NOTES --- APRIL 8, 2019

It has been ten days since my last posting here. That is because there has been nothing to post, unless one wants to see yet more pictures of my garden. So, this is a good moment to stop and take stock of where we are in the schism.

Waiting. That is the name of the game in the litigation. In the six and a half years since the split of Oct. 2012, we have spent most of our time just waiting on the courts to act. That is where we are now, still waiting.

The strategies of the two sides are clear. The Church side wants implementation while the independent side employs deny and delay. Odds are in favor of the Church side, but the other party can drag this out for a long time to come. They cannot prevent the final settlement in the Church's favor, but they can delay the inevitable. Actually, this is not a bad strategy on their part because it gives them time to harden their identity as a separate religious entity in opposition to the supposedly heretical Episcopal Church. This is the tactic the DSC leaders have been using, to considerable effect, since the SCSC remitted their decision to the circuit court.

In the state courts, the Episcopal Church side has petitioned the South Carolina Supreme Court to order the circuit court to implement the SCSC decision of 2 August 2017. That decision ruled that 29 of the 36 parishes in question plus Camp St. Christopher belong to the Episcopal Church. Here, a year and a half since the SCSC decision, it has still not been put into effect. This is because the circuit judge, Edgar Dickson, sees the decision as unclear. In fact, it is very clear. The TEC/TECSC lawyers have grown tired of Dickson's 14-month dithering. They are taking the highly unusual step of asking the state high court to order Dickson to do his job.

The next step will be for the independent Diocese of South Carolina lawyers to file a counter-argument with the SCSC. That will probably occur this week, unless the lawyers get an extension. We can all take a safe guess at what the DSC lawyers will say: there are five separate opinions, there is no unity, the Aug 2 SCSC decision is unenforceable. Their obvious goal is to get the circuit court, or the SCSC, to re-try the case and render a decision favorable to DSC. 

In my view, it is highly unlikely the SCSC will rule in favor of DSC. The court gave a majority opinion on Aug. 2, 2017. To preserve the integrity and authority of the state high court, the SCSC must defend its earlier ruling. A bedrock principle of American jurisprudence is that the same case cannot be retried once a decision has been made and ordered. The same question(s) can be reconsidered, but not the same case. Bottom line---it is unimaginable that the SCSC would discard and reverse a final opinion that it has made and remitted to the lower court for implementation.

Thus, next we should get the DSC lawyers' counter-petition to the SCSC. Then, the justices of the SCSC will respond to TEC/TECSC's request for a Writ of Mandamus. I expect they will grant the Writ.

In the federal court, we are awaiting Judge Richard Gergel's action. Either he will hand down a judgment himself or will schedule a trial. He has set the date of May 1, 2019, or after, as the time for a trial. I would not be surprised if Gergel should make a ruling on his own, perhaps before then. Both sides have asked for such.

On another subject, the independent diocese recently held its annual meeting under the theme of "The Art of Neighboring." Seriously. Do these people have no sense of irony? Really. They caused a massive break in the church in South Carolina specifically to keep gay and lesbian people from being given equality and inclusion in the church and to keep women from having offices of authority in the church. This is good neighboring? This is loving your neighbor? I don't think so. Turns out, what they meant by "neighboring" was evangelism, or bringing new people into their churches. 

Now, "neighboring" in this context actually makes sense for DSC. As statistics show, the DSC experiment in schism has been a disaster. Their own statistics show that DSC has lost a third of its members since the schism of 2012. Here are the communicant numbers as reported in the DSC annual journals:  

2011 --- 21,993 communicants

2013 --- 17,798      "

2014 --- 16,351      "

2015 --- 15,556      "

2016 --- 14,694      "

Note that DSC has lost members every year since the schism. Overall, the diocese has lost nearly half its members since Mark Lawrence became bishop in 2008, from 27,670 communicants in 2008 to 14,694 in 2016. DSC has refused to release any membership statistics since 2016. I think we can all figure out the reason for that.

Financially, DSC is also in trouble. The litigation is bankrupting them. In 2018, the DSC budget held a deficit of $495,289 out of $2,158,866. In 2019, the DSC budget listed "Legal fees" at $788,520 out of a budget of $2,551,000. 

The long-term viability of the independent diocese is very much in question. Once the dust settles in the courts, it will have six parishes, perhaps a few missions, and lots of debt. It will lose the bulk of the parishes it now occupies as well as the entity of the pre-schism diocese that it also now occupies. If DSC is having troubles surviving now, just wait until the state and federal court judges finally rule. My best guess is that the remnant of the breakaway diocese will merge into the ACNA Diocese of the Carolinas, now under Bishop Steve Wood, rector of St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant. If so, the experiment of the schism in South Carolina will have been proved to be a crushing failure. But then, one must bear in mind that the original aim of the "Anglican Realignment" movement in the 1990's was to destroy or greatly diminish the Episcopal Church as a "liberal" force in American life. In that regard, we will have to give the DSC schismatics a certain amount of credit. The damage they will have done in South Carolina, one of the nine original dioceses, will have been remarkable. 

If the communicants of DSC want to know the real art of neighboring, they should read Presiding Bishop Michael Curry's book, The Power of Love. "Love is the way. Love is the only way" he writes. Embracing our neighbors as ourselves means no qualification; no exclusion of gays; no subjugation of women. This is the Jesus Movement.

Moreover, interestingly enough, we have a presidential candidate who personifies this movement. He is Pete Buttigieg, the 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana. When he announced, he was such a dark horse that everyone said, "Pete who?" Now, he is a phenom drawing huge crowds and a great deal of interest, even in South Carolina. He is definitely one to watch in the crowded field of candidates. 

Pete Buttigieg describes himself as a "devout Episcopalian." He was reared as a Roman Catholic and was drawn to Anglicanism while studying at Oxford. He is overtly religious. He also happens to be married to a man; and, this makes him the first openly homosexual person to be a serious candidate for president of the United States. He has testified that his sexuality has brought him closer to God. Find numerous clips on YouTube in which Buttigieg discusses his faith. If the people of DSC want to know about the art of neighboring, I suggest they listen to what Buttigieg has to say. Too, everyone should read conservative NY Times columnist David Brooks's April 1 opinion piece. Find it here .

