AN END AND A BEGINNING

I have the growing feeling that the schism has turned the corner toward settlement, whatever form that may take. The end is in sight. In the deep South, winter is coming to an end and spring is bursting out in glorious beauty all around us. Times end, times begin.

This has been another difficult week. In the schism, we learned of the Diocese of South Carolina's disturbing secret plan to remove people from their home churches to make separate DSC congregations. This reminds us that the division and destruction of the grand old diocese goes on. In spite of lip service about mediation, it is clear DSC has no interest in a peaceful settlement with the Episcopal Church. It is preparing to fight on to the bitter end and break up 29 church families in the process. 

I do not want us to end this week on a sad note. I am amazed at the number of people who like my garden pictures. Therefore, I have more photos of my garden to share with us (it is a large botanical garden). Spring is here even if the calendar says it is still winter. Let's walk around my garden as it appears today:

Spiraea thunbergii 'Fujino Pink.' Loropetalum on left. Fujino Pink has tiny white/pink flowers. This one is full grown at 5'. It is one of the earliest flowering shrubs in the spring.

Spiraea arguta, "Baby's Breath Spirea." Another early flowering shrub, now in its prime with countless tiny pure white blossoms that appear before the leaves. This shrub is full grown at 6'.

Camellia japonica, 'Emmett Barnes.' A small shrub with large, pure white blossoms.

Chaenomeles (Flowering Quince). Possibly 'Cameo.' Apricot pink blossoms. Another early blooming shrub. This is a rare color for flowering quince.

Camellia japonica 'Goggy.' (Last Friday I mistakenly identified another camellia as 'Goggy.' Actually that one was 'April Tryst.' I was thrown off because it is blooming two months early. We have had summer-like conditions for the past several weeks bringing out some plants well ahead of schedule.)

Loropetalum chinesis rubrum 'Blush' (Blush Loropetalum). This is one of the most common ornamental shrubs of the South, for good reason. It thrives in almost any condition and blooms lushly starting in early spring. It can be left to grow naturally or be pruned. This bush has been left to grow. It is full grown at 8'. 

I hope you enjoyed this little walk around my garden. It is a nice way to end the week and celebrate Friday.

THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA'S

SECRET PLAN

FOR THE 29 PARISHES REVEALED

We now have the proof of what we have suspected for a long time, that the independent Diocese of South Carolina is planning to break up the congregations of the 29 parishes that the South Carolina Supreme Court recognized as remaining under Episcopal Church trust control. The hard evidence came in the form of a four-page document from the DSC headquarters, dated December 1, 2017, and sent to the DSC parishes. It was entitled "Parish Contingency Plan Template." The plan was secret. It has never been released to the public. It did not carry a signature, letter-head, or any other identification except the date, but was obviously written by someone in authority at the diocesan headquarters.  

First, I will give a transcription of the text of the Plan, then provide remarks on it.

The document:

__________________________________________

Parish Contingency Plan Template

December 1, 2017

I. Guiding Principles - Biblically/Prayerfully Discerned starting point for planning (i.e....)

   A. People are more important than possessions.

   B. Preserve a sense of unity for as long as possible.

   C. Insure continued Gospel focus/priority.

   D. Maintain Christian witness that inspires confidence of those inside and outside congregation.

   E. Create a Kingdom Building Paradigm that would be more fruitful, regardless of the outcome of the litigation.

   F. Educate the Congregation on the possibilities ahead.

   G. Be advised by legal counsel at each stage of decisions.

   H. Communicate the theological underpinnings of why we are here today:

      1. We did the right thing to leave TEC.

      2. We are optimistic about the future, because our hope is in God (Joshua 1:9).

      3. God can use this situation to make us even stronger and vibrant church.

      4. God is always about the business of refining His people.

II. Prepare to meet the Emotional and Spiritual needs of the Parish.

   A. Communicate to the Parish a vision for the future.

   B. Give special thought to last services in current spaces.

   C. Give special thought to first services in new location.

   D. Materials to minister to children and youth in adjusting to change.

   E. Caring for our People.

      1. Education - They need to understand "Why?"

      2. Pastoral Care suggestions

         a. Group meetings or other means to process grief and loss. Don't minimize pain.

         b. Share letters of encouragement from others.

