Signing off on the ACN numbers game... for the moment.

The Anglican Communion Network numbers game has its purpose. If it is posted it will become the number quoted, and finally the number touted. The half life of any protest about those numbers is fairly short. The numbers on the "official" list hang on and on.

So here it is friends: The Anglican Communion Network published a statement about the much trumpeted Common Cause Partnership Council of Bishops meeting. The publicity on that meeting announced that "A total of 51 bishops and bishops-elect representing tens-of-thousands of Anglicans in North America are meeting together Sept. 25–28 in Pittsburgh, PA." Later the ACN gave a listing of those in attendance, saying that it was "An incomplete list of bishops present at the Common Cause Council of Bishops. We plan to finalize this list in the very near future." That list gave 44 names. That list was published no later than September 28th.

So now, three weeks later the list is no longer and uncorrected. So, is that it? Were there really only 44 bishops present, and of them only 39 representing the Common Cause Partnership as active CCP bishops? If so it is a considerable stretch to continue to claim 51 bishops present. If not, where is the revision?

Unless there is anything posted to the contrary let the history of the event read that there were 39 CCP bishops and a few additional interested bishops present.

Here is what I posted on September 28th.

"39 of the bishops or bishops elect known to be part of the Common Cause Partnership were there. Two new bishops from the Federation of Anglican Churches, five retired bishops and one bishop of a diocese not part of the Network were there (8). There were four other clergy present.

There never were Bishop Iker's sixty bishops. For that matter, at the moment, the ACN seems to have lost its notes and there were not even 51 bishops and bishops elect there. At the moment they list 44. There were indeed other people there. It is reported that someone from San Joaquin represented the Diocese. But this was not a meeting of dioceses and jurisdictions, it was billed as a council of bishops, and as a conclave."

Barring further word I am signing off on this now.


  1. For what it's worth, Bp. Love of Albany has told his diocese that he was at the CCCP gathering just as an observer and signed nothing.
    Is this CCCP-lite?

  2. The bullydox are determined to scare the rest of us into compliance with their fantasies. As they know that if God had all the facts, He would agree, little things like lieing about numbers can be excused.

    One of the notable items in the story is the density of the bishops. A ways back, bullydox were inclined to point out, rather nastily that the TEC diocise were small compared with some in Africa. Now that they are trying to impress us with their number of bishops, the fact that some diocise have deanaries that are larger than some entire communions represented at CCCP has silenced that song.


  3. I find the CCCP acronym amusing. As a 12 year old in 1972, I recall the first Canada - Russia hockey series, and I even remember where I was when Henderson scored the goal. I also remember that the Russian jerseys all said "CCCP," which, of course, refers to the Cyrillic initials of the official name of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - Soyuz Sovietskikh Socialistikinh Rezepubiliki.


OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, 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.