How the "Anaheim Statement" Bishops Voted

This may cross over into editorializing which we elves try not to do. But posting the roll call tables below, we couldn’t help but be struck by something.

We have extracted the voting information for the 27 bishops who are known to have signed the “Anaheim Statement,” from the larger table with all the roll call votes which is posted in the entry below. It seems very strange to us elves that a full one-third of these signatories claim to “reaffirm their commitment” to uphold the Windsor Process moratoria, while they voted FOR one or both resolutions (D025 and C056) that indicate TEC’s intention to breach those moratoria.

Remember, as per all our caveats in the entry below, the vote tallies here are unofficial. Every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, but the C056 data in particular is still off by two votes (among the full 136 bishops who voted).

You can read the full text of the Anaheim Statement here

It includes the line:
* We reaffirm our commitment to the three moratoria requested of us by the instruments of Communion.

Re-read D025 and C056 for yourselves, and please explain to this feeble-minded elf how one can have voted YES for D025 and C056 and signed this reaffirmation. We’re clueless.



Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, - Anglican: Primary Source, -- Statements & Letters: Bishops, Episcopal Church (TEC), General Convention, Same-sex blessings, Sexuality Debate (in Anglican Communion), TEC Bishops, TEC Data, Windsor Report / Process

22 comments on “How the "Anaheim Statement" Bishops Voted

  1. Branford says:

    We’re not “clueless,” elfgirl, we’re “Anglican.”

    If Presiding Bishop Griswold and Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori could agree with Primates’ statements and sign agreements, and then return to the U.S. and do what they wished, these bishops can certainly do this. Not to be too cynical, but isn’t this just more of the same?

  2. Didymus says:

    Certainly: By voting for a resolution, the Bishop was merely affirming that the mind of the Episcopal church itself has found itself in the time and place for so and such an action to occur, or at least be considered. By signing onto the statement, the Bishop affirms that he personally is in compliance with Windsor and in no way intends to violate the moratoria himself.

    At least this is the archetype of the explanations I believe we will hear.

    I can’t decide if it’s political weaseling or being “wise as serpents” and drilling a few more holes in the revisionist ship while ensuring the lines are ready for release on the lifeboats.

  3. The_Elves says:

    By the way, I want to be sure to note that my post is not intended to criticize the Anaheim Statement, nor the 18 bishops whose votes actually demonstrated that they cared about the rest of the Anglican Communion. I salute the Communion Partners bishops who took a strong stand for orthodoxy time and again in Anaheim.


  4. The_Elves says:

    #2, that’s probably as good an explanation as any. But nonetheless, their actions in voting for either D025 and C056 or both, MUST show that the 9 bishops in question really don’t consider the moratoria important.

    Consider an extreme example to highlight the inconsistency:
    A resolution passes: “we recognize that some bishops and dioceses believe that theft is justifiable in some cases and support these bishops in their right to steal should it be pastorally necessary”

    And then they turn around and say “Of course we believe the 10 commandments are important and we personally uphold them”

    No deal.

    These 9 bishops may personally pledge not to vote to ordain non-celibate homosexual clergy or bishops (or others whose manner of life or doctrine might pose a challenge to the wider Anglican Communion), and also pledge not to authorize SSBs in their dioceses. But they have authorized TEC to do so. So they must think it doesn’t matter. They claim to stand for unity and value the Anglican Communion and yet are part of the crowd shattering that unity.

  5. Terry Chapman says:

    Or maybe some people just like to be supportive of others so they just always vote “yes”?

  6. nwlayman says:

    #1 hit it, exactly. All the bishops are *Anglicans*. If they stopped doing that, they wouldn’t be.

  7. cmsigler says:

    One who is wise as a serpent must also be harmless as a dove. So, in following up on what The_Elves said in #4, have they been harmless as doves?


