WALKING THROUGH A DESERT

By Ronald J. Caldwell, PhD, Professor of History, Emeritus

The Episcopal Church diocese in South Carolina announced some good news today. In a small but important step, reconciliation and peace are at work replacing division, suffering, and animosity. Bishop vonRosenberg's fondest and noblest wish is for reconciliation to heal the broken and hurting world of the church. He has done everything in his power to promote such.

On Tuesday, September 16, he rejoiced at the return and reinstatement of a priest of the pre-schism diocese, the Rev. H. Dagnall Free, Jr. Free had abandoned the Episcopal Church in the schism of 2012 and had been released and removed as a priest in good standing in 2013. He had a comfortable position at St. John's on Johns Island, one of the schismatic parishes. Along the way, Free had a crisis of conscience: "part of what I had to learn is that you can't take anything for granted. God will teach you, and re-teach you." Admitting he had been wrong was no easy task: "It's been kind of like walking through a desert...but I think we're through that now." This married man with teenage children decided to do the right thing even though it would cost him his job, a job he had loved.

In June of 2013, the Standing Committee and Bishop vonRosenberg had no choice under the canons of the Episcopal Church but to remove the ordained clergy who had abandoned the Church. The list contained 103 priests and deacons of the pre-schism diocese who had left the Church. Rather than depose them, however, the bishop decided on release and removal which allowed an easier access for return to the Church. He left the door wide open. Bishop vonRosenberg has done and is doing everything possible to facilitate the restoration of orders to the 103.

On the other side, the independent diocese has done seemingly everything possible to prevent reconciliation. Before the schism, the old diocesan leadership created a monster image for the Church that was fictional but effective. Declaring himself the innocent victim of a corrupt and malevolent destructive force from off, Lawrence wrapped the old diocese around himself and went away with a solid two-thirds of it. The special convention on Nov. 17, 2012 passed a resolution proclaiming that God had made Lawrence the bishop of the diocese and only God could remove him. That is bonding to the max. Shortly thereafter, the independent diocese went to court to sue the Episcopal Church and tied in thirty-five parishes to the lawsuit. That would cement the parishes and their clergy to the Lawrence diocese for a very long time to come. In April of 2013, the standing committee of the independent diocese drew up a form letter for all the clergy to send back to Bishop vonRosenberg. The clergy were not to write their own responses. Then the circuit court trial in July brought the painful division all back as if anyone could have forgotten it. The exchanges in that courtroom were anything but reconciling.

Bishop vonRosenberg has an uphill struggle. He knows it. We all know it. But he has to do it. He has to try to heal a broken church even if it's just one little step at a time. He has to do the right thing.

The Rev. Mr. Free is a hero. What he has done is heroic. My definition of a hero is an ordinary person who goes to extraordinary lengths against the odds to do the right thing. We should all have the greatest admiration and respect for Fr. Free. He has sacrificed much to do the right thing.

The communicants and clergy of the independent diocese should know that they can come home. Home is where you go and they always take you in because you are family, no questions asked. The independent diocese told its people they were the Episcopal Church in the low country and they were in the Anglican Communion. Neither was true. Neither is true. In time, some people are beginning to realize the truth. There is only one Episcopal Church and it's the only legitimate part of the Anglican Communion around here. Home is where we all belong.

See the article about Fr. Free at www.episcopalchurchsc.org/2014-09-18-returning-priest-reinstated.html .


Comments?  E-mail me at     ronaldcaldwell1210@gmail.com  

WHAT CAUSED THE FIVE EPISCOPAL SCHISMS?

By Ronald J. Caldwell, PhD, Professor of History, Emeritus

In investigating the background of the Episcopal Church schism in South Carolina, I have encountered several perplexing problems that do not lend themselves readily to empirical quantification. I have been pondering on these and would like your input on what you think about the most important one of them:

Why did the issue of homosexuality lead to the five diocesan votes to withdraw from the Episcopal Church when earlier highly contentious issues in the Church had not?

Around 1960, the national Episcopal Church moved to an attitude distinctly committed to the social gospel. Common parlance often calls this "liberalism." First came promotion of civil rights, namely for African-Americans, but also for other minorities. Shortly thereafter two other issues loomed large: new prayer book and ordination of women. By the 1970's the Church was committed to a significant revision of the liturgies in the old 1928 Book of Common Prayer as well as to the admission of women to holy orders in the Church. First women were allowed to be ordained priests and deacons, and later bishops. There were other smaller reforms occurring too, but the fact is that three major changes swept through the national church in a relatively short amount of time. To be sure, disgruntled communicants began leaving the Episcopal Church with the start of the social gospel movement; and new out flows occurred with each new reform. Reactionaries fled from the "liberal" Episcopal Church.

The fourth contentious issue, homosexuality, arose around 1990 with the ordinations of openly homosexual men. Through the decade of the 1990's it was a highly contested subject in the Church. Then, in 2003, the Church accepted the first openly homosexual person as a bishop, Gene Robinson.

These four reform movements were not just questions of social policy, they were also questions of theology. Traditionalists wanted to keep the focus in the Church on personal salvation, that is a vertical religion of one person and one God. They saw the social gospel as a dangerous diversion that diluted the main purpose of religion, personal salvation. The traditionalists who stayed in the Church fought a losing battle to stem the tide of the horizontal religion advocated by the social gospel movement, but to them it became a war for the very soul of the Church.

The problem at hand is why the fourth great reform movement, equal rights for homosexual persons, led to votes of five dioceses to leave the Episcopal Church while the three earlier reform movements had not. Shortly after the Robinson episode, the schisms began. Between December of 2007 and October 2012, the authoritative structures of five dioceses declared their separation from the Episcopal Church (San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, Quincy, and South Carolina).

I have discussed this problem with many Episcopalians from ordinary laypeople to bishops. Here are the major theories that have appeared in attempts to answer the question:

1-Cumulative.  The "traditionalists" (a.k.a. conservatives, orthodox, reactionaries) had not liked any of the reforms but had tolerated the first three, at least somewhat. It is interesting to note that three of the five diocesan schisms came from dioceses that had steadfastly refused to ordain women (San Joaquin, Ft. Worth, and Quincy). By the time the fourth great social movement occurred, the traditionalists could no longer tolerate the seemingly never ending reforms. They threw in the towel in exhaustion.

2-Sexuality.  The subject of sexuality and sexual identity affect people differently than the subjects of civil rights, gender, and liturgy. Homosexuality was an issue profoundly more serious to conservatives than any of the earlier ones had been. Conservatives generally hold that God assigns gender and no one has the right to question that or to follow behavior deviating from that.

3-Combination of sexuality and female authority. In 2006, Katharine Jefferts Schori was elected the first woman to be presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church and the first female prelate in the Anglican Communion. Coming on the heels of the acceptance of homosexuals as bishops, it was too much for the ultra-conservatives to take. The far-right dioceses peeled off. In the early 2000s there were 12 dioceses that were solidly and predictably conservative; the majorities in 5 of those 12 voted to leave the Church. 

