THE COURT HEARING OF 19 NOVEMBER

Circuit court judge Edgar Dickson held a hearing today in the Orangeburg county courthouse, in Orangeburg, SC, from 10:00 to 11:30 a.m. This "Motions Hearing" was to give the two sets of lawyers time to make their oral arguments to the judge. They have already presented 22 papers to him, 6 motions/petitions and 16 arguments for and against. Each side has presented 3 motions/petitions to the judge.

DSC:

1-Betterments suit. (Nov. 19, 2017)

2-Complex case designation. (Dec. 27, 2017)

3-Clarification of jurisdiction (Mar. 23, 2018)

TEC/TECSC:

1-Motion to dismiss Betterments suit. (Dec. 15, 2017)

2-For implementation of the SCSC decision, and for a Special Master. (May 8, 16, 2018)

3-For an accounting. (July 11, 2018)

Judge Dickson declared he was considering today only one motion, DSC's motion for clarification of jurisdiction (Mar. 23, 2018). He said he was putting all the other 5 on hold for later. As I read it, DSC's motion for clarification is asking the judge to declare the SCSC decision of August 2, 2017 unenforceable, and to assume jurisdiction over the issues raised in the decision, namely the disposition of the properties of the 29 parishes and Camp St. Christopher. In other words, DSC is asking the judge to ignore the SCSC decision and rule on his own concerning the property settlement.

The first lawyer to speak today was Alan Runyan, for DSC. He talked for 50 minutes. As far as I could tell, he made no new argument other than what he has put in his written statements. He seemed to argue entirely on process, that is, the ways the five justices made their decisions were flawed, the implication being that their final decisions were also flawed. Runyan spent a great deal of time criticizing the opinion written by Chief Justice Beatty. This was an interesting turn since he had spent so much of last year attacking Justice Kaye Hearn demanding that she recuse herself from the case. Hearn was barely mentioned today. The point of Runyan's long monologue was to insist that the circuit court has jurisdiction over the issues in the unresolved supreme court decision.

On the TEC side, Thomas Tisdale and Mary Kostel led the presentations. Their arguments were really simple and straightforward, the SCSC has issued a decision that is the law. The SCSC sent (remitted) their decision down to the circuit court for implementation. The court has no choice but to carry this out. The decision is not ambiguous, conflicted, or unenforceable. It is clear. The SCSC ordered the return to TEC control, the 29 parishes and Camp St. Christopher.

Judge Dickson concluded the session by saying he was considering only the one motion, for clarification, now. He told the lawyers he has more questions for them and would be sending these in emails. 

Two other points struck me: 1-The judge encouraged the two sides to keep on with mediation; and 2-The judge did not even hint that there was any question about a SCSC decision being enforceable. The problem was deciding exactly what was to be enforced.

In my view, DSC's assertion that the SCSC decision is too ambiguous is demonstrably false. Read the decision. Find it here . On the last page (77), former Chief Justice Jean Toal spells out explicitly the majority decisions of the court: 1-the 8 church entities that did not accede to the Dennis Canon remain outside of the trust; 2-the 28 church organizations that acceded to the Dennis Canon remain under trust control of TEC; and 3-Camp St. Christopher is held by trustees of the TEC diocese. These three orders could not be any clearer. Since the justices made their decisions explicit, there was no need for further direction on remit to the circuit court. The orders to the court are plainly given at the end of the decision. I do not understand how the judge, or anyone, could think they are unclear.

As for five different opinions, yes there were five individual opinions, but that does not mean five conflicting opinions. There was a 3-2 majority. The three opinions in the majority all agreed on the three essential points given at the end.

Runyan spent practically the whole time talking about how the justices reached their decisions. How they reached their conclusions is irrelevant. The only relevant matter before the circuit court is the decision of the SCSC. It is explicitly made at the end of the text. 

In my view, Judge Dickson is trying to be as careful, deliberate, and fair as possible. He is going out of his way to give both sides all the room they need to make their cases. One can admire his careful approach. However, at some point this has to end. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing. 

I think some people may be making too much of today's hearing. We should step back and see that there was nothing new here and nothing was decided. It was the same old arguments. The judge himself issued nothing. This does not mean that the judge is ready to discard the SCSC decision. That is not going to happen; and it is cruel of DSC to promote the idea that the parishes are going to remain apart from TEC. Anyone who thinks Judge Dickson is going to throw out the SCSC decision and go try this case again is entertaining a fantasy. 

Bottom line:   today's hearing changed nothing. We are still waiting, waiting.

The two sides have issued press releases about today's hearing. For the Church side see here . For the DSC summary, see here . Best of all is the analysis of scepiscopalians with which I agree completely. Find it here .

         


         FAITH, HOPE, AND LOVE


The annual meeting of the Episcopal Church in South Carolina has adjourned. It was a great festival celebrating faith, hope and love.

For the bishop's address, see the report in www.scepiscopalians.com.

One of the highlights of the meeting was the admission of St. Anne's Episcopal Church, of Conway, as a parish. St. Anne's started as a worshipping community of 22 people meeting in the Lovelaces' living room. It has grown into a large and vibrant church of 122 people.

The diocese is working hard to facilitate the return of the 29 parishes. The Rev. Bill Coyne is overseeing this with the help of a 12 member transition planning group. There were some people present from the returning parishes.

In a moment of gratitude and remembrance, the convention applauded the crucial work of the Episcopal Forum which is now dissolving with mission accomplished.

Several hundred attendees enjoyed the beauty of the Church of the Holy Communion as well as the warm hospitality of its parishioners.

For me personally, the meeting was a great time for catching up with old friends and making new ones. Above all it was a moment to know the presence of God among so many good and faithful people.

After six years of schism, the Episcopal Church is well on the road to recovery from the trauma of the break. Indeed, the end of the long legal road is in sight. It is just a matter of time before the 29 parishes and the entity of the old diocese return home. And, home is the ancestral church standing for faith, hope and love.

I plan to attend the hearing on Monday and will post a report as soon as I can even if I have to send it from my phone as I am doing now.

A REVIEW OF THE MATTER 
BEFORE JUDGE DICKSON

As everyone knows, Judge Edgar Dickson, of the circuit court, will hold a hearing on the church case in his courtroom, in Orangeburg, on Monday, November 19, at 10:00 a.m. The judge has said he will listen to the lawyers' arguments for their various motions until he gets tired of it. Dickson actually has twenty-two papers before him already. Each side has entered three motions/petitions each. There is a great deal on the judge's plate here. Several weeks ago, I posted a blog piece trying to sort out what is on the plate. I thought it would be helpful to post this summary again as preparation for the hearing.

