A CLOSER LOOK

 AT DSC'S MEMBERSHIP STATISTICS
(with Addendum, Mar. 11)

On Mar. 8, I added a post, "New Membership Statistics from the Diocese of South Carolina." This included the newly released figures of the year 2016. I have gone over the numbers in detail again in hopes of getting a more precise view of the impact of the schism on the membership of the secessionist diocese. 50 of the 71 parishes and missions of the old diocese went along with the break from the Episcopal Church. Many of these churches held parish votes to decide whether to go along. The majority of the local churches adhered to Bp Lawrence. Often the votes were lopsided. That would leave one thinking the break had been popular. 

We now have the detailed local church statistics from before the schism of 2012 and 4 years after the schism. What pattern can be discerned about shifts in membership in the diocese? What might these numbers suggest about the future?

The statistics from the year 2011 tell us much about the state of the old diocese in the last full year before the schism. We will use this year as our measure of the diocese before the schism. We now have the parochial statistics for the year 2016, 4 full years after the schism. First, I will provide the numbers for each of the (45) local churches that reported in 2011 and 2016. These numbers came from the official journal of the diocesan convention, 2012 (find here , pp. 129-31) and 2017 (find here , pp. 149-52). We will use the figures as they were provided.

I am using the number of "communicants." A communicant was one who attended church at least once a year. 

First, parish or mission, then number of communicants for 2011 and 2016, then change in number, and finally change by percentage. For instance, St. Helena's had 1,737 communicants in 2011, and 880 in 2016. That was a decline of 857 communicants, or down 49% from before the schism. Thus, St. Helena's lost about half its communicant number as a result of the schism.

St. Helena's, Beaufort     2011-1,737;  2016-880;  -857;  -49%

Church of the Cross, Bluffton     2011-1,701;  2016-1,790;  +89;  +1%

St. Luke's, Hilton Head     2011-951;  2016-581;  -370;  -39%

Holy Trinity, Grahamville     2011-98;  2016-97;  -1;  -1%

St. Jude's, Walterboro     2011-200;  2016-221;  +21;  +1%

Cathedral of St. Luke and St. Paul, Charleston     2011-305;  2016-220;  -85;  -28%

St. John's Chapel, Charleston     2011-39;  2016-53;  +14;  +36%

St. Michael's, Charleston     2011-1,847;  2016-915;  -932;  -50%

St. Philip's, Charleston     2011-2,677;  2016-1,069;  -1,608;  -60%

Christ Church, Mt. Pleasant     2011-935;  2016-328;  -607;  -65%

Holy Cross, Sullivans Island     2011-2,540;  2016-900;  -1,640;  -65%

Holy Trinity, Charleston     2011-96;  2016-103;  +7;  +7%

Old Saint Andrew's     2011-962;  2016-446;  -516;  -54%

St. Andrew's Mission, West Ashley     2011-38;  2016-55;  +17;  +45%

St. James, James Island     2011-612;  2016-500;  -112;  -18%

Good Shepherd, Charleston     2011-302;  2016-245;  -57;  -19%

Trinity, Edisto     2011-183;  2016-157;  -26;  -14%

St. James, Goose Creek     2011-12;  2016-15;  +3;  +25

Our Saviour, Johns Island     2011-195;  2016-170;  -25;  -13%

St. John's, Johns Island     2011-566;  2016-654;  +88;  +16%

St. Paul's, Summerville     2011-773;  2016-538;  -235;  -30%

Christ/St. Paul's, Yonges Island     2011-330;  2016-260;  -70;  -21%

St. Paul's, Bennettsville     2011-61;  2016-65;  +4;  +7%

St. David's, Cheraw     2011-113;  2016-34;  -79;  -70%

St. Matthew's, Darlington     2011-139;  2016-148;  +9;  +6%

St. Barnabas, Dillon     2011-47; 2016-37;  -10;  -21%

All Saints, Florence     2011-144;  2016-130;  -14;  -10%

Christ Church, Florence     2011-49;  2016-2;  -47;  -96%

St. John's, Florence     2011-453;  2016-423;  -30;  -7%

St. Bartholomew's, Hartsville     2011-160;  2016-135;  -35;  -22%

Advent, Marion     2011-27;  2016-16;  -7;  -26%

Holy Comforter, Sumter     2011-525;  2016-283;  -242;  -46%

Holy Cross, Stateburg     2011-177;  2016-94;  -83;  -47%

St. Paul's, Conway     2011-270;  2016-202;  -68;  -25%

Prince George Winyah, Georgetown     2011-450;  2016-645;  +195;  +43%

Trinity, Myrtle Beach     2011-595;  2016-284;  -311;  -52%

Resurrection, Surfside     2011-282;  2016-287;  +5;  +2%

Holy Apostles, Barnwell     2011-91;  2016-95;  +4;  +4%

Epiphany, Eutawville     2011-75;  2016-85;  +10;  +13%

St. Matthew's, Ft. Motte     2011-71;  2016-94;  +23;  +32%

Redeemer, Orangeburg     2011-265;  2016-183;  -82;  -31%

St. Paul's, Orangeburg     2011-19;  2016-17;  -2; -11%

Redeemer, Pineville     2011-82;  2016-78;  -4;  -5%

Trinity, Pinopolis     2011-184;  2016-159;  -25;  -14%

St. Matthias, Summerton     2011-128;  2016-144;  +15;  +13

Summary:

45 DSC parishes and mission reported in 2011 and 2016.

There were 30 losses and 15 gains. Thus, 2/3 of the local churches reported losses of members.

