Friday, November 21, 2008

Rumors Abound: Bishop Iker inhbited? Turn, turn, turn ...

Episcopal Schism Widens.

The House of Bishops/House of Deputies listserve is a-swirl that the Rt. Rev'd Jack Iker, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth, has been inhibited by Katharine Jefferts Schori. No announcement has yet come from The Penthouse (which apparently had to ring up the Usual Suspects first) nor has The Subject been informed either. Hate it when that happens. Of course, it could all be rumor and innuendo - but then beach-front property in Reno might be this year's safe bet, too.

UPDATE: Don't buy the beach house yet. See update below.

For some reason, upon hearing the news, the song below popped up on the memory playlist. We like the groovy arrangement. And the mod-hair - and Roger McGuinns' cool-bean shades. Bono was like, five years old when this thing went down. It's all, like, well, totally wow.

Nothing like listening to the Byrds while waiting for the PB's latest form letter. Wonder if she's gotten the autopen yet?

SATURDAY AM UPDATE: Well, here we are, the latest form letter from The Penthouse. Click here to open the letter to read.

The Byrds are back and spinning the tunes. Click play and then click here to open the letter.

Then take me disappearin' through the smoke rings of my mind,
Down the foggy ruins of time, far past the frozen leaves,
The haunted, frightened trees, out to the windy beach,
Far from the twisted reach of crazy sorrow.
Yes, to dance beneath the diamond sky with one hand waving free,
Silhouetted by the sea, circled by the circus sands,
With all memory and fate driven deep beneath the waves,
Let me forget about today until tomorrow.

-B. Dylan

LATER: Read the excellent post at Anglican Curmudgeon on why this political action of inhibiting and deposing opponents is spacey and pointless. No one has abandoned the communion, according to the canons.

In fact, the way Schori and her handlers are using the canons is the same way Schori's lawyers attempted to manipulate the Virginia 57-9 Statute. When they were before Judge Randy Bellows in court, they actually divided the statute into either two parts on one poster board or two poster boards. Then they may have put a sheet over one section of the statute or took one section out of view of the judge (I can't remember the mechanics exactly, except that only one section of the statute was in view) and then spent their time arguing their case with only a section of the statute showing, not the whole thing.

(NOTE: I've got some anons upset (and we love our anons here at the cafe) and I am trying hard to remember after six months the actual mechanics of how TEC separated the statute into two parts - it may have been one poster board with a part covered or two completely separate poster boards, I'll ask the lawyers and let you know - but it was clear that to make their argument they artificially separated the statute into two parts and then took one part out of central view of the judge - which of course, is the point).

After this went on for quite a while (and I was ready to jump out of my seat), the judge calmly and perhaps rather wryly told them that what they were saying was conflicting with the other part of the statute. When the TEC lawyers looked at him blankly, he told them to show the rest of the statute. He wanted them to read the statute in context.

Anglican Curmudgeon wants us to read the word "communion" in context - something Schori and her handlers do not want the laity - and the purse of the church - to know.

MAKE A NOTE: The three senior bishops remain Wimberly,, Lee, and Frade. Bishop Wimberly's coadjutor was consecrated today. Bishop Lee, who all ready has a coadjutor - may announce his retirement as soon as the next Diocesan Council in Jan-Feb (unless he wants to hold on through his announced appeal in the Virginia litigation). Bishop Frade seems intact for now. Waiting in the wings, Orris Walker has now called for a coadjutor and that process is underway. So, who's next on the list to rise as a Senior Bishop of The Episcopal Church?

None other than John W. Howe, former rector of Truro. We are sure that the folks at 815 are making nice with him, lest he upset their apple cart. But John Howe, like John McCain, is a maverick. Let's watch that space.


Anglican Beach Party said...

Thanks for posting the Byrds video, BB! I am a huge fan of the Byrds (they were the first band that I really called "mine", and I still "blame" Jim/Roger McGuinn for causing me to first pick up an electric guitar). So, of course I've heard Turn! Turn! Turn! hundreds of times.

