LITIGATION SUMMARY,

FEBRUARY 2, 2015---2nd Edition (Feb. 4)

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

Even though this tiresome winter may drag on for weeks to come, there is a feeling here in the lower South that spring is in the air, that seasons are changing and time is moving on. Camellias are in bloom.


The U.S. Court of Appeals held its hearing last week. The state circuit court issued a decision on Feb. 3. This is an appropriate moment to pause and review how the legal actions have proceeded and where they stand now in the two-year court war of the two post-schism dioceses:
1-The Diocese of South Carolina (DSC), a.k.a. The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina. The majority of the old diocese, who controlled the apparati of the diocese, unilaterally declared diocesan independence from the Episcopal Church on October 17, 2012, retroactive to Oct. 15. They recognized former Episcopal bishop Mark Lawrence as their bishop. At present they have the legal rights to the names and insignia of the old pre-schism diocese.
2-The Episcopal Church in South Carolina, the reorganized Episcopal Church diocese containing the minority of the old diocese who remained with the Episcopal Church. They chose Charles vonRosenberg as their bishop.


The basic issue in all the litigation is legitimacy---which of the two post-schism dioceses is the legal and legitimate Episcopal diocese of South Carolina and therefore rightful proprietor of the properties, other assets, and rights of the pre-schism diocese.


South Carolina is the fifth case of an Episcopal Church diocese declaring its unilateral independence from the church, all in the last eight years. All have been in litigation with four: San Joaquin, Quincy, Ft. Worth, and South Carolina still active in the courts. So far none of the cases has been accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court.


Legal action in South Carolina began on January 4, 2013. There developed two separate, but not unrelated, avenues of litigation in the case of South Carolina: state court and federal court.

1-STATE COURT.

PAST:     On January 4, 2013, the DSC filed suit in state circuit court, Dorchester County, St. George SC, asking two orders of the court (Judge Diane Goodstein): 1-a declaratory judgment that DSC is the sole owner of the property of the pre-schism diocese, and 2-an order that the defendants (ECSC) cannot use the names and insignia of the pre-schism diocese. DSC's suit was against The Episcopal Church (and later also against ECSC).

In time this suit by DSC was joined by 35 individual parishes (34 of DSC and St. Andrew's Anglican Church of Mt. Pleasant).

On Jan. 23, 2013, the state court issued a Temporary Restraining Order preventing TEC from using the official names and insignia of the pre-schism diocese. On Jan. 31, 2013, this was expanded into a Temporary Injunction of indefinite duration. It is still in effect. This gave DSC de facto ownership of the pre-schism diocese.

For eighteen months, the state court refused every initiative of ECSC to change the nature of the lawsuit. The South Carolina court of appeals and supreme court also refused ECSC's motions.

The state court trial was held from July 8 to 25, 2014, in the county courthouse, St. George SC, Judge Goodstein presiding. The trial lasted 14 days and produced over 2,500 pages of transcript, over 1,300 pieces of evidence, and over 50 witnesses. On the defense side, Thomas Tisdale represented ECSC with support of several lawyers from TEC. C. Alan Runyan led the plaintiffs' team of over 40 lawyers. Goodstein insisted in proceeding on the "neutral principle" standard and viewing this as a local property dispute to be settled under local property laws rather than as a religious issue. 

On December 10, 2014, Tisdale and Runyan presented their "Orders," or requests for judgment, to Judge Goodstein.

PRESENT:     On Feb. 3, 2015, Judge Goodstein issued a "Final Order" finding all in favor of DSC and against TEC and ECSC. In essence, Goodstein found that the Episcopal Church is a congregational institution where all authority rises from the local parishes and that Episcopal dioceses are completely independent of the national church. Therefore, she ruled the DSC is legally entitled to all the rights of the pre-schism diocese as well as all the property and other assets.

FUTURE: It is possible TEC and ECSC will ask Goodstein for a reconsideration of her decision. It is certain that in time TEC and ECSC will appeal this judgment to the South Carolina Supreme Court.

2. FEDERAL COURT.

There were three separate actions in federal (United States) courts, the church insurance case, the Fort Worth appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Charles vonRosenberg lawsuit against Mark Lawrence.

1---In the insurance case, on Jan. 9, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Patrick Duffy ordered the Church Insurance Company of Vermont to pay coverage for ECSC. Duffy reaffirmed this. Issue settled.

2---On June 19, 2014, the Episcopal Church Diocese of Ft. Worth filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court against the Texas Supreme Court action remanding the church case to lower court on terms advantageous to the non-Episcopal Church diocese. ECSC joined with an amicus (friend) brief in support of the Church diocese. On Nov. 3, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal. Issue settled.

3---U.S. District Court/U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On March 5, 2013, vonRosenberg filed suit in U.S. District Court, in Charleston, against Lawrence asking the court to recognize vonR as the legal and legitimate bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina. On March 7, 2013, this was expanded in a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop Lawrence from acting as the bishop of the Diocese.

On March 28, 2013, Lawrence filed motion with the same court asking for a dismissal or a stay of vonR's suits.

The two sides appeared before U.S. District Judge C. Weston Houck for a hearing on August 8, 2013.

On August 23, 2013, Houck dismissed both of vonR's suits. He abstained in view of the ongoing litigation in the state court. He followed the principal called the Brillhart/Wilton standard. In this, following U.S. Supreme Court decisions, a federal district court has wide latitude to dismiss or stay cases seeking declaratory relief when a parallel case was already underway in state court. Houck viewed the current state court litigation as parallel. However, Houck also said in his order that Lawrence had renounced his ordained ministry and that the Episcopal Church is an hierarchical institution. Houck later reaffirmed his abstention order of Aug. 23.

On Feb. 5, 2014, ECSC filed an appeal of Houck's Aug. 23 order with the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, in Richmond, Virginia.

On January 28, 2015, the Fourth Circuit held a hearing on the appeal. ECSC asked for the case to be remanded to the District Court in Charleston and for an injunction to prevent Lawrence from acting as the bishop of the Diocese. Three judges sat: Judge Diana Motz, chair, Judge James A. Wynn, Jr., and Judge Roger Gregory. Tisdale represented ECSC and Runyan DSC. Motz and Wynn raised numerous questions about the appropriateness of Houck's reliance on the Brillhart/Wilton standard for abstention and raising the Colorado River standard as perhaps the more proper alternative. The Colorado R. standard, following U.S. Supreme Court decisions, allowed a federal court to abstain only on very narrow terms of "exceptional circumstances." Application of Colorado R. rather than Brillhart would probably throw the advantage to ECSC in the District Court as it would require the court to proceed with the case rather than deferring to the state court.