The biggest gainers by number:

  Prince George Winyah, +195

  Cross, Bluffton,  +89

  St. John's, Johns Island  +88

The biggest gainers by percentage:

  St. Andrew's Mission,  +45%

  St. John's Chapel,  +36%

  St. Matthew's, Ft. Motte,  +32

The biggest losers by numbers:

  Holy Cross, Sullivans Island,  -1,640

  St. Philip's, Charleston,  -1,608

  St. Michael's, Charleston,  -932

  St. Helena's, Beaufort,  -857

  Christ Church, Mt. Pleasant,  -607

  Old St. Andrew's,  -576

  St. Luke's, Hilton Head,  -370

  Trinity, Myrtle Beach,  -311

  Holy Comforter, Sumter,  -242

  St. Paul's, Summerville,  -235

The biggest losers by percentage:

  Churches that lost half or more of their communicants:

     St. David's, Cheraw,  -70%

     Christ Church, Mt. Pleasant,  -65%

     Holy Cross, Sullivans Island,  -65%

     St. Philip's, Charleston,  -60%

     Trinity, Myrtle Beach,  -52%

     St. Michael's, Charleston, -50%

  Other major declines:

     St. Helena's, Beaufort,  -49%

     Holy Cross, Stateburg,  -47%

     Holy Comforter, Sumter,  -46%

     Advent, Marion,  -41%

     St. Luke's, Hilton Head,  -39%

SUMMARY:

The total communicant number for the reporting DSC parishes and missions in the year before the schism was  21,506.

The number in 2016, four years after the schism, was 13,877.

These DSC churches reported a loss of 7,629 communicants.

This is a decline of 35%.

In sum, DSC lost about a third of its members as a result of the schism.

A word of caution about these statistics. These were provided by the local churches themselves. There was no verification. A few were probably errors (Christ Church of Florence no doubt has more than 2 communicants; St John's of Johns Island reported as many communicants as baptized members). Nevertheless, the statistics give us a clear broad picture of the impact of the schism on the churches that followed Lawrence in the schism. Most importantly, they show trends.

Most of the major losses occurred in the Charleston metro area as to be expected. It is the population center of the diocese. 

As far as the future goes, there are several probabilities.

---If the DSC continues to lose members at this rate, it will cease to exist in the foreseeable future. Even if it continues on, it will face shrinking numbers, and income. If it does wind up with 6 parishes, its viability as an institutional entity will be in doubt.

---The popular support for the schism was not deep. Indeed, a third of the people in the schismatic churches bolted.

---The Episcopal Church diocese, in all likelihood will regain possession of the 29 parishes in question, I think probably by the end of this year. If handled well, many of the communicants in these churches will remain with the Episcopal Church although the DSC has been underway since last Dec. 1 with a plan to move members out into new communities beyond the walls. The statistics above suggest there is not a very wide or deep commitment to the schism left in the DSC.

---Considering that many parishes have suffered massive losses in membership (not to mention finances), rebuilding these will be a major challenge for the Episcopal Church after the return of the 29 parishes.

_________________________________

ADDENDUM, March 11:

After posting the above, I wondered if going back several years before the schism would help us get a clearer picture of membership changes in the DSC parishes. Therefore, I looked at the membership figures for 2005, 7 years before the schism and 6 years before the data given above, of 2011. I also studied the statistics for the year 2008, the point at which Bp Lawrence began his episcopacy. If we can see the trends over the years before the schism we would get a better overall picture of the impact of the schism on membership. For instance, if a parish had significant and consistent membership loss all the while, its decline after the schism may have been from long term factors unrelated to the schism, as population shifts.

Again, we are looking at only the reports from the 50 parishes and missions that adhered to Lawrence in the schism of 2012. Here are the totals of communicants they reported:

2005 - 17,981
2008 - 19,338
2011 - 21,506
2016 - 13,877

This tells us that overall the churches were gaining members steadily in the half-dozen years before the schism. Between 2005 and 2008, communicant numbers jumped 1,357, or up 7%. From 2008 to 2011, numbers rose by another 2,168, or 10%. Thus, for the 7 years before the schism, there was a healthy and steady rise in membership of the churches that followed Lawrence in the schism. Then, membership fell precipitously. 

It is most instructive to look at the major parishes that seemed to be most impacted by the schism.

St. Helena's of Beaufort lost nearly half its communicants after the schism. Before the schism, however, it was the opposite. From 1,200 communicants in 2005, it grew to 1,737 in 2011, an impressive gain in just 6 years. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude the schism was the factor of change there. (2005-1,200; 2016-880)

St. Michael's of Charleston was much the same. From 1,349 communicants in 2005, it rose to 1,847 in 2011, a 37% gain. However, after it schism it fell by half. Again, it seems that the schism was the turning point there as well. (2005-1,349; 2016-915)

St. Philip's of Charleston, had an eye-popping gain between 2005 and 2011 (if these figures can be believed) from 1,289 to 2,677. After the schism, it reported a 60% drop. It too, seemed to be greatly impacted by the schism. (2005-1,289; 2016-1,069)

Holy Cross of Sullivans Island reported a rise from 936 in 2005 to 2,540 in 2011. After the schism it reported a drop to 1,640 or -65%. (2005-936; 2016-900)

Old Saint Andrews showed the same yo-yo effect. From 567 in 2005, it spiked to 962 in 2011, then fell to 516 in 2016. 

The great majority of DSC churches showed declines in membership after the schism. There were a few that showed steady gains through the whole period, most notably Prince George Winyah of Georgetown, 329 in 2005, 380 in 2008, 450 in 2011, 645 in 2016. Church of the Cross in Bluffton: 1,260 in 2005, 1,481 in 2008, 1,701 in 2011, 1,790 in 2016. They were the exception to the rule.

Another measure that reveals a shift is the number of churches gaining and losing members by period. From 2005 to 2008, 22 gained while 18 lost. This began to shift in 2008, the year Lawrence arrived. Between 2008 and 2011, 19 churches lost members while 18 gained, even though the overall number climbed. As we have seen, the dramatic decline came after the schism.

If we consider the whole period of the 11 years between 2005 and 2011, 80% of local churches lost members while 20% gained. Overall, the churches reported significantly fewer people in 2016 (13,877) than nine years earlier, in 2005 (17,981).

In the 6 years before the schism, 2005-2011, the local churches that adhered to Lawrence in the schism gained an impressive number of 3,525. However, in the 5 years after that, these same churches lost 7,629 communicants, or more than twice as many as they had gained in the before the schism. As we have seen, the Lawrence churches reported 35% fewer communicants after the schism.

All of this adds up to clear empirical evidence that the schism had a serious negative effect on the membership of the majority of the parishes and missions that went along with the schism. Moreover, the effect was the worst on the large and famous historical parishes. In sum, the schism caused a dramatic loss of membership in the parishes and missions that went along with it.

