Comments: Martyn Minns and Peter Lee

I am highly disappointed with Bishop Lee, who behaved very differently towards Mr. Minns than he did towards the two church planters whose collars he yanked swiftly. Minns of course could not wait to crow about his status. Cynic that I am, I owuld not be sure of him until I did have that signed document. Lest anyone think I am dissing Mr. Minns by using that title, it is an old custom in the parts of this diocese that are lower than a snake's belly to refer to all male clergy as "Mr." When this was last widespread, of course, all clergy were male.

Many of us are very distressed indeed about Mr. Minns continuing at Truro while they search for a new rector - that is not the usual practive here. Instead, a trained professional interim priest serves during the search process - usually a year - and the former rector does not hang around, but leaves the area.

Many of us in Virginia wish Mr. Minns would take up his Nigerian mitre and use it in Nigeria.

Posted by Cynthia Gilliatt at Tuesday, 3 October 2006 at 4:29am BST

Simon, even though Baby Blue did not repost her original blog entry, she has posted a follow-up about why she took down that post:

http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2006/10/blessed-are-those-who-have-not-seen.html

Posted by Karen B. at Tuesday, 3 October 2006 at 11:22am BST

A cunning plan, I think. Truro cannot complain, but the reverend gentleman in question is placed within a cordon sanitaire and will have to sign up to obeying canon law. So will he sign? He finds himself between the legendary rock and hard place - if he does not sign it will play badly and appear as bad faith, if he does, he submits himself to the authority of the diocese, accepting its legitimacy.

In comparison with the diocesan, Machiavelli could not have run the proverbial whelk stall.

Posted by mynsterpreost at Tuesday, 3 October 2006 at 12:23pm BST

Cynthia: so it's "Bishop" Lee but "Mr" Minns? ALL male clergy, did you say? How low can you go?

Posted by Steve Watson. at Tuesday, 3 October 2006 at 2:00pm BST

This statement from the diocese is subtlely different from that which the Truro vestrymember crowed about last week before pulling the post. This statement says that, in addition to not performing episcopal acts within the diocese of VA (for some period of time), he must conform to the C&C of TEC. That means he can't perform episcopal acts *anywhere* in TEC without permission of the diocesan bishop.

I can see Minns' reluctance to sign such a document. The fine print giveth and the fine print taketh away.

Posted by ruidh at Tuesday, 3 October 2006 at 2:51pm BST

Is it common in the Diocese of Virginia for any rector to be allowed to stay while the search for a successor is undertaken? It is not in any diocese I've served in.
Columba Gilliss

Posted by Columba Gilliss at Tuesday, 3 October 2006 at 4:17pm BST

I truly believe +Lee is trying to show as much concern for the people of Truro as he can by allowing Minns to continue. +Peter Lee is showing us that his ego isn't important people are even though Truro seems bent of leaving the diocese of Virginia and the Episcopal Church).

I won't be surprised if Falls Church or Truro split after their 40 day's of discernment.

Posted by Bob S at Tuesday, 3 October 2006 at 6:58pm BST

For Columba: Even in Virginia, it’s almost unprecedented to make a transition without a minimum of a year under a trained interim. I gather +Minns and his vestry are terrified what might happen if the parish undertook to decide its own future without his day-to-day guidance.
The pool in our Bible study group says (1) their new rector won’t last more than five years and (2) by then, the whole “orthodox” wing will have split into at least four mutually antagonistic factions: a liberal wing that welcomes gays as visitors but won’t ordain them, a center-left group that shuns gays altogether, a center-right group that stones any gays they can catch, and a conservative wing that objects to stoning because it’s not shechitah.

Posted by Steve Lusk at Tuesday, 3 October 2006 at 11:42pm BST

There are already traces on this thread of how this will be turned into some kind of "oppression" of "orthodox" Anglicans. These people have bought into the Fundamentalist desire to be persecuted. They yearn for an Emperor on whose altar they can refuse to burn incense. Granting him a licence is a most generous act, I would think, considering Minns' behaviour, and that of his, for want of a better term, co-religionists. At least he isn't being asked to make a clear partisan statement in response to a question which requires a highly nuanced answer, which is a favourite "reasserter" ploy when they want to stir up rebellion against their bishop. I can't wait to watch this unfold.

Posted by Ford Elms at Thursday, 5 October 2006 at 3:59pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.