A LETTER TO THIS EDITOR,  30 APRIL 2022

The aftermath of the SC Supreme Court has prompted several letters to the editor about how each side should react to the unexpected settlement. Today's letter is unusually poignant and well worth posting here.

Dear Dr. Caldwell,

In a recent "Padre's Pondering" video posted on Facebook, found HERE, Jonathan Riddle, Associate Rector of The Church of the Cross in Bluffton, SC, gives his viewers a video tour of his office, describing a few of the many things he has collected and been given over thirty years of ministry. Near the end he tells the story of sending a letter to the Evangelical author and speaker, Elizabeth Elliot, who recalled for him in her reply the quote, "In acceptance of peace."

I was compelled to post a comment to Fr. Riddle's presentation:

"In acceptance lieth peace."

Are you willing to accept that God loves and embraces all of his children of every age, gender, sexual orientation, and disability through the actions of the Holy Spirit as carried out in his most holy church? Are you willing to accept consequences for turning away from God's people and failing to offer them love and dignity as commanded by Christ? Are you willing to accept that the current circumstances faced by Christians in the Lowcountry is the fruit of sin, and change your ways? Will you honor the legacy and memory of a friend who offered to you the way of peace if you would only accept what comes from dividing God's people? And if not, wherein lies your peace, Father? Where? Perhaps through more of the same? Or would you rather me accept, faithful gay Christian and beloved of God that I am, the peace that you and the members of your church offer?

In recent weeks, my pastor, a Catholic priest, presided over a beautiful worship service in our parish chapel for my husband, a man I deeply loved and who died in my arms early one Monday morning in February. From my pastor and my parish I received nothing but love, affirmation, acceptance---and, yes---a small measure of peace. God's love was richly found in that place and through the love of my parish family---despite the fact that I am a gay man. Yes, in acceptance lieth peace. What peace do you long for, and what are you willing to accept to receive it?

Dr. Caldwell, I fear that the experience of the Episcopal Schism in South Carolina may be wasted on folks who are so firmly entrenched in a gospel of their own making, that even in the face of rejection, they still hold out some hope that their sinful gamble with the assets of God's Church is to their gain. Acceptance goes both ways---accept that their failure is the product of sin and repent, or accept that they are the righteous victims in an evil world out to get them. I fear that the schismatic leaders in SC will settle for the latter.

Thank you!

Sincerely,

Israel J. Pattison

_____________________________

A thank you to Mr. Pattison for sharing this with us.

What do you think about the events going on now in SC? Send letters to the editor to the email above.

 

METHODISTS DIVORCING MAY 1, 2022

The United Methodist Church is dividing into two denominations starting tomorrow, May 1, 2022. And, guess what the core of the problem is? It's our old friend, the issue of homosexuality. No surprise.

Find an article about this HERE .

Find an explanation from the new group HERE .

The new bunch, the Global Methodist Church, is a conservative breakaway from the UMC.

In 2019, the worldwide Methodist Church voted against human rights for homosexuals. Most American Methodists favored these but conservative Americans joined with Third World Methodists to form a majority that voted in stricter rules against homosexuals in the denomination. Conservative American churchmen joining with Third World churchmen to stop equality and inclusion of homosexuals in the church is not new. 

It looks as if the separation will not happen overnight but will be a gradual peeling away as the local churches decide whether to stay with the UMC or go with the Global Methodist Church. 

ONE REPORT ON THE ADSC CLERGY MEETING

Today, I can relay one report on the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina's clergy meeting of last Tuesday (Apr. 26). It comes from the Rev. Greg Kronz, rector of St. Luke's, of Hilton Head. Find it HERE . It is the only description of the meeting I have received so far.

St. Luke's of HH is one of the fourteen parishes to be returned to the property owner, the Episcopal Church and its diocese. This is because it made a clear adoption of the Dennis Canon before the schism.

Kronz continues to lead his congregation in hope they can keep the property away from the Episcopal bishop. He tells the people again he believes they are in a good position to negotiate. This is unfortunate since the SCSC has issued a "final" decision on St. Luke's and the other 13 parishes. Whether the Episcopal bishop would "negotiate" to leave the property with the schismatics would be up to her. Kronz offered no evidence of such.

I will relay more information on the clergy meetings as I receive them.

UPDATE ON CLERGY MEETINGS

Both sides are staying quiet about what transpired in the clergy meetings of yesterday, 26 April. No participant is volunteering information and both dioceses are ignoring or refusing to release any word about the meetings. Since the litigation is still active in both state and federal courts, this is reasonable. All we know for sure at this point is that the meetings actually did take place. The Episcopal bishop talked with her clergy via Zoom. The Anglican bishop met with his clergy in person for four hours.

In a MESSAGE on Facebook, the Rev. Greg Kronz, rector of St. Luke's, of Hilton Head, one of the 14 implied his congregation may not have to leave. He said there was a "real possibility we might negotiate." He offered no evidence. He added that the diocesan lawyers were meeting today (Wed.) to discuss strategy.

As for the state courts, the next step will be one or both sides to ask for a rehearing before the SC Supreme Court. According to what I have found, they have 15 days from the issuance of the decision (Apr. 20) to file for rehearing. The SC Code is HERE. 15 days would be May 5.

If one or both ask for rehearing, the SCSC will take time to consider it. If neither asks for rehearing, the SCSC will send its opinion and a Remittitur to the circuit court for implementation.

In my opinion, it is dubious that either side will ask for rehearing. I do not see what either side has to gain while each has much to lose if the court should rehear and change its ruling. Moreover, the April 20 decision was unanimous. It is exceedingly unlikely any justice would want to take up this thorny case again. No doubt they are relieved to be rid of it. Bottom line---in all probability a rehearing will not happen.

So, now we have to wait until May 5 to know what happens next. I assume there will be no rehearing and that the SCSC will send its decision forthwith to the lower court. This will present the next problem since Judge Dickson was in no rush at all the last time around. He devoured two and a half years in a seemingly endless round of papers and hearings before finally issuing his decision. Even if Dickson does act soon, we can expect the actual implementation to take a good deal of time.

I expect over on the Anglican side, the discussion is about the options the 14 parishes to be returned to TEC may have at this point. Since everyone is being tight lipped, we may not know how the 14 will proceed for a long time. If there is no rehearing, the circuit court will soon start the process of returning the 14 parishes. The last time, the Episcopal side asked for a Special Master to oversee the transferal. I assume we will see the same request again. 

NOTES,  27 APRIL 2022

Today is Wednesday, April 27, 2022. I wish I had something to report about yesterday's clergy meetings, one in the Episcopal diocese and the other in the Anglican diocese of South Carolina. Alas, I have not. The people I reached out to for information did not respond. If I do get reports, or if the dioceses post reports on their websites, I will relay the information here. Apparently, both sides are keeping their cards close to the vest. After all, the litigation is still ongoing in both state and federal courts, so I suppose this is understandable.

