FRI. FEB 1 UPDATE: You do sort of wonder. LambethConference.net notices that the ACO has quietly - and finally - corrected their website to reflect that Bennison is indeed inhibited. Fast and furious (and wrong) on the trigger for the Bishop of San Joaquin, though. What's up with that?
HOLY COW: What's wrong with this?
WED AM UPDATE: That must have been some phone call. See comments.
Unbelievable. So who is running the Anglican Communion anyway? It's not who you think it is - or maybe it is. The British are always kind in their understatements - but underneath the kindness is a pointed question - just who is giving the orders? The Claw? From here:
Readers of the Anglican Communion Office’s website might begin to wonder who is running the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion Office is described on the site as “the permanent secretariat of the Anglican Consultative Council, which is led by the Revd Canon Kenneth Kearon, Secretary General” and is “based in London, England”.
As such, it has a finger in many pies, but it is clearly a ’service and support’ organization, supporting the working of the Communion in a ‘diaconal’ rather than presbyteral (much less, episcopal) role.
Curious, then, that the ACO website lists the Diocese of San Joaquin as ‘vacant’ - curious, because it isn’t. The Diocesan Bishop, John-David Schofield, has been inhibited by the Presiding Bishop, Katherine Jefferts-Schori, but he is still the Bishop, unless or until he is deposed. Moreover, he is still on the ‘guest list’ of the Lambeth Conference, though this may change (and will doubtless precipitate further crisis, insofar as he regards himself as part of the Province of the Southern Cone, regarding which Greg Venables may have something to say.)
We may then ask why the ACO has jumped the gun. It may, of course, be a misunderstanding on the part of the website manager, in which case it will doubtless be corrected soon.
BB NOTE: Holding one's breath may not be advisable at this time. More here. And here.
WEDNESDAY UPDATE: The sudden "switch" for Kearon's operation to make on the Diocese of San Joaquin once they were outed illustrates what political philosophy is running his office. The idea that the see of San Joaquin is vacant comes from the TEC political activists (who by the way, are not high in number, but have experience acting as though they are which is how street politics operates). They have been filling listserves and blog posts for weeks about how the bishop has abandoned the communion (which one is it now?) and the see is vacant. Obviously, Kearon's office falls right into line with this thinking and made the change on the website (did they think we wouldn't notice?). But the official view of the Episcopal Church is that the bishop is inhibited (for voting his conscience, what a sorrowful place for TEC to fall, so much further than even during the Civil War) and la di da, that's what suddenly appears on Kearon's office website. The fact remains - as someone must have said during the intervention this morning - the Diocese of San Joaquin exists and it still has a bishop. The bishop is in good standing in the Province of the Southern Cone and TEC is officially pissed off. The "inhibition" - as the "inhibitions in Virginia" are for punitive effect. They are meant to scare off others from following suit. The Presiding Bishop meant to inhibit the Bishop of Pittsburgh as well for even thinking about voting his conscience and was slapped down by two senior bishops. I just have to wonder if the rank and file Episcopalians (which far outnumber the progressives and are not happy about these aggressive street fighting tactics) are waking up.
By the way, Kearon's office now lists the Bishop of San Joaquin "inhibited," but only after first being listed "vacant." Gotta wonder. But guess who is actually inhibited for moral transgressions? Well, you'd never know visiting the "Anglican Communion" website. Golly.