Nothing packs the pews like . . .

Sermon audio now ready

Here are two sermons that I've recently given. I'm working to make audio files for these available on a somewhat regular basis (I don't preach every week, and someone else does the recording).

"Lord, Teach us to Pray" from 29 July 2007 at St Alban's.

"Vanity of Vanities? or Mystery of Mysteries?" from 5 August 2007. Note that the file begins with music.

"The Pursuit of Holiness" from 19 August 2007. Note that the audio is poor for the first 5 minutes or so while I am on the chancel steps for the children's sermon. After that, it sounds great.

Prayer Book revision

One thing that is inevitable (except in England, where Parliament makes it impractical) is ongoing revision of the Book of Common Prayer. The most recent, and most drastic, American revision is from 1979. It has its problems, as did the previous revision from 1928. While it is not around the corner, the current edition will be revised again at some point. Here are some of my suggestions for when that day comes.

“And with your spirit.” The mistranslation of Et cum spiritu tuo as “And also with you” comes from the English text of the Roman Missal. Now that Rome is correcting it’s translation, it should follow that we would correct ours. I believe the Lutheran Church already uses “And with your spirit.” I’m sure that other churches will make the most as the corrected translation becomes commonplace through Rome’s usage. It would also serve well for Anglicans in making the discrepancy between a mixed group of Rite One (“And with thy spirit”) and Rite Two (“And also with you”) Episcopalians much less distracting.

New Prayers and Blessings. In many parishes, it is common to have blessings for birthdays and wedding anniversaries. The 1979 Prayer Book has two prayers for a birthday (#50 and #51 on page 830) and no prayers for a wedding anniversary (although #50 would fit any kind of annual celebration). Some clergy have substituted an entirely inappropriate prayer—the nuptial blessing from the marriage rite. There are two main problems with this. First, it should only be given once in a lifetime. Second, there may be people who are not eligible to be married in the church and thus should not receive this blessing at all. I have used the collect for the marriage liturgy reworded for the past tense (“vows they have made”), but it is not rubrically correct to do so. A prayer should be supplied in the next revision to meet this need.

Likewise, many parishes have pet and animal blessings on the feast of St Francis of Assisi, but there is no form for this in either the Prayer Book or the Book of Occasional Services. A form should be provided, both for the sake of convenience, and for preventing doctrinal irregularity in praying extemporaneously about this sensitive subject.

The Prayers in Morning and Evening Prayer. I would add the Kyrie just before the Lord’s Prayer and I would change to the shorter and more ancient form of the Lord’s Prayer (i.e., without the doxology). This usage would return to the 1549 Prayer Book and pre-Reformation forms. It would also bring the pattern into alignment with the form in the minor offices and the Litany.

Apostles’ Creed in Matrimony and Burial. The rubric already says it may be used, but I would go ahead and add the text of the Apostles’ Creed to Burial: Rite One and to The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage. These are two occasions where many visitors will normally be present and having every one flip back to the creed and then back to the other liturgy seems unnecessary. It is certainly not a user-friendly approach, and it has the side effect of discouraging the use of the Apostles’ Creed on these occasions.

The Reconciliation of a Penitent. I would remove the newly composed absolution, (worded “absolve you through my ministry”). It is based on the passive Eastern Orthodox pattern, but is not the active wording familiar to many through film and television. It leaves the uninitiated feeling like they are still waiting to be absolved. I would also provide a list of penitential psalms, perhaps useful for penances. The dismissal should remove the option, which is unnecessary, and simply state “Go in peace, and pray for me, a sinner.”

I would also take away the text for the declaration of forgiveness to be used by a lay person or a deacon after hearing a confession (“Our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered himself to be sacrificed for us to the Father, forgives your sins by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”). Instead, I would replace it with: If the ministrations of a priest cannot be obtained, a deacon or lay person hearing the confession may respond by encouraging them to make this confession before a priest a soon as possible and by saying “God is ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abundant in kindness. He does not forsake those who are truly penitent.” The old sentence sounds too much like an absolution, which may lead someone to thing that they no longer need to seek a priest. The new sentence is modeled after Nehemiah 9:17.

The Ministration to the Sick. The scripture selections are already noted in the Prayer Book, but I would add the text of the readings themselves. This is for the sake of convenience. The priest will already be bringing a number of items on this occasion, and needing one less book is very helpful.

At the section for the laying on of hands and anointing with oil, I would add a rubric stating that no one may be anointed by proxy (I have encountered this abuse in some charismatic circles). Also, the conditional rubric in the middle of page 457 should be changed to simple read, “It is suitable to administer the reserved sacrament outside the Church in one kind only.” This conforms with common practice. I have never encountered the reserved Sacrament being administered in both kinds in the home or hospital. Indeed, in many places the Sacrament is only reserved in one kind to begin with.

Communion under Special Circumstances. This rite is essentially for administering Holy Communion to shut-ins. Since most of the people to whom this ministry now applies are elderly and were formed under the Rite One or 1928 Prayer Book tradition, it is appropriate that a Rite One form should also be provided. I would add the same rubric as above about administering the Sacrament in one kind.

An Order for Celebrating the Holy Eucharist. This is commonly known as “Rite Three” and is not often used. In my view, such self-composed liturgies stand far outside the tradition. Even in the early centuries, liturgical forms quickly crystallized into set patterns, modeled after the uses in the patriarchal sees. As it encourages personal creativity in composing liturgical forms, it also discourages conformity and is thus alien to the spirit of liturgy. I would eliminate this section entirely.

Prayers of the People. I would return some mention of the duty of civil servants to punish wickedness and vice and to maintain virtue and freedom of religion to the “Prayer for the whole state of Christ’s Church and the world” in Rite One. There is also one change that I would make in Form I. There is one petition, the second to last on page 385, which neither ends in the concluding for nor the standard form of “let us pray to the Lord.” Because it changes from speaking to the people to speaking to God, this one petition ends in, “by thy grace.” Every time that I’ve heard this used, it has ended up being a train wreck. I would rewrite it so that it is directed toward the people like each of the other petitions and keeps the standard ending.

The Holy Eucharist. There are a number of changes that I would make here, though mostly concerning options and titles. I would change the title of both parts to “The Liturgy of the Word of God” and “The Liturgy of the Holy Communion.” This seems more natural to me, while the shortened form seems too elliptical.

The Post-Communion Prayer. I would have only one post-communion prayer per rite. To me, this is one of those prayers that one should ideally be able to recite from memory. I would eliminate one of the options for the post-communion prayer in Rite Two. I would probably keep the first one, which begins “Eternal God . . .” because the other is more similar to the wording of Rite One and the subtle differences would trip up someone who normally worships in the other rite. I would also eliminate the proper post-communion prayers for marriages, ordinations, and burials. I think they are simply unnecessary and the less flipping around in the book at this moment of the liturgy, the better. Also, the post-communion prayers should be modified to reflect the fact that not everyone will normally receive Holy Communion, particularly when it is a wedding or funeral. The 1928 version of the prayer might be a guide, which had the qualifier, “who have duly received these holy mysteries.” It would also be helpful to print Canon I.17.7 as a rubric: “No unbaptized person shall be eligible to receive Holy Communion in this Church.”

The Invitation to Communion. The invitation to communion in the 1979 Prayer Book (“The Gifts of God for the People of God”) is based upon the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom (“Holy things for the Holy”, to which the people respond, “One is Holy, one is Lord, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. Amen”). To me, the latter has the lingering thought of holiness and is God-focused. The former has the lingering thought of the People of God and is human-focused. I would simply use the original version from the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom as is done in the new Common Worship for the Church of England.

Having some alternative invitations seems appropriate to me. The most obvious choice would be the invitation from the Roman Rite and Common Worship, from Jn 1:29, Rev 19:9, and Mt 8:8 (V. “Behold the Lamb of God that takest away the sin of the world. Happy are those who are called to his Supper.” R. “Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my soul shall be healed.”). It should be familiar to many as it was often borrowed from the Roman Rite and used prior to the 1979 Prayer Book because the 1928 Prayer Book had no invitation to communion.

I think some other sentences would be appropriate, such as Mt 25:34 (“Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”), Rev 19:7 (“Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to God: for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready.”), and Rev 19:9 (V. “Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb.” R. “These are the true sayings of God.”). What I like about these verses is that they emphasize the eschatological character of the Holy Eucharist.

The Breaking of the Bread. First, I would reprint the text of the Peace, since it may be said in this place if it has not been said earlier. Second, I would add a rubric specifying that only one of the anthems should follow the breaking of the Bread and the Peace (either the Agnus Dei or the Pascha Nostrum). I have often heard both used, which is redundant. Third, I would add the text of the requiem version of the Agnus Dei in both rites (“grant them rest” in place of “have mercy upon us”). Fourth, I would restore the longer version of the Prayer of Humble Access, as it is in Common Worship. I would also add the title, since those unfamiliar with our liturgy will see that title in the service leaflet, but look for it in vain in the book. The italicized portion was deleted in the 1979 revision: “Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ and to drink his blood that our sinful bodies made be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him and he in us.” It was deleted because it was said the wording suggested a dualism of body and soul. I think this is an overstatement, and that people recognize that it is poetic language employed to state a powerful truth—that communion with God is only possible through Christ’s atonement and our forgiveness. It is also beautiful, and prayer ought to be beautiful.

