|
[A letter to The Living Church] June 22, 2006 George J. Komechak, President A Response to Bishop Jack Iker from Fort Worth Via Media Dear Editor, On June 17, you printed "Our Future in Question" by the Rt. Rev. Jack L. Iker, bishop of the Diocese of Fort Worth. While we in Fort Worth Via Media respect Bishop Iker's right to express his position on seeking "alternate primatial oversight", there are several points in the article that cry out for clarification and/or amplification. Perhaps the most important clarification is that there are many faithful Episcopalians in the Diocese of Fort Worth who have no problem at all with the election of Katharine Jefferts Schori as presiding bishop and indeed many who are elated by her election. Bishop Iker expresses gratitude to Archbishop Rowan Williams for his recent reminder to the church that "...(as has often been forgotten) the Lambeth Conference did resolve that for the time being those churches that did ordain women as priests and bishops and those that did not had an equal place within the Anglican spectrum." We are grateful for Bishop Iker's reminding us all that, according to Archbishop Williams, The Episcopal Church has an equal place within the Anglican spectrum, since it is one of those churches that does ordain women. Bishop Iker often gives the impression in our diocese that The Episcopal Church has already been thrown out of the Anglican Communion. Bishop Iker claims that the "Anglican concept of an open process of reception holds that the verdict is still out on this one, until the whole catholic church comes to a consensus, on one side or the other of this contentious issue." Since Bishop Iker refuses to allow priests who are women to function in the Diocese of Fort Worth, it makes it difficult for people to "receive" women's ordination. How does one receive that which one has never experienced? Bishop Iker claims that the Diocese of Fort Worth has declared its opposition to the "innovation" of women's ordination since 1974, when the Philadelphia Eleven were ordained (an ordination that was declared "irregular" by the House of Bishops, not illegal, as Bishop Iker claims). But that is impossible. The Diocese of Fort Worth did not come into existence until 1983. It was split off from Dallas because that diocese had become unwieldy, not because of opposition to the ordination of women. Indeed, in the earliest years of the diocese opposition to the ordination of women was lukewarm at best. It was only when Bishop Clarence Pope made it the defining issue of his episcopate did it become the one issue that shaped this diocese. Bishop Iker is correct that Bishop Pope opposed the election and consecration of Barbara Harris as suffragan bishop of Massachusetts in 1989. Conservatives called Bishop Harris "the final crisis" that would lead to schism. Given subsequent events, that label was apparently premature. Bishop Gene Robinson was the next "final crisis," and now it appears that Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori is the most recent "final crisis." Bishops of the Diocese of Fort Worth have been crying "schism" ever since the founding of the diocese. We've only had three bishops: founding bishop Donald Davies left the Episcopal Church to found his own variant church; Bishop Pope left for Rome and then returned; and Bishop Iker has appeared to be teetering on the edge of leaving ever since his consecration. Bishop Iker writes that, "Nevertheless, we acknowledge that fellow Anglicans abroad and fellow Episcopalians here sincerely believe otherwise. While maintaining our own conviction about the sacramental validity of such ordinations, we have accepted the fact that women have met the canonical requirements in order to be ordained as priests and bishops in The Episcopal Church. Parishes in the Diocese of Fort Worth that require the ministry of ordained women, in consequence, have been able to do so through an arrangement with our neighboring Diocese of Dallas." This is at best a misleading statement. NO parish in the Diocese of Fort Worth has called a woman priest because to do so under the present arrangement would place that woman and the parish in an untenable situation. The woman priest would be canonically resident in Dallas, but the parish and the parish's money would remain in Fort Worth. The woman rector would have neither seat, voice nor vote at diocesan convention. She would not be welcome at diocesan clergy events. This is unworkable under our polity. Bishop Iker describes his "impaired relationship" with the House of Bishops, where he is "unable to share fully in eucharistic fellowship with all its members." "Nevertheless," he writes, "We have attempted to remain in the 'highest possible degree of communion" with other dioceses of The Episcopal Church and with all those provinces in the Anglican Communion that have ordained women." He does, however, share Eucharist with the Network bishops, some of whom ordain women, so apparently the "highest degree of Communion" varies, depending on whether or not he is with a group of like-minded men. Bishop Iker lamented that "the respect we have shown for the opinions and actions of others has not been reciprocated," because in 1997, General Convention adopted an amendment to the canon on ordination, clarifying that it was mandatory, just as are all other canons. Previously, Bishops Pope and Iker had argued that that one canon was "permissive" because of the 1997 Port St. Lucie Statement, also known as "the conscience clause." But General Convention never adopted the Port St. Lucie Statement. It was an action of the House of Bishops only. The Task Force created by General Convention of 2000 was charged with helping the three remaining dioceses