EPISCOPAL DIOCESE TO SELL LOCAL CHURCH TO SECESSIONISTS

On 29 October, Bishop Ruth Woodliff-Stanley announced that the Episcopal diocese had reached an agreement to sell St. Matthew's Church, of Fort Motte SC, to its present occupants, a congregation affiliated with the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina which itself is part of the Anglican Church in North America. She provided no details of the deal.

St. Matthew's was one of the 8 local churches the South Carolina Supreme Court had assigned to the Episcopal Church (Aug. 2017, Apr. 2022, Aug. 2022). It had been one of the 36 parishes that had joined in the lawsuit against the Episcopal Church.

Bishop Woodliff-Stanley's rationales for the deal were:

---there was no Episcopal "seed congregation" ready to move into the property.

---the diocese needed to invest its resources into areas with good potential for church growth.

---"the displacement of the ACNA congregation would undermine the healing we seek to foster in this particular community." [what does this mean? Numerous other ACNA congregations are being "displaced."]

Unfortunately, the bishop's announcement raises far more questions than it answers. Here are some that come to mind right off:  ---did the bishop talk with the congregation, or at least the vestry, about the advantages of returning to the Episcopal diocese which would give them free use of the property? ---did the standing committee explore keeping the property for the Episcopal Church and leasing or renting to the present occupants? ---did the national church officials sign off on this deal? if so, why? The Dennis Canon holds that all local property is held in trust for the Episcopal Church and its local diocese.

Judging from the public records on the Internet, one could say this is an advantageous deal for the congregation. Calhoun County records online list the "Market Value" of this property at $153,000, certainly a very low figure. If the congregation agreed to this sum, and secured a 30-year mortgage, they would be paying $858/month at today's interest rates. This would be less that what many a small church pays to a part-time organist. In other words, under these figures, the diocese would be practically giving away the property to the secessionist congregation.

Why would the diocese do this? Good question. At the moment we have only the bishop's rationales and none of the details of the deal so it is difficult to come up with evidence-based answers. Nevertheless, it seems clear that this is part of a bigger picture in which the Episcopal diocesan officials are rushing headlong into making peace with the opponents with whom they have been in conflict for ten years.  Just last month (27 September) the two bishops jointly announced a sweeping "final settlement" agreement. Adding in the deal on St. Matthews, here is the outline of the significant points of that settlement:

---ADSC transfers control of diocesan real estate to EDSC.

---EDSC withdraws claim to diocesan headquarters, on Coming St.

---EDSC issues quit claim deeds to "several" missions in ADSC that were not in the lawsuit.

---Vague remarks about financial deals.

---No future litigation except cases pending in SCSC and ADSC's betterments suit in circuit court.

---ADSC withdraws appeal in federal court.

---EDSC to sell property to Ft. Motte congregation.

What is EDSC giving up here?

---diocesan headquarters.

---claims to (apparently all) the dozen local churches in ADSC that were not in the lawsuit.

---future litigation against ADSC.

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

What is ADSC giving up?

---possession of diocesan properties.

---appeal of federal court ruling, in appeals court.

In fact, ADSC is not giving up anything it actually has. Both state and federal courts ruled that the Episcopal diocese owns the historic diocesan properties. Moreover, ADSC had virtually no chance of success in the appeals court since Gergel's order was all but appeal-proof.

Bottom line, the secessionist diocese should be very happy with this "settlement." It is a lopsided deal.

Of course, it is true everyone longs for peace and tranquility. After so very many years of ugly legal warfare everyone (except possibly the lawyers) longs for an end to the conflict. That is not the issue. The issue is the best way to make the best peace.

The Episcopal diocese is being very generous in all of this. Whether this is the right or the wrong approach is up to the people of the diocese to say. They might convey their feelings to the standing committee.

As a student of the history of the schism, I can only wonder if the Episcopal authorities hope they are buying good will from their longtime adversaries in litigation. If so, one can only wait to see any sign of change of attitude. So far, there is none. Indeed, even after the settlement was announced last month, several congregations have vacated Episcopal church properties with no apparent change of heart. The people who left St. John's, St. David's, Christ Church, and Holy Trinity continue to call themselves by those names (with "Anglican" attached) as if they are the true churches. For instance, St. John's calls itself St. John's Parish Church even though they do not meet at St. John's church.

The reality is that there is deep-seated animosity among the secessionist diocese against the Episcopal Church. There are several important historical reasons for this, but regardless it is very much there. Moreover, there is no sign now of change. If the Episcopal diocese expects their generosity to wash this negativity away, they are likely to be disappointed.

Certainly, beyond a doubt, everyone wants an end to the conflict of the schism. The problem is how the two sides get there in a way to make the strongest settlement. A peace agreement has to be worthy of the war. In this case it has to be a negotiated, or compromise, agreement. Both sides will have to give and take. From what one knows so far, one side is doing more of the giving.  

A DECADE OF SCHISM:

Reflections on the break, the causes and the results of the Episcopal Church split of 2012 in South Carolina

Part 3. The Results

This is the last in a series of blog postings marking a decade since the schism of October 2012. We have examined what happened in the split itself and at the long term and immediate causes of the break. Now, we will look at the results of the schism in the ten years since. Again, we will have to summarize an enormous amount of detail of what has transpired in the last decade.

Essentially what we have now is a situation where the Episcopal diocese owns the entity of the old diocese while the separatists have the bulk of the local churches.

This is the outcome (not finalized, to be sure) of a long and hard-fought legal war. Of all the five cases of dioceses that voted to leave the Episcopal Church in the period of 2007-2012, the litigation in South Carolina has been the most involved. For instance, it was the only one in which the local parishes joined in the diocesan lawsuit. It was also the only one to be fought in both state and federal courts. Moreover, it was the only one in which the state supreme court directly intervened only to reverse itself, not once but twice, leaving undefined and unsettled outcomes.

The litigation in state courts falls into three periods.

1-2013-2015. Total victory for the separatists. 

The circuit court immediately issued an injunction banning the Episcopal diocese from claiming to be the historic diocese. (This allowed the separatists to hold the names and emblems of the old diocese until the federal court ruling of 2019.)