PRESENT:     Awaiting a decision of the Court of Appeals. Decisions in this court take an average of seven months to appear. If so, an order would be issued this summer. Sometimes decisions appear much more quickly as in the same-sex marriage issue in the spring of 2014. The Court gave an order after two months (it was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which refused to hear it).

Judging from the hearing, it appears to me that ECSC had the advantage in this court. Therefore, it is likely the court will send the case back to the district court in Charleston to be conducted under the Colorado R. standard. This would give ECSC a much better chance of prevailing than in the state court.


In summary, DSC has won in state court and ECSC in about to win in federal court. Appeals will grind on for years to come. At some point in the future, this broader issue of Episcopal Church/diocese relationship is likely to end up in the U.S. Supreme Court where odds are that court will favor the rights of a national religious institution. Local courts tend to lean to local bodies, federal courts to national ones.


What we can expect at this point is years of expensive and contentious litigation between two bands of brothers and sisters. Surely these good, reasonable and Christian people can find a better way than this. And there is no need in blaming it all on the other side. There is plenty of blame to go around. If after many years, one side "wins," it may preside over a shrunken, wounded and financially bankrupt church with diminished moral authority and little appeal in the lower state of South Carolina.


If anyone should know the catastrophic results of civil war, it would be the people of South Carolina. No state in America suffered more in the great U.S. Civil War than did South Carolina. In 1865 it lay in ruins. Its cities were in ashes. A quarter of all adult white males of draft age had been killed or wounded, the highest casualty rate in the country. Its economy was destroyed. Desolation and despair lay over the state like a shroud. Cannot we learn from history? There has to be a better way for the good people of South Carolina to solve their problems than by self-destruction. Enough of war. May there be peace, healing, and restoration in this little part of the Body of Christ. 

___________________________________

If anyone has information to contribute on what is going on in the mysterious case of the removal of the rector of St. Philip's parish in Charleston, please send along. Why did Lawrence remove McCormick?


email me at ronaldcaldwell1210@gmail.com .  



JANUARY 28, 2015, A DAY OF DESTINY-
3rd Edition (Jan. 30)

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

Jan. 27:     Wednesday, January 28, 2015, will be a day of destiny for everyone involved in the disastrous schism of the Episcopal Church in South Carolina. The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Richmond, will hear oral presentations in the case of vonRosenberg v Lawrence. The case comes from the appeal by the Episcopal Church in South Carolina of the August 2013 decision of U.S. District Judge C. Weston Houck to defer to the state circuit court in the war for legitimacy between the independent diocese and the Episcopal Church diocese. 

In March of 2013, Charles vonRosenberg, bishop of the Episcopal Church diocese of South Carolina, filed action in the U.S. District Court in Charleston charging former bishop Mark Lawrence with violating the federal Lanham Act by trademark infringement and false advertising (by claiming to be the legitimate bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of SC). In addition, vonRosenberg asked the Court for a preliminary injunction to stop Lawrence from acting as the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. Lawrence responded by filing a motion to dismiss or stay proceedings in view of the currently active state circuit court litigation. On August 23, 2013, Judge Houck issued a ruling in which he essentially refused the complex and complicated case and deferred to the state circuit court where proceedings had been underway since January 4, 2013. Houck also refused to grant vonRosenberg an injunction against Lawrence.

Judge Houck's decision to opt-out, while coming down on Lawrence's side, also contained two very important points that passed under the radar of most people. The first pointed out, as any sensible person would have, that Lawrence had indeed renounced his ordained ministry: "In November 2012, Bishop Lawrence issued his own, similarly postured, public statement renouncing his ordained ministry with TEC" (p.2-3). As everyone knows, Lawrence has said repeatedly he did not renounce his ministry. Judge Houck said differently. The second great point Houck made in his August 23rd decision was that the Episcopal Church is hierarchical: "TEC, as a hierarchical religious organization..." (p.3). He made a footnote there citing two landmark federal cases, Dixon v Edwards and Hiles v Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts. Both of these declared the Episcopal Church to be hierarchical. Lawrence and his lawyers hold that the Episcopal Church is not hierarchical and that individual dioceses are sovereign entities free to act on their own. Houck had a different view, as any reasonable person would have. No federal court has ever ruled that the Episcopal Church is not a hierarchical institution.

Following Judge Houck's rejection of their motions, ECSC filed a request for reconsideration with Houck on September 16, 2013. Houck denied the request on January 14, 2014 thus clearing the way for an appeal to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 7, 2014, lawyer Thomas S. Tisdale filed a 53-page brief in the Court laying out ECSC's case charging that Houck had erred in his decision. Tisdale asked the Court to reverse Houck's order dismissing vonRosenberg's claim of Lanham jurisdiction and rejecting the injunction against Lawrence. If the Court grants Tisdale's request, it will send the matter back to the U.S. District Court in Charleston to be litigated. The order may be simple or it may contain directive explanations.

It is impossible to predict (as opposed to state circuit court) how the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will rule. Nevertheless, there are some tantalizing clues around. Most of the fifteen judges of the Court were appointed by Democratic presidents, many by Obama. In recent years, the previously conservative Fourth Circuit has grown decidedly liberal. Its most famous recent action rocked the country. The Court upheld a lower court ruling favoring same-sex marriage and declaring unconstitutional Virginia's law against it. That was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which allowed the Fourth Circuit decision to stand. As a result, South Carolina, and all the other states in the Fourth Circuit had to adopt legal marriage for same-gender couples.

As for the Episcopal Church, it was the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that issued the famous Dixon v Edwards ruling in 2002 (see above). The Court said explicitly that the Episcopal Church is a hierarchical institution and that civil courts are severely restricted in jurisdiction over religious matters which must be left to the internal authorities of the hierarchical institutions following the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The way the Circuit Court of Appeals works is that three of the fifteen judges are assigned to a case at random. The names of the judges are not revealed until the morning of the hearing, which incidentally is always open to the public. The three judges sit for the lawyers' oral arguments, but as in the U.S. Supreme Court, they are likely to use the time grilling the lawyers about questions they, the judges, have already formed. Tisdale will start with 15 minutes. Runyan will get 20 minutes, then Tisdale with 5 minutes for rebuttal. The hearing is just that. It is not a trial. Afterwards, the judges will weigh the written arguments (briefs) and oral presentations and issue an order, typically within several months (the Court website says an average of seven months). No video recording of the hearing is allowed, but an audio recording is made and will be available to the public two days after the hearing. It will be posted on the Court website: www.ca4.uscourts.gov .

