Bishop Little on Dan Martins
Bishop Little of the Diocese of Northern Indiana wrote the following letter in response to a letter from Bishop Lamb's October 16th letter regarding the Rev. Dan Martin's nomination to be bishop of the Diocese of Springfield.
Dear brothers and sisters,I am writing in response to a letter dated October 16, 2010 from my friend and colleague, the Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb, Bishop of San Joaquin, and the Standing Committee of that diocese, concerning consent to the episcopal election of the Rev. Daniel H. Martins as Bishop of Springfield.
I have known Fr. Martins since 1994, when he and I both served as rectors in
the Diocese of San Joaquin. We shared our lives in a clergy support group until I left for this diocese in early 2000; and in 2007 I asked him to consider the possibility of discerning a call to St. Anne's Church, Warsaw, in the Diocese of Northern Indiana. He entered discernment in large part because the situation in the Diocese of San Joaquin had become intolerable, and its drift away from the Episcopal Church was soon to be irrevocable.Northern Indiana has been both a safe haven for him, and a place where he could exercise his superb leadership skills for the benefit of our beloved church. Among other things, he has served on our General Convention deputation, and as a member of the diocesan Standing Committee. Fr. Martins is a bridge-builder, a Christian of great integrity and absolute honesty, committed to the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church. He is also a person of strong and outspoken convictions who maintains excellent relationships with people whose convictions differ significantly from his. He is universally respected in this diocese, admired by people across the theological spectrum that characterizes our church.
When the Diocese of Springfield sought nominees for bishop, I submitted Fr. Martins' name with great joy. Indeed, my only hesitation was that his election would mean losing a superb priest from my own diocese. But I believe that Fr Martins has charisms of an episcopal nature, and that he will be a gift not only to the Diocese of Springfield, but to the whole church.
And so it was with great sadness that I read the letter from Bishop Lamb and the Standing Committee. I believe that they have misunderstood Fr. Martins' role in San Joaquin as Bishop Schofield pursued a separatist policy. Reading the documents included with the letter, I see a leader who - gently and calmly, in a setting fraught with complexity and danger - attempted to halt this disastrous course of action, not least by arguing that communion with the historic See of Canterbury can only be maintained in this country through the Episcopal Church and not an alternative expression of Anglicanism. The letter also references Fr. Martins' blog and his strong views concerning the process of restoring the Diocese of San Joaquin. It is certainly true that he had significant concerns; but it is equally true that leaders in our church need the freedom to express their convictions forcefully and to seek to influence the church's course of action. That is a quality of our church that we cherish: the ability to hold strong views, and at the same time to affirm our indissoluble bond in Christ. Fr. Martins exemplifies this important quality.
I was especially surprised that the letter takes Fr. Martins to task because he "did not prepare [his] former congregation to remain in the Episcopal Church." As a former rector in the Diocese of San Joaquin, I might be liable to the same charge. My parish -All Saints, Bakersfield, which I served for 14 years - decided to follow Bishop Schofield out of the Episcopal Church and into an alternative jurisdiction. Sometimes even the most strong-willed rector cannot affect the direction of their parishes; this is true in my own case, and in Fr. Martins'. I do not believe that he should be held accountable for actions that his former parish took following his departure.
It would, I believe, be tragic if Fr. Martins does not receive consent for his episcopal consecration. The church would lose a leader uniquely gifted for this ministry, and such a denial would send an unfortunate message to the conservative side of our church. And so I urge you to ponder, pray, and give your consent to his consecration. In so doing, we will be welcoming a good and godly man - a Christian of strong convictions, committed to the ministry of reconciliation - as a Bishop in the Church of God.
Your brother in Christ,
The Rt. Rev. Edward S. Little II
Bishop of Northern Indiana
Others supporting consent for bishop elect Dan Martins have written an open letter here

A group of Deputies and an Executive Council member also wrote a letter in support of Bishop-Elect Martins. Will Cafe print that too?
Posted by Michael Russell
|
November 3, 2010 1:51 PM
I believe we linked it before but see update - thanks
Posted by Ann Fontaine
|
November 3, 2010 2:05 PM
Michael,
Thanks for the reminder about linking that other letter.
Peter Carey+
Posted by Peter
|
November 3, 2010 2:51 PM
Most certainly, I do not envy the tasks of the Diocesan Committees and Bishops in deciding for or against consent to the election and consecration of the Rev. Martins (or of any other bishop in these contentious times, but when are the times not contentious?). It is quite clear that persons of good faith and reputation in TEC are divided on this issue, and to dismiss the arguments of either side out-of-hand is to simply betray personal prejudice.
If one were to look only at actions during his tenure in San Joaquin from the perspective one might take, for example, in a background check for secular employment, I would suspect that the consent would be "not on."
Fortunately, we do allow for repentance in the church and not to allow for that would be a return to a "novo-Novationsim" that we cannot afford. Perhaps Fr. Martins did the best that he could reasonably do at the time, and if he did not throw himself into the lion's mouth, I cannot say that my own character would have been any stronger. Fr. Martins has reasonably firmly expressed regrets and commitment to do otherwise, and I suspect that we should respect his repentance for his former actions. I will myself "repent" of a probably-unfair and uncharitable comparison between +Lawrence and Fr. Martins. Just because Bishop Lawrence has proven false (in my opinion) to the spirit of his vows, does not mean that Fr. Martins will do the same.
Finally, I would encourage everyone to read the "linked" letter at the end of the original posting. There are a number of priests on that list in favor of Fr. Martins' confirmation that would certainly persuade me by their support alone (e.g. Fr. Haller and Fr. Russell to name but two).
I will offer my own prayers for Fr. Martins, the Diocese of Springfield and our House of Bishops at my office observances today that we may all be guided by the Spirit in the gifts of faith, charity and humility.
Posted by Jeffrey L. Shy, M.D.
|
November 3, 2010 4:00 PM
I don't know that we appreciate the pressure that the schismatics put upon people to separate with them. They have not been particularly interested in keeping the bridges open and folks like Dan+ who have tried have found themselves attacked for it. Conservative folk who are working to stay in TEC have been subjected to rebukes from withering to blistering.
I understand that Dan+ has flaws in his positioning that make it hard to trust him. I have batted heads with Dan for a decade, first as fellow readers of GOEs and then as Deputies. He is not cut of the same cloth as many of those who left and I believe his point of view is important to hear, even if TEC chooses not to act on it.
Dan+ is a piece of the bridge as well to the Communion Partner Bishops like Bishop Little. I believe confirming him is a strong sign that we are prepared to work with those who will work with us.
I have never failed to be vehemently candid in repudiating the actions of those who seek to harm TEC, nor in proposing near draconian consequences for them. But again I think Dan is of a different cloth and I hope SCs and Bishops confirm him.
Posted by Michael Russell
|
November 3, 2010 7:46 PM
One of these issues about which I'm glad we have a representative democracy (i.e., that *I* don't have a vote).
Prayers for those who do vote, however!
JC Fisher
Posted by tgflux
|
November 3, 2010 8:53 PM