Shame and blame, blame and shame seasoned with a noticeable dash of demeaning and ever-popular character smearing of LGBT people at Church.

Busy busy blamers and overly chatty-talking heads frown with worry when projecting not-so-knowledgeable negatively on to the REAL heads and REAL character of other Episcopalians/Anglicans.

Many ¨assumers¨ cause reckless acts of pain (and sometimes even generate crimes of hate) when campaigning to blame/shame LGBT others at Church.

This blame game is especially nasty when contradicting the facts by disgusing truth/reality in order to fit a angry/smallness of arrogant gangstyle beliving.

Let the accuser speak-out in the light and make amends, or not, for ¨wreckless¨ statements of blame and shaming before ALL of his sisters and brothers at The Body of Christ.

We await.

I see this as part of the emotional (and emotive) rhetoric that has cobbled (or displaced) real dialogue. The language of "shame" and "sadness" pervades reasserter rhetoric.

That being said, I'm not sure it rises to the level of an impediment to consecration as a bishop. It is, I am sure, a true statement of feelings; and in bishops I would rather have true statements of what they think and feel rather than the all-too-common mishmash of nuance. Dan is a thoughtful person, and I know he can do more than simply express his feelings. I look forward to his doing so.

I agree with you Tobias, but hope Dan will further explain himself or hear how the words resonate for others who have lived with that language for their lives. It is an impediment to living together with difference. That being said - I am waiting for a clear statement from him on whether or not he will ordain women to the priesthood.

What I fear is that 'Dan,' armed with the authority of a bishop, will 'do more than simply express his feelings.' Not sure that is something anyone should look forward to or vote for.

Someone should send a copy of this post to the bishop elect.

Eric Sinkula

We need more bishops in the Church like Bishop Elect Martins that aren't afraid to call a spade a spade. If we're truly "inclusive", that means being inclusive to more conservative minded people.

Ann, yes, that's the other side. People who express their woundedness at the mere existence of others need to know how hurtful their own language can be. Frankly, I'm tired of "tears as discourse" whether they come from Harmon or Beck. If there must be tears, let them be tears of gratitude, as in Susan Russell's moving post.

And I meant "hobbled" not "cobbled."

"Shame" is the usual term for the response to violations of the purity rules of a society (as opposed to guilt, say), so Don Carioca is using the word quite accurately, since it is just the purity rules that are involved. Unfortunately for his position, there are more places in the New Testament that say that purity rules do not apply within the Christian community than there are (possible) objections to homosexuality in the whole Bible.

Good for Bishop Elect Martin. We need more bishops in TEC like him that won't waver in his opposition to homosexual clergy/"blessed" unions.

For those who are interested in the Bishop-elect's views at least on gay and lesbian partnered clergy, the third of the three "walkabout" videos on the diocesan website is interesting. He is the third of three candidates on video #3.
He states clearly that, as bishop, he would not consent to the ordination or deployment of partnered gay and lesbian clergy in his diocese, raising, perhaps, some canonical concerns as well as ensuring the the Diocese of Springfield remains strongly in the conservative wing of the church.
He states his position quite clearly that "any sexual expression outside [traditional marriage], I believe, falls short of God's vision, God's intention for us. It fails to "hit the mark," and the Greek work that lies behind the English word "sin" is "hamartia." And what it literally means is falling short, like an arrow that doesn't hit the target... So how do we deal with it?,.. We deal with it from a place of compassion and forgiveness,..but clearly it does not mean moving the target...A same sex open relationship fails to meet the test of wholesome example to the flock of Christ that is demanded of those who seek ordination."

I believe that I have faithfully extracted/transcribed his words and not distorted them.

He, at least, seems committed to trying to stay within TEC and the Anglican communion. He describes the current situation as "we're just in a log jam." "I don't see any break in the log jam any time soon." He goes on to state that we need to find some way to "be a community" "while this log jam gets sorted out."

Hopefully this means that we will not have another Marc Lawrence on our hands, but I would certainly suggest that the bishops and standing committees consider this election and their consents very carefully.

If we are truly the "inclusive" Church we claim to be, there is no reason to not consent to his election. I wish I were in his diocese.

I believe that Fr. Martins language of 'shame' was intended to apply to those who voted for C-056 and effectively abrogated the Windsor-related resolutions from 2006. He was saying it would be 'shameful' to renege on an agreement.

Whether you agree that C-056 was going back on the 2006 resolutions or not, I believe that was the intent of his statement.