The circuit court held a two-week trial in 2014 favorable to the separatists. In February of 2015, the court published an order entirely in favor of the separatists on the assertion that the Episcopal Church is a congregational organization.

2-2015-2020. Presumed victory of the Episcopal side.

In 2015, the South Carolina Supreme Court held a hearing dismissive of the circuit court decision.

August of 2017, the SCSC issued an opinion with three majority decisions 1)29 of the 36 parishes in question belonged to the Episcopal Church, 2)8 local churches owned their own properties trust-free, and 3)Camp St. Christopher belonged to the Episcopal diocese. It also held that the Episcopal diocese was the one and only heir of the historic diocese. Thus, the Church side won the entity of the old diocese and the bulk of the local churches. The SCSC decision was remitted to the circuit court for implementation.

3-2020-present. Disqualification of presumed TEC victory and a split decision.

The circuit court, to which the SCSC Remittutur had been sent, refused to enact two of the three majority decisions and instead ruled entirely (as the 2015 decision) entirely in favor of the separatists. The TEC side appealed this to the SCSC.

The SCSC discarded the circuit court order and issued new decisions on the local properties contradicting its 2017 majority decisions. In two rulings, April and August of 2022, the SCSC removed 21 of the 29 local churches that the 2017 decision had awarded to the Episcopal side. This left the Episcopal diocese with 8, instead of 29 of the 36 parishes in question. However, the SCSC consistently ruled that the Episcopal diocese was the one and only heir of the historic diocese including Camp St. Christopher.

The SCSC thus released three different, and contradictory opinions, the gist of which was to remove the bulk of local churches from Episcopal Church to local ownership that the original court decision had ordered.

The chaotic behavior of the state courts in the decade of litigation has raised questions about their competency, or politicization.

Meanwhile, there was litigation in federal court. In 2013, the Episcopal Church bishop of lower SC sued the separatist bishop in the United States District Court, in Charleston, for violation of the trademark laws, essentially that the breakaway diocese was fraudulently claiming to be the Episcopal diocese.

In 2019, District Court Judge Richard Gergel ruled that the Episcopal diocese was the only heir of the historic diocese. He also issued an Injunction banning the separatist contingent from claiming in any way to be the Episcopal diocese. Very importantly, this was the first time that a federal court ruled that the Episcopal Church is an hierarchical institution.

The state supreme court and the federal court agreed that the Episcopal diocese was the heir and owner of the historic diocese and its properties. This became a non-issue even though the separatist side appeal Gergel's ruling to the U.S. appeals court. The recent announced settlement said this appeal would be withdrawn. This would settle once and for all the question of which side owns the entity and assets of the pre-schism diocese.

The effects of the state and federal court actions are: the Episcopal side owns the old diocese and all of its assets while the separatists own the bulk of the local churches. This is in effect a split settlement.

Legal issues aside, what about the rest of the schism in the past decade? Let us begin by looking at what happened to the big promises the diocesan leaders made in the run-up to the schism.

1-the diocese was sovereign and could secede from the Episcopal Church at will. 

Both state and federal courts rejected this and ruled in the opposite. Both found that the Episcopal Church had authority over the local diocese. Hence, the Episcopal diocese is legally the heir of the historic diocese.

2-as a result of the All Saints decision of the SCSC in 2009, local churches owned their own properties unless they had committed in writing to make a trust for the Episcopal Church and its diocese. In other words, the local churches could leave TEC and take the property with them.

The SCSC has ruled that this is not the case. If a local church clearly resolved to adhere to the Dennis Canon, it in fact made a trust for the Episcopal Church even though it did not make a separate document creating a specific trust. At last word, the SCSC ruled that eight local churches did in fact make trusts through this manner and therefore belong to the Episcopal diocese.

3-After breaking away from the Episcopal Church, the diocese of SC would remain "Anglican." 

Not necessarily. It depends on how one defines the world "Anglican." The dictionary defines it as one in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Under this, the new diocese is not Anglican. The Archbishop has said repeatedly he does not recognize the present parent denomination of the separatist diocese of SC, the Anglican Church in North America. However, many bishops of GAFCON, the coalition of socially conservative/reactionary bishops mostly in the Third World, have recognized the validity of the separatist diocese of SC. In fact, GAFCON created ACNA as its proxy in the U.S. as a planned replacement of the pro-homosexual rights TEC.

All of the major promises the breakaway leaders made to the people turned out to be untrue in the decade following the break.

Even though predictions turned out to be off, the new diocese persisted in carving itself a certain identity and to differentiate itself from the Episcopal Church.

Since the schism had been prompted by social issues, the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina enforced its stands on these. In 2015, it adopted and made mandatory in the diocese an homophobic "Statement of Faith." In 2017, it joined the ACNA that banned women from offices of authority over men and allowed local dioceses to ban women from the priesthood.

While institutionalizing its social reaction, the ADSC also carried on a demonization campaign of the Episcopal Church. After the SCSC ruled in 2017 in favor of TEC, certain ADSC leaders developed a curriculum for use in local parishes that blasted the supposed wrongs of TEC. It taught essentially that TEC had abandoned true faith. This propaganda campaign was aimed at keeping people from remaining in the buildings after the return of the Episcopal church.

This hard attitude toward their former denomination may well have led to the separatists' rejection of all offers of compromise and settlement up to the present year. In 2015, the Episcopal side offered to give up claim to all local churches in return of the historic diocese (which was then in the possession of the breakaways). The separatists summarily dismissed this offer, and with disdain. They also failed to reach any settlement in the various court-ordered mediations. 

What about the internal state of the ADSC in the past decade? Before the break, diocesan leaders depicted the Episcopal Church as a dying institution. This implied that leaving TEC would lead to new life and vitality. Has It?

The statistics released by ADSC show a different picture. They show constant and relentless decline in membership and participation of their new diocese. As for communicants, in 2011, just before the schism, the 50 churches that adhered to the break listed 21,993. In 2013, the year after the schism, they numbered 17,798, a drop of over 4,000. In 2019, the ADSC listed 11,451 communicants. This means the new diocese has about half as many active members as it has on the eve of the schism, in other words it has lost half its communicants in the decade.

What can we say about the future?

