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

FOR A REHEARING

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

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

The Apr. 29 Order suggests several points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

GAFCON OFFICIALLY ABANDONS

THE VIA MEDIA

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

 

     

 

PANIC ON COMING STREET?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FEDERAL COURTS

AND STATE COURTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

U.S. APPEALS COURT OVERTURNS JUDGE HOUCK'S RULING

On today, March 31, 2015, the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Richmond, overruled Judge C. Weston Houck's decision in the U.S. District Court in Charleston. It sent the case back to District Court for rehearing.

On January 28, 2015, the Fourth Circuit held a hearing on the Episcopal Church in South Carolina's appeal of Judge Houck's decision. Houck had dismissed the case under right of abstention since a parallel case was already being litigated in state court. (See post of Jan. 30, 2015: "January 28, 2015: A Day of Destiny.") The audio version of the hearing is available online. The justices made it clear in the hearing they did not agree with Houck's decision. (See also Chronology: August 23, 2013; Sept. 16, 2013; Jan. 14, 2014; Feb. 5, 2014)

Several points immediately jump to mind about this decision, all favoring the Episcopal Church side:

1-the Fourth acted expeditiously. They got their order out in two months after the hearing. This suggests an air of urgency to set the matter straight.

 

2-The judgment was unanimous. It was written by the chair of the three judge panel, Judge Diane Motz who has a brilliant and long record and who has been on the bench of the Fourth for more than twenty years. The other two judges completely agreed. To them the matter was clear-cut.

3-They rejected Judge Houck's decision about as strongly as they could. They found his reasoning totally unconvincing. They disagreed with his whole work and found nothing in its favor. 

4-The judges made it clear the Colorado River principle must be used in this case. The Brillhart/Wilton rule is not acceptable. The Colorado R. rule demands that the federal court exercise jurisdiction except for extremely narrow circumstances which must be justified as the exception to the rule.

5-The judges made it abundantly clear the District Court must either prove the "exceptional" circumstances to allow abstention or must hear the case. It cannot simply abstain because a parallel case was pending. 

These are the highlights of today's ruling:

"Because we conclude that Colorado River...which permits a federal court to abstain only in 'exceptional' circumstances, properly governs the abstention decision in this action seeking both declaratory and nondeclaratory relief, we vacate the stay [Houck's] order and remand [send back to District Court] for further proceedings [rehearing]." (p.3)

"We have identified six factors a court must consider in making this decision [to abstain]. The district court did not consider any of these factors..." (p. 7-8)

"Colorado River permits a court to abstain only in the rare circumstance in which the needs of judicial administration are so pressing as to supersede the court's otherwise 'virtually unflagging obligation' to exercise its jurisdiction..." (p.9)

"The Brillhart/Wilton standard therefore provides a poor fit for causes of action over which a federal court generally must exercise jurisdiction..." (p. 9)

"We now join several of our sister circuits in holding that Colorado River, not Brillhart/Wilton, must guide a court's decision to abstain from adjudicating mixed complaints [declaratory and nondeclaratory]..." (p. 9-10)

"Nothing in the record in this case indicates that Bishop vonRosenberg's request for injunctive relief is frivolous or designed to avoid application of the Brillhart/Wilton standard. Accordingly, the Colorado River standard governs the abstention question here." (p.11)

"Because the district court did not apply this abstention standard [Colorado R.], we must vacate its stay order and remand for a determination whether such 'exceptional' circumstances are present in this case." (p. 11-12)

What does today's decision mean for the future?

The U.S. District Court in Charleston will rehear the case. There may be another judge to replace Houck this time. The court will have to follow the Colorado River rule and will have to take vonRosenberg's charges very seriously. In this, the court has to come up with an extremely compelling reason not to adjudicate the case. It seems likely the court will proceed with a rehearing following the Colorado River principle and render a decision. If it does proceed, it will ultimately have to decide whether or not vonRosenberg is the legal bishop of the Episcopal diocese of South Carolina. That is the point of the original lawsuit (see Chronology, March 5 and 7, 2013) in which vonR charged that Mark Lawrence was fraudulently claiming to be the Episcopal bishop. In short, the court will decide whether vonR or Lawrence is the legal and legitimate bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. Given today's decision, odds are better than ever that vonR will win out in federal court.