Right now the focus is on the SC supreme court ruling and the biggest issue there is the return of the fourteen parishes to the Episcopal diocese. The restoration of the Episcopal bishop in the fourteen is just a matter of time. It would be wrong of the present parish leaders to allow their parishioners to hold out hope that the local properties will somehow escape from the court's decision. The SCSC decision is final.

I have seen a bit of chatter about the Betterments issue. Under the Betterments law, a local property occupant has the right of reimbursement from the owner for improvements he (the occupant) made to the property which he thought he owned. Unless the owner voluntarily makes Betterments payments (highly unlikely), this would require lawsuits. The obvious problem is that in the Episcopal Church almost all parish property is owned by the parish, not by TEC or the Episcopal diocese (they have trust control). It would make no sense for a parish to sue itself. The most sensible solution for this issue is for the occupants who depart upon Episcopal restoration to take the furnishings and other assets they added after the schism (Oct. 15, 2012) and leave the rest of the parish property intact.

If the Anglicans want to play hardball and start entering new lawsuits of this and that against the Episcopal side, this will force the Church to respond. Why could not the Episcopal side charge rent for the nearly ten years of illegal occupation of Church property? Can you imagine what ten years rent for Camp St. Christopher would be? Many millions. What about the bishop's residence in Charleston which would rent for at least $10,000k/month? Do that math for ten years. My point is, accelerating litigation could get much uglier than it has been already and could go on indefinitely. Is this what both parties want?

It behooves both sides to stop this madness. Enough already. We have a settlement. It's a draw. Accept the reality and behave as the Christians you claim to be.

On a more somber note, today is Holocaust Remembrance Day. Let us take a moment and reflect on the worst evil inflicted on humankind in all of modern history and resolve anew such as this will not happen again.

Evil did not finally prevail because there were enough people who refused to stand aside and do nothing. Human rights triumphed in the Twentieth Century as the anti-human rights regimes in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, militarist Japan, and the Soviet Union all fell. The Russian attack on Ukraine is the dying gasp of the Soviet anti-democrats.

One of those who stood boldly against the enemies of democracy and human rights was Madeleine Albright, the first woman to be secretary of state. She was also a devout Episcopalian.

Her funeral will be today at Washington National Cathedral, 11:00 a.m. EDT. Her last book warned American against moving toward fascism. We had better take her parting words to heart.

Today is a somber day, but not a dark day. We have plenty for which to be thankful. Let us keep that in mind now.

Life is a series of choices. We all choose every day whether to do right or wrong. In my view, the schism resulted from bad choices good people made. The results of those choices are all too well-known today, hard feelings, brokenness, separation. The choices of the future are up to the people of today. Peace.   

CLERGY MEETINGS TODAY,  26 APRIL 2022

News has arrived that the clergy of both dioceses will convene today with their respective bishops. In the Episcopal diocese, Bishop Woodliff Stanley will meet her clergy via Zoom. In the Anglican diocese, the clergy will meet with Bishop Edgar at the Cathedral Church of St. Luke and St. Paul, in Charleston. Find the official announcement of this HERE. Note Edgar's wording about those who won and those who lost, without ambiguity.

Obviously, the topic of conversation will be the SCSC "final" ruling of last week. One should imagine the thrust of the talk in both camps will be about whether to move toward closing down the legal war or to fight on in whatever ways available until the bitter end. 

The weightiest decisions will be on the Anglican side. There, all of the big and powerful parishes, e.g. St. Philip's of Charleston, St. Michael's of Charleston, St. Helena's of Beaufort, and Church of the Cross of Bluffton, have gained complete control of their local properties. However, some of the important smaller parishes, e.g. Old Saint Andrew's of West Ashley, St. James of James Island, and St. John's of Johns Island are returning to the Episcopal Church. There is bound to be a different attitude between the large parishes and the fourteen parishes to be returned to TEC. It will be interesting to see the dynamic between the clergy of the big churches and the rest.

On the Episcopal side, one would imagine talk about the mechanisms of returning the fourteen wayward parishes to the Church as well as repossessing the entity and assets of the old diocese now in the hands of the secessionists. 

IT'S A NEW DAY.

An editorial,  24 April 2022

After ten grueling years, the legal war of the schism is virtually over. The outcome is roughly a 50/50 split. The Episcopal side gets the entity of the old diocese, including all its assets and about half the local churches, mostly smaller ones, while the Anglican side gets all of the large parishes, except for Grace Church of Charleston. In short, the Episcopal side winds up with the historic diocese while the Anglicans wind up with most of the large and medium sized local churches. This is close to what the Episcopal side proposed in 2015, a swap of the diocese for the parishes.

The reality now is that the old diocese is divided into two, probably for the foreseeable future, and each one owns about half of the old diocese. This is the essential settlement of the schism, like it or not. This is the way it is and will be for a long time at least. 

To be sure, the technicalities of the litigation are not quite over. The SC Supreme Court will have to send its "Revised Opinion" with a Remittitur to the circuit court for implementation. The federal appeals court still has before it the Anglicans' appeal of Judge Gergel's order of 2019. 

The most unexpected, and uplifting, event of last week was not the state supreme court ruling. It was the surprise friendly visit of the two bishops, Woodliff Stanley and Edgar. Did anyone ever expect this to happen? This may come to nothing, but on the other hand may change everything. It should. Ten years of destruction is enough.

Both bishops are new on the job and both come from the outside. Neither had anything to do with the schism or the ensuing litigation. They bring a fresh new perspective. They have all the potential to give us a new day. Did we ever need it more? No.

The past is the past. As much as we may wish, we cannot change it. Our only power is to make choices for today and tomorrow. We have control over the future, not the past. What kind of future do the two sides want? There are two choices, more of the warfare or peaceful coexistence. It has to be one or the other.

It is within the power of the two new bishops to declare the past behind us and to guide their flocks into a brighter new day. To do that they have to bring the legal war to the end. The day of the lawyer has to be over. This would be the honorable, not to mention Christian, thing to do.

The state court has to proceed for the implementation. What both sides could do here is to prompt the circuit judge to make an expeditious enactment and give full mutual cooperation for the earliest settlement of the provisions. There should be no more delay or objection. 

The federal court does not have to proceed. The Anglican side could withdraw its appeal, perhaps in return for the Episcopal side's surrender of any claim to the eleven, or so, local churches that were not in the lawsuit. However, if the Anglicans press on, they should accept the appeals court's decision without further delay or objection. The appeals court will almost certainly uphold Gergel. With that, the Anglican side should begin the process of accounting for and transferring possession of the diocesan properties and assets.

