Bishop Iker held a press conference following the Fort Worth Diocesan Convention. He was asked about border crossings. He responded according to one transcript:
"The whole issue of border crossings is a red herring. Honduras, a diocese in Central America is in TEC. Is that provincial border crossing? What about Taiwan in Asia. They are part of TEC. Isn't that provincial border crossing? What about Columbia in South America? Isn't it a border incursion for TEC to pick up dioceses that are were bought and paid for? Doesn't TEC pay the vast majority of their expenses now?"
There is no question that Bishop Iker must have been tired after all that went on at the Convention. But here are the answer to his questions:
- "Honduras, a diocese in Central America is in TEC. Is that a provincial border crossing?" By whom?
- "What about Taiwan, in Asia. They are part of TEC. Isn't that provincial border crossing?" Again by whom?
- "What about Columbia in South America? Isn't that a border incursion for TEC to pick up dioceses that are were bought and paid for? Doesn't TEC pay the vast majority of their expenses now?" Aside from the confusion in the reporters writing, what is this about?
If the references are to the possibility of TEC being engaged in provincial border crossings in these dioceses the answer is NO. Tiawan is part of an internal province of TEC (province 8) and Honduras and Columbia are part of internal province 9. They are all dioceses receiving grants from TEC as part of the mission strategy of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society.
I suppose he is making the point that these are just exactly what they are: dioceses not contiguous with TEC mainland dioceses, but that does not make TEC's relation to these dioceses incursions. Thus the fact that the 4 dioceses in the US that are distant from the Southern Cone are not incursions either.
The incursion however is real because people left the Episcopal Church and with them took a diocesan apparatus so that they became dioceses in the Southern Cone but with jurisdiction in the United States, in locations where The Episcopal Church is already present. The incursion is the new dioceses (the ones of the Southern Cone) superimposed on the existing dioceses of TEC. The Province of the Southern Cone has made incursion into TEC.
Bishop Iker's examples are completely irrelevant. Oh well.
He then said,
"The Presiding Bishop has no ecclesiastical authority in Fort Worth. Read the canons. She cannot go anywhere without permission. They’ve made that office much more than it was written or intended. Now she is acting like a Primatial authority when her only stated jobs are to chair meetings and make some appointments."
I am not sure what planet the Bishop comes from. Title 1 Sec. 4 (a) of the Canons of The Episcopal Church begins by stating,"The Presiding Bishop shall be the Chief Pastor and Primate." Furthermore he and others have been seeking alternative Primatial oversight for years.
Bishop Godfrey of Peru, formerly of Uruguay, was also given to shooting himself in the foot:
He said the following:
"The Southern Cone did not cross borders. One or two bishops from that Province did. I see the Southern Cone used all over now in an accusatory fashion and it is a bad understanding of what we are about. It is a negative characterization of very good, honorable, orthodox people."
No one suggests that an abstract something called "the Province of the Southern Cone" crossed borders. Indeed at least two bishops from the Province - the Primate, Bishop Venables, and Bishop Frank Lyons have done so. Bishop Godfrey seems to be cross about everybody being stained by the inappropriate behavior of a few. But mostly his comment precisely confirms the incursions of "one or two" bishops.
Bishop Godfrey also tried out the idea that Bishop Robinson's ordination as bishop set off a wave of anti-Anglican propaganda in Lima.
"But I will tell you the ramifications in Lima, Peru. The day after Robinson’s consecration, there was a three page spread with color pictures in the largest local paper. They said what else would you expect a religion founded by an adulterer King to do? They smeared Anglicanism for weeks."
Seemingly the smear is that Anglican churches are a religion founded by Henry VIII, whose proclivity for marriage and remarriage, combined with occasional beheading, was well known. Well long after those who have smeared the Anglican Church in Peru have forgotten Bishop Robinson, they will still remember Henry VIII. The problem is not Bishop Robinson, it is Henry VIII. Perhaps Bishop Godfrey needs to do some work on that one. People who want to dump on Anglicans can find much better reasons than Bishop Robinson.This was an unfortunate comment by Bishop Godfrey. But at least it was not the foot shooter the first remark was.