WHEN WILL WE KNOW?

This is the question on everyone's mind these days. When will the South Carolina Supreme Court hand down its decision on the Episcopal Church case? The hearing was on September 23, 2015, over three months ago. We have heard nothing from the court since. Originally, I thought we might hear before December 31, 2015, because that was the time the Chief Justice, Jean Toal, was to retire and she had made it abundantly clear she "owned" this case. However, just because she has retired does not mean she had to give up the case. In all probability, the five justices met within two weeks after the hearing, discussed the matter, and voted on a decision. This case was probably decided in early October; and certainly Toal was the center of the decision making process. Then, one in the majority was assigned to write the decision. The proposed decision has to be circulated among all the justices and the majority can have input into it. The minority justices, if there are any, can also write dissenting opinions either singly or as a group. 

This is a highly complex case involving a basic legal problem, the relationship between church and state under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The matter is made even more complicated in this court because of its 2009 All Saints decision, also written by Toal. That decision had two parts: 1-the property of All Saints parish of Pawleys Island belonged to the parish and not the diocese because the diocese had issued a quit claim deed to the parish in 1905 and the Dennis Canon of 1979 did not legally override this, and 2-the parish of All Saints legally severed its ties to the diocese by properly amending its corporate documents in 2004. However, Toal made a point in the hearing of rejecting the precedence of her own 2009 decision as it might apply to the present case. 

Of course, the biggest complication at hand is what to do about the circuit court decision. After all, the case before the supreme court was an appeal of Goodstein's Feb. 3, 2015 judgment. It seemed to me the entire bench of five justices had already summarily dismissed this decision before the hearing. Not one of them had anything positive to say about it. Goodstein's ruling will have to be addressed and assessed as part of the supreme court's decision. This in itself could be difficult and time-consuming process because of the one-sided nature of the trial of July 2014, and the numerous sweeping, and often unsubstantiated, conclusions in Goodstein's order.

The arguments of the two sides were vastly different. The DSC lawyers argued that the 2009 All Saints decision set a precedence the court must follow and that DSC was always an independent and self-governing entity. The ECSC lawyers argued that the First Amendment forbids the courts from making judgments about the internal nature of a religious institution, Goodstein's Order violated neutral principles, and DSC could not unilaterally discard the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church which it had legally adopted in its incorporation. 

Going back to the question of when we will know, what I think all this boils down to is a long wait. This is a huge, complex, and complicated case on which much is riding. This is the first time a state supreme court will rule on the relationship of the Episcopal Church and a local diocese. The whole world is watching.

The SC supreme court routinely hands down decisions on Wednesdays. At around 10:00 a.m. these are posted on the court's website for everyone to see. 

The average wait-time for a written decision is six months. That would put it in late March of 2016. However, I have seen more than one case recently that had twelve months between hearing and written decision. My best guess is we have the court's decision between late March and the end of June of this year. The court usually takes off July and August.

So, it is best just to relax and wait. The justices will act in their own good time. We will get a decision one day in the foreseeable future.    

NEW YEAR'S REFLECTIONS

The time when one year ends and another begins always provides an appropriate moment to reflect on where we have been in the last twelve months and where we might be going in the next. The schism in the Episcopal Church diocese of South Carolina occurred three years and three months ago. What is the status of the schism now? How are the two dioceses doing these days? How does the future look for them? The following are my thoughts at this time, the end of 2015.

Litigation

The year 2015 has been the most important year so far in the history of the litigation between the two competing dioceses. In short, the momentum in court shifted from the Diocese of South Carolina [DSC; schismatic diocese] to the Episcopal Church in South Carolina [ECSC; Episcopal Church diocese]. Matters are proceeding on two levels, federal court and state court.

In federal court, ECSC bishop Charles vonRosenberg is suing DSC bishop Mark Lawrence for violation of the Lanham Act (trademark infringement). vonR wants the court to recognize vonR and not Lawrence as the legitimate bishop of the Episcopal diocese. U.S. District judge C. Weston Houck, in Charleston, had deferred to the state court that he claimed was conducting parallel litigation. ECSC appealed this to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit in Richmond. On Jan. 23, 2015, the appeals court held a hearing with three judges. As a result, on Mar. 31, the court ordered the case back to Houck with direction to follow the Colorado River principle that requires federal courts to adjudicate federal laws and not defer to state courts, except for rare and extreme circumstances. DSC lawyers then asked the appeals court for a rehearing. All of the judges of the appeals court joined in denying this request. The case was remanded to Houck. On Sept. 21, Houck issued an order for a stay in the federal case pending the outcome of the state supreme court decision. This raised the question of whether Houck had violated the virtual command of the appeals court to adjudicate the case. On Oct. 19, ECSC lawyers appealed Houck's new deference to the state court to the Court of Appeals in Richmond. We are awaiting the appeals court response.

In state court, circuit court judge Diane Goodstein, who had conducted a "trial" in July of 2014, issued her decision on Feb. 3. It appeared to have been written by DSC lawyers who were led by Alan Runyan. Goodstein's order decided every point in favor of DSC. While claiming to follow "neutral principles" the order repeatedly made judgments about the internal working of the Episcopal Church even declaring it to be a congregational institution [!]. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids the civic state from interfering in a religious institution. On Mar. 24, ECSC appealed Goodstein's decision to the state appeals court and also asked the state supreme court to take the case. On April 15, the SC Supreme Court agreed to hear the Church case thereby bypassing the appeals court. This would be the first time any state supreme court would rule on the relationship between the Episcopal Church and a local diocese (PA, TX and IL supreme courts had all remanded cases back to lower courts). The SC Supreme Court held an hour-long hearing on Sept. 23 that was live streamed and still available on the court website. The Chief Justice, Jean Toal was in control of the proceedings. Aided by Justice Kaye Hearn, Toal strongly criticized the blatantly biased way Goodstein had conducted the trial and the unconvincing final order. Toal, who had written the court's All Saints decision in 2009, dismissed any suggestion that case should apply to the present one thereby demolishing a main argument of the DSC lawyers. In short, DSC argued for corporate independence of DSC while ECSC argued for the First Amendment. Most observers felt the ECSC side had stronger standing with the court which all but discarded the lower court order. We are awaiting the decision of the state supreme court.


In legal matters of the year 2015, DSC started off the year with a stunning victory in the state circuit court, but it was down hill after that. The federal appeals court ruled in favor of ECSC and the state supreme court showed only contempt for Goodstein's decision. For the first time, ECSC gained the momentum and now has the stronger position.

The Diocese of South Carolina

The once grand old Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, the premier historic religious institution of the Low Country, now lies shattered. The self-inflicted disintegration occurred over a thirty year period, 1982-2012. In 1982, Bishop Gray Temple retired leaving two decades that can be called "The Golden Age" of the Diocese of South Carolina. Instead of institutional development, however, his successors demanded ideological purity, what they called "orthodoxy." Actually, the "orthodoxy" of the Episcopalian religion, and its mother, Anglicanism, is that there is no orthodoxy. It is a broadly tolerant religion that embraces widely differing views of Christianity. It is distinctly un-Anglican to impose the "orthodoxy" of one view which implies the invalidity of other views. But this is what the diocesan leaders did after 1982. Focusing on the issue of homosexuality, the diocese moved farther and farther out of the mainstream of the Episcopal Church. By late 2003, it was on the ultra-conservative rim of the Church with about 5% of the Church.


