BREAKING NEWS ---

DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

APPEALS TO 

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

On Friday, February 9, 2018, the Diocese of South Carolina filed "Petition for Writ of Certiorari" with the United States Supreme Court. This is an appeal of the South Carolina Supreme Court ruling of August 2, 2017, in which the court declared that 29 of 36 parishes as well as Camp St. Christopher remain under Episcopal Church control.

The petition is 39 pages. The appendices amount to 194 pages.

I will return soon with more information and analysis.

"THE MEDIATION HAS 

NOT BEEN TERMINATED"

"The mediation has not been terminated." This is an official statement from bishops vonRosenberg, Adams, and Lawrence.

On January 25, 2018, they filed with the U.S. District Court in Charleston, "Joint Status Report." This was made public and meant to update the court on the progress of the mediation which was ordered by U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel on Aug. 30, 2017. The two sides have met three times since then, most recently on Jan. 12, 2018.

In the Jan. 25 Report, each side gave its view of the progress of the mediation. Bps. vonR and Adams stated:

 "it has been agreed to attempt to undertake settlement discussions between representatives of TEC and TECSC and individual parishes of the Lawrence diocese. TEC and TECSC have proposed [on Jan. 23] a protocol for such discussions to counsel for all of the involved parishes and have requested that it be accepted by February 2, 2018." 

Bp. Lawrence wrote:

"It has been agreed to attempt to undertake settlement discussions between representatives of TEC and TECSC and individual parishes of the Diocese."

"The Diocese and the participating Parishes will be responding to the suggested negotiation path by the end of next week [Feb. 2], as requested by TEC and TECSC."

Both sides agreed that there has been no progress in negotiating issues involving diocesan property in the state case and the Lanham Act claims in the federal case.

The Joint Status Report of Jan. 25, 2018, is a public document of the U.S. District Court in Charleston (filed in court on Jan. 25). However, Lawrence's response that was due on Feb. 2 reverts to the confidentiality of the mediation. We cannot know if he responded on this date as we cannot know what the response might have been. We will have to await further public announcements from the parties of the mediation.

So what does this Report tell us? It tells us first and foremost the mediation is ongoing. It is definite now that the mediation has not ended. It also tells us that "representatives of TEC and TECSC," presumably Bp. Adams and Thomas Tisdale, the chancellor, are trying to meet with the parishes (no doubt the 29 parishes named in the SCSC Aug. 2, 2017 decision) to discuss with them "settlement." We do not know yet whether DSC has accepted this proposal or what the terms of such an acceptance might be.

MEDIATION APPARENTLY ENDS

Be sure to read Steve Skardon's posting of today. Find it here . Although, owing to the gag order of mediation we cannot be absolutely sure, all signs indicate the mediation has ended. There were three meetings that apparently accomplished nothing. The last one (Jan. 12) ended without a date to meet again. By deduction, I think the following are probably true:

1. TEC wanted to implement the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017. DSC stalled.

2. DSC used the mediation to play for time. During the mediation, the federal case was on "stay." This delayed the federal case by at least four months. No doubt the original trial date in March will have to be moved back for months.

3. If this is true, which I suspect it is, the question is: Why did DSC stall for time? The only logical explanation is to rally as many people in the 29 parishes as possible to leave the buildings as ongoing congregations. The DSC leaders know well they have lost the 29 parish properties and Camp St. Christopher. This leaves them 6 parishes. They have little future unless they can extract viable congregations from the large parishes as churches in exile. 

(Mark Lawrence's old church in Bakersfield successfully did this. After years of a rising hostility to TEC, the vast majority of St. Paul's left as an "Anglican" congregation, first met in a Lutheran church, then built a new facility of their own as Trinity Anglican Church on the western side of Bakersfield. Lawrence's son Joseph is the assistant rector there. See here .)

Can the Bakersfield model be translated to South Carolina? Probably not; and for a host of reasons not the least of which is that there is no available space in peninsular Charleston.

4. DSC is obviously using every delaying tactic it can find to put off the implementation of the SCSC Aug. 2 decision. It introduced a new lawsuit in the circuit court against the Church diocese and asked the court to put it too on stay pending their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (the circuit court judge has not yer responded; TEC has asked for dismissal). Thus, DSC lawyers have used two delaying tactics, one in federal court, one in circuit court. How much more evidence do we need that the DSC leaders are dragging this out as long as possible? Do they not know, or care, about the pain all this is inflicting on people, and the very ones they claim to represent?

The hard, cold fact is that the SC supreme court has ordered 29 parishes back to TEC. This will happen. It is just a matter of time.

There is the problem. It may take much more time. On January 18, 2018, the Church diocese's lawyers filed "Notice of Motion and Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission" with the circuit court. This was to admit David Booth Beers and Mary Kostel into the litigation, again. They had represented TEC in the circuit court trial of July 2014.


Yet, amid the smoldering ruins all around them, Bishop Lawrence and his inner circle found reason to celebrate. It was for the tenth anniversary of his consecration as bishop (Jan. 26, 2008). Find it here . They presented him with a "banner...filled with superlatives." His devotees showered him with praise. In reality, in the ten years, the diocese lost 44% of its members and a third of its budget (more considering inflation), not to mention its membership in the Anglican Communion. It is losing communicants steadily, no doubt many from terminal "lawsuit fatigue." It has wasted millions of dollars of its people's money in a futile attempt to change history. Along the way, DSC became a fundamentalist-oriented sect on the fringe of the Anglican world. This is reason to celebrate?


So, where do matters stand now in the schism? The SC supreme court decision will be carried out but DSC is delaying this just as long as possible. They have three avenues left: the circuit court suit, the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the federal court trial. It appears they will use every tactic to drag these out as long as possible. The last one, the federal, can be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals delaying matters even more.

Bottom line: Today, I see no reason to be optimistic that the end of the litigation will happen anytime soon. The people who made this scandal seem resolved to carry it to total exhaustion. Sadly, there is much more pain to come before that day arrives.

NEW DEVELOPMENTS 
IN THE LITIGATION

There have been two recent developments in the ongoing litigation between the two dioceses. Background:

---Nov. 6-7, 2017. The first round of mediation. Ended early on second day.

---Nov. 19, 2017. Diocese of South Carolina filed a new lawsuit in the circuit court of Dorchester county claiming payments from TEC/TECSC under the "Betterments Statute."

---Dec. 4, 2017. Second meeting of mediation. Ended abruptly.

---Dec. 15, 2017. TEC/TECSC filed a motion in the circuit court of Dorchester County to dismiss DSC's Nov. 19 lawsuit.


TWO NEW DEVELOPMENTS;

---Dec. 27, 2017. DSC filed "Motion to Establish Complex Case Designation." This asked the court for an order "designating this case as complex." It gives an anticipated time to try the case as three weeks.

     (The chief administrative judge (Goodstein) may choose to designate the case as complex, or may hold a hearing before deciding. If complex status is granted, time is guaranteed, and one judge is assigned to handle the case to completion. See here .)

---January 10, 2018. Release of an order given by Judge Diane Goodstein (made December [27?] 2017), as the Chief Administrative Judge of the circuit court of Dorchester County, designating Judge Edgar Dickson as the judge for the case "for administrative purposes."

