TEC Affiliated Bishop Lamb expresses concerns about Dan Martins becoming Springfield bishop

Posted by Kendall Harmon

Obtained via email; in wide circulation at present so important for blog readers to see; please read it all and follow all the links--KSH.

The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin
The Central Third of California
The Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb, Bishop
The Rev. Canon Mark H. Hall, Canon to the Ordinary

Dear Bishops and Standing Committee Members,

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin joins me in sending you this letter that outlines our grave concerns about the election of the Rev. Daniel Martins as the Bishop Diocesan of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois.

Our concern is not about the electing process, but about the suitability of Daniel Martins to be ordained a bishop in the Episcopal Church. We write to you now before the consent process is in full swing, so you will know of our concerns and have a chance to review pertinent information about Daniel Martins and his involvement in the attempted separation of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin from the Episcopal Church. We also request that you visit Daniel Martins' website (http://cariocaconfessions.blogspot.com/) and review his comments about the startup of the Continuing Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin.

All of the material concerning Daniel Martins' relationship to the Diocese of San Joaquin can be found on our diocesan website (http://www.diosanjoaquin.org) under "Updates" on the right sidebar or by direct link at http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/dioceseofspringfieldconsent.html.

Daniel Martins came to the Diocese of San Joaquin in 1994 when he was called to be the rector of St. John the Evangelist Episcopal Church in Stockton. He remained at St. John's until August 2007 when he accepted a call to St. Anne's Episcopal Church in Warsaw, Diocese of Northern Indiana. St. John's is the oldest Episcopal Church in Stockton (and was one of the leading parishes in the diocese.) Only months after Martins left St. John's, the parish chose to follow John-David Schofield in the attempt to leave the Episcopal Church. It is our contention that Daniel Martins did not prepare this congregation to remain in the Episcopal Church, but did just the opposite. St. John's, Stockton is one of the few incorporated parishes in the diocese, and we were forced to file suit to recover this property for the Episcopal Church.

While residing in the Diocese of San Joaquin, Daniel Martins was very active in diocesan affairs. He was elected a deputy to General Convention multiple times, the last time in 2006. The Diocesan Council meeting minutes on April 8, 2006 report on a discussion of the upcoming Diocesan Convention resolution regarding disassociation from the Episcopal Church. In response to a question as to why deputies to General Convention 2006 had questions about the timing of the resolution, the Rev James Snell is referenced: "Read e-mail from Dan Martins. Endorse substance of proposal but concerned that (1) language provocative, (2) timing is ill-advised (prior to GC 2006) - diverts attention, (3) resolution will be spun by Bps adversaries, (4) robs GC deputations of effectiveness and credibility at GC. If GC rejects Windsor Report, then it will be time to act and Dan will lead the charge." (See http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/doc/CouncilMinutesApr2006)

In John-David Schofield's address to convention in December 2006, when the first reading of the proposed change to the Constitution was made, he made the following statement, "Working independently of this Virginia meeting, three of our rural deans: Frs. Dan Martins, Jim Snell, and Richard James came up with a substitute for the original proposed changes to our diocesan constitution." This substitute amendment became the very amendment that the disaffiliating parties attempted to use as their vehicle to leave the Church. (See http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/doc/SchofieldAddr2006)

When former Bishop Schofield called for a vote in 2006 on this constitutional change removing the accession clause (after rejecting the motion for a secret ballot) and called for a vote by delegates standing in favor, reliable witnesses noted that Daniel Martins voted in the affirmative.

The Standing Committee and I contend Daniel Martins was instrumental to the process that led to first and second votes by the diocese to change the Constitutions and Canons that resulted in the failed attempt to unilaterally leave the Episcopal Church. Further excerpts from Diocesan documents are available at our diocesan website. (See for example, email dated June17, 2007 from Martins to Standing Committee http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/doc/Email6172007, Standing Committee minutes from June 2007 http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/doc/SCMinutesJun2007, and email from Dan Martins in December 2006 http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/doc/Email12182006).

We also urge you to read excerpts from Daniel Martins' blog entitled "Confessions of a Carioca." (See http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/doc/DanMartinsBlogExcerpts) The following are examples from his blog.

