OPEN THREAD [1 Remains]: Which “Windsor” Bishops Voted to Reject the Pastoral Structures of Tanzania

Didn’t Bishop Howard attend at least part of one of the Camp Allen meetings? In a March 2006 letter to his congregation he said “...I am committed to being a Windsor Report bishop and leading a Windsor Report diocese…”

I am not suggesting that he is a conservative Bishop, in fact he has a record of hostility to the orthodox that matches that of Bishop Parsley. But like others, he has used the “Windsor” mantle to discribe himself at times.

Hi Timothy,

Bishop Howard, as I recall, attended part of the first meeting of Windsor Bishops but left early, apparently irked that when he brought up issues of border crossings, the other bishops looked at him with glazed and disinterested eyes.

I have not included any bishops who did NOT attend at least one meeting, since, frankly, any bishop, including Smith, Chane, or Bennison could claim to be a “Windsor” bishop—saying something like “living into the spirit of the Windsor process on the plains beyond good and evil—I’ll meet you there” or something vacuous like that. 

The meetings seem to me to at least nail down 4 “specifics” that Windsor bishops have to adhere to in order to attend the meetings—they serve as the “non-negotiables” from which conversation starts.  These are listed, by the way, in the Tanzania Communique in the appendixes.

I should add that if anyone discovers bishops who voted to accept the pastoral structures of the Communique—and thus voted against the HOB mind-of-the-house resolution—please add that in the comment thread.

+Wolf says of the Communique’s PV proposal, “As a House, we found this to be unacceptable.”

This is ambiguous, of course, with the “as a House” qualifier, but her statement suggests she supported the HoB resolution, particularly as she emphasizes that “While the vote of the House was not unanimous, responses crossed ‘party’ lines.”  Obviously, though, it’s an open question which (if any) “party” she sees herself as belonging to.

From items posted at SF:
Lillibridge says right out that he voted to ACCEPT the PC/PV scheme.

Steenson and Jenkins don’t explicitly state how they voted, but I think it is strongly implied that they also voted (or would have voted if they had been there) to ACCEPT the scheme.

From an article posted at TitusOneNine, I think it safe to say that Peter Beckwith and Ackerman also voted or would have voted to ACCEPT the scheme.

According to the Peoria Star neither Ackerman nor Beckwith
attended the meeting.

Here’s a challenge that I would like to put out to anyone who is comprising lists as to who was there and who was not.  My understanding from a secondary source that I do not have permission to reveal is that the vote on the longer resolution was very slim, less than seven, and not by the wide majority that people may have believed.  I wasn’t there so of course I don’t have proof.  But my question is, “How many conservative bishops did not attend?”  Because if that number is seven or more there could be well have been a different response.  So if any on Stand Firm have the resources, contact one of your bishops who WAS there, confirm the vote difference as less than seven, and then do the numbers.  If I’m right, it’s another good reason for us to encourage the orthodox bishops to show up and vote.

jamesw, go back and read Lillibridge’s statement.  The statement leads one to believe that he voted against the resolution, not because he was in favor of a primatial vicar, but because he thought that this was not the right time to vote.  He thought the meeting, as Schori had said earlier, was one whereby there would be talking, not voting.  Thus he thought that such a vote would bring more division, not less.  Nowhere in his statement does he say that he support the idea of a primatial vicar or council.  He MIGHT…but you won’t find that in his statement.

Bishop Love has written to the diocese of Albany that he voted against both resolutions;  therefore he voted to accept the pastoral structure.

If a Bishop voted against the resolutions, then the contrapositive is also true, that he/she voted NOT TO REJECT the pastoral structure outright. It does not follow that such a vote ACCEPTS the pastoral structure as envisioned in the communique, as there may be side issues that must be resolved before it is acceptable. In addition, there are indications that the vote outcome was different on the two resolutions, indicating additional nuance of positions by the bishops. Care must be taken when characterizing a person’s stance using a vote outcome as the sole criterion.

My recollection is that there was a vote to refer the “statement” to the theology committee, and that it was this that failed by 20 votes or less . . . but I could be wrong.

If the “statement” passed by a slim margin, this could be a fair criticism of bishops who did not attend.  However, such bishops, like the rest of us, may have been operating on the belief—-recall the words of Jan Nunley—-that the only thing that would happen at the meeting would be discussion, and that the substance of the proposals in the communique would not be voted on.  Sounds to me like they got outmaneuvered, that someone (Bishop McKelvey?) may have figured “This is our chance” and drew up resolutions or statements in advance.

But I could just be paranoid . . .

Marginally off-topic:  Does anyone recall the good ol’ days in the ‘50s and ‘60s when American pundits examined the lineup of Soviet officials reviewing some parade in Pravda pictures to figure out who was running the show and who was on his way out?  Does all this analyzing of 815 and its thoroughly domesticated HoB seem at all familiar?

“I try to be cynical, but I just can’t keep up.”—Lilly Tomlin

Bishop Herlong of DioTN has retired since the Camp Allen meetings and I assume he did not attend the HOB meeting.  Bishop Bauerschmidt issued a statement following the Communique from which I quote:

The Diocese of Tennessee is on record, at its most recent Convention, in stating that “the findings and recommendations of the Winsdor Teport represent the best way forward for the Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Communion”.  In addition, the Diocese remains committed to being a “full and active part of the Anglican Communion, in unit with the See of Canterbury, and the Episcopal Church USA; forgoing our own local desires for the sake of the greater Anglican Communion; and a conciliar approach to decision-making in the life of the Church and the Anglican Communion by working with and heeding the collective wishes of the Communion before making unilateral decisions”.  As Bishop, I am committed to the “Camp Allen principles” that the Primates have looked to in their Communique as providing a way to care for the Church during this interim period.