where women are not ordained or licensed as priests find a way to be in compliance with the canons. Even though Bishop Iker was deeply angered by their daring to come into his diocese and talk with "his" people, the task force report changed nothing. Bishop Iker was not then and never has been coerced into doing anything he does not want to do in regards to the ordination of women. Nor has he suffered any canonical penalties. To this day, the Diocese of Fort Worth has no women priests. (We also have no African American priests and no openly gay priests.) Bishop Iker's fear that "the election in Fort Worth of a bishop opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood would not gain the required consents" is a valid fear. Bishops take a sacred vow to uphold the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church. Bishop Iker has been breaking that vow every day of his episcopacy. Any candidate who announces before being elected that he will not uphold the canons has a slim chance of getting consents. However, we do believe a bishop opposed to the ordination of women could be elected and consecrated in Fort Worth, as long as that bishop agreed to allow women priests to function in the diocese a la "the Montgomery Plan," whereby an assisting or retired bishop would take pastoral care of any women priests. If Bishop Iker's chief fear is that Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori might come into the diocese as chief consecrator of the next bishop of this diocese, it is unfortunate that he leapt to ask for "alternate primatial oversight" before even exploring alternatives. We cannot imagine that as presiding bishop, Jefferts Schori would not be willing to find a pastoral solution to his problem. Bishop Iker says, "A relationship of collegiality and shared apostolic ministry is seriously impaired when the Presiding Bishop is one whose orders we cannot in conscience accept." But he has been willing to be in "impaired communion" with other bishops whose orders he cannot accept for the entirety of his episcopacy. Since the Presiding Bishop's relationship to a diocesan bishop is a pretty vague one, this is not an obstacle Bishop Iker has found insurmountable heretofore. He laments that having a woman as presiding bishop has placed him "in an increasingly impaired relationship with the larger church in this country" and is "naturally seen as a further imposition of the will of the majority on the three dioceses which are regarded as 'non-compliant' and obstructions to progress, rather than honored partners in ministry." Bishop Iker is well familiar with this scenario, since the statement above exactly describes the situation of those in Fort Worth who do not agree with the bishop's policies. He says that he is not seeking the impossible, but asking for "some pastoral strategy." It is too bad he could not ask for this first from the new presiding bishop rather than the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has no authority in this province or any other except The Church of England. He ends his article with a statement and a question: "We can live with variant practices and mutual respect on the ordination of women in the Anglican Communion Network. Why is this denied us in The Episcopal Church?" We would reply also with a statement and a question: He is not denied this in The Episcopal Church. Why is this denied those of us in the Diocese of Fort Worth who desire to experience on a regular basis the ministry of a priest who is a woman? Yours in Christ, http://www.fwviamedia.org/
Fort Worth Via Media The Most Reverend Frank T. Griswold Dear Bishop Griswold, We are writing as members of Fort Worth Via Media in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth to state our desire and determination that our diocese continue to remain a part of The Episcopal Church under the leadership of the Presiding Bishop and Primate. We are looking for information, advice and guidance as to how we should best proceed in order to achieve this goal. Here are questions that have been raised by many faithful Episcopalians in Fort Worth:
These are urgent matters for The Episcopal Church to resolve. Time is important to older parishioners as well as young children who are growing up in surroundings built upon an exclusive theology. In the recent statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury, ”The Challenge and Hope…”, the Archbishop states that he is not going to resolve matters by decree. We agree. This is a matter for The Episcopal Church to resolve. We urge resolution as quickly as possible, as these things are having a serious effect upon the life of this diocese. We celebrate the many wonderful actions taken at General Convention this year, especially the priority placed on the Millennium Development Goals and on youth. We long for our diocese to participate fully in these mission areas instead of pursuing its exclusionary misogynist theology. We have no priests who are women. We have no priests who are African American. We have no openly gay priests. We long for the day when our clergy reflect the vital diverse middle of The Episcopal Church. We pray for you daily, and for Presiding Bishop Elect Jefferts Schori. Yours in Christ, George J. Komechak, President The Episcopal Church welcomes you to remain IN the Episcopal Church!Date: March 14, 2006