3-5-2008: There's a new group of Non-Jurors in the process of formation even as I write. They are former clergy and laity of the Diocese of San Joaquin. Their principled stand places them between the "rock" of their former bishop, whom they have loved and served loyally, but whom they cannot in good conscience follow to the Province of the Southern Cone, and the "hard place" of the noncanonical rump "remaining" Diocese of San Joaquin, which they cannot in good conscience join because it represents the raw exercise of naked illicit power by the Presiding Bishop, and because to do so would compromise their oath of loyalty to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.

7-13-2008: Now, aside from the ... what shall we say? ... ungenerous ... tone of the missive, it raises some curious issues. It comes as no news that, for a number of substantive technical reasons, I recognize neither the constitutional foundation of the "Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin" nor the authority of Bishop Jerry Lamb. By any rational reading of the Constitution & Canons of the Episcopal Church, we're talking about a bogus diocese with a bogus bishop, though they have some impressive-looking stationery. That they exist at all, and are able to maintain the chimera of legitimacy is a result only of the raw exercise of naked political power on the part of the Presiding Bishop. She is manifestly guilty of presentable offenses but it will never happen because the political calculus just isn't there.

Out of concern for the Episcopal Church, we urge you to review the information in this letter, on our website (http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/dioceseofspringfieldconsent.html), and in Daniel Martins' own blog.

Upon reviewing the materials, we believe that it is clear that Daniel Martins not only actively supported and voted to attempt to remove the Diocese from the Episcopal Church. Furthermore, it is implicit in his writings and actions that he clearly holds the belief that a Diocese may leave this Church unilaterally, which is contrary to our understanding of Anglicanism and the polity of the Episcopal Church.

In closing, the consent process, as mandated by our canons, is the only way the wider Church can respond to the election of a person to be a bishop. Accordingly, we would ask you to join us in withholding consent for Daniel Martins to become the Bishop of Springfield.

Peace,

--(The Rt. Rev.) Jerry A. Lamb is Bishop of San Joaquin [the TEC Affiliated Diocese]

Members of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalEpiscopal Church (TEC)TEC BishopsTEC ConflictsTEC Conflicts: San JoaquinTEC Polity & CanonsSexuality Debate (in Anglican Communion)Same-sex blessingsWindsor Report / Process* TheologyEcclesiology

30 Comments
Posted October 29, 2010 at 8:00 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Dan Crawford wrote:

Paragons of integrity calling for the repudiation of one who has remained faithful to the Gospel and raised legitimate concerns about an unprincipled hierarchy - the dance goes on.

October 29, 9:22 am | [comment link]
2. dwstroudmd+ wrote:

Naturally, they do.  That’s the realm they operate in and practice their belief system in - nature.  Not redeemed nature, mind you.  Just nature as they exist in until they die and cease.  Enlightenment project finale! 

“Believers” only allowed on their terms.  All others are false - must be!  Because if anything they suggest might be true, the whole natural enterprise is faulty and needs redemption and their paradigm is in error.

See how inclusive they are!

See how the people are flooding in because of their inclusiveness.

Of course, the budget process at EcUSA/TEc may not be able to prop up their finite existence in nature much longer, either….....

October 29, 9:33 am | [comment link]
3. New Reformation Advocate wrote:

Predictably mean-spirited nonsense from the phony rump diocese in central CA, when Dan Martins+ has gone out of his way to stress his loyalty to TEC and his commitment to working within the system.

At this point, I’m not worried that Fr. Martins is likely to be denied consent.  His record speaks for itself.  But bishops and standing committess in TEC don’t always act rationally these days.  As this public letter shows.

David Handy+

October 29, 9:48 am | [comment link]
4. AnglicanFirst wrote:

While Bishop Lamb, Ms. Schori and the ECUSA revisionists focus on ‘relativistic inclusiveness,’ ‘rules and regulations’ (ecclesiology),  ‘pieces of real estate,’ and ‘secular issues related to current political correctness,’
the orthodox Anglicans in North America are adhering to the message of Salvation through Faith in Jesus Christ Risen through following “... the Faith once given….”

Which group will retain and grow its membership?  My bet is on the orthodox Anglicans.