All Saints parish bolted the diocese in Dec. 2003/Jan. 2004 for the Anglican province of Rwanda and its affiliate Anglican Mission in America, the brain child of Chuck Murphy. The diocese sued for the property under the Dennis Canon but wound up losing in the state supreme court in 2009. Murphy had a very public falling out with the primate of Rwanda. All Saints' majority voted to leave AMiA for the Anglican Church of North America whereupon a minority split off to follow Murphy and remain in AMiA. Pawleys Island became a microcosm of what happened in the larger diocese: four "Anglican" parishes, ACNA, DSC, AMiA, and TEC. 


The second parish to break away was St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant. Bishop Lawrence actually gave them his blessings as he signaled in advance he had no intention of enforcing the Dennis Canon (which Bp Salmon had done with All Saints).


The majority of DSC broke away from the Episcopal Church in Oct./Nov. 2012. About 2/3 of the old diocese went along with the schism. The communicant number of DSC just before the schism of 27,000 fell to 18,000 after the schism. The part that remained with the Episcopal Church numbered around 7,000 members.


Thus, between 2003 and 2012, the old diocese fractured into four parts, 1-All Saints of Pawleys Island (now in ACNA), 2-St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant (now in ACNA), 3-the "Diocese of South Carolina," and 4-the Episcopal Church diocese legally called "The Episcopal Church in South Carolina." The three schisms (2003, 2009, 2012) of the old diocese were right-wing breaks engineered by ideologically-driven leaders all of whom claimed to be acting to preserve the "orthodoxy" of its members. Hatred of the Episcopal Church because of its recognition of equality for homosexuals was the common element in all of these.


DSC since the schism of 2012 has not fared well. Membership numbers are falling as the budget struggles to keep up. Smaller parishes on the periphery have been especially hard hit: case in point, St. David's of Cheraw which has lost significantly. At the start of the year, DSC claimed it had already spent $2m on legal costs. It set up the "1785 Society" to campaign the members for even more money for lawyers.


The biggest issue for the DSC has been its affiliation. It is in fact an independent church. It is not part of any real or pretend province of Anglicanism. It claims oversight from some primates of the Global South but this is a sham meant to convince members into thinking they are "in" the Anglican Communion when in fact they are not. This "oversight" has never even been described. It is nonsense. Meanwhile, the Anglican Church of North America, the proxy of GAFCON in America, claims to be the replacement church for the "heretical" (i.e. pro-homosexual) Episcopal Church. While DSC makes a big deal of touting GAFCON, it stubbornly refuses to join GAFCON's ACNA. ACNA's Foley Beach made yet another trip to the Low Country to try to entice DSC in, but to no avail. For whatever reasons, unknown to me, DSC refuses to submit to any higher authority. This makes it the only one of the five dioceses in which the majority voted to leave the Episcopal Church to refuse to join ACNA. Thus, in reality DSC is its own little church ruled by its own little hierarchy to which its members have entrusted nearly absolute power.


In spite of refusing to join ACNA, DSC has set up something called the Anglican Leadership Institute, which of course is not part of the Anglican Communion. To attend the "semesters" of the Institute, one must sign a pledge in advance to reject both marriage equality and the authority of the Episcopal Church. (Is there anyone out there who still thinks this schism was not about gays?)


Contrary to its socially counter-revolutionary stance, it must be reported that DSC actually took one noteworthy move otherwise. Bishop Lawrence ordained a woman to the priesthood (Martha Horn). This was his first ordination of a woman to the priesthood (he came from San Joaquin which had never ordained a woman to the priesthood). We will see if this were an aberration never to be repeated or a true change of heart. Meanwhile DSC remains a white male bastion.


Several points I think should be made about DSC now:


1-homosexuality is still the driving issue. Besides the remarks above, one should note three of the five resolutions passed in the 2015 diocesan convention were about homosexuality.


2-Tom Tisdale offered in June of 2015 to give the local properties to the 35 parishes in the lawsuit. DSC summarily and disdainfully rejected the offer. This proves the schism was not about property. If the schism were not about property, what was it about? The answer to this is still in process of being revealed. I think it stems from much larger issues such as the understanding of what constitutes "orthodoxy." More about this later.


3-DSC is still a ship adrift at sea, still in the middle of nowhere going nowhere. I for one am a bit surprised that leaders who seemed so clear-minded and resolute about leaving the Episcopal Church apparently had no plan at all about what to do afterwards. Still, after three-plus years, the DSC leadership remains unable or unwilling to offer their followers a vision of a way ahead.

The Episcopal Church in South Carolina

The ECSC is slowly but surely gaining strength. It now has the momentum in the legal wars. It welcomed a new parish, St. Mark's of Port Royal, that was started years ago by people made unwelcomed in the intolerant "orthodox" parishes. There is a new worshipping community too, displaced communicants of St. David's of Cheraw. In addition, Grace Church of Charleston was designated as the cathedral, and rightly so. Their membership has grown by leaps and bounds, to no one's surprise. Same-sex marriage began in the diocese in 2015, following the approval of the General Convention and the legalization by the US Supreme Court, also this year. The goal for ECSC is still as it has always been, the reconciliation of the old diocese.

The Year Ahead

What can we expect for the schism in 2016? Odds are strong the SC supreme court will issue a decision within the next six months. The court takes a break in July and August. A reasonable guess is a decision between March and June, but it could come at any time. There are cases where the written decisions appeared a year after the oral arguments. As for the content of the decision, that is impossible to predict. There are many difficult factors involved, all of which have to be reconciled. The Sept. 23 hearing certainly gave heart to the Church side, but one should not jump to conclusions.

There is still the wild card of the federal court. In spite of  a virtual command from the appeals court, Houck passed the ball again to the state court. One will just have to wait and see how the appeals court responds to Tisdale's pending request for yet another intervention.

The DSC annual convention will be in March, in Bluffton. (I tentatively plan to attend if they allow visitors.) The issues on the table will be the same ones as usual: affiliation, financial support, opposition to homosexuality, ties to Third World Anglican bishops. Of course, I found at the last convention, events do not always unfold as one expects. My dream for the convention this year is the same as last year, a real debate and discussion of important issues and a real people's demand for accountability from the leaders to whom they have entrusted so much. This diocese belongs to its members, not to its hired hands.


On a personal note, I want to give my best wishes to all of my readers. Around 50,000 people "viewed" this blog in 2015. May God be with all of us in the new year and guide us in the ways of grace, reconciliation, healing, and peace. We cannot undo the harm that has been done to the grand old diocese of South Carolina. However, we do not have to accept that as the end of the story. The damage was man made. If man chose to be destructive, he can also choose to be constructive. We can make a better world but we have to start with the recognition that none of us is always right. None of us has a monopoly on truth. None of us should dare to speak for God or insist that our way is God's will and everyone else's is not. The men and women of faith will build a better world for themselves and their descendants. I still believe that somewhere down the road the people of South Carolina will reassemble the remnants of the great diocese that Bishop Temple passed on in 1982.      

 

    


        







RON CALDWELL'S

SOUTH CAROLINA HISTORY

HALL OF FAME, 2015

To say that 2015 was an unusual year in South Carolina would be an understatement. It was a year of traumatic events, some natural and some man-made. Topping the list of "natural" would be the river of rain that turned the state into a river of destruction. Leading the "man-made" would be the monstrous massacre in the most sacred of spaces. So, here is my list of the ten greatest heroes of the year in South Carolina whose names I think should be inscribed in the great book of life forever.

