March 22, 2017

September 18, 2010

The Rev. Daniel H. Martins Elected Bishop Of Springfield

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



God bless my “home” diocese, and their new bishop.

[1] Posted by Payton on 9-18-2010 at 04:28 PM · [top]

God bless the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin from whence he came. Our loss was your gain.

[2] Posted by Fr. Dale on 9-18-2010 at 04:50 PM · [top]

May the Lord bless Fr. Dan Martins as he embarks on this new ministry, and may the Lord guide the new bishop in his leadership of the diocese.

[3] Posted by tjmcmahon on 9-18-2010 at 05:06 PM · [top]

I agree with Peyton;
Nothing against Frs. Gunter and Stevenson, but Fr. Martins appears to be the best candidate for the position. Our diocese’s synod collectively appears to have made a good choice. Whether he will gain the requisite consents to be consecrated remains to be seen.

[4] Posted by ILAnglican on 9-18-2010 at 05:08 PM · [top]

Would it be possable to get a quick run-down on who Bishop Elect Martins is? He came from the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin you said right?

Has someone started a count-down/required consents table yet?

Yours in Christ,

[5] Posted by Jacobsladder on 9-18-2010 at 05:38 PM · [top]

I’m sure sufficient bio’s will be forthcoming.  But if you are looking for something right now, there is still some info up at the Springfield diocesan site.  As well, check out Fr. Dan’s “Confessions of a Carioca” weblog, and scroll through.  He has posted there much about his background, spirituality, thoughts, interests, etc.  He is also on Facebook.

However, you may have misunderstood Fr. Dale’s comment.  Fr. Martins moved from the Diocese of San Joaquin to take the position of rector in Warsaw, Indiana, prior to the 2007 diocesan convention’s decision to remove itself from TECUSA and align itself with the Province of the Southern Cone. 

Regarding the consent process, the countdown (120 days) doesn’t begin until the diocesan election has been certified through the Presiding Bishop’s office.  This was such a straight-ahead election that it should take about 1 to 2 weeks.  October 1st is probably a good mark,
which would put the end of the consent process around the first of February.

[6] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 9-18-2010 at 05:53 PM · [top]

Is he the first SFIF member to be elected bishop?

I know several members are bishops, but I’m wondering if he’s the first member to be elected bishop.

[7] Posted by James Manley on 9-18-2010 at 06:33 PM · [top]

Prayers arising for Fr. Dan.

[8] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 9-18-2010 at 06:42 PM · [top]

Isn’t sad… No one really cares abut bishops…Like the old High-Churchmen(Persons) would say, “bishops are necessary but difficult to have around…” I don’t know this fellow, but I pray he may become one of the few exceptions to the rule—-fewer and fewer…

[9] Posted by FrVan on 9-18-2010 at 07:19 PM · [top]

I’m rather pleased. TEC desperately needs alternative voices… that in the end will overwhelm them. It may take time, especially since so many have walked away, but I still prefer to see these things in terms of centuries rather than decades.

[10] Posted by A Senior Priest on 9-18-2010 at 07:39 PM · [top]


[11] Posted by Steve Lake+ on 9-18-2010 at 08:51 PM · [top]

Looks like the reasserters consolidated their support behind Martins+ after the first ballot, with clergy support for Martins+ and lay support for Gunter+ remaining strong throughout.  Were the revisionist activists in the diocese mostly lay?

[12] Posted by Steve Lake+ on 9-18-2010 at 08:56 PM · [top]

Interesting that the Anglo-catholic is now bishop of the evangelical diocese of Springfield. I wonder what Dan+ thinks of those labels?

[13] Posted by robroy on 9-18-2010 at 10:12 PM · [top]

May God bless and strengthen Fr. Martin as he moves into this new work.

[14] Posted by Miss Sippi on 9-18-2010 at 11:13 PM · [top]

#12—from earlier postings on this topic:  the larger churches in larger cities (esp. in the east-of-the-Mississippi St. Louis ‘burbs) are said to be more revisionist in the Diocese of Springfield.  These churches have, of course, proportionally more lay delegates.  So it could be that the voting whole churches—clergy and lay—are reflected in the totals.

[15] Posted by laudlady on 9-19-2010 at 07:00 AM · [top]

Sorry—it’s early—the last sentence should be:

“So it could be the the voting OF whole churches—clergy and lay—IS reflected in the totals.”

[16] Posted by laudlady on 9-19-2010 at 07:02 AM · [top]

The very open and transparent process used in Springfield could be a process that the larger church should seriously consider using.  The Election Committee handled the administrative parts of the process; survey, profile, solictation of candidates, screenings, etc. They were not a Nominating Committee. Every candidate was allowed to move forward in the process after appropriate background checks.  The Election Committee held prayer and listening sessions around the Diocese to garner input about the issues and needs in the Diocese. The timely posting of information, materials, and video on the Diocesan website made the process open to the entire diocese not just the members of the nominating and election synods.  The Standing Committee and the Election Committee are to be applauded.  The atmosphere at yesterday’s Election Synod was Spirit-filled and relaxed.  There was a clear lack of posturing and acrimony.  All Glory, Laud, and Honor Be To God!

