese of Quincy, which is in session now, will be taking their vote today, and before the day is out we should hear the results of that vote. And then my own Diocese of Fort Worth will be voting for our first reading on November 17th.



A fourth diocese in TEC is expected to take the same action to separate from The Episcopal Church, the Diocese of Pittsburgh. In the Diocese of Pittsburgh, as you know, a diocese that ordains women to the priesthood, they are led by the Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network and the Chairman of the Common Cause Partnership.



But for the Forward in Faith dioceses it cannot be any clearer that we have come to the end of the road in The Episcopal Church, and there is no future for us or for those who hold our theological position in TEC in the years ahead. The acceptance of women priests is now mandatory in every diocese.This means that none of the three existing Forward in Faith dioceses will be able to secure the consecration of a new, orthodox Bishop-elect. I think each of the three dioceses will elect an orthodox successor, but in our system we have to have the approval of the majority of the Standing Committees of the other dioceses and a majority of the bishops of The Episcopal Church to proceed with the consecration, and that simply is not going to happen.



Therefore, rather than waiting until it becomes time to attempt to replace an orthodox bishop and have it turned down, we’ve decided to take our affairs into our own hands and to secure our own future by separating from the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church and governance by the dictates of the General Convention.



As you know, the election of a woman to the office of Presiding Bishop in The Episcopal Church makes our situation clearly untenable. The day after her election an appeal was made on the floor of the House of Bishops for an arrangement called Alternative Primatial Oversight, something that had not been used before because there had been no need of it before, but a way forward that would allow Forward in Faith bishops, priests, laity to remain in The Episcopal Church while under the spiritual coverage and primatial leadership of an orthodox primate of the Anglican Communion.



Without rehearsing what has gone on over the last year and a quarter about that appeal, I can simply say we believe that the appeal for Alternative Primatial Oversight has been rejected. The primates put forward a very workable plan that we were willing to go along with when they met at Dar es Salaam, but the bishops of The Episcopal Church overwhelmingly rejected that, encouraged the Executive Council to do the same and have made no alternative suggestion.



APO, as far as we are concerned, as a part of The Episcopal Church, is dead, therefore we must seek a primatial relationship outside ECUSA.



The second thing that hangs over us, of course, is not just a female Presiding Bishop but the overwhelming rejection of the requests of the Windsor Report made of The Episcopal Church whereby we can move towards reconciliation in the life of the communion. It is our contention that The Episcopal Church has decided to walk away from the Anglican Communion and our Forward in Faith dioceses will walk with the Anglican Communion.



Our plan is not only to disassociate, then, from The Episcopal Church, but to officially, constitutionally re-affiliate with an existing orthodox Province of the communion that does not ordain women to the priesthood. These conversations are very far along but cannot be announced until the Province that is considering our appeal has made their final decision public.



Realignment is taking place in the Anglican Communion. It took place in the United States first with parishes that could not in conscience remain in The Episcopal Church and affiliated with overseas dioceses, and now it is taking place as four dioceses believe that realignment calls for us to leave The Episcopal Church structure officially and become a part of another Province.



What will be the response of The Episcopal Church? We believe it will be very much like the response they have made to congregations that have made the decision to leave. They’ve taken them to court. They’ve sued them in civil courts. They’ve deposed the priests, declared the parishes vacant and have claimed title to the property. It’s a messy affair. It’s being worked though the courts, but it will reach another level of controversy when entire dioceses attempt to separate from The Episcopal Church.



The official structure has made itself clear what they will attempt to do in those cases. They will declare those sees vacant, depose the bishops and call a convention of those faithful to the General Convention teaching and practice to reconstitute what they call continuing dioceses.



The second part of the report I want to make to you has to do with the Common Cause Partnership. This began in discussions that started, I suppose, two or three years ago in what was called the Common Cause Roundtable. It reached a new level at the end of September, when we formed a College of Bishops.



The Common Cause Partnership has its origins in two things. One, a resolution of the Lambeth Conference in 1998 ( Resolution 4.11) which spoke about the place of the continuing churches in the Anglican world. It called upon bishops of the Anglican Communion “to initiate and maintain dialogue with such groups with a view to the reconciliation of all who own the Anglican tradition.”



Secondly, it has an origin in an appeal from the primates of the Global South who said to bishops in the United States,“There are too many different conservative groups, too many different bodies. You need to come together and speak with a unified voice so that we can speak to one group rather than several different groups.”



So Common Cause is an effort to bring together those who own the Anglican way in united voice to speak to the rest of the communion. It’s a gathering the fragments, planning for a united witness in the future.



The significance of the agreement entered into in late September of this year is that Anglican bishops from ten different jurisdictions and organizations took the first steps toward establishing “a new ecclesiastical structure in North America,” which comes from the Communiqué from the Global South primates issued in Kigali in the year 2006.



Meeting in Pittsburgh at the end of September, representing over 600 congregations, 51 bishops organized themselves as a College of Bishops that will meet together every six months for consultation. We have adopted a time line leading to a constitutional convention sometime in 2009, the purpose of which would be to form an orthodox Province of the Anglican Communion in North America.



