Well no surprise but there it is from Katie Sherrod's webpages: She is carrying a full report on all the followup that will come from those who remain. Thanks to Katie for all her work.
The Diocese of Fort Worth this morning voted as follows:
Clergy -- 92 ballots cast with one invalid ballot Lay-- 127 valid ballots cast
A. Preamble
Clergy - 73 for, 18 against
Lay -- 101 for, 26 against
B. Authority of General Convention
Clergy -- 72 for, 19 against
Lay -- 102 for, 25 against
C. Deputies to General Convention
Clergy --71 for, 19 against
Lay -- 103 for, 24 against
D. Canons
Clergy - 72 for , 19 against
Lay - 102 for, 25 against"
Katie has just updated:
" UPDATE II:
Resolution for Admission to the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, meeting in its 26th Annual Convention, does hereby accept the provision made by the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, and the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth does hereby immediately enter into membership with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone as a full and equal constituent member of such province, and the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth does hereby accede to the authority of the Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone to the extent such Constitution and Canons are not contrary to Holy Scripture and the teaching of the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
Clergy - 73 for, 20 against
Lay - 98 for, 28 against
78 percent for, 22 percent against
Letter read from Gregory Venables welcoming "diocese" into the province."
The deal is done.
So now it is time to get to work.
Bishop Iker predicted that, "I fully expect that I'll receive notification from the Presiding Bishop's office, within days of our diocesan convention, that I've been inhibited. Of course by then it will be irrelevant, because I won't be under the authority of the Episcopal Church. But they'll play that out in the same that they did with Bishops Schofield and Duncan. What the "Remain Episcopal" people here are told by David Booth Beers - they've been to New York and met with him - is that I'll be inhibited right after our convention, then I'll have sixty days to recant, and if I don't then I will be deposed at the next meeting of the House of Bishops, which is some time in March. After that, they're planning on having the new organizing convention here in April, and probably get organized, elect a new standing committee, and a new provisional bishop."
Bishop Iker also points out, concerning the development of a new improved Anglican Province in North America, that "It's interesting...that historically to form a new province it's been customary to have 4 dioceses." Well, that's true. But the idea is that the entities are dioceses, with bishops. Now of the four dioceses in The Episcopal Church who have "left"are not dioceses of a recognized Province of the Anglican Communion. Two of the four bishops have been deposed. One has retired. At least in the Anglican Communion there is insufficient "matter" to constitute dioceses able to be a new Province.
But of course the GAFCON bishops don't recognize the depositions. The Province of the Southern Cone considers these groups of bishops, clergy and laity to be dioceses, whether or not continuing or new entities.
Bishop Iker at 2:37 PM in the Press Conference has just said that all the clergy are now in the Southern Cone. Once again the decisions of the diocesan convention assume that clergy are somehow property of the diocesan leadership and if the decision is to join the Southern Cone the clergy automatically are part of the Southern Cone. They do not make a decision to join, they only make a decision to disassociate. It is unclear what sort of permission clergy will need to stay part of the Episcopal Church.
This is a form of chattel slavery.
My sense is that the Instruments of Communion will be split on the matter, if it ever comes to them. The Archbishop of Canterbury, NO. The Anglican Consultative Council, majority NO. The Lambeth Conference...never mind - its 9 years away. The Primates, majority NO.
That may not be of much concern to those who have left, they are busy forming a new Anglicanism to meet the needs of the new dioceses of the Southern Cone standing over against the Episcopal Church. This new Anglicanism will be only vaguely recognizable.
Then of course, I could be wrong.
So - this really has nothing to do with Iker, Fort Worth, et al - but I just got back from my parish's fourth trip down to New Orleans to work with the rebuilding program. I know that Allen, RobRoy, Phil, etc. will be weighing in shortly with their obsession with statistics and their various slanders against TEC - and so I just have a question - would they be so kind as share with us with they've been doing for the Kingdom lately?
ReplyDeleteWhat's going on in the Episcopal Church in NOLA is faithful and brave, committed to rebuilding a shattered community, reaching out to the poorest, most vulnerable citizens of the city, establishing new mission initiatives, preaching the Gospel, spirit-filled worship. I am so damned proud to be a member of a church that continues to preach hope in the face of despair and resurrection in the face of death. If I'm wrong - and if Iker, Duncan, et al are right - well, I'll happily go to hell with the folks I was blessed to work with this past week.
We are doing Kingdom work. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Mr Arabin
Mr. Arabin,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. Many of us are weary of the complaints and criticisms of our Episcopal Church. I have never lost the faith or the hope or the belief in what we are about, and that while living in the Diocese of San Joaquin.
Mr. Arabin, please also accept my thanks for delivering some true "Good News."
ReplyDeleteKatie, thank you for the updates. It must have been a heartbreaking day, even though the election results weren't a surprise.
Mark, I share your discomfort with the requirements being imposed on the clergy of departing dioceses. I always assume these priests were sincere in their ordination vows, even if I don't agree with their current view of TEC. They are already in the terrible position of choosing between fealty to their bishops, or to their church of ordination. Can't they at least have the option of signing a declaration specifically stating they are choosing path "A" or "B," in these situations? Being required to reject a transfer of orders to another province is a little twisted. This isn't just administrative paperwork.
I'm also grateful to Mr. Arabin. While I have my complaints about our church, it's important to remember exactly the kinds of things in his comment.
ReplyDeleteAnd I, too, have become weary with the same old sniping comments from the usual suspects. Not only is it inaccurate - it's a tedious, repetitive bore at this point (which is much worse).
But I don't worry about them too much anymore; we all know what's going on "on the ground," and when the complaints of the RobRoys et al. are shown to be without foundation, it only hurts them.
These days, I just take what I need - the rare accurate criticism - and leave the rest, when it comes to the sniping.
Mr. Arabin,
ReplyDeleteWhile I'm not at all a fan of "YBIC Phil's" theology, and consider that much of what he writes about TEC constitutes slander, I can vouch that he is, in his own way, working for the Kingdom as he understands it.
Phil is, AFAIK, rather active in prison ministry. A tough job no matter how you cut it.
Mr, Arabin,
ReplyDeleteFrom your keyboard to God's screen, to update an old Yiddish complement. It is really about all we can do, litigate to keep our property, wave goodbye to the terminally holy, and get on with the Gospel work.
It is, in spite of the holiness crowd, what we are called to do.
FWIW
jimB