LEGAL UPDATE, FEDERAL COURT

A few months ago, the federal court case between the two competing bishops was remanded to the U.S. District Court in Charleston by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, with direction to follow the Colorado River principle that requires a federal court to adjudicate federal law except in certain rare circumstances. On June 11, Judge C. Weston Houck, who has handled this case all along since its beginning in 2013, held a hearing in which he requested a brief from Mark Lawrence's attorneys and a response brief from Bishop vonRosenberg's attorney. These two briefs are now available at www.episcopalchurchsc.org ("News"> "Legal News," on right, "Related Documents," "In Federal Court," July 15, 2015 and June 30, 2015).

Bishop vonRosenberg brought this lawsuit against Lawrence in 2013 claiming that the defendant had violated the federal Lanham Act (the independent diocese had already brought suit against the Episcopal Church for the legal rights of the diocese). The Lanham Act, an act of Congress, protects trademarks. vonR asserted that he and not Lawrence was the only legitimate bishop of the Episcopal diocese; and therefore Lawrence was making a fraudulent claim of being the bishop of the Episcopal diocese. In short, vonR was asking the federal court to recognize himself as the only legal bishop of the diocese. Judge Houck essentially dismissed this case on the grounds that the state court had already begun adjudicating a parallel case. vonR appealed Houck's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Richmond. The Appeals court ruled that Houck had erred by not applying the Colorado River principle. This standard requires federal courts to try cases involving federal law except in very unusual circumstances. A federal court  can defer to a state court only for extremely limited reasons. When Lawrence's lawyers asked the Appeals court for reconsideration of their decision, the entire panel of judges in the Appeals court refused and ordered the case to be remanded to Judge Houck.

Following Houck's hearing on June 11, Alan Runyan and Lawrence's other lawyers submitted to Houck on June 30, "Memorandum in Support of Defendant Lawrence's Supplemental Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Stay Proceedings." They asked Houck either to dismiss the case or to grant a stay pending the South Carolina Supreme Court decision. The lawyers declared that the issues in the case had already been settled by the state circuit court. Judge Goodstein had issued an order on Feb. 3, 2015 that found entirely in favor of the independent diocese and against the Church side (that is now on appeal to the state supreme court). They claimed that the Colorado River standard could not be applied in this case.

In response, attorney Thomas Tisdale submitted to Houck on July 15, "Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Supplemental Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Stay the Proceedings." Tisdale argued that the state court action was not parallel to the federal case and that the Colorado River principle must be followed as per the opinion of the Appeals Court. The federal case involves a federal law covering trademark infringement, a different issue that that of the state court suit.

As I see it, Judge Houck now has three choices. In the first he could dismiss the case ruling that certain highly unusual factors allowed him to defer to the state courts. In order to satisfy the Appeals Court, this would require very detailed explanations of why he could do this. This, of course, would be to the advantage of the independent diocese. In the second, he could issue a stay pending the outcome of the state supreme court action. That court has scheduled a hearing for oral arguments on Sept. 23. A written decision would be issued probably several months afterwards. In the third, he could call a trial following the Colorado River standard. This would mean a full trial in the U.S. district court on whether Lawrence had violated the Lanham Act. This would likely be to the advantage of the Church side.

At this point, we can only await Judge Houck's decision. There is no hint of when we might hear from him. The matter before him now is much more difficult and complicated than when it first appeared before him in 2013 when he essentially summarily tossed it out in deference to the state circuit court process. He cannot do that now. The Court of Appeals changed everything.       

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE TO BEGIN IN

THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH

IN SOUTH CAROLINA

On July 21, 2015, Bishop Charles vonRosenberg announced that same-sex marriage will begin in the Episcopal Church diocese of South Carolina on November 29, 2015. Until then, the diocesan policy of allowing the blessing of same-sex unions will remain in place. The bishop wrote: "Our current policy involving 'blessings' remains in place until Advent I (November 29, 2015). At that point, the liturgies for marriage will be appropriate to use, as authorized rites of the Church." See the bishop's announcement at www.episcopalchurchsc.org . Bp vonR also said that he had asked the diocesan Liturgical Commission to study ways to implement the new policy in the Episcopal Church in South Carolina.

The resolution on same-sex marriage that was adopted by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church on July 1, 2015, Resolution A054, contained the provision "that no bishop, priest, deacon or lay person should be coerced or penalized in any manner, nor suffer any canonical disabilities, as a result of his or her theological objection to or support for the 78th General Convention's action contained in this resolution." (www.generalconvention.org/gc/2015-resolutions/A054/current_english_text ). This is called the "Thurlow Amendment" in honor of the Rev. David Thurlow. At the 2012 General Convention, South Carolina clerical deputy the Rev. David Thurlow, made a minority report in the House of Deputies opposing the adoption of the resolution on the blessing of same-sex unions, and this provision was put into the resolution that was adopted. The Thurlow Amendment was copied verbatim into the new resolution on same-sex marriage of 2015. This was announced in the House of Deputies on July 1, by the chair of the committee that drew up the resolution. Ironically, Thurlow is no longer a member of the Episcopal Church having left the Church in the schism of October 2012 (he is rector of St. Matthias in Summerton, in the Lawrence diocese).

The delegation from the Episcopal Church in South Carolina at the General Convention of 2015 unanimously approved of the resolution on same-sex marriage. However, not everyone from South Carolina was on the same page. In the House of Bishops, resigned suffragan bishop William Skilton voted against approval. Resigned bishop Edward Salmon did not vote, but he and Skilton both signed the statement of protest drawn up by the dissenting bishops on July 2. Neither Skilton nor Salmon has any current official capacity in the Episcopal Church diocese of South Carolina.

Bishop vonRosenberg is the diocesan bishop, and he has declared the new Church policy will become effective in the Episcopal Church in South Carolina on the announced date.  



LE JOUR DE LA VICTORIE DU PEUPLE

14 juillet 1789

Considering all that has happened in the last month, it is fitting that we pause for a moment today, Bastille Day, and reflect on where we stand in America and in the schism of South Carolina. The storming and capture of the Bastille, a hated royal prison and fortress looming over Paris, by the people was the symbolic rising of the common man, and woman, to take control of their own lives. Rule of the people was to replace absolute monarchy, the rights of man to replace tyranny, power of the majority to replace aristocracy, and merit to replace birth. The great French Revolution of 1789, combined with the American Revolution of 1776, gave the world our modern systems of constitutional democracy, freedom, justice, and equality. The working of history over the last 250 years has been the evolution of this force throughout the world. It has not been easy. It has not been smooth. But, these great revolutionary values have prevailed against the odds and are now gloriously triumphant in the twenty-first century. The courageous men who signed that remarkable in-the-king's-face document in 1776 and the bold masses that confronted another king and his forces in 1789 would be proud to know just what their actions really meant for generations to come. For all of us ordinary men and women in the world, this is a day of remembrance. This is a day of rejoicing. This is a day of thanksgiving. We would be living in a very different place today if it had not been for the great democratic revolution of the late eighteenth century.

To say the least, much has happened in the last month, almost too much to absorb at once. On June 17, nine Christian martyrs were cut down in their own Church minding their own business in an almost unimaginable act of hatred. Yet, the tremendous response from the city, the state, the nation, and the world enveloped that scene in God's grace. The victims had enveloped their murderer with love just before they died. Their families also extended their heartbreaking love to him. Love defeated hate. Evil lost out to good. The despicable racism that prompted the act was crushed under the heel of a new racial respect. Most whites came to realize they had to remove that Confederate flag. Then, the U.S. Supreme Court validated Obamacare; the Court legalized same-sex marriage in all of the United States; the Episcopal Church overwhelmingly chose as its new presiding bishop an African-American, a first; and the Church just as overwhelmingly adopted same-sex marriage. No doubt everyone is still trying to process it all.