THE FRIDAY GARDEN WALK

My garden has been unusually beautiful this spring and so it merits many leisurely strolls. A month of warm and sunny weather has brought out many of the plants all at once from winter dormancy. Some plants have already faded. That would be the Bradford pears (the bane of my gardener friends' existence; they claim these, kudzu, and privet are the worst weeds of the South; I do have a pear tree but is is a Cleveland pear), the Japanese magnolias, and many of the camellias. The glory of the landscape now is the eastern redbud tree, a small native tree that thrives in abundance in the woodlands across the South. It is pleasant, in early spring, to ride down a backwoods country road on a bright sunny day and marvel at the beauty of the delicate purple clouds scattered everywhere among the pines and oaks. I call it my Lenten tree. It is first covered with tiny flowers from dark pink to purple which gradually give way to big heart-shaped green leaves. Great beauty often comes in the simplest things, and the  incomparable redbud tree is one of them.

In view of all the ongoing unpleasantness of the schism, I like to end the week on an uplifting note and I can think of no better way to do this than to rejoice in the beauty of God's wondrous creation all around us. So, walking through my garden this week, this is what we see:

Pearl Bush (Exochorda x macrantha 'The Bride') and Windmill Palm (Trachycarpus fortunei). Pearl Bush grows to 5' and is covered in white flowers in early spring. Windmill palm weathers cold better than the ubiquitous sabal palmetto. It is the best tree form palm for frostier areas of the South.

White Flowering Chocolate Vine (Akebia quinata "alba'). One of the best vines for the South, its early spring blooms are sweetly aromatic. Flanking shrubs are boxwoods. This is an entrance to the smaller side of the garden. The tall evergreens are Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria).

Eastern Redbud Tree (Cercis canadensis). No words needed.

Dwarf Peach Tree 'Bonanza" (Prunus persica 'Bonanza'). A conversation piece at 5'.

Star Magnolia 'Stellata Jane' (Magnolia liliflora reflorescens x Stellata 'Jane'). A small tree kin to "Japanese Magnolia" but blooms two weeks later.

From the central lawn, looking south over the larger part of the garden. Flowering quince on lower right. In the middle is an oval of Dwarf Yaupon Holly (Ilex vomitoria 'Nana') around a dwarf sabal palmetto 'Birmingham.' On left is a groundcover of Andorra juniper. Upright evergreens on right are Spartan juniper. On bottom, knock out roses leafing out. There are walk paths and seating areas throughout this section. It is also home to countless birds, most notably my favorites, the mockingbirds. Their music is nature's symphony. It will be another month before another favorite, the hummingbirds, return from their winter quarters far south of here.

In the smaller garden side looking southward toward the central lawn. Loropetalum on lower left. The arch trellis has newly planted Carolina jasmine. It is flanked by boxwoods.

My garden is my therapy and my refuge. The constant changing of the seasons, life cycles of all living things, and the incredible beauty of nature are my never-failing connection to the great order of God's universe. Whatever is happening in my life and in the world, I know that all is transient, that all is part of a grand and orderly scheme of all existence infinitely greater than myself. I hope this garden reminds you of that too.

(Note. With the cursor over the photo, a left click of the mouse should bring up a full screen image.)

NEW MEMBERSHIP STATISTICS FROM THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

The independent Diocese of South Carolina has just released its latest membership statistics, for the year 2016. This was in the journal of the 2017 diocesan convention which is posted here . The local churches' reports are on pages 149-52. Recently, I pointed out the ongoing financial decline of the DSC in my post of Feb. 26, "The Financial Troubles of the Diocese of South Carolina." Financially, DSC is going downhill steadily. Now we know it is the same for membership. In income, DSC fell by a third in the decade since Mark Lawrence became bishop. Membership decline is even worse.

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017, I provided a detailed analysis of DSC's statistics up to 2015. See "The Continuing Decline of the Diocese of South Carolina." With the new figures for the year 2016, we can see a broader picture. Yet, it is the same, decline.

When Lawrence became bishop, in 2008, the Diocese of South Carolina counted 27,670 communicants. A "communicant" is one who attends church at least once a year. It is not the only category available, but it is the most meaningful. We will continue to use it as our gauge. In 2016, DSC listed 14,694 communicants. This is a loss in the 8 years between 2008 and 2016 of 12,976 people, or -47%. In other words, the membership in DSC is now about half as much as when Lawrence became bishop ten years ago.

Of the 71 parishes and missions of the pre-schism diocese, 50 adhered to Lawrence in the schism. Since the schism, 4 have been added. Considering just these local churches, there were 21,993 communicants in 2011, the last full year before the schism of 2012. In 2016, there were 14,694 communicants. In the 5 years between 2011 and 2016, the 50 (54) local churches of DSC lost 7,499 communicants, or -34%. In other words, DSC lost a third of its members soon after the schism. In just five years, the diocese has lost a third of its people. 

The year-by-year breakdown shows the steady decline:

2011 - 21,993 communicants in the 50 DSC churches

2013 - 17,798 (-19% 2011-13)

2014 - 16,351 (-8% 2013-14; -26% 2011-14)

2015 - 15,556 (-5% 2014-15; -29% 2011-15)

2016 - 14,694 (-6% 2015-16; -33% 2011-16)

If we look at the individual parishes and missions of DSC we see that most remained about the same in the year 2015-16. However, numerous large and famous churches suffered severe declines in membership if DSC's published statistics are to be believed. 

In the one year of 2015-2016:

St. Helena's of Beaufort went from 951 communicants to 880.

St. Michael's of Charleston, 1,351 to 919.

St. Philip's of Charleston, 1,974 to 1,069.

Christ Church of Mt. Pleasant, 780 to 328.

Holy Cross of Sullivans Island, 1,354 to 900.

Old Saint Andrews, 546 to 446.

Holy Comforter of Sumter, 271 to 183.

Prince George Winyah of Georgetown, 630 to 545.

In the 5 years from 2011 to 2016:

St. Helena's of Beaufort went from 1,737 to 880 (-49%).

St. Michael's of Charleston, 1,847 to 919 (-50%).

St. Philip's of Charleston, 2,677 to 1,069 (-60%).

