How very sad, yet how completely predictable:

From here:

The Rt. Rev. Jerry Lamb, Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin and the Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin issued a letter dated October 16, 2010 that outlines their grave concerns about the election of the Rev. Daniel Martins as the Bishop Diocesan of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois.

The letter states that those concerns are not about the electing process, but about the suitability of Daniel Martins to be ordained a bishop in the Episcopal Church. The letter is being sent before the consent process is in full swing, so that those Bishops and Standing Committees receiving the letter will 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.

Links to the letter and supporting documents of interest are posted here…

The adjectives “bitter”, “small-minded”, “petty”, “bullying”, “pathetic” and others come to mind when I read Lamb’s letter.  I would remind readers that Bishop Lamb is a bishop who routinely and openly violates TEC canons EVERY TIME he makes an episcopal visit to a parish by demanding that there be open communion.

Lamb offers this conclusion to his letter:

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.

First, if Dan Martins was so supportive of the diocese leaving TEC, then why did he leave the diocese prior to its departure?  Lamb was never known for being an intellectual heavyweight, but surely he is capable of greater complexity then this simplistic non-analysis of Dan Martins’ actions.

Second, is Lamb really suggesting that anyone who disagrees with him on his highly controversial interpretation of TEC’s canons regarding the right of a diocese to disaffiliate from TEC, should be cast out of TEC?  This sort of purge mentality towards anyone who disagrees with them reveals the true “inclusivity” of TEC’s ruling cabal.

Sad and entirely predictable.

What I just noticed by going once again to the TEC Diocese of San Joaquin site, is the section listed “Our News” over on the right hand side.  Three items are listed there:

Bishop Jerry Lamb and Standing Committee send letter regarding consent of Bishop-elect Dan Martins
TheRt. Rev. Jerry Lamb, Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin and the Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin issued a letterdated October 16, 2010 that outlines their grave concerns about ... MORE

From: Diocese of San Joaquin
Lawsuit filed against former members of St. Paul’s, Bakersfield
On Monday, August 23rd, the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin filed a lawsuit against the former members of St. Paul’s, Bakersfield. MORE

From: Diocese of San Joaquin
Lawsuits filed by the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin

So what is the news of TEC’s diocese in its own words?  What are they trying to convey to the world what they are all about?

Feeding the poor?  Evangelizing central California?  Planting new churches?  No, nothing like that.

Their news is summed up with one nasty letter and two lawsuits.

According to this diocese’s homepage, their mission statement is this:

We are a resurrection community dedicated to living out our Baptisimal Covenant by:

Worshipping at the common table where all are fed, spiritually, physically, emotionally, and intellectually.

Intentionally welcoming, incorporating, and affirming all God’s people.

Honoring, developing, and celebrating the unique ministry of all the baptized.

Being the heart, hands, and feet of Christ in the world.

Hmmmm….so let’s see now,

“Intentionally…affirming all God’s people” is surely taken care of by the nasty letter.  Very affirming that is.  I am sure Dan Martins just can’t get enough of all that love and affirmation.

“Being the heart, hands, and feet of Christ in the world” is just as surely taken care of by the two lawsuits.  What better says “heart, hands, and feet of Christ” then a couple of lawsuits?

Small wonder that Daniel Martins regards TEC as being a “sinking ship”.  It’s hard to see how an institution whose leadership is so obsessed with tearing others down could be anything else.

“faux diocese”? My colleagues there would beg to differ. I recognize that there two dioceses there. Neither of them is faux.

Daniel Weir - 31 October 2010 01:03 PM

“faux diocese”? My colleagues there would beg to differ. I recognize that there two dioceses there. Neither of them is faux.

I think Dan that the “faux” might better be called rump - however this terminology of “faux”  reflects the questionable canonical process.  As I understand it -
There was a valid standing committee that was ignored. 
The proper system was overruled from the outside by the PB playing very loose with constitution and canons.
Legally I would think that purported diocese would fit.  Those that remained were manipulated by the PB.  Her appointee’s behavior beggars Christian description.

Ian’s suggestion and his analysis of the way in which the PB and others acted does not change the fact that there were Episcopalians there who had no desire to leave the Episcopal Church. How they could have been provided some structure for continuing as Episcopalians was an important issue and there may have been a better way to do that than the one that was chosen. An issue beyond that was, of course, the canonical question of whether or not a diocese can secede, and that issue may have made the decision to claim that there was a continuing Episcopal diocese inevitable.

There may have been a better way?  The whatever the means to some preconceived proper ends is part of what is wrong with pecusa these days.

Tony Seel - 31 October 2010 05:04 PM

There may have been a better way?  The whatever the means to some preconceived proper ends is part of what is wrong with pecusa these days.