At the time of the schism, I was one of those optimists who believed there would be a reconciliation and settlement in the near term. As the decade has progressed, I have lost my optimism. It was swept away in the deluge of ill-will. I underestimated the depth of the animosity of the separatists to their former church. I now think it is unrealistic to hope for reunion in the foreseeable future. I could be wrong. I often am.

So, without reunion, what is there? Both sides should accept the reality of the situation even though this might be painful. It is in their self-interests to work together in mutual acceptance and respect. They do not have to like each other, but they do have to love each other.

Finally, back to the big picture that is the theme of my blog. The schism in SC is part of a much large struggle for human rights in contemporary society. The Episcopal Church, rightly so in my opinion, has made itself a champion of the worth and dignity of every human being. This has led to dramatic changes for African Americans, women, and homosexuals. The people who disagreed with this movement have a right to their opinions, but they should recognize what this means. 

In the end, vertical religion is the starting place. Every human being should make a conscious attachment to the divine. However, vertical should not be an end in itself. It must evolve into horizontal to reach its mature flowering (faith without words is dead). Human beings were made by God in the image of God to be God's representatives in the world. We are here on a mission. We were given the time of our lives not just for ourselves but for God's work. The Episcopalians of lower South Carolina are doing just that even through the unfortunate trials and tribulations of many years.  

LETTER TO THIS EDITOR,

26 OCTOBER 2022

Today's letter to the editor refers to the last blog piece on the schism and guilt. In this, I said that the homosexual community of lower South Carolina should not feel guilty about causing the schism. This writer suggests there is more to it:

Hello Ron,

Read your latest blog entry. Plus, I was at the Roundtable meeting via Toutube. Very interesting and very humbling.

The second gentleman who spoke, I did not get his name. He came to the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina from New York...a former Catholic priest. He goes into the history of his arrival and a meeting with former Bishop Suffragan William Skilton and the late Bishop Edward Salmon. Searching for a possible administrative position...yet was being encouraged to become an Episcopal priest. Until, that is, the late Bishop Salmon learned he was "gay" and told him he would not be a good fit here.

He goes on to suggest (as you pointed out so well in your blog) that he felt somehow the LBGTQ community might bear partial responsibility for the schism.

You are correct...the LBGTQ community does not bear and should not feel they have any responsibility for the schism at all...not one iota.

Who is to blame? You have covered that well in your history of the schism here in eastern SC. But, I would go a step further. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said of the Civil Rights struggle..."the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."

Yes, the so-called good people...such as I. The "good people" who sat in the pews of the Episcopal churches and remained silent. The so-called "good people" who were afraid of speaking out...who were afraid to speak up and speak up loudly and often in protest. People like myself. Yes, I bear some responsibility for the schism, due to my view of "well the church will work this out in time." My lack of courage contributed to the schism. However...the "good people" of the LBGTQ community were not the problem and not the cause. They were just "good people" who, like me...simply wanting to worship God...seeking a closer relationship with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Perhaps someday I will have the chance to meet this gentleman and shake his hand and say...I'm sorry.

Thanks for listening and reading,

Randolph Wilson,

St. Anne's, Conway

________________________

If you have not watched the video of St. Stephen's roundtable discussion, I suggest your should. It is available on Youtube.

What do you think about this? Do you agree with Randolph that too many people sat silently while the majority of the pre-schism diocesan leadership and laity put into practice their homophobia? If the silent people had spoken up could they have prevented the schism?

Send you thoughts to the email address above. You may choose to remain anonymous.

Ron Caldwell

 

THE SCHISM AND GUILT

St. Stephen's Episcopal Church, in Ansonborough, Charleston, is celebrating its bicentenary (1822-2022). In honor of this, on October 16, 2022, the parish held a roundtable conversation where parishioners shared their memories and thoughts about the history of the church. Historically, St. Stephen's has been well known as a "gay friendly" parish. A video of the roundtable discussion is available on Youtube.

In watching the video, it occurred to me something that I had not known before, that at least some people in the local gay community feel guilt over causing the schism. As I have said repeatedly, the issue of homosexuality was the direct, or immediate, cause of the schism. So, the question at hand is:  If the issue of homosexuality were the direct cause of the schism, should the homosexuals of lower South Carolina bear the guilt of the schism? Did they cause the schism?

In a word, no. Here are my thoughts on this:

In the first place, it is well known that victims of wrongdoing or abuse often blame themselves for their own predicaments. For instance, battered wives and girlfriends often blame themselves for the abuse they suffer. This is one reason why so many people in abusive relationships stay in them even though this can lead to further and increasing suffering, despair, and even death or suicide. Psychologists could explain why victims blame themselves better than I could.

In the second place, historical problems that arise from social factors do not necessarily derive from the people involved. For instance, the fundamental cause of the Civil War was slavery. So, were the slaves themselves guilty of causing the Civil War? Certainly not. Personally, they had nothing to do with bringing on the war. They had no reason at all to feel guilty about the most horrific conflict in American history. The war was caused by white people who either favored or opposed the institution of slavery.

Moreover, it is a fact of life that bad things sometimes happen to good people. This is oldest known written problem of humankind. The oldest extant work of literature, the Sumerian The Epic of Gilgamesh addressed that very issue. In the Bible version of this story, the book of Job, a "friend" told Job he had fallen away from God and this had caused his miseries. The only way back was to make amends with God. In other words, the friend told Job he was the cause of his own problems. Job refused to believe it. He knew had not turned against God. He remained true to God and to himself to the very end. Here was a case where the victim refused to blame himself. 

Arguably the worst calamity of the Twentieth Century was the Holocaust. Jews across Europe were subjected to horrors to the point that six million of them were murdered by evil-minded men. Many European Jews wondered out loud what they had done wrong to merit such treatment. In truth, they had done nothing wrong. They were simply the innocent victims of satanic forces that had taken over much of Europe. It was the malignant and deranged minds of the murderers at fault, not the Jews themselves.

Now, to the schism in the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. Although the direct cause was the interface between the church and homosexuality, this was part of a much larger and more complicated picture. The underlying and background causes of the schism derived from a split between the national church and the local diocese on the relationship between God and man and the proper place of man in the social institutions. The national church adopted a course of social reform, primarily in equality for and inclusion of African Americans, women, and homosexuals. The diocesan leaders recoiled from the reforms in favor of what they saw as the traditional God-given social conventions.