Consequently it would be a misdirection to suggest his rhetoric was aimed at GLBTs, and anyone who has engaged with Fr. Martins over the years knows it would be out of character for him to do so.

ed. note- Davsims -- please sign your name next time. Thx

Like Fr Martins, Richard J, you're entitled to your opinion.

But *you* are grossly incapable (to "call a spade a spade"!) of being a pastor to those God made LGBT . . . and it's unclear to me whether Fr Martins is so capable, either. ["Covering ourselves in shame": the shame of a straight priest like Dan to be ASSOCIATED w/ "those people", I take it?]

Being elected&confirmed bishop in this church is a PRIVILEGE, not a right!

JC Fisher

Please, no more false accusations of LGBT SHAME:

Emotional ¨tears of gratitude¨ are a huge gift and release after liftimes of ¨living¨ frustration and feelings/reality of exclusion from justice, truth and everyday acceptance (at Church and beyond Church).

HERE

There WAS true passion and human emotion that poured out all over the dining table/dining room in Phoenix when listeners overheard Susan Russell+ and others discussing steps toward the abandonment of LGBT shame and our ¨love¨ for one another to viewed in the open light.

Anonymous listeners heard words of promise, real hope and compassion for people like themselves: ¨all those yearnings of Michael, Amanda and Vanessa¨...the real life table-talk/dialogue became INSTANT JOY that moved everyone quickly away from the shame that millions of LGBT/friends/family cry-out loud about in frustration.

Spiritual starvation: Emerging answers for lifetimes of ¨marginalized¨ experience were greedily grabbed for like spoken crumbs of hope. Hope for full citizenship and full inclusion as LGBT Christians. Scraps off table that stave off the hunger for full humaness which has been created by shame... those deadly excluding ¨purity rules of society¨...purity rules that have some assuming that other Episcopalians ¨fall short of the vision of God¨.

Absolutely JC, I never said that is was a right for him to be consecrated a bishop, but at the same time that is who the people of that diocese chose. We're so "inclusive" right? If Glasspool can be a Bishop in TEC, then there is no reason why Fr.Martins shouldn't get consents! Or how far does being "inclusive" go for you? I agree with Fr.Martins. He has great courage to speak out against sin in the face of those who wish to be "politically correct". It is shame indeed.

From Dr. Shy's quote of Martins;
"A same sex open relationship fails to meet the test of wholesome example to the flock of Christ that is demanded of those who seek ordination."

I am not aware of anyone who is seeking ordination in an open relationship. Or does Martins consider all same sex relationships open relationships.

@David Allen

I believe that his use of the word "open" meant something akin to being "out," meaning someone who admits to being in such a relationship and affirms it in a positive way. He did not mean "open" in the sense of "open marriage."

Probably more distressing was his following the statements of "missing the mark" with a sports illustration as he described his 11-year-old-son learning to play basketball with the same type of hoop, ball, equipment that the pros use. He noted that they didn't change the equipment there, and we shouldn't either. I would suspect that, on that analogy, LGBT people just need to keep "trying" to live up to the ideal of a monogamous straight relationship or celibacy. In "camp" jargon, we need to "butch it up."

Reading from one of his recent blog posts (http://cariocaconfessions.blogspot.com/2010/09/thy-will-be-done.html) (sorry, I can't remember the html code to make it pretty, you'll have to copy and paste), I would expect that he leans heavily, as do many who hold similar convictions, on the doctrine of the fall. While he claims to eschew an adherence to a Calvinist idea of "total depravity," he is quite clear that the fall "explains" human impulses to evil behavior as well as natural evil (not only humans but the whole world is "fallen.") He counter balances this by an affirmation of God's "ubiquitous grace" noting that he does not mean any sort of "universalist" idea. To quote him directly, "To say that God’s grace is “ubiquitous” is to say that it’s everywhere—places we expect to find it (like sacraments) and places we would never think to look for it, sometimes even smuggled in with the very sinful behavior that is trying to separate us from God’s love."

I don't agree, of course, but it is certainly a theology that many do follow.

I've left my own response here, A reply to Jim Naughton. A quick look at Fr. Martin's words in their original context reveals that Canon Naughton's piece here brings unnecessary suffering and feeling of stigmatization to LGBT people, and is deceitful in a manner which I doubt Canon Naughton intended.

I am very sorry that so frequently LGBT people are struck in the crossfire of the awful predicament of our Communion.