Meanwhile, I hope you are enjoying this glorious springtime. I will post only one new picture of my garden. Many plants are in full bloom now, but none begins to rival the present star of the garden, "Snowball," which is about to engulf the sabal minor. This Snowball is full grown at about 15 feet. On far left is a dwarf apple tree in full bloom. 

In church yesterday, we sang hymn 398, "I Sing the Almighty Power of God," words of Isaac Watts. It has this line:

There's not a plant or flower below, but makes thy glories known.

At the moment, none is doing this better in my garden than Viburnum plicatum, aka Japanese Snowball. 

THE FRIDAY GARDEN WALK

It is Friday, again, the last of March. It is time for a leisurely stroll around my garden to enjoy the beauty of God's creation in this glorious springtime we are enjoying in the south. It has been warm and wet of late and this has brought out all the plants at once. Let us walk around my garden as it appears in this, the last week of March. Click on image for enlargement.

White flowering chocolate vine (Akebia quinata 'Alba'). An excellent vine for a trellis in a sunny place. This one is in full bloom with small white flowers. Very aromatic, said to smell of chocolate, hence the common name..

The chocolate vine up close. A sweet aroma (does not smell of chocolate to me) fills up a section of the garden.

"Adams" crabapple tree (Malus 'Adams'). Dark pink flowers against the blue sky. This is a good choice for a flowering fruit tree. Grows to 20'. The large tree is sweet gum, the bane of my existence and soon to be gone entirely from my garden. I have removed most of them.

Variegated Solomon's seal (Polygonatum odorantum 'Variegata'). Good perennial for a moist shady spot. Small white, aromatic blooms.

 Japanese kerria (Kerria japonica "Pleniflora'). Fills this corner of the garden with small, bright yellow flowers in early spring and summer.

Yellow bush is Abelia "Francis Mason," an excellent shrub. The evergreen on left is Spartan juniper. The palm is Windmill palm.

Japanese snowball (Viburnum plicatum 'Sterile'). This shrub is full grown at 20'x20'. At this time of the year it is always covered with hundreds of "snowballs" making it the spectacular star of the garden. 

 Yoshino Japanese Cedar (Cryptomeria japonica 'Yoshino'). These are about full grown at 40'x20'. They make an excellent screen near the street to give privacy to the garden. In the foreground are loropetalum shrubs. Loropetalum is commonly used in southern landscapes, for good reason.

 Camellia "Emmett Barnes." Owing to the warm and wet winter, the camellias have flourished in my garden as never before and just do not want to quit blooming. Emmett Barnes is a small bush that blooms prolifically with pure white flowers, an unusual but worthwhile choice for a camellia.

I hope you enjoyed our little walk around my garden. And, I hope you are enjoying being out in this glorious springtime as much as I am. Whatever woes one may have in life, and we all have them, they are on the micro level. Getting outside and into nature one becomes immersed in life on the macro level. One realizes he or she is part of something far greater than oneself, a creation of boundless beauty, order, and wonder that could only have been made by a force infinitely greater than ourselves. A garden may not make one's woes go away, but it will make them easier to bear. Enjoy the spring. It is my favorite season of the year; and I hope it is yours too.


_____________________________
OTHER NOTES.

As many of you know now, Bishop Skip Adams's wife, Bonnie, was recently diagnosed with Grade 1 breast cancer. She is to have surgery in Syracuse next Wednesday. Afterwards, she is to have radiation in Charleston. Please join me in prayers for Bonnie Adams's full and speedy recovery. 

The Rev. Dr. William (Roy) L. Hills has published the second volume of his church stories:  Divine Glimpses, Church Stories Volume II. Volumes I and II are available on Amazon. Vol. I was a delightful collections of vignettes of parish life to which we can all relate. I am sure Vol. II will be an equally worthwhile read.

WHATEVER NEXT?

As a bad amusement park ride, the wild twists and turns of the litigation since the schism have left us all with whip lash, six years worth. Today, we are all wondering, with some trepidation, whatever next?  

I had planned to expand my history of the schism to include the whole course of the litigation, once everything was resolved. I was going to condense the part (300,000 words) I have already published and add on the rest of the litigation (post August 2, 2017) and publish it as a revised and expanded edition of my history of the schism. However, I have collected such a huge mass of material since the book that I may have to just go to Volume II. What is more, I am meticulously documenting each item because when I turn in my new manuscript, my editor may accuse me of making it all up and refuse publication. He may say it is just too fantastic for people to believe. Sometimes I wonder about that myself. This is one of those times.

This mad-cap non-comedy of errors would be funny if it were not so sad and tragic. It is anything but humorous. 

Our present concern is focused on the state courts. Circuit court judge Edgar Dickson suddenly announced on March 19 that he would hold a hearing on Wednesday, March 27. The hearing was to entertain arguments on the breakaway diocese's (DSC) suit for "Betterments." He did this in spite of the fact he had told the hearing of November 19, 2018 (I was there) that he was considering only one motion, DSC's petition for clarification of jurisdiction. The annoucement on the 19th of March meant one week's notice for the lawyers to prepare whatever written and oral arguments they could on Betterments, something they had been told was off the table for the time being. On the next day, March 20, the Church lawyers announced they were filing with the South Carolina Supreme Court, a petition for a Writ of Mandamus (I doubt there was any connection between the Mar. 19 notice of a hearing on the 27th and the petition on the 20th since the petition would have been prepared well beforehand). The petition asked the SCSC to order Judge Dickson to implement the SCSC decision of August 2, 2017. Then, suddenly on Tuesday, March 26, Dickson declared he had cancelled the hearing of the 27th on Betterments. Can you keep this straight? My head is spinning too.

So, what next? According to the SC Judicial Code, the DSC lawyers have twenty days to file a response with the SCSC. Find Rule 245 here  . I figure twenty days means the DSC lawyers have to file by the 9th of April. 

