But Mimi changed all that. ;-)
For some reason, the election of Fr. Dan Martins as bishop of the Diocese of Springfield has really touched a nerve with me. And when I was reading the comments on Mimi's post about the election, I started writing a long comment in rebuttal and couldn't seem to stop myself.
When it reached blog-post length, I decided I shouldn't clog Mimi's comment box, so I decided to put it here.
So blame Mimi. But I will thank her--it's been a long time since I felt enough energy to write anything more than a comment on Facebook....
*************************************
In responding to a comment from Bruce, Mimi wrote:
if we are to be the inclusive church we claim to be, are we not perhaps called to make room even for those who may want to destroy us?
And here is my response to that:
In a word...no.
I can't bring myself to believe that "turn the other cheek" translates to "let someone destroy you." In fact, I will go so far as to say that the urge to destroy that which does not suit you is a sign that you are being tempted to do evil.
(I recognize that temptation in myself far too often, so I am keenly aware of the spiritual dangers it poses....)
I think we, as a church and as people of faith, are called to be inclusive--and that means welcoming all to the table. It means being civil and generous to one another even when we disagree.
And I also think that it's time for us to be honest about who we are as a church:
- TEC, as a whole, has declared its support for the ordained ministry of women.
- TEC, as a whole, has declared its support for the ordained ministry of LGBTs--including those who are partnered.
I think if someone honestly believes that either or both of those things are against the will of God, that person needs to ask hirself* two questions:
- Do I think that they are first-order issues? (i.e., that salvation depends on them)
- If I DO believe they are first-order issues, how can I remain in TEC with any integrity?
And that, to me, is the hallmark of inclusion. We meet at the altar and we feast together--then we scatter to serve in Christ's name.
I am puzzled by those who DO think those are first-order issues, and yet remain in TEC. I believe they are violating their own spiritual and personal integrity by doing so. I understand the feeling of "I've been here all my life, so why should *I* leave?!"--and I'm certainly not advocating that anyone be booted out. Ever. But to continue to stay in a place that causes one to feel such anger and the urge to destroy is not healthy--spiritually or psychologically.
No parish is ever going to be required to hire a female priest or one who is LGBT. But Episcopalians who cannot accept those ministries need to ask themselves if they can remain in TEC without trying to "destroy" it. If they can't, then they should have the integrity to go to a community of faith where they do not feel called to destroy, but instead feel called to build up the Kingdom.
Because if we are truly following Christ, we are called to be co-creators with God of a kingdom where peace and justice reign.
****************************************
As for Fr. Martins...I think +Mark Lawrence *is* the precedent. I take some comfort in the fact that Mark Harris+, Michael Russell+, and Tobias Haller are standing up for him. But the fact is that Fr. Martins voted to support thievery and schism. That is not a minor issue--it is an issue of integrity and whether or not he is trustworthy.
+Lawrence said that he had "no intention of leaving the Episcopal Church," but look at what he's been doing ever since they put that pointy hat on his head. Both +Lawrence and Martins+ came out of the same TEC-hating milieu (the Diocese of San Joaquin), and we should not forget that in our rush to be "inclusive."
I don't want to hear any more "I have no intention of..." Those are weasel words, pure and simple. As +Lawrence has so aptly demonstrated....
I want to hear, *unequivocally*:
"I will NOT leave the Episcopal Church--neither will I allow any priest in my diocese to encourage others to do so."That last point is really important. Given that so much of the ugliness in TEC has been clergy-driven, I want to hear a bishop-elect say that zie* will not put up with schismatic priests, in addition to pledging hir* own commitment to TEC.
Of course, TBTG, I'm neither on the Standing Committee for my diocese, nor am I a bishop--so I don't get to require anything of Fr. Martins. But if you ARE on the SC in your diocese, I encourage you to think long and hard about giving consent without asking for a clear, unambiguous promise.
Not "intention."
Promise.
Commitment.
Vow.
