TOWARD A RESOLUTION
Part V
(First posted on Jan. 13, 2018).
On January 5, I started a series of blog posts called "Toward a Resolution" in which I posed a number of questions as a way of helping us find the truth about what happened in the schism. Today, I am taking up the fourth question at hand:
On January 5, I started a series of blog posts called "Toward a Resolution" in which I posed a number of questions as a way of helping us find the truth about what happened in the schism. Today, I am taking up the fourth question at hand:
WAS THE SCHISM IN SOUTH CAROLINA A POPULAR UPRISING OR A CONSPIRACY AMONG A SMALL GROUP?
The DSC leaders claimed the break was a popular event supported by 80% of the members of the old diocese. On the other side, Church lawyers argued in court that the schism resulted from a conspiracy among a small group of diocesan leaders. Thus, the question: popular uprising or conspiracy of a cabal?
Let us begin with the claim of the 80%. There were 71 parishes and missions in the pre-schism diocese (p. 385). In the special convention of Nov. 17, 2012, 55 churches were represented. 16 did not attend. Of the 55 present, 49 participated in the voting and 6 abstained.Thus, 49 local churches voted to approve of the schism, 22 did not. This was a clear-cut majority but not the near unanimity the leaders claimed. To be sure, many of the parishes held after-the-schism votes and most supported the breakaway.
What about the diocesan membership statistics (p. 447-448)? What can they tell us about the popularity of the schism? Plenty. Of the 71 churches in the pre-schism diocese, 50 went along with the schism. The year before the schism, 2011, these 50 listed 21,993 communicants (active members). The year after the schism, 2013, these 50 claimed 17,999 communicants. Thus the 50 local churches that went along with the schism lost app. 4,000 members immediately. This was a drop of 18%. In 2014, the diocese listed 16,361 communicants. In 2015, the last year of statistics, the diocese claimed 15,556 active members. DSC has lost members steadily every year since the schism. In sum, the 50 churches in the schismatic diocese went from 21,993 communicants before the schism to 15,556 three years after the schism. That was a 29% drop in membership in just four years (the diocese has also lost app. a third of its budget). Overall, the diocese now stands at 56% of the size it had when Bishop Lawrence took office in 2008. Thus, in the ten years of Lawrence's episcopacy, DSC has lost nearly half its membership and a third of its budget. These statistics alone disprove any theory of the overwhelming popularity of the schism. They also lend discredit to any notion that the schism was an uprising of the masses. The trend of the membership is clearly away from the schism.
At the time of the schism, 21 of the 71 churches of the old diocese remained in the Episcopal Church. They counted 5,781 communicants. In 2014, the Church diocese listed 6,387 communicants, a rise of 10%. The next year they counted 6,706, a rise of 16% overall, 5% in one year. The following year, 2016, the Church diocese listed 7,053 communicants, an overall gain of 22% since the schism. While the schismatic diocese has lost members every year since the schism, the Church diocese has gained members every year. This is another point to discredit any claim of popular support for the schism. In fact, of all the 71 churches in the pre-schism diocese, the largest membership is now in Grace Church, the Episcopal Church cathedral in downtown Charleston. It is a refugee haven bulging at the seams. A few blocks away, the DSC cathedral, St. Luke and St. Paul, stands mostly empty.
Back to our question of popular uprising or conspiracy.
There is not room here to go into the detail I have put into my book on the history of the schism. I will give a brief chronological survey of outstanding events with page numbers for further reading. This is the best way in this limited space to reach an answer to the question at hand.
1. In the diocesan convention of March, 2001, a group of conservative clergy presented a resolution to have the diocese threaten to remove itself from TEC if the Church took any action favoring homosexuals (p. 83). Bishop Salmon and the Rev. Dow Sanderson spoke out against it. The convention voted to table (kill) the resolution. This was the first important sign of a rising movement for schism, and one being promoted by certain clergy. They were not the majority, not yet.
