MAKING SENSE OF THE CULTURE WAR

Election eve in Alabama is an appropriate time to return to the big picture. I think it will help us make sense of what is going on in politics and in the schism in South Carolina. The two are not unrelated. I argue they are very much related. They are both part of a much bigger phenomenon, a great culture war in contemporary America (and really in the world). If we get a better understanding of what is going on, we will have a better chance at dealing with it in the best way.

There is a great culture war going on in America. For simplicity's sake, I will call the two sides in conflict the democratic force and anti-democratic force. They are at war in both the civic state and the Episcopal/Anglican state. Let me explain.

The twentieth century was the most transformative period perhaps in all of human history, but certainly in modern times (I would argue that the life of Jesus Christ was the single most important event in human history). The century can be broken down into halves. In the first half, three monumental events occurred to destroy the old structures. 1-the First World War. It ended the monarchical system and its attendant supporting class structures. 2-the Great Depression. Shook capitalism but ultimately reaffirmed it. Also introduced the principle that it is the function of the civic state to provide for its people (populism). 3-the Second World War. Destroyed the anti-democratic forces of fascism, nazism, aggressive militarism, racism, and, in delayed action, communism (USSR fell in 1991). The democratic political system became the operative norm around the world (even impacting on important non-democratic systems). The call for human rights arose.

The second half of the twentieth century brought the effects of the three great early events. I call it the Great Democratic Revolution. This was the incorporation of the triumphant democratic principles in society and culture. In America, there was the post-War rise of the great middle class, the G.I. Bill, the rise of education for the masses, the Civil Rights movement, the women's liberation movement, Medicare (for the old), Medicaid (for the poor). The landmark event in the women's movement was Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the legality of abortion (woman's right to control her own body). The democratic sweep went on to extend to homosexuals equal rights and inclusion into society. This led to the U.S. Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015. Thus, the Great Democratic Revolution swept America, and in large measure the world, from about 1950 at least to 2015. As a result, culture and society are profoundly different now than they were a century ago.

All social/cultural institutions in America had to react to the democratic sweep of the twentieth. Historically, the Episcopal Church had been largely indifferent to the sins of commission and omission in the society all around it. However, at mid-century, the Church made a dramatic reversal and resolved to throw itself into the forefront of the human rights revolution. It started with Civil Rights. Then came a new, arguably democratized, prayer book. Also it turned to women's equality, including ordination. And, finally the Church turned to inclusion of and equal rights for non-celibate homosexuals. This resulted in the Church's adoption of marriage equality in 2015.

The democratic revolution in the civic state and in the Church were majority movements. The reforms were made through the old standing institutional structures. In the government, the Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court all played roles in carrying out the reforms. In the Church, all reforms were made by the General Convention. The changes were made legally, honestly, above board. However, while the reforms were supported by majorities in both state and church, there arose strong minority oppositions in both. There were plenty of people who objected to one or more of the changes going on.

In the civic state, the sweeping changes moved headlong through the 1950s and most of the 60s. However, 1968 brought a truning point. Its assassinations and widespread street violence led many people to fear the reforms had gone too far and had been too disruptive of the social fabric, perhaps even leading to chaos and anarchy. A feeling of counter-revolution began to grow. This was first evident in the Republican Party's Southern Strategy which sought to capitalize on the anti-Civil Rights backlash among southern whites. Under the slogan "law and order" southern whites began their inexorable trek from the Democratic to the Republican Party and blacks from the Republican to the Democratic. Backlash against women's equality led to the defeat of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment and the rise of the anti-abortion movement in the 1970s. President Reagan, in the 1980s, presided over a certain stabilization as he transferred wealth from the middle to the richer classes and adopted an aggressive foreign policy. He was immensely popular. 

Then, by 1990, another great change occurred. With the dissolution of the old Soviet Union, the U.S. became the world's only super power. The world arrived at the Pax Americana, imperfect as it was. This rivaled earlier solitary power periods, as the Pax Romana (0-200) and the Pax Britannia (1800s). The problem that inevitably appears in a "Pax" period of unrivaled power, is that the internal fractures of a society are left exposed. Once the external unifying factor of foreign threat is removed, there may be little to hold together competing interests within a society. I think this is the case in America today. In a way, we are the victims of our own success. Without a serious foreign threat, we are turning against each other. Some people call this "tribalism." We have even developed our own sets of reality and "facts" that are strikingly at odds. Fox News and MCNBC describe two different worlds. 

In the civic state, the rising internal divisions can be seen very clearly. In the 1990s, the polarization first became clear as the nation divided on how to react to President Clinton's character flaws. He was impeached but not removed from office. The fractures only grew as the Supreme Court stepped in to rule the election of 2000 for the Republican even though he was not the choice of the voters. Even the attack of 9-11, in 2001, did not change the dynamic. "Terrorism" was too vague to unify the country for long. Who were the terrorists? In 2008, the election of the first president of African heritage accelerated the backlash against the democratic reforms. Obama was the very personification of the reforms. The Tea Party organized a resistance. After Obama Care's passage, the Republicans in Congress refused to pass any other significant act in his presidency. On the far right, Donald Trump stoked the myth that Obama was an illegitimate president. This was racist backlash. 

Thus, from the 1960s to the early 2000s, the U.S. went through monumental reforms for human rights but also experienced serious backlash. In history, every great revolution is followed by a lesser counter-revolution. After the counter runs its course, a sort of compromise settles things down but leaves the bulk of the revolutionary reforms in place.

With the election of 2016 and the rise of Trump and Trumpism, this counter-revolution took a new turn. Since the conservative forces were unable to stop the wave of reform, they took to attacking the very institutions that had made the reforms. Trump is leading the charge. Steve Bannon calls this the "deconstruction of the administrative state." And so, Trump appointed many cabinet members who are opposed to the very departments they are supposed to lead. He attacked right off the intelligence community and the diplomatic corps. He has also campaigned against the FBI and the free press which he called the enemy of the people. He has denounced judges. He has fought openly with members of Congress, even of his own party. He is trying to transform the constitutional system into an autocracy. He openly praises dictators around the world. The investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government is apparently closing in on Trump. His supporters are demanding the sacking of the lead investigator, Robert Mueller. Thus, the counter-revolution has changed from simply opposing the reforms of the state to opposing the structure of the state. This is frightening.

On a more local level, Roy Moore represents the same deconstruction. As chief justice of the Alabama supreme court, he declared that federal law did not have to be obeyed. He did this twice, once in defiance of a federal court order and again in refusal of a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. He adamantly refused to bend on both and was removed from office on both. To Moore and his followers, the U.S. Constitution is inferior to their own view of the state, which is really a theocracy.

In the Episcopal Church, something similar occurred. From the 1950s to 2006, the counter-revolutionary forces in the Church fought to stop the hated reforms. They lost on every turn, especially on new prayer book, women's ordination, and inclusion of non-celibate homosexuals. What brought this to a head were two highly visible events, the affirmation of a non-celibate gay man as a bishop in 2003, and the election of the first woman as presiding bishop in 2006. These personalized the complete victory of the human rights reforms of the Episcopal Church, similarly to the way Obama's election did in the civic state. 