The Eucharistic Prayer. I have a bias when it comes to liturgical prayer—no newly composed prayers unless absolutely necessary. Surely, when it comes to the anaphora, the tradition is rich enough to suffice. This means I would drop Prayer II of Rite One. It is essentially a shortened version of Prayer I, but it is not really that much shorter—certainly not enough to justify a new composition. Plus, since the wording is so similar, it comes off sounding like someone who is reciting Prayer I from memory, but didn’t quite get it right.

I would also drop Prayer B and Prayer C from Rite Two since they are new compositions. Although they are also new compositions, I would retain Prayer A and Prayer D because they are both based on ancient texts. Prayer A is a revision of the Eucharistic Prayer in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus. Prayer D is a revision of the anaphora of the Liturgy of St Basil. Indeed, I would suggest simply using these ancient orthodox texts in place of their revised forms of Prayer A and Prayer D. They are both certainly more beautiful than the revisions. Some would object that the anaphora of the Liturgy of St Basil would be too long for an Anglican liturgy, and I can understand that. But it sure is a beautiful prayer. As a second-best solution, I would say Prayer D should be brought more in line with (or perhaps made the same as) Eucharistic Prayer IV of the new Roman Rite, which is also based upon the Liturgy of St Basil. This would at least be a strong ecumenical gesture.

Finally, to Prayer I and Prayers A and D, I would add the eucharistic prayer from the Roman Rite, the “Gregorian Canon” in a good translation that utilizes customary Prayer Book phraseology. This anaphora from the Western liturgy, which is also beautiful and orthodox, served Anglicans well for over a thousand years. Why not continue to use it?

Photos from the SSC retreat

The Our Lady of Walsingham chapter of the Society of the Holy Cross held their retreat at Camp Crucis this week. Fr. Lawrence Bausch (below) of Holy Trinity, Ocean Beach CA gave fantastic meditations on the life and ministry of glorious St Patrick.



We were able to have an internet video discussion with Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh, the ACN moderator.



Worship in the chapel of St John the Evangelist was uplifting.



Relaxation, recreation, and fellowship with friends was just great.

My Simpsons' character

My wife visited the website of the Simpsons' Movie (which we have not seen) and found that you can create yourself as an animated character. You give descriptions of yourself and it generates your character. This is how mine turned out.

Fun with church catalogs

Most catalogs have goofy pictures from time to time. Church catalogs seem especially prone to the this phenomenon. Here are some of my favorites, with fitting captions. Perhaps you can come up with captions of your own.


1. "Oh, it's true! I once consecrated a wafer THIS BIG."


2. "See Father Bob, it's right there like I told you. Isaiah 16:11, 'Wherefore my bowels shall sound like a harp'."


3. "Look, there's no way I'm playing that."


4. "Another kick-@$$ sermon! That's a four month winning streak now."


5. "Pull yourself together, Ted. I can't sing this duet by myself."


6. "If you don't give me those sleeves back, I'm gonna pound you."


7. "Look at that finger. What a finger!"


8. "If you think that's awkward, just wait till father starts to show off his finger."


9. "You gotta question? You ask the cuff link."


10. "What? You never seen a guy wearin' a big blue poncho with cartoon candles on it before?"


11. "Behold the spiritual excellencies of mint . . . all mint."


12. "Where did the missal go?"


13. "Not one step closer, Roger. You keep your distance till Christmas."


14. "Does the bishop know about this?"

For your listening pleasure . . .

First, click here to listen to an excellent commentary on "Orthodoxy in Anglican Worship" by my friend, the Rev'd Canon Thomas Janikowski of Grace Church, Galesburg IL (pictured above). His examination of "right glory" in our worship comes as a part of the general conversation in response to the Common Cause theological statement. My favorite line is, "Worship is not for us, but for God." That is something worth remembering. (Tip of the biretta to the Common Anglican.)

Second, click here to listen to a stirring rendition of the hymn "Hail, Holy Queen Enthroned Above." The recording was made by Fr Z at the Solemn Mass for the Assumption last year at the cathedral in Camden NJ. It has been one of my favorites and was sung by the congregation at my ordination to the priesthood. (Tip of the biretta to the New Liturgical Movement.)

Happy listening.

Why I believe in the Assumption of Mary

Today is the feast of St Mary the Virgin. In the Anglican Church of Canada, the Scottish Episcopal Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, it is called the "Falling Asleep [or Dormition] of the Blessed Virgin Mary." In the Latin West it is called the "Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary."

There is no substantive difference in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine, just a difference in emphasis. The Orthodox emphasize that she died and was resurrected, but that her resurrected body naturally did not continue forever on earth, but that she was taken up to be with her Son. The Catholics emphasize that she was brought to be with Jesus (body and soul) at the end of her life, not defining dogmatically whether or not she underwent physical death--free to say that she was either resurrected or "translated" (see 2 Cor 5:1-8).

The Anglican tradition, as a part of her Catholic heritage, has received the universal tradition about Mary being taken into heaven at the end of her life to be with her son. Yet, in typically Anglican fashion, has not gone into detail about the hows and whys and even ifs of the matter. It is left to the area we call "pious opinions" --venerable traditions which should be respected, but not necessarily demanded as an article of faith. It is what the Lutherans call adiaphora--things "indifferent" or non-essential.

Among Anglicans, some have automatically accepted the tradition of Mary's Assumption simply because it's "the Catholic thing to do." Others have instinctively rejected it for exactly the same reason. I am inclined to believe in the Assumption of Mary. Clearly, it is not something that is unquestionable the way the resurrection of Jesus is. Nevertheless, it is something which I find entirely (in that most Thomistic of terms) "fitting."

Stories about the end of her life began to circulate in the early Church, when the cult of shrines was gaining popularity. Where was Mary buried? Unlike Peter and Paul in Rome, she had no tomb to visit. The earliest references to the Assumption of Mary appear in the 4th (or possibly late 3rd) century in Liber Requiei Mariae (The Book of Mary's Repose). Epiphanus of Salamis gives us the earliest extended witness in the fourth century.

In the centuries that follow, several writings appear recording the traditions about her death and assumption. St John of Damascus (writing in the eighth century) relates a tradition where, during the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451), the emperor Marcian and his wife wished to find the body of Mary. He tells how all the apostles had seen her death, but her tomb was empty upon inspection. Although he did not make it an article of faith, Martin Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption: "There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know."

Some object that it is not described in the Bible. And they are correct, it is never explicitly described in holy Scripture. But does that mean it did not happen? The Bible also never records the death of St Peter or St Paul, but Christian tradition does, and I am inclined to believe that it is correct about it--not just the fact that they died, but also the where and how and why.

However, it is very possible that the Scriptures allude to her place in heaven. There is biblical precedent for the event in the assumptions of Enoch (Gen 5:34) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11). Also, it is possible that she is pictured in the heavenly vision of St John. Revelation 11:19--12:5 reads as follows:

"Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm. A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne."

There is always a certain plasticity to the symbolic images (not to mention time-lines) in Revelation. The woman and the child end up signifying the people of God. But at first, they clearly represent Mary and Jesus. The child is the Messiah (and of course, Mary is the mother of the Messiah). Also, we should be aware of the Ark of the Covenant as a symbol for Mary; as the bearer of Jesus (the bread from heaven, the new Torah, the blossomed priestly staff), Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.

So John tells us in Revelation that he saw Mary in heaven, crowned in glory. As the one entrusted with her care, it was surely a moment of awe and comfort that she was safely at home. Some would object that she is not identified by name here; it is only an unnamed mother. That is correct, but it is also typical of St John, for in his gospel Mary is never mentioned by name. Out of deep respect, she is always referred to as "mother" or "woman."

Looking at the Old Testament the way the early Church fathers did, we also see typical allusions which might apply to Mary's Assumption. Paslm 132:8 and 2 Chronicles 6:41 are fitting heralds of the Ascension and Assumption: "Now arise, O LORD God, and come to your resting place, you and the ark of your strength." The description of the old ark's placement in the Holy of Holies of the temple (which represents heaven) also applied to the Assumption: "The priests then brought the ark of the LORD's covenant to its place in the inner sanctuary of the temple, the Most Holy Place, and put it beneath the wings of the cherubim" (1 Kings 8:6).

The description of David preparing a place for the ark mirrors the words of Jesus (the Son of David) words about preparing a place for Mary and all the saints. Compare, "After David had constructed buildings for himself in the City of David, he prepared a place for the ark of God and pitched a tent for it" (1 Chronicles 15:1) with "Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many dwelling-places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also." (John 14:1-3). It is no wonder that neither the old ark nor the new ark is known for certain to rest this day at a certain spot on earth--both have been secretly removed and hidden with God until a certain day when they will be revealed (see 2 Maccabees 2:4-10).

