4/17/2008

Network Bishops to Meet and Move On.

On April 24th there is a scheduled meeting of the Network Bishops. "The purpose of the meeting," according to the ACN website, "is to allow Network bishops to speak frankly with each other about the future." There will be plenty to talk about, including the sad showing of Network bishops at the House of Bishops meeting, where at least they might have voted as a sizable block (and perhaps objected to process) on March 15th to the deposition of Bishops Schofield and Cox. (No this is not an invitation to visit once again the validity of the vote.)

The Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes lists 10 dioceses as part of the Network, also known as "The Anglican Communion Network", but a recent posting on the ACN website says, "Dioceses that have made formal decisions to affiliate with the Network are Fort Worth, Quincy, Pittsburgh, Albany, South Carolina, San Joaquin, Central Florida, Dallas and Springfield. (The Diocese of the Rio Grande took a number of steps toward affiliation. However, their status was never completely clear.)" So there are nine members of the Network, for sure.

Over at Stand Firm (see, I knew I'd have to refer to them again) they have been compiling a list of how bishops voted on the matter of consent to deposition of Bishops Schofield and Cox.

So far we have the following, if the Stand Firm list is reasonably correct:

Absent: 3

Springfield – Beckwith.

Duncan – Pittsburgh

Iker – Fort Worth


No: 3

Howe, Central Florida

Lawrence, South Carolina

Love, Albany


Present / Abstain 1

Stanton, Dallas


Not reported: 1

Quincy


No Bishop: 1

San Joaquin.

So far, out of ten possible votes to support Schofield and Cox, only three No votes (votes supporting them) are known to have been cast. It would appear then that nine Network bishops (if one includes Bishop Schofield) are in formally in play, of whom eight were in a position to vote on the depositions. Three actually voted to support Schofield and Cox.

It would seem that the bishops will have a lot to talk about at the meeting on the 24th. The Network Bishops are shutting down: one has left the Episcopal Church, two are thinking of doing so, five or so are sticking it out for the present, and perhaps one is just missing in action.

My sense is the meeting will spell the end of the Network. Its activities will be absorbed in the Common Cause Partnership and those Network Bishops that are contemplating leaving the Episcopal Church will find comfort there. Those who remain will hopefully continue to be active members of the House of Bishops, show up, vote their conscience and press for what they believe is right and good for the Church.


2 comments:

  1. Let's be honest. There is no place in the new TEC for dissenting opinion.
    Those who dissent are dissected and verbally brutalized by Fr. Jake's readers, by readers of "Telling Secrets" and its author as well as any number of other sites.
    It would be better for those on the losing side of the arguement to simply move on, find a new home and leave both sides to conduct their ministries in the manner they both wish.
    Unless one is into being Don Quixote, there is no room at the HOB Inn for those on the outside of the current innovations.
    Better for both sides to part amicably and soon.

    Jim of Michigan

    ReplyDelete
  2. I must be missing something. I am a reader and sometime commenter on both Fr. Jake and Rev. Elizabeth's blogs. I think both of them have been kind enough to at least once drop by my little space and in one case say something nice about it.

    On Dr. Virtue's site and SF, I see the presiding bishop referred to as, "her squidiness," the church and its members as apostate, and Rev. E as a "priestess of Ba al." So the reason the right should leave is because some of Fr. Jake or Rev. Elizabeth's writing and/or their commenter's is not supportive of their view?

    I have been and remain appalled and angery over the PB's "crucified place" comment and loose probably too few opportunities to say so on both blogs. In no way am I her only liberal critic -- "we are legion," to steal a phrase from one of the SF commenters refering to lefties.

    Give me a a [several items deleted] break! I rather doubt the Network bishops spend a lot of time (any) reading the blogs. The idea that they are in some sense the voice of the communion would be laughable if it were to be taken that seriously, and if anyone paid attention, they might notice that some of us lefties get hammered on those blogs too. Should I apply to be a CANA bishop because someone on Telling Secrets thinks my views on gun control are Neanderthal?

    SHEESH!

    FWIW
    jimB

    ReplyDelete

OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with comment moderation but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.
Rule: PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF AS ANONYMOUS: BEGIN OR END THE MESSAGE WITH A NAME - ANY NAME. ANONYMOUS commentary will be cut.