2. In the aftermath of the 2003 General Convention's approval of a non-celibate homosexual as a bishop, the diocese solidified an authoritarian power structure in which the Standing Committee became integral to the diocese's rising anti-TEC stance (p. 105). In time, the anti party came to monopolize the diocesan power structure. Everyone else was excluded.
3. In 2004, Bishop Salmon and the Standing Committee set up a process of selecting a new bishop that guaranteed the choice of an anti-TEC candidate (p. 160). No nomination would be allowed outside of the search and standing committees. No nomination would be allowed from the floor. The search committee operated in secret. Its records are unknown today, if they still exist. The choice of the finalist candidates was made by a small group of conservatives, mostly clergy. No one else was allowed to be part of the process. Evidence was presented in the circuit court that the search committee deliberately selected only candidates who pledged to take the diocese out of TEC, property in hand. (In fact, all three of the finalist candidates left the Episcopal Church.)
4. After Lawrence's consecration, the diocesan leaders gave the bishop increasingly authoritarian power. The most important of these was absolute right to interpret the canons (p. 285). They rewarded Lawrence with numerous privileges, as virtually rent-free use of the million-dollar bishop's residence, lifetime employment at full salary, and a quarter-million-dollar annual compensation package.
5. In the run-up to the schism, there was no opportunity for diocesan "discernment" about whether to secede from TEC. Indeed, that subject was never openly discussed in the diocese before the schism.
This was not from want of opportunity. In fact, Bishop Lawrence called six diocesan conventions in the three years before the schism: March 12-13, 2009; Oct. 24, 2009; March 26, 2010; Oct. 15, 2010; Feb. 18-19, 2011; March 10, 2012. Whether or not to leave TEC was never on the agenda. The diocesan conventions were choreographed by the power structure.
There was one item on the agenda that did go to the heart of the matter that had inflamed the conservatives in the diocese. The direct cause of the schism was the issue of homosexuality. The Mar. 26, 2010, diocesan convention produced a proposed resolution called "The Rubric of Love," (p. 286). This was a meant for the diocese to show compassion for homosexuals. Near pandemonium broke out in the convention as confused delegates frantically tossed around this hot potato. Rather than chaos, the controlling powers quickly "tabled" the controversial proposed resolution. The next year the Rubric of Love was quietly brought again to be killed once and for all. Thus, the one and only time the diocese had an opportunity to discuss openly and honestly the critical issue of the day was summarily discarded by the diocesan leadership. So much for discernment.
6. After Bishop Lawrence's consecration, Jan. 2008, there arose clear signs the diocesan leadership was moving toward schism. In the March 2009 diocesan convention Craige Borrett and Kendall Harmon introduced a resolution to suspend (boycott) the General Convention of that year (p. 253). The convention voted it down. This was the last proposed resolution to be defeated in a DSC convention. It showed that the majority of the diocese was not quite ready and the anti-TEC party would have more work to do.
Part of this work happened soon thereafter in Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori's visit in February of 2008. Here the diocesan leadership ambushed the unsuspecting PB, probably for the benefit of the clergy who were not quite on board yet for schism. It was "us" against "them." It worked.
7. The critical point in the build-up before the schism came in the diocesan conventions of 2009 and 2010 when the leadership introduced a list of resolutions in effect declaring independence from TEC. These sailed through easily with very little discussion or notice. By then, the anti-TEC elements had control of the diocese.
The question was asked at the time why the diocese did not go on to complete break (it kept accession to the Constitution of TEC). No convincing answer was offered. To this day we do not have an answer although one may suspect it had to do with the Episcopal Church retirement system that required 30 years' service for full retirement benefits. Lawrence was ordained deacon in August of 1980 and priest in July of 1981.
8. The year 2012 brought unmistakable evidence of a movement away from the Episcopal Church among the diocesan leadership. In the first half of the year, the bishop and the Standing Committee planned for the upcoming 2012 General Convention. It was commonly assumed the convention would approve of a liturgy for the blessing of same-sex unions. The diocesan actions in the convention were planned out in advance.
