The Presiding Bishop wrote Presiding Bishop (aka Archbishop) Venables of the Southern Cone a letter regarding his planned visit to Fort Worth for "the expressed purpose of describing removal to the Province of the Southern Cone." You can read it HERE. There is no indication that Bishop Iker was copied, although the press release made it clear that the Archbishop of Canterbury was.
The Presiding Bishop's letter was released on April 29th. On April 30th, Bishop Iker responded to the Presiding Bishop as follows:
Dear Katharine,
I am shocked and saddened by the rude letter you released yesterday to Archbishop Greg Venables, concerning his visit this weekend to the Diocese of Fort Worth. Far from being "an unwarranted interference," he is coming at my request as an honored visitor and guest speaker.
You should know that under the canons this does not require either your approval or your support. You have no say in this matter. A diocesan bishop is free to invite other bishops to visit and speak in his diocese.
There are no efforts at reconciliation proceeding within this Province, which is one reason why faithful people continue to leave TEC in droves. Your attitude and actions simply reinforce alienation and bring further discord.
Once again, you are the one meddling in the internal affairs of this diocese, and I ask you to stop your unwelcome intrusions.
Faithfully in Christ,
The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth
cc: The Archbishop of Canterbury
The discerning eye will note that Bishop Iker seems to think the first letter was addressed to him, in spite of his recognizing that it was addressed to Bishop Venables. By the beginning of the second paragraph, the story is about Bishop Iker's right to invite Presiding Bishop Venables.
No one disputes his right to do so. The letter was not about Bishop Iker's invitation, it was about Presiding Bishop Venable's acceptance.
Bishop Iker: The letter was not to you.
5/01/2008
Who the Hell Wrote the Undisclosed Memo?
Who the hell wrote the undisclosed memo concerning the possible bases for bringing the Presiding Bishop up on trial for violating the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal church? The Living Church posted the article by George Conger, titled, "Memo: Presiding Bishop Subverting the Constitution and Canons" in which an anonymous lawyer or lawyers opined on the matter of the Presiding Bishop's actions in reference to Bishops Schofield, Cox and Duncan. No indication was made as to the authorship of the memo, who commissioned the effort, or who distributed it. No reference was given to a place where the original source could be viewed.
George Conger, author of the Living Church article, also wrote another version for the Church of England newspaper. In it he writes,
George Conger, author of the Living Church article, also wrote another version for the Church of England newspaper. In it he writes,
"There is a prima facie case for bringing the US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to trial before a church tribunal for abuse of office, a legal memorandum commissioned by a group of concerned American bishops and church leaders has found. But whether the bishops have the political will to act is unclear, the paper concluded.
Prepared by an international lawyer in response to a request for an independent opinion as to the legality of Bishop Schori’s actions, and their implications for the polity of the Episcopal Church, the April 21 memorandum concludes the Presiding Bishop deliberately and with full knowledge and forethought “subverted” the “fundamental polity” of the Episcopal Church in her takeover of the Diocese of San Joaquin."
Now the lawyer author of the memorandum is identified as "an international lawyer" and the paper commissioned by "a group of concerned American bishops." Bishop John Howe of Central Florida is quoted as having seen the brief (memorandum) but that he does not know who is behind it. I suppose that means the memorandum came to him without names attached.
So we have a memorandum which is not offered for public scrutiny, authored by an unknown "international lawyer" for a group o f concerned bishops, whose concern does not extend to having us know who they are, circulated to bishops and certain well placed correspondents, and not otherwise made public by any bishop in the course of nine days. We might well ask, "What the hell is going on here?"
As to the particulars reported by The Living Church and the Church of England Newspaper, they are to some extent countered by the letter of the Presiding Bishop to the House of Bishops dated April 30th. Her letter did not remark directly on any aspect of the April 21st Memo, and The Church of England article, posted May 1st, observes, "Spokesmen for the Presiding Bishop and the Archbishop of Canterbury declined comment, telling The Church of England Newspaper they had not seen the document."
If the comment that they had not seen the document was made in the past few days, it would appear that the Presiding Bishop's letter was not in response to the April 21st memo. Perhaps the questions from a CEN or TLC reporter provoked a general response. It seems the two documents do not form a question and answer pair.
Much of the April 21st Memo, as reported, seems filled with a different "read" of the canons than what is presented in the Presiding Bishop's letter. One significant difference, however, is that the April 21st Memo impugns the political and ecclesiastical will of the Title IV Review Committee, the Bishops and the whole of the Episcopal Church. The authors "were not optimistic the current legal and political environment within the church would see justice done." That is, the authors were not confident that the Presiding Bishop would be held accountable and brought to trial, given their arguments that "prima facie" there was grounds for such a trial.