@ James Coder

Thanks for your posting so that we may have the full context of bishop-elect Martin's use of the word "Shame."

I think, however, that you "miss the mark" a bit here. True, he did not say that it was a "shame" to be an LGBT person specifically in this statement, but his insensitivity to use such a word is indisputable. Perhaps I might translate a bit. How would you think it to have been, in a discussion, perhaps, over allowing Black americans to marry or be ordained for him to have used a phrase such as "our faces have been blackened" by this resolution or "we who are opposed have been 'enslaved' to the whims," etc. Using the word "shame" is not quite as bad as saying "Faggot" or "Nigger" but the idea is similar in sense if not degree.

We cannot forget that what he is willing to say is bringing shame is the repudiation of the Windsor report. We cannot also forget that the very thing that is doing this is a consideration of the possibility that LGBT persons can lead committed relational lives with partners in the context of a sacred and committed relationship within the larger life of faith as C-056 proposes be explored.

There is to be no doubt here what Fr. Martins believes. There is also to be no doubt that there will be suffering for LGBT persons within the diocese of Springfield if he is confirmed. He has already said that no partnered gay person (as this was how the question to him was framed, specifically his "position on gay clergy") in his diocese will be permitted to be ordained nor allowed to serve in a clergy position. I cannot help but believe that he feels that to express LGBT sexuality is so grave a sin that it would rise to the level of complete exclusion from any possibility of a vocation to ordained ministry. We need to get what he is saying very clearly, i.e. my (hetero)sexuality is a gift of God and a wholesome example. Your (homo)sexuality, is sin and a result of the fallenness of humanity. It this is not "shame" language, then I don't know what is.

I must cite the examples of "enslaved" and "blackened". But I have to admit that I'd be clueless to see any underlying intent and unintentional insensitivity in Dan's use of the word "shame". I can even believe he was as clueless as me -- while hoping that neither of us will be as clueless in the future. In Dan's view General Convention was breaking a commitment made to the rest of the communion, and not admitting it. I can give you instances where GC speakers on the other side of the debate used the shame or a variant like shameful when describing roadblocks to LGBT rights. Why do they get a pass?

@ Dr. Jeffrey,

"We need to get what he is saying very clearly, i.e. my (hetero)sexuality is a gift of God and a wholesome example. Your (homo)sexuality, is sin and a result of the fallenness of humanity. It this is not "shame" language, then I don't know what is."

I believe that is exactly what Fr. Dan is saying, or has said in the past - you can look for yourself on his blog, but what I get is that he has the "traditional" or "orthodox" view of sexuality, in that its exercise is blessed within a man/woman monogamous relationship, and no-where else. That is not to bring shame or declare shame or inflict shame, it is a statement of belief. That you disagree with him is obvious, but to take his words and decide that they are pointed at individual persons is to - I believe - INTENTIONALLY read something that is not there.

Gillan Forrest

Here is a link to a video of Fr. Martins’ actual statement at the General Convention. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNMNKJde9Dg&feature=player_embedded

It would have been good if Jim Naughton had posted this link as an attribution and predicate to his editorial about and attacks on Fr Martins.

How I wish we could first share the truth and facts before we debate opinions and level attacks.

I am not sure why defenders of Dan Martins' intervention at General Convention think that their cause is helped by presenting the entirety of his remarks. There is no difference between saying we have covered ourselves in shame by permitting bishops to authorize blessings of same sex relationships and saying that we have covered ourselves in shame by walking away from the Windsor Report--when the way in which we signal that we are walking away from the Windsor Report permitting bishops to authorize blessings of same sex marriages. Additionally, if you want to cast Father Martins as someone who respects those he disagrees with, does it help your case to produce a statement in which he dismisses his opponents with the same phrase Jesus used to dismiss Judas?

One can argue, as some of you have, that Father Martins has spoken more temperately on this issue elsewhere. I don't dispute that. But these words were spoken before an assembly of more than 1,000 people moments before an historic vote and can't be discounted because you've found other words more to your liking.

Regardless, there are many in the Church that feels that Fr.Martins is right, and they are being marginalized by those on the left. The only way we can hold up the "inclusive" flag is if the Church consents to his election. If Glasspool can have a miter, so can Martins.