Which group will see a continuing decline in membership and increasing theological irrelevance?  My bet is on ECUSA (aka TEC).

October 29, 10:03 am | [comment link]
5. Sarah wrote:

RE: “he clearly holds the belief that a Diocese may leave this Church unilaterally, which is contrary to our understanding of Anglicanism and the polity of the Episcopal Church.”

Wow.  Dan Martins holds a belief that TEC revisionists do not hold? Especially one so august as Bishop Lamb?

HOW UTTERLY WICKED!!!!

DEPOSE HIM!!!!!!!! 

KICK HIM OUT OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH!!!!!!

There is, of course, room for all sorts of disparate beliefs within TEC—some of us believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, others of us believe in a general spirit of resurrectionness.  We are, after all, inclusive.

BUT MY WORD—IF WE CAN"T ALL AGREE ABOUT THE REALLY IMPORTANT MATTERS—like whether a diocese can leave The Episcopal Church—THAN WE MAY AS WELL FOLD UP SHOP AND ALL GO HOME!!!!!

October 29, 10:09 am | [comment link]
6. tjmcmahon wrote:

While I don’t agree with Dan Martins+ about every little thing, he and the diocese of Springfield deserve better than this from their colleagues.  So prayers for both the diocese and bishop-elect are in order.  Prayers also for those traditional Episcopalians, especially clergy, who remain under the TEC imposed bishop and standing committee in San Joaquin.  They also bear a heavy burden, as Lamb, no doubt, holds them in the same “high regard” as he holds Dan Martins+.

October 29, 10:12 am | [comment link]
7. jingalls wrote:

Might there be other letters written now, ones that lay out the opposing case?  I would love to see some “Why I am voting for Dan Martins” letters written by bishops in good standing in TEC.

October 29, 10:23 am | [comment link]
8. Creighton+ wrote:

This is terrible sad but not unsurprising.  The facts have been twisted by Bishop Lamb and misrepresent the witness of Bishop Elect Martin.  What this shows is the reality of the EC and where it is headed.  In other words, are people who embrace the Traditional understanding of the Gospel and the authority and inspiration, validity of scripture welcome in the EC.  I raised that question and was promptly shown the door.  This is what is happening to Bishop Elect Martin.

He is willing to work to bring together the two sides and I wonder if this is even possible.  However, while I have no hope that we fallen human beings can do so all things are possible with God.

I hope that other faithful Episcopalians, priests, and Bishops will stand up for Bishop Elect Martin’s true witness and counter this twisted facts.

October 29, 10:50 am | [comment link]
9. magnolia wrote:

i’m sorry but what would one expect? i don’t mean to be a downer but the EC orthodox are outnumbered and that won’t change anytime soon. the battle was lost long ago. the few that remain would be better served to come to the ACNA so we could all work together to build up a national orthodox church. those libs aren’t going to elect anyone who is even remotely against their agenda and really who can blame them? if the orthodox had acted this way to begin with none of this mess would ever have happened.

October 29, 11:13 am | [comment link]
10. Already left wrote:

1. If a diocese can’t leave then what is Bp Lamb doing in San Joaquin?
2. If Fr. Martins wanted out, he could easily have gotten out with the Dio of San Joaquin.
3. Please, other Bishops - let’s hear from you!!!

October 29, 11:27 am | [comment link]
11. In Texas wrote:

I remember that many people in 2003 said their consents for a certain controversial person had to be based solely on wether or not the election process was properly followed.  New Hampshire had a proper election, the people of NH followed the lead of the Spirit, so their consents had to be given.

Some of these very same people are now saying that a bishop is a bishop not just for the diocese, but for the wider church, therefor they must ask these questions.  They are also asking for a loyalty oath.  Amazing how their criteria has changed.

October 29, 11:39 am | [comment link]
12. Publius wrote:

Bp. Lamb’s Potemkin “Diocese” is almost entirely dependent, financially, on donations from 815. From that fact it is reasonable to infer that Bp. Lamb obtained the Presiding Bishop’s (at least tacit) approval to send this letter.