Realizing their final defeats, the most defiant Episcopalians decided, as the Trumpians were to do, to deconstruct the state as their last resort. From 2007 to 2012, five dioceses voted to leave the Episcopal Church and form a new anti-Episcopal Church, called the Anglican Church in North America. It was obviously meant as the beacon to draw out the rest of the anti-democratic irreconcilables from the Episcopal Church. It was devoted to reversing at least the most most hated reform, for homosexuals. (They failed to agree on women and are now collapsing on that unresolved issue.) 

Thus, the counter-revolution against the democratic reforms came in two phases, first, warfare against the reforms and second, deconstruction of the state. It had only very limited success at the first. The counter-revolutionaries will fail at the second too although it is too soon to know just how much damage they can do to the established institutional structure. Trumpism is a serious threat even though Trump has only about a third of the American people supporting his deconstruction tactics. Still, as president he has enormous power to proceed on with his ideas of changes. So far, he has the open support of the Republican leaders in Congress, and they have the majority vote in both houses. It may very well be that a major constitutional crisis is looming, especially if Mueller reveals incriminating evidence that Trump, or his close aides, colluded with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election. 

I believe the civic state and the Church are structurally strong enough to survive the attacks on them. Nevertheless, the counter-revolutionaries can, indeed already have, inflict great harm on the institutions they hold responsible for the hated reforms. 

As I have said before, from what I see now, I think the schismatics in South Carolina will carry out their deconstruction of the Episcopal Church to the bitter end. I see no sign of their willingness to compromise and make peace. Quite the opposite, DSC has brought a new lawsuit and an announced appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The anti-democratic forces know they cannot reverse the great reforms that have became embedded in the civic and religious states. I think what they are trying to do now is inflict as much harm as they can on the institutions that they blame for making the reforms. The motivation for this could be pure revenge, or could be an attempt to block any possible new reform.

I think it helps us understand the schism in South Carolina if we put it in the broader context of the culture war going on in America. The great democratic reforms in state and church have been made. I for one am tremendously proud of both for their records in championing human rights. It was the right thing to do. Yet, I also understand why others may not agree, indeed even why they want to tear down the institutions that made the reforms. I understand their positions, but I do not agree with them. They are on the wrong side of history.

So, Moore may carry the election tomorrow in Alabama and Trump may fire Mueller, but neither can stop the progress of history.

ALABAMA, ALABAMA
(with updates)

_________________

JONES (D) WINS ! ! !

UPDATE: 9:50 p.m.
I sit at my computer with tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat. Doug Jones, the Democrat, has been declared the winner of the Senate race in Alabama. I am thrilled to say that my prediction of a Moore win was wrong! 

---Alabama has redeemed itself from its George Wallace past.

---The people of Alabama have put morality above politics.

---Many fervent followers of President Trump in Alabama have rejected Trump.

---The Democratic party in the Deep South has been resurrected from the dead.

I will have more remarks later. Right now I am going to celebrate.


DEC. 12, 9:30 P.M., 90% of vote, Jones-578,555, Moore-566,984.

9:20 p.m.: JONES TAKES THE LEAD. 87% of vote, Jones, 553,935, Moore-553,118.

9:00 p.m.: 77% of vote, Moore-50%, Jones-48%.

8:55 p.m.: 67% of vote, Moore-51%, Jones-48%.

8:35 p.m.: 51% of vote, Moore-51%, Jones-47%.

8:25 p.m.: 34% of vote, Moore-51%, Jones-47%.
8:05 p.m.: 12% of vote, Moore-50.4%, Jones-48.4%.

8 p.m.: 5% of vote, Moore-51.2%, Jones 47.4%.

7:45 p.m.:
1% of vote, Jones-62%, Moore-38%. Jones leading in metropolitan centers. 


UPDATE: DEC. 12, 7 p.m.:

Polls have closed. Exit polls show African American vote running at 30% (Obama got 28%). Moore is winning 70% of white vote. Still considered a toss-up. Returns as available.


UPDATE: DEC. 12, 4 P.M.:

Reports are showing continuation of heavier than expected voting everywhere. Cable TV outlets have released exit polls that show the race a toss up except for one glaring finding. Voters were split evenly on approval/disapproval of President Trump, 48% to 48%. This is a shocker in a state that voted for Trump nearly 2 to 1. This may be read as an indicator against the Republican candidate. It may also indicate heavier than expected Democratic voting.


UPDATE: DEC. 12, 2 p.m.:

TV reports indicate robust voting in cities, suburbs, Black Belt, and rural areas. Lines and waiting in many polls. In Montgomery County, 16% of registered voters had voted by noon. If this holds, that county would have 35-40% voting by 7 p.m., well beyond the pre-vote expectation of 25%. A report from Mobile and Baldwin counties suggested 45% of voters going for Jones. If true, this would indicate a Jones victory as these counties are very highly Republican. Mobile, Tuscaloosa, and Madison (Huntsville) are key counties. Heavy votes for Jones there would indicate a Jones victory. Caution---it is still too early and there is too little evidence to jump to conclusions.

Our next evidence of probable outcome will be the exit polls that should be announced soon.


UPDATE: DEC. 12, NOON:

Early anecdotal reports show strong turnout in suburbs of Birmingham, Mobile and Huntsville, especially among white women. This is a very promising sign in favor of Jones. In some places long lines were at the door when polls opened at 7 a.m.

I voted in my precinct at 9 a.m. As far as I could tell, voting was running around 25% of the electorate. If that is true, it would be a relatively high turnout for this kind of special election.

Local TV reports are showing lines in some places and busy polls all around. Weather not a factor.

All of this adds up to good news for the Jones side. Still, too early to jump to conclusions. Race is very tight and sides are deeply divided.



UPDATE: DECEMBER 12, 7 a.m.:

ELECTION DAY.

It is a beautiful day here in Alabama, sunny and mild, from the 60s along the coast to the 40s in the north.

So, what can we expect today?

Looking back over the campaign, I see that a major change took place, and I think this happened because of the intense national-international scrutiny focused on the state. The race started out mostly about abortion and ended mostly about the character of Roy Moore, and by extension the reputation of the state. 

There are three groups of voters today, 1-Moore devotees, 2-yellow dog Democrats, and 3-the middle (mostly Republicans). The election hangs on #3. These people are mainly suburbanites, particularly the women. I think two things are at work among #3, repulsion of  Moore and concern over the reputation of Alabama. One should not underestimate the latter. 

What to look for today:

1. Numbers of voters.

2. Turnout of African Americans.

3. Age range of voters.

4. Voting in the suburbs.

The polls show it as a toss-up. Conventional wisdom says Moore will win narrowly. My head says so, but my heart says I long for Alabama to do the right thing, to redeem itself from its dark past. This is the most important day in the political history of Alabama in several decades and Alabamians know it.

I will be voting asap. 

I will post updates through the day. Polls are open from 7 to 7, CST. 

  


UPDATE: DECEMBER 11, 4:00 p.m.:

I may have to change my prediction about the election. Pundits are now saying the race is a toss-up. Here is what I see from today's information:


MOORE'S FAVOR:
---Interest in the sexual allegations has declined. There has been a significant drop in number of people who believe the reports.

---Trump's endorsement and campaign appearances in nearby states over the weekend have rallied Moore's base.

---Money has suddenly appeared and Moore is running competing ads on TV.