Today's action by the federal court in Richmond is the best news in litigation the Episcopal Church side has had since the schism occurred two and a half years ago. It may well be that the momentum will shift to the federal court where the Church side will have the advantage. One has only to survey the Church litigation in the last decade to see that. Nevertheless, the state court track will continue as the case makes it way to the state supreme court. What interplay the two federal and state court tracks will have remains to be seen. All of this is new ground as SC is the only one of the five breakaway cases being litigated in local and federal courts at the same time.

Episcopalians should be encouraged by today's news.




See also the news release:  www.episcopalchurchsc.org/news-release-march-31-2015.html . This has a link to today's court order. 

  

CHURCH CASE MAY GO DIRECTLY

 TO STATE SUPREME COURT

On Mar. 24, lawyers of the Episcopal Church in South Carolina asked the South Carolina Supreme Court to take over the church case. On that day, they filed two court actions. One was a "Notice of Appeal" to the South Carolina Court of Appeals. This asked the appeals court to rule on Judge Goodstein's orders of February 3 and 23 that went completely against the Episcopal Church side. The second was a "Motion to Certify" with the South Carolina Supreme Court. This requested the transfer of the case from the state appeals court to the state supreme court. If the supreme court grants this request, the case will go directly to the highest court in the state for judgment. Since these were two formalities for hearing, the forms did not contain a brief, or explanation of the case. That will come later, probably as soon as a decision is made on where the case will be heard. We have a good idea of what the brief will say by reading the 182-page appeal of the Episcopal Church side to Judge Goodstein on Feb. 13. There is a good chance the state supreme court will respond favorably.

The SC Supreme Court has already been involved in the Episcopal Church issue twice. In September of 2009, it rendered the famous All Saints/Waccamaw ruling that found a local parish (All Saints, Pawleys Island) to be the owner of its property and not the diocese. The Diocese of South Carolina did not appeal this judgment to the US Supreme Court. The local Episcopal congregation from All Saints did file an appeal with the US Supreme Court, but the diocese refused to help and the congregation decided to make a settlement deal with the breakaway parish thus ending the appeal before the Supreme Court had a chance to respond. In fact, Bishop Lawrence and the Standing Committee are on record as having abandoned the Dennis Canon four months before the All Saints ruling when the Committee approved St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant's request to move several millions of dollars worth of property into a ironclad trust beyond the reach of the diocese and the Church. At that time, the diocese still officially acceded to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, and specifically to the Dennis Canon. That canon required all property to be held in trust for the Episcopal Church and its diocese. By ignoring the Dennis Canon, the diocesan leadership signaled to all parishes that they too could ignore the Episcopal Church rules.

The All Saints decision was controversial. It was for one parish only. That parish had a long, unique, rather complicated history of property records. The Episcopal Church side still holds that the decision was limited to the parish and cannot be applied to the whole diocese. The anti-Episcopal Church side still holds that the court overruled the Dennis Canon in the entire state. At any rate, the decision was the last word. It is the only case in the US where a local parish won a final judgment against the Episcopal Church diocese.

The SC Supreme Court has already been involved in the case of the two warring dioceses. On Feb. 6, 2014, the independent diocese's lawyers asked the state supreme court to assume the ECSC appeal to the state appeals court. ECSC appealed Goodstein's ruling allowing DSC to keep secret the correspondence between Lawrence and Runyan. On April 4, 2014, the state supreme court responded and ordered the appeals case moved to itself. On May 7, 2014, the SC Supreme Court issued a ruling denying the Episcopal Church appeal. Thus, there is certainly plenty of precedence for the SC Supreme Court now to take the case directly.