It's a new day. Easter is here. Spring is here. The schism is at a settlement. The two dioceses have old finality and fresh new leadership. It is time to put the ugly past behind us and proceed boldly into a brighter future. For starters, let's have more meetings of the bishops. 

A LETTER TO THIS EDITOR, 23 APRIL 2022

Today we have another letter to the editor about the schism. I have been impressed in the past few days at the quantity and quality of messages I have received. I value every one, even those with which I disagree, or especially those. Here is a new letter from a person in an ACNA church who asked to be anonymous. 

Hi Dr. Caldwell,

I am a former member of TEC and current member of ACNA. I belong to a church that will keep its building. I know you are currently writing about the recent court decision, which this email is not really about. But if you would like to put this on your blog anyway, please let me remain anonymous.

I do have a few things to share that I think some of your readers might find helpful (and to clarify some possible misunderstandings).

---Those of us who left TEC, left due to the change in beliefs of TEC. We believe TEC has abandoned key theological doctrines such as the Bible being God's inerrant Word, human sinfulness, that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and that salvation is gained only by faith in Christ alone. We do not believe that love will save us from ourselves. God is Love but we don't agree with TEC that it means we can do whatever we want as long as it makes us feel good.

---The above beliefs do not mean that we want "gays in the closet and women in the kitchen." What we want is what Jesus wants, repentant hearts because we (everyone) sins and is in need of a Savior.

---I know many who left TEC but I know not one who will return to TEC in order to continue to worship in their church building. I didn't leave TEC because I love my church building. We worship our Creator, not our building. Yes, many are sad to lose their buildings and we fought hard for them, but we will be OK. We love our buildings but we love our souls even more.

There is much rejoicing and weeping right now in the ACNA and in TEC. Our Bishop reminded us recently of Paul's words to the Romans, "Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep." I think that's a good reminder for all of us.

If we must put this in terms of "winners" and "losers," let us keep our eyes on our heavenly prize and know we are all losers if we don't daily place our sins at the foot of the Cross, proclaim Christ as our Savior, repent, and live our lives with a new heart through a new birth.

_________________________________

We should all appreciate this person sharing his or her thoughts and feelings with us. They speak volumes about the schism. If  this attitude is typical in the departed churches, and I see no reason to think it is not, this letter should be a wake up call to the Episcopal diocese. You may get 14 more buildings back but you may not get 14 more people back.

I am glad to know there are readers of this blog who do not agree with me. We must not let the hard feelings and brokenness keep us from being there for each other. You may have noticed that the day after the SCSC decision this week, Bishop Woodliff Stanley invited Bishop Chip Edgar over for a visit in her office and he accepted. They are showing us a way to care for each other in spite of the many years of civil war. We should all follow their lead.

Photo from The Post and Courier. Apr. 22, 2022. Dare we dream the last line of Casablanca as Rick says to Captain Louis Renault as they walk away together: "Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship"? I think so.

It is also good to know that people who completely disagree with me also apparently read this blog. Immediately after the SCSC decision came down on 20 April, I posted a blog piece here entitled "SC Supreme Court Splits the Baby," and went on that the court had split hairs to reach dubious judgments on which parishes had acceded to the Dennis Canon. The next day, 21 April, A.S. Haley, a longtime blogger usually critical of TEC, posted a PIECE on anglicanink.com entitled "South Carolina Supreme Court Divides the Baby" and went on about the "hair-splitting." Of course, he reach an opposite conclusion to mine. Just coincidence the same words, phrases and thoughts reappeared? As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

What do you think? Send your thoughts to the email address above. 

WHAT NOW?

A common concern among people in both dioceses at this point is what is going to happen now that the SC Supreme Court has finally issued its "final" decision. We all know by now what was in the decision.

First, I am not a lawyer or legal expert and what I offer here is only opinion. I have not talked with any lawyers or officers of any diocese, so I speak here only for myself. Having said that, here is my take on what is going to happen.

In the short run, nothing will change. The litigation is not over, either in state or federal court. The long run is a different matter.

STATE COURT. In my understanding, both sides will be given an opportunity to ask for a rehearing before the SCSC. I doubt that either side will do that. However, if one or both sides do ask for a rehearing, a majority of the justices would have to agree to it. Since the April 20 ruling was unanimous, I cannot believe three or more of the justices would agree to a rehearing. They are glad to get rid of this radioactive problem and certainly do not want to revisit it.

On the breakaway side, surely the big Charleston parishes would not want to jeopardize their gains by going back to the SCSC. St. Philip's and St. Michael's have just been awarded countless millions of dollars worth of the most valuable real estate in South Carolina. The big and powerful parishes have what they want. They will own the property without the possibility that the Episcopal Church would ever regain it. They have to be elated at the SCSC decision.

Likewise, if the Episcopal side asks for a rehearing, they would be jeopardizing the 14 parishes they have been awarded. Half a loaf is better than the none of Judge Dickson's order.

So, I doubt seriously that either side will ask for a rehearing before the SCSC. Even if they do, I doubt seriously the court would grant it. Therefore, it is all but certain the 20 April decision is the final disposition of the properties.

However, either side could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The chance SCOTUS would take it is virtually non-existent. That court has made it abundantly clear it will not touch Episcopal Church cases. On the breakaway side, there would be an advantage in applying for cert in that it would devour months of time before implementation of the SCSC decision. Deny and delay have been the guiding strategies of the secessionists for years. 

If there is no rehearing, and neither appeals to SCOTUS, the 20 April decision is final and awaiting implementation.

Implementation---there is a big problem. The SCSC would issue a Remittitur to the circuit court. One would expect this time the SCSC to be explicit about what they wish the lower court to do (as opposed to 2017). However, even if they are explicit, it will be up to the circuit court judge (Edgar Dickson) to actually carry out the order. He could take his own sweet time. Considering that he spent two and a half years dragging out this case (2017-2020) before finally issuing his order (most of which was overturned by SCSC), what would keep him from doing the same again, or taking even longer? He is looking at retirement soon. So, it is impossible to know how long the Remittitur will languish in the circuit before it is actually implemented and the Episcopal diocese gets its property back. It could be years.

FEDERAL COURT. The Anglican diocese has appealed U.S. District Court Judge Richard Gergel's 2019 decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Richmond. This case concerned the ownership of the pre-schism diocese (not the local parishes which was the subject of the state court lawsuit). Gergel ruled that the Episcopal Church was hierarchical and that the Episcopal diocese was the only heir of the old diocese. He said the breakaways had formed a new organization that had no claim to the pre-schism diocese. He even issued an Injunction forbidding the breakaways from claiming to be in any way the historic diocese. It is this decision the Anglican contingent has appealed to the Court of Appeals.

In my opinion, there is virtually no chance the appeals court will overturn the Gergel decision. Gergel is a brilliant judge who has written a brilliant decision. I am all but certain the appeals court will affirm Gergel. 