---Sen. Shelby only prominent state Republican to reject Moore.


JONES FAVOR:
---Fox News poll of Dec. 10 showed Jones with 10 point lead. No doubt, this is an outlier. The Real Clear Average of polls shows Moore ahead by 2.2 pts. This is realistic. My favorite political poll guru, Nate Silver, says Moore has a slight lead (www.fivethirtyeight.com).

---Momentum. Some trends moving in Jones's favor. PredictIt (www.predictit.org) shows Moore favored by 70-30; however, M dropped by 9 points today.

---Fundamentalist/evangelical support for Moore has dropped from 73% to 65%. Support among white men has dropped to a 2% edge.

---Independents for Jones by more than 2 to 1. Fox poll shows J-50%, M-22%.

---Turnout. The primaries in August drew 18% turnout. Tomorrow's is expected to be at least 25%. Absentee ballots already 9% higher, nine times the usual number in Tuscaloosa County (home of Univ. of AL).


WHAT TO WATCH FOR ELECTION DAY:

Turnout, turnout, turnout. A low turnout with a lot of senior citizens will work in Moore's favor. A heavy turnout with a lot of younger people will be in Jones's favor. Watch esp. turnout in Black Belt. The weather is supposed to be perfect tomorrow, sunny and mild.

Bottom line---I am more hopeful of a Jones win now than I was early this morning. I will keep you posted on the trends I see tomorrow. I still expect Moore to win, but it is going to be closer than I had thought. Momentum is for Jones and who knows what can happen overnight. A Jones win would be absolutely earthshaking in AL with reverberations everywhere else.




POST OF DECEMBER 10, 2017:

On Nov. 16, I offered my thoughts on the situation in Alabama (see below). I would not change anything I said. I would update it.

I see two different campaigns going on, one in AL and one in the nation. In AL, it is a culture war, in the nation a political war. They are far different. The majority of the whites in AL have focused all their cultural understandings onto one issue, abortion. Moore is against it. Jones is in favor. There is the election. Moore will win, even if narrowly. Why will Moore win?

---Historically AL votes on cultural and not economic issues. Most Alabamians are completely oblivious to Trump's new pending tax "reform" that will drastically impact negatively on the economic needs of most Alabamians. Time and again, Alabama whites vote against their own economic interests. For instance, AL has the most regressive tax structure in America and AL voters are completely unconcerned.

---AL is more Trumpian than Trump. 90% of the whites in AL voted for Trump last year. AL is one of the two or three reddest states in the U.S. If anything, they are more for him now than then. His weekend visits to Pensacola and Jackson sounded loud dog whistles to his devotees in AL. Trump is ingenious at playing on the cultural views of most whites in AL (racism, gender, homosexuality, provincialism). Moore is Trump on steroids and most whites love it. The Trump-Moore movement is basically the backlash of the angry white working class men against the forces they believe are out to defeat them (esp. blacks, women, homosexuals, foreigners). While it is a social movement, those in it define it as a cultural one (hence the focus on abortion).

---The base of the Democratic vote in AL is the African American population. I see little enthusiasm there. Besides, AL has been actively suppressing black vote for years. There are not enough blacks, progressive white Dems and moderate Reps to carry the election for Jones.

---The AL Republican establishment has solidified around Moore. Some, as the governor, have said they believe his accusers but they are for him anyway. Again, they are defining this race in cultural and not moral terms.

---I expect that many, if not most, Alabamians do not care if Moore molested or stalked young girls. They would probably blame the girls. They did not care that Moore, as the chief judge in the state, defiantly violated the law, not once but TWICE, and was removed from office TWICE. It was WHY he violated the law that they loved---to defend "God's law" against the state. Moore is the champion of the born-again Christians ( a huge force in AL). He is their knight battling the dark forces of evil in the world (separation of church and state, racial equality, women's right to control their own bodies, equal rights for homosexuals). Most whites in AL define this race as the struggle for God's rule. They will turn out to vote in droves.

And so, dear readers, it is with a heavy heart that I have to predict that Moore will win on Tuesday. This is another disaster in the history of AL and the U.S. The saddest thing of all is that we can expect more Moores around America. Donald Trump has legitimized and "normalized" this kind of anti-democratic and anti-Constitutional demagogery. I would like to think Moore is the end, but I fear he is only a beginning. If only I were wrong, no one would be happier than I.



ORIGINAL POST, NOVEMBER 16:

Dear reader, please indulge me in a moment of diversion from the schism in South Carolina. Something important is happening in Alabama, and the whole world is watching.

OK, I admit it, I live in Alabama. I first moved here in 1971. What is more, I live near Gadsden; and yes, I shop often in the Gadsden Mall. I do not know Roy Moore. I do not know any of his accusers, but I believe these women. I know this part of Alabama. What they are saying has a loud ring of truth. So, what are we to make of all the stories crowding the news reports these days? With its less than stellar past, Alabama is sometimes called the state of embarrassment. What is going on with Roy Moore is not surprising; and it is nothing new. (The unofficial motto is Alabama is, "Thank God for Mississippi". MS keeps AL from being 50th in every list.)

If you think your state government leaves much to be desired, you should look at Alabama. It will make you thankful for what you have. Recall, this was a state that elected George Wallace, not once, twice, or three times, but four times, and his wife once. This is the Wallace who, confined to a wheelchair, spent his last days apologizing for his whole life. It is Alabama that should have been apologizing for ever electing him.

The heads of all three branches of the Alabama state government have been removed from office for wrongdoing one way or another in the last months. In June of 2016, Mike Hubbard, the speaker of the state House of Representatives was convicted on 12 felony ethics charges, and subsequently sentenced to 4 years in prison. In April of 2017, Governor Robert Bentley resigned from office rather than face removal following a sex scandal. Rumors had it that his wife of 46 years who found out and turned him in. They have divorced. Then, there is Roy Moore. In May of 2016 he was suspended from his office as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court by a state commission because he defied federal law. He told probate judges in the state they did not have to recognize the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage. Still suspended, Moore resigned from office in April of 2017 in order to run for the U.S. Senate.

Roy Moore is a well-known figure in the state, and has been for many years. He rose through the legal ranks in Etowah County (Gadsden) as a defiant religious zealot, displaying the Ten Commandments conspicuously in court. "The Ten Commandments Judge" developed a strongly devoted base of fundamentalists/evangelical devotees in the state who believed that the state should be subject to the church. (AL and MS have the highest church membership in the U.S., both mostly fundamentalist/evangelical.) Moore and his followers do not understand the Constitution of the United States. They have no patience for the fundamental American principle of the separation of church and state. They do not understand the First Amendment.

Moore was elected Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court in 2001 and immediately installed a 5,000 pound monument to the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the supreme court building in Montgomery. The ACLU took him to court on the First Amendment and a federal judge ordered the removal of the monument. Moore refused. His followers hailed him as a great hero. The state ethics board removed him from office.

He was just getting warmed up. In 2012, he ran for the seat of Chief Justice again, and won. His base celebrated the return of their fighting hero. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in 2015, Moore told the probate courts of the state they did not have to follow federal law. Moore was promptly suspended from office, again, by the state judicial commission. So, Moore, the highest judicial official of Alabama twice told people they did not have to follow the law; and twice he was removed from office. This man is now the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate. In the primary, he beat out the former Attorney General and Senate-appointee, Luther Strange. President Trump even campaigned in AL on behalf of Strange (It should tell you a lot that even Trump found Moore to be too much). 