Christ Church of Mt. Pleasant, 925 to 328 (-65%).

Holy Cross of Sullivans Island, 2,540 to 900 (-65%).

Old Saint Andrews, 962 to 446 (-54%).

Holy Comforter of Sumter, 525 to 183 (-65%).

The only local DSC church to show significant gain was Church of the Cross in Bluffton. It counted 1,702 in 2011, 1775 in 2015, and 1790 in 2016, for an overall gain of 1%.

Conclusions:

---The Diocese of South Carolina has only slightly more than half as many people as it had in 2008 when Mark Lawrence became its bishop.

---The 50 churches of the DSC that adhered to Lawrence in the schism of 2012 lost a third of their members as a result of the schism.

---The DSC has lost members steadily ever year since the schism.

If anything, these figures disprove two points:

---The schism was a popular event that arose from the communicants. In fact, thousands of people have fled from the schismatic churches of SC. The schism was not a popular uprising. Instead, it was the work of a small group of diocesan leaders and presented to the people as an accomplished fact. 

---"Orthodox" religion is more popular than "modernist" religion. For years before the schism, Bp Lawrence called the Episcopal Church a comatose patient on life support. In other words, it was dying because it had abandoned true religion. Turns out that the TEC diocese in SC is steadily rising in membership, up 22% since the schism. It is "orthodox" religion that is dying, at least in SC.

Given the SC supreme court decision and the state of the litigation and given the financial and membership decline of the DSC, the future for the independent diocese is grim. At present it holds 6 parishes, at least according to the SC supreme court. Chances are it will lose the legal entity and assets of the pre-schism diocese in the federal court. If so, this will leave DSC in dire straits. An idea that sounded so promising in 2012 to so many people in eastern South Carolina has not turned out so well. 

But then, we should recall that the Anglican Realignment movement that started in earnest with the formation of the American Anglican Council in 1996, originally aimed to diminish or destroy the Episcopal Church as a significant cultural institution in American life. In this regard, we would have to regard the schism in South Carolina as something of a success. The diminution of the old Church in eastern South Carolina is evident even if there is really nothing arising to replace it. 

JUDGE DENIES 

LAWRENCE'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Today, March 7, 2018, Judge Richard Gergel, the United States District Court judge handling the case of vonRosenberg v. Lawrence denied Bishop Mark Lawrence's motion to dismiss part of the federal suit. (The federal suit was filed in March of 2013. In it, the Church bishop, vonR, brought charges against Mark Lawrence for trademark infringement and false advertising, violations of the federal Lanham Act, an act of Congress that protects trademarks, such as those of the Episcopal Church.)

On February 20, Lawrence filed with the federal court a motion to dismiss Count II of the Church's Second Amended Complaint: "moves this Court for dismissal of Count II (trademark infringement of the South Carolina State Trademarks)...for lack of standing." In a separate Memorandum to the court, filed on the same day, Lawrence argued: "The Plaintiff Bishops [vonR and Adams] are not the owners or exclusive licensees of the South Carolina State Trademarks. Therefore, the Plaintiff Bishops lack standing to bring the federal trademark infringement claim concerning the South Carolina State Trademarks..."

The Church diocese's lawyer, Thomas Tisdale, filed a response to Lawrence's motion to dismiss, on March 6. He pointed out an obvious fact, the U.S. District Court had already recognized Bishop vonR's standing, in an order of August 23, 2013:  "Accordingly, Bishop vonRosenberg, in addition to satisfying the first and second elements of prudential standing, satisfied the third. Thus, this action may not be dismissed for lack of standing."

Today, Judge Gergel issued an "Order," stating  "The Court has already ruled that Bishop vonRosenberg has standing to assert infringement claims." Besides, as he pointed out, the Church diocese (the Episcopal Church in South Carolina) had already filed a motion to intervene (on Mar. 1, 2018). That motion is before the court and, if granted, would make moot the question of the standing. On these grounds, Gergel went on to deny Lawrence's motion to dismiss but added that after the court rules on TECSC's Mar. 1 motion to intervene, Lawrence may ask the court for reconsideration.

What this suggests to me is that Judge Gergel is resolved to have a full and thorough consideration of this case and to do so with all dispatch. We can expect Gergel to move this along expeditiously. His "Order" of Mar 7 was one day after the Church side filed its response to Lawrence's motion. First, he will have to rule on the motions the Church side made on Mar. 1. There will have to be a "discovery" period, probably of several months, in which both sides prepare for the trial. Then, there will be the trial before Gergel. At the rate the judge is going, I would expect the trial before the end of the year.

The independent Diocese of South Carolina has already established a clear pattern of obstruction and delay. They delayed the state supreme court decision from August to November only to be completely rejected by the court a second time. They used Gergel's mediation order (Aug. 30, 2017) to delay the federal case (it was put on stay during the mediation) by three months only to fail to make a negotiated settlement. In addition, they have appealed the state supreme court decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. That however, has not put the state supreme court decision on stay. It is active. Thus, it seems to me that DSC's flimsy motion to dismiss in federal court is just another grasping at the straws that are growing increasingly limp and scarce. Judge Richard Gergel seems to me to be the kind of judge who is not going to put up with this kind of delay of justice.

Let's be realistic here. One of the two major issues between the two sides of the schism has been settled. The SC supreme court ruled that the Episcopal Church and its diocese have control over 29 of the 36 parishes in question. This leaves DSC with 6 (the 7th is St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant, part of another diocese). The other major issue is before the federal court now. It is which of the two sides is entitled to the legal rights and assets of the pre-schism diocese. Right now, it is looking good for the Church side.

Why is DSC employing the delaying tactic? I think it is to give them space to enact their secret plan of Dec. 1, 2017. This was the scheme to move the Lawrence followers out of the 29 Episcopal church buildings into new churches attached to DSC. The model for this was the experience of Lawrence's old parish, St. Paul's of Bakersfield. There, the court ordered the property returned to the Episcopal Church and the secessionists successfully moved the vast majority of communicants out to new quarters, even to build new buildings. 

WHERE IS GOD IN THE SCHISM?

