THE FOREST AND THE TREES
As everyone who has read my history of the schism or reads my blog regularly knows, my overarching working thesis is that the schism in South Carolina is part of a big culture war now raging in America, and to some degree in the whole world. To simplify, this is a great clash between the forces of democracy and anti-democracy, or what I like to call the horizontal and the vertical.
On the whole, the great western democracies emerged victorious in the first half of the twentieth century which included the First World War, the Great Depression, and the Second World War. In the second half of the twentieth century and the first part of the twenty-first century, the principles underlying victorious democracy were spread horizontally to social elements traditionally marginalized, neglected, exploited, and otherwise left powerless, particularly to the poor, the old, the disabled, African Americans, women, homosexuals and the transgendered. A transformed, more democratized American society began to emerge primarily through governmental reforms after the Second World War such as integration of the armed forces, economic power to the veterans, integration of the public schools, civil rights and voting acts, gender equality acts, medicare, medicaid, Roe v. Wade, and same-sex marriage. A man of African heritage was elected president, twice, something unthinkable only a few years earlier. A woman was nominated for the presidency by a major political party, also unthinkable a few years earlier. In short, America enacted an enormous horizontal expansion of power after the Second World War.
I call this the Great Democratic Revolution. The United States was not founded as a democracy. It was founded as a republic, not the same thing. But in the provisions of the Declaration and the Constitution lay all the seeds of a future democratic society, a nation empowered in all its people; and this has been the laborious and enormously dramatic course of our history over nearly 250 years. By fits and starts we have become more and more a democratic country. This was not the accomplishment of the founders, but it was their dream, a nation of common humanity. I think we as a nation have accomplished great things ever closer to being the shining city on the hill for all of humankind. Call me old-fashioned, but I really do believe in American exceptionalism. I have studied enough history to know just how great the American experiment has been.
I call this the Great Democratic Revolution. The United States was not founded as a democracy. It was founded as a republic, not the same thing. But in the provisions of the Declaration and the Constitution lay all the seeds of a future democratic society, a nation empowered in all its people; and this has been the laborious and enormously dramatic course of our history over nearly 250 years. By fits and starts we have become more and more a democratic country. This was not the accomplishment of the founders, but it was their dream, a nation of common humanity. I think we as a nation have accomplished great things ever closer to being the shining city on the hill for all of humankind. Call me old-fashioned, but I really do believe in American exceptionalism. I have studied enough history to know just how great the American experiment has been.
I am also a student of the great political revolutions of modern history. In my graduate work, I was fortunate enough to be able to specialize in the greatest of all of them, the French Revolution. My thinking was heavily influenced by the great Harvard historian Crane Brinton in his classic, The Anatomy of Revolution. Brinton taught us that, in general, all great revolutions of modern history go through the same life-cycle: overthrow of the old regime, moderate first phase, radical reform taking the revolution to its farthest point, backlash against the radical reform, and settling down to a sort of compromise. I found that to be certainly true of the great French Revolution. And so, I think it is true of the Great Democratic Revolution of the twentieth-early twenty-first centuries.
In this life-cycle of revolution, we are now in the reactionary phase. A strong backlash against the radical democratic reforms is underway now in America. What makes this reaction more intense than it might have been otherwise is an additional factor, the collapse of an external threat to the nation that had forced a unity during the radical revolution. The disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1990 and the end of the Cold War removed the external force unifying America since the end of the Second World War. This forced unity had gone a long way to allowing the democratic reforms to occur. The country held together, more or less, in the Cold War, even with enormous blunders such as the Vietnam War. To be sure, the late 1960's tested the unity of the nation which at times seemed to be violently coming apart at the seams. But, when all was said and done, the nation survived, unity held and reforms went on. Then, with the disappearance of the unifying external threat in the end of the Cold War, everything changed. The internal divisions were exposed and partisan political warfare brewed up in earnest starting in the 1990s. We have been in a dangerous, polarizing political war ever since. Some people call this the rise of tribalism.
The outgrowth of this nearly thirty year political war in America is the Trump presidency which is the personification of the backlash of the white working class man against the democratic reforms of the last seventy years. The people who see blacks, women, foreigners, and homosexuals arising to power are terrified of losing the social, cultural, and economic preeminence they believed they had and were entitled to keep. What is most alarming about all of this is the fact that so much of what Trump and his followers want to do is to diminish or destroy not just the reforms, but the institutions that made the reforms. Our whole constitutional system is being shaken.