What then? I suppose the breakaways could appeal to SCOTUS, but once again, there is virtually no chance the high court would take the case. And again, the only advantage of an appeal would be to devour months of time before actually handing over the entity of the diocese that the breakaways have controlled for a very long time.

On the issue of who owns the old diocese, I think it is all but settled in favor of the Episcopal side; however, it could be a year, or more, before the Church could actually start to repossess the assets. Since the secessionists have controlled the assets of the old diocese for so long, I cannot imagine the difficulty of making an accounting of everything involved. That alone is bound to require a long time, if it is even possible. At least the ready tangibles as the Camp and the bishop's residence should be relatively easy to repossess.

Another issue I have raised before is the disposition of the 11, or so, local churches that were not in the lawsuit but remain in the breakaway diocese. Will the Episcopal side go to court claiming ownership under the Dennis Canon? This will be for the diocesan and national authorities to decide. However, since the SCSC has already set the precedent that a local church must clearly accede to the Dennis Canon, the Church side would have to produce documentation on each local church to show accession. This would have to be on a case by case basis, as it was with the 36 parishes in question. So, it remains an open question of whether the Church side will attempt to repossess these churches that were outside of the lawsuit. As of now, they are all parts of the Anglican diocese.

In sum, one should not expect anything to change right away. In the next few months I think we will see the SCSC decision being sent down to Judge Dickson and the U.S. appeals court ruling on the appeal. After that will come the implementation of 1-the SCSC decision, and 2-Gergel's order. I expect this phase to take quite a while; and I expect the Anglican side to throw up every roadblock imaginable to delay the inevitable. They have a track record of this.

When the dust finally settles, the Episcopal diocese will hold the legal entity of the historic diocese and all of its assets including Camp St. Christopher along with nearly half the local churches. The secessionists will hold most of the local churches, including all of the large parishes (except for the largest of them all, Grace Church, of Charleston). They will have to create a new diocesan apparatus, that is, unless they melt into the ACNA Diocese of the Carolinas, led by Bishop Steve Wood.

So, in the end, three major assertions the old diocesan leaders assured the people, before the schism, would happen did not, in fact, happen: 1-the diocese could leave the Episcopal Church intact. The federal court disproved this. 2-the local churches would own their own property regardless of what they had done about the Dennis Canon. The SC Supreme Court disproved this. 3-the diocese could leave TEC and remain "Anglican." In fact, when it left TEC it also left the Anglican Communion. It joined the Anglican Church in North America which is Anglican in name only. It is not now and certainly never will be in the Anglican Communion.

This is not to say the schismatics lost on every front, not at all. They removed most of the local Episcopal churches in lower South Carolina from the Episcopal Church. Most of all, they joined like-minded people to oppose the human rights of homosexuals and women. This is a considerable gain for the social reactionaries in the contemporary American culture war, which is what this schism has always been about. 

LETTERS TO THIS EDITOR, 22 APRIL 2022

Today I am posting two thoughtful letters to the editor that everyone will find interesting and worthwhile:

April 21, 2022

Hello Ron,

Thinking in terms of a "win" after so much heartbreak and loss is crazy. But putting that truth aside, I can't see yesterday's SCSC ruling as anything but a win for The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. After all, didn't we agree with Bishop vonRosenberg's offering the breakaways a deal years ago in which they would get the churches they wanted and we would get Camp St. Christopher and all other diocesan property as well as the corporate entity of the diocese? It seems to me this ruling (along with Judge Gergel's) gives the diocese's Episcopalians what we were long ago willing to settle for, plus 14 more parishes. So from that standpoint this seems like a "win" for the Episcopal Church if there can be such a thing in a terribly sad and unnecessary battle.

But doesn't winning or losing in this seem somewhat less important now, as we wonder what winning or losing will look like in Ukraine...a far, far worse "sad and unnecessary battle"? Did God have a hand in dragging these court cases out until this very time so that we would see it all from a different perspective? If so, it worked for me...

Nancy Gault

________________________________

Dear Ron,

It is probably inappropriate, and almost certainly unseemly, to speak of "winners" and "losers" in the wake of a ruling like the one handed down on April 20, 2022.

Appearances to the contrary, the decade-long conflict was not a boxing match. It was a divorce; as with any divorce, the overarching consequence is loss, regardless of who walks away with what.

That said, for those who feel the need to declare a "winner" and a "loser," it might be well to consider the actual facts resulting from the ruling:

At noon on April 19, 2022, the Episcopalians were in possession of all the property they had held since 2013. At noon on the following day, they still had all that property, PLUS fourteen additional parishes PLUS Diocesan House on Coming St., PLUS the bishop's residence on Smith St., PLUS Camp St. Christopher.

At noon on April 19, 2022, the "Anglicans" were still in possession of all the property they had held since 2013. At noon on the following day, they had fourteen FEWER parishes and had LOST Diocesan House on Coming St. LOST the bishop's residence on Smith St. and LOST Camp St. Christopher.

Barring some truly improbable reversal, which is difficult to imagine at this point, such are the facts. In terms of who "won" and who "lost," each person is of course free to come to his/her own conclusion based on these facts.

Christopher Rivers

__________________________________

RE: first letter.

Thanks for this Nancy. Yes, in June of 2015, the Episcopal side offered the secessionists a deal in which the Episcopalians would surrender claim to all 36 parishes in question in return for the entity of the old diocese. The breakaways turned down the offer instantly and ridiculed it to boot. (I suspect they thought they were going to win it all in court.) Look what they would have now if they had taken the offer and look at what they would have spared everyone involved in the nearly seven years since.

RE: second letter.

Agreed, it is inappropriate to talk about winners and losers. In a sense everyone involved lost. It has indeed been a long and bitter divorce. How the sides go forward now will speak loudly to their understanding of the Christian religion.

I encourage you to share your thoughts about the recent events with us. Send e-mail to address above.

A LETTER TO THIS EDITOR, 21 APRIL 2022

As you might imagine, this blog has had thousands of hits in the last two days, and I have received numerous e-mails, all of which I appreciate. Lots of people want to know what is going on in the schism in South Carolina and want to share their thoughts with me. I often think I learn more from others than they learn from me, the same belief I had in my years of teaching. 

Here is one e-mail from today that I know everyone will enjoy reading:

Hi Ron,

FINALLY! We may have reached the end. Time will tell. I will not believe it until there is an Episcopal Church vestry installed in my church and legal documents made public that return the property to the Episcopalians. PLEASE have a competent attorney draw up those documents.

I have followed this all along and have read the vast majority of the legal briefs and opinions. Today I believe the entire matter could have been avoided if those lawyers used by the parishes over the years had been competent and qualified to understand the requirements to create a trust in compliance with South Carolina Trust Laws. I know, with years of personal observation, that often times organizations use professional people who are members of their organization to handle things, either gratis or at reduced costs. If so, in this matter some may have gotten what they paid for.

