DESPERATION

June 14, 5:00 p.m.     The leaders of the Diocese of South Carolina and their allies in war are desperate. They know their dream (or delusion) has failed. They are now left with a handful of local churches, none in Charleston, and are about to lose the legal rights to the old diocese. This reality came crashing down on them on Monday of this week when the United States Supreme Court refused to accept the appeal from the DSC. This means the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of August 2, 2017, is Res judicata, the final law. It cannot be appealed, ignored, or challenged. This decision recognized the Episcopal Church control over 29 parishes and Camp St. Christopher. Although the DSC still has legal control over the entity of the diocese (through the Temporary Injunction issued by Judge Goodstein January 31, 2013), they are likely to lose this too, in the federal court. The federal case will probably come to trial later this year. We can expect the Episcopal Church to regain legal control over the pre-schsim diocese and all that entails. The state supreme court justices have already opined that he Church diocese is entitled to this but left the legal wrap-up to the federal court. It is just a matter of time before TEC regains the old diocese too.

Reeling from what they would see as a catastrophe, the DSC leaders and their comrades in arms began flailing about madly for a meaningful response to the finality of SCSC's decision. They went all over the map. The initial reaction of DSC was denial. Refusing to accept the validity of the SCSC decision, they declared it to be "unenforceable" and suggested they would even go back to the state supreme court, but gave no details. Find their press release here . 

DSC clergy spoke out too. At St. Philip's, in Charleston, rector Jeff Miller echoed the denial and suggested to his people that the litigation was still open and the church would go back to court to demand evidence: "we will seek a specific evidentiary inquiry as to whether or not St. Philip's and twenty-eight other parishes actually acceded to the terms of the Dennis Canon." He added the church would "continue the litigation in the state and federal court systems in South Carolina." Find Miller's statement here . Actually, evidence is irrelevant at this point. Any evidence had to be presented during the litigation. The SCSC decision is over. It cannot be reopened. 

A few blocks away at St. Michael's, rector Al Zadig reiterated the DSC talking points: "The law and facts of our case still favor us." Find his letter here . Actually, the law and the facts gave the 29 parishes and the Camp to the Episcopal Church. That is not favoring DSC.

Over at Old St. Andrew's, in West Ashley, the rector told his people they were one of the eight safe parishes listed by the state supreme court as not being under the trust. He said he has taken legal action to resolve this. In fact, the court decision did not list OSA as one of the parishes outside the trust.  

Out at St. Johns, on Johns Island, the rector told his congregation they had nothing to worry about, at least for a very long time: "there will likely be countless further lawsuits filed and adjudicated over the next years to no uncertain [sic] end...nothing changes for us at St. John's in the near future...some day in the far future we may be asked to vacate..." Find his letter here , June 13. He did not define "far future."  

The Charleston Post and Courier took a different tact and called on the Episcopal Church to "compromise," presumably to give up something it had gained in court. This came in an editorial on June 13: "No 'winners' in bitter Episcopal church dispute."


So, here are the responses from DSC and its allies (so far) this week:

---the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017, cannot be enforced.

---the SCSC decision is not valid.

---the circuit court can change the SCSC decision.

---there is much more litigation to come in state and federal courts.

---it will be a long time before the Episcopal Church could repossess the properties.

---the Episcopal Church should "compromise."


Then, today we got the response of a DSC ally, lawyer and blogger Allan Haley aka the Anglican Curmudgeon. Find it here . His popular blog has been very helpful in informing us of the positions and arguments critical of the Episcopal Church. Several years ago, he served as an attorney arguing in court for the independent side in the San Joaquin schism case. The California courts came down entirely in favor of the Episcopal Church. Last year, he was highly vocal on his blog in DSC's campaign against Justice Kaye Hearn in the drive to get a rehearing in the SC supreme court after the decision of August 2. Hoping to overturn the decision, DSC carried on a vigorous public relations campaign to get Hearn to vacate her ruling and recuse herself from the case (thus overturning the decision). They charged conflict of interest (Hearn was a member of an Episcopal Church) and possible ethics violations. 

This was true in spite of the fact that the DSC lawyers had not raised this issue before the court decision of Aug. 2. Everyone knew about Hearn's church affiliation. DSC did not ask her to recuse herself before, during or after the hearing of Sept. 23, 2015, that is, until the ruling came out almost two years later. Moreover, Hearn did not write the majority opinion. Justice Pleicones did. Too, she was not the swing vote. Chief Justice Beatty was the vote determining the outcome that went against DSC. Even so, DSC waged a very public campaign against Hearn. 

Then, on November 17, 2017, the state supreme court denied DSC's petition for a rehearing. In this, Hearn did not participate. At the same time, the court unanimously rejected DSC's request for Hearn's recusal from the case. And, at the same time, the justices took the unusual step of chastising the DSC side for its treatment of Hearn. Former Chief Justice Toal, who had earlier sided with DSC, said: "I am disappointed in the tone of these filings. They are unreasonably harsh criticisms of a highly accomplished judge and a person of great decency and integrity. The respondents' legal points could have been made without such unnecessary language." Thus, DSC's excessive criticism of Hearn backfired. In the face of it, the justices took the unusual step of forming a solid union, to defend one of their own. That may well have killed DSC's petition for a rehearing. It certainly did not help. Ironically, DSC's harsh tactic against Hearn actually may have helped the Church side.

If I am reading him right, and I am not at sure I am, Haley seems to be suggesting in today's posting that DSC should take the SCSC decision back to the circuit court and have Judge Goodstein overrule Hearn's opinion. If that is what he means, even I, a non-lawyer, would know that is not going to happen. A circuit court judge does not have the power to overrule a supreme court decision. Anyway, Judge Edgar Dickson is handling the case now. Haley also accuses the Church side of "conspiracy" with Hearn to "obtain the result they wanted." He makes suppositions but offers no evidence.


After all is said and done this week, the fact is the South Carolina supreme court has issued a decision that 29 parishes and Camp St. Christopher remain under control of the Episcopal Church. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. That means the SCSC decision is the final law of the land. It cannot be changed. No amount of legal maneuvers will alter the outcome. The end is in sight.

Moreover, the Church diocese is moving as quickly as it can to repossess the properties. On May 9, it entered a motion with the circuit court for enactment of the SCSC decision. It asked the judge to appoint a Special Master to manage the transition (rather than have the sheriff appear at the door with eviction notices). I expect that will come soon. So, any idea that it will be years before the Church gets the properties back is nonsense. It will happen sooner rather than later. The day of decision is at hand for both the laity and the clergy presently occupying the 29 Episcopal churches. 

