Wednesday, March 22, 2017


As of 2 p.m., the South Carolina Supreme Court has not posted a decision today. Their website is: . Or you may reach it by clicking here .

Tomorrow, March 23, marks eighteen months since the hearing of September 23, 2015. This is an unusually long time to wait between oral arguments and written decision. However, there have been cases to go on for more than two years.

The question on everyone's mind is, what is taking so long? Since the court is leak proof, we can only speculate. Here is my latest speculation:

---The justices unanimously discarded Goodstein's decision of Feb. 3, 2015. This was obvious in the hearing. Not one justice had one good word for that ruling. I imagine they agreed to work de novo, this is, anew.

---The All Saints decision of 2009 is not a guide to the new decision. Chief Justice Toal, the very author of the All Saints decision, said so in the hearing. This shot down Runyan's case. However, that does not necessarily mean the justices turned against the claims of DSC. Toal seemed to bend toward local property and corporate rights.

---My guess is the justices split in the initial vote between Toal, for DSC, and Hearn for the Church. The other three were in the middle and may have changed their votes along the way according to the arguments. The justices are free to change their minds until the decisions are released to the public.

---The justices know their decision is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where they will be under the national microscope. They have to get this as right as they can. This may well be the most important case any of them will ever judge.

---The case is highly complicated and complex and involves basic constitutional rights mixed with local property and corporate rights. It is a tangle testing the wisdom of Solomon. The very first part of the very first amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids the government from interfering in a religious institution. Yet, the courts are allowed to judge between religious parties on property questions.

---The majority and minorities may write collective or individual decisions. They can take all the time they want. They seem to be doing just that.

Saturday, March 11, 2017


As expected, the fifth annual meeting of the schismatic Diocese of South Carolina voted today to join the Anglican Church in North America. See the public relations announcement from DSC here . See the article in the Charleston Post and Courier here .

DSC declared its "disaffiliation" with the Episcopal Church on October 15, 2012, and announced it publicly two days later. The schism had been planned in secret by about twenty DSC leaders beforehand. The clergy and people were given a fait accompli and had to choose whether to go along with the schism or stay with the Episcopal Church. About two-thirds of the old diocese trusted their leaders and went along with their break. The direct cause of the schism was the DSC leadership's rejection of the Episcopal Church's reforms to grant equality and inclusion of non-celibate homosexuals.

Today's news release said nothing of the real reason for the schism. That is because the DSC leaders have tried to rewrite history to erase their anti-human rights record. They failed. 

DSC's joining ACNA is a dead end. The ACNA was created in 2009 by anti-homosexual rights equatorial African bishops of GAFCON and the four anti-homosexual rights schismatic dioceses in the U.S. It was based on the Jerusalem Declaration of 2008 that 1-condemned homosexuality, and 2-rejected the authority of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada because of their pro-homosexual policies. GAFCON and their American allies declared ACNA to be the replacement church to take the place of the Episcopal Church as the legitimate Anglican province in the U.S. It was the GAFCON primates who consecrated the archbishops of ACNA.

The ACNA is not part of the Anglican Communion. Note in today's DSC press release, DSC, for the first time to my knowledge, is not claiming ACNA to be part of the Anglican Communion. Note too, for the first time, that DSC is not claiming ACNA to be a "province." These are subtle but important changes. Of course, they can say whatever they wish after the vote. 

In fact, ACNA is an independent Christian denomination. The Archbishop of Canterbury has said very plainly that it is not part of the Anglican Communion. 

In the January 2016 primates' gathering in Canterbury, the GAFCON/Global South (the fundamentalist coalition of mostly African and South Asian provinces) primates abandoned ACNA. The primates stated that if ACNA wanted to join the AC, it would have to apply to the Anglican Consultative Council. Moreover, the primates recommended against the ACNA admission. This killed the chance of ACNA ever joining AC and ended the replacement strategem. What is left is for ACNA to have friendly support of the most conservative, mostly anti-homosexual-rights, primates of the AC. The ACNA-GAFCON coalition has one common bond, opposition to rights of homosexuals (and by extension opposition to the Episcopal Church). It is an alliance built on a negative. It will not last. ACNA itself is a house of cards made of widely varying partisans who have no common positive bond. It too will not last.

One should note that it took the DSC leaders four years to decide where to go. If they were not going to return home to the Episcopal Church, they really had no viable alternative but to go with their fellow fundamentalists in America, the ACNA. This still leaves DSC out of the Anglican Communion in spite of DSC claim in today's blurb: "The Diocese of South Carolina is recognized by Anglican Dioceses and Provinces around the world." Recognized as what?

I suspect, but have no evidence, that today's vote is connected to Mark Lawrence's age. He will be 67 years old this month. No doubt he has in mind retirement somewhere down the road. His virtually rent free lease on the diocesan-owned million dollar bishop's house on Smith Street in Charleston ends in 2020 when he will turn 70 (unless, before then, the SC supreme court finds it belongs to the Episcopal diocese). Joining ACNA gives DSC a mechanism for choosing a new bishop and ensuring continuation of the cabal that has controlled this diocese for many years. I imagine they will choose one of their own to succeed Lawrence. ACNA will give them a patina, albeit a false one, of legitimacy.

Other than this, joining ACNA really does not solve any problem. Institutionally, DSC is jumping from the frying pan into the fire. If any of today's delegates read the Constitution and Canons of the ACNA they would know that. They are turning over the choice of the next bishop to the archbishop/bishops of ACNA who must give 2/3 approval (ironically, Lawrence would not be a bishop today if that were the rule in the Episcopal Church. He barely squeaked by in gaining consents on the second try after failing on the first try.) 

As I have pointed out in my posts about the statistics of DSC, the schismatic diocese is in decline and has been since the schism of 2012. In terms of communicants ( active members), the diocese today is only slightly over half as large as it was when Lawrence became bishop in 2008. DSC has lost members every year steadily since the schism. So has the schismatic diocese of Pittsburgh which is now much less than half of its pre-schism diocese and considerably smaller than the Episcopal diocese of Pitt. The ACNA claim of 112,000 members is suspect. It is only an estimate. The real number is probably much lower but we cannot know for sure since they refuse to release statistics. Joining ACNA will do nothing to reverse the relentless decline of the Diocese of South Carolina.   

The take-away from all this is that when the DSC declared its "disaffiliation" from TEC, it also left the Anglican Communion. Joining ACNA does nothing to change this. ACNA is not now and almost certainly never will be in the Anglican Communion. Moreover, GAFCON failed to break up the Anglican Communion and carry the fundamentalist part into a separate organization. The Anglican Realignment movement, on which the leaders of DSC banked their hopes when they broke away from TEC, has failed and is declining as a force in the AC. Thanks mainly to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Communion has weathered the storm of schism. The thirty-eight provinces are still united as the Anglican Communion. The gamble that the DSC leaders made in 2012 failed. The consolation prize is ACNA, a far cry from what they thought would happen. The schism of 2012 has been a failure in almost every way.

Thursday, March 2, 2017


FYI, here are a few notes readers may find interesting. I continue to be amazed by the number of people who regularly read this little blog, nearly 500 so far today alone. I am trying my best to keep you informed of what has happened and what continues to happen in the unfortunate schism in South Carolina. 

First, I must say thank you to the many kind people who e-mailed me to wish me well in my medical treatments. Your comforting words mean a great deal to me. Although I will be undergoing a regime of treatment for several months, the doctors assure me of the high probability of success. Thank God for the miracles of modern medicine. And, thank you for your well wishes and prayers.

Second, I can report the forthcoming publication of my book on the history of the schism in South Carolina. A notable publishing company has agreed to publish the entire manuscript as a two volume work in paper (rather than an e-book). It will be about 500 pages of text and another 100 of notes, bibliography, and index. That way I do not have to carve away any more of the manuscript. I had already pared down 100 pages. I am working now on final editing and formatting to send in to the publisher. I hope the two volume set will be available to the public in the fall. For more details on the book, see the blog entry on "Manuscript Outline" of March 1. I consulted 2,000 sources and cited 800 of them in 1,905 footnotes.