Original blog post of October 16, 2018: 

FINALLY, ALL PAPERS FILED

WITH JUDGE DICKSON

Finally, at long last, all papers have been filed with Judge Edgar Dickson, of the circuit court. It has been nearly a year since the South Carolina Supreme Court denied the Diocese of South Carolina's petition for a rehearing and issued a "remit" order to the circuit court sending its August 2, 2017, decision down to the lower court. On last Friday, October 12, 2018, the lawyers for both sides submitted their final papers to the judge as per his request. Now, we can expect Judge Dickson to announce a date for a hearing, or meeting in the courtroom, with the lawyers. He said recently that he expected to have a court date in the weeks of October 22 or 29. It is entirely possible he will announce a date sometime this week.

Before we get to last Friday's final papers, it would be helpful to review what has happened in the last year that led up to these papers. We need to put these last lawyers' statements in perspective in order for them to make the most sense. Once again, I must remind everyone that I am not a lawyer or legal expert and I speak for no one but myself. Furthermore, all of my comments are offered as opinions.

REVIEW

1--- On August 2, 2017, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a decision recognizing the Episcopal Church diocese's legal control over 29 parishes and Camp St. Christopher.

     DSC appealed for a rehearing and for Justice Kaye Hearn to be recused and her opinion vacated. On November 17, 2017, the SCSC denied both petitions and issued a "Remittitur" to the circuit court, remitting its Aug. 2 decision to the lower court.

     In February, 2018, DSC appealed to the United States Supreme Court asking for "cert." SCOTUS denied cert on June 11, 2018. This ended all possible appeals of the SCSC Aug. 2, 2017 decision.

2 --- DSC filed three motions/petitions/complaints to the circuit court.     1) Betterments suit, Nov. 19, 2017. This demanded payment from TEC/TECSC as the owners of the properties.     2) Motion for a complex case designation for the betterments suit, Dec. 27, 2017. This simply asked one judge for the whole matter.     3) "Motion for Clarification of Jurisdiction and for Further Relief," Mar. 23, 2018. This asked Judge Dickson to set aside the SCSC decision and decide the issues anew.

3 --- TEC/TECSC filed three motions/petitions/complaints to the circuit court.     1) a motion to dismiss DSC's Betterments suit, Dec. 15, 2017.     2) a petition asking the court to enforce the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017 and the appointment of a Special Master to oversee this, May 8, 2018.     3) a petition for an accounting of assets of DSC since 2008, July 11, 2018.

To summarize, DSC asked for two concessions of Dickson, for Betterments payments from TEC/TECSC and for the circuit court to set aside the SCSC decision and rule on the issues at hand. On the other side, TEC/TECSC asked Dickson to dismiss the Betterments suit, to implement the SCSC decision, and to require a full accounting of DSC assets. This boiled down to two big, different issues: the Betterments case and the implementation of the SCSC decision. As we will see, as time went by, the Betterments issue all but disappeared while the SCSC issue monopolized the scene.

Once SCOTUS denied cert on June 11, 2018, the field was cleared for the local courts to proceed.

On July 27, 2018, Dickson held a status conference with the two sets of lawyers and issued a schedule:

Aug. 2 - lawyers present their "lists" of requests of the court;

Sept. 24 - lawyers present their responses to the lists;

Oct. 5 - lawyers present their responses to the responses;

Oct. 12 - lawyers present their replies to the last responses.

Following this schedule, DSC submitted a "list" essentially saying the SCSC had not resolved the issues and the circuit should do so. TEC/TECSC simply asked the judge to implement the SCSC decision. 

This has remained the basic positions of both sides, DSC asking Dickson to set aside the SCSC decision and decide himself on the issues, and TECSC asking the judge to carry out the SCSC decision. The back-and-forth of the responses has only made this clearer. This leads us to last Friday's final arguments:

DSC

On Oct. 12, the DSC attorneys submitted "Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's [sic] Motion for Clarification and Further Relief."  The entire paper dealt with the SCSC decision which the lawyers said was too vague and conflicted to be enacted. They did not mention the Betterments suit or the complex case request. They made the lame argument that "The Supreme Court did not issue a mandate." In fact, the SCSC issued a "Remmittitur" to the lower court. They "remitted" their decision to the circuit court. To me, that is the same thing as a mandate. I do not see an effective difference.

The lawyers also returned to the issue of Old St. Andrew's which they had addressed off and on for months. They asked Dickson to clarify the supposed ambiguity of the identity of the "St. Andrew's" on the list of parishes outside TEC's trust control. The official list identified the "St. Andrew's" as the one in Mt. Pleasant.

Finally, the DSC lawyers declared, "the Court should hear this matter as soon as it is able. It should determine which, if any, of the 28 parishes not mentioned by the Supreme Court agreed in a signed writing to the Dennis Canon based on the existing trial record. It should also determine the ambiguity, if any, presented by Chief Justice Beatty's footnote." In effect, they asked the judge to discard the SCSC decision and decide for himself the issues involved in the case. I cannot imagine any judge in his right mind who would agree to do such a thing.

TEC/TECSC

The Church side lawyers submitted "Defendants' Omnibus Reply Brief to Plaintiffs' Opposition Briefs to Defendants' Petititon for Enforcement, Petition for an Accoutning, and Motion to Dismiss Betterment Action." While arguing essentially the same points as they had all along, the lawyers gave them a new twist. They claimed the DSC parishes had repudiated their claims to the properties: "Plaintiffs have repudiated their roles as trustees." The Church lawyers pointed out that the DSC lawyers had said in arguing for Betterments, "Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action because they have repudiated their roles as trustees." If they repudiated their claims to the properties, this would render moot any re-litigation of the property ownership issue.

In conclusion, after all is said and done, the Episcopal Church diocese is asking the judge to enforce the state supreme court decision and the breakaway diocese is asking the judge to discard the decision and decide himself the settlement of the  issues of the case. I cannot envision any scenario in which Judge Dickson, a famously careful, deliberate, and reasonable man would ever entertain the idea of reopening this case. If he is not going to re-litigate the case, he has no alternative but to implement the SCSC decision.

What happens next? I expect Judge Dickson will announce a day and time for a court appearance with the two sets of lawyers at the courthouse in Orangeburg; and I expect he will do this within the next week. It is possible he will hand down some decisions at the court time. It is also possible he will only have discussion with the lawyers and defer decisions to some future time. At any rate, we are inching closer, however slowly, to resolution of a long, long running disaster. I expect to be at the court appearance which will be in the near future. I have a hunch the judge will issue some important decisions. I want to be there in person to hear them. 

