Statement from Bishop Iker Concerning the visit of Bonnie Anderson to this diocese

Posted by Kendall Harmon

“This visit by Mrs. Anderson was arranged without any prior consultation with me or any of the other elected leaders of this diocese. I consider it a breach of protocol and a violation of the basic polity of The Episcopal Church. 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.

“This visit by Mrs. Anderson further exacerbates an already tense, adversarial relationship that has developed between national leaders and diocesan officials. Unfortunately, she has sought to further divide the people of this diocese rather than to promote reconciliation. I regret that Mrs. Anderson has chosen to fan the flames of division and to advocate a rather one-sided view of the controversies that have overtaken The Episcopal Church in recent decades. Rather than working with me and other diocesan officials, she has chosen to go around us in a blatant attempt to work with the revisionist opposition known as the Via
Media.

Read it all.



Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalEpiscopal Church (TEC)TEC BishopsTEC Conflicts

69 Comments
Posted September 9, 2007 at 3:29 pm

To comment on this article: Go to Article View

The URL for this article is http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/5706/



1. Bob from Boone wrote:

Did Bp. Iker undertake any prior consultation with Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori before participating in the consecration of two bishops by primates who are crossing boundaries into dioceses of TEC? Talk about violation of protocol! This statement reeks of hypocrisy.

September 9, 4:02 pm | [comment link]
2. Brian from T19 wrote:

Bonnie Anderson is a lay person who is not performing any ecclesiastical duties.  How in the world can +Iker object? 

I consider it a breach of protocol and a violation of the basic polity of The Episcopal Church.

Could someone please show me the accepted protocol and/or the polity violated.

I regret that Mrs. Anderson has chosen to fan the flames of division and to advocate a rather one-sided view of the controversies that have overtaken The Episcopal Church in recent
decades

The absolute beauty of this statement is that +Iker wrote this without any sense of the irony.  Beautiful.

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.

Let’s be reasonable.  The good Bishop routinely meets with those who are set on dismantling the Church.  He takes actions to change the Constitution of the Diocese.  Do any of us really believe he will be a Bishop in TEC much longer?  So even if what he says is true, what is the harm?  TEC would just be setting up for his replacement like he has been doing to TEC for years?

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams

September 9, 4:29 pm | [comment link]
3. MJD_NV wrote:

Lol!  Now y’all just get ALL bent out of shape when that shoe is on the other foot, don’t cha?

Which, I believe, was Bp Iker’s point to this letter.

Thanks so mcuh for making it for him.

If God is not Father, Jesus is not Lord, the Son is not unique, baptism is not necessary, the creeds are optional, repentance and sin are dated concepts and the atonement is marginalized or even rejected, where do we go from here? The faith remaining will be a very different faith from the Christian faith once delivered to the saints - and I, for one, am not going there!  ~ Bp. Miller, Church of Ireland

September 9, 4:45 pm | [comment link]
4. Irenaeus wrote:

For ECUSA’s ruling reappraisers, polity, autonomy, and comity work only one way:

Anglican Communion < ECUSA > diocese > congregation

September 9, 4:49 pm | [comment link]
5. Brian from T19 wrote:

Irenaeus

Your 100% correct.  It’s called the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.  And it is also this way with every Province in the Anglican Communion.

MJD_NV

I’m not sure I understand your point.  Are you saying that +Iker doesn’t believe that Bonnie Anderson visiting his Diocese was wrong?  That he is issuing this diatribe as an object lesson for TEC?

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams

September 9, 4:55 pm | [comment link]
6. Mark Johnson wrote:

So Bishop Iker doesn’t like FEMALE lay people either?  I thought he was just opposed to female clergy.  Sad.  On another topic - what type of pastoral care is the Bishop providing for those who disagree with him in that diocese?  The stories I’ve heard are shocking.

September 9, 5:06 pm | [comment link]
7. Philip Snyder wrote:

BT19 and BfB
I am surprised that you are being so literal in your reading of this letter.  Can’t you even hear (or see) the echos of the reappraiser’s letters and logic in just about every letter they have sent recently concerning TECUSA and the Anglican Communion?  You must be wilfully blind not to see the sarcasm dripping from the pages of +Iker’s letter.  That is not to say that he isn’t upset or angry that Bonnie Anderson came into his diocese without official notice or even a courtesy call.  I believe he is upset.  But this letter just shows the hypocracy of TECUSA and its calls for “reconciliation” and cries of “polity.”

Stop being such fundamentalists.  Learn to laugh.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

“I do not believe because I understand.  I believe in order that I might understand” - Anselm
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

September 9, 5:07 pm | [comment link]
8. Brian from T19 wrote:

Mark

It is females in leadership positions (authority over men) that would be an issue.  However I don’t think that is the issue here.  Bonnie can raise the ire of even the most liberal of us.

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams

September 9, 5:10 pm | [comment link]
9. MJD_NV wrote:

Phil, apparently reappraisers don’t do sarcasm, as this requires a sense of humor.  But you answered Brian much better than I could have, thank-you.

Irenaeus, that’s brilliant - the ECUSA equation! wink

If God is not Father, Jesus is not Lord, the Son is not unique, baptism is not necessary, the creeds are optional, repentance and sin are dated concepts and the atonement is marginalized or even rejected, where do we go from here? The faith remaining will be a very different faith from the Christian faith once delivered to the saints - and I, for one, am not going there!  ~ Bp. Miller, Church of Ireland

September 9, 5:12 pm | [comment link]
10. Brian from T19 wrote:

Learn to laugh

I guess I don’t get the joke - or it’s just not funny.

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams

September 9, 5:15 pm | [comment link]
11. Sir Highmoor wrote:

“Unfortunately, she has sought to further divide the people of this diocese rather than to promote reconciliation.” JI

Ms. Anderson is not promoting reconciliation, but WAGING RECONCILIATION. There is division in TEC which helps it to “live into the tension.”