Perhaps I am being too conspiratorial, but it seems that this is the Presiding Bishop’s way of telling TEC’s bishops and standing committees to reject Fr. Martin’s election. Bp. Lamb is simply delivering her message, so that she can make her wish public without being so crass as to actually say it herself. I think that the consents to Fr. Martin’s election are very much is jeopardy now.

October 29, 11:52 am | [comment link]
13. AnglicanFirst wrote:

Reply to #11.,
Just call it hypocrisy.  The revisionists are quite comfortable with it.  Whatever supports their cause is moral and just and whatever doesn’t support their cause is immoral and unjust.

Reply to #12.,
You have made a very good point.  Bishop Lamb’s letter is quite possibly Ms. Schori’s strawman outlining her position regarding Martins+ ‘approval’ as bishop.

October 29, 12:07 pm | [comment link]
14. Undergroundpewster wrote:

This quote must have stuck in Bishop Lambs craw:

I recognize neither the constitutional foundation of the “Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin” nor the authority of Bishop Jerry Lamb.

Shouldn’t Bishop Lamb just do as we have been asked to do and live into the tension, and “move beyond” the issue?

October 29, 12:11 pm | [comment link]
15. Wilf wrote:

This letter appeared to me quite substantial the first time I read it - I was comparing it to Jim Naughton’s objection to Dan Martins’ use of the word “shame” which ascended to the heady heights using the phrase “no place in the church” (albeit, speaking specifically “as bishop”).  About this, volumes could be said.

But I see that Bishop Lamb has actually put together a number of separate quotes, which looks impressive.

On closer look, however, each of the things he brings up to impugn Martins is highly problematic.  For example, for a man who was “very active in diocesan affairs,” the best that Bishop Lamb can do is to quote someone else’s opinion on a mail that Martins wrote (rather than citing anything that Martins himself had written or said during this period when he was so active and prolific).  It does sound suspicious, since the writer expresses his wish that “Dan will lead the charge” - but why does the writer wish this, and is there any evidence that Dan wants to lead the charge?  Is it perhaps simply because, as Bishop Lamb admits, Dan Martins was so highly involved in diocesan affairs, and a role which Dan Martins might have refused?

The other points are also very weak.  E.g., there was grave doubt among many Episcopalians regarding the canonicality of the new Diocese of San Juaquin; many also felt they could not recognize its claims, and I believe this is probably still the case, though they may not be standing on soap boxes, proclaiming this to the world - it seems rather that this was a battle which due process (and justice) lost to expediency, and there are enough battles in TEC affairs from which to choose.

That such a sloppy note is written with such passion by a bishop does not bode well for The Episcopal Church.  The Church got itself into a terrible mess already because of actions which appear to flaunt the Canons; but now it seems that blind acceptance of the PB’s re-interpretations and re-visioning history is becoming necessary for one to lead and teach within The Episcopal Church.  This is a serious devolution toward an authoritarian sectarian and cult-like group dynamic.

October 29, 1:11 pm | [comment link]
16. Fr. Carter Croft+ wrote:

I was in the Diocese of San Joaquin when the Diocese moved to leave TEC.  My friend and classmate Dan Martins was a minority voice advocating caution and discernment.  He publicly acknowledged that he would remain within TEC and strongly encouraged the Diocese of San Joaquin to do the same.  During the aftermath of the Diocese leaving, and the Presiding Bishop’s intervention, he correctly pointed out the numerous violations of Canon Law that were committed.

October 29, 1:38 pm | [comment link]
17. Fr. Dale wrote:

#12. Publius,

Bp. Lamb’s Potemkin “Diocese” is almost entirely dependent, financially, on donations from 815. From that fact it is reasonable to infer that Bp. Lamb obtained the Presiding Bishop’s (at least tacit) approval to send this letter.

I would go beyond that to speculate that KJS is using Jerry Lamb in the same way TEC used the “EDSJ”. The real issue is his public fisking of her on his blog. This is a personal matter for her. This is also a parting shot from a departing Jerry Lamb. One of the Communion Partner Bishops needs to get out a letter as an antidote to this poison pen letter.

