The Council passed Resolution NAC023, reminding dioceses that they are required to "accede" to the Constitution and Canons, and declaring that any diocesan action that removes that accession from its constitution is "null and void." That declaration, the resolution said, means that their constitutions "shall be as they were as if such amendments had not been passed."

The Episcopal Church Welcome Mat has been pulled out from underneath orthodox dioceses that may wish to move away from a church they believe is fundamentally heretical in faith and morals.

The Executive Council put disaffected dioceses on notice that Episcopal dioceses that change their constitutions in an attempt to bypass the Church's Constitution and Canons are "null and void."

Resolution NAC023 named the dioceses of Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, San Joaquin and Quincy.

Calling the resolution by the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church a failed attempt to interfere in the internal constitutional processes of their dioceses, the chancellors of the Episcopal Dioceses of Fort Worth, Quincy, Pittsburgh and San Joaquin rejected claims that changes the dioceses had made to their accession clauses over the last fifteen years were null and void.

Responding as a group, the chancellors issued the following statement. "The Episcopal Church (TEC) has declared the authority of Holy Scripture null and void so we are not surprised that its Executive Council attacks our diocesan constitutions because we reserve the right not to accede to TEC's unbiblical actions. The Executive Council does not have the authority to make decisions or pass resolutions of this type on behalf of TEC. Furthermore, the Executive Council does not have the right to interfere in internal diocesan constitutional processes. The Executive Council's declaration is contrary to the law and to the historic Anglican faith."

The Bishop of Ft. Worth, the Rt. Rev. Jack Iker responded to the Executive Council ruling saying this resolution was nothing more than an opinion expressed by those who issued the statement. "It is itself null and void, unenforceable and of no effect. This action is another example of the heavy-handed tactics being used by those who do not have the right to interfere in the internal constitutional process of the dioceses."

Bishop Iker wrote: "While the Councils resolutions on a range of subjects may excite debate, that does not guarantee their opinions are consistent with the Faith, the law of the land, or the Constitution of The Episcopal Church, much less that they establish precedent. That the Council would attempt to interfere now, nearly 20 years after this diocese first amended its Constitution, is evidence of an illegitimate magisterial attitude that has emerged in the legislative function of TEC. Sadly, the one thing the resolution does show is that there is no desire on the part of the Council for reconciliation with those alienated by the recent actions of General Convention."

Iker noted that while Councils threats may continue, "we will continue to stand for the historic biblical faith and our Lord Jesus Christ's call to extend His Kingdom. We regret that a further deterioration in our relationship with TEC has been effected by these decisions."

At the close of Executive Council meeting, Mrs. Schori congratulated the Council for engaging a variety of issues "faithfully and with clarity," recognizing the diversity of opinion that exists within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. She also noted that Council learned that there are sometimes other ways to cope with tough issues rather than legislation that can result in winners-and-losers situations. She observed that during the Parsippany meeting, members worked pastorally behind the scenes to achieve consensus on some issues.

Apparently that is not how Bishop Iker viewed the situation.

Some council members argued against naming the dioceses, including Ted Yumoto of San Joaquin, who said the resolution was a "statement of alienation" rather than reconciliation.

Bishop Julio Holguin of the Dominican Republic also urged the Council not to name dioceses but to make the resolution more obviously applicable to all dioceses. He also called on the Council to "soften [the resolution] in favor of dialogue." Bishop David Alvarez of Puerto Rico disagreed, saying that the resolution needed "more teeth."

The Rev. Gay Jennings of Ohio reminded the Council that General Convention had agreed about how to "order our common life" through its Constitution and Canons, and that the specific dioceses' actions have been "injurious to our common life."

Lexington Bishop Stacy Sauls, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was important to name the dioceses, in part because a judge in any future legal action connected with the dioceses' actions might ask why the Church never made a statement against those constitutional changes.

A group calling themselves Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP) issued a statement through its president Joan R. Gundersen thanking the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church for affirming the long-settled constitutional understanding that dioceses do not have the power or authority to ignore or supersede the canons of The Episcopal Church in favor of diocesan actions.

PEP has been in a long-standing, sometimes legal battle with the Diocese of Pittsburgh over property issues.

In November of 2004, the Diocese of Pittsburgh completed adoption of an amendment to its constitution that read "In cases where the provisions of the Constitution and Canons of the Church in the Diocese of Pittsburgh speak to the contrary, or where resolutions of the Convention of said Diocese have determined the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, or resolutions of its General Convention, to be contrary to the historic Faith and Order of the one holy catholic and apostolic church, the local determination shall prevail," thereby declaring its independence from The Episcopal Church.

