Friday, 21 January 2005

yet more on the American bishops

The Church Times carries a report of the American House of Bishops meeting, ECUSA offers its apology for ‘hurt’ caused.

Its final paragraph, on the website, reads:

Bishops in the conservative Anglican Communion Network (ACN) immediately criticised the House of Bishops for “failing to issue a definitive statement on moratoria”. Twenty-one of them signed a statement calling for ECUSA to comply in full with the unanimous recommendations of the Windsor report. Their “statement of acceptance of and submission to” the report, issued through the ACN, concluded with a commitment to “engage with the Communion in our continuing study of the biblical and theological rationale for recent actions”.

In fact, this description of the signatories is not quite accurate. Not all the signers of the statement are bishops whose dioceses are members of the Network of Anglican Communion Diocese and Parishes. There is an analysis of the signatures below the fold. But since the meeting, no additional signatures have been announced, not even that of Terence Kelshaw, Bishop of the Diocese of the Rio Grande, which is a Network member.

Analysis of signatures of A Statement of Acceptance of and Submission to the Windsor Report 2004

I will update this analysis as and when the number of signatures changes

Current diocesans i.e. bishops with jurisdiction

A. NACDAP member dioceses (10 total number, 9 signatures so far)

Keith L. Ackerman (Quincy)
John W. Howe (Central Florida)
Robert Duncan (Pittsburgh)
Daniel W. Herzog (Albany)
Edward L. Salmon, Jr. (South Carolina)
Jack Iker (Fort Worth)
John David M. Schofield (San Joaquin)
Peter Beckwith (Springfield)
James Stanton (Dallas)
absent from signature list - Rio Grande

B. Other bishops with jurisdiction 6 so far

D. Bruce MacPherson (Western Louisiana)
Gethin B. Hughes (San Diego)
Bertram Nelson Herlong (Tennessee)
Don A. Wimberly (Texas)
James B. Folts (West Texas)
James Adams (Western Kansas)

C. Other bishops 6 so far (they would not have any vote to be counted in any moratorium that might occur)

Henry Scriven (Assistant, Pittsburgh)
David J. Bena (Suffragan Albany)
Stephen H. Jecko (Assistant, Dallas)
Gary R. Lillibridge (Coadjutor, West Texas)
William C. Frey (Colorado, retired)
William J, Skilton (South Carolina) SUFFRAGAN - incorrectly noted elsewhere

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 21 January 2005 at 2:38pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA
Comments

Simon, You need to move Stanton (Dallas) from section B to section A, as our diocese voted to join the NACDP at convention a few months ago.

And now I need to go pray on that again so I don't get depressed about it all over... (sigh)

I have made changes accordingly. I do wish it was easier to find out the current correct list of Network dioceses.
Simon

Posted by: David Huff on Saturday, 22 January 2005 at 6:45pm GMT

Hang in there, DH. An entire _chorus of angels_ precedes you, shouting "Make way for *David, the Image of God*!" (knowing that, the fact that the democratic majority of ECUSA has your back, is kind of gratuitous, ain't it? ;-p)

Posted by: J. Collins Fisher on Sunday, 23 January 2005 at 7:27am GMT

Amazing how these things evoke such opposite emotions in us; depending on which side of the theological fence we are on, of course...

Hurray for the ECUSA Bishops who were prepared to speak up, or sign up, for re-entering the Anglican communion - despite the risk of becoming targets of hate from the liberal majority !

Posted by: Dave on Thursday, 27 January 2005 at 11:40pm GMT

Dave wrote:
"...despite the risk of becoming targets of hate from the liberal majority"

While I certainly can't say that no "liberal" would make these bishops a target of hatred, I find this stmt more than a bit overblown and melodramatic. Sure, there are extremists on both sides, but what I've noticed is that the language, sometimes very forceful, from the "liberal majority" side most often focuses on how much they disagree with the "conservative's" position. On the other hand, I've heard *much* more insulting, vituperative language aimed as personal attacks from the AAC/"Network" side. Go read what people post in the comment sections on the websites run by David Virtue or Kendall Harmon if you'd like to find an embarrassing plentitude of examples.

The take-home message here is that you aren't hated, you are being *disagreed with* - it's a vitally important distinction :)

Posted by: David Huff on Friday, 28 January 2005 at 12:33am GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.