4-Mechanism.  By the early 2000's as Robinson and Jefferts Schori assumed authority, there was a presumed mechanism in place whereby dioceses could theoretically switch primatial oversight from one Anglican province to another. This had not been on the horizon during the earlier three reform movements. In the earlier cases only individuals, or groups of persons left the Church to form or join splinter group churches. This mechanism formed in the 1990's and early 2000's as conservatives sought to move outside the Episcopal Church and even set up a church to replace the Episcopal Church. One aspect of this was the Chapman Memo; another the Barfoot Memo. In South Carolina at least, and perhaps in the other four too, counter-revolutionaries gained control of the apparati of the diocese in the early 2000's and told the communicants the Episcopal Church was hopelessly in error and they could leave the Church for another primatial authority. Most communicants agreed and went along with the diocesan leadership.

Thus, where does all this leave us? I am still giving this problem a lot of thought and no doubt will continue to do so, but at this point I lean to the first theory: Cumulative. It is not that the others are wrong; on the contrary I think there is truth in all of them. But, it just seems to make more sense to me to see it as the result of a long historical process. It did not happen overnight.

I grew up in a distinctly fundamentalist and independent church. I know Southern fundamentalism very well. Although Episcopalian conservatives are not quite the same, they share much of the common mindset of the old fundamentalists. I believe I understand where the Episcopal traditionalists are coming from. And on this I would emphasize the vertical-horizontal dichotomy. Traditionalists believe very fervently that religion is all about personal salvation: one person and one God. Nothing else really matters in the great scheme of the universe. While they certainly do not avoid charity and care for others, they see the social gospel as an offshoot, that is, not the essence of the Christian religion. They see it as at least dangerous and at most heresy. In the Episcopal Church, the traditionalists, at least the most extreme groups, came to see the Episcopal Church as hopelessly lost by the early 2000's. Thus, the underlying cause of the schism, it seems to me at this point in my research, was the traditionalists' efforts to preserve their view of the pure Christian religion in the only way they knew how, to leave the Episcopal Church and link up with some other foreign elements that shared their religious sensibilities. In this process, it was the issue of homosexuality that was the trigger for this. So, it seems to me the fundamental causes of the schisms were theological. However, the underlying tension was activated in the end by the issue of homosexuality which was the wedge that pried the majorities of the five dioceses away from the Episcopal Church. 

This is all, of course, theoretical conjecture. and open to all sorts of different views. I may change my mind as time goes by and I develop new understandings from the historical evidence.

I would like to know what you think. How would you address the great historical problem at hand:

Why did the issue of homosexuality lead to five diocesan moves to leave the Episcopal Church while three earlier contentious issues in the Church had not?

I invite everyone to share your thoughts with me. E-mail me at:

ronaldcaldwell1210@gmail.com

   

THE SHIP IS STILL ADRIFT

By Ronald J. Caldwell, PhD, Professor of History, Emeritus

The independent diocesan website (www.diosc.com) has posted two letters, both dated August 21. The first is from the chair and the secretary of Global South. It announces "welcome" to the independent diocese for accepting Global South's offer of "pastoral oversight" from the Global South's "Primatial Oversight Council." One will recall that the independent diocesan convention last March unanimously approved a last minute resolution to "accept" the offer of Global South for primatial oversight. The resolution was railroaded through the convention to be rubber-stamped as "providential." The deal was concocted just days before the convention by Lawrence and Mouneer Anis, a close ally of Lawrence, primate of the Anglican province of Jerusalem, and chair of a self-created group of Anglican primates calling themselves "The Global South of the Anglican Communion." It is a coalition of mostly African and south Asian Anglican primates bonded by opposition to social changes coming from the First World, namely equality of rights for women and for homosexual persons. It is closely related to GAFCON which is a shadow government created in 2008 to split the Anglican Communion into "liberal"(Anglo-centric) and "orthodox" (South-centric) branches. A goal of GAFCON is to replace the Episcopal Church by the Anglican Church in North America as the official Anglican entity in the United States.

The second letter posted yesterday was from Bishop Lawrence to "receive with gratitude" the letter from Anis and Ernest.

The resolution passed last March was meaningless. It had absolutely no detail let alone definition of the meachanism of such a thing as "primatial oversight." The new letters are no more enlightening. They clarify nothing. Is the "oversight" from one primate or a group? The convention resolution said the independent diocese could remove itself from the deal at will. How was this "oversight"? What were the obligations of the independent diocese to the oversight primate(s)? What were the obligations of the oversight primate(s) to the diocese? Not one of these questions was addressed.

In reality this is not even a slightly veiled sham. It is nonsense. From the start of the schism, the leaders of the independent diocese told their faithful they are the true Episcopalians of the low country and they are members of the Anglican Communion. Neither was true. This oversight scheme is meant to fool communicants into believing they are part of the Anglican Communion. Global South and GAFCON are self-made groups that are not officially recognized by the Anglican Communion or the Archbishop of Canterbury. They have no authority in the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church is the only legitimate branch of the Anglican Communion in the United States. Period.

Meanwhile, a diocesan "discernment committee" is supposedly at work seeking a permanent link between the independent diocese and the Anglican Communion. First, this committee was hand-picked by Lawrence. It is inconceivable that they would not follow his wishes. Secondly, the group supported by GAFCON in the U.S. is the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). Lawrence has steadfastly refused to join this group for reasons not apparent. The independent diocese is the only one of the five breakaway diocesan groups not to join ACNA. Why not? Of course, ACNA already has a diocese of the Carolinas and it just happens to be headed by Steve Wood, of St. Andrew's in Mt. Pleasant, a rival of Lawrence in the race for bishop in 2006-07.

Alas, the independent diocese is still an anchorless ship adrift at sea in the middle of nowhere going nowhere. How long will the trusting passengers implicitly follow a captain and crew lost at sea?

See the thoughtful essay by Steve Skardon on all this at www.scepiscopalians.com .

IS IT WORTH IT?
--An open letter to the communicants of the independent diocese

By Ronald J. Caldwell, PhD, Professor of History, Emeritus

We have just gone through fourteen agonizing days of a shameful and disastrous scene in what was once known as the most sedate, reasonable, rational, and beautiful of all major denominations. The venerable old establishment church in South Carolina has reached a new low. It lies shattered on the floor of Courtroom D of the Dorchester County Court House in St. George. Will it ever recover? Will its wounds ever heal? Will it ever return to its ancient glory as the premiere religion of the establishment society of South Carolina?

This is an open letter to the majority in that once grand old church, people who have felt the need to leave their ancestral home in the Episcopal Church. Your side will "win" this trial. But when all is said and done, what will you have won? I ask you to consider: Is it worth it? Look at what has happened. Look at the cost and ask yourself, Is it all worth it? I ask you to consider the following factors:

1-On the causes of the split. The old diocesan leaders said the diocese had to leave TEC because of theology, polity, and sexuality. On theology, they said TEC had abandoned the belief in the uniqueness of Christ. On polity they said TEC had acted illegally under its own rules. On sexuality they said TEC was forcing everyone to accept same-sex marriage and transgendered clergy. None of this was true. In fact, TEC has never changed its theology of the uniqueness of Christ. That would take action by the General Convention. It will never happen. On government, TEC operates under a Constitution and Canons which it follows by detailed directions. On sexuality, TEC has allowed diocesan bishops to choose whether or not to have the blessing of same-sex unions. That is not marriage. As for transgendered clergy, all ordinations are at the discretion of the local bishop. He or she cannot be forced to ordain anyone.

