Good questions. I look forward to answers, particularly to Q.2. which for me is the nub of the matter. I have to vote this Thursday.

Shared with permission:
As Father Haller implicitly identifies himself as a member of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of New York, I will provide answers to his questions, per the policy already stated.

I am neither a canon lawyer nor a professional historian. The truth is that I do not have a settled opinion on whether "it is licit for a diocese to attempt to leave the Episcopal Church." I am aware of the "unitary theory" and acknowledge that a quite plausible argument can be made from it that dioceses have no such right. I am also aware of the "voluntary association of dioceses" theory, and from that perspective it seems to me that an equally plausible argument can be made that dioceses indeed do possess such a right. I am open to being persuaded either direction. As for congregations in relation to dioceses, my sense is that there is no inherent right of a congregation to separate. This is rooted in the theological principle that the diocese is the fundamental unit of the church (a principle that I believe can be affirmed without taking either position on the question of
whether a diocese has a right to withdraw). And what I can say with even
more certitude is that, in any circumstances presently imaginable, I don't think it prudent to exercise such a right, should it indeed exist. I think those dioceses that have done so have made a tragic mistake, which I lament every day.

The remarks I made on my blog some years ago about hoping "my church loses" its courts cases came from a place of anger at what I perceived to be manifest injustice, regardless of either the legal or canonical issues involved. My language may have been a little intemperate, and I regret that. The underlying issue for me is bewilderment that more creativity, charity,
and win-win thinking cannot be brought to bear on property disputes. I am aware of places where this is happening, but they don't get the headlines. There have got to be uses of our collective financial and spiritual resources that are more glorifying to God than engaging in litigation.

As I wrote on my blog at the time, I had (and, to be honest, still have) grave reservations about the manner in which the Diocese of San Joaquin was reconstituted following the departure of the bishop and the majority of clergy and laity. The details are available on my blog, so I won't repeat them here. I entirely support the idea that the Episcopal Church is entitled to have a presence in the central valley of California, and that those Episcopalians who did not wish to follow the majority into the Southern Cone
deserve pastoral care and support. But I do not believe the applicable canonical procedures were followed in making this happen. It is precisely *because* of my loyalty to the Episcopal Church and its constitution and canons that I have been critical of how the situation in San Joaquin was handled. Nonetheless, as has been pointed out, I attended General Convention in 2009 and did not protest the seating of the San Joaquin deputation. I've moved on and "gotten over it." I acknowledge the authority of the diocese
headed by Bishop Lamb.

As for Fort Worth, Quincy, and Pittsburgh--I'm not familiar with all the details, but as far as I can tell, proper procedures were followed in reorganizing the dioceses following the departures of their bishops and lay/clerical majorities.

I am working on a blog post that will address the first of Mr Naughton's questions, as relayed by Fr Haller. As always, I am happy to entertain clarifying questions from Standing Committee members and bishops-with jurisdiction, either in this forum or privately. I might suggest that the core question is whether I will be crossing my fingers, either literally or mentally, at any point during the liturgy of consecration, and the answer to that question is an unequivocal No.

Dan Martins
Bishop-elect of Springfield

The property dispute arises out of the "acceptance of Gays" - something General Convention decided decades ago and has continually reaffirmed.

Whether Dan Martins likes it or not, I was baptized at the age of 2. I was accepted, made a part of the Body, joined together. I was not aware of being Gay at the time, but now I am.

Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder. Dan Martins is not fit to be bishop, even of Springfield.

From Fr. Dan Martin's blog post:

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.

Unless people are prepared to assert that Fr. Martins is lying, it appears to me that he is exactly the sort of conservative we WANT in the Episcopal Church--not in lockstep with the prevailing TEC position, but not only prepared to remain in TEC but seeing such a position as a "gospel mandate." If we are bound and determined to refrain from consenting to the election of anyone who is not 100 percent behind each and every resolution of General Convention and action of TEC staff, then we will be doing exactly what we are accused of doing: expelling those who don't go along with the party line. Thus, it would appear (again, at least to me) that there is little impediment to Fr. Martins' consecration.

My wife forwarded this post to me since she knows that Dan Martins is a dear friend and co-laborer in the corner of the Lord's vineyard known as TEC.