To: The Rectors and Wardens of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth: There is much anticipation regarding the outcome of the impending General Convention of the Episcopal Church in June of this year. There is great speculation that there may be schism in the Church. We do not know what Bishop Iker plans to do. However, he has been instrumental in the AAC (American Anglican Communion) and the "Network" (Network of Confessing Dioceses and Parishes) which have indicated in the past that there will be a split in the Church if the General Convention refuses to repent and refuses to fully endorse the Windsor Report. Will the Bishop actually leave? According to the Most Reverend Robin Eames, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland and head of the international commission that produced the Windsor Report, our Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops have already complied with the terms of the Windsor Report, even to the point that he also stated ECUSA may well have already exceeded what was asked for by that Report. Therefore, no one reasonably expects that General Convention will repudiate its actions, which were prayerfully and legally taken. The AAC and the Network have their own interpretation of the Windsor Report. They seek for the Episcopal Church to "repent", which is not asked for by the report. The Anglican Primates themselves are not following the Windsor Report; in particular, foreign bishops from Uganda and Rwanda are crossing geographical boundaries to assume pastoral oversight of parishes here within the United States. While not admitting that he will leave the Episcopal Church, Bishop Iker has given many indications that he may do just that. (1) In a letter to the diocese dated July 13, 2005 and later reiterated at our diocesan convention on November 19, 2005, he stated, "If the Episcopal Church decides to walk away from the Anglican Communion, this Diocese will not depart with them." If one does not follow ECUSA it could be determined that one is indeed parting ways. Whether one leaves or merely does not follow, the outcome is hardly debatable. (2) No public reprimand was made by the bishop regarding the shameful incident of a local rector who threw down the Episcopal Church flag and stomped upon it as he declared his parish no longer a part of ECUSA. By the bishop’s silence, this behavior can be deemed acceptable and as there was no public notation, it can be assumed that the bishop was not in disagreement with him. (3) Parishes within the diocese have changed their church signs to read "Anglican" rather than "Episcopal". Again, the Bishop has made no objection to these actions. (4) The current diocesan budget assigns $50,000 to the Network for Outreach but has zeroed the Outreach funds for the National Church. While he has not stated that he is leaving the Episcopal Church, his actions to date certainly undermine the Episcopal Church. (over) We want you to know that you do not have to leave the Episcopal Church! What is your alternative? Stay in the Episcopal Church. We at Fort Worth Via Media are committed to upholding this diocese in its continuing historic association in the Episcopal Church of the United States of America under the authority of General Convention and of its Constitution and Canons and as a member of the world-wide Anglican Communion. We invite you to remain a part of this great tradition, to continue to strengthen and build this Church we love so much. Whether the bishop and some of his clergy decide to “not follow” the Episcopal Church, this diocese will remain here. The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth will remain as a vital part of ECUSA. We realize that members of the Episcopal Church are not of common mind regarding the issues of the ordination of women and sexual orientation. However, we in Via Media are committed to staying in the Episcopal Church. Issues in the past have threatened the Church causing splinter groups to break away. This is not the first threat of schism. Yet, since 1789, the Episcopal Church remains. Even if the current leaders of this diocese reject the Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Church will remain right here, alive and active in this diocese. Worship services will still be held by those who choose to remain in the Episcopal Church. Loyal clergy and trained lay leaders will make sure that our parishes and missions will not only survive, but will heal from our divisions, thrive and grow. What is the role of Fort Worth Via Media in all this? The primary mission of Fort Worth Via Media is to encourage all Episcopalians- moderate, liberal, conservative, and everything in-between, to remain in the Episcopal Church. We share this goal in association with Via Media USA (a group of organizations that have formed in dioceses in which the bishops have affiliated themselves with the AAC, the Network, and outside Provinces). Our preferred course of action is to see this Church healed and whole, and welcoming to all. We want to broadcast the news that you do not have to leave the Episcopal Church. Where does that leave the Episcopalians in this diocese? Right here where we belong, IN the Episcopal Church. We will be joined together under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, in a church filled with spiritual depth, joyous worship and faith strong enough to bind us together through all our differences to seek and serve God in ways both old and new. Fort Worth Via Media is working to ensure that you will have a place to worship in the historic Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church welcomes you! For more information visit http://fwviamedia.org. For information on what The Episcopal Church is doing in the rest of the world outside this diocese, check out their website – http://www.episcopalchurch.org/index_new.htm. cc: Bishop Iker Fort Worth Via Media is a Texas nonprofit corporation and is a public charity exempt from Federal income tax under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions to Fort Worth Via Media are deductible under section 170 of the Code.