Why all this mad flailing about? Why all the wild claims about new court actions and long delays and so forth? DSC knows it has lost the war. Perhaps the DSC leaders are going through the stages of grief. After all, their first reaction was denial, the first stage. If so, the last stage is acceptance. They will come to that at some unknown point in the future. All of the DSC leadership has a great deal of emotional involvement in this long and hard-fought war. They have invested so much of themselves. Loss is always hard to take. I think they should have a wide leeway and a lot of time. Peace will come. We are all Christians. We must not be enemies. I think right now, the people on the Church side should try to imagine what it would be like if the outcome had been the reverse. 

In answer, here is my theory for this week's reactions. What is at issue is the future of the 13,000 communicants in the 29 parishes in question. That is what the fight is about now. Since the SCSC denial of rehearing last November, the DSC leadership has been busy preparing the people of the 29 parishes to vacate the buildings and go out as DSC congregations to meet elsewhere. This is the only way DSC has any viable future. Part of what is going on now is to demonize the Episcopal Church in order to discourage communicants from staying with the buildings, hence the "theology" and other courses. The biggest part of what is going on is a push to de-legitimize the SCSC decision in the minds of the 13,000: to say it was not legal, not fair, corrupt, and not acceptable. Therefore, people would be perfectly justified in ignoring the decision. This too would discourage people from returning to the Episcopal Church. So, that is my conclusion. What is going on now is DSC's campaign to get their people to stick with their leadership. In view of the way things have gone, that will be getting ever harder to do. 

In the foreseeable future, the 29 parishes will return to the Episcopal Church. We will know then how effective DSC's desperate campaign of de-legitimization has been.

What do you think? Your thoughts are important to me. Email me at the address above.

SORRY POST AND COURIER, THE TIME FOR "COMPROMISE" HAS PASSED

 The Charleston Post and Courier's editors have just issued an editorial calling for "compromise" in the South Carolina schism. Compromise? Really? This is a big change of tune for these editors who has consistently defended the breakaway side in the schism. Where has been the call for "compromise" for all these many years the schism brewed, occurred, and went into legal war? Strange that we have not heard anything about compromise before now. Today's editorial is entitled "No 'winners' in bitter Episcopal church dispute." Find it here . 

The editors declared: "leaders of both church groups in South Carolina must work together toward a reasonable and fair execution of the state ruling." OK. No problem there. A reasonable and fair execution of the ruling is to carry out the supreme court decision as ordered. The 29 parishes and Camp St. Christopher belong under control of the Episcopal Church. That is what the ruling said. That is what should be enacted. That is reasonable and fair. To expect the Episcopal Church to give up what it has gained in court is not reasonable and fair. The editors went on, "there is still a chance for some measure of compromise." However, they give no suggestion at all of what the word compromise might mean. Then, they added, "It [the supreme court decision] must not be the final outcome of this difficult divorce." Really? Then, what should be the "final outcome"? The supreme court decision is final. It cannot be appealed, changed or ignored. It is the law of the land and the editors know that.

Compromise? There have been numerous opportunities for that. The schismatics took none of them. Perhaps the editors have forgotten about these:

---when the Episcopal Church adopted the blessing of same-sex unions it included a provision of local choice. Any bishop, priest, or layperson could opt out and plenty have.

---when Bishop Lawrence and his inner circle were preparing for schism in 2012, Lawrence refused to meet with the Presiding Bishop after Oct. 2 and refused the Church's offers of settlement by either a letter to the PB or an appearance before the House of Bishops. He quit TEC.

---at the schism there was no talk of compromise; in fact, a few weeks later, DSC went to court to sue TEC.

---in June of 2015 TEC offered a monumental compromise: to give independence and the property to the 29 parishes in return for the entity of the old diocese. DSC rudely and summarily refused. If they had accepted, there wold be no need for compromise today. St Philip's would be free of TEC control.

---from October 2017 to January 2018 the sides met in mediation ordered by the federal judge. DSC refused all offers and the mediation broke down.

Where was the Post and Courier at any of these opportunities at a compromise settlement? It is a bit disingenuous now to call for compromise after the supreme court has settled the property issue. 

If anyone thinks the Episcopal Church diocese is going to give up any of these 29 parishes, they should think again. I listened in on the diocesan meeting at Grace Church Cathedral yesterday and I can tell you the diocese has every intention of returning all of these churches as Episcopal churches. On the very next Sunday after the keys are transferred, an Episcopal priest will be at the altar for prayer book services. There will not be a single Sunday break. Any local vestry person who refuses to recognize the authority of the Episcopal Church bishop will be removed from office. The diocese is well under way with plans for the transition to reconciliation of the 29 parishes. From all that I can gather, the Episcopal Church is not going to rent, lease, loan out or in any other way allow other denominations to use the 29 churches. 

The 29 parishes are Episcopal churches. It is just a matter of time before the Episcopal Church bishop gets possession of them. Any clergy or layperson in the 29 parishes who has questions about what might happen should contact the Episcopal Church diocesan office at Grace Church Cathedral in Charleston. Start by reading the Frequently Asked Questions put out by the diocese. Find it here . You are also welcomed to email if you have questions or comments. My address is above.

REFLECTIONS ON YESTERDAY

Wow, what a day it was yesterday in the history of the schism in South Carolina. For instance, this blog got 10,000 hits. It was a crucial day and seemingly everybody wanted to know what was going on. Be sure to read Steve Skardon's revealing analysis. Find it here .  

So, where do we stand now in the cold light of the morning after? Good question, and I will tell you what I think, for whatever that is worth.

First, let us review what happened yesterday, June 11:

---The United States Supreme Court released its June 7 decision on cert. It denied cert to the independent Diocese of South Carolina's petition of Feb. 9, 2018, for review of the South Carolina supreme court ruling of August 2, 2017.

---The Episcopal Church diocese responded in a statement calling for the implementation of the state supreme court decision: "It is now up to the state's 1st Circuit Court of Common Pleas to execute the lower court's decision." Find it here . 

---The independent DSC issued a response rejecting the validity of the South Carolina supreme court ruling with words such as "fractured," "conflicted," and "no unified legal theory." Most importantly, it charged the decision was "unenforceable." It also suggested the DSC would go back to the state supreme court although it gave no specifics. Find the DSC statement here . 

---Several DSC parishes also posted responses yesterday to the SCOTUS decision. The rector of St. Philip's offered more information about DSC's new legal manueuvers: "we will seek a specific evidentiary inquiry as to whether or not St. Philip's and twenty-eight other parishes actually acceded to the terms of the Dennis Canon." The rector of St. Michael's mostly repeated the DSC talking points insisting "The law and facts of our case still favor us." At Old St. Andrew's, the rector declared the parish was not in the list of churches to be returned to the Episcopal Church and that the diocese would go on "to pursue further legal courses of action."