The Diocese of South Carolina was the very last of all dioceses to integrate its convention. The first historically black parish, St. Mark's, of Charleston, was finally admitted in 1954, after seven years of being denied its annual requests for admission and nearly a century after the parish had been formed. It was no coincidence that the first parochial (St. Philip's, of Charleston) criticism of the national church appeared immediately afterwards. Parochial and diocesan opposition to the policies of the national church concerning race became louder and louder as the 1960's went along. Some people suspect that the schism of 2012 was actually a delayed reaction to the racial integration of the diocese. Perhaps, but I have no empirical evidence of this. It is, however, part of the bigger picture.

The DSC was also the very last diocese to give women equality and inclusion in parochial and diocesan institutions. By the time of the schism, there were relatively few women among the clergy, half the national average. Women had never been allowed to be rectors of large or medium sized parishes. Women had never been a majority on any important diocesan committee. No woman had ever been chair of such a committee. It was no surprise then that all the historically black parishes and most of the women clergy stayed with the Episcopal diocese at the break.

So, the problem was the embedded and systemic prejudice and discrimination against elements outside of the white patriarchical power structure of the diocese. African Americans, women, and gays were the victims of bias, not the perpetrators of it.

As the diocesan leadership reacted in opposition to the Episcopal Church social reforms of the age, they became neo-Pharisees, quoting scriptural laws hiding behind Bible verses supposedly supporting their positions, and standing in judgment on others who were not like themselves. In reality, Jesus had come to replace, or displace, the Pharisees, that is, to put love of God and man above law and tradition. This was the Great Commandment.

And so the Pharisees of the DSC adopted positions against human rights and for traditional social institutions, at least for women and homosexuals. They strongly endorsed the Jerusalem statement of 2008 that both condemned homosexuality and broke with the Anglican provinces (as TEC) that had favored and incorporated rights for gays. After the schism, the breakaway diocese institutionalized homophobia in its Statement of Faith, of 2015, that was made mandatory throughout the diocese. Then, they institutionalized the inferiority of women by joining the Anglican Church in North America that banned females from the office of bishop and allowed local dioceses to ban women from the priesthood. Since there were no historically black parishes in the schismatic diocese, race was not really an issue. It was on the roles of women and gays that the schismatic diocese made its stand against human rights.

So, back to our original point. Should the homosexual people of lower South Carolina feel guilty for the schism? Absolutely not. Blaming them would make as much sense as blaming the slaves for the Civil War. While the historical problems came from social institutions, the people involved in those very institutions did nothing to bring on the crises. They were the victims of forces beyond them. Let us not confuse the victims with the perpetrators.

The Episcopal Church has struggled hard for seventy years now for the worth and dignity of every human being. This is the baptismal covenant put into action. This movement has been a great democratic revolution which itself was part of a larger sweep of democratic reforms in America, and even the world. It is fair to say there have been vast improvements in human rights as the result of the revolution, and the Episcopal Church's part in it. 

The people who broke off of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, and the Episcopal Church, in 2012 believed this human rights revolution was bad religion. It is wrong to question their motives, but it is not wrong to question their judgments. In my view, their judgments were short-sighted and unfortunate. These caused the schism of 2012 and the terrible decade-long aftermath of civil war. 

In my view, there is a right side and a wrong side of the schism in South Carolina. The right side is the one that values the worth and dignity of every human being who is, after all, made in God's image. This is consistent with the Great Commandment. 

 

A DECADE OF SCHISM:

Reflections on the break, the causes and the results of the Episcopal Church split of 2012 in South Carolina

Part 2. The Causes

B. The Direct Cause

This is the third in our series on essays on the schism of 2012 in commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the break. The first was on what happened in the break itself. The second was on the underlying causes of the schism. The underlying causes came primarily from the innate social conservatism of the Diocese of South Carolina and the increasing divide between an evermore horizontal national church and a vertical local diocese. However, conservatism itself does not explain sufficiently the causes of the schism. It is doubtful that lower South Carolina is any more conservative than the rest of the Dixiecrat belt of South Carolina to Louisiana. Yet, not a single diocese in any other southeastern state experienced a schism. Our next problem is, why did lower South Carolina alone in its region vote to break from the national Episcopal Church; that is, what was the direct cause of the schism?

There is still much that is unknown and unclear about the schism in South Carolina, but the problem of the direct cause is not in this category. Without question, the issue of homosexuality was the direct cause. So now, let us flesh this out. Exactly how did this issue make the break?

In spite of overwhelming empirical evidence, many people on the secessionist side denied, and continue to deny, that the issue of homosexuality caused the schism. The common cry on the breakaway side was, and still is, the break was about theology. Even years before 2012, the diocesan leaders promoted the concept that the Episcopal Church had devolved into heresy, specifically that it no longer accepted the "Uniqueness of Christ, that is, that Jesus Christ alone brought salvation to humankind and faith in Him alone brings salvation. To support this dramatic charge, the leaders claimed Episcopal bishops were on record denying the uniqueness. What some people in the diocese did was to take certain remarks some bishops had made, remove them from the context, and extrapolate the remarks onto the whole Episcopal Church. This was intellectual dishonesty, but it was effective. By the time of the schism, it was commonly held in the separatist local churches that the national church had fallen from grace. 

In fact, the Episcopal Church had not changed its religious understandings. It had changed its social ones. Any alteration of the doctrines, or beliefs, of the Episcopal Church would require resolutions of the General Convention which never happened and certainly would not happen. However, the facts did not matter in this case. So, today, the commonly held concept among the separatist parishes is that the Episcopal Church abandoned the true faith; hence, the schism was justified, and it had nothing to do with homosexuality. The demonstrable facts show this view to be nonsense.

The issue of homosexuality was the direct cause of the schism but it took thirty years for this to work itself out. Space here does not allow all the details (see the conclusion of my book for this), so here are the highlights.

In 1982, the Diocese of South Carolina got a new leader, Bishop Allison. He was a driven Evangelical who had been instrumental in creating what is now Trinity School for Ministry as a bastion of Evangelical Anglicanism. Right off, he became an outspoken critic of the national church, particularly on the issue of homosexuality. He filled all the ranks he could in lower SC with like-minded alumni of TSM. By 1990, the diocese had taken a hard turn to the Evangelical side of the Episcopal Church. This trend was only to continue all the way to schism.