A couple of days ago, Steve Skardon posted a thoughtful reflection on scepiscopalians (find it here ) about the presence of God in the schism of the old Episcopal diocese of South Carolina. I recommend it. Coincidentally, I have been thinking of this for a long time, as I imagine many of you have too. Skardon has raised a timely and important point that we should all ponder now. The question is, Where is God in the schism?

Here are my thoughts about this question:

The problem of the relationship between the human and the divine is as old as human existence. The ancient Mesopotamians were the first to commit to the written word the relationship between events and the divine, in the epic of Gilgamesh. The Hebrews gave their slant on that story in the Book of Job, one of my favorite books of the Bible. The question is as old as humankind, Why do bad things happen to good people? If God is all powerful, all present, and all good, how could he stand by idly and allow people, even his own people, to suffer so terribly? 

Where was God at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school? at Sandy Hook? at Mother Emmanuel? at 9-11? at Pearl Harbor? at Auschwitz? at countless other places of insane violence against God's creation? We individuals do not escape either. Bad things happen to each and every one of us. It is the human condition. At some point every one of us flails our fists at the God we think has abandoned us. The truth is, God has not abandoned us, and we, like Job, must not abandon him, even in our darkest hour.

Elie Weisel, the great witness of the Holocaust, said that one night he and other prisoners at Auschwitz put God on trial to determine if he had abandoned his people. The court convicted God. They decided God had indeed turned his back on the Jews. How else could anyone explain what was happening? The rabbi pronounced the verdict and then summoned all to evening prayers, to the God they had just condemned. The point is, they knew instinctively that God had not abandoned them even if they could not know it intellectually. This was the same faith that Job had kept in nearly as hard times. It is the faith that all of us must keep. God does not abandon us. The divine presence is always there even though it may be impossible for us to rationalize it.

I am sure that all of us have felt the presence of the divine in hard times. I know I have. A few years ago, as my father lay dying, I was with him alone in the nursing home one day. Suddenly I felt a strange but very real presence in the room hovering over him and me. I have never felt anything like it before or since. It was a serene blanket of comfort. I sat still by Dad for a long time, until he spoke his final words to me, "I have to go to court next Tuesday and I want you to go with me" (he had been Pensacola's chief of police for years). He died peacefully in his sleep the next day. At first I thought the invisible presence had been angels. Then, I thought later perhaps it was his beloved parents who had come to collect him and to comfort me. Either way, I felt it was God, or its agents, who came to Dad and me when we needed them the most even though we had not summoned them.

So, back to our question about God in the schism. The grand old Episcopal diocese of South Carolina, one of the nine founding dioceses of the Episcopal Church, a body that once counted 32,000 baptized members, now lies broken into four pieces and bleeding in pain. The largest part, the independent diocese, is losing communicants and income at an alarming rate. The two largest parts are locked in a fierce legal war to the finish. There is brokenness, pain, discord, suspicion, anger, fear, and an immensely scandalous legal war going on and on. Fatigue, exhaustion, and even despair are all around. So, where is God? Why does not God stop this?

I think there are three prime reasons why events occur: God, nature, and human choice. Now, part of our problem is how we define God. What do we mean when we use the word "God"? Too often people see an anthropomorphic being, like us only greater. Some people see a superman who can do anything. Some see Santa Claus who rewards "good" people and punishes the "bad." Both of these are wrong. God is not an object like this up there somewhere in space. God never defines itself (God does not have gender so should not be called "Him") in the scriptures but leaves only enigmatic statements such as "I am that I am." God is not contained in one form and never appears in the same form more than once. I see God as the great transcendent presence, the essence of being, that moves through the universe and history. At the creation, God made man in his own image to be its representatives on earth with dominion over all things. Over the last 4,000 years, mankind, primarily in the Judeo-Christian tradition, has evolved a revealed understanding of what God expects of human beings. God expects ethical and moral behavior that protects, preserves, and enhances God's irreplaceable creation. The crux of this long evolution was God's sacrifice for the salvation of the world, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the embodiment of the divine in human existence. I believe the religion that evolved from his experience has brought us to the highest understanding of the relationship between the human and the divine.

God is not a puppet master controlling what human beings do. It gave people free will, that is, the free choice of doing good or evil. Through the thousands of years of history, God revealed to humankind what he expected of human behavior. When people act in this manner, God is present in the transactions whether we are aware of it or not. For instance, Mother Theresa said she went through long periods when she did not feel the presence of God, but went on anyway doing what she knew God expected of her. She chose to do the right thing even though she did not necessarily feel God's response. She was the greatest saint of the twentieth century. People have free will and must choose every day between acts of good and evil. We cannot pin on God the choices that we freely make.

The most moving example of the recognition of free will came in 2015 at the seventieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War. The entire German government met in the Reichstag, in Berlin, for a most remarkable service that was telecast, such that no nation-state in history has ever conducted. In the name of the German people, they accepted responsibility for the War and for the Holocaust and all the death and destruction they meant. They said the German people as a group had freely chosen to do evil (not just following orders). They begged the forgiveness of the world and promised never to allow such again. Of course, Germany has tried to atone a little by giving billions of dollars to Israel. By admitting their evil deeds, accepting their guilt, confessing their wrongdoing, and atoning for their sins, Germany became the first nation in history to redeem itself from its dark past. Germany is now the premier nation-state of Europe.

This is something we Americans need to do with our original sin of slavery/racism. We have never come to terms with our own dark past, and until we do we cannot get beyond this evil. It is still too much with us. We should be like the Germans, accept our wrongdoing, admit it, ask forgiveness, and atone for it. This would be redemption from our sin.

So, in the schism in South Carolina, God is there. It is there for all the sides involved. I do not believe, however, that God could be pleased with the division of Christ's body that has happened, with the brokenness, the pain, the animosity, the legal warfare. I do not think these are things he wants for humankind, the greatest of creation. I think God expects compassion, love, healing, selfless giving, and peace. This is our job as Christians.

The problem in South Carolina is that both sides believe sincerely and firmly that they are doing what God would have them do and it is the other side causing the trouble. The independent diocese believes the Episcopal Church has been taken over by secular humanism and has abandoned true faith. The Church diocese believes the Lawrence side has no legitimate complaint. This is not the time to rehash the blame (besides I have written 300,000 words about this in my book, A History of the Episcopal Church Schism in South Carolina, and have nothing left to say about that). However, the schism was made by human beings who freely chose their actions. It was not an act of God.