I am not aware of +Bauerschmidt having issued any statement on the HOB meeting nor have I been able to find any on the diocesan website.  If anyone knows how he actually voted and why, I am keen to hear it.

Friends,

I am only interested in the “mind of the house” resolution addressed to the Executive Council that urges it to “decline to participate in” the pastoral structures articulated by the Tanzania Communique.  I am not interested in the HOB statement.

Here’s why. 

If a bishop voted against the mind-of-the house resolution about the Tanzania pastoral structure, then it is highly likely that he voted against the HOB statement also.

However, it is quite possible that a so-called “Windsor” bishop might vote for the mind-of-the-house resolution about the pastoral structure while voting AGAINST the statement by the HOB.

Why? 

Because the HOB statement is so far out there and so repeatedly pokes in the eye the Anglican Communion that I could see all sorts of institutionalists and even revisionists voting against it, in terror that this would serve to further reduce the institution in the eyes of the Anglican Communion.  They would count such a statement as “divisive”—because in fact it reveals the extent of the contempt that the Episcopal church holds for the communion.  No institutionalist would want that, even if of course it is true.

I will make this distinction clear in the body of the post.

Bishop John David Scofield was NOT present at either the second Windsor Bishops meeting that was infested with heretics nor at the HOB episcopal jamboree. His comments are poignant:        “I am not surprised at all by what the HOB did, but only the speed with which it happened. I thought the HOB would meet prior to Sept. 30, but they dismissed the Primates call out of hand. Now they have the gall to ask for the Archbishop of Canterbury to spend three days in prayer with them!” Bishop Schofield has the Peace of the Lord…

Milton,
Bishop Bauerschmidt said in a diocesan meeting a few days ago that he had voted against both resolutions - in other words, voted against rejecting the Pastoral Council.  He did not really go into any more detail.  I expect he will probably make a statement at some point, but I have not seen one yet.

Bishop Jacobus of Fond du Lac informed the clergy that he voted against both resolutions.

Bishop MacPherson told me in an email that he did not vote for the resolutions that rejected the Primates Communique.

Wasn’t this conducted by a voice vote?

Another question:  which bishops were not present?

This day, as I learn which bishops were not present I am posting that above in the actual post, under each bishop’s name.

I believe that the vote on the rejection of a big chunk of the Tanzania Communique was by voice.  Thankfully, those who voted against that resolution are speaking up—or other parishioners are emailing in the news on the votes as they come in.

I think, if all of us work together, we’ll know exactly which “Windsor Bishops” voted for the HOB resolution against the Tanzania Communique.

I’ve heard through the grapevine that only 57 bishops were present—hardly the mind of the house.  We are at a historic moment.  It is my opinion that all bishops should endeavor to be present, regardless of expectations of what will transpire.

I’ve heard through the grapevine that only 57 bishops were present—hardly the mind of the house.  We are at a historic moment.  It is my opinion that all bishops should endeavor to be present, regardless of expectations of what will transpire.

Is there any way to get a list of those in attendance? It could prove interesting. I know only 2, the Bishop Elect Tom Breidenthal, and Suffragan Bishop Kenneth Price of the Diocese of Southern Ohio. I don’t think either had a vote.

http://rathernot.classicalanglican.net/?p=266

Someone help me out here, hmmm?  Constitutional experts?  Canon lawyers?

From The Living Church:

The resolution and accompanying statement were the handiwork of approximately 80 bishops, one bishop present told The Living Church.

<a >

Bold emphasis added.

There seems to be some uncertainty as to how many bishops were present.  +Lillibridge reported that the vote on the third resolution was 61-53.
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2643/

It’s possible that my source, who spoke to a bishop, misunderstood.  I have not directly spoken to a bishop myself.
Even if that were the case, the variance between 80 bishops and 114 bishops is considerable.  Were there different numbers of bishops present for the vote on different resolutions?

I think the discrepancy in how many votes were needed is based on the difference in number of votes needed to defeat the resolution compared with the number of ovtes needed to refer the resolution to a committee.  A vote to defeat might have fallen only seven short, but a vote to to table or a vote to refer to a committee would have required a two-thirds majority, and thus the bare majority isn’t so significant.  What might have seemed like passing only be seven votes essentially woud have passed by twenty or so because of the two-thirds majority needed to table.

Jill,
  The registraion for this event was $900.  Not all Bishops can just throw out $900 plus travel expenses.  Also they were told that nothing was to be decided at this meeting….  Hmmm, disinformation campaigns live.  But if you take 114 Bishops and add 815 staffers, there was over $1 Million in just the conference part of this week…  I know of no camp and conference center that charges that much.  Where does the $$$$ go, infusion to the almighty MDG?

Loose Canon,
    I think your math is wrong. Say a total of 150 attendees times $900 equals $135,000 in conference fees. The bill would have to run to $7000 per person to crack the million dollar mark. Hopefully that is not the case.

Sarah fils, forgive me but I will use Fils, meaning sister, older meaning daughter.  We have 4 children, 2 dughters and have made a life of not forgetting to put them on the top shelf.  It is a matter of communion.

I note your placing +Parsley’s vote in a conspicuous position re: Primates’ plan for TEC communion going forward.  Be it now recorded: I have not discussed +Parlesy’s vote w/ him, and do not represent him here or in any other way.  BUT I am honored to be in communion w/+Henry,  so I resent the implied condemnation of your post: “vote against the Primates’ plan, ergo you cannot be Orthodox.”  Of course Sarah, you stated it more politically:“a so-called “Windsor” bishop might vote for the mind-of-the-house resolution about the pastoral structure while voting AGAINST the statement by the HOB.” 

