THE NEW KEYSTONE COPS

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

A hundred years ago, the Keystone Cops amused moviegoers in numerous delightful silent films. These policemen, supposedly the keepers of order, were anything but orderly. Theirs was a world of zany, frantic, unending mayhem. They ran around in wacky chaos often doing more harm than good, usually to themselves. The far-right wing fringe of the "Anglican" world is now populated by the descendants of the Keystone Cops, except they are not in the least bit funny.

For years, reactionary Episcopalians (they prefer to be called "orthodox") ranted and railed against the Episcopal Church for its social policies of equal rights for minorities, women, and homosexuals. The bond that held them together was opposition to the Episcopal Church. It was a negative tie. Many of them peeled off the Church as individuals, parishes, and then majorities of dioceses. They went off in every different direction. Arguably the most important of the early advocates of secession was Chuck Murphy, the rector of All Saints, Pawleys Island. In 1997 he hosted the First Promise conference that denounced the Episcopal Church. A few years later he led the creation of a new group, the Anglican Mission in America and was ordained a bishop. All Saints declared its independence from the diocese and the two began a decade-long war over the property. Finally the state supreme court came down on the side of the parish. Along the way, Murphy aligned with Rwanda until that turned into a visible and embarrassing falling out in 2011. He also helped found the Anglican Church in North America, the designated reactionary replacement for the Episcopal Church, then had a falling out with that bunch. All Saints parish split up with the majority going along with ACNA while Murphy and the minority kept with AMiA. This is the future of the anti-Episcopal Church faction in a nutshell: ever splitting chaos. There are now seven "Anglican" jurisdictions in South Carolina, each one claiming to be the only authentic one. Actually, only one of them, the Episcopal Church, is part of the worldwide Anglican Communion and recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury as such.

The first four cases of majorities of dioceses leaving the Episcopal Church eventually formed the ACNA. This, however, is a diverse and loose confederation bonded by very little, mostly opposition to the social policies of the Episcopal Church. Its views are all over the map. Mark Lawrence stubbornly refuses to unite his diocese with ACNA, for reasons still publicly unknown. He did attend the recent consecration of the new archbishop of ACNA in Atlanta but did not serve as one of the consecrators as he is not in ACNA.

The latest episode in the chaos on the Anglican right deals with homosexuality, their favorite old stalking horse. Rather suddenly, marriage equality has become virtually the law of the land, much to their shock. Knocked off their feet in the historic tidal wave, they have fallen apart and turned on each other, much like the Keystone Cops, in frantic disarray. Ephraim Radner and Christopher Seitz, two well-known highly conservative critics of the Episcopal Church policies and frequent contributors to the website called the Anglican Communion Institute (which has nothing to do officially with the Anglican Communion) put out something called "The Marriage Pledge." ( www.firstthings.com/marriage-pledge ). In angry reaction to marriage equality, it calls on clergy to refuse to participate in the civic state regarding marriage: "We will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage." It asks clergy and laity to sign the pledge online. In reality, this is only a silly and peevish rear-guard snipe at the inevitability of history.  They know they have lost the war.

The new ACNA archbishop, Foley Beach, is none too pleased with the "Pledge." Quite the contrary, he posted a terse letter asking people not to sign it. ( www.anglicanchurch.net/?/main/page/926 ). The reactionary blogosphere and its predictable Greek chorus exploded with reactions all over the board on this new comedy of errors. Whatever next? Watching the anti-Episcopal Church faction tear itself apart has become a new spectator sport. One may need a score card, however. Who's on first?

True to form, the anti-Episcopal faction in South Carolina has insisted on going its own way. Stubbornly refusing to join ACNA and any illegitimate or legitimate Anglican province, it concocted a unique "oversight" scheme through its allies in the reactionary "Global South." It is meaningless. Lawrence claims his bunch is an extra-territorial diocese in the Anglican Communion. Nonsense. There is no such thing, never has been. The curious latest lurch in the Lawrence diocese is on homosexuality, the old wedge issue. Before the schism, Lawrence insisted God assigned gender and no on was really born homosexual. It was a learned lifestyle choice. Recently, the post-schism diocese promoted a talk by Prof. Wes Hill, a Trinity seminary professor who says he is a homosexual man by nature. Homosexuality is alright, he says, as long as the homosexual person remains celibate. This is a major step in the right direction for the Lawrence diocese. For that, we should be grateful. But, it does sort of negate the whole immediate cause of the schism. (Note: a couple of days ago the DSC website dropped any mention of Prof. Hill. Who knows what is going on here?)

Chaos, even anarchy, on the Anglican far right is inevitable. It is already happening. The factor that made this group was a negative, hatred of the social reforms of the Episcopal Church. A negative cannot create a positive. It remains a negative. Once the binding force of negativism was removed, the once-bound parts flew off into every different direction. The seventeenth century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote that the state must provide an authoritarian ruling power to keep society in check as people were by nature, "nasty, mean and brutish." Left alone they self-destruct. While one should disagree with this too-dismal view of human nature, one should recognize the need for some overriding order of things. Once unity is broken, chaos results. No institution is perfect. The Episcopal Church is not perfect, but it is the unity we all need for our own best interest. It is the unity of differences that binds us in a common purpose. We do not have to agree on everything, but we are all better off in our overriding unity than in the chaos of disorder outside it. 