The Fourth Circuit decision, which we should have by this summer, has the potential of being the game-changer in the awful and shameful civil war between two bands of brothers and sisters. Up to now, that advantage has been heavily on the independent diocese's side. Everyone expects Judge Goodstein to rule soon in Lawrence's favor. That is certain to be appealed to the state Supreme Court. If the Fourth Circuit rules in favor of ECSC, the U.S. District court in Charleston will have to proceed with the matter as a federal case. Essentially what the ECSC is asking is for the court to declare vonRosenberg the legal and legitimate bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. The Episcopal Church will have the decided advantage in a federal court. One has only to review the hundred or so Church cases in the last decade to see that.

Curiously enough, the two sides have treated the case in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals entirely differently. The ECSC has been informative and forthcoming about it all along, even posting many of the court papers on its website (thank you Holly). The Lawrence side, following its penchant for secrecy, has kept it completely hidden. There has not been a hint of it on their website. Their train of loud and angry Greek chorus echoing their words on the Internet has been strangely silent about it. Runyan's brief to the court has been withheld from the public. The reasons for this mysterious black-out remain unknown to myself.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the second highest court of the land, under only the U.S. Supreme Court. What they say matters, and matters very much. What they say in the Episcopal Church in South Carolina case will matter very much too, whether anyone wants to recognize it or not.




Addendum Jan. 29:  The three judges forming the panel hearing the case on January 28 were: Judge Diana Gribbon Motz (chair), Judge Roger L. Gregory, and Judge James A. Wynn, Jr. All three were appointed by Democratic presidents. Motz (b. 1943) was graduated from Vassar and U. of Virginia Law School and served as assistant state attorney general of Maryland. She was appointed by Pres. Clinton in 1994. Gregory (b. 1953) is an alumnus of Virginia State U. and University of Michigan law school and has been in private practice. He was appointed by Pres. Clinton in 2000. Wynn (b. 1954) was graduated from U. of North Carolina, Marquette law school, and U. of Virginia law school and has served as a judge in the North Carolina Court of Appeals and the North Carolina Supreme Court. He was nominated by Pres. Obama in 2009.


The audio recording of the hearing of Jan. 28 should be available on the Court website tomorrow, Friday, Jan. 30:  www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments . 




Addendum Jan. 30:The audio recording of the Jan. 28 hearing is now available on the website noted just above. 


I have listened to the recording, and these are my impressions: 


Tisdale spoke first and clarified the issue---whether the U.S. District Court (Judge Houck) acted properly in abstaining from a decision. He said the action of ECSC in the District Court is not parallel to the action in the state circuit court; and he asked for a temporary injunction from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and for return of the case to the U.S. District Court (in Charleston) for action; in the least, to send the case back to Charleston.


Runyan spoke next and maintained that vonRosenberg had not established the fact that he is the bishop of the diocese and therefore could not take action against Lawrence. He pointed out the earlier action in the state circuit court which he called parallel. (U.S. District Judge Houck had followed the Brillhart/Wilton standard in which a federal court can dismiss a declaratory judgment action that had already been filed in state court.) He was interrupted often by the chair, Judge Motz, and by Judge Wynn. Motz said that she saw a "mixed standard" for abstention in Houck's ruling and that she could not find any record in judicial history for a mixed standard. She asked repeatedly for the correct abstention standard. (The Colorado River standard, opposite to Brillhart/Wilton, would allow the federal court to exercise jurisdiction over federal issues even if action had already been started in state court.) Runyan seemed unable to answer the questions directly. Wynn implied that if the court found that the wrong standard for abstention had been applied, the Court would grant Tisdale's request and send the case back down to the District Court. Motz and Wynn seemed to imply that Houck had not used the proper standard in his decision to abstain and that the Colorado River case precedent should have been the appropriate one to follow.


It seemed to me the three judges were unconvinced by Houck's reasoning for Brillhart/Wilton and were leaning to sending the case back to Charleston. If they do send the case back to district court in Charleston a great deal would depend on how the judges word their order. If they demand that the Colorado River standard be applied, the Church would clearly benefit as that would require the district court to treat the matter entirely as a federal case separate from the state court. This would give the advantage to the Episcopal Church side. 


The above are my impressions. You should listen to the hearing and make your own assessment.


I think the ECSC side came out on the stronger ground in this hearing than did DSC. Of course, one should not read too much into the judges questions. We will just have to wait until their decision is issued, hopefully by summer. Meanwhile, everyone is waiting anxiously for Judge Goodstein's decision in the state circuit court. It has been more than six months since that trial concluded.      

THOUGHTS ON THE YEAR AHEAD, 2015

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

In my last post, I gave my thoughts on the year past, 2014. Now I would like to turn to the year ahead, 2015. What can we expect this year for the people involved in the schism of the old Episcopal Church diocese of South Carolina?

This will certainly be another year in court. Judge Diane Goodstein soon will render her verdict in the trial conducted last July. Everyone expects her to come down on the side of the independent diocese (DSC) and against the Episcopal Church diocese (ECSC). She made it plain she would follow the principle of neutrality. That means favoring the side that remained in physical possession of the apparati of the old diocese. It is also a certainty that her decision will be appealed to the state supreme court. However, we are most likely to hear too from the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in ECSC's appeal of U.S. Judge Houck's ruling. Houck had refused to take up the case and deferred to the pending litigation in the state circuit court. Here, my expectation is that ECSC has a good shot at a favorable verdict. If ECSC does win in the Fourth Circuit, the case will be sent back to the U.S. District Court for a new consideration. If so, Charles vonRosenberg will have a good chance of being legally recognized as the legitimate bishop of the Episcopal diocese of South Carolina. The tables will be turned on Mark Lawrence who claims that right.

This year will also bring the triennial session of the General Convention (GC) of the Episcopal Church. The overriding issue will be the election of a new presiding bishop to replace Katharine Jefferts Schori. Of course, ECSC will be sending a delegation to the GC. This will be the first time in decades that the SC delegation will actually be an engaging part of the GC. For many years, the SC delegates routinely seethed in hostility to the majority and kept apart to themselves.