The leaders also said that DSC was forced to leave TEC because Bishop Lawrence was mistreated. As I have pointed out in other posts, the public records are very clear that Lawrence was in fact well treated by TEC. Documents show that the Standing Committee planned the schism by unanimous and secret resolution on Oct. 2, 2012 before Lawrence was even informed that he had been certified with abandonment. It was put into effect on Oct. 17, retroactive to Oct. 15. Lawrence refused all efforts of the Presiding Bishop to resolve the crisis after that. In fact, the leaders, and Lawrence, voluntarily left the Episcopal Church. Lawrence was not mistreated. The diocese was not pushed out.

Moreover, the leaders said they had to go to court first because they were about to be attacked by TEC. They did go to court and initiated the first lawsuit, on Jan. 4, 2013 before TEC even had time to reorganize the diocese. There was no sign that TEC was about to attack anyone. The communicants of the old diocese have been misinformed on the causes of the split, on why the diocese left TEC, and on why the diocese went to court. All of this will be clear when the historical record is fully revealed.

2-The old diocesan leaders led the majority to abandon the church of their forbearers and ancestors, a church they had been a part of for 225 years. A great deal of the historic economic, political, and social establishment of South Carolina proudly called themselves Episcopalians. With the possible exception of Virginia, no state in the country was more attached to the Episcopal Church.

3-The old diocesan leaders have developed an institutional structure in the diocese that is far more authoritarian than it has ever been. The bishop has been given the sole power to interpret the constitution and canons of the church, to appoint the deans, and to appoint and dismiss all clergy. The clergy have been given control over local property. For years now, all of the important diocesan councils and committees have been monopolized by like-minded people. For years they have routinely voted unanimously on resolutions. For years they have controlled all public relations in the diocese. Diocesan conventions have become rubber-stamping dumas. Power rests at the top.

4-Since Lawrence became bishop in 2008, the diocese of 29,000 has lost about one-third of itself. 2,000 people left with St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant. About 7,000 people remained with TEC. Forty percent of the clergy remained with TEC. DSC has 52 local churches, TEC has 30. Exact communicant numbers are impossible to know. DSC claims 80% of the old diocese, a figure that is certainly exaggerated. Two-thirds is more realistic.

5-The economic cost has been and continues to be great. The diocese shows declining revenues. Local parishes are challenged to keep up income. Meanwhile, 35 local churches have joined the lawsuit, each with lawyers to pay. There were 40 lawyers attending the trial. The trial lasted 14 days. If each lawyer charges $100/hr (a very conservative figure) and each trial day had 8 hours, that amounts to 112 hours and $11,200 per lawyer. 40 lawyers would cost $448,000. And this is just trial time. It does not count the many hours of lawyers' preparations. A fair estimate for this trial would push a million dollars. Imagine how far that amount would have gone to missionary work and to caring for the poor.

6-The ill will that has been generated goes deep and will likely last quite a while. Before the trial, Lawrence called his opponents "the spiritual forces of evil." Alan Runyan et al went after their courtroom opponents with hard-hitting aggression. Genteel Episcopalianism disappeared in the dust. Memories last.

7-Many local churches have suffered the heartbreak of separation. This is especially true in small cities and towns. Friend has left friend, neighbor has left neighbor as long-term relationships have fallen victim. One has only to speak to the people caught in this to see their pain and anguish.

8-All of this has done great damage to the work of the Kingdom of God in lower South Carolina. Both sides have had to devote so much time, money, attention, and energy into the separation that too much has been lost along the way. This is no way to do Christ's work in the world. Besides, how can a church at war attract new members? People want to go to church for solace and comfort, not for conflict. Most people already have enough of that in their lives.

9-The old diocesan leaders have led the majority off to drift into nowhere. What has happened in South Carolina is unique to South Carolina. When Lawrence staged his dramatic pre-planned walk-out from the House of Bishops in July of 2012, not one other bishop joined him. Not one bishop has followed him since then. Not one other diocese has gone along with South Carolina. Why is South Carolina unique? It's because of the leadership that long ago began deliberately distancing the diocese from the Church. It was a revolution from the top down. Not being a popular revolution, it has not been replicated anywhere else.


The alternate primatial oversight scheme with the Global South is a meaningless sham meant to fool communicants into believing they are in the Anglican Communion. The leaders have not even explained how it works. A discernment committee is at work to decide on new affiliation, but the committee were all hand picked by Bishop Lawrence who has steadfastly refused to join the Anglican Church in North America, the supposed replacement structure to take the place of TEC. The independent diocese has no identity. It is not in the Anglican Communion. It is not recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury or by the official structure of the AC, nor will it ever be.


Thus, the good communicants of the old diocese should ask themselves, Has it been worth it? Is it worth it now? Look at where you have been since you left home, where you are now, and where you are going. Why are you better off now than you were two years ago? Why do you think you will be better off in the future? Again, Is it worth it?

What do you think? I'd like to hear from you. E-mail me at ronaldcaldwell1210@gmail.com

TRIAL REVIEWS

By Ronald J. Caldwell, PhD, Professor of History, Emeritus

A week has gone by since the trial ended; and in that time several useful summaries have appeared. Since I was unable to attend any of the trial, I am awaiting the official trial transcript before I offer my analysis of the whole event.

The best even-handed, non-partisan, although very brief, report came in the Charleston Regional Business Journal on July 31, 2014 (www.charlestonbusiness.com). In it, Ashley Barker described the issues in "South Carolina: Episcopal Fight over Half-Billion Worth of Property Now in Judge's Hands."

On the pro-Episcopal Church side, see Steve Skardon's August 3 article "Legal Roundup: S.C. Breakaways' Hopes Lie in Federal, State Courts" (www.scepiscopalians.com). Skardon may well speak for the attitude among the pro-Church side that the Circuit Court was a lost cause, but that legal matters beyond South Carolina may change everything in the state. Besides the fact that the overwhelming majority of court cases have ended in favor of the Episcopal Church, Skardon reminds us that two big issues are pending: 1-the Episcopal Church in South Carolina's appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond that has been waiting for months; and 2-the Episcopal Diocese of Forth Worth's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court that is now bolstered by three other major denominations: Methodist, Presbyterian, and Greek Orthodox. In short, even though the Episcopal Church may lose temporarily on the local level, this may very well be trumped on the higher levels.

On the pro-independent diocese side, Joy Hunter and Jan Pringle have given us a handy summary "Trial Ends: Highlights from the Trial of the Diocese of SC vs. TEC and TECSC" (www.diosc.com). They held that all of the pro-TEC witnesses failed miserably and that Lawrence's testimony set the record straight about his role. Their article reflects well the old diocesan leadership's attitudes. Long ago they established a strategy of the-best-defense-is-a-good-offense; and it worked remarkably well in the trial. The leaders of the old diocese have every reason to be in a celebratory mood as they have only to await the ruling that everyone knows is coming.

Also on the pro-independent diocese side is the article of A.S. Haley, "Making Sense of the Trial in South Carolina" (http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com). Haley is well-known as the lawyer blogger who gives detailed interpretations of matters of Episcopal Church litigation. In this article he opines at length about the strengths of the diocesan presentations and the failures of the Church side although he was not present in the courtroom. One should bear in mind that Haley was one of the lawyers who argued the secessionist diocesan side against the Episcopal Church side in the recent San Joaquin trial in Fresno. In that trial, Judge Donald Black handed down a tentative ruling on May 5 finding all in favor of the Church side and completely against the secessionist side. Black's words were so clear and simple they merit repeating here: "Diocesan bishops are at all times subject to and bound by the Church's Constitution, Canons and Book of Common Prayer. None of these documents authorizes a diocesan Bishop to waive, to declare null and void, or modify, or amend any of the Church's Constitutions and Canons." Judge Goodstein would do well to ponder those words. 