I do not believe in the leadership of TEC and it’s need to be in tension. Rather, I believe in Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace and Lord of Lord’s. May TEC and it’s leadership repent and return to the Lord!

September 9, 5:20 pm | [comment link]
12. Philip Snyder wrote:

MJD (#9)
In mathematics, that is not known as an “equation” because there is not equal sign.  It is known as an “inequality.”  What it shows is that TECUSA thinks itself greater than all other parts of the Anglican Communion.

BT19(#10) - It seems that MJD is right.  You don’t see the irony or sarcasm because you seem to lack a sense of humor.  Compare the communication from the March 07 HOB meeting to the primates and this letter.  Notice the similarities in turn of phrase and the same way each says to the others “get bent.”  Iker captures the episcobabble of TEUCSA wonderfully.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

“I do not believe because I understand.  I believe in order that I might understand” - Anselm
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

September 9, 5:25 pm | [comment link]
13. MikeS wrote:

Didn’t Bonnie Anderson write a similar letter with similar jargon protesting the Panel of Reference report on Fort Worth’s request for APO?

I think that is what makes this letter so ironic and filled with humor.  That some reappraisers aren’t getting it, only makes it richer.

Then again maybe they don’t find it humorous because they don’t see the humor in pleading polity in a Christian Church.

September 9, 5:40 pm | [comment link]
14. Milton wrote:

Brian from T19, you wrote:
“The absolute beauty of this statement is that +Iker wrote this without any sense of the irony.  Beautiful. “
On the contrary, +Iker’s letter fairly drips with the most delicious intentional irony.  Of course you don’t find it funny because you think everyone believes all TEC’s huffing and puffing about polity and tradition (snicker, snicker) and borders and boundaries.  Try observing the boundaries of traditional essential Christian doctrine and we’ll take your shock more seriously.

This reminds me of the foreword to C. S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters where he describes a letter to the editor of the Guardian, in which SL was published in weekly installments during WWII.  The writer expresses dismay that the “advice” contained in the letters seemed not only unhealthy, but positively diabolical!

September 9, 5:44 pm | [comment link]
15. Sarah1 wrote:

RE: “So Bishop Iker doesn’t like FEMALE lay people either?”

Heh heh.  ; > )

Oh dear, I see that Mark Johnson is trying the same old tired line that he tried over on this thread re: Iker.

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/5639/#104114

And for which he was well and truly massacred by various women commenters on that thread too.  ; > )

Here’s what he said over on that thread: “I have trouble listening or even respecting the opinion of anyone who believes and teaches the inferiority of women.”

I’ll just say what I essentially said on the other thread.

Either MJ speaks as a blatant liar, or incredibly ignorant of the theology behind Anglo-Catholicism.  Don’t know which.

But I do hope that Mark Johnson is not an Episcopal priest—surely he would have learned the basic theology of Anglo-Catholics, minority as they are.

Signed,

Not an Anglo-Catholic, but . . . a woman who’s capable of discerning the theology behind Bishop Iker’s views, unlike the male above.

September 9, 6:07 pm | [comment link]
16. Sarah1 wrote:

RE: “It is females in leadership positions (authority over men) that would be an issue.”

No Brian, that would be a rather conservative evangelical position.  It is not the Anglo-Catholic theology at all.  And even evangelicals who believe in the “authority over men” theology limit it [as in the case of Matt Kennedy] to rectorships and bishops in the ecclesial realm, and not at all in the secular realm.

Ie, Matt might adore Margaret Thatcher’s “leadership” and “authority over men”.  And in the case of Bishop Iker the argument has nothing at all to do with “authority over men”.

September 9, 6:13 pm | [comment link]
17. Sarah1 wrote:

RE: “This statement reeks of hypocrisy.”

No—reeks of fun, actually.  I can see the twinkle now.  ; > )

Just too rich—I’ll bet he had the most fun writing this letter ever.  Reminds me of the excellent letters from the PB’s mailbag written by Greg Griffith.  Just so bloomin’ funny.

September 9, 6:15 pm | [comment link]
18. Bill Matz wrote:

Re #5, revisionists have been willfully violating TEC’s Constitution and Canons (as well as General Convention resolutions) for 30-40 years with impunity, and they continue to do so. Now, in an extraordinary act of arrogance, the HoB is poised to withdraw TEC de facto, if not de jure, from the Anglican Communion, without having the integrity to amend its constitution first. (Contrast that with the Diocese of San Joaquin’s actions.) This action (or non-action) seems to be a clear violation of every bishop’s ordination vows, vows which now seem to mean “whatever I say they mean.”

The lack of intellectual consistency and integrity displayed by the HoB/HoD is what has polarized our church and forced many of us moderates into the camp we now call “reasserter”. A current glaring example is the HoB plea that it cannot agree to a moratorium on gay relationship blessings because the Church has never authorized such blessing. What word games! Virtually in the same breath revisionists will both claim and deny that D-039 (GC ‘00) and/or C-051 (GC ‘03) authorized blessings. And never mind that the HoB plea implies the facially ridiculous claim that bishops have no control over what liturgies are used in the dioceses.

I would have far more respect for the revisionist position if they simply if they simply brought forward an open and honest resolution that authorized gay marriage. But they didn’t, primarily because they knew that even in the heavily-stacked HoB and HoD, such a clear and honest resolution would not pass. So they have furtively and then more openly nibbled around the edges, gradually desensitizing the Church until they could get their way. Dissenting voices have been subject to widespread personal demonization and marginalization in an effort to silence opposition (hardly an approach consistent with a claim that the group wants a “conversation”). This approach may be politically effective, but it is theologically dishonest.

