ANGLICAN PRIMATES ISSUE COMMUNIQUÉ,

31 MARCH 2022

The primates (heads) of the 42 independent churches that make up the Anglican Communion in the world are meeting this week in London, hosted by the Archbishop of Canterbury (center of picture). I count 32 present in this picture (37 attended, several virtually). There were three primates who pointedly refused to attend the meeting (Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda). Several others could not attend because of circumstances, such as surges of COVID-19. 

The purpose of the meeting was to serve as a "warm up" for the large Lambeth Conference slated to meet this summer (27 July-8 August) at Canterbury. The LC usually meets every ten years but had to be postponed from 2020 because of the pandemic. This year's LC will include some 700 bishops from the worldwide Anglican Communion. 

Today, 31 March, the primates issued a formal Communiqué giving their views of numerous problems in the contemporary world. Find it here . Of particular importance is #9, condemnation of the Russian invasion and war on Ukraine:  the "catastrophic effects of Russia's invasion of Ukraine." The primates called for ceasefire and withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine.

The Episcopal Church is the province of the Anglican Communion in the United States and some lands beyond. Its primate is the presiding bishop, Michael Curry.

The independent church calling itself the Anglican Church in North America is not in the Anglican Communion and its fifty or so bishops will not be invited to the Lambeth Conference. ACNA is a proxy of GAFCON in America, but GAFCON is a self-created alliance of socially conservative Anglican provinces outside of the institutional structure of the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Diocese of South Carolina is in ACNA, and therefore, not in the Anglican Communion. Its bishop will not be at Lambeth.

Find an ENS article on this week's meeting here .

For a thorough description of the work of the primates, see this article .

NOTES,  29 MARCH 2022

Welcome, blog reader, on a beautiful spring day, at least it is at my house. Here's a wish that all goes well with you and yours today. It is time to check in on the topics we have been following for a long time. So, let's plunge right in.

PANDEMIC. All metrics show a great decline in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States. The fourth great surge is over. However, the plague persists and in some places in the world is actually surging once again. In the U.S., the average death rate is now around 700, still unacceptable even if a fraction of recent rates. Nearly one million Americans have died of COVID-19 in the past two years. Pause and reflect on this for a moment. 

It is premature to declare victory and return to the pre-pandemic "normal" across the board. In fact, news reports say there will soon be a new booster shot for people over the age of sixty. This would be the fourth inoculation. The point is that the coronavirus is still very much a part of our lives and we should act accordingly.

SCHISM IN SC. Still waiting on the South Carolina Supreme Court. And, still crickets.

As for the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina, apparently Edgar is functioning as the new diocesan bishop. Lawrence is off the payroll as of March 31.

THE ADVENT. The search committee is still at work on seeking a new dean to replace Andrew Pearson who resigned last year at the Episcopal Cathedral Church of the Advent, in Birmingham AL. It seems to be taking its own time which I suppose is a good thing. Meanwhile, the interim dean, Criag Smalley, seems to be succeeding in nudging the parish back toward the mainstream of the Episcopal Church after Pearson had tried to move it to the evangelical edge, perhaps beyond the edge.

Given the sensitive state of the Advent at the moment vis à vis the Episcopal Church and diocese, it is a bit surprising to see some of the choices for the parish's Lenten Preaching Series. On April 4-5, Ephraim Radner will speak. He is a prolific and influential theologian who for three decades has argued for greater unity and conformity in the Anglican Communion. For instance, in 2019, he published an article in The Living Church magazine supportive of the Anglican Church in North America. Find the article here . He asserted that the anti-homosexual Resolution 1.10 of 1998 should be standard in the AC and churches that refuse this [TEC, Anglican Church of Canada] are "outside" the boundaries of Anglican teaching. He also said the AC should have "serious deliberation" on how the ACNA can be "fully integrated" into the AC. He seems to support the development of the AC into a covenant religion, something it has never been. In fact, the AC is a collection of 42 self-governing local churches. It is not bound by a confession or a covenant or any other instrument that could interfere with local independence. Resolutions of the Lambeth conferences are just that, resolutions. They are not laws enforceable on the provinces.

The ACNA was created by GAFCON and American anti-human rights Episcopalians in 2009 specifically to oppose equality for and inclusion of non-celibate homosexuals from the leadership of the church. It threw in women to boot. The stated aim of ACNA is to replace the Episcopal Church as the only legitimate Anglican province in the U.S. Thus, there is  not room in the AC for both TEC and ACNA, It is one or the other. The Archbishop of Canterbury has made it clear, more than once, that ACNA is not in the Anglican Communion. There is no sign  it will ever be however much GAFCON may promote it and oppose TEC.

THE RUSSIAN WAR ON UKRAINE. Several points have become clear now more than a month into the war. The leading one would be that poor showing of the Russian military. They have obviously failed in their objective of capturing the country quickly and installing a puppet government. Their incompetent invasion has gained little while losing as many as 15,000 soldiers killed including seven generals. However, they continue to pound cities with missiles, bombs, and artillery. This stalemate could go on indefinitely. 

Another point is the phenomenal resistance of the Ukrainians. President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people have arisen to the occasion. David has stopped Goliath in his tracks. We can all cheer for the underdogs here. 

Yet another point is the unification of virtually the entire western world in defense of national independence and democracy. This is unprecedented in the world since WWII. 

Talks for a peace are going on and have been going on all along with no sign of agreement. Meanwhile there are signs the Russians are retreating into the territories they hold while continuing to shell the cities. The purpose of all this is as unclear as the future. What is the clear is the gross evil and immorality of the Russian invasion and war on Ukraine.

So, we are still confronted by numerous unresolved issues. Nevertheless, spring is here and we can revel in the beauty of the season all around us. Here are a couple of pictures of my garden today:

The Japanese flowering cherry tree is always beautiful at this time of the year. The green tree in background is Japanese Cedar (Cryptomeria). The cherry tree is near the street curb and cars often slow down when passing.

This dazzling crabapple tree brightens up the back side of my garden, far from the street.

I hope you are enjoying this springtime as much as I am. Peace. 