I had been waiting on the South Carolina Supreme Court to issue a decision in the church case before publication in order to give closure to the story, but I have given up waiting. No one has any idea when the court will rule. It could be months more. Besides, the federal case is going back to Charleston for the district court to adjudicate. That could take many more months whether the state court rules or not. Closure on the legal fronts may be many months, possibly years, away.

I have written as thorough a history of the schism as I can. I believe I have examined all of the publicly available documents and made reasonable conclusions based upon them. I was trained in the old Scientific School of history by top-notch historians from Paris, Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Chicago and so forth. Florida State U. had a first-rate history department in the 1960s and I was very fortunate to learn from the best. They accepted nothing less than exhaustive research and rigorous logic.

As I mentioned earlier, I will not be reporting from the DSC convention at St. Paul's of Summerville, Mar. 10-11. I have been excluded from the meeting, as have all people outside the diocese. I doubt that I could have attended anyway.

There are people out there who think I am too critical of DSC. Well, let me say that I, and I think everyone else, should applaud two things DSC is doing right. One is a workshop at the convention, on Mar. 10: "Racial Reconciliation: Bridging the Cultural Divide" with a panel of three white and two black clergymen. This is a most encouraging sign of "horizontal" religion that has been sorely needed in what is otherwise a relentlessly "vertical" diocese. I say, thank you, leaders of DSC for finally paying attention to making a better society all around us. Let's have more of this. Actually, I think both sides could make better balances between vertical and horizontal religion. One does not work well without the other.

The second positive move is the ordination to the priesthood of a second woman (the first was Martha Horn in 2015). Catharine Moore Norris will be ordained at Holy Cross on Sullivans Island, March 17. However, Bishop Lawrence will not be doing the ordaining, just celebrating the Eucharist. The ordination will be by Bp Hobby, of the Anglican Dio. of Pittsburgh. Since he became a bishop in 2008, Lawrence has ordained only one woman to the priesthood, Horn. At least Norris's ordination is a small step in the right direction. Let's hope we see more of this. Thus, we should all be encouraged by two positive steps in DSC.   

Unfortunately for a more just future, DSC is about to join the Anglican Church in North America which is a male chauvinist bastion. Only men can be bishops in ACNA. The bishops have a virtual monopoly on the power under the constitution and canons of ACNA. Women will be all but ignored.

Nevertheless, let's give credit when credit is due. DSC should be applauded for showing glimmers, however small, of horizontal religion and social equality.

Time moves on, and sometimes in surprising ways. And, through it all I believe we are all here doing the best we can to love God and our neighbors. It is just that sometimes we have different understandings of what those things are.  

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

(with Addendum, Mar. 1, 2017)

ADDENDUM, March 1, 2017:
In 10 days, the Diocese of South Carolina will hold its annual meeting. The proposed resolutions have not yet been posted but it is expected that the delegates will vote on joining the Anglican Church in North America (the first of two required votes). Steve Skardon and I will not be allowed to attend again this year. We were banned last year too. The meeting is closed to anyone outside of the diocese. Secrecy is a common element in the history of this organization. 

The delegates have a lot to consider. For starters, let's look at some of the commonly repeated claims of the diocesan leadership.

1-DSC tried to stay in the Episcopal Church but was attacked by TEC. 

FALSE. The DSC leaders did nothing to try to make a settlement with TEC. For many years, they denounced and attacked TEC at every turn. In fact they planned in secret well before the schism to break away.

2-DSC had to leave TEC because of its theology and polity.

FALSE. The great driving issue in making the schism was opposition to the full inclusion of homosexuals and transgendered persons in the life of TEC. This was the direct cause of the schism.

3-TEC no longer believes in the uniqueness of Christ and the authority of the Scriptures.

FALSE. Any such changes would have to be made by the General Convention which has not happened and certainly will not happen. Certain bishops made controversial remarks and writings, then DSC wrongly implied that these spoke for the whole Church. In fact, they spoke only for themselves. 

4-TEC treated Bishop Lawrence unfairly.

FALSE. Lawrence flagrantly violated the Dennis Canon of TEC. The Constitution and Canons of TEC were fairly applied to him. He had every opportunity to make easy amends with TEC. After the pre-arranged schism, he rejected every appeal to meet with the Church leaders for reconciliation.

5-The schism was the will of the people.

FALSE. The "disassociation" was planned in secret by no more than 20 diocesan leaders. They self-enacted it on Oct. 15, 2012. They suddenly announced it as a fait accompli to TEC on Oct. 17 and to the clergy and members of DSC. The special convention in St. Philip's on Nov. 17, 2012 was called to change the constitution and canons after the fact.

6-The DSC is the Episcopal Church in lower South Carolina and is part of the Anglican Communion.

FALSE. Soon after the schim, DSC leaders dropped the absurd claim of being the Episcopal Church, except in the legal context, but continued and still continues to claim to be part of the Anglican Communion. DSC is not in the Anglican Communion. In the U.S., only TEC is part of the AC.

7-TEC tried to force pro-homosexual policies on the dioceses.

FALSE. When the blessing of same-sex unions was approved in 2012 and same-sex marriage in 2015, TEC allowed local dioceses to opt out. Many dioceses did so. No person is forced to support any policy with which he or she disagrees. DSC would be perfectly free to refuse s-s blessings and marriages. No other diocese in the entire SE U.S. went along with SC.

8-By joining the Anglican Church in North America, DSC will be in a province of the Anglican Communion.

FALSE. The Archbishop of Canterbury has made it clear ACNA is a separate denomination, not part of the AC. In their Jan. 2016 meeting, the primates agreed that if ACNA wanted to join AC it would have to go through the Anglican Consultative Council. Moreover, they recommended that ACC not admit the ACNA to AC. The idea of admitting ACNA to AC is dead. ACNA is not now and will never be in the Anglican Communion. It is not a "province" of anything.

9-The Anglican Realignment movement is moving the majority of the Anglican Communion into a new conservative/fundamentalist Anglicanism.

MISLEADING. The AR movement started in 1997 to form an anti-homosexual rights majority of the AC. GAFCON and Global South were parts of this. In 2009 GAFCON formed the anti-homosexual-rights ACNA to take the place of TEC in the AC. In the Jan. 2016 primates' meeting, the movement showed AR's failure by keeping unity in the AC and imposing only token punishment on TEC. GAFCON/GS failed to break up the AC into two hostile camps on the issue of homosexuality. the AR movement is now in decline in the AC.

10-DSC will be better off by joining ACNA.

HIGHLY DOUBTFUL. ACNA is a church of intolerance against homosexuals and of discrimination against women. It is a rigidly authoritarian regime ruled by archbishops/bishops, all male. Women and all laity are relegated to the sidelines. In future, any bishop chosen by DSC will have to get two-thirds approval of ACNA bishops. DSC will lose a great deal of independence to ACNA (as the Ang. Dio. of Pittsburgh did).

11-DSC has been better off since leaving TEC.

FALSE. DSC has lost communicant numbers every year steadily since the schism of 2012. In 2008, when Mark Lawrence became bishop, DSC had 27,670 communicants. In 2015, it had 15,556. This is a loss of 44%. DSC is only slightly more than half its size when Lawrence became bishop.
Meanwhile, parishioners are paying fortunes for lawyers for both the diocese and the local parishes that were coerced into the lawsuit. DSC communicants have paid well more than $2m for a lawsuit that DSC initiated.

The DSC leaders refused TEC's offer of an out-of-court settlement in June of 2015. TEC would recognize local property ownership in return for the diocesan rights and assets. This showed DSC's motivation was not local ownership of the properties as it had claimed.

The legal future is bleak. If DSC wins in the SC supreme court, TEC is all but certain to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the federal court case returns to Charleston with a second direct order from the appeals court for adjudication in the district court. There will be millions more for lawyers.