Another lengthy pro-independent diocese article is by Mary Ann Mueller, "St. George SC: In the Adversarial Courtroom Truth is Lost in the Mix" (www.virtueonline.org). Her views are close to Haley's. She emphasizes the effectiveness of neutral principles in this case.



THE PROBLEM OF THE "DISASSOCIATION" AND THE RENUNCIATION

By Ronald J. Caldwell, PhD, Professor of History, Emeritus

In retrospect, day fourteen, Friday, July 25, was the most important and interesting of the trial, but one that ended abruptly on the most tantalizing points. I could only have wished for more time. The hanging, crucial questions revolved around when and how the diocese made its "disassociation" from the Episcopal Church and when and how Mark Lawrence made his renunciation of vows as an Episcopal bishop.

No doubt Runyan decided to put Lawrence on the stand as the last witness on the last day in order to make a final positive impression on the judge of the innocent local victim persecuted by an errant national organization. By afternoon, however, things were going a little off track as two big issues appeared before the judge: Lawrence's right to act "in good standing" as an agent for the corporation of the diocese, and whether collusion or fraud had occurred against Lawrence and the diocese. Either one of these was a mega-bomb that threatened to blow the case wide open at this very last minute and lead to many more days of trial proceedings delving into the detailed relationship of Lawrence and the Episcopal Church. Realizing that he had pulled himself and his client into the ocean, Runyan immediately scrambled the both of them back into the lifeboat and withdrew his questions. The judge, however, was not so quick to drop the matter. At long last, she seemed really concerned about Lawrence's role in the Church. In one of her last remarks, Judge Goodstein said to Runyan: "There was a renunciation on November 17, 2012, which would then mean that Bishop Lawrence may or may not have had authority to act as a managing agent of the corporation, so again I ask, were there any documents that were executed or actions were taken on Nov. 17, 2012 that have an effect on your argument that the diocese could and did end its accession to the Constitution and Canons of the Church?" This remark seems to reflect a certain desire for clarity in her mind about just what the disassociation and renunciation were, what they meant, and when they occurred. What they meant, of course, was the whole point of the trial. Runyan et al had just spent fourteen days arguing that the diocese was an independent corporation entitled to legal protection of itself and all its assets.

When and how the "disassociation" and renunciation occurred is not difficult to see. A simple review of the public documents reveals a clear picture. As I have pointed out in the post "How and When Did the Schism Occur?" the diocese's own documents held that the "disassociation" happened on October 17, 2012, retroactive to noon, October 15, 2012. Lawrence announced this many times, most notably in his address to the special convention on November 17, 2012. He told the delegates they were there to "affirm" this irrevocable act.

The matter of the renunciation is more problematical. When did Bishop Lawrence renounce his vows as a bishop in the Episcopal Church? Apparently, Lawrence never made a written renunciation of his rights as bishop or his membership in the Episcopal Church. Likewise, I have seen no evidence that he ever make a verbal statement directly renouncing his vows as a bishop. In short, there was no apparent de jure renunciation. However, in my opinion the evidence is very clear that he made a de facto renunciation and did so verbally to the Presiding Bishop by phone on October 17, 2012, retroactive to noon, October 15, 2012. At that time the diocese (and Lawrence certainly included himself in that as its bishop) unilaterally declared its complete and full separation from the Episcopal Church as an independent and sovereign corporation under state law. That meant, of course, that Lawrence was telling the Presiding Bishop, that he had abandoned the Episcopal Church as of October 15. That was the moment at which the diocese, including Lawrence left the Episcopal Church. Abandoning the Episcopal Church would obviously mean giving up his role as a bishop in the Church. Lawrence willfully and voluntarily left the Episcopal Church. He was not forced out. Afterwards, he saw no connection to the Episcopal Church and no reason to follow any rule of the Church; so he never issued a renunciation as called for in Church canons. He said it was all "irrelevant." By the time the special convention met on November 17 the disassociation and his renunciation were already a month old. Once the convention occurred, the Presiding Bishop moved. Seven weeks after his phone call to her announcing the diocese's, and his, removal from the Episcopal Church, the Presiding Bishop finally, formally accepted Lawrence's de facto renunciation of his vows as a bishop in the Episcopal Church (Dec. 5, 2012). Lawrence called this "superfluous." It appears clear to me that Lawrence renounced his vows when he removed himself from the Episcopal Church on October 15.

 Did Mark Lawrence have authority to act as the managing agent of the corporation after its purported disassociation from the Episcopal Church? That is one of the last questions that Judge Goodstein asked; and it was the best one of the whole trial. Unfortunately, I think it would take a great deal more evidence to answer that one than she heard in the trial. But it did suggest that Runyan's relentless hammering of the diocese's rights may not have overly impressed the judge. Runyan maintained that the diocese was always a sovereign and independent entity; therefore, the "disassociation" would have absolutely no effect on Lawrence's authority as the "managing agent" of the corporation of the diocese.

As for when and how the diocese "disassociated" and Lawrence renounced his vows, I think that can be answered fairly easily by examining the well-known documents. In my opinion, the historical records show no doubt that the diocesan leaders, including Lawrence, believed these things happened on October 15, 2012.   

THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF THE TRIAL

By Ronald J. Caldwell, PhD, Professor of History, Emeritus

The trial has ended, mercifully. Yesterday, Friday, July 25, was the fourteenth and final day of the trial. To say that this trial has been remarkable would be an understatement. And, finally, we have our three eye-witnesses to thank for their daily reports: Steve Skardon (www.scepiscopalians.com), Holly Behre (www.episcopalchurchsc.com), and the independent diocese (www.diosc.com). I highly recommend Behre's report from yesterday.

There was only one witness yesterday, Mark Lawrence. Lawyer Runyan put him on the stand as a surprise and then proceeded to go over his history as bishop of the dioceses. Lawrence testified that no one ever asked him to take the diocese out of TEC. They did not have to do that. He had made his attitude to TEC very clear in word and deed before he became bishop. He also said he tried to keep the diocese in TEC. I do not have space here to go into all of that. I'll just say that to me the facts strongly suggest a gradual removal of the diocese from TEC; and I think a longer explanation will make that clear. I am working on just such a manuscript. I do not believe that the removal of the majority of the old diocese from TEC was a random accident.

Runyan also implied in his questioning that TEC had not treated Lawrence fairly. It is absolutely not true that TEC treated Lawrence unfairly. The facts on this are very clear. Church leaders went out of their way to please Lawrence, all to no avail. The Presiding Bishop was foremost in this effort. It was Lawrence who broke away from the Episcopal Church, and he did so voluntarily when he announced such to the Presiding Bishop by phone on October 17. He made it retroactive to October 15 because of the standing committee resolution of October 2 that required the diocese, including the bishop, to "disassociate" from TEC upon "any action of any kind against The Bishop." The special convention of November 17 was only a formality to amend the diocesan constitution and canons. Lawrence could have stayed in TEC and even been cleared easily by the Presiding Bishop if he had sent her a letter of explanation. He refused.