How will the SCSC handle this petition and reply? Rule 240 gives us the details. Find it here . It says, "Unless otherwise ordered by the court, motions or petitions shall be decided without oral argument" (240, h). This means the SCSC will probably rule on TEC/TECSC's petition without holding a hearing on it. 

Can one judge grant or deny the petition? Yes. "Except where these rules require the concurrence of two or more members of an appellate court, an individual judge or justice may grant or deny any motion or petition on behalf of the court. Any review of an order issued by an individual judge or justice shall be by petition for rehearing" (240, j). I interpret this to mean that one SCSC justice could issue a grant or a denial but this could be challenged in a petition to the court for a rehearing. It is hard to imagine that one justice would go off on a limb and take action without support of the other justices. My guess is that the justices will consider both TEC/TECSC's petition for action and DSC's response, then make a majority opinion on a response. 

What are the chances SCSC will grant TEC/TECSC's petition and order Dickson to implement its Aug 2, 2017 decision? The only appropriate SCSC decision I could locate was The City of Rock Hill v. Michael Dean Thompson. Find it here . This was a decision of the SCSC on February 11, 2002. In this case, the City of Rock Hill had petitioned the SCSC for a Writ of Mandamus ordering a municipal judge to apply a certain law. As I read this as it may apply now to Dickson, TEC/TECSC has to establish that Dickson has a "ministerial duty" to implement the SCSC Aug. 2 decision. In the Rock Hill case, the SCSC said the judge had discretion on how he could apply the law in question and therefore the SCSC could not order him to act in any certain way. Thus, the SCSC denied the City's petition for a Writ of Mandamus. 

The question, then, becomes does Dickson have "ministerial duty" and "discretion" in how he can respond to the SCSC decision of August 2, 2017? In my view, he does have ministerial duty and does not have discretion on how he does that. The SCSC clearly listed three majority decisions on the last page of its Aug. 2 decision. On November 17, 2017, the SCSC sent this letter to the circuit court in Dorchester County:  "The above referenced matter is hereby remitted to the lower court or tribunal. A copy of the judgment of this Court is enclosed." The operative word was "remitted." This meant it was sent back to the lower court that had tried the case in order the for that court to carry out the decisions of the SCSC. (A "remand" to the lower court would have meant the lower court could reconsider the case.) "Remitted" meant that Dickson had no discretion as to the SCSC decision. I would conclude that the Rock Hill case does not apply to the Church case and that the SCSC must see the judge as bound to act without discretion. This is his "ministerial duty." 

So, what happens now? First, we have to wait for the DSC lawyers to present their counter-claim to the SCSC. After that, I rather doubt that the SCSC justices will take very long to act on this matter. I doubt too there will be a hearing on this. I expect the justices to issue a written decision without listening to oral arguments. It is reasonable to conclude that the SCSC will order Dickson to implement its Aug. 2 decision.

As I see it, Dickson has two viable options now. In one, he could proceed and order an implementation of the Aug. 2 decision. He could do this at any time, and on his own. He does not have to hold another hearing. Doing this would save him from the humiliation of a Writ from the high court being served on him, something that is rare. In other words, he could act and render TEC/TECSC's petition moot. In another option, he could wait and see if the SCSC will grant or deny TEC/TECSC's petition for a Writ. This would be a risky gamble. It is possible that the SCSC will deny the petition although, in my view, this is unlikely. If the SCSC does grant the petition and issues a Writ, it will order Dickson to implement this decision. In a way, this would work to his benefit since it would free him from trying to pick apart the thorny issues involved in this case as he seems to be trying to do at the moment. This would take a lot of responsibility off his shoulders. If the SCSC denies the petition, he will be left where he is now.

Given the way Dickson has handled this case so far, I rather doubt he will proceed with the first option. I suspect we will have to wait for the SCSC to respond. If they grant, he will be ordered to implement. If they deny, he will go on grappling with the six motions/petitions before him and we can expect the wild ride to continue. 

As they say, "Ya can't make this stuff up."

NEWS FLASH,

HEARING CANCELLED

10:45 a.m.

Word just arrived from Judge Edgar Dickson's clerk that the hearing Dickson had scheduled for tomorrow has been cancelled and will be rescheduled at some future time. The clerk said he had not received confirmation of the date and time from a majority of the lawyers involved. No other information was offered.

I will return as more information about this strange twist becomes available. 

Ron Caldwell

25 MARCH --- NOTES

FLORENCE, SC. 25 March. 
I attended the memorial service for Dolores Miller on last Saturday. It was a beautiful and moving remembrance for a remarkable person. The Church was overflowing with her many friends who came from far and wide.

I expect to attend the court hearing on Wednesday, the 27th, in Orangeburg SC and will make a report here as soon as possible afterwards, probably by noon. 

There are two legal matters at hand now. The first is the hearing on Wed. Just last week, Judge Edgar Dickson suddenly announced he would hold a hearing in his courtroom on three motions before him:   1---the breakaway diocesan (DSC) suit on Betterments, 2---the DSC motion for complex case, and 3---the Church (TEC/TECSC) motion to dismiss DSC's Betterments suit. He set the date as March 27.

In the Betterments suit, the DSC lawyers are asking TEC for reimbursement for the improvements made on the properties of the 29 parishes in question. Betterments assumes TEC owns the properties. DSC argued in the last hearing that TEC does not own the properties of the 29 parishes. It will be interesting to see how the DSC lawyers argue opposite points.

The second legal matter at hand is TEC/TECSC's petition to the SC Supreme Court for a Writ of Mandamus. (See blog piece of 21 March). Apparently, there was no connection in the timing of these two events. It was coincidental that they occurred a few days apart.

DSC has published a response to TEC/TECSC's petition for Mandamus. It is a note from the Rev. Jim Lewis and may be found at www.kendallharmon.net . DSC is trying to dismiss the significance of it. Such an effort will not work. This petition is highly significant.

