FIVE YEARS

Five years ago today, I started this blog. I had not kept a web log before and I had no idea what might be in store. I am glad now I started it and did not know what was going to happen in the five years. I have always believed it is best we do not know the future. If we did, no one would want to get out of bed.

I began this blog for two reasons, to provide a modest, little commentary on the progress of my writing a history of the schism and to give information and informed opinion on the ongoing events of the schism. I am satisfied that the blog has succeeded reasonably well on both counts. 

First of all, the blog has proven to be far more popular than I had imagined. At last check, it has had 473,400 "hits." In the last few months, for whatever reason, the blog has seen an explosion of interest with 120,000 hits in the past three months alone. I continue to be amazed at how many people read this modest space. Although many people consult this blog regularly, I am the one who has benefited the most. It is a good way to vent and to organize thoughts. 

I have posted around 425 items in the five years, with 415 still up. A few I removed for one reason or another. The number one, most accessed posting in the whole five years was "Cert Denied," of June 11, 2018, with 12,555 hits. This, of course, was the information on the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to take an appeal of the case from the South Carolina Supreme Court. The court's refusal was essentially the end of the road for the question of the disposition of the parish properties. The next most popular item was "Chronology," with over 11,000 hits. In this, I provided a detailed timeline of the background, events, and aftermath of the schism. I suspect people have found this most helpful in following the complicated litigation. The next most often read piece was "A Remarkable Bishop, A Remarkable Three and a Half Years," of Sept. 1, 2016, with 5,469 hits. This was a reflection on the episcopate of provisional bishop Charles vonRosenberg. The next most popular item was the Rev. Rob Donehue's great letter of July 2, 2018. At last glance, it had received 2,774 hits. The "Sources" posting has also been popular. It provided an annotated bibliography of the history of the schism. It is the listing I made for my own research and writing of my history of the schism.

All of the numerous "Letters to This Editor" have been remarkably popular with readers. Wayne Helmly's moving letter of yesterday is still going viral on Facebook (1,300 hits in one day). It is good to have on the blog the views and words of other people. I expect readers get a bit tired of what Steve Skardon and I have to say. It is too bad there has not been a similar blogger on the breakaway side. I wish there had been. As a reminder, I encourage everyone to send me your thoughts on any aspect of the schism. If possible, I will post it and will omit name if you wish. Occasionally I get email that is not printable. I am sure you understand. I still welcome all emails.

When I started this blog, I was underway collecting all the documents and other sources I could on the history of the schism with a goal of the publication of a thorough narrative history of the schism. I wanted people to know how the break had come about, how it had occurred, and what it might mean for the future. I figured I could finish the book in a couple of years, about my imagined length of the schism. Wrong on both counts. I worked on the book for over four years absorbing over 2,500 papers and writing and rewriting text. I had to cull out over 100 pages of text to avoid a two-volume work. The hardest part was in the last few months when I was undergoing daily radiation for prostate cancer, recovering from surgery, and trying to meet the publisher's deadline. With a lot of help of most generous people, as Joan Gundersen, I managed to finish on time, even as the state supreme court issued its long-awaited decision. The treatment was a success and so was the book which has been met with positive professional reviews.

So, here we are nearly six years into the schism. To summarize everyone's feeling now, I would use one word, exhaustion. Everybody on both sides is just worn out and ready for it to be over and done. Enough already. Unfortunately, the legal system moves at its own glacial pace and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Judges proceed as they can. Every move seems to require a lot of time.

Nevertheless, the general outlines of the end are in sight. There are two avenues of the litigation now and both are slowly moving to conclusion. In the state court, Judge Dickson is to hold a hearing on all the papers before him late next month. It is reasonable to assume he will deal with it all as one package and proceed with the enactment of the state supreme court decision. Meanwhile, the federal court is preparing for a trial, in March of next year. That case will settle which side is entitled to the pre-schism diocese. Odds are strongly in favor of the Episcopal Church diocese. Thus, the judges Dickson and Gergel should essentially wrap up the litigation. As I see it, Dickson's work is not subject to appeal; however, the federal court decision is subject to appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Richmond. I doubt that DSC could delay the return of the 29 parishes, but it can postpone the turn over of the entity of the old diocese.

I know all this business must seem interminable to you readers out there. I get a lot of emails. However, we must not be disheartened. The end is in sight, if still far off on the horizon. The end will come, and the Church diocese will get on with its reconciliation and rebuilding and the Lawrence diocese will get on with its reconstruction from the ruins. It can still be a viable diocese but will face enormous challenges in rebuilding. Both sides need to get this schism behind them and move forward in doing what they are supposed to be doing, God's work in the world. The schism is a fact of history now, but the sooner it all becomes history the better.

And so, I will close with the new book review in Church History, the leading professional journal of the subject, with permission of the journal. I thank Frank Kirkpatrick for his words. I could not imagine a better way to mark five years online. Click on the image to get an enlargement.

  

These five years have been hard in many ways. I know it is difficult, maybe impossible, to see today, but I believe down the road good will rise from the ruins of the schism. The Diocese of South Carolina has survived a great deal of adversity and bounced back every time. The American Revolution all but ruined the old established church. The Civil War seemed the end of the world in the Low Country, at least to the white gentry. The despicable Schism of 1887 institutionalized the shameful racial discrimination that lasted for more than half a century. A bishop was shot and killed by a man probably motivated by racism. In the 1960s and 1970s, Bishop Temple led the diocese to weather the storms of racial integration, new prayer book, and equality for and inclusion of women in the life of the church. At the time, every one of these crises seemed terribly devastating. 

There was a common thread in all of the great crises in the history of the diocese, social policy. The present day division is part of this big picture. It too, came about because of social disagreement, that is, how we treat homosexual and transgendered persons in the life of the church. If the diocese survived the earlier social conflicts, it will this one too. Years from now, people will look back and shake their heads in dismay at the foolishness of 2012.  

SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 --- 

LETTER TO THIS EDITOR

It is Monday, 10 September. As everyone keeps a wary eye on Hurricane Florence churning out in the Atlantic and presently headed for the Carolinas, we are still dealing with another storm in Carolina, an exceedingly long-lasting and disruptive one, the Episcopal Church schism. Next month will mark six years of this tumult. It must seem never-ending to many people.