Members of the Common Cause Partnership, in case you don’t know, include the Anglican Communion Network, Forward in Faith, CANA (the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, an initiative coming out of the Nigerian province), AMiA (the Anglican Mission in America, an initiative coming out of the province of Rwanda), APA (the Anglican Province of America), and the Reformed Episcopal Church (which broke from The Episcopal Church in the 19th century).



Of those organizations only some of the dioceses in the Anglican Communion Network ordain women to the priesthood. New participants in the Common Cause Partnership have been added by the recent consecrations of American bishops to serve Kenyan and Ugandan congregations located in the United States. Other participants come from the Anglican Communion Network in Canada.



In closing, I’d like to say three things which are of particular interest to Forward in Faith in the United Kingdom as Forward in Faith in North America participates with our Common Cause partners. The first is to say that we will be in full communion with only those Common Cause partners which do not ordain women or receive ordained women into the priesthood. Our cooperation with the bodies that do so cannot extend to communio in sacris but we will cooperate with them in every way possible in a state of continuing impaired communion.



The second point is to say that leaders of the Anglican Communion Network and the Common Cause Partnership are fully committed to undertaking a substantial theological study of the question of the ordination of women, once a structure is in place and we have relatively settled in.



We will have a chance, in other words, to bring those who now accept this innovation to reconsideration of their decision for the future.



And third, and last, in the new Common Cause Partnership or in a restructured orthodox Province in North America, Forward in Faith dioceses will be free, first, to maintain our own line of episcopal succession; secondly to select, form, ordain and deploy our own ordinands; third, to reject any decisions of the Partnership that are contrary to our theological position; and fourth, to pursue our own ecumenical relationships.



So there are some challenging months and a couple of years ahead of us in Forward in Faith. We ask for your prayers as we try to take a bold and courageous stand to uphold and maintain the catholic faith and order of the Church and to pass on a secure future to our children and our grandchildren.



Thank you very much

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

Of course, we now know that the Diocese of Quincy did NOT take action to separate from TEC at its convention.

Here's some history of the Province of the Southern Cone from the Anglican Communion web site: "British immigrants brought Anglicanism to South America during the nineteenth century. The South American Missionary Society continues to work among indigenous peoples. In 1974, the Archbishop of Canterbury gave over his metropolitical authority for the dioceses of the Southern Cone and, in 1981, the new Province was formed. It includes Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay."

Wikipedia reports, "The province currently has 27,000 members thinly spread across the nations of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay, which makes it one of the smallest provinces in the Anglican Communion in terms of numbers, although one of the largest in geographical extent. It has seven bishops - about one bishop per 4,000 people. However, it has augmented its membership by recruiting conservative American parishes who wish to opt out of their national church whilst retaining a link with the Anglican Communion. This has caused tensions within the Anglican Communion.

"Presiding Bishop Venables has been outspoken in support of a conservative position on homosexuality and other issues. Under his leadership, the province refused to participate in the listening process mandated by Lambeth Conference resolution 1.10, stating that it was 'small with few resources and does not have time'. It indicated concern for conservative heterosexuals, whom it described as 'members of the Communion who have been pastorally abused by those who foist a sexual political agenda upon them.'"


It says this about the Right Reverend Frank Lyons of the Diocese of Bolivia -- "A 1976 graduate of Wheaton College, Wheaton Ill USA; a conservative evangelical Christian college in the near Chicago. As Bishop of Bolivia the Right Reverend Lyons oversees some 35 churches in the United States who have left the Episcopal Church USA. Bishop Lyons was sent to Bolivia as a missionary by South American Missions Society. He was consecrated bishop in 2001."

And ENS reported in 2006 -- " The Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, during its November 6-11, 2006, Provincial Meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina, unanimously renewed the position that it remains in impaired communion with the Episcopal Church and supported 'our Primate and other Primates who are overseeing the development of a new ecclesial structure in the United States."'

"Southern Cone Primate Gregory Venables has been a leading opponent to actions taken by provinces that endorse the full inclusion of gay and lesbian members in all levels of the church.

"Signed by Bishop Frank Lyons of Bolivia, a statement released at the end of the Buenos Aires meeting said that the Episcopal Church, at its 75th General Convention, 'did not responsibly address the minimal recommendations of the Windsor Report' and that various dioceses and the new Presiding Bishop 'hold a position concerning human sexuality that stands in open contradiction to Lambeth 1998 resolution I.10 and the historic teaching of the Church.' As a result, 'we renew our conviction that the Province of the Southern Cone of the Americas remains in impaired communion with the Episcopal Church. ' "

As you can see, Venables and Iker are using the same play book.

Legal Help Requested

Attention! Legal help requested!

Here’s the thing -- in places such as Virginia, Georgia, etc., the diocesan bishops are using diocesan resources to help people who want to stay in The Episcopal Church. They seem to be getting ample help from the national church.

But in the Diocese of Fort Worth, the bishop and all the diocesan leadership and nearly all the clergy are using diocesan resources to try to take all the diocesan property out of The Episcopal Church.

So here it’s a bunch of lay people who are struggling to keep our property in TEC. Mostly it has been Fort Worth Via Media working on this. Even the clergy who might want to stay in TEC don’t trust us [the bishop has branded us liars, thieves, and troublemakers since the day we formed the organization] or the other clergy enough to band together with us.

This has made meeting Bonnie Anderson’s challenge to saddle our own horses, well, a challenge.