But it only seems to move me - I only can allow the lyrics to move me - when I encounter it unexpectedly, such as here on your blog, in the context of waiting for the PB's next chess move. The song is also part of the soundtrack to the film Heart Like a Wheel, which is the story of Shirley Muldowney, the first female Funny Car / Top Fuel (drag race) pilot. It affected me similarly in that context.

The video, too. What strikes me is that this is 1965 (and, therefore, pre-Summer-of-Love), and "longhair" bands still wore suit jackets to perform (following on the Beatles, of course - Jim McGuinn founded the Byrds after seeing A Hard Day's Night), and you can see on the dance floor a young man with short hair, narrow-lapel suit, and skinny tie.

Two years later ... bellbottoms, moccasins, headband, and tie-dyed T-shirt would have been required.

Anyhow, thanks.

Yours, as always,

BabyBlue said...

Great commentary, Beach - er, Paul! We sure can see the clues of the transition-period of this particular film. Gotta love Roger's specs. Turn, Turn, Turn must be on the soundtrack of this particular generation, whatever crisis we face.

Of course, there's nothing like groovin' to the tune when it all goes to the birds.


BabyBlue said...

The Poster Board story is corrected - it was one poster board divided in two rather than two posters. One section of the poster was covered only showing the section the TEC attorneys wanted to argue and the judge to see. The judge requested that the cover be removed so that the statute could be seen in context.

Thank you Anon for helping make this correction.


ToAllTheWorld said...

bb, it's Wimberly (not Wantland, unfortunately), Lee, and Frade...

But I find the notice of Inhibition interesting. It seems that, in the other recent cases, we have seen some sort of letter addressed to the "subject" of the Inhibition, with all sorts of "Your Servant in Christ, +KJS" stuff. This notice merely says, "I hereby direct that notice of this Inhibition be given to Bishop Iker forthwith..." It's like she is not going near this one personally.

Maybe KJS' asbestos gloves and Kevlar vest are at the cleaners.

Peter said...

I am sure that Byrds song also appeared on the first New Seekers or was it Peter Paul and Mary tape I bought.

Then a bit later there was this.

BabyBlue said...

Thanks, ToAllTheWorld - thought Wimberly, typed Wantland. The mind boggles at what the difference could have been! Wimberly still gets his coadjutor today. Wantland, now in the Southern Cone, wants to be made an honorary member of the HOB since he - as is Bishop Iker - is still in the recognized Communion, though - a fascinating development.

I agree too in this latest letter - this is legal document only. We're passed the frivolity of niceties and fake sentiment. The gloves are off. Time to watch Rocky IV.


1662 BCP said...

Interesting how KJS sometimes refers to herself as the Primate and now the XXVI Presiding Bishop. The Roman numerals, somehow seem more frightening. I wonder what her next title will be, hmmmm?

Florida Anglican said...

I sincerely hope Bp. Howe is the maverick you think he will be. Being a former member of his diocese and now an Anglican, I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

Anonymous said...

bb, you were closer to the truth the first time around. There were 2 posters. Where you're completely making things up is your whole story about how the TEC lawyers were hiding something and the judge saw right through it and asked for the other poster. Read the transcript. There's nothing like that in there.

Anonymous said...

And in fact the transcript shows the lawyer for the Diocese going to both posters, on his own initiative, including the one showing the passage that the congregations rely on. You're just making things up, and the fact that you've now changed the story to say it was one poster with a sheet over part of it shows that you really don't remember the facts at all.

BabyBlue said...

I'm trying hard to remember the mechanics of how the TEC lawyers divided the statute so that only one piece could be shown to the judge as they made their presentation.

The TEC/Diocesan lawyers had artificially divided the statute into two sections. They then showed one section of the statute as they made that part of their argument in the afternoon and at first I thought it was on two poster boards, but then I wondered if it was just on one poster board with only a section showing. I got challenged and so I wondered. I"m try my best to remember exactly how the TEC lawyers divided the statute - because that's indeed what they did.