  



YET MORE BAD NEWS FOR THE INDEPENDENT DIOCESE - 2nd Edition

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

Unless there is a last-minute intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court, which is highly unlikely, South Carolina will become the thirty-fourth state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage at noon today, November 20, 2014. Numerous couples have lined up to get their marriage licenses that would have been unthinkable even a few short years ago.

The courts have cleared the way. The SC Supreme Court had stayed the implementation last week but that has expired. Federal courts have opened the way for the marriages to proceed. State Attorney General Wilson said he would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court for an eleventh-hour block. Judging from recent actions, that court will not touch this matter.

Times have changed, and fast. This is more bad news for the Lawrence diocese that broke away from the Episcopal Church in defiance of the Church's stand for equal treatment for homosexual people. Lawrence insisted Christianity should not be about "indiscriminate inclusivity." The exclusionary independent diocese that simply condemned homosexuals is being passed by in the rush of history.


UPDATE;     Noon, Nov. 20.      The U.S. Supreme Court denied Wilson's emergency appeal this morning. Interestingly enough, the rejection came from three highly conservative justices. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, had already dismissed Wilson's appeal. According to news reports, Wilson has vowed to keep fighting although just how remains unclear since he has run out of courts.


Marriage equality has arrived in South Carolina. The first marriage licenses to same-sex couples were issued yesterday (Nov. 19) in Charleston. The rest of the state is expected to follow today now that the Supreme Court has denied the state's appeal.


The Episcopal Church bishop, Charles vonRosenberg, announced months ago that he would permit the blessings of same-sex unions. He left implementation up to the local parishes and missions. The independent bishop, Mark Lawrence, has been well-known as an outspoken opponent of the blessing of same-sex unions and has a record of opposing rights for homosexuals in the Episcopal Church when he was a bishop in the Church. He "disaffiliated" from the Church in 2012 rather than recognize the rights that the Episcopal Church had granted to homosexuals. Lawrence claimed the Church had discarded the ancient Christian understanding of marriage. In truth, the blessing of a same-sex union is not a marriage ceremony. The prayer book did not change the definition of marriage (the same prayer book now in use in the independent diocese). However, the majority of the old diocese went along with him anyway. Later, the schismatic leaders made the ludicrous claim the schism was never about homosexuality. Having used the issue as the wedge to pry away the majority, they dropped it like a hot potato because they knew it was a demographic time bomb. They raced away from the issue of homosexuality and are still running. Have you noticed the almost complete silence from that side on the new events in SC? Sorry, you can run from history but you cannot escape.   

RECONCILIATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA?
(or, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Shakespeare's Henry VI, Part 2)

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

Is it possible to have a reconciliation of the two dioceses? Is it probable? If so, will there be a reconciliation in the foreseeable future?

On the surface, one would have to dismiss outright any notion that the two hostile sides would ever get back together. At first glance, the thought seems just as absurd now as it has for the past two years. There has been just too much hostility. But on second thought, if one looks closer at the not so obvious state of matters and the subtle changes going on, maybe it is not such a far-fetched idea after all. I would like to offer some thoughts on why reconciliation might actually occur somewhere down the road in the not too distant future.

1. The old diocesan leaders gave as their reasons for leaving the Episcopal Church theology, polity, and sexuality. On theology they said the Church had abandoned the ancient belief in the uniqueness of Christ. On polity, they said the Church had acted illegally and unconstitutionally. On sexuality they said the Church was promoting same-sex marriage.

These are actually weak arguments that are fundamentally untrue. In the first place, the Episcopal Church has never changed its belief in the uniqueness of Christ. That would take an act of the General Convention. That will never happen. What the old leaders were referring to were some controversial remarks by the previous and present presiding bishops. Whatever they said, they spoke only for themselves. A presiding bishop is an administrative officer who has no authority to set any doctrine or belief. The old diocesan leaders were wrong to extrapolate certain remarks as the beliefs of the Church.

On the second point, the Episcopal Church has changed its canons as it has done throughout its long history. The idea that the Church did this in the last few years illegally and unconstitutionally and that they were out to "get" Mark Lawrence is nonsense. The Church has almost universally accepted the canonical changes as perfectly legal.

On the third point, the Episcopal Church has approved the blessing of same-sex unions at the discretion of the local bishop (if Lawrence had stayed in the Church he could have blocked the blessings in all of the eastern half of South Carolina). This is not marriage and was never claimed to be. The old leaders' oft-repeated assertion that the Episcopal Church was changing the definition and understanding of traditional marriage is simply not true.

Weak and untrue arguments will crumble in time. As time passes and truth emerges, communicants in the old diocese will gradually realize that they have been misinformed and misled by their trusted authorities. This will happen. The empty rationale supporting the whole schism will collapse like a house of cards.