We have limited resources, say, to hire our own attorneys or to counter the barrage of misinformation the diocese is putting out in the runup to our diocesan convention at which the bishop wants to pass constitutional and canonical changes that will “take the diocese out” of TEC.

See them here:
http://www.fwepiscopal.org/diocesanconvention/07convention/FWCCCommitteeReport.pdf

And here is the note from bishop’s chancellors about their claims on property ownership:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
To All Diocesan Clergy and Convention Lay Delegates:

Over the past several months, a great deal of interest has been expressed concerning the ownership of church property in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. A fair amount of misinformation has been bandied about in various forums.

In the interest of clarifying this matter, I have asked the Diocesan Chancellors to issue an explanation that I could share with you. Their very helpful statement is below. If you wish to refer to our Constitution and Canons in greater detail, they are available on the Diocesan Web site. Please share this statement with your vestries, as well as any other interested parties.

The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth
October 15, 2007


cc: Standing Committee, Executive Council


+++++

HOW REAL PROPERTY IS HELD
WITHIN THE DIOCESE OF FORT WORTH

In the early 1980s, a decision was made to carve a new Diocese – the Diocese of Fort Worth – from the old Diocese of Dallas. It would include Tarrant County and 23 other western and neighboring counties.

At this same time, there were discussions on how to retitle the property within the new diocese. Prior to this time the property had been held in the name of the Bishop of the Diocese of Dallas or his successor in office. This was traditional in most dioceses of the Episcopal Church and had served well for literally decades. In these new times, however, there were occasions when our bishop would be away from the diocese for extended periods. Therefore, real estate closings had to be continued until such time as the bishop was back in residence. Today fax machines, e-mails and FedEx would help us keep things going but those were not universally available, if at all, in the early 1980s.

A new plan was adopted to retitle the real property of the diocese in the name of a corporation which would be called “Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.”

This not-for-profit corporation was set up to hold and service the real property within the diocese, and it became infinitely more efficient than waiting for the bishop to return from an extended trip since the corporation was always open for business. It did, however, take a far-sighted and gracious bishop to agree to relinquish the real property traditionally held by him.

It would have been a strenuous task to deed all of the real properties of the diocese from the bishop to the newly formed corporation. Consequently, a lawsuit was filed in the district court of Dallas County, Texas. Its purpose was to obtain a court order that all real properties formerly standing in the name of the bishops of the Diocese of Dallas but now physically located within the 24 counties comprising the new Diocese of Fort Worth would henceforth be held in the name of Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. That Judgment was later recorded in all of the 24 counties of the new diocese.

At the primary convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth on November 13, 1982, Article 14 of the Constitution was adopted to support the new corporation.

Article 14 of the Constitution as amended to date provides in part as follows:
The title to all real estate acquired for the use of the Church in this Diocese, including the real property of all Parishes and Missions, as well as Diocesan Institutions, shall be held subject to control of the Church in The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth acting by and through a corporation known as “Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.” All such property as well as all property hereafter acquired for the use of the Church in the Diocese, including Parishes and Missions, shall be vested in Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.
The second provision restates that the corporation holds title in trust for such parish or mission but that the income and expenses attributable thereto belong to the parish or mission.

The third provision holds that there shall be no conveyance or encumbrance of any kind unless executed by the corporation or as otherwise provided by the canons.

Canon 18, TITLE TO PROPERTY at Section 2, as amended to date, provides in part that:
Real property acquired by the Corporation for the use of a particular Parish, Mission or Diocesan School shall be held by the Corporation in trust for the use and benefit of such Parish, Mission or Diocesan School. It is immaterial whether such acquisition is by conveyance to the Corporation by a Parish, Mission or Diocesan School now holding title, by the Bishop now holding title as a corporate sole, by a declaratory judgment upon division from the Diocese of Dallas, or by subsequent conveyance to the Corporation, so long as such property was initially acquired by a Parish, Mission or Diocesan School by purchase, gift or devise to it, as a Parish, Mission, or Diocesan School.

Sec 18.4 as presently amended, provides in part as follows:
Property held by the Corporation for the use of a Parish, Mission or Diocesan School belongs beneficially to such Parish, Mission or Diocesan School only. No adverse claim to such beneficial interest by the Corporation, by the Diocese, or by The Episcopal Church of the United States of America is acknowledged, but rather is expressly denied.

The Honorable William T. McGee
Chancellor, Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth

Rickey J. Brantley
Assistant Chancellor, Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth

N. Michael Kensel
Chancellor Emeritus, Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth

October 15, 2007

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

I confess to being baffled at how much difficulty we are having getting legal advice on all this from the national church. What’s more, they don't say, "Well, we can't help until you get your own lawyer," or "Here are the steps you need to take before we can help you," or "Jump through these hoops to prove you are worthy of our help."

We would gladly do whatever we need to do -- if we had the slightest idea what that is.

We are not canon lawyers. The lawyers we are talking with are not canon lawyers and will have to do research on this. Texas courts are very reluctant to intervene in a church fight and, we are told by lawyers here, they always defer to the canons of hierarchal churches. Well, that sounds good. But nothing I've been able to find talks about what to do when a bishop is trying to take everything in a diocese with him.

That changes the dynamic in ways 815 doesn't seem to grasp.

Everyone tells us it will have to be fought out in court. OK. But when? And by whom? And with what money? And what should we be doing in the meantime?