 

WHY IS THE PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW BACKING THE RUSSIAN WAR ON UKRAINE?

IT'S STILL HUMAN RIGHTS, STUPID.

One of the most shocking aspects of the war in Ukraine is the outspoken support for the invasion coming from the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Kirill, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus. How could the leader of a major Christian denomination incite, or even support, such a war?

Here is a helpful article from an expert who explains it better than anyone else could.

As it turns out, Kirill's war mongering is more complicated than one might think at first glance when it appears simply to be a naked power grab to regain lost control over the Orthodox churches of Ukraine. Kirill's actions should be seen in the big picture of the culture war. The war in Ukraine is part and parcel of the revolution, and counter-revolution, for human rights in the contemporary world. And guess what bothers Kirill a lot? Homosexuality. In a big way, the war in Ukraine is a war against human rights for gays. It is really a small world, after all.

Putin and Kirill are not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes in their heinous war of aggression. Virtually the entire western world has united to defend democracy and human rights in the face of this totally unwarranted and murderous assault on an innocent victim. Everybody knows this is a war between the forces of democracy and those of anti-democracy. Kirill has thrown down the gauntlet against what he sees as alien and dangerous effects of democracy. He and Putin are on the wrong side of history and they are likely to pay for their choices in time to come. Unfortunately, Christianity in Russia may pay too.

____________________

NOTE. News broke this afternoon of the death of Madeleine Albright, first female Secretary of State and a hero in the struggle for democracy and human rights in the world. She was also an active Episcopalian. She fought the good fight, all of her life against the likes of Putin and deserves a grand funeral in the National Cathedral. RIP, Madame, la sécretaire d'état extraordinaire. 

  

 

NOTES,  21 MARCH 2022

Welcome, blog reader, on Monday, March 21, 2022. Spring is here! Now, the queen of seasons, bright. Did we ever need hope, new life, and brightness more? I think not. We have been in a long, dark, and terrible winter for so long. In a way we still are. Nature has shown itself at its cruelest. Some human beings are now showing themselves at their worst. One we curbed by modern technology, the other is infinitely worse because of modern technology. One declined because of right choices people made. The other started because of wrong choices people made. Perhaps Charles Dickens's famous remark on the Ancien régime is appropriate now, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."

Anyway, it is time to check in on the topics we have been following.

PANDEMIC. The COVID-19 plague is still going on but as the fourth great surge dies away, it seems that the pandemic may be waning. It has been going on in earnest for two years this month.

The numbers are staggering. In the world, over 6m people have died in this pandemic. America continues to be the hardest hit country. Here, a quarter of the population has contracted the virus and nearly 1m have died. Both South Carolina and Alabama have suffered their shares. In SC, over 17k people have died, in AL over 19k.

Barring some new variant, it does seem that the pandemic may be dying out. Daily cases, hospitalizations, and death are far down. Restrictions have been repealed in most places. Many churches have returned to "normal" practices. There are even churches offering common cup communion. I for one am not ready for that, not even intinction. Why risk ingesting a highly contagious virus when the bread alone is enough? The pandemic is not over. People are still getting sick and dying every day.

SCHISM IN SC. Still waiting on the SC supreme court to issue its decision. It has been a month and a half (Feb. 9) since Episcopal attorney Utsey asked the court for guidance on their request for info on the 1987 diocesan adoption of a "Dennis Canon." Crickets.

Meanwhile, the two parts of the schism are moving on with new leadership, both from outside the diocese. However, there is not much either side can do until the SCSC clears up the property dispute. God only knows when that will be. As we know, it was a two year wait on the 2017 decision. 

THE ADVENT. Matters have quieted down in recent weeks at the Episcopal Cathedral Church of the Advent, in Birmingham. The search committee promises it is busy at work seeking a new dean. It will soon be a year since the last dean departed. Under the interim, Craig Smalley, parish life seems to be settling down more in the mainstream of the Episcopal Church.

THE RUSSIAN WAR ON UKRAINE. Satanic. Evil. Nightmare. Choose your own word. Who can look at the images on TV or computer without getting sick? Every time I think the Russian forces cannot go any lower, they do, killing innocent civilians in hospitals, schools, theaters, insane asylums, homes for disabled people, apartment buildings, you name it. The theater in Mariupol was clearly marked front and back with the Russian word for "children." The Russians deliberately destroyed the building where over a thousand people are still in the rubble. Barbaric.

So far, there has been no serious sign that President Putin is willing to negotiate a peace. On the contrary, he is stepping up the targeted slaughter. If he continues this, his next choices could be chemical and biological war, and even nuclear attacks. The next few weeks will be crucial in the direction of this war. If Putin starts gassing children, women, and the elderly and/or dropping atomic bombs on the people, it will be extremely difficult for the U.S. and the rest of NATO to stay out. Right now, Putin is in the driver's seat and is apparently increasingly unstable. If this is not enough to keep you awake at night, I do not know what would be. God help us through this madness.

I must say we should be proud of what our church leaders have done and are doing, especially Pope Francis. Contrary to historic roles of popes in the past in similar situations, he has been remarkably engaged and outspoken. More power to him. Likewise for the Eastern Orthodox and Anglican leaders. They have all been active.

So, where is this war going? At this moment, it looks only as if it will get worse. There is no end in sight. There is no solution on the horizon. We have no choice but to endure and do the best we can for the sake of humanity.

Meanwhile, I find myself more and more in my garden. It consoles me to know that in the midst of the worst evil somewhere, the goodness and beauty of God's creation goes on as always somewhere else. The spring equinox occurred yesterday morning ushering in springtime in the Northern Hemisphere. Of course, in my neck of the woods there have been signs of spring for weeks even though frost continues and probably will continue for another couple of weeks. Here are some pictures of my garden yesterday.

Being a native Floridian, I am partial to tropical and evergreen plants. I am fortunate now to live in a transition zone where certain tropical, non-tropical, evergreen and deciduous plants grow. Although the ubiquitous Sabal palmetto (state tree of SC and FL) grows in my county, I prefer the smaller and thinner Windmill palm (Trachycarpus fortunei) for my yard and garden. It grows fast and is very cold tolerant. This one, outside my kitchen window, is nearly full grown. The green shrub in lower left is gardenia. It should be planted near doors and windows to get the heavenly aroma.