October 29, 2:27 pm | [comment link]
18. jamesw wrote:

This letter most likely represents the POV of the extremist cabal currently in charge of TEC.  I would think that Lamb’s letter most probably reflects the views of KJS and can probably be seen as her proxy.  However, I am getting the impression that some of KJS’s allies are becoming uneasy with her authoritarian and centralizing moves of late.  It was all well and good when she arrogated power to her office to get rid of those pesky conservatives, and the majority was apparently well prepared to let her get away with gross violations of the canons and near dictatorial powers in the new disciplinary canons.  But now that KJS might be turning her dictatorial powers to places these allies don’t like, they are becoming uneasy.  I wonder also, if some of TEC’s leaders might not be so happy with her costly litigation strategy.

I think that the Dan Martins confirmation will present a very interesting study of the tensions amongst the inmates, now that they have taken over control of the asylum.  Recent GC votes and other political developments within TEC suggest that the extremist left have gained the levers of power - and Lamb’s letter is likely representative of that faction.  But it seems to me that the fight between the extremist left and the pragmatic left isn’t over yet in TEC, and that the Dan Martins confirmation battle will be the latest skirmish.

October 29, 3:00 pm | [comment link]
19. Wilf wrote:

Fr. Carter Croft, I’d encourage you to write an open letter to +Lamb and EDSJ about this, perhaps Kendall would publish it.  It could be very useful as an eyewitness account, against a mere set of inferences based on conjecture.

October 29, 3:36 pm | [comment link]
20. Fr. Carter Croft+ wrote:

DOWN MEMORY LANE: FROM THE LIVING CHURCH
Walkabout Scheduled for San Joaquin Provisional Bishop Nominee

Posted on: March 7, 2008

A single candidate chosen to be the provisional Bishop of San Joaquin will participate in a two-day walkabout visitation to the diocese immediately after the House of Bishops’ meeting concludes at Camp Allen in Texas on March 12.

The bishops are scheduled to vote on whether to depose the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin during a “business session” after Morning Prayer on that day. Bishop Schofield has already formally resigned from the House of Bishops. Bishops with jurisdiction must obtain consent from the House of Bishops to resign, according to national church canons.

The fate of another bishop   the Rt. Rev. William J. Cox, who served as Bishop suffragan of Maryland from 1972 to 1980 and assistant Bishop of Oklahoma, 1980-1988   is also to be determined during the two-hour business session on the final day. Bishop Cox is also charged with abandonment of communion after he consecrated two priests and a deacon on June 24, 2005, at Christ Church, Overland Park, Kan. Christ Church signed a purchase agreement with the Diocese of Kansas and affiliated with the Anglican Church of Uganda in April 2005.

According to an announcement published on a website maintained by “Remain Episcopal in the Diocese of San Joaquin,” objectives of the two-day pre-convention meeting include:

• provide an opportunity to meet the “provisional Bishop” designee;
• review the work of the Nominations Committee in preparing for the special convention;
• explain and discuss proposed resolutions for the special convention;
• review requirements for certifying delegates and clergy as voting members;
• review the proposed budget.

There are unconfirmed reports that the person nominated to be provisional bishop is the Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb, former Bishop of Northern California. When contacted by The Living Church on March 7, Neva Rae Fox, public affairs officer for Episcopal Life Media said Bishop Jefferts Schori “has not made any kind of announcement about the designee.”

In a letter written on her official letterhead and made public in the diocese on March 3, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori announced her intention to call to order a special convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin at St. John-the-Baptist Church in Lodi on March 29. St. John’s is reported to have a $2-million mortgage co-signed by Bishop Schofield. In addition to electing a provisional bishop, clergy and lay delegates to the organizing convention on March 29 are also scheduled to elect a new standing committee.

“This is a travesty of justice in which due process has not been afforded to the rightful, sitting members of the present Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin,” said the Rev. Carter Croft, interim rector at Church of Our Saviour in Hanford in an email message sent to Bishop John W. Howe of Central Florida. “I am deeply troubled by the above mentioned actions by our Presiding Bishop, which displays unprecedented authority; authority which is not rightfully hers. With no regard for due process, let alone the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, I submit to you…that Bishop [Jefferts] Schori is treading on extremely dangerous ground. What she is attempting to do could have terrible repercussions on the rest of the Episcopal Church.”

