NEWS FLASH:

LAMBETH PALACE HAS SPOKEN CONCERNING BISHOP ZAVALA-2nd ed.

On May 20, 2015, Bishop Hector Zavala (Bishop of Chile and primate of the Anglican Church of South America) visited the independent diocese of South Carolina to assure the followers of Mark Lawrence they are "part" of the Anglican Communion. On May 22, the diocese issued a news release quoting Zavala: "I'm here with you with the consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury." The release went on: "The Archbishop of Canterbury was with the Global South Primates 'Steering Committee' in a meeting in Cairo, Egypt in 2014 when 'we decided to establish a Primatial Oversight Council to provide pastoral and primatial oversight to some dioceses in order to keep them within the Anglican Communion' said Zavala."

The above remarks may imply that the Archbishop of Canterbury approved of Zavala's visit to South Carolina and supported the Global South primatial oversight scheme established in 2014.

I contacted Lambeth Palace, the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to get their response to Zavala's remarks. The press office of Lambeth Palace replied today and gave me permission to publish their statement:

A Lambeth Palace spokesman said: "The Global South Primates Steering Committee announced in 2014 the establishment of Primatial Oversight for the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina, which had seceded from the Episcopal Church, in order to keep the diocese within the Anglican Communion. The steering committee informed Archbishop Justin of their decision when he joined them for the final day of their meeting in Cairo.

"Archbishop Justin has since had discussions about how the arrangements will work, exploring the exercising of pastoral, not episcopal oversight by Bishop Zavala. Archbishop Justin has discussed these developments with the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori."

The operative phrase here is: "pastoral, not episcopal oversight by Bishop Zavala."

Thus the Archbishop's office has clarified several points:

1-The DSC claim that the Archbishop of Canterbury was "with" the Global South primates' steering committee when they decided to make the oversight scheme is not true. In fact, the Archbishop arrived only for the end of the meeting (Feb. 15, 2014; Cairo) and was presented a fait accompli of a primatial oversight scheme that had already been drawn up by the primates.

We already knew that the Archbishop neither signed this primatial scheme (released on Feb. 20, 2014) nor ever publicly endorsed it.

2-The Archbishop has not approved of any primatial oversight scheme.

3-The Archbishop encouraged "pastoral" oversight only and did so while informing the Episcopal Church's primate.

4-There is no evidence that the Archbishop "consented" to Zavala's visit to South Carolina. Zavala did not define what he meant by the word "consent."

In fact, the Archbishop of Canterbury approved of "pastoral" not primatial oversight for the Diocese of South Carolina. What is the difference between the two? A great deal as it turns out.

Pastoral oversight would be an informal arrangement of friendship and communication of one body with another. In fact, anyone is free to offer pastoral care to the independent diocese. It should come as no surprise that the titular head of the Anglican Communion should strive for healing, reconciliation, and peace in his far flung and loosely organized Communion. He would be remiss in his duties if he did not encourage pastoral care.

Primatial oversight is something else completely. This would be a formal arrangement wherein a primate of the Anglican Communion would exercise episcopal authority over an entity such as a diocese beyond the established range of his or her province.

If Bishop Zavala and the Diocese of South Carolina meant to imply that the Archbishop of Canterbury had approved their scheme to set up a primatial oversight arrangement whereby the Global South primates would exercise episcopal authority over the Diocese of South Carolina, they were wrong.

Lambeth Palace has cleared up the confusion.

Bottom line:  the Archbishop of Canterbury has not approved a primatial oversight scheme for the secessionist Diocese of South Carolina.


Nothing has changed. The independent Diocese of South Carolina is not "part" of the Anglican Communion in any official way.




NOTE:     On May 21, I sent an enquiry on the "Contact" form provided by the website of Lambeth Palace (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/pages/contact.html) asking for a response to Bishop Zavala's claims made in South Carolina on May 20 that the Archbishop of Canterbury had met with the Global South primates and had agreed to GS's oversight of the Diocese of South Carolina.


On May 25, I received by email a response from "Ed Thornton, Senior Press Officer to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth Palace." I have given the exact text above. Before the text: "Dear Professor Caldwell, Thank you for your enquiry about Bishop Zavala and the Diocese of South Carolina. My apologies for the delay in responding to you. Please find below a statement which I hope is of help."


After receiving this, on May 25, I sent a response e-mail to Mr. Thornton asking if I had his permission to publish his e-mail. He returned an e-mail to me: "Please feel free to publish the statement I sent you."


Anyone is free to contact Lambeth Palace using either the "Contact" form given above or their e-mail: press@lambethpalace.org.uk. They also list their telephone number and street address on the Contact form.




2nd ed---
CORRECTION:     I said above "In fact, the Archbishop of Canterbury approved of 'pastoral' not primatial oversight." This should be corrected. Actually, the Archbishop has not "approved" of any oversight scheme, pastoral or otherwise. If one reads carefully the words of the statement from Lambeth Palace, one sees the Archbishop has only had "discussions" about "exploring" pastoral care. It is also clear the Archbishop is decidedly opposed to foreign episcopal oversight for South Carolina.


Lambeth's statement of May 25 is a defeat for those advocating alternate primatial oversight in the Anglican Communion, not just for South Carolina.

'CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER!'

CRIED ALICE

The more I observe the schism in South Carolina, the more I am drawn to reread Alice in Wonderland. Both are episodes of absurdity. The difference between the two is that Alice is amusing.

The visit of Bishop Hector Zavala, primate of the Anglican Church of South America, is just the latest act in South Carolina's non-comedy of errors. His appearances, his remarks, the reports of what he said and did not say, on what he meant and did not mean are head-spinning. What is going on here? As in Wonderland, have we all gone mad?

Zavala's visit supposedly stemmed from the independent diocese's search for affiliation. He was brought in to shore up the claim that DSC is part of the Anglican Communion, something that is not true and has not been since the group going by the name of DSC left the Episcopal Church on October 15, 2012. When it left TEC, it also left the Anglican Communion.

Global South has been the core of the Anglican support for Mark Lawrence and has been very active from the start in seeking to protect the legitimacy of South Carolina's schism from TEC. Zavala is on the GS steering committee. On February 14-15, 2014, the GS Primates' Steering Committee met in Cairo. The Archbishop of Canterbury attended at least part of this meeting accompanied by his Director of Reconciliation. On February 20, the Primates' Committee published a Statement signed by the entire Committee but not the Archbishop of Canterbury or his aides. The Statement declared the Committee would set up a "Primatial Oversight Council" to provide pastoral and primatial oversight to "dissenting individuals, parishes, and dioceses." Although ABC attended the Cairo meeting, there is no record that he had anything to do with the Cairo Statement of Feb. 20. The assertion that the Archbishop of Canterbury supports Global South's primatial oversight of DSC is not supported by any evidence that I can find.

Indeed, on the contrary, the Archbishop has been a steady defender of the so-called "Instruments of Unity" that bind, however loosely, the worldwide Anglican Communion. In fact, he said in an interview last year that the Anglican Church in North America is not in the Anglican Communion. ACNA has been recognized by GAFCON, the larger organization tied to Global South, as the only legitimate Anglican body in the U.S.  

