It was with great sadness that I concluded I had no other choice but to vote to move to inhibit two of my brothers (Episcopal bishops of Pittsburgh and San Joaquin) who have betrayed their trust to be faithful shepherds of their dioceses, which are integral parts of our Episcopal Church.
The beauty and flexibility of Anglican polity has allowed since its foundation disparate and disagreeing parties to remain in full communion. It is my sincere hope and prayer that these two bishops, who once pledged of their own free will to engage to remain faithful to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church, will in a spirit of reconciliation choose to fulfill their previous promises.
Translated for the rest of us: give ’em the boot!
In addition to being yet an other telling commentary on the place "where the animals are tame and the people run wild," there are two other issues that bear to be addresssed.
First, one thing that inevitably appears in inhibitions of this type is "abandonment of Communion." But if these people and dioceses head to another province (with which TEC is supposed to be in "communion" with,) how can that be an "abandonment of Communion?" Or is this a backhanded admission that TEC is effectively out of the Anglican Communion?
If +KJS and the other revisionist/reappraiser leaders in TEC want to resolve this issue, they either need to a) formally withdraw from the Anglican Communion or b) get Rowan Williams to eject those provinces who are "cutting in" on TEC’s turf. They can’t have it both ways indefinitely.
Second, he ends his little epistle with the following:
…we in the HOB must do our sad duty to discipline them and move in a timely manner to protect and provide for the many remaining faithful of these dioceses.
Faithful to what?