This visit by the senior lay official of TEC is sadly consistent with the past pattern.

September 9, 6:34 pm | [comment link]
19. Nikolaus wrote:

So far no one here has commented on the Bishop’s reference to TEC as the “General Convention Church.”  I think that is the money quote of the letter and bears adopting.

I have been baptized too!

September 9, 6:40 pm | [comment link]
20. Connie Sandlin wrote:

#19 - I have to agree with you.  Over at Stand Firm, I said I was going to start using “General Convention Church”.  Actually, I think we all should.

The name of ECUSA / TEC is based in the idea of bishops (episkopos) being the source of authority and structure of the Church, the apostolic succession, the carrying forth of the Faith since the time of the Apostles and their episcopal successors. 

The oh-so-very-accurate moniker that Bp. Iker has used twice in the just last few days - General Convention Church - accurately reflects what TEc and the HOB has been saying:  that authority of TEc rests in General Convention, that the bishops don’t have the authority to respond to the DES Communique, etc.  And reasserters are well aware that the majority of the HOB has declined to defend the Faith once delivered.

I think Bishop Iker, for whom I thank God daily, has hit a VERY significant nail on its little pointy head.  Think about it.

September 9, 7:19 pm | [comment link]
21. Rolling Eyes wrote:

“a woman who’s capable of discerning the theology behind Bishop Iker’s views, unlike the male above.”

Sarah, is Mark incapable of discerning, and therefore really posting what he thinks is the truth, or does he really know better, and choosing to LIE about those who he disagrees with?  It’s so hard to tell anymore…

Just sayin’...

September 9, 7:26 pm | [comment link]
22. Makersmarc wrote:

I am curious as to folks’ reactions that Bsp. Iker actually was informed of Ms. Anderson’s visit, via an invitation from Ft. Worth Via Media and actually had his communications person present at that gathering, at least as reported at Fr. Jake’s:  http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2007/09/faithful-episcopalians-gather-in-fort.html.  Regardless of what you think of that site, it seems disingenuous for Bsp. Iker to make the claims he does in light of this info.  Bonnie Anderson is a lay person speaking to lay persons.  Not sure what violation of protocol Bsp. Iker is referring to.  Also, given that ABsp Akinola is ordained, it seems far more a violation of protocol for him to be making excursions into various dioceses (e.g. Virginia and soon in Chicago) either without communicating with the diocesan or against the diocesan’s express wishes.

September 9, 7:27 pm | [comment link]
23. Mark Johnson wrote:

Sarah,
First, FEAR NOT - I assure you I’m not an Episcopal priest!  Secondly, if we learned anything from Sen. Craig two weeks ago - it’s how often people are uncomfortable with who they are (as God created them) and seek to hinder those who bear an unlikely resemblance to themselves (or, barring Sen. Craig - try Foley, Haggard, etc).  So, just because women may not like seeing a woman serving at the altar doesn’t mean that the argument is lost.  I assure you of that!  I encourage you to read scripture to recognize the important role that women LEADERS played in the ministry of Jesus.  Similarly, early church history is equally full of brilliant, courageous, wise female leadership (which for centuries the male leadership of the church tried to squelch and hide).  The sadness comes from the fact that so many anti-women folks are determined to bar women from being leaders in the church today. 

Third, I’m still not sure why Bishop Iker feels compelled to start whining when a “lay” leader comes to his diocese.  I’d expect his frustration if it was a female priest coming to celebrate at the Eucharist, but this is quite different.  I ask again what type of pastoral care he’s providing for the moderates in his diocese?

September 9, 7:28 pm | [comment link]
24. bob carlton wrote:

That Iker - what a funny, funny, funny writer. And leader.

This type of junk simply confirms most of the biases of people who either (a) are nor part of a faith community or (b) left, having given up on all the PR spin and swaggering that “professionals” do.

Ladies & gentlemen - sorry, just gentlemen - introducing Jack Iker, the funniest man in purple !

September 9, 7:39 pm | [comment link]
25. Words Matter wrote:

It should be remembered that Bp. Iker has endured a boundary crossing before from his superiors of General Convention.

Words Matter

Reasonable people always fear nascent fascism.

September 9, 7:40 pm | [comment link]
26. Sarah1 wrote:

RE: “Secondly, if we learned anything from Sen. Craig two weeks ago - it’s how often people are uncomfortable with who they are (as God created them) and seek to hinder those who bear an unlikely resemblance to themselves (or, barring Sen. Craig - try Foley, Haggard, etc).”

I’ve no idea what on earth you mean!  Could you clarify?

People might well by homosexual in orientation yet understand that sexual relations with the same gender are immoral, and thus be conservative in their decisions.

A good and faithful thing.  For example, a heterosexual male who has an orientation towards multiple sexual encounters with many women might 1) understand that such sexual relations are immoral and thus be conservative in their decisions or 2) demand that society and the law redefine marriage to include that orientation.  Neither position is necessarily hypocritical, although one is most certainly wrong.

RE: “So, just because women may not like seeing a woman serving at the altar doesn’t mean that the argument is lost.”

I’m not certain what you mean—I am not an Anglo-Catholic.  I am merely a woman who understands a bit of Anglo-Catholic theology and does not falsely and ignorantly claim that such theology necessarily involves “not liking female lay people” or someone who “believes and teaches the inferiority of women”.

Finally, I don’t think that Bishop Iker cares a bit that Bonnie Anderson is a woman.  I think he cares that Bonnie Anderson is a rank revisionist.  ; > )

September 9, 7:42 pm | [comment link]
27. bob carlton wrote:

Sarah

this line:

rank revisionist.  ; > )

is really, really, really funny.

You guys - and I mean guys - just slay folsk with your use of clever sayings and the cute emoticons that you use.