So, where does all that leave us today, the day after?

To use an analogy from history, this is July 4, the day after the Battle of Gettysburg ended. The turning point of the war has passed. The fate of the war has been sealed. It is only a matter of time before the peace. Lee and his generals know in their hearts they have lost, but cannot bring themselves to admit it and act on it. So, they go on sacrificing lives and treasure, bringing more ruin on their country in a vain effort to reach a cause that is already lost. It was nearly two years after Gettysburg before Lee accepted the reality and surrendered. This is the situation in South Carolina. For all intents and purposes, the legal war is over. The independent diocese failed to secede from the union, property in hand. The high courts of the state and the nation ruled against them. However, the losers refuse to accept the reality and insist on going on sacrificing what they can in a lost cause. I think they know in their hearts they have lost. Admitting defeat is just so hard, for anyone.

To extend the analogy, Confederate leaders believed they would win because it was God's will. The Bible is replete with passages defending slavery, a common institution in the ancient world. DSC leaders too proclaimed God's favor as they cited verses condemning another social element under discrimination. So, you see, we are not so far removed from the Civil War as we might think. The Civil War and the schism were wars for social causes. Both were to keep certain minorities confined in the constraints of the past. And, to state the obvious, both were intimately bound to South Carolina.

The most astonishing event of yesterday was not SCOTUS's denial, which we were fairly certain of, but the DSC's rejection of the state supreme court's ruling that recognized Episcopal Church control over 29 parishes and Camp St. Christopher. DSC declared, on its own, that the ruling was "unenforceable" and indicated they would go back to court to press for the overthrow of the decision. Such an assertion flies in the face of common sense, and the law. Lawyers have a term for a supreme court decision. It is "Res judicata" (see here ). Res judicata is Latin for "a matter judged." According to Wikipedia, "in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal...In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court."

So, my conclusion is that DSC's actions of yesterday were just a lot of blowing smoke. There is no substance, only fog.

My next thought is, why are they doing this? Why keep on when one has lost? Well, anyone who has read my history of the schism (get it at Amazon for as little as $10) should not be surprised at DSC's response yesterday. It fits well into a long pattern of DSC's combative hostility to the Episcopal Church. To put this into the big picture, the schism is part of a much larger movement called the Anglican Realignment which started in the 1990s. The original goal of the AR was either to destroy the Episcopal Church or to severely diminish it so that it would no longer be a significant force in the cultural life of America. This was because TEC had championed equality for and inclusion of women and non-celibate homosexuals. As everyone knows, the issue of homosexuality was the direct cause of the schism. The leaders of the AR aimed to knock off TEC and replace it as the legitimate Anglican province in the U.S., hence the creation of the Anglican Church in North America in 2010 (DSC joined in 2017). The AR has failed but that has not deterred its participants in their culture war. The AR sees TEC as heretical, having been taken over by secular humanism. It seems to me the leaders of DSC see themselves as frontline soldiers in this culture war and they are out to take DSC to a better world, of the past, in which women are subservient and practicing gays are banned. This is how they see "orthodoxy," or, true religion as opposed to TEC's heresy. DSC leaders couch their views in theological terms, but it all boils down to how they see society.

One can understand why the DSC leaders are doing what they are doing, but what about the 15,000 communicants who are following them? In the first place, we human beings are social animals. We naturally tend to follow the herd. We want to belong to the group. In the second place, we want to believe our chosen leaders are acting in our best interests, especially those who claim to be inspired by God. Surely they would not mislead us. Add to that a lot of cultural factors in South Carolina and one can see why the majority of the old diocese went along with the schism. 

And, look at what these people have endured in all of this. They have had to make double payments to lawyers, parochial and diocesan. They have seen relentlessly declining membership and income. They are isolated from the Anglican Communion. Their leaders rejected an offer of TEC to give the parishes independence and the property (June 2015). They were defeated in the state supreme court and in the national supreme court. Their leaders delivered none of the lofty promises they made. The DSC leaders have worked hard to bind the parishes to the diocese, but it remains to be seen what the ordinary people in the pews will do. Remember the schism came from the top down. It was not a popular uprising of the people.

So, to summarize. Here is the way I see things on the morning after:

---the outcome of the legal war has been determined. TEC regained the bulk of the properties.

---the South Carolina supreme court ruling is the law of the land.

---any suggestion that a circuit court judge would overturn a supreme court decision is nonsense.

---the issue of the ownership of the pre-schism diocese is still to be settled in the federal court. However, odds are very strong now that TEC will prevail. We should know soon, perhaps by the end of this year.

The DSC legal maneuvers may add up to a lot of delay, but that is all. Exactly how much delay we cannot know. It is clear the losing side will fight to the bitter end even if the outcome is already obvious to everyone else.


Comments, questions? Email me at the address above. Your thoughts are important to me.  

DEFIANCE

Many of you readers have written to me today (and thank you for writing) about the diocesan responses to the SCOTUS denial. So, here are my initial thoughts about them:

Both dioceses have responded to SCOTUS's denial of cert today. The Church diocesan statement was, naturally, positive and desirous of ways to carry out the state supreme court decision. Find it here . The independent diocesan response was quite the opposite. Find it here . In a word, it was defiant, and, I thought, a bit irrational.

The key paragraph in the DSC statement is this:

The Diocese of South Carolina will now return to our state courts, where the case has been remitted to the Dorchester Courthouse where it originated. An element of TEC's argument for the United States Supreme Court to deny our petition was the "fractured" nature of the South Carolina Supreme Court's ruling. Constitutional issues aside, the Diocese believes the conflicted nature of the current State Supreme Court ruling is virtually unenforceable as written. Interpretation and implementation of that ruling, given its five separate opinions, with no unified legal theory even among the plurality of the court, means there are still significant questions to resolve.

First, let us go back over the basic facts:

1. On August 2, 2017, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled 3-2 that 29 parishes and Camp St. Christopher remained under trust control of the Episcopal Church and the Church diocese.

2. On November 17, the SCSC denied DSC's petition for a rehearing.

3. On Feb. 9, 2018, DSC filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.

4. On June 7, 2018, SCOTUS denied DSC's petition for cert.

5. This left the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017, as the law.

6. On May 16, 2018, TEC/TECSC filed, in the circuit court, "Petition for Execution...and for the Appointment of a Special Master." This asked the court to enact the SCSC decision of Aug. 2 returning the 29 parishes and the Camp to TEC/TECSC control and to do so under a manager appointed by the court.

