PB "accepts" Bishop Iker's renunciation of orders

From episcope:

On November 20, 2008, the Title IV Review Committee certified to me pursuant to the canons that the Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker, Bishop of Fort Worth, had abandoned the Communion of the Episcopal Church, having purported to separate his Diocese from the Church. With the consent of the three senior bishops, I then inhibited Bishop Iker from exercising his pastoral ministry. In response to this action, on November 24, 2008, Bishop Iker issued a public statement in which he made clear that he had chosen to leave the Episcopal Church and that he no longer wished to carry out the responsibilities of ordained ministry in the Church. Accordingly, I have, with the consent of my Council of Advice, chosen this day to accept Bishop Iker's voluntary renunciation of his Orders in the Episcopal Church and have removed and released him from our ordained ministry.

Her letter concluded: Accepting Bishop Iker's voluntary renunciation now rather than waiting for the March meeting of the House will do much to alleviate the difficult circumstances facing the Episcopalians in Fort Worth, who are functioning in a Diocese devoid of any formal leadership. Second, renunciation is a more hospitable avenue of departure from the Church, and therefore increases the hope for reconciliation with Bishop Iker and his followers at some point.

The full story makes clear that Iker does not think he has renounced his orders, but that the Presiding Bishop, her Council of Advice (which includes the extremely conservative Bruce MacPherson) and the nine-member Title IV review committee (chaired by Dorsey Henderson, nobody's liberal) think his public statements constitute renunciation.

An interesting side note: the Episcopal witnesses on the one-page notification that the Presiding Bishop released are Bishops George Packard and Lloyd Allen, both of whom, I believe, voted against deposing Bishop Bob Duncan.

Comments (6)

God bless Jack Iker. His entourage is shrinking.

The bitterness and anger of this site grows tiring.

- Jim Brooks

I am not sure what is bitter or anger about this item. It is composed almost entirely of material from elsewhere, with a touch of fairly straightforward analysis at the end.

Is it reasonable to request an explanation of the straightforward analysis in the first and last sentences of the "Duncanite" summary provided on 12/6/08? I am not certain how such statements promote a greater understanding and dialogue of differeing opinions.

Jim, it's commentary. My aim is not to foster dialog with people who aren't interested in dialog. My aim is to defend the Episcopal Church. That involves calling homophobes homophobes, and petulance petulance.

We Episcopalians were getting tired of wearing the "Kick Me!" signs, JimB, and angry&bitter about the results.

I honestly believe you'll see (if you haven't yet) less of all 3 on our parts, soon!

JC Fisher

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space