LEAVING CHRIST CHURCH ALL GUNS BLAZING

The non-Episcopal clergy who have been occupying Christ Church parish, of Mt. Pleasant, held their last service today on the property. They held nothing back at their departure. They went out in a blaze of self-righteous anger and bitterness. The Rev. Ted Duvall delivered a homily blasting the Episcopal Church and doing his best to rally the congregation:  "We will not serve their gods!"

Find Duvall's address HERE  @ 35:30-55:30.

Among the highlights (or lowlights as the case may be) of his sermon, he ridiculed toleration and inclusivity---if you oppose those who claim toleration and inclusivity, you will be excluded, he declared. (He gave no evidence or example.) He went on to denounce lawsuits and other "assaults of sin." (In fact, the Anglican diocese started the lawsuit in SC.) Then he arose to a pitch to rail against "revisions, distortions, and heresies of faith" to loud applause. He even threw in the two previous presiding bishops for good measure before declaring boldly: "We will not serve their gods!" Whew, no one could miss the meaning of all this.

Interesting that Duvall did not address the direct cause of the schism. He did not mention gays or homosexuals one time. Nor did he mention that his father was Episcopal bishop of Central Gulf Coast for twenty years.

He seemed especially bitter about the court decision but then veered into what sounded like a slight dig at the Anglican diocese for not standing together. (The Anglican diocese refused to appeal to the SCSC for a rehearing of the April 20 decision. The diocese left it up to the 8 parishes alone to ask for rehearing.) Actually, Duvall has plenty of reason to feel badly toward the Anglican diocese considering that he would not be leaving the property if the diocese had accepted the Episcopal Church offer in 2015 to surrender claim of the parishes in return for the entity of the old diocese. The Anglican diocesan leaders offhandedly rejected this generous offer. He has no one to blame but his own leaders. 

Finally, Duvall called on the congregation to stand (literally) together, clasp hands and go forth as one. Apparently, this was the point of the whole service, to bond the congregation so that they all leave the premises together and no one stays behind for the Episcopal restoration.

Over the summer, the parish had carried out the anti-Episcopal Church teaching program that had been developed by the Anglican diocesan leaders in 2018 when they thought they would be surrendering 29 parishes. So, there has been plenty of anti-Episcopal propaganda at Christ Church. Today was simply the parting shot on the property that belongs to the Episcopal diocese. 

The attitude at Christ Church today was a contrast to the two earlier instances of parish restoration. St. John's, of Johns Island, and St. David's, of Cheraw, both showed commendable good will to the clergy and people who would come behind them. Both cases made the transition cordially.

The Rev. Furman Buchanan will become the new priest at Christ Church upon appointment of the Episcopal bishop. If today's event was a warning, I would say he is in for a lot of work in rebuilding this ancient parish that has been deeply racked by schism.

All the while we are seeing the human toll of the schism in South Carolina. At the time of the schism, it was the Episcopalians who had to leave the 50 local churches that went along with the break. In 10 cases, they formed worshiping communities that met wherever they could find space. It was not easy for them. Now we are seeing the effects on the other side. No one has been left untouched by the destruction of the old diocese.

Yet, the schism did not have to happen. Those who opposed the reforms of the Episcopal Church did not have to leave. Provision was made for them to remain and keep their own views. This remains the case.

I estimate that the schism has cost around ten million dollars in legal fees. This is nothing compared to the human cost. And, all for something that did not have to happen at all. It is a shame and a scandal.

Finally, I think we should all keep the Rev. Duvall and the others out there hurting today in our prayers. They are obviously upset. Let us pray they, and all people caught up in this unfortunate schism find peace.

There are only two great commandments, love God and love one's neighbor as oneself. Love is the operative word in both. I think we need to remember that today.  

CHRIST CHURCH, OF MT. PLEASANT, PREPARES FOR RETURN TO ANCESTRAL CHURCH

The present occupants of Christ Church, of Mt. Pleasant SC, are preparing to vacate the premises under the court-ordered restoration of the property to the Episcopal Church. Christ Church was one of the eight parishes the South Carolina Supreme Court declared to be property of the Episcopal Church and its diocese. This will be the third of the eight to make the transfer.

On Saturday, August 27th, at 9:00 a.m. there will be a blessing of the property called a "Campus Prayer Walk." The announcement reads:  "The Prayer Team, Vestry, and Contingency committee invites you to join us for a prayer walk amongst our worship spaces and the cemetery as we bless the grounds, pray for our parish and its people, and also those who will come after us in these spaces. All welcome."

On Sunday, August 28, at 10:00 a.m. there will be a final service of the present occupants:  "A Service of Thanksgiving, Lament, and New Life." This will be followed by a bar-b-que lunch provided by Church of the Cross.

At some undesignated time afterwards, the occupants will turn over the keys to the Episcopal diocese.

On the next Sunday, September 4, there will be no service.

Sunday, September 11, at 10:00, the clergy of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina will lead an assembly of their followers to start a new congregation called "Christ Church Anglican." It is set to meet in Jennie Moore Elementary School, of Mt. Pleasant.

On that day, the group will be joined by the bishop who presided over the 2012 secession from the Episcopal Church, Mark Lawrence. He will speak to the "Adult Discipleship" group on "Hearing God's Voice: the ABCs of Spiritual Discernment." Lawrence also showed up at the first service of the departed "Anglican" congregation in Cheraw. 

I wonder if anyone in the old Christ Church group will remind Lawrence that they (and all the others of the eight now in transition) would still be in their old properties if the diocesan leadership had accepted the Episcopal Church offer of June 2015 when the Church proposed to surrender claim to all of the local parishes in return for the entity of the old diocese. As bishop, Lawrence was the ultimate authority of the Anglican diocese at that time. (The Anglicans' excuse that this was not a sincere offer was not true. In fact, both the presiding bishop and the national church attorney had signed off on the offer.) 

Find more of Christ Church's transition HERE. 

The Episcopal diocese has announced that the Rev. Furman Buchanan will lead the restoration of the Episcopal Church in Christ Church parish. More about this will be forthcoming from the diocesan office. Find the diocesan press release about this HERE.