Zavala was quoted as saying last Wednesday in Charleston, "I'm here with you with the consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury." One must ask, exactly what "consent"? When, where, how, and why did the ABC give his "consent" to Zavala to ignore the Instruments of Unity of the AC? (I have contacted Lambeth Palace about this. I will keep readers posted.) Zavala may have gone on to imply that the Archbishop's presence at the Cairo meeting meant his approval of the oversight scheme. Again, there is no evidence of the Archbishop's support of the Cairo Statement. If Zavala meant to say that he was representing the Archbishop of Canterbury in South Carolina and that the Archbishop had approved the primatial oversight scheme, there is no evidence at all of this. Indeed, it contradicts everything else we know about the Archbishop's attitude to the structure of the Anglican Communion.

Where is the independent diocese going with this whole business about affiliation? I think it is more useful at this point to focus less on where it might go and more on where it has been. After more than two and a half years, the Lawrence diocese is still on its own. The "primatial oversight" scheme concocted by Lawrence and his socially conservative allies in Global South is nonsense in terms of the structure of the Anglican Communion. It is, as lawyers say, ultra vires, that is, beyond their legal rights. Global South had no right within the structure of the Anglican Communion to set up any such arrangement. DSC is not, as Lawrence claims, an extra-provincial diocese of the Anglican Communion. It is not now and has not been since Oct. 15, 2012.

Despite repeated assertions to the contrary, in truth the Lawrence diocese is neither "in" the Anglican Communion nor "part" of it. What Lawrence's group does have is the friendship and moral support of several Anglican primates of Third World countries who agree with him that Anglicanism must reject the full inclusion of homosexual persons, and to a degree women, into the life of the church. This is at heart a culture war.

Mark Lawrence left the Episcopal Church in 2012 and the majority of the communicants of the old DSC followed him. From there, the secessionists went off on a path all their own. Unlike the earlier four cases of departures, DSC refused to join the ACNA. It has also failed to adhere to any Anglican province. Meanwhile, Lawrence continues to enjoy authoritarian power in the diocese with an all but ironclad lifetime employment, a quarter of a million dollar annual income, and a million dollar residence for a dollar a year. After two and a half years on his own, he appears to be in no hurry to change anything.

It seemed to me in listening to Lawrence's talk in the recent diocesan convention that he has a grand vision of promoting true Anglicanism (as opposed to the false gospel of TEC) in the world. This is a much bigger cause than just the small matter of diocesan affiliation. It may be that what he is doing now is his way of approaching the enactment of that sweeping vision. He has not joined ACNA. He has gained the visible and vocal support of conservative Anglican prelates overseas. Now he is engaged in two wars, one alone against TEC in court, and one jointly against TEC in the world. I think if we hold that in mind, we have a better understanding of the issue of affiliation in the independent Diocese of South Carolina.


(Read Steve Skardon's excellent first-hand description of Zavala's visit: www.scepiscopalians.com  He was present at the public presentation; I was not.)

  

"THAT IS WHY THE BISHOP LAWRENCE AND HIS FOLLOWERS

PLOTTED THIS SCHEME"

AND THAT IS WHY CHURCH LAWYERS ARE APPEALING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT

"That is why the Bishop Lawrence and his followers plotted this scheme. The Court should reverse." Thus ended the 51-page initial brief of the attorneys for the Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Episcopal Church in South Carolina (ECSC). It was filed with the state supreme court on May 15, 2015 as part of the Church's appeal of the circuit court decision rendered by Judge Goodstein on February 3, 2015. The brief is available online at http://www.episcopalchurchsc.org/news-release-may-18-2015.html . The independent side (DSC) has 30 days to file a response. A hearing has been set before all the justices of the South Carolina Supreme Court, in Columbia, on September 23, 2015 with no chance of delay. The court will consider action in regard to Goodstein's lower court order (Feb. 3).

What is the argument in this initial brief? What are the Church lawyers asking of the state's highest court? And, how strong is their case? What I am offering here is my layman's opinion. If you have a different take on this, let us know.

The overriding argument the lawyers make in this brief is that Goodstein used the wrong principle in judging this lawsuit (brought by DSC v. TEC and later TEC and ECSC). She should have used the "deference" standard instead of the "neutral principles" one she claimed to employ. The Church lawyers insisted this entire case arose from internal religious problems: doctrines and church governance. The issue of property was only the outcome of the disputes, not the origin of the differences. Since the schism stemmed from internal disputes, it must be treated as a "deference" case because courts are forbidden from interfering in the internal matters of a religious institution. This is based on the First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom of religion. On this alone, the lawyers want the court to overturn the Goodstein Order of Feb. 3. If so, that would be the end of the case, at least in the state of SC. If the court declared for the deference rule, the whole matter must be left up to the national Episcopal Church to settle. The civic state must "defer" to the religious institution. Therefore, the Church lawyers devoted the bulk of the space in the brief to describing the Episcopal Church as an hierarchical organization where dioceses are subject to bonds with the national Church. As one aspect of this, the lawyers emphasized the role of the Dennis Canon in this arrangement. This Canon held power over the diocese just as other parts of the Church's Constitution and Canons did, even by the diocese's own declaration.

If the state supreme court does not agree with the premise that Goodstein erred in following the wrong principle, the Church's lawyers' fall back position is to argue that Goodstein's decision should still be overturned because it is insubstantial, partial, erroneous, and even contradictory. She proclaimed neutral principles then proceeded to ignore them. She delved into church matters when it suited her and refused as she wished. In the end she made a sweeping judgment on the internal structure of the Episcopal Church by declaring it a congregational church (to the great bewilderment of informed people). 

The lawyers went on to argue that Goodstein made several other serious errors such as: she allowed state-registered trademarks to override federal ones thus upending the federal constitutional system; she recognized the revisions the Trustees Corporation made in their articles when they unilaterally, and illegally, declared the right to contravene the original articles of incorporation; she recognized the sovereignty of the local diocese in disregard of its longstanding, obligations to the national Church; and she recognized acts of the Bishop and of the diocesan conventions that were actually "ultra vires" (that is, beyond their legal rights). In sum, she made repeated, egregious misinterpretations of the civil laws of South Carolina.

Mixed in the text are several other important points that should not be overlooked. For instance, the lawyers tell us Goodstein's Order of Feb. 3 was in essence written by Lawrence's lawyers (p. 10). Only the lawyers and the judge know the contents of the sets of "orders," or requests for judgment that the two sides privately submitted to the judge in December 2014. According to this brief, Goodstein relied heavily on Alan Runyan et al in her decision.

In an historical perspective, the brief emphasized the premeditated nature of the secessionist movement in the old Diocese of South Carolina. For at least three years, there was a concerted and increasing movement to separate the diocese, the Trustees Corporation, and the local parishes from the Episcopal Church. The logical conclusion of this movement was to leave the Episcopal Church with the assets (land and money) in hand. They used the All Saints decision as the cover for the quit claim deeds. They transferred money into different bank accounts. They gradually cut ties to the national Church, in the end conspiring in secret to "disaffiliate" the diocese from the Episcopal Church.

Finally, the Church's lawyers argued that Goodstein's decision is so flawed that the justices might wish to disregard it altogether and make their own decision (de novo). 

In summary, it seems to me the Church lawyers are trying to get the state supreme court to cast aside this case on the grounds it requires "deference" to the national Church. On that, they have made the necessarily strong argument that the whole dispute between the two sides is a religious one. Their "Plan B" is to argue that Goodstein's decision itself is thoroughly erroneous and should be tossed out in favor of a whole new judgment made by the supreme court justices. On this, they have also made a good case. Moreover, they have a huge collection of laws and judicial decisions around the United States heavily weighted on the side of the Episcopal Church.       