"In those days, when your numbers have increased greatly in the land," declares the LORD, "men will no longer say, 'The ark of the covenant of the LORD.' It will never enter their minds or be remembered; it will not be missed, nor will another one be made" (Jeremiah 3:16). "Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now" (Hebrews 9:5).

As has been often said, Mary was the first disciple, and we see all God's promises for Christian disciples first fulfilled in her. What happens to Mary is a sign of God's gift to every believer--a new resurrected body, being taken to be with Jesus, and being rewarded (or "crowned") with eternal life. We see this in St Paul's comments on the subject.

"And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality" (1 Cor 15:49-53).

"According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage each other with these words" (1 Thess 4:15-18).

"I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing" (2 Tim 4:7-8).

The Collect (BCP, p 192)
O God, who hast taken to thyself the blessed Virgin Mary, mother of thy incarnate Son: Grant that we, who have been redeemed by his blood, may share with her the glory of thine eternal kingdom; through the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Hymn 278 (The Hymnal 1982)
4. Sing the chiefest joy of Mary when on earth her work was done
and the Lord of all creation brought her to his heavenly home;
where, raised high with saints and angels, in Jerusalem above,
she beholds her Son and Savior reigning as the Lord of love.

Evensong for the Vigil of the Assumption

Antiphon on the Magnificat
O wisest of virgins, whither goest thou, like to the Day-Spring gloriously rising? * O daughter of Sion, altogether lovely art thou, and pleasant for delights, fair as the moon, clear as the sun.

Collect
O God, who didst vouchsafe to choose the Virgin womb of blessed Mary wherein to make thy dwelling-place: Grant, we beseech thee, that we, being defended by her protection, may of thee be enabled to attain with gladness to her coming festival; who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

An English constitutional question

Reading through Bishop Moorman's book on English church history, I came across a question that perhaps our friends across the pond or someone else in the know may be able to help me with.

The Magna Carta, after the introduction, begins thus:

"First, that we have granted to God, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the Church of England [Anglicana ecclesie] shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. . . . This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity."

How does this square with Henry VIII becoming the Supreme Head of the Church of England by the 1534 Act of Supremacy? One of the main issues that brought about the Magna Carta was whether the church has the right to make its own appointments and govern its own affairs or whether it is subject to the crown.

Is the Act of Supremacy unconstitutional? Does the apparent unconstituntionality of the new act which has stood the test of time simply set a precedent and in effect amend the English constitution (which is not a single document to begin with, but rather a body of law built on precedent)? Perhaps you can help me figure it out.

Misusing Scripture to "Get Out of Jail Free"

I received my new issue of the LCMS journal Issues, etc (supporting the radio program with the same name) yesterday. Although much of the content covers "in-house" Lutheran concerns, it is all interesting, and much of it very thought provoking.

In this issue, Pastor Todd Wilken had a article called "Getting Out of Jail Free: Misusing Scripture as an Excuse for Sin." Intrigued, I read on. When I came to the first example, it all became so obvious. I bet you can guess some of them. They are those verses often quoted by someone who was just caught red-handed morally or doctrinally. Here are the excuse verses which Wilken refutes in the article.

Matthew 7:1
"Judge not, lest ye be judged."

John 8:7
"He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone."

1 Corinthians 13:12
"We see though a glass, darkly."

1 Corinthians 8:1
"Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up."

Titus 3:9
"Avoid foolish controversies"

Does it have anything to do with the Turks?

Today, we celebrate the feast of the Transfiguration of our Lord Jesus Christ. Although we read the story on the last Sunday before Lent begins in the new lectionary, the feast day always falls on August 6th.

In the story, Peter offers to construct tabernacles (or "booths") for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, telling us that the event is occurring at the Hebrew feast of Succoth (the feast of Tabernacles), which falls in the month of October. So how did the Christians end up commemorating the Transfiguration (which must have occurred in October) on August 6th?

The feast originated in the Eastern Church, becoming widely observed by the end of the first millennium on the 6th of August. From there it spread to the Western Church, but was not universally observed there. Many places in the West observed it on August 6th, others kept the feast on different dates. In Gaul and England in was 27 July; at Meissen, 17 March; and at Halberstadt, 3 September.

The deciding factor would come a few centuries later out of the clash of Moslems and Christians. August 6th was universally established as the date for the feast in the Latin rite by Pope Callistus III to mark the victory of Hunyady and the resulting Christian deliverance from the Turks at Belgrade on August 6, 1456.

All is vanity?

A sermon for Proper 13, given on 5 August 2007 at St. Alban's, Arlington.

Ecclesiastes is not a well-loved book of the Bible. It seems to be no one’s favorite. With lines like “I considered all that my hands had done, and the toil I had spent in doing it, it was all vanity—chasing after the wind—and there was nothing to be gained under the sun”, we can see why few would want to hear what the Preacher (or in this translation, the “Teacher”) would have to say.

With so few fans, one wonders how Ecclesiastes found its way into the Bible at all. But there was at least one person who got excited about it. According to his student Reginald Fuller, the Anglican New Testament scholar Edwyn Hoskyns was fond of saying that Ecclesiastes was the most Christian book of the Old Testament. What he meant by that statement was that Ecclesiastes is a ruthless exposure of what human life is like apart from God, and so it has the blessing of preparing the heart to receive the gospel. That is, Ecclesiastes is not so much good news, as it is bad news—the kind of bad news that shows us just how good the “good news” really is, and which makes the gospel message audible to the broken-hearted.

“Vanity of vanities”, the book begins, “all is vanity.” All of human life is futile and meaningless, when viewed apart from God. In a temporal perspective, even a life lived well seems lived in vain. “Vanity” is the refrain carried throughout the book.

The Hebrew word for vanity is curious—abhel. It literally means “vapor” as in the moist puff of someone who is short of breath, toiling endlessly under the sun. It could also be translated “mystery”, as in a fog where things are unclear and hard to discern. As you may have guessed, abhel is also the name of Adam’s son Abel, who was murdered by his brother Cain.

“Vanity of vanities, all is vanity!” What is life good for? What are doing with it? Are all our blood, sweat, and tears really worth anything in the end? How come sometimes things just don’t work out? Why do bad things happen to good people, like poor Abel? Mystery of mysteries, it is all a mystery!

This week, we saw a chapter close in that outreach ministry of our church which began with a request for Kindergarten from the city back in 1958 and grew up into St. Alban’s Episcopal School, serving Pre-K—12. There are some who will reflect upon the history—the visionary contributions and tireless labor of people like our first Rector, Fr. Walter Harrison Beste, who accepted such a challenge for our young church, and of Marge O’ Halloran, who was entrusted with responsibility for its development and leadership from the ground up. Some will reflect upon the dedicated efforts of teachers, volunteers, and parents, upon the endless expenditure of construction paper, paste (some of it digested), and crayons, of field trips, milk cartons, science lab equipment, and uniforms . . .

And some will say, with the Preacher, It wasn’t worth it. It was all in vain. “I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had spent in doing it, and again, all was vanity and a chasing after the wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun.” If we had known it would all end up in bankruptcy and pointed fingers, we should never have done any of it in the first place. As a matter of fact, some of us did know—we figured it out, we saw it coming, we could see it would end like this sooner or later, and (you know what?) . . . I told you so! Vanity of vanities.

And then there are others who do not join the voice of the Preacher, except perhaps to enter into that struggle humbly—putting off judgment. Mystery of mysteries. It is all a mystery. Was it all worth it? Did we accomplish what we set out to accomplish? Where is the wisdom of God to be found in our history?

They too will ponder the endless expenditure of construction paper, paste, (some of it digested) and crayons, of field trips, milk cartons, science lab equipment, and uniforms, the noble sacrifices of individual leaders, the dedicated efforts of parents, volunteers, and of teachers, and so forth. But they will begin to see more and more a glowing and marvelous Christian witness—people who were more concerned with doing some bit of good in the world than in their own interest or in counting the personal costs. They will see a generational school community, which like our patron, blessed Alban, was faithful even unto death.

The rewards will not be found in a lasting institution, but in human lives, instilled through bygone moments of learning, caring, growing, nurture and play. It is an utterly Christian thing to find nobility in the futility of love, to see grace in the pouring out of oneself even unto death. Sometimes our biggest failures are exactly our most vivid testimonies to the grace and love and mercy of God known to us in the cross of Jesus.

Remember, the apostles recognized the risen Lord when he showed them his wounds—his hands, his feet, his side. They recognized him by the signs of his suffering. Sometimes that is how people recognize Christians. Jesus’ formation of his disciples did not end in parables and pronouncements. It ended in blood, tears, sweat, nails, and wood, with the final vapor of breath squeezed out of his sacred body before family, friends, and mostly strangers on the cross of Calvary’s hill. What were the rewards? Was it all in vain?