The intolerant DSC leaders have forced conformity on the whole diocese which now has to sign oaths rejecting marriage equality. However, all studies show a sea-change in South Carolina favoring marriage equality as well as all equal rights for and inclusion of homosexual and transgendered persons. This is particularly true among people under the age of thirty. They are highly unlikely to be attracted to an anachronistic church whose raison d'être is to discriminate against gays and women. Future demographics of DSC will only escalate the decline that has happened in just the three years after the schism.

For statistics showing the effects of the schism on DSC membership see my blog post "The Continuing Decline of the Diocese of South Carolina" of Jan. 4, 2017.

The good people of DSC are indeed at a crossroads. They should think long and hard about how they got to where they are and where they go from here. Sadly, they have been misinformed and misled. There is no good reason why they have to continue this. The diocese belongs to its people. The sooner they regain control for themselves, the better. The schism has been a terrible mistake and a failure by almost every measure. The results are obvious. However, there is still time to salvage what is left of a once great diocese and do the right thing. Home is defined as the place where you go and they take you in no questions asked because you are family. Sometimes families are dysfunctional, but they are still families. Whatever they say, whatever they do, the people of DSC know in their heart of hearts their true home is in the church of their forefathers and mothers.


ORIGINAL POST OF Dec. 5, 2016:

Four years have passed since the schism of October 15, 2012. It is time to take a hard and cold look at the state of the independent entity legally known as the Diocese of South Carolina, the majority part of the old diocese that broke away from the Episcopal Church and retained (so far) the property and legal rights of the pre-schism diocese. Last March the diocesan leaders announced they would probably call a diocesan convention in the autumn of 2016 for a vote to join the Anglican Church in North America. They have not called such a meeting. This indicates there is significant resistance in the diocese to joining ACNA. If there were sweeping support, they would have called a rubber-stamping convention. Two convention votes are required for DSC to join ACNA. This means DSC probably cannot join ACNA in the year 2017 as earlier planned.

We already know that the internal state of DSC is not strong. The 50 local churches that make up DSC lost 26% of their active membership in the two years after the schism. The DSC now stands at 61% of what it was when Bishop Lawrence arrived in 2008. It is sinking under burdensome legal costs. The state supreme court should rule any day now on whether the Episcopal Church and its diocese actually own the properties and the legal rights of the pre-schism diocese. It has been 14 months since the court hearing. The longer this goes on, the more likely the outcome will favor the Church side. If the court were going to affirm Goodstein's ruling in favor of DSC, they probably would have done so by now.

Joining ACNA brings with it numerous problems communicants in DSC may not even see now. ACNA was created by eleven independent units in 2009 (there are over 60 independent "Anglican" denominations in the U.S.). These range from high Anglo-Catholic (no women clergy) to low Evangelical (no ritualism). The only bond of this group was hatred of the Episcopal Church because of its stand for equal rights for homosexuals. It was built on a negative that will disappear. As time goes by and the anti-homosexual hysteria abates, as it is already doing, the common bond will weaken and the internal contradiction in this very disparate coalition will take over. ACNA is a house of cards that is bound to collapse in time. There are already clear signs of this.
Communicants of DSC should be wary of the provisions of the ACNA Constitution and Canons (readily available on the Internet). It is a top-heavy system controlled by the Archbishop/bishops. There are 30 dioceses and 50 bishops. There are 4 governing bodies, all controlled or dominated by the bishops: The Provincial Council (laws), Executive Council (executive), Assembly (recommends resolutions), and College of Bishops (elects Archbishop, confirms new bishops in all dioceses by 2/3 approval). All bishops have to swear personal allegiance to the Archbishop. This means DSC will lose control of the selection of its new bishops, as happened recently in the bishop's election in Pittsburgh when the local favorite was tossed out in favor of a candidate acceptable to the ACNA Archbishop/bishops.

The big picture is no more promising than the small one for ACNA. It is part of a broad movement call "The Anglican Realignment." This started in 1997 in the work of a right wing PAC in the U.S. that had created the American Anglican Council (financed by deep-pocket right wing foundations and activists) to defeat/destroy "liberalism" (i.e. homosexual rights) in the Episcopal Church. In 1997 the AAC hosted a convention of anti-homosexual Episcopalians and equatorial African bishops to form an Anglican anti-homosexual-rights movement. The next year, this coalition got through the Lambeth conference a resolution condemning homosexuality. In 2000, Rwanda opened a missionary movement in the U.S. with Chuck Murphy's Anglican Mission in America. This began incursions into TEC. This stepped up greatly after TEC affirmed Gene Robinson as a bishop in 2003. The Anglican Realignment group, led by AAC, planned a schism (Chapman Memo) in the Episcopal Church to peel off the anti-homosexual rights minority with the help of equatorial African Anglican primates. In July of 2008, the Global Anglican Futures Conference (GAFCON) met in Jerusalem and drew up the Jerusalem Statement that 1-condemned homosexuality, and 2-rejected the authority of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. By this time, Bishop Lawrence and the diocesan leadership had started a concerted campaign to move DSC into this "Realignment." By 2012, they had succeeded in transferring the identity of the diocese from the Episcopal Church to the Anglican Communion. (In the circuit court trial, one DSC witness after another testified they had never been in the Episcopal Church,) 

In 2009, the American anti-homosexual coalition and their African allies created ACNA. Its expressed goal was to replace the Episcopal Church as the legitimate Anglican province in the U.S. GAFCON and its overlapping group, Global South, sought to split the Anglican Communion and carry the majority into an anti-homosexual-rights union. The pro-homosexual minority of Anglican provinces would be left behind as irrelevant to a new worldwide confessional Anglicanism. ACNA would be the new presence of Anglicanism in the U.S. and Canada. ACNA and GAFCON styled ACNA a "province."
This replacement stratagem collapsed and died in 2016 as the GAFCON coalition fell apart in the face of the Archbishop of Canterbury's irresistible call for all of the 38 Anglican provinces to "walk together." In January, the primates' gathering in Canterbury, the GAFCON primates could not round up a majority to throw TEC out of the Anglican Communion, even for three years. They settled on minor punishment. The GAFCON/GS primates, actually the majority of Anglican primates, abandoned ACNA. The primates agreed that if ACNA wanted to become a province of the Anglican Communion, it would have to go through the Anglican Consultative Council. In addition, they discouraged the ACC from accepting ACNA. When the ACC met in April, it ignored the ACNA. When Global South met, it too disregarded the issue of the membership of ACNA in the Communion. There is no chance ACNA will ever be a province of the Anglican Communion. The big movement of "Anglican Realignment" is dying away. 

As another part of the big picture, the issue of homosexuality has changed. It rose to a peak in 2015, and has been on the down slope ever since. At that time the U.S. Supreme Court and TEC legitimized same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, numerous other provinces of the Anglican communion have either taken steps toward this or have shown clear signs of moving toward equal rights for homosexuals. The trend in the Anglican Communion is to follow in the footsteps of TEC in granting equal rights for homosexuals. The equatorial African bishops, however, are still fighting their two decades long war. At the recent Global South conference they issued a loud and shrill communiqué, a denunciation of rights for homosexuals, as if it were the last, desperate rear-guard action in a war they know they have lost.

What happened in South Carolina was that the Trinity Gang and their close allies seized control and virtually monopolized all of the apparati of the diocese after Lawrence's arrival in 2008. The Trinity Gang were the clergy alumni of Trinity School for Ministry including many of the well-known diocesan functionaries. They gradually "differentiated" the diocese from the Episcopal Church at the same time as making the bishop the equivalent of a local pope. The diocesan convention resolved that he alone could interpret the constitution and canons, and his decision could not be appealed (infallibility). The Standing Committee and Trustees, arms of the Trinity Gang, gave Lawrence virtually rent-free the million-dollar diocesan-owned bishop's residence until the year 2020, whether or not he was bishop, and gave him a lifetime employment contract at full salary regardless of whether he were bishop. His current compensation package equals a quarter of a million dollars a year. Later the Board of Trustees declared that Lawrence personally, not just as bishop, was the head of the Trustees. By 2012, the power structure of DSC was thoroughly solidified under the Trinity Gang and its entourage. The ruling clique set up a schism in a secret vote of the Standing Committee on October 2, 2012 (I counted 17 people who were in the cabal at this time). This was enacted on October 15 and then announced to the DSC clergy and the world.