The fact (well-known for a long time) that Fr. Martin opposes same-sex unions and clergy in such relationships is no reason to deny him the post to which he is elected, nor is the fact that he will implement policies in keeping with those views. We cannot even object to the theology on which he would claim these views are bases: it is an old and often honored one.. We might worry a bit more about his ecclesiology and his belief that we made commitments to certain foreign bodies beyond those we actually kept (a some significant cost). We might object also to is moving back and forth between sin and impurity in a very unbiblical way -- even within that old tradition..
But the church is in a rather poor position to object to any of that, since it has not -- as ABC remarked seven years ago and change -- done its moves in order. We have assumed a theology we have not expressed, namely that committed same-sex relationships are as worthy images of God's love and exemplars of proper living as other-sex ones. And that, therefore, being in such a relationship is no bar to any role in this church and that such relationships are worthy to be blessed by the church (and licensed by the state).. Until we declare this, we can be accused of random acts intended merely to annoy people, rather than carrying out principles. To be sure, passing this declaration might be difficult, but at least the argument would be out in the open and the evidence put forward for all to see and evaluate, rather than continuing with innuendo and obscure references as has generally been the case so far.

Richard J: I wish you would stop TWISTING the definition of "inclusion" (as used in the meaning of "Inclusive Church").

Inclusion means of God-given factors: race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin (social-class origin would count here, too. As a university educator, we frequently speak in terms of "first in extended family to attend college").

"Inclusion" emphatically does NOT pertain to "ideology" or "mindset" (in an ecclesial context, there are theologies that may be beyond the pale, too---as Fr KT Forrester discovered).

I don't hold any truck w/ your Left/Right, Conservative/Liberal dichotomies, Richard J. I do care whether a potential bishop of TEC faithfully conforms to the canons of this church [Yeah, the one dismissed as the "General Convention Church" by xIker.]

We have a bunch of deposed bishops who---totally apart from their ideological views---did NOT conform to the canons. It's becoming clearer and clearer every day that, unless he repents, (x)Lawrence will have to be added to that number (i.e., subtracted from the House of Bishops).

If Fr Martins would travel down THAT Path of Perdition (the one of xSchofield, (x)Lawrence), he can spare us (or rather the Bishops & Standing Committees can spare us---his consents), RIGHT Now!

And furthermore, Richard J: quit bringing up the red herring of +Mary Glasspool (who's NEVER shown any sign of being unfaithful to the canons of TEC)! To say "Apples & Oranges" doesn't cover the distinction. Rather, +Mary's a pearl, compared to the schismatic swine. Are we clear on that now?

JC Fisher

Canon Naughton,

There is a great deal in the Anglican Communion about which all Anglicans should be prepared to carry their due portion of shame. LGBT persons are not the cause of it.

Something I further find troubling is it seems that LGBT people here are being used as a kind of "human shield" to prevent any and all criticism of The Episcopal Church.

Fr. Dan Martins here says, shame on us for breaking our agreements and ignoring years of work in the Communion - including, of course, himself.

A rather complicated set of interlinked consequences is then presented here around this word "shame," seeming to indicate that "shame" is a word monopolized by LGBT issues, and implying that Fr. Dan Martins was singling out LGBT people rather than referring to himself and his church (as his words clearly say), and furthermore doing so in a highly bigoted manner stemming from pure hatred of them as persons, rather than his having any principled reason for objecting to the resolutions. Whereas his principled reasons are quite obvious when one looks at his original words, and here Canon Naughton's article is highly deceptive.

Concerns about gay and lesbian sensitivites are thus being cobbled together in a highly odd way to create charges which culminate in words like "there is not room in the church for ..." and suggesting that the Diocese of Springfield should be denied the bishop they elected.

I do not believe it is in the interest of LGBT persons to have their presumed sentiments hijacked for such a cause. And of course, any LGBT person reading these charges and believing that Fr. Martins explicitly singled out LGBT persons for shame in a ruthlessly unreasoned and personally hateful manner, would feel betrayed already by their church in thinking that the Diocese of Springfield elected such a man to be their bishop. When this is clearly not the case.

I think that we can have a higher regard for LGBT persons than to use them as human shields to absorb any and all criticism of TEC, or to suggest that "there is not room in the church for" other persons who occasionally use the word "shame" with regard to themselves and their church for having neglected their commitments. None of my LGBT acquaintances are as puritannical or ruthlessly exclusive as this.

