There continues to be considerable controversy on the matter of bishops and standing committees consenting to the election of The Rev. Dan Martins. Among those speaking against consent the most important statement has come from the Diocese of San Joaquin, which posted what were called "grave questions."
These are not easy days for any of us near the edges of the "norm" (what ever that is) in the Episcopal Church. We recall that Fr. Forrester in Northern Michigan got struck down and Bishop Mark Lawrence got turned down once only to return to get consents later, and we remember that over the years consents were denied by this or that diocese for reasons having to do with the ecclesiastical slant of the bishop elect, and remember too the scandalous drumming out of a bishop elect for being too high church, or the removal of another bishop, elected, for being a pacifist.
Remembering all this ought to make us a little cautious in denying consent on the basis of prejudgment. But there it is: Standing Committees and Bishops sometimes make judgments based on their best read of past actions and the possibility that the elected one will simply repeat the past again and again. The line between caution and prejudgement is thin indeed.
Every Bishop and Standing Committee will have to deal with this request for consents with prayer and sound faith. If on the one hand Fr. Martins is given consent it will be with the knowledge of the complexity of his engagement with the efforts in San Joaquin to break with The Episcopal Church. If on the other consent is withheld it suggest that past actions (however construed) are either grounds for rejection in themselves or that those actions are predictive of his future activities as well.
I have previously stated my sense that Fr. Martins ought to receive consent. I am not now a member of a Standing Committee and have not been elected Bishop (for which there may be a collective sigh of relief in certain parts of Anglican land), so my opinion is perhaps of little worth. But after reading and rereading the materials from the Diocese of San Joaquin and now a missive from Bishop elect Dan Martins himself (see below) I remain of the opinion that to deny Dan Martins consent is in this instance to stand in judgment of him in a prejudicial way. It is to say that on the basis of past actions we predict his future actions to be contrary to our expectations of a bishop. I am opposed to such prejudgment even if we have trouble later.
The election of persons who have been divorced might lead some to say that past behavior gives good reason to believe that the elected person does not hold vows in high regard or has no intention of being bound by them. And there is no doubt reason to explore further just how the person can give us confidence in the strength of his or her upcoming vows. But at some point it becomes necessary to come down on one side or the other: has the person satisfied those giving consent that the vows taken are taken seriously? I suggest that this is the question at hand.
Dan Martins, on his blog Confessions of a Carioca, has today posted a detailed response to many of the concerns raised. He says early on, "...since I don’t have access to the email addresses of all the members of these committees, a platform like my own blog is the only one available to me in which I might effectively respond to charges made by the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin. I do so acutely aware of the fine line between “presenting a defense” and “being defensive.” I hope to competently do the former while avoiding the latter."
We post the entirety of his blog post here in the hope that this spreads the platform for his defense.
At the same time we should pray that those giving or not giving consent and the ones receiving or not receiving such consents (remembering that it is the electors whose action requires consent - the elected does not stand alone). It is one of the times when I am glad not to have to do the voting.
Here is the post:
Almost since the day of my election as Eleventh Bishop of Springfield, there have been rumors that some folks in my former diocese (San Joaquin) would mount an organized campaign of opposition to my consecration (scheduled for 19 March 2011). I had hoped that they were the sort of rumors that turn out not to be true. Sadly, this was not the case. Last Thursday I received a phone call from Bishop Jerry Lamb, provisional bishop of the (reconstituted) Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. Bishop Lamb informed me that, within a matter of a couple of hours, a set of documents would be sent to all the Standing Committees and Bishops-with-jurisdiction asking that they withhold consent from my election. (The package may be found here.)
Since I am aware that Standing Committees across the Episcopal Church meet at various times of the month according to local custom, and that several will indeed be meeting within the next week, and since I don’t have access to the email addresses of all the members of these committees, a platform like my own blog is the only one available to me in which I might effectively respond to charges made by the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin. I do so acutely aware of the fine line between “presenting a defense” and “being defensive.” I hope to competently do the former while avoiding the latter.
advisors whom he took into his confidence. I was, after all, a Rural Dean from 2000 until my departure, and a member of the Standing Committee for one term and part of another one, separated by a year of hiatus. I was also an Examining Chaplain and put in charge of organizing many diocesan liturgies.