As for the schism, the next events are likely to be the court cases. The state supreme court is set to hear oral arguments on September 23 with no chance of delay. The Church lawyers submitted a brief to the court as the appellant. They are appealing Judge Goodstein's circuit court ruling of Feb. 3, 2015. The independent side has filed a counter-brief; and the Church side has submitted a response brief to that. In a nutshell, the Church lawyers argued in their briefs that Goodstein's decision should be cast aside for two big reasons, it violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and it violated the principle of neutral rights. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, that is, the separation of church and state. The principle of  neutral rights says a court must not get involved in the internal working of a religious institution. The Church lawyers said that Goodstein clearly and repeatedly violated these two points, and therefore her ruling should be invalidated. The independent diocesan lawyers are basically arguing that the state supreme court should follow and uphold their 2009 judgment in the All Saints/Waccamaw case in which they ruled the Dennis Canon did not apply to this parish. The judges recognized the right of property ownership of the local parish over the diocese, and Church. The lawyers assert that the Dennis Canon is invalid in the whole state of South Carolina and that the diocese is an independent entity not beholding to the national Church. Meanwhile, in the federal district court in Charleston, Judge Houck is awaiting the arguments of the two sides before he proceeds. The Appeals Court in Richmond ordered him to reconsider the case on a different principle than the one he had used. He still has the option of dismissing the case, but his window of opportunity is much smaller. He would have to make a highly compelling argument to do that. Houck has also agreed that the federal litigation is not dependent on the state supreme court case.

In the bigger picture, are the two dioceses any nearer a reconciliation now, more than two and a half years after the split? One can argue both sides of this. It seems to me there are strong signs denying any reconciliation. The most important of these was DSC's flat refusal of June 15 to talk with the Church side even about the possibility of discussing a negotiated settlement. The Church had offered to give all of the 35 parishes their property in return for the diocesan legal rights and properties. DSC's instant rejection of the overture showed that its difference with TEC was not about the parish property, it was about the DSC's leaders' vision of  making an American Anglicanism without the Episcopal Church. How could they make a reconciliation with an institution they consider hopelessly corrupt and erroneous, even heretical?

Also, DSC has doubled down on its anti-homosexual rights stand. Last March its annual convention overwhelmingly passed three resolutions reaffirming its solid commitment to heterosexual marriage only (no doubt anticipating the Court's and TEC's actions). Then, immediately after the June 26 Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, DSC instantly issued a statement denouncing the decision and reasserting its stand for homosexual marriage only even though the Court decision only applied to the civic state, not to religious institutions. Moreover, since the Court decision, Kendall Harmon's blog, the quasi-official voice of DSC, has promoted Anglican Communion denunciations of the Court, and TEC's, decisions. The anti-homosexual camp of GAFCON, Global South, and the Ugandan archbishop, all blasted the Court and TEC (even though they have not recognized TEC for many years); all were promoted on TitusOneNine to the cheers of their admirers. All of these factors make me think there is no chance of a reconciliation, at least not any time soon.

On the other hand, there are indications that the schism might be healed, at least in time. It is interesting to note that although DSC slammed the Supreme Court right after its decision on June 26, it was silent following the TEC vote on same-sex marriage only a few days later. One might say there was no reason to react to TEC since DSC has cut off all ties to TEC, but then there was no reason for DSC to react to the Supreme Court either and yet it did.

Too, one should keep in mind the situation of the independent diocese's bishop, Mark Lawrence. He has never personally renounced his Holy Orders in the Episcopal Church (as far as we know). The presiding bishop interpreted his resignation from the Church and his remarks to the special convention on Nov. 17, as de facto renunciation of Orders. On Dec. 5, 2012, she issued an official recognition of his renunciation in a document called a Release and Removal in which she released and removed Lawrence from any role in the Episcopal Church. As I understand it, he has not been otherwise "defrocked" by the Episcopal Church. His case has not been considered by the House of Bishops. It seems to me Lawrence is keeping his options open. At age 65, he must be considering his legacy for the future. As of now, he will go down in the long history of the diocese of South Carolina as the bishop who presided over the grand old diocese when it broke apart. Even though the schism is likely to be healed down the road, his legacy in the schism will stand for posterity. One can only wonder if Lawrence really wants this as his permanent legacy for all time. As I understand it, the door is still open for Lawrence to be reinstated in the Episcopal Church as the presiding bishop could revoke the Release an Removal. Apparently, this is still a possibility; and it is one that no one should rule out. There is about to be a change of leadership in the Episcopal Church. The present presiding bishop (much ctiticized in DSC) will be leaving office soon and a new one will take over. It is possible the next presiding bishop may want to handle this case differently. We will just have to wait and see.

Meanwhile, throughout these two and a half years of schism, Lawrence has steadfastly refused to join any larger entity. DSC remains a "diocese" apart. The oversight scheme with Global South is really meaningless. No one has even been able to describe it, let alone demonstrate how it is supposed to work. Time and again, he has been wooed by the leaders of the Anglican Church in North America only to turn them away. Obviously he refused to join ACNA for reasons he keeps close to the vest. The diocese uses only the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer for its services, thus cutting off the new ACNA service book. Unattached to any larger entity, DSC is free to return to TEC. However much they may loudly decry such an idea, that is the reality.

One may have noticed that two bishops of the pre-schism diocese attended the recent TEC General Convention, Salmon and Skilton. Skilton voted against the same-sex resolutions. Both Salmon and Skilton signed the Salt Lake "Statement" denouncing the resolutions but also reaffirming loyalty to the Episcopal Church. By their actions, these bishops have shown their continuing ties to the Church.

As we have seen, the direct cause of the schism was the issue of homosexuality. The Episcopal Church has finished a sixty year period of reform to extend equal rights to blacks, women, and homosexuals. This reform period has now run its course. There is no new crusade on the horizon. This is a time for absorbing the monumental changes that have been made. It will take some time for all of this to settle down through the ranks of the larger Church. DSC could return to TEC knowing the change is over. If DSC persists in continuing its anti-homosexual stand, and to a lesser degree, its prejudice against women's roles in the Church, it will continue to decline. Demography is against it. This will become clearer and clearer as time goes by and membership, and income, continue to fall. Thus, the future holds a better possibility that DSC can reassess its differences with the Church and quietly make amends. The door is certainly open on the Church side and will remain so.

Mark Lawrence, and his inner circle, have invested a great deal emotionally into this schism. Surely, it would be personally difficult for them to reverse themselves at this point. Yet, at his age Lawrence must be thinking about his legacy. He knows the door is open and only he can make the decision to be a great agent of healing and reconciliation or not. If he does choose to reunite the old diocese, I think he would go down in history as a great bishop. His episcopacy would be seen as a troubled one full of crises,  but ultimately he would come out as courageous and heroic. If he does not, I believe he will have a whole different legacy.

Lawrence has said repeatedly he wants to help transform Anglicanism in the twenty-first century. One would be hard pressed to see any success in the last two and a half years. Now that TEC has finished its social reform and the pendulum is swinging back to the vertical side, perhaps his greatest contribution to transforming Anglicanism would be to rejoin his old conservative cohorts in TEC to lead the Church in a new age of evangelism. That could be his legacy, and perhaps a far greater one than he could realize otherwise.

I for one still believe that reconciliation will happen in time because it is the right thing to do. I started this post with revolutions. Historically, a revolution always has an ensuing counter-revolution. It is always two steps up and one step back. On the whole, however, progress happens.

       

THE CONFEDERACY AND

THE INDEPENDENT DIOCESE

The final lowering of Confederate battle flag on the South Carolina state house grounds today gives us an appropriate moment to reflect on our Civil War past.

First, before anyone calls me a yankee or outside agitator, let me say all of my ancestral families have lived in the South for 200-300 years and all of them alive in the 1860's supported the Confederacy. All of the able-bodied men of military age put on Confederate uniforms and went to war. Some of them died far from their homes in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. All of those who did return alive were wounded in more ways than one. These ordinary farmers believed they had gone to fight to protect their families, their homes, their communities, and their livelihoods from aggression. Besides, there was a military draft in the South. They did not have much choice. On the level of their own understanding of what they were doing, I have only admiration for them.