The ECSC can expect a year much like the past one. It is a self-sustaining entity guided by leadership given to peace and reconciliation. Its next convention will be in November at Holy Cross/Faith Memorial in Pawleys Island. There are no controversial issues at hand.

DSC is a whole different matter. Its convention will meet in March in Charleston and will face numerous serious problems. Three big issues face the independent diocese in this convention: 1-property, 2-affiliation, and 3-money.

1-Property. As I mentioned in the last post, the ruling clique introduced a resolution in the last convention to give the parish rector control over the local property. However, this resolution was mysteriously "tabled." It was set aside without a vote. We do not know why. We will have to see if it is reintroduced in March.

2-Affiliation. The last convention gave Lawrence the right to hand-pick a committee to recommend an affiliation for DSC with some other Anglican entity. That committee is to render a recommendation for affiliation to the next convention. It is interesting to note that Lawrence and Kendall Harmon have scheduled a presentation on affiliation before the vote.

3-Money. Another mystery. DSC has had a declining budget. At the same time it has greatly rising expenses, namely for its 40+ lawyers. The legal expenses have been removed from the DSC budget to a separate fund. A separate committee is handling the raising of funds for legal expenses. Only a few weeks ago it sent out an appeal for $2m. This is quite a responsibility for the 22k or so communicants of DSC. Meanwhile Lawrence continues to enjoy his million dollar residence virtually rent-free and to draw a very generous salary. Not likely to be discussed openly, the money crisis remains the elephant in the room of the convention.

While the convention will face these three big problems, DSC really has a much more serious crisis at hand, that is maintaining its institutional integrity. The schism of 2012 was a revolution from the top. It was carried out by the old diocesan leadership. It did not arise from the base of common communicants of the diocese. In short, the masses innately trusted their leaders. It is important to note that DSC's rebellion against TEC has not been followed anywhere. Not one bishop supported Lawrence. Not one diocese followed along behind DSC. DSC is a unique case. If it had been a popular revolution, it would have spread to other dioceses. The average Churchperson in South Carolina is not different that that in Georgia, North Carolina, or any other southern state.

The majority of the communicants of the old diocese went along with their leadership I think for three main reasons: 1-they bought the idea it was God's Will, 2-to keep the local property, 3-to preserve the social status quo by going to war against the Episcopal Church on the issue of homosexuality. To accomplish these three things, the majority of the people were willing to go way out on a limb, even to jump off the tree to leave their ancestral church.

The basic problem for the DSC leadership now is how to keep themselves going, how to retain the unity of their body which rests on the bond between its authoritarian leadership and the people. To do that they have to sustain the three main causes of the schism. The deal, however, shows signs of coming apart already. Its long-term outlook is dismal to say the least. In fact, I believe it is doomed to fail on its present course. In the first place, the three reasons given for opposing TEC of theology, polity, and sexuality did not hold up under scrutiny. TEC did not change its theology, did not illegally modify its rules to persecute Lawrence, and did not change the definition of marriage. The truth is gradually emerging. Excuses for leaving TEC were motivational rationalizations, not reasons.

Moreover, the issue of homosexuality is dying away. It is passing quickly from the public discourse. Conservatives know they have lost this one and many of them have already thrown in the towel. One aftereffect for DSC may be the inability to draw monetary support from deep-pocket right-wing funds. It may well be that these reactionary benefactors have given up on the campaign against homosexuality and have redirected their money to issues with more possibility such as the fight against abortion and the campaign to direct state legislatures. Also, as the issue dies away, it is likely to fade in the concerns of the communicants of DSC thereby undercutting one of the main excuses to leave TEC.

The property issue is another potential deal-breaker. If indeed the rector gets control of the local assets, as given in the "tabled" resolution, this will immediately destroy one of the main motivational factors in making the schism: local control of the property.

On an internal institutional level, DSC faces the problem of sustaining itself. This will become particularly acute among the marginal parishes. As they lose members and income, they face the inability to continue as parishes. At first, DSC tried a program of larger parishes contributing to the smaller ones, but the future of that is highly doubtful as other financial problems settle in on all the parishes, all 34 that signed on to the lawsuit of January 2013 and now have lawyers to pay.

In addition, I imagine the ordinary communicants will begin to reconsider their trust in their leaders. As I pointed out in my last post, they gradually gave Lawrence authoritarian power to run the diocese. This trust, however, was built on a negative, opposition to TEC. The leaders had no positive point, no better place to take DSC. The oversight scheme they came up with is nonsense. In reality, DSC is adrift in nothingness. In time, I imagine the faithful majority will lose patience with this aimless chaos and take control of their own lives.

A major point that communicants bought from their leaders is that they were true "Anglicans" and members in good standing of the worldwide Anglican Communion. This is not true and the reality will gradually settle in on thinking people. The Archbishop of Canterbury has made it absolutely clear that in the United States only the Episcopal Church is in the Anglican Communion. The so-called Anglican Church in North America and other entities such as DSC are therefore not in the Anglican Communion no matter what they may claim unilaterally.

In my judgment, in the long run the truth will win out and the majority of the old diocese will see that they have been misinformed and misled. I see signs of that happening already. However, as I see it at this point, Lawrence and the old leadership have too much invested in their rebellion to back out now. I believe the chances are they will live it out in their lifetimes. Most of the leaders who made the schism are at least middle age (Lawrence will be 65 in March). I imagine that group will leave the scene before a reconciliation will take place. I do believe it will take place down the road. I deeply regret all the damage that has been done and will continue to be done, and I firmly believe that history will not be kind to them.

If I were Lawrence, that is something I would be thinking about--my legacy. A hundred years from now, how will history judge Mark Lawrence? He is indelibly linked to the history of the Episcopal Church diocese after 2007 and to the ongoing independent diocese. I think he will be seen in one of two ways, as a great bishop who saved the majority of the old Episcopal diocese from the ruinous heresy of the Episcopal Church or as a misguided bishop whose policies and procedures caused pain, loss, and great harm at great cost to the church in South Carolina. We can all make our guesses at which one it will be, and we do not have to wait long as a historical record has already emerged in the seven years since Lawrence was consecrated bishop of South Carolina (Jan. 2008).

Thus, the year 2015 promises to be another crucial one in the history of the schism of the Episcopal Church in South Carolina. On the whole, I think the outlook is good for the Episcopal Church side, and dismal, or at least highly problematical, for the independent diocesan side. At any rate, it will be fascinating to see how the legal and institutional issues work themselves out during the new year.

To paraphrase Bette Davis as Margo Channing in All About Eve-- buckle your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy year.