(Find the two new documents on the website of Dorchester County First Judicial Circuit Public Index, Case # 2017CP1801909.)


Today, Jan. 12, 2018, the third round of mediation occurred. No information about what happened was released. No date to meet again was announced.

Judging from the ongoing litigation in the circuit court, it is reasonable to assume that DSC is choosing to pursue the differences with the Episcopal Church in the courts rather than in mediation.

It seems that Judge Dickson will be handling the case in the circuit court (there are only two judges in the circuit court of Dorchester, Goodstein and Dickson). . He has two motions before him, one is the Complaint from the DSC claiming "betterments." The other is TEC/TECSC's motion to dismiss the DSC suit.


So, what are we ordinary people sitting on the sidelines supposed to make of all this mish-mash of litigation? We are in our sixth year of this legal showdown. With the exception of Afghanistan, the church war in SC has lasted longer than any American war. Speaking for myself, I feel exhaustion and sadness.

There are two big currents going on now, mediation and litigation. I see not one shred of evidence the mediation is working. I see no evidence that DSC wants it to work. I see plenty of evidence that DSC is finding every delaying tactic possible. From my vantage point, I can only conclude the war will drag on and on. Even if TEC/TECSC gets DSC's frivolous lawsuit thrown out of the circuit court, which I think is likely, DSC can kill time by appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. By dragging out mediation, as they are doing, they are also delaying the start of the federal trial which will almost certainly have to be moved back months from the original date of March 2018. Mediation has been going on for over three months without the first sign of any progress. In fact, we do not even have a date for the next meeting, or even if there will be a next meeting. However, DSC cannot put off the federal case forever. When that trial finally does occur, DSC stands a good change of losing everything including the 7 parishes now outside of Church trust control. If I were in one of these 7 churches, I would be demanding DSC to cut a deal asap.

It seems to me DSC is fighting to the bitter end in this legal war. They know they have lost the fundamental issue. They are now fighting only a rear guard action delaying the final surrender as long as possible. Their actions since the Aug. 2 SCSC decision have revealed this loudly and clearly. They are throwing up every roadblock and using every delaying tactic available trying to stave off the inevitable. The inevitable will come. They cannot prevent that. And when it does come it is likely to be the end that they made for themselves in their spectacularly bad decisions. The casualties will be the people-in-the-pews who put their faith in leaders who failed them.

ANNOUNCEMENT 

OF CHUCK MURPHY'S DEATH

Announcement was made yesterday of the death of the Rt. Rev. Charles Hurt Murphy III. Find it here . (reportedly died Jan. 8, of brain cancer.)

People who have lived in South Carolina a long time, or who have read my history of the schism will be familiar with the life and work of Chuck Murphy. He played a big and crucial role in the history of the dissolution of the old Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. 

Murphy became rector of All Saints Waccamaw, Pawleys Island SC, in 1982. He also became an outspoken leader in DSC against TEC's reforms in favor of homosexuals and was the original driving force of the secessionist movement in South Carolina calling and leading the First Promise session in 1997, in the aftermath of the TEC General Convention of that year which conservatives believed opened the door to the eventual blessings of same-sex unions. In 2000 he was a leader in the formation of the Anglican Mission in the Americas and was consecrated a bishop in a highly irregular service in Singapore that included retired Bishop Allison, of SC. AMiA, under the auspices of the Anglican primates of Rwanda and Southeast Asia, initiated the practice of foreign primatial intervention in America. By 2004, All Saints Waccamaw (Pawleys Is.) declared its independence from the diocese setting up the template for secession from TEC. The parish and diocese went to court, all the way to the SC supreme court. In its famous All Saints decision of September 2009, the court recognized the parish's right to independence and the property. This was a crucial precursor to the diocesan schism of 2012.

Murphy had rather tumultuous relationships with other church authorities. He had a falling out with his primate, of Rwanda and left (find it here ). AMiA drifted here and there. Finally, the parish of All Saints held a vote on whether to join the Anglican Church in North America, against Murphy's wishes. He had another well-publicized falling out with Archbishop Duncan, of ACNA (find it here ). The majority of All Saints voted against Murphy. He withdrew with a hundred or so loyal followers and started his own church, the Abbey, in Pawleys Island.

Looking back, few people were more important in the long history of the schism in South Carolina than Chuck Murphy.  

NEW YEAR, OLD SCHISM

It is a new year, 2018.

Best wishes to all of my readers. May you and yours have a wonderful new year.  

It may be a new year on the calendar, but it is an old year in the schism. We are now in the sixth year of the Episcopal Church division in South Carolina. The break occurred on October 15, 2012. In a few days we will start the sixth year of the legal war between the two adversaries. On one side is the Church (TEC) and its diocese, the Episcopal Church in South Carolina (TECSC). On the other is the independent diocese, called the Diocese of South Carolina (DSC). The opening shot of the conflict (the firing on Ft. Sumter) came on January 4, 2013, when DSC entered a lawsuit in circuit court against TEC for ownership of the pre-schism diocese. This scandalous and shameful war has been going on ever since leaving everyone wondering, how much longer?

One of the biggest myths promulgated by the DSC leadership to keep the support of the faithful in the schism was the claim that TEC assaulted the DSC. This forced DSC to go to court to "protect" itself and the parishes against an attempted "hijack" by TEC. This assertion was not true. In fact, documents showed that Bishop Lawrence met with lawyer Alan Runyan and the DSC standing committee all day on November 6, 2012. This was apparently the initial meeting of the DSC leadership to plan an aggressive legal war against the Episcopal Church. On that day, the committee passed a secret resolution authorizing the lawyers of the diocese "to take whatever measures they deem appropriate and necessary to protect the Diocese and its property." November 6th was two and a half months before the Church diocese had a chance to reorganize, and well before the DSC special convention (Nov. 17) resolved to affirm the schism made by the standing committee on Oct. 15. Moreover, the same people who met on Nov. 6, assembled again on November 20. This time, the standing committee passed another secret resolution authorizing the DSC lawyer "to file at a time and place of his choosing a lawsuit on behalf of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina against TEC for a declaratory judgment." The standing committee resolutions of Nov. 6 and Nov. 20 were to remain secret until the documents were turned over to the Church lawyers in 2013 in the run-up to the circuit court trial. They were known only to the cabal that made them, no more than two dozen people in the leadership of DSC, which happened to be the same bunch who had secretly planned and enacted the schism in October of 2012. The TEC diocese was in limbo after Lawrence announced the schism to Jefferts Schori on Oct. 17, 2012. It did not meet for reorganization until January 26, 2013. In the meantime, TEC had shown no intention of making a lawsuit against DSC. Yet, to this day, DSC continues to repeat the demonstrably false claim that it was TEC that "assaulted" DSC and started the lawsuits. The indisputable fact is that DSC started the legal war in SC. 