---(end of first page)-------------------------------------------------

         c. You will be surprised by who stays with you and who leaves.

         Respect and bless, to the degree you can, the choices people make.

         d. Know that "living out of a box" during transition is tiring for everyone. Be prepared for that reality. Be very patient. Take time to breathe.

         e. Leadership Continuity is important. Anxiety is contagious. So is confidence and trust in God. Consequently, for clergy and lay leaders, self-care is critical. Prayer - Exercise - Relationships. We will have to shift from being warriors to being fishermen.

III. Identify Strategic Decisions needed by Clergy/Wardens/Vestry

   A. Church organization going forward (i.e. location, services, staffing).

   B. Recruit leaders with gifts for missionary season in life of the parish.

   C. Review upcoming calendar events for those needing special accommodations (i.e. weddings).

IV. Plan for Financial and Legal Consequences of possible litigation and relocation.

   A. Projections of impact on budget and cash flow going forward.

   B. Identify possible sources funding to maintain ministries.

   C. Determine need for and possible size of "emergency fund."

   D. Identify status all current contracts for continuation, cancellation or transfer.

   E. Determine legal status current bank accounts.

   F. Explore possible need for line of credit.

   G. Budget for relocation and source of funding.

   H. Determine effect of relocation on music and other licenses.

   I. Review impacts Directors and Officers insurance coverage.

V. Plan for how to address staff needs that arise with relocation.

VI. Expand Church communication with lay leaders, parishioners and friends in event relocation.

   A. Brief ministry leaders on impact relocation plans.

   B. Expand church website to provide communication in this area.

---(end of second page)--------------------------------------------------

   C. Preserve the Church's ability to use its website and other social media.

   D. Update parish records and email addresses.

VII. Establish records retention policy.

   A. Create summary of all records being maintained.

   B. Identify those needed for government or other mandated retention.

   C. Determine where records will be maintained.

   D. Identify all records requiring duplication in advance.

   E. Plan for how identified records will be duplicated and stored.

VIII. Inventory Equipment, Supplies, Furniture, AV Resources, Instruments, Bibles, Hymnals, etc...

   A. Inventory with notation of date of acquisition.

   B. Identify personal property that can be removed if relocation required.

   C. Determine what should be relocated, taken home, or left to successors.

   D. Get estimates of relocation costs.

   E. Identify and budget for what will be needed after relocation.

IX. Plan for Continuing Ministries if Lose the Buildings.

   A. Each ministry leader should have a plan for how their area will continue to function.

   B. What will need to be done differently in transition?

   C. Who does this need to be communicated to before transition begins? Inside the congregation? Outside the congregation?

X. Develop a Comprehensive Relocation Manual.

   A. Needs to address all the details required for actual relocation.

   B. Be sure to address wiping hard drives of computers as appropriate.

   C. Plan for final commercial cleaning of buildings if required to relocate.

XI. Appoint a Transition Team to work with "successor" for orderly transition, is needed. See

---(end of third page)---------------------------------------------------

this as an opportunity to share the love of Christ.

XII. Identify Interim Locations for Worship, Administration and Ministry activities.

   A. First priorities: Worship and Sunday Faith Formation.

   B. Other needs...

   C. Plan for signage as needed at new site and in community.

   D. Plan for storage if needed and transportation of ministry resources (weekly?).

   E. Confirm that phone service can be transferred to new location.

   F. Assign space to staff after interim location determined.

   G. Develop estimates time required acquire new locations and provide needed resources.

XIII. Identify Permanent Location.

   A. Develop criteria to evaluate permanent options.

   B. Develop an integral financial plan for how to achieve objective.

   C. Plan how to appropriately share the vision with the congregation as it progresses.

---(end of fourth and last page)------------------------------------------------------------

REMARKS ON THE DOCUMENT.

What does this document suggest? Some major points:

1. DSC recognizes that the Episcopal Church will resume control over the parishes in question. (e.g., II, B. "Give special thought to last services in current spaces.") 

2. DSC is using the time in the interval to rally the faithful against the Episcopal Church (e.g., I.H.1. "We did the right thing to leave TEC.").

