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.