A DECADE OF SCHISM:

Reflections on the break, the causes and the results of the Episcopal Church split of 2012 in South Carolina

Part 2. The Causes

B. The Direct Cause

This is the third in our series on essays on the schism of 2012 in commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the break. The first was on what happened in the break itself. The second was on the underlying causes of the schism. The underlying causes came primarily from the innate social conservatism of the Diocese of South Carolina and the increasing divide between an evermore horizontal national church and a vertical local diocese. However, conservatism itself does not explain sufficiently the causes of the schism. It is doubtful that lower South Carolina is any more conservative than the rest of the Dixiecrat belt of South Carolina to Louisiana. Yet, not a single diocese in any other southeastern state experienced a schism. Our next problem is, why did lower South Carolina alone in its region vote to break from the national Episcopal Church; that is, what was the direct cause of the schism?

There is still much that is unknown and unclear about the schism in South Carolina, but the problem of the direct cause is not in this category. Without question, the issue of homosexuality was the direct cause. So now, let us flesh this out. Exactly how did this issue make the break?

In spite of overwhelming empirical evidence, many people on the secessionist side denied, and continue to deny, that the issue of homosexuality caused the schism. The common cry on the breakaway side was, and still is, the break was about theology. Even years before 2012, the diocesan leaders promoted the concept that the Episcopal Church had devolved into heresy, specifically that it no longer accepted the "Uniqueness of Christ, that is, that Jesus Christ alone brought salvation to humankind and faith in Him alone brings salvation. To support this dramatic charge, the leaders claimed Episcopal bishops were on record denying the uniqueness. What some people in the diocese did was to take certain remarks some bishops had made, remove them from the context, and extrapolate the remarks onto the whole Episcopal Church. This was intellectual dishonesty, but it was effective. By the time of the schism, it was commonly held in the separatist local churches that the national church had fallen from grace. 

In fact, the Episcopal Church had not changed its religious understandings. It had changed its social ones. Any alteration of the doctrines, or beliefs, of the Episcopal Church would require resolutions of the General Convention which never happened and certainly would not happen. However, the facts did not matter in this case. So, today, the commonly held concept among the separatist parishes is that the Episcopal Church abandoned the true faith; hence, the schism was justified, and it had nothing to do with homosexuality. The demonstrable facts show this view to be nonsense.

The issue of homosexuality was the direct cause of the schism but it took thirty years for this to work itself out. Space here does not allow all the details (see the conclusion of my book for this), so here are the highlights.

In 1982, the Diocese of South Carolina got a new leader, Bishop Allison. He was a driven Evangelical who had been instrumental in creating what is now Trinity School for Ministry as a bastion of Evangelical Anglicanism. Right off, he became an outspoken critic of the national church, particularly on the issue of homosexuality. He filled all the ranks he could in lower SC with like-minded alumni of TSM. By 1990, the diocese had taken a hard turn to the Evangelical side of the Episcopal Church. This trend was only to continue all the way to schism.

It is important here to look at the relationship between Evangelicalism and homophobia. Why do conservative Christians condemn homosexuality? In my understanding, it has to do with their views of God and the relationship between human beings and God.

Evangelicals/fundamentalists/pentecostals and the like tend to see God as the all powerful ruler of the universe who is a being in space somewhere and like humans only greater. As he rules the universe, he sets into motion all things including society. He created and rules over the social order. It is not man's place to question this, much less try to change it. This is why 80% of Evangelicals voting in 2016 and 2020 voted for Trump, even though he was commonly criticized as, well, morally and ethically challenged. What mattered to the Evangelical voters was that he stood to maintain, or restore, the old social order. This paid off as the Supreme Court revoked settled law and turned abortion over to the individual states. This was a huge blow to the gains women had made in social reform.

As the Episcopal Church moved, step by step, to incorporate non-celibate homosexuals in the church and to open church liturgies to homosexual couples, the Diocese of South Carolina reacted by moving step by step away from the national church. The crucial period in the Episcopal Church was 1989 to 1996. It was in this time that the issues around homosexuality were virtually settled in the Episcopal Church. Right away, a movement sprang up in SC to go beyond the national church.

One of the unanswered questions about the schism in SC was when the turning point occurred. At what point did the diocesan leadership decide on schism? We still do not have enough evidence to answer this question definitely. However, my best guess at this time is the turning point occurred between the Robinson affair of the summer of 2003 and the formation of the bishop's search committee in May of 2004. We have sworn testimony in court that by the time the search committee went to work looking for a new bishop it wanted one to lead the diocese out of the national church. In the end, the committee united around Mark Lawrence, who had made a name for himself speaking out against the affirmation of Robinson. (In 2003 the General Convention affirmed Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire, the first openly non-celibate homosexual person to be named a bishop. In SC, a diocesan convention met and nullified recognition of this.)

Lawrence was consecrated bishop in January of 2008. The schism occurred four, nearly five, years later. Why did it take so long? I think it was a combination of factors. I see three periods in the Lawrence episcopate leading to the schism. The first was 2008-2009. In this he bonded himself to the majority of people in the diocese. He had to have time to get to know the diocese and for the people to get to know him. The second was 2009-2010. In this he called frequent meetings of the diocesan convention that did two big things: declared the sovereignty of the diocese and revoked diocesan accession to the canons of the Episcopal Church. The third period was 2011-2012, the putting into effect of the schism. 

In September of 2012, the Disciplinary Board for Bishops voted that Bishop Lawrence had abandoned the church primarily by issuing quit claim deed to all local parishes. This was in disregard of the Dennis Canon of TEC that required all local properties to be held in trust for the Episcopal Church and its local diocese. He had given out the deeds in 2011.

Everyone knew that the General Convention of 2012 was likely to adopt new liturgies for the blessing of same-sex unions. The leaders in SC spent the first half of the year rousing the diocese to oppose the national church, something that by this point was not hard to do. The bishop and the delegates from SC went to the GC with a pre-made plan to stage a dramatic walk-out when the controversial resolutions passed. After the convention, apparently the diocesan leaders met in secret to formulate the break. Long story short, on Oct. 2, 2012, the Standing Committee, upon the authority they believed they had from the bishop, voted secretly to disaffiliate the diocese from the Episcopal Church if the church took any action of any kind against Lawrence. It was the issue of homosexuality at the 2012 GC that presented the stage for the schism.

So, the issue of the interface between the church and homosexuality percolated up in the 1980's, just at the time a strongly Evangelical bishop was leading the Diocese of South Carolina. He set a tone of criticism of the national church, particularly on issues of sexuality. He brought in like-minded clergy. In SC, hostility to the Episcopal Church grew in the 1990's as the national church moved ever closer to rights and inclusion of non-celibate homosexuals. The crescendo was the Robinson affair in 2003. Apparently soon after this, the attitude among the leadership in SC was set toward secession. If this theory is true, Bishop Lawrence was the executor and not the creator of the schism. We simply do not have enough evidence at this point to say conclusively what happened among the diocesan leaders right after Robinson. We do know, however, there was deep hostility to the national church, among diocesan leaders, by 2008.