 

THE STATUS OF THE SCHISM,

25 AUGUST 2022

This is a convenient moment to stop and take stock of the where we are in the history of the schism in South Carolina. At least we can try to do that. There has been so much going on all around us that it is easy to get lost in the confusion. So, let's try to straighten things out and get a grasp of the relative positions of the two dioceses as of this point. Since I am not a part of either diocese in question, I do not have access to the inner workings, nor do I wish to have. I am an independent voice. So, all of my information comes from printed sources of the dioceses, the court papers, and information provided on the record. Here is what I see now:

The South Carolina Supreme Court issued a third "final" decision on the church case on 17 August 2022. It revoked and replaced its earlier two "final" decisions (2 August 2017 and 20 April 2022). As of the third SCSC iteration, the new Anglican diocese gets 27 (the 28th is St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant, a part of the ACNA Diocese of the Carolinas) of the 36 parishes in the lawsuit of 2013. The Episcopal diocese gets 8 of the 36.

Is this final? Who knows? The only thing we finally know for sure from the SCSC is that there is no finality with this bench. These justices revoked and replaced two earlier majority decisions as if that were just routine business. They showed no qualms about it. What is to keep them from doing it again? If I were an attorney on either side, I would file everything I could with the SCSC hoping something would stick. Twice the court agreed to overturn its own majority decisions. 

I am not a legal expert, but I have never heard of a supreme court, state or federal, revoking, TWICE, its own majority decisions on the same case. Now, to be sure, the U.S. Supreme Court has revoked and replaced settled law, most famously in the Brown case of 1954 which replaced the Plessy decision of 1896 (integration replaced segregation) and the Dobbs case of 2022 which replaced the Roe decision of 1973 (removed constitutional protection of abortion). However, in both instances, these were two different cases. The church case in South Carolina was the same case, judged three times in three different and contradictory ways.

All we can say, then, is the SCSC order as of this moment. It is that 8 of the original 36 plaintiff parishes now belong to the Episcopal diocese:

---Holy Trinity, Charleston

---St. Bartholomew's, Hartsville

---St. David's, Cheraw

---St. James, James Island, Charleston

---St. John's, Johns Island, Charleston

---St. Matthew's, Ft. Motte

---Good Shepherd, Charleston

---Christ Church, Mt. Pleasant

Of these 8, 2 have actually made the transfer of the property: St. John's, of Johns Island, and St. David's, of Cheraw. These events were cordial by all accounts. One more has set a transfer at the end of this month, Christ Church, of Mt. Pleasant. To my knowledge, the other five have not yet publicly announced details of their transfers.

At the time of the schism, in 2012, 50 of the 70 or so local churches (parishes and missions) adhered to the separation from the Episcopal Church. Of those, 36 entered the lawsuit against the Episcopal Church in 2013. By my unofficial count, there were about a dozen churches that went along with the separatists but did not enter the lawsuit. These are ones I have identified in this group. There are others:

---Barnwell, Holy Apostles

---Dillon, St. Barnabas

---Florence, Christ Church

---Goose Creek, St. James

---Grahamville, Holy Trinity

---Hagood, Church of the Ascension

---Marion, The Advent

---Orangeburg, St. Paul's

---Pineville, Church of the Redeemer

---Sullivans Island, Holy Cross

The last is the only large parish in this line up. Since these local churches were not in the lawsuit, the court has not ruled on their placement. It is possible the Episcopal diocese could go to court to recover these properties. That would be entirely up to the authorities of the diocese, their counsel, and the national church lawyers. I have heard nothing about what they intend to do concerning these churches but will relay information as I receive it. My guess is that the Church would have to prove that each one had "adopted" or "acceded" to the Dennis Canon after 1979 and before 2006 since this is unfortunately the du jour standard of judgment in the SCSC.

The local churches were not the only properties in question before the SCSC. The court also ruled (all three times) that the Episcopal diocese is the owner of the old diocesan properties, as Camp St. Christopher. I presume that these diocesan property transfers are either underway or will be so soon although I have no hard evidence of this.

As for the two dioceses themselves, both are trying to find their ways forward, under new leadership, as they try to deal with the chaotic rulings of the state's high court. It is not easy. On top of this, both are still struggling with the effects of the pandemic on church membership and participation. All churches seem to be searching for ways to rebuild after the long closures and restrictions of 2020-21. 

Before Covid, the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina was already losing members steadily. By its own statistics, its 50 local churches went from 23,455 baptized members in 2012 to 19,597 in 2020. This was a loss of 3,858, or 16%, in the 8 years. Communicant numbers (active members) dropped even faster, from 17,812 in 2012 to 11,327 in 2020, a fall of 6,485, or 36% in the 8 years. At this rate of decline, the viability of this diocese will become problematical within a few years. This gives credence to the idea that the ADSC will melt into the Diocese of the Carolinas, also in the Anglican Church in North America. Its head is Steve Wood, of St. Andrew's, of Mt. Pleasant.

Meanwhile, the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina is trying to hold its own with some 7,400 members, up some 2,000 since the schism of 2012. Its biggest problem at the moment is how to reestablish church life in the 8 restored parishes. So far so good in the two that have returned, St. John's and St. David's. Both have outstanding clergy and strong bands of faithful church people. Their futures look promising.

Now, back to the litigation. Since the start, in 2013, the legal war has been waged on two fronts, state court and federal court. In state court, the secessionists sued the Episcopal Church for the entity of the old diocese and possession of the 36 parishes. This is the case that the SCSC ruled on for the third time a few days ago. As we have seen, there is no finality, there is no closure on this front. Your guess of where this is going to go from here is as good as mine.

The federal track is different. There, the Episcopal bishop sued the separatist bishop essentially for the rights to the pre-schism diocese. After some six years, the federal district court in Charleston agreed that the Episcopal diocese was the one and only legal heir of the old diocese. He even issued an Injunction forbidding the pretenders from claiming in any way to be the old diocese. He proclaimed that the separatists had formed a new entity after the schism. (Actually, the SCSC had agreed that that Episcopal diocese was the heir of the old diocese; and it reiterated this in 2022 and again in 2022). 

The ADSC appealed the district court order to the United State Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. This court has set the appeal aside until the SCSC finishes its ruling on the case (I wonder how the appeals judges will know when SCSC finishes). In my opinion, the appeals court will uphold the lower court because Judge Gergel's opinion is brilliantly written to be virtually appeal-proof and because the SCSC has consistently opined that the Episcopal diocese is the heir. Odds are that the Episcopal diocese will finally wind up with the legal entity of the old diocese (along with all of its assets).

This summarizes where the Episcopal Church schism in lower SC stands of today, or at least my view of it. I wish fervently that we could say that the end is in view, that closure is at hand. Alas, this is not the case. Unfortunately, there is more to come on this long and rocky road and so we must summon up the strength and courage to press on until the day comes when we can close the book on this saddest of episodes.    

