Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 12:23:09 -0700 (PDT)

From: George Komechak

Subject: Critique by Fort Worth Via Media of the Fort Worth Diocesan Standing Committee and Executive Council Statement on Alternative Primatial Oversight

To:
Bishop Jack L Iker,
Suzanne Gill

CC:
Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori,
David B Beers,
The Executive Council of The Episcopal Church,
G Straub,
Christopher Wilkins

Dear Bishop Iker and Executive Council,

On Wednesday, May 16 it was announced by the Diocese of Fort Worth that: "In its regular bimonthly meeting today, the Executive Council adopted the following statement of the Standing Committee. A press release containing the statement has been posted on the diocesan Web site and released to Episcopal and Anglican publications and bloggers."

(Those who want to go directly to the statement should click on http://www.fwepiscopal.org/downloads/FWstatement051607.pdf <;http://www.fwepiscopal.org/downloads/FWstatement051607.pdf>)

The following is a Critique of the Executive Council Statement by Fort Worth Via Media

In this document, the text of the statement of the Standing Committee is in black regular type in quotes. The critique written by Fort Worth Via Media is in blue italics in indented bulleted statements. Quotations from the Standing Committee statement included in the Fort Worth Via Media critique are in black regular type.

Text of the Executive Council Statement:

“Where are we with the appeal for Alternative Primatial Oversight?”

“When the Diocese of Fort Worth first appealed for APO at the General Convention in June 2006, it was hoped that a special pastoral relationship could be established with an orthodox primate, in the interest of preserving unity and fostering mission, in the face of an impaired relationship with the newly elected Presiding Bishop.”

• In what way was the subject of APO taken up at the General Convention and what was the result? Is there any publicly released documentation? We have never seen any.
• The Windsor Report refers to, “...alternative pastoral oversight by sympathetic Bishops...”. When, where, and by whom did the term, “Alternative Primatial Oversight” arise and how was it defined?
• What was the, “...impaired relationship with the newly elected Presiding Bishop.”? Did the impairment arise at the convention or before the convention? There was an Episcopal House of Bishops’ meeting, prior to the convention, at which all the candidates for the post of Presiding Bishop were present. We understand that Bishop Iker did not attend that meeting and explain the possibility of an “impaired relationship” if one or more of the candidates were to be elected at the General Convention. If he did not, then the position of the Diocese of Fort Worth was not properly represented at the House of Bishops meeting. Perhaps the unfortunate situation of an “impaired relationship” between our diocese and the Presiding Bishop could have been avoided if it had been explained in advance.

“The original appeal was made in good faith and was directed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates of the Communion and the Panel of Reference. (Subsequently, it was decided not to approach the Panel of Reference about this in light of other pressing cases already before it.)”

• This sentence appears to be inconsistent with the preceding sentence which says that APO was first appealed at the General Convention. Which was it? It is noted that all those addressed in this “original appeal” were all parties outside The Episcopal Church. Were any copies provided to the Presiding Bishop, the Episcopal House of Bishops, or the house of Deputies?

“As seven other dioceses made similar appeals during the course of the summer, it was agreed to combine them into one appeal, asking the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a commissary who would act on his behalf, providing a special primatial relationship with the appellant dioceses. He arranged a summit in New York in September with interested parties to discuss the matter in an attempt to come up with "an American solution to an American problem." This meeting failed to reach an agreement, with the PB-elect claiming that she has no primatial oversight of TEC dioceses and cannot therefore give to another what she does not have.”

• Is there a disagreement regarding the “PB-elect's” claim? It is our understanding that this is a true statement. Did the Presiding Bishop elect make any other offers? Did the Archbishop of Canterbury or his representative offer any suggestions? It is noted that the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth did attend this summit meeting.

“Subsequently, representatives from the appellant dioceses met in November with the steering committee of the Global South Primates to present their requests for APO. This meeting ended with the assurance that they would respond with a plan to address the expressed needs of the appellant dioceses.”

• We understand that no representatives of The Episcopal Church or the House of Bishops were invited to this meeting and that attendance was limited to “representatives from the appellant dioceses” and members of a “steering committee” of non-U.S. Anglican Primates. Were any minutes taken and were they distributed to officials of The Episcopal Church, to the House of Bishops, the House of Deputies? We understand that Bishop Iker did attend this meeting.