As the judge ended the trial at 3 p.m., she said it would be at least ninety days before she gives a ruling. She also said, "this has been one of the joys of my life." It was an astonishing end to an astonishing fourteen-day trial.



THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF THE TRIAL

By Ronald J. Caldwell, PhD, Professor of History, Emeritus

Yesterday, Thursday, July 24, was the thirteenth day of the trial. Thirteen may be significant as it was the most bizarre day yet. Judge Goodstein's behavior left everyone stunned, shocked and puzzled. I highly recommend reading Steve Skardon's report (www.scepiscopalians.com) as he give many details of the very strange day. Holly Behre's report for the Episcopal Church in South Carolina echoes this and also adds more information (www.episcopalchurchsc.com). The report from the independent diocese describes an entirely different day in court with not a word about Goodstein's peculiar behavior. I will not try to summarize the incident that Skardon and Behre have described so well. After the Judge's door-slamming tantrum and tense return to the desk, she abruptly adjourned court at 1:00 p.m. The trial is set to resume today probably for the last day.

Both sides have rested their cases. Yesterday and today has been reserved for rebuttal witnesses from the independent diocese. This morning's first witness is to be Mark Lawrence. He has been called by his own lawyers. Apparently the trial will conclude today. I imagine everyone will have all eyes on the judge after yesterday's most remarkable scene. 

THE TWELFTH DAY OF THE TRIAL

By Ronald J. Caldwell, PhD, Professor of History, Emeritus

Yesterday, July 23, was the twelfth day of the trial. Once again we have our three daily eye-witness reporters, Steve Skardon (www.scepiscopalians.com), Holly Behre (www.episcopalchurchsc.com), and the independent diocese (www.diosc.com). I recommend all three. Skardon's is most useful as a thoughtful description of the Judge's unchanging attitude. There was no significant change in the proceedings yesterday. Judge Goodstein made it clear again, as if that were necessary, that she is handling this trial on the basis of "neutrality." She sees it only as a property dispute between two parties under state law. She has made it abundantly clear that she has no interest in the governmental structure, much less religion, of the two entities. That all but guarantees a ruling squarely on the side of the independent diocese which has the huge advantage of actual possession of the incorporation and the properties in dispute.

Bishop vonRosenberg testified yesterday trying to describe the organizational structure of the Episcopal Church and the way in which the Church went about reorganizing the diocese after the old administrative structure left the Church en masse. Goodstein apparently regarded all of this as unimportant. The independent diocese reported that the Rev. Kronz testified and directly contradicted the earlier written deposition testimony of Rev. Rickenbaker who said that Kronz and Rev. Fuener approached him in the bishop's search process and asked if he would take the diocese out of the Church intact and with the property. Rickenbaker filed an affidavit last December and made an official deposition for the court this month. Either Rickenbaker or Kronz must be incorrect as they are directly contradictory of each other. I am not aware that Kronz has filed an affidavit or a deposition giving his claims.

The trial drags on through today and most likely into Friday before it will mercifully come to an end. I think we all know by now just what that end will be. It has "appeal" written all over it. 

THE ELEVENTH DAY OF THE TRIAL

By Ronald J. Caldwell, PhD, Professor of History, Emeritus

Yesterday, Tuesday, July 22, was the eleventh day of the trial. Yet again, we have our three daily eye-witness reports, from Steve Skardon (www.scepiscopalians.com), Holly Behre (www.episcopalchurchsc.org), and the independent diocese (www.diosc.com). And, once again, the first two are long, detailed, and useful.

The trial yesterday seemed to be only marking time. It was more of the same in the well-established pattern of the trial: Church lawyers trying to get witnesses and documents admitted while independent diocesan lawyers aggressively interrupting, delaying, blocking and keeping the judge on course. 

There were two witnesses yesterday, one in person and one by written deposition and not in person. Mark Duffy took the stand. He is head of the Episcopal Church archives in Austin TX. He tried to introduce documents from the Church archives relevant to the case, but independent diocesan lawyers objected continuously and succeeded in blocking most of them. The judge's rationale for disallowing them was to remind everyone yet again that this is a case on neutrality and not on hierarchy. Neutrality means that the matter is treated as a property issue where both sides are treated equally, or neutrally. Hierarchy would mean that the court would have to recognize the superiority of the Episcopal Church over the local diocese. Judge Goodstein has repeated almost daily that she is conducting this trial on neutral principles alone. In my mind, that means beyond a doubt that she will rule in favor of the independent diocese. She as much as said so on Monday when she told the Church lawyers they could take up what they wished on appeal. 

The second witness was not present in  person. He was Rev. Thomas Rickenbaker, a retired priest now living in the upstate. He made a deposition in June stating that two members of the bishop's search committee talked with him about the possibility of becoming a candidate for bishop of the diocese of South Carolina during the search in 2005-06. He said they told him point blank that they were looking for someone to take the diocese out of the Episcopal Church intact and with the property in hand. (One should recall that the committee wound up nominating three candidates, all known to be prominent opponents of the Episcopal Church. Two left the Church rather soon thereafter. The third, Lawrence, left the Church in 2012. In order to achieve consents in 2007, he had repeatedly assured nervous standing committees around the country that he had no "intention" of leaving the Church. In order to be consecrated bishop in 2008 he had taken an oath before God and the public that he would conform to the discipline of the Episcopal Church.)

The trial could conclude today, or possibly tomorrow. It appears doubtful that the most important witness in the room will testify. For whatever reasons, both sides have refused to call Mark Lawrence to the stand. Whether Episcopal bishop vonRosenberg will testify remains to be seen.

As more evidence of the Episcopal Church side looking ahead beyond this pre-determined trial, word came yesterday that the Episcopal Church diocese, called the Episcopal Church in South Carolina, has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Episcopal Church diocese of Ft. Worth in its recent appeal to the Court. The Presbyterian Church (USA) and the United Methodist Church also joined in support of the Episcopal diocese. Of course, a Supreme Court ruling on the matter would have a great impact on ongoing litigating in South Carolina and elsewhere.

It has been interesting to observe the way the two sides have handled public relations during the trial in St. George. The independent diocesan side has issued only brief daily reports with little helpful information about the daily proceedings. Their echo chamber on the Internet has also downplayed the trial carrying relatively little about it. After they shredded the first Church witness, McWilliams, they all but ignored the rest. Monday's star witness, Walter Edgar, barely got a mention anywhere in the anti-Episcopal Church blogosphere. On the other side, the pro-Church party has given us long and detailed daily reports and have tried to make the most of it. They have not gotten very far on the Internet because their echo chamber is much smaller and quieter. Why the difference in the way the two sides reported the trial? Two reasons: the trial will be decided by one person, Judge Goodstein, not by a jury and certainly not by the public; and, all signs, from Jan. 4, 2013, point to a foregone conclusion. Thus for the independent diocesan side, there was no reason to roil the waters let alone make a public relations campaign. I think everyone knows how this trial will end. It's just a matter of time before, as Judge Goodstein said, the Church attorneys will make an appeal.