In its finality, the SCSC used a loose interpretation of SC trust law to divide the parishes between the two competing dioceses, and extract themselves from the 2017 opinion for which some had a change of heart after the opinion was issued. To expect even a lay person like myself to believe that they expected the circuit court to review this matter and make needed adjustments to their collective opinion is ludicrous. Where was the instruction to the circuit court to do so? Was there a remand or wasn't there? They should have taken their own advice and "put it in writing" when they sent the matter back to the circuit court. Seems to me that, without written instruction to the circuit court, there must have been a lot of off-the-record communication between the SCSC and the circuit court judge. The good 'ole boy network hard at work. It doesn't go unnoticed that the largest churches in Charleston remain with the disassociated diocese.

Larry Wilson

___________________________________

Thanks to Larry for sharing this with us.

I encourage you to send your thoughts to me. If appropriate, I will post either with or without your name, as you wish.

Reactions to yesterday's decision have been a bit slow to appear. Some are grieving, as the rector of Old St. Andrew's who sent out an E-MAIL telling his people he would keep up the legal fight. Apparently some people are having trouble accepting the reality of the hour. On the other hand, over at some big parishes, I can hear the champagne corks popping. This is a tremendous victory for ST. PHILIP'S of Charleston which has been at war with the Episcopal Church for seventy years, starting with the civil rights movement in the 1950's. (There is a theory that the schism was really a belated backlash against integration.) They finally won their war. They kicked the "liberals" off their property. No doubt they and their fellow travelers are celebrating their big victory.

So, whether you are grieving or celebrating, share your reactions with us. E-mail at the above address.

THE POST-SCHISM LINE UP OF THE LOCAL CHURCHES

Numerous people have asked me about the placement of certain local churches after yesterday's SC Supreme Court ruling. So, I think it would be appropriate today to go over a line up of the local churches that were in the pre-schism diocese. This would not include the congregations that have formed since the schism of 2012.

I must emphasize this is UNOFFICIAL. This is my own accounting. I speak for no one other than myself. 

I assume the final settlement of the local churches has been made. However, both sides could challenge yesterday's ruling. They could ask the SCSC for a rehearing. It is exceedingly unlikely the court would agree. They could hardly wait to get rid of that hot potato. They do not want it back. The sides could also ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case. This is equally dim. For years SCOTUS has refused to take TEC cases. Bottom line---it is all but certain yesterday's decision is final. I am proceeding on that assumption.

There were 36 parishes in the original lawsuit of the secessionist entity against the Episcopal Church. 7 of these were given their properties in the 2017 SCSC decision (there were 8 listed in the lawsuit but 2 referred to one parish leaving a total of 7 parishes). This was the only part of that decision that Judge Dickson implemented upon the Remit from SCSC. One of these 7 was St. Andrew's, of Mt. Pleasant, that is now in the ACNA Diocese of the Carolinas. That leaves 6 in the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina (Christ the King, Pawleys Island; St. Matthew's, Darlington; St. Paul's, Conway; Prince George Winyah, Georgetown; St. John's, Florence; St. Matthias, Summerton).

On yesterday, 15 parishes were added to the 6, for a total of 21 in ADSC. However, there were local churches that were not parts of the lawsuit but remained with the secessionist party. I count that number at 11. If we add the 21 to the 11, we get a total of 32 local churches from the pre-schism diocese that are now parts of the ADSC.

I will return to the 11 momentarily.

On the Episcopal Church side, 20 pre-schism local churches remained with the continuing Episcopal diocese. 14 were added yesterday, for a total of 34.

Final score = ADSC 32;  EDSC 34.

I  must emphasize these numbers are only for the local churches that existed before the schism. Both dioceses added numerous missions and parishes after the schism of 2012. These were not considered in this accounting. 

As of the SCSC decision of 4-20-2020, this is how the local churches of the pre-schism diocese now line up in the two dioceses:

THE 21 CHURCHES OF THE LAWSUIT NOW IN THE ANGLICAN DIOCESE OF SC:

1- Beaufort,  St. Helena's

2- Bennettsville,  St. Paul's

3- Bluffton,  Church of the Cross

4- Charleston,  Church of St. Luke and St. Paul

5- Charleston,  St. Michael's

6- Charleston,  St. Philip's

7- Conway,  St. Paul's

8- Darlington,  St. Matthew's

9- Edisto,  Trinity

10- Eutawville,  Church of the Epiphany

11- Florence,  All Saints

12- Florence,  St. John's

13- Georgetown,  Prince George Winyah

14- Johns Island,  Our Saviour

15- Orangeburg,  Church of the Redeemer

16- Pawleys Island,  Christ the king

17- Pinopolis,  Trinity Church

18- Summerton,  St. Matthias

19- Summerville,  St. Paul's

20- Surfside,  Church of the Resurrection

21- Yonges Island,  Christ/St. Paul's

THE 11 CHURCHES NOT IN THE LAWSUIT:

1- Barnwell,  Holy Apostles

2- Dillon,  St. Barnabas

3- Florence,  Christ Church

4- Goose Creek,  St. James

5- Grahamville,  Holy Trinity

6- Hagood,  Church of the Ascension

7- Marion,  The Advent

9- Orangeburg, St. Paul's

10- Pineville, Church of the Redeemer

11- Sullivans Island,  Holy Cross

Since these 11 were not parts of the lawsuit and were not listed in the settlement, what is their status? At the moment, they align themselves with the Anglican Diocese of SC. I do not know if the Episcopal Church will initiate legal action to recover these properties. This will be up to the diocesan authorities.

THE 34 CHURCHES OF THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE:

1- Allendale,  Church of the Holy Communion

2- Charleston,  Calvary Church

3- Charleston,  Grace Church

4- Charleston,  Church of the Holy Communion

5- Charleston,  St. Mark's

6- Charleston,  St. Stephen's

7- Charleston,  Church of the Good Shepherd

8- Charleston,  Old St. Andrew's

9- Charleston,  Holy Trinity

10- Charleston (James Island),  St. James' 

11- Charleston (Johns Island),  St. John's

12- Cheraw,  St. David's

13- Denmark,  Christ Church

14- Denmark,  St. Philip's

15- Estill,  Church of the Heavenly Rest

16- Fort Motte,  St. Matthew's

17- Hampton,  All Saints'

18- Hartsville,  St. Bartholomew's

19- Hilton Head,  St. Luke's

20- Hilton Head,  All Saints'

21- Kingstree,  St. Alban's

22- McClellanville,  St. James-Santee

23- Mt. Pleasant,  Christ Church

24- Myrtle Beach,  Trinity Church

25- North Charleston,  St. Thomas

26- North Myrtle Beach,  St. Stephen's

27- Pawleys Island,  Holy Cross Faith Memorial

28- St. Stephen,  St. Stephen's

29- Stateburg,  Church of the Holy Cross

30- Summerville,  St. George's

31- Summerville,  Church of the Epiphany

32- Sumter,  Church of the Holy Comforter

33- Walterboro,  St. Jude's

34- Wedgefield,  St. Augustine's

I must stress again this is my own accounting. It is not official.