In fact, the petition is the deciding point in the whole, long matter of the ownership of the 29 parishes. How the SCSC responds to the petition will determine the outcome of this issue. It is anything but insignificant.

One question I have about the petition is whether one justice can issue a Writ of Mandamus; or, would it require a majority of the justices? I have asked numerous lawyers. No one knows for sure but the unanimous opinion was that even if one justice could issue it, he would have to have the support of the majority.  One should remember that Justice Kaye Hearn is recused in this matter.

This leaves four justices to consider the petition for the Writ. Chief Justice Donald Beatty was the "swing" vote that gave the majority to the Church side in the SCSC decision of Aug. 2  2017. Justice Kittredge voted against the church even though he recognized the authority of the Dennis Canon. There are two new justices on the SCSC bench. Their positions are unknown.

In my opinion, how the SCSC responds to the petition will depend on how the four justices regard this case, as fundamentally a judicial or social issue. If judicial, they will assert the authority of the SCSC over the state courts and will order Dickson to implement the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017. This will reinforce the integrity and authority of the SCSC and the whole state court system.

If the four justices see this whole matter before them as primarily a social issue, they may respond differently. Social conservatives generally oppose equality for and social inclusion of open homosexuals and women. This was the direct cause of the Episcopal Church schism in South Carolina. The breakaway diocese's raison d'etre is to reject and oppose equality for and inclusion of open homosexuals in the church and to keep women from offices of authority in the church. If the four justices decide that they have to support this socially conservative stance, they may decide to reject TEC/TECSC's petition as a way of overturning the Aug. 2, 2017 decision. If so, they would be allowing Dickson to side with DSC and to overturn the SCSC ruling of Aug. 2, 2017. This, however would be setting a very dangerous precedent, something they should understand.

So, it seems to me it boils down to whether the four justices see the overriding issue at hand as judicial stability or social stability. At this point, there is no way to know how they will lean. We will just have to wait and see. Of course, it is possible that Dickson could suddenly rule on his own and order the implementation of the SCSC decision. This would save face.

One should bear in mind that judges and justices in the state courts of South Carolina are all elected by the state legislature. This means all judges/justices are in some sense political appointees. As everyone knows, SC is a conservative state with a solid conservative Republican majority in the legislature and state government. To be sure, no one should project this ahead because the state supreme court, much to my surprise, actually came down on the side of the "liberal" Episcopal Church. It could happen again.

I expect to return on mid-day Wednesday with a report on the hearing, unless, of course the hearing is postponed or cancelled. 

Ron Caldwell

EPISCOPAL CHURCH PETITIONS 

SC SUPREME COURT 

TO ENFORCE THE LAW

Yesterday, March 20, 2019, the Episcopal Church and its local diocese, the Episcopal Church in South Carolina, filed in the South Carolina Supreme Court "Petition for Writ of Mandamus." Find it here . Find the diocesan news release about the filing here . The petition is a remarkable document, and one of the most important in all the six-plus years of litigation since the schism. It deserves much consideration. 

I  must begin with these caveats: I am not a lawyer or legal expert; I am not an official of any diocese and speak only for myself; and what I offer here is only opinion. These things being said, here are my thoughts about yesterday's action.

WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY?

First, what is a "writ of mandamus"? Simply put, it is an order from a superior official or body to a lower official or body to carry out the law. 

In this case, TEC/TECSC lawyers are asking the South Carolina Supreme Court to order Judge Edgar Dickson to implement the SCSC decision of August 2, 2017. On the face of it, that is the simple and entire point of yesterday's filing. It is uncomplicated. The lawyers wrote on p. 19:

"Petitioners [TEC/TECSC] seek a Writ of Mandamus directing the Dorchester County Circuit Court, to which the underlying action has been remitted, to enforce the mandate of this Court by effecting the transfer of possession and control of the diocesan property and the property of 29 of the parishes at issue..."

Under SC law, a writ must meet four requirements. The lawyers argued at length in their paper that these were abundantly satisfied in this case.

WHY DID THE TEC/TECSC LAWYERS TAKE THIS ACTION?

They took this action for two reasons: Judge Edgar Dickson has failed to take any measure to enforce the SCSC decision of August 2, 2017, and Dickson is indicating that he is going to re-litigate the issues already settled by the SCSC.

WHAT WAS THE AIM OF YESTERDAY'S PETITION?

The aim is to have the South Carolina Supreme Court order the circuit court (Dickson) to implement the SCSC decision of August 2, 2017.

WAS THE SCSC DECISION OF AUGUST 2, 2017 FINAL?

Yes, it was final. Three factors made it final:  1-the SCSC denied DSC's motion for a rehearing on Nov. 17, 2017; 2-the SCSC remitted its Aug. 2 decision to the circuit court on Nov. 17, 2017; 3-the United States Supreme Court denied an appeal of the SCSC decision, on June 11, 2018. Under the established rules of jurisprudence, a final supreme court decision is the law of the land; it cannot be ignored or altered. A lower court does not have the right to re-litigate the same case.

WHAT WAS THE SCSC DECISION OF AUGUST 2, 2017?

Here is the decision. This is the last page (p. 77) of the decision (click on image for enlargement):

WHY HAS JUDGE DICKSON NOT IMPLEMENTED THE SCSC DECISION?

I wish I knew. This is the great mystery of the day.

There are three areas of concern about Dickson:

1---The SCSC remitted its decision to the circuit court Nov. 17, 2017. A "remit" is an order to carry out a decision (a "remand" is an order to reconsider the case). In January of 2018, Dickson was assigned the case. Time and again, he gathered written arguments from both sides (I counted 23 papers). Finally, eleven months after his assignment, he held a court hearing, on Nov. 19, 2018, to listen to the oral versions of the same written arguments he had before him. He did not issue any decision. This meant no action for fourteen months.

It is true that Dickson had six petitions/motions before him for his consideration. However, in the hearing of Nov. 19, which I attended, he said he was dealing first with only one, the DSC request for clarification. He indicated he would address the rest at some later time.