The accusations of Moore's sexual misconduct are new, and this is a problem. Why did the women wait until now? (Nine women as of today.) It makes sense to me. You have to understand the deeply embedded sexism in the culture. Even now, in an age of growing awareness of sexual harassment, Alabama lags way behind. So, for these women to come out, and give their names, not to mention all the details, means a great deal. Believe me, this makes them entirely credible. The sad thing is, they should have done this long ago. But, I understand why they did not.

So, what happens now?

Today it looks as if Moore will remain in the race. He is certainly not leaving on his own. His followers are demanding that he stay in the race. The state Republican establishment is supporting him. Governor Kay Ivey, who replaced Bentley, says she is voting for Moore. I see no movement at all on the state level for Moore to leave the race, or to change the terms of the election. However, I detect cracks in Moore's base as local Republicans here and there are beginning to turn against him, astonishing on its own.

Will Moore get elected to the U.S. Senate? A few days ago, I would have said, yes. Now, I think it is a toss up and the situation is fluid. If the already strong case against Moore of pedophilia and sexual predatory behavior toward young women continues to grow, enough public opinion may begin to bend against him. His base will never desert him, just as Donald Trump's base would never leave him. It does not matter what these men do, their hardcore followers will support them anyway. This group, however, is a minority of the population. Moore's solid base is a minority in Alabama. The Democrats in Alabama are not numerous enough to carry the election on their own. The outcome, then, will depend on the suburban Republicans around the cities, particularly Birmingham, Huntsville, and Tuscaloosa. This group is hard to read at the moment. I think if matters continue on as they are going, the majority in the suburbs will vote against Moore, not so much for Jones, but against Moore. The key is the white woman Republican suburbanite. 

We have several more weeks to go before the election. My prediction is that if the story on Moore continues on the present track, the Democratic candidate, Doug Jones has a good chance of winning the election. If he does, Alabamians will go a long way to restoring decency and ethics to our government. If the voters choose Moore, Alabamians will validate the too-familiar stereotypes of the state, and for good reason. Roy Moore is Donald Trump on steroids, or the reincarnation of George Wallace without the overt racism. For this, we cannot rule out Moore winning in Alabama. Trump won this state 2 to 1. 

Alabama is a wonderful place in so many ways. I would not be here if I did not think that. It is beautiful country, from the gentle verdant hills of the north to the emerald waters of the south. The people are kind, honest, and generous. If you sit on a bench in Wal-Mart, I will guarantee you within 5 minutes someone will sit down and tell you all about their family and want to know about your kin. In traffic, if you let someone in, you will invariably get a thank-you wave. Here, all problems can be solved by food, and all ugly comments can be made good by "bless his/her heart." So, the shortcomings of Alabamians do not come from the heart, they come from the head. To be sure, the shortcomings are serious: e.g. racism, sexism, and homophobia. But, these can be changed; and I think there is evidence they are being repaired, however slowly.  

There is an old saying, people get the government they deserve. I wonder what Alabamians did to deserve what they have. I do not know. But, I know there is a chance at redemption, and it is coming up in a few weeks. We will see. 

MRS. DUNCAN UNLOADS 
ON BISHOP IKER; 
SNOW UNLOADS ON ALABAMA

Virtueonline reported yesterday that Nara Duncan, wife of Robert Duncan, former archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America, is none too happy with Bishop Jack Iker for his recent remarks. In fact, she gave him a piece of her mind:

And why the assumption that Bishop Iker would never make a mistake and hear something that was not actually said, and, of course, Archbishop Duncan---who gave his whole being to assure that all of you childish know-it-all's would have a safe place to worship and not be in fear of deposition, would naturally tell a porky because he ordains women? I would like to wash my hands of all of you and go somewhere else but there is no place to go for a truly catholic believer---oh wait, yes there is---the ACNA! Wow---how could I forget that my husband sacrificed his all---including his retirement---to help start this wonderful denomination---silly me! Shuffle off to Rome and leave my husband alone---you don't deserve him.

Find the full report here . One should recall the background of this. On Nov. 4, 2017, Bishop Iker addressed his diocesan convention and declared that he had broken communion with dioceses, e.g. South Carolina, that ordained women, and would not vote to approve any new bishop in ACNA that ordained women. He also made certain comments about the task force on this issue in ACNA. Find Iker's remarks here . Duncan apparently took Iker's comments personally and fired back. Find his response here . And now, Nara Duncan has contibuted her opinion of the "childish know-it-all's." I say, bravo Nara!

The reason I bring this up today is that it gives further evidence to support two of my recent blog pieces. In one, I described the ACNA as a house of cards that is collapsing. Well, here it is. It is breaking up from its own internal contradictions, how far to go on the reactions against the human rights reforms of the Episcopal Church? Should we oppose women's ordinations as well as rights for non-celibate gays? In another, "Failures and Successes" I opined that it is more accurate to see the schism as a negative than a positive. It was, and is, a backlash against the Episcopal Church. Its only unifying factor was opposition to the Church. There was no internal bond to keep the Anglican Realignment together. So, in SC, opposition to TEC is driving DSC's ongoing litigation.

DSC's membership in ACNA is hugely problematical. It is a disaster waiting to happen. Reportedly, most of the 50 or so bishops of ACNA oppose the ordination of women. Approval of new bishops in ACNA rests entirely with the sitting bishops who must vote yes by 2/3. That means if only 1/3 plus one rejects a bishop elected by a diocese, that person cannot be a bishop in ACNA. Iker has said he will not vote for a candidate who favors women's ordination. I take him at his word. All he has to do is get about 17 other bishops out of the 50 to go along to veto a diocesan choice. With this reality, there is a strong probability that Iker and his allies can force ACNA into becoming an anti-women's ordination denomination. If DSC's next candidate for bishop (Lawrence is 67 years old) fails to get 2/3 approval, DSC will then have to choose whether to elect a new (anti-women's ordination) candidate to the liking of the bishops, or leave ACNA. It is lose, lose, either way. 

Meanwhile, my home is a winter wonderland this morning. I live halfway between Atlanta and Birmingham. The average annual snowfall here is about one inch. Today, the weather people are forecasting up to five inches. Dawn this morning revealed one of the great beauties of nature. I took these pictures of my garden at 7:15 a.m. with about one inch of snow. It is supposed to snow all day. I will add pictures as I can.

It is now 8:10 a.m. and it is snowing harder. Stand by for my pictures of a beautiful winter landscape.


UPDATE. 10:30 a.m. Snowing hard. 5 inches of snow on ground already. Here is the garden at 10:30 a.m.:

UPDATE. 12:45 p.m. Still snowing hard. Snowing in Birmingham and Atlanta. Six inches of snow on ground here. Practically everything around here closed down. This is the most snow ever in the fourteen years of this garden. Still snowing. Temp at 34F. Garden at 12:45 p.m.

UPDATE. 2 p.m. Rare snow storm unrelenting. Snow still falling. Forecast to continue to midnight with one or more inches. Temp will fall below freezing after nightfall. Electricity out for an hour and a half, now back on.