  8. Jeffersonian says:

    [url=]Here’s how, Elves[/url]

  9. stabill says:

    Elves (# 3),
    By the way, I want to be sure to note that my post is not intended to criticize the Anaheim Statement, nor the 18 bishops whose votes actually demonstrated that they cared about the rest of the Anglican Communion. I salute the Communion Partners bishops who took a strong stand for orthodoxy time and again in Anaheim.
    I’m inclined to assume that all of the Anaheim bishops care about the Anglican Communion. They have varying views as to the merits of the moratorium and, somewhat different, the extent to which TEC should continue to observe B033 restraint (the TEC version of the moratorium, which is about as far as TEC could go toward a moratorium under the Constitution and Canons).

    You mention the idea of the voting record being used to determine who “cares about” the Anglican Communion. The other side of that is whether the voting record be used to determine which bishops “care about” the gays under their pastoral care. (I suppose there might be some dioceses where there are very few gay communicants in which case the latter question is moot.)

  10. Loren+ says:

    Twelve of the fifteen Communion Partners bishops (as listed on the website, twelve are included above as signing the Anaheim Statement. Hathaway and Wolf apparently have not signed the statement.

    Parsley, Sloan, Whalen, Rowthorne, Allen, Morante, Brookhart, Romero-Palma, Alvera-Velasquez, Frey, Beckwith, Henderson, Johnson, and Reed are the 14 Bishops who are not publically identified as CP who did sign the AS. This appears to include three groups: those who voted with the majority and still signed the statement, international bishops (Bishop Lai of Taiwan should be added here), and three or four others (Frey, Rowthorne, Beckwith and Reed).

    The international grouping is potentially a serious challenge to the leadership of TEC–how can TEC continue to talk of its international reach when its international bishops are not supporting the agenda? Intriguing.

  11. Undergroundpewster says:

    I still have trouble understanding those who voted yes/yes but signed the Anaheim statement. I think they are either trying to bring something home to placate the conservatives, or they truly believe that C025 and C056 are not/will not be offensive to the rest of the Anglican Communion.

  12. New Reformation Advocate says:


    Thanks for putting together the spreadsheet; it was helpful and informative. I likewise hadn’t realized that 9 of the 27 bishops had voted for D025 and/or C056. I wish +Lillibridge and +Howe and whoever else drafted the Anaheim Statment had included in it an explicit disavowal of those two key resolutions, so that the water wasn’t muddied by those nine compromised, inconsistent bishops whose credibility is highly dubious.

    I hope that +Geralyn Wolf will soon it belatedly, and soon, along with a lot of retired bishops. But the really important thing is the follow up. What ACTIONS will these bishops take to match their brave words?

    David Handy+

  13. New Reformation Advocate says:

    BTW, I was heartened, and somewhat surprised (I must admit) that one of my former seminary teadhers at Yale/Berkeley came out as one of the good guys, namely +Rowthorne (one of my liturgics profs). On the other hand, there are lots of retired bishops who haven’t weighted in yet. And among the ones I’d expect to sign the Anaheim Statement would be +Francis Gray, retired diocesan of Northern Indiana and later assistant bishop of VA.

    David Handy+

  14. dwstroudmd+ says:

    INconsistency is the HOBgoblin of little minds.

    The actual quotation is here: . Ralph Waldo Emerson would probably hold that these chappies were not angling for the title of a “divine”. But, who knows……………

  15. justin says:

    What can be said of a bishop who believes that God is calling someone to ordained ministry, and yet blocks that person’s ordination at the request of others? If you truly believe that God is calling someone to ordained ministry, I would suggest that you should not block that calling.

    Acceptance of the moratorium does not need to mean that you think people in certain lifestyles should be ineligible for ordination, but it SHOULD mean that you think God is not really calling them to ordained ministry at the present time if the Church has said that their lifestyle makes them ineligible for that ministry.

    Does that make sense? If you are really violating your conscience by abiding by the moratorium, you need to violate the moratorium and accept (even invite) the consequences of that violation.

