THANK YOU, JANET ECHOLS AND JOY HUNTER

Let's give credit where it is due, and today that is to Janet Echols and Joy Hunter, at least according to the TESTIMONY of the Rev. Calvin Robinson (see @ 22).

First, a little background as we are learning more about the brouhaha of last weekend at the Mere Anglicanism conference in Charleston. On Friday, Robinson gave his talk. Find it HERE . Robinson said he was invited to the conference by Jeff Miller, the manager, in order to speak about "Critical Theory." Robinson is biracial and used to sport an outsized afro, which he has cut into a close crew cut. Given his over-the-top conservatism on virtually every subject, Robinson believed he was invited to serve as the "token" black who would be sure to bash civil rights. He said that what Miller really wanted was for him to bash "Critical Race Theory" a present-day talking point of counter-revolutionary forces in the culture war. Instead, in his talk, Robinson turned to attack "feminism" and lay the blame for all present-day ills on this supposedly evil movement. Miller was not amused. Some people walked out of the talk. However, Robinson said that right after the talk Miller was fine with it and made light of it all. 

Some of the women in the audience were not fine with it and did not make light of it all. They were appalled. Not only had Robinson denounced women's ordination, he also laid the blame for every social malady of the day on women, ("feminism"). Apparently some people were so disgusted and offended they went to Miller and Bishop Edgar and demanded that Robinson be removed from the rest of the program. This had never happened at a Mere Anglicanism conference.

The Rev. Janet Echols was one who was upset enough to do something. She is the head of the diocesan deacon training program. Robinson said that at 5:30 the next morning she started a barrage of demanding emails of "interrogation" followed by more questions. It was so much that Robinson cut off her emails. Then, when he went to the coffee shop, Joy Hunter, diocesan communications director, confronted him "clearly upset," and "very hostile." She called him "juvenile" to his face. Thus, Robinson said, "the feminists were out to get me."

That morning Miller and Edgar brought Robinson into a meeting, which Robinson recorded and has promised to release in due course. They told him he could stay but would not be allowed to participate in the program. 

Robinson said he was "cancelled" by the radical "feminists" who did not like his truthful remarks in his talk. 

And, finally came the race card. Robinson said that "class issues were at play here." Insert race for class. This was curious coming from a man who had very vocally decried racism as a liberal falsehood. (The ills of society were not caused by racism, but by feminism.)

Robinson is now getting his revenge against Miller, Edgar and the ADSC for cancelling him. He is all over the Internet telling his side of the story and gaining a lot of support and sympathy (check out YouTube) at the South Carolinians' expense. Indeed, this incident has greatly boosted his exposure in the "orthodox" "Anglican" world. Over the recent years he has developed a cottage industry of appearing on the Internet and giving talks in person. He spews out outrageous opinions guaranteed to provoke others and gain Trumpesque attention for himself.

Here are my thoughts about this incident, as of what I know now:

---Robinson is a flame-thrower, a provocateur. The manager knew that when he invited him. When one asks a flame-thrower into one's house, he or she can expect flames. 

---Apparently, Miller wanted Robinson to denounce civil rights. He refused and denounced women. This left both Miller and some women furious.

---Robinson's only expertise was in computer programming. He had no credentials to speak on the subjects he chose. 

---Thanks go to Janet Echols, Joy Hunter, and the other women who stood up to this chauvinist bully. But where were you in 2017 when the diocese voted unanimously to join the misogynist Anglican Church in North America? Not one woman spoke up against joining a group that refused equality in the church to women. If women are good enough to be priests in the church, they are good enough to be bishops. It is just simple common sense.

---Thanks too to Bishop Edgar for finally admitting that the church can hold more than one view on controversial issues. If this is true for women, it has to be true too for gays. At least we have a start.

---Better late than never. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done in the ADSC to reach true equality and inclusion in the church for all of God's children. It is not our place to stand in judgment. It is our place to love them as our neighbors. No one is beyond redemption and I find the events of last weekend encouraging. It's a good start. 

---I assume we will not see any Robinsons at next year's Mere Anglicanism. That's another good start.

 

 THE STRANGE BROUHAHA AT THE CHARLESTON MUSIC HALL

The annual conference called "Mere Anglicanism" met last weekend at the Charleston Music Hall, organized and led mostly by clergy of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina. It produced quite a little dust-up, strangely enough not by what speakers said but about what one was prevented from saying. Given the history of the schism and the ADSC, this is saying a lot.

First of all this is not an Anglican conference. Of the nine SPEAKERS identified, I could count only one or two who were members of the Anglican Communion. Second, this conference historically is a love-fest of counter-revolutionary, anti-Episcopal forces out to reinforce each other in their reactionary social and cultural views cloaked in religion. I must confess, I have never attended one of these conferences because I do not think I could sit through something so far afield from the classical Anglicanism I love.

So, the invited speakers are always a bit outspoken in their highly conservative views. That is to be expected. That is why what happened this year is so strange. As far as I can tell, here is what occurred:

One of the invited speakers was the Rev. CALVIN ROBINSON . A simple glance at his Wikipedia page should have raised red flags. He was a high school computer teacher who decided on Holy Orders but was rejected by the Church of England. He joined a small denomination called the Nordic Catholic Church. All the while he made a name for himself as a highly outspoken and opinionated social and cultural reactionary apparently decrying every aspect of what he considered "liberalism," which he seems to blanket identify as "Marxism." Among many other things, he is vehemently opposed to women's ordination. 

From what I gather, he gave his scheduled talk and was preparing for the panel discussion of speakers on the last day when he was suddenly "disinvited" to take part in it. What he was about to say about women's ordination did not pass muster with the conference managers. He went on to post a long accounting of the whole event. Find it HERE . Apparently everything he does not like is "Marxist." I stopped when he said there was no racism. It was all made up by liberals. Really? As a person who grew up in the Jim Crow South, I could him a thing or two about racism.

There was enough disturbance that Bishop Edgar felt compelled to issue a PASTORAL LETTER  about this strange incident. Why was one of the nine speakers of the conference censored? Edgar rushed to the defense of the women in the church in a letter dripping with hypocrisy. The Anglican Diocese of South Carolina has a well-known history of misogyny. No women has ever been rector of a large or medium parish. No woman has ever been chair of a major diocesan committee, e.g. the Standing Committee. Women have never held a majority of seats on any major diocesan committee. In 2017, the ADSC joined the Anglican Church in North America, a new denomination partially set up to keep women from being bishops (holding authority over men). There will never be a woman bishop of ADSC, at least as long as it is in the ACNA. Women are now and apparently always will be second-class citizens in the ADSC. 

What stood out the most about the hypocrisy of the letter was the assertion that the church could have "dual integrities." He meant on whether women should be allowed ordination. He said it was fine for church people to have diametrically opposed stands on women's ordination. If the church can hold two different views on this, why not on homosexuality? All the Episcopal Church asked was for everyone to respect the "integrities" of others whether they agreed with them or not. If a church can have "dual integrities" for women, could not it have the same for homosexuals? Of course. 

Unfortunately, the truth is the ADSC is identified in lower South Carolina as the bunch of disgruntled Episcopalians who refused to accept equality and inclusion of women and gays in the life of the church. No amount of cancelling, or issuing pastoral letters, can change what has already been established. Of course, the ADSC could grant women and gays equality and inclusion but it would have to leave ACNA and repudiate its own raison d'être, something that is not likely in the foreseeable future.

