Monday, 26 February 2007

who are the Windsor bishops?

See earlier report of statistics used by Bishop Duncan, referred to by the Bishop of Winchester (“something over a quarter of its bishops and dioceses”) and mentioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury (“perhaps amounting to nearly one quarter of the Bishops”).

Who are these bishops? And do they each speak with the authority of their diocesan conventions, or only as individuals? Does having a “Windsor bishop” automatically create a “Windsor diocese”? And if so what is the extent in each diocese of dissent from that position?

Let’s start with the simplest question, the numbers of bishops.

As best I can tell, and I welcome corrections and comments on this:

All ten Network bishops are to be included in this list. OK, right now South Carolina doesn’t have a diocesan bishop in office, but it’s safe to assert that the bishop-elect should be included.

Outside the NACDAP, the following fourteen bishops appear to be candidates:

The Rt. Rev. Jim Adams, Bishop of Western Kansas
The Rt. Rev. Duncan Gray Diocese of Mississippi
The Rt. Rev. Samuel Johnson Howard, Bishop of Florida
The Rt. Rev. Russ Jacobus Diocese of Fond du Lac
The Rt. Rev. Charles Jenkins Diocese of Louisiana
The Rt. Rev. Gary Lillibridge, Bishop of West Texas
The Rt. Rev. John Lipscomb, Bishop of Southwest Florida
The Rt. Rev. Edward Little, Bishop of Northern Indiana
The Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana
The Rt. Rev. C. Wallis Ohl, Jr., Bishop of Northwest Texas
The Rt. Rev. Henry Parsley Diocese of Alabama
The Rt. Rev. Michael G. Smith, Bishop of North Dakota
The Rt. Rev. Don A. Wimberly, Bishop of Texas
The Rt. Rev. Geralyn Wolf, Bishop of Rhode Island

I omit:
The Rt. Rev. Mark L. MacDonald, of Alaska, because he has subsequently accepted a post in the Anglican Church of Canada.

So we have a total at present of 24 (including South Carolina).
There are I believe 109 established posts in ECUSA for bishops with jurisdiction, and a quarter of that number would be 27+.

More on this later.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Monday, 26 February 2007 at 10:35am GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA
Comments

But some, like the Bishop of RI, went to only one of the Camp Allen meetings. This is true of some others, as well. And it is not clear that all who went to just one are in agreement with the main group.

It is also true that none of these bishops 'represent' all of the laity and priests in their dioceses. Certainly we know, for example, that Bp Donut faces heroic resistance in his diocese.

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Monday, 26 February 2007 at 1:57pm GMT

Doesn't quite add up, he?

Am I surprised.

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Monday, 26 February 2007 at 3:01pm GMT

I think there are other distinctions to consider. For example, Bishop Parsley has staunchly resisted congregations in his diocese joining the Network.

I believe we will see some further opinions shake out here. Bishop Duncan's response and AMiA's response to the Dar es Salaam Communique suggest they don't believe they would be expected to reconcile with the Episcopal Church, something that seems a more reasonable interpretation of the document; and Bishop Minns' statement is ambiguous. (As to whether that "more reasonable interpretation" reflects actual possibility remains to be seen.) On the other hand, Bishop MacPherson is chair of the Presiding Bishop's Council of Advice. It would seem unlikely that he would choose to leave the Episcopal Church, or to see that it would be necessary.

The suggestion of the Communique is that "Windsor bishops" would be willing to help provide pastoral oversight for dioceses and congregations feeling estranged from TEC, with the stated goal of reconciliation with TEC. That would distinguish them from that smaller group who are committed to departure.

Posted by: Marshall Scott on Monday, 26 February 2007 at 3:31pm GMT

The question arises as to whether the ABC has planted the seeds of a "Windsor Bishop" schism -- I devoutly hope that it not the case (besides the fact that I am canonically resident in Fond du Lac).

There is no question that these bishops do not necessarily reflect the opinions of everyone in their dioceses (IIRC, there was a bit of a panic in Rhode Island for fear that the rest of TEC might thank that they had radically changed their previous position).

Posted by: Prior Aelred on Monday, 26 February 2007 at 3:50pm GMT

Bp. Ohl of NW Texas did not attend the second meeting, therefore I am not sure he can be considered a "Windsor Bishop."

Posted by: Jeremy on Monday, 26 February 2007 at 4:22pm GMT

Bishop Wolf in RI has been quite clear that she attended and spoke for herself, and that nothing was changing within the diocese. There certainly have been no Diocesan Convention or Standing Committee actions that would make us a "Windsor Diocese." Bp. Duncan, however, has been quite willing to slide disengenously from talking about Windsor bishops to Windsor dioceses.