3. DSC is endeavoring to unify the congregations in order to move them as groups out of the buildings into new locations beyond the walls. (e.g., I.B. "Preserve a sense of unity for as long as possible.").

4. DSC is preparing congregations to fund relocation. (e.g., IV.B. "Identify possible sources funding to maintain ministries.").



What the document does not tell us is also important.

There is nothing here about:

---Keeping the whole church family together. 

---Reconciliation of the pro-TEC and pro-DSC elements in each and every one of the 29 parishes.

---Reconciliation of the TEC and DSC sides in this long dispute.

---Discernment in the parishes, open discussion, debate, or other public processes to deal with inter-parish differences.

---The failure of DSC to deliver to their people. They spent millions of the peoples' money on legal costs and gained almost nothing. 

---The refusal of DSC to negotiate a peaceful settlement in the mediation process of November 2017 to January 2018.


One of the remarkable ironies of the schism was in the issue of local power. The diocesan leaders made a major point that the schism was all about local rights. Judge Diane Goodstein even ruled in her Feb. 3, 2015 decision that the Episcopal Church is congregational with authority arising from the parishes. In fact, the experience of the schism has been the exact opposite. The diocese has exerted heavy control over the parishes in numerous ways:

---at the time of the schism, the diocese had the parishes sign a commitment to the diocese form. This was revealed in the circuit court trial.

---at the time of the lawsuit, in Jan. of 2013, the diocesan lawyers bound 36 parishes as parties in the suit. This meant they had to pay two sets of lawyers, one for diocese, and one for parish. (None of the earlier cases of 4 breakaway dioceses had done this.)

---in June of 2015, the diocesan leaders rejected offhand the compromise agreement offered by TEC to give the parishes freedom and property in exchange for the Church's resumption of the legal entity of the pre-schism diocese.

---in 2015, the DSC Marriage Task Force forced on the parishes and officials a pledge against marriage equality.

---In the last few months, DSC leaders leaned on the parishes to join in the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

---now the "Plan" above to relocate parishioners from the parish properties to new places. Thus, the Plan is simply the continuation of a long-established policy of control over the parishes. 


In December of 2003 the Chapman Memo provided the "smoking gun" of the ultra-conservatives' plan to break up the Episcopal Church and replace it in the Anglican Communion with an anti-homosexual-rights church. The Memo outlined the steps to accomplish this. The ultimate goal of the Memo failed but only after five dioceses voted to leave the Episcopal Church.

The document given here, from Dec. 1, 2017, is the "smoking gun" of the DSC plan to remove communicants from the 29 parishes. The point is to rally the faithful to leave their church buildings rather than return to the Episcopal Church.

The plan helps us understand what has been happening in the litigation. DSC is using stalling and delaying tactics at every turn apparently in order to buy time to implement their secret plan of division. It is a slash-and-burn, scorched earth policy typical of retreating and defeated armies.

DSC's secret plan of Dec. 1, 2017, only puts off longer any chance of peace and harmony, let alone reconciliation, in the scandalous schism of South Carolina.

IF WINTER COMES...

This has been a hard week in too many ways. The unspeakable tragedy in my home state has left us all disbelieving, stunned, grieving. How can we let this happen, over an over? Is there no end to this madness? Has the world devolved into nothing but chaos, violence, and mayhem? These are all legitimate questions to be asking at this terrible time.

There are some questions that cannot be answered, but as good Christians we all know the universe is not chaos. There is a divine order to things. There is a greater power in control. There is meaning in life however hard it may be to discern sometimes. 

Since this is Friday, I wanted to end the week on a small reminder of hope. Seasons change. Here in the deep South we have had a cold and snowy winter. Yet, I walked out in my garden this morning to see all around me the incredible beauty of nature being reborn. I thank God that Spring is on the way. The long, dark winter is ending. Whenever I am feeling down, all I have to do is walk around my garden. I am better instantly. How could I be otherwise when surrounded by such overwhelming loveliness? I sit and allow myself to be enveloped in the sights, aromas, and sounds of God's magnificent creation all around me. Then I know, again, that all is well.

So, I want to end this week sharing with you some of the beauty of my garden today. I hope this will lift your spirits too.

Narcissus "Tête-à-tête". The first of the flowering bulb plants. I rejoice at seeing them bloom every year.