The following is a transcript of the postal letter sent to George Komechak, President of Fort Worth Via Media on diocesan letterhead and signed by Bishop Iker and immediately following is the response to the bishop's letter.: Mr. George Komechak
Fort Worth Via Media Dear George, I was deeply distressed to discover that your organization has secured parish directories from several churches in the diocese and added all those individuals to your mailing list. This is a serious breach of ethics, and I strongly object to this abuse and misuse of parish directories for your partisan purposes. Please remove all of these people from your mailing list immediately and have no further communications sent to them. Only those who requested being on your mailing list should be on it. In the light of this and the intention of your organization to attempt to remove the legitimate authorities in this diocese following General Convention, I will not allow Fort Worth Via Media to have a booth at our Diocesan Convention in November and am returning your $20.00 check for this purpose at this time. Faithfully in Christ, The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker An Open Letter to the Right Rev. Jack L. Iker, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, TexasOctober 28, 2005 Dear Bishop Iker, Fort Worth Via Media is an organization of Episcopalians in the Diocese of Fort Worth who are going to remain in the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. Our purpose is stated on the front page of our newsletter which you receive. It is to support, promote, and educate interested parties concerning the religious doctrines and historical role of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America (ECUSA), to advocate openness and acceptance of all persons in the life and governance of ECUSA, and to provide balanced and accurate information concerning potentially divisive issues facing The Episcopal Church in the United States of America. That is our purpose and it will remain our purpose. As a matter of fact, the Fort Worth Via Media did not start until it was realized by many Episcopalians that a number of bishops (including yourself), clergy and lay members began to foment schism in the Episcopal Church. The formation of the Anglican Communion Network, followed by statements from Bishop Duncan and others and the schismatic letter of Rev. Geoff Chapman have caused deep distress in many Episcopalians that the Network is planning to leave the Episcopal Church. In your own posting on the diocesan web site you stated, “If the Episcopal Church decides to walk away from the Anglican Communion, this Diocese will not depart with them.” Other actions you have taken, such as cutting off funds to ECUSA except in cases where parishes wish to send a portion of their funds to the national church, and your disassociation with other bishops of ECUSA by not attending House of Bishops’ meetings, whereby you plan other activities on those dates even when you know those dates are set three years in advance, have sent strong signals to the parishioners of this diocese that you do not intend to relate to the Episcopal Church. Your close association with African bishops rather than ECUSA bishops, the fact that Archbishop Peter Akinola has removed the Archbishop of Canterbury from his church constitution, and recent mentions of the formation of a Reformed Anglican Catholic Church have heightened our concerns about your intentions. I wish to address the letter that I have received from you today canceling the Via Media booth at the forthcoming diocesan convention. In your letter you accuse Via Media of attempting to remove the legitimate authorities in this diocese following General Convention. This statement is wrong. There is no coup planned. You have been gravely misinformed, possibly by David Virtue or some other Network sources that have shamelessly twisted the facts surrounding the leaked draft minutes of the Via Media USA steering committee. I must inform you of the true facts concerning that meeting. Via Media has no intention of overthrowing the canonically chosen authorities in this or any other diocese. In this current environment of serious threats by the Network to leave the Episcopal Church, the Steering Committee of Via Media USA discussed proposed actions in the context of formulating a recovery plan should dissident bishops and clergy decide to leave the Episcopal Church after General Convention 2006. An actual reading of the leaked draft minutes show that they are exclusively concerned with how to handle the eventuality of this occurrence. The discussions were aimed on how to maintain the continuity of the Episcopal Church in those dioceses where the bishop and diocesan leadership abandon the Church. It is a plan of recovery rather than a coup. You see, you and others have been so bold in your actions to destroy the Episcopal Church that we have felt it necessary to plan for actions to preserve the unity of the Church IF you and others decide to leave. We have told you before that there will continue to be an Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth should you leave. We, in conjunction with the ECUSA leadership, will do what is necessary to replace all those who have left the Church in order to keep this diocese properly functioning to care for the loyal remnant of Episcopalians. Concerning another aspect of your letter to me regarding parish directories, we feel that it is our duty to keep parishioners properly informed of the happenings in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. We also feel that each person has the right to determine if they wish to read our newsletter or not. As a matter of fact, in our newsletter, we provide people with the opportunity and method to be removed from our mailing list if they choose to do so. Our last distribution was to 950 addresses. To date we have had one clergy and three lay members give us notification to be removed and they have been removed. I am dismayed at your decision to exclude our booth at the forthcoming diocesan convention for I feel that your decision was based on erroneous information. Fort Worth