2. The old diocesan leaders also said leaving the Episcopal Church was necessary to preserve the true faith. As the excuses for the schism evaporate, so will this notion. In fact, no diocese is required to have the blessing of same sex unions. Numerous bishops announced long ago they would not allow it. Lawrence could have done that. The Episcopal Church remains broad and diverse with a wide range of experiences. Most of the conservative dioceses have remained in the Church. They saw no reason to duplicate what South Carolina had done. Not one bishop or one diocese has followed South Carolina's lead.

3. As information about the schism gradually comes forth, the assertion that Lawrence was unfairly treated by the Episcopal Church will also prove false. The truth is the Church went out of its way and the presiding bishop leaned as far as she could to accommodate Lawrence and the diocesan leadership. The facts show that the small clique controlling the diocesan structure planned a "disassociation" before Lawrence was even accused of abandonment. When the crisis came, Lawrence voluntarily left the Episcopal Church. He was not forced out. He could easily have made amends with the Church authorities. He refused to meet with the presiding bishop again. He refused; she did not. It is not true historically that Mark Lawrence was unfairly treated by the Episcopal Church.

4. The direct, or immediate, cause of the schism was the issue of homosexuality. This is easily demonstrated by the well-known historical facts. For years, the old diocesan leadership fought against the ordination of homosexual persons as priests, then bishops, the blessing of same-sex unions, and the rights of transgendered people. They insisted that God assigns gender to each person and that no one has the right to question that, act differently, or try to change it. Homosexuality, they believed was only a chosen lifestyle. It was not inborn or natural. When one resolution expressing compassion for homosexuals came up for vote in the diocesan convention, the assembly almost fell apart trying to come to grips with the topic. Seeing the impending disaster, the diocesan leaders quickly withdrew the resolution and "The Rubric of Love" died.  

There is now a very important but subtle change going on in the attitude of the diocesan leadership. They are promoting a man who says he is homosexual by nature, that is, it is not by learning. The change is to accept homosexuality as a state of birth, therefore God-given. This is a major change in the old attitude of the diocesan leaders towards the issue of homosexuality. It is far removed from what they were saying about gays only recently.

South Carolina, and the whole, country is moving toward full equality for homosexual persons including marriage equality. Within a few days, South Carolina will have legal marriage for same-gender couples. The ancient prejudices against homosexual persons are melting away quickly.

Since homosexuality was the direct cause, or the trigger, for the schism, as that issue fades away so will the justification for the schism. Society will come to accept rights for homosexuals. Communicants will have second thoughts about the wisdom of their old choices and popular support for the schism from the Episcopal Church will fade away.

5. A new presiding bishop will be elected next year. Jefferts-Schori has announced she will not be a candidate. This will remove a lightning rod from the picture as the conservatives and their loud Greek chorus on the Internet have focused all their negative feelings onto this one person (unfairly I think). Whoever replaces her will at least have a fresh start.

6. Schism is turning out to be more expensive than people thought. As time goes by and the enthusiasm for the costly fight fades, I expect it will become increasing harder to raise money to pay for the never ending litigation. The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to settle the dispute. It is doomed to drag on in state and federal courts for as long as imaginable. The cost will be staggering. At some point, people will cry-- enough.

There are signs in both dioceses that reconciliation is possible.

7. On the Episcopal Church side, the Church and its diocese have never laid claim to the local parish properties. To my knowledge, Bishop vonRosenberg has never said he was out to get the property now held by the departed parishes. His claim in court is for the legal rights of the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, a claim that Lawrence brought to court first, in the state circuit court, in St. George. The Episcopal Church did not attack the diocese as the old leaders claimed. In fact, the independent diocese sued the Episcopal Church in court first. Moreover, vonRosenberg has only "released" the 103 clergy who adhered to Lawrence. He did not depose them from Holy Orders. He made their reconciliation with the Church easy. All along, Bishop vonRosenberg has declared his goal as the reconciliation of the whole diocese.

8. On the independent diocesan side there are also signs of possible reconciliation. Lawrence was not deposed as the bishop. He was "released and removed" (Dec. 5, 2012) as the bishop after he announced his departure from the Episcopal Church. As I read the canons (and I am no authority on this) I believe Lawrence might well be able to take his case to the House of Bishops for reinstatement, or possibly have the presiding bishop revoke the certificate of release and removal. At any rate, Lawrence is not permanently banned from the Episcopal Church. The Disciplinary Board for Bishops only charged Lawrence with abandonment as a sort of grand jury. He was not given a trial by the House of Bishops. He was never convicted or deposed. The Church has not closed the door on Lawrence.

Indeed, Lawrence has said that he was not "restricted" by the presiding bishop on October 15, 2012, because she did not send him a hand-signed order (only an e-mail). Therefore, he rejected her certificate of release and removal on December 5 as equally illegal. To my knowledge, Lawrence has never stated verbally or in writing that he had renounced his Holy Orders in the Episcopal Church (the PB took his resignation from the Church as his de facto renunciation). To this day he claims that he still holds full and valid Holy Orders. Apparently Lawrence himself has not closed the door on the Episcopal Church.

