Comments: how many Anaheim statement signatories?

How many of these are bishops with jurisdiction who will actually vote if there is need for consent to the election of a partnered gay or lesbian bishop?

Posted by Ann at Tuesday, 21 July 2009 at 5:15pm BST

The 34 as of Saturday morning

The Rt. Rev’d James Adams, Western Kansas
The Rt. Rev’d Lloyd Allen, Honduras
The Rt. Rev’d David Alvarez, Puerto Rico
The Rt. Rev’d John Bauerschmidt, Tennessee
The Rt. Rev’d Peter Beckwith, Springfield
The Rt. Rev’d Frank Brookhart, Montana
The Rt. Rev’d Andrew Doyle, Texas
The Rt. Rev’d Philip Duncan, Central Gulf Coast
The Rt. Rev’d Dan Edwards, Nevada
The Rt. Rev’d William Frey, Rio Grande
The Rt. Rev’d Dena Harrison, Texas
The Rt. Rev’d Dorsey Henderson, Upper South Carolina
The Rt. Rev’d Julio Holguin, Dominican Republic
The Rt. Rev’d John Howe, Central Florida
The Rt. Rev’d Russell Jacobus, Fond du Lac
The Rt. Rev’d Don Johnson, West Tennessee
The Rt. Rev’d Paul Lambert, Dallas
The Rt. Rev’d Mark Lawrence, South Carolina
The Rt. Rev’d Gary Lillibridge, West Texas
The Rt. Rev’d Edward Little, Northern Indiana
The Rt. Rev’d William Love, Albany
The Rt. Rev’d Bruce MacPherson, Western Louisiana
The Rt. Rev’d Alfredo Morante, Litoral Ecuador
The Rt. Rev’d Henry Parsley, Alabama
The Rt. Rev’d David Reed, West Texas
The Rt. Rev’d Sylvestre Romero, El Camino Real
The Rt. Rev’d Jeffrey Rowthorn, Europe
The Rt. Rev’d William Skilton, Dominican Republic
The Rt. Rev’d John Sloan, Alabama
The Rt. Rev’d Dabney Smith, Southwest Florida
The Rt. Rev’d Michael Smith, North Dakota
The Rt. Rev’d James Stanton, Dallas
The Rt. Rev’d Pierre Whalon, Europe

Posted by George Conger at Tuesday, 21 July 2009 at 7:15pm BST

George - that's 33 of the 34. Do you know whose name is missing from your list?

Posted by Lynn at Tuesday, 21 July 2009 at 10:39pm BST

My mistake ... neglected to turn the page ... number 34 is

The Rt.Rev. Don Wimberly, Texas retired

Posted by George Conger at Tuesday, 21 July 2009 at 11:00pm BST

That's quite a lot of bishops -- looks like the TEC is not so gay-friendly after all.

Posted by Spirit of Vatican II at Tuesday, 21 July 2009 at 11:52pm BST

*Seems* to be less than 1/4 of the total # of bishops.

Unfortunate, to be sure (IMO). NOT an insurmountable hurdle to an LGBT episcopal candidate---needing a simple majority of consents---though.

Posted by JCF at Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 2:21am BST

Nice to see a woman bishop on the list.

St Paul can be revised on women, but not on homosexuality.

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 7:19am BST

"St Paul can be revised on women, but not on homosexuality."

Is another Papal infallibility statement? Or how else would you know?

Posted by Erika Baker at Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 9:05am BST

Spirit & JCF -- quite a few of those names are suffragans or retired & thus do not have votes on consents on episcopal elections (although it is pretty clear that the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States of America would have no more let gays out of the closet that it would have let the slaves go free).

Posted by Prior Aelred at Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 9:45am BST

It was my understanding retired Bishops and Suffragans do not have a vote in confirming Bishops-elect.

Posted by ettu at Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 11:57am BST

Looks like the last gasp of Bible Belt Episcopalianism.

Posted by Kurt at Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 2:15pm BST

Although there are about 20 diocesan bishops in the list who did not vote for either of the two resolutions mentioned, in the judgement of Anglican Mainstream, as reported here

"An analysis of the noes ( those who said no to DO25 and CO56) shows that those who did it out of a confessional doctrinal basis are only a small number – no more than 10 people. This is very clear when some of them who have said no are on record as saying that this is not the right time or the right strategy."

Anyone care to construct this "inner circle" of ten?

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 6:27pm BST

"Nice to see a woman bishop on the list.

St Paul can be revised on women, but not on homosexuality"

Well, yes. Conservatives get to revise anything they want to, because, being conservative, they know better than anyone else what God wants, since they are the only truly obedient ones. Besides, once they have revised Paul, or anyone else, it ceases to be a revision and becomes "orthodoxy". They're not unlike Rome in some respects.

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 9:25pm BST

I noticed the Rt. Rev’d Pierre Whalon as a signer. I'm wondering if some of these people signed this for other reasons than shutting the door to GLBT people? Pierre spends time at All Saints Church, Rehoboth, DE. This is an openly inclusive church with a sizable gay membership (compared to most parishes its size). It seems to me he isn't the type to be objective to full inclusion.