Today we have another great letter to this editor. Recently, Steve Skardon posted on scepiscopalians a long and thoughtful response to Penn Hagood's letter to St. Philip's Church, Charleston. Find Skardon's letter here . If you have not read Skardon's letter, you should. Hagood, the senior warden, had written a four-page, detailed letter to the parish last July in response to Bishop Adams's conversations of reconciliation. It is mostly a rehashing of her diocesan leaders' talking points for rejecting reconciliation. It is worth a read. Find it here . 

Now we have a second long and thoughtful response to Hagood. It comes from Wayne Helmly, a communicant of St. Stephen's, of Ansonboro, Charleston:

____________________________________

September 9, 2018

Dear Ms. Hagood:

I read the letter that you recently wrote to the congregants of St. Philip's with great sadness, and it's weighed on my heart for several days.

Respectfully, I offer here another perspective. I am not writing to argue, rather to let you know that I do not believe that The Episcopal Church is the Antichrist, as some of you portray us to be. And that characterization is hurtful.

First, Let us acknowledge the "elephant in the room" that your letter seems to ignore: The attempted schism started because of the inclusion of LGBT Christians in positions of leadership in The Episcopal Church. Period. Full Stop.

Over the past several years, I've had opportunities to speak with many Episcopalians in South Carolina who admitted that they were initially willing to listen to the concerns of former Bishop Lawrence and his followers that acceptance of the LGBT community in church leadership was incompatible with Scripture and Christian teaching. After all, he was our bishop, our spiritual leader.

But then some of those undecided fence sitters started taking a closer look. Some found that this characterization of scripture often lacked the power of Christ's Greatest Commandment: "to love [our] neighbors as [ourselves]."

From the beginning, former Bishop Lawrence proclaimed that The Episcopal Church's inclusion of the LGBT community in leadership presented "a false gospel of indiscriminate inclusivity."

The suggestion that "indiscriminate inclusivity" was antithetical to Christ's teaching did not ring true for some of us. Scriptural accounts of the life of Jesus demonstrate that no one practiced "indiscriminate inclusivity" more than He! Just ask the lepers, prostitutes, tax collectors, that ragtag group of imperfect disciples, and a host of others.

Some of us thought of the story of the Ethopian eunuch in the Book of Acts. By any account, the eunuch was a sexual minority, unmistakably kin to transgender people. Deuteronomy strictly forbade eunuchs from the temple. Yet Jesus went out of his way to say that some eunuchs are born that way and some ar made that way (see Matthew 19:12). Furthermore, he did not condemn or banish them, adding that he was well aware that some would struggle to accept this teaching. Perhaps the apostle Philip remembered this when he made the Ethopian eunuch the first Gentile convert to Christianity (see Acts 8).

Besides, the undecideds and fence sitters noticed that "indiscriminate inclusivity" was sometimes present in The Diocese of South Carolina. For example, despite Jesus' clear teaching in scripture on divorce and remarriage, the diocese allows it, even among priests and deacons.

Even with clear scriptural admonitions to the contrary, members of The Diocese of South Carolina eat shellfish and pork, some men grow their hair a little long and women are allowed to cut their hair, no church leaders have been ousted for mixing fabrics in their attire, and one certainly does not see very many selling everything and giving the proceeds to the poor.

While rejoicing in the generous pastoral acceptance of those who fall short in these areas (and who doesn't?), some of us began to wonder if the war on the LGBT community was not a bit hypocritical. And was what seemed to be the cherry-picking of scripture to justify prejudices, especially towards our transgender siblings, really "loving our neighbors as ourselves?"

We also asked: Why was the LGBT community singled out like this? Didn't St. Paul say that there was neither "male or female," but that we are all "one in Christ," that God showed no partiality and that we had all sinned and fallen short? And because of this no one was righteous and there was no degree of sin?

And what about grace? Were we not all sinners in need of forgiveness and God's grace? Do not the first three chapters of Romans warn about the hypocritical self-righteousness of those who pass judgment on some considered unworthy, in that case the Gentiles? And where would most Episcopalians be now if Gentiles were still excluded from he faith, as they were in early Christianity?

In light of this, it appeared to some of us that there is clearly precedent for the Christian community, in light of Christ's Greatest Commandment, to evolve on who/what is accepted. So some Episcopalians in South Carolina came to the conclusion that to be "indiscriminately inclusive" of the LGBT community is one way to love our neighbor as ourselves.

You seem to suggest in your letter that The Episcopal Church is not Biblical. But today at St. Stephen's, Charleston, we heard in the Epistle lesson,

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill," and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itslef, if it has no works, is dead. (James 2:13-17).

Our rector reminded us in his sermon that those "works" of ours must minister not just to the materially poor, as important as that is, but also to the "poor in spirit" that Jesus talks about in the book of Matthew.

Many of us view ministry to the LGBT community and other marginalized people as a way to feed the "poor in spirit," a means to spiritually nourish those who have been marginalized by the Church.

So, Ms. Hogood, I believe you mischaracterize us when you say that we do not beleive that Scripture has authority. To the contrary, just like you and many other Christians, we are striving towards better living into Biblical teachings everyday. And part of that, for many of us, is the practicing of "indiscriminate inclusivity" of the LGBT community.

Despite some of us feeling that we are unfairly maligned, most Episcopalians do not hold animus towards you. Please remember that former Bishop Lawrence and the former diocesan Standing Committee first sued The Episcopal Church; it was not the other way round. No one from The Episcopal Church came after you or your buildings.

In fact, some of us feel that you came after US. From some of our perspectives, first, foremost, and always millions of dollars were spent in an attempt to exclude LGBT Christians from living into what we believe are God-given ministries and vocations. That exclusion was not acceptable then, nor is it now, nor will it ever be again. Thanks be to God, those days are gone.

In closing, please know that I pray daily about this whole painful ordeal. I do believe that The Episcopal Church is big enough for all of us, including the LGBT community, and those, like St. Philip's, who choose to leave. I hope and pray that St. Philip's and all of your sister parishes can get back to the furtherance of God's kingdom very soon.