It is important here to look at the relationship between Evangelicalism and homophobia. Why do conservative Christians condemn homosexuality? In my understanding, it has to do with their views of God and the relationship between human beings and God.

Evangelicals/fundamentalists/pentecostals and the like tend to see God as the all powerful ruler of the universe who is a being in space somewhere and like humans only greater. As he rules the universe, he sets into motion all things including society. He created and rules over the social order. It is not man's place to question this, much less try to change it. This is why 80% of Evangelicals voting in 2016 and 2020 voted for Trump, even though he was commonly criticized as, well, morally and ethically challenged. What mattered to the Evangelical voters was that he stood to maintain, or restore, the old social order. This paid off as the Supreme Court revoked settled law and turned abortion over to the individual states. This was a huge blow to the gains women had made in social reform.

As the Episcopal Church moved, step by step, to incorporate non-celibate homosexuals in the church and to open church liturgies to homosexual couples, the Diocese of South Carolina reacted by moving step by step away from the national church. The crucial period in the Episcopal Church was 1989 to 1996. It was in this time that the issues around homosexuality were virtually settled in the Episcopal Church. Right away, a movement sprang up in SC to go beyond the national church.

One of the unanswered questions about the schism in SC was when the turning point occurred. At what point did the diocesan leadership decide on schism? We still do not have enough evidence to answer this question definitely. However, my best guess at this time is the turning point occurred between the Robinson affair of the summer of 2003 and the formation of the bishop's search committee in May of 2004. We have sworn testimony in court that by the time the search committee went to work looking for a new bishop it wanted one to lead the diocese out of the national church. In the end, the committee united around Mark Lawrence, who had made a name for himself speaking out against the affirmation of Robinson. (In 2003 the General Convention affirmed Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire, the first openly non-celibate homosexual person to be named a bishop. In SC, a diocesan convention met and nullified recognition of this.)

Lawrence was consecrated bishop in January of 2008. The schism occurred four, nearly five, years later. Why did it take so long? I think it was a combination of factors. I see three periods in the Lawrence episcopate leading to the schism. The first was 2008-2009. In this he bonded himself to the majority of people in the diocese. He had to have time to get to know the diocese and for the people to get to know him. The second was 2009-2010. In this he called frequent meetings of the diocesan convention that did two big things: declared the sovereignty of the diocese and revoked diocesan accession to the canons of the Episcopal Church. The third period was 2011-2012, the putting into effect of the schism. 

In September of 2012, the Disciplinary Board for Bishops voted that Bishop Lawrence had abandoned the church primarily by issuing quit claim deed to all local parishes. This was in disregard of the Dennis Canon of TEC that required all local properties to be held in trust for the Episcopal Church and its local diocese. He had given out the deeds in 2011.

Everyone knew that the General Convention of 2012 was likely to adopt new liturgies for the blessing of same-sex unions. The leaders in SC spent the first half of the year rousing the diocese to oppose the national church, something that by this point was not hard to do. The bishop and the delegates from SC went to the GC with a pre-made plan to stage a dramatic walk-out when the controversial resolutions passed. After the convention, apparently the diocesan leaders met in secret to formulate the break. Long story short, on Oct. 2, 2012, the Standing Committee, upon the authority they believed they had from the bishop, voted secretly to disaffiliate the diocese from the Episcopal Church if the church took any action of any kind against Lawrence. It was the issue of homosexuality at the 2012 GC that presented the stage for the schism.

So, the issue of the interface between the church and homosexuality percolated up in the 1980's, just at the time a strongly Evangelical bishop was leading the Diocese of South Carolina. He set a tone of criticism of the national church, particularly on issues of sexuality. He brought in like-minded clergy. In SC, hostility to the Episcopal Church grew in the 1990's as the national church moved ever closer to rights and inclusion of non-celibate homosexuals. The crescendo was the Robinson affair in 2003. Apparently soon after this, the attitude among the leadership in SC was set toward secession. If this theory is true, Bishop Lawrence was the executor and not the creator of the schism. We simply do not have enough evidence at this point to say conclusively what happened among the diocesan leaders right after Robinson. We do know, however, there was deep hostility to the national church, among diocesan leaders, by 2008.

The evidence we do have is clear that it was the issue of homosexuality that drove the wedge between the majority of clergy and laity of the diocese of South Carolina and the Episcopal Church. The other dioceses in the southeastern U.S. did not move to schism because they had leadership that was more broad minded about the institution of the national church. They were more accepting and less judgmental about the views of others. The schism in SC was from the top down, not from the bottom up. The crucial factor was leadership. The uniqueness of the schism in SC meant the uniqueness of the leadership in SC.   

 

REMEMBRANCE DAY AHEAD

Today is October 12, 2022. In three days, we will mark the tenth anniversary of the division of the old diocese of South Carolina. The break happened at 12:00 noon on October 15, 2012. I suggest that everyone take a moment at noon on this Saturday, the 15th to reflect on the schism of 2012. I expect to be in my garden for a time of prayer and meditation immersed in the lovely and comforting God-given beauty of autumn. 

How one now sees the schism depends on where one stands. I expect many people on the Episcopal side will mourn for the departed brothers and sisters and for the scandalous unpleasantness of the past decade. However, on the secessionist side there may be a sense of rejoicing at the freedom from what they saw, and still see, as an heretical denomination and at the victory of rescuing almost all of the large parishes from the clutches of that errant church. Nevertheless, there may still be a some sense of "loss" among the departed church people since they have lost both their ancestral church and the Anglican Communion. Adopting the name "Anglican" does not make then Anglicans since an Anglican is defined as one in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury which the secessionist diocese in SC is not.

So, the people in both parts of the schism may be grieving "loss" in one way or another. Perhaps it is useful at this point to review the five stages of grief after loss. How does your own experience fit into these?

1-DENIAL.  This one is not so clear. Everyone knew for years before the schism of 2012 that the Diocese of South Carolina was on the road to schism. It was plain to see, so no one could have been surprised when it happened. On the Episcopal side, perhaps the denial was the tendency to see the break as only temporary, that the two sides would patch up their differences and go on together. I suspect that hope has fallen by the wayside. On the separatist side was the fierce resolve that they held an iron-clad hold on the old diocese. They insisted they were the continuation of the historic Diocese of South Carolina. They denied that there had been a schism.