Finally, Fr. Martin's comments at GC09 about our "covering ourselves with shame" for allowing bishops to provide a pastoral response to same-sex couples are deeply troubling--as Jim Naughton rightly points out. As are his comments about refusing to ordain LGBT people.
And this gets back to my point about who we are as a church.
- Even bishops who themselves are uncomfortable with women priests and LGBT priests must make room for them. Our canons and constitution require them to do so. (Canon III.1.2-3)
- Even bishops who themselves are uncomfortable with same-sex blessings need to make pastoral provision for those in this church who desire those blessings, and to grant permission to those among their clergy willing to bless.
IMO, if Fr. Martins cannot do those things, he has no business being a bishop in TEC. Because to make him one otherwise is to do something doubly violent. It is to consign this church to having yet another bishop who is not prepared to honor his consecration vows, in some misguided attempt to show how "inclusive" we are.
And it is to participate in helping a man violate his own integrity. Even if he is willing to do that to gain a mitre, we ought not to assist him.
*********************
*From henceforth, I am adopting gender-neutral pronouns when applied to non-specific people. I'm choosing these particular forms because they are often used on most of the feminist blogs I read, especially Shakesville.
44 comments:
Yes, yes, yes! As I've said before, if my spouse had said at our wedding "It is my intention", I would have stopped the whole thing and said that I had some doubts. And SC Lawrence has proven that he had, in fact, no intention of being a part of TEC. Or rather, being as small a part as possible. I want to hear an unequivocal "vowish" YES!. Yes, I am enthusiastic to be a part of TEC! Yes, I want to be a great TEC leader! Yes, TEC is my home!
Yes, yes, yes! As I've said before, if my spouse had said at our wedding "It is my intention", I would have stopped the whole thing and said that I had some doubts. And SC Lawrence has proven that he had, in fact, no intention of being a part of TEC. Or rather, being as small a part as possible. I want to hear an unequivocal "vowish" YES!. Yes, I am enthusiastic to be a part of TEC! Yes, I want to be a great TEC leader! Yes, TEC is my home!
I can't comment on the struggles within TEC, but would like to say I am sorry for whatever your personal family struggles are. I will keep you and your family in my heartfelt prayers, including being grateful for your ever supportive and insightful comments to me.
Clumber--you are a very smart dog. And we would be so much better off if you and your fellow canines (and +Maya, of course) were running the church...
8thday--thank you so much. I can't blog about it, but your prayers are most welcome. You remain in mine. :-)
Amen from the Diocese of Dallas! Would that our Bishop thought this way.
Jeff--welcome and thanks for your comment!
I don't have much hope that Bishop Stanton would agree with me. But when it's time for him to retire (admittedly a long time from now), your diocese will be facing these issues.
Start organizing NOW. ;-)
Doxy, Thank you. As a member of our
Standing Committee, I'm grateful to be informed and will circulate your post and other references to the rest
of the members.
Anon--I'm flattered. :-)
I think that anyone who will be voting should take a long, hard look at Fr. Martins' blog, which is linked to his name in the post. He quite helpfully posted many of his opinions about the Episcopal Church, and explanations of his actions when he was canonically resident in the Diocese of San Joaquin under John David Schofield. (He also served on the Standing Committee there until Schofield fired everyone and then took his gang to the Southern Cone.)
I found this post particularly interesting....
Doxy, I share many of your concerns about Bishop-elect Martins. If I were a bishop or on a Standing Committee, I'm not sure how I would vote. As I was writing my post to which you refer, what kept coming to mind, in a rather persistent way, was the thought that Jesus included in his community those who, in the end, turned against him. That made me think about the situation in a new way. Perhaps I'm wrong to set up the situation with Bishop-elect Martins as analogous, but there it is.
I do not see this as a disagreement about theology or politics; I see no reason within human limits to trust Fr. Martins nor to believe what he says. I do see a consistent attempt to destroy the flock he is charged with shepherding. How can we in good conscience consent to this choice?
I continue to pray for you and your family.