I do understand that many LGBT persons would object to Fr. Martin's views, including the view he brought before General Assembly here. However, I refuse to believe that most LGBT persons would assent to their cause being used in this particular manner, deceptive as it is. Indeed, it seems to rise to the level of bigotry itself, by attempting to arouse sentiments of aversion where no reasonable grounds for such sentiments can be found, except in the highly insular, oversensitive Episcopalian world where practically everything somehow points back to LGBT issues, just as other churches aspire to show their adherents that all we do should be done in reference to Christ.

Statements like this cause real harm and real pain to real LGBT persons. LGBT persons do not need to be led to believe that people are hatefully and pointedly stigmatizing them because of irrational personal hate when this is not the case. In general, they want to know what was said in what context, rather than surrealistically tacking unrelated facts together to form a case for a virtual "deny-them-their-consents" mob. Most LGBT people I know have done fairly well in shedding the "victim mentality" and do not wish "LGBT issues" to be used as an excuse for "bigot hunts" or as a shield for protecting persons and institutions. The way facts are so skewed and oddly interconnected here reminds me of Salem in a previous era.

I still believe it is likely that you will see the inappropriateness of what you have written here and find a reasonable and honest way to distance yourself from it, such as posting second thoughts above the content. This is behavior both "sides" of the debate need to cultivate when our minds have become too clouded in the fog of war. And I do understand how judgment can be clouded, and how things like this come to be written. When it happens, however, we do all a great favor when we are able to own up to mistakes.

Well, it's not his cause that's the problem, but yours. If you want to come right out and say, "bishops and standing committees should withhold consent because Martins isn't on board with us on same-sex marriages," well, I think you're wrong in that advocacy, but it least it would be forthright. But what he condemned was ECUSA's willfulness in disclaiming any responsibility to the communion. You could sign up openly for that too, but at least you should admit that he's complaining about you for the one thing and not the other.

The notion that there is a distinction between what some people describe as our "reponsibility to the Communion" and our willingness to treat LGBT people sacrificially is not one I can accept. Anyone who has followed this debate has heard the phrase used hundreds of times by people who seek to cloak their opposition to blessing same-sex relationships in the garment of higher ecumenical concern. This maneuver, though widely practiced, is willfully self-delusional.

For what it's worth, I don't think these comments disqualify Dan Martins from becoming a bishop. If I did, I would have said so. Rather, as I did say, I would like bishops and standing committees to ask him some hard questions about how he intends to speak about and respond to the needs of LGBT people in his diocese.

One other thing, less for people who have responded to this post than for those who have written about it elsewhere. Episcopal Cafe is not the blog of the Diocese of Washington. It hasn't been since late last year. We announced this numerous times, but I am happy to say it again. So what I say here is simply my opinion.

@Jim Naughton:

"how he intends to speak about and respond to the needs of LGBT people in his diocese."

Are you saying (and forgive me for my ignorance of the latest Canons etc.) that the acid-test for a Bishop in TEC is that he consents to the blessing of same-sex relationships and agrees to employ/ordain partnered homosexual clergy? If Fr. Martins, as Bishop, does not intend to follow this course, then he is not worthy to be Bishop? Please correct me if I misunderstood what you are saying. Thank you.

@ JC Fisher
I'm not sure I would bring up "adherence to the Canons of the Church" as criteria at the moment...there is much mud to be slung on both sides if we're to go there. And (re: schismatic swine) - don't hold back, say what you really feel!

Gillian Forrest

So far as I can tell, refusing to bless same-sex unions (indeed, refusing to bless other-sex unions) is not against the canons, nor is refusing to ordain people in such unions (nor women neither). When we get down to "employ", however, the matter is somewhat different and we can ask: would a person in a same sex union be employed as, say, Chancellor, or office manager or sexton? Could such a person serve on a vestry, be a LEM, be a delegate or serve on a Standing Committee? At some point in an orderly presentation of these questions, a "No" answer, does seem to go against the position of the church and be grounds for serious questions of the answerer's fitness to be a bishop. I do not know whether Fr. Martin would say "No" beyond ordination and I don't see his statements as implying that he would.
BTW, back a few places, "inclusivity" in the Anglican tradition has always been *especially* about theological differences. The extension to other kinds of difference, while welcome, is a recent addition.

@ F. Harry Stowe

So far as I can tell, refusing to bless same-sex unions (indeed, refusing to bless other-sex unions) is not against the canons, nor is refusing to ordain people in such unions (nor women neither).

I think you are clearly right on the first order, it is less clear on the second and, if you intend refusing women on the third, I think that it is a problem.