SOME QUESTIONS FOR BISHOP ZAVALA

On May 20, DSC will host a visit by the Most Rev. Hector ("Tito") Zavala, Bishop of Chile and Primate of the Anglican Church of South America, one of the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion. According to the DSC press release, he will be in SC "specifically to encourage and support fellow Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Mark J. Lawrence, and the clergy and lay people of the Diocese of South Carolina." Actually, no "specifics" were given as to how he was to encourage and support. His visit is supposedly part of the discernment process for deciding on diocesan affiliation although exactly how was not given. The whole affiliation issue remains a mystery.

Zavala is a close ally of Lawrence. As a member of the Global South Primates Steering Committee, he was one of the seven Anglican primates who rushed a letter of support to Lawrence on December 14, 2012 ("We recognize your Episcopal orders and your legitimate Episcopal oversight of the Diocese of South Carolina within the Anglican Communion."), just nine days after the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church had accepted Lawrence's renunciation of his Holy Orders and had released and removed Lawrence from the office of bishop. These seven primates directly rejected the authority of a fellow Anglican primate in her own province.

Zavala was elected primate in 2010 to replace the Argentinian bishop Gregory Venables in what used to be called the Province of the Southern Cone. The Anglican Church in South America is one of the largest in geography and smallest in membership in the Anglican Communion. It has 25,000 members in an area of 110,000,000 people (2 people in a thousand). It includes Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Zavala is the first person of Hispanic heritage to be the primate of this Anglican province.

Even before GAFCON, the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, and Global South, the Province of the Southern Cone was aggressively active in opposing the Episcopal Church. In 2007 and 2008, it took in the four secessionist groups that left the Episcopal Church: San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Ft. Worth, and Quincy, and declared them dioceses of the province of the Southern Cone. This was in direct disregard of the Windsor Report that had called for a moratorium on cross-border interventions and of the established policies and practices of the historic Anglican Communion, a loose confederation of 38 independent churches around the world separated geographically. When the Anglican Church in North America began in 2009, the four dioceses left the Southern Cone for it even though ACNA was not, and still is not, in the Anglican Communion.

Following the episode of the four dioceses, in 2010, the secretary general of the Anglican Communion removed Bishop Zavala as a member of the Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith, and Order. Obviously, unity and order had not been high on the Southern Cone's agenda.

On February 27, 2010, there occurred in central Chile the sixth strongest earthquake ever recorded, an 8.8. It and the resulting tsunami left the region devastated. More than a million homes were destroyed or damaged. 525 people were killed. The cost of the damage ranged between 4 and 7 billion dollars.

In a telephone conversation with Episcopal News Service on March 22, 2010, soon after the earthquake, Zavala said he was overwhelmed by the generous response from Anglicans everywhere: "It is good that our ideological differences can be put aside when we are concerned with helping others."  ( http://www.episcopalchurch.org/library/article/southern-cone-chile-bishop-hector-tito-zavala-elected-primate-clergy-reject-womens  )

However, Zavala showed a far different attitude in an interview with The Living Church in 2013: "In 2010 when an earthquake struck in Chile, I received many, many phone calls from [the Episcopal Church center in] New York offering us money. But I said no; not out of arrogance but because we had broken communion with TEC and it would not be right to accept their money." (www.livingchurch.org/qa-bishop-zavala-cono-sur ). Thus, as it turned out, Zavala himself had not put "ideological differences" aside as he coldly turned away desperately needed aid dollars only because they were offered by the Episcopal Church.

The Anglican Church of South America is one of the most conservative parts of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Early on, it cut off communion with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada because of their policies of inclusion for homosexual persons. As for equal rights for women, it is among the nine provinces of the AC that do not allow women to be ordained to the priesthood although it does allow women as deacons.

Unfortunately, I cannot be present for the meet-and-greets on May 20, but I do have a few questions I think are pertinent to ask of Bishop Zavala:

1. If asked, would your province, Anglican Church of South America, accept DSC as a diocese?

2. As a member of the Global South "oversight" primates committee, please explain exactly how the "oversight" works? What are the details of the relationship of DSC and Global South? Could this become a permanent relationship?

3. You are on record as saying it was good to set aside ideological differences in the aftermath of the terrible 2010 earthquake in Chile, yet you are also on record as refusing money from TEC because of ideological differences. How do you explain this contradiction?

4. How much money did you refuse from TEC? How much from the Anglican Church of Canada? What other Anglican provinces did you refuse when they offered help? From which Anglican provinces did you accept aid? How much money did you receive?

5. Your province, ACSA, allows ordination of women as deacons but not as priests. How can you justify the one and not the other? How many women deacons are in ACSC?

6. Episcopal dissidents believe liberal religion leads to decline and conservative leads to growth in membership. Your province is quite conservative yet also very small in numbers. What keeps the ACSA from becoming a major denomination in your region?

7. Your province broke communion with the Episcopal Church a decade ago. How can the Anglican Communion function if each province is free to choose which other provinces it will recognize as "in communion"? Is not being "in communion" the whole idea of the Anglican "Communion"? 

8. What would be required for your province to restore communion with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada?

9. What has been your relationship with the Anglican Standing Commission on Unity since you were removed from it?

10. What do you see as your purpose in being here today?

11. Your are now standing in the Anglican Communion province of the Episcopal Church. Did you ask permission of your fellow primate, the Presiding Bishop of TEC, to be here? Did you inform the Presiding Bishop you would be in her province?

12. Will you participate in official Anglican Communion meetings if the primate of the Episcopal Church is present? Will you take communion alongside the primate of TEC? What is your opinion of primates boycotting meetings that include the TEC primate and avoiding communion with the primate of TEC?

13. You have been quoted as saying TEC is not "true Anglican." Exactly what is a true Anglican?

14. Mark Lawrence renounced his membership in TEC in October of 2012. In December of 2012, the Presiding Bishop and primate of the Anglican Communion province of TEC accepted his renunciation of Holy Orders and officially removed Lawrence as an Episcopal, and therefore Anglican Communion, bishop. You were one of those primates who directly rejected this official action of a fellow Anglican primate, in her own province. Why did you do this? How would you feel if the TEC primate had done this to you in your province?

15. GAFCON and Global South have in effect rejected the validity of the "Instruments of Unity" that preside over the Anglican Communion. They have split the AC into two widely differing factions. What is the difference between this and schism?

16. When the Archbishop of Canterbury visited you recently, what did you tell him about the future of the Anglican Communion? Do you support having a Lambeth Conference in 2018? Would you attend?

17. What do you see as the future of the Anglican Communion?

18. How is your presence in South Carolina today promoting a better future for the Anglican Communion?

Bishop Zavala, have a pleasant stay in charming old South Carolina, one of the most beautiful, hospitable, and inviting places in the world. You may have broken communion with the Episcopal Church, but it has not broken communion with you. I am sure we can all agree that the Anglican Communion should survive and thrive, but in order for that to happen we have to accept the very Anglican principle of toleration and respect for widely differing views. And on that, I hope we can all agree too. 

    

     

EPISCOPALIANS DID THE RIGHT THING, AGAIN, 3rd Edition (May 20)

Within a few weeks, the United States Supreme Court is likely to rule on the issue of whether individual states can prohibit legal marriages of same sex couples and can refuse to recognize such marriages from other states. Oral arguments before the nine justices occurred on April 28, 2015. The printed and audio records of the hearing are readily available on the Internet. And, once again, Episcopalians, or at least certain Episcopalians, have done the right thing. They have stood courageously for human rights. They have added their voices to the Court in the cause of freedom and equality. 