Mimi--it may well be that the Holy Spirit was sending you a message, and that I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time! ;-)
For me, where your analogy goes flat is that there are MANY places where we can serve Christ and many ways in which we can do so. Refusing to give consents to Fr. Martin's election does not mean that he is "kicked out" of Jesus' community. It simply means that he will have to find another way to serve.
As our friend JCF noted over at The Lead, being a bishop is a privilege (and I'll add--a huge responsibility), not a right.
But TEC has said that people DO have a right not to be judged by their sex/gender or sexual orientation. I think it's WAY past time for us to stop consecrating bishops who plainly state that they cannot honor that part of our constitution and canons even BEFORE we put the pointy hat on their heads!
By consenting, we make liars out of them and cause no end of trouble for ourselves. That strikes me as a lose-lose proposition--and I have to ask myself how any of it honors Christ?
Pax,
Doxy
JohnieB--thank you, my friend. Those prayers have kept me afloat lately...
Doxy, I agree with your post. That is why I said the standing committees must vote "yes" because all the procedures were followed correctly. however, the bishops, whose votes are purely their own and based on no canons, must vote no given the track record of Martins and his mentors. It is the HOB that must stop the insanity. Will they, though?
To me, the Gospel does not seem very much about self-preservation but about laying down one's life for one another. But you made me think, too, Doxy, in that we must include our LGTB brothers and sisters and all our sisters in those for whom we lay down our lives, along with those whom Jesus specifically names, such as the poor, the sick, the lame, and the blind, and all those who are hurting and persecuted.
The rub is in finding the balance in inclusiveness.
James--according to the Constitutions and Canons of 2009 (PDF, p. 105):
Evidence of the consent of each Standing Committee shall be
a testimonial in the following words, signed by a majority of all the members of the Committee:
We, being a majority of all the members of the Standing
Committee of ______________, and having been duly
convened at ______________, fully sensible how important it is
that the Sacred Order and Office of a Bishop should not be
unworthily conferred, and firmly persuaded that it is our duty
to bear testimony on this solemn occasion without partiality,
do, in the presence of Almighty God, testify that we know of no impediment on account of which the Reverend A.B. ought not to be ordained to that Holy Order. In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands this _____day of _________in the year of our Lord_________. Signed)_______________ [Emphasis mine]
As I read that, the Standing Committee is not constrained to vote only on whether the election was carried out properly.
Given that the laity and clergy are the ones who have to live under the jurisdiction of the bishop, I think they should have an equal--if not greater--say than the House of Bishops in whether a bishop-elect is consecrated or not. I recognize that view will not be popular with the HOB. ;-)
Pax,
Doxy
I left the Episcopal Church because of a now deposed bishop who took off for the Southern Cone after causing major damage to an already struggling diocese. It was those years of lies, evasions,and empty "why can't we all get along?" rhetoric, coupled with the "my way or the highway" attitude that was really his agenda, that caused me to take him seriously and...hit the highway. I am now in a church I love, and I still miss TEC as I knew it before Bishop Freeway took over. Why don't I just go back? My former diocese probably isn't viable and may have to merge, possibly with, you guessed it, Springfield. Once burned...
Can you please let me know when, exactly, Fr. Martins "voted to support thievery and schism"? Knowing him as a principled person who has lost some friendships as he has decided to stay in the Episcopal Church, I would be surprised by this.
I would also say that people would do well to hear from Fr. Martins now. Lord knows that as a blogger I've said some things that would seem odd if pulled from their context.
My hope is that Dan will receive consents speedily. Our HoB needs his voice. We can't say we value diversity and then insist that everyone agree with the current majority.
Dan and I have gone back & forth a few times -- we differ a lot on some pretty big stuff -- but I also know him to be a committed Christ follower who loves the Episcopal Church. He is not Mark Lawrence, waiting for the right moment to pull out of the Episcopal Church. Springfield is not South Carolina.
That's my $.02. I really would like to know more about specific instances when Dan might have done or said things that cause people worry.