I have much more to say about yesterday's ruling of the SCSC but will save it for other blog pieces. I suggest for the moment we just process what has happened. There will be plenty of time later to talk about "winners" and "losers" and do post-mortems and Monday morning quarterbacking.

The faithful Christians of both dioceses in lower South Carolina have gone through a great deal of stress and heartache for many years now. Exhaustion is the universal feeling these days. I think at this crucial moment in the history of the schism, we should take a moment to decompress and exhale and remember that God is still with us. Peace. 

 

REFLECTIONS ON THE SC SUPREME COURT DECISION OF APRIL 20, 2022

On today, 20 April 2022, the South Carolina Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited DECISION on the Episcopal Church's appeal of Judge Edgar Dickson's order of 2020. The SCSC held a hearing for this appeal on Dec. 8, 2021. Dickson had found all in favor of the secessionist diocese, now calling itself the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina. 

Today the SCSC affirmed in part and reversed in part Dickson's order.

A recap of events:

---2017, the SCSC issued a DECISION with three majority opinions: (1) 8 parishes owned their own properties, (2) 28 parishes were property of thre Episcopal Church, and (3) Camp St. Christopher was property of the Episcopal diocesan trustees (see p. 77).

---SCSC denied a rehearing. SCOTUS denied cert (appeal).

---SCSC issued a Remittitur and sent its decision to the circuit court (Judge Dickson).

---2020, Dickson interpreted the 2017 SCSC decision to mean that all property, local and diocesan belonged to the secessionist parties.

---The Episcopal Church and diocese appealed Dickson's order to SCSC.

---Today, SCSC published its decision upholding some and overturning some of Dickson's order. This replaces the 2017 decision  and Dickson's order.

In a nutshell, today's decision keeps all of the 2017 SCSC opinion except that it expands the number of parishes in the hands of the secessionists from 6 to 22. In other words, it adds 15 parishes to the list of local churches not property of the Episcopal Church. 

To begin, however, Justice Few, writing for the court, declared that the SCSC 2017 decision was not final:

The primary issue before the Court today, however, is the first question: whether the 2017 Court made a final decision as to all real property owned by the twenty-nine Parishes. We hold it did not.

This was a fundamental defeat for the Episcopal side and victory for the secessionists who had argued all along that the 2017 decision had left the property question unresolved.

In fact, the 2017 decision stated explicitly the majority decisions on property (on page 77):

1) with regard to the eight church organizations which did not accede to the Dennis Canon, Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Kittredge, and I would hold that title remains in the eight plaintiff church organizatrions; 2) with regard to the twenty-eight church organizations which acceded to the Dennis Canon, a majority consisting of Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Hearn, and Acting Justice Pleicones would hold that a trust in favor of the national church is imposed on the property and therefore, title is in the national church; and 3)with regard to Camp St. Christopher, Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Hearn, and Acting Justice Pleicones would hold title is in the trustee corporation for the benefit of the associated diocese.

The fact stands that the SCSC did make a final decision on property in 2017. It issued a Remittitur to the lower court to carry out its majority decision. If it had wanted the lower court to relitigate the property issues it would have issued a Remand order or at least a directive to the lower court of what it expected. It did not.

Judge Dickson recognized the existence of the majority decisions when he ordered the implementation of the first one, on the disposition of the eight parishes which were found to own their properties. He refused the other two.

Today's decision had no problem with numbers one and three, only with number two. So, it too recognized the existence of three majority decisions from 2017.

So, if the only real change from the 2017 to the 2022 decision is on property disposition, how does today's order go about it? What has changed?

It all boils down to one question---accession to the Dennis Canon. The Episcopal Church adopted the Canon in 1979. It required that all local property to be held in trust for the Episcopal Church and its local diocese. If a parish voted to leave TEC, it would forfeit its property to the trustees. The Diocese of South Carolina also adopted its own version of this Canon in 1987.

What Justice Few tries to do is rule on whether each individual parish had agreed to this Canon.

There are several problems with this approach. First and foremost, the Episcopal Church is an hierarchical organization governed by a General Convention then a diocese. All parishes and missions are subject to the authority of the national church and local diocese. Parishes are not independent units able to pick and choose which rules they will follow. Time and again, courts have ruled TEC to be hierarchical. This includes the SCSC, in 2017 as well as the federal court in Charleston.

Next comes the problem of defining accession to the Dennis Canon. Under hierarchy, and the First Amendment, local parishes do not have the right to deny the Dennis Canon. However, the litigation in SC has always been about whether the local parishes had acceded to the Canon under state law. We have had three widely varying opinions so far. In 2017, the SCSC said 8 local parishes had not acceded to the Dennis Canon while 28 had acceded to it. In 2020, Judge Dickson ruled that no parish had acceded to the Canon. Now, in 2022, the SCSC says 15 of the 29 parishes that the 2017 court said acceded really had not. So now, the SCSC declared a total of 22 local churches did not accede while 14 did.

The reason for this confusion is the vagueness of the state law. SC law says a deed holder has to create in writing, in "some legally cognizable form" a trust for another party. It cannot be imposed from the outside. "In writing" and "legally cognizable" were not defined or clarified. They remain subject to interpretation. And, there is the core of the problem. Whose interpretation?

All three interpretations (2017, 2020, 2022) were drawn from the same documentary evidence introduced in the court record. 

In today's decision, Justice Few goes case by case among the 29 parishes giving his opinion on whether the parish had set up a trust for the Episcopal Church. Here he starts splitting hairs. Actually none of them made an explicit written document creating a trust for TEC. 

Few declared that accession to the Dennis Canon did not have to be explicit but had to be what he considered close. Here is where interpretation crept in. And so he looked for words in the parish documents that he thought were or were not close enough. Words that failed the test were such as:  accordance, accord, acknowledge, purpose, pledge, pursuant, and recognition. Parishes that had incorporated these words into their allegiance to the Episcopal Church had not acceded to the Dennis Canon, he ruled. Never mind that all parishes were part of the diocese that had set up its own Dennis Canon in 1987. Accordingly, Few reckoned that 15 parishes were in the failing group, that is, they had not acceded to the Dennis Canon.