It is important to note that what happened in SC was a counter-revolution from the top down. It was not a popular uprising of the people. Note that not one other diocese in the entire southeastern U.S., not one other bishop, went along with or even approved of DSC's schism. That is because no other diocese was controlled by a Trinity Gang. The good people of the DSC were forced to go along with their leadership or leave. Most communicants naturally wanted to trust and follow their priests and bishops in whom they had implicit faith. Most went along with the schism. Now it appears that support for that idea may not have been as solid as we thought. There is obvious resistance to the Trinity Gang's insistence on joining ACNA. Even Bishop Lawrence is busy talking it up in the parishes.

There are four levels of the membership of DSC:

1-The Trinity Gang and their allies. This amounts to perhaps two or three dozen people who monopolize the power structure of the diocese and have since at least 2008. As the core that made the schism, these people have an emotional investment in their choices. They are unlikely to change their minds. However, many of them are in their 60's and will be facing retirement soon. Lawrence will be 67 in March.

2-Diocesan clergy. 101 priests and deacons of the old diocese abandoned the Episcopal Church and refused to return (3 of 104 returned). Without Holy Orders in TEC, these people are completely dependent on Bishop Lawrence. They have no where else to go. They are bound to the Trinity Gang (and many of them are themselves alumni of Trinity).

3-Parish leaders/active communicants. This is the "core" of any parish/mission: wardens, vestry, Sunday School teachers, choir, youth leaders, youth groups, women's groups, Daughters of the King, etc. Most of this lineup faithfully followed their bishop in the schism. Typical was the senior warden of St. John's of Florence who testified on the stand in the circuit court trial that she believed what her bishop and rector said (although the parish had misused an endowment). The tendency was to go along with whatever they were told.

4-Casual church attendees. These people go to church for a variety of reasons are usually disinterested in issues of politics.

The crux of the matter is that the future of the diocese hangs on # 3, the parish leaders/active communicants. The Trinity Gang and the clergy appear to be committed to making the schism last. It is the parish leadership that must do the thinking now for the whole diocese. They are the ones who must decide whether it is a good idea to join ACNA. They have a lot of experience now in dealing with the diocesan leadership. They are in a different place than they were 4 years ago when they enthusiastically went along with the rebellion.

By nearly all measures, the schism has been a failure. The basic failure came from the Trinity Gang's lack of vision for the future. All of their attention went into making a schism. They did not think ahead of that. For four years now they have failed to give meaning and identity to the independent diocese. DSC is not part of the Anglican Communion. Joining ACNA will not make it part of the Anglican Communion. 

The future is bleak; and this is not to mention the declining membership, income, and ever-rising costs for legal action (which the diocese initiated). Parish leaders should not forget too that the Trinity Gang flatly rejected a very generous offer in June of 2015 of an out-of-court settlement from the Episcopal Church to give the local parishes their independence and properties. This would have given the parishes what they wanted and ended all legal actions. This revealed, really for the first time, that the Trinity Gang's goal was to diminish or destroy the Episcopal Church by pulling DSC into the Anglican Realignment, not to win the independence and properties for the local parishes. Parish leaders can see that very clearly now.
Parish leaders now have to choose the future of their diocese. It is, after all THEIR diocese. The clergy are their hired hands.

There are three choices, keep going it alone, join ACNA, and return to the Episcopal Church. The easy way is just keep going along with the Trinity Gang and join ACNA. The future for the diocese will be dismal. The hard choice is to swallow hard and return to the Episcopal Church and to the Anglican Communion. As one clergyman said before the schism, you cannot divorce your mother. If anyone is opposed to rights for homosexuals, no problem. TEC and her dioceses allow all local clergy to choose whether to have s-s blessings and marriages. In the Episcopal Church in South Carolina this is true, and some clergy have not gone along as they have every right to do this without question. Homosexuality is not the issue the Trinity Gang made it out to be before the schism. They used it as a wedge to pry the diocese away from the Episcopal Church in support of aiding the Anglican Realignment and diminishing the Episcopal Church.

The Diocese of South Carolina is at a crossroads in its journey of faith. The choice must be made by the parish leaders. The fate of their own diocese is in their own hands. 

One suggestion I have for the parish leaders is to keep stalling and wait for the state supreme court ruling. They have already allowed the Trinity Gang to keep them from getting clear ownership of the local properties once. They might not want to do that again. If they really want what is best for their parishes, they must start to think beyond the bounds of what has happened to them. My thought and prayers go out to the parish leaders. They are the real core of the life of the church. They have enormous decisions to make for the future of their churches' journeys of faith.       



by Ronald James Caldwell, PhD, Professor of History Emeritus

(last revised March 25, 2017)

Contract to publish with Wipf and Stock Publishers, of Eugene OR. To be about 600 pages in two volumes. Footnotes=2,226. Bibliography of Works Cited=892 items. Author examined 2,500 works in research. Expected time of book publication---late 2017 or early 2018.


Chapter 1, "South Carolina and the Episcopal Church before 2003,"  app. 42,500 words. 397 footnotes.

Chapter 2, "The Crisis of 2003 in the Episcopal Church and Its Immediate Aftermath," 58,000 words. 596 footnotes.

Chapter 3, "The Diocese of South Carolina in the Early Lawrence Years, 2008-2009," 26,000 words. 283 footnotes.

Chapter 4, "Storm Clouds, 2010-2011,"  25,000 words. 222 footnotes.

Chapter 5, "The Crisis of 2012,"  35,000 words. 324 footnotes.

Chapter 6, "Two Dioceses, 2013 and after," 44,000 words. 404 footnotes.

Chapter 7, "Conclusion," 15 pages single spaced, 8,423 words.

Bibliography of Works Cited, 66 pages listing 892 items.





a. A New Colony.

b. A New Church and a New Diocese.

c. Union and Disunion in the Nineteenth Century.

d. Revolution and Counter-Revolution in the Twentieth Century.

     (1) 1900-1960.

     (2) The Background of the Revolution in the Episcopal         Church.

     (3) Revolutionary Reforms and Bishop Gray Temple (1961-1982).

          (a) Race.

          (b) Prayer Book.

          (c) Women's Ordination.

          (d) Homosexuality.

     (4) Counter-Revolution and Bishop Christopher FitzSimons Allison (1982-1990).

          (a) The Roots of Counter-Revolution.

          (b) Christopher FitzSimons Allison.

          (c) Bishop Allison's Counter-Revolution, 1982-1990.

     (5) Counter-Revolution and Bishop Edward L. Salmon, Jr., 1990-2002.

          (a) Edward Lloyd Salmon, Jr.

          (b) The Return of the issue of Homosexuality, 1990-1996.

          (c) The Loosening of Bonds, 1997.

          (d) Walking the Tightrope, 1998-2002.

e. Conclusion.


a. The Background of the Robinson Affair.

b. The Robinson Affair.

c. The Aftermath of the Robinson Affair.

     (1) Reactions in the Diocese of South Carolina.

     (2) Reactions in the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church.

     (3) The Consecration of Bishop Robinson.

     (4) The Chapman Memo.

d. The Diocese of South Carolina in the Late Salmon Years, 2004-2007.

     (1) The Immediate Backlash against the Episcopal Church.

     (2) The All Saints Case.

     (3) The Backlash against the Episcopal Church, 2004-2006.

     (4) A New Presiding Bishop.

     (5)The Search for a New Bishop.

     (6) The Election of a New Bishop.

     (7) The Failure to Gain Consents.

     (8) The Success in Gaining Consents.

e. Four Dioceses Declare Separation from the Episcopal Church.