We will soon be marking ten years since the schism occurred. With this in mind, I expect to be posting several articles of thoughts on the history of the schism. Until then, peace.

______________________

BTW, there is a good summary of the state of the schism in SC in the latest The Living Church magazine. Find it HERE . To my surprise, the author, Kirk Petersen, points out my work. I am happy to say that my history of the schism, Kindle version, often places among the top works on the Episcopal Church, on Amazon. I am gratified that people find it of interest and use. Long and detailed, it tells one everything one needs to know, and probably more than one wants to know, about the background and events of the schism up to August of 2017 and the first SCSC decision. What has happened in the five years since then would fill another volume. I would not start one until the schism has finality and closure, and God only knows when that will be. Anyway, it has been my privilege to write the history of the schism and to keep this blog. It is a labor of love.  

 

A NOTE TO THE EPISCOPALIANS OF SOUTH CAROLINA

The messages I am getting from church people in lower South Carolina these days are, well, pretty strong. They range from complete bewilderment to rage. Emotions are running high. I will admit, mine are too. I can validate every one of them. So, what do we do with those feelings?

I am writing to you as something of a Dutch uncle:

What we do not want to do is let the feelings overwhelm us. I will tell you of a case, extreme to be sure, where bad feelings turned inward to destruction, as an example of what can happen. Years ago in my home church there was a family that had two children, sons in their late teens, nicest young men you could imagine. I taught them in Sunday School. One day they were shopping in Blockbuster when a robber shot to death the two clerks and then turned and shot to death the two brothers just because they were witnesses. The parents were heartbroken to say the least, especially the father. His rage against the murderer knew no bounds. (The murderer was tried and convicted, then died soon thereafter of natural causes in prison.) The father once told me that no one could know the pain unless he had gone through it. I could not disagree. Long story short, he never made peace with his loss and died a few years later, basically of a broken heart. In a way, he was the fifth victim.

So, as we look back at what the South Carolina Supreme Court did this week, here is what I think. You have plenty of reason to feel bad. In my view, the SCSC rendered injustice. They did not settle the legal issues of the schism. They gave out three different decisions in five years, each one rubbing salt in the wounds of the good people on both sides. At first they snatched 29 parishes away from the breakaways, then they took 15 parishes away from the Episcopalians, and then they snatched another 6 away from the Episcopalians. Worst of all, they did not deliver closure. In my opinion, the SCSC failed in its duty. You have plenty of reason to feel bad, so own those feelings.

Very often, the best way to handle bad feelings is to channel them into good causes. Find ways to make life better in your own little world. Work with your church. Work with charities in your community. 

I think it is also helpful at this point to draw back and look at the big picture again. Remember why you are Episcopalians and why you are caught in this unfortunate mess. Years ago, the Episcopal Church came to champion equality for and inclusion of all people in the life of the church regardless of race, gender, disability, or sexual orientation. It still does. Yet, in lower South Carolina there were church leaders who rejected this, particularly the part about homosexuals. They led a secession from the Episcopal Church to keep some people (gays) from having the same place in the church they had. They had a similar view of women. So, you Episcopalians are in this because you chose to stand for human rights. This is a noble cause. Do not forget that.

Meanwhile, listen to what your bishop has TO SAY. She is a wise woman.

Finally, to get back to basics, remember the two great commandments, to love God and our neighbors as ourselves. We cannot control what other people do. We can only control our own choices. 

The most common complaint I have heard from people for years is exhaustion. I am just worn out with it all. It never ends. I cannot stand any more. I am dropping out and tuning off. These are valid feelings too but I think ultimately misleading. You did not ask for this fight. It was given to you the way the time of your life was given to you. You did not have a choice. The choice that you do have is how to react to it all. If you believe that your side is right, you must summon up the courage and strength to fight for it. Would America have turned away from Japan after Pearl Harbor? Would England have turned away from Germany after the Battle of Britain? Of course not. 

I am weary too, but I learned in my academic years of the 1960's that truth and justice are never ending struggles. One must soldier on for what one knows to be true and right. 

When all is said and done, this is God's universe. He made it. It has order and purpose. We cannot always understand it but it is there nevertheless. Meanwhile we are here to do our best to carry out God's work in the time that was allotted to us. Let us fight the good fight; let us keep the faith. Peace.

LOOKING FOR ORDER IN CHAOS

"Order in the court" is something sorely needed in the church case in South Carolina. 

I must confess, I have always hated disorder in things because disorder has no discernible meaning or comprehension. It is just confusion. Order, on the other hand, gives us a reasonable pattern that we can comprehend. It has meaning. Now, order by itself is not inherently good. A mafia family may have a very clear order but the effect of this order would not be good. And so we must strive not just for order, but for the moral order. Thus, for the past two days I have been searching for the order in the work of the South Carolina Supreme Court. Unfortunately, I have not gotten very far.  I refuse to give up. I spent practically my whole life of nearly eighty years looking for order in history. I am not about to quit now. Anyway, here are my thoughts on the chaos in the SCSC as of this moment for what they are worth.

My usual disclaimer---I am not a lawyer or legal expert and what I offer here is only opinion.

Our first challenge is to understand the three different opinions issued by the SCSC. What do they say? What do the justices say they say? This is a great deal of the problem causing the chaos in the court.

Opinion # 1. August 2, 2017. Three majority decisions: 1-28 [actually 29] of the 36 parishes in the suit are property of the Episcopal Church, 2-8 [actually 7] of the 36 parishes in question own their properties outright, and 3-the old diocesan properties belong to the Episcopal Church diocese. All three of these decisions were listed on the last page of the Opinion; each supported by three of the five justices.

The justices denied the breakaways' petition for rehearing and sent a Remittitur (an order for implementation) to the lower court. The breakaways asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case; SCOTUS refused. At this point the Aug. 2 Opinion became the closed law of the case.

The circuit judge ignored the order of Remittitur. He recognized only one of the three majority decisions, the one about the seven parishes; and he ordered its implementation. He reversed the other two decisions and found all parishes outside TEC control and all diocesan properties to be with the breakaways.

Opinion # 2. April 20, 2022. Denied the finality of the Aug. 2 decision. Declared that the Aug. 2 Opinion had not reached any conclusion but had given only five different opinions, none of which gained a majority. Ignored the fact that there were three majority decisions in the Aug. 2 paper. Implied that the rulings of whether the individual parishes fell under the Dennis Canon remained to be determined even though the justices on Aug. 2 had declared a result for all of the 36 parishes in question.