As I understood him, Dickson indicated in the hearing that the SCSC decision was unclear, lacked direction to him, and was open to (his) interpretation. In fact, as we have seen above, the SCSC was perfectly clear in its order. It specified three directions. It seemed to me that the SCSC decision was clear, was a direct order, and was final. I could not understand why Dickson held a different view. I still do not.

2---Dickson said in the hearing that he would send emails to the two sets of lawyers with questions he wanted answered. Yesterday's petition quoted two emails from Dickson, both on p. 6. These indicated that Dickson might be seeking to re-try the case as to the issue of local property ownership. In fact, this issue was settled by the SCSC in its Aug. 2 decision.

On January 8, 2019 Dickson sent this email to the lawyers:

"There was a chart prepared in the PowerPoint presentation that was shown in Court on November 19, 2018. That chart purported to indicate the issues of agreement among the various justices [standard of review for facts, legal rationale, parish property, Trustees' beneficiary, and service marks]. The Court would appreciate a compilation, with appropriate page citations, quoting from the five opinions, the areas where two or more justices are in agreement and their agreement either supports or does not support your side."

If I had been a TEC/TECSC lawyer, I would have emailed back the last page of the SCSC decision. It speaks for itself. I do not understand how Dickson, or anyone else, for that matter, could say the decision was not precise and concise. 

On January 14, 2019 Dickson sent this email to the lawyers:

"The Court would like documents supporting that there was a vote on the Dennis Cannon [sic] on or before September 1979. Also, please provide any accompanying documents which indicate what churches voted and what churches did not vote (i.e. messages[specifically numbers 75 and 76], voting sheets, if presented anywhere previously, please provide this information to the Court (transcript and/or otherwise)."

This is the strongest evidence yet that Dickson might be seriously considering re-litigating this case. In fact, the five SCSC justices went over the documents about parochial accession to the Dennis Canon and handed down a decision and direction on this issue. Four of the five justices agreed that 29 of the 36 parishes in question had indeed acceded to the Dennis Canon (one justice held that a parish could rescind its accession; this left a 3-2 decision that 29 parishes remained under the Dennis Canon and therefore property of the Episcopal Church). As I see it, Dickson has no right to re-open this issue. It is now proper for the SCSC to step in and overrule Dickson.

3---Just a few days ago, Dickson announced that he would hold a courtroom hearing on DSC's Betterments suit on March 27, 2019. He said that at the same time he would consider TEC/TECSC's petition to dismiss Betterments, and DSC's motion for complex case designation. Why Dickson is doing this, and so abruptly, is another  mystery. In fact, he said (I was there) in the last November's hearing that he was considering only one issue, DSC's petition for clarification. Here, four months later, has not ruled on clarification, yet is moving on to other issues without explanation.

Yesterday's petition suggests several points about the TEC/TECSC position at this point in the long course of this legal war:

Frustration. The legal combat has been going on for more than six years. Church lawyers have lost patience with Judge Dickson. In fourteen months on the case, he has done nothing to implement the SCSC decision. To the contrary, he has shown willingness to ignore, perhaps even overturn the SCSC decision. Under the long-established judicial system, a lower judge does not have the right to ignore, or alter, a final decision of the state's highest court.

Alarm. Alarm at the suggestions in Dickson's two emails that he is open to re-litigating the issue of the property ownership. This matter was settled, largely in the Church's interest, by a final decision of the SCSC.

Urgency. The petition has an air or urgency in it. All this time has given space to the 29 local parishes to diminish their assets and burden the rightful owners with responsibilities upon physical restoration. No one knows what has been going on in the 29 parishes that will make life more difficult for the Episcopal Church bishop when he returns, as he surely will.

WILL TEC/TECSC PREVAIL IN YESTERDAY'S PETITION?

Probably. The main reason is that the SCSC must preserve the integrity and authority it has held for more than two centuries. As I see it, the SCSC now has three choices: 1-ignore the petition, 2-grant the petition, and 3-reject the petition. Ignoring and rejecting would give Dickson the green light to do as he wishes to re-litigate the case. That, in effect, would be the SCSC agreeing to overturn one of its own final decisions. This would set a very dangerous precedent. From then on, no SCSC decision would be final. Every one could be re-tried by a lower court even upon a "remittitur" rather than a remand. In fact, these two terms would become irrelevant in the judicial system. This would turn the ancient judicial system on its head. It is unthinkable. The only logical outcome is to grant the petition.

There is only one possible reservation to all of this. The present South Carolina Supreme Court is not the same as the court that handed down the decision of August 2, 2017. Two justices (Pleicones and Toal) have retired and have been replaced by new justices elected by the state legislature. This leaves only two (Beatty and Hearn) of the three justices who ruled in favor of TEC/TECSC in 2017. That means there are three justices today who either opposed TEC/TECSC or whose positions are unknown. It is possible that this majority could resolve to undo the decision of Aug. 2, 2017, either by inaction or denial. However, I still think such a scenario is remote because of the overriding issue of judicial hierarchy.

BOTTOM LINE:

The South Carolina Supreme Court is likely to grant TEC/TECSC's petition of March 20, 2019. If so, Dickson will have no alternative but to accede to the high court's direct order. This means the Episcopal Church bishop will return sooner rather than later to the 29 parishes on the list.

THE DIVINITY OF LIGHT

It was such a lovely spring day today that I could not resist the urge for a day trip, this time to Birmingham, an hour and a half away, and this time by train (I am a RR fanatic, but that is another story). Strolling leisurely around the downtown in the beautiful sunshine, I spied this across the street:

This is the front of the First United Methodist Church. The church is a venerarable treasure in the very middle of downtown Birmingham. It was finished in 1891; and is on the National Register of Historic Places. I had to go take a closer look. This is the sign up close:

Well, look at this. The First United Methodist Church in downtown has put up a big sign welcoming LGBTQ people to the church. Note this is not a generic sign . It was especially made for the church because it has their web address. Then, I went around the other street side of the building, and there it was again:

FMUC of Bham has two big banners out, one on each of the street sides, in the heart of downtown Birmingham. No one can miss them. I was instantly heartened. A brilliant spring day got even better. This made my day.

