Without downloading the PDF files, it sounds like Ft. Worth is bringing into court the whole question of the legitimacy of the rump “diocese” and how it was constituted contrary to existing diocesan canon.  Good for them.

Not only contrary to the diocese’s Constitution and Canons, but importantly from a legal standpoint, Texas law in regard to associations, under which the diocese has operated since its formation in 1983. The documents are worth a read.

It will be interesting to see.  One interesting thing will be whether the court considers that the Association can govern the affairs of a diocese within the Episcopal Church when it has, at the same time, removed itself from the Episcopal Church, and whether the fairly elaborate structure of what is now the ACNA Episcopal Diocese (the Iker Diocese, for convenience) can legitimately purport to govern the affairs of an entity of which it is no longer a part. 

My guess is that if the judge buys Mr. Sharpe’s arguments (Shelby Sharpe is a smart guy), then there will likely be some sort of settlement later. 

THis is, of course, a property dispute, at its heart, and the Iker Diocese is, in its own way, taking a tack similar to TEC, in that it is doing what it can to protect its claim to the property of the parishes who did not want to join the Iker Diocese and did not wish to legitimize what some characterize as a generous offer to take their property with them and go wandering off to whereever (I dont’ know the terms, or how generous the offer really was).  THe impression they leave me with is that they want to punish the holdout parishes and force them to abandon their valuable properties to the Iker diocese, much as the Episcopal Church is trying to kick out the parishes that have broken away.  Nasty business all around.

I still think that the Iker Diocese is showing a fair amount of chutzpah in calling itself and Episcopal Diocese when it has otherwise done all it could to remove itself from the Episcopal Church.  This strikes this outsider as a cynical tactic and a misleading label.  Either they are part of the Episcopal Church or they are not, and retaining a name that suggests that they are is misleading.

Dallasite:  of course it’s largely about swag.  I suspect that the courts will find this a fairly transparent gambit.  While I don’t question the sincerity of departing brothers’ and sisters’ theological views (and certainly would not refer to them as “rump” anything, Katherine), the structures they have chosen to organize their new enterprise are chosen for their ability to support claims to property that, prior to the departure, was controlled by Episcopalian elements.  My view is that a large part of the motivation, beyond just the loot, is that there is probably a large middle sector of attendees who are most comfortable worshipping where they have always worshipped, but who are not particularly fueled up on either side of the issues of sexuality that have driven this schism.  They will stay in the pews they have become accustomed to over the years.

Good for Bishop Iker—TEC continues to run rampant over their own rules and canons and I’m thrilled that someone is calling them on it in a court of law.  Nice as a side benefit also to see that the usual libs are annoyed as well, as one can see by the rhetoric.

Sarah1 _ I re-read Bishop Iker’ statement in the post and found no reference to “usual libs” or their rhetoric.  The post seemed very straightforward.

RE: “I re-read Bishop Iker’ statement in the post and found no reference to “usual libs” or their rhetoric.”

Heh—you read in the wrong place, NoVA Scout.  Two usual libs right here in the comments.

And as I said . . . as a side benefit it’s nice—quite nice in fact—to see that the usual libs are annoyed as well, as one can see by the rhetoric.

; > )

Who are the usual libs, Sarah?  I’m pretty conservative.

“Ignorance shall be your punishment” I suppose.

; > )

But . . . we’ve had this conversation before.  Perhaps your earlier comments here at T19 were . . . inopportune for the persona you now wish to portray.

Sarah: There are many things of which I am ignorant, but my views on various subjects are not among that large universe.  The labels “conservative” and “liberal” are pretty debased in a political context these years, but my own history is solidly “conservative” to the extent one can measure that by political philosophy, politicians I’ve worked for (I am a Reagan Administration alumnus), and ideas that I feel comfortable with.  In a religious context, the labels are largley useless.  I fear sometimes that a lot of the current discourse among us Anglicans superficially conflates a popular current misunderstanding of political conservatism with conservative religious views.

RE: “. . . my own history is solidly “conservative” to the extent one can measure that by political philosophy, politicians I’ve worked for (I am a Reagan Administration alumnus), and ideas that I feel comfortable with.”

I know.

RE: “In a religious context, the labels are largley useless.”

No they’re not.  The labels are quite clear, easy to understand— and you understand them well, which is why you don’t like the word being applied to you.  But your comments as to your theological beliefs have been very clear in the past.

The fact that some people bridle at the word being applied to their own theological views, clearly described in a specific context [ie, this blog, for which our blog host has very kindly *created a word* called “reappraiser,” and helpfully defined it too], reveals that the “labels” are in fact, rather useful shorthands for an entire range of theological heresies.

RE: “I fear sometimes that a lot of the current discourse among us Anglicans superficially conflates a popular current misunderstanding of political conservatism with conservative religious views.”

Not at all.  It’s quite simple.  When we’re on a political thread, the word “liberal” is applicable for politics.  When on a religious thread, the word “liberal” is applicable for religion.

It’s just basic Logic and Language 101—and the only time when people pretend not to “understand” those words within the specific narrow context in which they are often used is simply because they don’t like what those words *represent*.

Were I over on, say, Susan Russell’s blog I’d be a “homophobic bigot.”  And I laugh over that and shrug my shoulders, since I don’t give a flying fig what the likes of Susan Russell “labels” me.

Just to demonstrate how clear the word is on this thread, we can always try some other words that are equally clear in my original sentence.

“Nice as a side benefit also to see that the usual [revisionists] are annoyed as well, as one can see by the rhetoric.”

“Nice as a side benefit also to see that the usual [progressives] are annoyed as well, as one can see by the rhetoric.”

“Nice as a side benefit also to see that the usual [reappraisers] are annoyed as well, as one can see by the rhetoric.”

So I can safely assume that neither Dallsite nor I were being referred to as the “usual libs.”  I feel much better.

I’m actually pretty “conservative” both theologically and politically.  I guess I see the Fort Worth lawsuits as mainly a fight over property.  I don’t think theology has much to do with them, other than the theological differences that led Bishop Iker to lead his flock to the ACNA fold.  That could be done without the property (easy for me to say, of course); it’s been done elsewhere.  Since Bishop Iker and his flock are the ones who have done the leaving, I could certainly argue that they should be willing to leave without the buildings. I could also argue that they should not require the parishes that don’t want to follow him to accept some sort of deal to buy their property.  They’ve obviously chosen not to do so, however, having given a lot of thought and effort to set up a structure that would allow them a colorable claim to keeping the buildings. 

It will be interesting to see.  But I don’t believe for a second that the lawsuit is about theological differences or “conservative” or “liberal” church politics; it is a byproduct of them, and one that could have been avoided.