Saturday, November 24, 2007

"Liberals Frame Debate"

David Virtue, for those who do not know, is one of those people who can hardly be labeled virtuous. He is a blogger, tale-telling, web-spinning, fear mongering troglodyte intent upon fomenting hate and intolerance. He takes those things that have been said about him and then turns these into catch phrases that he can use upon those who catch him in his lies and inept statements.

His latest little essay is one that is almost funny. Especially in the case of the following statement:

"A case in point is women's ordination. What was initially a matter of conscience is now fully accepted and DEMANDED in The Episcopal Church. And if you don't conform you will be hounded out of the church. Just ask Ft. Worth Bishop Jack Iker and what he has had to put up with for the sake of his conscience on this issue. It has been nothing but misery in the way he has been beaten up by a single laywoman in his diocese who gets full liberal media attention and support from the national church whenever she opens her mouth."

The "single laywoman" is, in case you haven't yet guessed, Katie Sherrod. :-) You scared him, Katie. You mean ol’ Girl! :-) Poor little ol’ Jack.

It is almost too hard not to laugh at this...

Sadly, it is not truly funny. Rather, it is terribly telling of the truth that lies behind the fear. This is not just one terrified white man…this is just one terrified man writing to many terrified people, men and sadly, too many women.I don’t know how many people read David Virtue. Far more than read this site, I am sure.

I still have not figured out how women follow men like David Virtue. I know that some find Jack Iker charismatic. On paper or across the monitor, David Virtue just doesn’t seem to have that. Nonetheless, people read him religiously. It is too tempting to delve into the psychology of it all and that is far out of my area of expertise – not that I have one necessarily. Regardless, it would seem that there are many issues here that perhaps counseling would help – both with David Virtue and his fellow troglodytes.

Katie is not the only woman that Virtue attacks, merely the only one unnamed. He also laments the likes of the Rev. Susan Russell, President of Integrity and Dr. Jenny Te Paa. Oh, yes...and let us not forget "Mrs. Jefferts Schori". Not to be unfair, Virtue hates some men also. He takes shots at the Bishop of Pennsylvania, Charles Bennison and the Rev. Canon Giles Goddard, head of Inclusive Church.

Read and form your own opinion. But be warned: Reading David Virtue is not for the faint-hearted…nor is it really for anyone who has an intention to love all. DV is not a promoter of love. In fact, I highly recommend that those who are easily angered or hurt refrain from reading him at all. I never seek out his site. I found this only because it came to me through Susan Russell.

That being written, here is the link.
Virtue Online - West Chester,PA,USA

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Happy Thanksgiving, y'all!

This is one of the reasons we are back in Fort Worth for a while, to spend the holidays with family. And it is good.

We give thanks for this blessing of family, for those who are with us and those who are away. We give thanks for this journey itself which has taken us into so many new places to meet such wonderful new friends. We give thanks for each one of you who is sharing this journey with us through this blog. There would hardly be any point to it all without you.

May God richly bless you this day. May the strain of love and life be small; the tensions few. May all of those in harm's way feel our prayers today especially. May the powers that be bring our children home.
Blessings to all of you
Barbi, Debbie and Tucker

Sunday, November 18, 2007


I posted on the blog last night (after reading about San Joaquin) but I decided to delete it this morning. It was titled "Mathematical Musings".

I deleted it because it felt too much as though I had yet once again been caught up in the toxicity of this diocese. I had on my "shield" of sarcasm and arrogance. So...I decided to take it off.
Both the shield and the blog.

I personally do not believe it is healthy for the two parties of people in this diocese to continue on together. What was love is too easily turned to hurt and anger. Yesterday, Debbie and I were wounded yet once again by one who claims to love us. He stood up during one of the debates and told all the reasons why he thought the people in this diocese, the diocese itself, should accept the invitation from the Province of the Southern Cone. No, he did not lamblast gays and lesbians but the fact that he fully supports all those who do is painful. Will it matter that he saw the pain in our tears that his words caused? Only God knows.

There are people who are trying to stay together at all costs. When people attempt that act, someone along the road is sacrificed. We can no longer afford to sacrifice people on the Altar of God. We have lost too many already.