7. On June 11, 2018, DSC issued a statement that it rejected the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017, and would challenge it in the courts:  We plan to continue to press both to their logical conclusion, even if that requires a second appearance before the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Steve Skardon suggested  (find it here ) that the ultimate ploy of DSC in this, to get back into the state supreme court on the assumption that the more conservative composition of the court, with two new justices (replacing Pleicones and Toal), would move the court to the DSC side. This is entirely plausible. But, the problem is, the court has already heard the case and refused a rehearing. Why could they hear it again?

The idea that this is all about getting back into the state supreme court seems completely believable to me. What I do not quite understand is DSC's attack today on the state supreme court decision that is now the law of the land. The operative words, above, are "fractured," "conflicted," "unenforceable," and "no unified legal theory." Reminding everyone I am not a lawyer, I see this attack on the SCSC decision as absurd, ridiculous, and hysterical. It would be laughable if it were not so strange. 

I went back over the Aug. 2 decision and I see no real evidence of any of this wild claim. In fact it was a 3-2 decision, a clear-cut majority ruling. Under our court system, the majority rules. That is that. The SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017 is the law of the land. Pure and simple. It is not any of the outrageous words DSC frantically employed today. In fact, on the salient principle of the Dennis Canon, four of the five justices were in complete agreement. Footnote 27: Four justices agree that the Dennis Canon created an enforceable trust as envisioned in Jones. There is no "fracture," no "conflict" here. And, in fact, the decision is clearly enforceable; there are no questions to resolve about the parishes and the Camp. In my view, DSC's desperate claims are just off-the-wall. I see no connection between them and reality.

Besides, all of DSC's statement today is a matter of opinion. What difference does that make now? The game is over. The SCSC decision is the law of the land regardless of anyone's opinion of it. That is the meaning of the SCOTUS decision to deny cert. What criticisms DSC may have of the SCSC decision now are moot under the law.

There is a legitimate question for us to ask here. Why is DSC defying the law now? The law is going to be enforced. They cannot avoid it. They can delay it, however, with creative legal maneuvers; and they is what DSC is doing now. Delay would give DSC more time to prepare alternate meeting places for congregations in exile, would give time for more demonization of the Episcopal Church to build up the congregations leaving the buildings, and maybe even keep contributions flowing to legal funds under the mistaken assumption of more good legal avenues. All of this, on top of the outlandish idea they can return to SCSC, would make their action today almost rational. 

The Hail Mary pass failed. So, now they want to argue with the referees that they never threw the pass in the first place? DSC appeal to SCOTUS. If it thought the decision they were appealing was wrong, why did they appeal it?

It all smacks of desperation and disingenuity. But then, to mix metaphors, when you have no cards left to play... 

The two dioceses are convening this week for strategy planning sessions. The Church diocese meets tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. The independent side meets Thursday. Perhaps we will get a clearer picture of where the parties go from here. Stay tuned.

C  E  R  T      D  E  N  I  E  D 

The United States Supreme Court has denied cert in the SC church case. The court released the news this morning in its new orders. That means it has rejected the Diocese of South Carolina's Feb. 9, 2018 petition for review of the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of August 2, 2017. That, in turn, means the state supreme court ruling stands as the law. It cannot be appealed or ignored. The SCSC ruling recognized the trust control of the Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Church diocese over 29 parishes and Camp St. Christopher. 

This means that the Episcopal Church diocese now has no impediment to the physical repossession of the properties in question. Last month, Church lawyers filed papers with Judge Edgar Dickson, of the circuit court of Dorchester County, for court orders to repossess the properties. They also asked the court to appoint a manager to oversee the transition of the properties from DSC control to TEC. Since SCOTUS has refused to review the SCSC decision, there is no reason for Judge Dickson to delay the implementation of the state supreme court decision. We can expect the judge to act soon and for the Episcopal Church bishop to regain control of these local churches in the near future. Legally, the 29 are Episcopal churches and always have been. 

What local churches have been returned to Episcopal Church control? There has been some confusion about the number, 28 or 29? If we go back to the SCSC decision of August 2, 2017 (find it here ), and look at Footnote # 49, we see the list of 7 parishes that were declared to be NOT under the trust. That means the Episcopal Church has no legal right to them. They are:

St. Andrew's, Mt. Pleasant
Christ the King, Waccamaw, Pawleys Island
St. Matthew's, Darlington
St. Paul's, Conway
Prince George Winyah, Georgetown
St. John's, Florence
St. Matthias, Summerton

Then, if we go back to the front two pages of the decision, we see a list of parishes in the lawsuit. Removing the 7 above, we are left with 29 that remain under Episcopal Church control. These are the local churches that the Episcopal Church bishop is now moving to repossess:

PARISHES UNDER EPISCOPAL CHURCH CONTROL:

BEAUFORT:

St. Helena's 

BENNETTSVILLE:

St. Paul's

BLUFFTON

Church of the Cross

CHARLESTON:

Cathedral Church of St. Luke and St. Paul

CHARLESTON:

Church of the Good Shepherd

CHARLESTON:

Holy Trinity

CHARLESTON:

St. Andrew's (Old St. Andrew's)

CHARLESTON:

St. James

CHARLESTON:

St. John's (Johns Is.)

CHARLESTON:

St. Michael's

CHARLESTON:

St. Philip's

CHERAW:

St. David's

EDISTO:

Trinity

EUTAWVILLE:

Church of the Epiphany

FLORENCE

All Saints

FORT MOTTE:

St. Matthew's

HARTSVILLE;

St. Bartholomew's

HILTON HEAD:

St. Luke's

JOHNS ISLAND:

Church of Our Saviour

MOUNT PLEASANT:

Christ Church

MYRTLE BEACH:

Trinity

ORANGEBURG:

Redeemer

PINOPOLIS:

Trinity Church

STATEBURG [possibly Sullivans Island?]

Church of the Holy Cross

SUMMERVILLE:

St. Paul's

SUMTER:

Church of the Holy Comforter

SURFSIDE:

Church of the Resurrection

WALTERBORO:

St. Jude's

YONGES ISLAND:

Christ/St. Paul's

Only one "Church of the Holy Cross" was listed, without location. There are actually two parishes under the same name, one in Stateburg and one in Sullivans Island. If both of these were in the lawsuit, that would bring the total number under Episcopal Church trust control up to 30 parishes.