1. Cynthia Marie Graham Hurd, Susie Jackson, Ethel Lee Lance, Depayne Middleton-Doctor, Clementa C. Pinckney, Tywanza Sanders, Daniel Simmons, Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, and Myra Thompson. They all, every one, went to their deaths ministering to the crazed monster who had invaded their sacred space to kill them. They refused to abandon good even in the face of the worst evil imaginable. May they be revered forever as true martyrs of the faith. May light perpetual shine upon them.

2. The families of the nine martyrs. "I forgive you." In almost unbearable grief, the families of the nine addressed the impassive accused murderer to shower him with forgiveness. Ethel Lance's daughter spoke for them all: "You hurt me. You hurt a lot of people. But God forgives you. I forgive you." The families demonstrated the best of Christianity in the worst of circumstances. They did not allow evil to overcome good. They taught us all how to be good Christians even in the hardest of times.

3. Governor Nikki Haley. Although she had been elected by some of the most conservative elements in South Carolina, she immediately arose to lead the state to condemn the murders and to denounce racism. She demanded the Confederate flag that was flying on public property, on the state house grounds, be removed to a museum. Under her resolute leadership the state legislature complied. She demonstrated the best of political leadership: toleration, conciliation, and healing.

4. Jenny Horne. This descendant of Jefferson Davis and conservative Republican legislator from Dorchester County arose in the legislature to give one of the most memorable speeches ever: "I can't believe." Gushing and shaking with morally indignant emotion she shamed the legislature into doing the right thing and removing the Confederate flag. May we have more statespersons like Horne who lead from the heart and the head.

5. President Barack Obama. He has said repeatedly the hardest part of his job is being all too often Mourner-In-Chief. He reached far to do his very best in Charleston on June 26 in a rousing eulogy and a memorable rendition of "Amazing Grace." Leading practically the entire political establishment to Charleston, Obama brought everyone closer to healing and peace. He showed us what real leadership is all about.

6. Jean Toal. The Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court demanded fairness and fullness in the dispute between the two competing dioceses. She took command of the case and conducted a hearing on Sept. 23 demolishing the injudicious decision of the lower court and snatching away any idea her All Saints decision of 2009 had any bearing on the present matter. She is retiring on Dec. 31. The Episcopal Church decision is likely to be the one by which she will be remembered.

7. Kaye Hearn. One of the five justices on the SC Supreme Court and a loyal Episcopalian. There is no evidence she was asked to recuse herself from the case. In the hearing, she refused to be intimidated by Alan Runyan who had all but directed the circuit court trial in July 2014 under Judge Diane Goodstein. She forcefully joined with Toal to eviscerate Goodstein's order and demolish Runyan's case of reliance on the All Saints decision. The Episcopal Church could not have had a better champion.

8. Martha Horn. Suffering from a long and serious case of cancer, Horn refused to be vanquished by the insidious invader. She kept up her ministry. She convinced Bishop Mark Lawrence to ordain her to the priesthood even though he had never ordained a woman to the priesthood. She taught us how to be brave in the face of terrible disease. She taught Lawrence how to overcome prejudice. She and Lawrence both are to be commended.

9. The judges of the United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. The U.S. District Court judge, C. Weston Houck, in Charleston, had deferred to the state court holding the two lawsuits, in state and federal courts, were parallel and the state one had chronological precedence. The judges of the Fourth disagreed and reminded everyone that federal law takes precedence over state law. They sent the case back to Houck with directions for a new procedure.

10. Thomas S. Tisdale. He has been from the start the lead lawyer on the Church side. In 2013 and 2014 he was rocked back on his heels by an initial surprise attack from Alan Runyan, the well-prepared and clever lawyer for the independent diocese. In 2015, however, Tisdale caught his breath and staged a strong counter-attack for the Church side. He pressed the case, successfully, on the federal court of appeals. He pressed the case very well on the state Supreme Court. His offer of compromise settlement in June showed which side was reasonable, showed too the breakaways' aim was not the property. Regardless of the court outcomes, no one could have done a better job, legally speaking, for the Episcopal Church than Tisdale.

These are my leading heroes of the year 2015. There are many others who deserve to be included. I am remembering mostly the thousands of long-suffering loyal Episcopalians in South Carolina who refused to allow prejudice, intolerance, and division to lead them too away from the true historic nature of our religion.     

EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF SAN JOAQUIN - COURT VICTORY AT HAND --- 2nd Edition

By Ronald J. Caldwell, PhD, Professor of History Emeritus

(Original post, May 2014:)
A major legal victory is at hand for the Episcopal Church and her Diocese of San Joaquin. On May 5, 2014, Judge Donald S. Black, Judge of the Superior Court, County of Fresno, California, issued a "Tentative and Proposed Statement of Decision" in the case of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin against the secessionist diocese [Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin]. The trial was argued in Black's court in January of 2014. Allan S. Haley, the blogger a.k.a. "The Anglican Curmudgeon" was one of the lawyers present for the secessionist side.

Judge Black's language in his astute ruling is so clear and so important that it bears repeating here:

Diocesan bishops are at all times subject to and bound by the Church's Constitution, Canons and Book of Common Prayer. None of these documents authorizes a diocesan Bishop to waive, to declare null and void, or modify or amend any of the Church's Constitution and Canons. In fact, both Article 8 of the Church's Constitution and the ordination service in the Book of Common Prayer obligate every member of the clergy, as a condition of ordination, to subscribe to the "declaration of conformity": "I do believe the holy Scriptures of the old and new Testaments to be the word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church." (p.5)

Black went on to find all in favor of the Episcopal diocese and to order return of all property along with a detailed accounting of all assets. This Tentative Decision will become the official one unless there is a good objection. Most tentative decisions become final. Of course the final decision is likely to be appealed, but the burden falls on the appellant to show good cause for overturning such a judgment. Thus, this ruling will be a landmark for Episcopal dioceses in their legal struggles against the secessionist, or breakaway factions.

This court ruling has been a long time coming. The majority of the old Diocese of San Joaquin voted to leave the Episcopal Church in December of 2007. Mark Lawrence, rector of St. Paul's, Bakersfield, at the time was on sabbatical and missed the vote at the diocesan convention. His parish, however, voted to join the secessionists. Since then, bit by bit, the Episcopal diocese has been regaining its properties, as St. Paul's, and is rebuilding after the destruction of 2007. This court decision is a great boost for the Episcopalians of San Joaquin.

What does this mean for South Carolina? Judges of South Carolina--are you paying attention? Courts all over the country are overwhelmingly ruling in favor of the Episcopal Church and her dioceses. Even in nearby states as Georgia and Virginia, the courts are saying the same thing: the Episcopal church is a hierarchical institution. Judge Black in Fresno has just ruled that dioceses are bound by the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church just as parishes are bound to dioceses. It could not be any clearer.


Good Episcopalians of South Carolina take heart. Legal decisions are building up all around the country for the Episcopal Church. It may take many years, but in the end our beloved Church will prevail. Sometimes fighting for the right causes is costly, but it is still the right thing to do. For many years now, the Episcopal Church has fought the good fight for human rights for all of God's people. I for one could not be prouder of that record. So, we have to believe that in the end justice will prevail, in South Carolina as in San Joaquin.