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

REFLECTIONS ON THE YEAR 2014

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

The year 2014 has been an eventful one for the people involved in the schism of the old Episcopal diocese of South Carolina. October 15 marked two years since the division occurred. December 5 marked two years since the presiding bishop removed Mark Lawrence as a bishop. The second anniversary of the independent diocese's lawsuit against the Episcopal Church will pass in a few days.

I enjoyed keeping this blog and adding numerous posts and am gratified to know that many people have found it of interest. I had over 32,000 visitors to this blog in the year 2014. I hope I added to the reliable information and reasonable opinion on the history of the unfortunate schism in the old diocese. I know I benefited greatly from organizing and expressing my thoughts. It helped me clarify my understandings as I continue to write a narrative history of the schism in South Carolina. In the year, I completed a rough draft of the period of Lawrence's episcopate (Jan. 2008-Dec. 2012). It comes to 200 single-spaced pages and 856 footnotes, mostly from original documents. I appreciate greatly the many kind and generous people who have helped along the way, particularly the ones who gave of their time for interviews. At present I am working on the early part of the manuscript, the time up to Lawrence's consecration. After that, I will turn to the other end for the post-schism period of litigation. I hope to have some legal closure before beginning on that part.


The year 2014 produced a small gold mine of new information (or at least new to me) on the history of the schism. The circuit court trial in July gave us over 1,300 pieces of evidence entered into the public record called "Exhibits." The most important of these was Lawrence's official deposition (Exhibit D-24) of 194 pages. It is most enlightening. Others included crucial documents of the standing committee and the trustees. Unfortunately however, thousands of key documents remain secret and hidden, if indeed they still exist, in spite of legal efforts to uncover them, namely the thousand e-mails between Lawrence and his chief legal strategist Alan Runyan.

The many newly revealed documents have struck me in several ways and have caused me to reconsider some of my earlier understandings of the flow of historical events. The biggest revelation to me was the apparent existence of a sort of deal between Lawrence and the leading clergy and laity of the old diocese. It appears the two sides operated under an unwritten, and perhaps unspoken, working relationship. The bishop would give them a war against the hated Episcopal Church on homosexuality and give them the local properties. In return the leaders would give Lawrence authoritarian power to govern the diocese. It seems to me it was an invisible but real arrangement that worked out effectively for both sides. It produced the schism of 2012 whether or not schism was the original agreed-upon goal. Both parties gained measurably from the deal even if the going has been anything but free and easy.

The compact actually started before Lawrence arrived in the diocese in January of 2008. A month before, the standing committee, which was to be the primary vehicle to build Lawrence's authoritarianism, pushed aside the nine-year Bishop Suffragan by demanding, and getting, his resignation. Lawrence was to have no rival or obstacle in reorganizing the diocese. He then brought in a new staff to the diocesan headquarters, and hired an assistant to do his bidding, a Canon to the Ordinary. Later he hired a "Visiting Bishop," a former bishop in England who does not visit often.

Lawrence immediately became the dominant power in the diocese rarely missing a meeting of the trustees or the standing committee. After 2009 Runyan routinely accompanied Lawrence to the standing committee sessions. It was through these two bodies that the bishop's power gradually increased, rubber-stamped by frequently called and compliant, even robotic, diocesan conventions. In his first two years, the former champion wrestler used every bit of his amazing energy and stamina to build crucial bonds with the clergy, leading laity, and socially reactionary Anglicans abroad. Lawrence's obviously successful record in this was truly impressive.

A glaring failure in Lawrence's progress was the case of St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant. There the anti-Episcopal Church movement was far too advanced. Nevertheless, he tried. On May 29-30, 2009, he offered a prayer of "discernment" in the standing committee after which the twelve approved St. Andrew's transfer of $3.5m in property into an irrevocable trust. It should be recalled that the Dennis Canon of the Episcopal Church required all property to be held for the diocese and the national Church. Within a few months, St. Andrew's congregation voted to leave the diocese and the Church, a decision affirmed by the vestry. They took the property with them. As Lawrence looked on, the parish joined the Anglican Church in North America, the anti-Episcopal Church. Lawrence lost a parish. That was not to happen again.

While the documents revealed the growing authority of the bishop, they also showed remarkable personal gain for Lawrence. On March 17, 2010, only two years into his episcopacy and well before he was investigated, Lawrence made a lease agreement for the bishop's residence at 50 Smith Street in Charleston for one dollar a year for five years with right to renew for another five years (Exhibit D-28). This would remain in effect regardless of his status as bishop. The house is valued at one million dollars and is surrounded by other million dollar properties. It is 4 levels, 4 bedrooms, 3 baths with 4,251 sq. ft. I imagine the monthly rent on that place would be around $4k (10 yrs=$480k). 

On February 1, 2011, three years into his term and still well before he was investigated by the Episcopal Church, Lawrence got a highly lucrative employment contract from the standing committee (Exhibit D-29). Counting the value of the housing, the aggregate value of the various parts of the package amounted to around $240,000/yr. (Base salary $121,170 + family medical ins. + $10,000 annuity + retirement of 18% of housing, housing and annuity + $35,000 travel + housing). The contract had no ending date or retirement date apparently making it virtually in perpetuity. It also stated that if he were removed as bishop he would continue as chief operating officer of the corporation, a position lacking any description but keeping the salary and benefits. The contract could be terminated only by Lawrence's choice, his death, his total disability, or the terms of the bylaws which were unanimous vote of the standing committee along with a two-thirds vote of both orders in a diocesan convention. To my knowledge, all of the the details of this employment contract were not known outside the secretive ruling clique until this year. In this stunning move, Lawrence was all but guaranteed a handsome income from the diocese as long as he wished even if he were not bishop. The son of a postal worker and a store clerk who had worked his way through college, in seven years, Lawrence had arrived at a standard of living in Charleston he could only have dreamed about growing up in modest circumstances in far-off Bakersfield.

Not only the standing committee but also the trustees and the diocesan convention played parts in increasing Lawrence's authority. The convention gave to him the sole right to make absolute interpretations of the constitution and canons of the diocese. The trustees amended their bylaws several times in his favor. He was made the President of the corporation, the legal entity of the diocese (Exhibit D-16). As the President, on October 19, 2010, he amended the official charter to remove all references to the Episcopal Church (Exhibit D-9). On January 4, 2013, the trustees amended the bylaws again to make Lawrence personally (not as bishop) the president of the corporation (Exhibit D-17).