This is the time for everyone to reflect on what one believes God wishes for the good people of South Carolina. Lent is a good time to do this. Be still and feel the presence of God and renew your intention to be God's agent in the world. God is just as much there in South Carolina as it has been throughout history, even in the darkest hour.


These are my thoughts about the question, Where is God in the schism?   What are your thoughts?  

BREAKING NEWS ---

THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH MOVES IN COURT TO REGAIN PROPERTIES

News has just arrived that the Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Church in South Carolina filed new papers today in the United States District Court, in Charleston. The major point in the papers apparently is that the Church is seeking to add the 28 parishes to the federal case, vonRosenberg v. Lawrence. These are the parishes that the SC supreme court recognized as under the trust control of TEC and TECSC. 

I will return momentarily with more information and analysis.


First comments:
I am in possession of two of today's court papers from the Episcopal Church side, an amended Complaint, and a memorandum in support.

As I read these on my first scan, it appears that TEC/TECSC are seeking to add the Corporation of the Trustees and the 28 parishes in question to the lawsuit (the 28 parishes the state supreme court recognized as under TEC/TECSC trust control). The Corporation of the Trustees is one of two corporations of the pre-schism diocese registered under state law (1-the Diocese and 2-the Trustees). The Trustees (Board of Trustees) are responsible for the properties and assets of the diocese. 

The Church charges:   "the Trustee Corporation and the 28 Trustee Parishes have committed serious breaches of trust they owe to The Episcopal Church and the Associated Diocese [TECSC] and have demonstrated their unfitness, unwillingness, and persistent failure to administer the trusts effectively." 

Therefore, TEC/TECSC asked the court to enforce their rights over the Corporation of the Trustees and the 28 parishes:  "Order the Trustee Corporation to remove from their board any persons who cannot demonstrate to this Court's satisfaction that they are capable of and willing to carry out their fiduciary obligations to the Associated Diocese, and replace them..." This would return the Board of Trustees to the Episcopal Church side.

Also, "Order the 28 Trustee Parishes to remove from their vestries any persons who cannot demonstrate to this Court's satisfaction that they are capable of and willing to carry out their fiduciary obligations to The Episcopal Church and the Associated Diocese, and replace them..." This would return the 28 parishes to the Episcopal Church diocesan control.

In other words, TEC/TECSC asked the federal court to enforce the Church's control over the diocesan properties and the 28 parishes. With this, the Church diocese would regain physical possession of the various properties.

Another bit of information in the papers reveals that the mediation has apparently completely broken down. The federal judge, Richard Gergel, lifted the stay in the federal case on Feb. 14. On Feb. 20, Bishop Lawrence asked the federal court to dismiss the Lanham Act claims against him. The Church lawyers are promising a reply. We are now awaiting the reply and the judge's response to Lawrence's motion to dismiss.

What these two papers boil down to, as I read them, is that the Episcopal Church diocese is asking the federal court to recognize its control of the diocesan properties and the 28 parishes as the way for the Church diocese to resume physical possession of the properties.

A HISTORY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH SCHISM IN SOUTH CAROLINA

My new book is now widely available in hardback, paperback, and online formats. You can buy it for as little as $10.!

I will admit the physical book is relatively expensive, at $50 up. In my defense, I had nothing to do with the pricing. That was set by the publisher. But, I can tell you this is not a money-making project for me. Even if it were a bestseller, I could never recover the costs of four years' work on the book. My goal in writing this book was not for money or career advancement. I am comfortably retired. It was to contribute much-needed information and understanding to people about whom I care and to leave a record for posterity of an important event in church history. I am only a lifetime historian doing my job as long as I can.

One need not spend a lot for the book. Amazon has just released it on Kindle for $9.99. What is more, Amazon offers a free app that can be downloaded onto a smart phone, tablet, or computer. With the app, one can then download the book onto these devices. One does not need to have a Kindle reader to read the electronic form of the book. So, you can read the book for around 10 dollars on your Kindle, phone, computer, or other electronic device connected to the Internet.

If you want to get a good understanding of the book before putting out your money for it, the best approach is to go to Google Books. There you will find 112 pages freely available for you to read on your computer. The link is here .

If you want to see and/or buy the physical book in person without having to interact with a computer, you can do so at Grace Church Cathedral's bookstore, Gifts of Grace. Find their info here . My friend Jan does a great job there.

The book can be easily ordered from the Internet. Here are some sources (a Google search may lead to others):

---Wipf and Stock.

The publisher is offering the paperback at $49.60, a discount from the $62 list price. Find their site here .

---Amazon.

Amazon is offering the hardback at $75.81, the paperback at $55.35, and the Kindle form at $9.99. It lists new and used copies available from various vendors. As I said above, Amazon is offering a free app by which you can download the book onto a device using the Internet. One does not have a have a Kindle reader for this.

---Barnes and Noble is selling the book online in three formats: paperback, $62.00, hardback, $85.00, and Nook Book, $21.99. See their order page here . 

---Target.

Target is offering the hardback at $85.67. One may order it here .

---Cokesbury.

Cokesbury is offering the paperback at $54.99. Find it here .

In Canada---

Indigo is advertising the paperback at $80.95. The link is here .

In Australia---

QBD Books. Find the book here .

Booktopia. The link is here .

This book comes at a timely moment in the ongoing saga of the schism in South Carolina. I appears to me that, for all intents and purposes, the decision of the settlement between the two sides of the schism has been determined. The South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled, twice and finally, that the Episcopal Church has control over 29 of the 36 parishes in question plus camp St. Christopher. The independent diocese has given de facto recognition of this in their Nov. 19 lawsuit against TEC/TECSC filed as "Complaint." The claim for repayment presumes the properties are not owned by the DSC occupants.

DSC has also said it will appeal the SCSC decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. There is only a minuscule chance SCOTUS will take it. I think DSC is only buying time and dragging out the inevitable end as long as possible. 