What will be appealed is Goodstein's ruling of Feb. 3, 2015. In my layman's opinion, this ruling is a gross violation of the neutral principles rule. That rule strictly forbids a court from interfering in the internal workings of a religious institution. A judgment must be rendered entirely on local property laws with the two sides being treated "neutrally." Yet Goodstein's order is replete with remarks on the internal relationship between the Episcopal Church and the diocese; and in every instance finding in favor of the diocese. In fact, the order reads as if it were a brief of the anti-Episcopal Church lawyers. Considering the various court rulings around the country in the five breakaway cases, Goodstein's is the most extreme in favor of the secessionist diocese. She made the stunning judgments that the Episcopal Church was a congregational institution and that dioceses were always independent and self-governing entities. These can be easily refuted even by a simple survey of Church history. They are non-historical views. At any rate, I see these as over-the-top violations of the First Amendment

There is a reason the First Amendment is the first in the US Constitution. That is because the founding fathers regarded religious freedom to be the greatest of all liberties. It still is. For that reason, there is a good chance the US Supreme Court will take a case of the Episcopal Church, that is, one that has been settled in a state supreme court. The justices may also want to clear up boundaries between the deference and the neutral rights principles. In the past the Court has rendered both judgments but lower courts have had widely different interpretations of how to apply those principles. There is a need for a clear-cut definition of these guidelines.

A wild card in South Carolina is the role of the federal courts. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is likely to send the case back down to the District Court in Charleston. If the Fourth directs the application of the Colorado River rule, the Episcopal Church side will have the advantage in the rehearing. In this case, Bishop vonRosenberg is suing for recognition as the one and only legal and legitimate bishop of the Episcopal diocese. He is charging trademark infringement, in other words, that Mark Lawrence is fraudulently claiming to be the Episcopal bishop. 

At this point it is impossible to predict how the state supreme court will act if and when it takes the Church case. Originally, I assumed they would simply rubber-stamp Goodstein's decision, but the more times I reread that decision, the more I am struck and dismayed by its non-historical rationales and judgments on Church structure. From my perspective, Goodstein's highly partial ruling is far removed from the mainstream of judicial thought on Episcopal Church cases around the country. Moreover, I see it as a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment and specifically the neutral principles rule. Since these are fundamental to the law in the state of South Carolina, surely the justices will at least consider Goodstein's highly contentious ruling with great seriousness.      

 

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

ON THE DSC CONVENTION

A few days have elapsed since I posted my reports on the Diocese of South Carolina's (the Lawrence diocese) convention of Mar. 13-14. Since then, DSC has posted on its website several articles about it including Lawrence's address, an explanation of it, the text of the resolutions, and a public relations blurb. Here are some additional thought I have about the convention:

1. The convention overall was meant to be a pep rally for the faithful. Every diocesan group imaginable gave glowing reports, and every one with a video. I got video burnout. All of the reports seemed to be "Ministry of..."It was all vertical religion without a hint of the Social Gospel. It was all about bringing souls to Christ and nothing about social justice.

2. As Steve Skardon has pointed out, Lawrence talked of taking the church outside of the diocese. In his presentation on "Affiliation," Lawrence said he had been talking with "frustrated laity" in the Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina. We know that he has already been sending clergy into that area to serve dissident "Anglican" congregations. Lawrence also said one Episcopal Church in the "southeast" had contacted him asking to join his diocese. Evidently, Lawrence sees himself as one on a special mission. The Episcopal bishops in the southeast had better take notice.

3. In the convention and in the public relations initiative since, DSC has put on a cheery, optimistic face of dynamic growth that does not square with the figures. In his address, Lawrence stressed all sorts of development in the diocese. Statistics show that DSC has lost a third of its members and a third of its income since he became bishop in 2008. At the time of the schism, 10,000 communicants quit the diocese, about half staying with the TEC churches and half leaving the DSC churches. All but a few of the DSC local churches have taken a hit in membership and income since the schism. Some of the smaller congregations are on the ropes. DSC is down to 18,000 communicants from a high of 27,000 in 2008. No amount of forced perkiness, as "Breath of Fresh Air" can mask the grim reality of decline.

4. DSC remains a white male bastion. The handful of African American clergy and lay delegates were all but lost in the assembly that never addressed issues of minorities. There were also several women clergy. But, when the new clergy were announced, all were males. The fact is, Lawrence has not ordained a woman to the priesthood and has ordained only two women to the diaconate, and that was years ago. Moreover, no woman appeared at the podium to give a report from a major committee.