Two justices in 2022 had been on the 2017 panel (Chief Justice Beatty, and Justice Kittredge). Neither one defended the Aug. 2 Opinion per se. Beatty claimed he had not supported the majority decision even though he was the only one of the five justices in 2017 to vote in the majority on all three points. In the 2017 paper he had said he joined the majority that the 28 [29] had formed irrevocable trusts for TEC. In 2022 he declared the circuit judge had done what the SCSC expected of him even though the SCSC had assigned a Remittitur to the lower court. In 2017 Justice Kittredge had said the 29 parishes were under the Dennis Canon. He now joined the opinion that only some of them were. On the issue of the 28 [29] both Beatty and Kittredge appeared to reverse their opinions between 2017 and 2022. The reasons for this remain hidden.

The Opinion of April 20, 2022, was written by Justice Few who had had nothing to do with the 2017 Opinion. He joined the court later. He went parish by parish looking at the words in their documents for evidence of adherence to the Dennis Canon. He took a strict approach which boiled down to two words: accession and adoption. If a parish used a form of one of these words, they were under the Dennis Canon. If they did not, they were not under the Dennis Canon regardless of what other declarations they made to follow the laws of the Episcopal Church. He concluded that 15 of the 29 had not fallen under the Dennis Canon while 14 had done so. He ordered the 14 to prepare and register the legal documents recognizing Episcopal Church ownership of their properties. He declared absolute finality in the case: From our decision today, there will be no remand. The case is over.

Thus, the Apr. 20, 2022 decision replaced the 2017 majority order that 29 parishes were property of the Episcopal Church. It was now 14. This was the only significant change from 2107. The new decision retained the other two majority decisions of 2017. It kept TEC ownership of the old diocesan properties. The only real change in Opinion # 2 was to move 15 parishes from TEC ownership to local ownership. It just so happened that most of the big parishes wound up in this group. Coincidence?

Opinion # 3. August 17, 2022. This paper revoked two points of the April order. It reopened the case after it had declared the case closed. It removed 6 parishes from the list of the 14 that it had ordered to register the documents of Episcopal ownership. It did so by greatly narrowing the criteria under which a parish could fall under the Dennis Canon. It essentially declared that any parish that had promised loyalty to the Episcopal Church before 1979 (TEC's adoption of the Dennis Canon) or after 2006 (trusts made after 2006 could be unilaterally revoked under state law) were exempt from the Canon. This had not been a part of the supposedly final decision of April 20. Thus, the August decision denied and replaced the two earlier SCSC decisions of 2017 and 2022.

As it stands now (and who knows how long this will last?) two of the three majority decisions of 2017 remain intact: the Episcopal Church diocese owns the pre-schism diocesan properties, and 2-7 parishes own their own properties. It is the third majority decision of 2017 that has been essentially reversed. In 2017, the SCSC recognized TEC ownership of 29 of the 36 parishes in question. By Opinion # 3, the SCSC recognized TEC ownership of 8 of the 36. Between August of 2017 and August of 2022, the SCSC removed 21 parishes from the Episcopal Church diocese of SC. This is the only big change between 2017 and 2022.

The looming question of the day, then, is why the state supreme court moved the bulk of the local parish properties from the Episcopal Church to the local parish. This goes to motive and that is something that is ultimately hidden to us. We simply cannot know the justices' private reasons. Their stated reasons are not convincing. Their parsing of words to reach their conclusions is strained at the least. Their offhand denials and reversals of earlier majority decisions is bewildering, and I think a bit suspicious. All we can know is the political sources of the state courts in South Carolina. All state judges and justices are elected by the state legislature for terms. Everyone knows South Carolina is a very socially conservative state virtually controlled by Republicans. Everyone also knows the schism is part of the culture war, the Episcopal side for freedom, equality, and inclusion of gays, transgendered, and women, and the breakaway side against. It is not surprising that the majority public opinion in South Carolina favors the breakaways.

It strikes me that the SCSC decisions are not just chaotic, they are internally contradictory. On one hand, they justices viewed the parishes as able to accept or deny a canon of the national church. They are now saying all the parishes had the right to chose or not the Dennis Canon. On the other hand, the justices viewed the Episcopal Church diocese as the heir, and owner, of the pre-schism diocese and its property. This was because the Episcopal Church was hierarchical. So, a parish does not have to obey church law but a diocese does. This is contradictory. Either the Episcopal Church is hierarchical (it is) or it is not. If it is hierarchical, it rules over all lower units as dioceses and parishes. They are not independent units allowed to govern themselves outside of the laws of the General Convention. If TEC decides on dioceses, it also decides on parishes.

And so, what all this suggests is that the fight in South Carolina has always been about the local churches. It was never about the diocese. In this, the breakaways' lawyers have pulled off a stunning success, snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. First defeated at 29 of the 36 against them, they are now victorious at 28 of the 36 for them. Hats off to these intrepid attorneys. 

Of course, this story is also full of what-might-have-beens. I see two major mistakes the breakaway side made along the way. In the first, they off-handily dismissed the TEC offer in June of 2015 to swap all of the local parishes for the diocese. If they had taken that, all 36 parishes would now be self-owning. Why they rejected the offer is another mystery. My only guess is that they thought they would win it all in the state supreme court. The were shocked at the 2017 decision. In the second, the 7 parishes that chose not to petition the SCSC for rehearing after the April 2022 decision. Perhaps there was a good chance that at least some of them could have won, just as 6 did win their petitions for rehearing, and their properties. Why some parishes chose not to file for rehearing is yet another mystery. I supposed we would have to ask them.

The big mistake on the TEC side was to litigate this case as individual parish accession to the Dennis Canon. TEC is hierarchical and as such it governs the local parishes. Local churches do not have the right to pick and choose which church laws they will follow and which they will not. That is not the way hierarchy works. Leaving it up to whether an individual parish had acceded to the Dennis Canon opened the door to subjective judgments and that is where we arrived in 2022. The justices then narrowly defined the criteria. If the church lawyers had argued all along for hierarchy, whether a parish had acceded to the Dennis Canon would not have been an option. 