     (1) San Joaquin.

     (2) Pittsburgh.

     (3) Quincy.

     (4) Fort Worth.


a. The Life of Mark Joseph Lawrence to 2008.

     (1) Bakersfield.

     (2) Finding Religion.

     (3) Ministry, 1980-2007.

          (a) McKeesport, Pennsylvania.

          (b) The Diocese of Pittsburgh and the Episcopal Church.

          (c) Life Ties.

          (d) Back to Bakersfield.

          (e) Lawrence and the Episcopal Church Issues of Homosexuality.

b. Building Bonds, 2008.

     (1) The Ordination and Consecration of Bishop Lawrence.

     (2) The Presiding Bishop's Visit to Charleston, February 24-25, 2008.

     (3) Building Bonds before Lambeth 2008.

     (4) Lambeth 2008.

     (5) Building Bonds after Lambeth 2008.

c. Testing Bonds, 2009.

     (1) Background of General Convention, 2009.

     (2) The General Convention of 2009.

     (3) The Aftermath of the General Convention of 2009.

     (4) Clergy Conference, August 13.

     (5) Background of the Special Convention of October 24.

     (6) The Special Convention of October 24.

     (7) The Aftermath of the Special Convention.

STORM CLOUDS, 2010-2011.

a. 2010.

     (1) The Logan/Tisdale Affair, January-February.

     (2) The Diocesan Convention, March 26.

     (3) Tensions, March-September.

     (4) The Special Convention, October 15.

     (5) The Aftermath of the Special Convention.
b. 2011.

     (1) The Diocesan Convention, February 18-19.

     (2) A Gathering Storm, March-September.

     (3) The Disciplinary Board for Bishops, September-November.

     (4) Quit Claim Deeds, November-December.


a. Background of the General Convention, January-June.

     (1) The Return of the Issue of Homosexuality.

     (2) The Annual Diocesan Convention, March 10.

     (3) Preparations for a Crisis, March-July.

b. The General Convention, July.

     (1) The Controversial Resolutions.

     (2) The Walk-Out.

c. The Aftermath in South Carolina, July-October.

     (1) The Declaration of a Crisis.

     (2) The Secret Plan, August.

     (3) Outward and Inward Signs, September-October 2.

d. The Episcopal Church and Bishop Lawrence, September/October.

e. Schism.

     (1) October 15.

     (2) October 17.

f. The Contest for Legitimacy, October-December.

     (1) A War of Words.

     (2) Awaiting the Special Convention.

     (3) The Special Convention of November 17, 2012.

     (4) The Renunciation and the Release and Removal of Bishop Lawrence.

     (5) The Eve of the Legal War, December 2012.



a. Charting a New Course.

b. To State Court, Early 2013.

c. The Episcopal Church in South Carolina.

     (1) Rebuilding the Diocese.

     (2) The Issues of Homosexuality and Racism.

d. The Diocese of South Carolina.

     (1) The Search for Meaning.

     (2) The Search for Identity.

     (3) Membership and Income.

e. To Federal Court, 2013-.

     (1) vonRosenberg v. Lawrence.

     (2) Other Actions in Federal Courts.

f. The War in State Courts, March 2013-.

     (1) Preparing for Trial.

     (2) The Circuit Court Trial, July 8-25, 2014.

     (3) The Supreme Court of South Carolina.




on the history of the Episcopal Church schism
in South Carolina
(as of March 1, 2017)

by Ronald James Caldwell, PhD, Professor of History Emeritus


A. General histories.
     I. South Carolina.
          a. Reference.
          b. General. 
     2. The Episcopal Church.
          a. Bibliography.        
          b. General.
         c. On Conservative Movements.
         d. On the Questions of Hierarchy and Sovereignty.
             (1.) For the Central Sovereignty Side.
             (2.) For the Local Sovereignty Side.
     3. The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.
     4. Liberals and Conservatives.
         a. Liberals.
         b. Conservatives.
B. The Issue of Homosexuality.
     1. General.
     2. On Anglicanism and Homosexuality.
     3. On the Episcopal Church and Homosexuality.
     4. On Gene Robinson.
C. The First Four Secessions.
     1. San Joaquin.
     2. Pittsburgh.
     3. Quincy.
     4. Fort Worth.
D. The Diocese of South Carolina and the Episcopal Church in South Carolina.
     1. Diocesan Histories.
     2. Parish Histories.
     3. Online sources.
     4. Paper Documents.
     5. Circuit Court Trial, July 2014.
     6. The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
     7. The South Carolina Supreme Court Hearing, September
         23, 2015.
E. Biography.


A. General Histories.

1. South Carolina.
a. Reference.

Edgar, Walter, ed. The South Carolina Encyclopedia. Columbia SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2006. 1,077 p. Massive collection of articles by authorities, some with bibliographies. Best single reference work on SC.

Caldwell, Ronald J. Charleston Area History: A Bibliography of Works in the Charleston County Public Library, June 2001. Charleston SC: Charleston County Public Library, 2001. 213 p. Partially annotated topical listing of 3,191 works. Useful for background of the schism.

b. General.

Edgar, Walter B. South Carolina: A History. Columbia SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1998. 716 p. The best recent narrative history of the state.

Wallace, David Duncan. The History of South Carolina. 4 vols. NY: The American Historical Society, 1934-35. The old standard, detailed, multi-volume history of the state.

Fraser, Walter J. Charleston! Charleston! The History of a Southern City. Columbia SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989. 542 p. The best recent narrative history of the city.

2. The Episcopal Church.

a. Bibliography.

Caldwell, Sandra M. and Caldwell, Ronald J. The History of the Episcopal Church in America, 1607-1991: A Bibliography. NY: Garland, 1993. 528 p.

b. General.

Unfortunately there are relatively few extensive works on the recent history of the Episcopal Church. The best is:
Kirkpatrick, Frank G. The Episcopal Church in Crisis: How Sex, the Bible, and Authority are Dividing the Faithful.  Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2008. 219 p. Detailed, even accounting of the recent years.

James, Nancy Carol.  The Developing Schism within the Episcopal Church 1960-2010: Social Justice, Ordination of Women, Charismatics, Homosexuality, Extra-Territorial Bishops, ETC.  Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2010. 259 p. Useful discussion, although not as detailed as Kirkpatrick. Perhaps best for its many interviews with leaders.

Sachs, William and Thomas Holland. Restoring the Ties that Bind: The Grassroots Transformation of the Episcopal Church, Based on Research by the Episcopal Church Foundation. New York: Church Publishing, 2003. 347 p. Discussion of many aspects in the life of the Church in the late twentieth century.

"A Primer on the Government of The Episcopal Church and Its Underlying Theology, offered by the Ecclesiology Committee of the House of Bishops, Fall 2013." 16 p.  Actually an historical survey. Refutes myth the Diocese of SC predated the formation of the Episcopal Church.

Walmsley, Arthur E. "The Episcopal Church: A Half Century of Turmoil and Transformation."  18 p.  Useful accounting, especially on relations of TEC and the rest of the Anglican Communion.

"History of the Episcopal Church (United States)."  Wikipedia. 13 p. .  One should beware of information in this open online encyclopedia; however, this is a useful survey with a good bibliography.

Recent surveys of Episcopal Church history are all brief on the recent years. An example:

Hein, David and Gardiner H. Shattuck, Jr.  The Episcopalians. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2004. 361 p.  1958-2003 on pages 133-59.

The best study of the post-Second World War Church ends in 1985: Sumner, David E. The Episcopal Church's History 1945-1985. Wilton, Connecticut: Morehouse-Barlow, 1987.

The two best recent survey histories of the Episcopal Church are: Prichard, Robert W. A History of the Episcopal Church. Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse, 1991; and Holmes, David L. A brief History of the Episcopal Church. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press, 1993.

The only recent document collection ends in 1985: Armentrout, Don S. and Robert Boak Slocum.  Documents of Witness: A History of the Episcopal Church, 1782-1985.  New York: Church Hymnal Corporation, 1994. 652 p.