5. DSC has no accountability. The budget of 2015 was ratified by the convention without discussion. "Legal" expenses had only one line. The Legal Defense Fund gave no details. Its income and outflow remain mysteries. At one point, Lawrence asked everyone who had contributed to the Fund to stand. No one stood. What this meant is anyone's guess. DSC said it has spent $2,000,000 on legal expenses (without details). However, the published budgets of DSC show a total legal expenditure of $1,159,365 in the Lawrence years (2008-to 2015). That leaves a gap of over $800,000 unaccounted for in the budget. Where did the money come from? Where did it go? The members of DSC ought to start asking some questions before they keep pouring money into DSC fund. There is a glaring need for transparency in DSC's legal spending.

6. Lawrence has reversed his claim that the legal victories were God's will. After Judge Goodstein's decision in February, 2015, DSC issued a press release declaring the outcome to be the product of God's will. Lawrence issued a letter in which he invoked God's will three times. Indeed, before the trial as DSC tried to raise money, he called his courtroom opponents "the spiritual forces of evil." However, in his address to the convention, Lawrence declared "this current legal victory should not be seen as a divine vindication of our position in this struggle." Why the reversal? Perhaps it has to do with money. If one believes God will prevail anyway, then why give money?

7. The most curious change of tune, however, was on the issue of homosexuality. Since the schism, over two years now, Lawrence and the DSC have taken pains to deny the schism had anything to do with homosexuality. The last two conventions of DSC ignored the topic of homosexuality. Then, all of a sudden last Saturday, the delegates were handed five resolutions, three dealing with homosexuality.

     The resolutions are available on the DSC website. Notice that in her public relations release, Joy Hunter never used the terms homosexuality, marriage equality, or same-sex marriage. We are supposed to believe these only deal with "marriage." If DSC is still trying to disguise its homophobia, it won't work. Everyone can see what is happening here.

     DSC's return to homosexuality is a bit surprising given that Lawrence approved of Les Hill's appearance in the diocese last year. Hill was the openly homosexual Trinity School for Ministry teacher who maintained that homosexuality is inborn. This contradicted the conservative view that it is learned, not innate. Now we can see that Hill was only an aberration, not a change of direction for DSC.

     Why the sudden return to homosexuality after so long an absence? It possibly goes back to the close tie between DSC and the Anglican Communion Institute. ACI is a highly conservative "think tank" that churns out reams of articles invariably critical of the Episcopal Church. It is based in highly conservative Dallas, whose bishop, James Stanton, is a longtime staunch conservative and sometimes leader of the rightwing coalition in the Episcopal Church. ACI started in the wake of the Gene Robinson affair of 2003 on the initiative of a controversial priest named Don Armstrong. He was charged with embezzling several hundreds of thousands of dollars from his church. He pled no contest, and ACI cut him off. ACI was then incorporated in Dallas in 2008 by Christopher Seitz, president, Philip W. Turner III, vice president, and Ephraim Radner, senior fellow. All three are prominent conservative Episcopal theologians who have written extensively and relentlessly critically of the Episcopal Church. Apparently they aim to steer the Church to the right from within. Most of their papers are pseudo-academic pieces without citations, really only glorified anti-Episcopal Church propaganda. ACI was a devoted defender of Lawrence in the run up to the schism. In fact, Alan Runyan contributed to it on the question of the Title IV reforms. The ACI think tank is supported by outside contributions which remain a mystery.

     The tie between DSC and ACI is a strong and long one. Two members of the ACI board are from South Carolina, one being former bishop Salmon. Last Saturday, Lawrence made a point of giving thanks to ACI for all they had done for DSC. He did not elaborate. Since there is little accountability in DSC we may never know the money ties, if any, between the ACI donors and DSC. If there is an $800,000 gap in DSC spending, who filled this gap?