  16. justin says:

    My comment above was intended as a reflection on the thought process of a bishop who voted for D025 and signed the Anaheim statement. I can imagine a bishop doing so, but I imagine that such a bishop has a dim view of the authority (let alone the inspiration) of the Church.
    For C056, I think it’s even more stark.
    For D025, I imagine a bishop saying “I believe God has called candidate X to this ministry, but I will deny her out of obedience to the incorrect judgment of my church.” Understandable, maybe, but I question the integrity of such a position.
    For C056… I guess I can’t imagine what the thought process is. Maybe it’s, “I’m willing to abide by the moratorium but I won’t support its imposition on other dioceses.” No, I don’t think I can figure that one out.

  17. robroy says:

    Certainly good evidence that the statement is very weak and justifies the criticism and perhaps the cynicism.
    [blockquote] Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’;[b] anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[/b] [/blockquote]

  18. Fr. Dale says:

    #17. robroy,
    [blockquote]Certainly good evidence that the statement is very weak and justifies the criticism and perhaps the cynicism.[/blockquote]
    I maintained early on that V.Gene Robinson and KJS could have signed this statement. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them sign on yet. What has it said that couldn’t be spun into a triple “Yes” for the revisionists? Why don’t they sign on to the statement by Bishop Lawrence? That would mean something.

  19. magnolia says:

    imho the statement is lame and condescending and really says nothing of any substance. mealy- mouthed words about feeling ‘accepted’ and staying in the church does nothing except make them look weak. this statement will be used to their detriment by TEC to spin it however they wish to the wider communion.

    orthodox parishes have an alternative now. i wish they would realise that we are more powerful together. TEC cannot sue everyone, they simply don’t have the funds for it. if this were WWII, these orthodox bishops would be france (and don’t get me wrong, i love france).

  20. dawson says:

    Love the sinner hate the sin. Those archaic words of wisdom if a pastoral candidate was openly breaking any of the other Ten Commandments would they also be advanced as candidates? Or is sexual immorality not a sin? I think even an atheist would agree that to have non-marital relation is an affront to Christianities basic laws if not to the very laws of humanity. Not every one can accept the law, but don’t expect to be raised up in the church as good.

  21. Rocks says:

    The Rt. Rev. Andy Doyle, Bishop of Texas; the Rt. Rev. Dena Harrison, Bishop Suffragan of Texas; the Rt. Rev. Philip Duncan, Bishop of the Central Gulf Coast; the Rt. Rev. Dan Edwards, Bishop of Nevada; and the Rt. Rev. Julio Holguin, Bishop of the Dominican Republic have now signed on.

    Apparently this statement is now to become the official pr vehicle to suggest that D025 & C056 did not mean exactly what everybody who read them thought they meant.

  22. The_Elves says:

    The Rev. George Conger has just sent us via e-mail a list of all 34 bishops who are current signatories of the statement. We’ll update the table and repost it at some point:

    The Rt. Rev’d James Adams, Western Kansas
    The Rt. Rev’d Lloyd Allen, Honduras
    The Rt. Rev’d David Alvarez, Puerto Rico
    The Rt. Rev’d John Bauerschmidt, Tennessee
    The Rt. Rev’d Peter Beckwith, Springfield
    The Rt. Rev’d Frank Brookhart, Montana
    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
    The Rt. Rev’d Dorsey Henderson, Upper South Carolina
    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
    The Rt. Rev’d Paul Lambert, Dallas
    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
    The Rt. Rev’d Henry Parsley, Alabama
    The Rt. Rev’d David Reed, West Texas
    The Rt. Rev’d Sylvestre Romero, Asst NJ
    The Rt. Rev’d Jeffrey Rowthorn, Europe
    The Rt. Rev’d William Skilton, Dominican Republic
    The Rt. Rev’d John Sloan, Alabama
    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
    The Rt. Rev’d, Don Wimberly, Texas