Thus, we Americans are now bound in a major culture war between the forces that want to keep extending democratic human rights and those that want to roll back the reforms, even to change the institutions that were responsible for making the reforms. Make no mistake about it, this is war. (And, if you do not think this is war you are not paying attention to today's news.) Those on the democratic side would be foolish to underestimate the power and resolve of the anti forces. And so, in less than two weeks, we will have the next great battle of this culture war, a national election. President Trump has made it all about him. If his side wins, it will be a tremendous victory for the reactionary forces, particularly in Congress, who have already signaled the destruction of cardinal aspects of the Great Democratic Revolution such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare. If the other side wins, at least in the House of Representatives, they will probably curb some of the most devastating reactionary moves against democratic gains. The backlash will still be there but will be reduced somewhat. Nevertheless, the culture war will go on.
So, what does the schism of the Episcopal Church in South Carolina have to do with all of this? Plenty. Let me explain. While the next national battle in the culture war is less than two weeks off, the next fight in SC is a bit more than two weeks off, Nov. 19 to be exact (hearing before Judge Dickson). The schism in SC is very much a part and parcel of the national culture war. It is a backlash against the democratic reforms embraced by the Episcopal Church.
The Episcopal Church consciously made itself part of the culture war. Before 1950, TEC was overall a conservative, inwardly-directed, elitist church barely connected to the general society all around it. Then, in the 1950's, this began to change as the Church transformed itself from a vertical to a horizontal religion, that is, one less focused on individual salvation (vertical), and more concerned about social salvation (horizontal). It wholeheartedly joined the forces of reform in the Great Democratic Revolution. From the 1950's to the present it has devoted itself to equality for and inclusion primarily of African Americans, Indians, women, homosexuals and the transgendered.
However, just as reactionaries arose against the democratic revolution in America, opponents of the horizontal push arose in the Episcopal Church. Those who believed that the Church should keep only its old vertical posture fought back. They were outnumbered. Some individuals began leaving the "liberal" Episcopal Church. Some parishes began declaring their independence. Eventually, five dioceses, burned out by the reforms favoring women and homosexuals, voted to bolt the Church. The first four formed a rival reactionary church called the Anglican Church in North America. All five (inc SC) are now in the ACNA which was constituted explicitly to oppose equality for and inclusion of women and homosexuals. The immediate cause of the schism in SC was homosexuality. Bishop Mark Lawrence told the audiences on his recent tour of the diocese that he left the Church in 2012 because of its reforms for the transgendered.
Thus, DSC voted to leave TEC in order to have a vertical rather than a horizontal religion. When people in DSC say they left TEC because of theology, in a way they are right. While homosexuality was the immediate cause of the schism, it was part of a much bigger picture of reaction going on. To consolidate its turn to vertical after the schism, DSC quickly developed into a fundamentalist evangelical sect far removed from classical Anglicanism. Its present fundamentalism envelopes its sexism and homophobia, all part of one package. Fundamentalism is the theological rationale for its reactionary, anti-democratic social values.
It did not take long for the independent diocese to consolidate and institutionalize its decidedly reactionary social views. In March of 2015, it set up a "Marriage Task Force" to draw up diocesan policies addressing the issues of sexuality and gender. The "Force" was composed of Kendall Harmon, Peter Moore, Ted Duvall, Greg Snyder, Tyler Prescott, Jim Lewis, all clergy of DSC. The Force drew up four documents (find them here , pages 56-71) establishing rigid and intolerant social policies and procedures for the diocese and its parishes. The central point of the documents was to block preemptively any chance of equality for homosexuals in the diocese. The first document was a "Statement of Faith" adopted by the standing committee. It explicitly denounced homosexuality:
"We believe all people are created in the image of God, who wonderfully and immutably creates each person as genetically male or female."
[This sentence is non-factual and non-Biblical. It is not true that every human being is one gender or the other. It is also untrue that the Bible says "male or female." Every reference in the Bible says "male and female." The words "or" and "and" have entirely different meanings. Thus, the basic premise of the Statement of Faith is false.]
"Rejection of one's biological sex is in conflict with the created-ness and is inconsistent with our beliefs."
[Denunciation of transgender.]
"...marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in Holy Matrimony, a single, exclusive, lifelong union..."
[Taken literally, this condemns divorce and remarriage. As we will see, while all parishes were on the same page regarding some aspects of sexuality (homosexuality), they fell part on other aspects of sexuality.]