The disciple says, It was worth it. He did this for us. He suffered for our salvation. And he did so, St Peter tells us, to "give us an example that we should follow in his steps" (see 1 Peter 2:20-21). This is essentially St Paul’s idea in today’s epistle: to be joined to Christ is to have a new kind of existence, a new life in which life is now lived for others.

No parable could truly teach the disciples what they could only learn by example through the bloody cross and the empty tomb. To be Christian disciples means to give ourselves away . . . to God, to each other, and to the world.

The gospel reading today draws together the thoughts of the first two readings and gives them precision. It begins with pointed fingers—a bitter family dispute. “Teacher”, someone called out to Jesus, “tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me.” How often have we seen this after someone dies?

Jesus warned this man and others to guard against greed in all forms—to remember that life does not consist in the abundance of things. The older translation is to guard against all forms of “covetousness.” After all, why is this man so concerned about his inheritance? Is it because of a noble and disinterested concern for justice? Or is it a fixation on the material gains that are his rightful inheritance. No one is saying he doesn’t deserve the money. But Jesus reminds us to consider our motives and perspectives.

"Life does not consist in the abundance of things." That verse in the Greek text is idiomatic; it is difficult to translate exactly. One scholar put it this way: “A man’s life does not belong to him no matter how rich he is.” Another commentator suggested, “Because a man has abundance, it does not follow that life consists in amassing wealth.” Or to turn to the Fr Matkin translation (which is not always literally correct, but may get the point across): “As odd as it may seem, sometimes God may want us to get the short end of the stick.”

That news can be hard to swallow, so Jesus told them a parable. His story is essentially a quotation from Old Testament book called Sirach (Ecclesiasticus 11:18-19) There was a rich man who was actually a fool in God's sight, for he lived his life without regard to God and was caught in the toils of futility and vanity. He saw life only with a temporal perspective; he did not “seek the things that are above.”

The land he owned produced plentifully, business was booming, and his biggest problem
was figuring out where to put it all. "Should I build new and larger barns?" he questioned. What problems to have! He never would have thought he had a care in the world. Because of his wisdom, his retirement would be occupied with eating, drinking, and being merry (taking cruises to the Virgin Islands, etc). Who among us would not envy that for ourselves?

Then comes the crashing judgment: “This night your soul is required of you.” That is, "You’re going to die, tonight." Because he thought his own existence was under his own control, it came as a shock to learn that it was God’s to give and God’s to take away again. With his perspective, the rich fool cannot help but consider his life a vain pursuit in the end. He had measured himself according to a worldly standard (a temporal perspective), and found himself confident, wise, and successful. But when he was forced to measure himself against God’s standard (an eternal perspective), the rich fool found himself wanting.

We see that eternal perspective in Jesus’ own life and mission. He was born to endure the cross; he directed his life toward suffering. The rich fool, would have never have willingly gone to the cross. At the end of Luke's gospel, we see the two perspectives contrasted in the two thieves crucified with Jesus.

One turns to Jesus and says, echoing the scoffers below, “Aren’t you the Messiah? Can’t you save us from all this?” The second thief reminds the first, “We deserve to be here, but this man is innocent.” And we see his eternal perspective when the second thief turns to Jesus and says, “Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus says to him, “You will be with me this day in paradise.” The second thief and Jesus shared an eternal perspective.

The book of Hebrews tells us “it was for the joy that was set before him” (the joy of things like giving paradise to this poor sinner) that Jesus “endured the cross, despising the shame, and is now seated at the right hand of the throne of God.” Following Christ means giving ourselves away—to God, to each other, and to the world.

“Vanity of vanities?” Some would undoubtedly say so. “Mystery of mysteries?” Of that, we can all be certain.

No more classes, no more books . . .

When summer approaches, the refrain is "No more classes, no more books, no more teachers, dirty looks" (at least, according to Bugs Bunny). During the school year, students are watching and waiting for any chance of snow, which might mean no school. Some even dream of the day when the school might burn down. It's just part of being a kid.

But I think the children who go to St. Alban's Episcopal School will instead be saddened by the news that the school will not open again in the Fall. They will have to go to school somewhere, of course. I'm sure that's when it will really start to sink in . . . it just won't be the same.

The school struggled financially around the 1999/2000 school year (not exactly sure about the date), and was never able to fully recover. The bold move to a new campus, which sought to address many long-term needs, was simply not enough to bring it back to a solid footing.

There are many wonderful children and families that we have been blessed to serve. It is a community that will be lost. I grieve over that. So many parents and others in our extended family put down their hard earned cash to help secure the school's future. And there are many faculty and staff who have worked very hard andpassed up more lucrative salaries elsewhere and even accepted pay cuts to help the school survive. I hope their sacrifices will one day be rewarded.

Right before I came to St. Alban's Episcopal Church, the chaplain (who worked for the school) had moved to France. Instead of trying to hire a new chaplain, the clergy at the church began to fill that role by teaching classes and leading worship. I have done so for three years now, and I will miss it. Sometimes it has been aggravating (mostly 7th graders) or stressful, but it has always been so rewarding. I already miss doing Morning Prayer with the children, and I know I will miss the dramatic stations of the cross when Holy Week rolls around.

Here are some of my favorite school pictures.

Fr. Beste showing some school children how to go into chapel.


One of my religion classes; at the time, they were 4th graders.



The official opening of the new campus, which is pictured below.



I thought the picture of this student came out perfectly.



The students gave all the input last year for us to come up with our school prayer which we used in chapel for the rest of the year. It goes like this:

MERCIFUL FATHER, from whom all good things come, you have brought us together as St Alban’s Episcopal School: Watch over us, we pray, that the good work which you have begun in us may be a blessing to you and your people from generation to generation; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

But, of course, it would be hard to top this.

Did Jesus just call me "evil"?

I have been meditating this week upon the last line from last Sunday's gospel reading. Jesus said:

Luke 11:13
If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!

The meaning is straightforward enough. The emphasis is on the fact that our heavenly Father is good and generous. The comparison is that even if a bad earthly Father is naturally generous to his children, how much more will a perfect heavenly Father be good and generous to his children.

And then it hits me. Did Jesus just call us good Christians "evil"? It seems a little out of place in some sense. That is, as far as I can tell he is talking to his disciples, not to some hypocritical pharisee which he has just rebuked. He talking to me. Yet I cannot deny the fittingness of the words, given the knowledge of my own sinfulness. It's just so striking when coming from the lips of the Savior. It's all so Calvinistic.

The only commentary I have found addressing it is an insightful one from my 1928 A New Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, which I picked up because Bishop Gore was one of the authors. It has this to say:

Even when Christ is appealing to the natural goodness in men, he will not let us forget our corruption. Luke's word is strong--huparchontes (being by nature) poneroi (bad or mean).

Any further thoughts from my readers? I also found it interesting that Luke 11:13 has the following cross references in my Bible:

Genesis 6:5
The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every(B) intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Genesis 8:21
And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done."

Matthew 12:34
You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

Low expectations

Yesterday, I was working on a healthcare feasibility study questionnaire for the Church Pension Fund. This was sent out to everyone under the Episcopal Church's penion fund program--church employees such as musicians, secretaries, Christian education directors, chaplains, youth ministers, and of course clergy and bishops. I could not help but feel discouraged on the first page. The third question was:

3. Tell us about your healthcare coverage: (Select all that apply. For example, indicate if you are covered by both the Church and by another healthcare plan such as your spouse's/partner's plan).

Now I'm sure that the questionnaire was pretty much a standard format--the same for any corporation that needs to do this kind of study, and it was conducted by a company which specializes in these kinds of things. But these kinds of things are also necessarily tailored for the group being surveyed. Something tells me this question was not worded the same way when surveying a Baptist or Catholic or Methodist or Lutheran group, etc.

The question tells me right off the bat that in the Episcopal Church (except in isolated pockets like the diocese of Fort Worth), there is absolutely no expectation that church leaders, even the clergy who are called to be "wholesome examples to the flock," are supposed to live chaste lives.

It's not like this is any big secret, of course, but it a reminder of how discouraging it is when I'm working with couples to be married or talking with youth about the importance of chastity and not living together outside marriage, and yet the church which nurtured and ordained me has no expectation that I should strive toward same holiness in this one aspect of life.

The epistle reading for next Sunday is very fitting reminder about the vocation of Christian discipleship.

Colossians 3:2-10
Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth, for you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life is revealed, then you also will be revealed with him in glory. Put to death, therefore, whatever in you is earthly: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed (which is idolatry). On account of these the wrath of God is coming on those who are disobedient. These are the ways you also once followed, when you were living that life. But now you must get rid of all such things—anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive language from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have stripped off the old self with its practices and have clothed yourselves with the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its creator.

Lord, teach us to pray.

A Christian missionary in Africa was being chased through the bush by a ravenous, hungry lion. Feeling the beast come closer with every breath, and knowing that his time was short, the man turned to the Lord in prayer. “O Lord, I pray you to make this lion a Christian.”