Camellia japonica, "Nuccio's pearl". One of the loveliest pink-flowering camellias. Right now the camellias are at their peak bloom in my garden. They are also called the "winter rose" for good reason. I have 20 camellia bushes with a wide range of sizes, colors, and flower types.

Camellia japonica, "Bob Hope". Cold hardy, prolific bloomer.

Camellia japonica, "Kramer's supreme." Another faithful showpiece.

Camellia japonica, "Goggy". Heavy blooming red camellia.

So, in spite of bad things going on all around us, life goes on and we have to do the same as well as we can. The best way we can do that is to remind ourselves that we are not alone, that "this is my Father's world," as one of my favorite hymns says.

BREAKING NEWS ---

FEDERAL JUDGE LIFTS STAY

The Episcopal Church in South Carolina has just announced (find it here ) that on February 14, 2018, Judge Richard Gergel, of the United States District Court in Charleston, lifted the stay in the case of vonRosenberg v. Lawrence. The stay, or suspension, had been in place since August 30, 2017. This means the case in federal court between the two rival dioceses now resumes with proceedings of discovery moving toward a trial.

The stay had originally been imposed at the start of the mediation process. Mediation was first ordered by Gergel on Aug. 30, 2017. All issues in state and federal courts were to be on the table for negotiations with an eye toward a settlement. Such an agreement would have ended all litigation and brought peace between the warring sides. 

The mediation meant that a stay has been in place for five and a half months thus holding back the proceeding of the federal case for that length of time. The mediation process was to be confidential. This meant all participants were to keep the proceedings secret.

In the mediation, the first meeting between the two parties was on Oct. 4, 2017. This was an organizational session. It set up the first working conference between the two sides as Nov. 6-7, 2017.

The two parties met on Nov. 6, then abruptly adjourned at 10:45 on Nov. 7.

They met again on Dec. 4, 2017 only to quit suddenly.

The third meeting was on Jan. 12, 2018. It too adjourned abruptly. Obviously nothing substantial came of the three mediation meetings.

On January 25, 2018, the two parties submitted a "Joint Status Report" to Judge Gergel. It was made public since it was a submission to the court. Bishops vonRosenberg and Adams, on the Church side, and Bishop Lawrence, on the independent side, agreed that mediation would continue but that no progress had been made. They did reveal that, on Jan. 23, the Church side had submitted a proposal of a protocol for Bishop Adams to meet with the 29 parishes in question to discuss "settlement." According to this Report, Lawrence had until Feb. 2 to make a response to the proposal. We cannot know the response because it is covered by the cloak of secrecy surrounding the mediation. 

However, given the fact that Gergel lifted the stay 12 days later, it is reasonable to assume there was no progress in the idea of discussions for settlement. Apparently, Adams will not meet with the 29 congregations.

Thus, it seems that the mediation has ended for all intents and purposes if not in name. This means three avenues of litigation remain. 

1---DSC's "Complaint" of Nov. 19, 2017, in the (state) circuit court of Dorchester County. This suit demands payments from TEC/TECSC under the "Betterments Statute." In this, DSC gives tacit recognition that the 29 parishes belong to the Episcopal Church and its diocese but that these must pay for the "improvements" the occupants made on the properties.

DSC asked for a jury trial. They also asked the case to be put on stay pending a response from the appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

In response, TEC/TECSC filed a motion in the circuit court to dismiss DSC's Complaint.

The case was assigned to Judge Edgar Dickson, rather than Diane Goodstein. As of this writing, there has been no response from the court to the Complaint or to the Motion to Dismiss.

2---DSC's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, filed on Feb. 9, 2018. This asked the court to consider the SC supreme court decision of Aug. 2, 2017, that recognized TEC/TECSC control over 29 parishes and Camp St. Christopher and judged TEC to be an hierarchical institution.

Interestingly enough, the 7 parishes that the SCSC allowed to remain outside of the Church trust control officially informed the U.S. Supreme Court (find the document here ) that they were not parties in the appeal:

Christ the King, Pawleys Island

St. Matthew's, Darlington

St. Andrew's, Mt. Pleasant

St. John's, Florence

St. Matthias, Summerton

St. Paul's, Conway

Prince George Winyah, Georgetown

What are we to make of this? This says to me that the 7 parishes lack confidence in the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. If they believed DSC would win, surely they would have helped their side. It seems to me the 7 are protecting themselves, a smart move.