Then, Few found that 14 parishes had incorporated certain words in their documents:  "adopt," "accede" and "Canon." If a parish used these, it automatically acceded to the Dennis Canon and set up a trust for TEC and its diocese. It did not seem to matter if the word "Canon" only appeared in "The Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church" which is actually the governing document of the national church. There is another for the diocese.

Thus, the whole decision on whether to throw a parish into one pile or the other rested on the words they had used in documents from years ago. I am sure there are many parish leaders today who wished their forebearers had used different words. What a difference a word would have made.

And so, we have some questionable interpretations from parish to another. For instance, when St. Helena's says "this parish from henceforth pledges to adhere to the doctrines, discipline, and worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" it is not good enough to mean the Dennis Canon. Even terms more explicit were often not good enough, e.g. All Saints of Florence, "The By-Laws of All Saints' Church are drawn with the recognition that as a part of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, we are bound by the Constitution and Canons of the National Church and the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese of South Carolina." Good enough for accession to the Dennis Canon? No. All Saints was tossed into the 15 stack of non-accession.

Millions of dollars worth of property is being decided by splitting hairs. What constitutes accession to the Dennis Canon is a matter of opinion. Few's is not convincing, at least not to me. It is clear all of these local parishes were part and parcel of the diocese and the national church. All of their documents said as much, so parsing a word or phrase should be extraneous.

Another puzzling and bewildering part of today's decision is the page of the Chief Justice, Donald Beatty. In 2017, he joined the majority in all three decisions, the only justice to do so. Most importantly, he wrote in his opinion (p. 37-38):  "However, I agree with the majority as to the disposition of the remaining [28] parishes because their express accession to the Dennis Canon was sufficient to create an irrevocable trust."

In today's decision, Beatty is saying something else. He wrote, "As I explained during oral argument in this case, I did not vote to end the case in 2017. Rather, I intended to reserve final judgment as to each individual Parish until the circuit court decided on remand whether each individual Parish acceded to the Dennis Canon." 

With all due respect to the Chief Justice, the published and printed record from 2017 shows something different. He did join the majority then. The majority said very clearly that 28 parishes had acceded to the Dennis Canon. In the quote above, Beatty had said their express accession was sufficient. He did not remand the case to the circuit court. The SCSC issued a Remittitur. That is not a remand. A Remittitur is a directive to implement a decision. The SCSC did not direct the lower court to decide what parishes had acceded. That decision had been made by the majority in the 2017 opinion. It seems to me Beatty is inexplicably inconsistent between the 2017 and 2022 decisions.

Today's ruling also contains several factual errors. In one, Few said the schism occurred in 2010. It occurred in 2012, Oct. 15, 2012 to be exact. In another, he wrote the Episcopal diocese organized after the schism. Actually, it reorganized then. It had existed since 1785. In another, Christ, St. Paul's of Conway apparently means Christ/St. Paul's of Yonges Island. St Paul's of Conway was one of the 8 parishes the 2017 decision had found owned its own property.

So, what now? The only appeal possible for today's decision would be to the U.S. Supreme Court, but on what basis?SCOTUS has been entirely reluctant to take Episcopal Church cases. I expect the chance they would take an appeal from the SC Supreme Court would be nil. So, it is all but certain this is the end of the road as far as the state courts in South Carolina go. Soon we can expect the federal appeals court to take up the secessionists' appeal of Judge Gergel's order which found all in favor of the Episcopal Church side. I expect the chance the appeals court will uphold Gergel to be very high. If Gergel stands, the Episcopal side will own the legal entity of the old diocese. 

It looks as if we are about to arrive at the end of a very long and tortuous road. It has been nearly ten years. God only knows how much money has been spent. We do know the heartache and brokenness.

And all this to keep gays in the closet and women in the kitchen. What a waste. What a shame.

To put this in context, the anti-Episcopal movement began in earnest in the 1990's. Its aim was to destroy or greatly diminish the Episcopal Church in order to reduce its "liberal" influence in American life. This hostile movement found fertile ground in lower South Carolina. Hence the schism of 2012 and the ensuing legal war. The Church's opponents have not destroyed the Church but they have gone a long way to wound her in one of her oldest and strongest bastions. In this regard, we would have to admit the anti-Episcopalians have finally won a certain measure of success. The schism has rent the church asunder in lower South Carolina. Yet the Episcopal Church survives and shouts as loudly as ever for love of God and of our neighbors.  

S C SUPREME COURT SPLITS THE BABY

The South Carolina Supreme Court DECISION of today divides the 29 parishes in question between the two parties. 15 of the parishes were recognized as owning the property while 14 of the parishes were recognized as belonging to the Episcopal Church. Here are the lists:

15 OWNING THE PROPERTY, i.e. not property of the Episcopal Church:

---Trinity Church, Pinopolis

---St. Philip's Church, Charleston

---St. Michael's Church, Charleston

---The Church of the Cross, Bluffton

---The Church of the Epiphany, Eutawville

---St. Helena's Church, Beaufort

---Christ St.. Paul's, Conway [Christ/St. Paul's, Yonges Island?]

---Church of the Resurrection, Surfside

---Church of St. Luke and St. Paul, Charleston

---St. Paul's Church, Summerville

---Trinity Church, Edisto

---St. Paul's Church, Bennettsville

---All Saints Church, Florence

---Church of Our Saviour, Johns Island

---Church of the Redeemer, Orangeburg

14 PROPERTY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH:

---Church of the Good Shepherd, Charleston

---Church of the Holy Comforter, Sumter

---St. Bartholomew's Church, Hartsville

---St. John's Church, Johns Island

---St. Jude's Church, Walterboro

---St. Luke's Church, Hilton Head

---St. David's Church, Cheraw

---St. Matthew's Church, Fort Motte

---Old St. Andrew's Church, Charleston

---Church of the Holy Cross, Stateburg

---Trinity Church, Myrtle Beach

---Holy Trinity Church, Charleston

---Christ Church, Mount Pleasant

---St. James' Church, James Island

CAMP ST. CHRISTOPHER

The SCSC ruled that the Camp and all diocesan and trustee property of the pre-schism diocese remains with the Episcopal Diocese.

NAMES, STYLES, EMBLEMS, AND MARKS

The SCSC deferred to the federal court to rule on this issue. The U.S. District Court ruled entirely in favor of the Episcopal Diocese. That decision is now on appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond.

I will return soon with more commentary. 

PEARSON APPARENTLY MOVING TO VIRGINIA

Mrs. Andrew Pearson (Lauren Saddler Pearson ) is the Managing Director and Partner of Somerset Advisory in Birmingham, a financial firm. Apparently over the past few years she has built a successful advisement practice at Somerset. One question about Andrew Pearson's leaving Grace Church, of Birmingham, was what this would mean to herself and her business. Now we know. She is not leaving her firm.