Most of the clergy here are in the bishop’s pocket. Those who are not are few, and pretty beat up.

So it is us lay people [basically Fort Worth Via Media] who are struggling to find ways to stay in TEC. We do not have diocesan resources to help us, and few of the parishes are willing to use their resources to help us. Trinity, my parish, is clear it wants to stay in TEC but it’s not getting any more help than FWVM is getting.

Other parishes whose congregations might want to stay in TEC are being led by clergy in Bishop Iker's pocket and so those people are essentially being told to sit down and shut up.

Bishop Iker is systematically changing the titles on all the property to the diocesan corporation- even parking lots. He has his own lawyers who are operating on a legal theory that has NEVER been tested in court, but of course, he's not telling anyone that.

The diocese is putting out a barrage of misinformation, and it's hard work to counter that. They have already announced the pre-convention deanery meetings will be tightly controlled -- only clergy and lay delegates will be allowed to ask questions. I have personally been warned that visitors will be ejected if they don't behave. [I'm not sure what they think I'm going to do. . . ]

Here's the bishop's announcement:

PRE-CONVENTION MEETINGS for each deanery are scheduled for Thursday, October 25th. Please remember that these are not open hearings or forums for thegeneral public, but are to provide information for the voting lay delegatesand clergy at a canonically prescribed meeting called the Deanery Council.Any visitors and observers (including alternate lay delegates) do not haveseat, voice or vote at the meeting. The place for open forums is in thelocal congregation as called for and scheduled by the priest in charge.

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

Of course, most priests in charge do not allow any open forums on it either. There is almost NO DISCUSSION on this that is not tightly controlled by the diocese. And the local newspaper is not covering this well at all.

So we've been writing letters to the editor, sending out personal letters to various people, having meetings in private homes, and announcing FWVM meetings as widely as we can. We are making contacts in every parish that we can.

We are bringing Tom Woodward on Oct. 29 to speak and there will be a Q&A session after that. We are buying ads in the newspaper to publicize it.

We will be handing out information at every opportunity, which, of course, the bishop will attempt to stop.

This is all incredibly labor intensive and EXPENSIVE.

We know that all this will pass at diocesan convention -- although by a much slimmer margin that the bishop expects, I think.

Then, of course, we have to have a second convention to pass it all again.

So, here we are -- a bunch of lay people who are struggling to stay in TEC.

Does TEC care?

Helpful advice, strategies, suggestions can be sent to me at ks1246@aol.com.

An Important Voice Heard From

This was sent out today by the Bishop of New Hampshire. His call for charity and patience is an important one, rarely heard in my diocese.
At General Convention 2006, David Anderson of the American Anglican Council and Gene Robinson were interviewed at the same time on television.
The interviewer asked Anderson why, if The Episcopal Church was so awful, did he stay?
"I love a good fight," Anderson said.
Then the interviewer asked Gene Robinson what he does, and what he suggests LGBT people and their allies do, when they hear attacks from those threatening to leave the church over the "gay issue."
"Love 'em anyway," Gene said.
I know on whose side I prefer to stand.
__________________________________________

An Open Letter to the Church's LGBT Community from Bishop Gene Robinson
October 9, 2007


Now that the Church has had some time to absorb and consider the recent meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans and its response to the Anglican Communion, I’d like to share with you what I experienced at the recent House of Bishops meeting, and where I think we are as a result.


There is NO “mind of the House” nor a “mind of the Episcopal Church.” In fact, we are a House and a Church of many different minds. We are in transition from the Church we have been called to be in the past, to the Church we are called to be now and in the future. We are not there yet.

I value highly the thoughts and needs of my brother and sister conservative bishops, who have no intention of leading their flocks out of the Episcopal Church, but come out of dioceses which, for the most part, find the Episcopal Church’s actions of the last four years troublesome and alarming. I listened to them when they voiced the fears of their people that changing our views on homosexuality is a precursor to moving on to denying important tenets of our orthodox faith, from the Trinity to the Resurrection. We worked for a statement which would reflect the diversity we recognize and value as a strength of our Episcopal communion. It was our goal to describe the Church as it currently is: NOT of one mind, but struggling to be of one heart.

My own goal – and that of many bishops – was to do NOTHING at this meeting. That is, our goal, in response to the Primates, was simply to state where we are as an Episcopal Church, not to move us forward or backward. Sometimes, “progress” is to be found in holding the ground we’ve already achieved, when “moving forward” is either untimely or not politically possible. And, doing nothing substantive respects the rightful reminder to us from many in the Senior House that the House of Bishops cannot speak for the whole Church, but rather must wait until all orders of ministry are gathered for its joint deliberations at General Convention.

While many of us worked hard to block B033 and voted against it at General Convention, it IS the most recent declaration of all orders of ministry gathered as a Church. The Bishops merely restated what is, as of the last General Convention.

Yes, we did identify gay and lesbian people as among the group included in those who ‘present a challenge” to the Communion. That comes as a surprise to no one. It is a statement of who we are at the moment. Sad, but true.

Many bishops spoke on behalf of their lgbt members and worked hard to prevent our movement backwards. We fought hard over certain words, certain language. We sidelined some things that truly would have represented a movement backwards.