The evidence we do have is clear that it was the issue of homosexuality that drove the wedge between the majority of clergy and laity of the diocese of South Carolina and the Episcopal Church. The other dioceses in the southeastern U.S. did not move to schism because they had leadership that was more broad minded about the institution of the national church. They were more accepting and less judgmental about the views of others. The schism in SC was from the top down, not from the bottom up. The crucial factor was leadership. The uniqueness of the schism in SC meant the uniqueness of the leadership in SC.   

 

REMEMBRANCE DAY AHEAD

Today is October 12, 2022. In three days, we will mark the tenth anniversary of the division of the old diocese of South Carolina. The break happened at 12:00 noon on October 15, 2012. I suggest that everyone take a moment at noon on this Saturday, the 15th to reflect on the schism of 2012. I expect to be in my garden for a time of prayer and meditation immersed in the lovely and comforting God-given beauty of autumn. 

How one now sees the schism depends on where one stands. I expect many people on the Episcopal side will mourn for the departed brothers and sisters and for the scandalous unpleasantness of the past decade. However, on the secessionist side there may be a sense of rejoicing at the freedom from what they saw, and still see, as an heretical denomination and at the victory of rescuing almost all of the large parishes from the clutches of that errant church. Nevertheless, there may still be a some sense of "loss" among the departed church people since they have lost both their ancestral church and the Anglican Communion. Adopting the name "Anglican" does not make then Anglicans since an Anglican is defined as one in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury which the secessionist diocese in SC is not.

So, the people in both parts of the schism may be grieving "loss" in one way or another. Perhaps it is useful at this point to review the five stages of grief after loss. How does your own experience fit into these?

1-DENIAL.  This one is not so clear. Everyone knew for years before the schism of 2012 that the Diocese of South Carolina was on the road to schism. It was plain to see, so no one could have been surprised when it happened. On the Episcopal side, perhaps the denial was the tendency to see the break as only temporary, that the two sides would patch up their differences and go on together. I suspect that hope has fallen by the wayside. On the separatist side was the fierce resolve that they held an iron-clad hold on the old diocese. They insisted they were the continuation of the historic Diocese of South Carolina. They denied that there had been a schism.

2-ANGER.  One cannot quantify this, but I suspect there was a great deal of anger on both sides as the litigation dragged on year after year in one court after another. What to blame for this except the schism?

3-BARGAINING.  For nearly ten years, all bargaining between the two parties failed. In 2015, the Episcopal side offered a grand compromise: the diocese for the parishes. The secessionist side disdainfully dismissed this out of hand. Twice courts ordered mediation, all to no avail. The talks never got off the ground.

4-DEPRESSION.  Along the way in the ten years, both sides suffered significant depression, even despair. The low point for the breakaways was the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of 2017 that recognized Episcopal ownership of the diocese (mainly the Camp) and 29 of the 36 parishes in question. The low point for the Episcopal party was the circuit court's rejection of the SCSC decision, in 2020, and the subsequent inexplicable decisions of the SCSC to roll back the Episcopal gains from 29 to 8 local churches.

5-ACCEPTANCE.  Last year, both dioceses elected new bishops, both of which came from outside. Neither new bishop had had anything whatsoever to do with the schism or its aftermath. They have begun to work together to resolve the legal differences in the acceptance of each other as equals. This also signals the acceptance that two separate dioceses will go on indefinitely into the future. The long tone of hostility is easing into at least grudging, pragmatic acceptance of reality.

Might the two separate parts go back together as in the old days before 2012? Of course, anything is possible but at this point in time, considering everything, I think it is most unlikely. 

There was a flurry of excitement last week at the news that an ACNA church in Indiana had voted to join the Episcopal Church. If it can happen in Indiana, could it happen in South Carolina? Could some of the parishes in the breakaway diocese in SC rejoin their ancestral church? Under the circumstances in SC, I think the chances of this happening are nil. Here's why:

The church in Indiana was not part of a schism. It was simply a church plant by an ACNA church that decided they were more comfortable with the social policies of TEC. This situation is a far cry from that of SC.

A major part of the schism in SC was the close binding of the local churches into the schism. Immediately after the schism, the breakaway leaders leaned on the local church to sign a form of commitment to the secession. They also got 36 local parishes to join in their lawsuit against TEC (Jan. 4, 2013). This was the only case among the five schisms where local churches joined in the litigation. There were some dozen local churches that bound themselves to the secession but did not enter into the lawsuit. All of the 36 parishes had to procure lawyers to represent them and to go through the whole decade of litigation. 

In 2017, when the SCSC decision seemed to mean the "loss" of 29 parishes to TEC, the secessionist leaders prepared for removal of the congregations from the properties as continuing parishes elsewhere. Late that year, they sent out a secret plan for the relocations. In the spring of the next year, they began conducting prepared anti-Episcopal propaganda campaigns in some of the 29 parishes to convince communicants not to remain behind with the properties when the time came for relocation. Add this to the years of hostility to the Episcopal Church before the schism, and the years of legal warfare, and one would find a thoroughly negative view of TEC among the local churches that went along with the schism. Given this deep-seated negativity to TEC, I think the chance any one local church would bolt from ADSC for the Episcopal diocese in the foreseeable future is nil to none.

So, again, you might want to pause at noon, on this coming Saturday, the 15th of October and remember in your own way the tenth anniversary of the schism in South Carolina. 

A DECADE OF SCHISM:

Reflections on the break, the causes and the results of the Episcopal Church split of 2012 in South Carolina

Part 2: The Causes

A. The Underlying Causes

This month marks the tenth anniversary of the schism in South Carolina. A few days ago we looked at what happened in the break itself. In October and November of 2012, the majority of the clergy and laity of the Diocese of South Carolina left the Episcopal Church, the Diocese, and the Anglican Communion, to form a new Christian denomination that later joined a larger new group of like-minded people called the Anglican Church in North America and that adopted the name of Anglican Diocese of South Carolina. This left two dioceses where one once stood, the ongoing Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and the separatist Anglican Diocese of South Carolina.

We should hold two factors in mind at this point. One, the pre-schism diocese of SC divided into two separate parts. Two, this schism was unique in the southeastern United States. No other Episcopal diocese in this region experienced a division. The other diocesan schisms were: Pittsburgh (PA), Ft. Worth (TX), Quincy (IL), and San Joaquin (CA).

Our problem now is why this schism occurred and why it was unique to its region.

Historical problems always have two sets of causation, underlying, or long-term causes, and direct, or immediate causes. The schism in SC is no exception to the rule. It has underlying and direct causes. First, we will look at the underlying causes and then the direct. 

The search for the underlying causes leads us to the broader context of American history. Here we find the schism was part and parcel of the contemporary culture war going on in America.

