Earlier, I identified a list of possible “Windsor” bishops which numbered fourteen, in addition to the ten bishops of NACDAP dioceses.
Recently Stand Firm has been trying to find out how these bishops voted at the recent American HoB meeting, on the specific issue of the “mind of the house” resolution addressed to the Executive Council that urges it to “decline to participate in” the pastoral structures articulated by the Tanzania Communique. They took the view, which seems reasonable to me, that a true “Windsor” bishop could not have voted for this resolution.
They included one bishop that I omitted, namely Mark MacDonald of Alaska. I excluded him since he has recently accepted a bishopric in Canada; in the event he did not attend the meeting due to illness.
John Bauerschmidt of Tennessee has succeeded Bertram Herlong, retired. He appears to be a further potential for the “Windsor” list.
The results of their investigations to date:
But so far—barring the one that we have no knowledge of [Bishop Ohl]—of the 25 Windsor bishops, we know of:
— 2 that voted for the HOB resolution opposing the pastoral structures of the Tanzania Communique
— 6 who did not attend the meeting
— 3 who attended the meeting but were unable to vote
— 14 who voted AGAINST the HOB resolution that rejected the pastoral structures of the primates
Considering first the NACDAP bishops:
Turning to the fifteen other bishops(including both MacDonald and Bauerschmidt):
So the total number of non-network “Windsor” bishops may be no more than twelve.
Perhaps some went to the meeting to hedge their bets, knowing that some in their diocese would be comforted if they went. I doubt there were ever 24 bishops willing to team up with the schismatics. And now that this is becoming apparent, we see the hysteria over at ACI.
You’ve lost me. How many “Windsor” bishops does that actually come to when ‘Network’ and ‘non-Network’ heads (mitres?) are counted?
Also, if it is true that a “true ‘Windsor’ bishop” would not have voted with the TEC House of Bishops, does this mean that the HoB have rejected the Windsor process?
It is all getting very confusing.
I think it is still unclear how great the fall of has been. The high water mark was 24 Windsor Bishops, it looks to me that 20-22 Bishops oppose the the HBs’ resolution regarding the Primates PV Scheme. That would comport with Bishop Kelsey’s tally of 80 plus bishops who supported it. I think the ABC and the GS are counting on at least 20 in order to justify all the agony and machinations everyone is going through. If it turns out to be less than 15, then I think it’s clear that they have been mislead and even the… Read more »
The key thing that originally distressed me about the Windsor Bishops who met at Don Wimberley’s call was that they had to agree, prior to hearing anything official from the Anglican Communion, that General Convention’s response to the Windsor Report (and especially B033) was inadequate. The Ad Hoc Committee report to the Primates Meeting attesting that the response was sufficient in two out of three areas should have made the Windsor Bishops re-think their position. My own bishop, +Bruce MacPherson of Western Louisiana, voted against two of the three resolutions (the appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury was unanimous).
John
What’s so difficult to understand?
If ten network dioceses had been present and able to vote, that would have been ten votes.
The people I listed in the second group might be as many as twelve.
That totals twenty-two.
More than that may well have voted against the specific proposition being analysed here: I am merely reporting second-hand from Stand Firm’s analysis.
The judgement as to who is a true “Windsor” bishop again comes from Stand Firm although I am inclined to agree with it.
Beware of misunderstanding the number 80 quoted above.
Bishop Kelsey states in his own report http://upepiscopalnewz.blogspot.com/2007/03/jim-kelseys-report-on-spring-bishops.html that a total of some 140 bishops were present altogether. 80 was the high water mark of the group which initiated the actions he describes in his report, and so could be said to have had a hand in drafting the long statement issued.
Simon – I read Kelsey’s report to be speaking about the resolution to not participate in the PV Scheme and refer to matter to the Exec. Council. I was also under the impression that the “longer statement” of the House, passed by a much smaller margin (a simple majority) due mostly to the fact that many thought it was not the time for such a statement. I could be wrong. And if I am apologize to contributing to any confusion or misunderstanding.
Regarding the non-ACN “Windsor Bishops”: As has already been shown by the recent House of Bishops meeting, a number of these bishops (perhaps even most) are clearly more loyal to the Episcopal Church than to the Anglican Communion, when push comes to shove. As long as being a “Windsor Bishop” does not imply schism, the number will be higher. When being a “Windsor Bishop” does imply schism, the number will drop. I don’t think there’s any threshold number for the ABC or GS to “intervene”. I think the ABC wanted to get an idea of the number in order to… Read more »
Simon
So maybe it was, or maybe it wasn’t, 24, and maybe it has, or maybe it hasn’t, fallen by 8.3% to 22. That clears that up, then. 😉
To pick up my other question, does that now mean that a significant proportion of the TEC HoB is now to be regarded as not ‘Windsor Compliant’?
Oh dear, where will it all end?
Even one Windsor bishop is one too many. What do people see in that document? It is a repudiation of Anglicanism.
So, how many Windsor bishops does it take to screw in a lightbulb…er, pass a resolution.
10 more than the Network bishops or 30 more than the Network bishops seems far short of a majority and hardly a ‘bedrock’ to build a new member of the Anglican Communion upon.
Heck, at least one isn’t even a TEC bishop anymore, several are retired, and others aren’t diocesans. If you want an army of bishops, you can go and consecrate anybody. What’s of interest is how many diocesans are prepared to jump ship.
“Windsor Bishop” does imply schism. There is no purpose for it otherwise.
12? Good number. Watch out for the guy with a bag of silver, especially this Thursday.
Oh, come on, Bill and Goran, “Windsor Bishop” does not imply schism. Now, I have been told that there is a difference between “windsor” and “Windsor” (little w and Big W); but, to me, the phrase “windsor bishop” only means one who chooses to accept the Windsor Report, in full as written. That is hardly schismatic. The diminishing of the non-ACN bishops aligning strongly with ACN, Duncan and Akinola proves the point. If General Convention 2006 had fully accepted WR in all of its points, Akinola would not have been able to push the Primates around the way he did… Read more »
Russell S. Knight wrote: “… one who chooses to accept the Windsor Report, in full as written.”
Sorry, but I have been following this for a dozen years now and as far as I can see no one accepts the Windsor Report or Lambeth 1.10 – even less the 1998 resolutions in their entirety – “in full as written”.
Only the Americans (and to a lesser extent the Canadians) have even wasted their time on discussing it.
I have no interest in seeing the center of Anglicanism hold, if it means adopting a single proposal in Windsor. I still believe that the Anglican Communion can’t survive in its present form and shouldn’t survive if anything like the WR’s proposed covenant is adopted. We can formalize a consultative process. We can’t and shouldn’t accept a curia. That is a repudiation of Anglicanism.