I want to tell you what I said to the Archbishop of Canterbury. In the course of his comments, it seemed to me that the Archbishop was drawing a line between fidelity to our gay and lesbian members, and fidelity to the “process of common discernment,” which he had offered as a prime function of a bishop. I heard him saying that gay and lesbian members of our Church would simply have to wait until there was a consensus in the Communion. When we were invited to respond, I said something like, “Your Grace, I have always respected you as a person and your office, and I always will. But I want you to know and hear, that to me, a gay man and faithful member of this Church, this is one of the most dehumanizing things I’ve heard in a long time, and I will not be party to it. It reminds me of Jesus question ‘Is the Sabbath made for man, or man for the Sabbath?’ Choosing a process over the lives of human beings and faithful members of this Church is simply unacceptable and unscriptural.” The next morning, the Archbishop tried to assure us that he meant both/and rather than either/or. I tried to speak my truth to him.

On the issue of same sex unions, I argued that our statement be reflective of what is true right now in the Episcopal Church: that while same sex blessings are not officially permitted in most dioceses, they are going on and will continue to go on as an appropriate pastoral response to our gay and lesbian members and their relationships. Earlier versions of our response contained both sides of this truth. I argued to keep both sides of that truth in the final version, providing the clarity asked for by the Primates.

Others made the argument that to state that “a majority of Bishops do not sanction such blessings” implied that a minority do in fact sanction such blessings, and many more take no actions to prevent them. All this without coming right out and saying so. That argument won the day. I think it was a mistake.

Another issue to which I spoke was this notion of “public” versus “private” rites. I pointed out on the floor that our very theology of marriage is based on the communal nature of such a rite. Presumably, the couple has already made commitments to one another privately, or else they would not be seeking Holy Matrimony. What happens in a wedding is that the COMMUNITY is drawn into the relationship – the vows are taken in the presence of that community and the community pledges itself to support the couple in the keeping of their vows. It is, by its very nature, a “public” event – no matter how many or how few people are in attendance. The same goes for our solemn commitments to one another as lgbt couples.

I suspect that these efforts to keep such rites “private” is just another version of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” If avoidance of further conflict is the goal, then I can understand it. But if speaking the truth in love is the standard by which we engage in our relationships with the Communion, then no.

Let me also state strongly that I believe that the Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and Primates MISunderstood us when they stated that they understood that the HOB in fact “declared a ‘moratorium on all such public Rites.’” Neither in our discussions nor in our statement did we agree to or declare such a moratorium on permitting such rites to take place. That may be true in many or most dioceses, but that is certainly not the case in my own diocese and many others. The General Convention has stated that such rites are indeed to be considered within the bounds of the pastoral ministry of this Church to its gay and lesbian members, and that remains the policy of The Episcopal Church.

Lastly, let me respond to the very real pain in the knowledge that the change we long for takes time. This movement forward is going to take a long time. That doesn’t make it right. It certainly does not make it easy. Dr. King rightly said that “justice delayed is justice denied,” but that didn’t stop him from accepting and applauding incremental advances along the way.

We have every right to be impatient. We MUST keep pushing the Church to do the right thing. We must never let anyone believe that we will be satisfied with anything less than the full affirmation of us and our relationships as children of God.

BUT, I will continue to try to remain realistic in my approach. I work hard, and pray hard, to find the patience to stay at the table as long as it takes. And I hope we can refrain from attacking our ALLIES for not doing enough, soon enough. The bridges we are burning today may turn out to be the bridges we want to cross in the future. Let’s not destroy them.

We need to be in this for the long haul. For us to get overly discouraged when we don’t get all that we want, as fast as we want, seems counterproductive to me. We should never capitulate to less than all God wants for us, but to lose heart when we don’t move fast enough, and to attack the Church we are trying to help redeem, seems counterproductive.

The two days of listening to the Archbishop of Canterbury and some members of the ACC were the two hardest days I’ve had since my consecration. (It was a constant and holy reminder to me of the pain all of YOU continue to experience every day at the hands of a Church which is not yet what it is called to be. Ours is a difficult and transforming task: to continue serving a church that seems to love us less than we love it!) I was comforted by the support I DID receive from those straight bishops who spoke up for us, and especially by many of the Bishops of color, who implicitly “got” what I was trying to say and defied the majority with their support of me and of us. I was even encouraged by many conservative bishops’ willingness to work together to craft a statement we, liberal and conservative alike, could all live with.

I believe with my whole heart that the Spirit is alive and well and living in our Church – even in the House of Bishops. I believe Jesus when he told his disciples, on the night before he died for us, that they were not ready to hear and understand all that he had to teach them – and that he would send the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth. I believe that now is such a moment, when the Church, in its plodding and all-too-slow a way, is being guided into truth about its gay and lesbian members. It took ME 39 years to acknowledge who I was as a gay man and to affirm that I too am considered precious by God. Of course, the very next day after telling my parents, I expected them immediately to catch up to what had taken me 39 years to come to. Mercifully, it has not taken them the same 39 years to do so. The Church family is no different. It is going to take TIME.

I voted “yes” to the HOB statement. I believe it was the best we could do at this time. I am far less committed to being ideologically and unrelentingly pure, and far more interested in the “art of the possible.” Am I totally pleased with our statement? Of course not. Do I wish we could have done more? Absolutely. Can I live with it? Yes, I can. For right now. Until General Convention, which is the appropriate time for us to take up these issues again as a Church, with all orders of ministry present. I am taking to heart the old 60’s slogan, “Don’t whine, organize!”