Yes, Tony, there may have been a better way to provide for those Episcopalians that didn’t want to follow Bp Schofield. I think that was a proper end - and I hope you would agree. Was the means the right/best one? Any of us can venture an opinion, but I trust that none of us would want those Episcopalians left without some structure for remaining in the Episcopal Church.

I was sad that for a long time the Anglican congregation organized by the friends who left the parish where I was serving had a bishop who was over 1,000 away.

Daniel, let’s be a little more forthright - there was a better way.  The better way was following the canons of the church.  While it is unfortunate that Anglicans were served by a bishop 1,000 miles away it is even more unfortunate that the remaining Episcopalians are served by an institution that breaks its own laws and turns its back on Scripture and the Anglican Communion.

As unseemly as it may be for one to weigh in on a thread in which he is himself the subject, I feel the need to clarify something: I have never been opposed to an ongoing ministry of TEC in the central valley of California. Those Episcopalians who did not wish to follow the majority to the Southern Cone deserved to have pastoral care and assistance in reordering their common life. On that I agree with Daniel Weir. My problem was the manner in which this was accomplished. There was one duly-elected member of the Standing Committee who never left TEC—Fr Rob Eaton of St John’s, Tulare. According to the canons, it was his duty to appoint others to fill the vacant Standing Committee slots (three clergy, four lay), which would then begin to function as the Ecclesiastical Authority of the diocese—convening a special convention, perhaps, and making arrangements for provisional episcopal oversight. For 815 to step in the way it did seems unwarranted, does it not? FWIW, Fr Eaton continues to this day as priest in good standing of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. He has not, to my knowledge, been subjected to ecclesiastical discipline. On what canonical grounds, then, was he summarily removed from the Standing Committee and prevented from fulfilling his obligations?

I am thankful for Fr. Martins’ comments. I have not ventured an opinion about how matters were handled, but have suggested that the goal of providing for continuing Episcopalians was a good one, however badly it was pursued. I accept that there are two dioceses, which is something some of my liberal colleagues do not accept. One is the continuing Episcopal diocese and the other is a new diocese which I hope will in time be part of a larger church in North America with missional relationships with churches in other countries. I understand that one may disagree with me about which is new and which is continuing, and that disagreement may result from different views about diocesan sovereignty. I entered this conversation chiefly because I find the use of words like “faux” to describe others deeply offensive, akin to the offensive use of “real Americans” in so much political rhetoric these days. I see it as a mild form of demonization, even if unintentional, and, as in this case, a red herring, since this thread has drifted somewhat from the main point of the original post.

As to the main point: I am not convinced that any comments about the episcopal confirmation process should be dismissed as “sad.” If there are questions about a bishop-elect’s commitment to the Episcopal Church, they are questions that need to be considered. Fr. Mark Harris weighed in soon after the election on his blog, noting those questions, but supporting confirmation. Others whom I respect have come to the opposite conclusion. I am glad that I don’t have a vote on this matter.

My use of “faux diocese” speaks to the canonical violations inherent in the PB’s replacement diocese and not to the concept of there being a TEC affiliated diocese in the area.  The canonical nonsense engaged in by the PB and her supporters is well documented at the Anglican Curmudgeon blog and in Rob Eaton’s note of protest at the PB’s diocese’s first convention (which was illegal under TEC’s canons as the Curmudgeon shows).  The problem, Daniel, is that there are two possibilities - either a diocese can disaffiliate from TEC or it can’t.  If a diocese can, then TEC needed to create a new diocese from scratch under the canons.  This it did not do.  If a diocese can’t, then TEC needed to (1) recognize those members of the Standing Committee which had not elected to leave (i.e. Rob Eaton);  (2) depose those other members of the Standing Committee and the bishop according to correct canonical process; and (3) depose the clergy that did leave BEFORE holding a new convention (rather then hold one which didn’t have a quorum under TEC canon law).  There is no conceivable case that the TEC affiliated “diocese” was created and/or continued (whatever the case may be) canonically, thus it is a “faux” diocese.  I am fully in support of the concept of a TEC affiliated diocese in the area.  But it needed to have been done honestly, fairly and canonically.

I am not convinced that any comments about the episcopal confirmation process should be dismissed as “sad.”

I wonder, Daniel, if you would agree with this statement if, for example, during the confirmation process defamatory statements were raised to attack someone; or if a woman were candidate someone said something like “Christian women belong in the kitchen, not in leadership”; or if another GLBT person was a candidate and someone said “they are lower then dogs, they shouldn’t be confirmed.”  I think that it is very possible for comments relating to a confirmation process to be seen as “sad”.  It depends on the nature and quality of those comments.