Pearlbush (Exochorda x macrantha "The Bride') is one of my favorite spring blooming shrubs. Similar to azalea and covered with pure white flowers. For whatever reasons, every azalea I planted, and there were dozens, committed suicide. Azaleas grow in abundance in my area but not in my garden. After numerous failing efforts, I threw in the towel. I still have no clue why they were so unhappy in my garden.

Leatherleaf mahonia (Mahonia bealei) is a holly-like shrub that blooms in winter and produces attractive "grape" clusters. To me it is a beautiful garden shrub, but to the authorities in AL and SC it is not. It is on the invasive do-not-plant list because it is self-sowing freely in the woods of the southeast. 

Pear trees are popular in the south because they become "white clouds" in early spring. This is Cleveland Pear, an improved variety of Bradford Pear, the bane of the existence of my horticulture friends. Bradfords are short-lived, weak-limbed, and given to storm damage. They can also be invasive.

Flowering quince is another popular shrub that blooms in early spring. This one is peach colored.

Alabama Croton is a rare semi-evergreen shrub, in fact, on the endangered list. In early spring it puts out yellow fringe flowers above leaves that are green on top and silver on bottom. If you want an unusual "conversation" shrub in your yard/garden, try this.

If azaleas hate my garden, the other ubiquitous shrubs of the lower south, camellias, love it. I have two dozen bushes, all blooming prolifically. Go figure. This particularly lovely one is "Nuccio's Pearl." 

Camellias come in a wide variety of sizes and colors. If you have a small and shady spot in your yard/garden that needs something, try this camellia that grows only three feet tall, "Emmett Barnes." In winter, it will give you an abundance of pure white flowers.

One corner on the back side of my garden is anchored by a windmill palm. The large evergreen shrub is Chindo Viburnum, a recent import from Korea. It starts a screen of evergreen bushes around the back side of the garden. Just beyond, on the left here, is a ditch that runs rushing water down a hill through winter and spring and becomes a dry bed in summer.

So, just when we thought we were getting over one emergency, the plague, here comes another, the worst war since WWII. No one asked for these. They were given to us for the living of our lives. We have no choice now but to respond to them. It is how we respond that matters. And, I am greatly heartened by the wonderful responses to adversity that I see all around us: who cannot be inspired by President Zelensky, by the fortitude of the Ukrainian people, by the bravery of the protesters in Russia, by the incredibly generous welcome to refugees in Poland and the other border states of Ukraine, by the aid workers inside Ukraine, the words of the pope, and so on? Even in this darkest of hours, the light of grace abounds. No evil deeds, not even those of Putin, can overcome the goodness of God and the people who do his/her work in the world. Peace.

  

THE LEGACY

OF BISHOP MARK LAWRENCE

Mark J. Lawrence is ending his tenure as a diocesan bishop after fourteen years. He served as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina from 2008 to 2012 and as head of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina from 2012 to 2022. This month, March of 2022, he is being succeeded by a new bishop of ADSC, "Chip" Edgar. It is not too early to start thinking about Lawrence's legacy. What difference did he make? How will history see him? These are fair questions to start asking.

Certainly the obvious first response would be to see him as the bishop of the schism in South Carolina. He led the majority of the clergy and laity of the Episcopal diocese of SC out of the Episcopal Church and into a new denomination. First and foremost, Lawrence will always be remembered as the bishop who presided over the division of one of the nine founding dioceses of the Episcopal Church. This is not controversial. What is controversial is whether this was the right thing or the wrong thing to do. 

We should not jump to conclusions now even though everyone involved has his or her own opinion of Lawrence. In time, history may see things differently in ways that we cannot imagine today. For instance, my father was chief of police of Pensacola FL in the 1960's and 1970's. That town, as every one in the south, was embroiled in racial unrest. Our phone rang off the hook morning noon and night as people for civil rights and people against civil rights turned to him to get the police to help. He was caught in the middle and could seemingly please no one. He was mercilessly criticized and sometimes physically threatened. Nevertheless, he soldiered on and even in the midst of all the civic tumult directed a major reform of the department that made it a professional force for the first time. When he retired, as weary and sad as Lawrence seemed to be last week, we assumed he would always be remembered as the controversial chief of the civil rights era. We were wrong. Now, all these decades later, my father is remembered primarily as the chief who turned the Pensacola police department into a high-level professional force. So, how we see Lawrence's legacy today may not be how people see it years from now.

In beginning to approach an assessment of Lawrence as bishop we should start with the empirical data at hand. This is the best way we can quantify the actual effects of his work as bishop. When Lawrence arrived, in January of 2008, the Diocese of South Carolina listed 31,572 baptized members and 27,670 communicants (active members). In its most recent figures, of 2020, Lawrence's diocese, ADSC, claimed 19,597 baptized members and 11,337 communicants. This is a drop of overall members from 31,572 to 19,597 and active members from 27,670 to 11,337. So, Lawrence's is leaving a diocese 11,000 members and 16,000 active members fewer than the one he gained fourteen years ago. Even if we combine the 7,000 members of the Episcopal diocese of SC today, we would still see a big drop in collective membership. Moreover, the ADSC lost members steadily every year since the schism of 2012. Thus, we can see there has been a severe and unrelenting loss in diocesan membership in the Lawrence years. This is a legacy we know from the irrefutable evidence at hand. If the proof is in the pudding, this pudding is bitter.

Beyond the quantifiable data, there are areas we can partially quantify or are in the process of quantifying. Before the schism, the diocesan leadership led the people of the diocese to believe 1-the diocese could secede from the Episcopal Church intact, and 2-the local parishes could leave the Episcopal Church with their local properties in hand. These issues went to court when Lawrence's contingent sued the Episcopal Church on Jan. 4, 2013, starting a very long course of bitter and expensive litigation. 