So, if we are at end in state court (and that is saying a lot) where do things stand in the schism? It is roughly half and half. The Episcopal diocese has the pre-schism diocese and all of its properties and other assets, particularly Camp St. Christopher. It also has a fraction of the parishes (a quarter of the parishes in dispute). It is in the Anglican Communion. The separatist side has the vast bulk of the local churches including all of the large parishes (except Grace) and the big majority of the communicants from the old diocese. It is not in the Anglican Communion.

The essential difference between the two? It is now and always has been social policy. The breakaways broke away to keep homosexuals from equality and inclusion in the life of the church. Throw in the transgendered, and even women after they joined the Anglican Church in North America which does not allow women to hold positions of authority over men. Of course, the breakaways complain loudly that it is not about gays, it is about the Bible. This is just rationalization. It is about gays, always has been.

These are my thoughts of the day. I am going to keep on looking for order.

One other thought---a lot of people are asking if the legal fight in the SCSC is over. I wish I knew. Twice the SCSC said the case was closed and then turned around and reopened it. In 2017 they refused rehearing. In April of 2022 they said case closed without possibility of reopen. Both times they reneged and reopened the case to change the previous decision(s). Who's to say they won't do it again? The one thing this court has established absolutely is that there is no finality with them. If I were a lawyer on either side, I would throw all the spaghetti I could find at the wall to see what sticks.    

Your thoughts are just as important as mine. Tell me what you think. Send to email above. Peace.     

 

CHAOS IN COLUMBIA

The South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled again on the church case. Find today's Order and Opinion HERE .

This is the THIRD time the SCSC has issued a majority opinion on this case, each one contradicting the one before. This has created a situation of chaos. In my opinion, it is an embarrassment to the court and the state; it is damaging to the judicial system and the rule of law in South Carolina.

In 2013, the new breakaway diocese and 36 parishes brought suit against the Episcopal Church claiming possession of the pre-schism diocese and properties of the 36 parishes. On August 2, 2017, the SC Supreme Court ruled by majority opinion that 29 of the 36 had adhered to the Dennis Canon and were property of the Episcopal Church along with the old diocesan properties. 

The SCSC remitted their decision to the circuit court for implementation. The circuit judge chose to recognize only one majority opinion---the 7 parishes that were found to own the properties. He rejected the rest and replaced it with his own order finding all in favor of the breakaway diocese.

The Episcopal side appealed the circuit court's order back to the SCSC. The SCSC issued a second majority opinion on April 20, 2022, discarding the majority opinion of 2017 and declaring that 14 of the original 36 were property of the Episcopal Church. This moved 15 parishes that had been awarded to the Church in 2017 to the breakaway side. Two of the justices, who had been on the court in 2017, changed their opinions.

On today, the SCSC declared that the court was wrong on August 2, 2017, and on April 20, 2022, and that 6 more parishes would have to move from the Church to the breakaway side. This was after the SCSC had ruled TWICE that these very 6 were property of the Episcopal Church. This meant that 28 of the original 36 parishes in the suit would own the local properties, virtually a reversal of the 2017 order that 29 of the parishes belonged to the Episcopal Church. 

According to today's decision these 8, of the 36, now belong to TEC:

---Holy Trinity, Charleston

---St. Bartholomew's, Hartsville

---St. David's, Cheraw

---St. James, James Island

---St. John's, Johns Island

---St. Matthew's, Ft. Motte

---Good Shepherd, Charleston

---Christ Church, Mt. Pleasant

What happens next with this chaotic court is anyone's guess. I stopped trying to figure them out some time ago. It seems to me they do not operate under discernible logic or reason and their judgments are only subjective. Moreover, established law appears to be irrelevant to them. Is this the end, or will they issue yet another contradictory fourth opinion? Will the 8 appeal, and win on appeal so that TEC winds up with 0 parishes? Will the Church side appeal to the SCSC? Will the Church side appeal to SCOTUS? I suppose we have no choice but to wait and see whatever happens next in this wild roller coaster ride of a decade. 

It seems to me the SCSC's inconsistent handling of this case has done and is doing real damage to the judicial system and rule of law in South Carolina. They have shown that no majority decision of the state's highest court is final. Circuit courts can discard and replace SCSC decisions. A Remittitur order is only a suggestion to the circuit court which can ignore it at will. Since no majority decision of the SCSC is final, people can litigate the same case and/or issues until the cows come home. There will be no finality in court or the law. It took three times for the breakaways to get the bulk of the local parishes but they eventually did so, chipping away at the Church's gains each time. In the future, if anyone dislikes a majority decision, they can keep on litigating until they get the desired outcome. This is the dangerous precedent the SCSC has set in this case. I can only wonder if the justices understand what they have done.

Why did the SCSC do this? Why have they issued three different majority decisions? I wish I knew the answer to that. We do have to keep in mind that all state judges and justices in South Carolina are elected for terms by the state legislature. This makes every judge in a some way political. They cannot get away from it. Under such a system, how could any judge be truly independent and impartial?

Remember that the church case is still active in the federal court. The U.S. District Court in Charleston ruled that the Episcopal diocese was the one and only heir of the historic diocese. The judge even issued an Injunction forbidding the new diocese from claiming in any way to be the pre-schism diocese. This decision is on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Richmond VA. If and when the SCSC ever finishes the church case, the federal appeals court will rule. Odds are that the appeals judges will uphold the decision of the district court. This would mean the Episcopal Diocese would own all of the legal rights of the pre-schism diocese. The outstanding consistence of the SCSC is its insistence that the Episcopal diocese is the heir of the properties of the historic diocese. This they reaffirmed every time in their opinions. Why they could do that and not the same on the local properties is a good question.

Another pending problem that has not been addressed in the court is the fate of the dozen or so parishes that went along with the breakaways but did not join the law suit. They were not among the 36. One can only wonder if the Episcopal lawyers will go to court to recover these. To my knowledge, the church lawyers have not publicly said what they intend for these parishes. Since they were not in the lawsuit, the court has not ruled on whether they own the local properties.

In my view, the SCSC has made a mess of the church case. Instead of well-reasoned clarity and finality, the people of South Carolina got chaos.    

 TOUGH LOVE

Your seventeen-year-old son comes in two hours after curfew, clothes reeking of marijuana, breath smelling of alcohol. What to do? First you ask for an explanation. Then, you have to decide whether to take the easy way or the hard way to deal with this. The easy way is to shrug it off as harmless teenage rebellion and have everyone go to bed and forget it. That would be the easy way and also the wrong way. This could very well lead to the self-destruction of an otherwise promising young man. Short run gain would be overwhelmed by long run disaster.