And what a war it has been! It has been fought with full fury on five battlefields so far: the state circuit court, the South Carolina Court of Appeals, the South Carolina Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals. In a scan of the officially-filed legal actions in all of these courts, I counted 93 separate documents. These would be motions, complaints, briefs, counter-claims, responses, judges' decisions and the like. DSC entered 27, TEC/TECSC made 35, and the judges of the courts issued 31 decisions. In addition, there were numerous examples of hearings, affidavits, subpoenas, and service of papers. There were two highly watched court proceedings, the circuit court trial from July 8 to 25, 2014, and the SC Supreme Court hearing of Sept. 23, 2015. It is no wonder there is widespread "lawsuit fatigue." Only the DSC leaders seem to be oblivious to this debilitating condition. 

So now, at the start of 2018, how close are we to a final settlement? Unfortunately, it is hard to say. As for a peaceful negotiated settlement, there have been at least four opportunities. Not one has shown any positive outcome. The first came in July of 2013 when Judge Diane Goodstein asked the two sides if they would make a mediated settlement. The Church lawyers, Thomas Tisdale, for TECSC, and David Beers, for TEC, agreed but the DSC lawyers refused. That ended the first chance at a negotiated settlement. The second chance came in June of 2015 when the Church side offered DSC a compromise of swapping the diocese for the parishes. The Church would recognize the independence and property ownership of the parishes in return for the legal entity of the pre-schism diocese. DSC leaders flatly rejected that offer. If they had taken it, the litigation would have ended and today the 29 parishes would be on their own. The third opportunity came on November 6-7, 2017, in the first meeting of the federal court-ordered mediation. It ended quickly, early on the second day. Under the court's gag rule, no one involved is allowed to tell us what happened. The fourth chance came at the second meeting of mediation, on December 4. Apparently that session ended tout de suite. Again, under the rules, no one can tell us what happened. All we really know is that the two mediation meetings ended abruptly. It is reasonable to read this as an unwillingness on one or both parts to make a compromise settlement. So, who is at fault for the failure of settlement? All we know for sure is that DSC initiated the lawsuits and refused negotiated settlements. 

It seems to me the two sides are approaching mediation entirely differently. The Church side has made it clear it wants mediation to work out the arrangements to enact the August 2 state Supreme Court decision that returned 29 parishes and Camp St. Christopher to the Church side. The DSC lawyers meanwhile have moved headlong into two new legal actions plainly showing they have no interest in a negotiated settlement. DSC launched a new lawsuit against TEC/TECSC and announced plans to appeal the Aug. 2 decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Both of these contradicted the point and purpose of the mediation, to make a compromise agreement to end the litigation. DSC shows no sign of a willingness to end the legal war.

________________________________________

WHAT CAN WE EXPECT IN 2018?

There are four legal actions pending:

1. Mediation.

The third round of mediation is scheduled for Jan. 11-12. Given the record of the first two attempts and DSC's attitude, it is difficult to be optimistic about mediation. 

2. New lawsuit. 

DSC's lawsuit of November 19 against TEC/TECSC claiming payments under the "Betterments Statute." This has two main points, demand for payments from TEC/TECSC apparently for the full value of the diocesan and parish properties, and a stay of the suit pending the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

This is a frivolous lawsuit that has serious issues of standing. In all likelihood, it will be dismissed by the circuit court. It is another DSC delaying tactic.

3. U.S. Supreme Court. 

DSC announced its plan to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. DSC has until Feb. 15 for the filing. 

The chance that SCOTUS will accept DSC's appeal is remote. Again, what else could this be but another DSC delaying tactic?

4. The federal case.

The Church side's lawsuit of March 2013 in the U.S. District Court, in Charleston, is pending. In vonRosenberg v. Lawrence, the Church asked the federal court to recognize the Church bishop as the rightful Episcopal bishop of the diocese citing the Lanham Act that protects federally registered trademarks. 

In August, Judge Richard Gergel scheduled this case for trial in March. However, the mediation has put a stay on the proceedings leaving a trial date uncertain. 

Historically, federal courts routinely side with the Episcopal Church and its dioceses against breakaway elements. Chances are strong that the Church diocese will prevail in this case too. If so, DSC could stand to lose all, including the 7 parishes left out of the Aug. 2 decision. 

One factor to bear in mind is that the losing party can appeal a decision of the federal court in Charleston to the U.S. appeals court in Richmond thus dragging out the end even longer. 

____________________________________

The basic settlement has been made by the SC supreme court. It is that the bulk of the parish properties are to be returned to the Episcopal Church. All the rest of it is just sweeping up. However, it seems that DSC is throwing every roadblock imaginable to stave off the inevitable. This is a dangerous gamble. Their chance of winning in the end is slim indeed. Their chance of losing everything is real. Surely, the DSC leadership would be better off cutting the best deal they can sooner rather than later and going on with what they have.

This headlong rush to self-destruction should not be too surprising. One should remember the big picture here. The leaders of DSC believe they are in a great culture war to defeat the forces of secular humanism they believe have taken over the Episcopal Church. They are not ones to give up or compromise in what they see as a war for righteousness. It is right or wrong, with no room in-between. Moreover, DSC is an authoritarian regime where decisions are made at the top and passed down to the clergy and laity. The ordinary people-in-the-pews have no power in deciding what the diocese will do. So far, the DSC leadership has shown only a go-for-broke attitude. 

And look at DSC's record of making consequential errors. Reviewing the history of the five years of litigation, one can see serious mistakes the DSC side made: the one-sided conduct of the circuit court trial that resulted in a universally-ridiculed and rejected decision, the failure to request the recusal of Justice Kaye Hearn early on, the off-handed rejection of the Church's attempts at generous settlement, and the bitter attempt to remove Justice Hearn from the case after the fact. Looking back, all of these were costly errors in judgment. It should not be surprising then that the DSC leaders would continue on in this vein.

DSC has lost the Battle of Waterloo (or Gettysburg). What they are doing now is only a rear guard skirmish in retreat. It is a scorched earth strategy using delaying tactics in all of the courts available. Or, to use another analogy, it is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Unfortunately, the victims of all of this will be the thousands of trusting souls who put their fates in the hands of misguided and misguiding authoritarian leaders. The end of this demolition derby cannot come soon enough even though there is more pain ahead.

Since the basic conflict between the two sides has been settled, what is important now is the future of the 13,000 communicants in the 29 parishes that will be returned to the Episcopal Church bishop.

_________________________________________

One last thought in reflection on the year 2017:

In the course of the schism, two landmark events occurred in the year 2017. One was the resolution of the fate of the 36 parishes in question. The Episcopal Church regained control over 29 of them.

The other great occurrence of the year was really more fundamental to the schism. It was the collapse of DSC's claim of God's favor. All along, the DSC leaders promoted the assertion that since DSC was the "orthodox" side, God naturally favored them. For instance, soon after the schism, as he was trying to raise more money to pay lawyers, Bishop Lawrence called the Church side "the spiritual forces of evil" (find it here , p. 2, lower left). In the course of the litigation, DSC spokesmen touted each and every victory as a sure sign of God's favor. They had many victories in the four and a half years between the start of litigation, Jan. 4, 2013, and the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017. Perhaps the DSC leaders' most unrestrained claim to God's will came on Feb. 6, 2015, the day after Judge Goodstein's sweeping ruling in their favor. Lawrence issued a letter to the diocese (find it here ) including lines such as: "Most grateful for the Might Hand of God throughout the whole ordeal...our God-given dreams and missions...grateful for God's grace, and seeking that God's love 'be poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us.'" The Rev. Jim Lewis also posted a letter (find it here ): "It is God's grace that has brought us to this day. Legal counsel has affirmed that they have experienced God's grace at work in this litigation from start to finish."