Several points struck me about this:

In the first place, FMUC is making a bold statement against the recent vote of their denomination to reject equal rights for and inclusion of openly gay people. In fact, the session reaffirmed the church's old condemnation of homosexual behavior, and even increased punishments for disobedience. They are saying to their fellow Methodists: In your face; We are going to do the right thing whether you do or not. We refuse to judge people; we refuse to condemn or exclude anyone. I say, more power to you First United Methodist Church of Birmingham, Alabama.

In the second place, what a difference a half-century makes. It was only a couple of blocks from here that in the darkness of 50-odd years ago Klansmen blew up a church killing four girls, and "law" officials perpetrated horrific violence, fire hoses and vicious dogs, on defenseless children who were only exercising their constitutional rights. All these years later, we know the demonstrators to be right and the "law" men to be wrong. The struggle for human rights is a long and hard one. This time people in downtown Birmingham are doing it the right way. Fifty years from now, society will understand that FUMC did the right thing.

In the third place, across the street from FUMC stands the old Alabama Power Company building. It is an art deco gem built in 1926. It is topped by a gilded statue officially named "The Divinity of Light." It is a 23-foot tall image made by sculptor Edward Field Stanford, Jr. Locals call her "Electra." She has lightning bolts in her hands and coming out of her hair. Electra has been en-"light"-ening downtown Birmingham for nearly a hundred years.

I would like to think Electra enlightened the people across the street in the FUMC but I really do not think that. I believe their hearts were enlightened by a profound religion of love which they have incorporated into their lives. I think it was God who gave them that light, not Electra. I just could not resist the poetic irony of light shining on the good people of this church.

Just one block over from FUMC stands another landmark church of downtown Birmingham, the Episcopal Cathedral Church of the Advent. I walked over there and found no banner welcoming anyone, not that I was expecting one. In contrast to FUMC, the clergy and leadership of Advent are frequent critics of the policies favoring equality for and inclusion of openly homosexual people in the church. In fact, when the Episcopal Church affirmed Gene Robinson as a bishop in 2003, the first openly gay bishop in TEC, the dean put out a black flag on the front of Advent as if in mourning. From the black flag of 2003, we now have the rainbow flag of 2019 a block over. At least we are moving in the right direction.

So, a big "thank you" to the people of the First United Methodist Church of Birmingham. You are on the side of history. Your are on the side of light. Even more importantly, in my opinion at least, you are on the side of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. All people are made in the image of God. We are called to love God and our neighbors, no exceptions, no exclusions. That is the true divinity of light, or, perhaps we should say the light of divinity.


-----------------------
NOTE. Check out FUMC of Birmingham on Facebook. This is what you will find:

Two thumbs up.

A REMINDER

TO THE COMMUNICANTS OF

ST. PAUL'S, of BENNETTSVILLE

ST. DAVID'S, of CHERAW

ALL SAINTS, of FLORENCE

ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S, of HARTSVILLE

CHURCH OF THE HOLY CROSS, of STATEBURG

CHURCH OF THE HOLY COMFORTER, of SUMTER



This is to remind you of an important gathering you should attend on tomorrow, Sunday, March 17. Your future as church families is at stake here. In the near future, your parishes will be returning to the authority of the Episcopal Church bishop. Here is your opportunity to find out all you want to know about how this process will work and what this will mean to the life of your local church. The meeting is open to everyone including the Episcopalians in Cheraw, Florence, and Sumter, and any interested parties in the 29 parishes and the Episcopal congregations beyond. The format is informal, featuring individual and group "conversations." No one is going to be forced to commit to anything.

The meeting will be at the Cross and Crown Lutheran Church, 3123 W. Palmetto St. (U.S. 76) in Florence, from 3:00 to 4:30 p.m. A good way to get there is to take I-95 to Exit 157. Turn eastward on Palmetto (U.S. 76). In a mile or so you will pass a Burger King on the right. The church is just beyond, on the left. 

Under the law as made by a ruling of the South Carolina Supreme Court, the parishes listed above, and 23 others, are property of the Episcopal Church. This is because these 29 parishes acceded to the Dennis Canon of the Episcopal Church. This Canon holds that the local parish may own the property but holds it in trust for two beneficiaries, the Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Church diocese. The parish may own the property on the condition it remains part of the Episcopal Church. If the parish breaks its loyalty to the Episcopal Church (i.e., refuses the authority of the Episcopal Church bishop), the ownership of the property moves to the Episcopal Church and its local diocese as beneficiaries of the trust. Thus, when the 29 parishes declared they left the Episcopal Church in October of 2012, the legal ownership of the local property moved to the Episcopal Church because they had acceded to the Dennis Canon. The clergy who remained in the 29 parishes left the Episcopal Church and are not now Episcopal Church clergy. The clergy and vestries operating in these 29 parishes today are not legitimate under the law because they are not loyal to the Episcopal Church, the legal owner of the property.

It is just a matter of time before the six parishes listed above, and the 23 others, return to the control of the Episcopal Church. This is in the works in both state and federal court in South Carolina. In the state court, Judge Edgar Dickson, of the circuit court, is underway toward a resolution of the implementation of the state supreme court decision, of 2017. He held a hearing last November and, presumably, has been communicating by email with the lawyers on both sides about how to carry out the SCSC decision.

The federal court case concerns the ownership of the entity of the old diocese. The breakaway diocese claims it is the legal and legitimate continuation of the old diocese. Mark Lawrence claims to be the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina even though he very publicly left the Episcopal Church in October of 2012. The Episcopal Church bishop, now Skip Adams, is claiming that Lawrence is in violation of the federal law protecting federally registered trademarks. In essence, this suit is asking the federal court to decide which of the two dioceses has the right to be the heir of the pre-schism diocese with all the names, rights, and assets this entails.