 

 

DETAILS OF ADSC MEMBERSHIP CHANGES IN THE DECADE AFTER THE SCHISM

As the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina prepares for its annual meeting in March, it is worthwhile to review membership trends in the decade since the schism of 2012. We know that the ADSC has seen a significant decline in membership overall, but what can we tell about the details of the decline provided by the ADSC in its parochial REPORT on its website? Quite a bit as it turns out.

How many people have left the (50-53) local churches of the diocese yearly and how many have arrived in the post-schism decade of 2013-2022?

For this, we will consider the "Baptized members" category as listed in the annual parochial reports. This is not the best metric of church membership since it includes every baptized person who had any relationship with the local church regardless of whether he or she ever attended a service. Nevertheless, we will give the benefit of the doubt to ADSC and use the quoted numbers of "Baptized members" for convenience. Here are the reported totals per year with percentage change.

2013 - 23,181     -274 (-1%)

2014 - 22,953     -228 (-1%)

2015 - 22,149     -804 (-4%)

2016 - 21,953     -196 (-1%)

2017 - 20,602     -1,351 (-6%)

2018 - 20,763     +161 (+1%)

2019 - 20,195     -568 (-3%)

2020 - 19,597     -598 (-3%)

2021 - 19,712     +115 (+1%)

2022 - 18,130     -1,582 (-8%)

The data show that overall, the ADSC declined by 5,051 baptized members in the decade after the schism. This was a fall of 22%.

The parochial reports also give the numbers of persons being baptized, confirmed, and received by local churches. Adding all of these together in the decade, we arrive at 7,520. 

The number of baptized members leaving the local churches was much greater than the 7,520 number of baptized, confirmed, and received. This would account for the net loss of 5,051, or 22% in the decade. It is impossible to know the exact number of people leaving the local churches because some of the people listed in "confirmations" and "received" would already have been counted among the baptized members. 

If we were to count "baptisms," "confirmations," and "received" all as new members, that would mean 12,571 baptized members left the churches in the decade, a number no doubt unreliable. The real differential between members added and members deleted would still be much more than the net loss of 5,051 would show. I expect the actual number of people who left ADSC churches in the decade was in the 8,000-9,000 range. The additions of new members would bring the final loss down to the 5,000 range. 

Bottom line: there were far more people leaving ADSC churches than joining them in the decade after the schism. 

Conclusions:

---The ADSC is in precipitous and ongoing decline in membership. In the decade after the schism, there were only two years of (modest) membership gains. Overall, the ADSC lost one in five of its baptized members in the decade after formation of the ADSC in 2012.

---The ADSC has a serious problem of retention of membership. The number of people who left far exceeded the number of new members.

---In 2017 and again in 2022, the number of baptized members leaving ADSC churches exceeded 1,000. The reasons for the high departures in these two particular years, and only in these years, remain unknown. As for 2017, the major event that year was the decision of ADSC to join the Anglican Church in North America. The ACNA is an independent denomination not in the Anglican Communion. The lead event of 2022 was the consecration of a new bishop, "Chip" Edgar. He had not been a part of the ADSC. The connections between these events, if any, and the unusually high departures in these years would be worthwhile to pursue.

---The rate of decline accelerated after 2016. The problem is not getting better. It is getting worse.

---At 18,000+ baptized members the ADSC is still a viable religious institution although it has declined from the 23,181 members right after the schism. However, at this rate of decline, questions of institutional viability will soon arise and leadership may have to consider alternate paths for the future such as uniting with the ACNA Diocese of the Carolinas, Bishop Edgar's former home.

---Before the schism of 2012, the Diocese of South Carolina counted 29,236 baptized members. If we combine the two dioceses today we arrive at a total of 25,606 baptized members. This is a drop of 3,630, or 12%. The loss is not balanced between the two parts as the Episcopal diocese has grown by the same rate as the new diocese has declined.

In considering the Episcopal Church schism in South Carolina, we are now in the "results," or last, phase of its history (Causes/Events/Results). Almost all of the big issues have been settled (in the Events phase). 

To summarize, here is my snapshot view of the results of the schism as they appear today:

1. On the whole, the schism was a draw between the two sides. The secessionists got the bulk of the local churches while the Episcopal diocese got the historic diocese and its assets.

2. The new diocese has seen relentless decline in membership. The historic diocese has seen a near constant rise in membership.

3. Most of the assertions and projections the schismatic leaders made before the schism turned out to be wrong. The diocese did not leave the Episcopal Church. The courts ruled that the historic diocese did not secede from the Episcopal Church and that the breakaways in fact formed a new entity. All the local churches in the schism did not leave TEC property in hand. The courts ruled that eight of the 36 local churches in question did not leave the Episcopal Church. Moreover, the new diocese is not part of the Anglican Communion.

4. The ADSC has established a well-known identity for itself of homophobia and misogyny by forcing an anti-gay "Statement of Faith" on the whole diocese in 2015 and by joining the Anglican Church in North America in 2017, a denomination created to keep gays and women from equal rights and inclusion in the church. Homophobia and misogyny form the commonly held definition of the ADSC among the general population of lower South Carolina.

5. The schism was a local aspect of the culture war raging in America between the forces of democratic revolution (Episcopal) and the forces of counter-revolution (anti-Episcopal). The direct cause was the schismatics' opposition to equal rights and inclusion of homosexuals in the life of the church. The schismatics' claim that it was only about "theology" was a trumped-up diversion that fell flat.

6. The parochial reports only provide data. They do not tell us the reasons for the changes in numbers. If the leaders of the ADSC want their experiment to succeed, it behooves them to find out the reasons for the ominous decline. If the decade after the schism portends the future, the very existence of the ADSC is at stake.

7. The greatest success of the schism has been for the secessionists to diminish the Episcopal Church in lower South Carolina, once an historic bastion of Episcopalianism in America (Charleston used to be the most Episcopalian city in the country). A diocese, one of the original nine of the Episcopal Church, that once counted 29,000+ members, now lists 7,000+. Considering that the first goal of the anti-Episcopal movement that began in the 1990's was to destroy, or greatly weaken, the Episcopal Church in order to reduce its "liberal" influence in American life, we would have to conclude that the secessionists in South Carolina met a certain amount of success. Their problem now is how to turn that success to their own benefit.

8. The challenge of the secessionists today is how to morph its negative origins and image into something positive. Given their history and identity, this is a daunting task. So far, they have not built a greater church in coastal South Carolina, one of the fastest growing parts of America. The data show that. Whether they can reverse the trend of decline is the question at hand.

 

WHY EVANGELICALS LOVE TRUMP

Evangelical Christians form the core of the Trump base this year as in past years. In the elections of 2016 and 2020, 80% of them voted for Trump. If anything, at least as many support him this go around. The question at hand is: Why are Evangelical Christians so fervently devoted to Donald Trump? Here is my take on it.

First, one has to define what we mean by the term "Evangelical Christian." They are the "born again" Protestants such as fundamentalists, pentecostals, conservative mainstream. I would put the Anglican Church in North America in this grouping.  However, it is important to note the racial element here. We are talking about white Evangelicals and not black ones. It is the white Evangelicals who are the devoted followers of Trump.

The most fervent of this group see Trump as God's agent in the world, a sort of new messiah sent to redeem the world of its present sin. With this view, they can forgive everything else about Trump which is saying a great deal considering his personal life and his policies and procedures as president. Trump was arguably the most unchristian president ever. 

To understand this strange, even bizarre, phenomenon of the attraction of opposites, we have to go back to the mindset and world view of the white Evangelicals. This is a subject of which I can speak with some knowledge having spent my first twenty-one years in a thoroughly fundamentalist church. If I know anything at all, I know these people.