Although he said he is personally fond of Bishop Schofield and largely shares the bishop’s theological understanding of the authority of scripture, in an interview with TLC, Fr. Croft said he has not followed Bishop Schofield and joined the Southern Cone. He is also unable to join with members of Remain Episcopal, who he said are in control of the reorganization of the Episcopal diocese. In a follow up telephone conversation with Bishop Howe, Fr. Croft said he was assured that Bishop Howe would attempt to share Fr. Croft’s concerns with his colleagues during the House of Bishops’ meeting.

Some eight hours of the published agenda for the six-day House of Bishops’ spring retreat is devoted to discussion of this summer’s Lambeth Conference. There is also a two-and-a-half hour plenary discussion on “Title IV [disciplinary code revisions] Reorganization [of the Episcopal Church Center] and Theological Education” on March 11.

The Rev. Canon Brian Cox, rector of Christ the King Church in Santa Barbara, Calif., and a founder of Reconcilers.net, is scheduled to lead the bishops in a reconciliation retreat. Bishop Jefferts Schori has named Canon Cox as an “interim pastoral presence” in the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. The term of that position is scheduled to conclude with the election of a provisional bishop.

Steve Waring

October 29, 3:51 pm | [comment link]
21. wvparson wrote:

I should like to say that Fr. Martins is a much respected and loved priest in the Diocese of Northern Indiana. This affection is common to all stripes of opinion, male and female, priests and laity, progressive and traditionalist. I serve with him on the Board of Examining Chaplains and as an area dean. In discussions on the hot button issues at clergy conferences he has been a voice for reason and unity. He has firm opinions, but does not allow them to compromise his calling to serve in TEC or to contribute to the good of this diocese.

I find the attack from the Bishop and standing committee in SJ to be blatantly political, the materials misleading and the intent destructive.  One would think that a bishop and standing committee would be intent on healing wounds and leading a shattered diocese into renewal and mission. It is inconceivable to me that such a vitriolic attack could have been either prepared or disseminated in a spirit of prayer and Christ-like devotion.

October 29, 4:56 pm | [comment link]
22. Already left wrote:

#21 I agree. And especially your last paragraph. Note the way Lamb signs off “Peace.” This is anything but.

October 29, 5:13 pm | [comment link]
23. pendennis88 wrote:

As much as I agree with #21, I would have to repeat this line from Princess Bride:

“Vizzini: INCONCEIVABLE!
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

October 29, 5:28 pm | [comment link]
24. wvparson wrote:

#23 I was thinkig of +Michael Ramsey’s passage on fetishisms in GOD, CHRIST and the WORLD in which he suggests that one of them is to substitute God contemplation with self contemplation.  This permits among other things, a Christian to indulge in viciousness without quarm.

October 29, 5:34 pm | [comment link]
25. jamesw wrote:

wvparson:  I agree with your comments.  It would be helpful to keep the following in mind when assessing this nonsense from Lamb and his “Remain Episcopal” Standing Committee:

1. With only a few exceptions, those that comprise the TEC Diocese of San Joaquin are made up of the old “Remain Episcopal” crowd - true believers in the extremist liberal position in TEC.  Prior to the real Diocese of San Joaquin’s departure from TEC, Dan Martins was regarded as an enemy by the Remain Episcopal True Believers because he didn’t dance to KJS et.al.‘s tune.  As I understand Dan Martins’ role in the pre-departure Diocese, he sought a way for the Diocese to differentiate from TEC without actually leaving, perhaps more along the lines of Mark Lawrence and the DSC.  This was bitterly opposed by the “Remain Episcopal” group who would like revenge against all of their former opponents.  It probably galls them to no end to think that Martins might become a bishop.

2. The TEC DSJ has found the going exceedingly tough.  Despite all of the happy talk propaganda, word on the ground is that they now realize that they are in a world of hurt regardless of whether they win or lose their litigation.  They are already saddled with substantial debt to the National Church for their litigation.  The parishes that remain in the diocese are barely able to pay for basic upkeep to their properties.  Then, if they WIN the lawsuits, they are saddled with a bunch of church properties which they can’t afford to maintain and a bunch of Potemkin congregations that are nowhere near being economically viable.  If they LOSE the lawsuits, they are just stuck with the debt.  Either way, these folks realize I think, that they can’t “win” - the only question is how much destruction can they cause to their opponents.  Fertile ground for vitriolic attacks on ones “opponents”.