Let me be careful about Orthodoxy, and state to you why one might be orthodox and firmly resist this latest litmus test, penned in TX.  Orthodoxy is about relationships, not dogma.  No orthodox believer would ever find a way to sneak out from under the facts—Facts—that Truth is embodied in the trinitarian Eucharist: God, Son, Spirit, living together, and found here and now in our Church.  We (meaning us who are alive today) are in communion with Jesus Himself, those who came before and those who come after, through the work of the Holy Spirit, separate but still a part of Father and Son, and subject to Spirit’s power.  That said, we have a problem: can we or can we not decide who among us might be part of the whole? Our Primates @ DES issued a call to communion.  Very wise, and consistent with their roles as ++bishops.  You seem to be saying that +Parsley is somehow restricting that call by voting NO in Camp Allen.  I am saying not true, Orthodoxy may very well be voting for union, not division, which is the greater (though politically lesser) good.  There are multiple Scripture cites for all this, but the most important thing is we can actually agree on these terms, and put behind us the “2 churches under one house” concept.  Of course that will require laying down the relatively picayune political stuff as in “gay justice,” as well as the relatively fatuous stuff as in “KJV: good enough for grandma, good enough for me.”  What I am calling for is an orhodoxy of the heart: Our relationships are primary, our views on medical practices, or psychology, or US government policies are petty compared to our relationships.  Thus: we have no Christian “worthy opponents.”  If they are Christian, they cannot be opponents, only friends—in your case Fils.  And Sarah: drop the “worthy:” it’s just kitsch for “we all know what worth these dogs have in our eyes, but let’s us appear courteous.”

Dacama,
    Mea Culpa….  fat fingers on the small calculator..  The point individually is still that some Bishops (Dioceses)  can’t be throwing around $1500 for a “gee lets get together and talk”  feel good session.  Still that the Bishops were told that nothing was to be decided at this gathering….  It would be interesting to see what one major positive theological decision has come from a House of Bishop’s gathering in the past decade….  ???

What has happened to our list, Sarah?  I see only eight names above.  Or have I missed some announcement that would explain this?

I am with you Paula…I am totally confused by the outcome of this line of research…what did we discover?  Why only 8 names?  I have been distracted by academic competitions in social studies and current events, plus master schedule training in Zangle, plus teaching a class on Jefferson’s vision of America vs. Hamilton’s vision of America and being observed on Saturday…I seemed to have missed something…

On reflection, is see some courage in +Parsley’s letter.  It is a forthright declaration that puts his position on this key vote on public record, without equivication.

Obviously, I could not disagree more with his position and for several reasons do not believe it is consistent with an orthodox perspective.  However, my primary complaint about Bishop Parsley in the past had been in his duplicity, issuing statements downplaying events, calling Alabama a Windsor Diocese (to some ears) and suggesting that there was no chance of a rupture in the Anglican Communion (while at the same time taking actions very hostile to orthodox advocacy in the Diocese).

In contrast, this statement represents a move toward clarity on his part and gives parishioners in his Diocese the information they need to make an informed decision in the months ahead.  Perhaps we are getting to a point where all sides are willing to be more candid in their intentions and positions. Thats a good thing, even if we don’t like the positions being taken.

In response to Loose Canon’s comment about the $900 registration fee:

Whenever we plan a meeting, we figure it costs approximately $1,000/person for room, board, meeting expenses and transportation for a 3-4 day meeting.

The Camp Allen calendar lists the House of Bishops meeting for March 16-22, which means they were there for a minimum of six nights (or scheduled to be).  Having planned meetings at Camp Allen in past years, I figure that rooms there are probably running about $125/night, including food.  (It should be noted that Camp Allen has hotel-style rooms, not the usual “conference center” type.)  That would make it about $850/person.  The other $50 probably went for AV rental, meeting room expenses, etc.  That’s actually not a bad price for a six day meeting.  (Or the cost was $150/night/person for room & board, which is $900 divided by six—still not a bad price.  You can check online for events being held at Camp Allen for comparison registration fees.)

Airfare probably ran anywhere from $200-$800/person (estmated, depending on point of origin and how many weeks prior the flights were booked), and then you have to add in ground transportation at both ends of the flight—and Camp Allen is about an hour from the Houston airports.

So, I’m guessing that most of the Province IX bishops did not attend, although sometimes a companion diocese will foot the bill for these folks to attend a meeting. 

Note that Bishop Ackerman stated the diocese could not afford to send him to the House of Bishops meeting, but he was able to afford attending the Windsor Bishops meeting six months prior.

Paula, thanks for pointing this out.  I went back and recovered the research and list of names—no idea why suddenly this Wicked Wicked Blog decided to hack off all that we have done.  But it’s back now . . .

I suspect that it is entirely the work of the elves, somehow.

RE: “I note your placing +Parsley’s vote in a conspicuous position re: primates’ plan for TEC communion going forward.”

Terebinth, all the names of the bishops are in alphabetical order.  The only reason Bishop Parsley is prominent is that I had to have an example, and he is the only person I know so far that had attended a Camp Allen meeting that also voted against the pastoral structures recommended in the Tanzania Communique.  Fear not, I’m sure there will be others and then maybe that will make Bishop Parsley less “conspicuous”.

RE: “BUT I am honored to be in communion w/+Henry . . . “

I’m sure you are.

RE: “. . . I resent the implied condemnation of your post: “vote against the primates’ plan, ergo you cannot be Orthodox.””

I am merely listing the facts as they come in as to who voted against the pastoral structure of the Tanzania Communique.  Other commenters may infer from that what they wish.  . . . And I am sure that they will. 