For links to the court papers, see the listing here .

THANK YOU,

BARBARA MANN

MARCY WALSH

TOM MYERS

DOTTIE PAGLIARO

LYNN PAGLIARO

Episcopalians in South Carolina, indeed everywhere, owe a huge debt of gratitude to Barbara Mann, Marcy Walsh, Tom Myers, Dottie Pagliaro, and Lynn Pagliaro. 

Nearly fifteen years ago, in December of 2003, this small band met informally and resolved to do what they could to keep good relations between the diocese of South Carolina and the Episcopal Church. A few weeks later, their little organization was formally incorporated as the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina with its stated mission "to insure that the Episcopal Diocese of SC continues to exist in full participation with ECUSA, its constitution, canons, and leadership." Its first conference was held in Charleston in February of 2004: "Seeking Unity in Diversity." It drew 200 people. The Episcopal Forum was off and running, for the next fifteen years.

Now the Episcopal Forum is declaring mission accomplished and is dissolving. See the article on this in scepiscopalians at www.scepiscopalians.com . 

The fifteen year history of the Forum has been most remarkable. It is too much to relay here, so I will direct you to the index of my History of the Episcopal Church Schism in South Carolina. Here is a summary:

Upon returning to SC from the General Convention of 2003, Bishop Salmon and the diocesan power structure resolved to reject the validity of the Church's confirmation of Gene Robinson, a non-celibate homosexual man, to be a bishop. This began in earnest an adversarial relationship between the diocesan leadership and the Episcopal Church that was to result nine years later in schism. The Forum was formed to resist this.

The diocesan leadership viewed the Forum variably as insignificant, an adversary, an enemy, but never as a friend. As time went by, the schismatics came more and more to identify the Forum as the disloyal opposition, disloyal, that is, to the diocese. The Forum did not see itself as an adversary of the diocese but as a friend of the national church. 

The diocesan leaders' hostility to the Forum reached a crescendo on October 20, 2012, five days after the schism occurred, when the Rev. Jim Lewis, assistant to Bishop Mark Lawrence, published on the diocesan website: "Episcopal Forum Members Initiate Attack on Bishop." This was flatly untrue. In the first place, there was no "attack." There was a complaint lodged with the Disciplinary Board for Bishops which voted that Lawrence by his own willful actions had abandoned the Episcopal Church. The complaints had actually been two, one in 2011 and one in 2012. The complainants were two dozen communicants of the diocese. They were acting on their own and not as a function of the Forum. The Forum itself had nothing to do with the DBB.

The great historical value of the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina was to organize a loyalist minority within the diocese, to keep it going for nine years, and to present a strong, devoted nucleus of Episcopalians ready to reorganize the diocese in 2012-13 after the schismatics had done their dreaded deed. The remarkable recovery the Episcopal Church in South Carolina enjoyed after the tragic break was in no small part the contribution of the Forum. As they say, the proof is in the pudding: since the schism TECSC has grown by a quarter while DSC declined by a third in numbers of communicants.

It all goes back to that little group of friends who refused to accept the wrong they saw going on around them and resolved to do something about it. We should all join in with a big "Thank You" to the faithful five. Their names are inscribed forever in history.

THE BISHOP OF ALBANY 

THROWS DOWN THE GAUNTLET,
with Addendum

The Rt. Rev. William Love, Bishop of Albany, has ordered a rejection, in his diocese, of Resolution B012 adopted by last summer's General Convention of the Episcopal Church.

Resolution B012 says that a bishop opposed to allowing same-sex marriage rites in his or her diocese cannot block these from the diocese. The bishop must allow another bishop to minister to the clergy, laity, and congregations favoring s-s marriage. It also emphasizes that the local rector has the canonical authority over services in the parish. In short, the resolution moves from the bishop to the rector control over s-s marriage.

Bishop Love argued against this resolution. The resolution is to go into effect on the first Sunday in Advent, 2018.

See an article on this in Episcopal Cafe here . This article has the link to Love's letter to his diocese, of November 10, 2018. Love concludes his letter with this:

"Until further notice, the trial rites authorized by Resolution B012 of the 79th General Convention of the Episcopal Church shall not be used anywhere in the Diocese of Albany by diocesan clergy (canonically resident or licensed), and Diocesan Canon 16 shall be fully complied with by all diocesan clergy and parishes."

Thus, Love is reverting to the pre-B012 stance that the bishop can block s-s marriage in his or her diocese. This is a direct repudiation of a resolution adopted by the Episcopal Church's governing body.

The question in my mind now is whether this rises to the level of abandonment of the communion. That would be up to the Disciplinary Board for Bishops to decide. The Board would have to deal with this if a complaint is properly made by communicants of the diocese of Albany.

We all remember that communicants of SC made a complaint in 2011 against Bishop Lawrence. The Board considered it and finally voted that the charges against Lawrence did not quite rise to abandonment of the communion. Then, Lawrence issued the quit claim deeds in disregard of the Dennis Canon. In 2012, communicants lodged a second complaint to the Board. This time the Board voted that Lawrence had indeed abandoned the communion, primarily by his actions in violation of the Dennis Canon. When the presiding bishop received the decision of the Board, she placed a restriction on Lawrence. She did not know that Lawrence and the small band of advisers around him had already secretly decided to remove the diocese from the Episcopal Church and were waiting for her to take "any action of any kind" against him. As soon as the PB placed the restriction on Lawrence, the diocesan leaders declared the independence of the diocese and the schism began. The break was a secret set-up allowing the PB to be seen as the aggressor and Lawrence as the innocent victim.

What Love has in mind here, only time will tell. The Episcopal Church has a well-established practice of enforcing its rules and regulations on all of its bishops.


________________________________________

ADDENDUM, 12 November 4:00 p.m.:

Presiding Bishop Michael Curry and House of Deputies President Gay Clark Jennings have issued public responses to Bishop Love's letter of 10 November. Find an article in Episcopal Cafe about this here .

PB Curry wrote the following:

"In all matters, those of us who have taken vows to obey the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church must act in ways that reflect and uphold the discernment and decisions of the General Convention of the Church."

As we all know, the PB is not a pope, or absolute authority. He or she is constrained by the provisions of the constitution and canons of the Church. The PB may try to solve this problem informally one-to-one. PB Jefferts Schori tried that with Bishop Mark Lawrence. It did not work. Lawrence met with her one time in the crisis, Oct. 2, then refused to see her again. 