Perhaps their lack of confidence is actually in their arguments, since they seem unwilling to let the world see the, know who they are and who commissioned them to write.
We shall see.
Meanwhile the question remains, "Who the hell wrote the Undisclosed Memo?"
Revisiting the Realignment Timeline, just for a moment.
Some minion in the Anglican Communion Network office is either too clever by half or a dolt. The headline of the most recent posting on the "News" section of the ACN pages is this, "Realignment Complete, San Joaquin Refocuses on Mission and Ministry." Of course this is not true.
Realignment will be complete when there is a new "biblical, missionary and united" Anglicanism in North America. A simple glance at the spiffy visual presentation of the process (see HERE) or the timeline of actions and issues (HERE) are enough to remind us that the object of realignment is not what the former bishop of San Joaquin has done - align himself and his cohorts with the Province of the Southern Cone. That is a stop-gap measure. The end game is realignment by coalition into an new Anglican union in North America. The plan has been and is to use alignment with other Provinces as a means of getting to a new place - a new ecclesiastical entity in North America that will seek recognition from other Anglican Provinces as the true, blue, real and bonified Anglican Church in the neighborhood.
The time line on the CCP pages is particularly interesting as a reminder of this plan since it includes several actions for 2008.
The Common Cause Partnership (CCP) will need to get the existing ecclesial groups to buy on to these developments, so in the Province by Province visitation, particular attention will need to be given to those Provinces who have taken on various churches in the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada and have provided bishops for local oversight.
We can be sure that CCP bishops will be at GAFCON and at Lambeth working to line up support. They will also be quite willing to use the possible realignment of the Anglican Communion to a new structure not headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and not based in London as a threat or a promise if they do not get the recognition they seek from Canterbury.
What will this new ecclesiastical structure look like, in terms of dioceses? It will finally be territorial - in that it is a structure for all of North America. It will involved dioceses, although it is not clear if there will be overlapping jurisdictions based on the source ecclesastical groups out of which they came (for example there might continue to be a CANA diocese with parishes not necessarily in a particular territorial jurisdiction).
It will be missionary, particularly if the agenda of the Anglican Missinon in the Americas is heard. Thus it will see unreached areas of the US and Canada (which will include anywhere that the apostate Episcopal Church is active) as mission territory.
But my bet is that it will fairly quickly become an Anglican-type ecclesiastical structure, with territorial dioceses whose responsibilities are for the work in a particular area of the US or Canada.
For this reason I think it is important to look at the current "strong" centers of realignment churches as a hint to future territorial divisions. To the extent that this is on the minds of bishops currently contemplating an exit from the Episcopal Church it may explain something of the strategies they might use regarding temporary alignment until the great day of union.
Looking at the map on the Common Cause Partnership home page, which lists 1100 parishes, (which includes Episcopal Church related parishes and all other Common Cause Partner congregations) one can see the "hot spots" where there are large numbers of churches in an area. Major hot spots are located in Southern California, Mid Texas, Illinois, Florida, South Carolina, Virgnia/ Washington DC, Pittsburgh, and upstate New York. Not surprising given the Network Dioceses of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, Episcopal Dioceses of Fort Worth, Quincy, Albany, Pittsburgh, the American Mission in the Americas concentration in Florida and South Carolina, and the Convocation of Anglicans in North America in the Virginia area.
So, casting an eye to what a union with dioceses and bishops might look like, my sense is there will be the following: The West (Schofield); The South West (Iker); the Mid South (Reformed Episcoapl Church?); The South East (AMiA?); the Middle Atlanatic (CANA); the North East (Duncan); The Mid West (Quincy?). The scattered Uganda and Kenya congregations will make their way into various new dioceses.
Of course this could be off course. The Reformed Episcopal Church may not finally make it into the group. The Kenya and Uganda groups might not be assimilated. Quincy might not go along with Fort Worth, San Joaquin and Pittsburgh. It's all pretty fluid.
But, just suppose Bishop Iker doesn't feel the necessity of going to the Southern Cone, believing that rather quickly there will be a new Anglican structure in North America? What if Pittsburgh votes not to "join" another province immediately but simply wait for a few months to regroup in this new structure. Might they not be in conversation with Canterbury to be "extra-provincial" for a short while prior to becoming part of a new province?
Katie Sherrod wrote recently, "It's interesting to note that very recently our bishop and other diocesan leaders have begun to drop a little bomb into discussions. Bishop Iker said at a recent meeting at All Saints Church that we shouldn't get too wedded to the idea of the Southern Cone. We may not be going there."
Perhaps Bishop Iker would just as soon be autonomous enough so that in the new mix of the united Anglican entity, he would be bishop of a wide area and not just Fort Worth. Better than than a diocese with limited jurisdiction under the governance of the Province of the Souther Cone. The folks at the bottom of South America are, afterall, lower than a snake's belly.
