NOTES,  15 SEPTEMBER 2022

Greetings, blog reader, on September 15, 2022. This is a convenient moment to stop and take an assessment of the schism. With all that is going on with the courts, it is easy to get confused. If you are having trouble keeping the various legal maneuverings straight, you are not alone. I myself struggle with this. So, let's try to summarize the legal status of the schism:

1. The main source of chaos at the moment is the South Carolina Supreme Court. Matters here just seem to get murkier by the day. 

The basic dispute now is over the fates of three parishes: Old Saint Andrew's, Holy Cross (Stateburg), and Good Shepherd. 

In its most recent order, the SCSC assigned OSA and HC to the local occupants and assigned GS to the Episcopal Church. However, the SCSC did not issue a remit order to the lower court to implement this. Therefore, the Episcopal lawyers are asking the SCSC to reverse their decision on OSA and HC or to hold a new rehearing. Meanwhile, the lawyers for the present occupants of Good Shepherd are asking the court to reverse itself concerning that parish. Thus, the SCSC has three petitions before them, two from TEC and one from the secessionists. The TEC lawyers have until Sept. 30 to submit that last papers to the court on this matter.

I have long since given up trying to understand the SCSC, let alone predict, what they are going to do. The justices waded into the quagmire of trying to rule on church matters, despite the First Amendment, and now they are caught stuck in the mud. It seems the more they struggle to get out, the deeper they get in.

2. Meanwhile, there remains the question of the fates of the dozen or so local churches that went along with the secessionists but did not enter the lawsuit against TEC. It will be up to the diocesan authorities and their attorneys as to what they plan to do about these churches. I suppose we will have to wait and see if they initiate efforts to recover these properties.

3. As for the entity of the old diocese, the secessionists' appeal of the federal district court's order is still active. The district judge in Charleston, Richard Gergel, found all in favor of the Episcopal diocese and even issued an Injunction against the breakaways to prevent them from claiming to be in any way the heir of the pre-schism diocese. This is now before the Fourth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, in Richmond. If the SCSC ever finishes the church case, the appeals court will take up the appeal. Every expectation is for the appeals court to deny the appeal. If so, this will finish the matter of which side owns the historic diocese.

4. The circuit court still has before it the suit of the secessionists for betterments. This seeks compensation from the Episcopal side for improvements made in the returned properties since the schism began. To my knowledge, nothing has happened on this since it was filed. Perhaps the circuit judge is awaiting the final judgment of the SCSC (he should not hold his breath).

So, although we are inching towards a legal settlement, it is still off on the horizon.

However, while final settlement in the legal war is still far off, transitions are underway concerning some properties. The SCSC, and the federal court too, ruled that the Episcopal diocese was the only heir of the pre-schism diocese. This means that all properties and assets of the decision before the break on Oct. 15, 2012 belong to the Episcopal diocese. 

By far the most valuable property seized by the secessionists in 2012 was Camp St. Christopher with its vast ocean-front expanse. The breakaways have agreed to return this property. October 1, 2022 is the date set for the official transfer of the Camp to the Episcopal diocese. 

Several parishes have already been transferred, St. John's, of Johns Island, St. David's, of Cheraw, and Christ Church, of Mt. Pleasant. Except for the latter, these have been on the whole cordial events. 

Next Sunday, 18 September, will be the first for the restored Episcopal church at Christ Church. 

Last Sunday, 11 September, was the first in which the secessionists of Christ Church met at their new quarters, a school in Mt. Pleasant. Their services were posted on their Facebook page.

The posted videos show that the Rector, Ted Duvall, was more subdued than in his last Sunday in the old property when he seemed bitter and angry at the forces he blamed for his unpleasant predicament. 

Bishop Lawrence was there to teach a class, supposedly about how to discern God's will. Subdued would not be the word for his presentation. Find it HERE . @16 he told a story about an unnamed woman who seemed to credit him for getting her out of a lesbian relationship. She had sent him an email thanking him for standing for "the truth." He said she had been attending "one of the churches that hated my guts, one of the churches that stayed with the Episcopal Church." After her conversion to "the truth," she had switched to one of Lawrence's churches. 

I have several observations about this startling delivery:

1-If there is anyone in the world left who does not believe the schism was about homosexuality, he or she has only to listen to Lawrence's presentation.

2-Lawrence made a very serious indictment of the Episcopal side of "hating his guts." However, he gave no evidence or example. 

For nearly ten years, the Episcopal diocese of SC has consciously avoided casting aspersions on Bishop Lawrence. There is no example in which the diocese made disparaging remarks about him.

Likewise for the local churches, if there is any evidence that they "hated" Lawrence, let us see it. I for one have never seen any; and I should know having published a 350,000 word detailed history of the schism.

3-"Hate" is not the right word to describe the attitude of the Episcopalians in SC toward their former bishop. It seems to me "disappointment" is the proper descriptive term. For sure, the Episcopalians of lower SC were disappointed in Lawrence. They trusted him when he said it was his "intention" to stay in the Episcopal Church. They believed him when he made a solemn vow before God and a thousand people that he would abide by the rules of the Episcopal Church. No, the Episcopalians of lower SC did not, and do not, "hate his guts." They are full of disappointment, but not hate.

4-Even if it were true, and it is not, that his opposition hated him, is not it incumbent upon a Christian leader, or any Christian for that matter, to love his enemies and forgive those who act against him? Should a bishop be expelling such inflammatory language about his critics? I think not.

5-The schism has moved on beyond Bishop Lawrence. He made his choices and he has to live with them, as we all have to live with the choices we make every single day. The new bishop of the secessionist diocese has signaled his desire to wind down the disputes arising from the schism and move toward peace and concord. The Episcopal and Anglican bishops have met several times to talk about a good way forward. In talking with people all these years, this is what I think people want. This schism has been painful to everyone involved. Exhaustion is the most common complaint. A desire for peace and tranquility is paramount. And, is not this the way it should be? 

The schism has happened. There is no indication today the secessionists will reconcile with their former friends. The reality is two dioceses moving separately into the foreseeable future. Should not they go on as good neighbors, if not as friends?

We know the general outline of the post-schism settlement. The Episcopal Church gets the entity of the old diocese and its properties and assets, and a minority of the local churches. The secessionists get most of the local churches including all the big parishes except Grace. We still await the details to be worked out. Nevertheless the schism is slowing edging to a settlement.

In order to be worthy of the name they bear, the two sides should obey the two great commandments, love God and love neighbor. Love is the operative word.