September 9, 7:45 pm | [comment link]
28. Larry Morse wrote:

Hold on here. #23, the important role women played in the ministry of Jesus? In scripture? What important roles and where? Mary M at the cross, yes. And what other woman leader? There aren’t any, actually. Larry

September 9, 8:24 pm | [comment link]
29. JWirenius wrote:

According to Katie Sherrod, Bp. Iker was invited in mid-July to attend, and responded simply : “Thanks for the invitation, but I have an ordination that day.” 
http://wildernessgarden.blogspot.com/2007/09/bishop-iker-is-unhappy.html
This renders his response, frankly, odd.  I don’t think the Bishop would have any grounds of complaint even had he not been invited, but unless the e-mail is a fake, it seems to me his “irony” is at best a needless provocation.

September 9, 8:30 pm | [comment link]
30. bob carlton wrote:

Jesus’ regular affiliation with women in the Bible is consistent with his acceptance and association with the outcasts of society.

Women played an important role as the disciples of Jesus. Indeed, from the very beginning of his ministry, Jesus recruited disciples including Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna; women also accompanied Jesus to the cross, were the first to witness his resurrection, and stayed firm when questioned by Roman authorities.

Jesus ignored many of the rules promoting gender inequality in the Old Testament, and for this reason his treatment of women is often considered radical. Jesus broke impurity laws when he treated a woman suffering from menstrual bleeding in the Gospel of Mark. He also spoke to foreign women, breaking the Jewish law prohibiting men from talking to any woman outside of their families.

Jewish tradition also forbade women from being taught or gaining education, a tradition that was broken by Jesus when he taught Mary, sister of Martha, in Luke and in his inclusion of women in his circle. In the Bible, Jesus tells parallel stories including both men and women such as Simeon and Hannah (Luke 2:25-38).

Larry, I remind you of this section of Mark:

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the Mother of James, and Salome brought perfumed oils with which they intended to anoint the body of Jesus. Very early, just after sunrise, on the first day of the week they came to the tomb. They were saying to one another, “Who will roll back the stone from the entrance to the tomb for us? When they looked, they found that the stone had been rolled back. (It was a huge one.) On entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, dressed in a white robe. This frightened them thoroughly, but he reassured them? “You need not be amazed. You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, the one who was crucified. He has been raised up; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. Go and tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee where you will see him, just as he told you.’ “
These women were, in fact, the first evangelicals - sharing the good news of Jesus conquering death - in our tradition.  Not surprisingly, the men did not believe - but they told the good news !

September 9, 8:32 pm | [comment link]
31. Bob from Boone wrote:

Well, folks, read this report from Katie Sherrod, a priest in Bp. Iker’s diocese, of the meeting and the run-up to it: http://wildernessgarden.blogspot.com/2007/09/bishop-iker-is-unhappy.html. It turns out that +Iker was sent an invitation to the meeting two months in advance. He did not object to it at the time. So, waiting until it has been held and then writing his statement of objection reeks of something, if not hypocrisy. The meeting was open to the public. The diocesan news staff was there and its reporter took notes. Not all of those in attendance were opponents of the bishop; many were supporters. The discussion was reported to be cordial. Katie’s report is informative enough.

I should also like to point out that Bp. Iker complained that positions were stated that were contrary to the theological positions of his diocese. Who does he think he is, the pope of Fort Worth? When have Anglicans hesitated to disagree with their bishop? Maybe in Nigeria and Uganda.

Finally, this event was not an event of the diocese and did not need his permission. It was held at the Brite School of Theology at TCU, not on diocesan property, and it was jointly sponsored by the seminary and Ft. Worth Via Media, an independent organization.

Evidently, some of you think that the statement was ironic. If you want to read a good parody (provided on Fr. Jake’s blog) read the statement about the forthcoming visit of ++Akinola to Wheaton, IL. Apparently he did not seek the permission of the Episcopal Bishop of Chicago. Shame, shame.

September 9, 8:52 pm | [comment link]
32. Brian from T19 wrote:

JWirenius and Bob from Boone

We just don’t get it.  +Iker has decided to write comedy (perhaps to supplement his income beginning October 1st).  You should be seeing this letter on Leno or Letterman this week.

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams

September 9, 9:01 pm | [comment link]
33. Robert Dedmon wrote:

Worse, worser, worsest.  Why can’t we all give it a rest
and get back to business, which, if anyone remembers,
is the mission of the church.  Which is, for those of us who
are imploding, is to bring people to know the saving grace
of Jesus Christ.  (remember him?)

September 9, 9:07 pm | [comment link]
34. Brian from T19 wrote:

Oh Sarah,

You seem to be slipping.  First you claim that God became incarnate in Jesus in order to speak out against La Cage aux Folles and now this:

No Brian, that would be a rather conservative evangelical position.  It is not the Anglo-Catholic theology at all.  And even evangelicals who believe in the “authority over men” theology limit it [as in the case of Matt Kennedy] to rectorships and bishops in the ecclesial realm, and not at all in the secular realm.

Here’s the problem - Bonnie Anderson is not an ecclesiastical authority, but she is doing this in the role of her ministry to the Church.  Therefore the convoluted self-justification of the FiFNA position on non-ordained ministry by women applies.  Her position in ministry places her ina very powerful position in determining what issues are brought before General Convention.  Maybe +Iker could write a joke about this - something about women drivers;)

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams

September 9, 9:08 pm | [comment link]
35. Br. Michael wrote:

Anderson is not just a lay person.  But it makes no never mind.  TEC has never cared one whit about what it does.  It just does it.  And so must we.

September 9, 9:17 pm | [comment link]
36. Ed the Roman wrote:

In what sense does a Church whose dioceses explicitly have different theology share a faith?

Why did the outsider point this out first?