For much of this time, particularly the first five years of the last decade, this perception can probably be said to be largely true. I shared the concerns of Bishop Schofield, and the majority of clergy and laity within the diocese, over the steady movement of the Episcopal Church’s leadership away from classical Anglican and Christian moral teaching. I was alarmed by the actions of General Convention in 2003. In January 2004 I, along with one other priest and two lay persons, accompanied Bishop Schofield to the organizational meeting for what became the Anglican Communion Network. I signed the charter of that network. Yet, at that very meeting, after some animated discussion, the majority of those voting clarified the intention of the group that the ACN was to operate within the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church. I voted with the majority on that question, and would not have signed the charter had the matter not prevailed. Also at that same meeting, we explicitly repudiated the so-called “Chapman Memo,” which laid out a strategy for “replacing” the Episcopal Church with another Anglican province.
As we know in retrospect, of course, the Anglican Communion Network did not long retain a commitment to operating within its original framework. In August 2006, I once again represented the diocese at an ACN council meeting and was dismayed by how the tone had changed. Clearly the impetus toward separation on the part of some key leadership was a “done deal.” Even that time, I had begun to distance myself from participation in such activities, and to voice my reservations at meetings of the Standing Committee and Rural Deans. As a result, I, along with other leaders of similar persuasion, began to perceive that we were being frozen out of the decision-making process, that Bishop Schofield’s true inner circle consisted only of three or four diocesan staff members.
I found myself, then, in an exceedingly awkward place. I revered—indeed, loved—my Bishop, and wanted to be loyal to him to the extent of my conscience. I did not wish to number myself among his detractors, or even to aid them in any way. Moreover, I realized that, even had I been inclined to do so, directly opposing him would have been an utterly fruitless effort. He commanded a strong following among both clergy and laity—and even among the majority of my own parishioners. And as I have mentioned, I was in basic sympathy with the concerns driving the high level of frustration and anger within the diocese.
Yet, at the same time, I knew I could not go where he was going. The sexuality conflict is serious and troubling, but it is my sense now, and was my sense then, that having what I perceive to be the “wrong” view on conflicted issues does not make someone my enemy, only my opponent. I can “share a church” with people who disagree with me on these things; indeed, I believe it a gospel mandate that I do so.
So the path I ended up following was one of loyal and oblique opposition. Ironically, the documents posted by the current San Joaquin Standing Committee, if one takes the time to examine them closely, quite clearly illustrate this. When the Committee on Constitution and Canons proposed an amendment to Article II of the diocesan constitution that said, in effect, “We’re going to be Anglican, and affiliate with a province to be named later,” I cooperated with two clergy colleagues in crafting a substitute that would have been compatible with remaining within the Episcopal Church. (True, it omitted any mention of TEC, but it is worth noting that the “unqualified accession” language had already been removed some years earlier, so that concern was not at issue in 2006.) This was supplemented by a resolution that we drafted that appointed a committee to study various options for ensuring continued affiliation with the Anglican Communion, one of which would have been continued affiliation with the Episcopal Church. I did everything within my power, given the political realities in the diocese, to retard and subvert progress toward separation from the Episcopal Church. I even proposed an amendment to the constitutional change on the floor of convention that would have restored mention of the Episcopal Church to Article II, but my amendment was roundly defeated. So I failed in my efforts, but it was not for lack of trying.
Of course, from late 2006—actually, about the time of the diocesan convention that year—and on into the following year, I was involved with the search process at St Anne’s in Warsaw, Indiana, where I now serve as rector. I accepted that call in May 2007. In my experience, God’s timing usually turns out to be pretty good (!), and in this case it got me out of a situation where my opposition would have needed to turn from oblique to direct, not only with my bishop, but with my own parish, where the vestry was overwhelmingly committed to Bishop Schofield’s leadership. As the saying goes, it would not have been pretty.