UPDATE on June 4:


On May 21, the lawyers for the Anglican diocese of San Joaquin filed a six-page "Defendant's Request for Statement of Decision and Objections to Proposed Statement of Decision" with Judge Black in Fresno. The lawyers were Russell vanRozenboom, chancellor of the Anglican diocese, and Allan S. Haley, the blogger known as the Anglican Curmudgeon. Haley gave the details on his blog of May 22, 2014: http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com . The Request is a list of twelve questions for Judge Black who will decide on whether to respond before issuing a final judgment.


On the next day, May 22, Bishop Eric Menees, of the secessionist Anglican diocese of San Joaquin, and his chancellor vanRozenboom held a meeting with Bishop David Rice, of the Episcopal diocese of San Joaquin, and his chancellor, Michael Glass. Menees reported:  Our meeting was warm and cordial, and was an important step in my decision-making about how we will be moving forward as a diocese. Both sides were able to make their current positions and desires clear, and both agreed to take some time to think about the discussions, talk about them with their Standing Committees - and in their case 815 - and then have another meeting in the near future. Allan Haley was not one of the lawyers present at this meeting.


The news of the conference of the two courtroom-adversary bishops may well signal the beginning of a settlement in San Joaquin. It would certainly be in the Anglican side's interest to make a negotiated deal considering that Judge Black's ruling was entirely favorable to the Episcopal diocese. Without a deal, they will be left without any of the rights, property, or assets of the pre-schism diocese. Of course, the Anglicans could appeal Black's decision to a higher court, but appeal is always an expensive and risky uphill climb.


The two bishops in San Joaquin are talking. They have had one meeting and plan to have another. Only time will tell whether the two sides can reach an amicable accord. Meanwhile, should not we all be glad that they are moving in the direction of peaceful coexistence rather than continued legal combat?


Any chance of this in South Carolina? Not at the present. The trial between the two sides is set to start on July 7. It will take some time before Judge Goodstein hands down a judgment. Then, whichever side loses will inevitably appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court. Considering the historical record, that court is likely to rule in favor of local sovereignty, that is, for the independent diocese. Time-wise, we are looking at another couple of years in state courts.


However, one should recall that there is an appeal pending by the Episcopal Church diocese in South Carolina to the federal court of appeals in Richmond. There has been no indication of when a judgment may come down from that court. A ruling favoring the Episcopal diocese could change everything in South Carolina.


Bishop vonRosenberg has talked nobly of a reconciliation between the Episcopal Church and the wayward former Episcopalians in South Carolina. That, of course, would be ideal. The secessionists in South Carolina, however, have shown absolutely no interest in a peaceful settlement. Lawrence's lawyers initiated the litigation against the Episcopal Church and have promoted it ever since. Odds are they will prevail in Goodstein's court and in the state supreme court. They would have no interest in a negotiated settlement until somewhere down the road a court rules against them, as Judge Black did against the Anglicans in San Joaquin. Since chances of a court ruling against Lawrence appear to be well into the future, there can be little hope at the moment of a San Joaquin-type meeting of the two bishops to bring the fighting to an end.


Nevertheless, is it not reassuring that somewhere in the country, a secessionist independent bishop and a loyalist Episcopal bishop are sitting down as adults to practice the Christian virtues of healing, reconciliation, and peace? They should be a model for bishops everywhere. 


UPDATE on August 18:


On August 18, 2014, Bishop Eric Menees, of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin announced that he planned to appeal Judge Black's ruling to the Fifth District Court of Appeals. This is the California state court of appeals serving the nine counties of central California. It is located in Fresno. This announcement reveals that his May 22 meeting with Bishop Rice failed to resolve the differences amicably. In his sharp letter to his faithful (www.dioceseofsanjoaquin.net/uploads/1/9/3/7/19374831/legal_update_august_2014.pdf ) Menees placed the entire blame for the failure of a peaceful settlement as well as for the schism on the Presiding Bishop. In an appeal, the burden is on the appellant to show just cause for the appeal. We will await Menees's motion to the court. 




SECOND EDITION, (added Dec. 23, 2015):


The Anglican Diocese appealed Judge Black's ruling to the Fifth District Court of Appeals, in Fresno. Their lawyers, VanRozenboom and Haley submitted their briefs to the court ton April 2.


On April 7, 2015, the Episcopal Diocese went back to Judge Black to get an enforcement order to enact his decision. The Anglican Diocese wanted a stay placed on his decision pending the appeals court response. On April 16, 2015, Judge Black rejected the Episcopal Diocese's request.


The case is pending in the state appeals court, and Black's order is on stay.
   



A DECEMBER DECISION?
2nd Edition (Dec. 6)

Will the South Carolina Supreme Court give us a decision on the Church case this month? That is certainly the question on everyone's mind these days. This blog has been barraged with hits in the last few days, I suppose by people seeking information on this. So, for whatever it is worth, here is my take on where we stand now.

At the time of the hearing, September 23, I thought there was a good chance the court would issue its opinion before the end of the year mainly because the Chief Justice, Jean Toal, is retiring on December 31 and she had shown herself to be very much in control of this case. This may well be the signature decision for which she will be remembered in her long career on the bench. Moreover, she had authored the All Saints/Waccamaw decision of September 2009 in which the court recognized the local property for the parish since the diocese had granted the parish a quit claim deed before the Dennis Canon was created. The diocese, led by Bishop Lawrence, did not appeal that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision still stands as the only final court ruling in the U.S. favoring the local entity in a property dispute with the Episcopal Church/diocese (others are on appeal). Not one other state in the nation has recognized the validity of the All Saints decision which is rarely ever cited in courts around the U.S.

Two major points came out of the Sept. 23 hearing. First, the court dismissed the Goodstein decision of Feb. 3 both for the way the trial of July 2014 had been conducted and for the conclusions of the Order. Second, Toal made it clear the All Saints decision did not necessarily apply to the present case. The Church lawyers had asked the court to act de novo, that is, anew to discard Goodstein's order and write a new decision on the case. That seemed to be the court's attitude.

The court could issue its decision at any time. It is under no time constraint. The gap time between oral argument and written decision varies widely from a year to a few months. This depends on many factors such as the size and complexity of the case.

The Church case is probably the largest, most complicated, most difficult and most important case this court has faced in many years. It involves fundamental issues of constitutionality as well as complicated questions of corporate and property law. No doubt it will require a great deal of work on the parts of the justices and clerks to finish a thorough review and write a proper decision. The justices need to get it right, as opposed to the embarrassing failure of the 2009 All Saints decision. This should not be a rushed-up decision.

As far as time of the disposal of cases goes, a quick survey of the last three months (September 1-Dec. 2) shows us some interesting trends. The court has rendered 28 decisions. Some of them were relatively quick formalities. For disbarment or reprimand of lawyers, 5 cases were settled, all unanimous against the lawyers in questions. For dismissal of certiorari, 8 cases were settled, all unanimous. That means only 15 others cases were settled by written decision. The time gap between oral argument and written decision varied from 1 year to 3 months. The larger and more complicated the case, the longer the time. It is interesting too to look at the agreement/disagreement ratio among the justices. The vast majority of the cases settled were by unanimous agreement. When dissent occurred, it was often from Justices Pleicones and Kittredge. The Chief Justice, Toal and Justice Hearn disagreed only once. This is important given the similarity of their views in the Sept. 23 hearing. 