Discerning God's will is always risky business. Human beings cannot know the mind of God. It is far beyond human comprehension. Even our language is inadequate to describe God since it is constrained by the bounds of human self-consciousness. We can know from scripture, tradition, and reason the general moral and ethical guides to human behavior. We know what God expects of us. Beyond that, speaking for God and saying this or that is God's will is beyond presumptuous. Adam's original sin was to put himself in the place of God. Daring to speak for God is dangerously close to Adam's primal error. So, people need to be very careful when they claim to interpret God's will.

This makes three great failures the DSC leaders delivered to their faithful after the schism; and they all became clear in the year 2017:

1-The first was not gaining the independence of the 29 parishes that now are to be returned to the Episcopal Church.

2-The second was not removing the pre-schism diocese from the Episcopal Church legally and with the assets in hand. The SCSC declared the Church diocese, and not DSC, to be the heir of the pre-schism diocese.

3-The third great failure of the DSC leaders was in presuming to claim divine partiality. They led their people to believe God would guide and defend the independent diocese, even in court.

By claiming God's will in the court actions before Aug. 2, the DSC leaders painted themselves into a corner. After the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, and reaffirmation on Nov. 17, in favor of the Episcopal Church, to be consistent they had to make one of two choices. On one hand, they could say that God willed the return of the 29 parishes to TEC. On the other, they could say that God does not control the court decisions. They cannot have it both ways, that some legal decisions are God's will and some are not. No one in his right mind would dare to decide which legal actions were sanctioned by God and which were not. (Do not misunderstand what I am saying here. I am not claiming that God is on either side. I am simply pointing out that the DSC leaders have fallen into a trap of their own making by declaring God's will in the legal actions before Aug. 2.) What the DSC leaders have done since Aug. 2 is to fall silent about God's will.

To be blunt, the DSC bishop and his lawyers failed to deliver what they promised their people in the schism. 

Discerning the right course of action is the most serious of all the considerations that the 13,000 communicants in the 29 parishes have to confront in the near future. The DSC leaders' claim, or at least implication, to their faithful followers that the schism was God's will, has now been shown to be hollow. This is a great deal for the 13,000 communicants in the 29 parishes to process, but they must do it, and sooner rather than later. The harsh, stark reality that 2017 brought out into the open was that the schism in South Carolina has been a failure on many levels.

Let us return to the question of what the year 2018 will bring for the schism. Last year brought the turning point and beginning of the end of the litigation. Today it appears most likely that the state court actions will become exhausted this year as the circuit court dismisses DSC's nuisance lawsuit and the U.S. Supreme Court denies "cert." This leaves the federal case ongoing. It appears mediation will fail leaving the federal court to proceed with a trial, probably in the year 2018. The decision there can be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals and that could easily move into 2019 and perhaps even beyond.

Most regrettably and most unfortunately, reason forces me to conclude that at this point it seems likely the legal war between the two sides will drag on beyond this year.

So, what next? The next scheduled event in the ongoing litigation is the mediation session set for January 11-12, 2018. This will be an important meeting. If it comes to nothing, as the first two tries did, I would see no reason to hope that mediation will settle the legal issues. Three strikes and you are out. No mediation settlement would mean all the remaining legal issues will have to be settled in the courts.


[NOTE. Agree? Disagree? Information to share? Ideas for new blog posts? Please send them along in emails. I value every one. This blog is widely read--115,000 "views" in the year 2017.]

CHRISTMAS GREETINGS
AND REFLECTIONS ON THE YEAR 2017

My best wishes to all of the readers of this humble blog for a wonderful Christmas. If I could mail each of you a card, I would have this picture on it:

This was my garden at dawn on December 9. This much snow is a rarity in the deep South. Who could not be in awe at the beauty of God's creation?

The year 2017 is about to come to a close. What a year it has been! Monumental events have occurred on every level of life all around us. Looking back, then, it is timely to ask, what difference has 2017 made?

THE SCHISM

The Episcopal Church schism in South Carolina reached a turning point in 2017 and fundamentally settled the big issue of the schism: who controls the 36 parishes that claimed to leave the Episcopal Church in 2012?

The South Carolina Supreme Court decision of August 2 recognized the Episcopal Church and the Church diocese, the Episcopal Church in South Carolina, as the trustees of 29 of the 36 parishes in question. This means that the 29 parishes return to control of the Church and its diocese. The independent diocese, the Diocese of South Carolina, is left with 6 parishes, all outside of Charleston. One other parish, St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant, is in the Anglican Church in North America's Diocese of the Carolinas, a diocese separate from DSC even though the two overlap.

On the question of the ownership of the pre-schism diocese, DSC is still in possession of the legal entity of the old diocese. The SCSC decision of Aug. 2 did not disturb that. However, this issue will be settled by the U.S. District Court in Charleston as it deals with the vonRosenberg v. Lawrence case. Although SCSC did not issue an opinion on this question, it did rule that the Church diocese is the rightful heir of the pre-schism diocese and looked to the federal court to settle the issue through a judgment on the trademark question.

DSC gave tacit recognition of the Church and Church diocese's control of both the diocese and the 29 parishes in the new lawsuit it filed against TEC/TECSC in circuit court on November 19. In this Complaint, DSC demanded reparations for the "improvements" made on the properties under the "Betterments Statute." The statute said the occupants of property belonging to someone else had right to payments from the property owner for improvements they (the occupants) made on the property. Thus, DSC has recognized that the diocesan and parochial properties were, and are, under Church control. (Technically, the diocesan assets are owned by the Trustees of the diocese while parish properties are owned in deeds held by the parishes. TEC and TECSC claim trusteeship, not ownership, of the parish properties under the Dennis Canon.) 

In essence, by the SCSC decision (Aug. 2) and DSC's Complaint (Nov. 19), the basic issues of the schism have been settled. As for the state supreme court ruling, DSC is engaged in two aftereffects, filing a new lawsuit against TEC/TECSC and announcing its intent to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. DSC's new lawsuit, filed Nov. 19, is frivolous, if desperate. It will almost certainly be dismissed in the next few months, if not weeks. The appeal to SCOTUS is even more of a long shot. It is most unlikely the high court will take the case. The usual time of dismissing an appeal (petition for "cert") is three to six months.

Looking back over the year 2017, what I regret the most about the schism is the way the DSC leaders treated Justice Kaye Hearn. This was reaching the bottom of the barrel. Exactly what the DSC lawyers thought this was going to accomplish is still a mystery to me. The DSC side did everything they could to smear her name and destroy her judicial reputation. They did not succeed of course because she had nobility and strength of character towering over her enemies and the absolute confidence of her fellow justices. In fact, the DSC scheme backfired as every one of the other four justices rallied to defend their colleague and chastise her detractors. We cannot know for sure, but it is entirely possible that the severity of the attack on Hearn may actually have sunk DSC's demands for rehearing. If so, it would be just deserts.    

Mediation is to resume next month. Judging from the two aborted attempts so far, I do not see how anyone could be hopeful of a negotiated settlement. 