Pax,
Scott+
Doxy, I'm not an expert on the canons or constitution. But as i understand things, Standing committees are to concern themselves with "have the canons and constitution been followed in regards to the election process." I could certainly be misinformed. Perhaps Tobias or someone knowledgeable will enlighten us.
I check here occasionally. I'm so glad you're back. I left a similar comment over at Mark's.
I know Dan. I've worked with him. We've corresponded privately.
I have no joy in saying this, but I hope he does not get consents. I fear he will.
The issues around blessing the covenants of LGBT people is just the tip of the iceberg of misogyny.
Oh, he "can" ordain women, but he won't. He'll only ordain "good girls" who "play nice" and "know their place" - which is no where near any sort of authority or any outward and visible manifestation of the same - like the HOB.
'Tis a sad day, but this situation may contain the seeds of its own destruction. I remember a conversation with his predecessor, Peter Beckwith, who told me that the compensation package was so meager he had to stay in the Reserves in order to make ends meet. When he told the Standing Committee that, they told him that he could take two of his four weeks vacation for his commitment to the Reserves. He told them No. Way. So, he did is 2 weeks in Reserves and got his 4 week vacation. But, he said, some still resented him for it.
Well . . . he left the diocese in far worse shape. It will be interesting to see if the 'turn around priest' can become the 'turn around bishop.'
I'm also greatly conflicted by this. I would like to see a change to the Canons that says, a vote to leave TEC is a vote to leave TEC including all offices. A vote to leave would automatically strip a clergy person of the privilege of being a bishop, priest or deacon. A vote to leave by a Standing Committee member would terminate hir membership in the parish. No ifs, ands or buts.
Meanwhile I reluctantly believe he should get the consents with everyone keeping a watchful eye. When the first diocesan constitution or canon change that suggests separation is proposed with his approval, legal steps should be instituted to inhibit him immediately.
Mimi--that *is* the rub, always, isn't it?
And as I was trying to formulate a reply to you, our second Anonymous for the day weighed in, and I thought: "Zie has the answer, right there."
Because the damage of rogue bishops is not just in the property fights and the headlines--it's in the people who are driven away from what TEC has to offer.
For those who want a church where women are not allowed to be full participants, there are plenty of options (including the church in which I grew up.)
For those who want a church where homosexuality is considered a sin (and usually The.Worst.Sin.Of.All.), there are plenty of options.
But for those who are looking for a church that has stated publicly that women and LGBTs are full and valued members of the community of faith, the options are limited. I firmly believe that, over time, other faith communities will come to repent of their sexism and homophobia--as many have done for racism--but, for now, we are one of the few Trinitarian churches that have said that one's sex and sexual orientation are immaterial for determining spiritual "worthiness"--whether one just wants to sit in the pew, serve at the altar, or wear a mitre.
I think it is a travesty to continue to water down that message. And that is what we do, IMO, when we consecrate bishops who reject the best of what TEC has to offer.
(For those who don't know me all that well, I need to be clear that I firmly believe that full inclusion for women and LGBTs is a *Gospel* issue--not simply a political or human rights issue. I will fight for equality for all people in the secular world--but in the church, I believe we turn our backs on God when we deny those made in Hir image full inclusion in the community of faith based on nothing more than whether or not zie has a penis or whom zie loves.)
Pax,
Doxy
You and Mimi are bringing me into the current news of TEC, which I am woefully lacking. I don't pay enough attention. Glad you blogged again; I've missed you. So sorry about the family difficulties.
Scott--Thanks for stopping by!
Fr. Martins voted to change the constitution of the Diocese of San Joaquin to eliminate references to TEC. That means he voted to separate the Diocese from TEC. I don't know any other way to interpret that than as a vote for thievery and schism.
Here are his own words before the vote:
Nonetheless, even though it’s the wrong time, it is the right thing. The ship is going to sink. Rescue operations do need to be underway. I am open to discovering that God is calling the Diocese of San Joaquin to be in the forefront of that rescue effort. There are some very concrete signs I will need to see before I would vote next year to pull the trigger on all this. No one should interpret support now as a guarantee of support later. But we’ll have plenty of time to talk about that in due course. Thank-you."