A vast group of religious leaders in America joined together to present a brief of Amici curiae (friends of the court) to the Supreme Court in support of same sex marriage. A long list of religious institutions signed on as well as nearly 2,000 individual clergy and theologians representing many religious backgrounds (many of them were Episcopalians). Leading the list of religious institutions was "President of the House of Deputies of the Episcopal Church" and "The Episcopal Bishops of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee." Then followed the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, numerous Reformed Jewish groups, and various Presbyterian, Methodist, and Lutheran associations. Under the "Table of Authorities" in the brief, the Episcopalians included the resolutions of the Episcopal Church General Convention supporting rights for homosexual persons, 1994, 2000, 2006, and 2012.

The justices of the Supreme Court could not avoid being impressed by this massive outpouring of religious support for marriage equality. As a writer in the New York Times recently pointed out, "It's Not Gay Marriage vs. the Church Anymore" (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/opinion/sunday/its-not-gay-marriage-vs-the-church-anymore.html . (Click on "Episcopal Church" for the Amici brief.) There has been a significant wave of religious support for same sex marriage in recent years. Even the Presbyterian Church (USA) recently voted to allow ministers to perform same sax marriages; and a majority of presbyteries approved this. The myth that Christian and Jewish leaders were united in opposition to same sex marriage has collapsed. 

Of course, this is not the first time Episcopalians have stood up in the courts for same sex marriage. In 2013, all of the Episcopal bishops in the state of California supported the challenge of Proposition 8 in the U.S. Supreme Court. At the same time, 29 bishops representing 23 of the 24 dioceses in states with marriage equality joined in supporting the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the Supreme Court. In that instance, the majority of the Supreme Court justices voted to overturn Prop 8 and DOMA. Justice Kennedy was the "swing" vote to carry the majority. The witnesses of so many Episcopal leaders could not have been lost on the majority of justices. For years, SCOTUS has usually been 5-4 conservative. 

Right now all eyes are on Justice Kennedy, again. In the hearing of April 28, he dropped little hint of how he would vote. Conventional wisdom holds that the Court, as in 2013, once again will narrowly support same sex marriage, but as we all know it is risky to jump to conclusions about how the court will vote. Still, considering the clear-cut recent history of the Court's handling of this issue in favor of marriage equality in case after case, one could only be shocked if the Court now reversed its attitude. A ruling of the Supreme Court is expected next month. It will be a landmark decision setting the national policy on same sex marriage. This is a moment of high drama in the social history of the United States, and perhaps of the world.

The Episcopal Church has been wrestling with the issue of rights for homosexual persons for forty years. On the whole, the Church has done the right thing. Slowly but surely the General Convention, the policy making body of the Church, has voted in favor or equality and justice. Bit by bit homosexuals have gained rights in the Church. Last month's amici brief was simply the most recent example of that long process of doing the right thing. (One note, however; the Episcopal Church has not yet approved same sex marriage, only a blessing of a same sex couple.)

As we have seen, opposition to equal rights for homosexuals in the Episcopal Church was the direct cause of the leaders of the Diocese of South Carolina's decision to leave the Episcopal Church. This puts DSC on the wrong side of history. Polls show that the majority of Americans support equal rights for homosexuals; and that majority is growing rapidly. Within a few years even the most conservative sections of America (e.g. South Carolina) will support equality for all. Young people especially are overwhelmingly in support of freedom and toleration. As time goes by, DSC will find fewer and fewer people supporting its dying social prejudices. It will either have to accept equality for homosexuals or face extinction, or at least a severely diminished following, mostly of old people.

(Thanks to Sylvia Folk for her help with this material.)


ADDENDUM, May 12:     Even conservative bishops can find a way to do the right thing. Bishop Gregory Brewer, of Central Florida, recently found himself in the middle of an explosion in cyberspace. A male same-sex couple asked to have their adopted infant son baptized in St. Luke's Cathedral, in Orlando (Anglo-Catholic heritage), only to run into opposition. The couple put their experience on Facebook. It went viral. Thousands of people protested to Bishop Brewer. Long story short, Brewer agreed with the baptism which will now proceed. Brewer's moving letter to his diocese is online:   http://cfdiocese.org/mydiocese/a-letter-to-the-clergy-people-of-the-diocese-of-central-florida/#more-1026  .  If some conservatives can do the right thing and keep their heart-felt beliefs, could not all do likewise? As Bishop Brewer, in 2012 the bishop of South Carolina could have done the right thing and kept his principles. Instead, he chose to leave the Episcopal Church.


ADDENDUM, May 20:     More conservative bishops are continuing to do the right thing. Bishop Lillibridge, of West Texas, was once prominent among right-wing bishops. West Texas was one of the twelve dioceses that could be counted on as staunchly and reliably resistant to rights for homosexuals. No more. As Brewer, Lillibridge has changed his policies if not his mind. Thus, the old Robinson-era coalition of the alliance of the twelve hard-right dioceses in TEC is slowly but surely collapsing in the face of reality. Read the detailed and informative article by the conservative writer Mary Ann Mueller, "West Texas Bishop Now Sees Through Rainbow Colored Glasses" http://www.virtueonline.org/west-texas-bishop-now-sees-through-rainbow-colored-glasses . 

BY SCHISMS RENT ASUNDER

Though with a scornful wonder/ we see her sore oppressed,/ by schisms rent asunder,/ by heresies distressed (The Church's One Foundation).

Schisms by the dozens have rent asunder the Anglican Communion and the U.S. Episcopal Church. The Anglicans Online website lists at least 55 independent splinter "Anglican" church entities in the United States and dozens of other "Anglican" denominations outside of the U.S. ( http://anglicansonline.org/communion/nic.html ). Not one of these is in the Anglican Communion (AC), not one recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC). In the eastern half of South Carolina there are at least 10 "Anglican" denominations, all claiming jurisdiction over this small space of earth and operating local churches therein. That means there are 10 "Anglican" bishops claiming authority in the same place. Only one entity, the Episcopal Church, is in the AC and recognized by the ABC. The others are:

---The Reformed Episcopal Church (REC), the old Reconstruction era splinter group;

---The Anglican Mission in America, the handiwork mostly of Chuck Murphy;

---PEARUSA, the Rwandan mission;

---The Diocese of the Holy Cross, Federation of Anglican Churches in the Americas;

---The Anglican Church in America;

---The Anglican Catholic Church;

---The Orthodox Anglican Church;

---The Diocese of South Carolina (Mark Lawrence);

--The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).

Now comes the news that Mark Lawrence and his inner circle have met a group of "leaders" of ACNA for conversations at Camp St. Christopher, April 28-29. DSC, the independent diocese, posted a report of the meeting on its website (www.diosc.com/sys/index.php?view=article&catid=1:latest-news&id=652:leaders-from-the-Diocese ). The meeting raised more questions than it answered.

Mark Lawrence has had a mysterious relationship with ACNA. The ACNA was formed in 2009, largely under the leadership of the former Episcopal bishop of Pittsburgh, Robert Duncan. Lawrence was well acquainted with Duncan as Lawrence served in that diocese for fourteen years before returning to Bakersfield in 1997. The four breakaway dioceses all joined the new ACNA (San Joaquin, Lawrence's previous diocese; Ft. Worth, Pittsburgh, and Quincy). The ACNA was created to be a sort of broad confederation of diverse semi-independent "Anglican" denominations, such as the Reformed Episcopal Church. Its views and policies are also wide-ranging. For instance, women were allowed to be priests to satisfy one party, and not allowed to be bishops to satisfy another. ACNA claims 100,000 members. In 2012 it created "the Diocese of the Carolinas" and made Steve Wood, the rector of St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant its new bishop. Wood had been a finalist for bishop of DSC in 2006-07. Wood and his parish left the Episcopal Church, property in hand, under Bishop Lawrence's tenure after Lawrence had signaled he would not enforce the Dennis Canon. While he was still an Episcopal bishop, Lawrence attended Wood's consecration as an ACNA bishop although he did not participate in it (grounds for removal as bishop in TEC).

