It has been going on for a long time but we can document some of the evil and treachery in Fort Worth at least going back to 2006. The animosity toward the Episcopal Church has been clear for a long time but not always as evident as it is here. A reader sent me copies of the Articles of incorporation for the Diocese of Fort Worth along with the 2006 amendments.
In 2006, Iker and his cohorts amended the articles of incorporation of the legal entity called the Corporation of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth the amendments did not pass and were not presented to convention. They were passed by a unanimous vote of the “Board” or standing committee.
Remember that the original articles were filed in 1983 when the Diocese of Fort Worth was split off from the Diocese of Dallas. Also remember at that time the Diocese petitioned General Convention to be a diocese of the Episcopal Church. In that petition they agreed to be bound by the constitution canons and discipline of the Episcopal Church. Lastly, don’t forget this was 4 years after the Dennis Canon passed. The Diocese of Fort Worth has no ability to argue it was forced on them after they agreed to be a part of TEC.
The 2006 changes were significant:
Presumably this was done so that the Diocese would have no claim to the local property and thus TEC would have no claim. At least it is intellectually consistent. They don’t argue that the diocese owns the property. In 2006 it was clear that TEC was winning all of the disputes over church property by dioceses that had joined the TEC and agreed to be bound by the constitution and canons.
The administration of property of the Corporation is also changed.Old articles:
You will notice that the control of the property is transferred to the entity controlling the constitution and canons of the Diocese to the entity controlling the bylaws. This means that the Diocese convention is no longer in control of the property, now the standing committee is in control.
The standing committee in Fort Worth, as in the other diocese that have “left,” over time has become a cult of personality for the Bishop, the idea that they would be a counsel of advise for the Bishop and offer some criticism and caution when need has not been present for a long time. Others have documented what happens to you if you criticize the Bishop in this diocese. Betting on the longevity of your career in the diocese after criticizing the Bishop would be foolhardy.
Other additions to the articles (this is all new nothing comparable existed in the old articles).
The amendments also add the Bishop as a member of the Board, he was not previously. Again you can see a bunch of prior planning to try and wrestle the property of TEC away from the TEC and into local control.
A causal review of these changes show a clear intent to usurp the constitution and canons of TEC and at least at that time the Diocese was agreeing to be bound by them. I have written before that actions like these are a breach of the fiduciary duty owned by the members of a standing committee in TEC to the TEC. But this goes farther; the actions are premeditated and calculated. The people taking these actions have long since left TEC. The problem is they have not left the building. The need to make like Elvis and leave the building(s) and go on their way.