From the start of our nation to the end of the Second World War (1945), America was a white patriarchy. With very few exceptions, white men monopolized all levers of power in American society. They carried out ethnic cleansing of native peoples, kept African descendants in slavery, then second class citizenship under Jim Crow, women in submission until grudgingly allowing the vote, and foreigners either banned or heavily restricted after 1920. The prevailing narrative of American history was the God-given victory of the white man (Manifest Destiny).

In contrast to this minority power structure, the Twentieth Century brought in two reforming movements, social democracy and populist government. Democracy defeated its rivals in the First World War (monarchy) and the Second World War (totalitarianism). Soviet communism imploded in the 1980's. Democracy, the rule of the people, by the people, and for the people (all the people equally), became the prevailing political system of the world with a few important exceptions. The other, populist government, grew up in the Great Depression of the 1930's when the government moved in to provide for the welfare of the people.

After the Second World War, the two concepts of democracy and populism combined to create an irresistible movement of reform. Elements that had been ignored or marginalized under white patriarchy began to stir against the old status quo. From 1945 to 1968, a great democratic revolution swept America. The two outstanding parts of this were the Civil Rights Movement that started the trend of rights, equality, and inclusion of African Americans in American society, and the women's liberation movement that did the same for women. By 1968, white patriarchy had been seriously challenged. Reforms for homosexuals began in earnest in the 1970's and 80's, another challenge to the old order.

By 1968, the old order caught its breath and began a furious counter-revolutionary backlash against the new challengers. Essentially, American history since 1968 has been a struggle between the ongoing post-WWII great democratic revolution and the reactionary white patriarchy. To complicate this, demographic changes foretold the looming reduction of white people to minority numbers in the U.S. White people would soon lose majority vote in what a great many of them considered historically as their own country. White male fears arose. These soared at the election, and reelection of the first president of African heritage, and the first woman candidate for president of a major party. They found a home in the candidacy, and administration of Donald Trump, who skillfully stoked white fears and resentments. The crescendo was the Trumpist mob's attempt to overthrow the constitutional government on Jan. 6, 2021.

In some way, all American institutions have been swept up into this great culture war. The Episcopal Church was no exception. As the democratic revolution began to emerge after the Second World War, the Church resolved early on to throw in its lot with the new reform movement. By the 1960's, the Episcopal Church was a major part of the national crusade for racial and gender reform. By the 1990's, the Church would add homosexuals to the list.

At the risk of over-simplifying, there are two basic approaches in Christianity, vertical and horizontal. They take different views of the relationship of the divine and the human. Vertical emphasizes a one-to-one relationship between a corrupt and sinful human being and a perfect and all-powerful entity in the beyond. The salvation of the corrupt person is the point of this relationship. Taken to extreme, this can become idolatry as the individual implores this all-powerful deity for favors. Since God created and controls the universe, it is not man's place to question, let alone change, the divine order. Vertical Christianity tends to be socially conservative.

The horizontal viewpoint is that God created human beings in his own image to be his representatives on earth. With the knowledge of good and evil and free will, it is their mission to carry out God's work in the world. Instead of the remote idol, God is the transcendent power present in the transactions. Horizontal Christianity emphasizes change and reform in society (the Social Gospel). In short, vertical is self-oriented while horizontal is communal.

After the Second World War, the Episcopal Church gradually moved from a vertical to a horizontal posture. This continues to today. It came to champion equal rights and inclusion for African Americans, women, homosexuals and the transgendered. Along the way, the Church revised the prayer book liturgies to make them more democratic. 

All of this caused a backlash from those Church people who wanted to continue the emphasis on vertical religion. Southern whites began leaving the Episcopal Church in the 1950's and 60's. When women were given the right to Holy Orders, more conservatives left. Same for the changes in the prayer book. All of these rocked the Episcopal Church but the real explosion came in the 1990's with the reforms for homosexuals.

The battle in TEC over rights for homosexuals ran mainly from 1989 to 1996. At first, the church was divided into thirds, pro, anti, and neutral. By the end, the pro had won the day. In 1997, the first serious breaches in the church began to appear when it was clear that homosexuals had won equality and inclusion in the life of the church. The affirmation of the first open and partnered homosexual person as a bishop (2003) and the election of the first woman as presiding bishop (2006) were immediately followed by four dioceses declaring their departure from the national church.

In short, from the 1950's onward, the Episcopal Church became increasingly horizontal in its exercise of religion. A minority of verticalists rebelled and left the church all along the way but most seriously in 2007 and 2008 when four of the 100-plus dioceses voted to depart.

As we know, South Carolina became the fifth to vote to leave TEC, in 2012. Our problem now is, why South Carolina? We have to start with the generic conservatism of the state and the diocese. It was the most socially conservative of the 100-plus dioceses of the entire Episcopal Church. It was the last to integrate its convention. It admitted the first historically black parish in 1954, nearly a century after the Civil War. It was the last to allow women into offices of power in the diocese. While it did allow women to be ordained, it was very slow to do this. No woman was every named chair of an important diocesan body. Women never had a majority of any diocesan committee. No woman was ever named rector of a large or medium parish. The diocese remained largely a bastion of white patriarchy.

In sum, the underlying causes of the schism in South Carolina came from the divergence of an increasingly socially reformist national church and a historically socially conservative diocese. While the diocese remained, however uneasily, in the national church in the 1950s, 60's, and 70's, the relationship began to alter drastically after 1982. For thirty years, from 1982 to 2012, the diocese of South Carolina moved evermore away from the national mainstream, to the breaking point. Exactly how this occurred will be the topic of our next look at the causes of the schism, the direct, or immediate causes.

 

A DECADE OF SCHISM:

Reflections on the break, the causes and the results of the Episcopal Church split of 2012 in South Carolina

Part 1: The Break

Today is the First of October, 2022. This  month marks the tenth anniversary of the Episcopal Church schism in South Carolina. Although the problems of its aftermath continue, this is a convenient moment to stop and reflect on the division of the old diocese, particularly on how the break occurred, the long-term and immediate causes of the schism, and the results.

Anyone who has waded through my history of the schism knows the minute detail I provided in the book, not to mention the thousands of footnotes documenting every point. Even though the book was published five years ago, I stand by it. I would not change a word. No one has ever publicly disputed any point I made in the book which is still in print in hardback, paperback, and Kindle. Space here does not allow all the detail I provided in the book, so I will try to summarize. Summarizing history has always been hard for me to do. My students sometimes good-naturedly rolled their eyes when I went off on long, verbose, detailed tangents. Anyway, I will try to sum things up here for the sake of space. One can find all the detail one should want and then some in my book.

First, we will look at when and how the break actually occurred. Then, we will go over the causes of the schism. Finally we will look at the ten-year aftermath of the separation.

The break happened precisely at 12:00 p.m. (Noon) on Monday, 15 October 2012.

At noon, Katharine Jefferts Schori, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, in New York City, telephoned Mark Lawrence, bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina, in Charleston. On the line also were the members of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops, and Wade Logan, chancellor of the Diocese of South Carolina. Jefferts Schori told Lawrence that the DBB had certified that he (Lawrence) had abandoned the communion and that she was required to place a restriction on him. As of noon of that day he was to perform no act as an ordained person.

