Q & A Interview with the Bishop of Fort Worth

The Living Church magazine
7/27/2005

Earlier today, the Rt. Rev. Jack L. Iker, Bishop of Fort Worth, was one of nine diocesan bishops to sign “A Second Open Letter to the Bishop and Standing Committee of Connecticut.” Written in response to the inhibition of the Rev. Mark S. Hansen, as rector of St. John’s, Bristol, Conn., the letter informs the Bishop of Connecticut, the Rt. Rev. Andrew D. Smith, that the nine bishops do not recognize the inhibition and are preparing ecclesiastical charges against Bishop Smith for conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy. Yesterday, the Diocese of Fort Worth announced that it had petitioned the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference, claiming a “serious theological disagreement” with the Episcopal Church. The Living Church spoke with Bishop Iker about these two developments.

Q: Why did you sign this letter?

A: Bishop Smith has declared war on these six priests. We are going to take him on for abusive misuse of canons. It’s very disturbing that he has not only thumbed his nose at the primates, he’s also dismissed the Windsor Report and, if the reports are true, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference.

Q: Who first proposed the idea of the letters (the one on April 14 and the one published earlier today)?

A: One of the priests contacted us, saying “Don’t you care? We’re being attacked for holding the same beliefs as you.’ The primates also advised us. They have told us not to expect them to take all the risks if we are not willing to take some ourselves. There are ways other than inhibition to deal with a priest who violates guidelines. We are not going to stand by and watch [Bishop Smith] annihilate those six parishes.

Q: Have you had any communication with Bishop Smith since you signed the first letter?

A: To my knowledge he has never responded to our first letter in any way.

Q: You realize that presentments and geographical incursions can travel in many directions and that you and the other signatories represent a minority within the House of Bishops?

A: We are willing to pay the consequences. If [Bishop Smith] continues to turn up the heat, we are going to respond. It is sad to see those who claim to be liberal behaving like fascists when someone disagrees with them.

Q: Do you already have flight reservations for Hartford or New Haven?

A: (Laughter) I’ve been up there once already. I think that kind of thing will be repeated. Part of episcopal care means being with your clergy when they are hurting.

Q: Turning to the petition that you and the president of the standing committee recently filed with the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference, why did you decide to file now; what’s changed?

A: We began talking about this soon after it was announced [at the conclusion of the primates’ meeting last February]. We wanted to wait until the panel met. I have brought our concerns to the Archbishop of Canterbury on more than one occasion previously. One of the problems in the Episcopal Church right now is that there is no independent court system. The same goes for the Anglican Communion. We have previously had no means to appeal beyond our Province.

Q: Do you think your petition will have any impact on calls for the creation of a third province within the Church of England?

A: I think they all touch upon one another. Our appeal illustrates the hypocrisy of the Episcopal Church when they say that they honor all theological views. That simply isn’t true.