Lately, the ACI leaders have been on a public crusade against marriage equality. In November of 2014, Seitz and Radner created "The Marriage Pledge" in the online First Things (www.firstthings.com/marriage-pledge). Everyone was invited to take the pledge. It said clergy would not sign "government provided marriage certificates." Thus, if a couple wanted to marry in the church, they would have to have a separate civil ceremony. This is obviously meant to be a slap at the "government" for allowing same-sex marriage that is now legal in 37 states and in all probability will soon be stamped with approval by the U.S. Supreme Court. If the aim is to hurt the government, that is silly. The ones being hurt are the couple who must have two ceremonies. This is a foolish and immature stunt by supposedly intellectual leaders of ACI. Even though they opened the pledge to laypeople, only 430 people have signed up. Not one on the list is from South Carolina. Most are fundamentalists and Catholics. Obviously this misguided ploy has had very limited appeal.

The ACI's crusade against marriage equality is a bit late. The war is over. The country has moved on. Then why make such a bid deal of it at this time? There may well be a big deal coming up in the Episcopal Church, possible this summer. The main Presbyterian denomination has just ratified same-sex marriage, to start this summer. The General Convention of TEC meets this July. It is bound to take up the issue of same-sex marriage in some form. As of now, same-sex couples can only get a blessing in the Episcopal Church. Thus, it may be that the Marriage Pledge is really meant to put pressure on the Episcopal Church to back off. If so, it won't work.

Nevertheless, it is possible that ACI is the source of the three resolutions in DSC forbidding marriage equality. Actually, the resolutions were really pointless and unnecessary. Twenty-three years ago, in 1992, the DSC convention passed the same resolution: "Genital sexual expression is to be understood and taught as God's gift exclusively for men and women united in Holy Matrimony." Besides, the civic state cannot require a church to marry a couple. Marriage in the church is always up to the church. Anyway, it is unimaginable that any clergyperson in Lawrence's diocese would ever dare to preside over anything for homosexuals. Thus, the whole business of these three resolutions was frivolous. It may be that the resolutions were drawn up to please ACI which had been helpful to DSC, just how helpful we do not know. Too, they may well have been motivated by the need to keep people making contributions to the legal fund. What the resolutions really tell us is that the issue of homosexuality is still the glue that holds together this severed entity. It is rather sad that it has to keep beating a dying horse to keep itself together.

CONCLUSION

Two and a half years into the schism, we can see that DSC has achieved a certain level of success. It is still there. It fought a brilliant legal campaign and prevailed spectacularly in local court. It has a certain amount going for it. It has earned an appreciable amount of respect. Nevertheless, I see three large problems looming over it that must be addressed, and sooner rather than later:

A. IDENTITY. It calls itself "The Episcopal Diocese" and labels itself "Anglican." Neither is true. It is not part of the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion. It just does not make common sense to have an Episcopal church outside of the Episcopal Church or an Anglican church outside of the Anglican Communion. This is only confusion. Hence, the need for identity. Just what is the Diocese of South Carolina? On this, the leadership has been missing in action.

B. AFFILIATION. Now, Lawrence calls his group an "extraterritorial" diocese of the Anglican Communion. Nonsense. It must affiliate with a province of the AC in order to be in the AC. If it joins the Anglican Church in North America, it will still not be in the AC. ACNA is not a province of the AC. If it adheres to a legitimate overseas Anglican province, it is likely to have the same problems that previous attempts experienced (think Chuck Murphy). Yet, Lawrence was somewhat critical of Global South and ACNA in his talk last week. Obviously, he and his committee on affiliation are having a great deal of trouble coming to a decision. They have been working on this for a year. How long should it take?

C. ACCOUNTABILITY. Millions of dollars are flowing through DSC for legal costs without public accountability. Members of the diocese have a right to know where the money is coming from and where it is going. It is time for transparency.

DSC is an authoritarian regime where power is concentrated at the top, mainly in the hands of the bishop. Historically, authoritarian regimes work as long as they are two-way streets. People are willing to put all their trust in a leader as long as they think they are getting enough in return. I detected signs of discontent in last Saturday's convention. Numerous people spoke out in the meeting questioning the resolutions they were being expected only to approve blindly. When one person asked for the removal of one sentence, Bishop Lawrence was forced to reassert control over the convention which he did. All is not well in this authoritarian state. 

No one can know where all of this is going for DSC. Only time will tell that. But I do believe that DSC has some serious problems which will have to be reconciled if it is to remain a viable entity. Either those solutions come from the present authority or they will come from the people who actually make up this church.