As soon as he prayed this prayer, the missionary instinctively knew that the lion had stopped the chase. When he turned around to look, sure enough, he saw the lion bowed down on his knees, with his hands folded, and with his lips moving in prayer. Joyous and exhilarated, the missionary wanted to join the lion in meditation. As he knelt down in front of him, the missionary heard the lion praying, “. . . and bless, O Lord this food which you have set before me . . .”

Prayer is fundamental to being Christian disciples. We are called to be God’s people, to enter into a relationship with him, and no relationship is sustained without conversation. Imagine, if you will, that someone close to you--a spouse, parent, or child--someone you see every day, never said "Good morning," never spoke to you, never said “I love you,” never told you what they thought of you, never told you what was on their mind. And yet, some expect to have a healthy relationship with God even if they never answer him.

They never answer in worship--either public or private. They never answer by speaking to the Lord (except maybe when the lions are after them). And I use the word “answer” deliberately in regards to prayer. God always takes the initiative--even when we haven’t realized it. The Bible says, “We love him because he first loved us” (1 Jn 4:19).

The catechism in the Prayer Book answers the question “What is prayer?” by saying that prayer is response--“responding to God by thoughts and by deeds, with or without words.” It puts the old question “do you think God answers prayer?” in perspective. Many people think of prayer as being like room service. We call in and place an order that God is supposed to fill.

But those who are experienced in the art of prayer have a different question in mind. “Have I been answering God in prayer?” is what they are asking. C.S. Lewis said, “I don’t pray because it changes God, I pray because God changes me. I pray because I can’t help myself. I pray because the need flows out of me.”

Do you have a prayer life like that? It is possible. It’s a relationship with God characterized by good communication. Jesus knew the art of prayer, and his disciples saw that. The Twelve were with him all hours of the day--they saw the real Jesus.

They saw things in Jesus like how he would get up extra early in the morning just to go off to a quiet place and spend some time in prayer before the distractions of the day got the best of him. The disciples asked Jesus, “Can you tell us the secret? John the Baptist taught his followers how to pray. Teach us to pray.”

It is here that Jesus teaches the disciples what has been called “the Our Father,” or “the Lord’s Prayer.” I’m sure most of you are familiar with the text, so I won’t go through it line by line. But I would like to highlight a few things that have helped me, because if you’re like me, prayer is not something that comes naturally. (Perhaps it is more natural when the lions are chasing you.) But most of the time, it is something that you need to be very deliberate and intentional about.

Prayer is an art that needs habitual formation. It is no mistake that our worship in the Catholic tradition from Sunday to Sunday and indeed from day to day is very repetitious. We need that constant formation, that regularity that shapes our own interior conversation with God.

1. I’d like to point out first, Jesus’ use of the term Father. And this is a very intimate term--Abba--it means something like “Daddy.” Jesus says when you pray, say “Father in heaven . . .” We need to be constantly reminded that God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, is big enough to fill the universe, yet small enough to dwell in the human heart.

Through Jesus--the only Son of God--we have received this personal access. God is not some distant thing, God is some one--he is our Father. We have been adopted into God’s family, and we have a right to come sit in his lap and call him daddy. Through Jesus, we have been given that privileged, personal access. And we should use it. When we begin to think of prayer in terms of family and conversation and relationship, it breaks down some of the barriers that we have to prayer. It can help prayer become more natural--even “second nature.”

2. I’d like to point out second, that Jesus’ example immediately turns to praise and adoration. When you pray, say, “Father in heaven, hallowed by thy name.” “May you be loved; may you be known everywhere as holy.” If you have not learned to praise, you have not leaned to pray. Does God answer our prayers? Absolutely he answers them. We know that because he is holy; he is wonderful, he is beautiful, he is lovely, he is kind, he is awesome, he is majestic, he is powerful, he is the fount of all goodness, he is the defender of the lowly, he is the source of all purity, he is the savior of the world, he is the abode of justice and mercy, he is the seat of all virtue, he is the giver of peace, he is the fairest of ten thousand, he is a worker of miracles, he is worthy of all praise.

What should occupy the highest calling of every parish church is the worship of almighty God. If we are not here for that reason, we are here for no reason at all. Adoration is the highest act of man--something done for God alone. As the catechism in the prayer book tells us, “Adoration is the lifting up of the heart and mind to God, asking nothing but to enjoy God’s presence.”

If you want to know what prayer is, you need to begin by practicing praise and adoration. Set aside time in the morning to praise. Set aside time in the evening simply to sit in silence and love the Lord. If there is something noble and rewarding that you regularly do, say, “I’m doing this for the Lord, to show God I love him.” Prayer can sanctify all the precious moments of our lives when we make them offerings to God, when we say “I’m doing this as an act of love, I’m doing this because I love the Lord.” When you learn to make you life a prayer, your life will change forever.

3. I’d like to point out third, Jesus’ tells us that God is a generous and powerful giver of gifts. All good things come from above, and we should bring our needs straight to the source.

While some people mistakenly picture God as a cosmic bellhop--waiting to meet our every demand--others go to far in the other direction. They feel like they should never ask for anything from God. But Jesus says no; that’s not what God is like. A Father wants to shower gifts on his children.

One of the lapel pins I wear on my jacket is a depiction of Madonna and child in the style known as “Our Lady of Perpetual Help.” When people ask me about it, I remind them, if you don’t ask for help, you don’t get it.

In the Old Testament lesson today, we see Abraham interceding with God to spare the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. He easily whittled the number down to ten--“If there are ten righteous people in Sodom,” God says, “I will not destroy it.” The truth is that if there was one righteous person in Sodom, God would have spared the city. But no one there was asking for mercy.

This church has needs--needs that it will never see met if there are not people praying for those needs to be met. Each one of you has needs in your personal life--needs that will not be met until you bring them to the Lord. Often because the things we really need most, are the things that only God can provide. I pray that everyone in this room today may feel something of the power and generosity of God. The Lord is powerful.

How long has it been since you really felt prayed for? God offers that opportunity to us. Remember to call upon the God we know intimately as Father. Remember to lavish your love and adoration upon him. And do not be ashamed to call upon his power and goodness.

Let me leave you today with the words of the Lord Jesus, “And I say to you, Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened. What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish, give him a serpent? or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you who are evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

The forgotten third English province

I was reading through Bishop Moorman's A History of the Church in England the other day and ran across this little historical detail which I had forgotten--the short-lived third ecclesiastical province of the church of England, the province of Lichfield. Here is the excerpt from his book:

In the second half of the eighth century it was the turn of Mercia to reach such a position [of prominence over the other kingdoms on the island]. Under the wise and powerful rule of King Offa (757-96), Mercia rose to such power that its king claimed to be 'king of all the English' though such a claim would, no doubt, have been challenged in many parts of the country. Offa was undoubtedly much the greatest ruler of his generation in England. A man of big ideas, he was one of the few English rulers who had a definite foreign connection, corresponding both with the pope and with Charlemagne. He was also a great benefactor to the Church and the founder of many monasteries.

Yet his policy with regard to the Church was mistaken. At a time when the Church was the only real unifying force in the country, Offa conceived a plan for separating Mercia from the rest of the pro­vince of Canterbury and giving it its own archbishop. Such a desire sprang from patriotism and zeal for his own kingdom; but it was disastrous for the Church. It meant that, at the moment when the Church of the southern province was beginning to act strongly and unitedly in the cause of reform, it was to be split into two. Offa, how­ever, was determined to carry out his project and invited the pope to send to England two legates with power to carry through such a division of the province.

The two legates, George, Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia, and Theophylact, Cardinal-Bishop of Todi, arrived in England in 786, the first of a long series of papal legates who were later to play an important part in the history of England. They made a visitation not only of the southern but also of the northern province and held councils at 'Pincahala' (probably Finchale near Durham) and at Celchyth or Chelsea, both in 787. At both these councils decrees were passed, similar to those promulgated by other reforming councils, and in the same year they succeeded in carrying out the primary purpose of their visit which was to give authority for the division of the southern province into two. Offa thus achieved his ambition; Lichfield became a metropolitan see with its own archbishop and six other dioceses under its jurisdiction—Worcester, Hereford, Leicester, Sherbome, Elmham and Dunwich—leaving only Rochester, London, Winchester and Selsey to the Archbishop of Canterbury. This arrangement lasted until a few years after the death of Offa, but was brought to an end in 803.

A history of the Diocese of Fort Worth

I have put all five segments of my history paper on the diocese into one front-to-back post, below. When we consider our future, I think it's important to consider our past. Have a look.

Forward in Mission: Parts 1-5

Forward in Mission to Equip the Saints for the Work of Ministry: A History of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth

1. The Episcopal Mission in Texas

Episcopalians have had a presence in Texas since it was under the rule of Mexico, although they were not legally permitted to openly practice their faith at that time. During the Texas revolution in 1835, the Rev’d Richard Salmon led a missionary settlement from New York state, and established schools at Brazoria and Houston. Along with a fellow Anglican missionary priest named Chester Newell, Salmon applied to the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Episcopal Church for appointments as foreign missionaries, but they were denied. It was not until 1839 that the first Episcopal church was organized in Texas; the Rev’d Caleb Smith Ives established Christ Church at Matagorda. That same year, services were held in Houston, Galveston, Valesco, and Quintana. And Christ Church, Houston was also organized as a parish. (1)

Above, Christ Church in Metagorda. Below, Bishop Leonidas Polk.