The second document of the Task Force was the same "Statement of Faith" that was sent to the parishes to be signed and dated by the vestries. This forced the parishes to conform to the anti-homosexual rights agenda of the diocese.
The third document forced conformity on all individuals employed by the diocese. They had to sign and date a statement of loyalty to the diocesan anti-homosexual policies and procedures. The individual also had to recognize that the bishop could fire the person at will: "Conduct inconsistent with the Diocese's Statement of Faith as finally determined by, and in the sole judgment of the Bishop is subject to discipline, up to and including immediate discharge." [Shades of Louis XIV, "l'état c'est moi".]
The fourth document is a long and detailed form to be signed and dated. It regulated the use of any facility so that no same-sex wedding could occur on church property.
The four documents explicitly institutionalizing an iron-clad conformity to the diocesan anti-homosexual policy were formally adopted by the diocesan convention in 2016 and subsequently by the individual parishes. Apparently, most parish vestries adopted the Statement of Faith imposed on them verbatim. See, for instance, St, Michael's of Charleston's statement on their website here .
At least one parish vestry took it upon itself to revise the diocesan Statement of Faith. On September 6, 2016, the vestry of St. Philip's of Charleston decided that the statement was too harsh on divorce and not harsh enough on homosexuality. Find their Statement of Faith here . The diocesan statement "marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in Holy Matrimony, a single, exclusive, lifelong union..." became St. Philip's "'marriage' has only one meaning: the uniting of one biological man and one biological woman in a single, exclusive union..." Gone is "lifelong." On the other hand, they made the anti-homosexual nature of the statement even more explicit by adding this provision to the original diocesan statement:
"We believe that any form of sexual immorality (including adultery, fornication, homosexual behavior, bisexual conduct, bestiality, incest, and use of pornography) is sinful and offensive to God."
[Thus, serial marriages are not an offense to God, but undefined "homosexual behavior" is.]
The overwhelming point of all of these statements is to reject any and all efforts to grant equality for and inclusion of homosexuals into church life. This is the DSC's reaction against the Episcopal Church's democratization. It is an anti-democratic, anti-human rights backlash.
If you think I am exaggerating, I invite you to read the string of letters to this editor on this blog from 12 to 14 October. A DSC communicant made a strong and clear argument that homosexual behavior is sinful and sin condemns people to hell. This, the writer insisted, is God's word in the Bible. It must not be questioned. I expect the writer is typical of the clerical and lay members of DSC. After years and years of hearing the same message of the sin of homosexuality, I imagine the majority of people in DSC sincerely believe it. The vestry of St. Philip's certainly does.
So, where does this leave us now at this point in the history of the schism? Here is my take:
The two parts of the old diocese have radically different social understandings. Some people want to define the difference as theological and biblical, but in reality this is only a cloak around our understandings of how human beings should relate to each other in our society. The DSC demands we have a vertical posture, one person to one God. Personal submission to this all-powerful anthropomorphic being up there in space somewhere is all that really matters. God created the universe and set up the rules. We must obey the rules. TECSC prefers a horizontal posture to follow the initial relationship between people and God. Faith must be followed with works to make a better world. We are God's agents in the world to make right what is wrong. It was wrong to persecute minorities. It was right for the church to give these people equality and inclusion, not judgment.
Given the wide gulf between these different understandings of the meaning and purpose of religion, it is difficult to see the two parts of the grand old diocese reuniting. I accept that DSC will probably continue as a separate entity. Given the mindset of so many of the people in DSC, I expect large numbers, perhaps a majority of the present DSC communicants of the 29 parishes will leave the buildings to keep verticalist communities in exile rather than staying in the buildings and returning to the Episcopal Church. DSC leaders have been working on preparations of an exodus since last November.
There will be DSC members who choose to stay with the buildings and return to TEC. It is only fair to them that they understand the TEC policies and procedures concerning homosexuality. TEC generally accepts homosexuality as morally neutral, neither inherently good nor bad. This is not a canonical definition but a de facto one coming from years of reforms favoring homosexuals and transgendered. Open and non-celibate homosexuals and transgendered have full equality and inclusion in the Episcopal Church. They cannot be discriminated against. However, Church policy is that every person has the right to his or her own opinion about homosexuality and no person can be required to adhere to any certain view. Unlike DSC, TECSC does not have a rigidly authoritarian statement of conformity. Clergy and laity alike are not required to support same-sex marriage. In fact, a resolution was adopted in last summer's General Convention giving the local rector the discretion over having same-sex weddings his or her parish. No one is going to be forced into a view about homosexuality against his or her conscience. However, everyone in TEC does have to accept that others may have different views and that others do have rights within the Church to act on those views. TEC stands for toleration and acceptance.