The federal court case goes on. Judge Gergel had originally set a trial date of March 2018, but given the ongoing mediation and the stay in the case during that process, we will have to wait and see how the judge schedules the matter in the future. Before a trial, there will have to be a "discovery" period for the lawyers to prepare for it. It may well be that the trial will have to be delayed.

Given that the basic issue of the parishes has been settled and the ownership of the old diocese is almost certainly going to be settled, and in favor of the Church, what we will see in 2018 is only DSC's delaying tactics. They have shown every sign of dragging out the inevitable end as long as possible. 

I think there are probably two big reasons for this. One is to continue its campaign of demonization of the Episcopal Church and de-legitimization of the court decisions in the minds of the 15,000 communicants now in DSC. If DSC is to continue as a viable entity after the schism is settled, it must have the support of thousands of people. With only six local parishes and no diocesan infrastructure, DSC will have to rebuild from scratch. This will be enormously challenging and can be done only with a great deal of public support.

The second big reason for DSC's delay I suspect is really the most important, the deconstruction of the Episcopal Church. Fundamentally, this schism is more about destroying the Episcopal Church in eastern South Carolina than in building a better church. If it had been about building, DSC would have accepted the generous proposal of TEC in June of 2015 when the Church offered to recognize all of the 36 parishes as independent and the sole owners of the property. Moreover, if were now about building, DSC would be seriously negotiating for the best deal it could get in the mediation. 

All signs indicate that DSC will fight against TEC until the bitter end regardless of the outcome (read retired Bp Allison's letter to the editor here ); and even if the odds are against them, which they are. DSC will almost certainly lose in the circuit court and in their bid to SCOTUS. They proceed with the federal case at their own peril. Federal courts have almost universally sided with the Episcopal Church and the Church dioceses against breakaway groups. DSC's chance in federal court is nil. What is more, when DSC loses in federal court, it is entirely possible they will lose everything including the six parishes they now have. With their seemingly endless litigation, they also stand to lose the much-needed support of the ordinary people-in-the-pews who are already showing signs of lawsuit fatigue (see here ). DSC leaders failed to deliver to their people the promises of the schism, yet they go on, and expect the faithful to keep on paying for it. They are risking a backlash from their own people.

Chances are very good that the year 2018 will bring an end of the litigation between the two sides and at least the beginning of a settlement of the schism. The 29 parishes will have to readjust to reunion with the Episcopal Church. This will take a lot of work and probably time. But then, the Diocese of South Carolina has been around a long time, 232 years to be exact. The schism has been the worst event in the history of the diocese, but it has not been the end of the diocese. The Episcopal Church is alive and well in South Carolina, wounded to be sure, but on the mend and facing a promising future.

Thus, we must end 2017 on a high note of optimism about the end of the schism. The diocese will survive, and even thrive. Years from now, people will look back and shake their heads in dismay that prejudice against gays led to this. What a waste.  What a shame.

THE NATION

The first year of the Trump presidency revealed what we knew would happen. Trump is a con man but also unstable and incompetent. He won the election by posing as the champion of the ordinary people, the middle and working classes. He governs as the reverse, the champion of the very wealthy. The new tax law is the greatest transfer of wealth from the ordinary citizens to the very rich in the history of the United States. This is his only significant achievement of the year. Otherwise, he is busy deconstructing the state by attacking the CIA, the State Department, the FBI, and the media and by dismantling as much as possible of the Obama legacy. His devotees are now attacking the special prosecutor. Trump is a would-be dictator who is challenging the whole constitutional system of America.

For the last fifty years, conservatism in America has had two main streams, economic and socio/cultural. The traditional Republicans were economic conservatives. They believed that the government should favor the propertied classes under the "trickle down" theory, that the prosperity of the rich would move downward through society and everyone would be better off. This theory was popular thirty years ago under President Reagan and was discredited then. It is still used as the rationale for favors to the wealthiest citizens. Socio/cultural conservatives were not so concerned about money but about preserving the old values and ways of life and resisting what they saw as the destructive changes in society and culture all around them. Republican leaders learned a half century ago that they could win elections by using the socio/cultural lures, then switching to economic policy once in power. President Reagan was a master of this. He used socio/cultural issues to get elected, and immediately got the biggest tax cut in American history, and one heavily tilted to the rich. Trump did the same. Meanwhile, the people who elected Reagan and Trump really got nothing but the bill for tax cuts to the rich.

In 2018, look for an acceleration in moves of the deconstruction of the state. Republicans are certain to go after social "safety net" institutions. They want to "privatize" (turn over to Wall Street) Social Security and the Veterans Administration, and severely diminish, if not destroy, Medicare and Medicaid. They will be in a hurry to do this as they know they will lose the Nov. 2018 mid-term election and almost certainly lose their majority in the House of Representatives. After that, government will be a stalemate as it was in the last six years of the Obama terms. As of this point, the Republicans are also likely to lose the presidency and the Senate in the 2020 elections.

My theory is that we are in the last stage of the counter-revolution against the great democratic reform movement of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Conservatives in both state and church finally realized they could not stop the reforms. As the last resort, they turned to deconstruction of the institutions that made the reforms, hence the schisms and Trump. If this is indeed the last stage, as I think it is, we can expect this deconstruction phase to die out and a post-revolutionary settlement to envelope both state and church. The looming question at this point is how much longer it will last and how much more destruction we will see before the end. I think there will be a good deal of both in 2018 but also probably the beginning of settlement by the end of the year. I doubt the deconstruction will last more than another year. DSC is likely to exhaust its legal avenues and Trump is likely to lose his majority in Congress before the end of 2018.

ALABAMA

Who would have thought it? Of all states, it is Alabama that very well may the first signal of the beginning of the end for Trump and Trumpism (sorry Virginia, but you are a purple state, no where near as red as Alabama). A state that gave Trump one of his biggest margins of victory, 23 points, reversed itself only a year later. This is earth-shaking. I would not believe it if I had not seen it with my own eyes. Alabama elected a pro-abortion Democrat. This is the first Democrat to win a state-wide race in Alabama in nearly ten years, and the first to win a U.S. Senate seat in 25 years! Republicans are not stupid. They know what this means and this is why they are in a rush to pass as many counter-revolutionary and deconstruction measures as they can in the limited amount of time they have left. For once, perhaps the first time in history, Alabama is leading the nation in something.

On a more personal note, this has been an important year for me too. A form of cancer than runs in my family showed up. My grandfather died of it. My father was successfully treated but with side effects. Thanks to the God-given miracles of modern medicine, I was successfully treated with only negligible side effects. My father lived to be 96, my mother to 94. Neither had any form of dementia. Longevity runs in both sides of my family and I fully intend to make the most of what I am given. I am already at work on more research and writing and will go just as long as I can. I consider myself blessed.

Other than surviving cancer, the highlight of my year was the appearance of my new book, A History of the Episcopal Church Schism in South Carolina. It was released in August by Wipf and Stock Publishers, of Eugene OR. This was the result of four years' of research and writing. I did not work on it constantly, however, as that would have been too depressing. I had to take breaks for therapy such as gardening and travel. I am an avid railroad fan and ride all over the country on the train just for fun. (BTW--Keep the people of Amtrak 501 in your prayers. Dec. 18's derailment was the worst train wreck in years.) I am pleased at the way the book turned out and the reception it has had.