The process laid out in the canons is for communicants of the diocese to file a complaint with the Disciplinary Board for Bishops which would then decide whether the bishop had abandoned the communion. The DBB acts as a sort of grand jury. If no, the bishop is cleared. If yes, the PB must impose a restriction on the bishop who then has two ways in which he or she could get the restriction removed, a letter to the PB or a hearing before the House of Bishops. 

In Lawrence's case, he declared that the diocese, including himself, had left the Episcopal Church as of Oct. 15 and no longer recognized its constitution and canons. He ignored the PB's restriction and its subsequent steps. The problem that led to the lawsuits was over the property of the diocese and the 50 parishes/missions that claimed to have left the Episcopal Church with property in hand in violation of the Dennis Canon. Last year, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that 29 of the parishes remain under trust control of the Episcopal Church and its diocese. We are now waiting on the circuit court to implement the decision as we await the federal court's decision on the ownership of the entity of the old diocese.

Not everyone in the diocese of Albany was happy with Bishop Love's letter. Parishioners of St. Andrew's, in Albany, burned the bishop's letter on the steps of the church. See the article in Episcopal News Service here .

11 NOVEMBER - NOTES

Today is November 11, 2018, the centennial of the armistice ending the First World War. This is a somber moment we should all remember at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month. The most destructive war in history until then came to an end.

In a sense, the First World War was the first suicide of Europe. All of the five great powers that started the war in 1914 were devastated in ways. Three of them, the old monarchies of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia, did not survive. The ancient systems of power among the royal families and their supporting social structures in these three states collapsed. The countries that "won" the war found only Pyrrhic Victories. Britain and France lost millions of men and went heavily into debt. France, which declared itself the great victor, lost more men, percentage-wise, in the war (25% of all young adult men were killed, wounded, or missing) than any other nation. This was "winning." Among all the countries involved, some 9m soldiers were killed along with 8m civilians. Countless others were wounded, displaced, and lost.

Next to the incredible destruction, the tragedy of the war was the loss of the peace. The series of peace treaties made in Paris in 1919 were arguably the worst in all of history. Peace treaties are supposed to make peace. These set up another war, although certainly unintentionally. I have always believed it is best we do not know the future. However, in this case, I wish the Big Four of 1919 (Clemenceau, Wilson, Lloyd George, and Orlando) had known the future. They would have made a radically different settlement. I wish they had known that what they were doing in 1919 would be followed in two decades by another war that would make the hell they had just endured look like a spat.

The fight in the peace negotiations of 1919 was essentially between the Americans (Wilson) and the French (Clemenceau). The Americans stood for internationalism, the French for nationalism. Wilson's great dream was a League of Nations where the countries of the world would resolve their problems peacefully by reasonable settlements. The French, who had been fighting wars against great rivals for centuries, believed in national power, in their own necessity to secure their borders in an historically hostile environment. The result was the worst of all possible outcomes. Wilson got his League, only to have his own country refuse to join. It fizzled away. The French got the de-militarization and humiliation of their great continental rival Germany but with no way to enforce it. In the end, both Wilson and Clemenceau failed and their failure led to conditions creating an even worse war.

(Ironically the America-France roles are now the reverse of 1919. Trump is a nationalist who is withdrawing from numerous international agreements while France has become the leader of internationalism since the announced retirement of Merkel in Germany and the impending withdrawal of Britain from the European Union. Woodrow Wilson must be turning over in his grave in the National Cathedral.) 

In wounded, humiliated, and aggrieved but still powerful Germany developed a regime that brought together the worst of nineteenth century strains, racism, nationalism, militarism, and combined it with new technology. The result was a world cataclysm twenty years after 1919 the magnitude of which could not even have been envisioned by people like Wilson and Clemenceau. 

In spite of all the mind-boggling destruction of WWI and the heart-breaking failure of the peace, the First World War still played a crucial role in world history. Its great achievement was the victory of democracy over monarchism and its attendant social order. The three great western democracies (Fr., Br., U.S.) passed the test while the three ancient monarchies (Ger., A-H, Rus.) all collapsed, victims of their own internal failures. The importance of the rise of democracy cannot be overemphasized. Twenty years later, the strength of these democracies would be put to the test as they could never have imagined. One of them (France) collapsed in the face of aggression but the other two held fast and made the fight of their lives to win the day, by the hardest. In the Second World War, democracy prevailed over the worst that nazism, fascism, and aggressive militarism could throw up against it. Civilization was saved. And, that victory, as I keep saying, led to the Great Democratic Revolution of the post-Second World War period. So, we must say a little prayer of thanksgiving today for the armistice one hundred years ago. The morally right side won. May we never forget the sacrifices of the people who made that possible. 

 COURT HEARING, NOV. 19

I see a great excitement building before the upcoming court hearing before Judge Dickson, in Orangeburg, on Monday, the 19th. We should stop for a moment and be realistic about this hearing. In his notice, the judge said it was for him to hear arguments from the two sets of lawyers, as he said, until he got tired of listening. That is all this is, a chance for the lawyers to make their cases before the judge. Apparently, Dickson will not be issuing any decisions at this time. I expect it will be some time still before we get any decision from him. He has had this case before him for nearly a year and has a total of twenty-two sets of arguments before him. So, what we will hear on the 19th will be nothing new. There cannot possibly be anything new to say after all this build-up. Thus, we should have no unrealistic expectation of the hearing.

As I see it, Dickson has two choices. He can implement the state supreme court decision of August 2, 2017, or he can re-litigate the case. I cannot imagine any judge in his or her right mind who would want to reopen this can of worms. Besides, the SCSC decision is the law of the land. Just look at what happened in Judge Goodstein's courtroom. Just look at the standoff in the state supreme court. If the five greatest jurists in South Carolina found the case impossible, a lowly circuit judge would find it impossible too. It took the state supreme court nearly two years to come to a conclusion, and that was only after the chief justice himself realized that for the integrity of the court a resolution was mandatory. He made a compromise and agreed to return 29 parishes to the Episcopal Church. We all know Dickson is well aware of all of this. I cannot imagine he will do anything but enforce the SCSC decision. Moreover, TEC has given him two good ways to do this, a Special Master, and a professional accounting.

Bottom line, do not get your hopes up that anything will come of the hearing on the 19th. I think it will be some time yet before there is any resolution.

THE CULTURE WAR

We just went through our latest round of the culture war, the national election of 6 November. My initial reaction to the election was to see a stand-off with both sides claiming victory on election night. Then the day after the election two big factors hit me, President Trump's press conference and the news from Charleston. I knew right then that this was a big victory for the democratic side of the culture war. All of the information coming in since then confirms this. The democratic side of the culture war has taken the initiative and the anti-democratic side is reeling.