3---vonRosenberg v. Lawrence. This is the federal case that was initiated in March of 2013. It is now before Judge Gergel in the U.S. District Court, in Charleston. One will recall this case has had a tumultuous history. Judge C. Weston Houck handled it until his death in 2017 only to refuse to litigate it, even after he was ordered twice by the appeals court in Richmond to proceed.

In this suit, the Church side is arguing that Mark Lawrence is in violation of the Lanham Act that protects federally registered trademarks. The Episcopal Church is under trademark. In essence, the Church side is asking the federal court to recognize the Episcopal Church as an hierarchical institution and as such has the right to recognize the legitimate bishop of the local diocese. At the time of the schism, and ever since, Lawrence has claimed to be the legal and legitimate bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina even though he also claimed the diocese left the Episcopal Church on Oct. 15, 2012. 

The circuit court judge, Diane Goodstein, issued a restraining order and an injunction in January of 2013 recognizing Lawrence's claim. 

The SC supreme court decision of Aug. 2, 2017, did not address this issue, thus leaving in place Goodstein's ruling, but looked forward to the federal court settling the issue as part of the vonR case. The SCSC settled the property issue but deferred on the diocesan legal rights issue.

Thus, the question of the ownership of the legal rights of the pre-schism diocese is now before Judge Gergel.

So, where do we stand now? In my opinion, the fundamental issue of the litigation between the Church and the breakaway diocese has been settled. The Episcopal Church holds rights over 29 of the 36 parishes. This essentially validates the Church's claim to the properties under the Dennis Canon.

The other great issue is still pending, that is, which of the two dioceses holds the legal rights of the pre-schism diocese. This would include titles, marks, assets, and other diocesan owned entities (as headquarters and bishop's residence). 

What is the outlook? The federal court will probably rule in favor of the Church. Federal courts have overwhelmingly sided with the national institution of the Episcopal Church and her attendant dioceses. Of the 100 or so cases of breakaway parishes claiming the local property, only one has been settled finally on the side of the secessionists. That one happened to be in SC, the famous All Saints case in which All Saints parish, of Pawleys Island, wound up with the property and rights in opposition to the diocese. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely to take the present appeal from DSC, in my opinion, because DSC is arguing that TEC is not hierarchical and that state laws should determine the outcome of this case. This is a weak case.

What DSC is doing now is buying time. Why drag this out? To rally the 29 congregations to leave the buildings as DSC churches beyond the walls. With only 6 parishes now legally in DSC, the viability of the diocese in the future is in jeopardy. DSC needs all the people it can muster. Under the present scenario of litigation, they have at least another two years to do this.

The unknown element at this point is whether the Church lawyers will go to court to move the enactment of the state supreme court decision on the 29 parishes. Only time will tell if they act to enforce the decision. The SCSC decision of Aug. 2 is not on stay pending the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. I see no reason why the Church lawyers could not get enforcement of the state supreme court decision. If they were to get it enforced, the Episcopal Church bishop would resume control over the 29 parishes in question.

REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE DUST

Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

Today is Ash Wednesday, 2018. Ash Wednesday is the second most solemn and sobering day of the year, after Good Friday. On Good Friday, however, we know that our sorrow will be over in three days and end with a glorious victory over death. On Ash Wednesday we are looking into forty days of introspection and purification, hard work if we do it right. As the last part, we have a whole week to go through before reaching the spectacular moment of Easter when light banishes the darkness. So, every year, it is with a heavy heart that I approach the deposition of the ashes with its stark reminder of human limitations.

Speaking of human frailties, we have the schism at hand. We are now in our sixth year of brokenness and pain in the grand old diocese of South Carolina. When will it end? When will all of this be over? This is the question I get most often in person and by email.

We cannot know the future. I have always believed this is really a good thing because if we did, none of us would want to get out of bed. Only God knows the future. That knowledge has never been given to human beings. Personally, I am glad.