I doubt it will be that “Bishop Parsley is not orthodox”—I suspect it will be something worse, rather.

If I were a supporter of Bishop Parsley’s, I’d be irked that he looks so bad right now too.  But like Timothy said, at least he’s being honest about where he stands—very refreshing.

RE: “. . . put behind us the “2 churches under one house” concept.”

You are welcome to do that.  But I won’t be doing that, and others won’t either.

RE: “And Sarah: drop the “worthy:””

No thanks.

RE: “. . . it’s just kitsch for “we all know what worth these dogs have in our eyes, but let’s us appear courteous.”

Of course, it may be kitsch for you, and you may think that the reappraisers are “dogs”—and how appalling that is—but it is not kitsch for me.

They’re worthy because of who they are intrinsically—and they’re worthy because they have cleaned our clocks in the political game.  They are worthy opponents . . .

Interesting that you don’t like the term, though.

JeffH,
    Nothing at all against Camp Allen.  But there are less expensive places to hold a meeting.  I just came from a meeting of about 100 where the per 24 hour expense was about 1/2 what you cited.  Of course we are talking about the same group that spent a week at the Ritz-Carlton in San Juan right after Katrina…...

terebinth said, “Let me be careful about Orthodoxy, and state to you why one might be orthodox and firmly resist this latest litmus test, penned in TX.  Orthodoxy is about relationships, not dogma.  No orthodox believer would ever find a way to sneak out from under the facts—Facts—that Truth is embodied in the trinitarian Eucharist: God, Son, Spirit, living together, and found here and now in our Church.” 

Sorry terebinth, no go. You can’t have orthodoxy this way. B/C TEC separated and/or reconstructed dogma [by this I assume the essentials of the faith and catholic order] these past few decades, relationships will change and always suffer. Attempting to have an orthodox relationship with confusion about what we believe to be orthodox is an oxymoron. The church is not an ‘I’m okay, you’re okay’ embodied and united relationship, but as you say based in the fact and truth of a triune God [not Eucharist, though you may not have meant this], and what He reveals about himself in holy scripture and in the Word incarnate Jesus Christ His Son. It is debatable whether God will be found among those who want to refashion him in their own image of relationship, along with the rest of biblical revelation and apostolic teaching, even while they participate in a Eucharist within this church. Personally, I think not. And no orthodox believer would want to deny [sneak out] oneself the relationship the church affords with other united like minded in fact and truth believers holding to the new covenant shared in baptism and stated in the Creeds.

Matt & company, I went to Bishop Wimberley’s statement of the 22nd.  I can’t figure out how he voted from it and he sure didn’t come out and tell what he did.  Is there any information from those in the know in DoT?  Number Three, do you know?

According to the SW Florida web pages BP. Lipscomb MAY file a statement to the diocese later this week.  I say may because it was my understanding he did not stay due to illness, and may not have voted.  No word on what the Co-Adjuter did or did not do.
Doug

++Duncan and ++Adams were in attendance and both voted against the HOB resolutions.  As mentioned earlier, we were blessed with their presence at our little stone bridge in Tomball for worship on that Sunday.  In fact, at that time they were unaware of a ‘statememnt’ being issued.

I believe that ++Henry “Nutt” Parsley is a liberal progressive by almost any measure.

WillyB+:  No sir, it is not the specifics of belief that make our faith.  Our faith rests on much more solid ground, and that ground is the relationships 1: among the Trinity, and 2: among us who live and believe and have lived and will live believing in such power.  WillyB+, you say to me:“You can’t have orthodoxy this way. B/C TEC separated and/or reconstructed dogma [by this I assume the essentials of the faith and catholic order] these past few decades, relationships will change and always suffer. Attempting to have an orthodox relationship with confusion about what we believe to be orthodox is an oxymoron.”  No sir the confusion ‘about what we believe’ comes from the mistaken substitution of specific items for those solid relationships.  The relationships which hold together Trinity are the relationships which hold together the Church, and hold each member into salvation (or not), communion (or not), riteousness (or not).  Because Christ has realized his saving relationship with the Father, we are allowed to realize it also.  Because Spirit has enabled us to know these truths, we have new life, new work, and new relationship.  These relationships immensly transcend any beliefs that could be labeled, in your case labeled orthodox.  The following of and adherence to those eternal and uncreated relationships is what I’m calling the orthodoxy of the heart.  It grieves me that what passes for orthodoxy here is so shallow, even to Sarah’s “they’re worthy because they have cleaned our clocks in the political game…or…No thanks…or…You are welcome to do that.  But I won’t be doing that, and others won’t either.”  Builds great relationships, such attitudes.  Worse, such attitudes show a very unbecoming hardness.

RE: ““they’re worthy because they have cleaned our clocks in the political game” . . . Builds great relationships, such attitudes.”

If Terebinth were truly interested in building “great relationships” he would not have difficulty in quoting my sentence—the entire sentence. 

But he does have such difficulty—and so he continues to prove time and time again that his difficulty with truth is systemic and pervasive.  I hope that it is not permanent, but we shall see.

Continuing in that fashion over the past years that he has been occasionally posting here leads many of us to understand why people have difficulty building “great relationships” with Terebinth.

I suspect that it is entirely the work of the elves, somehow.

Methinks it was a tag left unclosed by the (ahem) thread author. I have personally seen to it that all elves are confined to small cages just outside the front gate where the guards can keep an eye on them. They have been provided a pan of water and a bowl of thin gruel.

Wow, that’s good news about bishop Little of Northern Indiana. Now if he joins the Network, I will go into shock.

Sarah, et al:

From whence did we surmise +Wimberly’s vote?  I sure hope their is evidence but I too have reviewed his statement and see little of any commitment.  Sad when just a week before he was at our parish he claimed “strong orthodoxy” in front of the whole group.