For the ongoing litigation see the annual summary:
Haley, A.S. "Episcopal Church (USA) Annual Litigation Summary 2014" Feb. 12, 2014. Useful listing but highly partisan interpretation by a lawyer involved in the litigation against TEC.
"Annual Litigation Survey for the Episcopal Church (USA) 2015," Feb. 22, 2015. Still a useful listing if one discounts the thoroughgoing anti-Episcopal Church bias of the author/lawyer. Some of the information presented on SC is not reliable.

For a discussion of declining membership in TEC:
Coats, William R. "Who (or What) Caused the Decline in Membership in the Episcopal Church." 3 p.

Roozen, David. "A Decade of Change in American Congregations: 2000-2010." Hartford Institute for Religion Research, 2011.  Surveys changes in major denominations showing factors of growth and decline.

c. On Conservative Movements.

Daly, Louis C.  "A Church at Risk: The Episcopal 'Renewal' Movement." Dec. 2001, Institute for Democracy Studies.

Cooperman, Alan.  "Plan to Supplant Episcopal Church USA is Revealed. The Washington Post, Jan. 14, 2004. A-4.

Naughton, Jim.  "Following the Money."  The Washington Window, the newspaper of the Diocese of Washington, April 2006, p.1-8.

Cooperman, Alan.  "Conservatives Funding Opposition, Priest Says." The Washington Post, October 24, 2003.

d. On the Questions of Hierarchy and Sovereignty.

(1.) For the Central Sovereignty Side.

Dator, James and Jan Nunley.  Many Parts, One Body: How the Episcopal Church Works. New York: Church Publishing, 2010. 192 p. Drawn from Dator's Ph.D. dissertation, "The Government of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America: Confederal, Federal or Unitary?" American University, 1959.

Dator, James. "Where is the Locus of Authority within the Episcopal Church?"  The Journal of Episcopal Church Canon Law Vol. 2, No. 1 (Feb. 2011): 131-90.

Gundersen, Joan R. "A Response to Mark McCall's 'Is the Episcopal Church Hierarchical?'" Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh, Sept. 17, 2008. 8 p.

Mullin, Robert Bruce. "Affidavit of Dr. Robert Bruce Mullin." In the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Charleston Division, 3/07/13, in vonRosenberg v. Lawrence. Exhibit entry 6-19. 72 p.

Edgar, Walter.  "Affidavit of Walter Edgar."  In the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Charleston Division, 3/07/13, in vonRoenberg v. Lawrence. Exhibit entry 6-17. 5 p.

(2.) For the Local Sovereignty Side.

McCall, Mark. "Is the Episcopal Church hierarchical?" Anglican Communion Institute, September 2008. 89 p.

McCall, Mark.  "The Episcopal Church and Association Law: Dioceses' Legal Right to Withdraw."  The Journal of Episcopal Church Canon Law Vol. 2, No. 1 (Feb. 2011): 191-244.

McCall, Mark. "Fatal Flaws: A Response to Dr. Joan Gundersen." Anglican Communion Institute, Sept. 19, 2008. 8 p.

McCall, Mark.  "Affidavit of Mark McCall." In the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, 4/11/13, in vonRosenberg v. Lawrence. Exhibit 13.

3. The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.

Hassett, Miranda K.  Anglican Communion in Crisis: How Episcopal Dissidents and their African Allies are Reshaping Anglicanism.  Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. 295 p. Outstanding and detailed.

Radner, Ephraim and Ralph Turner. The Fate of Communion: The Agony of Anglicanism and the Future of the Global Church. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2006. 306 p. Critical of TEC as it calls for greater unity in the Communion.

Solheim, James.  Diversity or Disunity: Reflections on Lambeth 1998. New York: Publishing, 1999. Lengthy discussion of the Lambeth resolutions.

Radner, Ephraim and George R. Sumner, eds.  Reclaiming Faith: Essays on Orthodoxy in the Episcopal Church and the Baltimore Declaration. Grand Rapids: Willism B. Eerdmans, 1993. 298 p. Best discussion of the Baltimore Declaration of 1991.

Douglas, Ian T. and Paul F.M. Zahl.  Understanding the Windsor Report: Two Leaders in the American Church Speak Across the Divide.  New York: Church Publishing, 2005. 184 p. Best guide to the Windsor Report. 

4. Liberals and Conservatives.

a. Liberals.

Evans, Christopher H. Liberalism without Illusions: Renewing an American Christian Tradition. Waco TX: Baylor University Press, 2010. 207 p.

Schmidt, Leigh E. and Sally M. Promey, eds. American Religious Liberalism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011. 416 p.

Hollinger, David A.  After Cloven Tongues of Fire: Protestant Liberalism in Modern American History, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013, 228 p.

Hedstrom, Matthew.  The Rise of Liberal Religion: Book Culture and American Spirituality in the Twentieth Century. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. 278 p.

Coffman, Elesha J.  The Christian Century and the Rise of the Protestant Mainline.  New York: Oxford Univesity Press, 2013. 271 p.

b. Conservatives.

Martin, William.  With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America.  New York: Broadway Books, 1996. 418 p.

Cowan, Douglas E. The Remnant Spirit: Conservative Reform in Mainline Protestantism. Praeger, 2003. 248 p. Episcopal Church and three others.

Greeley, Andrew and Michael Hout.  The Truth about Conservative Christians: What They Think and What They Believe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006. 206 p.

Hodges, Chris.  American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. New York: Free Press, 2006. 254 p.

Culver, Sheldon and John Dorhauer. Steeplejacking" How the Christian Right is Hijacking Mainstream Religion. Ig Publishing, 2007. 192 p.

Altemeyer, Bb and Bruce Hunsberger. "Authoritarianism, Religious Fundamentalism, Quest and Prejudices."  The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion Vol. 2, No. 2 (1992): 113-22.

Ingham, Michael. "Reclaiming Christian Orthodoxy." Anglican Communion Institute, Oct. 2003. 

B. The Issue of Homosexuality

1. General.

Boswell, John.  Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. 424 p. The landmark work on its topic. Sees scant evidence of anti-homosexuality before the Middle Ages.

Gagnon, Robert A.J. The Bible and Homosexual Practice. Nashville TN: Abingdon Press, 2002. 522 p. A leading work giving the fundamentalist/evangelical interpretation by a professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. Source used by Mark Lawrence in his remarks to the Episcopal bishops. Opposed by Dale Martin, see below.

Gagnon, Robert A. J.  "Does the Bible Regard Same-Sex Intercourse as Intrinsically Sinful?" July 19, 2003. . Criticism of Powell, see below.

Hill, Wesley. Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality. Zondervan, 2010. 160 p. Professor at Trinity School for Ministry argues for homosexual celibacy.

Martin, Dale. Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation. Louisville KY: Westminster/John Knox, 2006. 268 p. Martin, professor at Yale, is a leading voice among liberals on the issue. Martin and Gagnon give opposing interpretations. See also the critique by opponent Robert Gagnon at .

Powell, Mark Allan. "The Bible and Homosexuality." pp. 19-40 in Faithful Conversations: Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality. James M. Childs, Jr., ed. Fortress Press, 2003. 144 p. See Gagnon, "Does the Bible..." above.

"Religious Groups Official Positions on Same-Sex Marriage." The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (the Pew Research Center), Dec. 7, 2012.

Silver, Nate.  "How Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage is Changing, and What It Means."  New York Times Five Thirty Eight Blog  Landmark statistical study of trends.

Von Drehle, David.  "How Gay Marriage Won." Time Vol. 181, No. 13 (April 8, 2013): 16-24.

"Support for Same-Sex Marriage at Record High, but Key Segments Remain Opposed." Pew Research Center, June 8, 2015. 15 p. ).

"Same-sex marriage." Wikipedia.

2. On Anglicanism and Homosexuality.

Siker, Jeffrey S. ed.  Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate.  Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. 211 p.