[17] Posted by Wist3301 on 9-19-2010 at 07:51 AM · [top]

As a lay delegate at the election I will say that the huge majority of the delegates both clergy and lay are delighted at the results. Had the balloting gone to a fourth round, his numbers would have been even larger. The conservatives were well organized and centrists were quickly won over by Fr. Dan’s orthodoxy, depth and clear pastoral abilities. If there were any losers, they would be the Via Media-clone, the ‘Concerned Laity of the Springfield Diocese’ (CLSD); they did *not* gain traction. Full stop.

I’d also add that while Springfield is indeed evangelical-friendly, the Diocese is part of the historic Biretta belt, and Fr. Dan’s Anglo-Catholicism and strong creedal faith will be warmly welcomed and a fine fit here. TBTG! Prayers ascending for a quick consent process.

[18] Posted by jaybird in Springfield on 9-19-2010 at 07:53 AM · [top]

I’m very pleased to hear of the results.
Here’s an article from last month - a local newspaper blogger post from St. Louis - on the then upcoming election: - would be interested in hearing if these things near the end are reported correctly.  The article is strong on a number of points.  It gives the membership of Concerned Laity of the Springfield Diocese (50) amongst other things.  More quotes are selected from the CLSD side of things than otherwise, but it’s a rather good piece as far as reporting on Episcopalian matters tends to go.

[19] Posted by Wilf on 9-19-2010 at 11:31 AM · [top]

Wow!  Congratulations and may God bless Fr. Martins and the diocese.

[20] Posted by Ralinda on 9-19-2010 at 12:28 PM · [top]

I too offer my congratulations to this fine priest and the people of the Diocese of Springfield.  Receiving the necessary consents, however, won’t be easy….as we all know.  KJS doesn’t like the idea of having a conservative Anglo Catholic bishop in the mix, and quite frankly, I’ll be surprised if he gets those consents; I hope he does.

[21] Posted by cennydd13 on 9-19-2010 at 04:04 PM · [top]

Unless Fr. Martins was not telling the truth in the walkabouts, people should stop characterizing him as a conservative Anglo Catholic, because he is not.  He intends to ordain women, full stop (he lays this out fairly early on in his remarks in the walkabout 3 video, where he is the last candidate to speak).  As he says “it is a done deal” in TEC- which is true, under title III, the traditional catholic viewpoint is outlawed.  In fact, if he were an Anglo Catholic, he would not have qualified as a candidate for the episcopacy in TEC.
  Now, he no doubt maintains many Anglo Catholic traditions, but so does Rowan Williams.  Dan+ was also the best choice, from a traditional point of view, of the 3 final candidates.  He will probably support the remaining Anglo Catholic clergy in the diocese, and may provide something of a safe haven for those being driven out of their parishes in other dioceses.  But do not expect him to be an SSC/FiF bishop ala Iker or Ackerman.
  So, may our Lord bless him and the diocese.  But do not build up false expectations that Dan Martins+ (soon +Dan Martins, if TEC is still a rational organization) will restore Anglo Catholic practice even in what was only a few years ago a bastion of Anglo Catholicism.

[22] Posted by tjmcmahon on 9-19-2010 at 05:14 PM · [top]

Dear wist,
Would you be willing to post your comment at the Lent & Beyond prayer site?  There is a post there dated Sept 10 that is about Springfield.  The last part of your comment at SF would be very appropriate.
Thanks for that witness.

[23] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 9-19-2010 at 09:25 PM · [top]

Will KJS preside at the Consecration?

[24] Posted by Jason Miller on 9-20-2010 at 12:06 AM · [top]


[25] Posted by Soy City Priest on 9-20-2010 at 06:24 AM · [top]

Jason   Many of us are praying that Bishop Elect Martins and the Standing Committee will consult with Bps Lawrence and Love in that area and request another Chief Consecrator such as Bp Wolf (lest any clain it is a W.O. issue)

[26] Posted by Soy City Priest on 9-20-2010 at 06:27 AM · [top]

The Left is wasting no time in starting the assault against our Bishop-elect:

[27] Posted by jaybird in Springfield on 9-20-2010 at 08:17 AM · [top]

Remember this statement from right after GenCon 2009? 

One of the curious aspects of my convention experience this time has been the number of people—strangers, mostly—who come up to me and shake my hand and look me sincerely in the eye and say something like: “I don’t agree with your positions, but I’m sure glad you’re here. We need your voice.”


[28] Posted by carl on 9-20-2010 at 08:32 AM · [top]

And the assault will continue, jaybird.  Count on it.

[29] Posted by cennydd13 on 9-20-2010 at 09:02 AM · [top]

It would be a mistake to count KJS out as Chief Consecrator this early.  While I do not agree with her, the fact is, the need the consents and she is the key to obtaining them.
In addition, if we do not get the consents it is a victory for the anti-clerical wing of the church under the leadership of lay pope Bonnie.

[30] Posted by Eastern Anglican on 9-20-2010 at 11:00 AM · [top]

Jaybird, thanks for posting that.  Jim Naughton is a good example of what most TEC liberals are thinking.  I am thankful that Springfield has elected a bishop who is not afraid to stand up and say what is right and true.