THE TENTH DAY OF THE TRIAL

By Ronald J. Caldwell, PhD, Professor of History, Emeritus

Monday, 8 p.m.:    As we await our three daily eye-witness reports from the courtroom in St. George, there is one preliminary bit of news to report. The Episcopal Church in South Carolina (www.episcopalchurchsc.org) has just made a post that today's star witness was Dr. Walter Edgar. As everyone knows, Edgar is the greatest living authority on South Carolina history. He is also a devoted and very active Episcopalian in South Carolina who is intimately familiar with the inner workings of the Church. A copy of Edgar's comments is now available on the ECSC website. It is 12 pages long. One should also recall that Edgar submitted an affidavit made on February 17, 2013, and filed as part of the ECSC court papers of March 7, 2013, in the United States District Court in Charleston. It is also readily available on the ECSC website.

Edgar reviews the key events in the history of the relationship between the diocese and the Episcopal Church from 1790 to the late twentieth century. I highly recommend these articles, particularly the one released today. It destroys two favorite myths of the independent diocese side 1-that the diocese existed before the Episcopal Church and always remained an independent and sovereign diocese above the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, and 2-the ridiculous assertion made by numerous witnesses in the first week on the Lawrence side that the Episcopal Churches of lower South Carolina were never in the Episcopal Church. 


Tuesday, a.m.:    We now have the daily reports from the courtroom, Steve Skardon's (www.scepiscopalians.com), Holly Behre for the Episcopal Church in South Carolina (www.episcopalchurchsc.org), and the independent diocese (www.diosc.com). I highly recommend the first two as they are long and detailed.


If anyone thought last Friday's dignified proceedings and judicious demeanor would continue, they could forget that right away on Monday morning. The old trial and its judge reappeared as the proceedings moved into the tenth day on Monday, July 21. By all accounts, yesterday was the most tumultuous, and revealing, of the trial so far. And, it all had to do with the appearance of the best-known witness yet, Dr. Walter Edgar, universally admired and respected as the greatest living historian in South Carolina and practically a household name in the state. It was clear from the start that the defendants (Church) were anxious to get his esteemed opinions on the record while the plaintiffs (independent diocese) and their friend, the judge, were equally anxious to keep him off the record at least on issues of hierarchy and religion (he was supposed to talk about a hierarchical church without mentioning hierarchy or religion). Judge Goodstein very clearly showed her hand as she said about Edgar: "At the end of the day, what difference is it going to make? Because here is where my head is: if he is going to testify as to the hierarchical nature of the Church, I get that. I don't need to hear any more about that. It's not going to help me. We won't enforce a hierarchical relationship in this case. You can take that up on appeal...I mean, IF you appeal.(Skardon's report)" Does anyone need any more evidence on how this trial is going to end? Runyan et al are in control now as they have been since they set the agenda on Jan. 4, 2013.


Edgar took the stand at 10:20 a.m. He was allowed to start testifying at 1:45 p.m. That alone speaks volumes about what went on in the courtroom yesterday. Even when he did speak he was instructed not to offer opinions on the meanings of documents or to speak on hierarchy or religious issues. He was interrupted endlessly on objections sustained by the judge. Nevertheless, in spite of every roadblock imaginable, Edgar did testify on the stand for hours and offered powerful evidence of the dependent ties of the diocese to the national church throughout history. Meanwhile the Church lawyers succeeded in getting thousands of pages of documents into the trial record. It seems to me that Edgar's was the strongest testimony given yet on the Church side. It authoritatively demolished the plaintiffs' claim that the diocese existed independently outside the structure of the Episcopal Church from the start in the 1780's. It showed that the plaintiffs had had every reason to fear Edgar's testimony. They had no reason, however, to fear the outcome of this trial.

THE NINTH DAY OF THE TRIAL

By Ronald J. Caldwell, PhD, Professor of History, Emeritus

UPDATE (1 p.m.):  Steve Skardon has made his daily report, a bit belatedly, on his blog www.scepiscopalians.com . It is a lengthy and thoughtful analysis of the day's proceedings that I highly recommend. Thus, we have two very helpful reports from day nine.


(Original post:) Yesterday, Friday, July 18, was the ninth day of the trial. As of this writing (9 a.m. July 19) we have only one usable daily report, Holly Behre's for the Church diocese (www.episcoaplchurchsc.org) . Steve Skardon's has not appeared yet; and the independent diocese has posted a useless account of three sentences, all irrelevant propaganda [later in the day a new, longer report was posted]. If our reporters have grown fatigued, I think we can all understand. It must test the patience of a saint to sit through nine days of this unfunny circus. So, special thanks to Behre for her long, detailed, and insightful report.

Yesterday's session was only half a day. Court adjourned at 12:45 p.m. to resume on Monday morning. The defense (TEC and ECSC) continued its witnesses with two, the Rt. Rev. Clifton Daniel III, and Patricia Neumann. Daniel spoke a long time about the organizational structure of the Episcopal Church, particularly the relationship between the national Church and its dioceses. When a diocese joins TEC it is required to accede to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. The central governing body of the Church is the General Convention. In order for a bishop to have authority in any one diocese, the majority of the bishops and standing committees of the whole Church must agree to recognize that bishop. A bishop gets his or her authority from the Church as a whole, not from a single diocese. Therefore, dioceses cannot exist outside the constitutional structure of the Church. The only way a diocese can leave the Church is by resolution of the General Convention. On cross-examination Daniel pointed out that the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church do not have a provision forbidding a diocese from leaving the Church, but such a rule is implied in the whole process. Neumann was another witness for a local parish. She described her experiences in Trinity Church on Edisto Island.

The main issue of the day was the treatment of some 2,000 pages of documents that the Church lawyers are trying to get into the record of the trial proceedings. The independent diocesan lawyers are trying to block as many as possible. The judge, perhaps reconsidering her injudicious outbursts against the Church lawyers of the day before, seemed to lean to the Church side when she asked those lawyers to bring in witnesses who could explain the documents to her, particularly on what they mean for the relationship of the national Church and the diocese. 

This seemed to be the best day for the Church side. Daniel was an important witness and apparently bolstered the Church lawyers' case. It should be recalled that outside of Bishop Andrew Waldo of Upper North Carolina, no bishop tried harder to make peace and reconciliation with Mark Lawrence before the schism than did Daniel, who was then the bishop of eastern North Carolina. He was the lead consecrator for the installation of Lawrence as bishop in January of 2008. As the head of Province IV, the southeastern U.S., he tried to work with Lawrence on settling down issues. When Lawrence defiantly rejected the Dennis Canon and issued the quit claim deeds, it was Daniel who led a delegation of neighboring bishops to go to Charleston in December of 2011 to try to reconcile this most provocative action. Lawrence, and the standing committee behind him, completely rebuffed the bishops' pleas and dismissed any idea of changing policy.

The independent diocesan lawyers are trying to make the issues 1-that the diocese existed before the Episcopal Church and did not surrender its sovereignty to the Church and 2-the diocese had the right to leave the Church because the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church have no provision against it.

A basic problem is how one defines the term "accession." The Diocese of South Carolina acceded to the C and C of the Episcopal Church until its purported secession in 2012. I define "accession" as acceptance of. The diocese accepted the C and C in its totality. In so doing it had to accept the ultimate sovereignty of the Church. In doing this, the diocese could not remain a separate, independent, self-governing entity. That would be a contradictory impossibility.