Moreover, Lawrence has refused to link up the independent diocese with the Anglican Church in North America, the GAFCON-supported church meant to replace the supposedly corrupt Episcopal Church. All of the earlier four seceding dioceses joined the ACNA. Instead, Lawrence has created a link with Global South, an arrangement that really has no meaning and has never been even described.

Meanwhile, within the independent diocese life goes on as if it is an Episcopal church. The last convention passed a resolution that the only service book to be used is the Episcopal Church Book of Common Prayer. This rejects the new service book of the ACNA. Indeed, communicants commonly believe they ARE the Episcopal Church in lower South Carolina because that is what their leaders have told them. There seems to have been no attempt to change the pre-schism religion which, of course, should bring doubt onto the original reasons for leaving the Episcopal Church. There remain many common ties shared by the two dioceses as charities, groups (as Daughters of the King), and institutions. They even share clergy. Nine priests and three deacons are listed with both dioceses. The two are still linked in many ways.

I believe that the schism in the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina is unnatural, unjustified, and unnecessary and all of this will become apparent. In time, things will change and the average person-in-the-pew will reconsider the direction they have gone. It probably will not happen overnight, however, since the schism was thirty years in the making. There are obviously good reasons for a reconciliation not the least of which is the fortune in money the ongoing litigation will cost. I cannot see how anyone benefits from the unchristian lawsuits, except possibly the lawyers.


"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." HENRY VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2.


It appears me that there are signs on both sides of the schism of longing to return to union. True enough, they are between the lines and below the surface. But I believe they are there nevertheless.


I think it is time to heal and restore the broken and hurting relationships, end the awful scandal of the schism, return to the Church of the revered ancestors, and reunite a wrongfully fractured community of Christ to carry the Gospel into the world near and far. The doors are open. Where are the leaders with the courage, humility, and faith to do the right thing? 

What do you think? E-mail me at ronaldcaldwell1210@gmail.com .

MORE BAD NEWS FOR THE INDEPENDENT DIOCESE - 3rd Edition

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

South Carolina, marriage equality is at hand. News broke yesterday that a federal judge in Charleston, Richard Mark Gergel, overruled the SC state ban on same-sex marriage holding that it violated basic rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, particularly in the Fourteenth Amendment. He said his ruling would go into effect on November 20. It was a moment of rejoicing for those who have advocated for and favored human rights and equality of all people in South Carolina. Of course, the state authorities said they would appeal Gergel's ruling. Last month, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling overturning the Virginia ban on same-sex marriage was upheld when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take the case. South Carolina, North Carolina, and West Virginia are also in the Fourth Circuit. Of all those states, only South Carolina stubbornly refused to allow same-sex marriages to proceed. Both Governor Haley and Attorney General Wilson not surprisingly vowed to fight on defying the inevitable. As we all know, the great majority of states have established marriage equality. South Carolina will too. It is just a matter of time. 

For many years, the leaders of the pre-schism Diocese of South Carolina fought tooth and nail against the Episcopal Church's efforts to promote equality for homosexual persons. Lawrence was once fond of railing against "indiscriminate inclusivity." As with the nation and marriage equality, the majority in the national Church gradually agreed to remove ancient prejudices and support equality for all people. It was a fine moment in the long history of the Church. However, South Carolina, ever fond of self-inflicted pain, broke away from the Church rather than accept the tide of history.

On innumerable occasions, Bishop Lawrence expounded on his view that God assigns gender to each and every person and no one should question, let alone interfere with that divine order. He went on at length about that even the day after the special convention on Nov. 17, 2012 in an interview with Anglican TV. That is why I find it intriguing that the old leaders are now promoting an openly homosexual man as a speaker in SC on Nov. 15. Wes Hill, a professor at Trinity School for Ministry, the incubator of reactionary "Anglicanism" in America, is a self-announced gay man. He says that gay people should refrain from actually following their sexual desires and should develop something called "spiritual" (celibate) relationships. I do not support that viewpoint, but I would like to think that the Diocese of South Carolina's promotion of a gay man is one tiny step in the right direction.

Only a few years ago, Hill's witness among conservative Christians would have been impossible. Anti-gay forces then were pushing "conversion therapy," that is, programs to "turn" homosexuals into heterosexuals. Under that system, an announced gay man would have been put through the wringer to try to force him to be straight. It was an unsuccessful, absurd, even cruel, tactic that has been quietly abandoned. Now the standard talking point among anti-gay elements is to "accept" gays as long as they do not act out their sexual inclinations. This is just as absurd, wrong, and in my opinion, cruel. It too will fall away as society continues to throw off discrimination and recognize equality for all people. This will arrive in SC too.