Jefferts Schori went on to ask for confidentiality. She said she would make no announcement of the restriction. She already had a scheduled meeting on 22 October with Lawrence, Andrew Waldo (Bp of Upper SC), and their chancellors, in New York. She hoped to settle the matter privately at that time. Lawrence listened, said little, then hung up the phone.

The presiding bishop did not know, had no way of knowing, that she had walked into a hidden trap that had been set for her some time before by the diocesan officers in Charleston. On October 2 the diocesan Standing Committee had secretly passed a resolution that the diocese would withdraw from the Episcopal Church if the national church took any action of any kind against Bishop Lawrence. In all, no more than two dozen persons in the diocesan leadership were in on the plot. They all kept it top secret. Lawrence did not reveal it to Bishop Waldo, or to the presiding bishop when he met her the next day, on 3 October 2012.

Lawrence had already been investigated by the Disciplinary Board for Bishops once and cleared. However, everyone knew there was a likelihood he would be investigated again after his issuance of quit claim deeds to all the parishes of the diocese in disregard of the Episcopal Church's Dennis Canon which required all local property to be held in trust for the Church and its diocese. When the Standing Committee adopted their secret resolution for schism it was generally known that there was a good chance the Episcopal Church authorities would take action against Lawrence. The presiding bishop would then appear to be the aggressor and Lawrence the innocent victim. The diocese would rally to the defense of their beleaguered bishop.

Jefferts Schori's call on the 15th and the restriction was all that was needed for the schism to go into effect from the diocesan leadership's perspective. 

Immediately after hanging up the phone, Lawrence called Logan, the chancellor, because the secret resolution required the chancellor's approval before enactment. He then made a conference call with the Standing Committee which declared its Oct. 2 resolution to be in effect. In the diocesan leadership's view, this made the schism. At that point, they said the diocese was no longer associated with the Episcopal Church. Lawrence then made phone calls to several other important people who had been in on the secret plan. Afterwards, he went on with his duties as bishop in complete disregard of the restriction which in his view was irrelevant since the diocese was no longer associated with the Episcopal Church.

Thus, two dozen people in the diocesan leadership planned and carried out a supposed separation of the diocese from the Episcopal Church. At least this was the view of these people. What about everybody else?

The diocesan leadership spent the next forty-eight hours preparing for a massive public relations initiative to sell the schism to the communicants. 

At around noon on Wednesday, 17 October, Lawrence called Jefferts Schori and informed her that the diocese had disaffiliated from the Episcopal Church. He told her the Oct. 2 resolution of the Standing Committee required it as of noon on the 15th, the time she had taken any action of any kind against Lawrence. There could be no confidentiality. 

As soon as Lawrence hung up the phone, the officials in the diocesan office announced to the world that the diocese had disassociated from the Episcopal Church. They posted a stack of documents on the Internet meant to justify the action. The news exploded around the world. The fifth diocese of the Episcopal Church had declared its independence. 

In the view of the two-dozen or so of the diocesan leaders, their self-proclaimed schism was now a fait accompli. However, they had to be sure the bulk of the diocesan membership was on board. A diocesan special convention was called for 17 November. Within the month, the public relations drive was sure to firm up solid support for the supposedly beleaguered bishop and diocese. The PR campaign was wildly successful. There really was no counter campaign.

The special convention of Nov. 17, at St. Philip's, in Charleston, was an open-and-shut affair. Lawrence told the delegates the diocese (including himself as the bishop) had left the Episcopal Church and they were there to validate this or not. Forty-nine local churches rubber stamped the schism while twenty-two either did not attend or abstained from voting. At least two-thirds of the diocese happily complied with the break.

Jefferts Schori tried for seven weeks to meet with Lawrence and to find ways to heal the break, all to no avail. Lawrence spurned every effort she made to meet with him. It was Lawrence's words to the special convention that closed the book for her. After Lawrence indicated to the convention he had left the Episcopal Church, she had no choice but to act and remove him as bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina. 

On December 5, 2012, Jefferts Schori called Lawrence and told him she had accepted his renunciation of ministry in the Episcopal Church. She issued a document called "Renunciation of Ordained Ministry and Declaration of Removal and Release." This officially removed Lawrence from the ordained ministry of the Episcopal Church. After this point, he was no longer bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina. 

After that, the Episcopal Church began reorganizing the diocese, and its first provisional bishop would soon be named. 

On January 4, 2013, the lawyers for the independent diocese filed a lawsuit against the Episcopal Church for ownership of the diocese thus beginning the long legal war.

Now, we have to consider the question of whether the diocese actually disassociated from the Episcopal Church as the diocesan officials claimed. The short answer is no, but this takes some explaining.

The leaders of the schism believed, and declared, that the Diocese of South Carolina had seceded intact from the Episcopal Church to become an independent religious institution. They continued to use the names and emblems of the diocese, and in fact got an injunction from the circuit court in January of 2013 protecting this. However, the Episcopal Church entered a lawsuit in federal court in March of 2013 claiming violation of trademark, essentially that the breakaways' claim of being the Diocese of South Carolina was fraudulent. This suit finally came to resolution in 2019 when U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel, in Charleston, ordered that the Episcopal Diocese was the one and only heir of the Diocese of South Carolina and the rightful owner of all the names and emblems. He even issued an injunction enforcing this. The schismatic association then had to choose a new name; they chose "Anglican Diocese of South Carolina." The state supreme court also ruled repeatedly that the Episcopal diocese was the heir of the historic diocese. (The terms of settlement of Sept. 26, 2022 included a provision that the Anglican diocese would withdraw its appeal of Gergel's order and, in effect, accept his judgment as final. This ends the question of which side is the historic diocese.) 

Thus, it was not true that the Diocese of South Carolina seceded from the Episcopal Church. The clergy and laity who left the Episcopal Church also left the Diocese of South Carolina. They set up a new institution with a new name. The Anglican Diocese of South Carolina first came into being in 2012 although it did not choose a new name until seven years later.

So, to summarize this summary:  the break occurred on Oct. 15, 2012 when two-dozen people in the diocesan leadership put into effect their premeditated and secret plan claiming to remove the diocese from the Episcopal Church. They left the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of South Carolina. The majority of clergy and laity of the old diocese went along with this by resolutions of the special convention. A minority reorganized the Episcopal diocese. After Lawrence announced his departure from the Episcopal Church he was removed as bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina. This left the old diocese split into two dioceses, the ongoing Episcopal diocese and one that came to be called the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina.    

I hope this little summary of how and when the break occurred was helpful. Next we will turn to the causes of the break. 