Let me conclude by reiterating my intention to make my vows when I am consecrated a bishop without crossing my fingers, either physically or mentally. I will neither attempt to lead, nor cooperate with anyone else’s effort, in taking the Diocese of Springfield out of the Episcopal Church. In fact, I will oppose any such effort. I have tasted the fruit of that sort of activity, and it’s not sweet. I am committed to the Episcopal Church, and believe my specific vocation is to exercise my ministry within the Episcopal Church. My voice has been and will continue to be a minority voice on many important questions. I accept what comes with that territory. It is my call.
I am sorry to say I do not think Dan Martins will receive the necessary consents. The personal and slanted missive from +Lamb notwithstanding, I don't think it really matters any more whether a potential bishop is or is not planning to 'leave' -- I think is manifestly the case that Martins, who has taken his hits from the right wing, is not going to do that. He will stay. But at real issue for TEC will be his stand on SSBs and ordination. I doubt this stand is any longer acceptable/tolerable. Consequently, people can use 'leaving' or the report from +Lamb to get the job done, which is, in short, to assure that TEC is cleansed from any older view on Christian marriage as the cause for justice and 'gospel' imperatives marches on. I say this as a mere record of fact, even as I find myself supportive of the older view and of Martins both. If he gets 50% in this sort of climate in TEC, I'd be very surprized. AJMReplyDelete
I have taken some time to review the documents on the diocesan website and Fr. Dan's blog post. While I find it hard to see him as one who opposed secession, I take him at his word about his intentions and hope that the necessary consents will be given. I think theological diversity in the ranks of our bishops is a good thing.ReplyDelete
Please see Real Anglicans as I cannot answer this in so short a space.ReplyDelete
If you want to assume that the "orthodox" are speaking from good faith for yourself - and yourself, alone - that's fine. For the rest of us in TEC - not so much.ReplyDelete
They can't be trusted. They do not deal by good faith. They are not our brothers. If our leadership can't protect us from them, why should they be leadership?
So you are saying Father Mark that there is no past behavior that would make one unfit for the office of bishop?ReplyDelete
And that someone who believes that there is past behavior that makes one unfit for the office is prejudiced?
The letter that +Lamb and the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin sent was neither personal nor slanted. It stated facts most in the Episcopal Church had no idea about but were entitled to hear/read for themselves. The pain and agony caused by the split (on both sides) deserves to be aired so that those who can decide can be granted full disclosure. Separate and aside from all the other issues, should a bishop cause that much pain? Under any circumstances? And, it only scratches the surface.
Actually, it was pure calumny. Good to see centrists and progressives joining to support Dan, though I still predict he will be defeated -- his position on SSBs cannot be tolerated any longer in TEC. Yes, when it was NH everyone said we needed to honor their own process, but this kind of honoring will not be deemed proper in Springfield. It causes too much pain for others, as Mr Schwartz indicates in his remarks. Too bad about Springfield's 'pain.' AJMReplyDelete
Yes, all the talk about "honoring the process" is predictably quiet now. Rob+ReplyDelete
"Once bitten" by Mark Lawrence, why take a second risk? Fool me once ....ReplyDelete
I seem to recall a recent consent process involving a “Buddhist” bishop (no calumny there, nope, none at all). And I simply can’t remember a single orthodox person calling for honoring that process but when it doesn’t fit the “we are victims” narrative, I guess it doesn’t count, does it?ReplyDelete
I’m with Lapinbizarre, personally. Lawrence and Martins may or may not be of like character but I recall quite clearly Lawrence’s denials and assurances, worth less than the paper they were written on. Makes it hard to be objective.
I think it is way to easy to fall into "us and them" thinking. I am a progressive, but I am inclined to pay close attention to and honor Fr. Dan's words, particularly that last sentence. I don't remember language from Bp. Lawrence that was this clear and unambiguous.ReplyDelete
We need the spectrum of opinion. I've read lots of Dan's writing on the HOB/D list. I disagree with him most of the time, but I honor the fact that he can be both forceful and respectful. For me the test is simple: Can we come to the Table together? Fr. Dan is saying "yes" clearly and without equivocation.
