Network Bishops Say "NO."

Just posted on the Anglican Communion Network site: Bishops Decline Invitation to Second Summit.

It appears a second meeting of bishops following up on the September New York meeting is scheduled for today (November 27th). Not surprisingly, Bishop Iker, on behalf of Bishop Duncan and himself, has said ‘No.” At least he is consistent, having earlier said precisely that he would not attend unless there were specific proposals for APO on the table. That not being the case, he will not go. No news is no news.

The only thing of much new interest in the letter released by the Diocese of Fort Worth is this:

“We believe the situation has deteriorated significantly in recent weeks with threats of lawsuits against bishops appealing for APO and of declaring “vacant sees.” We note that we are now tagged as “problem dioceses” and that we will continue to be monitored by the property task force headed by Bishop Sauls. We also note that this task force is going to cultivate relationships with persons in our dioceses who oppose the position taken by our diocesan conventions. Such posturing is meant to intimidate us and does not promote dialogue and conversation about the matters before us. I have been advised that legal counsel should accompany me to any future meetings with representatives from 815 or the General Convention.” (highlight mine)

I am not sure that what Bishops Iker and Duncan have before them is “posturing.” I hope not. Rather I believe what they are facing is genuine response to their denial of accountability to the offices they hold. Unfortunately, they have been well advised to bring legal counsel. We are down to the end game.

Such legal counsel as they bring need to be clear that bishops in this Church are bishops here by license, based on their oaths at ordination.

Perhaps it is hard for Bishop Iker to actually use the words “Presiding Bishop” or “Presiding Bishop’s staff.” “815” is shorthand, but in this case it is an easy way out. Try saying “representatives from the Presiding Bishop or the General Convention.”


  1. Of course it's hard for +Iker to use the words "Presiding Bishop" in reference to ++Katharine Jefferts Schori. +Iker doesn't recognize ++Jefferts Schori as an ordained priest, much less as a bishop. As far as +Iker is concerned, the Episcopal Church has no Presiding Bishop.

    What amuses me in this is that he can't say "representatives of the woman who claims to be Presiding Bishop," because such a formulation would make him look horrid. So he uses "815" as a shorthand, to avoid the impression that he's simply flouting the rules of the Church.

  2. Mark I hope you are right about this being the point where the time has come to fish or cut bait as the old saying goes and that the PB and her staff start proceedings against the lot of them.

  3. Indeed, we knew this was coming. +Iker declared some time ago he didn't feel like there was anything more to talk about.

    There will, I fear, be much to mourn before all this is over. I will grant the necessity; but we'll all have plenty to be sad about.

  4. No is the appropriate response to a group that listens to no one but themselves (ecusa), doesn't care what anyone else thinks (ecusa) and after 3 years comes up with something at the last minute as lame as B033 (ecusa at GC).

  5. Tony,

    Pardon me, but that it a gross misrepresentation of where the Episcopal Church has struggled to this point. I'm no big fan of B033, either, but if anything those broken bones suggest to me, it's that we wrestled mightily (and many with tears ) with conscience -- to stand by the disenfranchised and to stand for unity. That we are being asked or even made to "choose" between the two is spiritual violence at its worst.


OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.