SECESSIONISTS RAISING ONE MILLION DOLLARS FOR SCHISMATIC PARISHES

The Anglican Diocese of South Carolina has ANNOUNCED it is raising one millions dollars to support the eight congregations that are leaving the Episcopal Church properties, that is, the local churches that the SC Supreme Court has said belong to the Episcopal diocese. The announcement says $250,000 has already been raised. Each congregation is to receive $10,000 initially with more to come by grants. No mention was made of the negotiations to buy St. Matthew's of Ft. Motte or the rectory of St. David's, of Cheraw, so one can only wonder how much diocesan money will be funneled into these. 

On another note, the diocese has deleted from its WEBPAGE the September 21 newsletter. This was the one that spilled the beans on the supposedly confidential negotiations to buy the church in Ft. Motte and the rectory in Cheraw. Too late now.

To say this schism has been expensive would be an understatement. I estimate the legal fees alone in the last decade to be around $10m.

The fact that the secessionists are resolved to contribute a million dollars to keep eight congregations from going back to the Episcopal Church should bring home to the Episcopal side the seriousness of the negotiations now going on between themselves and the schismatics. The depth of the schismatics' animosity toward the Episcopal Church is profound. Compromise will not come easily to say the least. (In the joint statement of Sept. 26, the Anglicans gave up nothing they actually had.)

One more point---officers of the Anglican diocese of SC persist in pretending that their group is the historic diocese. The federal court ruled in 2019 that the Episcopal diocese is the only heir of the historic diocese and that the Anglican diocese formed after the schism of 2012. The judge even issued an Injunction to enforce a ban on the schismatics from claiming to be the historic diocese. Moreover, the breakaways have been held in contempt of court TWICE for violating the injunction. Yet, we see remarks as the Rev. Canon Jim Lewis: "For generations, the people of this Diocese have given generously..." Of course, there is a blogger, another officer of the ADOSC, who often posts "the historic Anglican diocese" and "the brand new Episcopal diocese." I doubt that the secessionists want to be held in contempt of court a third time. 

 

EPISCOPAL LAWYERS FILE REPLY TO OLD ST. ANDREW'S AND HOLY CROSS (STATEBURG)

On today, September 29, 2022, the attorneys for the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and the Episcopal Church filed in the South Carolina Supreme Court "Reply to Returns to Motion for Relief from Judgment."

On August 17, 2022, the SCSC issued a judgment holding that Old St. Andrew's and Holy Cross, of Stateburg, were owners of their properties because they had formed trusts after 2006 when state law changed to allow unilateral revocation of trusts. The Episcopal side's lawyers then filed a request with the SCSC to vacate the judgment or to hold a new hearing on the issue. OSA and HC then filed a response to the Episcopal side's request. Today's paper is the reply of the Episcopal lawyers to the two congregations' arguments.

Here is what I see as the main points in today's paper:

---In the first place, OSA and HC have not proven they formed trusts after 2006.

---The Aug. 17 ruling of the SCSC was improper for two big reasons.

1) The SCSC majority (Beatty, Pleicones, Hearn) opinion of 2017 held that 29 parishes (including OSA and HC) made irrevocable trusts for TEC and its diocese. This decision became the law of the land.

2) The issue of revocation was not part of the trial court record and was not considered by the circuit court for its 2020 order.

Therefore, the present SCSC should not rule on the issue of revocation without due process in court.

The TEC/EDOSC lawyers ended by asking the SCSC to vacate its judgment on OSA and HC or to hold a hearing to allow for due process of the issue.

What will the SCSC do next? God only knows. So far, the court has issued three different, and contradictory, rulings on the church case. They have made an embarrassing mess of it all and they still have not closed the door. 

On Aug. 2, 2017, the court said the Episcopal Church owned 29 of the 36 parishes in question. Then, on April 20, 2022, the court said, oh no, TEC actually owns 14 of the 36. And then, on Aug. 17, 2022, the justices said, no no, TEC really owns 8 of the 36. This chaos is the result of the SCSC trying to be both an appeals court and a trial court and not doing either well.

 

SEPARATISTS SEEKING TO BUY EPISCOPAL PROPERTY

The release yesterday of the agreements between the bishops of the Episcopal and Anglican dioceses covered a great deal, but not all aspects of negotiations going on between the two sides.

According to the September 21, 2022 newsletter of the Anglican diocese of SC, talks are going on concerning two properties owned by the Episcopal diocese.

In one instance, apparently the present congregation of St. Matthew's, in Ft. Motte, is negotiating with Bishop Woodliff-Stanley to buy the parish property from the Episcopal diocese. A prayer request:

"The Rev. Janet Echols (St. Matthew's, Ft. Motte) - For a fruitful face to face meeting with Bp Ruth Woodliff-Stanley, particularly regarding purchase of the parish property."

In another example, apparently the congregation that vacated St. David's, in Cheraw, is trying to buy the rectory of the parish from the Episcopal diocese:

"The Rev. Jason Varnadore (St. David's, Cheraw) - That they are able to arrive at acceptable terms for the purchase of the parish rectory."

St. David's has returned to Episcopal services while the departed congregation is worshiping in a borrowed church.

This is all the information presently publicly available on possible sales of parish properties to the secessionists elements. 

When contacted about the remarks in the ADOSC newsletter, the Episcopal diocesan office would neither confirm nor deny these reports.

Of the eight parishes to be returned to the Episcopal diocese, three are still outstanding on details of transition:

St. Matthew's, Ft. Motte

St. James, James Island

Good Shepherd, Charleston

Good Shepherd has a petition before the SC Supreme Court for reconsideration of its case. The SCSC has assigned the parish to the Episcopal diocese.

Bottom line, apparently there are negotiations going between the two sides for the Episcopal diocese to sell some properties to the schismatic side. In time, the details of these will become known. As one knows, a great deal of detail was not revealed in yesterday's announcement of certain agreements between the two dioceses.

A LETTER TO THIS EDITOR,

28 SEPTEMBER 2022

It should come as no surprise that people are reacting to yesterday's blockbuster announcement of a deal between the two bishops. I would say the overall tenor of what I am hearing is fatigue-drenched shock and war-weary disappointment. The Hundred Years' War of the Middle Ages was perhaps the longest war on record, but the schism in South Carolina seems that long to the people caught up in it. Yet, one can only wonder if peace at any price is worthy of the conflict. 

At any rate, here is one of the printable communications I have received since yesterday's announcement:

Hello Dr. Caldwell:

I am amused at the subject line, as my father was pastor of Prince of Peace Evangelical Lutheran Church when I was born. But, anyway...

I moved to Raleigh, NC, from Virginia where I had lived all of my life, way back in 1997. I didn't really start to pay much attention to churches, though, until 2004 when I agreed to help an unchurched family member find a spiritual home.

In the course of attending many churches with this person (sometimes as many as three in a weekend) I learned many of their stories. I started to notice a pattern. It usually started with one or more unhappy families at one church---usually a personality conflict with someone in leadership. When the malcontents found a sympathetic clergy willing to help them split, a new church was born. Importantly, so was a new fixed-rate 30-year mortgage.