Lauren Pearson sent an undated letter (early this week?) to her clients stating that she and Andrew would be moving in the summer to the vicinity of Charlottesville, Virginia to restore Gen. Patton's boyhood home.

"Andrew and I have the opportunity to restore General George S. Patton's childhood home." It was built c. 1754 and includes a 150-acre farm.

She goes on to assure the clients that Somerset Advisory will continue on as usual. Much work will be done remotely, as it is  now. The offices in Birmingham and Beaufort SC will continue as usual. 

Pearson added that she will be traveling back to Birmingham regularly, probably the first week of each month in order to attend to business.

So, Andrew Pearson will be leaving Birmingham. There was no mention in his letter to the church or in Lauren's letter about future church plans. 

al.com is posting an article about Pearson but it only repeats the letters from Grace Church. Pearson had no comment to add.

There must be much more to this story than is publicly known. The biggest mystery of all is what happened to cause Pearson to leave a brand new congregation that he himself had founded only a few months ago. 

 

ANDREW PEARSON LEAVING HIS NEW CHURCH IN BIRMINGHAM

On yesterday, 12 April, the "leadership team" of Grace Church, in Birmingham, Alabama, sent out an email announcing the departure of the Rev. Andrew Pearson from Grace Church. Find the email here .

The email contains Pearson's letter to his "Church Family" giving his explanation for his leaving "this summer." I suspect there is more to this story than the letter reveals. It does have the sound of someone exhausted: "my tank is empty." Pearson founded this new church less than a year ago shortly after he departed his post as dean of the Episcopal Cathedral Church of the Advent, in Birmingham. Grace Church is in the Anglican Church in North America.

Grace has not found a permanent home. It meets in a synagogue on the south side of downtown Birmingham.

There was speculation at the time of Pearson's departure from the Advent that there would be a mass departure of parishioners from the Advent to follow Pearson out. Apparently this did not happen. 

The timing of this news is curious. Why did this occur in Holy Week? There are many unanswered questions at hand.

 

NOTES,  8 APRIL 2022

"May you live in interesting times," is said to be an old Chinese curse, although its origin is dubious. Uninteresting times would be peaceful, serene, and stable. Interesting times would be strife-filled, tumultuous, and unpredictable. We can all agree, we are definitely living in interesting times. In such times, it is easy to get overwhelmed with the troubles all about us and lose focus on the big picture. We have been in a bitter schism in South Carolina for nearly ten years and still waiting on some elusive resolution. We have been in a pandemic for more than two years watching millions of our fellow human beings suffer and die, including one million Americans. Now we have the worst war on the globe since WWII. The news is so awful these days, I almost dread to turn on my computer or television for fear the new atrocities will be worse than yesterday's. 

Sure enough, this morning came the news of the Russians' most barbaric crime yet, at least of those that have come to light. They fired missiles into a crowd of thousands of innocent civilians waiting at a train station desperate to escape the war. This was after they had bombed one railroad track causing a bottle neck of rail traffic and the build up of a crowd at the station. One missile had the words in Russian, "for the children." The attack killed thirty-nine people and wounded some three hundred. The pictures of the aftermath are beyond gruesome. How can human beings do this to one another, we may ask ourselves in disbelief. We are looking at evil in its most shocking form. God only knows what will be found in Mariupol and the other areas the Russians have attacked. This is not war. It is murderous terrorism and the people who are committing these crimes must be held accountable if we are to have a civilized world.

In order to keep our own sanity amidst all this craziness, I think it is important to bear in mind the big picture of what is going on in the world of our day. Regular readers of this blog will know what I am going to say. The big picture is that we are in the reactionary phase of the great democratic revolution of the Twentieth Century. That century brought the triumph of democracy over monarchism in WWI and over totalitarianism in WWII. Soviet Communism fell a half century later. Democracy did not sweep the entire world but it did large parts of it to become the standard of civic governance. Part and parcel of this revolution was the rise of human rights. In America this translated into freedom and equality for African Americans, women, homosexuals, and the transgendered. Early on, the Episcopal Church resolved to be a champion of freedom and rights; hence, promotion of racial justice, democratized prayer book, and equality and inclusion for women, gays, and the transgendered in the church.

The dramatic and sweeping great democratic revolution was not universally welcomed. Quite the contrary, many powerful forces arose to oppose it or at least some of its effects. A backlash emerged resolved to stop, roll back, or destroy the democratic revolution. Every great revolution in history is followed by a counter-revolution led by forces that feel the most threatened by the revolution. This is the phase we are in now. We are witnessing a great clash between the force of the revolution and the elements of the counter-revolution who are struggling to keep the pre-revolutionary order.

In America, this has brought in a culture war. The white male power structure has formed a backlash and with the help of other anti-democratic elements has put up a fierce reaction. President Trump rode into power on this reactionary wave. In numerous state legislatures across America laws are bring passed by reactionaries to diminish the revolutionary changes. These will reduce voting among minorities, the ability of women to control their own bodies, the rights of the transgendered, and even equality for gays. There is a concurrent war on books promoting equality and inclusion. 

The schism in South Carolina is part of this culture war. Social reactionaries in the Episcopal Church in lower South Carolina organized to remove the diocese from the national church in order to keep homosexuals and women from having equality and inclusion in the local churches. For ten years, the reactionaries have been using the courts to further their cause. If they can convince the justices of the SC supreme court that this is a fight of conservatism over liberalism, they may prevail in that court. If so, they would wind up with the local properties. We are still waiting on a judgment of the court.

The Russian war on Ukraine is also part of the reaction against the great democratic revolution. Putin is a dictator, an anti-democratic ruler. Ukraine is a democracy on his doorstep. He has declared Ukraine does not exist. If he has his way, he will stamp out the country including its democracy.

If history is our guide, and I see no reason to think it is not in this case, the prevailing revolutionary forces will win out although perhaps with significant changes. The reactionary forces will not destroy the revolutionary ones but they can do great damage along the way. Evidence number one is the war in Ukraine.

And so, in the big picture, the great democratic revolution moves on as the greater prevailing force in history. Right now we see a tremendous mile marker in that revolution in America, the first African American woman on the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is a tremendous leap forward. To know just how big this is one has to be a southerner of my age range. Growing up in the Jim Crow south, the idea of a black person on the U.S. Supreme Court would have been unthinkable, let along a black woman. To really understand the great democratic revolution in America, one has to know how life has changed. I am here to tell you the change is incalculable, and I thank God and the good people of America for every bit of it. 

And so, let us keep the big picture in mind as we try to wrestle with the awful trials and tribulations in our lives these days. History is moving in the right direction but it does not move at an even pace. The great democratic revolution is the predominate historical force of our age. And so, the reactionaries will not prevail in the end. Putin will not win. Although battered and bruised, the forces of democracy and human rights will win the day in the world, including little South Carolina.