UPDATE. 4 p.m. Still snowing, 12 hours straight now. To continue for another 9-12. Unheard of here. Even my family in Bay Saint Louis MS reported snow on the ground. It almost never snows in coastal MS. 6 inches on ground here with another 1-3 inches expected. Many shrubs and trees in garden burdened down to ground with wet, heavy snow. Still, a beautiful winter scene. Here is garden at 3 p.m.:

UPDATE. December 9, 2017. 8 a.m. 
The snowfall lasted 24 hours. I estimate 8 inches of snow fell on my garden. This is the most snow in this area in 24 years. The dawn has broken with a clear, blue sky. Here is the garden in the dawn's early light. Who could not be moved by the wondrous beauty of God's creation?

A NOTE TO READERS:
On December 2, 2017, St. Catherine's Episcopal Church, in Florence SC, celebrated their fifth anniversary in a wonderful luncheon. See the pictures of it here . Go to "Photos," Five Year Anniversary. In picture # 2 is my daughter Elizabeth and son-in-law, Rev. Phil Emanuel. In # 3 same plus my wife, Sandy. Scroll down to row four and you will find Steve Skardon and me. It does not take much to imagine what were talking about so intently.

FAILURE AND SUCCESS 

OF THE SCHISM IN SOUTH CAROLINA

The questions going around in everyone's mind these days are ones such as: What happened in mediation? Why cannot the two sides settle their differences by reasonable compromise? Why does the independent diocese refused to accept the state supreme court ruling as the last word? Why did DSC launch a new lawsuit against TEC, and after mediation had begun? Why is DSC going to the U.S. Supreme Court when it has virtually no chance there, and again after mediation had started? Why is DSC bolting headlong into a federal court when the outlook there is grim for itself? It is clear that it is DSC that is keeping the litigation going in its refusal to cut its losses and rebuild with what it has left. This seems disingenuous and we are left wondering, why?

In trying to comprehend what is happening in the schism in the last dizzying weeks, I think it would help us make sense of things if we step back and look at the big picture again. Therefore, I want to address the issues of the overall failure and success of the schism. 

Although the schism is far, far from over, I think it is not too soon to start assessing its outcomes. In fact, I think this will help us understand where we are now. For all intents and purposes, the big issues of the schism have been settled. The state court has returned the bulk of the properties to the Church. It is only a matter of time now before the actual arrangements of this decision are carried out. DSC's delaying tactics of filing a new lawsuit and appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court are almost certainly doomed to fail. Meanwhile the federal court case shows all the signs of moving to favor the Church. Mediation shows no discernible hope of working. Apparently, the final details will have to be implemented by court action. This will happen. It is just a matter of time. What we will end up with will be essentially what has already been determined.

In order to help us comprehend what on the face seems illogical actions, we have to redirect our thinking about the schism. And, to do this, it is necessary to look at the schism in terms of failure and success. This should guide us to a new way of thinking about the schism and foreseeing what is likely to happen in the future.

FAILURE 

For many years, decisions in the Diocese of South Carolina have been made by a relatively small group of people in the leadership. This clique passes them on to the standing committee which almost always rubber stamps them by unanimous vote. Then the decisions are sent down to the clergy and laity who routinely accept them without question. This is how the schism came about as I have described in my book on its history. Along the way, the clergy and people came to believe the leaders' rationales for their decisions, that they had the legal right to leave the Episcopal Church with the entity of the diocese intact and the diocesan and local properties in hand. 

This is the great failure of the schism. The DSC leaders did not deliver to their people the two great promises of the schism. The court has ruled that the bulk of the properties remain under trust control of the Church and its diocese, as per the Dennis Canon. As for the diocese, the court did not remove Judge Goodstein's Injunction (Jan. 2013) that recognized DSC ownership of the legal entity of the pre-schism diocese. However, the court left the issue of the diocesan ownership to be determined ultimately by the federal court. Since federal takes precedent over state, TEC is almost certainly going to regain the entity of the old diocese in the federal court. Indeed, in its Nov. 19 Complaint in the circuit court, DSC gave implicit recognition that both the diocesan and parish properties belong to the Episcopal Church and its diocese. It should be clear to everyone by now that the schism has been a failure on the basic level of diocese and property.

Adding insult to injury, the people of DSC have had to contribute liberally to pay for all the unsuccessful litigation. We do not know how much money. DSC keeps this secret. However, several years ago, DSC admitted to having spent $2 m on legal costs. My guess is it is two or three times that by now, and still rising with no end in sight.

I would argue that the schism was never really about the two big goals of diocesan and parochial freedom. There is a good deal of evidence to the contrary. The whole trend in the diocese for years has been to increasing centralization and authoritarian control over the parishes. This came to a head in the Marriage Task Force work of 2015 that forced on the diocese and parishes an intolerant conformity (book, p. 455). Of course, the greatest example of diocesan control over the parishes came in the DSC leaders' rejection of TEC's offer of a compromise settlement in June of 2015. In this, the Church offered to give the parishes their independence and properties. The DSC power structure rejected this immediately. If nothing else, this proved the point that the schism was not actually about the property.

DSC leaders also failed their followers on the issue of the Anglican Communion. They made a major effort to convince the people that in leaving the Episcopal Church they were still "Anglicans" and in the Anglican Communion. They had DSC join the Anglican Church in North America repeatedly calling the ACNA a "province" and "Anglican." In fact, ACNA is not now, has never been, and almost certainly will not be a province of anything and will never be in the Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury has made it perfectly clear that he is not in communion with the ACNA. Likewise, the primates of the Anglican Communion, in official council, have rejected the notion of ACNA joining the Communion. The Anglican Consultative Council refused to address the issue. DSC has tried to cover their loss by insisting on being Anglican because some of the Anglican primates "recognize" the ACNA. This does nothing to change the fact that DSC is not in the Anglican Communion and has no prospect of ever being in it. DSC and ACNA are "Anglican" in name only. This is a self-imposed title with no meaning beyond.

Signs of failure abound otherwise as well. For years, the DSC leaders claimed that TEC was dying and that only a turn to "orthodoxy" would bring up membership and liveliness. The idea was that "liberal" religion was doomed to death while "conservative" religion was growing. Well, as we all know all too well, the reverse actually occurred. DSC adopted an increasingly conservative stance that came to bordering, at least, on fundamentalism. Meanwhile, it has suffered a relentless and sharp decline in membership while TECSC has boomed in membership. Every one of the large DSC churches except one has lost significant numbers of communicants. With such staggering losses, the very viability of the institutional entity of the independent diocese is now in doubt. The promise of growth was a fiction.

In terms of building a greater diocese, the schism in SC has failed on many levels, and this is increasingly obvious to everyone.

SUCCESS

In what ways, then can the schism be considered a success? This is the question at hand now, and it is crucial to our understanding of the schism.

It is important to recall that the schism was part of a larger reactionary movement called the Anglican Realignment. This actually originated in the 1970s under the title of "Continuing Anglicanism." This was a backlash against the reforms in the Episcopal Church, particularly the ordination of women. The idea was that conservative (against rights for women) Episcopalians would form a separate church that would "continue" what they considered to be true Anglicanism. By the 1990's, this reactionary movement had come to be called the Anglican Realignment, the name still used.