The worldview of the Evangelicals is strictly vertical. God is the great ruling force of the universe, an object in outer space somewhere, like us humans only stronger. Human beings are born corrupt and sinful and are condemned to eternal punishment if they do not submit to this idol-like God. The universe is a Manichean battle ground between good and evil, that is, God and Satan. You are on one side or the other. There is no in between. You are "saved" or "unsaved." If you are saved, you go to the blissful realm of God. If you die unsaved, you go to hell.

God controls the Universe. So, changing social and cultural norms is not up to humans. That is the prerogative of God since he created everything and controls everything. Evangelicals believe the calling of man is to reconcile himself to God and to serve God in his life. So, white Evangelicals are drawn to Trump as God's way of restoring the social and cultural norms of the past that they believe God created and intended for mankind. Most visibly, this means returning women to the submission of men. That means a national ban on abortions and illegalization of all forms of birth control. It also means reversing and abolishing all rights of homosexual and transgendered people. Evangelicals see the recent democratic reforms in America as the work of evil forces. So, they tend to regard Trump as the messiah to defeat the evil forces that have "taken over" modern life. To them, he is not just another politician. He is God's special agent, even similar to the agent God sent to save the world two thousand years ago. "Christian Nationalism" is also popular among the Evangelicals.

It is not just what Evangelicals think. It is the way they think that is at issue here. Children are brought up in this environment to believe Evangelical cosmology as the only truth. Many of them get it not only in church but in private schools and home schooling. Believe, obey and follow are the code words of the day. Thus, children grow up without developing critical thinking skills. By the time they become adults, their brains are deficient in reasonable and rational problem solving. In short, they struggle to think for themselves. They were taught what to think and not how to think. The Evangelicals of today were the Evangelical children of yesterday.

Again, I know whereof I speak. I taught in college for decades in Florida and Alabama. Every year I taught Freshmen, a great many of them fresh out of the Evangelical cocoons of their growing up years. Most of them away from home for the first time. Very few of them had skills of reasonable and logical thinking. Typically, their approach to education was to memorize the information and repeat it on the tests without really understanding or internalizing what the material meant, the same way they had been taught to approach the Bible.

Every year I struggled to get my students to develop reasonable and logical thought in the context of the history courses. I told them I was there to tell how how to think and not what to think. I doubt that I ever reached the majority but I know I reached a good number. I started with the most simple and basic approach: 1-state a problem or question, 2-present the appropriate information, and 3-draw conclusion(s) based on the information presented. On every test I ever gave (50,000 in my whole career) I required an essay. It was gratifying to see those students who actually followed the simple pattern. I was getting through to them. That was enough to keep me going.

I know I had some effect because for years afterwards, my former students would sometimes tell me so. One told me that after she took a teaching job, all the teachers in her school turned to her whenever there was a report to be written because she knew how to do it. She had learned the three step approach. She knew how to solve problems logically and put it on paper.

Of course, critical thinking can be a dangerous thing, as the Evangelical leaders know well. Over the years I had a number of students who came to me in my office questioning everything they had been taught growing up. They wanted to know what to do. My answer was always the same: I cannot tell you what to think but I can tell you how to think. You are an individual. God gave you a brain and the power of reason. You are in college. Keep an open mind. Learn all you can. Then, draw your own conclusions. I always gave an ear because I could see myself in them. There I was years ago.

In conclusion, Evangelicals support Trump because of what they see in the world and how they see it. Now do not get me wrong. Evangelicals are not bad people. Far from it. Some of the individuals I knew in church as a child were among the best people I have ever known. It was just that their religion was primitive, undeveloped, and immature. They could not get beyond the vertical experience when it should have been only the beginning of the best Christian life and not the ending.

A word to the Democrats. Do not disparage the white Evangelicals. Do not question their motives. Realize you are not going to change their minds. Do not try it even though you know, as I do, that what they are doing is destructive to Christianity and American democracy. If you want votes against Trump, reach out beyond the white Evangelicals to the millions of Americans who are open to reason and logic as well as morality for the common good.

The best book on the subject of the Evangelicals and contemporary politics is:

Tim Alberta, The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism. 2023.

 

NOTES,     16 JANUARY 2024

Greetings, blog reader. It has been a while since I posted anything here, so I just wanted to touch bases with you today and let you know I am still here. I pray that all goes well with you.

I have not posted anything about the schism lately because there is nothing to post. Both dioceses are moving ahead in an after-schism mode which I suppose is the only thing to do at this point. The Anglican diocese is busy setting up a new diocesan camp since the courts unanimously agreed that the Episcopal diocese was the owner of the venerable Camp St. Christopher. They are also busy getting ready for their annual convention, in March. What they ought to focus on in their meeting is the precipitous and unrelenting decline of the diocese. In the decade after the schism of 2012, the ADSC went from 23,181 baptized members to 18,130, a drop of 22%. Even more ominous is the fall of communicants (active members) from 17,798 to 11,673, a decline of 34%. The Average Sunday Attendance went from 9,292 to 8,353, a reduction of 10%. By contrast, the Episcopal diocese grew from 5,781 members to 7,476. 

As far as I know, there remain two unsettled issues in the EDSC, the dispositions of the properties of Holy Trinity and Good Shepherd, both in Charleston. Last year, the EDSC said it would sell the highly valuable property of Holy Trinity, on Folly Road. Yet, I have not seen any announcement of a sale. Too, I have seen no announcement at all about what is to happen to the Good Shepherd property, in West Ashley. Apparently there is no Episcopal congregation prepared to return to the buildings.

As a lifelong student of history, I must admit I am on edge about the year ahead in America. I think we will see a lot of turmoil and even violence although I would not go as far as to predict a civil war, even though there are more guns in the U.S. than people and many people are walking around packing them. Yet, there are moments to welcome in the year, as the Olympics, in Paris, the most beautiful and wonderful city in the world. This is not the first time for The City of Light. It hosted the 1900 and 1924 games. In fact, the greatest Hollywood movie ever made about the Olympics, "Chariots of Fire," was about the 1924 games. If you have not seen that movie, I recommend it. I am so looking forward to watching the Olympics in Paris, a place I regard as one of my homes.

As of yesterday, we are officially in the political period of the Election of 2024. Here is what the Iowa caucuses, of yesterday, told us:  ---Donald Trump controls the Republican Party,   ---most Republicans (in Iowa) believe The Big Lie, that Trump won the 2020 Election,   ---most Republicans (in Iowa) dismiss Trump's legal issues as politics,   ---Trump is almost certainly going to be the Republican Party nominee for 2024.

To me, the saddest part of the Iowa events was the role of Nikki Haley. She never had a snowball's chance and she should have known that. 1-she is a woman, 2-she is a woman of color, and 3-she is a woman of color who is the daughter of immigrants from India. In terms of the counter-revolutionary electorate in Iowa, she checked all the wrong boxes. After all her hard work, she won just 19% of the vote. If you have a pulse, you have to feel a little bad for her. I do. Yet, it was her own fault because she profoundly misunderstood the people of her own party. She will never get the nomination of the Republican Party, at least in its present iteration. She is about to go down to a humiliating defeat in her own state. She never had a chance.

Let us summarize, once again, the state of affairs in contemporary America. How did we get to the mess we are in?

We are witnessing a clash between two great historic tectonic plates, revolution and counter-revolution (this kind of clash recurs often in history). The revolution began in earnest in the 1960's with sweeping and profound reforms to bring rights, equality, and inclusion to social elements historically marginalized and/or neglected from the mainstream of American life, namely African Americans, women, hispanics, Asians, gays, and the transgendered. This was a great expansion of democracy which had moved by fits and starts from the colonial period. The 1960's brought in the greatest boost of democracy in America since the Civil War.

