It's been suggested by some that the inhibition of Bishop Schofield is a case of "you can't fire me, I quit."
Yet (although the bishop was unavailable to take a call from the Presiding Bishop yesterday afternoon informing him of the inhibition) an email response was quickly disseminated to the conservative blogs. One of the last to post the email was Titus 1:9 at 10 AM this morning.
Now we read that the text of the email sent of behalf of Schofield is being revised and the new text will be made available soon:
UPDATE: The Text below is incorrect. A correct text is coming soon. In particular this line, "Bishop Schofield is currently a member of both the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church and the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone, not prohibited by either house." is in error.[Update (4:25 PM) There has been some revision of history. In the link above the text of Bishop Schofield's statement and the reference to "a correct text is coming" has been removed. It has been replaced with the text of the statement from Venables which quoted below. At this time the key quote still appears in the comments.]
Could it be that the Bishop of Fort Worth has brought up the question in his message of support for Bishop Schofield?:
The matter is complicated by the fact that Bishop Schofield and the Diocese of San Joaquin, by constitutional action of their Convention, are no longer a part of The Episcopal Church.The Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone also seems befuddled by the statement from Schofield's office:
A statement from The Most Reverend Gregory Venables, dated January 11,2008:It would seem that after some backrooms conferring Schofield will be shifting his position from 'It's OK to be a member of two houses' to 'I'm beyond the reach of the discipline of The Episcopal Church.' It will be interesting to see if the Archbishop of Canterbury withdraws Schofield's invitation to Lambeth on the grounds that his position is no different from bishops in AMiA or CANA.
“As of December the 8th, 2007 Bishop John-David Schofield is not under the authority or jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church or the Presiding Bishop.He is, therefore, not answerable to their national canon law but is a member of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone and under our authority.
Un fuerte abrazo.
--The Most Rev. Greg Venables, Archbishop of the Southern Cone
If nothing else the inhibition has finally forced Bishop Schofield to make clear his intentions.
Update. A recap of the time line:
1. Conservative blogs (Baby Blue, Titus 1:9, Stand Firm) post an email from San Joaquin that responded to the inhibition that stated "Bishop Schofield is currently a member of both the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church and the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone, not prohibited by either house."
2. Stand Firm and Titus 1:9 post an email from Bishop Iker that states "the matter is complicated by the fact that Bishop Schofield and the Diocese of San Joaquin, by constitutional action of their Convention, are no longer a part of The Episcopal Church. They now function under the authority of the Province of the Southern Cone. Disciplinary actions cannot be taken by this Province against a Bishop who is a member of another Province of the Anglican Communion."
3. Titus 1:9 posts the "clarification" from Venables.
4. Stand Firm revises its post of the email from San Joaquin stating the sentence is in error.
5. Stand Firm revises its post of the email from San Joaquin changing its subject to the email from Venables. It removes any reference to the email from San Joaquin. Titus 1:9 erases its post of the email from San Joaquin entirely. Baby Blue changes her post, deleting the email from San Joaquin and substituting the Venable's email. As of Sunday morning none of these blogs had acknowledged the changes.
See Tobias Haller's cogent observations on this sequence of events at In a Godward Direction. Jake has also followed these events. He notes that Thinking Anglicans has some new news: the original statement was put together by a public relations firm.