I think the main anxiety this post reflects is whether Dan might possibly go with the "nuclear option" as San Joaquin & Co. have.

One way to re-frame the question is not whether or not a diocese has a "right" to the "nuclear option," but whether Dan could imagine any worst-case scenarios for TEC that would cause him to advocate such a course of action.

I asked Dan this question directly and he said exactly what I have come to expect from him: that he cannot, in fact, imagine such a scenario.

I am convinced that Dan plans on serving as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Springfield until he retires, then handing it off to another duly-elected TEC bishop and enjoying his CPG pension.

As Tom Sramek points out above, Dan has consistently communicated his core conviction that stability and perseverance are at the heart of Christian discipleship.

I haven't ever seen any evidence that there's a schismatic bone in Dan's body.

Dan is clearly loyal to the established "doctrine, discipline, and worship" of TEC, grounded in an abhorrence of either separatism or secessionism, which, if anyone is interested, I wrote a little something about back in 2007 here:

http://communioninconflict.blogspot.com/2007/02/on-reactions-to-communique.html

It is natural in a time of uncertainty for people to be anxious and suspicious of each other. I wholeheartedly encourage all members of standing committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise due diligence, but I hope no one will vote against consenting to Dan's election out of unfounded anxiety.

Happy All Saints' Day! For me, today marks nine years of ordination and counting!

Blessings,

Nathan Humphrey+

As someone who is not a Bishop nor presently a member of a diocesan standing committee, I have no standing, of course, to ask any questions of Fr. Martin and do not expect that he would reply. I do, however, thank Fr. Haller for posing his question in a public forum that would allow us to be part of the "conversation" if only in a limited way.

I do think, however, that his willingness to at least respond in a semi-public manner is refreshing and may, perhaps, be "just what we need" in a conservative, if we feel the need for more of them. At least his opinions have sometimes been promulgated in a public manner and so are open to debate. This makes him, I would suppose, somewhat more of a "known" quantity and preferable to someone who has nil on record. As the poem goes,
"And always keep a-hold of Nurse;
For fear of finding something worse."

If, however, I could ask for some clarifications, this is what I would ask:

(1) Not to say that Fr. Martins and +Mark Lawrence are "joined at the hip" in an ideological sense, but they do hold somewhat similar positions and have been associated in prior activity, if only indirectly, according to the communications from Bishop +Lamb. We were, in +Lawrence's case, given "reassurances" to the bishops and committees that "I will make the vows of conformity as written in the Book of Common Prayer and the Constitution & Canons, (III.11.8). I will heartily make the vows conforming '...to the doctrine, discipline, and worship' of the Episcopal Church, as well as the trustworthiness of the Holy Scriptures. So to put it as clearly as I can, my intention is to remain in The Episcopal Church." This sounds pretty much equivalent to Fr. Martin's
I might suggest that the core question is whether I will be crossing my fingers, either literally or mentally, at any point during the liturgy of consecration, and the answer to that question is an unequivocal No.
I would like, therefore, some "specifics" particularly from someone who is reported to have publicly "supported" the actions in San Joaquin but really been privately "opposed" to them. I am not accusing anyone of lying. I want to know what Fr. Martin's means by what he is saying. Inasmuch as I believe Bishop Lawrence to have been honest and absolutely sincere and to believe that he believes his present conduct is perfectly consistent with that, I would like to have some "what ifs" spelled out. We deserve that much, I think. The costs to the church would be too high, I think, to let this go without as much clarity as possible.

(2) I am profoundly respectful of his dissent on the issue of LGBT persons, relationships, blessings, ordinations, etc even if I disagree with him most sincerely. Having lived previously some years past in a diocese where the opinions of the diocesan were pretty much the same as those of the Rev. Martin's and having, with others, suffered significantly from the application of those sincerely-held beliefs, what provision might be made for those within his potential diocese that also disagree with him in good conscience?

I think it is a bit of a stretch to think that anxieties about Dan's views on the constitutions and canons of the church are unfounded. I don't know that they are disqualiftying, but they certainly aren't unfounded.