The Anglican Realignment (see the Wikipedia article here ) really gained force in the late 1990s in reaction to TEC's acceptance of equality for and inclusion of non-celibate homosexuals in the life of the church. (For the best description of this see: Miranda Hassett, Anglican Communion in Crisis.) At that time, the right-wing PAC called the Institute on Religion and Democracy (find the link here ) moved to diminish or destroy the "liberal" (pro-women, pro-homosexual) Episcopal Church as an important cultural force in American life. This was part of the great culture war in America that developed in the wake of the sweeping democratic revolution of the post-Second World War era. Conservative, actually reactionary, forces in America mobilized to stop the liberal, or progressive, reforms they believed were destroying the true values of America. The IRD was then, and is still, backed by deep-pocketed right-wing foundations and individuals (see especially, Jim Naughton, "Following the Money," The Washington Window, April 2006. Find it here ). 

In 1996, the head of IRD, Diane Knippers, and others, formed the American Anglican Council specifically aimed at the Episcopal Church (find their statement here ). It was explicitly devoted to an anti-abortion and anti-homosexual stance. AAC was funded largely by the same conservative donors. Even as late as 2015, 56% of its funding came from these right-wing "foundations." AAC became the driving engine in the campaign to break up the "liberal" Episcopal Church. In 1997, ACC sponsored a conference (Flower Mound TX) that first united the American ultra-conservative Episcopalians and the equatorial African Anglican bishops in the common bond of opposition to rights for homosexuals (that bond later produced GAFCON And ACNA). The Chapman Memo, in December 2003, laid out the blueprint for schism from TEC. AAC was also very instrumental in the Anglican Communion Network that first demanded foreign primatial oversight. ACN members formed the first four schisms and then joined with GAFCON to create the anti-Episcopal Church called the Anglican Church in North America. ACNA was explicitly created to take the place of TEC as the legitimate Anglican province in the U.S. The ultimate goal of the Anglican Realignment was to reduce the Episcopal Church to impotence, or destroy it, and replace it with a reactionary new church devoted to socially conservative stands.

DSC made itself part of the Anglican Realignment. It was a member of the Anglican Communion Network. It warmly supported GAFCON and the formation of the ACNA. In 2017, it joined ACNA.

Although AAC and ACNA did not reach their ultimate goals of destroying and replacing the Episcopal Church with an "orthodox" replacement, I would argue that this should be seen not so much as a failure but as a success, particularly in South Carolina. Between 2004 and 2012, the grand old Diocese of South Carolina, one of the nine founding units of the Episcopal Church, split into four parts: All Saints of Pawleys Island in 2004, St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant in 2010, secessionist DSC in 2012, and the Church diocese. The largest of these four parts, DSC, now has 56% of the pre- 2012 schism diocese (less than 50% if we go back to 2004). All three of the splits were motivated by the Anglican Realignment. The direct cause of all of the three schisms was rejection of TEC's reforms for homosexuals. All three schismatic units in SC are now in ACNA. Today the Episcopal Church diocese in SC has about 7,000 members (DSC had 27,000 communicants when Mark Lawrence became bishop in January of 2008). If the AR goal were to diminish or destroy the Episcopal Church, I would call the case of South Carolina a qualified success. There is no disguising the fact that the Episcopal Church has been grievously wounded in the lower part of SC. 

To get a better understanding of the state of the litigation nowadays, I think we should redirect our thinking about the schism from what it tried to build to what it tried to destroy. I find it most dubious that the schism was all about constructing something new. It was originally motivated by destroying or diminishing something old. As part of the Anglican Realignment, its original goal was the diminution and replacement of the Episcopal Church in lower South Carolina. In this regard, I would rate it a significant, but not total, success. This may explain why the DSC leaders have refused to give up on litigation and why they will drag out the legal war just as long as possible. Although the mediation is in secret, the external signs lead me to doubt that DSC desires any negotiated settlement with TEC. If their fundamental goal is to do as much harm to the Episcopal Church as possible, there is much more that can be done.

If we look at the schism as a movement to destroy the Episcopal Church, the present course of DSC's litigation makes more sense. Even in the face of rising resistance among their own flock, even against court decisions, even against impending defeat, I think the DSC leaders are likely to fight on to the bitter end. They will give up only when the law forces them to do so even if they severely diminish, or destroy their own diocese along the way which they may very well do on their present course. Thousands of innocent victims will feel the effects.

To me the litigation of yesterday, today, and tomorrow becomes clearer if we see it in the light of the ultra-conservatives' resolution to destroy, or render impotent, the Episcopal Church. The litigation is certainly bleeding the Church of funds. There is no doubt the Episcopal Church has been wounded by the AR movement just as there is no doubt the whole Anglican Communion has been shaken by the reactionary counter-revolution within it.

At bottom line, which then, we may ask, carries the greater weight, the failure or the success? I think that depends on where one stands. I suspect the TEC side would rate the schism a failure, but I imagine the DSC leaders would call it a success. Today, I would not disagree with this assessment.

_________________________________________________

We here in late 2017 may find it impossible to imagine the return of the great old diocese of pre-schism days. It may seem unthinkable now. However, it is important to bear in mind that the Schism of 1887 went on for a full century. That "schism" (the total racial segregation of the diocese and relegation of African Americans to second-class status) was not resolved for a hundred years. What appeared permanent in 1887 turned out to be not so. It took an incredible amount of work, patience, growth, understanding, faith and devotion to bring it to an end. But, the point is it did come to an end. 

Adversity is an inescapable part of life. People make choices, and sometimes these impact badly on many other people. One of the biggest examples of bad choices in all of human history occurred 76 years ago today, December 7, 1941. The leaders of Japan made a decision that turned out to be nearly catastrophic for the people they led. Yet Japan was not quite destroyed. The nation bounced back, corrected and atoned for their mistakes and now flourishes in the human community. Adversity does not necessarily lead to total destruction.

And so, in the midst of the broken pieces all around, I refuse to give up hope. I refuse to accept the schismatics' "success" in the destruction of the grand old diocese as the end. I believe that a hundred years from now people will look back on 2012 in sorrow and shame as we now look back on 1887. We have to believe that the better angels of our nature have the upper hand.

THE STATUS OF LITIGATION,

DECEMBER 5, 2017

What are these two beautiful golden labs thinking?: What in the world is going on? Why are you sad (note that the person is reading my history of the schism)? Can we take you for a walk? Play with us!

My choice for a caption would be: What's going on? And so, they stand in for all of us. What IS going on, we all wonder.

(A correspondent sent me this picture; and I am grateful.)

I am going to try and summarize the state of the litigation between the independent diocese (DSC) on one hand, and the Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Church diocese (TECSC) on the other. Please be aware that I am a professional historian, not a lawyer or legal expert. The following is meant as my layman's opinion only.

FIVE ASPECTS OF LITIGATION

There are five areas of litigation to be considered. Some of these overlap, but still should be examined separately.

1. Mediation.

2. The South Carolina Supreme Court decision.

3. The Complaint.

4. The planned appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

5. vonRosenberg v. Lawrence, United States District Court, Charleston.

Let's look at each.