The secessionists who left the Episcopal Church because of its stand on homosexuality are now running away from that issue as fast as possible. Unfortunately, they had already run so far in the wrong direction that they will have to race inhumanly fast to backtrack enough. They know that time and history, not to mention demographics, are against them. Surely it would have been better for all of us if we had all extended Christ's love and compassion to all people as we should have to start with. Once again, South Carolina would have been spared a great deal of pain and suffering.


UPDATE - Nov. 14. The independent diocesan website has announced that Wes Hill's talk that had been scheduled for Nov. 15 has been postponed. The Rev. and Mrs. Jamie Sosnowski suffered a personal loss that led to the postponement of his ordination that had been scheduled at St. John's on Johns Island on Sunday. Hill's talk, to be held at the same place, was cancelled out of respect. It will be rescheduled to coincide with the ordination that will be set at a later time.     

A COMMENT ON THE US SUPREME COURT DENIAL

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

On November 3, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it had denied the Episcopal Church's petition for a writ of certiorari. That meant it will not consider the Church's appeal of the Fort Worth case. What does this mean for South Carolina?

Of all of the four earlier cases where Episcopal dioceses claimed to have "disassociated" from the Episcopal Church, that of Fort Worth was most similar to South Carolina. Fort Worth had been a highly traditional diocese for many years (actually more reactionary than South Carolina). In fact, it was one of only three dioceses of the 110 in the Church to refuse to admit women to Holy Orders (San Joaquin, Mark Lawrence's home diocese, and Quincy were the others). At least in South Carolina there were a few female priests and deacons although the power structure was and is overwhelmingly male. As in South Carolina, the bishop, Jack Iker, refused to submit a formal renunciation of orders or a resignation. Instead, as Lawrence, he declared the diocese independent of the Episcopal Church with himself remaining as the bishop. As with Lawrence, the presiding bishop interpreted Iker's words and deeds as de facto renunciation of his ordination in the Episcopal Church and issued a release. Both Iker and Lawrence denied they had renounced their orders and refused to accept any Episcopal Church actions against themselves. Both were deposed by the presiding bishop and were not removed by the House of Bishops as were the cases of Schofield of San Joaquin, and Duncan of Pittsburgh. Lawrence, like Iker, kept the titles, rights, and properties of the old diocese. Each man persisted in calling himself the Episcopal bishop and his group the Episcopal diocese.

On litigation, however, the secessionist diocese of South Carolina was much more assertive and aggressive, suing the Church in a chosen court before it could reorganize the diocese and masterfully claiming the legal field which it has dominated ever since, for nearly two years. In Fort Worth there was first a court decision in the Church's favor, then one in the separatist diocese's favor, then the Texas state supreme court ruling. It said that the case had to be sent back down to the lower court to be judged on the principle of "neutrality."

The South Carolina court is also following "neutrality." This is the principle that the dispute must be judged only under state property laws, not as a religious dispute, and that both sides will be treated neutrally, or equally, under state laws. In fact, this gives a great boost to the separatist side. The Episcopal Church claim is that this whole matter is a religious dispute and should be left to the Church as an internal problem within a hierarchical institution. Neutrality invalidates that. If the secessionist diocese can prove it is an independent and separate legal entity under state law, removed from the national Church, and the court will accept this retroactively, then the diocese can maintain its possession of the rights, titles, and properties. In the circuit court trial last July, Judge Goodstein repeatedly invoked neutrality.

At the moment, South Carolina is awaiting two separate legal initiatives. In the end of the state circuit court trial in July, Judge Goodstein said she would release her judgment after ninety days. This could be at any time now. However, it may take much longer than ninety days to wade through the ocean of transcripts and exhibits (evidence) which run to countless thousands of pages. She herself said the case was very complicated and that she had a lot to learn about it.

The second legal path is in the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Richmond. On February 5, 2014, the Episcopal Church diocese of South Carolina filed an appeal of Judge Houck's ruling against the Church diocese. The diocese filed a brief in the court on April 7. The independent diocese of South Carolina then filed a brief in response. There has been no indication at all as to when the U.S. appeals court will issue an order. It could be at any time.

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to take up the Episcopal Church appeal. At the moment there is no new initiative on the horizon although one could appear at any time. The Court did not give an explanation for the denial, but it may well have been reluctance to interfere with ongoing litigation between a state supreme court and a lower court, as was the case in Texas. Thus, the denial may have been more from procedure than principle. In future, the Court may be willing to take a case that clearly involves the rights of a hierarchical religious institution to govern itself, and/or involves the application of neutral principles, even retroactively, with such an institution.

As for South Carolina, the indication in the state circuit court was to favor the independent diocesan side. I expect Judge Goodstein will rule in their favor. The U.S. appeals court is a mystery that no one can predict. That court, however, has a majority of Democrats on the bench and has recently taken a decidedly progressive posture, as in its rejection of the Virginia law against same-sex marriage, a decision the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider and therefore let stand.

At any rate, the litigation in South Carolina is most likely to drag on for years. Judge Goodstein's decision will be appealed by whichever side loses. That probably means another several years on appeals. At the moment there is no end of litigation in sight.