So, the culture war goes on in the nation and in the church. After all, we are imperfect beings just trying to do what we think is best for all of us. Difference and disagreement is the human condition. It has always been there. It will always be there. It is not right to question the motives of others. Sometimes, however, differences can turn violent and destructive. When that happens, we all lose. It is also human nature to act as a group in our own best interest. Human beings are social animals; and our greatest instinct is for survival.
We will survive this culture war. Goodness knows, if France survived, even thrived, after all those heads rolled in the great French Revolution, we can survive the phases of our Great Democratic Revolution and thrive afterwards. If revolutions have a life-cycle, and I believe they do, our present national and religious crises will come to an end somewhere down the road in sorts of peaceful compromises between radical and reactionary forces that will leave all of us stronger. I believe that. I think we have to believe that.
After all these years of schism, we are all exhausted, but in our weariness we must not despair. We must not give up the good fight. This conflict will end, and will end, I believe, in a better world. This is what my study of history and my faith tell me.
Ron Caldwell
25 October 2018
Thus, DSC voted to leave TEC in order to have a vertical rather than a horizontal religion. When people in DSC say they left TEC because of theology, in a way they are right. While homosexuality was the immediate cause of the schism, it was part of a much bigger picture of reaction going on. To consolidate its turn to vertical after the schism, DSC quickly developed into a fundamentalist evangelical sect far removed from classical Anglicanism. Its present fundamentalism envelopes its sexism and homophobia, all part of one package. Fundamentalism is the theological rationale for its reactionary, anti-democratic social values.
It did not take long for the independent diocese to consolidate and institutionalize its decidedly reactionary social views. In March of 2015, it set up a "Marriage Task Force" to draw up diocesan policies addressing the issues of sexuality and gender. The "Force" was composed of Kendall Harmon, Peter Moore, Ted Duvall, Greg Snyder, Tyler Prescott, Jim Lewis, all clergy of DSC. The Force drew up four documents (find them here , pages 56-71) establishing rigid and intolerant social policies and procedures for the diocese and its parishes. The central point of the documents was to block preemptively any chance of equality for homosexuals in the diocese. The first document was a "Statement of Faith" adopted by the standing committee. It explicitly denounced homosexuality:
"We believe all people are created in the image of God, who wonderfully and immutably creates each person as genetically male or female."
[This sentence is non-factual and non-Biblical. It is not true that every human being is one gender or the other. It is also untrue that the Bible says "male or female." Every reference in the Bible says "male and female." The words "or" and "and" have entirely different meanings. Thus, the basic premise of the Statement of Faith is false.]
"Rejection of one's biological sex is in conflict with the created-ness and is inconsistent with our beliefs."
[Denunciation of transgender.]
"...marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in Holy Matrimony, a single, exclusive, lifelong union..."
[Taken literally, this condemns divorce and remarriage. As we will see, while all parishes were on the same page regarding some aspects of sexuality (homosexuality), they fell part on other aspects of sexuality.]
The second document of the Task Force was the same "Statement of Faith" that was sent to the parishes to be signed and dated by the vestries. This forced the parishes to conform to the anti-homosexual rights agenda of the diocese.
The third document forced conformity on all individuals employed by the diocese. They had to sign and date a statement of loyalty to the diocesan anti-homosexual policies and procedures. The individual also had to recognize that the bishop could fire the person at will: "Conduct inconsistent with the Diocese's Statement of Faith as finally determined by, and in the sole judgment of the Bishop is subject to discipline, up to and including immediate discharge." [Shades of Louis XIV, "l'état c'est moi".]
The fourth document is a long and detailed form to be signed and dated. It regulated the use of any facility so that no same-sex wedding could occur on church property.
The four documents explicitly institutionalizing an iron-clad conformity to the diocesan anti-homosexual policy were formally adopted by the diocesan convention in 2016 and subsequently by the individual parishes. Apparently, most parish vestries adopted the Statement of Faith imposed on them verbatim. See, for instance, St, Michael's of Charleston's statement on their website here .