Trump's press conference was the strangest performance I have ever seen by a president. He appeared to be a wounded and cornered animal striking back at his real or perceived enemies. He was on the attack, even if it were disjointed and delusional. For all of his many faults, we do have to say that Trump has an uncanny genius for sizing up the political scene. Seeing his hour and a half rage told me he knew full well what had happened to him and his kind of politics. The American people had clearly rejected Trumpism and he could not stand it.

When I saw the results from Charleston, I could not believe it. I had to check several sources to confirm that the Democrat had actually won. I could not even remember the last time Charleston had elected a Dem to Congress. What is more, it was not close in Charleston County where Cunningham won 57% (60% would be a landslide). 

The Blue Wave last Tuesday turned out to be monumental. In the total vote of the nation, Democrats won app. 7% more than the Reps. Dems flipped 35-40 seats in the House of Reps, now to have a clear majority. Moreover, Dems gained 8 governors' chairs, and flipped 350 seats in state legislatures. Now, it is also true Reps kept the Senate, and even added 2 seats, with possibly 2 more. 

What this says to me is that on the whole the nation rejected Trumpism. This means that in the culture war, the momentum has swung to the democratic side. Thus, we are likely to see a strengthening of the reforms for ordinary people, as Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare. However, one should realize that Trump is packing the federal courts with reactionary judges who hold seats for life. We as a nation are still dangerously divided young/old, male/female, white/other, rich/poor, and urban/rural. 

Still, those on the side of expanding democracy, particularly in rights for and inclusion of all people in society, Tuesday's election is cause for rejoicing.

METHODIST SCHISM?

The Episcopal Church is not the only denomination wracked with differences over issues of the interface of religion and homosexuality. Now comes news that a big United Methodist church in Myrtle Beach (Christ UM Church, 2901 Fantasy Way) is about to quit that denomination over the issue of homosexuality. All I know about this is what is in the newspaper, so I will refer you to the article in The State here . Perhaps some of you readers who know more about this case could inform us with more details of what is going on here. After all, this is close to home in more ways than one.

The article indicates that the pastor and congregation realize that they will have to leave the buildings because they are held in trust for the national church. There does not seem to be any effort to leave the denomination and take the property with them. However, the pastor sent a letter to the national church authorities on 26 September asking for peaceful independence. Unfortunately, the letter itself is not given, so there is no way to know exactly what the congregation is asking of the denomination. The property issue is left vague.

We have constitutionally protected freedom of religion in this country, so I do not see why the congregation has to ask permission of the denomination to leave if there is no issue of property. Anyone can leave any church at any time. The problem comes when departing people try to defy the laws of the national church that they had vowed to obey. If the local Methodists are not going to try to leave holding the local property there is no problem. 

The problem in the Episcopal diocese was that some 50 local churches tried to leave the national church's diocese with the properties in hand. This was in violation of the church's law (Dennis Canon). It was demonstrated in court to the satisfaction of the majority of the state supreme justices that 29 of the local churches could not leave and take the properties with them because they had adhered to the Dennis Canon before the time of the schism. The Church diocese is now in court trying to regain physical possession of the 29 because the breakaway side has refused to recognize the law of the land as the law of the land.

One interesting point about the Myrtle Beach Methodist case is that the national United Methodist church has not yet changed its stand against homosexuality. It has scheduled a debate on issues of homosexuality next February. The congregation wants to leave now rather than even talking about the subject. Their minds are closed. What ever happened to the old United Methodist motto: Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors ? Apparently Myrtle Beach did not get the memo on that.

WAR REPORT, 2nd edition

No one should have a shadow of doubt any longer that we are in the midst of a war in America. The culture war was the theme of my last blog posting, "The Forest and the Trees," on 25 October. Since that posting, three major episodes in the war have occurred. The national character is being tested as it has not been in decades. The future of the nation is at stake. I am not exaggerating. We Americans must arise and save our country. The barbarians are at the gates. Wait. No. They are not outside the gates; they are inside. The enemy of American democracy is all among us. This is a civil war.

One of the three events was the interment of the ashes of Matthew Shepard in the Washington National Cathedral. On Friday, Oct. 26, a grand, beautiful, and moving two-hour ceremony was held in the cathedral for the placement of the remains. Shepard was a martyr for homosexual rights. Twenty years ago, he was brutally beaten and left for dead by two men who disapproved of his sexual orientation. He died a few days later. He has become the visible symbol of the gay-rights movement. Video of the ceremony is available on Youtube.

On the same day, Cesar Sayoc was arrested in Florida and charged in the case of sending at least fourteen bombs in the mail. Sayoc was apparently a fanatical follower of President Trump. The bombs had been sent to prominent critics of Trump, certain Democrats and CNN. The apparent motive of the bombs was to kill the leaders of Trump's opposition.

The next day, 27 October, police charged Robert Bowers with killing eleven people and wounding six others in the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. He reportedly told police "I just want to kill Jews." This was the worst attack on Jews in American history. Acts of violence against Jews have escalated dramatically since Trump became president.

Recall, too, that on Wednesday, 24 October, Gregory Bush, a 51-year-old white man, was arrested and charged with murder in the shooting deaths of two African Americans in a Kroger store in Jeffersonville, Kentucky. 

Some people may argue that all this means is we live in a violent country in a violent age. This is true and does explain what is happening to a certain extent. America definitely has a romanticized culture of violence. Our politics have long been divisive and destructive. Trump did not create the present culture war, he just greatly expanded it by his base demagoguery.

Americans love their guns. There are more firearms in the country than people. Gun stores, shows, and sales abound. Gun ranges are packed on the weekends. Many places have open carry laws so that anyone may walk down the street packing heat. We have romanticized the wild west.

Combining our culture of guns and our growing political division creates a toxic brew of violence. Adding into this mix is the Internet that provides all sorts of ways for people to share, organize, and promote their views, however bizarre and deadly they might be.

To be sure, many of the episodes of mass murder in America are not politically or culturally motivated. There is a long list of cases where the apparent aims were indefinable. To my knowledge, the police have never discovered a motive for the shooting in Las Vegas, the biggest case of mass murder in American history. Apparently, the shooter had no motive; and we will never know what was in his obviously extremely disturbed mind. And, what about the devastating tragedy at Sandy Hook? No motive of which I am aware. And, what about that case in the Baptist church in Sutherland Springs, Texas? Apparently, that one was about a domestic dispute and had nothing to do with anything else. Thus, we cannot attribute all of the cases of mass violence in America to the culture war. Having said that, we most certainly can attribute many of them to the culture war. The information we have on the Bush, Sayoc, and Powers episodes indicate they were parts of the culture war, one apparently to kill political opponents, two apparently to kill targeted minorities. All of these came from the anti-democratic side. As far as we can tell, all three of the accused were angry, white, middle aged, working class men.