FYI,

+Mark MacDonald had surgery Friday…rather a serious problem with his leg, which has been ongoing and resisting treatment for several months now.

Sarah, Fils—0h Please do not freak out, and always best if you whine alone.  Y’know a Christian from their walk, not their talk.  My poor, imperfect works here to show that orthodoxy is not political, not reactive, not created clearly falls short for you and yours.  No problem, Sarah: Jesus calls, His sheep hear.  Many are the voices crying in the wilderness these days.  To be heard one would best just forget about such stuff as: ” (Terebinth’s) difficulty with truth is systemic and pervasive.  I hope that it is not permanent, but we shall see.”  Concentrate, Sarah on the real Truth which is before you and beyond your political, pedestrian and humanistic goals.  BTW: thanks for getting my gender correct this time.

terebinth,
Hate to beat this drum one more time but GENDER is a grammar/language thingy; the make-up of your genitalia is called SEX. So Sarah got your SEX right, if that is the case. And “ORIENTATION” is a whole new invention, implying that some might be enlightened to use their genitalia the way they were intended (may I say “designed”), or find some novel new way to use them (sometimes called by the unenlightened ugly things like sodomy or oral sex).

The irony is the false definition called “transgendered”. All that would mean is that we would call someone “she” instead of “he” as a matter of a grammar adjustment. It wouldn’t even require any surgery or hormones! “Transexual” would be the more accurate term for those tempted by surgical or hormonal/wardrobe adjustments.

Hey G’stream: I am a 62 year man, married for 34 years, have 4 wonderful adult children and still (TBTG) a very happy sex life.  Sarah has a history of referring to Terebinth as “she,” for some reason until tonight.  It’s part of her demeaning attitude, I reckon—could be deeper but I can’t be bothered w/Sarah’s ID problems.  She hacks me off w/her spin and glory.

RE: “To be heard one would best just forget about such stuff as . . . “

Hi Terebinth . . .you are mistaken.  I do not wish to “be heard” by you and therefore have no interest in changing my viewpoint in order for you to “hear” me. 

I would like to “be heard”—if I am to “be heard”—by those individuals whom I respect deeply, and I do not think that you are capable of advising me on that hope.

RE: “Sarah has a history of referring to Terebinth as “she,” . .. It’s part of her demeaning attitude . . . “

How appalling that you would believe that calling someone a “she” is “demeaning”, when their screen name is not in any way a name that indicates whether they are male or female.

And so blatantly dismissive of the female.  I’m shocked that someone who claims to be moderate would just come out so boldly and say that the female appelative is “demeaning”.

RE: “She hacks me off . . . “

Heh.  Kinda hard to miss.  ; > )

Sarah: your memory is so slight.  It was you who referred to T as “she” in a most demeaning way, months ago.  I didn’t rise then, it’s not really that big a deal now except for the spin you try to put on it.  BTW I am not moderate.  I do practice moderation as best I can but it is a struggle. You?

Again, Terebinth, you continue to imply that calling a non-gendered “Terebinth” by the pronoun “she” is somehow “demeaning”.

I remain appalled that you would consider the use of the pronoun “she” as demeaning.

It tells me, I guess, what you think of women.

Sad . . .

I wonder why T hangs around SF and takes all this abuse like having gender not recognized, being hacked off, etc?  T must be a really strong and tough warrior.  Maybe he really secretly admires and likes Sarah.  Just wondering.

I would really like to let go of this but Sarah **please remember** it was you who used the reference to T as she in the demeaning way.  You can spin and spin Sarah, but your “sad” and your “blatantly dismissive of the female” is not mine.  You wrote it, it’s yours, it’s petty and off topic.

Terebinth, being gender neutral as a word, could be addressed as “he,” “she,” or “it”.  I believe it is a tree and therefore “it” would seem most apropos.  However, since humanity in academe has been freed from the shackles of patriarchy, it is entirely appropriate to use the female pronoun as an alternative to “he”.  In fact, it appears to be required in academic papers concerned with soft sciences as a means of demonstrating one’s liberation from the oppressive oligarchial types (except at the NYT - PBUT).  So, really Terebinth, you seem sadly out of step with the times and the sheerly singular honor of having been treated academically.  I admit it may have been entirely due to the processing Sarah received and her level of enlightenment, but surely faced with a neutral tree word and no living ents left in the USA, she was free to utilize the pronoun of modern preference without intending your perceived slight.  (Though there is the matter of how unliberated some of your attitudes seem to be, ...but que sera sera!)

dwsr:  Oh the joy! Now I am unliberated, and by the high orthodox no less.  To be such a slave; St Paul called us hupuertes.  Sera indeed.  Let’s see what the rest of the “Windsor” bishops can add to this.

Uh, T, medication time?  Your lack of drollity is showing.  Lighten up.  Unless you believe all the patriarchal claptrap, then I suppose you could mistake irony for attack.  In which case, really strong meds!!!

A tragic byproduct of TEC’s apostacy is that it manifested itself in sexual Peyton Place that its members have been forced to watch. Everyone has lost, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

Since I joined a GS Anglican church I can’t recall a single instance when our clergy or SS leaders have felt it necessary to discuss—much less “point to”—homosexual activity or single out homosexuals for “condemnation”.  The operating premise, from our parish to our Bishop to our small groups, is that God’s Word, read in context, is a reliable rulebook upon which to live.  That type of security is liberating, and is ultimately much more hospitable and inviting to sinners of all types and discription than the most “inclusive” Episcopal Church. 

