I am fascinated by this clause: "In closing, permit me to say, that as Windsor Bishops, we share a deep concern that should the General Convention of the Church elect to not participate in the Covenant process, and therefore "choose to walk apart,"..." That is a significantly different understanding of the decision that will result in "walking apart." The General Convention has not rejected participation in the Covenant Process. That is a different standard than a moratorium on blessing "inappropriate" bishops-elect or "inappropriate" relationships.

I do not care a whit about any gratuitous shot at our Presiding bishop's Christology, especially from the Bishop of Western Louisiana.

Nor do I care about the counting game about who is among them and who might be with us.

Good Lord, the bloggers are just stirring the entrails of a chicken, like voodoo priests, to get a sense of the future.

Too many of us, lacking any historical sense or knowledge, seem to have forgotten or maybe never knew, that we are an autonomous national church of the Anglican Communion, and the other members, including the titular head of the Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury, have no canonical authority over us.

Of course we share a common heritage and have bonds of affection, even of love, but no institutional lines of authority.

If we have insurgents in our midst, we must deal with them in the bounds of canonical law, but we certainly do not have to run from them or fear that they have international supporters. They are would-be usurpers, and should be regarded as such.

I am very weary of all this dashing about acting like the world is about to crash on our heads.

We have virtually no leadership at the Executive Council level. And it is getting harder to support the deference of our new Presiding Bishop towards those who would impose their views and questionable exegesis and educations on us.

Do we know who we are? Do we remember where we came from? It is getting harder to tell.
PCC

Phillip, thanks for your clarity. I'm almost with you, but I also think that there is great value in our relationships with those outside our borders. But, of course, your reminder that no one outside our borders has tyranny over us is helpful.

Anyway, I guess I'm one of those entrail-stirrers. I'm curious about two important numbers that keep getting cited.

One: does anyone know of an effort to systematically challenge the 25% number? That seems important, since +Rowan likes to toss it around.

Two: how many actual "Windsor bishops" are there in ECUSA? This would mean, I think, bishops who have actively discouraged same-sex blessings, bishops who have agreed with a moratorium on bishops in same-sex relationships, AND the refusal to countenance illicit border crossings. I have to believe that number is quite small.

I mention this only because I think the vast majority of ECUSA members are happy with our direction, the self-described "Windsor bishops" are no such thing, and there wouldn't be a crisis in ECUSA were it not for, as you say, Phillip, people who fear a crashing world.

"Along with a growing number, we are troubled deeply by the continued intransigence of not only General Convention"

His meaning: those damn lay folks won't fall into line.

Marshall has some interesting reflections at his blog on Bp MacPherson's presentation.

http://episcopalhospitalchaplain.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-windsor-bishop-looks-like.html

Phillip, Scott:

My interest in "Windsor bishops" is entirely about our internal politics within the Episcopal Church. Yes, folks outside the Episcopal Church have their own interests; but I'm more concerned about how these bishops will express their commitment to stay in the Episcopal Church, and how other bishops will seek to find common ground with them to keep them - and what either group might give up for the purpose. Note, I think there is good reason to separate "Windsor bishops" from those Network bishops who are really more interested in division.

Ann, thanks for noticing my comments.

Marshall

Let us assume the Episcopal Church does not agree with the demands of the Anglican bishops.

So what? What will they do? Nothing they do or wish to do to the Episcopal Church is feasible unless we permit them to do it.

On their own initiative, some of them might continue to establish churches in continental America.

So what? So there will be a Rwandan Anglican Church in the United States of America. Or a Nigerian True Anglican Community Church in Communion with the Faith Best Delivered and Sealed For all Time in 1662.

There may even be something called "The Amercian Anglican Province in the United States of America."

Their claim to fame will be that they view same sex relationships as sinful, they don't like the Episcopal Church, and they regularly speak to clergy in England and elsewhere, who think the same. Every 10 years, they all gather and affirm this.

Some Episcopal parishes and even bishops, might wish to join these intitiatives.

This is troubling because....?

Aye-aye, Admiral!