So, what are we Americans to do now? How in the world are civilized people ever to get control over the out-of-control and ever-worsening culture of violence in America? Here are my thought for what they are worth:

1---Recognize the reality of the culture war. For the last thirty years, America has been vastly divided politically. As I have said, this division is basically between those who want to expand democratic rights and those who want to diminish democratic rights. This political division includes a culture war. The basic feature of this culture war is the backlash of the Angry White Working Class Man against his perceived threats: blacks, women, gays, foreigners, and Jews. The Man sees all of these elements, and others, as ruining, or at least seriously threatening, the social, cultural, and economic power that he believed he enjoyed in the past and is still entitled to enjoy into the future. In reality, history is against the Man. Within a short time, the Man will become a distinct minority in America. The present day culture war is really his last gasp of power.

2---President Trump is a self-serving demagogue who is ingenious at capitalizing on the culture war. He has greatly expanded the national atmosphere of intolerance and violence. He has perfected the politics of divide and destroy. He has bullied and intimidated his way to power. He openly encourages acts of violence against opponents. He repeatedly calls the free press the enemy of the people. He has also completely aligned the two parties as sides of the culture war. The Republican party is fully the party of Trump. Even otherwise sensible politicians, as Nikki Haley, have bowed to the demagogue. Donald Trump is the worst president in American history but is strongly supported by some forty percent of the American people who see him as the best president ever.

3---Recognize that many Americans do not revere the ideals of American democracy. About a third of Americans prefer to have an authoritarian governing system rather than a democracy. Fascism lurks just below the surface of American life. Trump is their would-be authoritarian hero. They see in him the warrior king who will defeat their enemies and return the Man to controlling power. Even evangelical Christians are devoted to this man who apparently has no ethical or moral principles, simply because he will pack the federal courts with culturally reactionary judges. They believe the courts will return the Man to his rightful place. The eighty percent of white evangelicals who voted for Trump remain the bedrock of his base.

4---VOTE! We are not a fascist nation, yet. We are still a functioning democracy, and the best way to make it function is to vote. In fact, it is the only way to make it work. There is an election coming up on Tuesday, November 6. At this point, it looks as if the Democrats will regain a majority in the House of Representatives. Whatever the outcome of the election, however, I fear that things will get worse before they get better. If Trump's side wins, he will take this as validation and there will be no stopping his reactionary and authoritarian agenda. If his side loses, he will increase the attacks on the Democrats as the enemy of the people (along with the media). I'll bet things get more violent in the months ahead. We will see more attacks on the tree of life.

I am not telling you how to vote. I am telling you that the two parties have lined up on opposite sides of the culture war. The Democrats seek the expansion of democracy in America. The Republicans (Trumpistas) seek the diminution of democracy in America. So, you figure out which side you are on.

One last thought today. The synagogue massacre last Saturday reminds us that all of our places of worship (and other public places too) are vulnerable to the insidious and rising violence all around us. We must think of ways to secure our churches. And, this is not just for Sunday morning services. Recall that the Mother Emanuel massacre was in a Wednesday night Bible study in the basement. Churches are easy targets. We must find ways to give our people safety and security in the church buildings. Episcopal churches are especially vulnerable since this denomination is well-known to be "gay friendly." I fully expect any day now for an armed person to intrude into one of our churches to kill gays, just as Bowers wanted to kill Jews.

The Gregory Bush mentioned above in the Kentucky incident, had reportedly tried to enter an historically African American church before the shooting. Finding the doors locked, he proceeded to the Kroger store. 

Whatever happens, we must surround and protect our fellow human beings now under attack. We must all be blacks, women, gays, foreigners, Jews. We must tell people like Bowers, you have to go through us first. You kill us before you kill the others. My great personal hero is Jonathan Daniels. He made the shooter go through him, and in so doing saved the life of an innocent child. We can save our country for our children. We must.

Thanks to Forward Movement for the following (find here ).

May we stand ready to lay down our lives for others, especially the defenseless and the outcast. Amen.

O God of justice and compassion, you put down the proud and mighty from their place, and lift up the poor and the afflicted: We give you thanks for your faithful witness, Jonathan Myrick Daniels, who, in the midst of injustice and violence, risked and gave his life for another; and we pray that we, following his example, may make no peace with oppression; through Jesus Christ the just one, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.


_______________________________________


2nd edition:

9:30 a.m., 30 October.     News broke this morning that President Trump is planning a direct attack on the United States Constitution. Axios is reporting (find here ) that Trump is planning to issue an executive order removing the right of a person born in the United States to American citizenship. 

This is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Amendment XIV, Section 1,  "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the states wherein they reside."

The president does not have the right to violate an explicit provision of the Constitution. To override a provision would require a constitutional amendment. Trump cannot change the constitution by executive order. The courts would shoot down his executive order in an instant. Therefore, I think it is safe to conclude this is an election stunt meant to foment anti-immigrant hysteria as if there is not enough already around the supposed "invasion" by a pathetic rag-tag "army" of desperate women and children. Trump's shameless demonization of helpless, defenseless, desperate people is repugnant to a moral, decent society. This is not the America that most of us want. He is not the leader that most of us want, and for good reason.

What this news does tell us is that Trump has no regard for the Constitution. There is no bound to his demagoguery. He may not be able to violate the national institutions this time, but this will not be the last attempt. He and his followers are assaulting the institutions all around us. We can be sure, there is more to come. It is not hyperbolic to say we are in a national emergency.

THE FOREST AND THE TREES

As everyone who has read my history of the schism or reads my blog regularly knows, my overarching working thesis is that the schism in South Carolina is part of a big culture war now raging in America, and to some degree in the whole world. To simplify, this is a great clash between the forces of democracy and anti-democracy, or what I like to call the horizontal and the vertical. 

On the whole, the great western democracies emerged victorious in the first half of the twentieth century which included the First World War, the Great Depression, and the Second World War. In the second half of the twentieth century and the first part of the twenty-first century, the principles underlying victorious democracy were spread horizontally to social elements traditionally marginalized, neglected, exploited, and otherwise left powerless, particularly to the poor, the old, the disabled, African Americans, women, homosexuals and the transgendered. A transformed, more democratized American society began to emerge primarily through governmental reforms after the Second World War such as integration of the armed forces, economic power to the veterans, integration of the public schools, civil rights and voting acts, gender equality acts, medicare, medicaid, Roe v. Wade, and same-sex marriage. A man of African heritage was elected president, twice, something unthinkable only a few years earlier. A woman was nominated for the presidency by a major political party, also unthinkable a few years earlier. In short, America enacted an enormous horizontal expansion of power after the Second World War. 