The counter-revolution is the reaction against the democratic revolution of the 1960's. It is led by the social elements who feel most threatened by the changes, namely men, particularly lower middle class and working class white men. This group is now the backbone of Trump's Make America Great Again movement. Their goal is to keep white men in power at all cost and they see Trump as their messiah. He can do no wrong.

In Iowa we saw that the white Evangelical Christians (fundamentalists, Born Again, Pentecostal) overwhelmingly and strongly supported Trump, many calling him God's agent. This is a disturbing perversion of the classical Christianity of the Gospels. Trump's personal life and his policies are anathema to biblical Christianity. What the Evangelicals are doing is to extrapolate their social and cultural values onto religion and declare it as God's Will. In the long run, this will discredit and diminish Christianity in the broader society, a society that is already rapidly turning away from institutional religion.

So, all signs show that the Republican Party has gone all in on Trump because they are all in on the counter-revolution. They see Trump as the vehicle to destroy democracy which requires the destruction of the Constitution. They do not have to win the popular vote. They have to win the Electoral College which is made up of the same number of seats as in Congress (535). Each state gets the same number of votes it has in Congress. Twice recently (2000, 2016) the Electoral College elected a candidate that had lost the popular vote. It could happen again, this year. All signs indicate that the Republicans are very well organized in their plans for the counter-revolution.

Recently, the Heritage Foundation published a nearly 1,000 page blueprint, "Project 2025," giving in minute detail how the constitutional democracy will be destroyed after Trump takes office. They plan to set up a dictatorship under the President. This will bring the end of American democracy to be replaced with a fascist dictatorship. The reforms of the great democratic revolution will be crushed.

This is not hyperbole. If you think it is, I refer you to the Project 2025 that is readily available on the Internet.

If Trump wins, we know that is going to happen. He has told us. Right wing groups all over the place have told us. We have been forewarned. They are out to destroy the Constitution in order to destroy democracy.

But what if he loses the election? I suspect what happened in the aftermath of the 2020 Election will seem like a picnic. I think there will probably be widespread and bloody violence. Trump will cry stolen. His followers will cry stolen. As in 2020, Trump could very well incite his followers to try again to overthrow the government. And this time they are likely to be better organized and more armed.

Either way, if Trump wins, or if he loses, we are in for a rough year. I keep asking  myself, how did we come to this? Well, I have given you my theory of that. 

The challenge we face now is whether we, collectively as a people want to go on with an evolving democracy even as we move into a pluralistic society, or we want to keep the white male minority in power. Is this a country for all people, or is this a country for the white people? This is the crux of the issue.

The United States of America is the greatest nation-state in the history of the world. It was founded nearly 250 years ago on the simple idea that the ordinary people could govern themselves. They did not need kings, hereditary aristocracy, or bishops to tell them what to do. But, to do this, the people would have to have equal rights, equal opportunities, and equal power (and this was in a country that had millions of human beings in slavery). American history has been the evolution of that simple idea of so long ago. 

If Americans elect Donald Trump we will be repudiating our own history. And, shame on us. It would be easy to overthrow the Constitution. But, what then? What would take its place? The people had better be thinking about these things in the next ten months as we move to the moment of decision. 

I, for one little voice, will do what I can to save American democracy. I can only hope and pray that there are enough other people out there who want to save it too. This has to be done before the fascists take power. Afterwards, it will be all but impossible. Read Twentieth Century history.

Let us summon up the Better Angles of Our Nature. Let us channel Lincoln. As he did, let us persevere in the face of danger with the faith and grace God has given us. Peace. 

 

POPE FRANCIS APPROVES SAME-SEX BLESSINGS

The news broke today that Pope Francis has formally approved of in-church blessings of same-sex unions. Find an article about this HERE . 

The pope's monumental decision is a major turn-around at the Vatican. The CATECHISM of the Catholic Church states "under no circumstances can they [homosexual acts] be approved." While a blessing in church does not technically "approve" of homosexual acts, it at the very least takes a neutral view. The church would not be approving of "sinful" relationships with ceremonies inside church buildings. The neutral view would override the moral condemnation of homosexuality that the traditional Catechism contains. 

This means that the largest branch of Christianity has moved to moral neutrality on the issue of homosexuality. Just a few days ago, the bishops of the Church of England also approved of the go-ahead of the blessings of same-sex couples in that denomination. Of course, a half-dozen branches of the Anglican Communion have moved to full recognition of same-sex relationships with some, as the American church, actually welcoming same-sex marriages in the church. 

All of this is much to the chagrin of the counter-revolutionaries in all denominations who continue to declare homosexuality to be "disordered" and sinful. The Anglican Church in North America was chartered in 2009 for this very reason. The Anglican Diocese of South Carolina is part of the ACNA and has adopted a "Statement of Faith" (2015) that explicitly forbids ADSC churches from allowing same-sex marriages in the churches. 

Meanwhile, regardless of the reactionaries' protests, the trend among the majority of Christians in the world is to the respect and inclusion of all of God's children. What the pope has done is a major step in this development.

REVIEWING NAPOLEON

I saw the new movie "Napoleon" today at a local theater. Here is my take on it. I have deliberately avoiding reading other reviews or comments so as not to skew my own view.

First of all, we must remember this is a Hollywood movie. It is not history. Since it is just a movie, we must think about the purpose and function of this movie. Why was it made? For entertainment, certainly. Then, we have to ask, how does this film work as entertainment?

I think a movie has to engage the viewer in one or two ways. It has to present an enveloping narrative, a plot, that draws us in and makes us care about what is happening on the screen. For instance, "Casablanca" does this perfectly. If the movie does not do this, then it has to present characters that we care about.

How does "Napoleon" function on each of these? It really has no unified narrative or plot. It is a collection of vignettes and they are not usually well-connected. So, the movie tries to rest on the characters, in this case Napoleon and Josephine. It does not succeed at this either. We really do not get to know either person well. Therefore, we never really care about them much as people. We do not even learn why they care so much about each other. The romance is not there. Instead the relationship is all sexual. There are numerous sexual references and two scenes of simulated intercourse. This depiction is most unfair to Josephine who, while she did use sex as a tool, was far more than a sex object. She was an intelligent, shrewd, and ambitious woman who contributed to Napoleon's career. This was really why Napoleon was attracted to her so much.

It is often true that movies tell us more about the time in which they were made than in the history being represented. If so, this movie tells us we live in an age obsessed with sex, sexuality, and gender. I do not think anyone would disagree with this. 

The movie is replete with historical inaccuracies and I will not go into this as it would take a long time. Suffice to say the one that grated on me the most was Josephine's reaction to being told that Napoleon was going to divorce her. In the movie she laughs disdainfully. In fact, people said one could hear her screams from one end of the palace to the other. She dissolved into hysterical sobs and begged and pleaded for a long time before becoming reconciled to the decision. In this case, history would have actually added to the emotional intensity of the movie since there was precious little otherwise. The countless other errors I would chalk up to poetic license. 

The battle scenes are mediocre to poor. In fact, they seemed gratuitous and even broke the narrative, such as it was, that the movie was trying to convey. Toulon was fair. Austerlitz was completely wrong. Borodino is barely a blip. The only battle scene that had any merit was Waterloo which was not too bad.

So, would I recommend the movie? I would give it 5 out of 10. If you are interested in history, or in Napoleon, it would be worth your while. If not, I would skip it. I doubt seriously that it will win any Academy Awards. And no, Joaquin Phoenix is not a convincing Napoleon.