As for the first point, the U.S. District court in Charleston ruled that the diocese did not secede from the Episcopal Church, that the departing people formed a new entity in 2012, and that the Episcopal diocese was the legal heir of the old diocese. To boot, the judge issued an Injunction forbidding Lawrence's diocese from claiming in any way to be the heir of the pre-schism diocese. This decision is now on appeal but there is very little chance that it will be overturned. The first claim the schismatics made is on the cusp of being legally denied forever. 

As for the second point, in 2017, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that 29 of the 36 parishes in question were property of the Episcopal Church and that 7 of the parishes owned their own property. The circuit court then nullified this decision; and this nullification is now on appeal before the SCSC. The SCSC can either affirm their 2017 decision or revoke it in favor of the circuit court's nullification. No one should predict how this will turn out, but it is hard to see how the state supreme court could reverse their own decision that had become the law of the land. If in fact the SCSC affirms its 2017 ruling, the diocese that Lawrence led will be left with 6 parishes (one of the 7 was St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant which is in Steve Wood's ACNA Diocese of the Carolinas). If the SCSC rules in favor of TEC, the second pre-schism assertion will be disproved. 

If the U.S. appeals court and the SC supreme court finally rule in favor of TEC, both assertions put forth by Lawrence's diocesan leadership in 2012 will be shown to be false. This would be another bitter legacy, at least bitter to the lay people who trusted their diocesan leadership, and in a way bitter to everyone involved on both sides.

Of course, followers of Lawrence may argue that it is not quantity that matters but quality, and they may have a point. Numbers of members and of churches do not necessarily translate into strength. As we all know, sometimes smaller churches can be more active and accomplish more than larger ones. There are many more things to be measured besides just empirical data.

Lawrence's Anglican Diocese of SC has survived for nearly ten years even though it is on a downward trajectory. One cannot be sure it will go on much longer as an independent entity, even if it wins in the SCSC. Although I know of no hard evidence, I suspect that the diocesan leadership decided before the last bishop's election to go to an outsider and one from the overlapping ACNA diocese. Hence, Edgar, a man who had had no connection with the ADSC was put up against two in-house candidates who had played relatively minor roles in the schism. Nevertheless, there was a surprisingly strong diocesan reaction as Sturdy ran a competitive race before finally losing out to Edgar. This signaled that a lot of laity did not want to lose the separate identity they had nurtured for so many years in the war of the courts. Yet, no one should be surprised if Steve Wood's Diocese of the Carolinas absorbs the larger Anglican Diocese of South Carolina. If ADSC disappears altogether, this would throw another question on Lawrence's legacy.

On a personal note, in the four years I spent researching my history of the schism, I grew to admire many qualities of Lawrence as a person. A big regret I have now is that he did not take me up on my offer for an interview. I have never met him although I have seen him at church functions. Everyone who knew him, even his strongest critics, would admit to certain outstanding aspects of his personality. By all accounts he was a stellar parish rector who, sometimes, against formidable odds, built up thriving congregations. They were almost all devoted to him. He had a certain charisma as a teacher, pastor, and priest. I sometimes wondered if parish ministry were his true calling. He certainly appeared happier then, but perhaps that was just the vigor and idealism of youth.

I wondered too if his critics before and after the schism focused too much on him personally even though as bishop he was naturally the point of the focus. In all fairness, Lawrence did not originate the schism in South Carolina. In fact, he came rather late to the process which really started moving in 1982 when Bishop Allison began a trend of criticizing the Episcopal Church. By the 1990's the anti-TEC movement had gained a lot of steam and some people of the diocese began organizing to oppose the church. The national church's approval of a non-celibate gay man as a bishop and the election of a woman as presiding bishop heightened the rising tide of criticism in SC against TEC. Indeed, testimony was given in court that the search committee consciously and deliberately sought a candidate for bishop who would lead the diocese out of the Episcopal Church. Lawrence did not apply. He was invited, and then tapped. By the time he arrived in 2008, the secession movement in the diocese of SC was well under way after 26 years. So, it is not accurate to blame Lawrence entirely for the schism. However, once he accepted the mantle as leader of a diocese already set in opposition to the national church, he apparently never looked back. Between July and October of 2012, events suggest that the diocesan leadership plotted in secret to remove the diocese from the Episcopal Church. Even though Lawrence did not create the secessionist movement in South Carolina, by all appearances, it seemed to me that he willingly led it as bishop.

Since the winners typically write the histories, much of Lawrence's legacy will depend on how the two court cases end. His best hope is for the SCSC to agree to let Judge Dickson's order stand and for the U.S. court of appeals to overturn Judge Gergel's order. This way, ADSC would hold all the 36 parishes in question and the entity of the old diocese. The worst case scenario for ADSC is for the SCSC to deny Dickson and uphold its 2017 decision and for the appeals court to uphold Gergel. This way, the ADSC will wind up with 6 parishes and nothing of the pre-schism diocese. It would have to relinquish Camp St. Christopher and all the diocesan properties, as the bishop's residence on Smith Street. The people now meeting in the 29 parish churches would have to move out or stay in and return to the Episcopal Church. The best case would brighten Lawrence's legacy, the worst case would diminish it. So, much remains to be seen.

Long term, the future of the Anglican diocese of SC is not good, and not so much because of declining membership and losing court cases, but for the tide of history. History is moving inexorably against the identity of the ADSC. The sweep of history in the last few centuries has been toward human rights. The rise of democracy was a huge part of this. The ADSC was set up to oppose human rights for homosexuals and for women. It and its parent, the Anglican Church in North America, aim to keep non-celibate gays and women out of the church leadership. This is against the tide of history. In time, chances are the tide will wash away the man-made sand dunes of resistance and the people who tried to build those barriers.

Finally, one way to reflect on Lawrence's legacy is to contrast his arrival as bishop and his departure. His consecration, on 26 January 2008, was really a three day festival where hundreds of people from all around the world descended on Charleston for a raucous celebration. His house was overflowing with friends from far and wide, dinners, receptions and the like kept cheerful people up all hours. The procession of bishops in the consecration was so long, it took thirty minutes to finish. By contrast, his leaving office on 11 March 2022 was a sad, tearful, and wearisome litany of thank-yous to groups and friends who had stood by him. After fourteen years, there was no ebullient celebration of victory. What had come in as a roaring lion went out as a quiet lamb. Perhaps this tells us more about Lawrence's legacy than anyone can say now.