When Lawrence announced he and the diocese had left TEC in October 2012, he also announced there would be no affiliation with a higher group for the time being. His oft-repeated quip was about coming out of a bad marriage, one did not want to rush into another marriage. He declared that DSC was an "extra-provincial diocese" of the Anglican Communion, something that had never existed and would not be recognized by the ABC. He made it plain there would be no joining ACNA in the near future. Instead, in 2014, Lawrence made an even more peculiar arrangement of "oversight" by the Global South, a collection of socially and theologically conservative Anglican prelates, mostly in the Third World. This was also something that had never existed and would not be recognized by the ABC. The "oversight" arrangement was not described. At the same time the DSC annual convention rubber-stamped this deal, it also passed a resolution requiring only the Episcopal Church Book of Common Prayer be used in DSC churches. This came on the heels of a new prayer book that had been adopted in ACNA, and much of which was written by Lawrence's friend Keith Ackerman. The new ACNA prayer book was silently but pointedly ignored in DSC.

The question of affiliation continued to hang over DSC as everyone awaited leadership from the authoritarian bishop. He hand picked a committee on discernment in the Spring of 2014. They were to present a report on an affiliation of DSC with a larger body at the 2015 annual diocesan convention. The chair of this committee was Craige Borrett, Kendall Harmon's fellow clergyman at Christ/St. Paul's, and stalwart Lawrence partisan. 

In 2014, Lawrence attended the installation of Foley Beach as the new archbishop of ACNA but did not participate in the consecration. The ABC announced beforehand that ACNA was not in the Anglican Communion, if anyone were still wondering. GAFCON, however, in defiance of the ABC and the instruments of unity of the AC announced that it recognized ACNA as the legitimate branch of Anglicanism in the U.S. GAFCON had been created in 2008 largely by equatorial African Anglican prelates promoting a rigidly conservative social and religious agenda to suit their local needs. 

In the DSC annual convention of 2015, Lawrence had few good words for affiliation with ACNA, or with anyone else for that matter. Borrett's committee on discernment, that had been charged with making a report, in fact gave no report. Two and a half years into the schism and there was still no proposal of affiliation. Lawrence talked in circles about affiliation to the convention. He gave no clear view at all of where DSC should go on this issue. ACNA has been around for almost six years. DSC has been out of TEC for two and a half years. How long should a decision on affiliation take? In fact, DSC was still adrift in nowhere, going nowhere as everyone looked to Lawrence for guidance.

Duncan and ACNA had tried hard to recruit Lawrence. In September of 2013, Duncan invited various "Anglican" groups in the low country to a meeting at Camp St. Christopher. He brought together representatives of PEARUSA, REC, Diocese of the Holy Cross, as well as ACNA and DSC. Without explanation, he omitted several other "Anglican" entities in SC. Chuck Murphy, an original pioneer of the "orthodox" Anglican movement in South Carolina was not present. Nothing came of this meeting.

Once again, DSC and ACNA met, this time just a few days ago. According to the DSC press release, DSC was represented by: Lawrence; Wade Logan, chancellor of DSC; Alan Runyan, attorney of the Standing Committee; Craige Borrett, chair of the affiliation committee; Kendall Harmon, canon theologian of DSC; Jeffrey Miller and Elizabeth Pennewill, members of the affiliation committee; and Jim Lewis, assistant to Lawrence. This was the inner core of DSC.

ACNA was represented in the meeting by Foley Beach, archbishop of ACNA; Ray Sutton, a bishop of REC; John Guernsey, ACNA bishop of the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic; Bill Atwood, bishop of "The International Diocese," one of the constituent elements of ACNA; Terrell Glenn, missionary bishop of the ACNA Diocese of the Western Gulf Coast (he resigned from the Anglican Mission in the Americas in the midst of the Rwandan debacle of 2011); Phil Ashley, chief executive office of the highly conservative American Anglican Council; Jack Lumanog, "Canon to the Archbishop and Chief Executive Officer" of ACNA; Scott Ward, chancellor of ACNA, chancellor of ACNA Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic, and chancellor of Falls Church Anglican in VA; and Ted Brenner, chancellor of the Anglican Diocese of Quincy and leader of the team of lawyers, including Alan Runyan, that litigated the case of the breakaway diocese of Quincy against TEC.

Absent from the meeting was anyone from the local ACNA Diocese of the Carolinas. The bishop, Steve Wood, was not present, nor was his chancellor, nor was anyone else in authority of that diocese which, after all, includes all of South Carolina. No explanation was given for this absence.

What did the assembly discuss in the two days? The press release tells us very little but does offer some tantalizing clues. Anyone can make of these whatever they wish. Here are my thoughts. One sentence said the group had "frank exchanges" (translation-widely differing opinions) on "compatibility of the ecclesiologies" of ACNA and DSC (translation-DSC is a long way from joining ACNA). Apparently they discussed mostly the numerous overlapping "Anglican" jurisdictions in SC. DSC saw these as "barriers" whose removal would be a "necessary precursor to ecclesial order" (translation-Lawrence wants a unified "Anglican" diocese before he joins ACNA). How all of this was to be accomplished was left blank. And how any of this could possibly proceed without the local ACNA bishop was equally blank.

The tone of the DSC press release was one of differences between DSC and ACNA with no real process for reconciling them. No evidence was presented that the conferees discussed ways to move forward to union. No statement of any kind was issued by the conference at its conclusion either as a group or individually.

Bottom line, it seems to me that after all these years the former Episcopal bishop Mark Lawrence, now head of an independent diocese in the low country of South Carolina, is not inclined to join ACNA; and the reasons are just as mysterious now as they have always been.                 

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS REJECTS THE INDEPENDENT DIOCESE'S MOTION

FOR A REHEARING

On April 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, issued an Order denying the independent diocese's appeal for a rehearing of the case vonRosenberg v. Lawrence. Lawyer Alan Runyan had made the appeal to the Court on April 14. The Court had issued its decision to remand the case to the U.S. District Court in Charleston on March 31. This means the federal court in Charleston will have to reconsider Judge Houck's decision of August 2013. Houck had abstained from the case in deference to the earlier action in the state circuit court which he said was parallel. The three judge panel in the Fourth Circuit court said on Mar. 31 that Houck had used the wrong standard for abstention. They said he should have used the Colorado River standard that makes it extremely difficult for a federal court to abstain from a case in deference to a state court.

The three sentence Apr. 29 Order of the U.S. Appeals Court in Richmond reveals that not one of the judges of the Court asked for a vote on Rule 35. This Rule says that one judge of the court may call for a vote on the question of whether the court should hear a case "en banc" (the entire bench, that is, all the judges of a court). If more than half of the judges vote in agreement, they will hear the case "en banc." In this instance, not one of the judges even cared to call for a vote, let alone discuss the merits of the case.

The Apr. 29 Order suggests several points:

---Since not one judge called for a vote, the case was cut-and-dried to them. All of the judges gave recognition to the clear-cut unanimous decision of the three judge panel (Motz, Gregory, Wynn).