I suppose one useful outcome of the movie is to make us think about the place of Napoleon Bonaparte in history. He was a gigantic figure who dominated Europe from 1799 to 1815 and cast a strong and long shadow over the next century and a half. The question is, what difference has he made to the world in which we live?

Historically, Napoleon represented two different currents, militarism and authoritarianism. Contrary to the film above, the driving force in his life was not Josephine, it was the army. He was first, last and in-between a soldier. One cannot understand anything about him without starting with this. As a soldier, he believed problems were solved on the battlefield. Hence, campaign after campaign, battle after battle. And this is what a lot of Napoleonic scholars love to specialize in. Napoleon was a genius at innovative, sometimes dazzling, strategy and tactics. But, in the end, his enemies inevitably joined up against him and brought him down. His militarism failed to keep him in power. 

The other current was authoritarianism. Napoleon overthrew the revolutionary republican government and made himself a dictator, calling himself consul, first consul, then emperor. While he institutionalized many reforms of the revolution, he betrayed the fundamental idea of the revolution, that people could govern themselves in freedom and equality.

One can argue that both militarism and authoritarianism have had devastating effects on civilization in the two centuries since Napoleon's time. Militarism zoomed ahead in the century after Napoleon so that by 1914, all the great powers had poured massive fortunes into military preparations, on the Napoleonic assumption that problems between nations could be settled on the battlefield. Every power in the world financed detailed historical studies of the Napoleonic wars as if to unlock the keys to his brilliance. This took all the great powers straight into the First World War. However, WWI was to be entirely different than the Napoleonic wars because of technology. Airplanes, submarines, tanks, machine guns, flame throwers, poison gas etc. were things N could not have imagined. The new militarism was far more deadly. Whereas at least 3m people died in the Napoleonic wars, some 20m died in WWI, and 60m in WWII. 

The authoritarian model has also been inordinately impressive since 1815 even though the main thrust of western civilization has been toward democracy. The Twentieth Century was the age of the ideological dictators, every one of which looked back to Napoleon. Hitler spent a long time standing at Napoleon's tomb on his triumphant visit to Paris in 1940. As we see in the world today, the urge toward authoritarianism is a major problem. This will be a large part of the American national elections next year. One of the parties is about to nominate a candidate who promises an authoritarian, that is, anti-democratic, state.

I would like to think the world has outgrown Napoleon and his legacy of militarism and authoritarianism. Aggressive wars do not solve problems and often only lead to more. The glory is not on the battlefield. It is in the making of the peace. Likewise, dictators do not know better than the communal spirit of the people. Sovereignty rests in the people as a whole and they have the right to decide collectively what they will do. Democracy is the best way to preserve liberty, equality, and fraternity.

 

AWAITING THE ARRIVAL OF "NAPOLEON"

I suppose we have all seen the trailers and ads on television about the upcoming theater movie, "Napoleon." This two-and-a-half hour "epic" is set to debut on the big screen at Thanksgiving. It has already been hyped a great deal in the media. I plan to see it at my earliest convenience. Find an announcement about the new movie HERE .

I am actually looking forward to it although I expect the film-makers have taken great liberties with actual characters and events. In graduate school at Florida State, I was fortunate enough to be allowed to specialize in the period of the French Revolution and Napoleon. FSU was then, and still is, one of the few universities in America that offered intense study in this particular period of history. My major professor was a world-renowned scholar of Napoleonic military history and amassed the largest library in the country on this period of history.

Over the years I have published several books and numerous articles on the French Revolution and Napoleon. I spent six years scouring the major libraries of Europe and America to compile a comprehensive bibliography of the books, articles, and other writings on the age of Napoleon, 1799-1815. This was something that had never been done before. I published a massive two-volume work in 1991 to great reviews. It listed 48,000 items. With the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln, more books have been written about Napoleon Bonaparte than any other character of modern history. He has always fascinated people, historians and lay people alike.

The new movie is certainly not the first movie made about Napoleon, far from it. There have been dozens of them starting back in the silent era. In fact, the groundbreaking film came with Abel Gance's 1927 masterpiece, "Napoleon." Unfortunately, no actor has ever embodied the Napoleon we know from history. The worst attempt ever was Marlon Brando in "Desirée."

Awful. He played, well, Brando. From the new trailers, Joaquin Phoenix, who plays Napoleon, sounds a lot like Brando. Not a good sign.

Nevertheless, there were some very good parts of the movies that are still worthy of viewing. When I was a teenager, I was enthralled by the 1956 movie, "War and Peace," with Henry Fonda and Audrey Hepburn. I watched it, mesmerized, on the huge screen of the Saenger theater in Pensacola. I can still feel the agony of the retreat from Russia. In my opinion the greatest Napoleonic battle scene ever put on film was in the 1966 Soviet six-hour version of "War and Peace." The Battle of Borodino used 100,000 actors and took forty-five minutes of the movie. The 1971 movie, "Waterloo" also did a good job of recreating that fatal battle. Unfortunately, most of the  movies and television production on Napoleon are forgettable junk. 

Of course, Hollywood movies have been all over the place in depicting history. In my mind, the greatest characterization of Louis XVI came in the 1938 movie, "Marie Antoinette." Robert Morley was the very reincarnation of Louis. I used to show the movie in my classes for that reason. On the other hand, the worst movie about history was actually one of the greatest movies ever made, 1939's "Gone With the Wind." It conjured up a fictional view of a past that never existed of rich white southerners and happy black slaves. The movie has had a huge and negative effect on southerners around the issue of race. An awful lot of white people still cling to the myth perpetuated by that movie that blacks were well off and well treated as slaves and that the white people were the victims. In my opinion, "Gone With the Wind" has done tremendous damage to race relations in the south. This is the power of what a movie can do.

I am already having troubles with some of the things in the trailers, little things that are wrongly portrayed. And why they threw in Marie Antoinette, I cannot imagine. Napoleon had nothing to do with her execution. I also have a lot of doubt about Joaquin Phoenix. He is too old for the part. Napoleon was very young, and youthful. He was only 19 when the Revolution began, and just 23 when he won his first big battle and became a brigadier general. He was just 30 when he came to power. 

The moviemakers promised to center the story on the relationship between N and Josephine. Good, except it would take a lot longer than two and a half hours to deal with that. It was passionate, but also highly complicated, and it was about a lot more than sex. 

So, I am trying to keep an open mind and see what the movie has to offer without prejudice. We are told the battle scenes alone are worth it. It includes the Battle of Austerlitz, N's "perfect" battle of 1805 that solidified his reputation as a great military genius. It also shows Waterloo, the last battle when the genius had lost his magic. Modern technology should be able to show these battles in a far more realistic way than in the films of old. We shall see.

I shall return with my thoughts about "Napoleon" after I have seen the new movie. Perhaps you will see the movie and share your thoughts with me. 

I will go over then my views of the place of Napoleon Bonaparte in history, a least a little summary of them. Meanwhile, let's enjoy (hopefully) the movie about one of the most fascinating characters in all of history.

 

OF HEROES AND CHRONICLERS

As the schism winds down and its loose threads are being tied off, it is appropriate to reflect on the near past before we move on, as we should, into the future. Of course, the schism can never, and should never, be removed from the memory of the past. It is now, and will be forever, in the DNA of the Diocese of South Carolina. The diocese of today has been forged in the fire of this unwelcomed conflagration. The character of the diocese today is the result of the events visited upon it in the past few decades. The loyal Episcopalians of lower South Carolina did not ask for what happened to them, and neither did they shy away from the challenge of the moment.