What about the backlog of cases? The court website lists the cases heard in court and also the cases settled by written opinion. If we look at the cases heard from April 1, 2015, to the time of the Church hearing on Sept. 23, and still pending in the court, we find 45. In other words, there are at my count 45 cases ahead of the Church case just going back to April 1. There would certainly be more before that still pending. Of course some of the ones pending are relatively simple formalities.

All of us are anxious to get a decision  There is an enormous amount riding on the outcome. However, it seems to me at this point there is a better than even chance we will not get a decision soon. Three months after the hearing is not a long time in court life. The average length of time between hearing and decision is 6 months. Given the nature of this case, one can reasonably expect the justices to take longer than that. 

After all, we want the court to get it right. This will be a highly important decision not just for the parties in South Carolina, but for the whole nation. This will be the first time a state supreme court has ruled on the question of the relationship between the Episcopal Church and a local diocese. It will stand as law until and unless it is superceded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision. The South Carolina Supreme Court has on its shoulders a huge responsibility. Not only are we watching and waiting, so is the nation, and to some extent the world.

The court posts its decisions on its website, on Wednesdays. The next posting will be Wed., December 9. The address is: www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/indexscpub.cfm .






SECOND EDITION (Dec. 6).    Chief Justice Jean Toal is receiving a good deal of attention on the eve of her retirement. Here are two articles that may incidentally shed some light on the Church case:


"'Force of Nature,' SC Supreme Court Chief Jean Toal Strode through History," by John Monk, The State, Dec. 5, 2015. www.thestate.com/news/local/article48242630.html .


"Jean Toal: Lawyer, Legislator, Chief Justice-Mentor," The State, Dec. 4, 2015. www.thestate.com/news/local/article48242720.html .


Both articles describe a new book about Toal, Madame Chief Justice, Jean Hoefer Toal of South Carolina. USC Press. 189 p. This is a collection of 23 essays. One was written by Blake Hewitt. Remember him? he was the young man who presented the Church's oral argument before the court. Turns out he was once a clerk of Toal. At the time I wondered why he had been chosen to make the case. Alan Runyan is not the only one who can come up with clever tactics. Another article was co-written by Walter Edgar. One may recall in the Sept. 23 hearing, as Toal shredded Goodstein's decision, she seemed particularly offended by the shabby treatment to which Edgar had been subjected in Goodstein's courtroom. Edgar is almost universally revered as the greatest living historian of South Carolina (he is also a devout and loyal Episcopalian). 


My observation of the hearing, and a brief review of the decisions of the last several months, suggests to me a close working relationship between the two women justices, Toal and Hearn. Of the 28 decisions the justices handed down from Sept 1 to Dec. 2, they were together on 27 and apart on 1. Toal, Beatty, and Hearn were most often together. The other two, Pleicones and Kittredge showed a more independent spirit. As everyone saw in the hearing, Hearn is strongly on the Church side. If the Toal-Beatty-Hearn bond holds up, that bodes well for the Church case. It is inconceivable that Hearn would agree to anything against the Church's interest.


Regardless, one point is absolutely clear. This is Toal's case. She was in control of the hearing from first to last. Toal was the dominant personality in the entire courtroom. She spoke more than anyone. She had obviously prepared very well and had mastered a great deal of the mountain of complicated material in the background. She asked the most questions, made the most comments. One can only assume she dominated the private discussions about the decision too. Even if the decision comes out long after she retires, it will reflect her "force of nature" personality. This will be her last great opinion as Chief, and possibly the most consequential one she has ever handled.        

        

THE END OF A CHAPTER

Today, Sunday, November 29, 2015, the First Sunday in Advent, marks the end of a long chapter in the history of the Episcopal Church. It is the moment of a landmark event, the start of same-sex marriage in the Episcopal Church. Whether one is celebrating or weeping depends on which side of the fence one is on. I am celebrating.

This road to get to this day has been a long and tortuous one. In the big picture, one should recall that the first half of the twentieth century was consumed with defending democratic principles, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, the French would say, that is freedom, equal rights, and the common bond of all human beings. The end was the colossal success of democracy over the anti-democratic forces in the world, most importantly fascism. After peace, the great democratic impulse turned to the liberation of the elements of society that had been historically denied their democratic rights: first blacks, then women, and finally homosexuals. What we have today is the final victory of that long and great crusade to extend democracy in America to all the people. The last barrier has fallen.

Of all the great American religious denominations, the Episcopal Church was most affected by this great democratic movement. Once a rather conservative, stodgy religion of repetitious archaic liturgy mostly representing the entrenched elite ruling class, the Episcopal Church made a conscious decision to embrace with all its might the new crusade after the Second World War (what I call "horizontal" religion). First it campaigned for Civil Rights. By the 1970's it turned to the issue of the role of women in the Church, particularly whether women should be allowed into Holy Orders. By 1976 that was settled. At the same time, a new prayer book came along to be adopted in 1979. By then, far-right conservatives were peeling off the Church in disgust.

The issue of the interface of the Episcopal Church and homosexuality first appeared in 1976. In 1979, General Convention passed a resolution saying it was "not appropriate" to ordain practicing homosexuals. "Practicing" referred to openly homosexual persons such as those living with a same-sex companion. (Closeted homosexuals have been ordained forever; some people believe St. Paul was one). The conservative Episcopalians believed they had won the fight and continued believing such through the 1980's.

The issue of homosexuality was different than the earlier ones of race and women's ordination in that it operated on two levels. Homosexuality involved two problems: morality and Church government. The earlier issues did not involve morality, at least not directly. They were matters of institutional structure. Homosexuality was more than that. Conservatives saw homosexual behavior as inherently sinful and therefore immoral and unchristian (they love to quote the handful of verses they say condemn homosexuality). They said it was against God's plan of nature. Therefore, if it were sinful, it should never be condoned by the Church in any way such as allowing practicing gays to hold Holy Orders. By the 1980s, the Diocese of South Carolina, under Bishop Allison, moved squarely into this camp and would stay there afterwards to the schism.

The issue of the ordination of gays came to a head in the Episcopal Church much the same way women's ordination did, by proponents holding ordinations in defiance of the understood rules. The problem of the 1979 resolution ("not appropriate") however, was that it was never put into canon law. It was only a resolution, not a law of the Church. John Shelby Spong, the bishop of Newark decided to move ahead with reforms favoring homosexuals. By 1988 he established in his diocese the first rites for same-sex blessings in the Church. In 1989, he ordained a gay man, Robert Williams who was living openly with a same-sex partner. The next year Spong's assistant bishop, Walter Cameron Righter, ordained an openly gay man, Barry Stopfel. The leaders of the Diocese of South Carolina went ballistics and went off to the General Convention of 1991 demanding fierce disciplinary action.

The 1991 Phoenix General Convention is still remembered for its tumultuous, raucous, acrimonious atmosphere. It was all because the issue of homosexuality was back front and center and the Church had to deal with it. There was no choice. Much to the South Carolinians' disappointment, however, the House of Bishops refused to censure Spong and Righter. The Convention hammered out a tortuous, strange patchwork resolution that on the one hand reaffirmed traditional marriage and also recognized the reality of homosexuality. This was not the finest hour in Church history. In fact, the next year, the bishops met at Kanuga to ask why they were so dysfunctional (It was reported that Allison told them it was simple---apostasy, and then refused to take Communion with them). Nevertheless, the 1991 Convention marked the shift in the momentum within the Church from the "anti" to the "pro" side. By not censuring Spong and Righter and not voting to "invalidate" the controversial ordinations, the Convention had given tacit recognition to the ordinations of open gays.