Lou Poulain, Layperson, Sunnyvale CA, Diocese of El Camino Real
There were all kinds of irregularities in the process and that is why the non-consent was bipartisan. This is a partisan political resistance and as such is not honoring the process in Springfield -- which was the cry on behalf of NH. It wasn't the cry on behalf of N Mich.ReplyDelete
Dan Martins+ said, "directly opposing him would have been an utterly fruitless effort."ReplyDelete
Hmmmmm..... it would seem there were a few who did oppose him, and I am not at all sure it has been an utterly fruitless effort. The Diocese of San Joaquin under the direction of +Lamb seems to be at work in the fields of the Lord.
Besides, opposition is not disloyalty.
Sorry.... something just rings hollow in his statement.
For the record:ReplyDelete
Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary definition of
1: a misrepresentation intended to harm another's reputation
2: the act of uttering false charges or misrepresentations maliciously calculated to harm another's reputation
Everything presented was documented and accessible and while Fr. Martins either forgot, could not remember, did not have any copies or whatever was/is his excuse, the documents speak for themselves.
Definition of RESPONSIBILITY
1: the quality or state of being responsible: as a : moral, legal, or mental accountability b : reliability, trustworthiness
As you read the letter of +Lamb and the EPISCOPAL Diocese of San Joaquin one can only conclude that the above definition applies.
WJM, saying something doesn't make it so, but, I suspect, you work with a group that utilizes logical fallacies rather routinely. As my old boss used to say, "Thank for your input."
Think it would be good for Dan Martins not to get consents...so that he gets rid of his rose- tinted specs and institutional loyalty - and moves on from TEC ....given it has made it clear that it will not accept the "mind of the Communion" in oder to be part of the AC.ReplyDelete
"mind of the Communion" my eye! There is no "mind of the Communion"; there's only the mind of men, and they are all men, with pointy hats - primarily the male primates - and they are not the Communion.ReplyDelete
given it has made it clear that it will not accept the "mind of the Communion" in oder to be part of the AC.ReplyDelete
There has never been a requirement to abide a "mind of the Communion" to be a member of the AC. That is a figment of a deluded mind prone to confabulation.
Let me get this straight -- Anonymous (AJM) thinks that Fr. Martins will not get the consents because he doesn't support TEC (which he claims to do) and will leave TEC (which he says he won't), whereas those who support him think he will & he does & he won't.ReplyDelete
Prior A -- You need a basic reading comprehension course. I said Dan Martins will not get consents because he has stated his reluctance to depart from church teaching on marriage and SSBs, and although some want still to speak of 'diversity' and 'honoring the process' of a diocese, they only mean it for select cases. But perhaps that this can so easily be mistaken for 'he doesn't support TEC' says it all. AJMReplyDelete
After reading the open letter from Sarah Dylan Breuer, Tobias Haller, and others, I withdraw the comment posted above.ReplyDelete
It is my hope that Martins+ will receive the consents. We have a choice as church, to believe that he will not attempt to take the diocese out of TEC or not. I would choose to believe him. I also believe, that if we are honest about our expressed support of an "inclusive" church, that church should include both the left and the right. To lose what some would consider the "right" wing of our church I think would be tragic. I have followed Fr. Martins' postings for some time. it appeared to me that much of his concern with Dio San Joaquin had to do with the integrity of its relationship with Canterbury and what I came to understand was a misrepresentation by +Schofield/+Venables of that relationship. If I am wrong, I hope to be corrected, but I understood that the deal breaker for Fr. Martin was the assurance that that relationship would be maintained and the diocesan leaders moved without that assurance ---betraying the single criterion of concern. There is also a difference between an intellectual assent and a de facto one. By analogy a man may disagree with the idea paying taxes, but, in fact pay them. And the whole idea of "the King's loyal opposition" is that it is loyal. EmilyHReplyDelete