We cannot exist side by side sharing the same space. I have heard suggestions that the two sides can try to live in the same building -- two denominations, two vestries, two altar guilds, two of everything...How can that work? If it was a Lutheran congregation and an Episcopal one...maybe. But not two groups of people who claim ownership in the very same property all the way down to the altar linens. It would be like two exes attempting to live in the same home with new spouses, along with all the children and the in-laws. It would take a miracle.

But a miracle is what we have been praying for, yes? Maybe it is time to save our miracle prayers for all the special people in this world who need these right now.
May I offer some suggestions? Amanda (my daughter), Fiona (2 1/2), Matthew (7), Diane, Pat, Del, Sherry, Bob, Barb, Jay, Jo, the vestry at Trinity, all who serve God in this church...
Feel free to add more.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Caught Up in the Crazy

One Question for now...
If Jack Leo Iker takes what he claims as "the Diocese of Fort Worth" out of the Episcopal Church, even if every single piece of property were to go with him...what allows him to think that the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth would cease to exist? That is the arrogance of "Canon 32 which he addresses in a letter to the Senior Warden of Trinity Episcopal Church in Fort Worth (found at He tells her that he wants to make certain that if parishes such as Trinity wish to "remain in the Episcopal Church with their property" that he certainly wants them to be able to do so. How very kind of him. And how kind to allow them their property.

He is stuck in that stage of development that allows him to believe that if he is not there, there is nothing else there either.

I am not a where near, but it certainly sounds to me as though there might be a few sessions needed.

Friday, November 16, 2007

First Day Down and Done

Well, it's started. Guess who all won the elections at the diocesan convention at Fort Worth? Well, just look at last year's list...or the year before...or the year get the drift?
Judy Mayo...Christopher Cantrell....Ryan Reed...Walter Virden III...Charles Hough...same old same old. Ironically, the people running against them were very familiar names also. Kay Strombergy, Frank Salazar, Jo Ann Patton, even the people who lose are familiar. There is just sort of an acceptable merry-go-round that the diocese allows to run. This year there was only one choosing between one acceptable one or another. This year all the flavors of the year won.

Does that not give you a clue that this is all fixed? This is all such a joke...a sad and sick joke.

Tomorrow...oh what joy! Oh what fun! They tackle the resolutions. Wonder what innovative, rule breaking game they will play tomorrow? Betcha the first two resolutions pass unanimously. I would even go so far as to guess that any alternate resolutions are soundly defeated with the infamous Iker sarcasm included free of charge.

In case you have no life and would like to spend a portion of your Saturday feeling the pain that we feel, join us, won't you? Watch the live stream -- listen to Jack Leo Iker in all his glory. Find it all at Join us in the pomp and circumstance that is the Diocese of Fort Worth.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Surprise, Surprise...Not!

Not that it comes as a surprise but the newest resolution (see below) to be considered at the Fort Worth diocesan convention coming up on November 16 and 17 deals with the “constitutional and canonical implications and means of accepting” an invitation from the Most Reverend Gregory J. Venables of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone to join them. This is called a “generous and fraternal” invitation. Fraternal as in brotherly…as in no girls allowed, of course. Wonder what the plans are for the women deacons in this diocese if this all goes through?

Nor does it come as a surprise that some rectors are instructing the delegates that they are to vote as a bloc with the bishop. Hmmm…’scuse me? Don’t the lay delegates represent the laity? Or did I miss something somewhere?

In Jack Leo Iker’s letter to the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, he states that it is “deeply troubling” to him that she would have him “prevent the clergy and laity of this diocese from openly discussing” the diocese’s “future place in the life of the wider Anglican Communion”. He goes on to remind her that “the polity of this Church requires the full participation of the clergy and lay orders, not just bishop, in the decision making process.”

WHO knew that he knew this????????

I am sure that the good bishop will stand firm and loud, stating that he didn’t tell “his” clergy to vote as a bloc. They just got the idea all by themselves. Or maybe they remember last year’s convention when the bishop, with a mocking laugh, told the assembled group that a rector who couldn’t control his vestry wasn’t much of a rector. (Does the image of a controlling abusive spouse pop into your head when you read that? It did mine when I heard him say it.) Maybe they were remembering the laughter aimed at one rector in particular whose vestry had disagreed with him immediately and loudly after he declared that the parish would follow the bishop wherever he went.