1. MEDIATION.

U.S. District Court judge (handling the vonR v. L case), Richard Gergel, ordered the mediation on August 30, 2017. The two sides agreed to put all issues, in state and federal courts, on the table for consideration. Senior judge, Joseph Anderson, agreed to be the overseeing mediator. 

The mediation has had two sessions. The first was on November 6-7, 2017. It adjourned on the morning of the second day in a recess that was to last until December 4-5. Since the parties involved were not allowed to discuss the proceedings, no reason was given for the suspension. The second session was on December 4. It adjourned before the end of that day. Again, no reason was given for the suspension. A third session was announced for January 11-12, 2018. 

Considering the total news blackout on the talks, one can only speculate on what happened in the two abruptly halted meetings. My best guess is that, in the first session, one or both parties demanded detailed accounting of financial issues, and that these were not forthcoming in the second session. 

Having tried and failed twice, one should not be too optimistic that the mediation is going to lead to a settlement.

2. THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT DECISION.

The South Carolina Supreme Court issued a written decision on August 2, 2017 and reaffirmed it on November 17. The Court had considered an appeal of the circuit court ruling of Feb. 3, 2015. The SCSC partially overturned and partially upheld the lower court decision.

The SCSC overturned the lower ruling on 29 of the 36 parish properties in question plus Camp St. Christopher. The Court recognized TEC/TECSC trust control over these properties.

The SCSC left in place the lower court's injunction recognizing DSC as the holder of the legal entity of the old diocese. The justices recognized that the federal court would decide the question of trademark ownership. Thus, at present, DSC holds the legal rights of the diocesan entity of the pre-schism diocese until such time as the federal court may decide differently. If the U.S. District Court should decide in favor of TEC/TECSC, DSC could appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Richmond, and ask for a stay leaving in place its control over the diocesan rights at least until the appeal is over.

3. COMPLAINT.

On November 19, DSC filed a new lawsuit against TEC/TECSC, a Summons and a Complaint in the circuit court of Dorchester County. This was the court that had handled the original lawsuit of DSC v. TEC. The Complaint demanded a jury trial.

The Complaint asked two responses from the court:

1-that TEC/TECSC pay the DSC and the parishes in question for all "improvements" made to the properties. It cited the "Betterments Statute" which said that occupants of property belonging to someone else were entitled to reimbursement for improvements they made on the properties they occupied in the mistaken belief that they owned the property. With this, DSC gave at least tacit recognition that TEC/TECSC owned the properties of the diocese and the parishes in question.

The text of the Complaint was vague about what "improvements" would mean. At one point (#7), it listed acquisition, improvements, maintenance, repair, and renovations. This could conceivably meant the full value of the real property. (The full value of Camp St. Christopher, for instance, with its 200 acres of ocean-front land would be many, many millions.) In the end, the Complaint demands "the value of the improvements" but does not attempt to explain what that means.

2-a stay in the Complaint action pending DSC's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. This would put on hold the circuit court case of the Complaint until the U.S. Supreme Court should make a final ruling on the appeal.

Interesting to note, the Complaint was filed by lawyer Andrew Platte, the one-time clerk of Judge Diane Goodstein.

There is a very helpful online description of the court's handling of a Complaint in SC. Find it here . According to this, TEC/TECSC has 30 days to file a response. That would be December 20, 2017. TEC/TECSC could make one of two responses, an Answer or a Motion. My guess is they will submit a Motion for a dismissal of the Complaint. There is likely to be a hearing on the motion to dismiss and both sides would make oral arguments before the judge who then would decide whether to accept of deny the motion to dismiss. However, the Complaint asks for a stay in the case pending a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The judge would have to decide on whether or not to grant the stay. If granted, the stay would leave the case in suspension for the duration of the U.S. Supreme Court's consideration of the appeal.

In my view, the Complaint of Nov. 19 is a frivolous lawsuit. The SCSC closed this case and then reaffirmed that. There was no mention in the SCSC decision of financial reimbursements for improvements. Indeed, there was no mention of this for the whole nearly five years of the lawsuit. DSC never raised the issue of improvements in the circuit court or the state supreme court. I do not see what grounds they have to raise the issue retroactively. The case is closed in SC state court.

Besides, as I read the SC Code of Laws, DSC has no right to bring a Complaint for betterments. The Code says "After final judgment in favor of plaintiff" the defendant has the right to claim reimbursements for betterments. In fact, DSC was the Plaintiff (initiator) in its lawsuit of Jan. 4, 2013 and TEC, and later TECSC, was the Defendant. Thus, under the state code of laws, DSC has no right to file for betterments because it was the Plaintiff and not the Defendant. As the law reads, only TEC/TECSC could claim betterments. This fact alone should cause the circuit court to dismiss the Complaint as being improperly filed. Find the appropriate section of the SC Code of Laws here .

The Complaint was entered in the circuit court of Dorchester County. That court has only two judges. If Judge Goodstein is assigned the case, perhaps TEC/TECSC would either ask for a change of venue, as to Charleston, or ask Goodstein to recuse herself from the case.

4. THE PLANNED APPEAL TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

Soon after the state supreme court denial of rehearing, on Nov. 17, DSC announced that it was planning to appeal the SCSC decision to the United States Supreme Court. DSC would have 90 days in which to file an appeal. That would be February 15, 2018.

The U.S. Supreme Court receives around 10,000 appeals a year and grants 1% of them. Thus, right off, DSC has a 99% chance of denial. Even more, the case itself. DSC based its entire argument, in circuit and supreme courts, on state property and corporate law. In short, they wanted to extend the 2009 All Saints decision as a blanket over the whole diocese. That decision had ruled that All Saints parish (of Pawleys Island) had indeed legally removed itself from the diocese (corporate rights) and that the parish was the sole owner of the parish property (property rights). The Court ruled that the Dennis Canon was irrelevant for All Saints. Indeed, throughout the state court actions, the DSC lawyers had strenuously objected to the Church side's attempts to inject constitutional issues into the case. Only in the end did Justice Pleicones make a case of constitutional considerations, but he and Hearn were alone in this. In the Aug. 2 SCSC decision, the majority of justices ruled that the 29 parishes had acceded to the Dennis Canon and that this accession could not be revoked by sole action of the parish. Thus, the decision finally rested on state law. Since the entire case was tried and judged on state law, I do not see how the U.S. Supreme Court would take it on appeal. They would do so only if they believed an important U.S. constitutional issue was at stake. I do not see that here.

5. vonRosenberg v. Lawrence, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CHARLESTON.

On March 4, 2013, the Church side entered a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, in Charleston, vonRosenberg v. Lawrence. This charged that Bishop Mark Lawrence was in violation of the Lanham Act, the federal act protecting federally registered trademarks. Federal trademarks take precedent over state ones. Bishop Charles vonRosenberg asked the court to recognize him, and not Lawrence, as the bishop of the Episcopal diocese of South Carolina, and to stop Lawrence from pretending to be the Episcopal bishop.

Judge C. Weston Houck handled this case from the start until his death this year. In short, he refused to adjudicate it, in deference to the state court case, even though he was twice directed to proceed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Richmond. In August of 2017, Judge Richard Gergel took the case and proceeded to schedule a trial for March of 2018. He also ordered a mediation; and the federal case was put on stay pending the outcome of the mediation.