The Supreme Court denial today is the end of the road in the 29 parishes' efforts to leave the Episcopal Church and take the property with them. The courts have ruled in absolute finality that the parishes cannot remove the property from control of the Episcopal Church.

What now?

There are 29 parishes in question. They have 13,000 communicants. The Episcopal Church bishop would like these parishes to resume functioning as Episcopal churches as they had before the schism. However, for the past six months, the independent diocese has been working in the 29 parishes to prepare the people to move out of the buildings and meet elsewhere as DSC congregations. So, the big question now is how many people in these 29 parishes will remain with the buildings and how many will leave. Only time will tell.

At this moment, however, I suggest that everyone just take a deep breath and try to start processing the meaning of what happened today. This is the biggest day in the history of the schism since the schism itself in October of 2012, more than five and a half years ago. My, what has happened since then!

Today's news is a monumental milestone in the long history of the schism. It means an incredible amount to both sides. The Episcopal Church has won back the bulk of the local parish properties but that means a multitude of difficult problems for the Church side. On the other side, the secessionists have suffered a crushing and heartbreaking defeat. Thousands of people put a great deal of trust and faith in leaders who, alas, failed to deliver their lofty, but ultimately unrealistic, promises. I imagine many of these people must be wondering why God let them down. According to their leaders, He was on their side. Now, these people face a big choice, follow DSC out of their beloved churches or stay home and return to TEC.

I think at this point everyone is just exhausted. We are drained after so many years of relentless and debilitating hostility and conflict. We have legal war fatigue. Some of us may be shell shocked. Some of us may even experience PTSD. I suggest that everyone take a deep breath, sit quietly, go to prayer and meditation and try to absorb the import of what has happened. I am off to my garden to take my own advice.

Tomorrow will be a new day.

Question, comments? I would like to hear from you. Your thoughts are important to me. E-mail me at the address above. 

AWAITING TOMORROW

NOTE: 
SCOTUSblog will live stream the release of the Supreme Court decisions tomorrow beginning at 8:30 a.m. EDT. Find it here. This is the web address:  live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_orders_and_opinions_June _11_2018 . 
One can also go to this address and click on "Editor's Note" at the top of the page. That will take you to the live blog page where you can register for an email reminder when the streaming begins.



We are all anxiously waiting for an announcement from the United States Supreme Court on tomorrow, June 11. The court is to release its decision on whether to accept an appeal of the South Carolina church case. The Diocese of South Carolina submitted a petition to the court on Feb. 9, 2018, for a writ of certiorari, that is, for the court to agree to review the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of August 2, 2017 which recognized the Episcopal Church control over 29 parishes and Camp St. Christopher.

The decision is scheduled for release to the public at 9:30 a.m. I will relay the news on this blog as soon as possible. Note above that the live stream begins at 8:30 a.m.

There are three possible decisions:

1-the justices postponed the matter until later this  month.

2-the justices granted cert.

3-the justices denied cert.

Of the three, at this point, I suspect the third is most likely. This is mainly because of the opinion of the SCOTUSblog website. In March, Aurora Barnes, who researches and writes authoritatively about the cases before the court, promoted the SC case as an important one to watch. However, on the day before the June 7 conference, she posted a piece listing the 13 cases most likely to be considered for cert on the 7th. She did not include the SC case. Neither did she put in the MN Presbyterian case. Thus, somewhere between March and June Barnes decided the SC case was not strong enough to make it to the high circle worthy of consideration for cert. This is enough to make me think the court denied cert.

However, I would caution myself and everyone else not to jump to conclusions. We must await the official announcement of the court.

So, where does that leave us now on the eve of this momentous event in the long and terrible history of the Episcopal Church schism in South Carolina? Feeling exhausted, angry, resentful, self-righteous, confused, doubtful? All of these are legitimate emotions. All are to be expected. All are valid. We are only human after all. It is OK to feel bad. It is not OK to take out our bad feelings on others. It is OK to question others' judgments. It is not OK to question their motives. We cannot know on our own what is in other people's hearts (although I wish someone had known what was in Kate Spade's and Anthony Bourdain's hearts). We must follow the two great commandments. We must. It helps that DSC has stopped talking about their acts as God's will. They have not done that since the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017. It does not help for one side to demonize the other. DSC ought to stop saying that the Episcopal Church does not believe in the uniqueness of Christ and in the Bible. I think they really know better than that. 

Though there are very difficult and stressful days right ahead, the two sides should move forward with the love and compassion they claim. Everyone in the split diocese is bound up together in this mess even though it may not be a situation of their own making. Whatever rocky road lies ahead, the two sides should go down it together ever worthy of the name they bear. The world is watching.  

I expect to return here tomorrow morning. 

TODAY IS THE DAY
(with Addendum)

6:00 a.m.     Today is Thursday, June 7, 2018. In all probability this is the pivotal day that will determine the outcome of the lawsuits between the Diocese of South Carolina on one side and the Episcopal Church and the Church diocese on the other. The first lawsuit was entered on January 4, 2013, almost five and a half years ago (we were all much younger then), when the Diocese of South Carolina sued the Episcopal Church. We all know the anguish this terrible legal war has brought. I do not even want to think about the millions of dollars it has cost. The whole thing has been a shameful scandal and tragedy; and the sooner it gets over the better. This has been by far the darkest episode in the long and (mostly) great history of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina.

How are you going to spend the day? Some people will spend it in prayer and fasting, at home or in church. I plan to spend the day working in my garden, the best therapy I know. The work refreshes my body, and the beauty of the enveloping nature buoys my soul. The weather has been perfect lately, sunny, mild, and low humidity. If nothing else, I can sit in a shady spot of my beautiful little Garden of Eden and listen to the mockingbirds. I always think they are singing for me as if to say: Rejoice, for this is the day the Lord has made. Whatever care I may have seems less worrisome after awhile.

The nine Supreme Court justices will meet this morning and decide which of the 183 cases before them today should be accepted for review. Actually, that has probably already been decided. Seven of the justices participate in the "cert pool," in which one of the "clerks," or assisting lawyers (each justice has four) takes a petition for cert, researches it and summarizes it with a recommendation for approval or denial. The assigned clerk distributes his or her opinion to all of the justices in the pool. Two justices do not participate, Alito and Gorsuch. That means their (overworked) clerks have to study each petition arriving at the court and make a recommendation separately. Considering the enormous work load the justices have, they naturally rely on their clerks' work. So, whichever clerk was assigned the SC church case in the pool has already decided more or less what the court will do. 

It is entirely possible the justices will decide today to postpone a decision. They have two more conferences scheduled for this court session, June 14 and June 21. They could put off a decision until then. However, they naturally want to clear out all of the cases this month so as not to carry over anything into the next session that runs from October 2018 to June of 2019.

