Update on the signers of the Anaheim Statement

Thinking Anglicans and George Conger have suppled an update of those who have signed the Anaheim Statement, along with how they voted on D025 and C056. Thanks to them both for the information.

For additional info I have also printed in read the members of the Communion Partner bishops group.

Here they are:

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

The Rt. Rev. Geralyn Wolf, Rhode Island is a member of the Communion Partner bishops but apparently did not sign. She was at General Convention.

Bishop Hathaway, Pittsburgh, retired, is a member of the Communion Partner bishops but was not present in Anaheim. Bishop Wimberly, Texas retired, is not recorded by Louie Crew as having voted at all on Do25, leading me to wonder if he was there at all.

Of the fifteen members of the Communion Partner bishops twelve signed on to the Anaheim Statement. Bishop Wolf is recorded by Louie Crew has a voting no on D025. None present voted for Do25 or C056. Five of the signers are retired, although most are working in retirement.

The core group of 1-15 Commuion Partner bishops represent about 1/3 to 3/8 the total group signing the Anaheim statement. Bishop Litllibridge of the Communion Partner bishops wrote the Anaheim Statement and it clearly states the agenda of the group, particularly in reference to abiding by the Anglican Covenant and the moratoria. It is unclear just how committed the remaining signatories are to the Communion Partner bishops agenda.

As I have written earlier, I think the problem with the statement is the line that says, "
We reaffirm our constituent membership in the Anglican Communion, our communion with the See of Canterbury and our commitment to preserving these relationships." This confuses the matter of membership. Regional or National Churches,not dioceses, are the constituant members of the Anglican Communion. It also suggests that dioceses are in direct communion with the See of Canterbury. If that is so the long slow march to direct Anglo-Papal oversight has been started.

Do we really want a church whose bishops must be directly in communion with the See of Canterbury? What happens if the holder of that See thinks the election invalid or for that matter unwise? Anyone really for direct veto, or perhaps direct appointment, by the Archbishop of Canterbury? Let's not go there.

I don't of course believe that is where the Communion Partner bishops are going in all this. They are simply placing their cards on the table: they value communion with the Communion on a par with their participation in The Episcopal Church. So do I. The difference is, I am first a member of an actual Church, The Episcopal Church. The Anglican Communion is not a church, is not organized to be one, and will not be one. It will be a fellowship of national and regional churches and many of us, across the internal divides of our own church, will work to see this fellowship blossom.


  1. "I am a member of an actual Church. " aren't we all?


  2. Mark
    Regarding Alden Hathaway retired bishop of Pittsburgh. As any yinzer will tell you Pittsburgh, PA that is, always ends in an "h". Pittsburg KS and Pittsburg Landing TN do not but they do not have an Episcopal See to my knowledge.

  3. David Wilson...oops. corrected. Thanks.

  4. I think you have misunderstood the theological basis of the Communion Partners' gesture. It is actually much more consistent with the Anglican vision of communion than you suggest. They are not arguing that direct communion with ABC legitimates. They are pointing out that Provincial structures are actually abstractions made up of local parishes, dioceses, and bishops, synodically operative. The priority always lies with the local not the general.

    In fact, the way you are framing the matter--namely, that TEC is a 'church' and the communion is not (properly speaking, only a parish is a church, right?)--is more reflective of the Roman model as it conceives of the validity of the local as a particular manifestation of the (apparently more real?) abstraction. The ecclesial understanding represented by the bishops, on the other hand, would more accurately be characterized as a most appropriate relativizing of the See of Canterbury in that the seat is itself conceived as the local manifestation of that unity otherwise locally achieved, and precisely not imposed from above.

    Your own position, however, appears to be implicitly guilty of just what you fear. You have already adopted the very Metropolitan conception of the communion (as regards the authority of General Convention and the Province as a whole) that is the presupposition of the Roman system.

    (The case is given in some detail by Ephraim Radner here: http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2009/07/the-organizational-basis-of-the-anglican-communion-a-theological-consideration/)

    For what it is worth, I have not made up my own mind on these matters. I must further say that, as a general rule, I find that where Radner makes a theological decision I make the opposite. This includes our assessments of the nature of human sexuality. However, I believe this is astute reasoning that at the very least should not be dismissed on the basis of your objection.

  5. Who were the Bishops in teh OTHER group (the one that met the night before....)

  6. Could someone please explain to Geralyn Wolfe that claiming to defend "traditional marriage" while being married to a divorced man makes her look more than a bit hypocritical?


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.