I do not believe that The Episcopal Church is your enemy. Like you, we are Christian people trying to live into Scripture, our baptismal vows, the Creeds, the Book of Common Prayer, and the inspiration of The Holy Spirit by striving to love our neighbors as ourselves.

By the way, St. Stephen's is hosting a Community Interfaith PRIDE service next Sunday at 5 pm. All are welcome!

Thank you for reading this.

Sincerely,

Wayne Helmly

___________________________________

Many thanks to Helmly for contributing this wonderful letter. 

Hagood's hefty letter has prompted some thoughtful responses. What do you think, for or against the Hagood missive? Send me your thoughts via the email address above. We need to hear from you. Your words count just as much as anyone's. 

BISHOP LOVE'S MESSAGE 

ON CLERGY MEETING

Bishop William Love, of Albany, released a letter on September 7, about the diocesan clergy meeting of September 6. Find the letter here . 

In his letter, Love says the purpose of last Thursday's meeting was simply to give a closed-door platform for everyone to discuss the impact of B012 on the diocese. There was no diocesan policy decision made. Love promised to issue a directive for the implementation of B012 in the diocese and to do so prior to December 2, the starting date of the resolution in the Episcopal Church. Under the resolution, same-sex couples are allowed to marry in their local parishes.

Love had been the strongest ally in the House of Bishops of Bishop Mark Lawrence in the run-up to the schism of 2012. However, Love's letter of two days ago shows no hint of schism, only how B012 is to be enacted in the diocese. Those who hoped Love would follow Lawrence's example and make a schism must be disappointed at this even though nothing rules out an eventual schism. In my view, the signs are not there in Albany the way they were in South Carolina before October 15, 2012.

Be sure to read the poignant words of an insider who also sees no schism, "Being Disarmed" by Leander Harding, in The Living Church, Covenant. The Very Rev. Dr. Leander S. Harding, dean of the All Saints Cathedral, Albany NY. Find his essay here .  

NOTES, 8 SEPTEMBER

It is Saturday, September 8. 

MUST READ. Steve Skardon has given us another eloquent missive on the state of the schism. He has written a long and thoughtful reply to a letter from the senior warden of St. Philip's, Charleston. I highly recommend it. Find it here .

We are now in the midst of an information campaign in the history of the schism. The general outline of the legal settlement has already formed. The courts have recognized Episcopal Church control over 29 parishes. In all likelihood, the courts are about to recognize the Church diocese as the legitimate and legal heir of the pre-schism diocese of South Carolina. This means that the 13,000 communicants in the 29 parishes have to choose whether to stay in the buildings and return to the Episcopal Church bishop or leave the buildings and form new congregations elsewhere. It may very well be that Judge Dickson will expedite the return of the properties at the hearing in late October. If not then, soon thereafter. It is just a matter of time.

The Lawrence diocese has been on a all-out campaign to convince the 13,000 communicants to leave the buildings when the time comes. However, they keep saying it is a longtime off in order to keep people contributing to lawyers. The DSC campaign started last December with a "template" on congregational relocation put out by the diocese and sent to the parishes. Then, in March, April, and May the diocesan leadership conducted two "teaching" courses on "theology" at St. Philip's and St. Michael's. This was nothing more than an anti-Episcopal Church propaganda campaign. This was videotaped, packaged, and sent to all of the parishes, many of which have replayed it in their localities. It is available online at the diocesan website. Lastly, in late July and early August, Bishop Lawrence made a five-stop speaking tour of the diocese proclaiming his view of the schism. A thousand people turned out for his performances.

In case anyone has forgotten, there is an exhaustive history of the schism that will tell you all you want to know about it. It is my book, A History of the Episcopal Church Schism in South Carolina. It is available from numerous vendors besides the bookshop at Grace Cathedral in Charleston. Amazon has it for as little as $10. 

The fourth professional review of my book was recently published in Church History, the premier scholarly journal of Christian history. You may find the first page of this review at the journal's website. It is in Volume 87, Issue 2 (June 2018), pages 645-647. Find the first page of the review here . The reviewer was Frank G. Kirkpatrick, professor emeritus of church history at Trinity College, in Connecticut. The review was laudatory:   "Caldwell provides us with what will surely become the definitive history of what went on in South Carolina..." In another place, he wrote:   "As a history, Caldwell's book is about as good as one can get in dissecting and laying out the story of a diocese in conflict with the larger body to which it was affiliated." I am happy to say that not one reviewer, indeed, not one person, has disputed a word of the book. No one has taken issue with anything I have written there. The criticisms have been stylistic, too long, too detailed, too much information, too many documents, repetitive. Actually, I do not see any of this as criticism. In short, the reader can have confidence that what is written in the book is trustworthy.

The 13,000 communicants would be wise to consider all the information available about how they got to where they are and what this means for their future. They should take what their self-serving officials are telling them with a grain of salt.


On another subject, membership. We now have the official membership figures from the Episcopal Church for 2007 to 2017. Find the charts here . Two points:

1---"Underground Pewster" said Upper South Carolina had fallen 19% in Average Sunday Attendance and asserted this was because of Bishop Waldo's promotion of a "false gospel." The official figures of baptized membership do show a decline in membership in Waldo's years of 2009-2017, but the amount is 8%, far from the drastic number claimed by "Pewster." The national church membership declined by about 18% in the last decade.

2---The Episcopal Church in South Carolina shows steady gain in membership, to 7,309 in 2017.

TECSC:
2013 - 5,781
2014 - 6,387
2015 - 6,706
2016 - 7.053
2017 - 7,309

2013-17, TECSC gained 26% in membership. As I have pointed out, the 50 local churches of the Lawrence diocese lost 33% of their communicant numbers around the time of the schism, 2011-2016.   

ALBANY CLERGY MEET

The clergy of the Diocese of Albany met yesterday to discuss B012, the General Convention resolution that allows same-sex marriage in the local parishes, even in dioceses which had banned them. Albany was one of eight dioceses that had not allowed same-sex weddings. 

The meeting was in "executive session," meaning closed to the public and media. However, the diocese has promised a press release on the meeting, presumably in the near future.

Find the Albany (NY) Times Union article about yesterday's meeting here .

I will relate news of the Albany conference as I receive it.