Thus, there are two issues at stake now in the courts, the ownership of the local parish/mission properties, and the ownership of the old diocese. The first issue has been settled by the South Carolina Supreme Court. On August 3, 2017, it ruled that 29 of the 36 parishes involved in the lawsuit remain property of the Episcopal Church. The court sent its decision back down to the circuit court for implementation. Judge Dickson is now working on this. We may expect his decision on how to carry out the SCSC decision any day now. Dickson has no choice but to implement the majority decisions of the state high court. Under the judicial system, he cannot alter or ignore the SCSC ruling.

A federal court decision is also imminent. Judge Richard Gergel, of the U.S. District Court, in Charleston, has set a trial date at May 1 or after. I have a hunch, and it is nothing more than that, that there is a good chance Judge Gergel will hand down a decision on his own in the near future. In fact, both sides have asked the judge to make a ruling, that is, on his own without a trial. This judge is well-known to be expeditious and efficient. Odds are very strong that Gergel will rule in favor of the Episcopal Church. It flies in the face of simple common sense that a bishop can leave the Episcopal Church and still be the Episcopal bishop, of the Episcopal diocese.

To be sure, the separatist Diocese of South Carolina refuses to accept the actuality of its situation today and is trying to convince its people that reality is not reality. After all that has happened, it should be abundantly clear to all communicants today that the DSC has little to no credibility. Why should anyone believe what they DSC authorities are saying? Look at their record of misleading statements. The basic premises underlying the legitimacy of the schism turned out to be false, according to the state high court:  the Dennis Canon is optional, the local parishes own and control their properties outright, and the diocese is an independent and sovereign entity that may leave the Episcopal Church unilaterally and at will. All of these were tragically wrong and were revealed as such after many millions of dollars of the communicants' money were thrown away in a futile effort to make the judges believe their erroneous assertions. The people of DSC would be wise to regard with healthy skepticism anything their leaders are telling them.

For instance, DSC has on its website a list of "Frequently Asked Questions." Find it here . This is meant to convince the DSC faithful that their church properties will not be returning to the Episcopal Church. In one part, it says:  "what the ruling [SCSC decision] actually says is that no congregation should lose their property." In spite of the conditional "should," what this is clearly meant to convey is that the 29 parishes in question will not return to the Episcopal Church. This is patently, even ridiculously, false. It is also cruel to the people in the 29 parishes to misinform them. The SCSC decision was very clear on its last page that three decisions were resolved by majority vote of the justices: 29 parishes remain under TEC, 7 parishes are independent of TEC, and Camp St. Christopher is property of TEC. In fact, the SCSC sent its decision down to the circuit court for implementation in November of 2017. The refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case sealed it. It is just a matter of time until implementation happens, no matter what other, misleading claims the DSC authorities make.

As for the federal case, the DSC FAQs say it is "laughable." I doubt Judge Gergel finds it funny. I doubt DSC will be laughing when Gegrel hands down his ruling. It is all but certain he will come down on the side of TEC. It is ridiculous to claim that a diocese of the Episcopal Church can leave the Episcopal Church and still call itself "the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina." This is just Alice-in-Wonderland nonsense. We will see what is "laughable" in the near future, perhaps within the next six weeks.

The DSC FAQs also assert:  "none of these matters are [sic] close to immediate resolution." DSC authorities are trying to convince their followers that the litigation will go on indefinitely; and, therefore, they do not have to worry about TEC regaining possession of the properties. If people think it is over, they will stop donating money to the DSC lawyers. In fact, "these matters" are certainly close to resolution in both state and federal courts. The end is clearly in sight, even in spite of the obfuscation of the desperate and failed leaders of DSC.

To me, the most absurd assertion the DSC FAQs make is that the schism had nothing to do with sexuality. Talk about "laughable." Give us a break. Even Mark Lawrence admitted only last year that he left the Episcopal Church because of the church's acceptance of the transgendered. I spent 300,000 documented words in my history of the schism showing that homosexuality/transgender was the direct cause of the schism. No one has challenged my thesis. Advice to DSC authorities: do not insult people's intelligence.

The Episcopal Church diocese also has a Frequently Asked Questions on its website. This one is in the realm of non-fiction. Find it here . I highly recommend that every communicant in the 29 returning parishes read and think about the questions and answers presented here. Your church future depends on it.

I do not mean to make light or be flippant about the current situation in the old diocese of South Carolina. On the contrary, this is a terrible tragedy on many levels. It is anything but "laughable." Church families have been torn apart. Indeed, families have been torn apart. Friends have stopped speaking to each other. Anger, suspicion, incrimination, even demonization of the other side have crept in to corrupt Christian hearts. This is heartbreaking in more ways than one. And, all of this destruction was because some people did not want others to have the choice to accept the inclusion of openly homosexual persons and the transgendered, and did not want women to have equality in the church. The choice is between inclusion and exclusion. The once unified part of the body of Christ in this little part of the world now lies broken, wounded and bleeding. How could this be the right thing to do? How could this be God's will?

The people of Bennettsville, Cheraw, Florence, Hartsville, Stateburg, and Sumter, and their environs, have a good opportunity tomorrow to learn the truth of what is about to happen to your local churches. Your religion will go on. Your parish will go on. Your life will go on. The services will continue unbroken as the lofty words of the venerable old Book of Common Prayer are entoned again and again as they have been for generations, even centuries, in South Carolina. 

At the gathering tomorrow you can ask all the questions you like and bring up all the issues of your concern one-to-one with Bishop Skip Adams, Archdeacon Callie Walople, and the Rev. Bill Coyne. They will be overseeing the restoration of the parishes. They are your friends, not your enemies. They will be your guides tomorrow and in the months to come. I will not be there in person, but my prayers and best wishes will be with you. Have courage. Your faith will see your through. 

MARCH UN-MADNESS

It is Friday. What's more, it is Friday in mid-March. If March is a time of madness, we should all take a break and return to sanity by soaking up the beauty of a garden, any garden. It is good for our mental health. It is good for our souls. Let us stroll around my modest garden as it appears this week.

