I had wondered about this yesterday and it seems that the rumor mill is doing nothing to allay my fears.

It is very important for the cause of clarity to see a breakdown of which bishops voted for which candidates. Did Network bishops deliberately vote for +(+)Schori in order to “push things along”?

Update! This from the Bishop of Texas (perhaps a more reputable source than David Virtue…): “As for the vote, Bishop Jefferts Schori was consented to by our deputation in the House of Deputies with two non-consenting votes, one lay and one clergy. The House of Bishop’s vote is not public. However, I will say to you that I understand she received votes from supporters and a solid number of more conservative bishops who supposedly hope to move the split of our communion forward. Politics can make strange bedfellows. Further, this same undercurrent is attempting to undermine the good work of the Special Committee on Windsor.”

I will note that Bishop Don Wimberley is not someone that I know much about. He himself is not a member of the Network. He says this is his understanding so this is still in the realm of hearsay as far as I am concerned. His full text is here.

Further Update Again…hearsay but pointing in the same direction. In the biblical studies field we might start calling this multiple attestation…:

“I have sources in purple shirts who verify David
Virtue’s allegation that the PB election was heavily,
even unduly, influenced by Bp. Bruno of LA. Check out
VirtueOnline for details. [Here is the link.]{{I refuse to link to VOL…}}The same sources tell me that the Network bishops and
those bishop who wish to be windsor-compliant are
meeting secretly every morning, often in the
afternoons, and occasionally in the evenings.”

Hat tip to Whitehall for the full thing…

And just to note, power politics has been part of church life at least since the writing of First Corinthians so this really is nothing new. The divisions and strategies are the same; only the names change.