Bishop Iker has publicly stated that he is not bound by the vows he took at his ordination as a bishop. The Living Church quotes him as saying,
“Katharine Jefferts Schori has no authority over me or my ministry as a Bishop in the
. She never has and she never will.... Since Nov. 15, both the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth and I as the diocesan Bishop have been members of the Church of God of the Southern Cone. As a result, canonical declarations of the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church pertaining to us are irrelevant and of no consequence.” Anglican Province
He seems to believe that departing the Episcopal Church and joining another, even one that is part of the Anglican Communion, without permission of the House of Bishops, is not a disregard of the canons he swore to uphold.
He seems to believe that his ordination vows did not mean that he was bound by the specific authority that the Presiding Bishop has to inhibit, an authority based in the canons he swore to uphold.
Here is what he said on the occasion of his ordination, " In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, I N.N., chosen bishop of the Church in N., do solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church."
The Annotated Constitution and Canons, while not the final word on the matter at least carries some weight, says about the word "discipline,"
The introduction of the word "discipline" in 1901, making the pledge of conformity one to "the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship" of this Church extends the ordination vow to obedience to the provisions of the Constitution and Canon. In as much as violation of the Constitution and Canons of the General Convention or of those of a diocese constitute an offense under Title IV, Canon 1, for which persons in Holy Orders may be liable to presentment and trial, it is appropriate that the engagement of conformity to the discipline of the Church, as well as to the doctrine and worship, be included in the declaration."
Bishop Iker cannot have been unmoved by the content of that oath and cannot have misunderstood. That being true it seems quite odd that he now believes that under the Constitution and Canons the Presiding Bishop "has no authority over me or my ministry as a Bishop in the
. She never has and she never will." Church of God
What he means is he doesn't believe she is the Presiding Bishop, after all she is a woman, women cannot be ordained priests or bishops, and therefore she and the whole of The Episcopal Church is pretending that she is such. What he means is he no longer recognizes the authority of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church to have a hold on him. He is saying to The Episcopal Church, "why, you're nothing but a pack of cards!"
Well, Bishop Iker, that may be, but it also means that you really didn't mean what you said at your ordination, in which case you are not a bishop, or worse, you are, and got there by telling lies, since you didn't believe then or now that you were going to "solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church."Bishop Iker's response is petulant at best and worse, arrogant.