Regarding your vote whether to consent to the election of Dan Martins as Bishop of Springfield

[Louie Crew <lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu>]

Gentle members of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Newark: 
 
In case you have not already received it, you will want to access
and read the material sent to all Standing Committees by Bishop Jerry
Lamb, Provisional Bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin, and by the
Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin: 
http://www.diosanjoaquin.org/dioceseofspringfieldconsent.html.  
 
Of particular concern is the information that Dan Martins, while
still in the Diocese of San Joaquin, was a major architect of changes
in the diocesan constitution and canons that paved the way for that
diocese and its bishop John-David Schofield to try to leave The
Episcopal Church.  By the time that Schofield and much of the
leadership actually left, Dan Martins had moved to the Diocese of
Northern Indiana where he now serves.  
 
Contrasting with those documents are endorsements by several
prominent leaders -- among them progressives The Rev. Mark Harris
(current member of Executive Council and long-time deputy from
Delaware) and  Sarah Dylan Breuer (current member of Executive
Council).  These two have worked hard at close friendships with Dan
over several years. They feel that he will not attempt to lead the
Diocese of Springfield out of the Episcopal Church. 
 
See what Dan Martins posted yesterday (November 1st) about these
matters on his own website: 
http://cariocaconfessions.blogspot.com/2010/11/consent.html   
See Mark Harris' conclusions at: http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2010/11/bishop-elect-dan-martins-on-his-a
ctions.html

See Sarah Dylan Breuer's endorsement, signed also by George Werner
(past president of the House of Deputies) and seven others at
http://www.sevenwholedays.org/2010/11/01/in-support-of-dan-martins/
 
I do not envy you the task of deciding whether to consent.   I do not
know whether I would consent if I sat where you do.  
 
I believe those with whom I disagree have a right to elect someone
who represents their points of view, just as we have the right in the
Diocese of Newark to elect someone who represents ours.  What
concerns me about Dan Martins is not his point of view but his
commitment to live under  the constitution and canons of the
Episcopal Church.  He says that he is committed, but his record while
in the Diocese of San Joaquin does not make me confident of his
claim. I am also disturbed that he feels that the Presiding Bishop
acted illegally in the way the leadership of the continuing Diocese
of San Joaquin was chosen.  
 
Mark Lawrence, now Bishop of South Carolina, was Dan Martins'
colleague in the Diocese of San Joaquin.   He promised that he would
not take the Diocese of South Carolina out of The Episcopal Church,
but he has recently promoted changes to the constitution and canons
of the Diocese of South Carolina like those Martins proposed in San
Joaquin before its leadership tried to leave. Is it fair to say, 
"Burned once:  shame on you. Burned twice:  shame on me"?
 
Best wishes as you seek your own discernment in voting whether to
consent.
 
Louie
Louie Crew, 377 S. Harrison St., 12D, East Orange, NJ 07018.
973-395-1068
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew