Why not Iker?

Fr. Scott asked a good question. I was going to answer him in a comment, but decided his question deserved its own thread.

What about Iker; why do you suppose he wasn't also deposed?

The short answer is because no one from his diocese brought charges against him.

Keep in mind that the presiding bishop has no power other than to preside at meetings of the college of bishops. She cannot initiate presentment without the consent of the three senior bishops. One of those bishop’s actions shows him to be supportive of the fundamentalist cause.

The reason that Duncan was deposed was because members of his diocese initiated the action. It is doubtful that, on its own, "815" would have done so until the October vote and Duncan was “safely,” yet illegally and dissolutely in the Southern Cone after embezzling church property. Perhaps the National Church was working behind the scenes assisting members of the diocese to initiate the charges, but regardless of how it happened, it was a grass roots action.

Members of Iker's diocese must begin the process to depose him. If I lived there, I would have done so years ago. (Unfortunately, I don't think that those living outside a diocese can bring charges – other bishops can, though as was the case with Bishop Pike.)

Regrettably, the majority of Episcopalians do not know that they have any recourse against their clergy.

What complicates this process is that the bishops (and priests) in question have spent years brainwashing their flock into believing that the bishop is a prince bishop. They have also carefully "guided" the search process so that the clergy rolls are stacked with like-minded presbyters who will spout the bishop’s party line and are crafty in how they disseminate information to the parish/mission. The clergy carefully “guide” the selection process for vestry/bishop’s committee members and diocesan delegates.

This neo donatist movement has been a “from the top down” movement. To accomplish their goals, the leadership has manoeuvred every election for the past twenty years.

Chapman's memo is only the final stage of a plot that is decades old and the leaders vigilantly implemented that plan.

In the case of San Joaquin, the period was at least thirty-five years, predating Schofield’s episcopate.

If I were in charge of the parish development and/or publicity of TEC, I would do my best to let the members in the pews know that they do have recourse – they can bring charges against the clergy. But, I’m not in charge. And, aren’t we all glad I’m not in charge!

Now, regarding Mr. Duncan, he said that

I am unanimously welcomed into the House of Bishops of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, an act applauded by Anglican archbishops, bishops, clergy and people all around the world. They have eight bishops.

Does that "unanimous" number include Schofield. And other than the usual suspects, what archbishops and bishops does he mean? Like the choice of the word "unanamous," this is just Duncan's over active hubris speaking.