Thinking Anglicans

how many Anaheim statement signatories?

According to Anaheim Statement Attracts More Support in the Living Church there are now 34 signatories.

That’s five more than the 29 that were reported in this earlier article, Dissenting Bishops Issue ‘Anaheim Statement’.

But that listed only 27 names. So we are still missing two names.

And, several of these names are of bishops who voted in favour of one or more of the resolutions which provoked the statement. According to this tally, at least nine of the original 27.

Update

George Conger has kindly supplied a complete list of the names. Here it is:

The Rt. Rev’d James Adams, Western Kansas
The Rt. Rev’d Lloyd Allen, Honduras
The Rt. Rev’d David Alvarez, Puerto Rico FOR D025
The Rt. Rev’d John Bauerschmidt, Tennessee
The Rt. Rev’d Peter Beckwith, Springfield
The Rt. Rev’d Frank Brookhart, Montana FOR C056 FOR D025
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, Suffragan
The Rt. Rev’d Dorsey Henderson, Upper South Carolina FOR C056 FOR D025
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 FOR C056 FOR D025
The Rt. Rev’d Paul Lambert, Dallas Suffragan
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 FOR C056
The Rt. Rev’d Henry Parsley, Alabama FOR C056
The Rt. Rev’d David Reed, West Texas Suffragan
The Rt. Rev’d Sylvestre Romero, El Camino Real assisting in New Jersey FOR D025
The Rt. Rev’d Jeffrey Rowthorn, Europe
The Rt. Rev’d William Skilton, Dominican Republic
The Rt. Rev’d John Sloan, Alabama Suffragan FOR C056 FOR D025
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 FOR C056 FOR D025
The Rt.Rev. Don Wimberly, Texas retired

I have annotated the list (George is not responsible for my annotations):
italics denotes retired
Suffragan
Voted FOR C056 and/or FOR D025

20
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
20 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
15 Comment authors
Christopher ShellFord lemsAn ObserverFord ElmsSimon Sarmiento Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Ann
Guest

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?

George Conger
Guest
George Conger

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… Read more »

Lynn
Guest
Lynn

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

George Conger
Guest
George Conger

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

The Rt.Rev. Don Wimberly, Texas retired

Spirit of Vatican II
Guest
Spirit of Vatican II

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

JCF
Guest
JCF

*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.

Robert Ian Williams
Guest
Robert Ian Williams

Nice to see a woman bishop on the list.

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

Erika Baker
Guest
Erika Baker

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

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

Prior Aelred
Guest

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).

ettu
Guest
ettu

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

Kurt
Guest
Kurt

Looks like the last gasp of Bible Belt Episcopalianism.

Simon Sarmiento
Guest

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 http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=13282 “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… Read more »

Ford Elms
Guest
Ford Elms

“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.

BobinSWPA
Guest
BobinSWPA

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.

Simon Sarmiento
Guest

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

http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2009/07/update-on-signers-of-anaheim-statement.html

Ford Elms
Guest
Ford Elms

“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… Read more »

Christopher Shell
Guest
Christopher Shell

‘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’.

An Observer
Guest

Kurt:

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.

Ford lems
Guest
Ford lems

“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… Read more »

Christopher Shell
Guest
Christopher Shell

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… Read more »