I know what it is like to be on the ocean in an approaching stomr when your engine is out and your anchor line is fouled up.  Its a scary, stressful and dangerous situation for everyone, regardless of how good a sailor they are.  Thats why TEC is in turmoil.

Again, Terebinth, I don’t need to be reminded that I referred to “Terebinth” as a “she”.  I am happy that I wrote it and it was “mine”.

The person behind the word “Terebinth” had given no indication of true gender, and neither does the word “Terebinth” offer any indication except that of a tree, which in English would usually be an “it”, although sometimes in literature trees are, like ships, referred to as “she.”

Nevertheless, I was pretty certain that the person behind the “Terebinth” was not an “it”.

I continue to be amazed and appalled that someone would claim that using the word “she” when referring to the non-gendered word of “Terebinth” is somehow “demeaning”.

This is simply shocking, that a commenter at StandFirm would say or believe such a thing about women, implying that to be referred to as a “she” is demeaning.

I don’t know what else to say . . . just a bizarre realization that sometimes even the most inclusive Episcopalians can believe such things about female persons.

Sarah: Bishop Michael Smith, ND, “did not vote to reject the pastoral structure of the Tanzania Communique at the HoB meeting.”  Also, Mark MacDonald, Alaska, was not in attendance due to illness.

frjohns, thank you!!!

Let me clarify.  Am I correct in seeing, by your statement, that Bishop Smith voted AGAINST the HOB resolution that rejected the pastoral structures of the Tanzania Communique??

Friends,

Thanks to all of your efforts, we are getting very close to learning the names of those bishops who voted against the HOB resolution that rejected a huge chunk of the Tanzania Communique.

This is exciting to read these names.  So far, a mere two bishops—that we know of—who have attended the meetings of Windsor bishops voted for the HOB resolution.  Those are Bishops Parsley and Wolf.

I will be very interested to learn particularly about Bishops Lipscomb and Ohl.

Thank you for all that you have done to work on this list.

Yes Sarah, Bishop Smith, ND, voted AGAINST the HoB resolution.

+Mark MacDonald had surgery on a leg Friday, and is ‘doing well’ now, hoping to get back to Navajoland soon.

Bishop Lipscomb was present at Camp Allen, but left before the vote was taken

Sarah, your very words: “This is simply shocking, that a commenter at StandFirm would say or believe such a thing about women, implying that to be referred to as a “she” is demeaning.

I don’t know what else to say . .”  Frankly Sarah, I doubt you are at a loss for words.  I feel sure that you will find a way to spin your disingenuous and sick so-called dumbness into some sort of warlike, axial retort to me.  Welcome to your Orthodox Church.  I point again to the orthodoxy of the heart, to be distinguished from your orthodoxy of the lips.  Love T

RE: “I feel sure that you will find a way to spin your disingenuous and sick so-called dumbness into some sort of warlike, axial retort to me.”

No need to spin anything—your above comments speak for themselves.  Very strange.

RE: “I point again to the orthodoxy of the heart ...”

Your own “orthodoxy of the heart” demonstrated in the above comments also speaks for itself.  Hearts can be as corrupt as minds, sadly.  The invective above, I suppose, is some sort of “heart” demonstration.

Why do liberals have such a lack of a sense of humor?  They must live such grim, serious lives.  It is much better to be in this happy band of brothers (and sisters).  Let’s get the last WB nailed down and close this thread.  I’m going off to have a good time.

RE: “Matt Kennedy pointed out in his most recent article that “A New York times article published this morning indicates that some “conservative” bishops supported the effort to kill the Pastoral Scheme”—so I got curious.”

Well friends, we are nearing the end of this very fruitful line of research—thank you!

I suppose when the New York Times spoke about “conservative” bishops supporting the effort to kill the pastoral structures, they were either referring to Bishops Parsley or Wolf—or to no Windsor bishops at all.

I would guess, perhaps Howard?  Maybe the Diocese of Central Gulf Coast?  I dunno . . .

But so far—barring the one that we have no knowledge of [Bishop Ohl]—of the 25 Windsor bishops, we know of:

—2 that voted for the HOB resolution opposing the pastoral structures of the Tanzania Communique
—6 who did not attend the meeting
—3 who attended the meeting but were unable to vote
—14 who voted AGAINST the HOB resolution that rejected the pastoral structures of the Primates

Elizabeth Kaeton claims to be orthodox. I guess they have a new definition for orthodox.

But then were dealing with the New York Times here as well.

So, then the NY Times definition of “some” is two or possibly three…do you think that the two or three should be left off the invitation list of the next Windsor Bishops meeting?  Certainly interesting research…thanks Sarah.

I’ve just come from visiting the Diocese of Northwest Texas website http://www.nwt.org thinking that perhaps some sort of clue might be lurking that would tell of +Ohl’s position on this particular issue. No statement in the shadows, but the ‘updated’ March 15 Newsletter had two very unfriendly headlines. One was the announcement that the diocese was suing Church of the Good Shepherd, currently under the de facto control of individuals who voted to leave the Episcopal Church and organize as an Anglican church under the diocese of Mityana in Uganda. The quotes from +Ohl sounded remarkably like those from +Lee, but I would think a genuine orthodox Windsor bishop would have taken a different stance even if “forced” to litigate by 815.

The second article was about Holy Trinity and their request of the bishop to be allowed to be part of the primates PV oversight scheme. The article began with a paragraph about the vestry decision to pay its allotment to the diocese on an annual basis, which is allowed by the canons. The negative spin comes in the headline that claimed the Holy Trinity Vestry voted “withhold” the payments and requested alternative primatatial oversight.

I do not think we should hold our breath expecting a friendly vote from such an unfriendly place.