Posted by: Bill Locke on Monday, 26 February 2007 at 4:33pm GMT

Surely you are forcing the case here? 24 of 107 episcopal posts makes 22.5 percent, in which case ++Rowan's description of 'nearly one quarter of the Bishops' seems to be entirely accurate, even if the Diocesan claim of Winchester cannot be substantiated.

Posted by: Matthew on Monday, 26 February 2007 at 6:24pm GMT

Matthew, if the number 24 can be substantiated, then I would agree in respect of Rowan's remark. My intention here is to establish the facts, which so far seem to have been singularly elusive.

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Monday, 26 February 2007 at 6:50pm GMT

Matthew, if the number 24 can be substantiated, then I would agree in respect of Rowan's remark. My intention here is to establish the facts, which so far seem to have been singularly elusive.

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Monday, 26 February


A clear case of trans-substantiation perhaps ?

Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Monday, 26 February 2007 at 6:59pm GMT

Rowan and The Primes just don't get it. They can count pointy hats till the cows come home, BUT it's not just the bishops that call the shots in TEC. Please God, that day will never come.

Posted by: Richard Lyon on Monday, 26 February 2007 at 7:40pm GMT

The irony of the term 'Windsor bishops' seems lost on them and on Rowan !

Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Monday, 26 February 2007 at 8:56pm GMT

If Bp. Howard is a "Windsor Bishop" then why is the Diocese of Florida actively continuing its lawsuit against renegade churches? Clearly the numbers and categories are more than suspect. Every church I have seen in the US has few renegades - but revolution succeeds best when a few make a large noise. A book be D H Fischer "Albion's Seed" tracks US regional ways -based on areas of the UK from which streams of immigrants came - it is the best explanation I have seen to date of the warrior culture that has its strength in the South and which was so important to the War Between the States (US Civil War) - just note where both rebellions started -- and wherre the present one still has its primary supporters - the geographic "center" of the current rebellion is no accident

Posted by: ettuB on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 at 12:43pm GMT

I realize that I may be entering late here but one thing occurs to me. It was +Wimberly who invited those he, and I emphasize HE, felt were Windsor compliant to Camp Allen, at least to the first meeting. In regard to the second, did +Wimberly invite anyone who wanted to come? If not, are all bishops who did not attend Camp Allen, presumably those who +Wimberly did not determine to be sufficiently Windsor compliant by his standards automatically excluded from candidacy for primatial vicar? Is David Andersen a member of TEC or not? If not, as canonically resident in Nigeria through CANA, does he have any authority at all to make any pronouncements whatsoever regarding a decision made by the ordinary of Virginia? If such are under the authority of +Minns, is that his call?

Should one logically assume that +Duncan's letter requesting primatial oversight from the Global South and its revelation due to Calvary's lawsuit and court ordered delivery of it in the discovery to be delivered in <48 hours has "cooked his goose" so to speak with Canterbury? Is it in the purview of the primates to nominate anyone they want for vicar? Does ++Katherine Jefferts-Schori have any veto power over the nominee and the authority to determine which powers she has that she is willing to "delegate"

Posted by: EPfizH on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 at 3:35pm GMT

I suggest a class-action suit in US Federal Court by willing members of TEC to expose the fraud being perpetuated by Duncan and his crowd. The seperation of church and state does not protect the Bishops and their Standing Committees or Priests and Vestries of renegade parishes from
being held personally responsible under RICO laws. Collusion and corruption should be EXPOSED. Let the auditors sweep in from the heavens and if one dollar of parish and diocese funds have been used to subvert the rule of General Convention, indict!!!!!!

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!! AMEN and AMEN!

Posted by: John Hamner on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 at 2:45am GMT

If the 60-50+ vote at Camp Allen to refer to the Theology Committee is significant, the House of Bishops reflects what I see as a division in the Episcopal Church as a whole between those - high church or institutionalists - who value the Anglican Communion and are willing to compromise and those who value the Communion but are not.

Posted by: Tom Rightmyer on Saturday, 24 March 2007 at 6:33am GMT

One of the obvious things to be drawn from this is that there is a range of opinion even among the "Windsor Bishops," and that it is foolish to assume any particular unanimity among them on any part of the issue.

Leaving aside the Network, who have a pretty clear agenda to destroy the Episcopal Church as it currently exists, it would appear that the remaining "Windsor Bishops" cover off several points of view, including, at the very least:

- It was wrong of the Episcopal Church to do these things (ie, ordain +VGR), but schism is no less a sin;

- It was imprudent of the Episcopal Church to do these things until there was a developing consensus across the Communion;

- It wasn't necessarily wrong of the Episcopal Church to do these things, but it would be prudent for us to back away from them for now in order to preserve the Communion.

It may even include:

- It was right of the Episcopal Church to do these things, but it would be acceptable (however regrettable) for us to hold back on further action until an international consensus develops if that is the cost of maintaining the Communion.

Posted by: Malcolm French+ on Friday, 30 March 2007 at 1:06am BST
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.