As a student of history, I hope that Mark Lawrence will write his memoirs, or at least his account of the schism. We need to know his side of the story. It would give us all a better understanding of what happened in this event that has been so much a part of our lives. Besides, I think his legacy deserves it.  

LAWRENCE'S FAREWELL ADDRESS:

May we one day share a toast at the taste of victory.

Bishop Mark Lawrence gave his farewell address to the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina on 11 March 2022 at the annual meeting of the diocese. An audio file of the speech is available here . It is thirty minutes long.

If one were expecting great oratory or fireworks, one would be disappointed. It was a low-key, lackluster, mostly innocuous and emotional listing of self-serving generalities and thank-yous. The only slightly edgy comment came in his thank-you to the standing committee when he said to them, "May we one day share a toast at the taste of victory." Actually, his diocese has lost in both the state supreme court and federal court and although both are on appeal, it is dubious that he will see "victory" in either.

In the first half of the address, Lawrence briefly tried to justify the schism by putting his actions in the context of the Anglican Church in North America and the GAFCON world. He gave a long list of activities various people had done with ACNA. To be sure, he used the word "province" for ACNA repeatedly. In fact, ACNA is an independent religious denomination. It is not a province of anything. As "province," he used the word "Anglican" time and again as if repeating it enough would make it authentic. The ACNA and ADSC are faux Anglican. They are not recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury. They are not in the Anglican Communion. Their bishops will not be invited to the Lambeth conference this year. 

He tried to justify his leadership actions as necessary for "the battle for the soul of Anglicanism." He tried to wrap them in Anglicanism with "the larger Anglican church came to our rescue." What came to his rescue was not the Anglican Communion but the collection of reactionary Anglican bishops resolved to keep homosexuals and women from equality and inclusion in the life of the church.

In the second half of the address, Lawrence went through a long list of emotional thank-yous to various diocesan groups and people. The only slight dig he made at his critics came when Lawrence sneered at critics' references to the clergy as "lawrencian lemmings and other insulting absurdities." Blogger Steve Skardon often called the followers of Lawrence Lawrencians but I do not recall that he ever labeled the clergy as Lawrencian lemmings although it does have a ring to it.  

Interesting too at what Lawrence did not say. He left out an awful lot he could have mentioned. He said nothing directly about the schism and nothing at all about the litigation. He gave no hint at a possible union with Steve Wood's diocese. He did not say when his last day of bishop would be. He said nothing about the severe and unrelenting decline in membership.

On the whole, the Lawrence we hear now seems tired and old, seemingly a far cry from the vibrant man who arrived in 2008. Gone is the fire and soaring, if grandiose, rhetoric of his long and impassioned diocesan addresses of the old wrestler's fighting days. In fact, we have not heard much from him since the schism of 2012. The most we have gotten from Lawrence was in his rally tour of the diocese after the SCSC decision of 2017 when his diocese was expecting to leave the properties and reconstitute in exile. We saw the old fire of combat return then. It was not in his farewell address of 2022.

I will return later with an assessment of the Lawrence years. 

THE WORLD IS ON THE RAZOR'S EDGE

What happens in the next several weeks may well determine the rest of the Twenty-First Century. Humankind is facing a crisis the likes of which it has not seen since the end of the Second World War in 1945. What comes out of this moment will no doubt shape how the world functions for the rest of our lifetimes, our children's, our grand-children's. I have studied history, in earnest, for the past 68 years, and I must confess, I see plenty of reason why we should be alarmed today.

On 24 February, the government of Russia launched an unprovoked armed invasion of a peaceful neighbor, Ukraine, in an effort to take control of the country and install a friendly (puppet) government. In other words, the Russian goal was to seize Ukraine, a sovereign and independent nation-state. 

The Russians have not achieved their goal even though they have inflicted massive death and destruction on the victim country. The question is, what will the Russian government do now?

As I see it, President Putin has three broad choices: 1-continue the war as is, 2-negotiate a peace, 3-escalate the war. 

Since the first option has not gone well, its future is problematical for the Russians. Russia certainly has the military power, and so far the free hand, to terrorize the people, destroy the cities and infrastructure, and kill countless civilians. By bombs, missiles, and artillery, it could go on laying waste to Ukraine. The end result would be for Russia to gain physical control over land but not the people.

As for the second option, negotiated peace, we will return momentarily.

The third option is for Putin to escalate the war. It is clear that the war has not gone well for Putin. Many fear that as he is cornered, he will double down and expand the war to justify his original action. There are several worrying signs of this. One is a new report that he has turned to China for military assistance. Another is that he is charging Ukraine with developing "weapons of mass destruction," aka chemical and biological warfare. This is flatly false and is probably projection of his own intent. Yet another is that on yesterday, the Russians launched a massive attack on a Ukrainian military base only a dozen miles from the Polish border. Poland is a member of NATO. Bringing in China, using gas attacks on civilians, and attacking NATO would move the world at least to the brink of a world war. Putin certainly knows this. A world war would smother the truth of his failed campaign in Ukraine.

The obvious solution to the problems of the first and third options is a peace settlement. To say this will be difficult is a gross understatement. It will be extremely difficult, but still in the realm of possibility. We have to try. We must try.

Do not get me wrong now. In no way would I ever defend Putin. He should be charged, arrested, and tried for war crimes. However, I do think we have to look at Russian history that goes far, far back before Putin. Deep in the Russian psyche is a visceral fear of invasion from the west, and for very good reason. Twice in recent history, not once but twice, Russia bore the brunt of massive attack from the great power of the west, and twice at tremendous cost to herself, Russia absorbed the assault, repulsed and defeated the invader. The Russians have plenty of reason to fear any military force to their west.