So, in all probability, the justices will vote this morning on whether to grant or deny cert to DSC's petititon. If four or more vote to grant, it is done. If three or fewer vote to grant, the petition is rejected. Given the huge number of important cases before them, the justices lean toward denying all but the most outstanding cases. They typically grant cert to only two, three or four cases in each conference.

If they grant cert, the lawsuits will move into a new phase as the two sides prepare to appear in the high court. DSC is appealing the South Carolina supreme court decision of Aug. 2, 2017. A hearing will be scheduled in the next session; and a written decision will be handed down by the end of the session which is about a year from now.

If they deny cert, the SC supreme court decision of Aug. 2, 2017, stands as the final word on the property settlement. The Episcopal Church side will almost certainly step up its present move to repossess the properties and restore them as Episcopal churches. This should occur rather soon. It is interesting to note that SCOTUS has not issued a "stay" on the SC supreme court decision as it could have. 

There are two other avenues of litigation going on, but both of these will probably be heavily influenced by a Supreme Court denial. In the circuit court, DSC has a trivial suit under the "Betterments Statute" that I expect will be dismissed. In the federal court, there will be a trial on the dispute of which side owns the pre-schism entity of the diocese. I expect that will lean to the Church side too, especially if the Supreme Court denies cert today. However, the federal case does not involve the properties of the parishes. That was settled in the state supreme court decision; and the Church has already moved to reclaim the properties of the 28 parishes in question.

Thus, one can hardly overestimate the importance of what is happening today. 

Unfortunately, the court does not announce its decisions on the days they are made. They usually wait until the next Monday morning to dump them all at once on the public. We can expect to know the decision on Monday, June 11, at 10:00 a.m. ET, when court personnel usually distribute the decisions to the public and media.

There are three possible announcements: postponement to a later conference this month, granting of cert (put on an "Orders List"), and denial of cert.

There are two websites that are worth watching. One is the official Court site. It gives the details of the case. Find it here . The other is "Cert Pool." Find it here .

The Supreme Court posts the decisions about cert on its website. Find the most recent "Orders List" here. If you notice, the last was issued on Monday, June 4. The cases are listed by number. The number for the SC church case is 17-1136. The next order list will appear here .

I will, or course, relay the news on this blog the moment I receive it. I will return next Monday morning.


12:00 p.m.     ADDENDUM

Here is a credible and important hint of today's decision on cert. Yesterday, on the SCOTUSblog website, Aurora Barnes posted "Petitions to Watch/Conference of June 7." Find it here . Barnes listed 13 cases to watch for possible cert. The South Carolina church case was not one of them. Neither was the Presbyterian case from Minnesota. It is interesting to  note that Barnes had chosen the SC case as "Petition of the Day" on March 15, 2018.

Thus, an informed observer of the Supreme Court apparently believes the SC case will not be granted cert, not even make it into the most important range in today's conference.

This news should give cautious optimism to the Episcopal Church side and cautious pessimism to the independent diocesan side.

SCOTUSblog is also reporting that the decisions (orders) decided today will be announced on Monday at 9:30 a.m. Find this at the SCOTUSblog link above.

AN UPDATE ON TRURO

On April 27, 2017, I posted the item below about the case of Truro Anglican Church in Fairfax, Virginia. At the time, it seemed to be a possible model for South Carolina. The deal was that the Episcopal diocese, which held control over the property, would grant a long-term lease to the occupying Anglican congregation that would agree to a "peace and reconciliation" cooperative enterprise with the Episcopal diocese. This was unanimously approved by the Truro vestry. We now have an update on this.

On June 1, 2018, Bishop Guernsey, of the Anglican Church in North America's Mid-Atlantic diocese, issued a sparse letter announcing the end of the peace and reconciliation institute. He said that Truro Anglican church would discontinue the initiative "at this time." Find the letter here . 

The Truro model was perhaps doomed from the start given the visceral reactions at the time from Guernsey and Foley Beach, the ACNA archbishop (see their letters below). Guernsey's letter of June 1 indicates that the bishop and his diocesan standing committee had worked on the Truro vestry for a year to accomplish the renunciation.

What this means for the future of Truro is uncertain. The deal was still in a preliminary phase. It remains to be seen how the failure of the initiative will affect the congregation's use of the property. The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia will have to decide on that.

What the failure in Truro suggests for South Carolina is that any cooperation on settlements between breakaway congregations and the Episcopal Church is unlikely. This comes, not from the Church side, but from the ACNA side. Judging from Truro, the ACNA bishops are flatly opposed to any cooperation between their congregations and the Episcopal Church. It seems to me any chance a Lawrence congregation could lease the buildings from the Episcopal diocese in return for any cooperation with TEC is extremely remote at best. Of course, I am only speaking for myself here.

_____________________________________

Posting of April 27, 2017:

RECONCILIATION IN VIRGINIA:

A MODEL FOR SOUTH CAROLINA?

The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia and the schismatic parish of Truro Church, Fairfax, VA, have announced a sort of reconciliation, or at least a first step. What might this mean for the schism in South Carolina?

Truro Church was a center of anti-Episcopal Church movement even long before Gene Robinson was confirmed as a bishop in 2003. Diane Knippers was based there. She was the head of the right-wing PAC, Institute on Religion and Democracy, and a founder of the American Anglican Council in 1996. The AAC was arguably the heart and soul of schismatic movement in the Episcopal Church. In 1997 it staged the first conference tying together the reactionary (anti-homosexual-rights) Episcopalians in America and equatorial African Anglican bishops in 1997 as a prelude to the Lambeth Conference of 1998 that passed Resolution 1.10 denouncing homosexuality. The Most Rev. Peter Akinola, primate of Nigeria, the most important of the equatorial African bishops and a very vocal critic of the Episcopal Church, developed a missionary outreach and consecrated Martyn Minns, rector of Truro, as a bishop of the Nigerian Anglican province. Akinola was highly outspoken in his opposition to rights for homosexuals. In 2006, Truro voted to leave the Episcopal Church. In all, 12 Episcopal churches in Virginia voted to break away. They formed the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, under Nigeria. In 2009, GAFCON and reactionary schismatic Episcopalians formed the Anglican Church in North America. Truro became part of ACNA. The property issue went to court.

In 2010, the Virginia supreme court ruled in favor of TEC. In 2012, a circuit court ordered Truro to return all property to the Episcopal bishop. The bishop began temporarily leasing the property to the breakaway congregation. For more info on Truro see Wikipedia here .