THE MYTH OF "ORTHODOXY" 

AND CHURCH GROWTH

For years now, many conservative Episcopalians, indeed conservative Christians of all denominations, have claimed that church membership decline is caused by the liberalization of religion. They insist that "orthodox" religion is more popular and will cause church growth. A new expression of this myth has just appeared in an online smear of Bishop Andrew Waldo, of Upper South Carolina, by someone under the disguise of "Underground Pewster." Find the remarks here . According to his or her figures, USC has seen a 19% drop in Average Sunday Attendance from 2009 to 2017, the years of Bishop Waldo. Without a shred of evidence, he claims this decline is caused by Waldo's imposing an undefined "false gospel" on the diocese. Interesting to note that Pewster has not given us any other statistics, as baptized membership, or communicants. The blogger goes on to declare boldly:  In the corporate world, a CEO who lost 20-30% of his company's value in nine years would be FIRED!"

So, Pewster, what would you do with Bishop Mark Lawrence? He lost 47% of his communicants (27,670 in 2008 to 14,694 in 2016). Counting just the 50 local churches that adhered to Lawrence in the schism, he lost 33% in the schism (21,993 in 2011 to 14,694 in 2016). The Lawrence diocese has lost members steadily every year since the schism. Should Lawrence be fired? On his recent Last Hurrah tour, he got standing ovations, and from people who for nearly six years have been paying double lawyer fees.

Meanwhile, the Episcopal Church diocese has grown every year since the schism:  

2011---5,781 members

2014---6,387

2015---6,706

2016---7,053

As the Lawrence diocese lost 33% of its communicants, the Episcopal Church diocese gained 22% in membership.

It is entirely clear that the Diocese of South Carolina is a highly evangelical body proclaiming itself "orthodox." In fact, I would rate it at least as fundamentalist-leaning. All one has to do is read the four Marriage Task Force documents of 2015 forced on the diocese to see this. DSC is about as "orthodox" as a self-described "Anglican" body can get. Yet, it has lost communicants at an alarming rate and continues to do so relentlessly. 

The theory that "orthodox" religion leads to church growth while liberalism leads to decline is nonsense. It is not borne out by the facts in South Carolina. "Underground Pewster's" remarks have no substance.  

For the details of the decline of the Lawrence diocese, see my three blog entries on the DSC membership here , here , and here .    

OLD SAINT ANDREW'S 

AND JUDGE DICKSON
2nd Edition

The rector of Old St. Andrew's parish, in West Ashley, sent an email to his parishioners today about the church and the upcoming hearing before Judge Edgar Dickson of the circuit court (see yesterday's blog post). The rector wrote:

______________________________________

"Today we received word that Judge Dickson has scheduled hearings on five various motions to be heard in the State Court case between The Episcopal Church (TEC) and our Diocese. Included in these five motions to be heard is the Motion for Clarification filed on behalf of Old St. Andrew's. You will recall that the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that eight parish churches were not subject to the trust interest alleged by TEC, and that one of those eight churches named was 'St. Andrew's Parish Church, Mt. Pleasant.' There is no 'St. Andrew's Parish Church' other than Old St. Andrew's, and we have understood that Supreme Court ruling to mean that Old St. Andrew's is free and clear of any trust claim by TEC.

The fact that Judge Dickson has scheduled these five motions, including our Motion for Clarification, is very good news for us at Old St. Andrew's...."

Here is the email (click on to enlarge):

_____________________________________

Let us consider this issue again as Old St. Andrew's is asserting that it is not in the list of parishes not under TEC/TECSC trust control.

In the first place, there are six motions/petitions before Dickson, not five. Three are from DSC and three from TEC/TECSC. The three from DSC are 1-the Betterments lawsuit, 2-motion for complex case designation, and 3-the motion for clarification, of which the rector wrote today.

Now, let us go back to the state supreme court decision of August 2, 2017, to see what it says. In footnote #49, former chief justice Jean Toal lists the eight church organizations that did not accede to the Denis Canon:

1---Christ the King, Waccamaw

2---St. Matthew's, Darlington

3---St. Andrew's Church-Mt. Pleasant Land Trust

4---St. Paul's, Conway

5---Prince George Winyah, Georgetown

6---the Parish of St. Andrew's, Mt. Pleasant

7---St. John's, Florence

8---St. Matthias, Summerton

Note that St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant is listed twice. The first is for the St. Andrew's Land Trust. This was a separate entity formed (as I recall set up in 2010) to hold property beyond trust control of TEC. Thus, #3 and #6 are two different entities of the same parish. This leaves seven parishes on the list outside of the trust.

Now, it is possible Toal was confused and meant for #6 to be Old St. Andrew's. However, this was not what was clearly given in the text of the decision. OSA was not on the list outside the trust.

As everyone knows, I am not a lawyer, but I have looked up the SC law on correcting mistakes in state supreme court decisions. In the SC law code, Rule 60 (find it here ), if a party believes an error or mistake was made in a supreme court decision, the party may petition the supreme court for a correction of the supposed error. The supreme court would have to issue the correction itself. This petition has to be done within one year of the decision. The deadline for that was August 2, 2018. The deadline expired more than a month ago. If there were a petition for correction, I am unaware of it. To my knowledge, the rector of OSA has not mentioned a petition to the SCSC for a correction of the Aug. 2, 2017 decision. As I read the law, OSA cannot now change what the state supreme court has ruled. It ruled that OSA is under trust control of TEC/TECSC.

The rector referenced a motion for clarification before Dickson. DSC did indeed file "Motion for Clarification of Jurisdiction and for Other Relief," on March 23, 2018. The text on page 4 reads:  "The Vestries and Churchwardens of the Parish of St. Andrew (commonly called 'Old St. Andrew's Parish Church'). Old St. Andrew's Parish Church has sought correction of this error with the Defendants and has received written indication of their consent to correct, but has been unable to secure agreement on a consent order." 

I would have no way to know of the communications between OSA and the TEC/TECSC lawyers. However, as this laymen reads it, state law clearly says a correction has to be made by the court of issue, in this case the South Carolina Supreme Court. If a correction had been made, we would all know of it. As I understand it, a circuit court judge does not hold the authority to change a state supreme court decision, even if he or she believes an error were made in the decision. Dickson's mandate from the SCSC, as of the remit order of last November, is to implement the August 2, 2017, decision. He cannot change it. 