September 9, 9:36 pm | [comment link]
37. MJD_NV wrote:

“This visit by Mrs. Anderson was arranged without any prior consultation with me or any of the other elected leaders of this diocese.”

Hmmm…I don’t see Iker claiming that he wasn’t invited.  Just that proper protocol would have been to consult him PRIOR to the thing being set up.  Which of course it would have been.  Instead, the bishop was told that this was going to happen.  Not consulted. Not asked. Which is ecxactly Iker’s complaint, and why the irony is so delicious.
SO much for THAT issue - the Leftist church is just FULL of non-issues lately.  Not to mention NO humor - but it’s hard to have humor when you’re on the wrong side of logic, eh?

Sarah, my sister, do not try to argue with Mark & Brian - did you forget that you’re just a dumb old girl and they have to tell you what’s what?

It’s an attitude I so frequently find among men who think they are being feminists…and one that I’ve NEVER found with opponents of WO. Interesting, that…

If God is not Father, Jesus is not Lord, the Son is not unique, baptism is not necessary, the creeds are optional, repentance and sin are dated concepts and the atonement is marginalized or even rejected, where do we go from here? The faith remaining will be a very different faith from the Christian faith once delivered to the saints - and I, for one, am not going there!  ~ Bp. Miller, Church of Ireland

September 9, 9:54 pm | [comment link]
38. Brian from T19 wrote:

MJD_NV

Now your trying Sarah’s trick of misdirection.  It really is beneath both of you.  But as we saw when he published an article implying - but not specifically stating - that he was at the March HoB meeting, it is not a concern for our jovial Bishop.

Here is what was said:

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.

So your defense of not consulted, not asked is disingenuous.

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams

September 9, 10:05 pm | [comment link]
39. Henry wrote:

+Iker does NOT have a problem with women in authority—there are many in this diocese—on the standing committee, board of trustees, finance committee, deputies to gen. conv., commission on ministry, etc., etc.—he only has a concern with the ordination of women to the priesthood. 
#31—Katie Sherod is NOT a priest of this diocese or any diocese, thanks be to God.  She is an active Lay person who has opposed all of the bishops of Ft. Worth since it’s founding.

September 9, 10:06 pm | [comment link]
40. MJD_NV wrote:

It’s not MY defense, luv, it’s Iker’s - I know it might require effort on your part, but READ WHAT THE MAN IS SAYING.  His point is that for them to set this all up with Via Media instead of working with the Diocese was dirty pool - which is just what the reappraising bishops say about the Network.  He’s putting the shoe on the other foot.

No wonder you people can’t read the plian meaning of Scripture - you can’t even read the plain meaning of a simple letter, written in modern English!

I give up - go off and have your temper tantrums about how “mean” Jack is and all that.  I have children to get ready for bed.

And an 8-year-year old to help with homework…one who apparently can read English better than some reappraisers here. Oy veh.

If God is not Father, Jesus is not Lord, the Son is not unique, baptism is not necessary, the creeds are optional, repentance and sin are dated concepts and the atonement is marginalized or even rejected, where do we go from here? The faith remaining will be a very different faith from the Christian faith once delivered to the saints - and I, for one, am not going there!  ~ Bp. Miller, Church of Ireland

September 9, 10:13 pm | [comment link]
41. Philip Snyder wrote:

As my Systematic Professor was fond of saying:  “Those who cannot understand adult books should not read them.”  I guess that applies to Adult Letters (or letters from adults) too.

This is not about propriety or about being invited or consulted.  This letter is simply putting the shoe on the other foot.  It is demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.  It is designed to show the world (or at least the Anglican Communion) how TECUSA comes across to the reasserters.  If you can’t understand that, they just move on.

BTW, please stop saying that +Iker hates women or that he thinks women are inferior.  That is not his position any more than it is your position that you Africans or think that they are inferior people.  +Iker’s position on the ordination of women is the same position that the Church catholic has held.  I thought that WO was in the process of “reception.”  How his position show hatred of women if it is still a valid position for a member or leader of the Anglican Communion?

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

“I do not believe because I understand.  I believe in order that I might understand” - Anselm
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

September 9, 10:53 pm | [comment link]
42. Bob from Boone wrote:

Henry, thanks for the correction that Katie Sherrod is a laywoman.

Until I figure out how to add a quotation tag, I’ll follow up Brian’s on fascism with this from Sinclair Lewis: “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” (Sorry, elves, I’ve gotten off topic.)

September 9, 11:12 pm | [comment link]
43. JWirenius wrote:

Interestingly, MJD_NV (no. 40) agrees that Bp. Iker is levelling a genuine criticism at Bonnie Anderson—that she is guilty of “dirty pool” by working through Via Media, and not the Diocese itself.  Phil Snyder (no 41), by contrast, states that the Iker statement is “demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.”  The one thing they agree on is that those who find Bp. Iker’s statement troublesome are illiterate.  (Or, in Phil’s case, that such troubled mis-readers should limit themselves to children’s books). 
I particularly like the suggestion that “you people can’t read the plain menaing of scripture.”  Tell me again I’m an analphabet.  That’ll win me over.

September 9, 11:12 pm | [comment link]
44. Sarah1 wrote:

RE: “You guys - and I mean guys - just slay folsk with your use of clever sayings and the cute emoticons that you use.”

Why thank you, Bob Carlton.  I thought there might be a sense of humor there somewhere.

September 9, 11:21 pm | [comment link]
45. Sarah1 wrote:

RE: “Therefore the convoluted self-justification of the FiFNA position on non-ordained ministry by women applies.”

You’re kiddin’ . . . you really don’t understand Anglo-Catholic theology or their reasoning for denying women the place at the altar?

Well . . . I’m certainly not going to waste my time trying to explain it.  But wow, what a maroonish thing to miss.  No, the problem with Bonnie Anderson is the same problem as with Via Media and with you—rank heresy.  Iker wouldn’t want you or Bonnie or Via Media promoting it.