My forefathers did not fully comprehend what we know now. The Confederacy was actually fighting for two main reasons: to break up the United States into two countries, and to keep four million human beings in slavery. I am sorry, ancestors, but neither of these was really a noble cause. The Confederacy was not fighting for democratic or Christian ideals. And, it is time all of us white southerners throw off our "Gone With the Wind" non-historical romanticism and come to see the reality of the Old South. Indeed, reality struck us hard in the face just a couple of weeks ago allegedly by a young man who was driven by delusional unreality.

As a student of history, I am struck by the similarities between the Civil War and the schism. Both came from the same philosophical root, local over national sovereignty. The state of South Carolina claimed states' rights in the U.S.; the South Carolina diocese claimed independent autonomy in the Church. South Carolina declared it had the right to secede from the Union because there was no clause in the U.S. Constitution forbidding it; the diocese claimed it could secede from the Episcopal Church because there was no clause in the Church's Constitution and Canons forbidding it. South Carolina went to war to guarantee her secession; the diocese went to court to do the same. In both cases, destructive wars ensued for a long time. On victimization, South Carolina claimed it was forced to secede by the menace of the "Black Republicans" from off; the diocese said its bishop was the victim of the malevolent presiding bishop from off. Neither was true.

Neither case turned out well. South Carolina suffered more loss and destruction than did any other Confederate state. The war was a catastrophe for the state. Besides, a Confederate victory would have established the principle of states' rights in the Confederacy. This would have made long term union in the south impossible as one state after another would have left the Confederacy over one disagreement or another. And, what would keep counties from leaving states, and cities from leaving counties? The result would have been the balkanization of the south. If the Confederacy had won, the south today would be like Central America of the Balkans, a bunch of small and impoverished nation-states. Everyone of us southerners, white and black had better thank God the Confederacy did not win the Civil War.

It is too soon to know what is in store for the independent diocese, but the record so far is not promising. It has already spent two million dollars on lawyers by its own admission. No doubt before all this is over there will be many more millions in lawyers' pockets. This is true while the diocese shrinks. It is now two-thirds of what it was when Lawrence became bishop. As membership declines, income does too. Apparently, the diocese is having a harder and harder time raising money from its faithful for legal bills. There is no end in sight.

Meanwhile, the diocese has concentrated authoritarian power in the hands of its self-proclaimed "bishop" (apparently he does not hold valid Holy Orders in any known denomination) who has refused to join any larger group. He arranged for a peculiar "oversight" scheme with Global South that is not oversight at all. He has steadfastly refused to join the logical entity, the GAFCON-backed Anglican Church in North America. The truth is that more than two and a half years after leaving the Episcopal Church, the leaders are providing no direction for the future of the independent diocese and there is no sign this is about to change any time soon. 

The biggest concern for the independent diocese should be the demographic table. While the diocesan leaders insist on clinging to a strong anti-homosexual agenda, society all around it is going the other way. As the old communicants die off, the diocese will have an increasingly difficult problem of attracting the young. Studies show that young people are almost unanimously in favor of equal rights and freedom for homosexuals. In time, the independent diocese will have to reverse its anti-homosexual stands or go out of existence.

Both the Confederacy and the diocese split from their unions because of social policy. The Confederacy had rather die trying than to give up slavery. The diocese resolved to leave the Church rather than accept equal rights for homosexuals. The problem was that both movements were against the grain of American democracy and history. This country was the first nation in the history of the world to be established on principles. It declared at the very start that all people are created equal and are given by God rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither the Confederacy nor the independent diocese wanted to accept those ideals. One was swept aside by the time and tide of history, and the other is about to be. American society is moving along to incorporate ever more the ideals of freedom, equality, justice on which this country was founded. The independent diocese cannot stop that any more than the Confederacy did.


The monstrous evil of June 17 has not prevailed. It will not prevail because all around us are good people who lift us all up with the remarkable witness of God's grace and with profound understanding and commitment to democracy. The families of the nine martyrs taught us how to be good Christians even in the worst imaginable pain and suffering. Jenny Horne taught us how to be good democrats because we are human beings first. They are part of that great cloud of witnesses who lead us on to a better world and I thank God for them.           

OUT OF AFRICA

Some DSC communicants and friends are euphoric at three statements recently coming out of Africa condemning the Episcopal Church's resolutions for same-sex marriage. A close examination of these three, however, shows us there is more here than meets the eye at first glance. In the first place, while GAFCON opposes homosexuality, there is a division in their ranks on how society should treat homosexuals. In the second place, the equatorial African prelates are continuing their campaign to criminalize homosexual behavior and punish homosexual persons under the law even in defiance of the Anglican Communion.

Nine Global South primates issued "Statement in Response to the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church resolution regarding same sex" on July 4 (www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/blog/comments/statement_in_response_to_ ). Predictably it condemned TEC's action that "contradicts the Holy Scriptures and God's plan for creation..." Then, it goes on to declare "We are against any criminalization of homosexuals, they are like the rest of us..." Three of the nine signatories were from equatorial African nations Kenya, Burundi, and Rwanda. In Kenya, homosexual behavior is criminal under the law and punishable by up to fourteen years in prison. In Burundi, the national Constitution specifically bans same-sex marriage and the Penal Code punishes homosexual behavior with up to two years in prison and a fine of 100,000 francs. One can only wonder at how hard the Anglican primates of Kenya and Burundi have worked "against any criminalization of homosexuals."

Two days later, two members of the GAFCON primates' council issued "A Response to The Episcopal Church of the United States' (TEC) decision to make 'Same-Sex Marriage' official" (http://gafcon.org/news/tec-decision-a-mistake-with-serious-consequences ) These two happened to be the archbishops of Kenya and Nigeria. As in Kenya, Nigerian law criminalizes homosexual behavior across the board. In northern Nigeria under Muslim law, it is punishable by death. In southern Nigeria, it is punishable by up to fourteen years in prison. In their statement, the two archbishops warned TEC of "a mistake with serious consequences" but did not elaborate on what those consequences might be. Most of the statement is a rather benign reaffirmation of the Anglican Church in North America.

The third came three days later. On July 7 appeared a statement of one primate, Archbishop Stanley Ntagali of Uganda (http://churchofuganda.org/news/abps-statement-on-same-sex-marriage-in-tec-and-usa ). It should be recalled that the Anglican province of Uganda cut off all ties to the Episcopal Church in 2003 and subsequently established episcopal intervention in the U.S. and became a strong supporter of the Anglican Church in North America as the replacement church for TEC.


Ntagali's was the strongest reaction of all three, condemning the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as "grievous" and that of TEC as "even more grievous." It blasts TEC and reasserts the sole legitimacy of heterosexual marriage. Then, in the last paragraph, Ntagali inserts a sentence that was perhaps the whole point of the statement: "...we despair at the path TEC has taken and their imperialist commitment to export it to the rest of the Anglican Communion..." As it had happened, a few days earlier General Convention passed Resolution AO51 "Support LGBT African Advocacy" ( http://www.generalconvention.org/gc/2015-resolutions ). It directed TEC "to work in partnership with African Anglicans who publicly oppose laws that criminalize homosexuality and incite violence against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex people."

Ntagali is on record as an advocate of strengthening anti-homosexual laws in Uganda, a country well-known for its harsh policies, some would say persecution. All eyes in the world turned to Uganda in early 2014 as it debated a new anti-homosexuality law that would impose the death penalty in certain cases. Critics commonly called it the "Kill the Gays" bill. To Ntagali's credit he did campaign to remove the death penalty (it was removed from the final bill) but he still spoke out prominently for the new bill that was passed and signed into law in February of 2014. Practically every human rights group on earth protested the law. The archbishops of Canterbury and York told Ntagali and the world: "The victimization or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us...We call upon the leaders of churches in such places to demonstrate the love of Christ..." Nearly every political leader of the First World loudly denounced the new law. The United States and many other countries drastically cut aid to Uganda in protest.