THE CONTROVERSIAL RESOLUTION

AT THE DSC CONVENTION
2nd ed. update

2nd ed. update, Mar. 18: DSC has published the resolutions online at www.diosc.com/sys/images/documents/conventions/15_dio_conv_res_passed.pdf


Original post:     DSC has not yet published the resolutions from last Saturday's convention on its website. Therefore, I will provide the most controversial one here. In all, five resolutions were proposed and passed, but only one produced any significant discussion: Resolution R-4, "A Resolution to Adopt a Standing Resolution on Marriage."

______________________________

Text:

God wonderfully creates each person as male or female. These two distinct, complementary genders together reflect the image and nature of God. (Gen. 1:26-27). Rejection of one's biological sex runs the grave risk of rejecting the image of God within that person [revised as: Rejection of one's biological sex opposes God's purpose in creation.]

The term "marriage" has only one meaning, the uniting of one man and one woman in a single, exclusive union, as delineated in Scripture. (Gen. 2:18-25) God's good intention for us is that sexual intimacy is to occur only between a man and a woman who are married to each other. (1 Cor 6:18; 7:2-5; Heb 13:4.) For the blessing and protection of our families, particularly our children, God has commanded that no intimate sexual activity be engaged in outside of a marriage between a man and a woman.

Because God has ordained marriage and defined it as the covenant relationship between a man, a woman, and Himself [revised: between a man and a woman.] The Diocese will only recognize and solemnize marriages between a biological man and a biological woman, that is between two persons whose birth gender identities were respectively male and female. Further, the clergy and staff of The Diocese shall only participate in weddings and solemnize marriages between one man and one woman. The facilities and property of The Diocese shall only host weddings between one man and one woman.

______________________________

The point of the resolution was very clear: to defend "traditional" marriage and reject marriage equality. However, the resolution raised more questions than it answered due to its poor preparation and wording. At least eight people came to the microphone to raise thoughtful questions about the resolution. Perhaps the cleverest was one sharp woman who said under this, if a man and a woman each has a sex change operation they could still have a marriage in the diocese. This gave the presenters the deer-in-the-headlights look and no answer (I did not know that Alan Runyan could be rendered speechless). Another pointed out the obvious, this is a diocesan policy but weddings always take place on the parish level; each parish will have to make its own policy.

But, it was the third sentence of the first paragraph that raised the most difficulty. It is disconnected from the rest of the resolution and has no scriptural reference, both of which Marshall Huey pointed out as he made his motion for the removal of the sentence from the text of the resolution. As I said before, his motion for a vote produced the moment of high drama in the meeting as it was obviously a direct challenge to Bishop Lawrence who is well-known as a vociferous critic of transgendered rights. That was when the purple-robed bishop strode to the floor microphone and made an emotional appeal to the assembly all around him. He said, "This entire resolution is awkward" [an understatement]. He went on that he had walked out of the House of Bishops in 2012 for this very reason, [protest against rights for transgendered persons and blessing of same-sex unions]. Then, he read from the Bible and gave a scriptural reference to insert into the text. Lawrence said God made each person male or female "to protect us from confusion." The vote to remove the sentence then failed 155-31 [43 votes abstained; note that a total of 229 later voted on whether to adopt the resolution. If 31 voted against the sentence and 43 abstained, then 74 delegates failed to support Bishop Lawrence. That would be nearly a third of the convention not affirming the Bishop's request]. Someone immediately called for an end of the discussion and a vote. With the revised text, a vote was taken on the resolution that was adopted 216-13. 

As I said, I think the handling of this resolution was important for two reasons. First, the assembly actually started an open and honest discussion of a large and difficult issue. At least a half-dozen people raised problems with it and objections to it. This kind of free, open, fair deliberation is what DSC has needed for years. If this had occurred all along, there may well have been no schism. Problems could have been solved in a reasonable, rational way for compromise on contentious issues. The fact was, however, a limited group of fanatical ideologues in the old diocese cut off every one else's opinion leaving them nowhere to go. The ideologues monopolized all the apparati of the old diocese at least after the Robinson episode in 2003. The Episcopal Forum tried to make an open dialogue free to everyone, but the ruling clique only declared them the enemy and blocked them for any avenue of influence in the diocese. Critics had nowhere to go except to the national Church for help. That is what led to the two investigations of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops, the second one finding Lawrence should be charged with abandonment of communion. If the dissidents had had some way to make themselves heard and respected within the old diocese, that investigation might not have happened.