Via Media is an ad hoc organization. Should the threat of schism in our diocese be overcome, we will have accomplished our purpose. In the large majority of the other dioceses of ECUSA where there is no threat of schism, where they live in the spirit of via media, they do not have organizations named Via Media to remind them that the Episcopal Church is an inclusive church. In closing, I would like to quote the Archbishop of Wales who states, “Anglicanism at its best is the realization that none of us possesses the truth and never will do so and that we have to listen to one another and bear with one another because that is how Anglicanism has evolved and no one possesses the whole truth.” Yours in Christ, George Komechak, President Cc: Clergy of the Diocese Fort Worth Via Media Objects to the AppealAugust 18, 2005 The Most Rev. and Rt. Hon. Rowan Williams Your Grace, Fort Worth Via Media, consisting of members of the Episcopal Church (USA), a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, and residing within the Diocese of Fort Worth, objects to the appeal to the Panel of Reference made by the Bishop and Standing Committee of our diocese. The actual appeal from the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference concludes with the following sentence: “As a diocese committed to the ‘open process of reception’ as articulated by the Eames Commission, we now appeal to you and the primates for some means by which we can remain full members of the Anglican Communion.” The sentence has two problems: The first has to do with the extent of the diocesan concern with the “open process of reception”. To be committed to the process one cannot have a policy of exemption from the process. How is it possible for women priests to be received when women priests are disallowed? If one is committed to the process of reception that must mean that one agrees that duly ordained women must be allowed to perform valid sacerdotal functions somewhere in the communion-that such actions are not intrinsically detrimental to the functioning of the body. The question therefore becomes territorial. Why should they be allowed to function in some areas but not others? The second problem has to do with the concern of the diocese to remain a full member of the Anglican Communion. While at times the diocese acts like an autonomous national church by making independent concordats with schismatic bodies not recognized by the national Episcopal Church, and passing diocesan canons that conflict with canons of the national Episcopal Church, the fact remains that the Anglican Communion is a communion of autonomous national churches not dioceses. The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth exists as an entity within ECUSA. The document goes on to say, ”Since then the Diocese of Fort Worth has been told by the Presiding Bishop and others in authority that, should it again elect a bishop opposed to women in the presbyterate and episcopate, the bishop elect would not receive the necessary consents to be consecrated.” This may have been perceived as a threat but in reality, it is an expected outcome since a bishop elect has to be approved by a majority of bishops and standing committees of ECUSA and considering the disposition in the church, it would be very unlikely that a person opposed to the ordination of women would receive a majority. In a letter to Bishop Iker, the Presiding Bishop indicated that it was his his opinion that a bishop elect who personally disapproved of women priests could receive necessary consents provided he would permit ordination of women in his diocese. The document makes much about whether the original intent of the General Convention of 1976 was to make the process voluntary rather than mandatory. This is irrelevant. What is relevant is adherence to the present canons. The present canon states: “The provisions of the Canons of this Title for the admission of Postulants and Candidates, and for the ordination to the three Orders, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, shall be equally applicable to men and women.” The actual canon is both mandatory and voluntary. Permission cannot be denied anywhere to ordination based on gender but no parish is required to call a female priest. This seems to be the mind of the church as presently constituted. Episcopalians have had positive experiences with female clergy for 30 years. The population of the USA is very fluid. Surely a household, comfortable with the ministrations of an ECUSA female priest, upon moving into a new diocese, should be able to choose a parish somewhere in a large metropolitan area that has functioning female clergy. While the diocesan Bishop and his Standing Committee may oppose the ordination of women, that opposition is not held by all communicants within the diocese. Reserving the right to state additional reasons, Fort Worth Via Media prays that the Archbishop of Canterbury will take no action on this appeal by the Diocese of Fort Worth as, in our opinion, the Panel of Reference should not concern itself with this issue. Yours in Christ, George J. Komechak, President On behalf of Diocese of Fort Worth appeals to the Panel of Reference
We Do Not Challenge Our Bishop LightlyJuly 29, 2005 The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth Dear Bishop Iker, In your web site Bishop’s page letter of July 13, 2005, you wrote: "If the Episcopal Church decides to walk away from the Anglican Communion, this Diocese will not depart with them." We do not challenge our Bishop lightly and wish we could ignore this divisive statement. The only ones who seem to believe that the Episcopal Church will walk away from the Anglican Communion are members of the American Anglican Council and the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. We in Fort Worth Via Media, in alliance with Via Media USA, believe the Episcopal Church will continue to uphold the principals and commandments of Christ and will choose to embrace rather than reject the rest of the members of the world-wide Anglican Communion. We understand that you have personal disagreement with some Scriptural interpretations of the majority