As for the idea that a diocese can leave because there is no provision against it, one should also consider the same in the U.S. Constitution. There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution that forbids a state from seceding from the union. Can a state secede? Well, we have been over that. Of all people, the citizens of South Carolina ought to be able to answer that. They tried it and suffered a calamity. South Carolina lost more than any other Confederate state. One quarter of all men in SC between the ages of 18 and 35 were either killed or wounded, the highest casualty rate of any southern state. Her cities were reduced to ashes. Her economy collapsed. The state has never really recovered. Of course, it is implicit in accepting a higher authority that one becomes subject that that authority. It does not have to be spelled out in specific terms in the constitution because it is the constitution. The people who wrote the constitution could not possibly have foreseen every imaginable exigency. That is why they set up courts to interpret the constitution and the law by reading into them what is not explicit.

THE EIGHTH DAY OF THE TRIAL

By Ronald J. Caldwell, PhD, Professor of History, Emeritus

Yesterday, July 17, was the eighth day of the trial. And, once again we have three accounts from our longsuffering reporters Steve Skardon (www.scepiscopalians.com), Holly Behre (www.episcopalchurchsc.org), and (Jan Pringle?) the independent diocese (www.diosc.com). First, thanks to Jan or whoever at the independent diocese for giving us more substantial detail and less spin--and thanks for dropping off the last two propaganda points from the daily report. We started with four, now down to none. We are moving in the right direction. So once again, a big thank you to our three sets of eyes and ears in Saint George; and keep up the good work.

Yesterday's session was a continuation of the defense presentation of its witnesses. It was apparently a rather tumultuous day in which the judge lost her cool on one more than one occasion. Her tenor has changed noticeably since the Church side started its presentations. The biggest disruption came when the Church tried to place on the stand Robert Klein whose name, for whatever reason, was not on the official witness list (read Behre and independent diocese for the opposite accounts of why his name was not on the list). To say the judge became upset with the Church side is to put it mildly. Most of the morning was spent on contentious, if not acrimonious, back and forth between lawyers and between lawyers and judge. In the end, the court refused to allow Mr. Klein to take the stand. After a delay of hours, the defense did get on the stand Leslie Lott, another legal expert, but once again the judge lost her cool when she realized the witness did not have all the notes and documents the judge thought she should have had. Then, things calmed down a bit as three Episcopalians took the stand to describe their experiences in their local parishes during the schism: Rebecca Lovelace of Conway, Eleanor Koets of Summerville, and Frances Elmore of Florence.

Yesterday's session was a reality check for anyone who needed it. It should bring one back to what this trial is all about. A simple review of the "Chronology" section of this blog shows that Judge Goodstein has granted the independent side practically everything it has asked and granted the Church side very little it has asked. Indeed, the fact that the trial is in this court with this judge is not a random accident. Alan Runyan joined Lawrence's legal team in late 2009 soon after the All Saints Waccamaw decision and quickly became the lead lawyer. This son of Baptist missionaries and former Southern Baptist deacon became a tireless advocate for localism, that is rights for local parishes, and for the local diocese against the Episcopal Church. Within three weeks after the schism occurred (Oct. 15, 2012), the standing committee directed Runyan to begin preparing legal proceedings "to protect" the assets of the pre-schism diocese against the Episcopal Church. Two months later, (Jan. 4, 2013), the diocesan lawyers brought suit in this court with this judge against the Church.

Apparently, Runyan and the other diocesan lawyers had learned well from the first four cases of seceding dioceses (San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Quincy, Ft. Worth) in 2007-08, that had not gone so well for the independent dioceses. The South Carolina lawyers resolved to handle things differently. They became much more aggressive. They chose a court and went to court first before the Church side had time to reorganize and get prepared for legal action. It was a brilliant pre-emptive strike. They set the agenda. They did not wait to be attacked and have to fall back into a defensive position. In this case, it is the Church that is on the defensive. Moreover, they brought local parishes (now 35) into the litigation and bound them to the court actions.

It seems to me that the outcome of the present trial is a foregone conclusion. Therefore, it appears to me that what is going on in this trial is not about the trial itself, it is about the appeal. The independent diocesan side has the upper hand now. Both sides are thinking primarily about the appeal that they both know is inevitable. It appears to me that the Church lawyers are trying to get in as much expert testimony and relevant documents as possible into the record and the independent diocesan lawyers are trying to block that. In an appeal, the original court record will be very important. So, good Episcopalians, do not lose heart. The Church lawyers may actually be doing well to lay a strong groundwork for a successful appeal. In my opinion, that's what really matters now.  



THE SEVENTH DAY OF THE TRIAL

By Ronald J. Caldwell, PhD, Professor of History, Emeritus

We now have our three daily eye-witness reports on the court proceedings of the seventh day of the trial, yesterday, Wednesday, July 16: Steve Skardon (www.scepiscopalians.vom), Holly Behre for the Episcopal Church in South Carolina (www.episcopalchurchsc.org), and (Jan Pringle?) for the independent diocese (www.diosc.com). In my opinion, the best of these is Behre's. It is long, detailed, well-organized and well-written. It tells us a good deal about the days events. The worst of these is the independent diocese's report. It is a brief three paragraphs that is almost entirely propaganda. Under its sensationalist headlines, it offers very little of substance. This is regrettable because in the first week, when the independent diocese was presenting its witnesses, the diocese produced some informative reports. However, since the Church side has taken over all we are getting from them is over-the-top propaganda. Therefore, I hesitate to recommend this as a credible source of information on the trial. Note to independent diocese--give us more details and less spin. We already know your talking points by heart. What we out here in the hinterland want to know are the details of the daily trial proceedings. The others have spin too, but it is much less obvious and it is accompanied by a good amount of information. So, lets have more detail and less spin, everybody.

Only one witness occupied the stand yesterday, Martin C. McWilliams, Jr., a professor of law at the University of South Carolina. The focus of his testimony apparently revolved around the original state charter of incorporation of 1973. The charter specifically said that the diocese was incorporated as a non-profit institution in South Carolina under the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. In a nutshell, McWilliams believed the original charter is still in effect because the attempt to amend it in 2010 was improper and illegal. Behre did an excellent job in summarizing his testimony. I will refer you to her report at ECSC. Skardon wrote that the diocesan attorneys turned up the volume in cross-examination of McWilliams and actually chipped away at some of his testimony but did not touch his basic points. If we are to believe the independent diocesan report, a completely different McWilliams testified that the diocesan constitution and canons are superior to the Church's. They gave no specifics to back up the headlines.

The trial resumes today, Thursday, July 17, as the Church side continues presenting its witnesses. The trial is certain to last into next week although we cannot know yet an exact day of conclusion.



HOW AND WHEN DID THE SCHISM OCCUR?

By Ronald J. Caldwell, PhD, Professor of History, Emeritus

Judging from remarks on the Internet, there seems to be some confusion on just when and how the schism occurred. Actually, the documents are clear and are readily available to anyone online. A simple review of these should clear up this issue.

The diocesan website, www.diosc.com, presents a treasure trove of original documents and other sources on the history of the schism. Look under convention, media, and news for the various postings. They can all be easily and freely downloaded. For this, we should all be grateful to the diocesan staff. The most important source of all is Lawrence's bishop's diary that was printed in the annual journal of 2013 for the year 2012. Next is a collection of documents the diocese posted as a news release on Oct. 17 (erroneously listed as Oct. 15) called "Episcopal Church Takes Action..." Through these and other original sources one can get a clear picture of when and how the schism occurred.