Talks went on between the Episcopal diocese and Truro for three years. These resulted in an agreement on a new initiative announced this month, "The Truro Institute, A School of Peace and Reconciliation." See a description of the Institute here . The Institute will operate under a board with equal representation of the Episcopal Church and Truro and support of the Dean of Coventry and the Archbishop of Canterbury who labeled it "the Peace Centre at Truro." According to the announcement from Truro: The ministry will work with seminarians and other young people to send our respective denominations with a new generation of peace makers, by teaching them and letting them live into the challenging work of reconciliation, just the fact of the joint involvement of EDV and Truro Anglican is a living testament to the work the Institute hopes to accomplish.

Bishop Shannon Johnston, of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, said in a letter of April 23, 2017 ( here ) that Truro's vestry had unanimously approved of the deal. The arrangement sets up a tree year trial. If successful, the bishop will grant the parish a 50-year lease on the property that will will remain in the ownership of the Episcopal diocese. The bishop said: We in the Diocese will not only participate in the Institute, but also will have continued access to the property for office space, events and services to ensure a long-term Episcopal presence at Truro. Johnston made it clear the Episcopal Church/Diocese will continue to own and control the property.

While the people of Truro were happy with the "peace and reconciliation" initiative, their bishop and archbishop were not, to say the least. In fact, the Anglican bishop was furious and the archbishop could reasonably be described as livid. After all, the Truro congregation (but not the property) is in the Anglican Church in North America. The ACNA's whole raison d'être is to replace the Episcopal Church as the legal and legitimate Anglican province in the U.S. This remains, even though, as we know, the GAFCON/Global South primates abandoned ACNA in the primates' gathering of January 2016. ACNA calls itself a "province" but it is not now, and almost certainly never will be a province of the Anglican Communion. ACNA's whole trajectory is to diminish the Episcopal Church. Any peace or reconciliation would be counter to their stated goals.

The Anglican Bishop of the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic, John A.M. Guernsey, issued a letter he posted on the Internet making his feelings of the deal known. He blasted the Episcopal Church and his flock, "the Truro leadership," in no uncertain terms: Because of the false teaching of the Episcopal Church, I asked them not to enter into a joint ministry with the Episcopal Diocese. The issues that divide us are of first importance and to partner with the Episcopal Church is to give the mistaken impression that these concerns are merely secondary. ( ...) The Truro leadership has chosen to proceed in joint ministry with the Episcopal Diocese in spite of my opposition. I am deeply grieved by this, and I hope Truro will reconsider.

Guernsey's letter paled in comparison with the hair-on-fire epistle from the ACNA archbishop, Foley Beach. He was beside himself. Find his letter here . First he blasted TEC for sin and heresy: Unfortunately, the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia has not been reconciled with the revealed Word of God, and is therefore not an appropriate partner for such a project. Their leadership continues to promote teaching and practice that is contrary to Scripture---teaching that, if followed, would keep people from an eternal inheritance in the Kingdom of God [!] ( ... ) Therefore, until there is repentance by the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, there can be no true Gospel partnership with them. Then, Beach turned his raging ire on the leadership of Truro Church: I am disappointed that they [Truro] have not just ignored our counsel. In doing so they have entered into a legal relationship with the Episcopal Church that makes them unequally yoked. ( ... ) The decision to partner with the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia in this way is not in harmony with the Bible's instruction in dealing with false teachers, ( ... ) It is ironic to begin a "Peace and Reconciliation" center when you are not at peace with your own bishop and archbishop. ( ... ) It is my hope that they will uphold that heritage, resist counterfeit versions of "reconciliation," and fulfill their calling among the leading congregations of the Anglican Church in North America. The abundantly obvious lack of "peace with your own bishop and archbishop" came from the bishop and archbishop, not from the vestry of Truro which had voted unanimously to approve the deal with the Episcopal bishop. Apparently, Guernsey and Beach want the Truro parishioners to leave their home property rather than make any deal with the Episcopal Church. The people of Truro have made a sensible, reasonable, and faithful decision. 

Two observations of Guernsey's and Beach's letters: 1-they continue the demonization of the other side; and 2-they contradict ACNA's claim of local rule. One of the major claims ACNA leaders advanced was that local congregations would make their own decisions. In fact, a cursory glance over the ACNA constitution and canons shows an authoritarian system controlled by archbishop/bishops almost to the exclusion of the laity. The people of South Carolina are forewarned before they join ACNA. In fact, ACNA is a house of cards that is becoming more fragile all the time as shown in these letters.

What might all of this mean for South Carolina? Is any kind of "peace and reconciliation" possible in SC?

The Virginia case came about only because the breakaway parish of Truro lost in court. This deal allows them long-term use of valuable Episcopal Church-owned property. It does not necessarily mean a rejoining of Truro to the Episcopal Church. Nowhere in the agreement is there a requirement of reunion. However, everyone would have to admit this is a promising first step toward reconciliation whether one thinks that would be good or bad. Guernsey and Beach obviously thought it was quite significant, and, judging from their tone, very bad. 

There are several signs in South Carolina moving in the direction opposite of reconciliation. In the first place, the diocese cleverly bound up 35 parishes into the lawsuit against TEC, the only one of the five schismatic dioceses to do this. The parishes in SC cannot make independent deals. In the second place, TEC offered a generous settlement in June of 2015 that would have given the local churches their independence and the local property. DSC flatly and angrily rejected this. In the third place, the SC circuit court found all in favor of DSC. While the state supreme court justices apparently discarded this decision, they have not yet revealed their own decision(s). It is possible they will render verdicts that in effect leave DSC the winner. In the fourth place, DSC has continued to develop along fundamentalist lines as shown in the work of the Marriage Task Force of 2015-17. They set up a rigid, authoritarian, and intolerant system of control that institutionalized rejection of equal rights for homosexuals in the diocese. This moved the DSC even farther away from mainstream classical Anglicanism. In the fifth place, they are rushing headlong into joining ACNA.  

As I see it, the only hope of "peace and reconciliation" in the near future in SC, would come from a TEC/ECSC victory in the state supreme court. If indeed, the court rules that they are the owners of the property, DSC might be wiling to talk, as Truro did. Otherwise, the 35 congregations face expulsion from the properties. The Episcopal Church side has already signaled that it is willing to let the local congregations in SC keep some sort of control over the local properties. 