There is an old truism that being a parent is the hardest job in the world. Everyone who has been a parent knows this to be true. Children and teenagers cannot always see the consequences of their actions; and it is the job of the parents to guide them as they make choices. In a way, I was fortunate that my policeman father had no hesitation about meting out tough love to me and my two older brothers. He had a very strong sense of right and wrong and imparted that to us in no uncertain terms. (He also had a soft side. Once I slammed a car door on a finger and could not sleep that night. Even though he had to go to work the next day, he sat up with me into the wee hours not saying a word.)

So, back to the teenager who comes in late smelling of weed and booze. This calls for tough love. Grounding for a month would be right, but if you really want to make a point, take away the cel phone too. You will likely get furious blow back---ranting, raving, shouting, screaming, crying, insults, slamming doors, scowls, the silent treatment for days....you name it. You may go to bed in tears. You may spend a sleepless night. You may have a disagreement with your spouse. It will all be hard but you know down deep it is the right thing to do.

And so, our country is at a point in its history where it has to mete out some tough love, for its own long term health and well-being. The former president, Donald Trump, disregarded rules and laws at will. He even tried to overthrow our constitutional democratic republic and keep himself in power illegally. This would have devastated our country. He is now being investigated on several fronts for felonies. If indicted, he could be brought to trial, and if convicted, sentenced to time in prison. For instance, we know the Justice department is investigating him for two serious crimes, obstruction of justice and espionage arising out of his illegal possession of classified documents.

As the investigation proceeds, violence will escalate. It has already begun against the FBI. If Trump is indicted, there is likely to be serious fighting in the streets. It will make the insurrection of January 6 look like a warm-up. If he is put on trial, it will be worse. The nation will go through a trauma the likes of which we have not seen since the 1960's, or possibly the Civil War. If he is convicted and sent to prison, well who knows if there will be an out and out civil war? There are more guns than people in the U.S.

The easy way here is to ignore Trump, leave him alone, and forget his misdeeds. This would keep the peace for the moment. This would also be the worst thing to do because it would open the door wide for Trump, or other future wannabes, to continue on the path of discarding the laws and destroying our constitutional democratic republic. It would be just a matter of time before the end of our democratic republic comes. The flame of the great experiment of the United States of America would flicker out into a fascist minority regime, a rule of men and not of laws.

Like the parent above, we must use tough love in this case. As hard as it will be, we must follow the law wherever it leads. We must gird ourselves for the violence. We must not back down. The future of our nation depends on it.    

REFLECTIONS ON LAMBETH XV

Now that the XV Lambeth Conference is over, it is appropriate to consider the significance of this meeting in the history of the Anglican Communion. 

The issue of homosexuality overshadowed this year's conference, just as it has overshadowed the Anglican Communion for the past twenty-four years. However, the relative importance of the issue of homosexuality has changed over the years, and this year's meeting shows a clear decline in its role in the life of the Anglican Communion. Let us look at how the data suggest such.

Lambeth XIII met in 1998 with 749 bishops. When Resolution 1.10 came up, an amendment was offered denouncing "homosexual practice" as "incompatible with Scripture." The vote on the amendment:

For:  389 (52%)

Against:  190 (25%)

Not voting: 170 (23%)

The amendment was adopted by a clear but not large majority of the bishops present.

Lambeth XV met in 2022 with app. 650 bishops. There was no numerical vote as in 1998. So, instead, the pro-homosexual-rights coalition offered a statement supporting same-sex relationships in committed unions. In opposition, the anti-homosexual-rights coalition offered a competing statement 1-reaffirming 1998's 1.10, and 2-calling for its enforcement in the Communion. Bishops were invited to "vote" for the anti side by emailing pictures of ID badges with their endorsements. The vote was to be anonymous, so no names would be released. The result as announced on the last day:

Anti statement:  125 (19%)

Pro statement:  175 (27%)

Not voting:  350 (54%)

Thus, 125 anonymous bishops endorsed the anti stand. This was a drop from 389 in 1998 to 125 in 2022. There are app. 900 bishops in the entire Anglican Communion. 650 attended Lambeth XV. If we add the difference, 250, to the 125, we get a total of 375, or 42% of the bishops of the AC. Even if all bishops had been present, there would not have been a majority for the anti side.

There was a dramatic shift in the bishops' responses to the issue of homosexuality between 1998 and 2022. Two big changes occurred in the voting. One was a precipitous drop from 389 to 125 denouncing homosexuality. Percentages likewise fell, from 52% in 1998 to 19% in 2022. The other big shift was in the number of bishops sitting out the votes. From 170 (23%) not voting in 1998, we go to 350 (54%) not participating in 2022. Even though the voting process was not the same in 1998 and 2022, we still see two movements at work: fewer bishops supported 1.10 and its enforcement in 2022 than in 1998, and far more bishops were unconcerned about the issue in 2022 than they were twenty-four years ago.

The data show that homosexuality does not have the importance as an issue in the Anglican Communion today as it had two decades ago. One may suspect that this is the reason for panic on the anti side. All one has to do to see the anguished reactions to Lambeth XV from the anti side is to scan the entries in anglicanink.com .

(Incidentally, it is rich when people not in the Anglican Communion weigh in on what the Anglican Communion should and should not be doing. Do they also want to tell the college of cardinals in Rome how to do their business?)

It is clear that Lambeth XV rendered a serious defeat to the anti-homosexual-rights factions in the Anglican Communion. The defeat has two parts:  their utter failure to get the Communion to enforce conformity of their view, and the decline of the issue in the historic life of the Anglican Communion.

The Anglican Communion has reaffirmed its historic nature. This is its real victory over its opponents.

 

''ORTHODOX" LOSE THE BATTLE OF LAMBETH 175-125

The Fifteenth Lambeth Conference concludes today, August 8, 2022. The touted civil war between the pro and anti homosexual rights factions in the Anglican Communion turned out to be a bust. The anti side came in roaring like a lion and left meowing as a kitten. The tally is now in. It is 175 for the pro side and 125 for the anti side.

The anti side at Lambeth was led by Archbishop Badi, of South Sudan. He claimed to represent the bishops of the Global South association of Anglican provinces, mostly African and Asian provinces. Their goal at the Conference was 1-to reassert the 1998 Resolution 1.10 as the universal teaching of the Anglican Communion, and 2-to enforce 1.10 on all Anglican provinces. They sort of gained the first and utterly failed on the second. On the first, everyone agreed that 1.10 was an historical fact. The issue of contention was not its existence. It was its enforcement. On this, the antis are leaving Lambeth in total defeat.