If the U.S. Court of Appeals refuses to intervene, I wonder if there could be an out-of-court settlement in South Carolina. After all, there is precedent for such. Several times there were possible compromise settlements offered in the diocese v. All Saints, Waccamaw case although none was accepted. The Church diocese has not said it demands the local parish properties back. In spite of the independent diocese's claims, the Episcopal Church and its diocese have made no effort to "hijack" the local church properties. The real issue of contention is on the diocesan assets. This could be negotiated.

If I were advising one of the two sides in South Carolina, I would say that once the circuit court decision comes down and once the U.S. Appeals Court rules, meet the other side and negotiate for a reasonable settlement. This would require compromise which is always give-and-take. Reasonable people can make reasonable agreements. It would end the unchristian lawsuits, save both sides untold dollars in lawyer fees, and promote harmony between the now-contentious Christian denominations.

What do you think? E-mail me at ronaldcaldwell1210@gmail.com    

FORT WORTH AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, 7th edition (October 25)

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

The United States Supreme Court website (www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-1520.htm) reveals that the Court has issued to the separatist diocese of Ft. Worth a request for a response to TEC's June 19 writ of certiorari petition to the Court. The request from the Court happened on July 28, 2014. The separatist diocese has 30 days (until August 27) in which to make a formal response in the U.S. Supreme Court.

This development is significant for two reasons, 1-the Supreme Court has responded positively to the Episcopal Church's appeal, although only in a preliminary way, and 2-the separatist diocese of Ft. Worth's strategy of ignoring TEC's appeal to the Supreme Court backfired.

On June 20, 2014, the separatist diocese (that goes by the contradictory name "Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth" even though long ago they very publicly proclaimed their complete separation from the Episcopal Church) had announced "Diocese will waive response to TEC's U.S. Supreme Court  appeal," (www.fwepiscopal.org/news/supremecourt.html). In the news release, the diocesan leaders proclaimed "Our attorneys believe there is little chance the Court will review our case...To speed up this process, the Diocese plans to waive a response to TEC's petition...That way the petition goes to the justices' chambers for a potential denial in the near future." They did indeed make a formal waiver of response to the Court on June 23. However, they were wrong in their over-confidence. Their gamble failed. In fact, the appeal from TEC was backed-up by several major groups that filed amici curiae ("friends of the court") briefs with the Supreme Court on July 21: the Episcopal Church in South Carolina, United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Greek Orthodox Church. As of now, the separatist diocese has no choice but to file an official response to TEC's petition of appeal to the Supreme Court.


This case is in the preliminary stage called "Cert Pool." When a petition is first presented to the Court (as this one was on June 19), it goes to a pool of the law clerks of the justices (each of the nine justices has four clerks, or lawyers, who work as assistants; one justice refuses to participate in the Cert Pool, thus 36 clerks in all serve in the Pool). Each clerk is assigned petitions at random. The clerks have a winnowing out process in which they sort through the mountain of petitions and choose which ones they think need more information and merit review by the justices. The clerk writes a "Memo" that is sent to all nine justices summarizing the case and its merits. The decision to take the case is entirely up to the justices. What is happening now shows that the clerk who received the TEC petition decided it had merit and needed more information. In a sense it cleared the first hurdle (Cert Pool) of the Supreme Court. That is itself is an accomplishment. The case is now on the official list to be considered in the next Conference of the justices of the Court, scheduled for September 29 (see https://certpool.com/conferences/2014-09-29 ). At the Conference, it will be one of the "cases active." The justices will then consider and decide whether to take the case. This means, at the very least, the justices of the Supreme Court will mull over the merits of taking TEC's appeal. In the past few years they have accepted about one per-cent of all petitions sent to the Supreme Court (about 100 out of 10,000; most were discarded in the Cert Pool and did not make it to the Conference stage). The justices choose cases they think relate to important constitutional questions. Sometimes they hear cases that have had conflicting judgments in state courts, as long as they involve national constitutional issues. TEC is arguing its side as a constitutional issue, in fact, the First Amendment. If the justices agree to take the case, it would mean they see it as a federal, or national issue. TEC sees the issue as a national one; the separatists see it as a local one of property rights.


Coming on the heels of the disastrous courtroom brawl in St. George, this is good news indeed for the partisans of the Episcopal Church. It means the Supreme Court is one step closer to accepting the appeal of the Episcopal Church. A favorable ruling from the Supreme Court would, of course, change everything.

Now, we will await the Ft. Worth secessionists' response in the Supreme Court, due by August 27, and TEC's after-response, due in September. Then, we will see if the justices decide to take on TEC's petition for a final ruling by the majority of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Take heart, good Episcopalians. I sense the dawn is breaking in the darkness of the eastern sky.


Read Steve Skardon's informative and thoughtful review at www.scepiscopalians.com


UPDATE --- (August 21):     On August 19, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order extending time for the secessionist diocese to file a response from August 27 to September 26, 2014. See the official web site of the Supreme Court given in the first sentence above. Apparently, the extension means that the case will not go to conference as previously scheduled on September 29. Supreme Court rules hold that "cases are not placed on a Conference list sooner than 14 days after a brief in opposition is filed, unless the petitioner expressly waives the 14-day waiting period."


