Saturday, 22 November 2008

Bishop Iker inhibited

Updated again Tuesday

Bishop Jack Iker has been inhibited by the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church.

You can read the official notice here (PDF).

It probably won’t get announced on the website of the diocese.

The Steering Committee of North Texas Episcopalians has issued a statement which you can read here.

Monday evening update

I was wrong in my prediction about the diocesan website. It now carries the following: Press Release in response to attempted inhibition which includes both a statement by the bishop and a statement by the standing committee.

Episcopal News Service has published a very detailed report by Mary Frances Schjonberg headed Presiding Bishop inhibits Fort Worth bishop. This includes links to the certificate issued by the Title IV Review Committee, and to the documentation, here, and here, and also here, which was submitted to the committee.

Religious Intelligence has published a report by George Conger Fort Worth Bishop inhibited.

Tuesday update

The Living Church also has a report Bishop Iker Describes Inhibition by PB as ‘Irrelevant’.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Saturday, 22 November 2008 at 7:34pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA
Comments

So sad.
So absolutely *essential*.

God bless the Episcopalians of Fort Worth---may they receive a faithful shepherd, soon!

[And may God have mercy on xJack, as he goes into his chosen exile. God grant reconcilation, in God's Time.]

Posted by: JCF on Saturday, 22 November 2008 at 10:12pm GMT

You can't fire someone after they quit.

Posted by: Josh L. on Saturday, 22 November 2008 at 11:01pm GMT

"You can't fire someone after they quit."

And bishops may not resign from the House of Bishops without that body's consent.

Posted by: BillyD on Saturday, 22 November 2008 at 11:35pm GMT

Well now. He really asked for it, didn't he? I wonder whether he'll be wearing purple for the new 'provincial' inauguration?

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Sunday, 23 November 2008 at 12:08am GMT

You certainly can - and it makes both legal and PR difference as to who fired whom.

Posted by: ettu on Sunday, 23 November 2008 at 1:59am GMT

>>>You can't fire someone after they quit.

But that hasn't stopped the so-called "orthodox" from portraying Iker's inhibition as a martyrdom straight from the days of Nero.

Such a flair for drama these people have!

Posted by: JPM on Sunday, 23 November 2008 at 4:05am GMT

Josh

They haven't fired him per se. What they have done is made clear that he does not have a "blank cheque" to steal whatever he can of the family heirlooms.

Iker can no longer plunder with impunity, there is a legal date after which he could no longer claim to be acting with the authority of the church, whilst actually stealing from the church.

The notice also allows him time to choose to behave (which he probably won't), or thereafter any other "rights" will also be rescinded.

It's a bit like a farm manager having their name removed from the bank as a signatory for cheques, and if they prove they will not look after the interests of the farm as they are devoted to another, then they are also removed from operational responsibilities.

Jesus used a similar parable when he talked of the servant who was forgiven of his own debts, who the refused to forgive others debts against himself, and then found himself completely out in the cold for being crueller than his own master.

Posted by: Cheryl Va. on Sunday, 23 November 2008 at 5:05am GMT

The fact is that their journey will not end until they reach Rome.Going via Buenos Aires is only a ploy...so as to take along more people. That is why they also repeat the self deception that they are still part of the Anglican Communion and that they own the property.

Posted by: Robert Ian Williams on Sunday, 23 November 2008 at 6:47am GMT

Robert, as a Roman Catholic yourself; would you welcome them under the providence of your much-vaunted 'magisterium'?

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Sunday, 23 November 2008 at 10:06am GMT

I'm the one who left the comment "You can't fire someone after they quit". I'm a new Episcopalian. I was confirmed two years ago. One of the under 30 crowd that they say does not exist that came from an evangelical church. I'm still learning!

Posted by: Josh L. on Sunday, 23 November 2008 at 3:16pm GMT

I welcome all converts, but the likes of these...impossible. The Catholic Church would ask them to vacate their properties immediately and stop the law suits.

Posted by: Robert Ian Williams on Sunday, 23 November 2008 at 6:33pm GMT

Josh, welcome and prayers and best wishes. If you are in the USA Happy Thanksgiving! ettu

Posted by: ettu on Monday, 24 November 2008 at 12:24pm GMT

"Such a flair for drama these people have!"

"Drama queens" is the phrase, emphasis on the "queens".

Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 24 November 2008 at 2:11pm GMT

I see the inhibition as a formality, as well as a legal strategy for church property and other assets. Yet, despite the PB's claim that it is a fiduciary responsibiity to protect assessts, the general impression is that TEC is concerned more with finances than with mending a broken church.

My Gospel tells me that Jesus said it was better to let people have what they wanted rather than fight it out in the legal system. The Apostle Paul said something similiar.

Also, when people donated to TEC is presupposses that they would have done so give the current state of affairs of the church. That is not a fair argument to make. The real tragedy after all the court decisions are rendered, and assuming many will be in favor of TEC, they will end up selling the property to non-Episcopal churches, because they will not be able to keep it up. That may replenish the finances, but it is not representative of good Christian tragedy.

BTW, no name calling for those of us that don't believe in trashing the folks that have left TEC. There good people doing what they believe is best in what they see as a bad situation.

Posted by: J.Smith on Monday, 24 November 2008 at 3:04pm GMT

"the general impression is that TEC is concerned more with finances than with mending a broken church."

But the thing is, who feeds that impression? Who continually, and falsely, portrays TEC's defence of Church property in financial terms? Those who, if they are as "orthodox" as they say they are, ought to know they have no business trying to steal the buildings when they go into schism.

"There good people doing what they believe is best in what they see as a bad situation."