The outlook for the Church side here is good, for two reasons. 1-Federal courts almost always either side with the national institution of the Episcopal Church, or refuse to get involved. A crucial factor overhanging federal litigation is the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that demands the separation of church and state. Courts are strictly forbidden from interfering in the internal matters of a religious institution. The 1st Amendment makes federal courts very wary of treading into religious disputes. 2-the SCSC's decision not only ruled that state law sided with the Church, it also declared the Church to be hierarchical, that is, superior to the local diocese (even Judge Houck had said the same). The SCSC also made it clear that the federal court would decide on ownership of the legal entity of the old diocese (by trademark decision).

DSC should be very reluctant to proceed to the federal court. As I see it, the weight is against them. What is more, DSC stands to lose everything if the federal court comes down entirely on the side of TEC/TECSC. Even the 7 parishes now out of TEC/TECSC control could possibly be returned to the Church. Too, the Betterments, even if granted by the circuit court, could be in jeopardy.

What all this says to me is that TEC/TECSC has the upper hand in the litigation. The state supreme court ruled for them. It is highly unlikely DSC can overturn this. The two sides have failed to reach compromise agreement in two rounds of mediation. This bodes ill for the hope of peaceful settlement in the foreseeable future. It appears to me that DSC, even seeing defeat, has no interest in dealing with the other side and is denying and delaying as long as possible. They are putting off the inevitable, and they can put it off for years to come.

As I see it, DSC's situation in litigation will only get worse with time. It appears to me that they are not interested in a mediated settlement. Their frivolous lawsuit of Nov. 19 against TEC/TECSC is likely to be thrown out. There is very little chance that the U.S. Supreme Court will take their appeal. Once they get to federal court, they face the very real possibility of catastrophic finality.

DSC is desperate to keep as many communicants with them as possible as the 29 parishes return to TEC/TECSC (and to keep paying for the horde of lawyers). I believe that is a crucial factor in DSC's delaying tactics. They need time to pull as many people as possible out with them. Demonizing the other side and de-legitimizing the court decisions in the minds of the faithful may work for this. On the other hand, DSC is running a very strong risk of alienating more and more of their communicants. Lawsuit fatigue is real and growing whether they want to recognize it or not. From letters to the editor and e-mails I am receiving, I would say DSC had better beware of popular revolt. People are getting sick and tired of the endless war which, after all, was foisted on them by their leaders.

The signs of decline are clear. When Mark Lawrence arrived nearly ten years ago, the Diocese of South Carolina counted 27,670 communicants. The last figures, for 2015, showed 15,556 communicants, a fall of 44%. In the same decade, the budget has fallen by a third, more if one figures in inflation. The vast majority of DSC churches have lost significant numbers of members. Around the time of the schism, the diocese lost 10,000 people, about half staying with the Episcopal Church and half dropping out of the DSC churches. In addition, the promised journey to the promised land went nowhere. The diocese joined the Anglican Church in North America, a bunch of American schismatics who have proven to be all too fond of schism. That house of cards is now collapsing. Bishop Jack Iker, of Ft. Worth, says he is no longer in communion with DSC; and former archbishop Robert Duncan is now publicly disputing with Iker (find the link here ). Schism begets schism. 

Some of the faithful are beginning to have doubts about the wisdom of their leadership. Obviously the DSC power structure failed on the big claims they made--to take the diocese out intact from TEC and to have the local parishes own their own properties. The leaders failed at both. The state high court judged it illegal. Why should communicants believe in their leaders any more? DSC is facing a crisis of integrity among its own people and the ongoing litigation is only feeding this. DSC leaders would be smart to stop with what they have, make the best deal they can with TEC/TECSC, and consolidate what is left. DSC can still be viable religious entity. If, however, they keep on the path of legal destruction, they may wind up with too little to survive.

MEDIATION RECESSED --- AGAIN!

(Dec. 4, 4 p.m.) It has just been announced that the mediation has been recessed----again! This time it is put off until January 11-12, 2018. This is all the information we have at the moment. I will relay news as I receive it.

This is the second month-long delay in the mediation talks. The first round was on November 6-7. It was ended on the second  morning (Nov. 7). The next date was set for today and tomorrow, December 4-5. Obviously the two sides hit another brick wall in the first day and called it off for another month.

No one involved is allowed to talk about what is going on in the mediation but clearly it is stalling. The cause of the delays remains a mystery.

Between the first (Nov. 6-7) and the second (Dec. 4) rounds, two crucial events happened:  1-the South Carolina Supreme Court reaffirmed its Aug. 2 decision recognizing TEC/TECSC control over 29 of the 36 parishes and Camp St. Christopher; and 2-DSC made two new legal actions, a new lawsuit against TEC/TECSC demanding payments for "betterments" of the 29 properties, and announcing plans for an appeal of the SCSC decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. It appears to me as if TEC/TECSC parties want to get a settlement on the enactment of the SCSC decision while DSC is throwing up delays. How much longer is anyone's guess. I for one am deeply disappointed but not surprised.

My guess was that DSC had one of two motives in raising the two new legal actions: 1-to use as a bargaining chip in mediation, or 2-long term strategy of delay. I was already leaning toward the latter. Now, with the second long recession of mediation, it is clearer than ever that delay is the probable motive of DSC. It is in DSC's interest to strike the best deal possible in the mediation. If they cannot see this, they are blind. If the DSC leaders persist ahead with more litigation, they are playing a dangerous game. They are risking losing everything. More about this later. 

"RESOLVE DISPUTE" 

--- MEDIATION RESUMES

Mediation resumes tomorrow, December 4, 2017. The first round of mediation lasted a little more than a day and was broken off for a month's recess.

It should be the fervent desire and prayer of everyone involved in this mess that mediation brings a peaceful settlement. All things considered, I am not optimistic, but I am still hopeful that the two sides will do the right thing. 

Everyone should read and ponder the letter to the editor in the December 2 issue of the Charleston Post and Courier by Ed Pendarvis, a communicant of St. Philip's of Charleston, "Resolve Dispute." Find the letter here . He wrote, "We 'little people' in your churches are tired of lawsuits. Charleston has 'Jasper fatigue' and 'Christian church lawsuit fatigue." He added, "Bishop Mark Lawrence and Bishop Gladstone Adams, and all the smart lawyers who are leading us on the way through this, shame on you if you cannot resolve this in Christian mediation. Don't you see the damage that you are causing to our church families?...this church dispute is tearing our community apart...When you find yourself in a hole, first stop digging. More lawsuits are not the answer."

I say a big "thank you" and "amen" to brother Pendarvis. I could not agree more. Enough!

Since the state supreme court reaffirmed its Aug. 2 decision, DSC has announced two new legal actions. It filed a new lawsuit against TEC/TECSC claiming payments for improvments and plans to appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court. These actions could have two motives: pressure in mediation, or a long-term scorched earth strategy. We will just have to wait and see what the reasons are. I am inclined to believe it is a long strategy.

And so I agree with Pendarvis. This schism is shameful. We are all fatigued. We are all disappointed. Be done with the lawsuits! Be done with the scandalous legal warfare. Let us have peace.

I suggest everyone on both sides hold the mediation in prayer today and tomorrow.