After the convention, the leadership acted decisively to consolidate on a heightened diocesan hostility to TEC. Lawrence sent out a letter to the diocese whipping up opposition to the convention's decisions.
On August 21 the leadership held an ultra-secret meeting and adopted a plan of action (p. 347). To this day the agreement is unknown outside of the leadership, but it is reasonable to assume this was the plan for schism that they promptly carried out.
On September 21, the Standing Committee secretly asked Bishop Lawrence for a definitive ruling on the diocesan right of secession from TEC (p. 350).
On Oct. 2, in a private meeting, Lawrence presented a letter to the Standing Committee advising them they could remove the diocese from TEC at will. The committee then adopted a resolution to "disaffiliate" the diocese from TEC if anyone at TEC took "any action of any kind" against Lawrence. They also resolved to call a special convention of the diocese 30 days after the break. No thought was given to a public discussion, let alone discernment, on whether to leave TEC or not. On the bishop's pronouncement, the Committee believed it had the right to separate the diocese from the Church. They would then present the diocese with the fact of the secession leaving all of the clergy and laity to choose whether to go along with the schism or stay with the Episcopal Church. The special convention would be called only to revise the canons of the diocese to remove references to the Church.
On Oct. 3, Lawrence met with Bishop Waldo and PB Jefferts Schori in NYC. He did not mention the Standing Committee's resolution of the day before.
Lawrence refused to meet with the PB again. She asked for meetings on Oct. 11 and Oct. 13. He knew he only had to wait for her to take any action for the Oct. 2 resolution to be automatically enacted. The PB did not know that.
On Oct. 15, the PB called Lawrence and placed a restriction on him temporarily suspending him from ministry in the Church. She asked for confidentiality pending their scheduled Oct. 22 meeting.
Lawrence ignored the restriction and the PB's request of confidentiality. He immediately called the chancellor and Standing Committee. They agreed the Oct. 2 resolution had gone into effect as of noon Oct. 15. They declared among themselves the schism to be an accomplished fact.
The next day, Oct. 16, Lawrence told the deans. The leadership assembled a vast public relations campaign to begin the next day.
On Oct. 17, Lawrence told a shocked PB of the schism (he later refused to see her again). The diocesan leadership told the clergy, laity and the rest of the world about the schism. They delivered it to the diocese as a fait accompli. Therefore, people could take it or leave it.
On Nov. 17, the special convention met and quickly approved what the leadership had done. The meeting was short as there was virtually no discussion.
It is also important to note that no other diocese in the entire southeastern United States supported or even defended South Carolina. No other diocese in the area even considered breaking away from the Episcopal Church. SC's closest ally in the region was the Diocese of Central Florida, but Bishop Howe made it plain he was not leaving TEC. DSC was the outlier. Why was this so? It certainly was not because the communicants in SC were different than the others. It was because the leadership was different.
Short answer:
There is not the slightest doubt that the schism in SC was the work of a relatively small group of diocesan leaders. The ordinary clergy and laity of the diocese had virtually no input into the decision to "disaffiliate." Conditioned by years of relentless hostility to the Episcopal Church, the majority of the communicants went along with their leaders' decision although the depth of popular committment was questionable.
This was a revolution from the top down.
At the time of the schism, 21 of the 71 churches of the old diocese remained in the Episcopal Church. They counted 5,781 communicants. In 2014, the Church diocese listed 6,387 communicants, a rise of 10%. The next year they counted 6,706, a rise of 16% overall, 5% in one year. The following year, 2016, the Church diocese listed 7,053 communicants, an overall gain of 22% since the schism. While the schismatic diocese has lost members every year since the schism, the Church diocese has gained members every year. This is another point to discredit any claim of popular support for the schism. In fact, of all the 71 churches in the pre-schism diocese, the largest membership is now in Grace Church, the Episcopal Church cathedral in downtown Charleston. It is a refugee haven bulging at the seams. A few blocks away, the DSC cathedral, St. Luke and St. Paul, stands mostly empty.
