Comments: "Windsor" bishops reducing in number?

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.

Posted by Bill Carroll at Friday, 30 March 2007 at 1:48pm BST

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.

Posted by John Richardson at Friday, 30 March 2007 at 1:56pm BST

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 ABC would be open to a rethink.

Posted by C.B. at Friday, 30 March 2007 at 2:36pm BST

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).

Posted by Russell S. Knight at Friday, 30 March 2007 at 2:52pm BST

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.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Friday, 30 March 2007 at 3:13pm BST

Beware of misunderstanding the number 80 quoted above.

Bishop Kelsey states in his own report 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.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Friday, 30 March 2007 at 3:16pm BST

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.

Posted by C.B. at Friday, 30 March 2007 at 4:10pm BST

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 judge whether the House of Bishops could possibly come more into line with the Anglican Communion.

It should now be obvious that it will not.

Posted by Randy Muller (Diocese of Northern California) at Friday, 30 March 2007 at 6:37pm BST


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?

Posted by John Richardson at Friday, 30 March 2007 at 6:58pm BST

Even one Windsor bishop is one too many. What do people see in that document? It is a repudiation of Anglicanism.

Posted by Bill Carroll at Friday, 30 March 2007 at 10:06pm BST

So, how many Windsor bishops does it take to screw in a, 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.

Posted by Robert Leduc at Saturday, 31 March 2007 at 3:08am BST

"Windsor Bishop" does imply schism. There is no purpose for it otherwise.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Saturday, 31 March 2007 at 10:12am BST

12? Good number. Watch out for the guy with a bag of silver, especially this Thursday.

Posted by David Keen at Saturday, 31 March 2007 at 11:40am BST

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 in Dar es Salaam. Now is the time for +++ABC to hold the center of Anglicanism against Akinola. That will force the "Windsor Bishops" to choose between Anglican and ACN/CANA -- and most will choose Anglican.

Posted by Russell S. Knight at Saturday, 31 March 2007 at 12:34pm BST

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.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Saturday, 31 March 2007 at 1:35pm BST

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.

Posted by Bill Carroll at Saturday, 31 March 2007 at 1:56pm 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.