2-ANGER.  One cannot quantify this, but I suspect there was a great deal of anger on both sides as the litigation dragged on year after year in one court after another. What to blame for this except the schism?

3-BARGAINING.  For nearly ten years, all bargaining between the two parties failed. In 2015, the Episcopal side offered a grand compromise: the diocese for the parishes. The secessionist side disdainfully dismissed this out of hand. Twice courts ordered mediation, all to no avail. The talks never got off the ground.

4-DEPRESSION.  Along the way in the ten years, both sides suffered significant depression, even despair. The low point for the breakaways was the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of 2017 that recognized Episcopal ownership of the diocese (mainly the Camp) and 29 of the 36 parishes in question. The low point for the Episcopal party was the circuit court's rejection of the SCSC decision, in 2020, and the subsequent inexplicable decisions of the SCSC to roll back the Episcopal gains from 29 to 8 local churches.

5-ACCEPTANCE.  Last year, both dioceses elected new bishops, both of which came from outside. Neither new bishop had had anything whatsoever to do with the schism or its aftermath. They have begun to work together to resolve the legal differences in the acceptance of each other as equals. This also signals the acceptance that two separate dioceses will go on indefinitely into the future. The long tone of hostility is easing into at least grudging, pragmatic acceptance of reality.

Might the two separate parts go back together as in the old days before 2012? Of course, anything is possible but at this point in time, considering everything, I think it is most unlikely. 

There was a flurry of excitement last week at the news that an ACNA church in Indiana had voted to join the Episcopal Church. If it can happen in Indiana, could it happen in South Carolina? Could some of the parishes in the breakaway diocese in SC rejoin their ancestral church? Under the circumstances in SC, I think the chances of this happening are nil. Here's why:

The church in Indiana was not part of a schism. It was simply a church plant by an ACNA church that decided they were more comfortable with the social policies of TEC. This situation is a far cry from that of SC.

A major part of the schism in SC was the close binding of the local churches into the schism. Immediately after the schism, the breakaway leaders leaned on the local church to sign a form of commitment to the secession. They also got 36 local parishes to join in their lawsuit against TEC (Jan. 4, 2013). This was the only case among the five schisms where local churches joined in the litigation. There were some dozen local churches that bound themselves to the secession but did not enter into the lawsuit. All of the 36 parishes had to procure lawyers to represent them and to go through the whole decade of litigation. 

In 2017, when the SCSC decision seemed to mean the "loss" of 29 parishes to TEC, the secessionist leaders prepared for removal of the congregations from the properties as continuing parishes elsewhere. Late that year, they sent out a secret plan for the relocations. In the spring of the next year, they began conducting prepared anti-Episcopal propaganda campaigns in some of the 29 parishes to convince communicants not to remain behind with the properties when the time came for relocation. Add this to the years of hostility to the Episcopal Church before the schism, and the years of legal warfare, and one would find a thoroughly negative view of TEC among the local churches that went along with the schism. Given this deep-seated negativity to TEC, I think the chance any one local church would bolt from ADSC for the Episcopal diocese in the foreseeable future is nil to none.

So, again, you might want to pause at noon, on this coming Saturday, the 15th of October and remember in your own way the tenth anniversary of the schism in South Carolina. 

A DECADE OF SCHISM:

Reflections on the break, the causes and the results of the Episcopal Church split of 2012 in South Carolina

Part 2: The Causes

A. The Underlying Causes

This month marks the tenth anniversary of the schism in South Carolina. A few days ago we looked at what happened in the break itself. In October and November of 2012, the majority of the clergy and laity of the Diocese of South Carolina left the Episcopal Church, the Diocese, and the Anglican Communion, to form a new Christian denomination that later joined a larger new group of like-minded people called the Anglican Church in North America and that adopted the name of Anglican Diocese of South Carolina. This left two dioceses where one once stood, the ongoing Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and the separatist Anglican Diocese of South Carolina.

We should hold two factors in mind at this point. One, the pre-schism diocese of SC divided into two separate parts. Two, this schism was unique in the southeastern United States. No other Episcopal diocese in this region experienced a division. The other diocesan schisms were: Pittsburgh (PA), Ft. Worth (TX), Quincy (IL), and San Joaquin (CA).

Our problem now is why this schism occurred and why it was unique to its region.

Historical problems always have two sets of causation, underlying, or long-term causes, and direct, or immediate causes. The schism in SC is no exception to the rule. It has underlying and direct causes. First, we will look at the underlying causes and then the direct. 

The search for the underlying causes leads us to the broader context of American history. Here we find the schism was part and parcel of the contemporary culture war going on in America.

From the start of our nation to the end of the Second World War (1945), America was a white patriarchy. With very few exceptions, white men monopolized all levers of power in American society. They carried out ethnic cleansing of native peoples, kept African descendants in slavery, then second class citizenship under Jim Crow, women in submission until grudgingly allowing the vote, and foreigners either banned or heavily restricted after 1920. The prevailing narrative of American history was the God-given victory of the white man (Manifest Destiny).

In contrast to this minority power structure, the Twentieth Century brought in two reforming movements, social democracy and populist government. Democracy defeated its rivals in the First World War (monarchy) and the Second World War (totalitarianism). Soviet communism imploded in the 1980's. Democracy, the rule of the people, by the people, and for the people (all the people equally), became the prevailing political system of the world with a few important exceptions. The other, populist government, grew up in the Great Depression of the 1930's when the government moved in to provide for the welfare of the people.

After the Second World War, the two concepts of democracy and populism combined to create an irresistible movement of reform. Elements that had been ignored or marginalized under white patriarchy began to stir against the old status quo. From 1945 to 1968, a great democratic revolution swept America. The two outstanding parts of this were the Civil Rights Movement that started the trend of rights, equality, and inclusion of African Americans in American society, and the women's liberation movement that did the same for women. By 1968, white patriarchy had been seriously challenged. Reforms for homosexuals began in earnest in the 1970's and 80's, another challenge to the old order.