One section was definitely out of view of the judge - I was sitting toward the front of the visitors gallery facing the judge and the easels and the TEC lawyers were also in left-front of me in front of the CANA Council and the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia - I was watching the judge the most for his reaction to what the lawyers were saying (he has an incredibly patient poker face - at least that day). But it was clear that the lawyers wanted to concentrate the judge's attention on a particular section of the statute and placed out of the judge's view the rest of the statute as they made their case. The lawyers wanted to zero in a particular section of the statute - which was fine, except that it was taking it out of context with the rest of the statute, which was frustrating to watch.

The judge made a comment at one point regarding their argument and then requested that they show the entire statute because it was clear that they were taking the statute out of the context it was written in (as we saw in his later ruling). When he made the request the lawyers then showed the entire statute so the judge could question them about the context. That was a highlight of that day's testimony.

During the end part of the TEC lawyers presentation, one of the attorneys stood before the judge, making her case and ridiculing his earlier decision - right to his face. She was quoting right from his decision and the judge reminded her that her that he could remember the opinion since he wrote it. That was quite memorable too. I still don't know why, in court, she ridiculed him like that. It was odd. I hope you see that in the transcript as well.

I'm trying my best to remember that day in court six months ago. The point still remains that the TEC lawyers attempted to reinterpret the statute by separating it from the rest of the statute and attempting to change the context. That is the same type of strategy we see now when it comes to both theology and the interpretation of TEC canons. Only, as we now know with Judge Bellows ruling that followed that hearing, he didn't buy the TEC argument.

I hope this is helpful. We appreciate our anons very much here at the cafe, we do. Just don't upset Hagrid. He's rather temperamental.

I'm not perfect, but I'm trying my best. Hope you know that.


Anonymous said...

bb, we're all human. My criticism is not that you don't have a clear memory of something 6 months ago. Sometimes I struggle to remember last week.

My criticism is that you are badly misremembering something in this particular instance, and that you appear to be doing so because your stake in this matter and your overall view of TEC are coloring your perception. (I apologize for the initial post ascribing ill intent to you.) You are then proclaiming a story that TEC and the DVa's lawyers are dishonest or at least shady, without a basis for the accusation.

Another example: the two posters at the May 28 hearing were case excerpts, not the statute. And, as I commented above, nothing was hidden: it was the DVa's lawyer who pointed out the part that the CANA lawyers relied on. There was dialogue with the judge. But there was nothing like the story you're telling.

Those who are interested can read the transcript at the ADV site.

BabyBlue said...

Thank you. I do think that's a matter of opinion, however - not that someone is intentionally skewing the truth. Of course there was intention to recast the meaning of the statute to mean something else than what then the way it was - in the end - interpreted by the judge. That was the point - wasn't it? What struck me was how it was done - by separating the statute artificially in to two pieces and then set aside one piece out of view and argue the second piece alone was like what we see now from the PB - separating the canons out from one another so that they can be reinterpreted to fit the circumstance, for example - in the meaning of the word "communion." The tactic didn't work in a court of law - at least, not yet. We'll have to see if the canons will survive such a test as well, if it comes to that.

Obviously we are going to see what goes on in the courtroom from differing points of view - that's a given, isn't it? But I am hardly an ideological rightwinger, if you know me. I am writing about what I saw and what I heard to the best of my ability, flawed though that may be. That moment in court, though, to which we are referring was a highlight for me that day - a very long day in court, along with Heather's rather shocking sarcasm as she read the judge's own earlier opinion back to him in court. Won't forget that either. That actually hurt, to be honest.

Thanks for posting - I do appreciate your taking the time to clarify your point of view. I really do, even if we disagree, perhaps most especially because we disagree. But let's watch the name-calling, okay? I will too - I've been thinking about that as well so I'm not just picking on you, anon. I remain an Episcopalian because I haven't given up hope for The Episcopal Church. Sometimes, though, we have to separate to save the marriage - and that was what the Virginia Protocol was all about. Even now, I have not lost all hope.

Because He lives I can face tomorrow
Because He lives all fear is gone
Because I know He holds the future
And life is worth the living just because He lives.