Thus, the 13,000 communicants in the 29 parishes will almost certainly face hard choices, staying with the buildings and returning to TEC, or leaving the buildings and forming new congregations aligned with the breakaway diocese. My heart goes out to these faithful people. They put their trust in leaders who failed to deliver on the lofty (and obviously unrealistic) claims they made to their followers. A hard truth that has come to light is that one should not place full confidence in leaders. Now thousands of innocent people are left in the lurch. My recommendation to these 13,000 is to absorb all the information you can about how you got into the situation you are in. I think (of course) my new history of the schism is a helpful starting place. It is long, detailed, balanced, and  painstakingly documented. Once you have gained knowledge of what has happened in your churches, then you should make your own decisions on what to do next. Religion always boils down to a personal decision; and that is what we have here.

So, I say to the 13,000, my prayers and best wishes go out to you. I know many of you read this blog. It has had 67,000 hits since the SCSC decision of August 2. One source lists this blog as # 23 among the top 50 Episcopalian websites (find it here ). In addition, I get e-mails from DSC communicants.

I would not presume to tell you good people of DSC what to do. All I can do is encourage you to take a good and hard look at your situation and learn all you can about how this came about. Be open minded. Then, make your own decisions about where to go from there. Some of you will return home to the Episcopal Church. Some of your will decide you should go with the independent diocese. That is your choice. That is what freedom of religion is all about. You, and you alone should decide.

One final note---I have given several talks to church groups on the history of the schism. These have been well received even though I am not a natural orator. I am available to talk on this topic in churches and other venues. If you would like for me to make a presentation and/or lead a discussion on the history of the schism in SC, contact me by my e-mail given above. I will consider making arrangements.   

BREAKING NEWS ---

SUPREME COURT REQUESTS RESPONSE FROM THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH SIDE

On today, February 27, the U.S. Supreme Court requested a response from the Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Church in South Carolina. The response would be a counter argument to the Feb. 9 petition from the Diocese of South Carolina to the court. TEC and TECSC had originally waived a response to DSC's petition in order to expedite the case.

The court's deadline for the response is March 29, 2018.

The information of this case is on the Supreme Court website. Find it here .

 Presumably this will mean the conference that the court had set for Mar. 16 will be delayed; however the court website is still listing the conference date as Mar. 16.

This is all the information I have at the moment. I will return when I have more to share.

A response does not necessarily mean anything one way or another. It just means the justices want more information from the opposing side. This happened in the Ft. Worth case. In that incident, the Church side petitioned the court for cert. The independent diocese of Ft. Worth waived its right to file a response whereupon the court requested a response. Ft. Worth did make a response and soon thereafter the court denied the Church's petition for cert. Thus, a response is not necessarily a precursor of the decision to come. 

THE FINANCIAL TROUBLES 

OF THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

S.C. Episcopalians has alerted us to the financial problems of the Diocese of South Carolina. See scepiscopalians.com, "Annual Meeting of Former Breakaway Parishes Promises Headaches and Delusion," Feb. 22. DSC has posted its new diocesan budget online. Find it here . DSC has also posted the parishes' "2017-2018 Pledge Report"; find it here . Both of these documents tell us a great deal about the financial health of the diocese and its local churches.

Let's begin with the diocese. In 2018, DSC is listing an income of $1,998,483. Income has steadily declined, from $2,258,311 in 2016, and $2,102,851 in 2017. This is a fall of $259,828, or 12%, in the two years of 2016-2018. Expenditures have moved from $2,245,858 in 2016, to $1,959,851 in 2018, a drop of 13%.

There are numerous cutbacks in the budget in many areas. A glaring one is the zeroing out of Camp St. Christopher, which everyone knows the SC supreme court said remains with the Episcopal Church. 

Three areas that certainly were not hit were the bishop's income, the Anglican Church in North America, and legal costs. Bishop Lawrence continues to enjoy generous support from the diocese. His direct compensation package is $210,055. He lives virtually rent free ($1/yr) in the diocesan-owned bishop's residence on Smith Street. That place is valued at between $1.5 and 2.5m. The expected monthly rent would be around $10,000. Combining his compensation and his housing, his annual income from the diocese amounts to around a third of a million dollars. (One should bear in mind he is eligible to draw retirement from the Episcopal Church retirement system. It is possible he also draws Social Security income.) Lawrence's assistant, the Rev. Jim Lewis, is also well-paid at a package of $126,639/yr.

DSC is also contributing to the Anglican Church in North America a whopping $196,848. This amounts to 10% of the diocesan budget. To put this in perspective, DSC gave the Episcopal Church $35,741 in 2010, $23,377 in 2011, and $14,924 in 2012. The last contribution, in 2012, amounted to .07% of the diocesan budget. Thus, DSC is paying ACNA 14 times as much as it last paid TEC. 

Legal fees are another matter. In 2017, DSC budgeted $50,000 for legal costs but wound up paying $298,044. And, this was just for one year. Multiply this for many years and one sees why the lawyers would want to keep litigation going. This year, 2018, DSC is budgeting $200,000, again unreasonably low considering the three avenues of litigation now underway (appeal to SCOTUS, lawsuit in circuit court, and the federal court case). This is lining up to be a very expensive year legally speaking. (A document I obtained from a DSC parish revealed that DSC expects to spend $300,000-350,000 on the SCOTUS appeal.)

Putting this in a broader perspective, the DSC budget of 2008, the year Lawrence began his episcopacy, was $2,995,289. The DSC budget for 2018 is $1,998,483. This is a decline of nearly a million dollars, or 33% in the ten years. (Membership decline is even sharper but that will be the subject of another blog post.)

Bottom line---the financial state of the DSC is not good and is getting worse. Income is going down steadily. Many programs have been cut or eliminated. Apparently, DSC has stopped drawing from endowment accounts. Yet, expenses are going up.

The overall financial condition of the parishes is no better as revealed in the "2017-2018 Pledge Report." 54 local churches were listed, each with its "NDBI" (Net Disposable Budget Income). Of the 54, 18 failed to submit reports. Another 6 showed no change in income. 12 churches reported increases in income between 2017 and (projected) 2018 for a total gain of $439,466. The largest gain was at the Church of the Cross, of Bluffton, at $100,000. Our Saviour on Johns Island and St. Paul's of Summerville also reported sizeable gains.