At least one parish vestry took it upon itself to revise the diocesan Statement of Faith. On September 6, 2016, the vestry of St. Philip's of Charleston decided that the statement was too harsh on divorce and not harsh enough on homosexuality. Find their Statement of Faith here . The diocesan statement "marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in Holy Matrimony, a single, exclusive, lifelong union..." became St. Philip's "'marriage' has only one meaning: the uniting of one biological man and one biological woman in a single, exclusive union..." Gone is "lifelong." On the other hand, they made the anti-homosexual nature of the statement even more explicit by adding this provision to the original diocesan statement:
"We believe that any form of sexual immorality (including adultery, fornication, homosexual behavior, bisexual conduct, bestiality, incest, and use of pornography) is sinful and offensive to God."
[Thus, serial marriages are not an offense to God, but undefined "homosexual behavior" is.]
The overwhelming point of all of these statements is to reject any and all efforts to grant equality for and inclusion of homosexuals into church life. This is the DSC's reaction against the Episcopal Church's democratization. It is an anti-democratic, anti-human rights backlash.
If you think I am exaggerating, I invite you to read the string of letters to this editor on this blog from 12 to 14 October. A DSC communicant made a strong and clear argument that homosexual behavior is sinful and sin condemns people to hell. This, the writer insisted, is God's word in the Bible. It must not be questioned. I expect the writer is typical of the clerical and lay members of DSC. After years and years of hearing the same message of the sin of homosexuality, I imagine the majority of people in DSC sincerely believe it. The vestry of St. Philip's certainly does.
So, where does this leave us now at this point in the history of the schism? Here is my take:
The two parts of the old diocese have radically different social understandings. Some people want to define the difference as theological and biblical, but in reality this is only a cloak around our understandings of how human beings should relate to each other in our society. The DSC demands we have a vertical posture, one person to one God. Personal submission to this all-powerful anthropomorphic being up there in space somewhere is all that really matters. God created the universe and set up the rules. We must obey the rules. TECSC prefers a horizontal posture to follow the initial relationship between people and God. Faith must be followed with works to make a better world. We are God's agents in the world to make right what is wrong. It was wrong to persecute minorities. It was right for the church to give these people equality and inclusion, not judgment.
Given the wide gulf between these different understandings of the meaning and purpose of religion, it is difficult to see the two parts of the grand old diocese reuniting. I accept that DSC will probably continue as a separate entity. Given the mindset of so many of the people in DSC, I expect large numbers, perhaps a majority of the present DSC communicants of the 29 parishes will leave the buildings to keep verticalist communities in exile rather than staying in the buildings and returning to the Episcopal Church. DSC leaders have been working on preparations of an exodus since last November.
There will be DSC members who choose to stay with the buildings and return to TEC. It is only fair to them that they understand the TEC policies and procedures concerning homosexuality. TEC generally accepts homosexuality as morally neutral, neither inherently good nor bad. This is not a canonical definition but a de facto one coming from years of reforms favoring homosexuals and transgendered. Open and non-celibate homosexuals and transgendered have full equality and inclusion in the Episcopal Church. They cannot be discriminated against. However, Church policy is that every person has the right to his or her own opinion about homosexuality and no person can be required to adhere to any certain view. Unlike DSC, TECSC does not have a rigidly authoritarian statement of conformity. Clergy and laity alike are not required to support same-sex marriage. In fact, a resolution was adopted in last summer's General Convention giving the local rector the discretion over having same-sex weddings his or her parish. No one is going to be forced into a view about homosexuality against his or her conscience. However, everyone in TEC does have to accept that others may have different views and that others do have rights within the Church to act on those views. TEC stands for toleration and acceptance.
So, the culture war goes on in the nation and in the church. After all, we are imperfect beings just trying to do what we think is best for all of us. Difference and disagreement is the human condition. It has always been there. It will always be there. It is not right to question the motives of others. Sometimes, however, differences can turn violent and destructive. When that happens, we all lose. It is also human nature to act as a group in our own best interest. Human beings are social animals; and our greatest instinct is for survival.
We will survive this culture war. Goodness knows, if France survived, even thrived, after all those heads rolled in the great French Revolution, we can survive the phases of our Great Democratic Revolution and thrive afterwards. If revolutions have a life-cycle, and I believe they do, our present national and religious crises will come to an end somewhere down the road in sorts of peaceful compromises between radical and reactionary forces that will leave all of us stronger. I believe that. I think we have to believe that.
After all these years of schism, we are all exhausted, but in our weariness we must not despair. We must not give up the good fight. This conflict will end, and will end, I believe, in a better world. This is what my study of history and my faith tell me.
Ron Caldwell
25 October 2018
