Thinking Anglicans

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’.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
25 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JCF
JCF
12 years ago

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.]

Josh L.
Josh L.
12 years ago

You can’t fire someone after they quit.

BillyD
12 years ago

“You can’t fire someone after they quit.”

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

Father Ron Smith
Father Ron Smith
12 years ago

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

ettu
ettu
12 years ago

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

JPM
JPM
12 years ago

>>>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!

Cheryl Va.
12 years ago

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… Read more »

Robert Ian Williams
Robert Ian Williams
12 years ago

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.

Father Ron Smith
Father Ron Smith
12 years ago

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

Josh L.
Josh L.
12 years ago

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!

Robert Ian Williams
Robert Ian Williams
12 years ago

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.

ettu
ettu
12 years ago

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

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
12 years ago

“Such a flair for drama these people have!”

“Drama queens” is the phrase, emphasis on the “queens”.

J.Smith
J.Smith
12 years ago

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… Read more »

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
12 years ago

“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,… Read more »

Joe
Joe
12 years ago

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.)

Father Ron Smith
Father Ron Smith
12 years ago

“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.

Robert Ian williams
Robert Ian williams
12 years ago

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… Read more »

David R' Lyon
David R' Lyon
12 years ago

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 ….

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
12 years ago

“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… Read more »

dodgey_vicar
dodgey_vicar
12 years ago

‘border-crossing’

that is SO funny.

It should win a comedy award.

drdanfee
drdanfee
12 years ago

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 –… Read more »

Commentator
Commentator
12 years ago

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.

Father Ron Smith
Father Ron Smith
12 years ago

“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… Read more »

Dallas Bob
Dallas Bob
12 years ago

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…

25
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x