I call this the Great Democratic Revolution. The United States was not founded as a democracy. It was founded as a republic, not the same thing. But in the provisions of the Declaration and the Constitution lay all the seeds of a future democratic society, a nation empowered in all its people; and this has been the laborious and enormously dramatic course of our history over nearly 250 years. By fits and starts we have become more and more a democratic country. This was not the accomplishment of the founders, but it was their dream, a nation of common humanity. I think we as a nation have accomplished great things ever closer to being the shining city on the hill for all of humankind. Call me old-fashioned, but I really do believe in American exceptionalism. I have studied enough history to know just how great the American experiment has been.

I am also a student of the great political revolutions of modern history. In my graduate work, I was fortunate enough to be able to specialize in the greatest of all of them, the French Revolution. My thinking was heavily influenced by the great Harvard historian Crane Brinton in his classic, The Anatomy of Revolution. Brinton taught us that, in general, all great revolutions of modern history go through the same life-cycle: overthrow of the old regime, moderate first phase, radical reform taking the revolution to its farthest point, backlash against the radical reform, and settling down to a sort of compromise. I found that to be certainly true of the great French Revolution. And so, I think it is true of the Great Democratic Revolution of the twentieth-early twenty-first centuries.

In this life-cycle of revolution, we are now in the reactionary phase. A strong backlash against the radical democratic reforms is underway now in America. What makes this reaction more intense than it might have been otherwise is an additional factor, the collapse of an external threat to the nation that had forced a unity during the radical revolution. The disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1990 and the end of the Cold War removed the external force unifying America since the end of the Second World War. This forced unity had gone a long way to allowing the democratic reforms to occur. The country held together, more or less, in the Cold War, even with enormous blunders such as the Vietnam War. To be sure, the late 1960's tested the unity of the nation which at times seemed to be violently coming apart at the seams. But, when all was said and done, the nation survived, unity held and reforms went on. Then, with the disappearance of the unifying external threat in the end of the Cold War, everything changed. The internal divisions were exposed and partisan political warfare brewed up in earnest starting in the 1990s. We have been in a dangerous, polarizing political war ever since. Some people call this the rise of tribalism. 

The outgrowth of this nearly thirty year political war in America is the Trump presidency which is the personification of the backlash of the white working class man against the democratic reforms of the last seventy years. The people who see blacks, women, foreigners, and homosexuals arising to power are terrified of losing the social, cultural, and economic preeminence they believed they had and were entitled to keep. What is most alarming about all of this is the fact that so much of what Trump and his followers want to do is to diminish or destroy not just the reforms, but the institutions that made the reforms. Our whole constitutional system is being shaken. 

Thus, we Americans are now bound in a major culture war between the forces that want to keep extending democratic human rights and those that want to roll back the reforms, even to change the institutions that were responsible for making the reforms. Make no mistake about it, this is war. (And, if you do not think this is war you are not paying attention to today's news.) Those on the democratic side would be foolish to underestimate the power and resolve of the anti forces. And so, in less than two weeks, we will have the next great battle of this culture war, a national election. President Trump has made it all about him. If his side wins, it will be a tremendous victory for the reactionary forces, particularly in Congress, who have already signaled the destruction of cardinal aspects of the Great Democratic Revolution such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare. If the other side wins, at least in the House of Representatives, they will probably curb some of the most devastating reactionary moves against democratic gains. The backlash will still be there but will be reduced somewhat. Nevertheless, the culture war will go on. 

So, what does the schism of the Episcopal Church in South Carolina have to do with all of this? Plenty. Let me explain. While the next national battle in the culture war is less than two weeks off, the next fight in SC is a bit more than two weeks off, Nov. 19 to be exact (hearing before Judge Dickson). The schism in SC is very much a part and parcel of the national culture war. It is a backlash against the democratic reforms embraced by the Episcopal Church.

The Episcopal Church consciously made itself part of the culture war. Before 1950, TEC was overall a conservative, inwardly-directed, elitist church barely connected to the general society all around it. Then, in the 1950's, this began to change as the Church transformed itself from a vertical to a horizontal religion, that is, one less focused on individual salvation (vertical), and more concerned about social salvation (horizontal). It wholeheartedly joined the forces of reform in the Great Democratic Revolution. From the 1950's to the present it has devoted itself to equality for and inclusion primarily of African Americans, Indians, women, homosexuals and the transgendered.

However, just as reactionaries arose against the democratic revolution in America, opponents of the horizontal push arose in the Episcopal Church. Those who believed that the Church should keep only its old vertical posture fought back. They were outnumbered. Some individuals began leaving the "liberal" Episcopal Church. Some parishes began declaring their independence. Eventually, five dioceses, burned out by the reforms favoring women and homosexuals, voted to bolt the Church. The first four formed a rival reactionary church called the Anglican Church in North America. All five (inc SC) are now in the ACNA which was constituted explicitly to oppose equality for and inclusion of women and homosexuals. The immediate cause of the schism in SC was homosexuality. Bishop Mark Lawrence told the audiences on his recent tour of the diocese that he left the Church in 2012 because of its reforms for the transgendered. 

Thus, DSC voted to leave TEC in order to have a vertical rather than a horizontal religion. When people in DSC say they left TEC because of theology, in a way they are right. While homosexuality was the immediate cause of the schism, it was part of a much bigger picture of reaction going on. To consolidate its turn to vertical after the schism, DSC quickly developed into a fundamentalist evangelical sect far removed from classical Anglicanism. Its present fundamentalism envelopes its sexism and homophobia, all part of one package. Fundamentalism is the theological rationale for its reactionary, anti-democratic social values.

It did not take long for the independent diocese to consolidate and institutionalize its decidedly reactionary social views. In March of 2015, it set up a "Marriage Task Force" to draw up diocesan policies addressing the issues of sexuality and gender. The "Force" was composed of Kendall Harmon, Peter Moore, Ted Duvall, Greg Snyder, Tyler Prescott, Jim Lewis, all clergy of DSC. The Force drew up four documents (find them here , pages 56-71) establishing rigid and intolerant social policies and procedures for the diocese and its parishes. The central point of the documents was to block preemptively any chance of equality for homosexuals in the diocese. The first document was a "Statement of Faith" adopted by the standing committee. It explicitly denounced homosexuality:

"We believe all people are created in the image of God, who wonderfully and immutably creates each person as genetically male or female." 
[This sentence is non-factual and non-Biblical. It is not true that every human being is one gender or the other. It is also untrue that the Bible says "male or female." Every reference in the Bible says "male and female." The words "or" and "and" have entirely different meanings. Thus, the basic premise of the Statement of Faith is false.]