Back to our question of popular uprising or conspiracy.
There is not room here to go into the detail I have put into my book on the history of the schism. I will give a brief chronological survey of outstanding events with page numbers for further reading. This is the best way in this limited space to reach an answer to the question at hand.
1. In the diocesan convention of March, 2001, a group of conservative clergy presented a resolution to have the diocese threaten to remove itself from TEC if the Church took any action favoring homosexuals (p. 83). Bishop Salmon and the Rev. Dow Sanderson spoke out against it. The convention voted to table (kill) the resolution. This was the first important sign of a rising movement for schism, and one being promoted by certain clergy. They were not the majority, not yet.
2. In the aftermath of the 2003 General Convention's approval of a non-celibate homosexual as a bishop, the diocese solidified an authoritarian power structure in which the Standing Committee became integral to the diocese's rising anti-TEC stance (p. 105). In time, the anti party came to monopolize the diocesan power structure. Everyone else was excluded.
3. In 2004, Bishop Salmon and the Standing Committee set up a process of selecting a new bishop that guaranteed the choice of an anti-TEC candidate (p. 160). No nomination would be allowed outside of the search and standing committees. No nomination would be allowed from the floor. The search committee operated in secret. Its records are unknown today, if they still exist. The choice of the finalist candidates was made by a small group of conservatives, mostly clergy. No one else was allowed to be part of the process. Evidence was presented in the circuit court that the search committee deliberately selected only candidates who pledged to take the diocese out of TEC, property in hand. (In fact, all three of the finalist candidates left the Episcopal Church.)
4. After Lawrence's consecration, the diocesan leaders gave the bishop increasingly authoritarian power. The most important of these was absolute right to interpret the canons (p. 285). They rewarded Lawrence with numerous privileges, as virtually rent-free use of the million-dollar bishop's residence, lifetime employment at full salary, and a quarter-million-dollar annual compensation package.
5. In the run-up to the schism, there was no opportunity for diocesan "discernment" about whether to secede from TEC. Indeed, that subject was never openly discussed in the diocese before the schism.
This was not from want of opportunity. In fact, Bishop Lawrence called six diocesan conventions in the three years before the schism: March 12-13, 2009; Oct. 24, 2009; March 26, 2010; Oct. 15, 2010; Feb. 18-19, 2011; March 10, 2012. Whether or not to leave TEC was never on the agenda. The diocesan conventions were choreographed by the power structure.
There was one item on the agenda that did go to the heart of the matter that had inflamed the conservatives in the diocese. The direct cause of the schism was the issue of homosexuality. The Mar. 26, 2010, diocesan convention produced a proposed resolution called "The Rubric of Love," (p. 286). This was a meant for the diocese to show compassion for homosexuals. Near pandemonium broke out in the convention as confused delegates frantically tossed around this hot potato. Rather than chaos, the controlling powers quickly "tabled" the controversial proposed resolution. The next year the Rubric of Love was quietly brought again to be killed once and for all. Thus, the one and only time the diocese had an opportunity to discuss openly and honestly the critical issue of the day was summarily discarded by the diocesan leadership. So much for discernment.
6. After Bishop Lawrence's consecration, Jan. 2008, there arose clear signs the diocesan leadership was moving toward schism. In the March 2009 diocesan convention Craige Borrett and Kendall Harmon introduced a resolution to suspend (boycott) the General Convention of that year (p. 253). The convention voted it down. This was the last proposed resolution to be defeated in a DSC convention. It showed that the majority of the diocese was not quite ready and the anti-TEC party would have more work to do.
Part of this work happened soon thereafter in Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori's visit in February of 2008. Here the diocesan leadership ambushed the unsuspecting PB, probably for the benefit of the clergy who were not quite on board yet for schism. It was "us" against "them." It worked.
7. The critical point in the build-up before the schism came in the diocesan conventions of 2009 and 2010 when the leadership introduced a list of resolutions in effect declaring independence from TEC. These sailed through easily with very little discussion or notice. By then, the anti-TEC elements had control of the diocese.