UPDATE --- (August 28):     On August 27 another party entered an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in support of the Episcopal Church side of the Fort Worth appeal to the Supreme Court. This adds to the earlier briefs from the Episcopal Church in South Carolina, the United Methodist Church and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. The new amicus brief was filed by The Rutherford Institute. This non-profit corporation based in Charlottesville, Virginia, is famous for defending civil rights in legal matters, particularly religious freedom. Amici briefs are usually filed after the Court has decided to take a case. It is uncommon to have briefs filed at the Cert Pool stage and even more rare to have a host of them. This is bound to influence the justices to give the most serious attention to the Episcopal Church case. More about this later.


UPDATE --- (September 4):     On August 27 yet another party entered an amicus curiae brief in support of the Episcopal Church side of the Fort Worth appeal to the Supreme Court. This one is from the African Methodist Episcopal Church. This brings to five the number of amici briefs before the justices: The Episcopal Church in South Carolina, the United Methodist Church, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, the Rutherford Institute, and the African Methodist Episcopal Church. All of these briefs are available on the Episcopal Church in South Carolina's website (www.episcopalchurchsc.org ).


UPDATE --- (September 29):     On Friday, September 26, the separatist diocese of Ft. Worth filed a response brief with the Supreme Court. The case has been removed from the list to be considered in the Sept. 29 Conference of justices. It will be mid-October before the Court will announce the date of the Conference when the justices will decide whether to take the case.


UPDATE --- (October 25):     On October 14 the Episcopal Church parties filed a reply to the Sept. 26 response of the separatist diocese. On October 15 the case was distributed for the justices' Conference of October 31 (https://certpool.com/conferences/2014-10-31 ). Therefore, on Friday, October 31, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to accept the Episcopal Church's petition. The news of the decision will probably be released the following Monday, November 3. At long last we will all know whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the Episcopal Church's appeal of the Texas ruling. 

BAD NEWS FOR THE INDEPENDENT DIOCESE

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

This has been a week of bad news for the independent diocese of Mark Lawrence. Two items in particular struck at its creative cause and ongoing identity: the U.S. Supreme Court action concerning same-sex marriage and a pronouncement of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Supreme Court action has been all over the media outlets. In effect, the Supreme Court has validated lower federal courts that had overturned numerous state laws banning same-sex marriages. In other words, the Supreme Court has recognized nationally the right of same-sex marriage. The Court let stand the ruling of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that overruled the Virginia state law against same-sex marriage. Since the Fourth Circuit includes the state of South Carolina, the logical conclusion is that state laws against same-sex marriage in South Carolina have been or will be overturned. Indeed numerous same-gender couples recently registered for marriage licenses in Charleston. See the Post and Courier article of Oct. 9, "S.C. Supreme Court Puts Gay Marriage Licenses on Hold." The conservative SC state supreme court has temporarily banned same-sex marriages, something that is certain not to last long. In the near future, every state of the Union will allow same-sex marriage.

As I have said repeatedly, my historical research has shown that homosexuality was the driving issue, or "wedge" issue that made the "disaffiliation" of the majority of the old diocese from the Episcopal Church. However much the leaders of the departed diocese may now deny it, the facts of history on this are very clear. The leadership of the pre-schism diocese emphasized homosexual and transgender issues among the innately conservative majority of communicants of the old diocese. It was the Episcopal Church's General Convention of 2012 resolutions on the blessing of same-sex unions and on transgendered rights that led to Lawrence's and the Standing Committee's final decision to leave the Episcopal Church at the first opportunity, which they did on October 15, 2012. 

Reactionaries (conservatives, orthodox, traditionalists) would like a church that condemns homosexuality and sex change. They believe gender is predetermined by God who assigns it to each person. They see it as immoral and sinful for people to behave in any but heterosexual ways. Meanwhile, the mainstream of the Episcopal Church is seeking avenues to minister to, rather than simply condemn, a changing society and culture. The Church has taken a bold stand for the equal treatment of homosexual and transgendered persons. To put it simply, the Episcopal Church is on the side of history while the independent diocese is trying the impossible task of fighting against history.

Western civilization is in the midst of a rapid sea change of attitudes toward individual freedom and sexual expressions. Even traditionally conservative European countries have recognized equal rights of homosexual persons, including marriage. As we know very well from the news, marriage equality is sweeping America, and doing so rapidly. Even the 5-4 conservative Supreme Court has played its part. Nate Silver, the great statistical guru, has clearly documented this monumental change in the nation. Even in highly conservative South Carolina, the majority of people will support it within a decade. In time, the independent diocese will have a harder and harder time attracting young people who overwhelmingly oppose discrimination (perhaps this is why the independent diocesan leaders are trying to cover up their roots now). In time the independent diocese will age and shrivel. This is all bad news for a local institution that was created in a campaign to oppose rights for homosexual persons and transgendered people in the church.

