Tuesday, 27 February 2007

more on the "Windsor" statistics

Updated

Lionel Deimel, Joan Gunderson, and Christopher Wilkins have published a detailed analysis of the statistics previously discussed here.

A Modest Analysis of NACDAP’s “Anglicans in the United States”.

Here is part of it:

…We now turn to the Coalition numbers. It is virtually impossible to verify the 48,000 number of “Network Parishes in Non-Network Dioceses.” The 194,312 number of members for “Network Dioceses” is consistent with the declared Network dioceses and their numbers shown in TEC statistics. This is an over count, however. There is opposition to the Network in all Network dioceses, and, in most of them, the opposition is highly organized. Moreover, the Network is not equally strong in all Network dioceses. In Pittsburgh, the 13 parishes that have formally declined membership in the Network have 6,200 members, including the 2nd and 3rd largest parishes in the diocese. This is just over 30% of the diocese. Pittsburgh’s diocesan dynamic is by no means unique. Typically, at least 25% of the Network diocese membership shown actually opposes the Network, and many more parishioners find the entire conflict distracting and would prefer a system that minimized diocesan division instead of exacerbating it. Some parishes are quite divided, and in almost every parish will have some parishioners that disagree with its stance (whatever that is), but 25% dissenter seems a fair guess, accounting for all the intermixing of partisans of anti-Network sentiment in the typical Network diocese. Applying this analysis would mean that reducing the 194,312 number shown for Network dioceses to 145,734 would be realistic.

Most questionable is the 201,501 figure shown for “Non-Network Windsor Dioceses.” PEP has been unable to verify this figure. It does not correspond to the number of members in various dioceses whose bishops attended the Camp Allen meetings, and there seems to be some confusion about just who is or is not a “Windsor bishop.” Among the bishops who attended the first meeting were two who retired (Salmon and Herlong) and were thus no longer diocesans. Another bishop (MacDonald, of Alaska) left his TEC see for Canada. The diocese of a fourth (Wolf, of Rhode Island) has steadfastly refused to endorse any resolutions supportive of the Windsor Report. A fifth bishop is on medical leave from his diocese (Lipscomb), and his successor, who has already been chosen, has not joined this group. Five bishops did not return for the second meeting at Camp Allen in January. Four new bishops attended that meeting (Jenkins, Gray, Jacobus, and Parsley). Bishop Parsley has been adamant that those in his diocese should not join the Network!

Mark Harris has posted Numbers, we’ve got numbers, we’ve got lots and lots of numbers. and more recently More on the Moderator’s Numbers.

epiScope has useful links to the sources of statistical data used.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 at 8:16am GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA
Comments

When the Diocese of Albany voted to affiliate with the Network in June, 2004, 40% of parish deputies and 25% of clergy voted no. It's unlikely that the Network has gained ground here since then.

I have it from a contact in South Carolina that about 40% of folks in pews are solid for the TEC, though only 10% of parishes are.

Duncan's numbers are almost pure fiction. Pity they seem to have impressed +++Rowan.

Posted by: Robert on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 at 2:55pm GMT

When it comes to statistical majorities, I guess "Athanasius contra mundum" would mean we should all be Arians. :-(

Posted by: John Richardson on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 at 6:04pm GMT

If you repeat any fiction often enough it will eventually appear in print or online and once it appears in print or online it is then THE TRUTH.

Posted by: Newlin on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 at 7:39pm GMT

Dear friends,

Elizabeth Keaton at http://telling-secrets.blogspot.com/
and Mad Priest at http://revjph.blogspot.com/
have each two responses from Bp. V. Gene Robinson regarding the "Season of Fasting" and with a "Word of Hope". Mad Priest likes his layout better, but Liz K. has color photos!
Enjoy.
Lois Keen

Posted by: Lois Keen on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 at 7:56pm GMT

When it comes to statistical majorities, I guess "Athanasius contra mundum" would mean we should all be Arians. :-(

Posted by: John Richardson on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 at 6:04pm GMT

Some of us are !