• Was this the APO request made at the General Convention or the request to to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates of the Communion and the Panel of Reference?

“A second New York meeting was held later that month, but none of the appellant bishops attended because no proposal had been made for discussion. This meeting ended with the Presiding Bishop offering a plan for a Primatial Vicar, to be appointed by her and be accountable to her. The appellant bishops rejected the proposal as unacceptable.”

• Was the second New York meeting called by the Archbishop of Canterbury or by The Episcopal Church? Did none of the “appellant bishops” attend, because “no proposal had been made...” , because the meeting was called by The Episcopal Church rather than the Archbishop of Canterbury, or because the Diocese just declined to negotiate any more? We think failing to accept an invitation to attend a meeting designed to resolve an issue of overriding importance to us is an unsatisfactory way for our Bishop or any other Episcopal Bishop to represent his or her diocese.

“The APO requests were presented to the Primates Meeting in Dar es Salaam in February 2007. At the conclusion of the meeting, a Communiqué was issued that proposed the establishment of a Pastoral Council, which would oversee the ministry of a Primatial Vicar, to be selected by the Windsor Bishops coalition and be accountable to the Council. This plan was rejected by the House of Bishops at their March meeting at Camp Allen even though their approval was not sought.”

• It is our understanding that the Episcopal Bishop of Fort Worth did not attend this House of Bishops’ meeting, held conveniently near at Camp Allen in Texas, where he could have expressed the position of the diocese on this subject.

• To get approval for this request would require action by a special meeting of the General Convention. The House of Bishops were pointing out that the request was contrary to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.

“Nothing further has been heard about this from the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Every attempt to find "an American solution to an American problem" has failed. Following the two meetings in New York and the House of Bishops' rejection of the Primates' proposed Pastoral Council at their March meeting, it now seems clear that there is no desire on the part of the present TEC leadership to provide an acceptable form of Alternative Primatial Oversight within The Episcopal Church.”

• Acceptable to whom? To the Bishops of the appellant dioceses who did not attend the second Episcopal Church meeting in New York? To the Bishop of Fort Worth who did not attend the March House of Bishops’ meeting at Camp Allen? It does not appear that either the Bishop of Fort Worth or the other “appellant bishops” have made serious attempts to find "an American solution to an American problem" .

“The Presiding Bishop of this church has refused to accept the key recommendations of the Windsor Report, has failed to seek implementation of the essential requests of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué, and has denied basic tenets of the teaching of the New Testament. By her statements and actions, the course she wishes to pursue is clear: to lead TEC to walk apart from the Anglican Communion. This is a course we cannot follow. For all these reasons and others, we do not wish to be affiliated with her, nor with anyone she may appoint or designate to act on her behalf.”

• We think that the authors of this statement are lucky that the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church does not have Primatial Oversight within the Episcopal Church. Statements are made that are inaccurate, misleading, and would lead to immediate dismissal if uttered in any commercial or government agency and many church denominations.

• First, “... has refused to accept the key recommendations of the Windsor Report,”. Please cite specific items, times, and forms in which she has, “refused to accept” , not, “expressed less than full support of’, but, “refused to accept”.

  With regard to the Windsor Report, A Statement by the Bishop of Fort Worth on The Windsor Report, signed by, The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker, October 18, 2004, after listing four recommendations from the Windsor report, states that, “The above four paragraphs appear to rather fairly summarize the intent of the Windsor Report," but, one paragraph among several of the Windsor Report which was not cited in our bishop's statement but would seem to be pertinent to the situation in this diocese appears at the end of the Windsor Report section, "On care of dissenting groups". (WR pg.59. para 155) It reads:

• That portion of the Windsor Report appears to specifically apply to the situation here in the Diocese of Fort Worth, but our bishop and all the “Windsor Bishops” have managed not to address that portion of the Windsor Report.