Under his absolute power to interpret the constitution and canons, Lawrence ruled on October 2, 2012, that he had the right to remove, or "disassociate," the diocese from the Episcopal Church (he also gave the right to the standing committee and the diocesan convention). On that, the committee voted a conditional withdrawal of the diocese from the Episcopal Church, a decision that was put into effect on October 17, retroactive to he 15th.

After the schism, power continued to concentrate in Lawrence's hands. He refused to join the ACNA even though all the earlier secessionist dioceses had joined it. Through his close friends in the conservative Anglican group called the Global South he agreed to a strange scheme to link the diocese with that group on the claim of oversight but also on the provision he could pull out of the arrangement at will. That scheme is a sham. Since he left the Episcopal Church (Oct. 2012), Lawrence has not publicly sworn allegiance to any higher institutional authority. In 2014 he hand-picked a committee to recommend a "realignment" or new provincial affiliation for the diocese. It is unimaginable his appointees would do anything but Lawrence's wish.

Thus, by early 2014, six years after his arrival in South Carolina, it seems to me that Lawrence and the old diocesan leaders had constructed a remarkably effective, albeit invisible, compact. As a result, Lawrence was in a very powerful position as the great authority in his independent diocese that is now an entity really disconnected from anything else. The deal proved strong enough to carry the majority of the old diocese along without a hint of dissent. Whether the relationship between Lawrence and the leaders was a conspiracy, for now I will leave up to the lawyers (conspiracy being defined as a group making a premeditated plan for illegal act or acts). I will have more to say on that in my manuscript.

However, a strange and potentially crucial event occurred in early 2014 that may well spell trouble for the seemingly solid bond between Lawrence and the diocese. In the diocesan convention in March of 2014, eleven pre-prepared resolutions were presented to the convention for approval. As usual they were issued, most by unanimous vote of the standing committee and the council, for quick rubber-stamping in the routinely obedient convention. One of the resolutions was C-3 that would give the parish rector control over the local property. Since another resolution gave the bishop direct control over the clergy, this would mean the bishop through the rector could control the local property.

Something happened in the convention to cause resolution C-3 to be tabled, that is, withdrawn without a vote. All of the other resolutions sailed through instantly, some unanimously. In all of Lawrence's years in South Carolina only one other resolution of the dozens offered had been tabled. That was the Rubric of Love, the controversial statement about homosexuality in October of 2009. When it was introduced, the convention started falling apart in disagreement. Seeing an impending disaster, the managers quickly set it aside, only to kill it at the next convention. In all of Lawrence's years, only one resolution was defeated. That one was Kendall Harmon's proposal to suspend (boycott) the General Convention in 2009. It is extremely rare for a proposed resolution to be opposed in the diocesan convention. Thus, the tabling of C-3 may indicate a significant shift in the diocese.

News of what happened to C-3 in March of 2014 has been completely concealed. Indeed Lawrence's diocese had long proved itself masterful in manipulating and controlling information and keeping its secrets. It still is. There was not a word in the diocesan newsletters about what happened to C-3. As the convention was closed to visitors and the media, not a word has leaked out about what happened. We are only left guessing. All we know for sure is that the resolution was presented by the standing committee and the diocesan council (certainly on Lawrence's wish) and that it was tabled. Why was it tabled? Is it dead? Will it be presented at the next convention in March of 2015?

Regardless of the questions, it is clear that the smooth running of Laurence's authoritarian diocese hit an unexpected roadblock. The fact is the resolution was set aside without a vote. I wonder if Lawrence had not finally reached too far. After all, a deal is a deal if indeed he had traded war against the Church and property for autocratic power. Trying to take the property after the fact would be reneging on the deal. Perhaps rumblings of opposition in the diocese had finally sounded. If so, it is the first major break in a heretofore solid structure governing the diocese. This is a possibility although at this point only a speculation. We should have a clearer picture at the convention in March. 

To recap, it seems to me the documents revealed in 2014 give us a new level of understanding of the working dynamics in the old diocese and in the new independent one. In my view, an unwritten deal was made between Mark Lawrence and the clerical and lay leaders of the old diocese. They gave him authoritarian power while he gave them war against the Church and property. Where did homosexuality fit in? It was the most visible element in the war against the Episcopal Church. It was the wedge issue Lawrence and the leaders used to pry the majority of communicants away from their ancestral  church. The issue of homosexuality was the direct, or trigger, cause of the schism. However, it was part of a much bigger arrangement at work.

The year 2014 has been a lively one for the people of the old diocese. What will 2015 bring? It certainly will bring more and more awful litigation. For starters, Judge Goodstein's impending decision will be appealed to the state supreme court. We are still awaiting a ruling from the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. We can expect another long year in the courts.

All this heaviness needs some levity at year's end. I would like to end my reflection on a lighter note from another source. The great comic actor and Episcopalian Robin Williams gave us ten good reasons to be an Episcopalian. I can think of no better way to end 2014:

Why be an Episcopalian?
10. No snake handling.

9. You can believe in dinosaurs.

8. Male and female God created them; male and female we ordain them.

7. You don't have to check you brains at the door.

6. Pew aerobics.

5. Church year is color-coded.

4. Free wine on Sunday.

3. All the pageantry--none of the guilt.

2. You don't have to know how to swim to get baptized.

1. No matter what you believe, there's bound to be at least one other Episcopalian who agrees with you.


My favorite is #7.

Thanks to you reader for choosing to spend time with me on my blog; and thanks to all my correspondents for their e-mails. Most of all I thank God for the Episcopal Church. With all of this, let us look bravely and confidently into the new year, 2015.

Ron Caldwell


e-mail me at ronaldcaldwell1210@gmail.com

  

RON CALDWELL'S

 SOUTH CAROLINA HISTORY

 HALL OF FAME, 2014

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

Welcome to the first annual awards for my choices of heroes of the year. I define "hero" as an ordinary person who, seeing wrong, goes way beyond the call of duty to right that wrong, at any and every cost to him or herself. There are heroes all around us. I see them all the time. I should start with the thousands of loyal Episcopalians across lower South Carolina who refused to take the easy path and follow the erring crowd. I especially admire those who had to leave their beloved old church homes in order to keep the true faith and do the right thing at whatever the cost. They are heroes but they are too many to name individually here. Below is my personal list of the top ten who belong in my new "South Carolina History Hall of Fame." These are in no particular order.

