I appreciate that all this information has been made available. I hope and pray that every Bishop of TEC will read it before they decide whether or not to give their consent to Fr. Martin's election.

Reading the documents presented I see a priest seeking to discern his call and finally deciding to remain in the Episcopal Church.

The letter from Bishop Lamb and the committee says Fr. Martins "did not prepare this congregation to remain in the Episcopal Church, but did just the opposite." As a priest with 44 years of ordained ministry I question the ability of any priest to "prepare a congregation" to do anything the parishioners don't want to do.

I have already chimed in more than is probably good for me on concerns about the confirmation of the Rev. Martins as a bishop in TEC. I took the time to read all of the links and postings and find nothing to assuage my fears of "another bishop Lawrence" episode. Fr. Martins is thoughtful, no doubt, and has carefully worked out his beliefs and ideas. I find, however, a repeated theme in his writings and actions. First, an appeal that he is a "loyal Episcopalian." Second, however, a number of actions that he has taken or participated in or statements that he has made that have been to further the schisms and diocesan secessions that have already taken place, particularly his role in the San Joaquin diocese. I find his "sinking ship" metaphor for TEC to be extremely disturbing. It seems to suggest that he feels that it is only "timing" that will determine when he reaches the magic point, known only, presumably to God and himself, when he will, to continue his motif, "jump ship." In his own remarks regarding San Joaquin, his only objection to the secession was the "timing" not that it was the "right thing" to do.
As much as I certainly endorse his right to his formed opinions and do not doubt his sincerity and vocation, I cannot see that it would be wise to place him in charge of a diocese in TEC. As much as we may be chastised for bringing it up again, we really do not need another +Lawrence in TEC, much less another +Duncan, et. al.
Finally, on an ethical note, he has written extensively in the past (including here on the cafe in 2007: http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/anglican_communion/a_guest_editorial_from_father.php) about what the "liberals" would be willing to "give up" to keep the conservatives comfortable. To give up LGBT persons seems to be what he would advocate. We are asked to sacrifice their lives, vocations and relationships to keep the conservatives happy and pure. He also speaks much of the "pain" that TEC's actions have caused him and his conservative associates. I think that the answer is, that we have sacrificed LGBT people in TEC and the larger church now nearly 2 millennia. I think that LGBT people have already sacrificed enough. It's "their turn" (meaning the conservatives) now to "stand in the crucified place." I fear for the lives and health of LGBT persons from children and teens growing up in his churches (especially in light of recent events regarding gay teen suicide and the influence of conservative religious teachings on that tragedy) as well as for the adults. To confirm Bishop Martin is not to be "fair" to the "process" of the election of the bishop in Springfield, it would be to affirm ongoing injustice and suffering as "acceptable."

God forbid (him or HER) that an individual that has actual Christian thought and individualistic mind (even though it be of the Christian variety of 2000 years) get into our organization! BAN HIM!!!!

Milton Finch

You have said it well Dr Shy. I concur, so I do not need to repeat anything that you have voiced.

Reading the documents presented I see a priest seeking to discern his call and finally deciding to remain in the Episcopal Church.

And how many folks did he confuse and lead down the garden path only to abandon them later while trying to find himself and discern his call Tom Rightmyer? Did he stay around and tell folks he had been wrong in what he taught them? No he egged them on from his comfortable new position, still in TEC. He is not episcopal material based on that track record. I hope bishops and standing committees concur.

I was a member of St. Anne's until about 6 months ago, due to Dan Martins' overbearing leadership. Yes, he ran to the midwest...to our little congregation...to remain in TEC. He has as much said that being Anglican is as close to being Catholic as he can get. TEC is his door to the Anglican Communion and if he had stayed in CA then he would be out on his butt. I firmly believe he is only 'working with TEC' in order to remain in the Anglican Communion. While at our parish, he was very involved in working toward the signing of the Anglican Covenant, if that had ever come about. What does that say about his loyalty to TEC? It's simply a means to an end.