You can argue--as some will--that he notes his initial vote was no guarantee of a final approval of the change. But, for me, a "Yes" vote on that motion was a damning violation of his ordination vows. And his words about TEC as a "sinking ship" don't give me much confidence either.
Lord knows that as a blogger I've said some things that would seem odd if pulled from their context.
That isn't pulled from context, Scott. That was a public action. Actions have consequences.
We can't say we value diversity and then insist that everyone agree with the current majority.
Again, I will reiterate--diversity in our context does not mean that we all agree. There will be plenty of parishes that do not choose to hire a female or LGBT priest. There will be other parishes that *want* to hire a female or LGBT priest.
"Diversity" demands that no bishop prevent a conservative parish from choosing a priest who reflects their theological understanding (given my caveat that no priest who encourages schism should be allowed to remain employed by the diocese). Since no priest is ever required to marry anyone, that isn't an issue.
In the same way, no bishop should prevent a progressive parish from hiring the priest they want--or prevent clergy who wish to offer same-sex blessings from doing so.
THAT'S the diversity we should be offering. Not the fake "diversity" of consecrating a bishop who has already indicated that he does not support our constitutions and canons--a "diversity" which drives away the Anonymous folks in our communities who cannot see anything of Christ in our accommodating the voices of exclusion.
Pax,
Doxy
James--I copied my response to you directly out of the canons. You can certainly go read them yourself--but having read them today, I do not see anything that restricts Standing Committees to voting strictly on the election procedures.
Pax,
Doxy
Elizabeth--thanks for sharing your experience with Fr. Martins. We focus so much on "teh gay" issue that I fear we overlook the issue of sexism--which is alive and well and still poisoning the church.
I reluctantly believe he should get the consents with everyone keeping a watchful eye. When the first diocesan constitution or canon change that suggests separation is proposed with his approval, legal steps should be instituted to inhibit him immediately.
PseudoPiskie--with respect, that's what everyone said about +Lawrence. We need to stop trusting those whose past actions have shown them to be untrustworthy. Period.
Why put ourselves to the trouble of consenting to a bishop we already fear we may have to inhibit?
Jan--thanks, dear. Glad you dropped by! :-)
It is very interesting to remember that the only person elected and refused in recent history is a "progressive" who was interested in pushing the envelope regarding language and imagery in liturgy.... while the conservatives who have a TEC-destructive history keep getting affirmed.... go figure.
I agree with you Doxy --he should not be affirmed. How could he possibly be a sign of or promote the unity of the church when he has voted to destroy it?
Margaret--I guess I really *am* a contrarian! I opposed Kevin Thew Forrester's nomination too--but for more reasons than those you list.
To be honest, I don't know why anyone would WANT to be a bishop. Maybe it's one of those things that, if someone wants to be a bishop zie should automatically be disqualified from being chosen...
Pax,
Doxy
I have problems with the word "tolerance" - with strong drugs you can train a body to "tolerate" cancer until it rips the body apart. Now, cancer is a living thing - do we tell people "tolerate it, God made the cancer, too"?
We train ourselves to "tolerate" unbearable life-choices and failures to act with tv, alcohol, entertainment, even religion can become self-anesthesia. Is that holy and good?
Christ gave His life, yes, but He didn't give it for us to keep giving His - or our - lives to the evil purpose of bad men. He came to break that cycle, and the pain of death can be saying "Get out" to someone just as much as saying, "Come on in, and wreck up the joint."
As our friend JCF noted over at The Lead
OMG, you're quoting ME? I guess your blogging skills really have gotten rusty, Doxy! *ROFL*
****
This is one of those decisions for which I thank God NOT to be held responsible for, in any way.
People I respect believe that Martins should receive consents, people I equally respect say he shouldn't.
Not having to decide, I only (pretend to) ref.