1. CHARLES VONROSENBERG.  No doubt he thought he was going to have a nice quiet retirement in lovely Charleston and enjoy his five beautiful grandchildren. Nevertheless, when duty called, he refused to turn away and take the easy way out. This year he endured hours, days, weeks of awful legal unpleasantness, but refused to give in to negativism. Indeed, as the trial began, he announced a plan for the blessing of same-sex unions. Reconciliation remains his admirable ideal. The Episcopal Church in South Carolina could not have asked for a better bishop.

2. JEFF RICHARDSON. A devout Anglo-Catholic and social conservative, he refused to go along with the conservative majority of the old diocese. He saw to it that St. Stephen's, in St. Stephen, and St. Alban's, in Kingstree, stayed with the real Church. He then picked up a third to serve as vicar, St. Catherine's in Florence, a congregation of faithful that has grown and flourished remarkably under his leadership. He has kept true to his views while nourishing those of his flocks. He is my choice for model priest of the year in South Carolina.

3. H. DAGNALL FREE. At first he went along with the secessionists and kept his desirable post at St. John's on Johns Island. In time, he came to see where he really belonged and made a reconciliation with the mother Church. A family man, he gave up a great deal to sacrifice for the right thing. He is due all the admiration and respect possible, and is the model for the other 102 clergy in South Carolina who were released and removed by the Episcopal Church in 2013.

4. DOLORES MILLER AND FRANCES ELMORE. The prime movers of the Episcopal Church in Florence. When "restricted" Bishop Lawrence appeared in St. John's of Florence in October of 2012, Miller was the only one to confront him to his face and challenge his right to be there. He was not amused but she steadfastly refused to back down. At the first opportunity, Miller and Elmore rallied the dozen devoted Episcopalians in the parish and made their own way against the odds and from scratch. St. Catherine's of Florence is a vibrant, growing, and flourishing congregation today. It would not even be there except for Miller and Elmore. They epitomize the best of the Episcopal laity in South Carolina.

5. STEVE SKARDON. Everyone knows Steve. For many years, he tirelessly provided information and opinion on his blog, scepiscopalians, as almost the lone voice giving the antidote to the nonsense flowing from the old diocesan ruling clique. Without Steve, the public relations initiative coming from Bishop Lawrence and his inner circle would never even have been questioned let alone challenged. Along the way, Steve remained the intrepid informer, refusing to mince words or hold back justifiable punches. He was the invaluable source of information when communicants in South Carolina needed it the most.

6. HOLLY BEHRE. Although employed as the part-time public relations officer for the Episcopal Church in South Carolina, Behre put in countless hours to keep everyone promptly informed on the latest developments. This was particularly invaluable during the circuit court trial in July. She has even posted practically all the court proceedings of the year including the monumental transcript of the circuit court trial. Sorry Jan Pringle and Joy Hunter, Behre was way ahead of you in communications.

7. WES HILL. Wes Hill? The Trinity School for Ministry professor Mark Lawrence permitted to speak in his diocese? Yes, that Wes Hill. He represented a major and positive change in attitude toward homosexuality among the people who had made that topic the wedge to pry away the majority of the old diocese from the Episcopal Church. Hill argued that homosexuality is a natural, or innate, state. This contradicted the old conservative view that it was a learned condition of choice. Hill also argued that homosexuals should remain "celibate" because, he said, homosexuality is condemned in the Scriptures. However, if one accepts Hill's view of the inborn nature of homosexuality, the next logical step is to see it as God's creation, and therefore good.

8. TOM TISDALE. Chancellor of the diocese years ago, the Church called on attorney Thomas Sumter Tisdale, esteemed descendant of one of the great old families of South Carolina, to come to its rescue once again. He did not refuse. He threw himself wholeheartedly into what he knew would be a long, hard, and terrible legal war against dozens of top-notch lawyers the secessionists had already lined up. He gave it his all and proved a tireless litigator all year long. He knows too that there is much more to come and remains unwavering in his dedication and devotion.

9. PATRICK DUFFY. United States District Judge Patrick Michael Duffy ruled last January and repeated throughout the year that the (Episcopal) Church Insurance Company of Vermont must provide benefit coverage to the real Episcopal Church diocese (called the Episcopal Church in South Carolina). Duffy had the wisdom to see which side was actually the Episcopal Church side. Some other judges out there seem to have trouble distinguishing the authentic Episcopal Church diocese from the other. Apparently, the ECSC now has sufficient funds to continue the litigation that has been forced on them by the independent diocese's lawsuit. That side is out campaigning among its people for millions of dollars in donations.

10. RICHARD GERGEL. United States Judge Richard M. Gergel in Charleston ordered in November that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry. This all but ended the long war against rights for homosexuals, at least in South Carolina. Legal same-sex marriages began in South Carolina on November 19 as dozens of couples across the state started obtaining official marriage licenses. This meant that 35 of the 50 states now permitted same-sex marriage. Among Episcopalians, same-sex couples could now marry legally and also have a blessing of the same-sex union in the church.

These are my personal choices for heroes of the year. There are many others who rightfully belong on this list, and maybe you, reader, are one of them.


With so many fine people of good will surrounding us in 2014 and with our unwavering faith in God, we should all look forward confidently to the new year of 2015. My best wishes for you all, Ron Caldwell.

E-mail me at ronaldcaldwell1210@gmail.com       



THE USE AND MISUSE OF STATISTICS

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

When the old diocese of South Carolina split on October 15, 2012, how many people went with the Lawrence side and how many remained with the Episcopal Church? Unfortunately it is impossible to know exactly. The independent diocese claimed that 82 % of the old diocese adhered to Lawrence. This is not true. The problem with this figure is that it counts every person who was on the books as a member of the breakaway parishes and missions in 2012 before the schism. In fact, in virtually every parish and mission of the old diocese, members left to go to the other side. There has been a great deal of fluidity. I known personally of many cases where loyal Episcopalians are still counted as members of the non-Episcopal local churches.

Now comes an article that claims the Episcopal Church diocese in South Carolina has suffered sharp declines. The article is Jeff Walton's "Episcopal Church Baptisms Dry Up" http://juicyecumenism.com/2014/12/19/episcopal-church-baptisms-dry/ . This was copied by Kendall Harmon at TitusOneNine on 12-20-14. The problem with Walton's view is that is a misinterpretation of the statistical data. His assertions of the decline of the South Carolina Episcopal Church diocese are inaccurate.

