9/17/2008

Who are the nine?

EpiScope reports that at the first day of the House of Bishops Meeting in Salt Lake,

"Present were 128 bishops. Not present were 15 who could not attend for a variety of reasons, including the bishops of Texas who are dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Ike. Nine did not respond and were not present."

The report is a bit confusing.

Nine bishops of the Episcopal Church did not attend and did not "respond." Who where they?

Bishop Duncan did respond and and said he would not. Is he part of the 15 or part of the 9?

Does the sum of 128 +15+9= 152 constitute the full house or the full house of bishops not retired?

Be that as it may, it is the nine not present and not reporting that is the most troubling. So the question again, who are the nine?

9 comments:

  1. What's even more troubling, at least to me, is that suddenly "in lieu of reporters" is passing for journalism.

    I am sensitive to the rampant, almost viral "blog-speculation" and how that has shaped much of the news. I am also sensitive to the work the HOB has on its plate today, but this strikes me as being rather over-the-top - not to mention decidedly un-American.

    Seems to me that this only increases "blog speculation" anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Closing out the press is a new "direction" picked up at Lambeth (I think everything ought be live streamed)...it was imagined to protect innocent Bishop participants from hostile African Provinces I was told...what is this secrecy about? Control? It seems to me the more involved and informed, via blogs etc., the laity/membership and frontline clergy are in the critical "actions" needed to be taken at TEC/Anglican Communion the MORE closed out we are becoming...like children unable to deal with the "facts" of religious life or simply protecting "wrong" or "cowardly" inaction?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The HOB operates in machinery that is overly self-important.

    Some meetings should be closed due to their sensitive nature. But just the fact that 1/2 of our bishops can skip out of these meetings without consequence back home is unacceptable. The Standing Committees need to insist that their bishops (read executives) show up and do the work. We should know who is there and if they are not then why not. Anybody else with a job doesn't get near the free passes on self-determination and unaccountable secrecy that clergy do. Unnecessarily so. If it's not a confession, if it's not a sensitive personnel matter, then it should see the light of day...and light of scutiny. Bishops were elected, not incarnated.

    Little wonder that too many bishops don't want an Anglican Covenant which will hold them to account for how they use the franchise. They don't even want people to follow them to meetings so why would more surprise us?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "...the fact that 1/2 of our bishops can skip out of these meetings without consequence back home is unacceptable." "Fact"? "1/2"? Do you just invent this stuff up as you go along, Allen? Self importance extends past the confines of the machinery within which HOB operates.

    ReplyDelete
  5. WOW, was that really Allen who wrote that?!?!

    Someone please take note. I believe that I agree with him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. FWIW, I know that my bishop, +Robert Gepert of Western Michigan, is on sabbatical (he's not listed in the deposition electoral roll, and I think that's why)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Lapinbizarre,

    No, I don't make up the numbers. It's math. The PB's creative numbering of a quorom is that a group of straggler bishops can decide the fate of anybody else not in the room. She counts a majority in attendance as sufficient when the canons read that a majority of the bishops who are eligible are required to depose.

    Do you really want as few as 50 bishops given clearance to judge? What is the acceptable low number to you? Apparently whoever is there is all that matters.

    One-half of the bishops were missing at the New Orleans meeting when the last "handlings" occurred. I suspect that some of those were put on "double secret probation" (Dean Wormer).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Assertions are not facts, Allen. Nor are squirts of squid ink. If you'd sit still for ten minutes or so, and make the effort to explain yourself clearly, you might have an argument. If you do have one, you have yet to make it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I believe Allen is correct. Louie Crew reports that as of August 2008 there are 299 bishops, 54% of whom are retired. To be fair, it is possible that some of the retired are unable to travel to meetings, and some may think it inappropriate to continue to involve themselves in HOB affairs (I know of one, a man of integrity). All of them, however, are entitled to vote -- and some of them did in the recent meeting.

    BTW, in a real court of law, ambiguity works in favor of the defense, not the prosecution.

    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.