While 12 DSC local churches showed increases, 18 reported decreases in income for a total of $957,849. The gain of $439,466 subtracted from the loss of $957,849 leaves a net loss among the 54 churches of $518,383, or a net decrease of 30% in one year (2017-18). By far the most critical loss was at St. Michael's of Charleston. Its income dropped by a staggering amount of $400,000, or 19% (in one year!). (It should be no surprise that Kendall Harmon and Al Zadig have scheduled a three-week campaign in St. Michael's next month, but that will be the subject for another day.) Other serious drops in income came at Holy Cross of Sullivans Island (-$91,192, or 5%), Holy Comforter of Sumter (-$80,350, or -12%), and St. Johns of Johns Island (-$54,650, ot -7%). Bear in mind these are changes in only one year. 

Altogether, the total NDBI of the 54 DSC churches moved from $25,498,658 in 2017, to $23,487,425 in 2018. This is a drop of $2,011,233 or -8% for the one year of 2017-18.

Thus, to summarize, on the diocesan level, DSC's income fell by 5% in the one year between 2017 and 2018 (12% for the two years of 2016-18). On the parish level, total income of the 54 local churches declined by 8% in the year.

DSC's long term outlook is dismal, to say the least, on many levels. The state supreme court has already ruled that 29 of the 36 parishes that purported to have left the Episcopal Church really had not. DSC's chance of reversing this in the U.S. Supreme Court is about the same as the proverbial snowball's. Their chance in the federal court case in Charleston is about the same. Yet, with income going downhill, their expenses are only escalating. Since the bishop's income, contributions to ACNA, and legal costs seem to be off the table, everything else in DSC will be decreased.

What is causing the decline in the financial state of the DSC? Good question that we cannot answer now. We know there has been a serious decline in membership. Since Lawrence became bishop, DSC has lost 44% of the number of its communicants. But, I imagine there is more involved here. I know there is lawsuit fatigue among the membership, and I suspect there is a flagging confidence in the diocesan leadership following the legal reverses.

The tragic irony of all of this should be evident to everyone. For years, the DSC leaders had their followers believe God was on their side and "orthodoxy" would mean health and growth. It is hard to maintain any such fiction now.  

ANNOUNCEMENTS
with Update

Feb. 23:     The Rev. Jim Lewis, assistant to Bishop Lawrence, sent an email today (Feb. 23) to the Diocese of South Carolina clergy and wardens announcing that the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled a conference on DSC's petition to the court, on March 16. I do not know yet whether the Episcopal Church and the Church diocese have filed a response to the DSC petition with the court. I will return when I have more on this.

______________________________________

UPDATE (Feb. 24):  

The Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Church in South Carolina momentarily waived the right to respond to the Feb. 9 DSC petition for cert in SCOTUS on Feb. 13 and 14. TEC/TECSC could return in the future and file a response. I assume TEC/TECSC did this to expedite the process. Filing a response would have delayed the court's action on this matter by weeks or months. Waiving a response occurred in the Ft. Worth case when the Church side appealed to SCOTUS and the independent diocese of Ft. Worth opted not to file a response in the interest of speeding up the process which they believed would lead to dismissal of the petition for cert. In that case, the court asked the independent diocese to file a response which it did. After that, SCOTUS denied cert ending the matter.

The Church side's choice of no response to the DSC petition of Feb. 9, 2018, tells me the Church lawyers expect SCOTUS to dismiss the appeal right away.

On Feb. 21, DSC's petition was distributed to the justices in preparation of a conference on Mar. 16.

SCOTUS releases the results of conference decisions on the Monday following the week in which the conference occurred.
Therefore, we should know the decision at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, March 19.

See the official listing of the case on the Supreme Court website here . The case Number is 17-1136.

What is a Supreme Court "conference"? These are normally held twice a week during the court term (October-June), on Wednesday and Friday afternoons. Only the nine justices are allowed in the room. Their first order of business is to discuss the appeals for "certiorari." Four of the nine justices must vote to approve the acceptance of an appeal, that is to grant "cert." Granting or denying cert has no relationship to their opinions of the case. The choice to accept a case depends on the justices' attitude of the importance of the constitutional issues at hand. It is not a reflection of how they will judge the case. The justices then go on in conference to vote on the cases they have heard in oral arguments during the week. The decisions are usually announced the following Monday. For more on the court process see here . For more on a writ of certiorari, see here .

Thus, on Mar. 16, we can expect that the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will either grant or deny "cert," that is, they will accept the appeal from DSC or reject it. If they accept, the case will be put on the court docket for an oral hearing, after which the justices will render a decision by majority vote. If they deny, that is the end of the matter. The South Carolina Supreme Court decision of Aug. 2 will stand as the final word on the matter. In this, the court ruled that 29 of the 36 parishes in question, plus Camp St. Christopher, remained under trust control of the Episcopal Church. This decision is not on stay, meaning that the Church lawyers could move to enact the decision and reclaim the properties of the 29 parishes and the Camp.

So, what will SCOTUS decide? One factor to consider is that the court accepts only about 1% of all appeals. The most important factor is whether the justices see the issue in the case as of urgent national or constitutional importance. Odds are that SCOTUS will deny cert. As I see it, the best hope DSC has of acceptance is that the court would want to clarify its "neutral principles" guideline, that is, to differentiate between their earlier Jones and Serbian Orthodox decisions. 

Bottom line. I doubt seriously that SCOTUS will take this case mainly because of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that strictly forbids the civic state from interfering in the matters of a religious institution. The Supreme Court will be loath to take on this sacrosanct bedrock principle of American life. Time and again, the court has rejected appeals from Episcopal Church cases involving property. I expect they will do the same again next month.  
 ______________________________________

On another note, DSC is stepping up its demonization of the Episcopal Church, no doubt in preparation for the enactment of the Dec. 1, 2017 Plan of relocation of congregations to new quarters. In this case, the Rev. Al Zadig, of St. Michael's, and the Rev. Kendall Harmon, canon theologian have scheduled three sessions at St. Michael's but we are told this is "not about politics and sexuality." Really? Read the schedule here . Sounds as if it's nothing but politics and sexuality.

I will return when I have more information on the SCOTUS events.