Thinking back to the AAC Chapman memo, the increased "noise" being generated by the neo-Puritans leading up to GC 2006 is consistent with their pattern. They know they will get clobbered at GC 2006; so, their leadership (well, I wouldn't call Bob Duncan a "leader," that's being too generous) is pulling out the stops now to try to prepare for ransacking the store later.

It would be tempting to take Duncan down now with a presentment and have him deposed; but, I think the mainstream of ECUSA should wait until after GC 2006. Then, by all means depose Duncan, Iker, and any other clergy who have been a part of this nonsense. Duncan and Akinola keep screaming "Windsor Report," but they have no intention of adhering to it. ECUSA should simply bide its time, let Duncan and his gang throw their tantrums, and then finish this thing after GC 2006.

And they are not adhering to the 14 resolutions of Lambeth 1998.

"Duncan and Akinola keep screaming "Windsor Report," but they have no intention of adhering to it. ECUSA should simply bide its time, let Duncan and his gang throw their tantrums, and then finish this thing after GC 2006."--Pete

My feelings exactly.

Is it just me, or do others find the "Miracle at Cana!" imagery distasteful, bordering on blasphemous? IIRC, *the* miracle at Cana was actually the first of our Lord's signs, his mighty works, enacted that we might believe. It seems presumptuous, to say the least, to compare a schismatic action (at worst) or a petty piece of church government (at best) to the manifestation of the Saviour.

Errr, how does Iker's name get in here? Hardly a "neo-puritan", I would have thought. Isn't his churchmanship somewhat Catholic? He has certainly appeared at English Forward in Faith functions (as will +Rowan cantuar: this Saturday). The bloke seems fairly C of E to me, inclining gently to the "high" end of the spectrum.

Alan,
Bishop Iker in no way "inclines gently." He's a full on spike. What you point out though is part of why I think the term "neo-puritan" is a bad one. Not only dose it not refelct the churchmanship of many of the memebers, it also could be considered a slur on the actual puritans.

Alan, I suppose "neo-puritan" got attached to Bp. Iker based primarily on his *socio-political* views. As a member of the neighboring diocese in Dallas, he's always struck me as being way off in an extreme, right-wing direction in that regard.

But you're right, his churchmanship leans much more towards the Anglo-Catholic.

(I'll save the discussion about "extreme, right-wing, socio-political views" not being a defensible position for Christians for another day :)

Thanks to David and Friar John for their replies.

In terms of churchmanship, I thought that Iker was what would once have been called "Prayer Book Catholic", rather like Hayes, where I worship, rather than an ultramontane in the tradition of, say, Fr Fynes-Clinton, Fr Hope Patten or Fr Brindley.

I take the point about his being right-wing in terms of secular politics, even by American standards. I gather that this isn't uncommon in FiF NA. I was onced move to protest at a piece on the FiF web site by another American prelate - OK, Schofield! - whose comments on middle eastern politics read like a party political broadcast on behalf of Likud and certainly showed no sign of input from the Bishop in Jerusalem. I could, I suppose, also go on at length about my belief that theologically conservative American Episcopaliana are profoundly mistaken to ally themselves with the secular right....

Bishop Jack Iker is a strong, vocal opponent of the ordination of women to the presbyterate and the episcopate. It's only a matter of time before the Anglican Network folks divide among themselves over the ordination of women. Right now that issue is on the back-burner since the dissident group gets more traction on the Gay and Lesbian issue. Once again politics trumps biblical issues even among the 'reasserters', opportunists that they are.

Alan Harrison:

Several months ago one of the U.S. television news services showed the Anglican Network bishops meeting with President George W Bush. There is mutual support between the Network and their 'godly' U.S. President, who will never admit to having made a mistake.

I don't think that the 'merry warrior' President would sit down with the likes of PB Frank Griswold and his Council of Advice, given the latters' opposition to the Iraq war and the outsourcing of torture of enemy detainies by the CIA, as advocated by two fellow-Episcopalians, VP Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Folks,

Ummmm, I think we're missing the point: My original linkage of Duncan, Iker, and their ilk was linking those leaders in rebellion against ECUSA. Iker has his own agenda, but it's still rebellion.

Duncan should be deposed, no question about that. And, in a broader sense, it's time for ECUSA to restore some discipline to the clergy order. People like Duncan, Iker, and any other clergy aiding the Network or AAC should face the consequences of advocating for the destruction of ECUSA. Duncan is a lost cause--he should be deposed immediately after GC 2006. Any clergy who attempt to align themselves, diocese, or parish with another province outside ECUSA should be given a chance to recant, or face deposition proceedings.

The clergy are driving this rebellion. Somewhere along the way they forgot their ordination vows or reinterpreted them to suit their individual whim or ego. Griswold and the other bishops are to be commended for having acted with as much restraint as they have to date. But, after GC 2006, time to put an end to this thing.

"Somewhere along the way they forgot their ordination vows or reinterpreted them to suit their individual whim or ego."

Vows to uphold holy scripture and authentic Christian doctrine?

Or vows to obey blindly whatever 815's lawyers were paid to say what the Canons now mean in the Orwellian world of ECUSA?

Thank you Peter for an excellent description of the canonically-correct brave new world of the UCUSA HoB.

Peter wrote:
"Ummmm, I think we're missing the point: My original linkage of Duncan, Iker, and their ilk was linking those leaders in rebellion against ECUSA. Iker has his own agenda, but it's still rebellion."

No, Peter. With respect, YOU chose to list Iker among the "neo-Puritans". Iker is in fact certainly on the Catholic wing of the Anglican Communion, but is by no means extreme. Fort Worth Cathedral ain't S. Silas, Kentish Town, at present, let alone S. Saviour, Hoxton, when Fr Kilburn was vicar and all services were in Latin!

Duncan certainly seems to be more of a political animal, and reliable sources which must remain anonymous tell me he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he just appears to be a bishop in the category which might be described as "dodgy on ordaining the ladies, but otherwise OK". In English terms, he falls into a similar category to the Archbishop of York, the Bishops of Rochester, Liverpool and Chester, and others.

The litigious action you envisage could only make a martyr of Duncan and maybe also of Iker.

Alan Harrison wrote:

"The litigious action you envisage could only make a martyr of Duncan and maybe also of Iker."

Then so be it. Time to put an end to this rebellion against ECUSA and classic Anglicanism once and for all. Nobody is going to die in a ditch for Bob Duncan or Jack Iker.

How strange! To many of us "ECUSA" and "classic Anglicanism" look like complete antitheses!