I continue to believe that in the long run all of this will come to an end in a reunion of the old diocese of South Carolina. However, the way things are going, it will indeed by a long time and will require some difficult, complicated, and creative ways of thinking about relationships. We have to think anew about how we live together as a community embracing all of our differences in brotherly and sisterly love. If history is a guide, it will happen in SC. The so-called Schism of 1887 came from a problem that seemed hopelessly insoluble at the time, post-Civil War deeply ingrained racism. After one hundred years, whites finally agreed to allow blacks equality in the diocese. Thus, what may seem permanently divisive now is not. There is every reason to believe that, in time, the old diocese will reconcile and give full equality to another mistreated minority. Much to the over-the-top chagrin of the schismatic leaders in ACNA, we may well be seeing the first small step in Virginia.  If it can happen in Virginia, it can happen in South Carolina.     

"DEATH IS AT WORK IN US, 

BUT LIFE IN YOU"

The Second Lesson reading of June 3 (Year B) was II Corinthians 4:5-12:

We do not proclaim ourselves; we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus' sake. For it is the God who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," who has shown in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 

But we have this treasure in clay jars, so that it may be made clear that this extraordinary power belongs to God and does not come from us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus; so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our bodies. For while we live, we are also being given up to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus may be made visible in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us, but life in you.

I was struck by the appropriateness of this reading. Death and life is at work all around us, here in my home in Jacksonville, Alabama, and in South Carolina. We too are afflicted, but not crushed. Regardless of the death at hand, there a greater force, life, within us. 

This is a crucial week in the history of the schism. It will probably bring either the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning of the schism in South Carolina. If the United States Supreme Court grants cert, it will be the beginning of the end. If it denies cert, the end of the beginning. If the beginning, the end phase would be SCOTUS' subsequent decision on the case that would probably settle everything. This would come in the court session of October 2018-June 2019. If the end of the beginning, the beginning would have been the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of August 2, 2017, which in effect settled the dispute in favor of the Episcopal Church. The only part left would be the wrap-up in federal court and turn over of the properties in question to the Episcopal Church bishop.

Will SCOTUS grant cert? Possible but not probable. The nine justices will meet in private on Thursday, June 7, in a conference room of the grand Supreme Court building across from the Capitol in Washington D.C. They will have before them on that day 183 cases. See the list here . 

The work on these 183 cases has already been done. Each justice has four "clerks," or lawyers who serve as assistants. All but two of the justices participate in the "cert pool," in which one clerk is assigned an incoming petition for cert. He or she does the research and writing on the case with a recommendation of granting or denying cert. This is distributed to the justices. Thus, when the justices arrive for the conference on June 7, they will have the work at hand. They grant very few of the petitions. For more on this process see this link and this .

To consider the merits of 183 cases appears forbidding. However, most of these 183 will be readily discarded. Judging from the appearance on the cert list, 31 appear to be most serious. These include the two "church" cases, the one from South Carolina and the Presbyterian appeal from Minnesota. Even so, the chances of the two church cases winning cert are still very small. For instance, in the May 17 conference, the justices considered 151 cases and granted cert to 4 of them. This amounted to 2.6% acceptance. This is typical. Furthermore, if we look at the four accepted, all came from United States circuit courts of appeal. None came from state courts. See here . If there are 31 serious cases on June 7 and the justices approve 4, that would be an acceptance rate of 13%, still very small.

Why do justices grant cert? Good question. How do they go about deciding which petitions to grant and which to deny? As it turns out, SCOTUS has a rule book, and it lists the specifics for granting cert. It is "Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Writ of Certiorari." Find it here . Rule 10 lists 3 reasons for granting cert:

1-From U.S. court of appeals. 

(This would be irrelevant to the SC case which was adjudicated in state courts.)

2-A state supreme court decision that conflicts with another state supreme court decision or with a federal appeals court.

(This is also inappropriate. Neither another state supreme court nor a federal appeals court has ruled on the issue at hand. The SCSC decision of Aug. 2 2017 is singular.)

3-A state court has decided an important question of federal law that has not been settled by this court "or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court."

(The last part is the sliver of hope for DSC. If the justices believe that the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017 conflicts with SCOTUS' Jones v. Wolf (1979) decision, they may accept the petition. Conflict is essentially what the DSC lawyers are arguing in their Feb. 9, 2018 brief to SCOTUS. They say the SCSC justices did not properly follow the neutrality guideline as set out in the Jones decision since they did not strictly apply neutral principles in regard to state laws on trusts. They said the SCSC justices gave too much leeway to a national church on the matter of imposing a trust and therefore violated neutral principles. Thus, if the SCOTUS justices agree that the SCSC failed to apply neutrality properly, it may wish to rectify this and clarify the rules under which courts must follow neutral principles. This is the hope of DSC.)

I do not find this to be a strong argument. In the first place, this dispute was adjudicated in state courts under state laws. It did not involve a question of federal law. DSC is asking SCOTUS to clarify an earlier decision. Revisiting a previous decision is not in the three reasons for granting cert. As for a possible constitutional issue, that should lean toward the Episcopal Church side since the first part of the First Amendment forbids the civic state from interfering in the internal affairs of a religious body.

Thus, chances are strong that the U.S. Supreme Court will reject DSC's appeal. However, there is the possibility that four of the nine justices may vote to accept it. This would open up the last real chance DSC has of prevailing in its fight against the Episcopal Church. If four do not vote to accept, the legal war is effectively over and the wrap-up begins.

Either way, I would caution the partisans on both sides to refrain from gloating if and when the news from SCOTUS is released, probably on next Monday. This schism has been a tragedy all around, a terrible wound in the body of Christ. No one should celebrate this. While grieving, we should redouble our efforts to settle our differences and heal the wounds. Life must prevail over death.

And, speaking of suffering, the town of Jacksonville AL is still trying to cope with a non-man-made disaster, the storms of March 19. This is exemplified by the loss of a historic treasure, the Alumni House of Jacksonville State University. One of the oldest and most charming houses of the town, it was constructed in 1839 in the "steamboat gothic" cottage style. It had a wide porch around three sides. It was bought by J.S.U. and refurbished beautifully in the 1980's. Here it is before the storm:

In the storms, several trees fell on the house compromising its structural integrity. Find a (heartbreaking) picture of it here .

The authorities decided the building could not be saved. They quietly removed all the ancient heart-of-pine boards, doors, mouldings etc. To avoid public outcry they suddenly ordered demolition; and it was quickly done to the shock of passersby. Here is the (devastating) scene afterwards. I drove by the empty space this morning and my heart sank. A landmark, a treasure is gone. 

In South Carolina and in Alabama, death is at work, but life goes on. It goes on in spite of the man-made and natural disasters all around us. We will not be vanquished. We will have life. The conflict between Christians in South Carolina will come to an end one day one way or another. Life will go on.