I also find it somewhat sadly ironic to think that he would indicate that he had been praying for +Katharine. He said that in his closing line – “I shall continue to pray for you, as I trust you will pray for me…” I hope he is praying for her, I really do. I am quite certain that she is praying for him. As I do. Everyday. Not for him to change but just as I do for myself – for my eyes, ears and heart be open to the will of God. However, seeing as how he “strongly” suggested in a deanery meeting that all parishes refrain from praying for the Presiding Bishop in the Prayers of the People after she was newly elected, I find it difficult to see how he could pray for her. Perhaps he has had a change of heart. Maybe he can pray for her as a woman, but not as a Presiding Bishop. Ok…so why not just “strongly suggest” that parishes remove the words “presiding bishop” and just put in its place “Katharine Jefferts Schori” or “Katharine”?

The point being…it’s hard to take him seriously. How can we? On one hand, he is accusing her of intimidating and manipulating “this diocese”. On the other hand, he is intimidating and manipulating this diocese.

How is the laity going to be represented when the delegates that the laity elected are instructed by the rectors that the vestries chose to vote as a group with the bishop? How is the laity represented if the rector is supposed to “control” “his” vestry?

So, basically, what he told +Katharine in the letter is a bunch of bunk. He doesn’t believe that the laity should have much say-so. If he did, he wouldn’t work so hard to keep them silent and ignorant.

But, hey…what do I know? I am just “out for the publicity” and interested in “creating furor”…

Resolution 2
A Response to the Invitation of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone
Whereas, it is the resolve of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth to remain within the family of the Anglican Communion while dissociating itself from the moral, theological, and disciplinary innovations of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America;
And whereas, the Synod of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, meeting Nov. 5-7, 2007, voted to "welcome into membership of our Province on an emergency and pastoral basis" those dioceses of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America who share this resolve;
Therefore, be it resolved, that the 25th Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth extend its sincere thanks to the Synod of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, and to its Primate, the Most Reverend Gregory J. Venables, for the generous and fraternal invitation to join their Province;
And, be it further resolved, that the Bishop and Standing Committee prepare a report for this diocese on the constitutional and canonical implications and means of accepting this invitation.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

My My My

Jack Leo Iker, the "Bishop of Fort Worth", how you do go on!

The once upon a time Episcopal Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth who is "negotiating" with another bishop from another province (that would NOT be Province VII of the Episcopal Church) has answered the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in a letter.

Our bishop is "rather surprised" that the Presiding Bishop (that would be the one he doesn't recognize because she is female and not worthy of being a priest, much less a bishop and heaven forbid an "arch" bishop!) would accuse him of abandoning the communion of "the church". She had, of course, reminded him in a fairly gracious letter that should he decide to carry through with all his threats and promises of late that he could indeed be considered to be abandoning the communion of the church - that would be the Episcopal Church - that same one to which he swore loyalty at his consecration. Of course, he has decided that certain words in the Book of Common Prayer are not necessary so he has decided to reinterpret. What a novel idea! He did the same thing with the history of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth but Fr. Jake tells about it a lot better than I might. Wonder what else he has interpreted differently??

Further, he goes on to chastize her - the silly little female that she must be simply because she is a woman in bishop's clothes. Not only does he berate her for attempting to "interfere" in the life of his diocese but he admonishes her for not attempting to reconcile, mediate or enter into dialogue with him. Hmmm...something is reminding me of a second meeting in New York that Our Bishop decided would be time wasted for him to attend...

All this concerted effort to deride, denigrate and deny...reminds me of a banty (Bantam) rooster out in the chicken yard, scratching up a bunch of dust and making a lot of noise. Meanwhile, the hens are in the hen house laying eggs to feed the children.

Thursday, November 08, 2007

A long ago friend used to be fond of reminding us that DOG spelled backward was GOD. She rescued dogs. She liked dogs – better than she liked most people. In fact, it could be said that she didn’t really like people at all. This was probably due to the condition that she found so many of the dogs in when she rescued them. She talked about how dogs were better than most of the people that she knew. Dogs always loved us, no matter how screwed up we are.

She was right. Our dogs do love us. Unconditionally. Regardless. Even when we are really crappy humans acting out in pain, frustration, anger, or fear – even when they are sometimes the innocent victims of our own despair.

Dogs love us. Uncondtionally. Regardless. With hesed – steadfast love.
DOG spelled backward is GOD.