[31] Posted by Townsend Waddill+ on 9-20-2010 at 11:09 AM · [top]

I have difficulty imagining that KJS will actually come here for Martins’ consecration. Still, if he somehow makes it through the consents process, it would not surprise me if she saw to it that at least one of the bishops sent to perform the laying of hands at the consecration would be somebody that many parishioners in this diocese may find objectionable.

[32] Posted by ILAnglican on 9-20-2010 at 11:57 AM · [top]

jaybird #27 has caught Martins’ opponents in <a >a lie.</a>

[33] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 9-20-2010 at 02:33 PM · [top]

No whining or freaking about this goofy tags.  Go here:  Good job, jaybird.

[34] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 9-20-2010 at 02:34 PM · [top]

Bless you for this posting!!! Handy to have ammunition as the disinformation mounts. 


[35] Posted by jaybird in Springfield on 9-20-2010 at 02:58 PM · [top]

What wonderful news.  Prayers ascend for the bishop-elect, the Diocese of Springfield, and that the consent process be uneventful.


[36] Posted by miserable sinner on 9-20-2010 at 05:24 PM · [top]

Fr. Martins’ actual statement at GC09 is sitting at his blog for all the world to see.  He was arguing against the violence done to agreements and global Anglican relationships, not commenting on sexual proclivities.

[37] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 9-20-2010 at 09:52 PM · [top]

North Plains Anglican, the link I originally posted in #27 has further deteriorated in the commentary into a nasty hatchet job. Please consider posting your latest blog link there, which gives the true context of Fr. Dan’s words. The E. Café piece clearly has the fingerprints of TEC’s “lay popessa” all over it. Many Thanks!

[38] Posted by jaybird in Springfield on 9-21-2010 at 06:07 AM · [top]

Here is the video of Fr. Martins’ interview without the commentary on N Plains Anglican.
It would have been good if Jim Naughton had posted this link on “Episcopal Café - The Lead” site as an attribution and predicate to his editorial about and attacks on Fr Martins. 

How I wish we could first agree on the facts before we debate opinions and level attacks.

[39] Posted by Wist3301 on 9-21-2010 at 07:18 AM · [top]

37 and 38- Perhaps what is really a “shame” is that several of the character assassins are deputies of the church who regularly post on the HoBD, where they regularly are among those who are “so glad Dan is here even though they disagree.”  They all read +Dan’s original statement, as it, or a link to it, was published on the listserve.  They know the original context of the remarks, even if they did not read them, since they were at GC, and I am sure they all carefully followed the debate before casting their vote on C056.  Sorry, dripped sarcasm on the keyboard. But I do wonder how many we will find among the flood of congratulations and well wishers who were patting +Dan on the back a couple days ago on the listserve.
Note also that a number of posters on the Cafe thread are those who drop by here from time to time claiming to be “middle of the road” Piskies.

[40] Posted by tjmcmahon on 9-21-2010 at 07:24 AM · [top]

I was there and caught his actual remarks on the floor tape (video and audio)

[41] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 9-21-2010 at 07:31 AM · [top]

I’m frequently surprised at the rather “fundamentalist” character of things going on at Episcopal Café - yanking things entirely out of context, pouring on guilt thick where there is none.  With this particular case in point, Canon Naughton is actually making LGBT folks feel stigmatized when the finger of blame which Fr. Martins points is at himself and at the other General Convention delegates.  Here is a response to Jim Naughton.  I do hope he sees his misguided zeal and honestly retracts / distances himself.

[42] Posted by Wilf on 9-21-2010 at 07:34 AM · [top]

It appears that KJS will be coming to Springfield to serve at Bishop-elect Martins’ consecration after all. This is a curious turn of events. Why we it will held at a Methodist church and not at St. Paul’s Cathedral I do not understand.

[43] Posted by ILAnglican on 9-23-2010 at 12:23 PM · [top]

#43 While at the Methodist church she will be deposing traditionalist Methodist bishops.

[44] Posted by Long Gone Anglo Catholic on 9-23-2010 at 01:07 PM · [top]


[45] Posted by Theophilus on 9-23-2010 at 10:27 PM · [top]

#44 I could believe that if the traditionalist Methodists, or any Christian for that matter, were actually convinced her depositions were possessed of even a shadow of biblical or theological merit.

[46] Posted by ILAnglican on 9-24-2010 at 02:28 PM · [top]

Multiple blogs now report that 815 has announced that the consents hurdle has been crossed.  What good news.  On with the March 19th Consecration.


[47] Posted by miserable sinner on 1-6-2011 at 04:00 PM · [top]

March 19th is the feast day of St. Joseph. Patron Saint of the working man.

[48] Posted by Fr. Dale on 1-6-2011 at 04:20 PM · [top]

I should probably have said, “Patron saint of the working person” The wording in my 2003 LFF has probably been made gender neutral.I am not trying to be PC here since the trades have lots of females today.

[49] Posted by Fr. Dale on 1-6-2011 at 08:38 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.