One of the things I ref, is the subject of "Inclusion": it p*sses me off no end (see re that same Episcopal Cafe thread, further down!), when anyone tries to HIJACK the term "Inclusion", to mean "include any/every opinion, as a matter of RIGHT". I call BULLSH*T!
Ideologies have no RIGHTS to be included . . . nor does someone of any ideology have a right (to a miter, for example) ***IF*** they're not conforming to the canons.
Has Fr Martins violated the canons, in the past? Has he given legitimate suspicion that he might not be faithful to the canons, in the future? [And by that, I don't just mean the "I will not lead my diocese into (attempted) schism" canon. I mean the "equal claim to ordination w/o regards to race, gender or sexual orientation (partnered!)" canons, too.]
Again, I give thanks that *I* don't have to decide those questions. I offer my prayers to those who do.
Dearest Doxy, I agree with you wholeheartedly - but then, don't I always?
I can't comment on the particulars of this case, but what struck me was your and Mimi's conversation about how inclusive we can be.
Mimi is right, we are called to lay down our lives and not to aim for self preservation.
But that is a call for each individual.
And it strikes me that what is happening in the inclusion debate is that we allow church leaders who will, in turn, continue to discriminate against those we have decided to include.
The consequences of me including the person who will destroy you is that I tacitly accept your exclusion. And I don’t think I’m allowed to do that, I can only ever accept my own and lay down my own life.
Seeing, then, that full inclusion of everyone is only possible in the theoretical sphere it comes down to a choice between two wrongs. And so it comes down to evaluating whose inclusion is more important, or less damaging, or more in line with what I believe Christ would want from me.
(Good to see you back! I’m still praying)
Doxy, you are in my prayers.
Thanks for this well-thought-out post.
Hi,
I have spent a lot of digital ink on Dan Martins as well(Real Anglicans). I lived with Dan Martins for years. I lived with Mark Lawrence for years. I still live with John David Schofield. Let me simply state that while inclusivity to whatever length may be a virtue but suicide is a sin.
I refuse to wander around with a bullseye on my back.
Mark--I am totally with you on the "tolerance" thing. The word always conjures up for me the image of some person with hir nose wrinkled in disgust, but trying hard to pretend zie doesn't think you stink...no thanks.
JCF--thank you for making me laugh. ;-) And I agree with you about ideologies and inclusion.
I think it was MadPriest who pointed out that "traditionalists" are not actually injured by the church's decision to ordain women or bless same-sex unions. They may believe those things are wrong, but they are not harmed in any real way by someone, somewhere else, doing them. Losing your entitlement to dictate to others whether or where they fit in the community of faith does not constitute harm in my universe...and, again, I think it's waaaaaaaaaaay past time to stop coddling people who act like toddlers who haven't had their naps.
But women and LGBTs who are denied their place at the table ARE actively harmed--and we have to put a stop to that. Now.
Goran--I guess that means I need to pick a fight with you! ;-)
The consequences of me including the person who will destroy you is that I tacitly accept your exclusion. And I don’t think I’m allowed to do that, I can only ever accept my own and lay down my own life.
This.
Thanks, Erika. That was very helpful to me.
And thanks to both you and Mary Clara for the prayers....
Let me simply state that while inclusivity to whatever length may be a virtue but suicide is a sin.
Fred--welcome and thanks for commenting!
Not sure that "suicide is a sin," but I totally agree with you on your main point. As I said before, why put ourselves in the position of waiting for the other shoe to drop? BTDT and got the lawyers' bills and broken relationships as "souvenirs"....
Doxy, you said
1)For those who want a church where women are not allowed to be full participants, there are plenty of options
For those who want a church where homosexuality is considered a sin (and usually The.Worst.Sin.Of.All.), there are plenty of options.
2)...diversity in our context does not mean that we all agree. There will be plenty of parishes that do not choose to hire a female or LGBT priest. There will be other parishes that *want* to hire a female or LGBT priest.
Please make up your mind-- tell the conservatives to go elsewhere or let a conservative diocese have a conservative bishop. Is the bishop the representative of the diocese or is he/she the cop to force the diocese into the current ideals of the national church?