What is given to human beings is free will. We are free to choose between good and evil, indeed must choose countless times each and every day. Human beings chose to make the schism. It was a willful and deliberate act of people who thought it was the right thing to do. They were wrong. It has been destruction without justification and recompensation.

Given the present state of the litigation, I regret to have to say that the schism is not likely to end anytime soon. The schismatic side has lost in the high court of South Carolina but is fighting tooth and nail to keep that decision from being implemented. They could drag this out for several more years. That seems to be their strategy now.

So, today, Ash Wednesday, and for all of the coming forty days, let us remember a prayer for reconciliation (from the TECSC website):

Gracious and living God of justice and compassion: We pray for your church caught in a crushing schism in South Carolina. We believe that you favor reconciliation in all situations; and we ask you to be with all parties involved in the case. (...) bring this process to a just conclusion. Give all of us strength and courage to act and pray in ways that can lead toward reconciliation. Help us be agents of your reconciliation with our friends on both sides of this dispute. We ask all of this in the Name of the Holy Reconciler, Jesus your Son. Amen.

THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA'S APPEAL TO 

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

On February 9, 2018, the Diocese of South Carolina submitted "Petition for Writ of Certiorari" to the United States Supreme Court. This was an appeal of DSC to SCOTUS in an effort to overturn the South Carolina Supreme Court's August 2, 2017, decision favoring the Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Church in South Carolina. In that ruling, the majority of justices of SCSC said that 29 of 36 parishes and Camp St. Christopher remain under trust control of TEC and TECSC; they also said TEC was an hierarchical institution.

[NOTE. Again, I must remind readers I am neither a lawyer, nor a legal expert, nor an official of a diocese. I am giving my opinions as an ordinary layman.]

The Petition was sent on Feb. 9 to the DSC parishes along with a letter from the Rev. Jim Lewis. The most interesting point of Lewis's letter is that, for a change, it avoided any reference to God's favor of DSC. DSC has not made such claims since the Aug. 2 SCSC decision.

A "petition for cert" is a request to SCOTUS to take an appeal. SCOTUS receives at least 10,000 of these every year. They accept around 100, or 1% of the total. Most are discarded quickly. The term of SCOTUS runs from October to June. Thus, we are likely to get a response to DSC's "Petition" by July of 2018. SCOTUS avoids carrying over issues from one session to the next. The high court will either accept or deny the petition. If it denies, that is the end of the matter. The SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017, becomes final. If it accepts, SCOTUS will hold a hearing in its 2018-2019 session and issue a written decision by July of 2019.

A SUMMARY OF THE PETITION

The Feb. 9 Petition is surprisingly brief and straightforward. It is not just another lengthy, complicated, and dense treatise that one may have come to expect from the DSC lawyers. 

The  main point of the Petition is that "neutral principles" must prevail in this case. As in the famous Jones decision, a court may resolve property disputes between two religious groups following local laws of property and trust. The lawyers argued that "neutral principles" must be strictly followed but that the SCSC erred in making a "hybrid approach." That is, SCSC did not adhere to a strict interpretation of neutral principles as they should have. The lawyers briefly reviewed what they claimed were 11 jurisdictions in which courts properly applied a "strict approach" and 8 in which courts, incorrectly, followed a "hybrid approach." In conclusion, they said that SCOTUS should clarify this issue as guidance for courts around the country. In other words, the court should promote the "strict approach" to neutral principles. (This strict approach would mean that the SCSC decision of Aug. 2 would be overturned.)

Observations on the Petition:

1 --- It continues the main argument that the DSC lawyers made in the circuit court and in the SCSC that the 2009 SCSC All Saints decision should be expanded to the whole diocese. That decision found for the local parish in both legal rights and property ownership.

In fact, the only one of the five SCSC justices to defend the All Saints decision in the Aug. 2 ruling was Jean Toal, the author of the decision. 

Moreover, All Saints is unique in the U.S. Not one other state supreme court has replicated it. It stands as the only case in which a secessionist unit got a final decree in its favor against the Episcopal church and diocese. 

An important point to make about the All Saints case was that it was a dispute between the diocese and a parish. It was not between the national church and a diocese. Since it was contained entirely within the state of SC, there seemed to be no question among the justices as to the outcome. Thus, trying to apply All Saints now to the church/diocese disagreement is like mixing apples and oranges. 