He can't seem to explicitly acnowledge that dioceses don't have a right to withdraw from the church, and that is troubling to me. Whether he intends to lead his own diocese out of the church--I don't believe that he does.--is in some measure beside the point. You either acknowledge the authority of General Convention--something quite different than simply agreeing with it--or you don't. To my mind, Dan hasn't yet brought himself to do that. And the fact that he has sneered at the Episcopal Church, describing it as the Church of the General Convention, doesn't exactly allay my fears.

I also think it is a little much for people with no direct knowledge of the situation in San Joaquin to speak as though the testimony of the bishop and standing committee can be dismissed out of hand. Even Dan himself is not doing that. Indeed, his answers to some of the issues that they have raised have been quite thoughtful-if, for me, not entirely persuasive.

Even before I read Jeffrey's comments I was thinking of Bishop Lawrence. I think a mistake was made in consecrating Bishop Lawrence. I for one am not willing to take the same chance with Rev. Martin.

John, I don't really worry about Dan Martins leading the Diocese of Springfield out of the church. He has said he wouldn't do it, and not only do I think he is a man of his word, I think he has a pretty well developed political sense, and it just isn't on. What I do worry about is having another traditionalist bishop who attempts to undermine the authority of the General Convention by reinterpretting constitional and canonical provisions that were not in dispute until Gene Robinson's consecration.

I admire Dan's intellectual honesty and theological integrity in not staking out a position on a hot-button issue when he has not come to a firm conclusion. This fact, far from being disqualifying, is precisely the opposite: it is demonstrative of the qualities and character that every diocese should hope to find in its bishop.

For my part, I believe that whether or not a diocese has a legal "right" to secede, Christians have a moral obligation to eschew schism, and that there is never any justification, on either the left or the right, for writing each other off. We simply don't have the "right" to do anything to each other that Christ would not do to us. So, until the Eschaton, that leaves our moral duty pretty clear: persevere, be stable, pray for those who differ, beg their prayers for us.

At the same time, we have the duty to advocate the truth of the Gospel as we understand it and we have a responsibility not to do any sort of violence to those who understand differently, so that our conflicts are lived out within the context of communion.

Writing as a self-professed "moderate" who is to the right of many people in TEC but to the left of Dan Martins in some key regards, I am profoundly grateful that people like Dan can still get elected in some places in TEC. I believe he will be a healing pastoral presence in a struggling diocese, and a voice of good humor, reason, compassion, and theological depth and integrity in the House of Bishops.

I believe that the anxieties surrounding this election are unfounded. I have not seen anyone make a reasoned and dispassionate case that Dan possesses an impediment of any disqualifying nature that would justify any member of a standing committee or bishop with jurisdiction voting against consent to his election. Absent that, all I continue to discern in this debate is anxiety, fear, mistrust, and projection.

Quite honestly, this all reminds me a little too painfully of the fear-mongering surrounding the consent process of my friend Mary Glasspool. In that process, I wrote a post entitled, "What Constitutes An Impediment?", which dug into the ambiguities surrounding the term "impediment." I offer the beginning of this post in particular as an aide to discernment.

The real question is: Can one discern anything about Dan Martins that constitutes an objective impediment to the office of bishop? I challenge anyone to come up with a satisfying affirmative answer to that question.

Have a blessed All Souls Day. A good day to pray for the Church, past and present!

http://hbr.org/2010/11/defend-your-research-people-often-trust-eloquence-more-than-honesty/ar/1

"Todd Rogers and Michael Norton showed subjects different videos of a political debate. In the first, one of the candidates answered the question asked. In the second, he dodged it by answering a similar question. In the third, he dodged it by answering a completely different one. When the candidate answered a similar question, subjects failed to notice the switch. They also liked him better if he answered a similar question well than if he answered the actual one less eloquently."

While no one reveals all that they are really thinking, what I believe should be disqualifying for Martins is his assertion that his strategy was to pull the wool over Schofield's eyes, to pretend to be something he wasn't. It's one thing to be honest about who you are while offering compromises and delaying tactics. It's another to be dishonest about who you are. Yes there's always real politik. But Dan's behavior is in another realm.

Beware the slick.

Dear Friends,

If this article from the Living Church doesn't satisfy Dan's critics, I don't know what will.

Peace,

Nathan Humphrey+