I've watched the lifecycle of these churches over the past 18 years. Memberships shrink, charismatic clergy leave or retire, some members drift back to the "home" church. But you can see that their fate is sealed when that 30-year mortgage is coming due. There will be a flurry of fundraising, more publicity, clergy turnover gets shorter, and a lot of appeals to nostalgia rain down on past members who are hoped to return.

Ultimately, you know when the battle is lost. The church sign changes. Maybe it's a new denomination or a new name in a foreign language. Sometimes the church of a different denomination next door takes over the property and may even allow the previous tenants to remain for some time after the sale. In the worst case, the building and cemetery  are abandoned. That's all that remains thirty years after the schism, a forgotten memorial to some righteous cause lost to memory.

The ADOSC may thrive, and they may have a good run, but that thirty-year clock is ticking. Maybe the mortgage is paid, but the people have moved on. The same be true of the EDOSC as well. Any church, any denomination, any faith tradition is ever only one generation (+10 years) away from extinction. If faith, hope, and love will carry through to that day, time can only tell.

Very truly yours,

Israel J. Pattison

THE PRICE OF PEACE

Bishop Ruth Woodliff-Stanley, of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, released a STATEMENT today summarizing some of the agreements she has made with Bishop Chip Edgar, of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina. The two sides have declared peace, sort of, but at what price?

Let's look at the gains and losses of the two sides as outlined in today's statement. Here are my initial observations about today's announcement.

WHAT ADOSC GETS:

---all rights to the diocesan headquarters building on Coming Street (EDOSC surrenders any claim to the place).

---EDOSC grants quit claim deeds to "several" missions that remained in ADOSC but did not join the lawsuit. There were about a dozen of these in all. (EDOSC vacates the Dennis Canon for these).

---the three parishes with petitions before the SC Supreme Court can continue their actions against the Episcopal diocese; as well, the ADOSC can continue its betterments suit against the Episcopal diocese.

---right to make joint decisions on placement of the diocesan archives. (All records of the Episcopal diocese from 1785 to 11:59 a.m., Oct. 15, 2012, should be sole property of the Episcopal diocese, as per the federal court ruling of 2019). The ADOSC did not exist before Oct. 15, 2012. They have no right to make decisions about the historical records.

WHAT EDOSC GETS:

---Camp St. Christopher and the bishop's residence on Smith St. (There was no question about ownership of these as per both the SC Supreme Court and the federal court).

---rental property at 129 Coming St. and a lot in Santee, both owned by the Episcopal dicoese( ditto above).

---end of the ADOSC appeal of Judge Gergel's order of 2019 in the U.S. Court of Appeals (there was virtually no chance this appeal would have succeeded since Gergel had written his order to be appeal-proof and the SCSC had ruled repeatedly in support of EDOSC as the sole heir of the historic diocese).

MYSTERY:

The most mysterious bullet point in today's statement referred to "additional financial assets" and that each side had made concessions. This is a huge deal. We must know more about this since it could involve many millions of dollars in pre-schism diocesan assets. Exactly what has the Episcopal diocese given up and gained?

So, to summarize:

The breakaways walk away with the diocesan headquarters, "several" additional missions, and the right to pursue their ongoing litigation in state courts. 

The Episcopal diocese winds up with the Camp and the bishop's residence which they had anyway, two properties the diocese owned anyway, and the end of the federal case which the diocese was almost certainly going to win anyway.

The biggest disappointment of the day is that the schism and the legal war are ongoing. 

So, I ask you dear reader who came out on top in this deal? I think it is clear. The Episcopal diocese is paying a price for peace. From my viewpoint, the Episcopal diocese gave up clearly more than the secessionist side did. Whether this was the right or wrong thing to do should remain the opinion of you, the observer. At best I can say I have a lot of questions about all of this. 

Hopefully we will have more details of the bishops' "settlement" in the coming days. I shall return with commentary.

Disclaimer---I am an independent commentator not connected with any diocese in lower South Carolina.

 

TWO DIOCESES ANNOUNCE SETTLEMENT ON DIOCESAN PROPERTIES

26 September 2022. 3:00 p.m.     

A few moments ago, the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina issued a press release stating that it had reached a final settlement with the separatist Anglican Diocese of South Carolina on disposal of diocesan properties but not on all issues outstanding between the two dioceses. Find it HERE . The two sides released no details but said more information on this would be released later this week.

Today's announcement raises far more questions than it answers. 

Here are a few questions that come to my mind right off:

---What does the term "properties" mean? For instance does this include financial assets, paraphernalia, and archives? As a student of the schism, I for one would be strongly opposed to allowing the schismatics to keep any of the archives, records, and other such material of the pre-schism diocese. Everything that belonged to the Episcopal diocese before Oct. 15, 2012 should now belong to the Episcopal diocese. 

---There were about a dozen local churches that went along with the schismatics but did not enter into the lawsuit against the Episcopal Church. What is to happen to them? Is the Episcopal Church and its diocese going to surrender any claim to them in spite of the Dennis Canon?

---What does this mean for the federal case? The breakaways have appealed Judge Gergel's Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals. That order recognized the Episcopal diocese as the only heir of the pre-schism diocese. Will the Anglican lawyers now withdraw their appeal?

---What does this mean for the case that is still wide open in the SC Supreme Court? The press release said it did not affect the three parishes in question (Old St. Andrew's, Holy Cross of Stateburg, and Good Shepherd). But, what about the rest of the case that is before the SCSC? It has been partially remitted to the circuit court.

---The Anglican side entered a betterments lawsuit in circuit court. Have they withdrawn this? On the other hand, is the Episcopal diocese going to ignore the unreimbursed use of its diocesan properties for the ten years of the schism, let alone the failure to keep up the properties? A decade's use of Camp St. Christopher and the bishop's residence would amount to millions of dollars.

---Will there be a special master to manage the transfers of the properties from one side to the other?

---Exactly who were the people who were in on this deal?

Finally, one wonders why the two sides released the announcement today when they could have waited a few more days and release it with the details. I suppose we have no choice but to wait until we are informed of more. Let us hope they are more forthcoming next time.

 

NOTES,  22 SEPTEMBER 2022

Best wishes to you, blog reader. I am writing this on Thursday, the 22nd of September, 2022. There is no big news to relate so I am just touching bases to let you know I am here and keeping vigilant on happenings relating to the schism. In case you have forgotten, we will be marking ten years of schism next month. Who would have thought ten years ago that we would still be in the midst of conflict all these years later? Oh well, best not to think about that today. We will get back to that sad topic soon enough.

As for legal happenings, we are waiting on two issues with the South Carolina Supreme Court. The first is the reply of the Episcopal lawyers to the responses of Old St. Andrew's and Holy Cross (Stateburg). On 17 August, the SCSC issued an order recognizing local ownership of the properties of these two parishes. The Episcopal side then asked the SCSC for reversal of this or a rehearing. The two responded by filing papers against this with the SCSC; and now the Episcopal side is preparing a reply to these responses. They lawyers have until Friday, 30 September to file their reply, so I doubt we hear anything from the SCSC before then. 