2 --- It argues that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution works in favor of the diocese. 

The First Amendment forbids the government, as a court, from interfering in a religious institution. 

The key question then becomes whether the court is interfering in a church. The majority of the SCSC said that TEC is a hierarchical institution (courts around the U.S. have overwhelmingly agreed with this). If TEC is hierarchical, then the national church has sovereignty over the local parts, as the dioceses. Dioceses are not independent agents but are subject to the authority of the national church. If TEC is hierarchical, then the court must defer to the church to govern itself. If a dispute is religious in nature, a court may not interfere. It has to defer to the religious institution.

Interestingly, the DSC lawyers described the situation in SC as a "schism." This word appeared in the very first sentence of the Petition. "Schism" could well be interpreted as a religious dispute. I do not see how the lawyers thought the use of this word would strengthen their case. (To my knowledge, this is the first time DSC has used the word "schism" in an official document since the schism of October 2012.)

The Dorchester County circuit court judge seemed to have no problem in delving into the internal working of TEC to declare it to be congregational in nature. This created great consternation in the SCSC where even Chief Justice Toal railed against the lower decision and not a single justice arose to defend it.

3 --- The DSC lawyers said the Dennis Canon could not and did not create a trust under SC law.

The 2009 All Saints decision, and Toal in the Aug. 2, 2017 decision, said that, under SC law, the title holder [parish] had to create a trust in writing for a beneficiary [diocese and TEC] and this had not happened. Therefore, the Dennis Canon was not valid in SC because it claimed to be imposed from the outside.

In the Aug. 2 ruling, four of the five justices agreed that the Dennis Canon had indeed set up a trust but in different ways. Justices Pleicones and Hearn said the Dennis Canon automatically went into effect because TEC was hierarchical and any ruling of the national church immediately applied to the church's local parts. Justices Beatty and Kittredge said the Dennis Canon did go into effect, not because it was imposed by the national church but only because the parishes acceded to it individually. However, while Beatty opined that a parish could not unilaterally revoke its accession, Kittredge said a parish could revoke its accession. Beatty concluded that 29 of the 36 parishes had in fact made irrevocable trusts for TEC. This made three (Pleicones, Hearn and Beatty) of the five justices to agree that the Dennis Canon was effective in SC (thus reversing the All Saints principle). In sum, the SCSC ruled that the Dennis Canon effectively created a trust in SC whether by Church authority or by parochial action.

4 --- The Petition has numerous historical inaccuracies. 

In one (p. 10), it said DSC acceded to the TEC Constitution and Canons in 1841. In did indeed vote such in 1841. However, DSC originally acceded in 1789. Before the church constitutional convention of that year, the church agreed that the states would draw up a constitution and canons for the whole church and that their representatives would agree to it by signing their names for their respective states. The TEC C and C was not submitted to the individual states for ratification (as the U.S. Constitution was) because it was automatically ratified by the signatories of 1789. All of the SC delegates signed the documents giving SC's permanent accession to them.

In another (P. 10), the lawyers said DSC withdrew its accession to the TEC canons from 2009 to 2011. This is a dubious, and very debatable assertion.

In another (p. 11), they said DSC "disassociated" from TEC. Ditto. 

In yet another (p. 11) they said All Saints "involved a property dispute between the national Episcopal Church and a local congregation." Actually, it was the Diocese of South Carolina, particularly Bishop Edward Salmon, that fought that case all the way from local to state supreme court. It was "a property dispute" between the diocese and a parish.

5 --- It is most curious to note the Petition's reference to Justice Kaye Hearn.

It has only one, fairly brief, paragraph about her. One will recall the major effort DSC made in August and September of last year to invalidate Hearn's decision and have her removed from the case. That fell flat, in fact, may have backfired as every one of the other justices vociferously defended her, even chastised DSC for the smear campaign. Now, this Petition changes the argument against Hearn from herself to her husband [!] (p. 17). (The motion to recuse was based primarily on the fact that Justice Hearn's husband was involved in the underlying schism and was deposed in this case as a witness in support of the national Episcopal Church, p. 17). It is disingenuous to think the august SCOTUS would be impressed by such rank amateurism as this.

