"DEATH IS AT WORK IN US, 

BUT LIFE IN YOU"

The Second Lesson reading of June 3 (Year B) was II Corinthians 4:5-12:

We do not proclaim ourselves; we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus' sake. For it is the God who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," who has shown in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 

But we have this treasure in clay jars, so that it may be made clear that this extraordinary power belongs to God and does not come from us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus; so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our bodies. For while we live, we are also being given up to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus may be made visible in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us, but life in you.

I was struck by the appropriateness of this reading. Death and life is at work all around us, here in my home in Jacksonville, Alabama, and in South Carolina. We too are afflicted, but not crushed. Regardless of the death at hand, there a greater force, life, within us. 

This is a crucial week in the history of the schism. It will probably bring either the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning of the schism in South Carolina. If the United States Supreme Court grants cert, it will be the beginning of the end. If it denies cert, the end of the beginning. If the beginning, the end phase would be SCOTUS' subsequent decision on the case that would probably settle everything. This would come in the court session of October 2018-June 2019. If the end of the beginning, the beginning would have been the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of August 2, 2017, which in effect settled the dispute in favor of the Episcopal Church. The only part left would be the wrap-up in federal court and turn over of the properties in question to the Episcopal Church bishop.

Will SCOTUS grant cert? Possible but not probable. The nine justices will meet in private on Thursday, June 7, in a conference room of the grand Supreme Court building across from the Capitol in Washington D.C. They will have before them on that day 183 cases. See the list here . 

The work on these 183 cases has already been done. Each justice has four "clerks," or lawyers who serve as assistants. All but two of the justices participate in the "cert pool," in which one clerk is assigned an incoming petition for cert. He or she does the research and writing on the case with a recommendation of granting or denying cert. This is distributed to the justices. Thus, when the justices arrive for the conference on June 7, they will have the work at hand. They grant very few of the petitions. For more on this process see this link and this .

To consider the merits of 183 cases appears forbidding. However, most of these 183 will be readily discarded. Judging from the appearance on the cert list, 31 appear to be most serious. These include the two "church" cases, the one from South Carolina and the Presbyterian appeal from Minnesota. Even so, the chances of the two church cases winning cert are still very small. For instance, in the May 17 conference, the justices considered 151 cases and granted cert to 4 of them. This amounted to 2.6% acceptance. This is typical. Furthermore, if we look at the four accepted, all came from United States circuit courts of appeal. None came from state courts. See here . If there are 31 serious cases on June 7 and the justices approve 4, that would be an acceptance rate of 13%, still very small.

Why do justices grant cert? Good question. How do they go about deciding which petitions to grant and which to deny? As it turns out, SCOTUS has a rule book, and it lists the specifics for granting cert. It is "Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Writ of Certiorari." Find it here . Rule 10 lists 3 reasons for granting cert:

1-From U.S. court of appeals. 

(This would be irrelevant to the SC case which was adjudicated in state courts.)

2-A state supreme court decision that conflicts with another state supreme court decision or with a federal appeals court.

(This is also inappropriate. Neither another state supreme court nor a federal appeals court has ruled on the issue at hand. The SCSC decision of Aug. 2 2017 is singular.)

3-A state court has decided an important question of federal law that has not been settled by this court "or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court."

(The last part is the sliver of hope for DSC. If the justices believe that the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017 conflicts with SCOTUS' Jones v. Wolf (1979) decision, they may accept the petition. Conflict is essentially what the DSC lawyers are arguing in their Feb. 9, 2018 brief to SCOTUS. They say the SCSC justices did not properly follow the neutrality guideline as set out in the Jones decision since they did not strictly apply neutral principles in regard to state laws on trusts. They said the SCSC justices gave too much leeway to a national church on the matter of imposing a trust and therefore violated neutral principles. Thus, if the SCOTUS justices agree that the SCSC failed to apply neutrality properly, it may wish to rectify this and clarify the rules under which courts must follow neutral principles. This is the hope of DSC.)

I do not find this to be a strong argument. In the first place, this dispute was adjudicated in state courts under state laws. It did not involve a question of federal law. DSC is asking SCOTUS to clarify an earlier decision. Revisiting a previous decision is not in the three reasons for granting cert. As for a possible constitutional issue, that should lean toward the Episcopal Church side since the first part of the First Amendment forbids the civic state from interfering in the internal affairs of a religious body.

Thus, chances are strong that the U.S. Supreme Court will reject DSC's appeal. However, there is the possibility that four of the nine justices may vote to accept it. This would open up the last real chance DSC has of prevailing in its fight against the Episcopal Church. If four do not vote to accept, the legal war is effectively over and the wrap-up begins.

Either way, I would caution the partisans on both sides to refrain from gloating if and when the news from SCOTUS is released, probably on next Monday. This schism has been a tragedy all around, a terrible wound in the body of Christ. No one should celebrate this. While grieving, we should redouble our efforts to settle our differences and heal the wounds. Life must prevail over death.

And, speaking of suffering, the town of Jacksonville AL is still trying to cope with a non-man-made disaster, the storms of March 19. This is exemplified by the loss of a historic treasure, the Alumni House of Jacksonville State University. One of the oldest and most charming houses of the town, it was constructed in 1839 in the "steamboat gothic" cottage style. It had a wide porch around three sides. It was bought by J.S.U. and refurbished beautifully in the 1980's. Here it is before the storm:

In the storms, several trees fell on the house compromising its structural integrity. Find a (heartbreaking) picture of it here .

The authorities decided the building could not be saved. They quietly removed all the ancient heart-of-pine boards, doors, mouldings etc. To avoid public outcry they suddenly ordered demolition; and it was quickly done to the shock of passersby. Here is the (devastating) scene afterwards. I drove by the empty space this morning and my heart sank. A landmark, a treasure is gone. 

In South Carolina and in Alabama, death is at work, but life goes on. It goes on in spite of the man-made and natural disasters all around us. We will not be vanquished. We will have life. The conflict between Christians in South Carolina will come to an end one day one way or another. Life will go on.