2017 was a momentous year for my church, nation, state, and myself. All of these had turning points in some sense; and, in my opinion, the turn was for the better. As 2017 comes to an end, I have a sense that 2018 will bring resolution to some of our most serious problems. 

The schism in South Carolina has been going on a long time now, more than five years. It has been a difficult time to say the least. On the whole, though, I am more encouraged now than ever. I think the end is in sight. I believe we are at the beginning of the conclusion. I think it just a matter of wrapping up and making peace. I hope peace brings with it reconciliation, healing, and friendship. We all need to get back to being worthy of the name we are privileged to bear.


HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT:  To all of my readers in South Carolina, I am giving you a homework assignment today and I want you to do this before the end of the year, before Christmas would be even better. Your assignment is to watch the movie, "All Saints."

(If you have already seen it, then your back-up is "The Shack.")

(If you cannot get "All Saints" through a media provider, it is out on DVD and can be rented at the Red Box. Same for "The Shack.")

"All Saints" is the true story of an Episcopal church consigned to death that was brought back to life in a most unexpected way and back to a life far more glorious that it had ever had. It is a life-affirming tale of triumph over what may appear to be the worst. Every discouraged church person worried about the future needs to see this movie. You will be moved to tears and you will be glad. You may see the schism in SC in a new light. Who knows, maybe someday there will be a movie about the schism in South Carolina.


My best regards to you and yours at this blessed season and my best wishes to you and yours for a wonderful new year. Life is an adventure and although we have free will and make our choices everyday, there still remains a great deal that happens to us that is beyond our control. I have always believed it is best we really cannot know the future. Yet, we go on day by day doing our best, knowing we are not alone and confident in the great power of the universe that is incalculably greater than ourselves.

THE ISSUE OF THE PROPERTY
(revised Dec. 20)

Yesterday the Episcopal Church and the Church diocese (Episcopal Church in South Carolina) entered a motion in the circuit court to dismiss the independent diocese's (Diocese of South Carolina) Complaint of November 19, 2017, claiming payments from TEC/TECSC under the "Betterments Statute." This raised again the thorny issue of property that I think leaves many people in confusion of what this property business is all about. I would like to try to clarify the issue.

Once again, I need to remind everyone I am not a lawyer or legal expert and have no official connection to any diocese. I am only a layman giving my personal opinions, not advice.

I would define property as real estate, buildings, financial accounts, and furnishings, paraphernalia and the like.

There are two groups of properties at hand: 

1-properties of the diocese (as accounts, Camp St. Christopher, diocesan house on Coming St., the bishop's residence on Smith St.), and 

2-properties of the local parishes (as land, buildings, and accounts).

The pre-schism diocese had two separate legal entities incorporated under South Carolina law. 

---The first was the diocese itself. This was established in 1973 explicitly acceding to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church (in 2010, DSC revised the incorporation charter to remove reference to the Episcopal Church). 

---The second was the Trustees of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina. This set up a Board of Trustees to control the assets of the diocese including land, buildings, and accounts. Technically, the Board of Trustees owns the real and financial assets of the diocese. The Board is elected by the diocesan convention.

THE DENNIS CANON.

The Dennis Canon was adopted by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 1979 and has been church law ever since. "Canon" means church law.

It was named for Walter Dennis, a deputy in the GC of 1979 who was later bishop suffragan of New York.

The resolution was D024. According to the journal of the 1979 GC, (find it here ), the canon originated with the Committee on Canons of the House of Bishops (GC has two houses, House of Bishops and House of Deputies). The resolution was adopted by the House of Bishops and sent to the House of Deputies where it was also adopted making it effective. The Dennis Canon was added to the official Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church as Canon Title I, 7.4.

The Dennis Canon had two main parts:

---Trusteeship.

All Real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located. The existence of this trust, however, shall in no way limit the power and authority of the Parish, Mission or Congregation otherwise existing over such property as long as the particular Parish, Mission or Congregation remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canons.

Thus, the canon clearly states that all local properties are held in trust for two units, the Episcopal Church and the local Episcopal Church diocese. This is true even if the deed is held by the local church. In effect, this leaves the property with the local congregation as long as that group remains in the diocese AND the Episcopal Church. If the local congregation resolves to leave the diocese AND/OR the Episcopal Church, they cannot take the land and buildings without the permission of the trustees, the Church AND the diocese.

---Immediate validity.

The several Dioceses may, at their election, further confirm this trust declared under the foregoing Section 4 by appropriate action, but no such action shall be necessary for the existence and validity of the trust.

The Dennis Canon is immediately operative throughout the entire Episcopal Church whether or not the local dioceses adopt it. (DSC did adopt it, formally, in 1987, and voted to delete it by resolution of convention in 2010.)

The Dennis Canon established the Church and the local dioceses as trustees of parish properties. For a discussion of the legal term "trustee" see this article .

The Diocese of South Carolina explicitly acceded to the Dennis Canon from 1987 to 2010. The right of a diocesan convention to nullify a church law is highly dubious. The Church side would argue that he Dennis Canon remained in effect regardless of a vote of the diocesan convention.

What about the quit claim deeds?

In November of 2011, Bishop Lawrence issued quit claim deeds to all of the parishes of the diocese. These "quit" or surrendered any claim of trusteeship the diocese had on the properties. Whether he had the right to do this is highly dubious since it directly violated Episcopal Church law. Even if he did this legitimately, he could not surrender the Episcopal Church part of the trusteeship. Under the Dennis Canon, both the Church and the diocese are trustees of the property. I do not see what right Lawrence would ever have to surrender the trusteeship of the national Church over the local properties.

What will now happen to the quit claim deeds, at least of the 29 parishes to be returned to the Church, is an interesting question that a lawyer would need to explain to us. It seems to me that the deeds were illegal to start with because they directly violated the Dennis Canon.

THE MOTION TO DISMISS.

The TEC/TECSC Motion (Dec. 15, 2017) to Dismiss DSC's Complaint (Nov. 19, 2017) dealt with issues of property.

---The Motion pointed out that all diocesan property is actually held by the Trustees of the Diocese (diocesan property is not subject to the Dennis Canon that relates only to local church properties). The Trustees were not named as Defendants in the suit. The Betterments Statute holds that the owner of the property must repay the occupants for "improvements." The legal owner of the diocesan property is the Board of Trustees, not the Episcopal Church or the diocese (the diocese is a separate corporation under SC law). So, as I see it, if DSC wants payments for improvements in the diocese, they would have to sue the Board of Trustees.

---Local parish properties are held for the trustees as per the Dennis Canon. They do not exist independently in and of themselves or separate from the two trustees. Therefore, the parishes cannot sue their trustees. It would be the same as suing oneself. 

---The Motion went on to remind the court that the South Carolina Supreme Court held that the Episcopal Church in South Carolina is the rightful successor of the pre-schism diocese. (Three of the five justices: Beatty, Pleicones, and Hearn.) This means the court recognizes TEC and TECSC as the trustees of the 29 named local parish properties. In other words, the court recognized the legal standing of the Dennis Canon.

