Fourth diocese votes to leave the TEC

[Andrew Stagg]

Diocese of Fort  Worth Texas has just voted to leave The Episcopal Church. This is the fourth entire diocese that has left.

The others that have already left are
  Diocese of San Joaquin, California
  Diocese of Pittsburgh
  Diocese of Quincy, Illinois

The vote was overwhelming  Clergy 73 for, 18 against, Lay 101 for, 26 against. The reason they have left (in the words of their bishop, Jack Iker) is because;
"This diocese stands for orthodox Christianity, and we are increasingly at odds with the revisionist practices and teachings of the official leadership of The Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church we once knew no longer exists. To contend for the faith as traditional Episcopalians has brought us to this time of realignment in the Body of Christ."

Fort Worth have joined Southern Cone.

===============================================================

Stand firm in faith have an extended interview with Jack Iker here...
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/17830/

The following extract on the issue of property is interesting - The departing diocese have a radically more human approach to how they plan to handle property issues with the handful of churches who don't wish to realign - when compared to the TEC who to date have been brutal to the extreme.

Greg Griffith: Do you expect any attempts by the Episcopal Church's national leadership to take property from your diocese?

Bishop Iker: The plan [of TEC] is to do the same thing they've done in San Joaquin - that is, to form a new diocese and then bring a lawsuit against the true diocese that separated - a lawsuit for all the assets, including property. Obviously the difference (between their approach and ours) is that the "Remain Episcopal" people have a winner-take-all attitude, that they believe everything belongs to the Episcopal Church and those who leave the Episcopal Church should be deprived of their buildings, property and assets. Our position is that those who don't want to continue to be a part of the diocese after our separation from TEC, under certain conditions, should be given their buildings, property and assets, and be cut free from the diocese.

[Luke Isham]

The TEC strikes me as a mite greedy, we're all still Anglican after all, it's not as though they're leaving the communion!

[Andrew Stagg]

Here's a nice article revealing some of the litigation TEC is currently engaged in against their 'brother' christians

TEC has refused to reveal how much has been spent on litigation against former parishes despite repeated requests to do so. In 2007 over 5,000 people signed a petition demanding TEC reveal the sources of funds and how much money it has “spent since 2004 on litigation against individuals and parishes.” Five retired bishops also wrote the Executive Council requesting the same information, but TEC refused to answer, saying only that “the church is receiving extraordinary value for the funds it does spend.”

The full article is here;
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2008/11/19/equipping-the-saints-part-v-tec-and-litigation/
The obscure paragraph at the end refers to an event where the bishop of Washington sued the state because they donated land to a christian homeless mens shelter. For reasons unknown he didn't like this and he used separation of church and state to litigate they couldn't do this - I'm not joking - this really happened!!! The fine details are a bit hazy in my head now, but more accurate info is out there if anyone wants to read up on it.

[Ken]

You may want to read this...

http://estanimalegis.blogspot.com/2008/11/fort-worth-moves-from-devious-to.html

and this...

http://estanimalegis.blogspot.com/2008/11/quincy-hypocrisy-just-like-fort-worth.html

Would love to hear your opinions!


Ken

[Luke Isham]

I reckon there is a difference between a parish leaving and a diocese.  However maybe the American Province has way more power and authority then the Australian Province which is odd, given the American love for freedom and individualism etc.

I'd also add it depends on who is doing the suing against whom.  At the end of the day only one side is in the right, if our largest scale is the Kingdom of God, then we should measure smaller skirmishes within that scale.

[Andrew Stagg]

Hi Ken,

Welcome back. Your two links appear to be talking about an individual church that broke away for it’s own reasons way back in ancient history. I’m not sure what that has to do with the present situation because the churches and dioceses that TEC is currently sueing to the death are still part of the Anglican Communion and are still faithful anglican and christian churches and many have tried again and again to negotiate with TEC (and been ignored). As for the reasons that TEC completely refuses to recognise these churches, well, I’ll let everyone do their own research…

That’s one pretty hostile and ranty website you’ve got there – it’s basically looks to me like a blog for the digruntled - I’m not comfortable going into any more detail with you about the articles/blogs on this site because to me they do not appear to be accountable. If a formal article goes up on newspapers like Anglican Mainstream (which I referenced), you me and everyone else can check the story against what the other anglican and christian newspapers are saying. Significant events are usually referenced in some way, so that you me and anyone else can research further. If they get it wrong, these papers publish corrections. In other words they are accountable.

Because I’ve answered your question, so it’s only fair that you answer mine from last week, because I think it is a really crucial question that liberals in our church (even here in australia) have completely ignored.

how can we ignore what is happening to our real brothers and sisters in Christ who are being persecuted and how can we in good conscience not stand alongside them?

[Ken]

Andrew Stagg wrote:
"how can we ignore what is happening to our real brothers and sisters in Christ who are being persecuted and how can we in good conscience not stand alongside them?"

What do you mean by "our 'real' brothers and sisters in Christ?"

Is everyone who does not subscribe to your particular strain of Christianity not a 'real' brother or sister in Christ?

You mention the blog I cited was "hostile and ranty..."
Sounds like an awful lot of contributions on this blog, to be honest.

I am saddened by the persecution of ANY Christians, orthodox, liberal, gay or straight, man or woman. Leaving the TEC is not the answer for those dioceses who have chosen to leave. Dialogue, and more importantly listening, are required. Some may say too much time has been spent talking. But that is our impatience as humans, too busy pushing agendas and not caring for our brothers and sisters in Christ, all.

I am a "liberal" Anglican, but have many conservative Anglican friends, even from Sydney. We agree to listen to eachother, not force our own theology on each other, and suprise suprise, we are still friends, and BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHRIST. All real too.

Cheers,

Ken

[Andrew Stagg]

Ken wrote:

I am not surprised by the fear and hate and judgement that some on this forum peddle.

 

Ken wrote:

The way the word 'Apostasy' is bandied around on this forum is distressing, .

 

Ken wrote:

"hostile and ranty..." Sounds like an awful lot of contributions on this blog, to be honest. .

I'm not sure sure if we're feeling the love dude!!!

[Ken]

And...?

[Jordan]

Ken,

Are you suggesting that you're not obliged to show love when engaging with people on this blog?

Jordan