I am always caught between the vision I believe God has for God’s Church, and the call to stay at the table, in communion with those who disagree with me about that vision – or, as is the case for most bishops, who disagree about the appropriate “timing” for reaching that vision of full inclusion. In this painful meantime, please pray for me as I seek to serve the people of my diocese and you, the community of which I am so honored to be a part.


Your brother in Christ,

+Gene

Stand Firm: FW Convention faces huge threat!!!!!!!!

This is the threat. Scary, huh?

________________________________________

This in from the testosterone-poisoned Stand Firm In Faith web site:

Greg Griffith
All Saints Won’t Host DioFW Convention; Cites ‘Negative
Publicity’ and Security Concerns
Via email:

Dear Clergy and Convention Delegates:

We regret to announce that All Saints’ Episcopal School has withdrawn its offer to host this year’s Diocesan Convention. Headmaster Tad Bird notified Bishop Iker on Wednesday, September 26th, of the school board’s decision, citing concerns about security and negative publicity for the School in the face of possible pro-gay rights demonstrators at the Convention.

_____________________________________

The comments have been, as usual, off the wall. And since one of them addressed me personally, I thought I'd respond -- something I don't usually do to the boys and honorary boys at Stand Firm, because it makes them froth at the mouth even more than usual. The poor dears ARE so easily upset.

_______________________________

Isn’t it sad that the activists are so threatening that a Church School has t ocow down to their threats? Don’t get me wrong...I understand the reason but I just hate the fact that we are being ruled by fear of these no conscience, low level, no moral erhics type of people. To threaten a school...........Just how low can they really go?
Posted by One Day Closer on 10-02-2007 at 05:34 PM [link]
_______________________________

Dear One Day Closer,
No one has threatened a Church School. No one has threatened a "pro gay rights" demonstration. One time, when the diocesan convention was at All Saints School -- this was on a Saturday, so no students were in school -- a few members of Fort Worth Via Media stood at the entrance to the school holding one banner that said, "Episcopalian or Not?"
I guess that simple question was much more threatening than anyone realized.


_______________________________

I don’t know anything about the school, but if it is K-12 there could be no justification, in my opinion, for the children to be exposed to any gay rights demonstration, or to live with there having been such in their building. Lets protect our kids any way that we can.
Posted by Frances Scott on 10-02-2007 at 05:50 PM [link]
________________________________

Dear Frances,
See above. And how horrible would it be for the children to see adults standing in peaceful dissent? Is that a concept form which you want to protect the children? If so, I think parents would have second thoughts about sending their children to such a school.
_________________________________

Having been a convention delegate in FtW for several years, I can vouch that the Via Media folks demonstrated quite well the last time the convention was held at All Saint’s School. The school is surrounded by a fence and the demonstrators were not allowed on school property. Nevertheless, they made quite a spectacle of themselves with their banners as convention goers “ran their guanlet.” I would be most surprised if they do not have plans to repeat their witness for the General Convention Church.
Posted by Verger on 10-02-2007 at 07:41 PM [link]
___________________________________

Dear Verger,
Glad you pointed out that the school is surrounded by a big fence and a guarded gatehouse and that Fort Worth Via Media wasn't allowed on the property.
I'm also glad you thought our little demonstration was so effective. I think it says volumes about this diocese that a sign saying "Episcopalian or Not?" is seen as a "pro-gay rights" demonstration, given that the House of Bishops in New Orleans just scapegoated our lesbian and gay brothers and sisters in Christ. But this isn't all about homosexuality, is it? That's what our bishop keeps saying, but somehow his actions don't quite convince me of that.
And Sweetie, one more thing. If you think one banner held by two people constitutes a gauntlet, then you are more sheltered -- and easily intimidated -- than I thought.
I don't mean to scare you, but I plan to be at the convention for The Diocesan Convention Church. Haven't decided yet whether to bring the lavender storm troopers or not.
________________________________

It is a shame when a Christian school has to refuse to hold a scheduled Diocesan Convention in order to protect its’ students from demonstrations by the gay rights crowd. Tell us again about the inclusivity of the GLBT church members---how fair and non-judgemental they are. The big bad non-existent homo is apparently very real! So real that school children have to be protected from him/her/them. And they wonder why the orthodox want to separate. If I had a child at All Saints I would have a cow if he had to wade through a sea of gay rights demonstator to go to school. The school administator’s first responsibility is to protect the children. It is a shame when it has to be from their own members. Way to go Katie (and I don’t mean the PB).
Posted by terrafirma on 10-02-2007 at 08:39 PM [link]
________________________________

Dear terrafirma,
I am gratified that you think I have the power to force such a decision.
I DO think it's a shame that a school could be so intimidated by the prospect of a very small, peaceful group of Episcopalians holding one or two banners on a Saturday morning when school is not in session. Exactly in what way does that threaten children?
But then, it's typical of the leadership in this diocese to hide behind children as an excuse to drum up more sympathy for the way they are "persecuted" by those of us who speak up in opposition.
Here's some advice -- grow up.
____________________________________