---Judge Goodstein's highly controversial decision of Feb. 3 had absolutely no influence on the federal judges in Richmond. The three judges issued their ruling on Mar. 31 and the whole court rejected DSC's appeal on April 29. The federal judges in Richmond had no concern whatsoever for the previous state court litigation.

---The judges of the U.S. Fourth Circuit rejected DSC's appeal in just 15 days. Within one month, the three judge panel unanimously directed the U.S. District Court in Charleston to reconsider the case and the whole court sustained that order.

The independent diocese issued a press release and posted this on their website yesterday. It continues DSC's longstanding blame-it-all-on-the-Episcopal Church (conveniently omitting that DSC started the lawsuits) as well as its recent attitude of desperation while misrepresenting the litigation and the powers of the courts. The statement implies that federal courts must abide by state court decisions. In fact, federal courts have superiority over state courts. Moreover, as the Fourth Circuit judges made plain, federal courts almost always MUST adjudicate cases involving federal law. A federal court can abstain only in very rare instances. It was obvious that the federal judges in Richmond believed the federal court in Charleston should hear this case.

Thus, the litigation in South Carolina continues along two tracks, state court and federal court. Soon, the two sides should present their briefs, or arguments, to the South Carolina state supreme court. The date for the oral hearing there has been set for Sept. 23. Meanwhile, we can await word from the U.S. District Court in Charleston on how it will proceed with the remanded case of the bishops. It has two choices: abstain or proceed to a judgment. In order to abstain, a heavy burden will be placed on the court to explain the very narrow and compelling reasons it sees justifying the abstention. It will have to follow the Colorado River principle that makes it extremely difficult to abstain from a case involving federal law (in this case the Lanham Act). If the court cannot find overwhelming reasons for abstention, it must proceed with adjudicating the case.

Feb. 3 was the high point in DSC's litigation. Judge Goodstein gave them everything they wanted and then some. Since then, however, legal matters have not looked so good for the independent diocesan side. They know very well the judges they will face in the high courts of Columbia and Charleston will be a far cry from what they have enjoyed so far.

GAFCON OFFICIALLY ABANDONS

THE VIA MEDIA

"When the Gospel is at stake there can never be a middle way." Thus declared the primates of GAFCON (Global Anglican Futures Conference) in their London Communique of today, April 17, 2015 (http://gafcon.org/news/gafcon-primates-communique). "As followers of Jesus we know that it is the narrow way that leads to life." This statement makes it official to the whole world that GAFCON has repudiated the historic Anglicanism of the Via Media or Middle Way that has fundamentally characterized the Church of England and her descendants around the world bonded by Anglican sensibilities and liturgical traditions. Indeed, the Church of England was declared independent of Rome in the sixteenth century in order to be the broad middle ground of tolerant and non-dogmatic Christianity for the entire realm. That character has been its peculiar genius for nearly six centuries. Now the leaders of the majority of worldwide Anglicans have overthrown that bedrock Anglican principle. They have declared for the distinctly non-Anglican "narrow way." This is a historic turning point in the history of Anglicanism and of the Anglican Communion.

Today's Communique was issued by six official primates of the Anglican Communion (Congo, Uganda, Nigeria, Rwanda, Kenya, and South America) plus Foley Beach, the archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America. GAFCON recognizes only ACNA as the legitimate branch of Anglicanism in North America. "Advisors" of this group include Michael Nazir-Ali, recently appointed the visiting bishop of the independent diocese in South Carolina. GAFCON is largely an equatorial African association bound by traditional social customs, particularly male dominance and persecution of homosexuals. This is cloaked in the guise of what they claim as the authentically traditional ("orthodox") biblical Christianity. Their hardline defense of old social customs of middle Africa has put them at odds with the mainstream of Anglicanism and especially the First World provinces of England, the U.S., Canada, and Australia.

Ironically, while the GAFCON leaders are breaking up the old Anglican Communion and creating a pared-down and separate majority of socially conservative Anglicans, they insist they are doing just the opposite. "We are not leaving the Anglican Communion. The members of our churches stand at the heart of the Communion, which is why we are committed to its renewal." Renewal. That is code term for "orthodox," or vertical replacement of progressive, or horizontal Anglicanism that is found in the developed countries of the world. And, to drive this point home, the leaders announced a world gathering of GAFCON next in 2018, the year the Lambeth Conference was to meet. Apparently Lambeth will not convene in 2018 because the Archbishop of Canterbury was unable to get together enough Anglican primates to support it. So, GAFCON will meet instead. No one can miss the point that GAFCON is in the process of demolishing the old Anglican Communion.

GAFCON also intends to replace the old Anglican Communion provinces in the United States, Canada, and now apparently in Australia and, most brazenly in the very heart of the Anglican world, England itself. If this does not give the Archbishop of Canterbury cause for concern, nothing will. The Communique pointed out that GAFCON had conducted an organizing conference in Australia in March of 2015. As for England, the Communique boldly declared "FCA UK & Ireland, formed on our initiative." on our initiative. "We are particularly concerned about the Church of England and the drift of many from Biblical faith." ("Biblical faith" is code term for socially conservative orthodoxy in vertical religion.) "We continue to encourage and support the efforts of those working to restore the Church of England's commitment to Biblical truth." And this is just the start: "We have planned for the expansion of our movement..."

GAFCON was created in July of 2008 in Jerusalem on the eve of the Lambeth meeting of that year. It was formed to promote social conservatism in the Anglican world, particularly to oppose equal rights for homosexual persons and women in the Church. Many bishops who attended GAFCON refused to go to Lambeth. Bishop Lawrence attended the original meeting and has warmly supported the movement ever since. Interesting enough, however, he has steadfastly refused to join the American branch of GAFCON, the Anglican Church in North America. He has kept his "diocese" entirely separate of any larger group for reasons unapparent.

Today's Communique should make it entirely clear to everyone that GAFCON is splitting up the old Anglican Communion. It actually has the majority of Anglican communicants in the world. What it is creating is a Third World-centric organization devoted to traditional, conservative social systems and narrow theology. It has linked up with the social reactionary minorities in the First World countries to form a worldwide network. This is redefining Anglicanism and actually remodeling the old religion into something new and different than its historic roots intended. GAFCON's philosophy of Anglicanism is a far cry from Elizabeth I's and an even farther cry from American Episcopalianism.


See also the informative report in The Telegraph of April 17:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11546390/Bishops-back-Church-of-England-breakaway-congregations.html


And "Conservative Anglicans Poised for 'Leap Forward,' Deny Schism, Christian Today, April 17, 2015, http://www.christiantoday.com/article/conservatives.committed.to.anglican.communion.but.increase.funding.to.own.mission/52307.htm

 

     

 

PANIC ON COMING STREET?

There is a rising air of desperation, possibly even panic, coming from the independent diocesan headquarters on Coming Street in Charleston. The year 2015 is turning out to be very different than were 2013 and 2014. At two and a half years into the schism, matters are not looking so well for the secessionists these days.

As we have seen in posts on this blog, statistics show there has been a drastic drop in both membership and income of the independent diocese, down a third since Lawrence arrived in January of 2008. Around the time of the schism 10,000 communicants abandoned the diocese, about half staying with the Episcopal Church parishes and missions and half dropping out of the schismatic parishes and missions. Some local secessionist churches have been hit seriously. While income has declined, legal costs have soared. DSC reports spending $2m on legal expenses ($800k is unaccounted for in the annual budgets; where did it come from? where did it go?).