But, to [mis]quote the poor old ironic dad, Mr. Bennett, in Pride and Prejudice: “Ignorance will be your punishment!”  ; > )

September 9, 11:28 pm | [comment link]
46. Bob from Boone wrote:

Over at the blog “Andrew Plus,” Andrew has offered Bp. Iker the opportunity to turn his indignation over to the service of his brother the Bishop of Chicago:

“I appreciate Bishop Iker’s concern for protocol and, more important, for the integrity of diocesan boundaries. I really do. I therefore fully expect the Bishop to write and post this letter when Archbishop Akinola comes to Wheaton College on September 23, 2007 to share in a workshop sponsored by the Chicago area chapter of AMiA….”

The hoped-for letter follows at http://andrewplus.blogspot.com/2007/09/one-for-all-all-for-one.html. You’ll recognize that the letter carefully preserves +Iker’s indignation. It really does.

September 9, 11:34 pm | [comment link]
47. Spiro wrote:

Bishop Jack Leo Iker and the leadership of the Diocese of Fort Worth are committed to the UNCHANGING TRUTH of the Gospel and ministry of Our Lord Jesus Christ. I thank God everyday for this healthy, reasserting, and unapologetic diocese.

Yesterday was another great day here in the Diocese of Fort Worth. We had a Spirit-led, joyful, and memorable Priesthood Ordination of a faithful 26-year-old man who also happens to be Bishop Iker’s Godson and the natural son of Bishop Iker’s Canon to the Ordinary, Canon Charles Hough III.

As Faithful Christians, we are thanking God for continually raising a new generation of faithful priests as they continue to support the great work Bishop Iker and his team are doing – in spite of the detractors, some of who are not even Christians any longer (going by what they believe, teach, and practise) in any meaningful sense of the word.

Vicar Spiro

September 9, 11:44 pm | [comment link]
48. Sarah1 wrote:

It’s great that the progressives like this letter so much.

Reminds me of another one written by Greg Griffith, channeling the PB.  ; > )

Citing her resounding pastoral and public-relations successes with open letters to her four fellow Anglican archbishops and to the Bishop of San Joaquin, the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori has announced her intention to issue regular open letters on matters of due importance.—Eds.*

Thanksgiving Day

Pope Benedict XVI
Vatican City

Via e-mail, fax, DHL and Episcopal News Service

Dear Joseph,

As I am sure you must have heard by now, I made some remarks recently to The New York Times Magazine about the humble and Earth-honoring birthrates among well-educated Episcopalians, especially in comparison to our more fecund brothers and sisters who are Mormons and Roman Catholics.

Some people took offense, and of course I regret that they took my entirely accurate remarks as they did. If there’s any doubt about my accuracy, I refer you to this definitive post by the brilliant, irenic, courageous—dare I say prophetic?—Father Jake.

I assume your response to my remarks was along the lines of “Hey, we all say some things that upset a few hotheads. Of all people, I should know!” I trust that you will inform me – directly and punctually – if I have presumed too much on our relationship as brother and sister archbishops. (If, as is the case here, money is an issue, you may call me collect).

And if you’re ever in New York, please look me up. Our humble office space at 815 Second Avenue is a brief cab ride from Kennedy or LaGuardia. If I ever find myself passing through Rome (with my sudden boost in frequent-flier miles, you never know) I will strive to work in a visit with you. I am sure we could regale each other for hours with “shop talk,” and I will endeavor to bring along some moderately amusing anecdotes. As I’m sure you know by now, I so love to laugh.

It’s not easy leading people into a full experience of the reign of God, is it? I know your people are doing their best to keep up, and you have my regular and earnest prayers.

Your humble peer,

+Katharine

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop and Primate

September 9, 11:44 pm | [comment link]
49. Irenaeus wrote:

“+Iker was sent an invitation to the meeting two months in advance. He did not object to it at the time. So, waiting until it has been held and then writing his statement of objection reeks of something, if not hypocrisy”—-Bob from Boone

WOW! Let’s get this right:
1. You get an invitation
2. You disapprove
3. You could say no right away, but you don’t
4. You wait until the last minute, then voice your disapproval

What have we got?
ECUSA’s response to the Dar es Salaam Communique.

ECUSA’s ruling revisionists had no intention of complying.
So they . . . jabbered and ran out the clock.

Next step: insisting that they did all they could in the time available.

Yes, Bob from Boone, it “reeks of something, if not hypocrisy.”

September 10, 12:05 am | [comment link]
50. MJD_NV wrote:

Irenaeus scores AGAIN!  Ding! Ding! Ding! TWICE in one thread - give that man a cigar!

#43 - Why is this an “either/or” instead of a “both/and”?  To me, certainly, it is both - both a disdain of a meeting that he did not really want to take place but was rather powerless to stop AND a brilliant piece of satire to demonstrate how ludicrous other bishops in the HoB have been acting to Network groups. 

And, really, BfromB, why on earth would he have published an objection in advance, which merely would have served as an advertisement? Iker knows he couldn’t have stopped the thing.  His way of handling things was much more effective.

And now you all are running around sounding exactly like we do when revisionists try to stamp us out.  Reasonable people should be able to see the irony clearly.

Bishop Jack 1.  Revsionists 0.

If God is not Father, Jesus is not Lord, the Son is not unique, baptism is not necessary, the creeds are optional, repentance and sin are dated concepts and the atonement is marginalized or even rejected, where do we go from here? The faith remaining will be a very different faith from the Christian faith once delivered to the saints - and I, for one, am not going there!  ~ Bp. Miller, Church of Ireland

September 10, 12:25 am | [comment link]
51. Brian from T19 wrote:

You’re kiddin’ . . . you really don’t understand Anglo-Catholic theology or their reasoning for denying women the place at the altar?