The second piece of bad news came in an interview of the Archbishop of Canterbury. See the Post and Courier article of Oct. 9, "Archbishop Says ACNA Not Part of the Anglican Communion." See also the remarks of Steve Skardon at www.scepiscopalians.com . The Archbishop announced that the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) is not an Anglican church, at least not one recognized as Anglican by the head of the Anglican Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Episcopal Church is the only official province of the Anglican Communion in the U.S. This was particularly stinging as it came on the eve of the much-publicized installation of the new archbishop of ACNA to replace founder Bob Duncan. The right-wing blogosphere has exploded in wrath against the Archbishop as could be expected. ACNA is a self-created schismatic denomination of disgruntled former Episcopalians who left a Church that had accepted openly homosexual persons as bishops and elected a female primate. ACNA has been recognized as the only legitimate Anglican province in North America by GAFCON which itself is a self-made alliance of conservative Anglicans, based in equatorial Africa, rallying to oppose the equal rights that are flowing through the mainstream of Anglicanism. Too bad for ACNA and GAFCON that the Archbishop has now trumped them.

Of course, the independent diocese in SC has not joined ACNA, for reasons not apparent. Instead, Lawrence and his friends in the GAFCON-allied group called "Global South" have drawn up a strange new scheme for "oversight" by the primates' council of Global South. To this day that scheme remains a complete mystery. Not one detail of it has ever been released to the public. In the P & C article, Jim Lewis said the deal was "to establish a direct connection to the larger communion through a recognized body."  Huh? What "recognized body"? Global South is not "recognized" by the structure of the Anglican Communion. It is a self-created body without any legitimacy at all in the AC. In reality, the independent diocese is suspended in nothingness. It has no official connection to the Anglican Communion. In short, the Lawrence diocese, as ACNA, is not in the Anglican Communion. It is not the Episcopal Church in lower South Carolina and it is not in the Anglican Communion no matter how many times its spokespeople say it is. In time, its communicants will gradually realize this and come to terms with what has happened to their venerable old church. It is just a matter of time. 

So, the news this week has not been good or promising for the independent diocese led by Mark Lawrence. History is against it. The Archbishop of Canterbury is against it. Where it goes from here only time will tell.


The quarrel of whether to grant rights to homosexuals has really passed in western civilization. We have moved beyond it. Only parts of the Third World, particularly equatorial Africa, are still fighting it. As a contentious issue on the world stage, homosexuality is fading away, and quickly. In years to come, even South Carolinians will wonder, What was all the fuss about in the first place? That is the way we look at the issue of racism now. Not everything we do is right. Not everything our ancestors did was right. We have to accept that as part of our Christian religion. There was only one perfect person, and He lived on earth a very long time ago. We are not perfect.


In time, I think the prodigal communicants of the separate diocese will also move beyond the social and cultural issues that have bothered them so much. Once the homosexuality matter is out of the way, they will realize that they are still of the  same old religion, as South Carolinians did when they returned to the Episcopal Church after the Civil War. It should be noted that the independent diocesan leadership has adamantly insisted that only the Episcopal Church prayer book be kept in use in services. Beneath all their protests, they know they are still of the same religion. The issues that triggered the unfortunate and needless schism of 2012 were social and cultural, not religious. Down the road, no one can know how far, I believe there will be a quiet reunion of the now-broken church. The reactionaries will have had their starring roles in the stage, made their statements, gotten everything off their chests, and be ready to move on to the bigger issue of representing the expression of legitimate Anglican Christianity in the Low Country. I believe too that the Episcopal Church will make internal positive changes. This may be the good that the schisms produce. In the end, a stronger Church will emerge as the unpleasantness passes and South Carolinians return to being the gracious, mannerly people of cordial good will they have always been in their hearts. That day cannot come too soon.


I would like to know what you think.  e-mail me at ronaldcaldwell1210@gmail.com .

THE TRIAL RECORD

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

The entire official transcript of the Circuit Court trial of last July is now freely available on the Internet. Holly Behre has generously provided it on the Episcopal Church in South Carolina's website:  www.episcopalchurchsc.org/july-2014-trial-in-state-court.html . The files are by day. The full transcript runs to 2,523 pages. Anyone with enough paper and toner can have the complete transcript.

Three eye-witnesses gave daily reports on the trial proceedings, Holly Behre for the Episcopal Church in South Carolina, Jan Pringle or Joy Hunter for the independent diocese, and Steve Skardon. All of these are available on their websites. Behre provided her daily reports on the same page as the transcript as given above. Pringle and Hunter posted their daily reports on their website: www.diosc.com . Skardon gave his accounts on his website: www.scepiscopalians.com . All of these reports are still available on the websites. 

If one wants to know what was actually said in the trial, one can now read it word-for-word in the transcript. If one wants to know what the pro-Episcopal Church side thought about the trial daily, one can read Behre and Skardon. For the pro-independent diocesan viewpoint, read Pringle and Hunter.

We all owe a debt of gratitude to Holly Behre for giving us the court transcript.

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