You know, I was wondering last night how many TEC churches have schools attached to them. I know my former parish, St. Barnabas, does. And a mighty fine one at that.
How long before the new TEC dictator orders these schools to include “Heather Has Two Mommies” in their curriculum? Of course it is very possible that the dictator would probably require only “new thing” books with titles like, “God has Blessed Heather with Two Mommies”.
Or maybe she would wait for GenCon.
Nevertheless, how long before this starts happening?
Posted by why1914 on 10-03-2007 at 06:14 AM [link]
_______________________________________

Dear why 1914,
You guys crack me up. You remind me of little kids in the tent in the back yard at night sitting around thinking up ways to scare each other. I am, however, impressed with your creativity. I'll send along this suggestion to the PB.
_________________________________________

OK, now I've painted a big target on my back. Have fun.
Your sister in Christ,
Katie Sherrod

This is how they plan to do it

It appears that they are going to pretend to be all legal as they try to leave TEC and take everything with them. Here's the latest news from the Standing Committee
-----------------------------------

To the Clergy and Convention Delegates and Alternates:

Today the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth announced its decision to sponsor five proposed amendments to the Diocesan Constitution and Canons for consideration at the dioceses 25th Annual Convention on November 16 and 17, 2007. [PDF document attached below]
If adopted, the Diocese would take the first step needed to dissociate itself from the General Convention of The Episcopal Church and to begin the process of affiliating with another Province of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Since constitutional changes do not go into effect until they are approved by two successive diocesan conventions, the second, ratifying vote would come at the annual meeting in 2008. Under the proposals, the Diocese would reaffirm its position as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, consisting of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces and regional churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.
Note: This Report contains all the amendments proposed for consideration at the convention, including two that received a first reading last year and two that were introduced from the floor of last year's convention and referred to the Committee.
The Report is part of the second information packet to prepare you for Diocesan Convention. The complete packet will be posted within 24 hours on the diocesan Web site. You will receive further e-mail notification at that time.

Suzanne Gill
Director of Communications
++++

EXPLANATION from the Very Rev. Ryan S. Reed, President,on behalf of the Standing Committee
The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth has always been a traditional, conservative diocese, adhering to the beliefs and practices of the historic catholic faith. This means it has often found itself in conflict with decisions of the General Convention, which has continued a series of innovations in liturgy, theology, and the sacraments. For 25 years, the diocese has attempted to differentiate itself from the actions of the General Convention and its ongoing effort to revise and redefine the historic teaching of the Church on faith and morals, as revealed in Holy Scripture.
To submit to and comply with the current direction of the General Convention would mean for us to embrace a distortion of the Christian faith that our forebears would not recognize as a continuation of the Apostles teaching and fellowship. It would mean driving an even deeper wedge between us and the rest of the Anglican Communion, as well as other Christian bodies, who do not condone recent actions of the General Convention, but rather view them as schismatic and sectarian. We cannot act against our conscience and in violation of the faith once delivered to the saints.
For 25 years, we have struggled to remain as a faithful remnant within The Episcopal Church, witnessing to our beliefs, which have been repudiated by our brothers and sisters in other dioceses. Over these years a great deal of subtle and overt pressure has been exerted in an effort to make this diocese conform to their innovations. Among these were visits in 2001 and again in 2002 from members of a task force established by the General Convention to bring us into compliance with the ordination of women priests. During the past year there has been an escalation of threats and intimidation as officials of the General Convention church have brought additional pressure to bear upon our diocese and others like us, demanding full compliance with and unqualified accession to the decisions of General Convention. Our freedom to continue to be who we have always been and to practice what we have always believed is rapidly coming to an end in The Episcopal Church.
Beginning in June 2006 with the election of a new Presiding Bishop, we have sought Alternative Primatial Oversight as an intermediate measure that would afford us a way of remaining a diocese of The Episcopal Church, but under the leadership of an orthodox Primate. We have worked through the structures of the church in pursuit of this goal, and we have waited patiently for some accommodation of our need. We were encouraged by the pastoral plan proposed by the Primates Meeting in February 2007, with the full support of the Archbishop of Canterbury. But the resounding rejection of this proposal by the House of Bishops and the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church has sent us a clear message: We have no need of you and will provide no secure place for your future in this church.
We have now seen the expiration of the September 30th deadline set by the Primates for a statement of unequivocal assurance from the Bishops of The Episcopal Church that our Province would abide by the provisions of Lambeth Resolution 1.10 concerning same-sex blessings and the ordination of practicing homosexuals. The statement from last weeks New Orleans meeting of the House of Bishops maintains the status quo and signals no change of direction for the future. Same-sex unions continue to be blessed in a number of dioceses across the church, and in the Diocese of Chicago a partnered lesbian is now an official nominee for Bishop.
We believe it is time for us to take action to secure our future as a diocese. We believe it is time to separate our diocese from General Convention religion and to join an orthodox Province of the Anglican Communion. However, we do not wish to compel any parish in the diocese to remain with us as we pursue this course of action. With Christian charity toward those who differ from the majority, we are offering an amendment to Canon 32 to provide a process whereby parishes may leave the diocese in an amicable and Christian manner.
It is important to note that the four Constitutional amendments to be voted on in November will be on a first-reading basis, and they will not have any force or effect unless ratified at our next annual Convention in 2008.
In closing, we wish to express our gratitude to the Committee on Constitution and Canons for its work in the drafting process, and we call the whole diocese to prayer as we undertake the challenges that are before us.
--------------------------------------------------------

The proposed changes are too long to post here, so here's the link.
http://www.fwepiscopal.org/diocesanconvention/07convention/FWCCCommitteeReport.pdf

In this report you will find that the committee recommends rejections of the two proposals from Fort Worth Via Media. No surprise there.