I do not pretend to know all the details of this case and certainly not to speak for anyone but myself. But, it looks to me as if OSA is clearly one of the 29 parishes under TEC/TECSC trust control and this cannot be changed at this point. Unless there is something behind the scenes at work on this matter of which I am not aware, I fully expect Judge Dickson to dismiss DSC motion for clarification since the court lacks jurisdiction for such.



2nd Edition, 2:00 p.m., September 6.

I thought it would be interesting to go back and compare how the rector of OSA, the Rev. Marshall Huey, a former lawyer, originally interpreted the state supreme court decision. In fact, on August 3, 2017, the day after the decision, Huey sent an email to the parish. I am presenting it here. (Click on the image to get an enlargement.)

Let's look at some of the wording in this email to get an idea of how the rector viewed the court ruling at that time.

In the third paragraph:

"Therefore, the SC Supreme Court ruled that TEC DOES have a trust interest in Old St. Andrew's and the other parishes of the Diocese. The SC Supreme Court also ruled that TEC's diocese is the rightful Diocese of South Carolina."

This plainly states that the court ruled Old St. Andrew's to be under trust control of TEC. Since this is opposed to what he is now saying, I can only wonder when and why Huey changed his mind.

It is also interesting to note that on Aug. 3, 2017, Huey saw the decision as "five slightly differing opinions." DSC is now arguing that the five are so different as to be unenforceable.

What a difference a year makes. 

LEGAL NEWS - 4 SEPTEMBER

News from court has just arrived via the Church diocese. Find their announcement here .

Judge Edgar Dickson, of the circuit court, has asked the lawyers on both sides to submit briefs to him by September 24. He is asking for responses to the briefs by October 5, and replies to the responses by October 12.

Dickson told the lawyers he plans to hear the (6) motions and petitions before him during the weeks of October 22 and October 29. 

The Diocese of South Carolina and the Episcopal Church in South Carolina each have three motions/petitions before Dickson spanning the time of November 2017 to July 2018. DSC is asking for a trial on its Betterments lawsuit. In its "List," DSC asked the court to set aside the state supreme court decision of August 2, 2017, as too conflicted to be enforced. Find info on the two lists here . TECSC is asking the court 1-to dismiss DSC's Betterments suit, 2-to implement the SCSC decision, particularly by a Special Master, and 3-an accounting of the DSC assets since January 1, 2008, by an accounting firm.

We now know that Dickson will consider the whole matter together. The whole would include the six motions/petitions and the two sets of lists and presumably the briefs, responses and replies. This implies that he intends to settle all of the different related issues as one big unit. This should work to the advantage of the Church diocese which is essentially asking the judge to implement the state supreme court decision. For instance, I cannot see how a full trial on Betterments could fit into an expeditious resolution of the whole bundle. It would require a separate course and take probably at least a year. I also doubt that it is relevant to the overall issue; and I expect Dickson to dismiss the suit as he turns to the enforcement of the SCSC decision. He really has no choice on the SCSC decision. The SCSC remitted its decision to the circuit court in November of 2017.

IS ALBANY THE NEXT 

SOUTH CAROLINA?

Bishop William Love, of the Diocese of Albany has been one of the most conservative bishops to remain in the Episcopal Church. He is now declaring: "We're in he midst of a major schism." Exactly what that means remains to be seen, but perhaps we will know soon. Love has called a diocesan clergy conference for Thursday, September 9, in Greenwich NY, to discuss last summer's General Convention resolution B012 (find here ) which is set to go into effect on December 2, 2018. The meeting is scheduled to last four hours. Under B012, same-sex marriages may be performed in local parishes at the discretion of the rector. As GC passed this, it also defeated a resolution to change the prayer book to make the marriage liturgy gender neutral. Love opposed B012. Find Love's remarks on GC here .

The Albany (NY) Times Union has just published a substantial story on this. Find it here .

I am not familiar enough with internal politics in Albany to comment on this. I will relay news of the Thursday meeting as I get it.

All I can say is that Bishop Love ought to read my history of the schism in SC, or at least scan over some of my blog posts about what happened in SC after the schism. In all likelihood, secession will be a nuclear bomb that will explode his diocese and leave it in the same shambles as present-day DSC. Love would be wise to take the compromise of last summer and live with it.

MY GARDEN TROUGH THE SEASONS

I continue to be amazed at the popularity of my garden pictures. I am glad that so many people find them of interest. Gardening is my hobby and therapy, something that everyone needs. My father's passionate therapy was fishing. He was the most avid fisherman I have ever known. Pensacola was a fishing paradise when I was growing up before over development, over fishing, and over pollution of the waterways severely diminished it. He spent every moment possible on the water. I cannot tell you the number of mullet I have cleaned. And if you have not had fresh mullet fried on the beach, you just haven't lived (or red snapper or grouper from a day of deep sea fishing). My father lived to be 96. I will always believe it was fishing, and living on seafood, that was crucial to his long and good life. My point---we all need an activity of therapy. What is yours?

I have posted numerous sets of pictures of my garden beginning in April of 2016. I will sort them out by season:

Winter (Dec. 21-Mar.21)---

     here (Dec. 8, 2017)

     here (Feb. 16, 2018)

     here (Feb. 20, 2017)

     here (Mar. 9, 2018)

     here (Mar. 16, 2018)

Spring (Mar. 21-June 21)

     here (Mar. 30, 2018)

     here (Apr. 1, 2018) 

     here (Apr. 9, 2016)

     here (Apr. 23, 2016)

     here (May 4, 2018)

     here (May 8, 2017)

     here (May 11, 2018)

     here (May 12, 2016)

     here (June 8, 2017)

Summer (June 21-Sept. 21)

     here (Aug. 31, 2018)

Autumn (Sept. 21-Dec. 21)

     here (Oct. 26, 2017)

My garden started as an empty building lot of about 3/4 of an acre. I planned it all myself and planted almost all of the app. 1,000 plants there. My survival rate is around 70%, not bad. We had a terrible drought in 2016 when we went 4 months without rain. I lost dozens of trees and shrubs. I did not give up.