The 1994 General Convention, in Indianapolis, was really the turning point for the Church on the issue of homosexuality. From 1976 to 1991 the "antis" had the upper hand. After 1991 the balance began to shift. By 1994, the great confrontation was ready. That year, the House of Bishops presented a study report on human sexuality that conservatives prepared to attack. They drew up a formal statement called the "Affirmation" and had it signed by 106 bishops denouncing the bishop's study report. They made very clear their position: 1-marriage is between one man and one woman only, 2-sexual relations between same-sex persons cannot be condoned by the Church, and 3-the Church cannot compromise on moral principles. Their goal was to kill this bishops' report as they indeed had done in 1988 with an earlier report called "Sexuality: A Divine Gift." But the situation was different now.

By 1994, the proponents of homosexual rights had developed a concerted effort to make their case. It was led by Bishop Spong. At the 1994 convention he refused to allow the conservatives to rule the field. He organized a strong opposition that drew up its own document called the "Koinonia Statement" that listed their goals: 1-recognition that homosexuality was morally neutral, 2-that same-sex couples in committed relationships should be honored and 3-that ordination should be open to all homosexuals. It was eventually endorsed by 90 bishops. 

At that point the Episcopal Church was divided on the issue of homosexuality roughly into thirds, one-third "anti," one-third "pro," and one-third neutral. The battle then was between the antis and the pros for the hearts and minds of the uncommitted middle crowd. The fact that the antis said their position was not negotiable left them in a box. In the end, the bishops decided to send their new study report on sexuality to the deputies without attaching either the "Affirmation" or the "Koinonia Statement" to it.

The 1994 Convention went on to pass a landmark resolution making a change in the Church canons to list "sexual orientation" as something that could not be used against ordination. This was done so quietly and subtly the conservatives barley recognized it. In fact, canon law was changed to remove the barrier against the ordination of gays. Spong and the "pro" side won the day even if it took quite a while for the other side to know what had hit them.

They did come to realize it much to their chagrin. Not willing to surrender, however, they moved on to another plan of action, hauling in the "pro" Bishop Righter for a church trial on the charge of heresy. Ten conservatives drew up a formal presentment against Righter that was signed by many other bishops and warmly endorsed by those of South Carolina. In 1996, after two hearings and before a formal trial, the court dismissed the charges saying there was "no clear doctrine" on the issue (the 1979 resolution was not a doctrine). The conservative bishops had gambled all on the court and had lost. That really cleared the way for the ordination of homosexuals and broke the back of the "anti" movement in the Episcopal Church. The affirmation of Bishop Gene Robinson in 2003, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, was really an aftermath of the Righter trial of 1996. We all know the rest. After Robinson, the "antis" drew up the Chapman Memo that made a blueprint for schism. Four dioceses voted to leave the Episcopal Church. In 2012 the Church adopted a liturgy for the blessing of same sex unions. In 2015, the Church changed its canons to allow same-sex marriage in the Church. Mark Lawrence and the ruling clique of the Diocese of South Carolina used the 2012 Convention decisions as the excuse to lead the majority of the diocese out of the Episcopal Church.

So, today begins same-sex marriage in the Episcopal Church. It is the end of a long campaign in the modern culture war. Scientific demographic studies show that the Episcopal Church was ahead of the curve on the great democratic issues of the post-Second World War age. Of that, I for one am proud without end.

Before today is over, I think all Episcopalians who treasure freedom, justice, and equality for all people should take a moment and thank the man who really made homosexual rights possible in the Episcopal Church, John Spong. To my knowledge he is still alive and well at age 84.

So I say, wherever you are, thank you Bishop Spong, thank you. You were right. Your enemies were wrong. We are in a better place today because of your wisdom, courage, and resolve. In a sense, today is your day.



SOUTH CAROLINIANS NOW AGREE--HOMOSEXUALITY SHOULD BE ACCEPTED

A new Pew Research Poll reveals that for the first time, the majority of people in South Carolina agree that homosexuality should be accepted. The study was recently published as "Religious Landscape Study," (survey conducted in 2014) by the Pew Research Center, Religion and Public Life (www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/state/south-carolina/ ). On the question of whether homosexuality should be accepted or discouraged, 51% of South Carolinians now say accepted while 42 % said discouraged. This is a drastic reversal over the last seven years. In 2007 a survey showed 37 % accepted while 52% discouraged. In seven years "accepted" jumped 14% while "discouraged" fell 10%. The trend is clear. 

Same-sex marriage. In the same survey in 2014, however, 54% of South Carolinians still opposed same-sex marriage while 40% favored. However, a closer look shows this too is changing rapidly. In an extensive scientific study in 2013, Nate Silver, the dean of political and demographic statisticians, showed that at that time 68% of South Carolinians opposed same-sex marriage ("How Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage is Changing, and What It Means,"  http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com ). Putting the Silver and Pew figures together, we see a 14% drop in opposition to same-sex marriage in South Carolina within a two year period. Silver went on to predict that South Carolina would reach the 50/50 mark in the year 2020. Now, it looks as if it will be sooner than that, much sooner. Very soon the majority of South Carolinians will favor same-sex marriage. The trend is unmistakable.

To be sure, South Carolina lags behind most of the United States and remains one of the most conservative states in the nation on social issues. This, of course, would come as no surprise to anyone how knows the first thing about South Carolina history. The Diocese of South Carolina was the very last diocese in the entire Episcopal Church to racially integrate and to allow women full equality in position of leadership and authority.

In the U.S. as a whole, the new Pew study found that 62% of people accept homosexuality while 31% discouraged ( www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study ). As for same-sex marriage, 53% of Americans support it while 39% oppose. The survey was taken in 2014, well before the famous Supreme Court decision of June 2015 legalizing same-sex marriage in the U.S. No doubt the "support" number would be considerably larger today.

This is a historic moment in the social history of South Carolina. Most South Carolinians now, for the first time in history, see no problem with homosexuality. It's live-and-let-live.  

So, what does all of this have to do with the schism in South Carolina? Plenty. As we have seen, the direct cause of the schism in the Episcopal diocese in 2012 was the issue of homosexuality. When the Episcopal Church adopted a policy of allowing formal blessing of same-sex unions in the church and equality for transgendered clergy, the diocesan leadership drew up a conspiracy for a schism. They put it in a secret written plan on Oct. 2, 2012 awaiting the first opportune moment to put it into effect. That happened on Oct. 15. Everyone knows this schism in South Carolina would not have happened except for the controversy over homosexuality.

The recent scientific studies show that the people of South Carolina are rapidly moving away from the diocesan leaderships' prejudice against rights for homosexual persons. This is especially true among young people who are near unanimous in agreement on acceptance of homosexuality. This means the future of a church based on opposition to homosexuals is dismal. In time, fewer and fewer people in South Carolina will be attracted to that increasingly rejected viewpoint. The independent diocese is likely to decline into a collection of mostly cynical old people, diminish, and either shrivel into nothingness or die out. If the independent diocese persists on its present path, its prognosis is decline, and probable death. No amount of propping up from African bishops is going to prevent that collapse.   