On August 1, 2014, the supreme court of Uganda declared the new law null and void since it had been passed without a quorum in the parliament. Ntagali publicly registered his disapproval of the court's action: "I appeal to all God-fearing people and all Ugandans to remain committed to the support against homosexuality." He went on, "The 'court of public opinion' has clearly indicated its support for the Act, and we urge Parliament to consider voting again on the Bill with the proper quorum in place." (www.religionnews.com/2014/08/04/ugandas-anglican-leader-doubles-anti-gay-law/ ). In March of 2015, the authors of the original law announced they were going to reintroduce it with more muted language but still clearly criminalizing homosexual acts and imposing stiff prison sentences. In the meanwhile, numerous grass roots human rights groups have organized in Uganda to resist the bill. Perhaps Ntagali's real concern now is that TEC's Resolution AO51 will strengthen the opposition movement in Uganda against the anti-homosexual bill that apparently is still in the works.


There may be other factors too driving Ntagali's rallying cry on homosexuality. Early this year he was sued before the high court of Uganda jointly by four senior priests and by the trustees of the Anglican Church of Uganda claiming that Ntagali had unlawfully forced the bishop of Kitgum diocese to retire and was planning the same for other bishops at odds with him. ( DAILY MONITOR, Feb. 5, 2015,  www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Arch-Bishop--Ntagali-sued/-/688334/2610564/-/ ). Obviously there are clergy and officials of the Church of Uganda who are not happy with their archbishop's policies and procedures. The issues of homosexuality and American imperialism could be handy distractions from his troubles in court.

There are two points to take away from the three statements described above. The first is that GAFCON is divided on whether homosexuality should be treated as criminal under state law. In their statement of July 4, the Global South primates said it should not be criminalized. In contradiction, some Anglican primates in the "South" are campaigning for criminalization. The second point is that the Anglican archbishops of equatorial Africa have encouraged and supported legal persecution of the homosexual minorities in those countries. In spite of pleas from virtually the rest of the world, they seem resolved to promote their anti-homosexual views in their Anglican provinces. How much support they will get from the rest of GAFCON is an open question now. Will Global South back up its stand against criminalization?

The good people of South Carolina who are now thrilled at the certain Anglican archbishops' denunciations of the Episcopal Church really should ask themselves whether they want to be allied with people who are campaigning to deny human rights to all people. The freedoms that we take for granted in the U.S. are not found everywhere. While democracy is spreading around the world, there are still places that refuse to recognize the basic human rights that come with democracy. Does the independent diocese want to be allied with Anglican provinces that are working against human rights?
________________
For information on anti-homosexual laws in Africa see the Wikipedia articles on Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion and "LGBT Rights in Nigeria, in Rwanda, in Burundi, in Kenya etc.
On Archbishop Ntagali and the anti-homosexual laws of Uganda see: "Homosexuality is tearing fabric of Anglican union, says Ntagali," ( www.monitor.co/ug/News/National/Homosexuality-is-tearing-fabric-of-Anglican-union--says-Ntagali/-/688334/1947332/-/52s3yuz/-/index.htm ); "Uganda's Anglican Church Threatens Split Over Anti-Gay Law," Mar. 3, 2014 (www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/03/uganda-anglican-church_n_4890603.html ); "Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014," Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Act,_2014 ); "Uganda's Anglican Leader Doubles Down on Anti-Gay Law," Aug. 4, 2014 (www.religionnews.com/2014/08/04/ugandas-anglican-leader-doubles-anti-gay-law? ); "Uganda Planning New Anti-Gay Law Despite Opposition," Nov. 10, 2014 (www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29994678 ); "Uganda's 'Kill the Gays' Bill is Back," Mar. 1, 2015 (www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/01/uganda-s-kill-the-gays-bill-is-back.html ).  

      

IT IS ABOUT GAYS

Now we know. The last two weeks have shown us for sure. If there is anyone left in the world who thinks the schism in South Carolina and the division in the Anglican Communion is not about homosexuality he or she has only to look at the events of the last couple of weeks. No one can have the least bit of doubt any more. It is about gays. It was always about gays.

Today, anti-homosexual forces are back on their heels following the double whammy of the U.S. Supreme Court's sweeping legalization of same-sex marriage in the nation and the Episcopal Church's overwhelming landslide (80-90%) approval of same-sex marriage in the Church beginning in Advent 2015. These two events occurred within five days.

Although everyone knew these reforms were coming, the opponents maneuvered to oppose them in a last-ditch effort for months beforehand and have been publicly indignant ever since. Last March, the independent diocese (DSC) passed three resolutions strongly supporting heterosexual marriage only. Even though the Supreme Court's ruling of June 26 applied only to the civic state and not to religious institutions, the independent diocese still felt it was important to issue a declaration immediately afterwards to reassert its resolve to maintain "scriptural" marriage. The Anglican Communion Institute, a conservative think tank, campaigned for a long time before the General Convention against marriage equality. Ephraim Radner and Christopher Seitz even put up a "Marriage Pledge"online whereby clergy could sign up and agree not to perform civic marriage in the church. (see "First Things.")

The fallout after the General Convention resolutions has been predictable. The Archbishop of Canterbury, still at odds on what to do with the stubbornly divisive GAFCON, fretted aloud that some provinces of the Communion  might be upset by the American action. (www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/5581/response-to- ). That is a given. Then, of course, Global South, Mark Lawrence's best friends in the AC, blasted the Episcopal Church, yet again, claiming they were "deeply grieved" by the marriage equality resolutions. Again, to be expected. GAFCON is also out with a fierce blast against TEC. It is curious that Global South and GAFCON are so concerned about TEC when they broke off communion with TEC years ago and recognized only the Anglican Church in North America as the legitimate Anglican province in the U.S. Why should they be so upset with TEC now when they have had no relations with TEC for years?


Then, on July 3, we were presented with A.S. Haley's, aka "The Anglican Curmudgeon," "Apologia," in which he indignantly resigned from the Episcopal Church because of its supposed "blasphemy." (www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/31913 ). As everyone knows, for years attorney Haley has been actively involved in some of the secessionist diocesan court cases against TEC. Vocal too was Robert Gagnon, theology professor in Pittsburgh and longtime academic standard bearer in the religious fight against homosexuality. Right after the Supreme Court decision he fired off an essay "American Tragedy: Now Gird up your Loins,"(www.robgagnon.net/homosexSCOTUSgaymarriage.htm ) railing out against the Court and quoting every supporting Bible verse imaginable. The most sensible and reasonable conservative reaction to the Supreme Court decision that I have seen is "First Things. After Obergefell: A First Things Symposium" (www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/06/after-obergefell-a-first-things-symposium ). I recommend it for a better understanding of the opposition side.


Let's get something straight here about what did and did not happen. The social conservatives' claim that the Court and the Church attacked traditional marriage is not true. Heterosexual marriage continues on as before. There is no change in the law or the Book of Common Prayer concerning opposite-sex marriage. What has happened is that both Court and Church expanded the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. This is not an attack on heterosexual marriage. In fact, it actually strengthens the institution of marriage in society. So, right-wing ranting about the destruction of Biblical marriage is simply wrong.


Actually, both the Supreme Court ruling and the Episcopal Church's resolutions were parts of a historical movement that has been going on for years. They were not really breaking new ground. They were far from the first to do these things. An excellent article in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage ) reveals that twenty nations had already legalized same-sex marriage and numerous others had established some version of it or all of it in certain localities. The first country to legalize same-sex marriage was the Netherlands, in 2001. Two years later  came Belgium and parts of Canada. The first American state to legalize same-sex marriage was Massachusetts in 2004. Following came Spain, all of Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina (Bp Zavala's bailiwick), Denmark, Brazil, France, Uruguay (Zavala), New Zealand, England and Wales, Luxembourg. All of these and many more smaller entities, legalized same-sex marriage before the United States did so on June 26, 2015.

Likewise, the Episcopal Church was not the first religious denomination to recognize marriage equality. According to the Pew Research Center (www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/02/where-christian-churches-stand- ) numerous American religious bodies had already adopted same-sex marriage including the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Reformed Judaism, the Unitarians, and the United Church of Christ. Others are likely to do so in time. The Pew Center also found in a recent survey that 62% of white mainline Protestants now favor same-sex marriage while 33% oppose. Moreover, a clear-cut majority of all Americans now favor marriage equality; and that number is rising quickly. It is almost unanimous among the young.