Gardening is not just good physical activity, it is also good for the soul. One connects with something bigger than oneself, God's magnificent creation. The way my father connected to this was on the water. It is too bad our modern lifestyle has taken us too much away from the natural landscape. Even if you have no place to garden, you can still have containers, you can still grow something. If not, try fishing.  

     

A LATE SUMMER GARDEN STROLL

Let's take a break from the heavy news of recent days and stroll around my garden. I think we could all use some r and r.  Late summer and early fall form a distinct season in the south as many of the perennials reach maturity and most shrubs are in full bloom. I am partial to ornamental grasses of which I have numerous examples scattered about my garden. At this time of the year most of them are shooting up eye-catching feathery blooms. As we walk about the garden in these last days of August, this is what we see:

A camellia, believe it or not! We think of camellias blooming in winter, and most of them do, but there are some cultivars that bloom in late summer. Here is a particularly attractive one, Daikagura variegated, a pink and white beauty. I always like to see it bloom because I know cooler weather is not far away.

Gardenia, "August Beauty." This bloom is just opening in the early morning light. Every southern garden and yard should have gardenia, for the aroma if nothing else.

Chinese dwarf indigo (Indigofera decora). This makes an elegant border perennial of about 18" tall. I have it along the central lawn. It has to be kept under control or can become invasive.

Zebra grass (Miscanthus sinensis 'Zebrinus.') A crown of elegant feathers. This is app. 8'.

Japanese Pea Bush (Lespedeza thurnbergii). An excellent deciduous shrub for the south but under-appreciated and under-used. This one grows to 6-8' x 4' and is covered with tiny purple blooms from frost to frost. The palmetto is Louisiana Palmetto (Sabal minor "Louisiansis'). It is very cold hardy and easy to grow. Blue-green fronds. This one is app. 6'.

Althea, aka Rose of Sharon (Hibiscus syriacus). An old standard southern deciduous shrub, it comes in numerous colors. Give it full sun and it blooms prolifically.

Chinese abelia (Abelia chinensis). Anorther great shrub for the south, it thrives almost anywhere. It is strikingly aromatic, so plant near a public place and enjoy the sweet scent. Grows to app. 5'.

Abelia "Rose Creek" (Abelia x 'Rose Creek'). Another good choice as it thrives in spite of my neglect. This one is app. 4'. My three favorite families of shrubs are abelia, spirea, and viburnum. One cannot go wrong with these in a southern garden.

Rose pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana 'Rosea'). Pampas grass is ubiquitous in the lower south, for good reason, and most of the clumps have white plumes. Here is a pink variety. Pampas grass requires a lot of room and full sun. This one is getting too much shade from the cryptomeria in the background but still thrives.

As you see, I am fond of shrubs and also favor grasses, trees, perennials, palms, ground covers, and vines. However, I no longer keep any annual flower beds. My garden is in the spirit of a Japanese garden except I do not have a large water feature (no piped water). Annual flowers are too much work and too hard to keep in the summer. "Low maintenance" is my motto. It has to be in a garden of this size tended by an aging gardener. My vegetable plot turned into a free cafeteria for the wildlife so I closed it down. However, I left the blueberry bushes and apple trees as free snacks for the deer. I have learned they are partial to both (have you ever seen deer eat blueberries?---it is hilarious. They start in the middle of a branch and strip the berries all the way to the end leaving themselves with blue mouths). 

If you live in the south and are interested in gardening, I have a couple of books to recommend if you do not know them already. First and foremost is the bible of southern gardening, The Southern Living Garden Book. I carry it around with me to garden shows and sales. I do not buy anything unless I check the book first. It is incredibly detailed and easy to use. Next, I suggest Dirr's Trees and Shrubs for Warm Climates: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, by Michael A. Dirr, professor of horticulture at UGA. I have followed his advice on numerous choices and have never been disappointed. He knows what works best in our climate of long, hot and humid summers. One can find these books on Amazon for less than $10.

I am looking forward to the cooler days of autumn right around the corner. I need to catch up on many garden chores that I have been putting off with one excuse after another. The cool, dry, and sunny days of fall are perfect for gardening. The garden needs me, but I need the garden even more.

THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AND CREDIBILITY

Whom to believe? What to believe? The Diocese of South Carolina is telling its communicants, and the public, a lot these days. But how much of this is true? How much can people trust? That is the matter at hand now. How much confidence can the people of DSC place in what their leaders are telling them?

DSC has published a lengthy discourse of its view of the schism called "Frequently Asked Questions." Find it here . It is a propaganda piece loaded with untruths, half-truths, and misinterpretations. I will not address it now since that has been done so well by scepiscopalians. Find their thorough analysis of DSC's FAQs here .

The issue of credibility goes back a long way. Before the schism, the DSC leadership put forth some serious and dramatic assertions which apparently were unquestioningly absorbed by the majority of people in the diocese. It is natural for people to assume that what their leaders are telling them is true. We want to trust those in authority. We want to go along with the crowd. These were the main points the DSC leaders made before the break:

1---the diocese was sovereign and independent.

2---the diocese had the right, on its on, to withdraw from the Episcopal Church.

3---the Dennis Canon was not valid in South Carolina.

These were judged wrong by the courts. The South Carolina Supreme Court said that 29 of the 36 parishes had acceded to the Dennis Canon and did not have the power to revoke that. They also opined that the Episcopal Church in South Carolina was the heir of the pre-schism diocese. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to take the case. The main points the DSC leaders made before the schism were not true. They were wishful thinking.

Meanwhile, in order to differentiate DSC from TEC, the diocesan leaders carried on a propaganda crusade denouncing the "beliefs" of the Episcopal Church, even as recently as last spring when they conducted a teaching campaign in St. Michael's and St. Philip's against the "false gospel" of TEC. They would have people believe TEC no longer sees Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world, no longer respects the Bible, and possibly no longer believes in the Virgin Birth, and the Resurrection. Bishop Lawrence said on his recent Last Hurrah tour that TEC believed there were many avenues to salvation. All of this is wrong. In fact, TEC has not changed its "beliefs" or theology. It still uses the same prayer book, recites the same creeds, and conducts the same liturgies, in fact, the same ones DSC uses. What the DSC leaders did was to take some controversial remarks by some bishops, and take them out of context, and imply that these are the "beliefs" of the whole Episcopal Church. This is despicable and shameful. Yet, apparently many DSC faithful are assuming this propaganda to be fact because it is what their leaders are telling them and surely the beloved authorities would not tell falsehoods.