of your peers which have been ratified by the General Convention and some of the actions taken by other autonomous national churches in the body known as the Anglican Communion. Nevertheless, your statement seems to be incompatible with Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution of the Episcopal Church which stipulates: "No person shall be ordained and consecrated Bishop....unless...the person shall subscribe and make the following declaration: '...I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Episcopal Church.'" Seeking replacement of does not represent conforming to the discipline of the Episcopal Church. There are limits as to how far one can bend the rules of any organization while maintaining the benefits of status, position, and office granted by that organization. Regardless of what you personally do, this Diocese is a part of and will remain in the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church is governed by the tri-annual General Convention, which consists of the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies. A vote requires a majority in each house. In the House of Deputies, a majority of the clergy or of the laity in a diocese can cancel an affirmative vote. This complicated voting scheme makes passing anything difficult unless it is overwhelmingly supported. You are a member of the House of Bishops and play a very strong hand in electing all of the Deputies from Fort Worth. Yet you are unwilling to accept the resolutions of that Convention. We pray for our Church, for our unity and our witness. We pray for our leaders, that they will comply with the majority of the Episcopal Church, which is and has always been in tension. Should a majority in the Anglican Communion decide to eventually expel the Episcopal Church and refuse to share in the Eucharist, it will be a very sad day for us, but we will remain in the Episcopal Church. We hope that you will not depart, but remain with us. Regardless of what you personally do, the Diocese of Fort Worth is a part of and will remain in the Episcopal Church. Yours in Christ, George J. Komechak, President On behalf of cc:
Fort Worth Via Media President congratulates Bishop IkerThe Rt. Rev. Jack L. Iker Dear Bishop Iker, The members of Fort Worth Via Media as your parishioners in the Diocese of Fort Worth, along with all of your parishioners in the Diocese we are sure, thank you for the work that you and your colleagues in the House of Bishops have accomplished this week at Camp Allen. The "Covenant Statement of the House of Bishops" and "A Word to the Church" are most promising of our desire to have the Episcopal Church walk together with the rest of the Anglican Comminion in bonds of affection. Your efforts "...to speak as one House embracing widely divergent points of view..." give us great hope for the preservation of the unity of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. These actions in essence concur with the goal of "Via Media" for which we strive. Rather than having the resources and energies of the Episcopal Church wasted on harmful division, we are most welcome of the magnificent work that the House of Bishops has produced. We pray that the Holy Spirit will continue to guide all of us in the Church as we reach out for peaceful understanding of our differences. Respectfully yours, In retrospect, congratulations are not called for. Bishop Iker was not in attendance at the meeting. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, congratulated and praised the house of bishops for the statement but Bishop Iker did not.
"So from my perspective the Covenant Statement of the House of Bishops is a bitter disappointment," said Bishop Iker in an essay concerning the covenant on the Fort Worth Bishop Denies Via Media Request to Sponsor Windsor Report StudyThe Rt.Rev. Jack L. Iker Dear Bishop Iker, When the Windsor Report was issued to the Anglican Communion last October, the Rt. Rev. Dr. J. Mark Dyer, a member of the Lambeth Commission that developed the report, stated, “It is my hope and that of the Commission that all members of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion will take time to study this document and understand what it says so that we may renew our understanding of what it means to be an Anglican and to share in the mission of the Church.” To promote this cause, to generate involvement by members of the Diocese of Fort Worth, and to encourage a full understanding of the Windsor Report, Fort Worth Via Media has developed a study guide for the Windsor Report and ask your support in allowing us to sponsor and conduct a diocesan-wide study, open to all clergy and laity of the diocese. The guide calls for four sequential sessions of about two and one-half hours each, over a period of four weeks, to address the four major parts of the Windsor Report. The sessions will involve small group discussions and end with a general discussion with inputs from the various groups. We can provide the mechanics and necessary coordination to conduct the study. We seek four venues for the discussion sessions, possibly churches throughout the Diocese, and we also seek advertising space in the Forward in Mission and the Diocesan web site to promote participation by as many interested members in the Diocese that can be reached. Fort Worth Via Media consists of members of our Diocese who desire to remain Episcopalian and feel that we can maintain unity in the Church by finding a “middle way” amongst our various diverse opinions. We feel that in spite of our diversity, there is more that unites us rather than divides us and that through love and respect we can remain true to our primary mission in Christ. In the words of Bishop Eames in his Foreword to the Report: “This Report is not a judgement. It is part of a process. It is part of a pilgrimage towards healing and reconciliation.” Respectfully yours, George J. Komechak Dear George, Who do you think you are kidding? The leadership of "Via Media" (a misnomer if there ever was one) endorse the decisions of the last General Convention, which the Windsor Report has rejected. You simply don't want any consequences to follow. Parish clergy can lead their congregations in whatever studies they desire. I have no intention of giving you a forum to further your divisive agenda. +JLI
