Monday, 21 August 2006

Jack Iker interview

Stand Firm has an interview with the Bishop of Fort Worth, Jack Iker
Read it all here.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Monday, 21 August 2006 at 6:46pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA
Comments

It would be interesting to do a sociological correlation analysis between the conservative dioceses/parishes and their communities. Sydney had the race riots in 2005, and a leading Anglican responded with indifferent to the concerns expressed by the local Jewish community to aggressive prosletyising in 2003.

This article about Fort Worth came up on the internet last week: http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060817/OPINION01/60817010/1014

Again I wonder if it is wise to separate the values of a church from its community, as if the two have no sociological impact on each other? Further, I again ponder that a church that can not envisage treating souls with respect beyond the courteousness they may or may not choose to show to well-behaved slaves is capable of ushering God's vision of peace for all the peoples of all the nations of all Creation.

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Monday, 21 August 2006 at 10:25pm BST

Re The above comment by Cheryl Clough "The Church and its Community" I was always of the opinion that the Church a part of the community, Unless you are an advocate of the German Metaphysical school of thought, in which case I would ask you to try and define the metephysical properties of such a community and not include the Church ?

Posted by: Graham Eardley on Tuesday, 22 August 2006 at 12:47pm BST

This article about Fort Worth came up on the internet last week: http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060817/OPINION01/60817010/1014

Cheryl,

I know one American looks like another, and one American city looks like another, to non-Americans, but Fort Worth, Texas, what ever its faults, is not Fort Collins, Colorado.

Posted by: Chip Chillington on Tuesday, 22 August 2006 at 1:57pm BST

Interesting that he starts off with this: "It is always a temptation to dismiss those with whom we disagree by the use of derogatory labels." and then goes on to refer to "revisionist" bishops". Who is guilty of name calling? Well, both sides, of course, I just wish they would admit it.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 22 August 2006 at 2:03pm BST

During General Convention 2006, Iker packed up/got up and left the room just before +VG Robinson was about to speak at the public hearings...the room had already been held hostage by the Archbishop of York as he refused to "finish" his comments and exceeded the "time" alloted for each person to speak...both of these gents apparently "dismiss" basic manners and guidelines that "others" are asked to observe.

Just plain arrogance.

Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Tuesday, 22 August 2006 at 2:36pm BST

Ford quite correctly points out the obvious hypocrisy in several of Bp. Iker's comments (note: he also refers to the Presiding Bishop elect as "heterodox" - yet more name-calling).

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Posted by: David Huff on Tuesday, 22 August 2006 at 3:26pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.