The second issue is the response of SCSC to Church of the Good Shepherd's petition for rehearing with the court. In the order of 17 August, the SCSC recognized Episcopal ownership of this parish. Subsequently, GS asked the court for reconsideration. We are now awaiting the court's decision on this.

Meanwhile, eight parishes are in transition back to the Episcopal diocese as per the SCSC order of 17 August (7 if one wants to hold Good Shepherd aside until the SCSC rules on its petition for rehearing). 

Three of the eight have already made the move back to the Episcopal Church and appear to be thriving. The first back was St. John's, of Johns Island, Charleston.

St. John's.

The second parish to return home was St. David's, of Cheraw. Last Sunday, the congregation met in the main sanctuary after meeting in the chapel for several weeks. It was a joyous homecoming for the long-suffering Episcopalians of that area.

St. David's.

The third parish to return to the Episcopal diocese was Christ Church, of Mt. Pleasant. Last Sunday was the first for the Episcopalians returning home there.

Christ Church.

Two others among the eight have announced dates for transition. The present occupants of Holy Trinity, of Charleston, posted 11 September as their last service on the property and 18 September as their first service at their new meeting location, at Porter-Gaud School. 

The occupants of St. Bartholomew's, of Hartsville, have announced that their last service in the church will be on 23 October and their first in an as yet an undisclosed location, on 30 October.

This leaves three of the eight that have not posted dates for transitions:

St. Matthew's, of Ft. Motte

St. James, of James Island, Charleston

Good Shepherd, Charleston.

On top of all the problems of the schism, churches in South Carolina, and everywhere else, are struggling to bounce back from the closures of the covid pandemic. Many congregations have been slow to return and rebuild. Resources are being strained. 

In some places, such as in my county, some churches are finding it impossible to keep on maintaining their expensive facilities. Two congregations that used to be among the largest and strongest of the county are abandoning their too-large properties. The First Baptist Church of Jacksonville AL was the largest and most prominent in the town covering a block.

A few weeks ago, the congregation sold their property for $6m to the adjacent Jacksonville State University. The people are going to meet at a mission church they established a few years ago on the southwest part of the town as they talk about ways to build a smaller facility out on the edge of town.

In nearby Anniston AL, the First Presbyterian Church is up for sale, assessed at $3m.

Built in 1964, it stands as a significant example of modern church architecture. It would be a shame to demolish this beauty. Unfortunately, the membership has declined too far to maintain the place properly. This congregation too wants to build a new, smaller facility.

So, perhaps your congregation is also struggling to build back to its pre-schism level. if so, you are not alone. Many congregations these days are being seriously challenged to get people back into the buildings and also to keep the buildings, or if not, decide what to do next. In a way, all churches are victims of covid too.

As people in South Carolina have learned the hard way, a building does not a church make. Church is the people. Countless Episcopalians learned this reality when they had to leave their church homes as the schism hit. Now, lots of "Anglicans" are leaving their church homes for the wilderness. They two will learn what "church" means. 

So, despite the odds, we all go on doing the best we can to serve God and our fellow human beings, buildings or no buildings. Peace. 

NOTES,  15 SEPTEMBER 2022

Greetings, blog reader, on September 15, 2022. This is a convenient moment to stop and take an assessment of the schism. With all that is going on with the courts, it is easy to get confused. If you are having trouble keeping the various legal maneuverings straight, you are not alone. I myself struggle with this. So, let's try to summarize the legal status of the schism:

1. The main source of chaos at the moment is the South Carolina Supreme Court. Matters here just seem to get murkier by the day. 

The basic dispute now is over the fates of three parishes: Old Saint Andrew's, Holy Cross (Stateburg), and Good Shepherd. 

In its most recent order, the SCSC assigned OSA and HC to the local occupants and assigned GS to the Episcopal Church. However, the SCSC did not issue a remit order to the lower court to implement this. Therefore, the Episcopal lawyers are asking the SCSC to reverse their decision on OSA and HC or to hold a new rehearing. Meanwhile, the lawyers for the present occupants of Good Shepherd are asking the court to reverse itself concerning that parish. Thus, the SCSC has three petitions before them, two from TEC and one from the secessionists. The TEC lawyers have until Sept. 30 to submit that last papers to the court on this matter.

I have long since given up trying to understand the SCSC, let alone predict, what they are going to do. The justices waded into the quagmire of trying to rule on church matters, despite the First Amendment, and now they are caught stuck in the mud. It seems the more they struggle to get out, the deeper they get in.

2. Meanwhile, there remains the question of the fates of the dozen or so local churches that went along with the secessionists but did not enter the lawsuit against TEC. It will be up to the diocesan authorities and their attorneys as to what they plan to do about these churches. I suppose we will have to wait and see if they initiate efforts to recover these properties.

3. As for the entity of the old diocese, the secessionists' appeal of the federal district court's order is still active. The district judge in Charleston, Richard Gergel, found all in favor of the Episcopal diocese and even issued an Injunction against the breakaways to prevent them from claiming to be in any way the heir of the pre-schism diocese. This is now before the Fourth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, in Richmond. If the SCSC ever finishes the church case, the appeals court will take up the appeal. Every expectation is for the appeals court to deny the appeal. If so, this will finish the matter of which side owns the historic diocese.

4. The circuit court still has before it the suit of the secessionists for betterments. This seeks compensation from the Episcopal side for improvements made in the returned properties since the schism began. To my knowledge, nothing has happened on this since it was filed. Perhaps the circuit judge is awaiting the final judgment of the SCSC (he should not hold his breath).

So, although we are inching towards a legal settlement, it is still off on the horizon.

However, while final settlement in the legal war is still far off, transitions are underway concerning some properties. The SCSC, and the federal court too, ruled that the Episcopal diocese was the only heir of the pre-schism diocese. This means that all properties and assets of the decision before the break on Oct. 15, 2012 belong to the Episcopal diocese. 

By far the most valuable property seized by the secessionists in 2012 was Camp St. Christopher with its vast ocean-front expanse. The breakaways have agreed to return this property. October 1, 2022 is the date set for the official transfer of the Camp to the Episcopal diocese. 

Several parishes have already been transferred, St. John's, of Johns Island, St. David's, of Cheraw, and Christ Church, of Mt. Pleasant. Except for the latter, these have been on the whole cordial events. 

Next Sunday, 18 September, will be the first for the restored Episcopal church at Christ Church. 

Last Sunday, 11 September, was the first in which the secessionists of Christ Church met at their new quarters, a school in Mt. Pleasant. Their services were posted on their Facebook page.

The posted videos show that the Rector, Ted Duvall, was more subdued than in his last Sunday in the old property when he seemed bitter and angry at the forces he blamed for his unpleasant predicament. 