The question was asked at the time why the diocese did not go on to complete break (it kept accession to the Constitution of TEC). No convincing answer was offered. To this day we do not have an answer although one may suspect it had to do with the Episcopal Church retirement system that required 30 years' service for full retirement benefits. Lawrence was ordained deacon in August of 1980 and priest in July of 1981.
8. The year 2012 brought unmistakable evidence of a movement away from the Episcopal Church among the diocesan leadership. In the first half of the year, the bishop and the Standing Committee planned for the upcoming 2012 General Convention. It was commonly assumed the convention would approve of a liturgy for the blessing of same-sex unions. The diocesan actions in the convention were planned out in advance.
After the convention, the leadership acted decisively to consolidate on a heightened diocesan hostility to TEC. Lawrence sent out a letter to the diocese whipping up opposition to the convention's decisions.
On August 21 the leadership held an ultra-secret meeting and adopted a plan of action (p. 347). To this day the agreement is unknown outside of the leadership, but it is reasonable to assume this was the plan for schism that they promptly carried out.
On September 21, the Standing Committee secretly asked Bishop Lawrence for a definitive ruling on the diocesan right of secession from TEC (p. 350).
On Oct. 2, in a private meeting, Lawrence presented a letter to the Standing Committee advising them they could remove the diocese from TEC at will. The committee then adopted a resolution to "disaffiliate" the diocese from TEC if anyone at TEC took "any action of any kind" against Lawrence. They also resolved to call a special convention of the diocese 30 days after the break. No thought was given to a public discussion, let alone discernment, on whether to leave TEC or not. On the bishop's pronouncement, the Committee believed it had the right to separate the diocese from the Church. They would then present the diocese with the fact of the secession leaving all of the clergy and laity to choose whether to go along with the schism or stay with the Episcopal Church. The special convention would be called only to revise the canons of the diocese to remove references to the Church.
On Oct. 3, Lawrence met with Bishop Waldo and PB Jefferts Schori in NYC. He did not mention the Standing Committee's resolution of the day before.
Lawrence refused to meet with the PB again. She asked for meetings on Oct. 11 and Oct. 13. He knew he only had to wait for her to take any action for the Oct. 2 resolution to be automatically enacted. The PB did not know that.
On Oct. 15, the PB called Lawrence and placed a restriction on him temporarily suspending him from ministry in the Church. She asked for confidentiality pending their scheduled Oct. 22 meeting.
Lawrence ignored the restriction and the PB's request of confidentiality. He immediately called the chancellor and Standing Committee. They agreed the Oct. 2 resolution had gone into effect as of noon Oct. 15. They declared among themselves the schism to be an accomplished fact.
The next day, Oct. 16, Lawrence told the deans. The leadership assembled a vast public relations campaign to begin the next day.
On Oct. 17, Lawrence told a shocked PB of the schism (he later refused to see her again). The diocesan leadership told the clergy, laity and the rest of the world about the schism. They delivered it to the diocese as a fait accompli. Therefore, people could take it or leave it.
On Nov. 17, the special convention met and quickly approved what the leadership had done. The meeting was short as there was virtually no discussion.
It is also important to note that no other diocese in the entire southeastern United States supported or even defended South Carolina. No other diocese in the area even considered breaking away from the Episcopal Church. SC's closest ally in the region was the Diocese of Central Florida, but Bishop Howe made it plain he was not leaving TEC. DSC was the outlier. Why was this so? It certainly was not because the communicants in SC were different than the others. It was because the leadership was different.
Short answer:
There is not the slightest doubt that the schism in SC was the work of a relatively small group of diocesan leaders. The ordinary clergy and laity of the diocese had virtually no input into the decision to "disaffiliate." Conditioned by years of relentless hostility to the Episcopal Church, the majority of the communicants went along with their leaders' decision although the depth of popular committment was questionable.
This was a revolution from the top down.