Therefore, it was appropriate for the diocese to pause last week and remember the heroes of the hour and the chroniclers who wrote about them. The greatest heroes were those faithful Episcopalians who refused to follow the erring crowd, who kept the faith and who fought the good fight even when it was hard to do. Frances Elmore, of Florence, was one of those. At the break in late 2012, she and Dolores Miller gathered up the dozen or so faithful Episcopalians of Florence and formed a church. I know firsthand because my daughter Elizabeth was in that little band. At first they met in living rooms, then in an old rural school and in borrowed quarters of a Lutheran church. Finally, they settled in a repurposed shoe store. By the time of Miller's death, a few years ago, St. Catherine's Episcopal Church was a strong and vibrant congregation. It was highly fitting last week for Bishop Woodliff-Stanley to recognize Elmore with the high honor of Bishop's Cross. Find a video of the Bishop's Cross presentation HERE.

It was appropriate too for the bishop to recognize the work of the "chroniclers," including Steve Skardon and Minerva King. For a decade before the break of 2012, Skardon single-handedly related information and challenged the various maneuverings of the old diocesan leadership which for years worked to remove the majority of the diocese from the Episcopal Church. His blog, scepiscopalians.com , was the only source of information available to the public that was not controlled by the schism-bound diocesan authorities. The Episcopal Forum tried also to promote reason but it was swept aside by the diocesan powers of the day. Without Skardon, the schismatics would have had complete control of the public message and a free run of the public perception of the issues of the day. He refused to concede the stage to them. This makes him both a hero and a chronicler. Find a video of the Chronicler awards HERE . The bishop recognized my work on history too, but I was not able to be present. I appreciated her kind words and look forward to receiving the award at some future time.

Meanwhile, let us enjoy the grandeur of the season. Ride down any country lane in the south these days and you are likely to be surrounded by the beauty of God's creation. The seasons change. Life goes on. And we must go with it. But we do so much better because of the heroes and their story-tellers who lead the way. 

 

ELIZABETH DUFOUR RIVERS (1929-2023)

LET LIGHT PERPETUAL SHINE UPON HER

Elizabeth (Betty to her friends) Dufour Rivers died yesterday, October 14, 2023, at the age of ninety-five (b. Dec. 28, 1929). Her husband of seventy-three years, Dr. Charles Ford Rivers, Jr. died last year.

Since this blog focuses on the schism, we must remember today the eloquent and moving letter she sent to her home parish, Church of the Holy Communion, on November 12, 2012, a few days before a diocesan convention was set to affirm the claimed secession of the diocese from the Episcopal Church. Under the courageous leadership of the Rev. Dow Sanderson, the parish remained in the Episcopal diocese. The letter is well worth a re-reading today. No one encapsulated better the truth of the moment at that painful time.

Dear Friends,

I am writing this letter because I do not feel comfortable, at this stage of my life, speaking in public about delicate and emotional topics and thus chose not to speak at the meeting Sunday morning. But I do want to share with you how delighted I am at the announcement that our parish [Holy Communion] will continue to be a full and faithful participant in The Episcopal Church of the United States of America. I have often said, in the midst of the recent troubles: "I was born and Episcopalian and I intend to die an Episcopalian." The knowledge that I will be able to do so in the very church where I was confirmed and married, where all four of my children were baptized and confirmed and from which both my mother and daughter were buried fills me with a joy and gratitude words cannot express.

I would also, at this very happy time, like to express why I am so firmly supportive of this decision. While I understand there are multiple  issues at play in the conflict between the former leadership of this diocese and the national church, the historical record clearly suggests that at the heart of that conflict are differing theological views concerning homosexuality. In fact, the very first document produced under the new name "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina," (dated June 15, 2012) deals exclusively with the topic of homosexuality and how it has been handled by the national church. The breakaway diocese is thus, in a sense, founded on its opposition to the ordination of homosexuals and to same-sex blessings.

Point #3 of this document says that the signatories (the Standing Committee of The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina) have "compassion" for "those who struggle with and act upon same-gender attraction" and says that "the Lord calls us all, equally, to repent of sin that we might receive forgiveness and cleansing [...], restoration [...] and transformation." Whatever my other sins may be, I clearly do not have to ask for forgiveness, cleansing and transformation for the loving, monogamous, life-sustaining relationship I have had with my husband for the past sixty-three years. But according to this document, my son, who is in an equally loving, monogamous, life-sustaining relationship of twenty-six years with his partner, does. I do not agree.

Point #4 says that the signatories "repudiate, denounce and reject any action of the Episcopal Church which purports to bless what our Lord clearly does not bless." Again, I disagree with this view. There has been unambiguous evidence of the blessings of the Lord in the relationship between my son and his partner, many, many times over, during the course of many, many years. This is not an abstract notion on my part; it is something I have seen with my eyes and ears and that I know in both my head and my heart. And it is something for which I am profoundly grateful to God. My son and his partner's relationship has been a blessing not just to them but also to my husband and me, to my son's partner's parents, to both families and to their many friends. My son's partner, whom I love as a dear son and who has unfailingly treated both my husband and me with all the affection, devotion and respect of a dear son, would not have come into our family if he and my son had not entered into union with each other.

People who would deny these gracious blessings of our Lord simply have a different view of who God is and how he works than I do: what I know to be a blessing, they consider a sin. Fortunately for me, the denomination into which I was born and to which I intend to remain faithful agrees with me! The Episcopal Church and the decisions of the General Convention are in keeping with my belief that our Lord calls some people to loving, monogamous union with a partner of their own sex, that he blesses such relationships and that our Church should do so as well.

The thought, in recent weeks, that a separation from this place might become necessary has caused me nearly unbearable pain. The knowledge that that will not be necessary after all fills me not only with overwhelming joy but also with hope, gratitude and pride.

With love to you all.

Betty

(Elizabeth Dufour Rivers)

November 12, 2012

--------------------------------------------------------------

The issue of homosexuality was indeed the direct cause of the schism. In fact, in 2015 the breakaway diocese institutionalized homophobia in its mandatory "Statement of Faith."

It is gratifying to know that Betty Rivers lived long enough to see the federal court rule that the schismatics did not take the diocese with them but created a whole new body with no claim whatsoever to the pre-schism diocese. The Episcopal diocese is the one and only continuation of the old Diocese of South Carolina. The breakaways formed a new church and entered a new denomination beyond the bounds of the Anglican Communion. They have gone a long way to keep gays from having blessings in church. 

Betty Rivers saw truth a long time ago and shined a light on it. This should be her epitaph. 

 

WE MUST STAND WITH THE ISRAELIS---AND WITH THE PALESTINIANS

War has broken out, yet again, in the Middle East. How many times have we seen this awful movie? What should we Americans do now, if anything?

First and foremost, we must defend Israel. Given the catastrophic events of the Twentieth Century, the world owes it to the Jewish people to defend their Biblical homeland. That is a given.

However, there are other people involved here who have a great stake in what is going on in Israel. Beyond this, there are numerous countries in the region that would love to destroy the Jewish state, not the least of which is Iran. Thus, the matter is highly complicated and multi-layered.

Over the weekend, some of the iconic monuments around the world lit up in support of Israel. An especially poignant one was the Brandenburg Gate, in Berlin. Note the large crowd assembled.

In my opinion, the bottom line is the issue of human rights. Everyone on every side has the same claim to human rights. No one has privilege to a higher level than the others. So, we Americans should hold that in mind. We stand for the equal rights of all people, the Jews and the Arabs. This is why I think a two-state solution is the right way to go.