This winter has been relatively mild and wet across the mid-south where I live. This has resulted in a glorious spring for the late winter/early spring plants. They are in their full bloom, some flourishing as they have never before. We are having a brilliant springtime. Click on the image for enlargement.

 Japanese flowering cherry, or Yoshino flowering cherry (Prunus x yodensis). I planted this as a twig 10 years ago. It is almost full grown. This is the first time it has come out in full bloom all at once. The most famous grouping of Japanese flowering cherry trees is at the tidal basin in Washington DC near the Jefferson memorial.

A trellis entrance to one of the walkways. I know I will have to fight this Carolina Jasmine vine to keep it from taking over the whole place, but that is alright. It is a well-suited native plant that thrives with neglect. Some people regard this plant as a weed. I do not.

 Flowering quince (Chaenomeles). This is the first time this bush has burst into bloom all at once. Flowering quince comes in numerous colors. This one is unusual with its coral/peach color.

 There is an oval of yaupon holly around a dwarf palmetto as the center piece of the larger part of the garden. The holly is Ilex vomitoria 'Nana'. The palmetto is Sabal minor 'Birmingham'. The tall evergreens on the right are Spartan Junipers. They flank the entrance to a seating area. There is a redbud tree barely visible on the left. The budding small tree in the middle is a crabapple. In the foreground is knock out roses and the quince.

 Dwarf peach tree (Prunus persica 'Bonanza').

 Pearl Bush 'The Bride' (Exochorda x macrantha). One of the most beautiful of the early spring flowering shrubs, majestically flowing with branches of pure white flowers.

 Camellia 'Kramer's Supreme'. Most winter camellias have past their primes and are beginning to fade out. Kramer's Supreme is one of the best. It is a medium bush profuse with big red flowers, easy to grow. If you have room for just one camellia, try this one.

Viburnum tinus 'Spring Bouquet'. Evergreen bush that blooms in winter and early spring. Viburnum is one of the best families of shrubs for southern gardens. Some are evergreen, some deciduous. 

So, the world may seem mad this March, and in some ways it is. However, the universe is not mad. It has rhyme and reason. Here is the rhyme, the beauty of God's infinitely great creation. It has an order beyond human comprehension but not beyond human appreciation. The wonders of God's work are all around us, at least those of us lucky enough to live in the south at this time of the year.  

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

IN FLORENCE NEXT SUNDAY
3:00 to 4:30 p.m.

On next Sunday, March 17, there will be another open conversation for returning parishes. This one will be for the Florence area. It will be at Cross and Crown Lutheran Church, 3123 W. Palmetto Street (U.S. 76), Florence. Bishop Adams, Archdeacon Walpole, and the Rev. Bill Coyne will be there to talk with local Episcopalians and members of the returning parishes. The topics of conversation are wide open. 

There are two Episcopal congregations presently outside of the old diocesan properties: St. Catherine's Episcopal Church, and the Cheraw Worship Group. St. Catherine's has mission status in the Church diocese, the Episcopal Church in South Carolina. St. Catherine's meets at Cross and Crown Lutheran and the Cheraw groups meets in a bank in Cheraw. There is an Episcopal Church in Sumter, Good Shepherd.

In 2017, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that 29 of the 36 parishes involved in the lawsuit against the Episcopal Church are property of the Episcopal Church. The justices said the parishes acceded to the Dennis Canon. They said once the parish broke the terms of the Canon by leaving the Episcopal Church, the property reverted to the trust beneficiary, the Episcopal Church. There are six parishes in the Florence area that are property of the Episcopal Church according to the SCSC:

1. Bennettsville --- St. Paul's

2. Cheraw --- St. David's

3. Florence --- All Saints

4. Hartsville --- St. Batholomew's

5. Stateburg --- Church of the Holy Cross

6. Sumter --- Church of the Holy Comforter

In addition, there are three local church whose status will be determined later. They were not among the 36 in the lawsuit. Their place will be decided in the future by whether they acceded to the Dennis Canon. The three are:

Dillon --- St. Barnabas

Florence --- Christ Church

Marion --- Advent

As of now, there are two parishes that remain in the separatist diocese that uses the name "Anglican." The SC supreme court said these were not property of the Episcopal Church because they had not acceded to the Dennis Canon:

Darlington --- St. Matthew's

Florence --- St. John's

The disposition of the 2017 SCSC decision is now in the hands of Judge Dickson of the circuit court. He is underway in discussions with the lawyers on both sides. We are awaiting his decision on how he will implement the SCSC decision. Dickson has no choice but to carry out the decision. Since the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, in 2018, the SCSC decision is the final law of the land. It cannot be appealed or changed. The SCSC sent its decision back down to the circuit court in November of 2017 for implementation. This is what Judge Dickson has to do. He cannot change or ignore the state supreme court ruling.

This means that in the near future, probably within a year, the six churches listed above will return to control of the Episcopal Church bishop, presently Skip Adams. He has promised that there will be no break in services. They very first Sunday after the restoration there will be an Episcopal clergy person in the local church for regular services.

The court has already declared the six churches belong to the Episcopal Church. The breakaway diocese refused to recognize the SCSC decision. The clergy remaining in possession of the buildings are not now Episcopal clergy. They abandoned the Episcopal Church in 2013 and were released and removed from the ordained ministry of the Episcopal Church. They may return to the Episcopal Church through a process of reintegration that has been set up by the Church diocese. Three clergymen have already returned and been reinstated. There are certain to be many more. Once the Episcopal Church bishop regains control of the properties, he will place an authorized Episcopal clergy person in the local church.

There are hundreds of people in St. Paul's, St. David's, All Saints, St. Bartholomew's, Holy Cross, and Holy Comforter who will be affected by the return of the properties to the Episcopal Church bishop. It behooves them to get all the information they can about the process of the restoration and all this will mean to their local churches. Much of what these people have been told by their leadership has been incorrect and misleading. These communicants will have big decisions to make. They should make them with all the information they can gather.

This is the purpose of the conversation next Sunday in Florence.