The DSC "Legal Defense Fund," which operates in secrecy and without accountability, recently established the "1785 Society" to raise a new $300k for this year's legal expenses. Obviously, the money has been slow in arriving. In Holy Week, DSC spent several thousand dollars to post snail-mail letters apparently to everyone on the old mailing list (even some loyal Episcopalians) in which Mark Lawrence solicited donations for the Fund. Just today, Jim Lewis, Canon to the Ordinary at DSC, posted a letter (more about that in a moment) calling anew for donations to the 1785 Fund.

The landscape of litigation has changed. DSC began the lawsuits in January of 2013 when its lawyers chose one certain court and sued TEC, then ECSC there. For over two years, DSC controlled the venue of the litigation through a predictably friendly court. Even the federal court judge, Houck, agreed to step aside in view of the convincing performance in St. George. The show in St. George came to a climax in February of this year when Judge Goodstein produced a decision that sounded as if it had been written by Alan Runyan. Then, DSC's luck began to change. In March, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Judge Houck's decision to abstain and remanded the case to the District Court in Charleston to be reheard following the Colorado River principle. This enhances the Church side in court and makes it much harder for DSC to make its case. As we have already seen, the case may go to another judge in the District Court who is much friendlier to the Episcopal Church. The idea, promoted by some, that the federal court in Charleston now has to follow the state court ruling is nonsense. Federal courts are not beholding to state courts. It is the other way around. State courts must accept the superiority of federal actions. The DSC lawyers are well aware of this. 

On April 14, DSC lawyers appealed to the U.S. Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, to reconsider their decision of March 31. This alone showed their lack of confidence in their own position. If they felt certain of the strength of their arguments, they would allow the case to proceed in Charleston without delay. Anyone who heard the audio recording of the Fourth Circuit hearing in January and read the unanimous decision of Mar. 31 knows it is highly unlikely this court will change its position. I suspect DSC lawyers know this and are only employing a delaying tactic (something they repeated accused ECSC lawyers of doing in 2013-14). It may be DSC lawyers want a judgment from the state supreme court first. This, however, is not likely. The District Court in Charleston will probably take up the case again before the state supreme court makes its ruling.

On April 15, the South Carolina Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of Judge Goodstein's ruling (Feb. 3). If their two-page statement gives any hint, it is favorability to ECSC. DSC made a motion to the Court "to expedite" the case. ECSC made a counter motion in opposition. The Court rejected the DSC motion and granted the ECSC motion not to expedite. It set a date of Sept. 23, 2015, for oral arguments. If six months later is a typical time for a written decision, that would put a judgment of the state supreme court in early 2016. This will be the first time in which a state supreme court will take up the issue of the legal relationship between the Episcopal Church and a diocese (PA, TX, and IL state supreme courts left it to lower courts). It will be a historic moment for the Episcopal Church and for South Carolina.

It is possible that DSC lawyers wanted to hurry up the state supreme court in order to have the case decided within Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal's term. She is reportedly in her last year in that role. Toal is an active Roman Catholic. Her name was on the famous 2009 All Saints decision. That ruling went against TEC and its diocese in finding the Dennis Canon inoperable in that parish's case (the only case in the U.S. finally settled in favor of a breakaway parish). Since Judge Goodstein strongly relied on the All Saints decision in her Order of Feb. 3, one may assume Chief Justice Toal would want to uphold Goodstein's Order to reaffirm her own work of 2009.

Of the justices' names on the All Saints decision, only two are still in the state supreme court, Toal and Justice Donald Beatty. There are three other justices now on the court who had nothing to do with the 2009 All Saints decision. Justice Costa M. Pleicones is from Greenville and is Greek Orthodox. Justice Kittredge is also from Greenville and is a Presbyterian. Finally, there is Justice Kaye Hearn of Conway. She is an active communicant of the Episcopal church in Conway, St. Anne's, the group of refugees from the schismatic St. Paul's. Her husband, lawyer George M. Hearn, Jr. also a leader in St. Anne's, was subpoenaed by DSC lawyers for a deposition in March of 2014. He was ordered for deposition even though he did not hold an office in the Episcopal diocese.


The five justices of the South Carolina Supreme Court will hear the oral arguments from both sides in court on September 23, 2015 and will draw up a written decision some time afterwards, perhaps in early 2016. Thus, DSC lawyers can no longer control the venue of litigation. The U.S. District Court in Charleston and the South Carolina Supreme Court in Columbia will be nothing like the local circuit court in rural Dorchester County.

Back to Jim Lewis's letter of today (www.diosc.com). Lewis, Lawrence's assistant, is often out front with strong public statements against the Episcopal Church side. In my view, his most outrageous assertion was his ludicrous claim that the schism had nothing to do with homosexuality (It's about God, not gays). See the post here on the causes of the schism, part 2. In his new fundraising missive, Lewis once again declares that God favors DSC: "God has remarkably blessed us throughout this litigation process. We have been the beneficiaries of God's providence repeatedly in countless ways..." Apparently Lewis did not get the message from Mark Lawrence in the recent DSC convention that one must not say the legal actions were predestined by God's will. Obviously, if people think God will determine the outcome of the litigation anyway they might not want to give money from their own pockets.

Lewis made three bold, and dubious, assertions in his letter of today, all without a shred of evidence to back them up. This is nothing new. For years before the schism, DSC used the-best-defense-is-a-good-offense strategy and its leaders employed the tactic of making sweeping generalizations against the Episcopal Church without any supporting evidence. As history showed, this strategy and tactic actually worked very well among the majority of the communicants in the old diocese who naturally preferred to trust the words of their own leaders.

Lewis's first declaration was that DSC was in the middle of negotiations for a settlement when TEC tried to remove Bishop Lawrence in 2012. This is not true. A simple glance over the Chronology post here will reveal that. In fact, the evidence shows that after Bishop Lawrence returned from General Convention in July of 2012, he declared a crisis for the diocese. He met secretly with the Standing Committee and drew up a secret plan of action on August 21, 2012. This plan has never been revealed to the public. He continued to meet secretly with his lawyers and the Committee as they drew up a secret plan to remove the diocese from the Episcopal Church. That conspiracy was enacted by secret resolution of the Standing Committee on October 2. It remained a secret among about twenty people until October 15. It was revealed to the presiding bishop and everyone else on Oct. 17. Meanwhile, in public, Lawrence staged a charade of offering peace with the Episcopal Church. He met with Bishop Waldo, of Upper South Carolina, and the presiding bishop, on Oct. 3 but did not reveal to them the secret resolution of the Standing Committee. Neither did he offer a plan of settlement with the national church, only an agreement to keep talking. However, he refused repeated offers to meet in person with the presiding bishop after Oct. 3. The simple facts of history show that for a long time before the schism DSC was planning a disassociation from TEC, not a settlement with it. Lewis's claim that DSC was trying to make a negotiated settlement with TEC is a myth. Nevertheless, it is one DSC leaders continue to make even in face of the stark facts.

Lewis's second contentious assertion was that TEC has never negotiated a settlement in any of its legal actions. TEC goes to court to enforce its duly established Constitution and Canons just as the United States fought the Civil War to defend its non-negotiable Constitution. The Dennis Canon is not negotiable. It is a law of the Church. The idea that TEC lawyers would cast aside a canon of the Church to make a negotiated settlement with secessionists is absurd and the other side knows it.

Lewis's third charge was that DSC told the TEC lawyers that it would entertain written offers of a negotiated settlement in 2013 but that none ever appeared. Really? Tell us more! Who made the offer? When was it made? To whom was it made? Was Judge Goodstein informed of this? She did not seem to know it in court proceedings. What offer of a negotiated settlement did DSC ever make to the other side? If not, why not? It certainly was not in DSC's interest to make a compromise agreement in a court everyone knew would favor DSC, as it inevitably did.