• Second, “...has failed to seek implementation of the essential requests of the Dar es Salaam Communiqué,”. When, where, and how should or could she seek implementation? This statement of the diocesan Standing Committee states that the House of Bishops at their March meeting at Camp Allen rejected some requests in the Dar es Salaam Communiqué, “even though their approval was not sought”. Perhaps the presence of the Bishop of Fort Worth and some of the other “Windsor Bishops” at the House of Bishops’ meeting would have made a difference.

• Thirdly, “and has denied basic tenets of the teaching of the New Testament.” We are sorry that there are serious theological differences with the Presiding Bishop, but we think it would be more straightforward to list some of these “basic tenets” and take them up with the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities. Again, it would certainly have been helpful if the Bishop of Fort Worth could have attended the House of Bishops’ meeting with the Presiding Bishop candidates before the General Convention met, last year, so that an explanation could have been made regarding these serious charges before General Convention rather than after.

• Next, “By her statements and actions, the course she wishes to pursue is clear: to lead TEC to walk apart from the Anglican Communion.” We believe this charge is pure speculation unsupported by any actual “statements and actions”.

• “For all these reasons and others, we do not wish to be affiliated with her, nor with anyone she may appoint or designate to act on her behalf.” This is a most acrimonious statement which does not seem to represent the wishes of the Bishop of Fort Worth, who told the congregation at Trinity Church in Fort Worth on May 20 (just four days after the APO statement) that we are to wait in Communion together with one another in unity and love.

“So where does this leave the Diocese of Fort Worth's appeal for APO?”

“While we remain open to the possibility of negotiation and some form of acceptable settlement with TEC, it appears that our only option is to seek APO elsewhere. This may entail a cooperative effort with other appellant dioceses in consultation with Primates of the Anglican Communion, to form a new Anglican Province of the Communion in North America. A second possibility would be for the diocese to transfer to another existing Province of the Anglican Communion. A third possibility would be to seek the status of an extra-provincial diocese, under the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, as presently recognized in several other cases.”

• “While we remain open to the possibility of negotiation and some form of acceptable settlement with TEC,”-- How would the Executive Council imagine that could be possible considering the statements it has made in this document? Obviously, in view of the statements in the previous paragraph, any negotiation could have nothing to do with the Presiding Bishop. Evidently it could not be conducted with the House of Bishops since the Bishop of Fort Worth apparently scorns their meetings. Who then in The Episcopal Church?

• “... it appears that our only option is to seek APO elsewhere.” --- That would appear to be saying, in plain English, what the Bishop of Fort Worth has denied since 2003, namely, that the leadership of this diocese is preparing to leave The Episcopal Church.

• “This may entail a cooperative effort with other appellant dioceses in consultation with Primates of the Anglican Communion, to form a new Anglican Province of the Communion in North America.” -- Evidently with some of the Primates and evidently without the Archbishop of Canterbury.

• “ A second possibility would be for the diocese to transfer to another existing Province of the Anglican Communion.” -- Evidently, the Executive Council believes that the diocese can be transferred out of The Episcopal Church but that cannot be done. Individuals may leave and sue in civil courts for property, pensions, etc., but we know that the diocese, which was created by General Convention, cannot transfer out of The Episcopal Church.

• “ A third possibility would be to seek the status of an extra-provincial diocese, under the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury”. -- The Archbishop of Canterbury is the Primate of the Church of England who has no authority over churches in the United States.

“We believe that we must now explore these possibilities.”

• These three proposed options are contrary to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church and, thus are schismatic.

“The Bishop and the Standing Committee of The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth May 14, 2007”

• Fort Worth Via Media recommends that our diocesan leadership work within the polity of The Episcopal Church to solve our evident problems. It might be found that The Episcopal Church is more accommodating than can be imagined.

• Further, we commend the Bishops’ “Mind of the House” resolutions, Adopted March 20, 2007:

  The House of Bishops

  The Episcopal Church
  Spring Meeting 2007
  Camp Allen Conference Center
  Navasota, Texas

  They express the prayerful thoughts of the Episcopal Church much more eloquently than we possibly could.

  We pray for peace within the church.

  Fort Worth Via Media Executive Committee

  George Komechak

  Ed Adcock

  Laura Adcock

  Merritt Farren

  Lynne Minor

  Barbi Click

  John Morgan