On August 7, Global South issued this PRESS RELEASE about the results of their "voting" scheme. On the 2nd of August, Badi had called on "orthodox" (anti-homosexual-rights) bishops to sign on to a statement reasserting 1.10 and calling for its enforcement throughout the Anglican Communion. They were to do so by a round-about system of emailing in pictures of ID badges. The results were announced on the 7th. No bishops' names were given, only provinces and numbers of followers. Of the 125 bishops who signed on, 51 were from South Sudan. They accounted for more than half the "worshipers" represented by the whole group (4m. of 7.9m). The large majority of bishops "voting" were from equatorial Africa.

If 650 bishops attended the Lambeth Conference, the 125 who endorsed this statement would account for less than a quarter of the meeting. There are approximately 900 bishops in the entire Anglican Communion. Since the "orthodox" bishops claim to be the majority of the Communion, one would not know it from the paltry numbers "voting" for their most important document of the moment. There is no stampede.  

Even before the announcement of the results on the 7th, Global South published a communiqué calling on the anti side to organize for the promotion of 1.10. Find it HERE . This is nothing new. The anti-homosexual-rights coalition has been trying to divide up the AC for the past nineteen years, ever since the Bishop Gene Robinson affirmation of 2003.

In the battle of the statements, the pro side fired the first round. On 2 August, they issued a DECLARATION defending rights of homosexual persons. As of the 7th, 175 bishops had signed on, including 11 archbishops. The vast majority of the American delegation to Lambeth put in their signatures (including the bishop of SC).

Both sides indicated the war is not over. However, as of the end of the Lambeth Conference, the superior position goes to the pro side. 

The final score is 175 for the pro side and 125 for the antis.

NOTES,  5 AUGUST 2022

Greetings, blog reader, on Friday, August 5, 2022.

This week was a good one for the forces of democracy and human rights, welcomed relief for those cheering on the Great Democratic Revolution of our age. It was only a few weeks ago (24 June) that democracy and rights suffered a staggering defeat when the U.S. Supreme Court revoked, for the first time in history, individual liberties that it had once guaranteed. At that time, it seemed that the anti-democratic counter revolution might have the upper hand in America for the near future. It even seemed that reactionary politicians might ride high to a majority of seats in the fall elections for the House of Representatives, and possibly even the Senate. All of that now appears to have vanished. The momentum has reversed.

The forces of anti-democratic counter-revolution that we have been following on this blog suffered two huge defeats this week and both were in large measure their own faults. Kansas is one of the most conservative and Republican states of the union. It has not voted for a Democrat for president since 1964. The anti-abortion crowd there quietly slipped onto the ballot a vote on removing the provision in the state constitution protecting a woman's right to abortion certainly thinking that few people would pay attention to their little ploy. Boy, were they wrong.

There was a massive backlash in Kansas against this. Nearly a million voters turned out, twice as many as the last off-year election, and they shouted loudly by 59 to 41 % "No" on removing the state constitutional protection of women's freedom over their own bodies. It proved that even in one of the most conservative places in America, the vast majority of people refuse to allow individual rights to be taken away from Americans. Moreover, this has greatly energized the human rights movement across America. This may very well lead to a Democratic landslide in the November elections giving the Dems a much larger majority in both the House and the Senate. The anti-abortion crowd, and their Republican allies are reeling from the shock of Kansas. They have no one to blame but themselves.

The other big defeat of anti-human rights this week was over at the Lambeth Conference, the gathering of bishops of the Anglican Communion from all around the world, some 650 strong this year. It is meeting at Canterbury on the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the figure head of the AC. For years, anti-homosexual-rights primates and bishops from some countries, most notably equatorial Africa, have campaigned to enforce the 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution 1.10 on all forty-two provinces of the Communion. This resolution condemned homosexuality and same-sex marriage thus denying human rights and inclusion of homosexual persons. Three key Anglican archbishops in Africa very publicly announced their boycott of this year's Lambeth Conference because non-celibate gay bishops and their partners would be in attendance. Of course, by absenting themselves, they greatly weakened the strength of the anti-homosexual coalition at the Conference. They left it to the archbishop of South Sudan to lead the charge at Canterbury. 

Before the meeting, there was a nervous expectation on both sides that the Conference would be overshadowed and divided by the clash over 1.10. The Global South coalition made a lot of noise about pressing a showdown in the Conference as a way of strengthening and enforcing 1.10. The threats of an Anglican civil war were ominous. The anti-homosexual-rights side misplayed their hand, which had already been weakened by the absence of three major archbishops of Global South/Gafcon. 

The Archbishop of Canterbury would have none of it. He was resolved not to let a threat of rain ruin his little garden party. Early on, he came out defending the rights of provinces to make their own decisions about the treatment of homosexual persons as he flatly rejected the idea that provinces would be "punished" for refusing 1.10. He supported the revision of the first "Calls on Human Dignity" to remove the provision that 1.10 was the mind of the Communion. He suspended individual voting on the "Calls" and limited discussion of the issues to brief periods. In short, he cut the legs out from under the anti-homosexual-rights crowd leaving them stunned. The best they could do was to call on the bishops to email in "votes" to reaffirm 1.10. Meanwhile, the pro-homosexual-rights crowd beat them to the draw and issued a declaration supporting LGBT people. It has already drawn some 165 bishops' signatures. Virtually the entire American delegation signed on. If the anti crowd does release the results of their "voting" in support of 1.10, it is likely to be fewer than half the bishops at the Conference. This would compound the embarrassment of the antis' defeat. Like the reactionaries in Kansas, the reactionaries at Lambeth to a large degree have no one but themselves to blame for their own failure.

In my view, both of these cases are evidence that the prevailing force of our age is still the Great Democratic Revolution. Since the 1950's, it has transformed America, and arguably much of the world. The reactionary counter-revolution is putting up a fierce fight but if this week's events indicate the future, and I suspect they do, it will not be enough to overwhelm the tide of history that is evermore bringing liberty and equality to people regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and disability.     

 

THE BISHOPS OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND ALABAMA ENDORSE PRO-LGBT STAND AT LAMBETH

Bishops Ruth Woodliff-Stanley, of South Carolina, and Glenda Curry, of Alabama, have joined 164 (as of today) other bishops at the Lambeth Conference in issuing a "Statement from Anglican Bishops and Primates who are Keen to Affirm and Celebrate LGBT+ People." 