Bishop Leonidas Polk had oversight of these churches as Missionary Bishop of the Southwest. After visiting Texas in 1839, he recommended establishing a bishopric in Texas as soon as possible, especially since Bishop Polk himself had relatives who had migrated there from Tennessee and North Carolina. His venture across the Red River into northern Texas was called by Bishop Kinsolving the “first foreign missionary visit” of an Episcopal bishop, because Texas was at that time an independent Republic, and would remain so until 1845. (2)

At the General Convention of 1844, George Washington Freeman was elected as Missionary Bishop of the Southwest, with provisional oversight of the Church in the Republic of Texas. Texas was annexed to the United States in 1846, and the organization of the Diocese of Texas soon followed in Matagorda in 1849. In 1859, Alexander Gregg was elected the first Bishop of Texas. Growth was so extensive in the church there that the diocese petitioned General Convention for division in 1871. Three years later, Northern and Western Texas became two missionary districts—separated from the Episcopal Diocese of Texas in the Southeast. (3)

Above, The Right Rev'd Alexander Charles Garrett.

Alexander Charles Garrett, Dean of Trinity Cathedral in Omaha, was elected as the first bishop of missionary district of Northern Texas. A High Churchman of eloquence, learning, and passion, Garrett quickly set about building and planting churches in his mission field. He designated St. Matthew’s in Dallas as his cathedral and missionary outpost, and by 1895, the district had grown strong enough to become a diocese. The newly formed Diocese of Dallas remained such until 1910, when the Western portion was separated from Dallas as the remaining missionary district of Northern Texas. Garrett, the “Apostle to Northern Texas,” succeeded Daniel Tuttle as Presiding Bishop in 1923. His strong leadership, catholic faith, and missionary zeal left a lasting impression on the Episcopal Church around Dallas. (4)

Above, the high altar of St. Matthew's Cathedral in Dallas.

The Dean of St. Matthew’s Cathedral in Dallas, Harry Tunis Moore, was elected coadjutor in 1917, and succeeded Garrett as diocesan in 1924. For Bishop Moore, the diocese existed to create and build strong parishes. (5) His successor, Charles Avery Mason, also worked tirelessly to move missions to parish status and to support parish expansion and construction projects. As Executive Secretary of the Forward in Service Movement, and then as Bishop of Dallas from 1946—1970, Mason’s zeal at his work was exercised at the risk of his own health.

Archibald Donald Davies, the fourth Bishop of Dallas, was, like Garrett, Dean of Trinity Cathedral in Omaha. And also like the first Bishop of Dallas, Davies had a heart for mission. But Davies coupled that concern with a stress on renewal and a strategy for the future. It is this bishop who brings forth the churches in Fort Worth to carry on this heritage with an innovative and evangelistic spirit in a rapidly changing ecclesiastical climate. The story of the young Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is one of being a missionary church in an era of conflict.

2. Catholic and Apostolic: Carving out a new Diocese

By 1982, the Diocese of Dallas had grown to encompass 115 parishes and missions, 244 resident clergy, and 39,000 communicants. These numbers were slightly down from the beginning of Bishop Davies’ ministry in Dallas in 1970. (6) However, it was thought that division of the diocese was an inevitable move whose time had come because of numerical growth and geographical concerns. A decade’s worth of long-range planning for mission, first investigated by Bishop C. Avery Mason, saw that the numerical growth in the two metropolitan centers necessitated some kind of change for the future of ministry in North Central Texas. Even with one suffragan, episcopal visitations could not be made yearly to every congregation as the situation stood in 1982.

The territory of the new diocese of Fort Worth is highlighted in gold.

The Diocese of Texas, in comparison, decided to remain a large unit by having a second suffragan and help from assistant bishops. It is now the second largest diocese in the Episcopal Church. The case of Dallas was different geographically. The polarization of the twin cities of Dallas and Fort Worth provided mirror images of a diocese with rural missions supported by a large metropolitan see. It provided a nice even division, and the resulting jurisdictions were also more akin to the catholic model of a diocese, which is smaller in geographical size and oriented around a see city.

The division of 1 January 1983 was probably inevitable from the beginning, and it was the leadership of Bishop Davies that took advantage of this call to adventure in mission. As Bishop Garrett noted in the 1910 diocesan journal,

"The twin cities of Dallas and Fort Worth are growing like young giants. The little towns are stretching out their steel fingers with emerald rings strung all along to bind each other together in bonds of common life and hope of enterprise. They call upon me every day for enlarged facilities for doing their work." (7)

As separate jurisdictions, the two churches would be closer to the people, and be better able to equip them for mission in local congregations and beyond.

The Rev'd Canon James P. DeWolfe, Jr., of All Saints', Fort Worth.

The transition was smoothly achieved within six months of the decision by the diocesan convention—due in part to extensive planning and Bishop Davies’ leadership. Canon James DeWolfe, rector of All Saints’ Church in Forth Worth, noted, “The time was simply right. The homework was done, the need was clear, and General Convention was just around the corner.” (8) As part of his commitment toward a sound transition, Bishop Davies decided to accept the call to become the first bishop of the new (and the financially and numerically weaker) Diocese of Forth Worth.

The Rt Rev'd A. Donald Davies, first Bishop of Fort Worth.

Close working relations with the congregations and lay involvement were two of the founding principles of the Diocese of Fort Worth. In drawing up the constitution of the new diocese, emphasis was put on the participation of the deaneries—represented by the dean and one elected layperson on the Executive Council. This difference in the Fort Worth diocesan constitution was created to foster Bishop Davies’ goals of ensuring greater lay participation in decision making and prompting creative and cooperative adventures in ministry. (9)

The Chrism Mass of the new diocese, held at St Christopher's.

Controversy was also a part of the birth of a separate Diocese of Fort Worth. Though, this aspect has probably been over-stressed in the past. By separating from Dallas, it is argued, the new diocese (like the Evangelical and Catholic Mission) could establish an orthodox safe-haven that would be for conservatives a “place to stand” within the Episcopal Church.

However, the deep division among the clergy, and to a lesser extent the laity, reflected at Bishop Iker’s election in 1992 indicated that this concept was more a perception than a reality. Likewise, Dallas was not necessarily carved out as a contrasting place of liberal experimentation as is sometimes thought. According to a survey by the search committee to elect a new bishop for Dallas in 1983, most of the laity in the diocese wanted their new bishop to take negative stands on the ordination of women, charismatic renewal, and homosexual ministries. (10)

In reality, for the Episcopal Church in Fort Worth, ministry and fidelity to the Church’s tradition have always gone together. The Church does not retain its teaching for itself, but for others. Therefore, as Bishop Garrett noted, the missionary idea “is the fundamental idea of an Apostolic Church.” (11) This thought resonated at the first diocesan convention of Fort Worth in October of 1983, when progress in missionary efforts was already being made.

Bishop Davies of Fort Worth concluded his opening address by saying, “We are about to make a transition in Episcopal leadership in one of the most alive and exciting dioceses in the Anglican Communion.” As a part of this renewed missionary endeavor, Davies stated, “The Diocese of Fort Worth is here to stay as a witness to our Lord Jesus Christ and as a visible part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” (12)

3. Pope and the Partisanship

One of the reasons that the Diocese of Dallas was divided in 1982 was that Bishop Davies had announced that he would retire in 1985, and Davies did not want to leave the difficult task to his successor. Therefore, at the first diocesan convention in Fort Worth, Davies (now Bishop of Fort Worth) called for a coadjutor to be elected in 1984 to lead the new newly created diocese upon his retirement. Their choice was The Rev’d Clarence C. Pope, Jr., rector of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Bishop Davies did not end up retiring from active church ministry, however. At the request of Presiding Bishop John Allin, Davies went on to serve as bishop for the Convocation of American Churches in Europe from 1985-1988. (13)

Bishop Davies hands the crozier to Bishop Pope after his consecration.

As the second Bishop of Fort Worth, Clarence Pope inherited Davies’ initiatives on renewal and mission. But what was to prove even more significant was that Pope inherited a position of leadership among the bishops of the Evangelical and Catholic Mission (ECM). Davies was also a member of the group, founded in 1976 by bishops Stanley Atkins and Charles Gaskell as a fellowship of conservative Episcopalians (particularly Anglo-Catholics) who decided to remain as an orthodox witness in the Episcopal Church following the first ordinations of women to the priesthood in Philadelphia in 1974. Other concerned churchmen, meeting in St. Louis in 1976, had decided to break with the national Church and establish churches that would continuing to maintain exclusive use of the 1928 Prayer Book and a male priesthood.

