Letter From Fort Worth
Bishop Takes Castle
When clergyman Jack Iker became convinced the Episcopal Church was losing its way, he left—and took the Fort Worth diocese, with almost all its property, with him. Now the church is fighting back, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.
cheap Jordan Shoes says: A lightweight cheap Jordan Shoes promote in the side of the shoe mesh fabric instead of leather to increase flex grooves for the first time in the air cushion participation in the bend. Dual-shaped hole high-tech sports shoes at a strong pillar of [scoring] title in four consecutive years Jordan become. Nike Retro Air Jordans heavy and the soles have trapeze signs was, in 1989, 2000 Reproduction is called into being. http://www.2011jordanssaleshop.com (February 10th, 2012 at 11:47pm)
(Page 2 of 2)
In the next few years, the conservative revolt, which had begun with a meeting in Plano, gathered force. Additional parishes left the church and tried to take their property with them. All but a few would eventually lose their land in court, but their example was soon followed by entire dioceses: San Joaquin, California; Pittsburgh; Quincy, Illinois; and finally Fort Worth. It had been one thing for individual congregations to leave, but it was another for a diocese the size of Iker’s to separate. Suddenly the rift had global consequences. When Iker left, he affiliated himself, as did the other dioceses, with another “province” of the Anglican Communion: the Southern Cone, a more traditionalist part of the Anglican Church currently based in Argentina. Together the renegade bishops also started their own brand-new Anglican Church of North America, which now includes more than 740 parishes. Like Iker’s, the dissident dioceses kept their property, buildings, and budgets.
In April 2009 the Episcopal Church hit back: Presiding Bishop Schori denounced Iker’s action as illegitimate and contrary to the canons of the church. She deposed him as bishop and sued him and his group of Fort Worth defectors, setting in motion a legal battle with far-reaching implications. “What is at stake is really the definition of the church,” says the Reverend David Roseberry, who took his own four-thousand-member Christ Church in Plano out of the Episcopal Church in 2006 and has affiliated himself with Iker in the Anglican Church of North America. “What is the unit, the irreducible minimum, of the gospel? Jack Iker would say it is the diocese. The national church, which is just a loose federation of dioceses, is claiming an interest in the assets of the diocese of Fort Worth. If they win the lawsuit and Fort Worth has to surrender its canons and property, then the Episcopal Church has proven that we are essentially a top-down hierarchical church, like the Catholic Church. That has never been true before.”
For other denominations struggling with how (or how not) to adapt to secular culture—Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians have all suffered divisive episodes over the ordination of gays in recent years—what happens in Fort Worth will prove profoundly instructive. They will all be watching Iker, who remains at the center of the storm. (The three other insurgent dioceses in the U.S. have also been sued by the Episcopal Church, but Iker continues to be a key figure.) A trim, compact man with a mane of graying hair, an immaculate beard, and a gentle manner that belies a bulldog tenacity, Iker is resolute and unapologetic in his belief that the Episcopal Church has strayed from biblical teaching. He is one of the last three bishops who, in defiance of a 1997 General Convention order, have refused to ordain women priests. Since his dramatic exit, the liberal exiles have reconstituted their own Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, with their own bishop, so that now there are two identically named entities, competing for both buildings and souls, each claiming to be the real one. But Iker is unperturbed. He runs his diocese with an iron hand and has packed it full of traditionalists who think like he does; some of his congregations are so uniformly conservative, in fact, that his opponents refer to them as “Ikerpalians.”
Iker is also confident that he is entitled to the diocesan property. He asserts that under the law he is chairman of the corporation that owns the assets and, according to its constitution, holds them in trust for the use of each congregation, not for the Episcopal Church as a whole. (This collides head-on with the church’s so-called Dennis Canon, which asserts that the property of all congregations is held in trust for both the national church and the diocese.) And when it comes to his rival diocese, Iker invokes basic ecclesiastical authority to refute its demands. “You can’t have an organization following its constitution and canons and then have a minority [the loyalists] meet someplace else and undo the change,” he says. “Basically it was an illegitimate gathering of the minority that laid claim to everything.” Similarly, Iker questions the ability of Presiding Bishop Schori to remove him. “The presiding bishop simply does not have authority over bishops,” he says. “She can’t tell them what to do. Nor do we think she has authority to bring litigation on behalf of the church. The General Convention has not voted on it. I mean, who authorized it?”
The other side, of course, sees things quite differently. “The vote that was taken in the November convention was not a legal vote,” says Katie Sherrod, a loyalist who played a key role in the laity-led reorganization of the diocese under a new bishop. “A diocese can’t vote to leave the Episcopal Church. The only way is with the consent of the General Convention. The point is that you do not get to leave the Episcopal Church and stay in Episcopal Church property. You don’t get to leave and keep using money and assets that have been built up over one hundred and seventy years of donations by Episcopalians in this part of North Texas. Bishops have a great deal of authority, but they are not lone rangers.”
Interestingly, Iker says he had agreed to hand over the property and assets of four loyalist churches and was in the process of doing so when he was sued. (Due to the litigation, he was unable to release the other four.) “We were trying to find a way where there were no losers,” he says, “so the people who wanted to stay with the church could have their property, and those who wanted to stay with the diocese could have their property. We tried to work out a way where people could be simply transferred to the diocese of Dallas. But the presiding bishop sent a message back saying, ‘Absolutely no way. We will fight that every inch.’ ” Iker, meanwhile, is supporting a movement to have the Anglican Church of North America recognized as a province of the Anglican Communion, just like the Episcopal Church. The ACNA held its first provincial convention at his Bedford cathedral last summer.
Now that the battle lines are clearly drawn, both sides in Fort Worth say they feel a sense of relief and renewed energy to pursue their missions. At their conventions this fall, each diocese had nothing but unanimous votes on governance and budget matters. But there is in fact a long, hard legal road ahead and no clear resolution in sight. A victory by either side raises questions that are, in conventional Episcopal terms, deeply unsettling. If the loyalists win, does that mean that they are given an empty St. Vincent’s Cathedral, where 1,500 people now worship? What will they do with it? If Iker wins, does that suggest that bishops are indeed sovereign in the Episcopal Church? No one quite knows.
Perhaps most uncomfortable of all is the irony, impossible to miss, that a raging debate about secularization in the church is now going to be sorted out by, of all things, the secular courts. It’s a process that is bound to take several years. As 2010 begins, the litigation is grinding forward in state district court; no matter its verdict, both sides expect to appeal at least to the Texas Supreme Court. If differing verdicts are handed down in the Episcopal Church’s four lawsuits against its renegade dioceses, then it is even possible that the U.S. Supreme Court could hear the case. As defining a case as that would be, many Episcopalians say they are appalled by the very idea of all this costly legal wrangling. “It is tragic that dollars that were supposedly spent to spread the gospel are being spent to sue Christian brothers and sisters,” says David Roseberry, voicing the predominant view among conservatives. “I think that is scandalous.” Iker himself realizes that the fight he helped set in motion is not going to end anytime soon. “The litigation is just debilitating,” he says, “emotionally and spiritually.”
Pages: 1 2
My Library