The second important point of that resolution was the sudden and unexpected challenge to Lawrence. Everyone in the room knew that Lawrence wanted that sentence to remain. He appeared to be thrown a bit off base forcing him to reassert his control over the house which he did. He carried the day but only after he had proven the point and only after 31 people had defied his expressed wish (and 43 others had abstained).

DSC is still hung up on the issue of homosexuality as it has been for many years now. It just cannot seem to get away from it however much the leaders may deny the obvious.

Meanwhile, and somewhat ironically, the Forum is sponsoring a seminar this Saturday at St. Stephen's Episcopal Church, on Anson Street, in Charleston on the very issues that DSC has denounced and dismissed in dramatic fashion in every way possible. Bishop Lawrence used to be sneer at "indiscriminate inclusivity" [equal rights for gays]. Alright, the Episcopal diocese is now proud to stand for that very principle, indiscriminate inclusivity. The seminar next Saturday on homosexuality and the Church should be a rewarding and enlightening event. The approaches of the independent diocese and the Episcopal Church diocese on the issue of human sexuality speak volumes about their attitudes of Christianity, exclusivity versus inclusivity.


(Be sure to read Steve Skarson's remarks on the convention at www.scepiscopalians.com)        



A REPORT ON THE CONVENTION OF THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Mar. 14 ,7 p.m.:

The third annual meeting of the post-schism Diocese of South Carolina (the Lawrence diocese) is over. It was in Charleston on Mar. 13 and 14. Steve Skardon and I attended the "Affiliation" workshop on Friday afternoon conducted by Mark Lawrence and Kendall Harmon. We also attended the business session today that started at 9 a.m. (I left at 4 p.m. when only a few routines items were left.). Here is the first edition of my report on the convention. I will fill in more later when I have more time.

The three big issues facing this convention beforehand were: 1-money to pay legal costs, 2-affiliation, 3-what to do about the resolution from last year giving the rector control of the local property; it had been tabled at last year's convention. There was no resolution of any of these.

On money, there was only a report of the Legal Defense Fund which was pushing its new "1785" campaign to raise $300,000. The chair said they actually expect another 3-4 years of litigation and that this 300K was only for this year. Of course, that begs the question of how they are going to raise the money for the other years. There are already signs of donor fatigue in DSC. Nothing else was mentioned about legal costs or the previously published budget.

The issue of affiliation was the strangest topic in the convention. Bottom line---nothing was decided. No resolution was offered on affiliation. One may recall that last year's convention arranged to set up a special committee (appointed by Lawrence) to study affiliation and present a report this year. The committee's report was no report. For the moment, DSC will continue as is, in limbo. However, talks have been scheduled with leaders from the Anglican Church in North America. Also, a bishop from Chile is coming for a visit representing the Global South. Neither means anything. In his talk on Friday, Lawrence said there was no future in affiliation with Global South, and he showed an attitude critical of ACNA. It seemed to me he talked in circles and gave no clear picture at all as to where DSC should go. Steve Skardon and I speculated he was ready to declare DSC its own province, or perhaps a separate church, but this did not occur in Saturday's business session. There, the committee on discernment spokesman said the study would go on and they would possibly call a special convention in the fall to vote on affiliation, or perhaps wait until next year's convention. It sounded as if the whole issue was still entirely up in the air with no consensus in sight. What is going to happen with affiliation is anyone's guess.

On the third question, the tabled resolution from last year, there was no mention at all. It was as if it had never existed. A tabled resolution should have been reintroduced or withdrawn, but in fact nothing happened concerning the highly controversial resolution to give the rector control over the parish property. Apparently, this idea is dead. The diocesan leaders obviously had strong second thoughts about it, as they should have.