Bishop Clarence Pope took his role of leadership at home and on the national scene seriously. The chief areas of conflict for ECM within the national church were the ordination of women to the priesthood (authorized by General Convention in 1976) and the struggle to maintain biblical morality in teaching and practice. The struggle intensified with the election of Edmond Browning as Presiding Bishop in 1986, who, unlike previous the Presiding Bishop John Allin, enthusiastically supported the ordination of women as well as gay rights issues. With his strong will, eloquent voice, and depth of experience, Pope met these challenges head-on.

The Rt Rev'd Clarence C. Pope, Jr., II Bishop of Fort Worth.

The ordination of women quickly became the norm in most dioceses of the Episcopal Church. However, it was the election of the first female bishop (Barbara Harris as suffragan of Massachusetts) in 1988 that prompted action by the ECM. It was decided to convene a synod of the ECM clergy and people in Fort Worth on June 1-3, 1989. “The final crisis of the Episcopal Church is now upon us,” wrote the ECM bishops in a pastoral letter. They explained: "The purpose of this Synod will be to consider how we shall be the Church within the Episcopal Church and to adopt a detailed and unified plan for active witness in the face of the institution’s present disintegration." (14)

The meeting of the ECM in 1989 in Fort Worth begot a new organization to succeed it—the Episcopal Synod of America—with Bishop Pope as its first president. The election of a female diocesan seemed inevitable with the consecration of Bishop Harris, and did occur in 1993 when the Diocese of Vermont elected Archdeacon Mary Adelia McLeod of West Virginia as their diocesan bishop. The Synod dealt with the question of episcopal ministry for parishes that may not accept female bishops. In light of the episcopal visitor’s clause created by the 1988 General Convention, the ESA resolved to provide the ministry of alternative episcopal visitors where requested. (15)

Women Anglican bishops gathered at the 1998 Lambeth Conference.

This was, however, a provisional action. The advent of female diocesan bishops was approaching, and the movement toward the ordination of women was gaining momentum in England. While Pope was publicly trying to plug the leaks in the Episcopal Church, privately he was seeking a long-term solution. For Pope, the most promising solution lay beyond the Alps. “I was thrilled to the possibility for our communion [with Rome],” said Bishop Pope, “as the Anglican— Roman Catholic International Commission took up their work and made such wonderful progress in finding a way forward toward organic reunion between Rome and Canterbury.” (16)

The official dialogue between the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

With the Roman and Anglican Communions going in opposite directions on the question of women’s ordination, that hope was steadily diminishing. But perhaps it still would be possible on a smaller scale. Was there a place for whole Anglican dioceses and associated parishes to find a home in the Roman Catholic Church? Bernard Cardinal Law of Boston, head of the Anglican Use congregations under the “Pastoral Provision” of 1980, was lobbying for an extension of the program in the United States.

Bernard Cardinal Law, former Archbishop of Boston.

With the help of Cardinal Law, Bishop Pope attempted to negotiate at most a kind of personal prelature (modeled on Opus Dei) or perhaps an expanded pastoral provision similar to a uniat province (with their own liturgy and bishops, under Canon 372, §2) with the Holy See. Cardinal Hume of Westminster was also lobbying for a similar arrangement in England. Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, was very supportive. In 1990, Bishop Clarence Pope met with Pope John Paul II, who embraced the Anglican bishop and gestured toward him, saying “in communion.” (17)

Prospects could not have appeared better, yet when Bishop Pope returned to Texas, nothing happened. Action on the plan had been stalled by Roman Catholic bishops in England. They did not want to receive a large faction of English Catholics opposed to the ordination of women and loyal to the pope. They produced a counter-proposal stating that Anglicans could convert as groups, but would then be absorbed into mainstream parish life. They could not maintain an Anglican identity as several parishes in the US had done under the pastoral provision.

This development essentially took away the Roman option for English Anglo-Catholics. With the succession of George Carey in the see of Canterbury 1991 and the approval of female priests in England in 1992, there were some conversions to Rome, but on a smaller scale and only as individuals. Back in America, what was once a communion-wide possibility and eventually only a diocesan possibility, was now merely a personal possibility. Many traditional Anglicans felt that the dawn of female priests in England left them no choice. In 1991, the parish of St. Mary the Virgin in Arlington voted to leave the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth for communion with Rome. On the other side of Fort Worth, the Church of the Holy Apostles decided that they could no longer remain in the Episcopal Church either. They changed their affiliation to the Antiochian Orthodox Church in 1992.

Bishop Pope, in ailing health and despondent over the long wait for a corporate reunion with Rome which was never to come, announced on 25 October 1994 that he would convert to Roman Catholicism upon his retirement at the end of the year. Bishop Pope cited the 1992 act of synod to ordain women as priests in the Church of England as the final impetus in his decision. “It was then,” said Pope, “that I became very aware that the pilgrimage I had longed to take corporately would now have to be taken alone.” While most of the leaders in the diocese sympathized with the bishop, others left behind in the Episcopal Church felt abandoned. His fellow ESA bishop, William Sheridan, remarked, “It’s a terrible self-centeredness.” (18)

Clarence Pope and his wife Martha were received into the Roman Catholic Church by Cardinal Law in a special ceremony at the former Episcopal parish of St. Mary the Virgin in Arlington. However, Pope’s plight was not over. The Popes retired to their former home of Baton Rouge in Louisiana. Clarence Pope presented himself to the local bishop for priestly ordination under the terms of the pastoral provision. Pope felt that a continuation of his ministry would allow him to serve out his calling in a new home. The Catholic bishop of Baton Rouge announced that he would be happy to ordain Pope as a priest . . . pending the approval of his diocesan priests’ council (which finally returned a negative vote).

Pope was isolated from the Catholic community in Baton Rouge and he started getting calls from his successor in Fort Worth, Bishop Jack Iker, and from Episcopal Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning to withdraw his resignation from the House of Bishops and return to the Anglican fold. Less than a year after their conversion, the Popes returned to the Episcopal Church. Pope confessed that he tended to idealize the Roman Catholic Church and found the reality somewhat different. He also noted increasing discomfort with the idea of absolute (re)ordination and a sense of guilt that he had abandoned traditionalists in the Episcopal Church. (19)

4. A Difficult Transition

Bishop Pope’s leadership—which tended to be perceived as equating national leadership in the ESA with leadership back in the Diocese of Fort Worth—was not without opposition at home. Some contested Pope’s conservative views; others agreed with them, but did not want to be drawn into a political struggle. All Saints’ Cathedral in Fort Worth (a generally conservative parish) was seen as being used to promote Pope’s agenda with which most parishioners agreed. However, the dean, the Very Rev’d William D. Nix, Jr. and members of the Vestry complained about being tied to the ESA’s national political struggle. A period of conflict between All Saints’ and the diocesan office led to the parish choosing to end its status as the pro-cathedral of the new diocese.

All Saints' Cathedral in Fort Worth.

Others were hoping to move the Diocese of Fort Worth more in line with the policies of the national church. In order to obtain episcopal assistance and forestall the possible election of a liberal successor, Pope called for the election of a coadjutor in 1992 without announcing his retirement. The ordination of women was a contentious issue throughout the election process. The nomination committee put forth four candidates—Fr. Jack Iker of the Church of the Redeemer in Sarasota, Florida; Fr. Keith Ackerman of St. Mark’s in Arlington, Texas; Dean Richard Hatfield of Christ Cathedral in Salina, Kansas; and Fr. Dwight Duncan of St. Matthias in Dallas. All four candidates indicated that they would neither ordain women as priests, nor license them to minister in the diocese.

The Rt Rev'd Jack Leo Iker, III Bishop of Fort Worth.

A group of liberal opposition called the Council of Laity nominated Fr. John Payne of All Saints’ Church in Wichita Falls, Texas from the floor of the convention, held in October of 1992. Although originally a member of the ESA, Payne had grown to favor the ordination of women. The Rev’d Jack Iker won decisively on the sixth ballot, but the opposition party refused to join the customary unanimous resolution vote out of protest over his opposition to the ordination of women. (20)

St Stephen's Presbyterian Church in Fort Worth, the site of the consecration.

The Council of Laity continued their protest by a campaign to thwart the process of consent from other diocesan standing committees and bishops. Within a short time of the election, a significant number of refusals came in from standing committees across the Episcopal Church. Bishop Pope called Iker at the time and advised him to not resign from his parish nor come to look for a house in Fort Worth just yet. A very slim margin of standing committee consents was finally obtained on 26 January 1993, after a push by Bishops Benitez, Bowman, and Kelshaw who insisted that the Church honor its commitments to tolerance on the women’s ordination issue. (21) Iker was finally consecrated as a bishop on 24 April 1993 at St. Stephen’s Presbyterian Church in Fort Worth amid picketers outside, and six formal protests inside. (22)

5. A Renewed Focus on Mission

Upon the retirement of Clarence Pope in 1995, Jack Leo Iker became the third Bishop of Fort Worth. Bishop Iker’s pontificate has been marked by growing unity and revitalization on the diocesan level. Since his election, Iker has explicitly attempted to build bridges with both those who supported and opposed him. “I recognize and respect your position and rightful place in the church,” he told convention delegates. “I make the commitment to love you and work with you wherever you happen to be on the theological spectrum. I simply ask you to do the same.” While he has remained active in the ESA (now Forward in Faith, North America), Iker has not taken on leadership of the organization as did Bishop Pope.