THE TRIUMPH

OF INDISCRIMINATE INCLUSIVITY

One may say it is a new age in the history of the Episcopal Church. The Most Rev. Michael Curry has been installed as the XXVII Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. He is the first African American to hold that post. However, it is not really a new age, but the fruition of a long evolving age, a journey of some sixty years in the life of the Church. Horizontal religion is now gloriously triumphant.

A few years ago, when he was an Episcopal Church bishop, Mark Lawrence was found of criticizing the Church for what he called its "indiscriminate inclusivity." He quit the Church after it adopted a rite for the blessing of same-sex unions and equality for transgendered clergy. He did not think the Church should include those things. 

Presiding Bishop Curry's installation today was the grand festival of the culmination of the long opening of the Church to indiscriminate inclusivity. Our Lord turned away no one. He was the original practitioner of indiscriminate inclusivity. This Church now practices equality too: male, female, black, white, brown, straight, gay, young, old, all ethnicities, all languages, in short, all of God's children. This is the Episcopal Church after decades of developing an all-inclusive community. And, this is where it should be.

The Episcopal Church was founded 230 years ago to be an American church for the American people. It has succeeded beyond even the wildest imaginations of its founders.

People of South Carolina, your ancestors and forefathers were in on the creation and growth of this great Church. It is your church too. You are included just as everyone else is. Those of you who have felt the need to leave home because it had become too inclusive, know that it embraces you too. You cannot erase history. The Episcopal Church is the great historic home of the Diocese of South Carolina. It is time for the good communicants of the independent diocese to reconsider the last three years. Instead of division, dissention, and hurt, you can look homeward to peace, reconciliation, healing, and love. The Episcopal Church wants you home. 




The video of "Holy Eucharist and Installation of the Most Rev. Michael Curry as XXVII Presiding Bishop," November 1, 2015, is available on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5YZtmFkNyU . It runs nearly three hours.      

NEWS UPDATE --- OCT. 26

We are now in the "waiting" period in the history of the schism in South Carolina. We have had the state supreme court hearing (Sept. 23), and are now awaiting the court's written decision. Since the Chief Justice is retiring on Dec. 31, that may well come before the end of the year, if not, in early 2016. Everyone is anxiously awaiting the ruling. This blog has had over 6,000 "hits" since the hearing. Although I have nothing to add at this point about the supreme court, there are several other items of noteworthy events of interest concerning the schism.

1. Mark Lawrence presided over his first ordination of a woman to the priesthood. On October 10, Lawrence ordained Martha Horn (one of only two women he has ordained to the diaconate). Read the short article about this in the DSC e-newsletter of October 16 and see the photo section. It should be recalled that Lawrence came from the Diocese of San Joaquin that had never ordained a woman; and he himself is on record as speaking disparagingly of women's ordination. We do not know at this point whether Lawrence's change of heart is only a personal favor to a clergy couple loyal to him, or really signals a change of policy to favor women's ordination in DSC. It may well be the former since to my knowledge there is no woman "in the pipeline" to ordination in DSC. Both Horn and her husband are struggling against serious cases of cancer. Although the DSC press release did not mention it, this first ordination of a woman by Lawrence is a landmark in DSC. As we know, the direct cause of the schism was rejection of the Episcopal Church's equality for homosexual and transgendered persons. The schism came from a stand rejecting equality. If DSC can now accept equality for one oppressed group, it can do the same for others. Thus, Horn's ordination is a great step forward for a "diocese" that has been much too reluctant to step at all toward accepting all of God's children as equal.

2. The primates and representatives of 12 Global South provinces met in Cairo, October 14-16. They wrote: "We were happy to receive a report from Bishop Mark Lawrence of the Diocese of South Carolina, which receives Primatial oversight from the Global South." No other words about this were given. It should be recalled that DSC set up a strange "oversight" arrangement with the steering committee of the Global South primates. No explanation of the arrangement was ever given; but it did hold that DSC could withdraw at will rendering any "oversight" a sham. DSC remains a "diocese" apart from any legitimate or illegitimate province of the Anglican Communion.

The conference also welcomed the Anglican Church in North America as a "partner province" and recognized its archbishop, Foley Beach, as a fellow primate. It should be recalled that the Anglican Communion officially recognizes only the Episcopal Church as the legitimate province of the Communion in the United States, and does not recognize the legitimacy of the ACNA nor its archbishop as any kind of "primate."

The conference also issued a "Communique" stating the Global South primates would attend the January conference called by the Archbishop of Canterbury (11-16 Jan. 2016, Canterbury) but made it clear they would go only with an "agenda." As a hint of its agenda, the next item blasted the Episcopal Church for its acceptance of same-sex marriage which the primates unilaterally declared violated the teachings both of the Anglican Communion and the "one Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Church."  That should put to rest any lingering doubt anyone might have had that this schism in the Anglican Communion and in South Carolina is not about homosexuality.

The recent bishops' synod at the Vatican suggests that what is happening to tear apart the Anglican Communion is not unique to it. News reports show that the same sort of split may be occurring in the Roman church where once again the equatorial Africans and their western conservative allies have set up a counter force to oppose western democratic liberalism. Pope Francis's moves for a more merciful and accepting church have been fiercely opposed, and perhaps even blocked, by a coalition led by the African bishops who are resolved to promote their own Afro-centric socio-cultural agenda. See the articles in Yahoo News such as:  http://news.yahoo.com/african-bishops-criticize-vaticans-priorities-eurocentric-174924024.html . 

Recommended reading:  Miranda Hassett, Anglican Communion in Crisis: How Episcopal Dissidents and their African Allies are Reshaping Anglicanism (Princeton University Press, 2007. 295 p.). Although written before GAFCON and dated, this is the definitive work on the formation of the alliance of American counter-revolutionaries and the equatorial African bishops. Prophetic in that this alliance has indeed created a de facto schism in the old Anglican Communion.

3. Foley Beach, archbishop of ACNA, attended the clergy conference of DSC, October 19-21. The only information we have about this visit came in a news release from DSC: www.diosc.com/sys/news-events/latest-news/700-archbishop-beach-speaks-at-diocese . The only descriptive remark the news release made was that between Foley and the clergy, "The discussion was frank." One can make of that whatever one wishes; however, "frank" is often a euphemism for difference of opinion. Obviously since there was no other statement from DSC or Beach, the two sides agreed to disagree. Why DSC refuses, after three years, to join ACNA remains a secret tightly held among the ruling clique. The situation of DSC now is that it is virtually an independent Christian denomination vaguely "recognized" as legitimate and somehow "overseen" however strangely, by the Global South Anglican primates. It is not in the Anglican Communion. It is not attached to any province, real or pretend, of the Communion. In effect, DSC is its own little church led by an authoritarian bishop who shows no sign of changing that. DSC is in nowhere going nowhere.