3. Jerry Lamb ruined the Diocese of Northern California and was known to be mean-spirited to those he didn’t like.  He went into the DSJ as KJS’s hired gun to snuff out the rebels.  He hasn’t done so.  Rather, it is looking like he is presiding over a major debacle.  In contrast, I was at the Anglican DSJ annual convention (as a visitor) the other week, and I saw an alive, confident and vital diocese, which is fully prepared to continue on whether or not they win the litigation.  Furthermore, Jerry Lamb has the reputation for not liking to be crossed and for being ruthless towards those who do so.  As Lamb quotes in his letter, Dan Martins went so far as to not recognize the canonical chicanery that put Lamb in as “Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin.”  I am guessing that Lamb is pretty angry right now, and Dan Martins is a convenient target.

Thus, I would suggest that “a spirit of prayer and Christ-like devotion” were not what this letter was prepared in, but rather a good deal of anger, bitterness and a spirit of revenge.

October 29, 6:06 pm | [comment link]
26. Sarah wrote:

” . . . the few that remain would be better served to come to the ACNA so we could all work together to build up a national orthodox church.”

Actually I believe that there are more traditional Anglicans that remain in TEC than are currently in ACNA—easily so, too.

And we’d be “better served” to come to ACNA only if we think that ACNA is an actual option for us considering our own values, principles, and beliefs.

I can’t speak for others in TEC—though I can speculate of course—but speaking for myself, ACNA is not such an option.

I wouldn’t have said the above had it not been brought up—but there we are—yet another comment from someone telling those of us in TEC that we should definitely confirm the ACNAites decisions by packing up and coming over to *their* solution.

October 29, 6:53 pm | [comment link]
27. Dick Mitchell wrote:

I am a longtime admirer of Fr. Martins from his blog and other writings.  I am a fairly conservative layman still in TEC, hoping to stay in TEC, and found some excitement in Fr. Martins’ election in Springfield.  Now this attack from the rump diocese is a challenge not just to Fr. Martins, but to the all remaining conservatives left in TEC.  The thrust of the challenge is that Fr. Martins worked against the program and plans of 815—a charge that can be laid against many of us conservatives.  I am not ready to leave TEC, but the sense of this letter is that conservatives, dissidents, and those not cooperative with 815 need to be quashed.  The issues with this letter seem much larger that one episcopal election.

October 29, 7:23 pm | [comment link]
28. Cennydd13 wrote:

I see +Lamb’s letter as a personal attack directed at Dan Martins+, and to be honest with you all, I think he needs to apologize to a fine priest who is doing his best to stay the course by doing what he thinks is right.

October 29, 8:21 pm | [comment link]
29. AnglicanFirst wrote:

Reply to comment # 27. who said,
“The issues with this letter seem much larger that one episcopal election.”

They are.  I am sure that your statement was an intended rhetorical statement of what should be obvious to all concerned.  Including the ‘head in the sand ostrich’ orthodox within ECUSA (aka TEC).

October 29, 8:29 pm | [comment link]
30. magnolia wrote:

sarah, “yet another comment from someone telling those of us in TEC that we should definitely confirm the ACNAites decisions by packing up and coming over to *their* solution.”

just saying that we would make for a powerful coalition and why not work together for it? all this hand wringing isn’t doing a bit of good from what i can see. the libs are closing ranks and ensuring that the orthodox will never come to power again and at the very least will force them to remain on the fringe until their numbers die out.

i haven’t read any kind of serious plan on how the orthodox are dealing with the liberal onslaught. in my small texas enclave and in the neighboring towns the local EC ‘s have already drunk the kool aid. i have been forsaken and therefore had no other choice but to join acna in order to remain anglican.

i apologize if my words were offensive to you. just calling it as i see it as i know you do the same.

November 1, 11:45 am | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): Church Times: Reports of Bradford’s demise ‘premature’

Previous entry (below): Peter Ould Tries to Analyze the Results for Elections to the Church of England General Synod

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)