Realignment will be complete when there is a new "biblical, missionary and united" Anglicanism in North America. A simple glance at the spiffy visual presentation of the process (see HERE) or the timeline of actions and issues (HERE) are enough to remind us that the object of realignment is not what the former bishop of San Joaquin has done - align himself and his cohorts with the Province of the Southern Cone. That is a stop-gap measure. The end game is realignment by coalition into an new Anglican union in North America. The plan has been and is to use alignment with other Provinces as a means of getting to a new place - a new ecclesiastical entity in North America that will seek recognition from other Anglican Provinces as the true, blue, real and bonified Anglican Church in the neighborhood.
The time line on the CCP pages is particularly interesting as a reminder of this plan since it includes several actions for 2008.
- Province by province visitation and appeal for recognition of the "separate ecclesiastical structure in North America"
- CCP Leadership Council 2: Advent, 2008
- Reports and adoption of work from committees and task forces
- Constitutional convention for an Anglican union held at the earliest possible date agreeable to all the Partners
The Common Cause Partnership (CCP) will need to get the existing ecclesial groups to buy on to these developments, so in the Province by Province visitation, particular attention will need to be given to those Provinces who have taken on various churches in the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada and have provided bishops for local oversight.
We can be sure that CCP bishops will be at GAFCON and at Lambeth working to line up support. They will also be quite willing to use the possible realignment of the Anglican Communion to a new structure not headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and not based in London as a threat or a promise if they do not get the recognition they seek from Canterbury.
What will this new ecclesiastical structure look like, in terms of dioceses? It will finally be territorial - in that it is a structure for all of North America. It will involved dioceses, although it is not clear if there will be overlapping jurisdictions based on the source ecclesastical groups out of which they came (for example there might continue to be a CANA diocese with parishes not necessarily in a particular territorial jurisdiction).
It will be missionary, particularly if the agenda of the Anglican Missinon in the Americas is heard. Thus it will see unreached areas of the US and Canada (which will include anywhere that the apostate Episcopal Church is active) as mission territory.
But my bet is that it will fairly quickly become an Anglican-type ecclesiastical structure, with territorial dioceses whose responsibilities are for the work in a particular area of the US or Canada.
For this reason I think it is important to look at the current "strong" centers of realignment churches as a hint to future territorial divisions. To the extent that this is on the minds of bishops currently contemplating an exit from the Episcopal Church it may explain something of the strategies they might use regarding temporary alignment until the great day of union.
Looking at the map on the Common Cause Partnership home page, which lists 1100 parishes, (which includes Episcopal Church related parishes and all other Common Cause Partner congregations) one can see the "hot spots" where there are large numbers of churches in an area. Major hot spots are located in Southern California, Mid Texas, Illinois, Florida, South Carolina, Virgnia/ Washington DC, Pittsburgh, and upstate New York. Not surprising given the Network Dioceses of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, Episcopal Dioceses of Fort Worth, Quincy, Albany, Pittsburgh, the American Mission in the Americas concentration in Florida and South Carolina, and the Convocation of Anglicans in North America in the Virginia area.
So, casting an eye to what a union with dioceses and bishops might look like, my sense is there will be the following: The West (Schofield); The South West (Iker); the Mid South (Reformed Episcoapl Church?); The South East (AMiA?); the Middle Atlanatic (CANA); the North East (Duncan); The Mid West (Quincy?). The scattered Uganda and Kenya congregations will make their way into various new dioceses.
Of course this could be off course. The Reformed Episcopal Church may not finally make it into the group. The Kenya and Uganda groups might not be assimilated. Quincy might not go along with Fort Worth, San Joaquin and Pittsburgh. It's all pretty fluid.
But, just suppose Bishop Iker doesn't feel the necessity of going to the Southern Cone, believing that rather quickly there will be a new Anglican structure in North America? What if Pittsburgh votes not to "join" another province immediately but simply wait for a few months to regroup in this new structure. Might they not be in conversation with Canterbury to be "extra-provincial" for a short while prior to becoming part of a new province?
Katie Sherrod wrote recently, "It's interesting to note that very recently our bishop and other diocesan leaders have begun to drop a little bomb into discussions. Bishop Iker said at a recent meeting at All Saints Church that we shouldn't get too wedded to the idea of the Southern Cone. We may not be going there."
Perhaps Bishop Iker would just as soon be autonomous enough so that in the new mix of the united Anglican entity, he would be bishop of a wide area and not just Fort Worth. Better than than a diocese with limited jurisdiction under the governance of the Province of the Souther Cone. The folks at the bottom of South America are, afterall, lower than a snake's belly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)