4. The Episcopal Church in South Carolina filed a "Notice of Appeal" with the U. S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit (Richmond) on October 19. One should recall that in 2013, Bishop Charles vonRosenberg filed a suit in the U.S. District Court (federal court) in Charleston against Mark Lawrence claiming Lawrence violated the Lanham Act that protects federally registered trademarks. He asked the court to recognize himself, and not Lawrence, as the only legal and legitimate bishop of the Episcopal diocese of South Carolina. The federal judge, C. Weston Houck, set aside the suit pending the state circuit court proceeding. ECSC appealed this to the Court of Appeals in Richmond. This year, that Court found Houck had used the wrong standard to abstain and remanded the case to him to be reconsidered following another, and more demanding, principle. In spite of this order, once again Houck abstained and set aside the suit pending the state supreme court decision. By this, Houck ignored the Appeals Court clear direction to adjudicate the case. The new appeal, of Oct. 19, asks the Court of Appeals in Richmond to act again to overturn Houck's decision to refuse adjudication in favor of the state court proceeding. Instead of repeating, I will direct you to Steve Skardon's informative summary at www.scepiscopalians.com .

5. The new presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, the Rt. Rev. Michael Curry, will be installed on Sunday, November 1, in the Washington national cathedral. The two-hour service will be live streamed beginning at 12:00 p.m. EDT. Find it at the cathedral's website:  www.cathedral.org. The service leaflet of 31 pages is available now:  www.cathedral.org/pdfs/20151101PBCurryInstallation.pdf . In the service, the present presiding bishop, the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori will hand over the office of presiding bishop and primate of the Episcopal Church to Curry. This will be a historic event as Curry is to be the first African American to head the Church. It is amazing and heartwarming to see how the Church has developed from its first tentative steps toward racial justice in the 1940's to his point. Indeed, a full-fledged commitment to civil rights was the first part of the "horizontal" revolution of social justice the Church started after the Second World War. Equality for women and homosexuals ensued. It was the last that the leaders of the old Diocese of South Carolina decided they could not tolerate. They led the majority of the diocese out of the Episcopal Church in 2012 after the General Convention approved a service for the blessing of same-sex unions and equality for transgendered clergy.

OCTOBER 15

Tomorrow, October 15, is an anniversary to remember. How one remembers it depends on which side of the fence one is on. It was three years ago, October 15, 2012, that the authorities of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina finally enacted, at least among themselves, their plan to remove the diocese from the Episcopal Church.

At 12:00 noon, on Monday, October 15, 2012, the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, initiated a conference telephone call from her office in New York City. It included the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence, bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina, Mr. Wade Logan, the chancellor of the Diocese, and the Disciplinary Board for Bishops. Schori announced to all that the Board had certified that Lawrence had abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church, and therefore under the canons of the Church, the Presiding Bishop was required to place a restriction on the Lawrence. She forbade him for exercising any ministry until this issue could be resolved. He would have sixty days in which to make a written appeal to the Presiding Bishop who then would have the discretion to remove the restriction and restore the bishop to his constitutional ministries. As an alternative, Lawrence could wait until the next meeting of the House of Bishops, scheduled for March of 2013, make his case to the House and have a trial and verdict of the bishops.

Jefferts Schori followed the rules in the canons of the Church, then she added a personal request. She asked Lawrence to keep this private until they met on October 22 in the conference already planned of Jefferts Schori, Lawrence and Bishop Andrew Waldo, of Upper South Carolina, in New York. There they could meet again and try to resolve the issues privately and quietly. Lawrence listened and the conference call ended. Lawrence then proceeded to ignore all that Jefferts Schori had directed to him.

Immediately after the call, Lawrence arranged a conference call with the diocesan standing committee at 1:30 p.m. Apparently, Lawrence, the committee, and perhaps the lawyers Wade, and Alan Runyan, all agreed that the "restriction" automatically enacted the previously secret plan of to disassociate the diocese from the Episcopal Church. Earlier, on October 2, 2012, the bishop, lawyers, and committee had agreed in a private meeting on a secret plan to remove the diocese from the Church. The committee passed a resolution that if the Episcopal Church took "any action of any kind" against Lawrence, the diocese would automatically leave the Episcopal Church. For the time being, this plan remained the secret of the clique of twenty or so persons in on it. Lawrence met Jefferts Schori and Waldo the next day in New York and did not mention the committee's vote.

Thus, it was on the afternoon of October 15, 2012, that the officials of the Diocese of South Carolina unilaterally decided on the withdrawal of the diocese from the Church. This was kept secret for two days to allow Lawrence and the other officials time to prepare for the announcement to the rest of the world.

On Wednesday, October 17, Lawrence called Jefferts Schori and told her the diocese had disassociated from the Episcopal Church because of the heretofore secret October 2 resolution of the standing committee. The break went into effect at noon of October 15, the moment of the phone call to Lawrence with the announcement of the "restriction." Jefferts Schori made it plain she was still planning on the previously scheduled meeting of October 22. In fact, there was no meeting between Lawrence and Jefferts Schori after October 17. Lawrence claimed that he had disaffiliated from the Church; therefore, there was no point in a further meeting with Episcopal Church officials. Nevertheless, Jefferts Schori called Lawrence several more times in a vain effort to keep talks going.

As soon as Lawrence ended his phone call to Jefferts Schori of October 17, the diocesan office issued a prepared barrage of press releases announcing the removal of the diocese from the Episcopal Church. It also announced a special diocesan convention on November 17 in order to revise the diocesan canons to reflect the disassociation the standing committee had already made. It is important to note that the purported removal of the diocese from the Church was made in secret by a group of no more than twenty people who appointed themselves authorized to do this. The clergy and communicants of the diocese were informed of this only by the press releases of October 17. This was a revolution from the top down.

The special diocesan convention met on November 17 at St. Philip's in Charleston. As expected, the assembly passed all the resolutions presented to them by the ruling clique with large majorities. Lawrence announced to the assembly they had disaffiliated from the Episcopal Church but they would continue as the Diocese of South Carolina with himself as the bishop. The convention affirmed this.

On December 5, 2012, Jefferts Schori issued to Lawrence a formal "Release and Removal." She said she and her council of heads of the provinces of the Episcopal Church recognized that Lawrence had left the Church and so abandoned the Holy Orders the Church had bestowed on him. The Release and Removal released Lawrence from this vows to the Church and removed him as a bishop. Lawrence, and the majority of the diocese however made it plain they still considered Lawrence the legal and legitimate bishop of the diocese. Some primates of the Anglican Communion, namely in Global South, agreed with Lawrence and declared their recognition of his claims to office. Now the self-declared bishop, validated by the majority of communicants, Lawrence announced the diocese to be an extra-provincial diocese of the Anglican Communion. Global South agreed but the official structure of the Anglican Communion ignored it. After three years, the "diocese" is still on its own, unaffiliated with a province of the Anglican Communion. It remains the only one among the five breakaway cases in the U.S. not to join the Anglican Church in North America. 

Thus, dear reader, October 15 is a date to remember. Mark it as you wish. I think everyone should pause at noon for a minute of silence. I for one see October 15 as a day of infamy, another needless self-inflicted disaster for South Carolina. The direct cause of the schism, opposition to equality for homosexuals, is a cause past its time. That front of the great modern culture war is closed. America has moved on leaving the schismatics to their peculiar "discriminate inclusivity." Nevertheless, the destructive effects of this premeditated conspiracy to create division will last for a long time in a state that has already seen more than its share of tragedies. I expect to pass the day in quiet reflection and prayer that it all may end as soon as possible. Healing, restoration, and reconciliation will come, and not a moment too soon. And, I have a feeling it is much closer than I had thought after I witnessed the state supreme court hearing of Sept. 23.