A few years ago, after the Church of Sweden decided to allow gays to the episcopate and to celebrate gay marriage, the conservative priests received letters that said they'd be allowed to stay,but wouldn't be allowed in leadership. At least they were honest. Perhaps that is needed in TEC now.
Chris--I think a conservative diocese is welcome to a conservative bishop. But that conservative bishop ought not to forbid a progressive parish from having a female or an LGBT priest (including a partnered one) if that's who they choose. A conservative bishop ought not to forbid a progressive priest from performing SSBs if zie wants to.
Just as a progressive bishop ought not to forbid a conservative parish from calling a conservative priest (as long as that priest isn't schismatic). We already know that no priest can be forced to marry ANYONE--so that's not an issue--no matter how much some people want to keep insisting that, somehow, somewhere, in the future, conservative priests will be forced to do SSBs at gunpoint....
If a conservative bishop cannot allow the progressives in hir diocese to act under the constitution and canons of our church, then I agree--zie doesn't need to be in leadership. I would say the same thing about a progressive bishop who targeted conservative parishes.
Bishops are supposed to be pastors to EVERYONE--not just those who agree with them. Our constitution and canons say that sex/gender and sexual orientation are not barriers to any of the ordained orders. If a bishop cannot honor that, zie has no business being a bishop.
And I will reiterate--no priest who has voted to disaffiliate with TEC has any business being a bishop. That is the presenting issue.
Pax,
Doxy
To become a bishop one must swear to do stuff the church requires. If you don't want to do some of that stuff, don't apply in the first place. Be honest with yourself. Stay in the church or get thee to the Southern Cone or ACNA where pretty much everyone (male) is a bishop, and party like it's 1910, free funny hats included.
I've been a member of St. Anne's parish for nearly 20 years. Our bishop suggested that the seach committee take a second look at Dan Matins when other prospects did not pan out. One of our parishioners, who was not on the seach committee found Martins' blog and was very concerned. No one listened. For the past three years our parish has been torn apart. Both liberals and conservatives are angry, disappointed and have stopped coming to church. Dan Martins' resume, as listed on the Diocese of Springfield website, states that he halted the decline in attendance. He was the CAUSE of the decline. Our asst., at the time, suggested that we have a Saturday night contemporary service, which Martins 'allowed'. That would be his only claim to halting the decline. He didn't even participate in that service. He was seen up in the balcony on the first night counting the number of people who were in attendance though. He likes to do that kind of stuff. I could go on and on....and I'd like to, in smaller bits, but the fact is that this man came into our parish and slowly dismembered it.
I've been a member of St. Anne's parish for nearly 20 years. When our search committee could not find a new rector our bishop suggested that they revisit Dan Martins. That was the start of the destruction of St. Anne's. Our attendance is horrible, both liberals and conservatives are angry, disappointed and have stopped coming to church. Martins claims, on his resume, that he halted the decline in attendance. He was the CAUSE of the decline. Our asst, at the time, suggested that we begin a Saturday night contemporary service, which Martins 'allowed'. That would be his only claim to halting the decline in attendance. He did not even particiapate in that service. What he has done, since his arrival, is do away with our traditions, music, 'free thinking' and our desire to come to church. I could go on and on, and I'd like to, in smaller bits. There's just too much to say and it's probably too late in the game to be doing this anyway.
BV--thanks for coming by! I saw your posts at Mimi's, and I'm grateful for your visit here.
I am praying that you get the bishop you need and deserve.
Pax,
Doxy
I may not have been clear...I'm from Northern Indiana and Dan Martins is our current rector. I'm concerned about his becomming the bishop of the Springfield Diocese. I think it is a bad idea, obviously. Honestly, there are a great majority of us who are happy to see him depart (I know, not very Christian of us) but to see him depart with a promotion and power over even more parishes is very disturbing. I plan on bouncing around to different blogs and letting people know about the damage he has done to our parish.
Post a Comment