Kenneth Kearon – Shame on You
Guess who’s ultimately responsible for the Anglican Communion Website? That’s right, Kenneth Kearon who is the Secretary General.
Perhaps he’d like to explain why, as BabyBlue helpfully points out, Bishop John David Schofield of San Joaquin is listed on his site as "inhibited" but Bishop Carles Bennison Jr of Pennsylvania isn’t? Just to remind you dear readers, Schofield was inhibited because he dared, with the rest of his Diocese, to move to the Province of the Southern Cone. This is of course wickedly evil. Bennison on the other hand was inhibited for only effectively covering up his brother’s sexual abuse of a minor.
Just as a point of note, Schofield could be called "conservative" and Bennison "liberal", but of course that couldn’t possibly be the reason could it Kenneth? Kenneth? Are you listening Canon Ken? Ken?
By the way Ken – only Bishops wear pectoral crosses…
Update 13:45 GMT, 1st Feb – Oh looky, Bennison’s now inhibited!!! Shame we had to point it out in the first place isn’t it?
Perhaps Canon Kearon wears a pectoral cross to signify the fact that in his role as Secretary of the Anglican Consultative Council he wields control of ACO and it’s website communication in a fashion far beyond what many Primates (much less bishops) have access to.
When our brothers in the Global South express concerns about the Anglo-American disproportional influence in the Anglican Communion, one only has to look to individuals like Canon Kearon to see concerns are warranted!
Pax et Bonum!
Wow! I didn’t have you down as a closet Al Murray fan. Good to see you’ve taken up Al’s practice of identifying a noteworthy person or issue and exclaiming for all to hear, “Shame on you!!”
I wondered whether anybody would pick up on that!!!
Moment for pedantry – and not to imply that in any way do I disagree with what the post is actually saying – but Canon KK is not wearing a pectoral cross, but the Compass Rose (which does contain a cross, and therefore may to the ultra-pedant signify a pectoral cross). Some may say he would be better wearing a cross than the Compass Rose (even though he is Secretary-General of the blah blah blah) as a reminder of whom he should really be serving. I, of course, would never say such a thing.
Not knowing much about clergy bling (!), I’m not sure whether there’s any significance at all to what Ken’s wearing or indeed why ‘pectoral crosses’ might be worn in the first place. I’m sure someone will eagerly volunteer to explain (spare me anything complicated, please), but might I venture to offer an explanation? In the absence of an Anglican Communion certified weight training program to develop proper boy boobs (pectoral muscles for those of you not down with the slang), some cleric somewhere decided that, in the same way that girls with small tits wear necklaces to make the most of what little chest they have (you never see girls with big tits wearing necklaces), he’d wear some holy-themed bling. Just a theory, but perhaps a good one?
You really should get out more Tim…
says he who hosts a blog posting about pectoral crosses and the compass rose!! thing is, out there in the real world the ‘ordinary man’ hasn’t got a clue what any of this is, doesn’t care what a clergyman wears and desperately needs to hear about Jesus whilst people are wasting time going on about pectoral bling! and I need to get out more?!
Wow – this really is becoming big news. Even The Sun have got hold of the story. I’ve copied their piece to my blog.
It’s not a waste of time – those of us who read Peter’s blog do so for its combination of intellectual rigour and plain banality.
Gregory – My apologies if I’ve poured just a little too much scorn on your escape here at Peter’s blog. Indeed, we all have little time-wasting escapes and there’s no harm in that. Peter will tell you that I have a sometimes rather naughty and even aggressive sense of humour. I too enjoy the banality of some things herein, but am horrified by some of the huge sidetracks that too many in the church get lost down. I think it was Screwtape in one of his letters to young Wormwood who enthused over the value of distractions in keeping Christians from growth or from telling others about Jesus. Oh how the church could do with hearing that today!