The issue of homosexuality was certainly the direct cause of the schism in the Episcopal Church. Immediately after the Robinson vote of affirmation in the General Convention of 2003, the Chapman Memo appeared to present a detailed plan for secession from the Episcopal Church. San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Ft. Worth, and Quincy all voted the leave the Church in 2007 and 2008 as a result of the Robinson affirmation, the failure of foreign intervention, and the election of a woman Presiding Bishop in 2006 who happened to be an outspoken advocate of homosexual rights in the Church. The leadership of the Diocese of South Carolina led its majority out of the Episcopal Church in 2012 on the heels of General Convention of 2012's adoption of liturgy for the blessing of same-sex unions and rights for transgendered clergy.

It was also the direct cause of the division in the Anglican Communion. GAFCON I meeting convened in Jerusalem only a few days before the Lambeth Conference was to meet in England in 2008. It was formed to oppose the rising movement in Anglicanism of rights for homosexuals. Anglican primates from equatorial Africa, countries that traditionally punish homosexuality, have been prominent in GAFCON from the start. When its subsidiary, the Anglican Church in North America started in 2009, GAFCON declared it the new replacement branch of the Anglican Communion in America and ended communion with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. GAFCON, and its allied groups such as Global South, have split the Anglican Communion into two factions. The division is so bitter that the Archbishop of Canterbury has said it is doubtful that he will call a Lambeth Conference in 2018. He is frantically trying to hold together a loose confederation that in reality has already split apart.

The evidence is overwhelming that there is a worldwide movement to extend human rights to a historically oppressed minority, homosexual persons. Europe and the Americas have led the way while Africa and Asia lag behind (although South Africa has marriage equality). The movement is actually gaining momentum and will no doubt sweep even the most conservative regions eventually. After all, Spain, one of the most conservative societies in Europe was one of the first countries to legalize same-sex marriage. Another historically traditional country, Ireland, recently voted in a landslide for marriage equality. It is sweeping the world.

That will include South Carolina. As time goes by, more and more people will support equal rights for homosexuals. Today's opponents will shrink away. Time and tide are against them. Social conservatives have every reason to be upset about the events of the last two weeks. They are undeniable towering landmarks of that time and tide. There is more, much more to come before this wave of democratic rights runs its course. The U.S. Supreme Court and the Episcopal Church were simply recognizing the reality of that wave, and rightly so.

In the long run, opposition to rights for homosexuals will fade away as did opposition to equality for blacks and for women. We may forget, but these created bitter opposition movements too, and not very long ago. Now those movements seem almost quaint, if ridiculous in hindsight. The world will survive the movement of rights for homosexuals. The Anglican Communion will survive. The Episcopal Church will survive. Once time has passed and tempers have cooled, reconciliation will take place. That too is part of the time and tide of history.       

THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH AND

THE END OF HISTORY

History comes to an end today, July 3, 2015, as the General Convention of the Episcopal Church gavels itself to a close. It is not history itself that is ending, of course, but a history. The epoch now closing is the age of the great democratization of the Episcopal Church. It occurred over a sixty year period, from the 1950's to today. It is appropriate that we pause for a moment and reflect on this most remarkable transformation of this great religious institution.

The first half of the twentieth century produced the First World War, the Great Depression, and the Second World War. These left two great results for the world, particularly for the United States. The first was the triumph of democracy over monarchism and totalitarianism (WWI & II); and the second was the principle that the government is directly responsible for the welfare of all of its citizens (New Deal). After 1945, American society began working out the democratic principles of freedom, equality, and justice as they applied to elements that had been denied these; and at the same time the federal government, and national institutions in general began a more direct involvement in that process. The Episcopal Church was one of those national institutions that felt the direct impact of the collusion of these two new waves.

The first rush of institutional application of democratic principles came in racial justice. President Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces in 1948; and the U.S. Supreme Court struck down "separate but equal" in 1954. The Civil Rights movement slowly but surely developed around the nation, especially in the racist south. The Episcopal Church awoke to the issue in 1952 when General Convention first denounced racial discrimination. In 1953, Sewanee became the last seminary to integrate. In 1955, the Diocese of South Carolina became the last diocese to admit blacks to voting in its convention. In 1956, the national council of TEC called for full integration of every level of the Church. South Carolina was the last diocese in the nation to fully merge, in 1965. In the 1960's TEC was active in funding and promoting programs to extend civil rights even as some southern Church people fled. Many individual Episcopalians joined in civil rights actions; some gave their lives doing so. In 1970 the first black diocesan bishop was consecrated, in Massachusetts. In 1989, the first black female bishop was consecrated, again in Massachusetts. In 2000, an African American was elected bishop of North Carolina. In 2015 he was overwhelmingly chosen as Presiding Bishop.

Once democracy was applied to one minority, it could not be denied to others. By the 1960's a movement arose for women to gain equal rights and treatment in the Episcopal Church. Ordination was the specific issue at hand. In 1970 GC voted down women's ordination to the priesthood, and again in 1973. In 1974, eleven women were ordained to the priesthood in Philadelphia by two retired bishops and one resigned bishop. The House of Bishops promptly called an emergency session to reject the ordinations. At the next GC, in 1976, however, resolutions were passed removing gender as a barrier to all ordinations and offices in the Church. The next year, the eleven of 1974 were officially recognized. The Church began putting pressure on all dioceses to move forward on the ordination of women in the face of continued resistance from three dioceses: San Joaquin, Ft. Worth, and Quincy. In South Carolina, Bishop Allison allowed four women to be ordained as priests (1984-89). Bishop Salmon also allowed women into ordination while denouncing the national Church's measures to enforce this policy (Bp Lawrence did not ordain a woman to the priesthood, but did ordain two women to the diaconate before the schism). By 2002, a quarter of all priests in TEC were women. In 2006, a woman was elected Presiding Bishop of TEC. She was also the first woman primate of one of the thirty-eight provinces of the Anglican Communion. Women now make up a third of all clergy of TEC.

The movement to extend democracy to homosexual persons began in 1975 when GC passed a resolution declaring that homosexuals have "full and equal" claim to the Church. This was extended by vote of the 1985 GC to "promote" the life of homosexuals in the Church. In 1989, an openly homosexual man was ordained a priest, thus prompting the issue at the next GC, in 1991. That GC declared sexual expression was "appropriate" only between a husband and wife, but also set up mechanisms for developing greater understanding of the issue of homosexuality. The next GC, in 1994, resolved that no person could be denied rights in the Church because of sexual orientation. Shortly thereafter, Bishop Righter, of Newark, was put on trial in a church court for ordaining to the priesthood an open and partnered man. The court found in favor of Righter and concluded that no person could be denied ordination because of sexual orientation. This effectively gave homosexuals open access to ordination in the Episcopal Church. The GC of 2000 recognized that lifelong committed relationships could be found in other than traditional heterosexual bonds. In 2003, the diocese of New Hampshire elected an open and partnered homosexual man as bishop; and this was confirmed by the House of Bishops in the GC of 2003. By 2009, GC was ready to move forward with setting up trial liturgy for the blessing of same-sex unions. In 2012, GC adopted the new trial liturgy for the blessing of same-sex unions and also declared rights for transgendered clergy. In 2015, GC completed the democratization for homosexual persons by passing two resolutions to make a liturgy for same-sex marriage and change the canons to allow the same.

All along the way while these social movements were developing, the Church also extended democratization to many other aspects of life in the Church. Most importantly this was in the revision of the Book of Common Prayer to make it more communal and gender neutral. There were also many other smaller reforms too numerous to list here, for example allowing laypersons to administer the chalice in Communion.