"Rejection of one's biological sex is in conflict with the created-ness and is inconsistent with our beliefs."
[Denunciation of transgender.]

"...marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in Holy Matrimony, a single, exclusive, lifelong union..."
[Taken literally, this condemns divorce and remarriage. As we will see, while all parishes were on the same page regarding some aspects of sexuality (homosexuality), they fell part on other aspects of sexuality.]

The second document of the Task Force was the same "Statement of Faith" that was sent to the parishes to be signed and dated by the vestries. This forced the parishes to conform to the anti-homosexual rights agenda of the diocese.

The third document forced conformity on all individuals employed by the diocese. They had to sign and date a statement of loyalty to the diocesan anti-homosexual policies and procedures. The individual also had to recognize that the bishop could fire the person at will:  "Conduct inconsistent with the Diocese's Statement of Faith as finally determined by, and in the sole judgment of the Bishop is subject to discipline, up to and including immediate discharge." [Shades of Louis XIV, "l'état c'est moi".]

The fourth document is a long and detailed form to be signed and dated. It regulated the use of any facility so that no same-sex wedding could occur on church property.

The four documents explicitly institutionalizing an iron-clad conformity to the diocesan anti-homosexual policy were formally adopted by the diocesan convention in 2016 and subsequently by the individual parishes. Apparently, most parish vestries adopted the Statement of Faith imposed on them verbatim. See, for instance, St, Michael's of Charleston's statement on their website here . 

At least one parish vestry took it upon itself to revise the diocesan Statement of Faith. On September 6, 2016, the vestry of St. Philip's of Charleston decided that the statement was too harsh on divorce and not harsh enough on homosexuality. Find their Statement of Faith here . The diocesan statement "marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in Holy Matrimony, a single, exclusive, lifelong union..." became St. Philip's "'marriage' has only one meaning: the uniting of one biological man and one biological woman in a single, exclusive union..." Gone is "lifelong." On the other hand, they made the anti-homosexual nature of the statement even more explicit by adding this provision to the original diocesan statement:

"We believe that any form of sexual immorality (including adultery, fornication, homosexual behavior, bisexual conduct, bestiality, incest, and use of pornography) is sinful and offensive to God."
[Thus, serial marriages are not an offense to God, but undefined "homosexual behavior" is.]

The overwhelming point of all of these statements is to reject any and all efforts to grant equality for and inclusion of homosexuals into church life. This is the DSC's reaction against the Episcopal Church's democratization. It is an anti-democratic, anti-human rights backlash.

If you think I am exaggerating, I invite you to read the string of letters to this editor on this blog from 12 to 14 October. A DSC communicant made a strong and clear argument that homosexual behavior is sinful and sin condemns people to hell. This, the writer insisted, is God's word in the Bible. It must not be questioned. I expect the writer is typical of the clerical and lay members of DSC. After years and years of hearing the same message of the sin of homosexuality, I imagine the majority of people in DSC sincerely believe it. The vestry of St. Philip's certainly does.


So, where does this leave us now at this point in the history of the schism? Here is my take:

The two parts of the old diocese have radically different social understandings. Some people want to define the difference as theological and biblical, but in reality this is only a cloak around our understandings of how human beings should relate to each other in our society. The DSC demands we have a vertical posture, one person to one God. Personal submission to this all-powerful anthropomorphic being up there in space somewhere is all that really matters. God created the universe and set up the rules. We must obey the rules. TECSC prefers a horizontal posture to follow the initial relationship between people and God. Faith must be followed with works to make a better world. We are God's agents in the world to make right what is wrong. It was wrong to persecute minorities. It was right for the church to give these people equality and inclusion, not judgment.

Given the wide gulf between these different understandings of the meaning and purpose of religion, it is difficult to see the two parts of the grand old diocese reuniting. I accept that DSC will probably continue as a separate entity. Given the mindset of so many of the people in DSC, I expect large numbers, perhaps a majority of the present DSC communicants of the 29 parishes will leave the buildings to keep verticalist communities in exile rather than staying in the buildings and returning to the Episcopal Church. DSC leaders have been working on preparations of an exodus since last November.

There will be DSC members who choose to stay with the buildings and return to TEC. It is only fair to them that they understand the TEC policies and procedures concerning homosexuality. TEC generally accepts homosexuality as morally neutral, neither inherently good nor bad. This is not a canonical definition but a de facto one coming from years of reforms favoring homosexuals and transgendered. Open and non-celibate homosexuals and transgendered have full equality and inclusion in the Episcopal Church. They cannot be discriminated against. However, Church policy is that every person has the right to his or her own opinion about homosexuality and no person can be required to adhere to any certain view. Unlike DSC, TECSC does not have a rigidly authoritarian statement of conformity. Clergy and laity alike are not required to support same-sex marriage. In fact, a resolution was adopted in last summer's General Convention giving the local rector the discretion over having same-sex weddings his or her parish. No one is going to be forced into a view about homosexuality against his or her conscience. However, everyone in TEC does have to accept that others may have different views and that others do have rights within the Church to act on those views. TEC stands for toleration and acceptance.

So, the culture war goes on in the nation and in the church. After all, we are imperfect beings just trying to do what we think is best for all of us. Difference and disagreement is the human condition. It has always been there. It will always be there. It is not right to question the motives of others.  Sometimes, however, differences can turn violent and destructive. When that happens, we all lose. It is also human nature to act as a group in our own best interest. Human beings are social animals; and our greatest instinct is for survival. 

We will survive this culture war. Goodness knows, if France survived, even thrived, after all those heads rolled in the great French Revolution, we can survive the phases of our Great Democratic Revolution and thrive afterwards. If revolutions have a life-cycle, and I believe they do, our present national and religious crises will come to an end somewhere down the road in sorts of peaceful compromises between radical and reactionary forces that will leave all of us stronger. I believe that. I think we have to believe that. 

After all these years of schism, we are all exhausted, but in our weariness we must not despair. We must not give up the good fight. This conflict will end, and will end, I believe, in a better world. This is what my study of history and my faith tell me.

Ron Caldwell
25 October 2018