Fort Worth Via Media Writes Bishop BrunoThe Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno Dear Bishop Bruno: Greetings to you in the name of Christ Jesus from the members of Fort Worth Via Media. We encourage you during this troubling time. We are deeply saddened by the decisions of the three congregations within your diocese who have chosen to leave the Episcopal Church. We want you to know that we admire your support for these congregations and your attempts to minister to their needs. Their decision is especially troublesome and unseemly at this particular time as the Eames Commission labors so intensely to come to an understanding of ways in which to respond to the pastoral needs of all involved in this Anglican Communion. We commend your efforts to hold fast to the basics of the true Anglican tradition. We give thanks also for your willingness to speak plainly and truthfully without rancor despite the fact that many around us have indeed displayed this very trait. It is sad that these congregations do not seem to be loyal to the doctrine, worship, and discipline of the Episcopal Church USA and nurtured by Scripture, Tradition, and Reason—the three-footed stool of traditional Anglicanism. We do indeed wish to let you know that you are not alone. Our numbers increase daily. Our prayers are with you and your diocese. Your brothers and sisters in Christ, Fort Worth Via Media, A Via Media USA Alliance Member Fort Worth Via Media Writes The Eames CommissionAugust 15, 2004The Reverend Canon Gregory Cameron Dear Most Reverend Sir and Members of the Commission: We bring greetings to you in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We thank God for each of you and for your willingness to undertake this complicated task of seeking God's truth and way. We remember you daily in our prayers, asking that God will bless you with a divine understanding. Believing ourselves to be led by the Holy Spirit, we are Fort Worth Via Media, an organization of ordained and lay Episcopalians in the Diocese of Fort Worth Texas, who are going to remain within the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. In attempting to find a theological solution rather than a geopolitical accommodation to cope with the apparent or real fracturing of koinonia in the Anglican Communion, please do not fail to examine the solution that has always been ours. Bishop N.T. (Tom) Wright of Durham, England, a member of your commission, said: "One of the foundational principles of the Anglican Church was that believing in transubstantiation ought not to be an issue of salvation and damnation. You should have flexibility about what you actually believe goes on at the Eucharist." It could not have been said better. We would argue that the Elizabethan settlement was not a specific remedy to a church problem but a broad way to handle conflict in our Anglican ethos. If Bishop Wright's statement is correct "transubstantiation ought not to be an issue of salvation and damnation" then a biblical interpretation over homosexuality ought not to be an issue of salvation and damnation. It would follow that one should have flexibility about what one actually believes regarding the worthiness of gay people. Just as Anglicanism maintains koinonia despite honest and heart-felt differences of opinion over the Eucharist, so it should strive to maintain koinonia despite equally sincere differences over sexual practice. The Anglican luminary and Christian apologist C. S. Lewis, a favorite in all factions of the church, states in Mere Christianity: "Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the center of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins." We need to recapture the balance of our preeminent theologian, Richard Hooker, who stressed our three-legged stool of Scripture, reason and tradition "lest in attributing unto Scripture more than it can have, the incredibility of that do cause even those things which indeed it hath most abundantly to be less reverently esteemed." We might posit how fluid religion is here in America. Our country is a land of confessing denominations where all too many see Christianity as a way to get into heaven if only one acknowledges the "true" set of dogmatic propositions. We have had problems holding on to our Anglican heritage since it is somewhat counter cultural to these confessing faiths. We agree with the insights of William Countryman: "Classic Anglicanism did not expect the church to have a detailed and certain knowledge of the mind of God. For doctrine, it was content with relatively simple and ancient formulae. It focused less on perfect orthodoxy than on maintaining the community of faith with its life and conservation. We believe that no one will ever possess a complete and detailed account of God's will, but it is enough that the Spirit will work with us in the unity (not uniformity) of the church to guide us toward truth." Again, we would conclude that the solution has always been with us. We must return to the respect we once had for tolerating differences among the people of God as modeled in the Elizabethan Settlement and championed by the broad, expansive insights of Richard Hooker. We would point out that it is disingenuous to question the motivations of other members of the communion by provinces which have not performed an in depth study of a given issue. The American province does not second-guess pastoral provisions concerning sexual or other issues that some provinces may have had cause to implement. We understand that those who experience such provincial problems and have studied them in depth might see certain cultural issues, which could be interpreted by others as anti-scriptural, in a different light. Our Anglican Communion is by design a communion of autonomous national churches. Respect for difference of interpretation is a two way street. "Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding." (Romans 14:19) May the peace of the Lord be always with you. Your brothers and sisters in Christ, Fort