To be sure there were many critics and dissenters all along in the sixty-plus years of this democratization process. Many people found they could not go along with one or more aspects of the revolutionary changes going on all around them. Splinter groups began peeling off TEC in earnest in the 1970's. The Righter trial of 1996 broke the back of the opposition faction against equality for homosexuals but resistance continued. By the time of the Robinson affair in 2003, there were twelve diocese that were staunchly and invariably "conservative" or resistant to the changes. After Robinson's affirmation in 2003 and Jefferts Schori's election as PB in 2006, four of the twelve voted by majority to leave the Episcopal Church. After the liturgy for the blessing of same-sex unions and rights for transgendereds in 2012, one more voted to secede from the union, that being South Carolina. The five most conservative dioceses declared their separations from the Church. Following the votes in the GC of 2012, twelve dissenting bishops issued the "Indianapolis Statement" denouncing the resolutions and affirming their loyalty to the Anglican Communion (Salmon and Skilton signed, but Lawrence did not).

There are now seven brother dioceses left from the original twelve forming the pre-Robinson far-right wing of the Episcopal Church (Springfield, Western Louisiana, Northern Indiana, Dallas, Albany, Central Florida, and Tennessee). Yesterday they led a delegation of bishops to issue a new dissent called "The Salt Lake City Statement." This was not at all a replay of 2012. It was really fundamentally different. This time the statement, signed by twenty bishops, was much milder in tone and altogether conciliatory. It declared loyalty and commitment to TEC. Gone was the subtle threat of secession or appeal over the head of TEC to powers overseas. The remaining seven have clarified their devotion to their principles and to their Church. From yesterday's declaration, it appears most unlikely that any diocese will contemplate following the five departed brothers. In response to the Statement, the House of Bishops yesterday issued "Communion Across Difference" statement to the dissenters reaffirming the bonds of affection. Peace has come at long last.

Thus, the Episcopal Church closes the door on its greatest reform period in its long history. Some people think this revolutionary period of the last sixty years was great; some think it was disastrous. I for one think it was a natural, if long overdue, collusion of democracy and Christianity. Even so, it has come at a price. The Episcopal Church now has only about half as many members as it had fifty years ago. But, as we all know, doing the right thing is sometimes costly, but it is still the right thing to do.

So, as the Church turns a new page, where does it go from here? Is there more to be accomplished in social reform? There is none obvious. The Episcopal Church has been committed to horizontal Christianity for a long time now, and rightly so. But perhaps now it is time to steer back to a more vertical posture with renewed emphasis on evangelization. There were clear signs in the GC of the last few days of this happening. The new presiding bishop certainly radiates this. Perhaps the seven brothers could show us the way. I think now it is the right thing to do, to balance the horizontal and the vertical.

It is appropriate now to take a moment and wax a bit nostalgic as we look back on a most remarkable revolution in the life of the Episcopal Church. On this eve of Independence Day, what else should we say but thank God for the great democratic revolution of the Episcopal Church.

EPISCOPAL CHURCH ADOPTS MARRIAGE EQUALITY

The General Convention of the Episcopal Church adopted marriage equality on July 1. On Monday, June 29, the House of Bishops adopted two resolutions, AO54 that offered liturgies for trial use as a revised an expanded version of the liturgy for the blessing of same-sex unions from the 2012 General Convention (the old BCP liturgy of matrimony remains), and AO36 that revised the Church Canon 1.18 on Marriage to allow same-sex marriage. A roll call vote on AO36 showed 129 bishops voting for it, 26 voting against, and 5 abstaining (Bp. vonR voted for both resolutions). Those resolutions went to the House of Deputies for consent. The vote was even greater there. On AO54 of clergy by diocese (1 vote per diocese), 94 voted for, 12 voted against, and 2 were divided. Of laity by diocese (1 vote per diocese), 90 voted for, 11 voted against, and 3 divided. On the second resolution, on revising the canon, clergy voted 85 for, 15 against, and 6 divided while in the laity, 88 voted for, 12 voted against, and 6 divided (The ECSC delegation voted for both resolutions). Thus marriage equality passed both houses by enormous landslides.


Same-sex couples may marry in the Episcopal Church starting on November 29, 2015, in places where this is legal under civil law (there are diocese outside the U.S. where same-sex marriage remains illegal). However, under the terms of the resolutions, both diocesan bishops and priests are free to refuse same-sex marriages, but bishops refusing must still provide access to same-sex marriage ceremonies to persons within their dioceses who want them).


The decision of the Episcopal Church comes just five days after the U.S. Supreme Court declared the legality of same-sex marriage in the United States.

A WEEK OF HISTORY

Last week will live forever in the history books. As a student of history, I was like the kid in the candy shop all week long. I hardly know where to begin; so much happened, and happened so quickly. It will take some time for us to absorb, digest, and reflect well on just what occurred in that whirlwind.

Monumental events happened in politics, society, and religion, and all impacting each other. It was also a moment of extremes, very bad and very good. On the very bad side was the continuing shock and grief from the monstrous evil of June 17 in Emanuel A.M.E. Church in downtown Charleston. On the very good side there was much more: the response to that satanic event, the Supreme Court decision validating the heart of Obamacare, the Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in the entire nation, and the Episcopal Church's super-landslide election of its first Presiding Bishop to be an African American. Any one of these would have been a bomb explosion, but coming all together they were like a nuclear blast. The world has been rocked, and changed forever, in my opinion for the good.

Let's concentrate on the good. In the first place, the loving reaction to the massacre of June 17 has been almost overwhelming. The whole world has come together to surround the families, the churches, Charleston, and South Carolina in its moment of terrible sorrow. I cannot recall a time when there was such an enormous outpouring of good will in the face of malevolence. Good simply over swept evil and reduced it to its knees; and that all began with the victims' families who told the alleged murdered in front of the world, "I forgive you." In that very profound moment of grace, good destroyed evil and practically the whole world said, "Amen." President Obama was so moved that he delivered what I think was the greatest speech of his presidency, his eulogy on June 26 at the funeral of the Rev. Pinckney. It was all about grace. We have all learned how to be better Christians.

The Supreme Court moved on to uphold Obamacare, particularly in the part that helps the poorest people. That was a much-needed victory for populism. Then on Friday, that same court handed down its monumental judgment legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States. This brings to an end the front of the culture war on homosexuality, a campaign that has been going on for nearly half a century. It is finished. The issue of rights for homosexual citizens has been settled. (A bit late. 20 other nations had already legalized same-sex marriage.)

An African-American Presiding Bishop. Unthinkable even a few decades ago. What is more, he was elected on the first ballot by 70% of the bishops and affirmed by a near unanimous vote of the 800+ deputies present in General Convention. It is as if an ancient wrong has finally been made right. It is hard to find words to express my amazement and joy of this event. The vote of the bishops was by secret ballot, so we do not know how Bishop vonR voted, but I think we can take make a safe guess. This in itself is historic. The bishop of South Carolina probably helped elect the first black Presiding Bishop; South Carolina has been arguably the most racist diocese, historically speaking, in the entire Episcopal Church, the very last to integrate.

All in all, that was a great week for the Episcopal Church, and not so good for the schismatics. Sixty years ago, the Episcopal Church abandoned its lifelong indifference to the ills in the society all around it and committed itself to human rights, first for blacks, then for women, and finally for homosexuals. It has been a long and hard fight, but it was the right thing to do.

The independent diocese has reeled from the onslaught of history. The Supreme Court decision on marriage, of June 26, dealt only with the civic state. It had nothing to do with churches which are always free to set their own policies for marriage. Yet, the DSC felt it necessary to issue a press release right after the Supreme Court decision blasting the Court and reasserting its belief in heterosexual marriage only. Actually, the Court decision did not pertain the DSC at all. There was no need to react to it except to promote unity among its faithful.

As I have said often on this blog, TEC is on the side of history, DSC is against history. In time this will be become more and more apparent and problematical for DSC. A recent Pew Research study showed a dramatic sea-change in the American public's perception of homosexuality, especially among the young. As the years go by, the independent diocese, denouncing rights for homosexuals, will find itself shrinking into ever more irrelevancy. Down the road, when this schism is all over, as it is bound to be, people in the future will shake their heads in dismay of why it ever occurred in the first place. History moves on whether we like it or not, that is the only law of history.   