The letter was issued on August 2, 2022, the day of the discussion of the Call on Human Dignity, mainly involving the interface between the Anglican Communion and homosexuality. Find the statement HERE . At the same time, the anti-homosexual rights coalition at Lambeth called on bishops to endorse the 1998 Resolution 1.10 that condemned homosexuality and same-sex marriage. 

Bishops from nine Anglican provinces signed the pro-LGBT statement. Their dioceses were in New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, Canada, England, Ireland, Mexico, Scotland, the U.S., and Wales. Among the app. 100 American bishops, 97 signed making it virtually unanimous in this delegation.

The statement is clear in support of LGBT rights: "We wish to affirm the holiness of their [LGBT people] love wherever it is found in committed relationships." It added: "we will never shy away from tackling discrimination and prejudice against those of differing sexualities and gender identities."

The anti-homosexual-rights side, led by the archbishop and primate of the province of South Sudan, has yet to announce the results of their scheme of "voting" to reaffirm 1.10. They called on the bishops to "vote" using a convoluted process of sending pictures of ID badges to a mysterious email address. It remains to be seen how this will work out and how many "votes" this sides gets.

The Archbishop of Canterbury cleverly disallowed numerical voting on the "Calls." There was only verbal assent. By all accounts, the discussion on Human Dignity was civil, if frank. All of this defeated the pre-meditated attempt of the anti side to disrupt the Conference, divide up the bishops, and force an up or down vote on 1.10. This did not happen, mainly thanks to the leadership of the host AOC.

All advocates of human rights should stand and applaud today the brave work of the bishops of South Carolina, Alabama, and the 162 others. The anti side did not win the day at Lambeth. They will not control the Anglican Communion. 

 

ST. DAVID'S, OF CHERAW, RESUMES EPISCOPAL SERVICES THIS SUNDAY

On this Sunday, August 7, 2022, the first Episcopal Church service since the schism of 2012 will be held in St. David's Episcopal Church, Cheraw SC. After nearly a decade in the wilderness, the intrepid and faithful Episcopalians of Cheraw and nearby areas will go home to their beautiful church. For years, the Episcopal worshiping group has been meeting in a local bank.

The previous occupants, the clergyman of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina, and his followers, departed St. David's property last Sunday and will now be meeting in Wesley United Methodist Church, a couple of blocks away.

St. David's has a day school on its property. The school is set to open for the new academic year right on schedule, on August 15, 2022.

The service this Sunday will be conducted by the Rev. Mike Bye, priest of the worshiping group. This Sunday and the next few Sundays, the congregation plans to held services at 10:00 a.m. in the chapel which is on the side of the church. 

On September 11, St. David's plans a special service in the church proper as a sort of festival homecoming. 

As of now, there will be no livestreaming of the services from St. David's, but this is subject to change. Meanwhile, their new Facebook page is under construction and should be available presently.

I will be there on Sunday in spirit if not in person and I hope the friends and neighbors of the Episcopalians of Cheraw will join in and support this return home after so many long and hard years away.

St. David's is one of seven parishes that the SC Supreme Court declared property of the Episcopal Church. One of these has already resumed Episcopal services, St. John's, of Johns Island. In another, the present occupants are preparing to evacuate the property after August 28, Christ Church of Mt. Pleasant. To my knowledge, the other four parishes have not announced plans for the transfers.

This still leaves seven other parishes in limbo awaiting a ruling from the state supreme court. This could come at any time.

Meanwhile, this Sunday let us all lift up my friend Janet Clark, Phil Powell, Sarah Spruill, and all the heroic church people of Cheraw who kept the faith for so long when it was not an easy thing to do. They have earned all of our prayers and support.

ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY:

WE HAVE A PLURALITY OF VIEWS

The Archbishop of Canterbury issued a statement today, 2 August 2022, regarding the controversy of the 1998 Resolution 1.10. Find the letter HERE . It is a strategic victory for those provinces of the Anglican Communion that are gay-friendly, particularly the American church. The nominal head of the Anglican Communion declared, "We have a plurality of views."

As for Resolution 1.10 itself, the Archbishop declared the "validity" of its "existence," something than no one has disputed. It is an historical fact. The problem has been what to do about the Resolution. How should it be applied in the Anglican Communion? In his letter of today, the Archbishop made it very clear there would be no recrimination against those Anglican provinces that do not incorporate Resolution 1.10 in within their own province(s) of the AC.

The Global South Fellowship has rejected the Archbishop's stand for toleration of different views. The leadership of this anti-homosexual-rights coalition at the Lambeth Conference have issued a statement reiterating Resolution 1.10 and calling on bishops to vote in favor of this. They are condemning homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and are calling for enforcement ("steps" for "enforcement") of these in the whole Anglican Communion. Find their statement HERE . 

It is not at all clear how this voting scheme concocted by the Global South leaders at Lambeth is going to work since it is a round-about process of photographing ID badges and emailing to an unnamed source, all promising anonymity. It remains to be seen how many bishops at the Lambeth Conference will respond to this strange system of "voting" and whether others would have confidence in the announced results of such an irregular arrangement.

Today's events are highly significant in the history of the Anglican Communion. The traditional nature of the AC has been confirmed. It is a loose union of forty-two independent churches bonded by a common heritage coming from the Church of England through the prayer book. The efforts of bishops from cultures that are stridently anti-homosexual to turn the AC into another tool for their local convenience has not worked. While the majority of people in the AC may agree with 1.10, they cannot enforce it on the provinces that do not agree with it.

What this means for the future of the anti-homosexual coalition in the Anglican Communion remains to be seen now that their effort within the AC to enforce uniformity of their particular view has failed. Global South and GAFCON have been around for years and have found a certain potency in the Anglican world. They do contain the majority of Anglicans across the globe. Perhaps they will continue giving nominal allegiance to the AC while pursuing their own intolerant social agendas, or perhaps they will break away from the AC and proclaim a brand new Anglican association separate from the AC and under strict enforcement of 1.10. 

The Diocese of South Carolina was in a similar quandary more than a decade ago. Look at how that turned out. The leaders took the majority of people out of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion in order to enforce an intolerant stand on homosexuality. They lost a third of their communicants, the entity of the old diocese, and a big chunk of the local parishes. They are now in a non-Anglican Communion Christian denomination of like-minded neo-Pharisees. Their future is dubious to say the least because the flow of history is toward human rights.

See also the excellent ENS ARTICLE on today's events at the Lambeth Conference.