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.
Dear Elves, Very, very, carefully approach the title of this post, remove the ‘M’ very quickly, then immediately replace with a letter, ‘N’…but don’t, whatever you do, leave the two up together, even for a second, especially in alphabetical order or there would be a scandal or even possibly, a lawsuit.
Might want to change that headline…
If add an ‘E’ to the end of the first word, the folks in charge of TEC might be willing to grant the bishop-elect consent right away.
And I thought it was an “rn” not an “m”.
[Headline corrected – thank you – Elf]
Speaking to the substance, I was watching the process in SJ about as carefully as is possible by Internet from Texas. It was clear at the time that there were not just two factions in the diocese–one determined on secession at any cost and the other on accession at any cost. There was a quite substantial middle ground, particularly among clergy like Fr. Martins, which may have included a majority of the Standing Committee. These folks were counseling a strategy not unlike South Carolina’s, one of distancing themselves as far as possible from the position of TEC on issues like sexuality while remaining within that body as a Loyal Opposition. As Fr. Martins points out, that substantial group in SJ–of whom he was one–vehemently opposed giving a blank check to either the Bishop of SJ or to the Presiding Bishop in their warring efforts to control the diocese.
It was also clear at the time that this middle position was unlikely to prevail when placed between the hammer and anvil of Bps. Schofield and Jefferts Schori. When things started to fall apart, the majority of the lawfully-elected Standing Committee of the diocese–normally the Ecclesiastical Authority during a vacancy in see–was thrown out of office [b]twice[/b]. One coup d’eglise was by decree of the diocesan bishop (who did not perceive them as sufficiently loyal) and one by decree of the Presiding Bishop (who also did not see them as sufficiently loyal). Both of the successor “standing committees” were appointed bodies with somewhat less legitimacy and independence than the North Korean People’s Congress.
Of course, the deposed Standing Committee members would have said that they owed loyalty to the Gospel in the Church, not to one or the other of the warring bishops. That didn’t matter. The “middle ground” group might well have been the core of a continuing diocese in Central California with a substantial share of the old membership, but the PB cut the ground right out from under them. Most of them, and almost all of their congregations, ultimately left the Episcopal Church because they had no alternative other than to accept a reappraiser takeover of the diocese with very little legal justification.
Now, the same small minority that captured the “official” TEC Diocese of SJ wants to dictate policy and polity to the Diocese of Springfield. In my eyes, they have no more authority to do that than does the Southern Cone Diocese of SJ.
Dan Martins is a man of integrity who has pursued the same course consistently for a number of years. If there is no room in the House of Bishops for him, then there is little place in TEC for those who are unwilling to endorse every notion that a transitory majority of an ever-more-reappraising General Convention might approve. If he is rejected, Fr. Martins will stay, as will I, but we will be under no illusion that we cannot be ejected in the same way as the “middle faction” in SJ.
“Loyal and oblique opposition” seems perfectly honorable and healthy.
This man should garner the necessary consents. While comparisons are invidious, he is at least as worthy as Mary Glasspool. We need him and his point of view in the Church.
RE: “The “middle ground†group might well have been the core of a continuing diocese in Central California with a substantial share of the old membership, but the PB cut the ground right out from under them. Most of them, and almost all of their congregations, ultimately left the Episcopal Church because they had no alternative other than to accept a reappraiser takeover of the diocese with very little legal justification.”
Word to Dale Rye. She could have actually had a sufficient diocesan entity — but that wasn’t what she wanted. She had to have people in charge who would do her bidding on the lawsuits, and everything else, and so she pulverized what could have remained. The only parish, as far as I know, who has remained in TEC in the faux little diocese headed by Jerry Lamb the Embittered that is actually traditional is Rob Eaton’s diocese — and it has been from all observations on the outside, truly a ghastly place for that parish to be.
One can definitely see how it is that Jerry Lamb managed to drive the Diocese of Northern California into the ground before he was appointed to do the same for the remains of San Joaquin.
Epic Fail.
1. Dale Rye,
[blockquote]Speaking to the substance, I was watching the process in SJ about as carefully as is possible by Internet from Texas.[/blockquote] My cabin is not visible on Google Earth.
Sarah,
You said
[blockquote]…Rob Eaton’s diocese—….[/blockquote]
I trust you meant “parish”.
I remember when a priest from the Diocese of San Joaquin was in the running to be the next (XIV) bishop of South Carolina. At that time, I became intrigued by what was happening out there in CA. Granted I didn’t follow closely what was happening but i learned that the DIo SJ was considering leaving TEC and then left. So thanks to those who have reminded the rest of us what happened in the Dio SJ.
I don’t know Father Martins but from what I have read here including his own letter on his own blog, I see no reason not to consent to his election. This must be a new trick from the PB to thwart the election of a bishop she does not like. Since she can not invalidate the election like she tried here, the only option is to thwart gaining the necessary consents.
Also, remember just a couple of weeks ago, Bishop Lawrence got a message from the PB not directly from her but indirectly via several other bishops. Sounds like this PB hates direct confrontation with other people so sends threatening messages via others. What a coward! She calls this leadership??
It is pathetic that good people like Dan Martins, whose place within TEC’s recent implosion is amongst the most honorable, must defend themselves in demeaning detail against the perverse calumny of Lamb and others like him. Having done so for the sake of the Diocese of Springfield’s appropriate election, once is enough. Lamb and his lot deserve nothing more; their ignorance, which strikes me as culpable, deserves not correction but contempt.
Wow, Ephraim (#7), that is unusually blunt and harsh language for an irenic guy like you. But I wholeheartedly agree with you.
The sort of slanderous and mean-spirited falsehoods +Jerry Lamb and his little coterie are spreading about the noble Dan Martins is a plain violation of the Ninth Commandment not to bear false witness against a neighbor. It’s appropriate to call a spade a spade, and slander slander.
#3 is right. The middle ground would not have sued the leavers, they would have negotiated with them. As would have the briefly-lived middle ground in Virginia. This was unacceptable to the Schori administration. It had previously been acceptable at the discretion of the diocesan bishop under Griswold, but then, he was a pastor. The middle ground was firmly rejected after Griswold left in favor of a scorched earth policy. As Lee of Virginia said on why he reneged on the middle ground of the Protocol for Departing Parishes and sued instead, “there was a new sheriff in town.”
On a minor point of contention: I lightly skimmed the posted documents, and it was readily apparent. No close scrutiny required. I do not necessarily agree with Bp-elect Dan’s strategery, having been a “leaver” myself, but it seems to even a casual observer that he has behaved with integrity and loyalty with regard to TEC, and the real complaint may be that he has not prostrated and capitulated.
[blockquote]Rob Eaton’s diocese[/blockquote]
Now there’s a thought.
10. My sentiments, too!
Apparently the consents hurdle has been crossed. What good news. On with the Consecration.
Peace,
-ms