The first of these came from Napoleon, the second from Hitler. Both times, the Russian government started out trying to deal in peace with the new rising power of the west. As for Napoleon, the Tsar Alexander I met him in 1807 and made a supposedly permanent peace treaty. Five years later, Napoleon assembled the largest army known up to that time and launched an unprovoked invasion of Russia. The Russians lost battle after battle and hundreds of thousands of soldiers, scorched their own earth, burned their own cities, and refused to surrender. As winter bore down, Napoleon called for a hasty retreat from Moscow. This turned into one of the great military disasters of history. Ten percent of his army survived. Three years later, Napoleon was shipped off to St. Helena under house arrest for the rest of his life. His greatest mistake was invading Russia.

Hitler, a corporal in WWI, thought he was a better general than Napoleon (he was not). He was sure he could win where N had failed. As N, Hitler signed a peace treaty with Russia, the Non-Aggression Pact of 1939. Stalin relaxed as the Germans rolled across western Europe, 1939-41. Again, as N, Hitler threw out the peace treaty and launched the largest invasion in history against Russia, some three million soldiers (more than three times N's army). Caught off guard and unprepared, the Russians could only fall back at first. As with N, they absorbed the fierce blow, and in time launched a counter-attack and, at staggering cost, drove the western invaders out and to defeat and destruction. As the Russians closed in on Berlin, Hitler committed suicide. This was after some 24,000,000 people had been killed in the Soviet Union in WWII, by far the most of any country in the war. 

My point is that the Russian people have good reason to fear the predominate military power to their west. In the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries, they were victims of unprovoked and vastly destructive wars by the great powers of the west and suffered losses that are now almost impossible to fathom. Let us bear that in mind today.

NATO is a defensive alliance. It was set up to defend its member states from attack from an outsider. It was, and is, no threat to Russia, or any other country. In the context of history, however, we should understand if the Russian people are wary of NATO. Here, the great power of the west, the United States this time, has assembled a coalition of countries to the west of Russia. Both Napoleon and Hitler at first claimed they were no threat, and look at what happened. They were really the worst threats imaginable.

So, when Putin talks about a neutral Ukraine, he is drawing from a certain place in Russian history and I think we should be sensitive to that. This, of course, in no way excuses what he is doing, but it does raise what seems to me to be the core of any settlement in the present crisis. If there is to be an "off ramp" for Putin, it has to involve Russian security along its western borders. Somehow, someway, the world has to assure Russia that it will not be invaded by the great power of the west in the Twenty-First Century.

We must find a peaceful solution to the insane disaster occurring in Ukraine today. I see tiny glimmers of hope today. Otherwise, continuing on the war as it is or expanding it will only compound, to whatever degree, the already colossal evil at hand. 

As everyone says, Putin must have an "off ramp" to end this war. I think that ramp is tied in with world history. It is certainly tied in with Russian history. Any settlement has to be done in the context of history.

As matters stand now, the next couple of weeks will be pivotal in world history. The worst war in seventy-five years could well devolve into World War III. Let us hope and pray for a negotiated peace that will be truly a peace on which everyone can rely. The alternative could be armageddonesque catastrophe.

EDGAR CONSECRATED;

YOU ARE PLANTED TO PRODUCE

"You are planted to produce," shouted the preacher from the pulpit of St. Luke and St. Paul, in Charleston, this morning. According to him, God plants his people to bring souls to Christ. Curious point given the history of the schismatic diocese in South Carolina. So, what is the report on the productive work of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina? How well are they doing God's work "to produce"?

Let's look at the statistics from the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina. According to the official reports, the fifty churches that went along with the schism had 21,993 communicants in 2011, just before the schism. In 2020, those same churches reported 11,337 communicants. Thus, since the schism, the ADSC has lost almost half its active members. Although artificially inflated, "baptized members" of ADSC also show decline, from 23,455 in 2012 to 19,597 in 2020. Following the preacher's logic, we would have to conclude that the ADSC is not favored of God.

The whole service of ordination/consecration today struck me as a big festival of vertical religion. It was all about me and Christ. There was no interest at all in my neighbor. The war in Ukraine was never mentioned. The sins of society all around us never gained a nod. Praise to Christ that I am saved repeated endlessly and selfishly. 

(Memo to the good people of ADSC---God is God. He/she does not rely on or even need humans' "praise." A human being's connection to God, essential that it is, is the starting place, not the ending place of religion. God created humans in God's own image to be his/her representatives in the world. Our mission is to do God's work in the world around us. Vertical religion is immature until it reaches its mature horizontal manifestation: faith without works is dead.)

I was a bit put off too by the egregious parading of women and African Americans in the service today. This struck me as obviously cynical by the white men in control. Let us remember that the schism of 2012 was caused by opposition to equality and inclusion of non-celibate gays and of women in the life of the church. The Anglican Church in North America was set up in 2009 explicitly to keep gays out of the church and women in submission. The very reason for being of ACNA is to oppose the God given human rights due to all people.

In ADSC/ACNA, women are made submissive and excluded from authority over men. Women cannot be bishops in ACNA. African Americans are allowed but there are very few. Today I counted 17 bishops present, two of whom were black. ADSC and ACNA were set up to preserve white male power structures. So, putting women and blacks into the service today was not fooling anyone. However, it does suggest that the power structure knows what they are doing.

Another point that stuck me in today's service was the prominence of Steve Wood, the bishop of the ACNA Diocese of the Carolinas. This is the diocese of which Chip Edgar was the dean of the cathedral, in Columbia. Wood is also rector of St. Andrew's, in Mt. Pleasant, a suburb of Charleston. I would not be surprised to see the two ACNA dioceses, ADSC and Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas, merge at some point in the near future. I expect much depends on the upcoming SC Supreme Court decision. If the SCSC rules in favor of TEC, the ADSC will be left with six parishes, none in Charleston. Indeed, the Cathedral Church of St. Luke and St. Paul, the site of today's event, is one of the 29 parishes to be returned to the Episcopal diocese.

Some scenes from the livestream today:

"Chip" Edgar prepares for consecration. The presiding officer is "His Grace," Foley Beach, the "Archbishop" of ACNA. 

The candidate lies prostrate before the altar as a sign of humility and obedience. Note that Mark Lawrence is on Beach's left and Steve Wood is on his right.