Those Pesky Pubic Rites

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

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.

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.

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.
***************************

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.

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

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

Good News And Bad News

The good news? After the end of August, Karl Rove will be gone from the White House.
The bad news? After the end of August, Karl Rove will be back in Texas.
There is a lot of talk about Rove’s legacy. Conservative Republicans hail him as a political genius. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard calls him “the greatest political mind of his generation and probably of any generation.”
So much for Machiavelli.
Moderate Republicans – there ARE still some of those -- are more muted, given the disaster that is the war in Iraq, the loss of control of both the House and the Senate, AND the failure of the immigration reform legislation, Rove’s last big legislative push.
I think Rove will be remembered as the main force behind the worst administration this country has ever experienced, the transformation of my beloved country into the most-hated nation on earth, and the redefining of “Christian” as mean-spirited, narrow-minded, bigoted, intolerant, and power-hungry.
He’ll be remembered as the man who turned the state of Texas red and who spread the same divisiveness and disdain for the marginalized here that he spread in Washington. Word is that he would like to lecture at some university here. God help us if he starts creating baby Roveites to continue his work.
Rove’s favorite mode of operation has always been “bully.” It’s why he and W bonded so quickly and deeply. Theirs is a relationship of cynical mutual backscratching. Karl is the nerdy overweight kid picked up by the popular handsome rich kid. W knew Karl would do his dirty work for him and help him navigate through a world that doesn’t always immediately recognize how wonderful and entitled he is. Karl knew W’s aura of coolness plus his circle of influential family and friends would not only protect W from too close scrutiny of his shallowness and lightweight qualifications, but would also allow Karl to bully everyone else with impunity – especially those who want access of some kind to W and his family and friends.
Karl learned early on that everyone wants something, and if he could control access to that, he would be incredibly powerful. Karl also learned early that most people don’t like confrontation, so a willingness to create a scene and to make all sorts of allegations about opponents can give one an automatic advantage over “nicer” people. Karl figured out that most people equate meanness with toughness.
But the most important thing Karl learned was the use of fear. Karl uses fear like other people use air – it fuels his life.
As a young political consultant Karl figured out four important things:
-- Every adult with the possible exception of Mother Teresa has something in his or her life they aren’t proud of – some small or large sin, some youthful indiscretion, some secret they would prefer their family and friends don’t find out about.
-- People love gossip about people in power or seeking power, and people love to be flattered by people in power.
-- People will vote against their own economic self-interest if you can make them afraid enough of “the other.”
-- Evangelical Christian leaders, especially in the South, were hungry for respect and power. They were tired of being caricatured as pompadoured fundamentalist kooks and hillbillies. The Moral Majority had given them a taste of what was possible and they wanted more. They hungered for entrée into that ultimate salon of power – the White House.
These four discoveries became the basic ingredients of Karl’s political work. He figured out that it doesn’t matter whether or not he knew people’s secrets. All he has to do is say that he not only knows them, but also is willing to divulge them and he can make most people back down or back off. He has made an art of the whisper campaign, almost always using accusations of homosexuality, a subject ripe for fear mongering.
Karl knew that homosexuality and the other issues of the Christian Right were emotional hot buttons that could keep people distracted while other goals were accomplished under the radar screen. He knew that a couple of Oval Office meetings would be enough to keep the Christian Right leaders carrying water for W for years.
The media – members of which are just as susceptible to the seductive lure of power as anyone -- were of immeasurable help. They did not look too aggressively into W’s business record or his political record. And when CBS did look into his National Guard service record it performed so ineptly that it helped W more than it hurt him. The media did not question the reasons given for going to war in Iraq until it was much too late. They accepted without question the idea that Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberson spoke for all Christians.
They helped create a perfect climate for Karl Rove – a very scary man -- to thrive.
But the American people are beginning to see through the miasma of fear and mendacity. They are beginning to ask questions. They are beginning to sense that things are terribly terribly wrong in the United States.
And the media is finally beginning to shine some light onto to all this. Even so, I think it will take a generation to undo the harm Karl’s work has done to our country.

We have a lot to do.

Images of the garden in August

This moth is so well camouflaged that it is nearly invisible against the old oak tree beside the low patio wall. I only saw it because it fluttered by my face as I was leaning near the tree to water a flower pot. My grandsons were fascinated by it. They decided it was SuperMoth, a super hero moth who takes care of all the little moths. I don't know what kind of moth it is when it's not being SuperMoth, but maybe someone reading this will know.

This rose is from a tiny rose bush that Gayland gave me as a gift several years ago. I planted it in the garden and it has done well. I smile every time I walk by it.

Butterflies are all over the garden. This one landed so that the sun shone through its wings. The garden is full of butterflies like this, as well as some bright orange ones. But the orange ones won't stay still long enough to take a photo of them. All these photos were taken with my phone this morning as I was watering the garden.