NEW PRESIDING BISHOP

The Rt. Rev. Michael Bruce Curry has been elected and confirmed as the 27th Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. The news was announced at 3:50 p.m. EDT today by the president of the House of Deputies. The Rt. Rev. Curry is bishop of the Diocese of North Carolina. He was elected on the first ballot in the House of Bishops this afternoon. Of the 174 votes cast he won 121, or 70%. The vote of the House of Deputies to confirm his election was 800-yes and 12-no. He will be the first African American to hold this highest post of the Episcopal Church. When his election was announced, the 800+ deputies in the House of Deputies erupted in prolonged applause and song. His term will begin on November 1, 2015. This is a historic moment for the Episcopal Church.

A TIME OF SADNESS, A TIME OF HOPE



On today, the funeral of the Rev. Clementa Pinckney, martyr of the faith, will be held in Charleston. Much of the American leadership will be present. Much of the world will look on in sorrow. There is a time for everything; and this is the time for grief. I would also add it is a time to reflect on the sin of racism.

It is interesting to note the difference in the ways the two dioceses of the schism have reacted to the ghastly tragedy of June 17 at Emanuel A.M.E. Church on Calhoun Street in Charleston. Mark Lawrence, and indeed a host of other schismatic "Anglican" bishops in South Carolina, called for prayers and assemblies for prayer. This was a typical "vertical" response. Bishop vonRosenberg, of the Church diocese kept true to the Episcopal Church "horizontal" attitude. No only did he call for prayer and outward support, he took money from his diocesan budget for a donation to the Mother Emanuel Hope Fund and made another contribution to the Lowcountry Ministries Reverend Pinckney Fund." Moreover, he called for the faithful to make donations on their own and provided a link on the diocesan website for that. As of yesterday, the Hope Fund listed $660,000 received and the Ministries $106,000.

There is hope too. The General Convention of the Episcopal Church opened its triennial session on June 25. Racism was on everyone's mind. For more than sixty-five years, the GC has dealt with racism in America grappling with ways to bring it to an end. The Episcopal Church became a leading participant in the Civil Rights movement. The Diocese of South Carolina finally came along too, admitting the first black parish in 1955, ninety years after it applied for admission, and finally ending all segregation in the diocese in 1965 thanks to Bishop Gray Temple.

It is fitting then that we look at the election of the new Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. The election will occur tomorrow, June 27. The odds-on favorite is the Rt. Rev. Michael Curry, Bishop of the Diocese of North Carolina. He is the first diocesan bishop in the south to be an African American. (He is not the first black Episcopal bishop in the South. Arkansas elected a black Suffragan Bishop in 1917, and North Carolina in 1918, but they were to minister only to the black church members and had no power in the House of Bishops). If elected, Curry will make history as the first African American Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. Such a thing would have been unimaginable sixty-years ago when the Episcopal Church first committed itself to racial justice, but it was only because of that commitment that we have reached this great moment. We should reassure ourselves that progress does happen.

It happens too for South Carolina in the General Convention. For the past thirty years, the diocese was increasingly at odds with the GC. It started in the mid-1980's as the diocesan leaders denounced the Convention's discussion of sexuality. In 2003, the diocesan leaders exploded in rage after the GC in which a partnered homosexual man was approved as a bishop in the Church. They declared a crisis and called an emergency meeting of the diocesan convention that blasted TEC for approving a gay bishop, called for foreign oversight, and differentiation from TEC. DSC then helped form the Network of Confession Dioceses and Parishes, a pact of a dozen ultra-conservative dioceses seeking to distance themselves as far as possible from TEC. In December 2003 appeared the Chapman Memo that became the guide to how to leave the Episcopal Church.

DSC also reacted against the next GC, in 2006, but not as dramatically. The diocese was preoccupied with the election of a new bishop. Nevertheless, the diocesan leaders railed against the election of the first woman to be Presiding Bishop and first woman primate in the Anglican Communion. They called for the Archbishop of Canterbury to arrange Alternate Primatial Oversight for the diocese. This did not occur.

The next General Convention, in 2009, was another story. It passed resolutions supporting homosexual persons in Holy Orders and setting up a process for making a liturgy for the blessing of same-sex unions. Bishop Lawrence returned to SC and declared a crisis. He called an emergency meeting of the diocesan convention, in October, that voted to nullify the hated resolutions of GC and to begin removing the diocese from the governing bodies of TEC. The nest year, the convention withdrew recognition of the canons of TEC leaving only a tentative tie to the Constitution of TEC. This was a virtual declaration of independence for DSC from TEC. In November of 2009, the DSC Standing Committee hired Alan Runyan to be its lawyer.

The next General Convention, 2012, was to be the final crisis. It was one that the diocesan leadership planned for months in advance. Lawrence spent six months preparing himself and the diocese. He and the delegation of deputies planned their courses of actions. When the GC met and as expected passed resolutions for a liturgy for the blessing of same-sex unions and recognized rights for transgendered clergy, the South Carolinians were well-prepared. The delegates staged a dramatic walk-out of the House of Deputies, leaving only John Burwell and Lonnie Hamilton as the place holders. The next day, Lawrence staged his dramatic walk-out from the House of Bishops. He returned to South Carolina and declared a great crisis. Within three months this crisis would produce the schism of 2012. On August 21, Lawrence and the Standing Committee agreed on a secret plan (that still remains secret although we can take a wild guess at it). On October 2, under Lawrence's advice, the Standing Committee passed a resolution to remove the diocese from TEC if the Church "took any action" against Lawrence. It did and they did, thus schism on October 15, 2012.

The leaders of the old Diocese of South Carolina, growing ever hostile to the Episcopal Church, used the General Conventions of 2003, 2006, 2009, and 2012, to progressively move the diocese away from the Church, finally to separation. This appears to me to be a pattern, not an accident.

Yet, we should remember there is continuity. Lonnie Hamilton was a deputy to GC before the schism, in 2012, and is one again now. He is ECSC's outstanding tie to the past. The faithful of ECSC owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Hamilton.

So now, the delegation from the Episcopal Church in South Carolina will participate fully and enthusiastically in General Convention for the first time in three decades. Again, progress does happen.

One can only wonder what the leaders of the schismatic diocese are thinking now that they no longer have General Convention to use for their own purposes. I suspect they miss it. Apparently Kendall Harmon does. He has carried several stories about it on his well-known blog, the semi-official voice of the breakaway diocese. (And, what are they going to do after their favorite punching bag, Jefferts Schori, retires this year?)

This is a historic moment in the life of the Episcopal Church and the Church in South Carolina. In spite of all the wrongs in the world around us, in spite of all the division, hostility, intolerance, life goes on. As a historian and a Christian I believe time brings progress, but not in a even line. Along the way there are many temporary setbacks.

P.S. I just learned the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. See, progress does happen.




Note-after I posted the above, DSC put out a press release promoting donations to the two funds mentioned above.  

A HISTORY LESSON

A major argument the independent diocesan lawyers are making before the state supreme court involves history. They hold that the Diocese of South Carolina existed before the Episcopal Church and remained a sovereign, independent, and autonomous entity. Since it voluntarily joined the Episcopal Church, they said, it could voluntarily leave it. It is useful at this point to revisit this problem for a history lesson on how the diocese and the Church came into being and what relationship they saw to each other.

Fortunately, we have all the necessary primary documents in Dalcho's classic history of the early Church in South Carolina, the original journals of the early conventions of the Episcopal Church, and the journals of the state conventions. Let us review what these tell us about our question at hand.

Space here limits us to salient facts and main interpretations:

---6-7 October 1784. Representatives from 8 state associations of Episcopalians met in New York City to begin organizing a national church. South Carolina was not present as it had not organized a state body. The convention resolved to invite South Carolina to organize a state association and send delegates to the next general convention.

---the Rev. William White, president of the above convention, sent a letter to the Rev. Robert Smith, rector of St. Philip's in Charleston, inviting him to make a state association which would choose delegates to a general convention.