In addition to spilling out all sorts of misinformation, the DSC leaders have another problem of credibility in that they keep changing their reasons for the schism. So far they have given us three different explanations. Before the schism, Bishop Lawrence often talked about the diocesan differences with TEC as three: 1-theology, 2-polity, and 3-morality. It was the third he emphasized the most, particularly homosexuality. Then, immediately after the schism, Jim Lewis, Lawrence's assistant, published an essay insisting the break came from theology alone (It's God, not Gays). Now, on his recent tour of a few weeks ago, Lawrence said he left TEC because of transgender. He could not accept TEC's reforms of equality for and inclusion of transgendered people in the life of the church. If the DSC cannot get their story straight, perhaps they had no story to start with. A revolving door of explanations only diminishes the credibility of any story. What will be the explanation tomorrow?

THE STATUS OF THE LITIGATION.

As for the litigation, where do we stand now?

There are two avenues of legal actions.

1---in the circuit court, we are waiting on Judge Edgar Dickson to decide what he will do with the six petitions in front of him. He has received the wish "lists" from the two sets of lawyers. I expect he will follow TECSC's suggestion of a Special Master to carry out the property transfer and an accounting firm to conduct an accounting of DSC's assets since 2008. Dickson has been ordered by the SCSC to implement the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017. He has no choice but to enforce the law.

2---in the federal court, Judge Richard Gergel has set the trial in the case of vonRosenberg v. Lawrence at March 1, 2019. Right now, the lawyers are doing their homework before the trial. Odds are that TEC/TECSC will prevail here too. I expect the court will agree that TECSC is the rightful heir of the pre-schism diocese, as the SCSC had opined.

I like football, although I was too hopeless at it ever to be on a school team. I've been a fan since my days at Blount Junior High School, in Pensacola. To use football imagery, we are in the Fourth Quarter of the game. The play has been very uneven. In the first half, DSC completely dominated the field, monopolized the football, and led at halftime 17-0. DSC lawyers went into the locker room at halftime riding high and fully confident of an easy victory. The first half covered January 4, 2013 to September 22, 2015. 

The Second Half started on September 23, 2015 (the SCSC hearing). It has proven to be the reverse of the First Half. TEC came roaring back, ran over their opponent up and down the field, and now leads 35-17. We are well into the Fourth Quarter and it is all but certain TEC will win, and by a big margin. The game is close to being over. The end is in sight and the outlines of the resolution are forming. Spectators are beginning to leave.

DSC'S MISTAKES.

How is it possible that DSC could have been so controlling in the first half, but the reverse since halftime? What happened to DSC's momentum? I have been doing a lot of thinking about that lately. As a historian, I am always trying to understand how matters get to where they are. What are the factors to explain the collapse of DSC on the legal field? Here is what I think at this point. I offer this as a layman's opinion only. As everyone knows I am not a lawyer or legal expert.  

In my view, the DSC lawyers made several decisions that turned out to be very costly:

1---choosing the court of Judge Diane Goodstein. It is easy to see why Alan Runyan et al chose Goodstein. Runyan's fellow lawyer in his firm, Andrew Platte, had clerked for Goodstein. The DSC lawyers knew her well. Runyan was the awesome maestro of that trial. I was amazed at how he dominated the whole business. I could understand how he had been a spectacularly successful litigant squeezing millions of dollars from big corporations on asbestos. Poor Judge Goodstein did not seem to grasp the admittedly complex and complicated issues involved. She was even confused by the word "Episcopal." 

In retrospect, the biggest mistake Runyan et al made in that trial was the treatment of Walter Edgar. The DSC lawyers apparently did everything they could to limit and restrict his testimony. This would come back to haunt them big time. In a sense, Walter Edgar saved the Episcopal Church in South Carolina. I will return to this momentarily.

The time came for Judge Goodstein to render a judgment. I cannot confirm this by documents, but I strongly suspect that she followed Runyan's "Orders" of December 2014. Both sides submitted "Orders" to her. These were the lawyers' requests of judgment. My guess is she followed Runyan's "Orders" only too well. Her decision, of February 3, 2015, was everything DSC could have wanted and then some. It was entirely partial and lacked the usual judicial reasoning and explanation. It read like a lawyer's brief, which perhaps it was.

In my opinion, the DSC lawyers would have been wiser to choose another judge, conduct a fair and balanced trial, and get a well-reasoned and substantial judgment. This could very well have held up in the state supreme court. But, this was not what actually happened.

2---the second big mistake the DSC lawyers made was to reject the TEC/TECSC offer of a compromise settlement of June 2015. The Church offered to give the 36 parishes their independence and property in exchange for the entity of the pre-schism diocese. This would have ended all litigation, all differences between the two dioceses. DSC summarily rejected the offer.

At the time, and ever since, DSC has gone out of its way to try to justify its colossal error. They insisted that the offer was not legitimate, that there was nothing in writing and the national Episcopal Church did not support it. Their excuses were not valid. I have posted the documents showing that TEC/TECSC made a specific offer in writing and that the lawyer representing the national Episcopal Church verified the Church's part in the offer (see my post of August 17, "The Documents of the Episcopal Church's June 2015 Offer of Compromise Settlement"). DSC's excuses for not accepting the offer have been shown to be wrong. I am guessing the real reason for DSC's rejection was the belief that DSC would prevail in the state supreme court and would wind up winning all. If so, they could so no reason to give away half.

3---the mishandling of Justice Kaye Hearn.

The state supreme court hearing of September 23, 2015, was surprising to me, and I expect to many other people. I think it was for the DSC lawyers as well. Apparently, Runyan expected Chief Justice Jean Toal to lead the court in applying her All Saints decision of September 2009 to the whole diocese. That decision had declared the Dennis Canon to be invalid in regards to the case of All Saints parish, Pawleys Island. Runyan argued before the justices, that the Dennis Canon was invalid, in and of itself, in the state of South Carolina.