Much of the problem in the seventy-five year war in the area is that too many people were looking for military solutions. This has not worked and will not work. Peace will be the result of understanding, acceptance and compromise, not of killing.

Next to the carnage of this new attack, the most shocking thing of the weekend was the abject failure of the supposedly expert Israeli intelligence service and the impenetrability of the "Iron Dome" over Israel. Both of these proved to be false walls. The Israelis should realize there is no absolute military protection. History is littered with cases of failed defenses. Two that come to mind right off are the Maginot Line and the walls of Constantinople. The French spent an incredible fortune and worked for years to construct the greatest system of fortifications imaginable, the Maginot Line. It was to defend the border with Germany and prevent a recurrence of the First World War. When the invasion came in 1940, the Line was completely useless. The Germans simply went around the end of it and easily captured it from the rear. Likewise, the walls of Constantinople were thought to be absolute, and they were for a thousand years. Then, in 1453, the Ottoman Turks hauled up huge cannons that blasted away at a weak point and the wall broke. The Turks streamed into the great city killing thousands and selling thousands more into slavery. Like the Maginot Line, the walls proved to be a catastrophic failure of imagination. Perhaps this is what has happened in Israel, a failure of imagination.

Anyway, the question is what we Americans should do now. In the first place, we must recognize that what goes on in all the world affects us too. All of our lives are interconnected on this fragile earth, our island home as the BCP says. This is why the people who want to cut off aid to Ukraine are dead wrong. If the Russians prevail there, we Americans will be worse off.

In my view, we must defend Israel and protect their right of self-determination. However, we should also defend the human rights of the Arabs in the region. The people who speak Arabic have the same claim to freedom, equality and justice as those who speak Hebrew. If we Americans stand for the equal rights of all people, and I maintain that we do, we must use whatever influence we have to press this point in the Middle East.  

 

ALBANY AFFIRMS HUMAN RIGHTS

Something important happened last month that slipped under my radar but must be pointed out now. On September 9, 2023, a convention in the diocese of Albany (New York) elected as the next bishop a strong advocate of the rights of same-sex couples. The Rev. Jeremiah Williamson was elected on the Fourth Ballot, 65-22 in laity and 56-54 in clergy. Note the vote---the laity were far more favorable to Williamson than the clergy who had actually backed a conservative candidate until the last ballot.

Find news articles about this HERE and HERE .

Albany has been much in the news in the last few years. The previous bishop, William Love, refused to allow a rule of the nation church, B012, of 2018, to be followed in the diocese. B012 required that every diocese provide for same-sex liturgies even if substitute clergy were necessary. Love resigned as bishop in 2021 after he was charged with disciplinary action. He subsequently joined the homophobic and misogynist Anglican Church in North America. Several clergy of Albany followed Love out of TEC. The Albany Standing Committee has functioned as the ecclesiastical authority since Love's departure.

On the local level, Williamson's election tells us that the people-in-the-pews of the diocese of Albany want to be a part of the consensus of the Episcopal Church on human rights even if many of the clergy are reluctant. This is a huge turnaround in the trajectory of the diocese since the days of Bishop Love.

On the national level, Williamson's election is another manifestation of the resolute commitment of the Episcopal Church to human rights. In the past thirty years, TEC has removed sexuality as an impediment to ordination, affirmed an open and partnered gay man as a bishop, then several other open homosexuals as bishops, adopted church blessings of same-sex unions, adopted a marriage liturgy for same-sex couples, adopted and enforced B012 in 2018, a resolution that requires dioceses to provide liturgies for same-sex couples. Just this year, the nation church rejected a bishop-elect, from Florida, on suspicions to his commitment to the church's advocacy for equality and inclusion of gays. Now, the people of Albany have signaled very clearly that they agree with the national church's stand for the human rights of all people.

All of this tells us the Episcopal Church is firmly committed to enacting reforms to right the wrongs of the past. There is a lot more work to do but the road is laid out clearly and the momentum is irresistible. The people of Albany have shown us that.

 

POPE SAYS ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS CAN BE A SUBJECT OF STUDY

An historic synod began at the Vatican yesterday. In this year and next the assembly will discuss a wide-ranging set of issues facing the Roman church today. For the first time, laity, including women, among the 450 participants, will have equal vote with the cardinals. The pope is encouraging a collegial, communal approach, rather than the top-down authoritarian method followed in the past. They have even installed round tables to make the participants talk with each other in small groups. How up to date!

In the run up to the meeting, a group of five highly conservative cardinals asked the pope to comment on certain issues important to them. Pope Francis responded in a letter to the five on 11 July that has since been released to the public. The five were trying to box the pope into reiterating the traditional stands on sexuality and on gender. He did not fall for the trap.

Actually, the ploy backfired on the conservatives as the pope opened the door for reconsideration of three important issues. One was on the blessings of same-sex unions. A second was on the ordination of women. Then, buried in the text was one line that apparently slipped under the radar of most readers:

"No one can publicly contradict it [women's ordination] and nevertheless it can be the object of study, as in the case of the validity of ordinations in the Anglican Communion." (Find the letter HERE . See p. 5)

What? The pope says the question of Anglican orders can be reexamined? This has the potential of being a huge turning point for the entire Christian church.

In 1896, Pope Leo XIII directed that Anglican orders were "null and void." This has been the official Vatican position ever since.

The recent Ordinariate movement kept this attitude. Anglican clergy adhering to Rome must go through Confirmation and ordination since the Vatican does not recognize the validity of Anglican ordinations, and therefore the sacraments they may perform. 

So, the five cardinals gave the pope a large platform to declare open three issues that they absolutely and flatly oppose: same-sex blessings, women's ordinations, and acceptance of Anglican orders. Now, what roles these three will play in the present synod remains to be seen but one may safely assume they will be discussed even if it is private and not released to the public. Of course, approval of Anglican ordinations would give de facto acceptance to women's ordination and same-sex marriage.

Conservative Catholics have long viewed Francis with a dim and suspicious eye. They want an absolute and fixed continuation of traditional Catholic stands. They are "strict constructionists." Francis favors a "loose construction" to make the ancient institution more responsive to the needs of an evolving world. This is a tall order.

So, in a way, the Roman church is having its own version of a culture war, certainly defined by the parameters of that crusty old top-heavy institution. The conservatives are the Verticalists and the pope and his allies are the Horizontalists. So, American Episcopalians need not think their institution is the only one embroiled in the culture war of the contemporary age. The biggest institutional religion on the globe is wrestling with it too.

It is too soon to tell where all of this is going for the RC church. The pope is 86 years old and rather feeble. He often uses a wheel chair. One might assume the conservatives are biding their time for the day that cannot be too far off when a new pontiff will be elected by the cardinals. By that point, perhaps the consensus will be to retreat into traditionalism and Francis's work will fade into the past. On the other hand, the consensus might be to follow in Francis's path.

Still, it must be pointed out that the pope has raised the issue of reconsidering the Vatican's stand on Anglican ordinations. We will just have to wait and see how the synod responds to this, as well as the other two controversial issues. Meanwhile, Anglicans around the world should thank the pope for at least opening the possibility of reconsidering a position that has been a major stumbling block to the ecumenicism that is sorely needed in today's world.  

 

ST. JOHN'S ANGLICAN BUYING PROPERTY

On yesterday, 3 October 2023, clergy of St. John's Anglican Church, on Johns Island, announced the parish had entered into an agreement to buy 20 acres of land at 1643 Main Road, Johns Island. The purchase price was $1.6m, or $80k per acre. This site is near St. Johns High School. Main Rd. is a main artery running north-south from Maybank Hwy. to U.S. 17. The site is about a mile from the St. Johns parish church.