Well . . . I’m certainly not going to waste my time trying to explain it.  But wow, what a maroonish thing to miss.  No, the problem with Bonnie Anderson is the same problem as with Via Media and with you—rank heresy.  Iker wouldn’t want you or Bonnie or Via Media promoting it.

Ooooh…when backed into a corner the claws come out…maybe you’ll get quoted by William F. Buckley again…I seem to bring that out in you.

Again, let’s set the record straight from your misdirection:

1. I said that I did NOT believe that +Iker had a problem with Bonnie Anderson being a woman.
2. I also said that IF there was a problem it would be that she has authority over men
3. You said that that theory was limited to certain evangelical groups who had a problem with women in positions of authority IN THE SECULAR WORLD.
4. I countered that Bonnie’s actions were not in the secular world but were a part of her ministry.  In addition I said that the FiFNA roles for women in ministry would apply.
5. You claimed that I am a maroonish heretic who doesn’t understand Anglo-Catholic theology.

The reality:  I get it just fine.  Many Anglo-Catholics who do not have an Evangelical bent believe that the role of lay women in ministry should be limited.  Also, I have no problem with conscientious objectors to WO.  They have their place in the Church and that should never be denied.

And for the rest of you, I do have a sense of humor and I can actually read (beyond a 3rd grade level).  If +Iker wants to make a joke he can feel free, but he isn’t.  He is a Roman Catholic in Episcopalian vestments and he will most likely leave on October 1st (should he actually attend the meeting).  You can claim this is a joke and we “just don’t get it,” but he has better things to do with his time then make jokes.  I congratulate him on the ordination and I wish him well.

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams

September 10, 12:55 am | [comment link]
52. Katherine wrote:

I know of no evidence that +Iker will depart TEC for Roman Catholicism after Oct. 1.  I do think it very likely that the Diocese of Fort Worth will secede from the General Convention Church and join a new Anglican Province shortly after that date.

September 10, 4:32 am | [comment link]
53. Ed the Roman wrote:

They have their place in the Church and that should never be denied.Good luck with that, Chief, unless you think their place is under the stairs.  That does not seem to be the way either your advocates of WO or our advocates of WO intend to proceed.

Ours won’t succeed, but I dunno about yours.

September 10, 6:43 am | [comment link]
54. Brian from T19 wrote:

join a new Anglican Province shortly after that date.

I wasn’t saying that +Iker would join the RCs, but rather that his theology is RC.  And as for the “new Anglican Province,” no such thing exists.

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams

September 10, 7:10 am | [comment link]
55. SpongJohn SquarePantheist wrote:

BfT19, you seem to have trouble making certain distinctions, and then start blaming others for being disingenuous. Let me help try to clarify things for ou:
#38 - Bishop Iker WAS informed of Bonnie’s visitto Fort Worth AND invited to the event
Being informed and invited is not the same as being consulted.

#51 - Bp Iker may object to Anderson’s action on the level of gender roles as well as polity, but it does not follow that that gender roles was the objection he had in mind when writing the letter.

Most disturbing of all:
#34 - God became incarnate in Jesus in order to speak out against La Cage aux Folles.
If pedophiles write a funny play, would that make that ok as well? Has it really come to this, that how an action is presented/spun is all that is necessary to determine whether it is moral? This is why liberals scare me.

September 10, 7:43 am | [comment link]
56. Brian from T19 wrote:

SJ SP

(Great name BTW!)

Being informed and invited is not the same as being consulted.

I take you back to my original question - why on Earth should he have been consulted?  Again look at the detail of the original invitation and the Bishops complete lack of objections/questions/etc.:

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

As for you next objection:

Bp Iker may object to Anderson’s action on the level of gender roles as well as polity, but it does not follow that that gender roles was the objection he had in mind when writing the letter.

I never said it was.  I SPECIFICALLY said that it was not!

If pedophiles write a funny play…

The ridiculous pedophile comparison again.  I can’t do much to set back 1000s of years of abject ignorance.

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams

September 10, 7:56 am | [comment link]
57. Sarah1 wrote:

RE: ” I also said that IF there was a problem it would be that she has authority over men . . . “

Right, Brian.  You demonstrate again your abject lack of knowledge of Anglo-Catholic theology.  Their objection to women in orders has nothing to do with “women in authority over men”, and your ignorance would have been astounding several years ago—now it’s just standard, I realize.

RE: “You said that that theory was limited to certain evangelical groups who had a problem with women in positions of authority IN THE SECULAR WORLD.”

Brian—again, Bishop Iker is Anglo-Catholic.  He cannot be appropriately placed in the evangelical camp at all—Matt Kennedy would be a reformed evangelical Anglican—not Jack Iker.

So far, we have Mark Johnson claiming that Anglo-Catholics believe and teach “the inferiority of women” and don’t “like FEMALE lay people”.  And we have Brian stating that the issue for Anglo-Catholics is “females in leadership positions (authority over men).”

Brian’s caught himself—but would Mark Johnson wish to correct his statements concerning Ango-Catholic theology?

Are there others on this thread with such a dismal lack of knowledge of Anglo-Catholic theology?

Again—I’m not an Anglo-Catholic.  And I’m a woman, unlike the knowledgeable and wise progressive males on this thread.

But I’m capable of understanding it, and even articulating a rough survey of their theology, from a sociological and theological perspective.

Why not the progressive balanced wise males here?

September 10, 8:49 am | [comment link]
58. Sarah1 wrote:

For those who might like to learn about Anglo-Catholic theology concerning women’s ordination they might enjoy reading this open thread over at StandFirm.  The positions and the discussion were moderated by Matt Kennedy, an evangelical reformed Anglican who supports limited WO. 