One pertinent question involved in all of this was whether the Episcopal Church's Dennis Canon was automatically valid in South Carolina. There were two sides of this. 

1-One side held that sovereignty rested in the national Church. The Episcopal Church was hierarchical, that is, dioceses were subordinate to the body of the Church which was governed by the General Convention. All laws of the GC were immediately and equally applicable to all of the dioceses. In this view of church structure, the Dennis Canon was automatically enacted in the diocese of South Carolina. Thus, it did not matter what state law said. The hierarchical nature of the Church trumped that. In the Aug. 2 SCSC decision, Justices Pleicones and Hearn promoted this view. It is now crucial to the Church side that the courts recognize the Episcopal Church as hierarchical.

2-The other side held that the diocese should be judged first under state corporate and property laws. The legal approach called "Neutral Principles" held that courts had to approach property disputes in religious bodies "neutrally" and render judgments under the applicable laws. Under South Carolina law, the deed holder must enact a trust for the trustee. A trust cannot be imposed from the outside on the deed holder. In this view, the Dennis Canon could not be automatically valid because it had to be enacted by the individual deed holders, the parishes. Former Chief Justice Jean Toal made a major point of this in her All Saints decision of 2009 and again, in the Aug. 2, 2017 decision. In that decision, Justices Beatty and Kittredge took a different view. They agreed that the Dennis Canon was not valid in SC in and of itself, but both held that the 29 parishes had acceded to the Canon on their own, thus enacting trusts for the Church and the Church diocese it in their particular cases. Where these two split was on the question of whether the parishes could then revoke their accessions to the Canon, Beatty no and Kittredge yes. This left a majority of three (Pleicones, Hearn, Beatty) agreeing that the Dennis Canon applied in SC, at least to the 29 parishes.

Bottom line---South Carolina state court recognized the validity of the Dennis Canon as the parishes enacted it. This means that the state of South Carolina now recognizes the Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Church in South Carolina's trust control over the local properties, at least the 29 parishes.

So, what does this mean on a practical level for the 29 parishes that remain under the Church and the Church's diocese?

It means that unless the circuit court intervenes on DSC's side, something that is most unlikely, or the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the SCSC Aug. 2 decision, something that is extremely remote, the Episcopal Church diocese will regain everyday control over at least the 29 properties. These include all the now independent parishes of Charleston.

So, who "owns" the property of the old diocese in South Carolina? There are two sets of properties, diocesan and parochial. On the diocesan, the state supreme court did not act and, in fact, left standing the Temporary Injunction that Judge Goodstein had issued giving the independent diocese possession of the pre-schism diocesan entity. However, the state supreme court recognized the federal court's jurisdiction over the federal trademark issue, and at least implied that the federal court would settle the issue of who owns the diocesan properties. A decision of the U.S. District court in the case of vonRosenberg v. Lawrence should settle the issue of which side owns the entity of the old diocese. Given the fact that federal trademarks take precedent over state, it is likely the federal court will side with the Episcopal Church.

On the parochial question, to my knowledge all of the parishes "own" their own properties through deeds. The Episcopal Church and the Church diocese do not own the properties and have never claimed to own them. What they claim, and the state supreme court has affirmed, is that they have trust control over the properties. So, it is not really a question of who "owns" the property. It is a question of who controls the property. The Church and its diocese maintain that they control the property. The state high court has agreed, at least for 29 of the 36 parishes in question.

There are 13,000 communicants in these 29 parishes. When the Church regains the keys to the churches, which I think is just a matter of time, these people will have to decide whether to stay with the buildings and recognize the Episcopal Church bishop's authority, or leave the buildings and form separate communities in exile presumably following Bishop Lawrence.

I hope this helps you get a clearer picture of the murky issue of the properties. In the Episcopal Church, all local property, even if held by deed, is under the trusteeship of the diocese and the national church. All this really means on an everyday level is that the local congregation cannot dispose of the property without permission of the diocese and cannot take the property out of the Episcopal Church.

The leaders of DSC misled their people into thinking they had the right to violate Episcopal Church law. The high court of South Carolina has ruled that this was wrong. The property remains with the Episcopal Church. That is the reality, however upsetting it may be, in South Carolina now. The leaders of the schism misled the people and now these people have to deal with the consequences. They have my prayers and best wishes.

CHURCH DIOCESE FILES 

MOTION TO DISMISS

On December 15, 2017, Church lawyers filed in the circuit court of Dorchester County  "Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Complaint." Find it here .They are asking the court to dismiss the November 19, 2017 Complaint filed by the independent Diocese of South Carolina. In this, DSC demanded payment for "improvements" made to the properties in question under the "Betterments Statute."

The Church's motion to dismiss raised several arguments: that the Complaint was improperly filed because it was not made within 48 hours after the August 2 state supreme court decision; that Plaintiffs are not due relief; and most importantly, the Defendants (TEC/TECSC) do not own the properties in question. The diocesan property is owned by the Trustees of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina, and the parish properties are owned by the parishes and held in trust for the Church and the Church diocese. Neither the diocese nor the parishes have any right to claim payments from their own beneficiaries. In short, the Church lawyers said DSC's Complaint should be discarded because it was untimely and was improperly filed.

The Plaintiffs (DSC) can now file in court a counter argument. We can expect one perhaps in a few days.

After the counter paper, the circuit court will schedule a hearing.

See the Church diocese's press release on this here . 

NOTES. DECEMBER 17, 2017

Dear readers, I was so exhausted, and happily so, by the Alabama election last Tuesday, I had to take off a few days to recuperate. I am back. The world looks better to me now than it did a week ago, I am happy to say. I have several comments I want to share with you today. 

I appreciate the good reception my history of the schism has received and the many compliments people have offered. This blog also continues to be widely read, with 76,000 hits in the last four and a half months.

LITIGATION

Where are we in terms of the legal issues at hand? 

I expect the next event in the ongoing litigation between the two dioceses will be a response from the Church diocese in the circuit court. According to the state law code, the Episcopal Church in South Carolina has 30 days in which to file a response to the independent diocese's "Complaint" of Nov. 19. That would put it at December 19 or 20, that is, Tuesday or Wednesday of this week. 

You will recall that the Diocese of South Carolina's Complaint was for reparations from TEC/TECSC under the "Betterments Statute." This holds that the people who occupy property belonging to someone else in the mistaken belief of ownership are due repayment for improvements they (the occupants) made. The Complaint was filed in the circuit court of Dorchester County on Nov. 19. In the Complaint, DSC asked for sweeping reimbursements but with no specifics of what they should be (they also gave implicit recognition that the properties belong to TEC/TECSC).

My guess is that the Church lawyers will file for a dismissal of the Complaint. The SC law code says that betterments claims may be filed after a final judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. In fact, the final judgment (Supreme Court of SC decision of Aug. 2) was in favor of the Defendants (TEC/TECSC). It appears to me as if DSC has no standing to file a Complaint for betterments. This should be grounds for dismissal.

However, DSC has also asked the circuit court for a stay in their Complaint pending the outcome of the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. So far, there was been no announcement of an actual appeal to SCOTUS, only statements about plans for an appeal. I do not see how the circuit court could issue a stay until there is something on which to found the stay. Words are not actions.