"This resolution offers relief to faithful Episcopalians in this diocese who have been pressured to accept procedures or policies they knew were at odds with Episcopal Church canons," said Gundersen. "The Council was aware of these pressures. Furthermore, the resolution reminds all of us in Pittsburgh that once a diocese has been recognized by General Convention, there is no unilateral diocesan right of withdrawal from the church."

*****

DIOCESAN CHANCELLORS REJECT ATTEMPTED INTERFERENCE BY EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

June 19, 2007

The national church body does not have authority to act, say diocesan chancellors.

The Executive Council of the national church is attempting to undo a 2004 change to Pittsburgh's diocesan constitution that gives the diocesan convention the right to disagree with the national church about matters of faith and order. The text the Executive Council unsuccessfully attempted to remove reads as follows: "In cases where the provisions of the Constitution and Canons of the Church in the Diocese of Pittsburgh speak to the contrary, or where resolutions of the Convention of said Diocese have determined the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, or resolutions of its General Convention, to be contrary to the historic Faith and Order of the one holy catholic and apostolic church, the local determination shall prevail."

Calling a recent resolution by the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church a failed attempt to interfere in the internal constitutional processes of their dioceses, the chancellors of the Episcopal Dioceses of Fort Worth, Quincy, Pittsburgh and San Joaquin rejected claims that changes the dioceses had made to their accession clauses over the last fifteen years were null and void.

The Executive Council's resolution NAC-023, which was passed during their meeting June 11-14 in Parsippany N.J., stated: "Any amendment to a diocesan constitution that purports in any way to limit or lessen an unqualified accession to the constitution of The Episcopal Church is null and void, and be it further resolved that the amendments passed to the constitutions of the dioceses of Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin, which purport to limit or lessen the unqualified accession to the constitution of The Episcopal Church are accordingly null and void and the constitutions of those dioceses shall be as they were as if such amendments had not been passed."

Responding as a group, the chancellors issued the following statement. "The Episcopal Church (TEC) has declared the authority of Holy Scripture null and void so we are not surprised that its Executive Council attacks our diocesan constitutions because we reserve the right not to accede to TEC's unbiblical actions. The Executive Council does not have the authority to make decisions or pass resolutions of this type on behalf of TEC. Furthermore, the Executive Council does not have the right to interfere in internal diocesan constitutional processes. The Executive Council's declaration is contrary to the law and to the historic Anglican faith."

FT. WORTH ISSUES STATEMENT REGARDING EXECUTIVE COUNCIL DECISION

June 19, 2007

A Statement of the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Diocese of Fort Worth concerning certain actions of the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church The adversarial relationship between this Diocese and the leadership of The Episcopal Church was exacerbated by two decisions made by the Executive Council of TEC at its meeting last week.

I. The Councils refusal to participate in the Pastoral Scheme developed by the Dar es Salaam Primates Meeting has deepened our sense of alienation from TEC. Instead of waging reconciliation, the Council has failed to respond to the expressed needs of those dioceses appealing for Alternative Primatial Oversight, pushing us further apart from TEC. They have claimed that the Pastoral Council proposal violates the polity of TEC, but they have been unable to substantiate this by citing any constitutional or canonical provisions to that effect.

II. Claiming an authority that our polity does not give, the Council has declared certain amendments to our Diocesan Constitution null and void. To this, we respond, first, that it is not within the scope of duties assigned to the Executive Council to render findings as to the legality or constitutionality of actions by the several dioceses of The Episcopal Church; and second, that resolutions adopted by the Council, or even by the General Convention, are non-binding. Therefore, this resolution is nothing more than an opinion expressed by those individuals who issued the statement. It is itself null and void, unenforceable and of no effect. This action is another example of the heavy-handed tactics being used by those who do not have the right to interfere in the internal constitutional process of the dioceses.

While the Councils resolutions on a range of subjects may excite debate, that does not guarantee their opinions are consistent with the Faith, the law of the land, or the Constitution of The Episcopal Church, much less that they establish precedent. That the Council would attempt to interfere now, nearly 20 years after this diocese first amended its Constitution, is evidence of an illegitimate magisterial attitude that has emerged in the legislative function of TEC. Sadly, the one thing the resolution does show is that there is no desire on the part of the Council for reconciliation with those alienated by the recent actions of General Convention.

The Councils threats may continue, but we will continue to stand for the historic biblical faith and our Lord Jesus Christ's call to extend His Kingdom. We regret that a further deterioration in our relationship with TEC has been effected by these decisions.

The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth

The Very Rev. Ryan S. Reed
President, Standing Committee

END