The canon reference of Title III, Canon 1, Section 2 reads:
"No person shall be denied access to the discernment process for any ministry,lay or ordained,in this Church because of race,color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided by these Canons. No right to licensing, ordination, or election is hereby established."
Section 3 of the same Title and Canon reads:
"The provisions of these Canons for the admission of Candidates for the Ordination to the three Orders:Bishops,Priests and Deacons shall be equally applicable to men and women."

In his "walkabout video question" about "gay clergy" bishop-elect Martins said some "positive" things about gay clergy. He also has clearly stated that he would not be able to ordain or deploy "openly" gay clergy in his diocese. At one point, this is in the context of "partnered" clergy, but he also stresses clearly in a later portion about the failure of "openly" gay clergy to meet standards of "wholesome example" according to his light without saying that he means only partnered openly gay clergy. This makes it much more difficult to understand what he means by "openly" because he also says that to "be" gay is not necessarily a sin. What he means by "openly gay" is a question that he should be asked.

I suppose that I would be willing to drop the issue of "shame" as merely an ambiguous and poor choice of words, but there are other reasons to "worry" about consent. In particular his self-published statements made during the secession debate in the Diocese of San Jaoquin are troubling in the extreme. Many of us fear "another" +Lawrence when we were assured that he did not "intend" to separate from TEC, but look now at the mess in SC.

I'll paste in bishop-elect Martin's words from his own blog that he made in the debate and ask you to judge for yourself what we should do about his "consent."

I rise to speak in support of the motion that is presently before the convention, but I do so reluctantly, and with a heavy heart. I believe we are doing the right thing at the wrong time. The Episcopal Church is a sinking ship. The senior officers have run it into an iceberg. They are in denial about the extent of the damage, but there are plenty of junior crew members who realize that she has taken on water to a point that most probably cannot be reversed. Yet, big ships sink slowly. The engines have quit, but the power is still on, and many of the passengers are dancing the night away in the ballroom, or are peacefully asleep in their cabins. If the crew members, who are awake and alert and know the danger, abandon ship now, what will become of those innocent passengers? They will perish. Now, we can blame the officers on the bridge, who elected not to sound an alarm. Or we could assess the situation with clear eyes and realize that we have some time before the fateful moment when the bow rises into the air and the entire hulk sinks into the depths. And we could use that time to allow the passengers to see what danger they’re in, despite what they hear from the bridge. These are the very passengers that I believe our Lord Jesus looks on with compassion, because he sees them as harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. It is this Christ-like vision that I wish we had been able to see our way to embracing.

Does this suggest that he might be willing to "wait a bit" before going ahead and "doing the right thing" by leading the Diocese of Springfield into secession if things do not reverse themselves or "clear the logjam" to use his term? He has stated clearly that he does not expect the "logjam" to clear during his theoretical episcopacy. When is the magic secret moment in which he will feel his conscience directs that he must leave and possibly try to take the Diocese of Springfield with him?

I really would like some firm, clear and non-evasive answers to this. There is room for inclusion in TEC of persons and persons with variant views. I may not be happy about it, and will not simply say that we should happily assent to it in terms of Episcopal elections and confirmations. I worry when a potential bishop, however, makes such public negative statements about TEC as a "sinking ship" and that he disapproves only of the timing of the San Joaquin vote and actions.

As for women, LGBT clergy, I would like to hear, if we wish to grant him the ability to except himself from ordaining and deploying "openly gay" clergy in his diocese what provision, if any, he would make to move them to alternative jurisdiction.

I am really sorry that this post is so long, but there are so many accusations about being "out of context" that I think that only a bit "context" will do here.

The language of Richard Jackson and others who try to use "inclusiveness" as a weapon (attempts frequently made, I note) ought to remind us of the question Jim Naughton has posed. Dan Martins is already "included" in this church; he is baptized and he was ordained a deacon and priest. He's included, all right.

The question is whether he ought to be a bishop.

That is a proper question for debate.

As a non-church attending member in this diocese, I was thrilled to hear we were getting a new bishop. I stopped going to church when Bishop Beckwith told me, to my face, that I would be going to hell because I am a lesbian in a committed relationship (that was blessed in TEC when I lived in Vermont). I had hoped I could come back to the flock. It appears I am still unwanted. Very sad. I have tried asking Bishop Elect Martins on his blogsite if I will be welcome in his diocese. It has been several weeks...still no answer. Guess that's my answer.

please sign your last name too next time- thx -ed.