---8 Feb. 1785. Rev. Smith and the Rev. Henry Purcell, rector of St. Michael's in Charleston, joined their vestries to invite the 20 other old Anglican parishes to a state organizational meeting.

---12 May 1785. Eight parishes sent representatives to a state meeting in Charleston. The assembly read aloud the letter from the Rev. White and resolved to call another meeting in hopes of uniting more than 8 parishes. They adjourned.

---12 July 1785. Eight parishes sent representatives. They read aloud the letter from White then elected delegates to the Episcopal Church general convention.

---27 Sept. to 7 Oct. 1785. General convention of Episcopal Church in Philadelphia. The two delegates from South Carolina were named to the committee of 14 charged with composing the preliminary constitution of the Episcopal Church, called the "Ecclesiastical Constitution." This would become the basis for the formal Episcopal Church Constitution and Canons adopted in 1789.

---26 April 1785. Nine parishes sent representatives to a state convention in Charleston that 1-set up a committee to compose a state church constitution and 2-agreed to the new Ecclesiastical Constitution except for article number 6 that required a bishop in each state. This state convention was opposed to having a bishop in South Carolina. Otherwise they approved the new Episcopal Church Ecclesiastical Constitution.

---29-31 May 1786. Delegates met for a state convention in Charleston. They approved the liturgy drawn up by the 1785 general convention of the Episcopal Church and unanimously approved and adopted a constitution for the Episcopal Church in the state of South Carolina. It was signed by 23 representatives from 13 parishes. This was a preliminary constitution that was to be completed later in a detailed set of "Rules and Regulations." They set up a committee to accomplish this. (20 years later the state convention adopted the "Rules and Regulations" thus finishing the state constitution.)

---20-26 June 1786. 3 deputies from South Carolina attended the Episcopal Church general convention in Philadelphia. The delegates resolved to call a general convention of the Church to compose and ratify a formal Constitution and Canons. A resolution was passed calling on the several states to "authorize and empower their deputies to the next General Convention...to confirm and ratify a general Constitution." All of the states present accepted that they would sent representatives who would ratify the new constitution in convention on behalf of their states.

---22 Feb. 1787. State convention in Charleston read and accepted the resolution of the last general convention.

---8 May 1789. State convention elected deputies for the general convention to meet in Philadelphia on 28 July of 1789. The South Carolina state meeting understood they were sending their delegates to compose and ratify the new Episcopal Church Constitution and Canons on behalf of the state.

---July-October 1789. The Episcopal Church general convention met in two sessions (July-Aug. and Sept.-Oct.). One delegate from South Carolina sat on the committee of 7 to compose the constitution and 1 sat on the committee of 7 to draw up the canons. The entire delegation from South Carolina signed all the documents and did so on behalf of the state. The Constitution and Canons were ratified by the nine state associations present and went into effect immediately.

---19 Oct. 1790. State convention in Charleston made as first order: "The General Constitution and Canons being read, were unanimously agreed to."

---16 October 1794. State convention unanimously agreed that South Carolina should have no bishop. Immediately, a delegate arose and suggested a reconsideration on the fear their continued refusal to have a bishop would cause a schism in the Episcopal Church and cause the state to be removed from the rest of the national Church. Following further discussion, the delegates set up a committee to select a bishop.

---10 Feb. 1795. State convention unanimously elected a bishop, the Rev. Robert Smith. Consecrated in Philadelphia by 4 bishops 13 Sept. 1795.

---1799-1804. State conventions suspended. Church moribund.

---1806. State convention adopted the "Rules and Regulations" to complete the state constitution it had started in 1786. The preamble read: "Whereas, by General Conventions of the Protestant Episcopal Churches in the U.S.A. a constitution and canons have been formed for the government and discipline of the same." The finished state constitution remained in place until 1840. 

---1807. State convention affirmed that state deputies to general convention in 1789 had ratified the Episcopal Church Constitution and Canons on behalf of the state and this had been confirmed by state convention in 1790. The state convention reaffirmed that the Episcopal Church Constitution and Canons were in effect in the state.

12-15 Feb. 1840. State convention adopted a new constitution and canons drawn closely on those of the national Church. "Article 1. Of Acceding to the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the General Convention. The Protestant Episcopal Church in South Carolina accedes to, recognizes and adopts the general Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the U.S.A., and acknowledges their authority accordingly."

1861-1865. State of war forced the state conventions in the Confederacy to form a separate Episcopal Church of the Confederate States almost identical to the parent Church. Church in U.S.A. held all places of southern states vacant for the duration. At end of war, states returned to national Church. 

1866---State convention voted return to the general convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the U.S.A.

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS:

---The national Episcopal Church organized before the church in South Carolina.

---The national Episcopal Church invited South Carolina to organize a state association and send delegates to general convention.

---The South Carolina Episcopal Church formed a state meeting for the purpose of sending delegates to a national meeting.

---SC state convention approved the Ecclesiastical Constitution, the forerunner of the national Constitutional and Canons before it drew up a state constitution.

---The state convention drew up a preliminary, brief state constitution in 1786. This was mainly to please the national general convention. It was completed only 20 years later by adoption of "Rules and Regulations."

---State convention sent deputies to general convention in 1789 to compose and ratify a Constitution and Canons for the whole Episcopal Church.

It is important to note that the Episcopal Church C and C were self-effective in 1789 upon the signatures of the nine party states. There was no provision that they be ratified separately by the individual states such as the U.S. Constitution was ratified. The men signing in 1789 understood they were setting up a new structure for all the Episcopal Church, their states included. James Dator (Many Parts, One Body, How the Episcopal Church Works. 2010), the leading authority on the institutional structure of the Episcopal Church, described the Church government as a "unitary" system as opposed to a confederacy (as Articles of Confederation) or a federation (as U.S. Constitution). The individual states were "uniting" to form one single system. They saw themselves as integral to the structure and not separate from it except on matters of strictly local concern. The deputies from South Carolina understood their state was uniting with the eight others to form one single Church for the nation. They did not think of themselves as retaining separate independence for their local state. They saw sovereignty in the whole of the Church, not in its local parts.

From 1789 to 1861, the state convention, then Diocese of South Carolina worked hard to make itself more and more an integral part of the national Church, repeatedly reaffirming their allegiance to the Episcopal Church. Incidentally, the national Episcopal Church, to please the South Carolinians and other southerners, deliberately avoided the slavery issue all the way to 1861, and then the racial issue for a century after that.

The assertion that the Episcopal Church in South Carolina existed before the national Church is not sustained by the evidence. The idea that the Diocese of South Carolina saw itself as a sovereign entity that never accepted the superiority of the Episcopal Church is likewise non-historical. The conclusion that South Carolina voluntarily joined the Episcopal Church is indisputable. Of course, it joined voluntarily, just as the state of South Carolina voluntarily joined the United States. That point is not germane to the issue. The charge that South Carolina could voluntarily leave the Episcopal Church at any time as it wished is to misunderstand the "unitary" nature that the South Carolinians believed they had in the Episcopal Church.

The independent diocesan lawyers argue that two points allow a diocese to leave the Episcopal Church 1-lack of a provision in the Church Constitution and Canons forbidding a diocese from withdrawing from the Church, and 2-lack of a supremacy clause in the C and C giving the national Church power over the dioceses (the U.S. Constitution has a supremacy clause giving national laws authority over the states). In the first case, the U.S. Constitution also does not have a provision banning a state from withdrawing from the Union. However, the Civil War and Supreme Court decisions have settled that issue. Union is implicit in the Constitution. On the second point, if Dator is right and the Episcopal Church is a "unitary" system, then union is integral to the structure. It is understood that every diocese is incorporated in the union whose decisions are made by a general convention of all the dioceses. The general convention controls the admission to and release from the Episcopal Church. Moreover, canons require clerical vows of loyalty to the Episcopal Church, not to individual dioceses.

The body of historical evidence shows that the Episcopalians of South Carolina organized themselves as an integral part of the national Episcopal Church in the 1780's and 1790's. They did not see themselves as separate from it let alone sovereign apart from it.