And I think that the nature and quality of the comments from the PB’s faux Diocese of San Joaquin are indeed “sad”.  The reason I suggest they are “sad” is because they state something which they know, or ought to know, is false.

I’m not going to bother with the question of whether the rump diocese was properly constituted, as it appears that in practice there’s no recourse against uncanonical actions on a national church scale.

But as the next entry in the campaign, I submit this message on Episcopal Cafe by Jim Naughton.

I find the questions raised by Naughton also sad and very troubling.  Sad and troubling because it appears that perhaps the most powerful faction within TEC today is now equating complete support with their controversial canonical interpretations with loyalty to TEC.  Let’s look at the questions:

1) Martins says he was working subtly behind the scenes to keep the diocese in the Episcopal Church. Can anyone still in the Church verify Martins’ claim?

Martins’ opponents here are attempting to demonize him with simplistic analysis.  The reasons for Dan Martins advocacy in the DSJ prior to his departure are far more complex then the simplistic stuff I have seen from the faux-DSJ and Naughton.  First, prior to Rowan Williams’ sabotaging the various Instruments of Unity, there was a very real question at the time as to whether TEC would remain a part of the Anglican Communion.  I sense that a large part of what Martins did in the DSJ was to prepare for just such an eventuality.  That is, not to leave TEC immediately, but to position the diocese to remain within a Canterbury-centered Anglican Communion if push came to shove.  Second, I might be wrong, but my understanding is that Martins realized that there was a very strong desire within the DSJ to differentiate from TEC.  And he may have supported some kind of differentiation himself.  In either case, it is nonsensical to suggest that because Martins supported some sort of differentiation, that he therefore supported the ultimate separation of the diocese from TEC.

There is no evidence other then assertions by Martins’ opponents that Martins supported the diocese’s eventual separation, and Martins’ own actions and writings consistently suggest no such support.

2) Given his wish that the Church lose all of the litigation in which it is currently involved, what is Martins’s view of the polity of the Episcopal Church? Does he believe that congregations and/or dioceses have a right to withdraw and take their property with them?

Could it be that Martins believes that under TEC’s current polity that a diocese may indeed disaffiliate with TEC?  Could it also be that he believes that there is nothing in TEC’s canons that serve to counter secular law that says the legal owner is the legal owner?  Could it be that Dan Martins believes that the complete absence of any prohibition of dioceses from voting to leave TEC means that they can thus do so, even if he thinks it would be unwise?  And if he does believe what is a very credible and plausible interpretation of the canons (I would suggest it is far and away the most credible and reasonable interpretation) that this disqualifies him from being a bishop in TEC?  Is the test now, not faithfulness to TEC’s Constitution, but rather faithfulness to the Ruling Party’s interpretation of the constitution and canons?!?!?  Perhaps Dan Martins believes (very wisely in my opinion and wholly loyal to TEC) that it would be best if TEC did lose its litigation because that litigation is based on an uncanonical subversion of TEC polity and that TEC would be much better off in the long run learning a lesson early on from this.

3) Give his assertion that the Diocese of San Joaquin is a “bogus diocese with a bogus bishop” does he recognize the authority of the bishops and standing committees of the reconstituted dioceses of San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Quincy and Fort Worth?

Same as above.  Is the test now, not faithfulness to TEC’s Constitution, but rather faithfulness to the Ruling Party’s interpretation of the constitution and canons?  Because if the PB’s new replacement dioceses were not canonically created/continued, then isn’t it the DUTY of everyone who vows to uphold TECs’ constitution and canons to OPPOSE and not recognize these faux dioceses, faux Standing Committees, and irregularly placed bishops?

In my opinion, brave souls like Dan Martins who are willing to call a wrong a wrong are much more faithful to TEC, then those who refuse to take a stand to defend TEC from gross canonical violations and bullying.

James.

I am not prepared to enter into a discussion of whether or not Fr. Martins should become a bishop. I would, however, make one comment about the early posts in this thread.

I stand by my reactions to the use of “faux” in serious discussion. I find that it often shuts down discussion as it appears to me, at least, to be dismissive and not engaging.

Daniel

Daniel:  I should have read Ian’s post more closely.  I think his suggested wording is apt.

...this terminology of “faux”  reflects the questionable canonical process.  As I understand it -
There was a valid standing committee that was ignored.
The proper system was overruled from the outside by the PB playing very loose with constitution and canons.
Legally I would think that purported diocese would fit.  Those that remained were manipulated by the PB.  Her appointee’s behavior beggars Christian description.

I think that “purported TEC Diocese created by the PB” might be a less inflammatory name for it.  What I cannot do is refer to Jerry Lamb’s group as a legitimately created diocese.