No, the big issue in this convention was none of the three above. It was homosexuality (are you surprised?). The proposed resolutions were kept secret until the last minute in the session, to my knowledge the first time this had ever occurred. When they were distributed, five were given. Three of the five dealt with the issue of homosexuality. If anyone out there still thinks this schism was not about homosexuality, well here you are. Read the resolutions. The other two resolutions were only minor formalities (one of bonding for treasurers, the other to change the canons to drop Sewanee).

The three resolutions were, one to direct the Standing Committee to draw up a policy on (traditional) marriage [to oppose marriage equality]. A second directed the diocesan "Task Force on Marriage" to draw up resources for parishes [opposed to marriage equality]. The third was to adopt a standing policy of the diocese on marriage [opposed to marriage equality]. All three defined marriage as only between one man and one woman. The first two resolutions sailed through with barely a ripple. The third, however, and much to my surprise, actually developed into the start of a thoughtful discussion of gender and marriage. Mr. McFarland (sp?) of St. David's in Cheraw said the harsh language in the resolution would needlessly "alienate" some people, and besides no one can know God's purpose. I was on the edge of my seat, but more was to come. Discussion arose about one particular sentence: "Rejection of one's biological sex opposes God's purpose in creation." This statement was disconnected from the rest of the text which was about marriage as between a man and a woman. Anyone who has been following Lawrence's talk about sexuality knows he is highly concerned about the subject of transgender. No aspect of homosexuality agitates him the way that one does. The sentence was obviously a reflection of Lawrence's thought.

To the microphone came the Rev. Marshall Huey, of Old St. Andrew's. He boldly declared the sentence should be deleted from the text and made a motion to call a vote to do that. The whole room went dead silent. Everyone knew what this meant. Lawrence's face turned somber. He silently picked up his Bible, quietly slipped out of his seat on the dais, and strode around the edge of the room to get in line for the microphone. All eyes turn to him. Silence fell. He opened the Bible and started reading a text to defend the sentence. Then he quietly asked the assembly to keep the sentence in the resolution and returned to his seat on the platform. The most dramatic moment fell upon the assembly. A vote was called to remove the sentence from the resolution. 31 people (17%) voted to remove it. 155 (83%) voted not to remove it. Lawrence had won the day,  but not solidly. To my knowledge this was the first vote ever in which a sizeable  minority went against his explicit request. It was a breath-taking moment. Still, there was no question that this was Lawrence's convention, this was Lawrence's diocese. But, the fact that he had to reassert himself to make the point was significant in itself. Bishop Lawrence had been challenged to his face by his own followers, to my knowledge, the first time ever, or at least the first time in public. 

As I said before the convention, my fondest wish was for someone to actually question the wisdom of one of the proposed resolutions. It was an unexpected thrill that it actually happened. As small and limited as it was, it was nevertheless a little crack in the solid block of the Lawrence diocese. Of course, I could be making too much of this. In the future it may mean nothing at all, but for this little brief moment, there was a  whiff of questioning of Lawrence's thought. Marshall Huey is my hero of the day. I thank him for restoring a tiny spark of hope in me for the future of DSC.

Why the return of the issue of homosexuality? After all, Lawrence and his supporters have said repeatedly since the schism that the "disaffiliation" had nothing to do with homosexuality. My guess, and this is only my speculation, is that it has to do with raising money for legal costs. Homosexuality worked before to stir up people to donate for court costs. It can work again. Besides, what other issue do they have to rile up people? They have to have something to keep the same people giving money for lawyers. Regardless, what this proves is that the schism was very much about the issue of homosexuality. It still is.  

A couple of other observations: one, I sensed a slight wistfulness of the loss of the tie to the Episcopal Church. The business session opened with Morning Prayer from the Episcopal Church Prayer Book. The Church was mentioned over and over throughout the meeting. Breaking up is hard to do, even in a love-hate relationship. The other observation I had was this group is still very much the ship lost at sea. It is floating aimlessly in nowhere, going nowhere. And, I felt a little longing among the faithful for some direction, some aim, some goal in sight. Instead, the leaders provided none of this, only mumbo-jumbo that amounted to nothing. It struck me as a bit sad. It is so much easier to tear down than to build up. And, after all, none of this had to be. This schism was entirely avoidable.


(Be sure to read Steve Skardon's remarks on the convention at www.scepiscopalians.com)