Bishop Lawrence was there to teach a class, supposedly about how to discern God's will. Subdued would not be the word for his presentation. Find it HERE . @16 he told a story about an unnamed woman who seemed to credit him for getting her out of a lesbian relationship. She had sent him an email thanking him for standing for "the truth." He said she had been attending "one of the churches that hated my guts, one of the churches that stayed with the Episcopal Church." After her conversion to "the truth," she had switched to one of Lawrence's churches. 

I have several observations about this startling delivery:

1-If there is anyone in the world left who does not believe the schism was about homosexuality, he or she has only to listen to Lawrence's presentation.

2-Lawrence made a very serious indictment of the Episcopal side of "hating his guts." However, he gave no evidence or example. 

For nearly ten years, the Episcopal diocese of SC has consciously avoided casting aspersions on Bishop Lawrence. There is no example in which the diocese made disparaging remarks about him.

Likewise for the local churches, if there is any evidence that they "hated" Lawrence, let us see it. I for one have never seen any; and I should know having published a 350,000 word detailed history of the schism.

3-"Hate" is not the right word to describe the attitude of the Episcopalians in SC toward their former bishop. It seems to me "disappointment" is the proper descriptive term. For sure, the Episcopalians of lower SC were disappointed in Lawrence. They trusted him when he said it was his "intention" to stay in the Episcopal Church. They believed him when he made a solemn vow before God and a thousand people that he would abide by the rules of the Episcopal Church. No, the Episcopalians of lower SC did not, and do not, "hate his guts." They are full of disappointment, but not hate.

4-Even if it were true, and it is not, that his opposition hated him, is not it incumbent upon a Christian leader, or any Christian for that matter, to love his enemies and forgive those who act against him? Should a bishop be expelling such inflammatory language about his critics? I think not.

5-The schism has moved on beyond Bishop Lawrence. He made his choices and he has to live with them, as we all have to live with the choices we make every single day. The new bishop of the secessionist diocese has signaled his desire to wind down the disputes arising from the schism and move toward peace and concord. The Episcopal and Anglican bishops have met several times to talk about a good way forward. In talking with people all these years, this is what I think people want. This schism has been painful to everyone involved. Exhaustion is the most common complaint. A desire for peace and tranquility is paramount. And, is not this the way it should be? 

The schism has happened. There is no indication today the secessionists will reconcile with their former friends. The reality is two dioceses moving separately into the foreseeable future. Should not they go on as good neighbors, if not as friends?

We know the general outline of the post-schism settlement. The Episcopal Church gets the entity of the old diocese and its properties and assets, and a minority of the local churches. The secessionists get most of the local churches including all the big parishes except Grace. We still await the details to be worked out. Nevertheless the schism is slowing edging to a settlement.

In order to be worthy of the name they bear, the two sides should obey the two great commandments, love God and love neighbor. Love is the operative word. 

 

EPISCOPAL LAWYERS PLAN REPLIES TO OBJECTIONS OF OSA AND HOLY CROSS

with addendum

On today, 13 September 2022, the attorneys for the Episcopal Church and the Episcopal diocese of SC signaled their intention of submitting replies to the papers filed yesterday from Old Saint Andrew's and Holy Cross, Stateburg. These two filed "Returns" yesterday opposing the Episcopal lawyers' motions in the South Carolina Supreme Court to reverse or rehear the SCSC decision of 17 August that recognized local ownership of the properties of these two parishes. This revoked the SCSC decisions of Aug. 2, 2017 and April 20, 2022, both of which recognized Episcopal Church ownership of the properties.

In today's filing, the Episcopal lawyers submitted "Motion for Extension of Time to File Replies to Returns to Motion for Relief from Judgment." They asked the court to extend the time allowed for a reply to the returns from 19 September to 30 September. They mention that the opposing lawyers had agreed to the extension. 

The court did not post a response to today's filing on its website, but I expect it will grant the extension soon. If the SCSC does grant the extension, we can expect the Episcopal rejoinder at the end of this month. The court would probably make a ruling on the original Episcopal motions some time soon afterwards.

The question at hand is --- who owns the local properties of OSA and Holy Cross, the Episcopal Church or the present occupants who are affiliated with the Anglican Diocese of SC? The SCSC has already ruled twice for TEC and once against TEC.

_________________________

ADDENDUM. Sept. 14, 2022.

On 14 September 2022, the SCSC granted the Motion for extension of time. The reply from the Episcopal side's lawyers is now due on September 30. They will argue that Old St. Andrew's and Holy Cross, Stateburg, should be property of the Episcopal Church.

 

LAWYERS FOR OLD SAINT ANDREW'S CONTEST EPISCOPAL CLAIMS

with addendum

Today, Monday, 12 September 2022, Alan Runyan and Andrew Platte, attorneys for the separatist contingent claiming Old Saint Andrew's, West Ashley, Charleston, filed "Return to Motion for Relief from Judgment" with the South Carolina Supreme Court. This was in opposition to the Episcopal lawyers' petition to the SCSC on September 1, 2022, asking the court to reverse its August 17 ruling granting the local property of OSA to the present occupants. The SCSC had ruled twice (Aug. 2, 2017 and April 20, 2022) that OSA was property of the Episcopal Church. Both of these orders were followed by Remittiturs from the SCSC to the circuit court. 

In today's paper, Runyan and Platte argued that the August 17 order was proper and correctly derived. They asserted the SCSC had issued a response to an appeal, not a declaratory judgment, as the TEC lawyers claimed, even though it had the power and right to issue a declaratory judgment. Furthermore, they tried to sweep away the affidavit in the Episcopal petition as outside the record. They said it was made in 2018 and could have been entered into the circuit court proceedings but had not been.

The obvious problem in today's paper is, if the court had the right to respond to an appeal in August, as the secessionists' lawyers asserted, it also had the same right in April. In April the SCSC declared the local property of OSA to belong to the Episcopal Church. Why should not that order stand (it was remitted to the circuit court)? The August order directly contradicted the finding of April and was not followed by a Remittitur to the lower court.

It was curious that today's paper said nothing about the other parish in contest, Holy Cross, of Stateburg.

We shall see if the Episcopal lawyers file a reply to today's Return.

_______________________

ADDENDUM. Sept. 13, 2022.

The SCSC posted on their website this morning the paper from the other parish in question, Holy Cross, of Stateburg.

Mr. C. Pierce Campbell, attorney for Holy Cross, filed "Return to Motion for Relief from Judgment" with the SCSC on September 12, 2022. He asked the court to deny the Episcopal motion on the basis that it presented no new arguments or evidence that would change the outcome. 

Thus, on yesterday, 12 September, both OSA and Holy Cross officially asked the state supreme court to dismiss the Episcopal lawyers' motion to reverse and rehear the judgments on these two parishes. 

On Aug. 2, 2017 and on April 20, 2022, the majority of the justices ruled that both parishes were property of the Episcopal Church and remitted the decision to the lower court for implementation. On August 17, the SCSC reversed itself and declared these two parishes owned the local properties outright. However, they have not remitted this to the circuit court.

Now, we wait to see if the Episcopal side will file a reply to these two returns.