Though male, and though conservative, even he was able to articulate a rough survey of Anglo-Catholic theology and moderate two lengthy threads of more than 300 comments each.

I am confident that if Matt Kennedy can do it—about as non-Anglo-Catholic as can be—even progressive males could learn about such arcane things, if desired.  They could think of it as “expanding our horizons,” “learning about The Other,” “being inclusive and affirming even of bizarre and strange cultures, like Incan virgin sacrifice and Anglo-Catholic theology,” and “understanding the primitive religionist in order to help him.”

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3753/

September 10, 8:56 am | [comment link]
59. Mark Johnson wrote:

Sarah, there are ample Anglo-Catholics out there who have no problem with women priests.  I’m sure some folks out there can’t believe that (and refuse to), but merely being Anglo-Catholic does not an anti-woman make!  I never assume when I read “Anglo-Catholic” that it means the opposition to women clergy.  There’s a subset of Anglo-Catholics (possibly a majority, but not a given) that do oppose women clergy.  I live about three miles from one of this country’s most prominent Anglo-Catholic parishes—there are no female clergy on staff, but on occasion a visiting female priest is present in the liturgy. 
Just to clarify, and I apologize if I have painted others with too broad of a brush, I was only referring to Bishop Iker.  As a former member of his diocese for three years, I was frequently shocked at some of the comments he would make against women clergy.  Always referring to church tradition to support his argument.  I couldn’t believe that in 2001 someone would still try to bolster the argument for discrimintation based on “church tradition”.  As a descendant of slaves myself, I am aware of how much the church in this country appealed to tradition to uphold slavery, segregation, discrimination.  Thankfully, it was the voice of the prophetic church that helped to bring about some changes.  Bishop Iker would not be part of a prophetic church.

September 10, 9:39 am | [comment link]
60. Katherine wrote:

BfT19, +Iker’s views on papal infallibility, and the required belief in Mary’s immaculate conception make him non-RC, so far as I know.

MJ, there are indeed “affirming catholics” in TEC who accept women priests.  These are not the Anglo-Catholics who have either left TEC or are FiF members.  And being opposed to women priests does not an anti-woman make!  If you are really opposed to church tradition, you might want to be checking out Baptist groups.

September 10, 10:54 am | [comment link]
61. Sarah1 wrote:

RE: “I was only referring to Bishop Iker.”

Yep—and in that way you painted Anglo-Catholic opposition to WO as a believe in “the inferiority of women” and that they don’t “like FEMALE lay people”.

It matters not that some Anglo-Catholics are not opposed to WO.  The Anglo-Catholics that oppose WO—like Bishop Iker—do so based on strict sacramental grounds.

You’ve been called on your description of the reasons for Bishop Iker’s views, Mark Johnson, on two different threads.  And I and others will continue to do that.  You display either your ignorance or your dishonesty.

It’s beginning, now, to look like the latter

September 10, 11:04 am | [comment link]
62. Revamundo wrote:

Edited by elf. Repeat of information already posted.

Remember not the former things, nor consider the things of old. Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.

September 10, 12:12 pm | [comment link]
63. Brian from T19 wrote:

Sarah

I’d like to say that once again you don’t get it…but we all know you do.  Obfuscation is more our realm, don’t you think;)

What Sarah is trying to do is to break the Anglo-Catholic world into 2 categories: the priesthood and the secular world.  The reality is that there are different levels in Anglo-Catholic theology and in this instance the distinction is: Ordained ministry, ministry and the secular world.  Try as she may to remain under Matt+‘s authority, he is steering her in the wrong direction;)

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams

September 10, 12:38 pm | [comment link]
64. Stuart Smith wrote:

#62:  Your criticism of Bishop Iker ignores the track record of “Via Media” in the diocese of Ft. Worth.  That track record includes much more than simply disagreeing with the bishop.  I assume you are aware of that.  You know, for instance, that TEC has coordinated with Via Media for some of the unsolicited visitations to the diocese in years past to “help the diocese” respond to the national church’s resolution insisting upon FW’s acceptance of WO.  Misinformation and the stirring up of strife have been the MO of Via Media.
To portray Bishop Iker’s letter as you have done here reveals considerable naivete about Via Media’s activities in the diocese.

September 10, 1:04 pm | [comment link]
65. Katherine wrote:

#63:  Huh?  Sarah isn’t ordained.  Matt+ Kennedy isn’t an Anglo-Catholic.

September 10, 1:09 pm | [comment link]
66. MikeS wrote:

Did # 63, Brian from T19 just say Sarah is under Matt Kennedy’s authority?

Did anyone tell Sarah or Matt?

I must have missed the memo that announced that a person who is a member of a parish in one diocese was responsible and in submission to a priest leading a congregation in another diocese.

This conflict is getting curiouser and curiouser when statements like that one in #63 above begin to pop up.  It sounds as if it is beginning to be about personalities and not theological ideas.

September 10, 1:19 pm | [comment link]
67. Rolling Eyes wrote:

#59,  so upholding the Church’s teaching about WO is equal to supporting slavery?

Just sayin’...

September 10, 1:24 pm | [comment link]
68. Brian from T19 wrote:

#‘s 65 & 66

Now who doesn’t appreciate humor?

The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that <u>interventions are not to be sanctioned</u>. - Archbishop Rowan Williams

September 10, 1:26 pm | [comment link]
69. MikeS wrote:

That’s a smiley at the end of that sentence?

I thought it was the end of a paranthetical remark!

My goof.  Just please don’t tell Sarah.

September 10, 2:04 pm | [comment link]


© 2014 Kendall S. Harmon. All rights reserved.

For original material from Titusonenine (such as articles and commentary by Dr. Harmon) permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com


<< Back to main page

<< Return to Mobile view (headlines)