The laying on of the hands by the bishops. I counted 17 bishops, 2 African Americans. Most of the bishops here gained apostolic succession through the Episcopal Church. As Episcopal bishops they all took vows to submit to the discipline of the Episcopal Church. Obviously they did not hold those vows very seriously. Since ACNA is not in the Anglican Communion, none of the bishops in this picture will be invited to the Lambeth conference this year, the gathering of all Anglican Communion bishops.

The bishops' wives. In ACNA, women are valuable as help-mates to the men, not as equals.

So, the denomination that broke off from the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of South Carolina, in 2012, goes on with a new bishop into an uncertain future. The first problem it will have is the pending decision of the state supreme court. Either way the court goes, the leaders of ADSC will have a lot of work to do. If they lose, their very existence moving into the future will be in doubt. If they win, they will confront declining membership and resources. Either way, merger with Wood's diocese is a real possibility. The prominence of Beach and Wood today perhaps foreshadows this. All in all, the contingent that left TEC in 2012 has not fared well. In the long run, it is not likely to fare well either. A religion devoted to discrimination against gays and women does not have a bright future in a society that is increasingly repudiating that discrimination. 

BISHOP LAWRENCE'S SWAN SONG

The Anglican Diocese of South Carolina is holdings its annual meeting today, 11 March 2022. This is its tenth annual session. The ADSC was formed in 2012 when the majority of clergy and laity of the Diocese of South Carolina left the diocese, and the Episcopal Church, to form a new denomination resolved to keep non-celibate gays and women from equality and inclusion in the life of the church. By federal court order and injunction of 2019, the ADSC is not allowed to claim to be in any way the pre-schism diocese. The Episcopal diocese is the only legal and legitimate heir of the old diocese.

I can find no mention of a livestream on the ADSC website of today's meeting, so I assume there will be none. 

The highlight of today's conference will be Bishop Mark Lawrence's swan song address, his last as bishop. This address will be posted on the ADSC website at some time. Afterwards, I will return with comments on it. I expect it to be a review of his fourteen years as bishop, nine as head of the breakaway contingent. It will be interesting to get his take on the monumental events of these years and what he sees as his legacy and the future of the new denomination.

On tomorrow, "Chip" Edgar will be ordained and consecrated a bishop by ADSC's parent, the Anglican Church in North America. This will be a self-generated event since the ADSC and ACNA are not in the Anglican Communion and are not recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Tomorrow's event will be livestreamed. I expect to make a report on it here.

Apparently, Lawrence will resign as bishop by the end of this month and Edgar will become the diocesan bishop of ADSC. This makes Lawrence's address of today all the more germane.

NOTE. 12 March, 6 p.m.   Lawrence's address still has not been posted on the ADSC website. I expect we will have to wait a few more days until we have it. I will return with comments after it appears. Interesting to note that Lawrence played only a minor role in today's consecration and said nothing on his own. He stepped aside and allowed Edgar to take the bishop's throne. I did not hear the word "coadjutor" once in today's proceeding. 

CHRISTIAN LEADERS AND THE EVIL OF WAR,

Part II

On Feb. 25, 2022, I posted a piece on this blog, "Christian Leaders and the Evil of War." Eleven days have elapsed now since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It is time to revisit the topic. How are Christian leaders doing in their reactions to this war?

First, before we talk about "the evil of war," it is useful to go back to the concept of good and evil and its corollary, moral and immoral. What do we mean by these terms? When we call something such as war "evil," what are we saying?

In my view, in its most simplistic sense, "good" is what was defined and described in the first chapter of Genesis. The word "good" appears in the KJV  chapter a total of seven times. At the end of each day, God looked around and called creation "good." At the end of the sixth day, in Verse 31, we read, "And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." Each day was "good," but the totality was "very good."

Two points about this. Firstly, the term, "very good," in Verse 31, is unqualified. It is unconditional. Secondly, the concept of evil does not appear in the story of the creation in the first chapter of Genesis. God's creation is entirely and purely good.

So, when does evil appear and why does it appear? The word evil first appears in Genesis 2:9 in the description of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Evil does not come from God but rather from humans who know the difference between good and evil and choose to do evil.

Now, for definitions. Following Genesis, I would describe "good" as that which defends, enhances, and promotes God's creation, all of it. "Evil" I would describe as the opposite, that is, whatever threatens, diminishes, and destroys God's creation.

Enacting these forces comes from moral and immoral behavior. Moral behavior would be acts that strive for the good. Immoral behavior would be choosing to do acts that promote evil.

War is a dilemma in the context of good and evil. Not all wars are evil. Since people have a right of self-preservation, a defensive war is not evil and waging it is not immoral (although there can be a fine line between what is defensive and what is offensive; e.g., was dropping two atomic bombs on Japan defensive?). All other kinds of war are evil because they are the wanton destruction of God's creation.

The choice to do good and evil is just that, choice. Even Jesus had to make the choice as we read in Sunday's Gospel lesson. Satan tempted him as much as he could and offered him all sorts of worldly benefits if he would follow evil. Every time, Jesus spurned the devil and rejected evil. Every one of us has to choose every day between good and evil.

Russia's present war on Ukraine is a flagrant, blatant case of an evil and immoral war. It is an unprovoked, unjustified, aggressive, and vicious war against a peaceful neighbor. It is evil in its most naked form because it is wholesale destruction of God's creation.

There is no need to describe here the events of this satanic war. We all see the sickening horrors on our televisions and computers. We all see in graphic detail the murderous attacks and the heartbreaking sufferings of the innocent people. Anyone with a shred of decency longs to help the helpless and innocent victims. In sum, the evil (so far) is: unprovoked and aggressive war, indiscriminate attacks on civilians, refusal to honor safe passages, and the shelling of nuclear power plants. These are all war crimes punishable under international law.

Having described good and evil, moral and immoral, and shown the Russian war against Ukraine to be evil, the question turns to how people who want to do good should react to evil. What should people of faith do now? I see two possible categories of reactions, passive and active. Passive would be a person calling on God to intervene and bring an end to the immoral acts of other people. Active would be a person taking direct action to defeat the evil and aid the good. The Scriptures give us both of these.