Bates, Stephen.  A Church at War: Anglicans and Homosexuality. London: I.B. Tauris, 2004. 248 p.

Groves, Phil, ed. The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality. London: SPCK Publishing, 2008. 352 p.

Brittain, Christopher Craig and Andrew McKinnon.  "Homosexuality and the Construction of 'Anglican Orthodoxy': The Symbolic Politics of the Anglican Communion."  Sociology of Religion  Vol. 72, No. 3 (Autumn 2011): 351-73.

"Homosexuality and Anglicanism." Wikipedia. 13 p.  http://en.  Handy review of the Anglican provinces.

"The Meanings of Communion: Anglican Identities, the Sexuality Debates, and Christian Rationality."  Perhaps the fullest discussion available.

3. On TEC and Homosexuality.

Hall, (the Rev.) Caroline J. Addington. A Thorn in the Flesh: How Gay Sexuality is Changing the Episcopal Church. Rowman and Littlefield, 2013. 308 p. Leading discussion of the subject. 

"LGBT in the Church." Episcopal Church website guide to materials. .

Seltser, Barry Jay.  "Episcopalian Crisis: Authority, Homosexuality and the Future of Anglicanism."  Commonweal Vol. 133, No. 10 (May 19, 2006).

"The Episcopal Church and Homosexuality: Activities during 1996."

Markham, Ian.  "Episcopalians, Homosexuality and the General Convention 2006."  Reviews in Religion and Theology Vol. 14, No. 1 (Jan. 2007): 1-5.

Hobson, George. The Episcopal Church, Homosexuality, and the Context of Technology. Eugene OR: Pickwick, 2013. 199 p. Conservative viewpoint; how the computer age has influenced the issue in TEC.

"Same-Sex Relations in the Life of the Church." A report offered by the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops, March 2010. 87 p.    A collection of articles by authorities on both sides and equally balanced between "traditionalists" and "liberals."

Alexander, J. Neil. This Far by Grace: A Bishop's Journey through Questions about Homosexuality. Cambridge MA: Cowley Publications, 2003. 94 p. Discusses topics of homosexuality in theological and scriptural contexts.

Sedgwick, Timothy F. Sex, Moral Teaching, & The Unity of the Church: A Study of the Episcopal Church. Morehouse Publishing, 2014. 104 p.

4. On Gene Robinson.

Robinson, Gene. In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God. New York: Church Publishing, 2008. 176 p.
Adams, Elizabeth. Going to Heaven: The Life and Election of Bishop Gene Robinson. Brooklyn, NY: Soft Skull Press, 2006. 291 p.

"Love Free or Die: One Man's Fight for Equality," Documentary on Robinson by Macky Alston, 2012, Wolfe Video, DVD, 83 minutes.

C. The First Four Secessions.

1. San Joaquin.

Lamb, Jane Onstad, ed. Hurt, Joy, and the Grace of God: A Resurrection Story of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, California.  NY: Applecart Books, 2012. 166 p. 17 essays of Episcopalians' experiences in the Diocese of San Joaquin.

Goodstein, Laurie and Carolyn Marshall.  "Episcopal Diocese Votes to Secede from Church." New York Times Dec. 3, 2006.

"Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin."  Wikipedia

"Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin (ACNA)." Wikipedia.

"An Interview with Bishop John David Schofield." video. 2011. 1hour, 24 minutes. Amazon Instant Video.  [unreviewed]

2. Pittsburgh.

Brittain, Christopher Craig. A Plague on Both Their Houses: Liberal vs. Conservative Christians and the Divorce of the Episcopal Church USA. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. 280 p.

Bonner, Jeremy. Called Out of Darkness into Marvelous Light: A History of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, 1750-2006. Eugene OR: Wipf and Stock, 2009. On the run-up to schism.

Lewis, Harold T. The Recent Unpleasantness: Calvary Church's Role in the Preservation of the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. Wipf & Stock, 2015. 132 p. Author was rector of Calvary Church, 1996-2012.

Richards, Samuel J. The Middle Holds: A History of St. Thomas Episcopal Church, Canonsburg, and the Community it Serves. Closson Press, 2016. 155 p.

Gundersen, Joan R.  "History Revisited: Historical Background of the Proposed Amendment to Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh." Progressive Episcopalians, Oct. 13, 2004. 4 p.

Mandak, Joe.  "Pittsburgh Diocese Votes to Split from Episcopal Church."  USA Today Oct. 6, 2008. 

"Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh." Wikipedia 

"Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh."  Wikipedia

3. Quincy.

"Episcopal Diocese of Quincy."  Wikipedia 

"Diocese of Quincy (ACNA)." Wikipedia

4. Fort Worth.

"Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (Episcopal Church)."  Wikipedia

"Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (ACNA)." Wikipedia  

D. The Diocese of South Carolina and the Episcopal Church in South Carolina.

1. Diocesan Histories.

Dalcho, Frederick. An Historical Account of the Protestant Episcopal Church in South-Carolina, from the first settlement of the province, to the war of the revolution... Charleston SC: printed by Arch'd E. Miller for E. Thayer, 1820. 613 p. Classic, detailed history covering up to 1820. Online: .

Thomas, Albert Sidney. A Historical Account of the Protestant Episcopal Church in South Carolina 1820-1957, being a continuation of Dalcho's account, 1670-1820.Columbia SC: Bryan, 1957. 879 p. Online: .

Zeigler, Eugene N., Jr. When Conscience and Power Meet, A Memoir. Columbia SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2008. 378 p. Memoir of the chancellor of DSC, 1985-2004 p. 305-325.

2. Parish Histories.

Way, William and Virginia Kirkland Donehue, By Grace, Through Faith, A History of Grace Church, Charleston, 1846-1999. Charleston: Grace Episcopal Church, 2000. 188 p.

McIntosh, William, III, The Spiritual Journey of St. Philip's Church, Charleston, S.C., 1906-2012. Charleston: William McIntosh III, 2013. 408 p.

Porwoll, Paul, Against All Odds, History of Saint Andrew's Parish Church, Charleston, 1706-2013. Bloomington IN: WestBow Press, 2014. 454 p.

3. Online Sources.

There is a great deal of material readily available in various online sources, some documentary, some leaning to TEC, and some favoring DSC.

For documents, the best websites are:

The Diocese of South Carolina ( The annual convention journals are given from 2006 to 2016. 

Jubilate Deo, the diocesan newsletter is online starting at June/July 2006. Also provides some court documents.

The Episcopal Church in South Carolina ( "Legal News" gives photocopies of the actual court papers on both sides starting February 28, 2013.

Episcopal Archives ( Provides a great number of national church documents in various collections as far back as 1962.

"Clarity Ensued," Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori's lengthy question-and-answer exchange with the clergy of DSC Feb. 25, 2008 at St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant. Video is available in 12 parts at  . Unfortunately these videos are edited to about 90 minutes and omit many other parts of the conference.

Anglican TV

Anglican TV ( provides several videos of Bishop Lawrence:

1-"Mere Anglicanism 2012: The Rt. Rev'd. Mark J. Lawrence" Jan. 23, 2012, 59 minutes; 

2-"Bishop Mark Lawrence's Address SC [February] 2011" 41 minutes; 

3-"Anglican TV Interviews Bishop Lawrence" (Nov. 18, 2012), 45 minutes, discussion of the disassociation.

Anglican TV also interviewed A.S. Haley, aka the Anglican Curmudgeon, on Anglican Unscripted Episode 91 (Feb. 8, 2014), @21-31 minutes. Haley summarizes his views and says TEC is trying "to punish" Lawrence.