Good to have religious freedom.
Freedom from those who would look into our souls --- be yhey bishops of Rome, archbishops of Canterbury, or Canterbury Curias .....


Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 at 10:45pm GMT

Some of us are [Arians]!

Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 at 10:45pm GMT

Just when I thought 'Thinking Anglicans' had no surprises left! (Doesn't it, though, negate the title if some of the people here, indeed, deny the Trinity?)

Posted by: John Richardson on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 at 12:26am GMT

Laurence, 'religious freedom' means you don't have to be an Anglican. But subscription to the Niceno-Constantipolitan Creed is part of the definition of Anglicanism, just as neo-Arianism ('the Word was a god') is part of Jehovah's Witnesses belief.
What Quakers believe, noone can say, not even Quakers (except Yorba Linda Friends Church and a few others). But you are gentle people, God bless you.

Posted by: Steve Watson. on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 at 11:35am GMT

My understanding is Quakers like Unitarians have a lot of leave way with regards to beliefs.

On the numbers, my old home parish is firmly network but thats because most of the people are orthodox. On the other hand if they had to choose a new American Province or TEC, many would choose TEC. Supporting the argument against women's ordination or an inclusive church is one thing but not being able to call yourself Episcopalian, thats not an option.

Now there are some parishes in Pittsburgh that are pretty homogenious on the question of Network or TEC but I tend to think more are a mixed bag. IMHO

Bob

Posted by: BobinWashPA on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 at 2:18pm GMT

And do you think that there is no support for the Network agenda in parishes located within "revisionist" dioceses? There are parishes as well as individuals who, given a chance to remain part of the AC, would align themselves with a new province and divorce themselves from TEC. The "over count" may actually understate the level of disagreement and dissatisfaction with TEC's leadership and its novelties. Threats of deposition and forfeiture of parish facilities have kept some on the sideline waiting for rescue.

Posted by: Dave on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 at 3:06pm GMT

Robert:

I don't dispute the fact that there are minorities (in some cases sizable) in windsor parishes and dioceses that are anti-windsor. However, isn't it also safe to assume that there may also be minorities (in some cases sizable) in non-windsor parishes and dioceses that are pro-winsor?

Steven

Posted by: Steven on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 at 3:17pm GMT

Stephen and John lighten up !

So glad to have been the innocent (?) cause of such surprise and such evident interest ! Augurs well for a process of listening : - )

For myself, I am captivated by the sorely neglected (in Church circles) message of JESUS and the call to discipleship.

I have never come to terms with this neglect, or why crooning to him ("Lord,Lord" perhaps?!) should take up so much time and energy, rather than a listening process to his message and an imaginative application of it to us individually and corporately.

Personal word to John & Stephen -- you accuse me of denying the divinity of Jesus. Let me tell you that I have never denied the divinity of any man.

Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 at 6:12pm GMT

Ha, ha, Laurence - nice one - good to know someone still reads Robertson Smith. You have a delightful ragbag of mutually contradictory ideas (take that, Aristotle!), like a modern RE syllabus, none of which is followed through logically or historically. Still, that's progressive '60s education for you. 'All you need is love ...'
Hinduism isn't an Anglican option either. Ask any convert.

Posted by: Steve Watson. on Thursday, 1 March 2007 at 6:51am GMT

Bless you too, Steve.

SO Glad you got my little 'ommage to RS!Thank you, How lovely. Glad you read / have read and retained him.

'all you need is love' --- nice summary of Jesus' message

thanks !

btw

have you come across Bede Griffiths osb 's Catholic-Hindu ashram in India ? Although Bede has moved on, now, there are some great things going on there still, I understand - on the christology front among others.

Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Thursday, 1 March 2007 at 1:41pm GMT

"The bishop's blog" on the website of the diocese of Upper South Carolina quotes a January 13th 2007 resolution of the Diocesan Executive Committee as stating that "the Right Rev’d Dorsey F. Henderson, Jr., Bishop of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina, has proclaimed his commitment to be a “Windsor bishop of a Windsor diocese”."

http://upperscvii.wordpress.com/

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Friday, 2 March 2007 at 1:22am 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.