Bishop Iker has also been vocal about his commitment to stay in the Episcopal Church. One of his first actions was to designate St. Vincent’s Church in Bedford—a young, vibrant congregation—as the pro-Cathedral for the duration of his episcopate. Like Bishop Terwilliger, the late suffragan of Dallas, Iker has decided not to confront the Episcopal Church by threatening to leave, but by threatening to stay.

The Chrism Mass at St Vincent's Cathedral in Bedford, TX.

As coadjuctor, Bishop Iker presided over the last diocesan convention (October 1994) before Bishop Pope’s retirement. The executive director of the ESA, Fr. Samuel Edwards, proposed resolutions that would have repealed Article 1 of the diocesan constitution, and enabled parishes to secede with their property, and would have removed from parishes the option of sending money to the national church. “We need to begin disengaging from a morally corrupt national organizational structure,” said Fr. Edwards. Edwards argued that the action would not exactly be leaving the Episcopal Church, but only disengaging from it’s national control.

But Bishop Iker countered from the chair that passage of the resolution would in fact mean the diocese would be seceding from the Episcopal Church, and urged others to vote against the resolutions. Although national issues may be troubling, Iker noted, leaving is not the way to address the problem. The resolutions were rejected.

Similarly, when Bishop Pope announced his decision to leave the Episcopal Church, Bishop Iker quickly put out a pastoral letter in which he expressed sympathy with Pope’s concerns, but also stated: "It should be stressed that this is a personal decision of Bishop Pope’s and indicates no change of direction for the Diocese of Fort Worth. This is a time for us all to pull closer together as a diocese and to move forward with the work God has given us to do with gladness and singleness of heart. I still believe we have an important role to play within the Episcopal Church, and by God’s grace, I intend to lead us in this vocation with courage and enthusiasm."

Despite conflict with the national church, or perhaps because of it (with a growing sense of the irrelevance of national church policies), the Diocese of Fort Worth has steered away from separatist political considerations and focused more on renewal and mission at home. One of Bishop Iker’s stated goals for the diocese was a plan for emphasis upon evangelism and spiritual renewal.

This led to his first Conference on Evangelism and Renewal, held at the downtown parish of St. Andrew’s in April of 1995. The conference was called a spiritual pep rally by the bishop. It also provided important workshops for clergy and lay leaders on learning to joyfully and effectively share the gospel within and beyond their congregations. “We must be anointed by God and empowered by the Spirit to go forth and share the good news with others,” said Iker. But, he added that we must also “first be convinced ourselves that it is good news, and that it is worth sharing.”

In a further attempt to build bridges and meet needs at home in the diocese, Bishop Iker developed “The Dallas Plan” together with Bishop James Stanton of Dallas. This informal pastoral arrangement was developed to meet the needs of potential female ordinands as well as congregations on both sides of the issue of women’s ordination. The agreement supplies workable provisions for both the ordination and priestly ministry of women. At present, no congregation has called a female assistant priest or rector, but several women have been ordained to the priesthood through the Dallas Plan.

Bishop Iker at the Altar with Dallas Bishop James M. Stanton.

In spite of this agreement, the 1997 General Convention voted to amend the canons to make the ordination of women mandatory in all dioceses of the Episcopal Church. “The tragic thing,” noted Iker, “is that they are seeking to require something that the Scriptures do not require.” It was also the Anglican principle of not requiring things not found in holy Scripture which led to a diocesan constitutional amendment, qualifying the moral teaching authority of General Convention.

Because of the impending approval of same-sex blessings by the national church, the 1997 diocesan convention of Fort Worth changed the wording of the diocesan constitution to indicate that it recognizes the authority of the national Constitution and Canons and the General Convention, “provided that no action of General Convention which is contrary to Holy Scripture and the Apostolic Teaching of the Church shall be of any force or effect” in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.

Although the constitutional change does not weaken the tension with the national church, it does allow the diocese to remain in the Episcopal Church while in good conscience remaining loyal to Anglican tradition. The Bishop also cautioned against reading too much into the change. “I want to say again that I am not leading a secret movement out of the Episcopal Church,” Iker stated to the delegates. “I am working to carve out a place to stand. I will do whatever it takes to defend this diocese from revisionism, heresy, and factionalism.”

Indeed, Bishop Iker has called Fort Worth anew to its purpose since the beginning of the Church crossed into Texas—being a missionary Church. Following the bishop’s request in September 2001, the Executive Council adopted as the mission statement for Fort Worth: “To equip the Saints for the work of ministry” (Eph 4:12). At the 2001 Diocesan Convention, Iker noted: "The central theme that I have turned to year after year in these convention addresses has been the same for the past nine years—mission. I have called us to become a truly missionary diocese, focused upon evangelism, outreach, and church growth."

The future of the church in Fort Worth lies in carrying on its heritage—the apostolic work of ministry, rooted in the catholic faith.

Bishop Iker on a mission trip in the companion Diocese of Northern Malawi.

Notes
1. Lawrence L. Brown, “Protestant Episcopal Church,” in the Online Texas Handbook.
2. Clause A. Beesley, The Episcopal Church in Northern Texas (Wichita Falls: privately printed, 1952), 13, 10.
3. Ibid., 20, 32.
4. C. Preston Wiles, The Episcopal Diocese of Dallas: A Centennial Narrative History (Dallas: privately printed, 1995), 9-25.
5. Ibid., 26.
6. Ibid., 46.
7. Quoted in The Living Church 185, no. 24 (12 December 1982): 7.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Reported in an article by Helen Parmley in the Dallas Morning News, cited in The Christian Challenge XXII, no. 5 (May 1983): 18.
11. Alexander C. Garrett, The Church: Its Mission and Principals of Growth (Hartford: Wiley, Waterman, & Eaton, 1876.), 25.
12. A. Donald Davies, “The Bishop’s Address to the First Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Forth Worth,” (sermon of the opening Eucharist of the Convention at Trinity Episcopal Church, Forth Worth, TX) 8 October 1983.
13. The Living Church 191, no. 25 (22 December 1985): 7.
14. A. Donald Davies, ed., The Episcopal Synod of America: Speeches, Sermons, Documents and Pictures from the Founding Meeting (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse, 1990), 107-110.
15. David L. Holmes, A Brief History of the Episcopal Church (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1993), 169-70; and Davies, ed., Ibid., 121-122.
16. The Living Church 209, no. 20 (13 November 1994): 6.
17. For a detailed narrative of the negotiations for union with Rome, see: William Oddie, The Roman Option: Crisis and the Realignment of English-speaking Christianity. New York: HarperCollins, 1997. Available used.
18. The Living Church 209, no. 20 (13 November 1994): 6.
19. The Living Church 211, no. 11 (10 September 1995): 19.
20. The Living Church 205, no. 17 (25 October 1992): 6.
21. The Christian Challenge XXXII, no. 2 (March 1993): 16-17.
22. The Living Church 206, no. 20 (16 May 1993): 6.
23. The Living Church 205, no. 17 (25 October 1992): 6.
24. The Living Church 209, no. 18 (30 October 1994): 6.
25. The Living Church 209, no. 20 (13 November 1994): 6.
26. The Living Church 210, no. 25 (18 June 1995): 6.
27. As Bishop Iker explained, “Any woman in this Diocese who wishes to enter into the ordination process for the priesthood must first secure the endorsement of her parish priest and then arrange for an interview of the two of them with me. I then recommend her to Bishop Stanton so that she may enter into the discernment process in Dallas. If any congregation here insists on going against my wishes and must have a woman priest at their church, I am willing to relinquish my episcopal oversight of that congregation to Bishop Stanton, so that he may license and institute a woman priest there. The congregation would remain fully a part of this Diocese; the woman priest would be fully a part of the Diocese of Dallas, while serving under this special pastoral provision. The desire to continue to live and work together, in spite of differences on this issue, means that this is a good and workable plan for this Diocese” (from the Forward in Mission, a publication of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, September 1997).
28. Jack L. Iker, “Conservatively Speaking.” Interview by Jim DeLa (Advent 2000). The Southern Cross, a publication of the Diocese of Southwest Florida; c.f., Article VI of the Articles of Religion, in The Book of Common Prayer, 868.
29. The Living Church 215, no. 23 (7 December 1997): 6.
30. Ibid., 8.
31. Jack L. Iker, “The Bishop’s Address to the Nineteenth Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Forth Worth,” (sermon of the opening Eucharist of the Convention at the Church of the Holy Apostles, Forth Worth, TX) 9 November 2001.