The U. S. Supreme Court has provided two avenues for courts to deal with property disputes between religious bodies. One is the Serbian Orthodox decision of 1976. See the Wikipedia article here . This held that courts may not interfere in the workings of a hierarchical religious institution because of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Thus, a hierarchical church, such as TEC, must be left alone to decide its own affairs including questions of property ownership. Following this path, the courts would defer to TEC to decide the property issues in South Carolina. 

The other avenue came in the decision of Jones v. Wolf in 1979. Find a summary here . In this, the courts may take a "neutral" approach to decide property disputes between church bodies. The court would favor neither side but make a judgment drawn from local property laws. This, however, would presume the church in question to be non-hierarchical so as not to violate the Serbian Orthodox case.

The DSC lawyers based their entire Petition to SCOTUS on the Jones decision. They asked the court to take a resolute stand for a strict interpretation of "neutral principles." They said the SCSC had failed to do this; and only SCOTUS could correct the error.

It seems to me that all this boils down to whether the Episcopal Church is hierarchical or not. The circuit court went out of its way to declare TEC to be congregational. The SCSC rejected this. The majority of justices said TEC is hierarchical. 

WILL SCOTUS TAKE THIS APPEAL?

Not likely. The DSC lawyers' case in both circuit court and SCSC was based on two ideas: that TEC is not hierarchical and therefore not entitled to the Serbian Orthodox principle; and state laws on property, trusts, and corporations alone must decide this case under neutral principles.

In the first place, courts around the U.S. on the whole have agreed that TEC is hierarchical. Perhaps for this reason, SCOTUS has never accepted an appeal from an Episcopal Church case. Numerous appeals have been made to the high court, most famously from the Virginia breakaway parishes, and from the Texas case of Ft. Worth.

In the second place, the purpose of SCOTUS is to clarify constitutional issues. It does not concern state law except as it may affect the constitution. The DSC argued their cases entirely on state laws.

Moreover, the avenue of "neutral principles" does not preclude the "hierarchical principle." For instance, the California courts used both in their decisions concerning San Joaquin that came down entirely on the Episcopal Church side. Thus, it is not a question of one principle or the other. Both can be used and have been used.

It seems to me DSC's appeal to SCOTUS is another example of their post Aug. 2 strategy of defer and delay the inevitable. First, they agreed to a mediation process. They went to meetings three times and apparently agreed to nothing. At least we have no evidence of any negotiation let alone settlement. The last we heard, Bp Lawrence had agreed to consider an offer from TECSC to have the Church bishop meet with the 29 parishes to discuss "settlement." Lawrence was to have responded to this offer by Feb. 2. There has been no evidence since then of any movement on this. It seems that DSC is only using mediation to delay the federal court case. So far they have used up five months by this tactic.

DSC has also entered a new lawsuit in the circuit court demanding money from TEC/TECSC under the "betterments statute." They have asked this be put on "stay" pending the outcome of the appeal to SCOTUS. TECSC has asked the court to dismiss this suit. All of this is pending in the circuit court and eating up more time.

The federal court will eventually resume the case and hold a trial. Of course, if the court rules in favor of TEC/TECSC, which is likely, DSC can appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals dragging out the end for another year or more.

The fundamental decision in the dispute between the independent diocese and the Episcopal Church has already been made. The Church won. Apparently what we have now is a movement of DSC to delay the end as long as possible. This will give them much more needed time to rally the faithful against the Episcopal Church and to prepare the people to vacate the buildings as DSC communities. That is what is happening now. I see no other way to view what is going on. The pain continues. 


[NOTE. On Friday, Feb. 9, DSC sent the Rev. Jim Lewis's letter and the Petition to the DSC parishes. As of this writing (1 p.m. Feb. 12) DSC has not released these documents to the public. Presumably they will do so shortly. 

UPDATE. On Feb. 12, at 4:50 p.m., DSC publicly released Lewis's letter and the Petition. Find the letter here and the Petition here .]

BREAKING NEWS ---

DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

APPEALS TO 

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

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

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

I will return soon with more information and analysis.

"THE MEDIATION HAS 

NOT BEEN TERMINATED"

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

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

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

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

Bp. Lawrence wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

MEDIATION APPARENTLY ENDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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