And, you know, I could agree with you, except I can't think that lies, slander, misrepresentation, dehumanization, paranoia, nurturing of a persecution complex, scheming, and the general nastiness we see coming from these groups could be considered "best in what they see as a bad situation." Can these self-proclaimed "orthodox" not think of better ways for Christians to behave, regardless of how bad they feel the situation is? I know there's an awful lot of hurt, I've felt that hurt myself in times past, but that's no excuse for the kinds of things I mentioned above. You ARE right all the same, they deserve our prayers.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 24 November 2008 at 5:01pm GMT

While no one is surprised that this happened, I think many are befuddled as to the timing. Why, as with +Duncan, didn't this happen BEFORE the diocese voted to leave when the intent was clear? Does TEC have a different set of rules for different people? Or, does timing have more to do with litigation than church discipline? (That's not a rhetorical question, either.)

Posted by: Joe on Monday, 24 November 2008 at 7:42pm GMT

"My Gospel tells me that Jesus said it was better to let people have what they wanted rather than fight it out in the legal system." - J. Smith -

Well then. You are undoubtedly reading the same version of the Scriptures as the re-Asserters, for this is precisely what they want reamining faithful; Episcopalians to do. Nothing new here.

Do you really expect God's faihtful remnant to allow the sort of pillage that the new CANA province is intent upon? Get real.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Monday, 24 November 2008 at 8:25pm GMT

The following is the response of the Standing Committee of Fort Worth..it's a classic....

The Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is a member of the Province of the Southern Cone as of November 15, 2008. Bishop Iker is a member in good standing of the House of Bishops of the Province of the Southern Cone. We wonder by what authority the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States presumes to inhibit a bishop of the Province of the Southern Cone. We do not recognize the authority of the Presiding Bishop over us. We regret this illegal, unconstitutional, and uncanonical attempt to interfere with the rights and ministry of a diocese of another province of the Anglican Communion. We call upon her to desist from any further actions in our diocese and that she refrain from any further border crossing.

Logs and specks I think.....

Posted by: Robert Ian williams on Monday, 24 November 2008 at 10:25pm GMT

No matter what we think about the Fort Worth incident...It must be particular rancor that a
female Bishop issued the inhibition against
+ Leo Jack Iker ....

Posted by: David R' Lyon on Tuesday, 25 November 2008 at 2:46am GMT

"Logs and specks I think"

I get the impression it's dwliberate, actually. Kind of "Well, two can play at that game, b^%$#@h!" I still don't want to think they are that childish and selfrighteous. Is that just naive of me?


"Why, as with +Duncan, didn't this happen BEFORE the diocese voted to leave when the intent was clear?"

Tolerance? Forgiveness? Forbearance? Stupidity? Why grumble that he wasn't punished until it was too late? Is the need to see an EVil Hell BOund Liberal conspiracy under every rock so strong that it is actually thought to be an evil plot when the boss is lenient? Are people THAT paranoid? IS this what comes from living one's life believing even God is the enemy?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 25 November 2008 at 11:31am GMT

'border-crossing'

that is SO funny.

It should win a comedy award.

Posted by: dodgey_vicar on Tuesday, 25 November 2008 at 12:56pm GMT

On Planet Iker no woman can inhibit any man for any reason whatsoever, methinks. If God had wanted women to be fundamentally able to inhibit men, God would have given them a male anatomy, with the properly blessed genitalia. Do Venebles and the SC really know exactly with whom they are so quickly involving themselves? Or is the SC so flat earth already that it just cannot distinguish?

It's all ends justifies means dodgy ethics, based/justified by weaponized theology, doctrines, conformity, and confessions.

Spin on, Planet Iker. Like the rest of us are fooled or convinced, yeah right. PS - give back the real goods you have stolen and are prepared to steal from future TEC generations, just as you inherited those goods from past generations and just as you pledged giving of your own goods to the common trust, even across Anglican differences.

These ploys are indeed religious, but not very historically big tent Anglican.

Posted by: drdanfee on Wednesday, 26 November 2008 at 7:48pm GMT

It is Iker's intemperate language that gives him away. He states that the Presiding Bishop 'never has' had authority over him. Was he never a member of the House of Bishops within which the Rt Rev'd Katharine was the Presiding Bishop?

It is also the case that those senior bishops who refused to allow Iker's inhibition to proceed earlier should make a public apology to the Presiding Bishop and the rest of the House of Bishops.

Posted by: Commentator on Thursday, 27 November 2008 at 3:17pm GMT

"It is Iker's intemperate language that gives him away. He states that the Presiding Bishop 'never has' had authority over him. Was he never a member of the House of Bishops within which the Rt Rev'd Katharine was the Presiding Bishop?"

As Commentator says here; If Bp Iker did indeed state that the Presiding Bishop never did have any authority 'over' him, than he should have been honest with everyone and refused, at the time of her accession to her office, to have
continued as a Bishop in TEC.

This basic dishonesty now marks the former TEC Bishop Iker as having already deceived the Episcopal Church, and therefore not able to be accounted as a contender for any role in the Anglican Communion - such as he is looking for under the providence of the 'new' province.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Thursday, 27 November 2008 at 10:14pm GMT

Father Smith is absolutely correct. Ex-bishop Iker's statement concerning Presiding Bishop Schori never having had authority over him is shameful, dishonest, and factually incorrect. As soon as Fort Worth gets its property back and reforms the diocese, he will be a pathetic, irrelevant footnote to history. And even now what he says or thinks is of no consequence whatsover. His words mean as much to faithful Episcopalians as do those of Oral Roberts, Bob Tilton, or Jimmy Swaggart. Just another fanatic who is a source of comic relief...

Posted by: Dallas Bob on Sunday, 30 November 2008 at 3:10am GMT
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.