The Episcopal Church has published its statistical data sheets for the years 2012 and 2013: www.episcopalchurch.org/sites/default/files/2012_table_of_statistics_of_the_episcopal_church.pdf and www.episcopalchurch.org/sites/default/files/2013_table_of_statistics.pdf .
The table for 2012 gives the figures of the pre-schism diocese. In the 2013 table, the Church lists the full numbers for the old pre-schism parishes, missions, and membership, then changes for baptisms, confirmations, receptions, marriages, and burials. The numbers under these headings refer only to the activities in the Episcopal Church diocese after the schism. The baptisms etc. in the non-Episcopal churches are obviously not legitimate in the Episcopal Church and cannot be counted in the official Episcopal Church statistics. Therefore, there is a big change in the statistics in the categories of baptisms, confirmations, marriages etc. between pre-schism 2012 and post-schism 2013. The numbers given for 2013 are roughly one-third of those for 2012 (e.g. 388 baptisms in 2012 dropped to 135 in 2013). However, another way of looking at the statistics is that the Episcopal diocese has about one-third of the old diocese, a number far more realistic than the purposely inflated claim of the secessionist group. A two-thirds, one-third breakdown is about the fallout of the old diocese.

Whether the people realize it or not, individuals being baptized, confirmed etc. in a church of the Lawrence diocese and not being baptized etc. in the Episcopal Church. Lawrence and all the clergy following him have been released and removed from the list of Episcopal Church clergy. In fact, the Lawrence churches are not in any larger denomination as their leader steadfastly refuses to join one.

Anti-Episcopal Church parties have long claimed that the Church is dying. They gleefully tout this as "proof" of what is "wrong" with the Episcopal Church. Mark Lawrence used to be fond of saying the Church was a comatose patient on life support. He was wrong then and he is wrong now. It was just a lot of wishful thinking. In spite of those who tried to destroy her, the Episcopal Church is alive and well in lower South Carolina. For instance, the loyal Episcopalians of Florence, forced out of their buildings through no fault of their own as former Episcopalians continued to occupy illegally the premises, gathered 12 people in a living room in December of 2012. A few weeks ago, their Sunday service counted 82 people. Meanwhile, the Lawrence diocese is seeing expanding problems. Only recently they put out a desperate-sounding cry for money to pay the horde of lawyers doing their bidding in court. Fewer people are being pressed for more money. It is clear which side is rising and which is falling, and the misuse of statistics cannot hide that reality.


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

THE SAD CASE OF THE RT. REV. WILLIAM SKILTON

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

Everyone agrees. Bishop Skilton is a good  man with good intentions. He wants to bring peace, healing, reconciliation and closure to the gaping wound in his beloved old Episcopal Church in South Carolina. Admirable. Unfortunately, and tragically, we now see the very opposite effect. The wound is worse than ever. Everyone should agree that this is a sad outcome for a man who had contributed so much in the past to the church in South Carolina.

Skilton was elected Bishop Suffragan in 1995 topping a competitive field including Henry Parsley who later became the revered bishop of Alabama and front-runner for presiding bishop in 2006 (in the end the ultra-conservatives cynically cast their votes to elect Jefferts-Schori). However, when the search committee to nominate a new bishop formed in 2005 it did not consider Skilton. Indeed, the standing committee unanimously "requested" Skilton's resignation with a reward of a $20,000/yr stipend. He compliantly resigned in December of 2006 in order to give incoming bishop Lawrence a clean slate to run the diocese as he wished. The pro-Lawrence party simply and coldly pushed Skilton aside.


Skilton remained a conservative voice; he was one of 12 bishops who signed a declaration condemning the resolution of 2012 allowing the blessing of same-sex unions. He is now an Episcopal bishop retired from South Carolina and from the Dominican Republic. He is listed as clergy in good standing on the independent diocesan website, but not on the Episcopal Church diocesan website.

According to the documents that Skilton provided in the DSC website on December 15, early on, Bishop Charles vonRosenberg of ECSC asked him not to officiate publicly on the non-Episcopal Church side. In March of 2013, presiding bishop Jefferts Schori asked him not to "function sacramentally" on either side until things settled down. Apparently Skilton rejected both bishops' requests. He felt instead that it was important for him to preach and celebrate the Eucharist in the non-Episcopal churches of the old diocese.

On December 2, 2014 Bp. vonRosenberg sent Skilton a letter complaining about Skilton's adding to the confusion of the situation. There is plenty of confusion. To anyone attending the trial last July or reading the transcript, confusion abounded from first to last. Judge Goodstein burst out in frustration more than once, and in the very end showed bewilderment on when and how the "disassociation" had occurred even though Runyan had hammered the previous thirteen days that it did not matter, the diocese was an independent and self-contained entity.

In his letter of December 2, vonR told Skilton he would not be permitted to "function sacramentally" in a church of the Episcopal diocese. In addition, Skilton would not be allowed to represent the Episcopal diocese in any official capacity. In response, Skilton sent a letter to vonR on Dec. 11 and wrote another to "Anglicans/Episcopalians in Lower South Carolina" on Dec. 12. He did not have to publicize this correspondence, but he chose to do so anyway. He gave all three letters to the independent diocese that promptly posted them all on its website on Dec. 15 for all the world to see. Since then the anti-Episcopal Church blogosphere has predictably exploded in wrath against their favorite whipping horse, Jefferts Schori, with vonR thrown in for good measure. Badly treated by the pro-Lawrence party before 2008, Skilton was now allowing himself to be used by those same people for their anti-Episcopal agenda.

William Skilton remains officially an Episcopal bishop. He has not committed offenses that would get him removed as a bishop by the House of Bishops. He has not ordained clergy or administered confirmation in non-Episcopal churches, wrongdoings that would get him deposed right away. There is no indication that he is about to be removed.

I wrote a post here recently giving my thoughts about reconciliation. I think it will come down the road, although far down, and it will not be done by well-meaning but misdirected people. Jefferts Schori and vonR are right; there does need to be some clarity at this moment about what has happened since the majority of the old diocese broke away from the Episcopal Church. They left but still claim to be "the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina." By its own self-declared action, the independent diocese has no connection whatever with the Episcopal Church. It is not the Episcopal Church diocese. Neither is it in the Anglican Communion. However, I expect that if you ask the average person-in-the-pew in a breakaway parish, they would tell you, Oh yes, we are the real Episcopal Church and we are in the Anglican Communion. We are because our bishop told us so. If that is not confusion, nothing is. Meanwhile, we await the impending judgment from the circuit court. More confusion anyone?

 

 

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.