Lewis's letter of today displayed a rather sad air of desperation, just as DSC actions of the last few weeks. The control DSC has had over litigation has ended. It can no longer fire down on its enemy from the heights to the valley below. It must now wage war on an open field. The fight will be different from now on and Lewis, Lawrence, Runyan et al know it very well. If it's not panic in their camp, it is at least grave concern.                 

FEDERAL COURTS

AND STATE COURTS

There is some confusion about the state of the Church litigation now going on in South Carolina. Since this is the only one of the five breakaway diocesan cases that has been litigated simultaneously in federal and state courts, it is understandable that misunderstandings should arise. However, a review of some fundamental historical facts should help us get a clearer picture of the present and future states of the competing legal actions of the two opposing dioceses in South Carolina.

The United States constitution established a federal system of government. States were given rights to regulate themselves within their own borders. The national government, however, was given supremacy (Article 6, Clause 2) over the whole nation, "the supreme law of the land." Federal laws take precedence over state laws. The constitution "mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state." (Wikipedia, "The Supremacy Clause"). State courts may only adjudicate cases involving matters within the state. They have no jurisdiction beyond the boundaries of the state. Federal courts handle cases involving federal or national law. They do have jurisdiction beyond a local state. 

Four of the five secessionist diocesan cases were/are adjudicated in state courts only. See: "Litigation Summary, the Cases of the Five Dioceses (March 11, 2015)" on this blog, March 11, 2015. The decisions have run the gamut from one end to the other. Pittsburgh was settled first, entirely for the Episcopal Church. If state courts could set precedence for the whole country, that should have been it. Case closed in favor of the Episcopal Church. A second diocese, San Joaquin, has had a similar experience. There a state court twice very strongly ruled in favor of the Episcopal Church. That decision is on appeal but is likely to remain intact. On the other hand, two diocesan cases have gone against the Church: Fort Worth and Quincy. In Ft. Worth the local court ruled in favor of the Church only to be ordered to reverse itself by the state supreme court. In Quincy, a state court ruled in favor of the separatist diocese. This was upheld by a state appeals court. The Illinois supreme court denied review of the case. Since these four were all in state courts, none of their decisions have jurisdiction outside their respective states.

It has been argued on the Internet that the federal case in SC is dead on arrival because a SC state court has already rendered a judgment in favor of the independent diocese and the Illinois state court has made a final decree in favor of the "Anglican" diocese. Both rejected the claims of the Episcopal Church. In fact, neither of these two examples is necessarily relevant to the federal case in South Carolina. Federal courts are beholding to federal law. The case in South Carolina must be reheard under national law, namely the Lanham Act. It really does not matter what a state court may have said otherwise. The federal court in Charleston will have to adjudicate the case before it under federal, not state, law.

The supremacy of federal over state law was the major underlying point in the March 31 ruling of the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals as it overturned Houck's decision. One should recall the original lawsuit in the U.S. court. On March 5, 2013, Bishop vonRosenberg filed a suit in the U.S. District Court, in Charleston, against Mark Lawrence. VonR claimed that under the national Lanham Act (Act of Congress, 1946), Lawrence wrongly infringed on the trademarks of the Episcopal Church and had engaged in false advertising while making himself out as the Episcopal bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina. The suit asked the court to: --find Lawrence in violation of the Lanham Act, --issue an injunction against Lawrence, --award vonR legal costs, --Lawrence make a written application, --Lawrence make accounting of the profits he had earned under the false advertising.

The original lawsuit of Mar 5 was augmented on March 7, 2013, in "Plaintiffs' [ECSC] Motion for a Preliminary Injunction." In this, vonR asked the court to issue an injunction against Lawrence to prevent him from using the official emblems, from claiming to be the bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina, and from making false advertisement. This motion was accompanied by a voluminous memo of supporting evidence.

On August 8, 2013, Judge C. Weston Houck, of the U.S. District Court, in Charleston, heard oral arguments in the case. On August 23, he issued an "Order" dismissing both lawsuits (Mar 5 and 7) in "deference" to the parallel case in state court. In other words, he abstained from ruling on the case. On September 16, ECSC filed a motion with Houck to reconsider. On January 4, 2014, Houck gave an "Order" denying ECSC's Sept. 16 motion. On February 5, 2014, ECSC filed an appeal of Houck's decisions to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Richmond. On January 28, 2015, a three judge panel of that court held a hearing on the case. On March 31, 2015, the judges issued a unanimous decision vacating (overturning) Houck's orders and directing a rehearing in the District Court following the Colorado River principle.

The Fourth Circuit judges were very clear that a federal court is required ("must" "obliged") to conduct adjudication of federal law unless there is an extremely compelling reason not to do so. A federal court has only a very narrow window in which it can abstain from hearing a case involving federal law. The judges said Houck had met not one of the criteria for the right of abstention in this case. The judges all but ordered the District Court in Charleston to rehear the case and judge it under the terms of the Lanham Act. Their words could hardly have been any clearer. The three judges gave not the slightest nod to what had happened in state courts. No one could have missed the point the judges made that federal law takes precedence over state law.

Thus, the case returns to Charleston. One should recall that Judge Houck, while he deferred, also ruled that the Episcopal Church was an hierarchical institution and that Mark Lawrence had renounced his ordained ministry in the Church. Thus, the case will resume in Charleston on strong ground for the Episcopal Church side.

Which federal judge will hear the case? Rumor has it the case may go to one of the other four judges of the U.S. District Court in Charleston. Two of the four have already shown attitudes that might be considered favorable to the Episcopal Church.

Judge Patrick Michael Duffy was the one who handled the Church insurance case. On January 9, 2014, Duffy ruled that the Church Insurance Company of Vermont must provide benefit coverage for the Episcopal Church diocese (ECSC). This gave de facto recognition of legal legitimacy to the Church diocese. On March 5, 2014, Duffy denied a petition to reconsider the decision. Later, ECSC made an advantageous settlement with the insurance company.

Judge Richard M. Gergel was the one who legalized same-sex marriage in South Carolina. In so doing, he overruled an amendment to the state constitution that had been ratified by an overwhelming majority of the voters.

Another of the judges is ninety-four years old and has been a "senior" judge for twenty-five years. Judge Sol Blatt, Jr. has served on the court since 1971. One may doubt that he would take this particular case.

The other is Judge David C. Norton. He is a graduate of the University of the South, the Episcopal Church college at Sewanee, Tennessee. He has served on the bench since 1990 having been appointed by President George H.W. Bush.

Therefore, if Judge Houck does not resume the case, it is likely to go to a judge who may well favor the Episcopal Church side, or at least give every chance to the Church to make its case (as opposed to the predisposed state court). Now, it is undeniably true that the Episcopal Church lawyers will have a serious challenge. They must prove that the Lanham Act governs this matter and that Lawrence has been guilty of violating the Act. That will not be easy to do. They have their work cut out for them.

In conclusion, it is wrong to assume the Episcopal Church has lost its case in court in South Carolina. Far from it. The state court ruling is on appeal, probably to the state supreme court. Even more encouraging for Episcopalians is the federal court case now in process of returning to Charleston. The federal judge will conduct that case under federal law. Since the Episcopal Church is a national organization, it stands a better chance of winning in a national court. We should not jump to conclusions about what the District Court will do, but we should also keep cautious optimism about the future. Let's hold that in mind as we observe the holiest time of the year.