As background, two separate movements were going on by the summer of 2012. I have seen no evidence that the people involved in the one knew about the other. One movement was the internal development in the diocese toward disassociation. The other movement was the work of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops.

In the second, the Disciplinary Board received a complaint from a committee of fourteen persons in the diocese. The Board investigated the evidence then voted by majority on September 18 that Lawrence had abandoned the Episcopal Church. I am not aware of any evidence that Lawrence knew about this until he was informed by the Presiding Bishop on October 15.

In the first movement, the internal actions, a few background factors should be recalled. Earlier diocesan conventions had passed resolutions removing diocesan accession to the canons of the Episcopal Church (including the Dennis Canon), and had kept only a conditional accession to the Constitution of the Church. They had also voted to remove all references to the Church from the corporate charter that had originally said the diocese was incorporated "under" the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Moreover, the convention had given the bishop the sole authority to interpret the constitution and canons of the diocese. It was clear the diocese saw itself as a sovereign and independent entity. In addition, Bishop Lawrence had issued quit claim deeds to all parishes in the diocese.

The final crisis began in July of 2012 with the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. The Convention approved two controversial measures, the blessing of same-sex unions and equal rights for transgendered persons. Lawrence vehemently protested these and staged a dramatic walk-out from the House of Bishops. He returned home to lead a diocesan reaction.

On August 21, Lawrence met with the standing committee and announced a secret plan for himself and the diocese. I have not seen any evidence of what was in the secret plan. Shortly thereafter, through Bishop Waldo, of Upper South Carolina, Lawrence agreed to meet with the Presiding Bishop in New York City on October 3.

On September 18, Lawrence and his lawyers met with the standing committee. The committee submitted to Lawrence a formal request for an interpretation of Canon XXXVII that addressed the right of the diocese to disassociate from the Episcopal Church. On September 21, Lawrence issued a brief statement that he and the standing committee were in agreement on a secret plan.

On October 2, Lawrence met with the standing committee and presented to them his 16-page judgment on the questions they had asked. He said that disassociation was legal. He also said it could be done by any of three parties, the diocesan convention, the bishop, or the standing committee. Upon this advice, the committee proceeded to pass a resolution unanimously: "[DSC] withdraws its accession to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church and disaffiliates with the Episcopal Church by withdrawing its membership from the Episcopal Church. The decision shall be effective immediately upon the taking of any action of any kind by any representative of the Episcopal Church against The Bishop." 

The next day, October 3, Lawrence met in New York with Waldo and Jefferts Schori. I have seen no record of the discussion in the meeting. It was announced that Lawrence would meet the Presiding Bishop again on October 11. I have seen no evidence that Lawrence told Waldo or Jefferts Schori about the standing committee resolution of October 2.

Owing to a funeral, Nick Zeigler's in Florence on Oct. 11, the meeting of Lawrence and Jefferts Schori that had been scheduled for Oct. 11 was moved to Oct. 22. On Oct. 9, Jefferts Schori called Lawrence to ask for a meeting in Atlanta on Aug. 13. Lawrence declined the offer.

On October 10, the Presiding Bishop received from the Disciplinary Board the official certification that the Board had found Lawrence had abandoned the Episcopal Church. At noon on Monday, October 15, Jefferts Schori called Lawrence and told him she had placed a "restriction" on his ministry effective noon of Oct. 15. She asked him to keep it confidential until their Oct. 22 meeting. I have seen no evidence that Lawrence told Jefferts Schori about the standing committee resolution at this time.

Under Church rules Lawrence had two choices at that point. He could send a letter of explanation of his actions to the Presiding Bishop who then had the discretion of removing the restriction and restoring the bishop to his full rights. Or, he could wait until the next House of Bishops meeting to be tried by the bishops.

Lawrence chose neither. He immediately called his Council of Advice to spread the word among his inner circle and then went about his bishop's duties as if nothing had happened. For the next two days he huddled with his lawyers, top clergy, and Council of Advice.

On Wednesday, October 17, Lawrence called the Presiding Bishop and told her confidentiality was impossible because of the standing committee's resolution of October 2. Apparently, this was the first time she knew of the resolution. The resolution had gone into effect at noon on Oct. 15, the moment Lawrence was the subject of "any action of any kind." It meant that the diocese had "disassociated" from the Episcopal Church as of noon, October 15, 2012. It was either in this call, or shortly thereafter, that Lawrence cancelled the scheduled meeting with Jefferts Schori on Oct. 22. It was not rescheduled.

Soon after the call of the 17th, on that afternoon, the diocesan office released a large number of documents in a press release on its website "Episcopal Church Takes Action..." A cover letter in it announced the diocese had "disassociated" from the Episcopal Church and had called a special convention. The convention was necessary under the canons that required a convention to make the canonical changes necessary to finalize the disassociation.

The special convention was attended by the large majority of parishes and missions of the old diocese. It voted overwhelmingly to make canonical and constitutional changes removing all references to the Episcopal Church. They continued recognition of Lawrence as the one and only legal bishop of the diocese. Lawrence declared "we've moved on" out of the Episcopal Church and into an extra-territorial diocese in the Anglican Communion.

On December 5, the Presiding Bishop called Lawrence to inform him that she had accepted his renunciation of orders in the Episcopal Church and had released him from all orders in the Church immediately. Lawrence had not sent a letter of resignation or renunciation to the Presiding Bishop. The Presiding Bishop did this, on advice of the heads of the Church's provinces, as a result of Lawrence's words and deeds which she judged to be abandonment of the Episcopal Church.

These I believe to be the salient facts around the moment of the schism. The section I have written on Aug-Sept-Oct 2012 in my manuscript runs to forty single-spaced pages with 150 footnotes.

These are the conclusions I draw as my own personal opinions:

1-The schism occurred at 12:00 p.m., Monday, October 15, 2012 upon the unilateral action of the standing committee of the diocese which took this action on the advice of the bishop.

2-The decision to enact the removal of the diocese from the Episcopal Church came from a small group of people, perhaps no more than Lawrence, the lawyers, and the standing committee.

3-The decision was secret among the small group. Only later and after the fact was it revealed to the Presiding Bishop, all the clergy of the diocese, and the public.

4-The diocesan leadership used the crisis of Lawrence's "restriction" to enact the previously held secret resolution.

5-Lawrence chose to remain as the bishop of the diocese which claimed to leave the Episcopal Church on Oct. 15. This meant he left the Church at the same time.

6-The special diocesan convention was called on Nov. 17 only to finalize a disassociation that had already been made by amending the constitution and canons.

7-The Presiding Bishop officially deposed Lawrence as a bishop of the Episcopal Church on December 5, 2012, seven weeks after he had gone along with the diocesan leadership out of the Church.


8-I would not agree that in August-September-October of 2012, Lawrence, or anyone else in the diocesan leadership did all they could to keep the diocese in the Episcopal Church.

If anyone knows of any original documents that would change any of these conclusions, please let me know of them. I welcome new information.

As always, I encourage everyone to e-mail me with your comments (the good, the bad, and the ugly):  ronaldcaldwell1210@gmail.com .