Posted by BobinSWPA at Thursday, 23 July 2009 at 7:49pm BST

Further annotations in particular identifying members of the Communion Partners group:

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Thursday, 23 July 2009 at 11:38pm BST

"It seems to me he isn't the type to be objective to full inclusion."

So why did he sign, I wonder? I've been frank about my misgivings about the whole "inclusion" business. It just doesn't sit right, for some reason I can't explain. It has something to do with the nausea I feel when I walk into a strange church where no-one knows me to be greeted by painted on smiles and hollow "Welcome!" by people who have no idea who I am or what I'm doing there, and who thus seem far more interested in being all touchy feely and "validating" my humanity or something. I just want to tell them to relax, stop being so plastic and insincere, give me my books and stuff, and let me get on with what I came for, and get their Christianism out of my face. It all strikes me as being more about them being some sort of uberChristian than it is about me. Same with this. I have the sneaking suspicion that if you took away from a lot of these comapigners for inclusivity the sense of self aggrandizement they get out of "standing for the downtrodden", there'd be far fewer defending us. I am no-one's ego fodder.

Despite this, I side with the inclusivists. Given the choice between people who need some ego stroking and people who, well, who behave the way the Right has been behaving, I think the choice is a no brainer. Egotism and need for validation might be annoying, especially in those who see me as a source of those things, but it's far far far better than lying, cheating, scheming, propagandizing, reviling, and blatant hypocrisy. To me that's pretty basic, so I can't understand either why your apparently fairly liberal acquaintance made the opposite choice.

Posted by Ford Elms at Friday, 24 July 2009 at 1:59pm BST

'Inclusion'/'inclusivity'/'inclusive' are funny terms. No precise person, writing good English, would use them in an unqualified/absolute way, since then they become meaningless. ('Lord, You are worthy.' - worthy of what? 'We should be inclusive.' - inclusive of what? wherein?) What is motivating this inexact vagueness?

We can all make long lists of those who should not be 'included'. Labour Party fanatics on shortlists for Liberal candidacy. Unenthusiastic/non-participating athletes on shortlists for school athletics gold medals. Those who do not wish to be Christians on lists of people to be classified as 'Christians'.

Posted by Christopher Shell at Saturday, 25 July 2009 at 1:52pm BST


Could be that the concern is one of maintaining their historic faith rather than acceding to a strict gospel of social justice at the expense of it.

Posted by An Observer at Sunday, 26 July 2009 at 7:16pm BST

"Those who do not wish to be Christians on lists of people to be classified as 'Christians'."

We should equally define "Christian", Christopher. Many over the years have told me I am not a Christian because I am not "saved", or because I was baptised as an infant, or because I have never spoken in tongues, or because I pray from a book, or because I am an Anglican, or because I have not "Accepted Jesus as my Personal Saviour.", or because I reject the concept of a "Personal Saviour", or because I am not Roman Catholic, or because I ask the Saints to pray for me, or because many members of my Church do not. Frankly, if someone wants to tell me I'm not a Christian because I'm an "unrepentant homosexual" they have to stand at the back of a very long line. And they need to get used to the idea that thir reason for disqualifying me as a Christian is but one of a vast number of such reasons. I notice there are very few Anglicans in that line, and all of them from the ACNA/GAFCON/FCA "pick an acronym" crowd. What does that say? How do I pick which, if any, of those people I will allow to decide whether or not I am a Christian? What makes the judgement of one of them more important than the judgements of others in that line? How do you define "Christian"?

Posted by Ford lems at Monday, 27 July 2009 at 2:12pm BST

The crucial thing is not to assume that the definition of 'Christian' is of yours or my own making. It would be in fashioon to do so, but there is no justification for this. The word had a definition long before any of us were born.

The term appears in the NT 3 times (Acts twice, 1 Peter once). Initially it was a term used by others rather than by the Christians themselves (cf. prime minister). The term arose because messiah-following Jews had to be distinguished from non-messiah-following Jews. It was not rejected as a self-description either by Paul or by Peter, since it means 'Christ-person': both an accurate and a complimentary/positive term. To be a Christian is to be organically 'in Christ': hence it is hard to think of any more suitable alternative designation.

The group called Christians already had several self-designations that distinguished them from others: people of the way, saints, brethren, the 'saved'. One of the most pervasive terms is regeneration / being born again, which appears across several writers including John, Peter, author of Titus. All of these terms are embraced by Christians with open arms, as being accurately descriptive. It is not a question of culling one of them: all of them are accurate, and all can be used.

These terms all refer to the same group of people: namely, those who have repented, believed, received the Holy Spirit, and been baptised (or, from God's perspective, been saved). There are acts of will involved and also divine realities involved.

Posted by Christopher Shell at Wednesday, 29 July 2009 at 12:11pm 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.