I am relieved that we are down to one unknown vote. And I am encouraged that so many voted our way. Could it be possible that this group of Bishops could hitch up their britches and do something posative? And give some of us pew-sitters some hope for the future?

Good luck getting any info out of NWT. I have called and emailed and have never got any information. Here is the diocese we are treated like mushrooms. Kept in the dark and fed B*******t. I can only assume that given the conservative nature of most people in the pews, if what was going on in the wider community was discussed at the diocesan level, that there would be a revolt among the conservative, homophobic, red state, fly over territory, unenlightened, non nuanced, clod hoppers that actualy pay for things here. Just my opinion of course.

Hi lost in Texas . . . well thanks for trying anyway!

I’m curious about something. I know that NW Texas is essentially conservative in the pews.  I guess my confusion lies in why they have not organized together . . . why isn’t there a “band of brothers” in the diocese with people working together from many different parishes??

I’ve always wondered about that—look at the other dioceses in Texas and there are such organizations.  But NW Texas—none that I know of.

Sarah, I grew up in East Texas after being born in Mississippi, but NW Texas has some similarities that might explain most of the problem…people come in two groupts…One group tends to be scattered into small isolated communities and the small congregations there are probably like my old church…older population resistant to change…with the key being - little use of the internet.  Without this site congregations would be dependent on their priest who was probably educated at a liberal seminary (in Texas, the seminary is in Austin THE most liberal city in the state).  The second group is in the major cities where we would find people more likely to be techno-knowledgeable, but those areas have had some influx of outsiders who tend to be liberal.  There are more factors and I could name cities and give examples, but those two dynamics would tend to produce the results you are questioning…

Sarah, johnp has NWTx in his gun sight, with a few corrections for windage and distance.

I arrived as the newly married vicar to serve St. Mark’s [on the edge], Coleman TX America, 52 miles SE of Abilene with Brady in WTx just south, Brownwood in FW 33 miles east and Llano in TX an hour SE. Four of us could meet for coffee and discuss everything but TX west of the Pecos. I was there from ‘83-‘89 and those were wonderful years with a very welcoming traditional mission in perhaps the most politically conservative county seat in TX. Interestingly, we had more single adults than married.

I was asked to led the official county sesquicentennial observance and my cassock, surplice, preaching tabs and tippet below a face with Burnsides under a chute six silver-belly seemed most appropriate. The area also elected me as the first dean of the Eagle Cove Deanery. We learned and loved NWTx.

As to distance adjustments: my vicarage was 330 miles from the Quarterman Conference Center where most activities like clergy conferences, Cursillo Weekends, youth, women, men’s weekends and camps were held. Try an imagine getting eight drivers up there in two vehicles to drive the cars of team members and new Cursillistas home after a weekend was over between 4 or 5 pm.  Then add two clergy conferences, one mandatory Small Church week required and then working a week of summer camp. Oh, I jumped in to help Dick Thayer crank up Happening as well. If you were “Drivin’ Friendly” [= staying to the right and driving on the wide paved shoulders at legal speed limits to avoid being run over] or staying with the pace it was the difference of either 6.5 hours legal or 5+ hrs avg 75 mph one way to the center. One could always follow the high flyer’s and cut it to a little over 4.

Distance is one of the largest factors in NWTx.

One of the positives of +Hulsey’s tenure was pushing all the clergy getting together for New Ministry Celebrations, ordinations, marriages, burials. That helped. Why, there were six of us for the deconsecration of a chapel at Emmanuel, San Angelo. And a funeral in an iced in cold spell up at Dalhart [an additional hour] had about 100% attendance and ten XIT branded white TX Cadillacs [back then= Suburbans] idling and warm behind the hearse to carry us all to the cemetery. Lubbock and diocesan house were over 3 hours away. You measure distance in hours of travel.

A parishioner had just completed her 2 year term as NWT ECW President and wore out her yellow real diesel Cadillac [she had one of the few good one’s]driving from one edge of the diocese to the other time and again. Ms June didn’t miss anything.

Now a windage adjustment. If Austin was “liberal” there were a few of the home grown that got their degree up in Berkley or at that previous bastion of evangelicalism in VA. The therapeutic model was imprinted in their spiritual DNA and they did a lot to acclimate the newly arriving younger clergy to the wind driven plains of NW Tx. Even the cap-rock didn’t provide much protection from it. +Hulsey, while born and raised a Texan, was more liberal than +Quarterman or +Henton. He welcomed everybody equally warmly, another of his great gifts.
They sure look Anglican, <a >  photo</a> as +Hulsey’s Curtomary required this atire for all diocesan events unless one was in the sanctuary party.

I just drilled down in the NWTx website but couldn’t find anything new. 

Windage and distance, never forget to adjust for ‘em.

Somewhat off topic, but one Windsor bishop, Dan Herzog of Albany, has joined the Roman Catholic Church.
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5769

Thanks, you two, very much.  These were helpful comments.

I do think, though, that someone with some hard work—like the ECW president you mentioned—might really form something special. 

I guess what I notice is that of all the five dioceses in Texas—this one is going to be left out.

Oh well . . . ; < (

Sarah, you are absolutely right about the possibility of organizing even in West Texas…those who know each other should try…meetings could be done on-line without driving…set up a blog for discussions, or whatever…if I had friends in West Texas I would already have encouraged them to build a Coalition like we have in the Diocese of Texas…most of the work is done through email between leaders with local meetings held rarely, but parish meetings often irregular and yet frequent…our Coalition met this morning and I am looking forward to the end of the school day so that I can go get an update…I suspect the Coalition will be issuing a statement soon…

Bob+
I was trying to give a quick shotgun blast at the target, I figured somebody with a rifle/scope would fine tune and make the adjustments…we used to drive to Lubbock every other year for football games and the drive was mind numbing….even at 80 mph, so in-person organizing would seem impractical…it was my basic assumption for starting with the issue of why not internet networking…in small town East Texas the drives are 2-3 hours which is still difficult for many of the older generation, especially those who avoid night driving.  Here in Harris County there are Episcopal Churches in every direction all within an hour and you can draw quite a crowd without overly inconveniencing anyone….same thing for Dallas/Ft. Worth and San Antonio I presume.