Be on watch in the next few days for an action of the Church lawyers in the circuit court.

As I have said, I think the DSC side will drag out the litigation as long as possible before finally accepting what the state supreme court has already ruled. We have a long way to go.

THE ALABAMA ELECTION

Now that we have had a few days to review the vote of last Tuesday in the special election for the U.S. Senate, what conclusions can we reasonably draw? Here are the outstanding ones I see:


1.---Rejection of President Trump.

This cannot be emphasized enough. Alabama is one of the "reddest" states in America. Just over a year ago, the state voted for Trump 62.1%, and for Clinton, 34.4%. That was a whopping 28% margin for Trump! Alabama voters provided one of the highest state majorities for Trump. The best summary of the AL vote is found here .

The election showed that President Trump now has the support of fewer than half of Alabama. The favorable/unfavorable breakdown for Trump was 48%-48%. In other words, as many people in Alabama now disapprove of Trump as approve. This is a staggering turnaround in only a little more than a year. The reasons for this dramatic reversal should be explored. At this point, we have only anecdotal evidence and not scientific surveys to explain why.

Nevertheless, the vote last Tuesday was as much about Trump as it was about Moore. Judging from the Alabama vote last Tuesday, Republicans should be alarmed about their prospects in the 2018 Congressional elections.


2.---"Evangelicals" in Alabama voted as a block for a credibly accused child molester and sexual predator.

"Born again" Christians voted (80%) for Roy Moore, just as they had done (80%) last year for Trump, another credibly accused sexual predator. Why?
One word, abortion.

I do not question the evangelicals' motives as I do not fault them for voting their consciences. The problem I have with them is their myopia. They have fixated too much on one issue. They are defining Christianity only in narrow terms of support for their preconceived social views. This has blinded them to the light of the broader Christian moral/ethical values at stake. Their backing of candidates whose behaviors were arguably anti- or at least unchristian has brought disrepute on the whole religion of Christianity.

3.---African Americans and young people were energized against the Republicans and President Trump.

On the whole, more African Americans went out to vote last Tuesday than had done so for Obama in 2008 and 2012. Why?

One reason was reverence for Doug Jones. 
Let me explain. The heinous murder of the four little girls in Birmingham in 1963 by the Ku Klux Klan was the pivotal moment in the state's Civil Rights movement. It was the worst of the worst. It took a long time for justice to be done, but it finally came. It was Doug Jones who prosecuted the last of the Klan murderers and got their convictions in 2002. One cannot emphasize enough the high regard the African American, and others, in Alabama have for Jones. Last Tuesday, they lined up to return the favor with the four angels in mind.

The mobilization in the African American community was quiet. I for one completely missed it. I think this culminated in the week before the election through two main events. In one, the basketball great Charles Barkley campaigned for turnout. He is the most influential African American in the state of Alabama, a huge rock star. He is a native of Pell City, and still maintains a home there. He is an icon in this state. His word counts beyond measure.

A second big event was the appearance, covered widely on TV, of Steve Bannon. It was foolish enough for him to belittle the education reputation of the University of Alabama (to diss Joe Scarborough). It was spectacularly bad for him to criticize Condoleeza Rice (she had appealed for votes against Moore). As Barkley, Rice is an revered icon in this state. This Birmingham native keeps close ties and appears in the state often. Who cares if she is a Republican? She is our local woman made good, very good, and Alabamians of all political views are extremely proud of her. So, I am beginning to wonder if Bannon is not really a secret agent of the Democrats. The Republicans have a real problem with him. It is no wonder he was kicked out of the White House. I suspect he won more votes for Jones than for Moore.

---Most young people, most independents, and many college-educated white women voted for Jones.

Not only were blacks energized to get out and vote, so were young people. Jones won a big majority of all voters under the age of 44. The major university areas, Tuscaloosa County (Univ. of Alabama) and Lee County (Auburn Univ.) went overwhelmingly for Jones. What is more, they had gone overwhelmingly for Trump only a year earlier. There was a dramatic reversal against the Republicans, and Trump, in the college towns.

Another important voting demographic was white women. Although most of them voted for Moore, they did so in much smaller numbers than they had for Trump. In fact, there was a 16-20 point gap last Tuesday between white men and white women for Moore. 

Although it is difficult to measure, the accusations against Moore must have influenced white urban/suburban women to vote against him. Weeks before the election, nine Alabama women came forth with credible accusations against Moore of sexually predatory behavior. Moore denied all the charges. These accusations probably would not have received the attention they did except for the "Me Too" movement that was sweeping America at the same time. Numerous high-profile men on the national stage were credibly accused of sexual harassment and assault. Some of them were forced out of their jobs. The national attention of this issue only focused the spotlight more on Moore's past. No doubt this was a factor in determining the votes of many white women and accounting for the large gap in vote for Moore between white men and white women.

Summary.
Everyone is trying to make sense of the shocking vote in Alabama. It was highly dramatic, to be sure. But, I would caution Democrats from reading too much into this. Much of the outcome of last Tuesday's election came from factors peculiar to Alabama. And, Alabama is not a microcosm of America. African Americans turned out for Jones to repay a priceless favor. Too, do not neglect the fact that Roy Moore was about the worst candidate imaginable. Outside of his fanatical "born again" base and die-hard Republicans, he had no appeal and refused even to try to cultivate any. In fact, he barely campaigned at all. Most of the time he hid from the public.

Thus, Moore's defeat last Tuesday came from a highly unusual set of factors peculiar to Alabama and others external to Alabama. The vote was obviously good news for Democrats and bad for Republicans, but both sides would do well to factor in the conditions internal in Alabama.

RELIGION AND POLITICS

There is a new book out that I have ordered and look forward to reading. It is Frances FitzGerald's The Evangelicals: The Struggle to Shape America. NY: Simon and Schuster, 2017. 750 p. (even longer than my history of the schism).

This book has been widely praised as the best survey of the political roles of the "evangelical" Protestants in America. Time magazine ranked it as one of the ten best non-fiction books of the year.

More than half of the book deals with the political roles of the evangelicals in the past few decades.

The proper interaction of religion and politics is an issue as old as the nation. As Christians, just how are we to apply our religion to the civil sphere around us? What does it mean to have separation of church and state?

One event that bothered me in the recent campaign came from these very questions.

On Nov. 17, a group of 59 clergy in Alabama issued an open letter criticizing Moore as "not fit for office." Find it here . Although they claimed they were not telling people how to vote and were only speaking as individuals, they identified themselves with titles and church affiliations. I cringed. It seemed to me they were making an unmistakable implication on how to vote. How else was one suppose to take this in the middle of a hotly contested campaign? I found this objectionable as a violation of the principle of the separation of church and state. I had no qualms about what they said. In fact, I wholeheartedly agreed with them. If they had done this as private citizens without religious identities, there wold have been no problem.

I think the first part of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is sacrosanct and we must do all we can to defend and preserve it. To be consistent, we must object to both the "evangelicals'" and the "liberals'" institutionalized interference in politics. We saw glaring examples of both in the recent election in Alabama. In my view, both were wrong.

We should vote our consciences as individuals. We should not vote our church affiliations. For the sake of both, we must keep the separation of church and state.