Find the announcement HERE .

St. Johns parish returned to the Diocese of South Carolina in 2022 and the first Episcopal services were held there in July of that year. By that time, the clergy and majority of the congregation had left to adhere to the new Anglican diocese and to meet in a local school. The separatists continued calling themselves St. Johns parish church even though St. Johns parish church was legally owned by the Episcopal diocese. The parish is one of the oldest in the diocese. The actual parish has had a revival under the vicar, the Rev. Callie Walpole, formerly the archdeacon of the Episcopal diocese.

The announcement says the separatist congregation raised the entire $1.6m in three months. Apparently the property is undeveloped, so the congregation will now have to find money for improvement and construction.

The SC supreme court finally ruled that 8 of the original 36 parishes in the lawsuit of 2013 were property of the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal diocese sold one, St. Matthew's., of Ft. Motte, to the Anglican occupants. One has been announced for sale, Holy Trinity, on Folly Rd., Charleston. One other, Good Shepherd, in West Ashley, Charleston, has not been designated publicly by the diocese. This leaves five that returned to the Episcopal diocese as functioning churches: St. Johns, of Johns Island; St. James, of James Island; St. David's, of Cheraw; St. Bartholomew's, of Hartsville, and Christ Church, Mt. Pleasant. Ironically, the Episcopal diocese offered to relinquish claim to these and all local churches that had gone along with the schism to the separatist diocese in June of 2015. The Anglican leadership curtly rejected the offer. If they had taken it, all 8 of the churches that have been returned to the EDSC would now be safely in the ADSC. In the end, courts ordered that the historic diocese, Camp St. Christopher, and 8 local churches had all been illegally seized by the separatists and must be returned to the rightful owner, the Episcopal diocese.

 

THE TWO DIOCESES AND THE CULTURE WAR

The 2012 schism in the Episcopal diocese of South Carolina was a local manifestation of the overall culture war in contemporary America. To recap, the culture war is the clash between two great historical forces, revolution and counter-revolution. The revolution developed in post-Second World War America. It brought democratic reforms of equality and inclusion for many social elements that had been marginalized or powerless, most importantly blacks,  women, and homosexuals. The social and cultural elements that felt most threatened by this, mostly white men who had virtually monopolized power in American history, created a counter-revolution aimed at preserving as much as possible of the pre-revolution white patriarchy. To simplify, the revolution promoted democratic reforms while the counter-revolution resisted democratic reforms. Adding to the white patriarchy's urgency in opposing democracy was the looming reality that American was becoming a multi-cultural society, that is, one in which white people would be another minority.

The schism in South Carolina was sparked by local resistance to the democratic reforms favoring homosexuals, and to some degree women, that had been championed by the national Episcopal Church. By 2012, TEC had affirmed an open and partnered gay man as a bishop, had elected a woman as the presiding bishop, and had adopted church blessings for same-sex couples. This was more than the leadership of the diocese would tolerate. They planned and carried out a schism and brought along the majority of the laity of the diocese. They established a new diocese that went on to institutionalize the counter-revolutionary agenda. In 2015 they adopted a Statement of Faith that condemned homosexuality. Then they joined a denomination devoted to opposing equality for women as well as gays. It forbade women from being bishops, that is, in having authority over men. The new diocese sealed its place in the counter-revolution of the culture war.

The victory of the white patriarchy in the new diocese can be seen clearly in the clerical make up of the Anglican diocese today. According to the ADSC website, by my count, there are 92 priests attending the 53 or so parishes and missions. Looking at the active clergy in the local churches: 

white male priests - 82 (89%)

black male priests -  4 (4%)

white female priests - 5 (5%)

black female priests - 1 (1%)

Thus, nearly nine out of ten priests in the ADSC are white men. 

What about deacons? 

white male deacons - 18 (67%)

black male deacons - 0

white female deacons - 10 (33%)

black female deacons - 0

Once again, white men dominate. They account for two-thirds of diocesan deacons. There are no black deacons at all in the ADSC.

Women have never been allowed to chair a major committee (as the Standing Committee) of the ADSC, nor have they ever had a majority of the seats of a major committee. Moreover, no woman and no African-American has ever been head of a large or medium parish. As of now, the only black woman priest is a chaplain at Porter-Gaud. Among the white female priests, one is associate at Holy Cross, two are heads of small parishes, and one is vicar of a mission.

Of the 4 African-American male priests of ADSC, three serve small, dependent, missions. One, the Rev. Fred Onyanyo, a native Kenyan, is listed as a priest at St. Paul's, of Summerville. His work is described as a liaison of local parishes in ADSC with the Global South.

In short, the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina is a bastion of the old white patriarchy. This is a not so insignificant victory for the counter-revolution in the culture war.

As one would expect, the picture is quite different in the continuing Episcopal diocese of South Carolina. There, blacks, women, and gays have found a far greater degree of equality and inclusion. This is to be expected in a denomination that long ago embraced the great democratic revolution of post-WWII America. Unfortunately, the EDSC lists only names of CLERGY of the diocese on its website. Anyway, from this, it appears that there are 68 priests of the diocese. Of these, 11 (16%) are women. Among the vocational deacons, 7 (50%) of the 14 are women.

At the time of the schism, most of the women clergy and most of the African-American clergy remained with the Episcopal diocese. They knew discrimination when they saw it. In fact, the only two historically black parishes stayed with the diocese as did numerous historically black missions. 

Women have excelled in the leadership of the ongoing diocese. Of course, everyone knows the diocese elected a woman as the new bishop. This was after the diocese had appointed a woman as archdeacon. Today, one of the large parishes, ALL SAINTS, of Hilton Head, lists an all female priestly staff, the rector and two associates. This is a first for South Carolina. There is another sizeable parish, ST. JOHN'S, of Johns Island, led by a woman. 

Thus, the Episcopal diocese has a far larger percentage of women priests and deacons than does the Anglican side. (Nevertheless, EDSC has a long way to go considering that 40% of the clergy in the national TEC is female. 16% is not even half-way there.)

As the Anglican diocese has secured its place in the counter-revolution, the Episcopal diocese has gone a long way in embodying the democratic reforms of the revolution. 

There are still some people who want to insist that the schism was about theology and not culture. Nonsense. The historical record is very clear. If one still needs convincing, I direct you to my 500 page history of the schism. (This is not to say there are no theological differences between the two dioceses. There certainly are. The new diocese has veered into a highly vertical quasi-fundamentalism removed from the mainstream of classical Anglicanism.)

Given the overall conservatism of South Carolina, I find it somewhat surprising that the counter-revolutionary diocese has declined so rapidly since the schism. It has seen a steady decline in membership, a third of active members since the break. Obviously the public is not racing to join this new church.

Where the culture war goes from here God only knows. The center of gravity has turned to politics. What is going on in Washington today and what will happen over the next year and a half will tell us where the culture war is going. The clash between the revolution and the counter-revolution is about to get a lot more serious. It may be all but over in the old diocese of South Carolina, but it is far from over in the rest of the country.

Diversity in the Episcopal Church. Presiding Bishop Michael Curry, the first African-American PB of TEC. Bishop Ruth Woodliff-Stanley, the first female bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina. Of the 280 active and retired BISHOPS in TEC, 46 are women and 53 are people of color or open homosexuals.

Diversity in the Anglican Church in North America. How many women bishops? None. How many bishops of color? I count 3 of the 41 in the picture. How many white males? 38.