By 1968, the old order caught its breath and began a furious counter-revolutionary backlash against the new challengers. Essentially, American history since 1968 has been a struggle between the ongoing post-WWII great democratic revolution and the reactionary white patriarchy. To complicate this, demographic changes foretold the looming reduction of white people to minority numbers in the U.S. White people would soon lose majority vote in what a great many of them considered historically as their own country. White male fears arose. These soared at the election, and reelection of the first president of African heritage, and the first woman candidate for president of a major party. They found a home in the candidacy, and administration of Donald Trump, who skillfully stoked white fears and resentments. The crescendo was the Trumpist mob's attempt to overthrow the constitutional government on Jan. 6, 2021.

In some way, all American institutions have been swept up into this great culture war. The Episcopal Church was no exception. As the democratic revolution began to emerge after the Second World War, the Church resolved early on to throw in its lot with the new reform movement. By the 1960's, the Episcopal Church was a major part of the national crusade for racial and gender reform. By the 1990's, the Church would add homosexuals to the list.

At the risk of over-simplifying, there are two basic approaches in Christianity, vertical and horizontal. They take different views of the relationship of the divine and the human. Vertical emphasizes a one-to-one relationship between a corrupt and sinful human being and a perfect and all-powerful entity in the beyond. The salvation of the corrupt person is the point of this relationship. Taken to extreme, this can become idolatry as the individual implores this all-powerful deity for favors. Since God created and controls the universe, it is not man's place to question, let alone change, the divine order. Vertical Christianity tends to be socially conservative.

The horizontal viewpoint is that God created human beings in his own image to be his representatives on earth. With the knowledge of good and evil and free will, it is their mission to carry out God's work in the world. Instead of the remote idol, God is the transcendent power present in the transactions. Horizontal Christianity emphasizes change and reform in society (the Social Gospel). In short, vertical is self-oriented while horizontal is communal.

After the Second World War, the Episcopal Church gradually moved from a vertical to a horizontal posture. This continues to today. It came to champion equal rights and inclusion for African Americans, women, homosexuals and the transgendered. Along the way, the Church revised the prayer book liturgies to make them more democratic. 

All of this caused a backlash from those Church people who wanted to continue the emphasis on vertical religion. Southern whites began leaving the Episcopal Church in the 1950's and 60's. When women were given the right to Holy Orders, more conservatives left. Same for the changes in the prayer book. All of these rocked the Episcopal Church but the real explosion came in the 1990's with the reforms for homosexuals.

The battle in TEC over rights for homosexuals ran mainly from 1989 to 1996. At first, the church was divided into thirds, pro, anti, and neutral. By the end, the pro had won the day. In 1997, the first serious breaches in the church began to appear when it was clear that homosexuals had won equality and inclusion in the life of the church. The affirmation of the first open and partnered homosexual person as a bishop (2003) and the election of the first woman as presiding bishop (2006) were immediately followed by four dioceses declaring their departure from the national church.

In short, from the 1950's onward, the Episcopal Church became increasingly horizontal in its exercise of religion. A minority of verticalists rebelled and left the church all along the way but most seriously in 2007 and 2008 when four of the 100-plus dioceses voted to depart.

As we know, South Carolina became the fifth to vote to leave TEC, in 2012. Our problem now is, why South Carolina? We have to start with the generic conservatism of the state and the diocese. It was the most socially conservative of the 100-plus dioceses of the entire Episcopal Church. It was the last to integrate its convention. It admitted the first historically black parish in 1954, nearly a century after the Civil War. It was the last to allow women into offices of power in the diocese. While it did allow women to be ordained, it was very slow to do this. No woman was every named chair of an important diocesan body. Women never had a majority of any diocesan committee. No woman was ever named rector of a large or medium parish. The diocese remained largely a bastion of white patriarchy.

In sum, the underlying causes of the schism in South Carolina came from the divergence of an increasingly socially reformist national church and a historically socially conservative diocese. While the diocese remained, however uneasily, in the national church in the 1950s, 60's, and 70's, the relationship began to alter drastically after 1982. For thirty years, from 1982 to 2012, the diocese of South Carolina moved evermore away from the national mainstream, to the breaking point. Exactly how this occurred will be the topic of our next look at the causes of the schism, the direct, or immediate causes.

 

A DECADE OF SCHISM:

Reflections on the break, the causes and the results of the Episcopal Church split of 2012 in South Carolina

Part 1: The Break

Today is the First of October, 2022. This  month marks the tenth anniversary of the Episcopal Church schism in South Carolina. Although the problems of its aftermath continue, this is a convenient moment to stop and reflect on the division of the old diocese, particularly on how the break occurred, the long-term and immediate causes of the schism, and the results.

Anyone who has waded through my history of the schism knows the minute detail I provided in the book, not to mention the thousands of footnotes documenting every point. Even though the book was published five years ago, I stand by it. I would not change a word. No one has ever publicly disputed any point I made in the book which is still in print in hardback, paperback, and Kindle. Space here does not allow all the detail I provided in the book, so I will try to summarize. Summarizing history has always been hard for me to do. My students sometimes good-naturedly rolled their eyes when I went off on long, verbose, detailed tangents. Anyway, I will try to sum things up here for the sake of space. One can find all the detail one should want and then some in my book.

First, we will look at when and how the break actually occurred. Then, we will go over the causes of the schism. Finally we will look at the ten-year aftermath of the separation.

The break happened precisely at 12:00 p.m. (Noon) on Monday, 15 October 2012.

At noon, Katharine Jefferts Schori, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, in New York City, telephoned Mark Lawrence, bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina, in Charleston. On the line also were the members of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops, and Wade Logan, chancellor of the Diocese of South Carolina. Jefferts Schori told Lawrence that the DBB had certified that he (Lawrence) had abandoned the communion and that she was required to place a restriction on him. As of noon of that day he was to perform no act as an ordained person.

Jefferts Schori went on to ask for confidentiality. She said she would make no announcement of the restriction. She already had a scheduled meeting on 22 October with Lawrence, Andrew Waldo (Bp of Upper SC), and their chancellors, in New York. She hoped to settle the matter privately at that time. Lawrence listened, said little, then hung up the phone.