Sarah, what blew my mind was that +Ohl voted no on +VGR and supported the windsor process while other of my former friends voted “yes.”

A Cursillista from NWTx now worshiping elsewhere cordinated a Faith Alive Weekend in Centennial CO for an AMiA congregation a few weeks ago.

A now retired priest and I conjectured that by 2050 the functional line in TX for speaking English would be at Lubbock and down to DFW and dropping south east of I-35 as the water in W TX continues to disappear. We W TX Episcopalians like our electronic rigged fishing boats and Black Jack on the rocks, single malt scotch and water and iced tea too much to exist in the baren deserts too well. So, we need some Southern Cone Spanish speaking desert rats from Chile and Peru so come north for a few years and plant some new congregations, if the posibility happens to occur.

If anyone on this site would like to contact me please feel free and we can discuss if there is anything to do in NWtx. I am interested in finding like minded people who want to defend this little stone bridge.

Who’s the StandFirm technocrat??????

Given the parishes that have left or are on the verge of leaving, the financial viability of the Episcopal Diocese of Northwest Texas, which has always been marginal (the Diocesan apportionment exceeds 20%), will be sorely tested.

Mark Brown
San Angelo, Texas
(Anglican Church Of The Good Shepherd, Anglican Province of Uganda)
March 30, 2007

Just a short note, from one who was a parishioner in the former Good Shepherd Episcopal Church and Emmanuel in San Angelo.  My experience in West Texas, in San Angelo, was that people pretty much leave other people alone to do their own thing.  West Texans are friendly to a fault, will give you the shirt off their respective backs, give you money, lend you a horse, bail you out of jail and generally go out of their way to lend a hand.  They also are generally non-judgmental, non-interfering unless you are stealing cattle, sheep, horses, or their boat or pick-up.  There were a number of gay bars in San Angelo, but they generally attracted little or no notice, since gays kept their preferences and activities to themselves.  Now, a parade or demonstration from a flaming, in-your-face, gay group is a different story.  Then folks might saddle up and pay a visit.  Just my observations.

Marc, 
Nick from a diocese over.  Just a question.  Why would a parrish, in a diocese with a Windsor Bishop who does not ordain people in SSU or allow SSUB to be performed, want to get alternative primatial oversight.  Isn’t that enough for a Bishop to do?  Please enlighten me.  We’ve to a bishop who is probably more conservative than Wally and we still have a couple of parrishes that are grumbling about leaving.
Thanks,
Nick

Hi Righteousness . . . I’m not Marc, but generally speaking what I’ve noticed is that reasserting Episcopalians *start* from the point of view that essentially the denomination as a whole is led by a very corrupt and heretical set of bureaucrats.

That being believed, one next takes a glance at one’s diocese.  The Diocese of NW Texas, for instance, has at its leadership level a number of revisionists calling the shots.

At that point one usually says “well, at least we’ve got our parish—now how can we assure succession and not being dragged down by the terrible ECUSA Brand?”  And in some instances, parishes realize that in their diocese, it’s just not possible.

Now, I recognize that your being a reappraiser and all, you wouldn’t see the national denomination or diocese in the same way—you would rather revel in their theology and practice.

Keep in mind that I am merely explaining all of this from a reasserting point of view.

A parallel might be if—after the national Tylenol/cyanide scare—the national brand said that they would not be ordering a withdrawal of the Tylenol brand from the shelves.  And then some local states said “we’re not all that concerned about the Tylenol on our shelves—we’re leaving them up”.  That would force local pharmacies to make the decision to restock, rather than leaving it at the state level.

Interestingly, another option would be for states and cities and local pharmacies to *create their own highly specialized and carefully monitored* brand of Tylenol. 

That is what the Network essentially did in their organization within ECUSA.  They said: “Look, we know the national manufacturer is a bust—we’ll create our own manufacturing system for local dioceses and parishes, and everyone that signs up to our process will have the Network-Seal-Of-Approval.”

Just “sharing” with you, Righteousness, a bit of perspective from “The Other”.
; > )

My own view on why they might leave has to do with being under the authority of a PB who clearly isn’t Christian from the orthodox view, and even though I have an orthodox Bishop in a Windsor Diocese, some money ends up in the coffers of ECUSA and is being used against orthodox churches in lawsuits and I would just as soon be in CANA out from under the PB with no money reaching the other side directly or indirectly and then continue the battle from there…having said that I have not supported leaving yet…BillK, on another thread talked about his sense that he was under attack spiritually and I feel the same way…as if Satin is trying to stampede me out before we can all leave en masse..I prefer to stay and leave en masse if I can withstand the assault, so I have not yet brought this to my rector or introduced it as a resolution on vestry because I am waiting on the call of the Holy Spirit, but I do consider this waiting game to be a serious hazard to our spiritual health…and I long for it to be over.  I can fully understand why they might seek oversight.

The Diocese of Quincy has a bare bones budget - we are just a bunch of farmers out here and not among the “elite” when it comes to funds.  Six months ago there could have been money in the budget.  Today there is not.  There is no one more faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ than the Bishop of Quincy and perhaps when people say they are going to do one thing, he actually believes that they are being honest, because he would judge them according to his own standards.  PERIOD!