In the Gospels, the first active response that jumps to mind is Jesus' cleansing of the temple in Jerusalem. Seeing that money changers and merchants had made the temple "a den of thieves," Jesus made a whip of cords, poured out the money of the changers, overturned their tables, and cast out the pigeon sellers. John 2:13,16, Matthew 21:12-13. In other words, Jesus did not stand passively bewailing this evil and calling on God to change the hearts of the wrongdoers. He took upon himself to get rid of evil. This was active morality. Interesting to note that this was such an important event that it was recounted in all four Gospels. In fact, there is some speculation that this was so powerful that it stirred up opposition that led to Jesus' execution.

Thus, in regard to the war in Ukraine, good people can act passively and actively. We have had plenty of passive with countless prayers for "peace." The problem I see with calling on God to intervene is that God is not a puppeteer pulling the strings of human action. That would negate free will that is a central tenet of ethical religion. People must be free to make their own choices between good and evil and be held accountable for their choices. This is the lesson of Adam and Eve. If we put every event as God's choice, we would have to blame him for the Holocaust. God did not make the Holocaust, immoral human beings making evil choices on a colossal scale did.

While we are praying for "peace," what can we do actively to counter evil? Hard to tell since the situation is rapidly changing drastically. I would start by sending material aid directly to the victims of evil in Ukraine. Every bit of humanitarian goods should be rushed in by train and truck to wherever the deliverers can take it. The people who are suffering the most need our help the most. I am sure you can think of other ways of direct action for good.

As for direct action to make the Russian government stop the war, I cannot see it at this point. Diplomacy should be pursued as much as possible, of course. However, President Putin has shown absolutely no interest in scaling down or stopping this war, quite the opposite. The very heavy sanctions western countries have put on Russia will likely not move Putin.

So, back to the point of how Christian leaders are doing in response to the evil of this war. Overall, I would give them a "B," good but not great. The pope, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Archbishop of Canterbury have all spoken out forcefully condemning the war. Find the latest from the pope here , the Patriarch here , and the Archbishop here . Each is finding passive and active roles to play. The three leading figures in the Christian world today have been remarkably strong in their condemnation of this war, and for that we should all be proud.

Adding to the complication of the day is the fact that the church in Ukraine has a peculiar history and is now divided into three unfriendly parts. More than a thousand years ago, the people of Ukraine adopted the Eastern Orthodox version of Christianity from Constantinople. The Patriarch of Moscow came to control the church. Along the way, some Ukrainian bishops transferred their allegiance to the pope in Rome while keeping the Orthodox forms of worship becoming "Uniates," or Ukrainian Catholics. This remains an important force. After Ukraine became an independent country some thirty years ago, the Orthodox church pushed to gain independence from Moscow. In 2018, the Patriarch of Constantinople, head of the Eastern Orthodox churches, recognized the independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This is now the largest of the three branches. However, Kirill, the Patriarch of Moscow, refused to go along. He insisted on his primacy in Ukraine and recognized his own church under the Moscow patriarchy.

There has been speculation that Kirill encouraged President Putin to invade Ukraine as a way of his (Kirill) regaining control over the Orthodox church there. We do not know yet how much truth there may be in this. What we do know about Kirill does not dampen the speculation. Find a his recent statement here . In my opinion, any church official who would incite, or even encourage, a war for his own benefit would forfeit his right to represent the Prince of Peace.

The independent Orthodox patriarch in Ukraine has spoken out very strongly against the Russian invasion. Find his statement here . There has been a report that he called President Putin the "anti-Christ." Although the emotion is understandable, I do not think we need go that far while we condemn Putin's actions.

Interesting to note that Kirill's patriarch in Kyiv has also condemned the Russian invasion in no uncertain terms. Find his address here . If Kirill aims to restore his authority in Ukraine, he is not getting much help from his own people there.

The farther away from Ukraine one gets, the less interest there seems to be in addressing the war. I have been disappointed by the lackluster response of the Episcopal Church. An institution that has devoted its life to human rights for decades now seems lukewarm toward a most violent assault on human rights. To be sure, Bishop Woodliff-Stanley has issued appropriate statements in support of Ukraine. 

The Anglican dissidents seem even less interested in what is happening in Ukraine. I have seen no response at all from GAFCON which claims to be founded on principles of morality. There has been a mild response from the Anglican Church in North America. Find it here . I have seen no response at all from Bishop Lawrence or bishop-elect Edgar of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina. Thankfully, someone among the beakaways is speaking out. The Rev. Al Zadig, of St. Michael's, Charleston, condemned the war as "evil." Find it here .

It has been gratifying to see practically the whole world uniting to condemn this war and support the victims. In a recent vote in the United Nations General Assembly, only 4 of the 193 nations voted with Russia against a resolution on the war. NATO and the European Union are resolutely united in support of Ukraine. Along with the Americans, they have imposed harsh sanctions on Russia for this war.

And in the midst of the horrors of this war we see amazing acts of grace, mostly from ordinary, everyday people who know the difference between good and evil and are choosing to do good. Just look at the countless thousands of average citizens in neighboring countries who have rushed to the borders to welcome in the desperate refugees. They are offering food, drink, clothing, rides, jobs, housing, you name it. If this does not warm your heart, nothing will. And, what about the heroic doctors and nurses staying behind to tend the sick and dying, at their own peril? God is with them. Too, as a big railroad fan, I want to give a shout out to the RR staff in Ukraine who are keeping the trains running 24/7 taking out thousands of people free of charge. Without the trains, these people would be left to suffer and die in this war. Anyone who thinks we do not need trains anymore should think again. Moreover, what about the thousands of ordinary Russians who are braving persecution and prison by speaking out against the evil of this war? Plus, what about the diminutive president Zelensky of Ukraine, "the Jewish Churchill"? He has arisen to the occasion.

All in all, we should all be inspired by the vast moral reaction to the egregious horror of immorality now transpiring in Ukraine. People all around the world are arising to denounce and oppose evil. In this dark hour, amazing grace abounds.