The presiding bishop did not know, had no way of knowing, that she had walked into a hidden trap that had been set for her some time before by the diocesan officers in Charleston. On October 2 the diocesan Standing Committee had secretly passed a resolution that the diocese would withdraw from the Episcopal Church if the national church took any action of any kind against Bishop Lawrence. In all, no more than two dozen persons in the diocesan leadership were in on the plot. They all kept it top secret. Lawrence did not reveal it to Bishop Waldo, or to the presiding bishop when he met her the next day, on 3 October 2012.

Lawrence had already been investigated by the Disciplinary Board for Bishops once and cleared. However, everyone knew there was a likelihood he would be investigated again after his issuance of quit claim deeds to all the parishes of the diocese in disregard of the Episcopal Church's Dennis Canon which required all local property to be held in trust for the Church and its diocese. When the Standing Committee adopted their secret resolution for schism it was generally known that there was a good chance the Episcopal Church authorities would take action against Lawrence. The presiding bishop would then appear to be the aggressor and Lawrence the innocent victim. The diocese would rally to the defense of their beleaguered bishop.

Jefferts Schori's call on the 15th and the restriction was all that was needed for the schism to go into effect from the diocesan leadership's perspective. 

Immediately after hanging up the phone, Lawrence called Logan, the chancellor, because the secret resolution required the chancellor's approval before enactment. He then made a conference call with the Standing Committee which declared its Oct. 2 resolution to be in effect. In the diocesan leadership's view, this made the schism. At that point, they said the diocese was no longer associated with the Episcopal Church. Lawrence then made phone calls to several other important people who had been in on the secret plan. Afterwards, he went on with his duties as bishop in complete disregard of the restriction which in his view was irrelevant since the diocese was no longer associated with the Episcopal Church.

Thus, two dozen people in the diocesan leadership planned and carried out a supposed separation of the diocese from the Episcopal Church. At least this was the view of these people. What about everybody else?

The diocesan leadership spent the next forty-eight hours preparing for a massive public relations initiative to sell the schism to the communicants. 

At around noon on Wednesday, 17 October, Lawrence called Jefferts Schori and informed her that the diocese had disaffiliated from the Episcopal Church. He told her the Oct. 2 resolution of the Standing Committee required it as of noon on the 15th, the time she had taken any action of any kind against Lawrence. There could be no confidentiality. 

As soon as Lawrence hung up the phone, the officials in the diocesan office announced to the world that the diocese had disassociated from the Episcopal Church. They posted a stack of documents on the Internet meant to justify the action. The news exploded around the world. The fifth diocese of the Episcopal Church had declared its independence. 

In the view of the two-dozen or so of the diocesan leaders, their self-proclaimed schism was now a fait accompli. However, they had to be sure the bulk of the diocesan membership was on board. A diocesan special convention was called for 17 November. Within the month, the public relations drive was sure to firm up solid support for the supposedly beleaguered bishop and diocese. The PR campaign was wildly successful. There really was no counter campaign.

The special convention of Nov. 17, at St. Philip's, in Charleston, was an open-and-shut affair. Lawrence told the delegates the diocese (including himself as the bishop) had left the Episcopal Church and they were there to validate this or not. Forty-nine local churches rubber stamped the schism while twenty-two either did not attend or abstained from voting. At least two-thirds of the diocese happily complied with the break.

Jefferts Schori tried for seven weeks to meet with Lawrence and to find ways to heal the break, all to no avail. Lawrence spurned every effort she made to meet with him. It was Lawrence's words to the special convention that closed the book for her. After Lawrence indicated to the convention he had left the Episcopal Church, she had no choice but to act and remove him as bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina. 

On December 5, 2012, Jefferts Schori called Lawrence and told him she had accepted his renunciation of ministry in the Episcopal Church. She issued a document called "Renunciation of Ordained Ministry and Declaration of Removal and Release." This officially removed Lawrence from the ordained ministry of the Episcopal Church. After this point, he was no longer bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina. 

After that, the Episcopal Church began reorganizing the diocese, and its first provisional bishop would soon be named. 

On January 4, 2013, the lawyers for the independent diocese filed a lawsuit against the Episcopal Church for ownership of the diocese thus beginning the long legal war.

Now, we have to consider the question of whether the diocese actually disassociated from the Episcopal Church as the diocesan officials claimed. The short answer is no, but this takes some explaining.

The leaders of the schism believed, and declared, that the Diocese of South Carolina had seceded intact from the Episcopal Church to become an independent religious institution. They continued to use the names and emblems of the diocese, and in fact got an injunction from the circuit court in January of 2013 protecting this. However, the Episcopal Church entered a lawsuit in federal court in March of 2013 claiming violation of trademark, essentially that the breakaways' claim of being the Diocese of South Carolina was fraudulent. This suit finally came to resolution in 2019 when U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel, in Charleston, ordered that the Episcopal Diocese was the one and only heir of the Diocese of South Carolina and the rightful owner of all the names and emblems. He even issued an injunction enforcing this. The schismatic association then had to choose a new name; they chose "Anglican Diocese of South Carolina." The state supreme court also ruled repeatedly that the Episcopal diocese was the heir of the historic diocese. (The terms of settlement of Sept. 26, 2022 included a provision that the Anglican diocese would withdraw its appeal of Gergel's order and, in effect, accept his judgment as final. This ends the question of which side is the historic diocese.) 

Thus, it was not true that the Diocese of South Carolina seceded from the Episcopal Church. The clergy and laity who left the Episcopal Church also left the Diocese of South Carolina. They set up a new institution with a new name. The Anglican Diocese of South Carolina first came into being in 2012 although it did not choose a new name until seven years later.

So, to summarize this summary:  the break occurred on Oct. 15, 2012 when two-dozen people in the diocesan leadership put into effect their premeditated and secret plan claiming to remove the diocese from the Episcopal Church. They left the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of South Carolina. The majority of clergy and laity of the old diocese went along with this by resolutions of the special convention. A minority reorganized the Episcopal diocese. After Lawrence announced his departure from the Episcopal Church he was removed as bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina. This left the old diocese split into two dioceses, the ongoing Episcopal diocese and one that came to be called the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina.    

I hope this little summary of how and when the break occurred was helpful. Next we will turn to the causes of the break.