As it turned out, it was not the Dennis Canon that was the main issue in the hearing, it was the circuit court trial and decision. All five justices derided the conduct and outcome of the trial. They unanimously demolished Goodstein's decision. But, what bothered them more than the decision was the one-sided way in which the trial had been conducted; and what brought that out the most was the courtroom treatment of the esteemed historian and radio personality Walter Edgar. Toal was particularly steamed at this. Turned out she was a big fan of the universally beloved Edgar. In fact, Toal agreed with Runyan that the All Saints decision should be applied to the whole diocese, but she could not reach that because of the distractions raised by the trial and the decision. As we learned later, Toal was the only justice who wanted to enlarge All Saints. If Goodstein's decision had been narrowly focused on state property and corporate law, I suspect there would have been a good chance the SCSC would have upheld it. However, the decision was not narrow. It even declared TEC to be a congregational institution, and did so without any reasonable explanation. In the hearing, then, Toal, could not control the narrative and could not keep the court on track to adhere to All Saints. Her frustration was clearly evident. She raked Runyan over the coals in the hearing before she picked him up and spoon fed him her main points.

When the SCSC decision finally appeared, twenty-two months after the hearing, the majority agreed to overturn the most important parts of Goodstein's decision. Four of the five justices said that the Dennis Canon had gone into effect in SC and three of the five agreed the parishes did not have the right to revoke their accessions. Only Toal disagreed. The court ordered 29 parishes and Camp St. Christopher back to TEC control. 

All of this is lead-up to a monumental mistake of the DSC lawyers' own making, the all-out attack on Justice Kaye Hearn. On September 1, 2017, Runyan petitioned the SCSC for a rehearing. He also asked that Hearn's part of the decision be removed and that Hearn herself be removed from future deliberations on the case. The grounds for the attack was conflict of interest. Hearn was a member of a local church in the Episcopal Church diocese. From September 1 to November 17, DSC and its allies in the state conducted an extensive public campaign to discredit Justice Hearn. This was their approach to overturning the decision and replacing it with one favoring DSC. The campaign was personal and fierce. Hearn's defenders saw it as an attempt at character assassination. 

DSC had not made Hearn an issue before this. The DSC lawyers had not raised Hearn's supposed conflict of interest before or during the September 23, 2015, hearing. They had not mentioned it in the twenty-two months after  the hearing. Suddenly, on September 1, they declare it the crucial issue. Apparently, this did not stand well with the court.

The attack on Hearn backfired spectacularly. The other four justices saw the attack on Hearn as an attack on all of them. They rushed to unify in defense of their colleague under assault. They were defending themselves too. No one can document this, but I suspect this attack on Hearn may well have driven the other justices to keep the case closed. On November 17, 2017, the SCSC denied DSC's request for a rehearing and rejected DSC calls for Hearn's opinion to be removed and for Hearn to be replaced in future actions on the case. Even the justices most sympathetic to DSC, Toal and Kittredge, took the unusual step of chastising the DSC lawyers for their treatment of Hearn. The SCSC completely rejected DSC's appeal. Immediately thereafter, the SCSC sent an order to remit to the circuit court, directing the court to implement the SCSC August 2, 2017 decision. 

The DSC lawyers must have realized their terrible mistake. When they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, in February of 2018, they argued overwhelmingly on the grounds of neutral principles, something they perhaps should have done in heir petition for rehearing in the SCSC. SCOTUS would have none of it. They swept it aside as unimportant. They did not even elevate the SC case into the top ten of the day. I will always wonder what Hearn's treatment had to do with that.

4---the failure of mediation.

Right after the SCSC decision of August 2, 2017, federal judge Gergel ordered a mediation of the two sides with all issues on the table. If the opponents could agree on terms, all matters could be resolved and all litigation would end. 

The three sessions of the mediation, from October 2017 to January of 2018, remain secret. At this point we cannot know what the two sides discussed. However, we do have a public document showing that TEC requested that DSC agree to a protocol whereby Bp. Adams would be allowed to communicate with the 29 parishes. Apparently, DSC flatly refused this.

Mediation ended in January although it is still technically open and could possibly resume. However, obviously nothing came of the mediation or we wold know about it. Thus, DSC had another chance to work out a litigation-ending settlement. So far, absolutely nothing has come of it and I see no reason to think it ever will.

THE FATAL MISTAKES.

To summarize, in my view, DSC made two fatal mistakes that left them in the weak position where they are now, trailing badly in the Fourth Quarter. The first was to reject the TEC offer of a compromise settlement in June of 2015. TEC made an offer. DSC rejected the offer. Whatever reasons or excuses anyone wants to make, the facts are clear and bare. If DSC had taken this offer, the 29 parishes in question would now be independent and in sole possession of their properties. 

The second fatal mistake of DSC was the attack on Justice Kaye Hearn. If DSC had taken another approach, say arguing on neutral principles, it is entirely possible the court would have listened to the plea. By making it personal against one of the justices, DSC attacked the integrity of the whole court. It certainly forced the court to rally around Hearn. It is entirely possible this ruined any chance of DSC to get a rehearing, and perhaps an appearance in SCOTUS. It sealed the fate of the 29 parishes and the Camp.

But, I think in a way all this hinges on Walter Edgar. If he had been treated generously and respectfully and allowed to testify freely in the circuit court, the state supreme court would have seen the trial, and possibly the decision, differently. It was Edgar's treatment that personified to the supreme court justices everything that was wrong in the circuit court trial and decision. That is why I think Walter Edgar unwittingly saved the Episcopal Church in South Carolina.

The takeaway from all this-----29 parishes are going back to TEC. This means the clergy and the 13,000 communicants will have to decide whether to stay with the buildings and return to TEC or leave the buildings and follow the DSC leadership. In mulling over that decision, the clergy and laity of DSC would be wise to contemplate the credibility of their leadership. They should ask themselves whether their leaders have made wise decisions and whether they have told the whole truth. They should ask themselves too, where is God in all of this? Could God be speaking to us through the events? The schism failed to remove the parishes and their properties from the Episcopal Church. What the clergy and 13,000 of the 29 parishes do is up to them. It is up to the rest of us to lift them up in our prayers and reach out with understanding and support. The 13,000 have the choice of returning to TEC or staying with the DSC leadership.