Worth Via Media Fort Worth Via Media Writes Bishop IkerJuly 22, 2004 Dear Bishop Iker: We write you as members of the Diocese of Fort Worth, seeking clarity on issues of great concern to us as committed Episcopalians. We have heard you state on several occasions that you have no plans to leave the Episcopal Church of the USA and we have been heartened by that. Early on, those of us who raised concerns about the Network were told by various diocesan and Network leaders that the Network was merely to be a "safe place" within ECUSA for "Orthodox Episcopalians." Bishop Duncan still assures us that the Network will follow canon law as stipulated in its charter. But many of our members were confused by news reports of the recent 16th Annual Assembly of Forward in Faith North America - a high profile member of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes - that seemed to indicate the Network has a much different goal in mind than we have been led to understand. Remarks by FiFNA leaders seemed to be urging the Network to sever its ties with ECUSA:
These reports raised questions and rather than speculate, we are coming directly to you. What emerging province is being talked about? Is severing ties with ECUSA an aspiration for the Network? What is the long range plan should the Network remain in ECUSA? What is the long range plan should the Network leave ECUSA? You clearly have been able to lay aside your differences over the ordination of women and enter into full fellowship in the Network with bishops who do ordain women and with priests who are women. We hope you can do the same with those in your own diocese who are in disagreement with you on that issue. Our goals are transparent. We have no secret agenda. Ours is an organization of ordained and lay Episcopalians in the Diocese of Fort Worth who are going to remain within the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. We look forward to your answers on these matters. Should you wish to address us in person, we would be pleased to have you as our speaker at a future meeting. Our meetings are open to all and are announced on our website http://fwviamedia.org. Your brothers and Sisters in Christ, Edward J. Adcock, All Saints' Episcopal Church, Fort Worth Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:23:57 -0500 Subject: Re: Seeking Clarity
Dear Friends,
Your questions re: Bishop Schofield's and David Virtue's comments must be directed to them, not me. The idea of a new orthodox Anglican province in North America is talked about in many circles - and has been for some time. Those who wish to join, may do so, when and if one is created. My comment was that many conservative women priests fear that it will not permit the ordination of women to the priesthood. The specifics are scarce. The long range plan of the Network in to uphold and maintain the historic faith and order of the catholic church.
I can appreciate the fact that you have many unresolved questions and anxieties about the future of the church, but such are the times in which we live, and I certainly do not know all the answers to the things that concern you.
Additional explanations about the Network were posted yesterday on the diocesan website.
Bishop Iker
July 2, 2004 Dear Bishop Duncan:
Members of Fort Worth Via Media have noted with some alarm the remarks made by Rev. Geoffrey Kirk of the UK at the recent FIFNA meeting in Bedford Texas. Rev. Kirk was quoted as follows by David Virtue on the ‘virtuosityonline.org website:
Geoffrey Kirk, Secretary of Forward in Faith UK said that if the Network does not have a clearly defined and desired end, and that to me is a free and separate province with a separate status severed from ECUSA, then it will collapse.
On women's ordination the London based traditionalist Anglican priest had this to say: "There is nothing in Scripture or tradition that can uphold this innovation. The arguments are ethical a priori arguments; it is about the zeitgeist in which we live."
"You must enter the Network but you have to go into it with great force where it will be seen as valued as the position in ECUSA. There is no place where conscience clauses in countries like Sweden, Norway and the ECUSA where the assurance of tolerance is guaranteed. You must be extremely strong and vocal within this Network to maintain correct catholic faith and order."
"There is an end game for the Network and that is to get out of the ECUSA as ECUSA is irreformable. The Lambeth Commission will chastise the ECUSA and if it doesn't it will not lead to subservience but to violence," he said.
While Rev. Kirk may not be a direct spokesman for NACDP, Forward in Faith is a member of the Network and remarks made by its leadership reflect on the current situation. Would you please clarify the following points for us?
Article I of the Network charter states that it, “shall operate in good faith within the Constitution of The Episcopal Church.” Bishop Iker has assured members of the Diocese of Ft. Worth repeatedly that we are not leaving ECUSA. Rev. Kirk’s remarks seem to be a direct denial of the Charter and Bishop Iker’s assurances. What is the truth concerning the future plans of the Network?
How firmly is the Network committed to women’s ordination?
Rev. Kirk threatens “violence” as part of an “end game” for the Network if its aims are not met. Can you assure us that we who have the misfortune to be minorities in conservative dioceses will be safe in our homes? Seriously, Rev. Kirk’s inflammatory rhetoric has no place in the dialogue of Christians. The leadership of NACDP should hastily and firmly repudiate it.
For your brothers and sisters in Christ of Ft. Worth Via Media,
Marvin Long Robert Duncan Dear Mr. Long,
Geoffrey Kirk is a leader in Forward in Faith UK. He does not speak for Forward in Faith NA, and certainly not for the Network.
The Network stands as it has stood, with leaders committed to the ordination of women (like myself) and leaders who oppose it (like Bp. Iker).
Our contention continues: the Network functions under the ECUSA Constitution. The majority of ECUSA in GC’03 has abandoned that constitution.
Faithfully in Christ,
+Bob Pittsburgh
|