YouTube ( offers several videos, as of Mar. 20, 2013: 

1-"Bishop Mark Lawrence Address SC 2011" 41 minutes (see Anglican TV above); 

2-GC2009: A Conversation with Bishop Lawrence" 28 minutes (July 2009, Anaheim CA), from Anglican TV; 

3-"DSC 2010: Bishop Lawrence Addresses Special Convention" 48 minutes (March 26, 2010), from Anglican TV; 

4-"Anglican TV Interviews Bp Mark Lawrence," [Mar. 19, 2014], 18 min.;

5-"Interview with Canon Kendall Harmon after SC 2010 Convention" 12 minutes, Anglican TV; 

6-"DSC 2010 Convention: Alan Runyan Explains Canons" 11 minutes, Anglican TV; 

7-"Convention: The Episcopal Church in South Carolina, January 26, 2013" 1 hour, 56 minutes; 

8-"Bishop vonRosenberg's Address to the Convention" 13 minutes (March 9, 2013); 

9-"Kendall Harmon & Susan Russell on McNeil Lehrer" 9 minutes (February 2007); 

10-"The Anglican Crisis: Its Not about Sex" 6 minutes (Kendall Harmon, August 21, 2009); 

11-"Standing Firm Interviews: Dr. Kendall Harmon" 3 minutes (June 19, 2006); 

12-Standing Firm Interviews: Dr. Kendall Harmon" 3 minutes (June 21, 2006);  "Standing Firm Interviews: Dr. Kendall Harmon" 4 minutes (June 19, 2006); 

13-"Carey and Harmon on A161 Vote" 1 minute (June 20, 2006).

Other Audio/Video

"The Personal Testimony of Mr. Alan Runyan, Attorney for the Diocese of South Carolina." Posted Jan. 13, 2014.  Audio recording of Alan Runyan's presentation at Christ-St. Paul's Church, Jan. 12, 2014.

"Choose this Day" and "The Decision," DVD featuring Kendall Harmon, given out to the attendees of the ACN meeting in Pittsburgh in November of 2005. Strongly condemns TEC and implicitly urges secession from TEC. No longer available online but the full transcripts of both can be found at: and

News articles from the TEC side:

Episcopal News Service ( Articles starting in 2010.

Episcopal Café ( Articles beginning April 12, 2007.

The Living Church ( An old semi-official magazine with a conservative bent. No archive of articles; but it does have a search engine.

South Carolina Episcopalians ( A personal blog by the irrepressible Steve Skardon who invariably takes the anti-TEC side to task. His articles cover Oct. 24, 2009 to present.

Episcopal Forum of South Carolina ( Newsletters and documents

News articles from the DSC side

Titus One Nine ( A blog by the formidable Rev. Dr. Kendall Harmon, a powerful conservative voice in DSC since 1990. Articles are available from May 22, 2007 to present. Primary scope is SC.

Virtue Online (  The major website of news and editorials from the "orthodox" Anglican viewpoint for two decades. Although the scope is worldwide, there are many articles on SC. Articles are archived from December 1995.

American Anglican Council ( Much information on conservative movements in articles since July 18, 1996.

Anglican Communion Institute ( A conservative think tank that produces numerous like-minded essays, some lengthy, on current topics. Articles are from August 2006 to present.

4. Paper Documents.

The archives of the old Diocese of South Carolina and the post-schism DSC, in Diocesan House, Charleston, are closed to the public. Crucial information in the Standing Committee minutes and in the bishop's papers and correspondence remain sealed. Some records of the Standing Committee were turned over to the ECSC lawyers in the "discovery" pre-trial phase in Circuit Court. Among the other valuable paper documents now available:

---The Journals of the annual meetings of the convention of DSC. Published in book form. (Bishop's address, Bishop's diary, Resolutions, financial statistics).

---Jubilate Deo, the newsletter of DSC.

On the TEC side, records are readily available at the Episcopal Archives website listed above.

5. Circuit Court Trial, July 2014.

Both the DSC and ECSC websites provide many legal documents. For the Circuit Court Trial held in July of 2014 in St. George, the ECSC site provides the full transcript: . Under "Information Regarding the Trial in the Circuit Court in Dorchester County," there are 14 files, one for each day of the trial:

[Day 1] "State of South Carolina, County of Dorchester, Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2013-CP-18-00013, Transcript of Record, July 8, 2014, St. George, SC." pages 1-211.

[Day 2] "Volume II, State of South Carolina...July 9, 2014..." pages 212-436.

[Day 3] "Volume III, State of South Carolina...July 10, 2014..." pages 437-682.

[Day 4] "Volume IV, State of South Carolina...July 11, 2014..." pages 683-896.

[Day 5] "Volume V, State of South Carolina...July 14, 2014..." pages 897-1120.

[Day 6] "Volume VI, State of South Carolina...July 15, 2014..." pages 1121-1331.

[Day 7] "Volume VII, State of South Carolina...July 16, 2014..." pages 1332-1486.

[Day 8] "Volume VIII, State of South Carolina...July 17, 2014..." pages 1487-1673.

[Day 9] "Volume IX, State of South Carolina...July 18, 2014..." pages 1674-1756.

[Day 10] "Volume X, State of South Carolina...July 21, 2014..." pages 1757-1915.

[Day 11] "Volume XI, State of South Carolina...July 22, 2014..." pages 1916-2135.

[Day 12] "Volume XII, State of South Carolina...July 23, 2014..." pages 2136-2325.

[Day 13] "Volume XIII, State of South Carolina...July 24, 2014..." pages 2326-2438.

[Day 14] "Volume XIV, State of South Carolina...July 25, 2014..." pages 2439-2523.

The Exhibits, or pieces of evidence, officially entered daily into the trial amounted to 1,315 listed items. The Exhibits themselves were not reproduced in the transcript record. Perhaps the most important evidence entered in the trial was the deposition of Mark Lawrence (made to Atty. Thomas Tisdale on June 3, 2014). It was entered in Volume XII (July 23), page 2137 (page 2205 of transcript text): Exhibit D-24 "Deposition Transcript - Mark J. Lawrence." Lawrence's official deposition is 194 pages.

The judgment in the trial was released on February 3, 2015 as the "Final Order" of Judge Goodstein. It is online at:  and .

6. U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Audio of the hearing of January 28, 2015: .

7. The South Carolina Supreme Court Hearing, September 23, 2015.

A video recording of the hearing is available online at: . An audio copy is available from the Clerk of the Court's Office. There is no official written transcript of the hearing.

E. Biography.

 Biographical sources on SC are scarce and scant. The Wikipedia articles on the bishops and judges are useful.

Almost all of the participants in the story of the schism in SC are alive and active.

A cursory glance of the documents shows certain names outstanding (This is a tentative short list):

Jefferts Schori, Katharine

Allison, Christopher FitzSimons ("Fitz")
Daniel, Clifton, III
Hathaway, Alden Moinet
Henderson, Dorsey F., Jr.
Lawrence, Mark Joseph
Salmon, Edward L., Jr. ("Ed")
Skilton, William J. ("Bill")
vonRosenberg, Charles Glenn ("Charlie")
Wood, Stephen Dwain ("Steve")

Barr, John, III
Burwell, John B.
Fuener, Paul C.
Harmon, Kendall S.
Hills, William L., Jr. ("Roy")
Kronz, Gregory Joseph ("Greg")
Lewis, James B. ("Jim")
Limehouse, Frank F., III
McCormick, John Haden ("Haden")
Miller, Jeffrey S. ("Jeff")
Mills, Ladson Frazier, III ("Punchy")
Sanderson, Marshall Dow ("Dow")
Smith, Colton M.
Smith, Roger W.
Snyder, Gregory ("Greg")
Thurlow, David
Walpole, Calhoun ("Callie")
Wright, J. Michael A.

Behre, Holly
Douglas, Hillery P.
Evans, Lydia
Hamilton, Lonnie, III
Hicks, Josephine H.
Hunter, Joy
Logan, Wade H., III
Lucka, Melinda Adelle
Mann, Barbara
Pennewill, Elizabeth Crommelin ("Boo")
Pringle, Jan
Runyan, C. Alan
Skardon, Steve, Jr.
Tisdale, Thomas Sumter
Wilder, Virginia
Willis, Ann Hester

Goodstein, Diane Schafer
Houck, Charles Weston
Toal, Jean H.
Hearn, Kaye
Hewitt, Blake