POPE FRANCIS APPROVES SAME-SEX BLESSINGS

The news broke today that Pope Francis has formally approved of in-church blessings of same-sex unions. Find an article about this HERE . 

The pope's monumental decision is a major turn-around at the Vatican. The CATECHISM of the Catholic Church states "under no circumstances can they [homosexual acts] be approved." While a blessing in church does not technically "approve" of homosexual acts, it at the very least takes a neutral view. The church would not be approving of "sinful" relationships with ceremonies inside church buildings. The neutral view would override the moral condemnation of homosexuality that the traditional Catechism contains. 

This means that the largest branch of Christianity has moved to moral neutrality on the issue of homosexuality. Just a few days ago, the bishops of the Church of England also approved of the go-ahead of the blessings of same-sex couples in that denomination. Of course, a half-dozen branches of the Anglican Communion have moved to full recognition of same-sex relationships with some, as the American church, actually welcoming same-sex marriages in the church. 

All of this is much to the chagrin of the counter-revolutionaries in all denominations who continue to declare homosexuality to be "disordered" and sinful. The Anglican Church in North America was chartered in 2009 for this very reason. The Anglican Diocese of South Carolina is part of the ACNA and has adopted a "Statement of Faith" (2015) that explicitly forbids ADSC churches from allowing same-sex marriages in the churches. 

Meanwhile, regardless of the reactionaries' protests, the trend among the majority of Christians in the world is to the respect and inclusion of all of God's children. What the pope has done is a major step in this development.

REVIEWING NAPOLEON

I saw the new movie "Napoleon" today at a local theater. Here is my take on it. I have deliberately avoiding reading other reviews or comments so as not to skew my own view.

First of all, we must remember this is a Hollywood movie. It is not history. Since it is just a movie, we must think about the purpose and function of this movie. Why was it made? For entertainment, certainly. Then, we have to ask, how does this film work as entertainment?

I think a movie has to engage the viewer in one or two ways. It has to present an enveloping narrative, a plot, that draws us in and makes us care about what is happening on the screen. For instance, "Casablanca" does this perfectly. If the movie does not do this, then it has to present characters that we care about.

How does "Napoleon" function on each of these? It really has no unified narrative or plot. It is a collection of vignettes and they are not usually well-connected. So, the movie tries to rest on the characters, in this case Napoleon and Josephine. It does not succeed at this either. We really do not get to know either person well. Therefore, we never really care about them much as people. We do not even learn why they care so much about each other. The romance is not there. Instead the relationship is all sexual. There are numerous sexual references and two scenes of simulated intercourse. This depiction is most unfair to Josephine who, while she did use sex as a tool, was far more than a sex object. She was an intelligent, shrewd, and ambitious woman who contributed to Napoleon's career. This was really why Napoleon was attracted to her so much.

It is often true that movies tell us more about the time in which they were made than in the history being represented. If so, this movie tells us we live in an age obsessed with sex, sexuality, and gender. I do not think anyone would disagree with this. 

The movie is replete with historical inaccuracies and I will not go into this as it would take a long time. Suffice to say the one that grated on me the most was Josephine's reaction to being told that Napoleon was going to divorce her. In the movie she laughs disdainfully. In fact, people said one could hear her screams from one end of the palace to the other. She dissolved into hysterical sobs and begged and pleaded for a long time before becoming reconciled to the decision. In this case, history would have actually added to the emotional intensity of the movie since there was precious little otherwise. The countless other errors I would chalk up to poetic license. 

The battle scenes are mediocre to poor. In fact, they seemed gratuitous and even broke the narrative, such as it was, that the movie was trying to convey. Toulon was fair. Austerlitz was completely wrong. Borodino is barely a blip. The only battle scene that had any merit was Waterloo which was not too bad.

So, would I recommend the movie? I would give it 5 out of 10. If you are interested in history, or in Napoleon, it would be worth your while. If not, I would skip it. I doubt seriously that it will win any Academy Awards. And no, Joaquin Phoenix is not a convincing Napoleon.

I suppose one useful outcome of the movie is to make us think about the place of Napoleon Bonaparte in history. He was a gigantic figure who dominated Europe from 1799 to 1815 and cast a strong and long shadow over the next century and a half. The question is, what difference has he made to the world in which we live?

Historically, Napoleon represented two different currents, militarism and authoritarianism. Contrary to the film above, the driving force in his life was not Josephine, it was the army. He was first, last and in-between a soldier. One cannot understand anything about him without starting with this. As a soldier, he believed problems were solved on the battlefield. Hence, campaign after campaign, battle after battle. And this is what a lot of Napoleonic scholars love to specialize in. Napoleon was a genius at innovative, sometimes dazzling, strategy and tactics. But, in the end, his enemies inevitably joined up against him and brought him down. His militarism failed to keep him in power. 

The other current was authoritarianism. Napoleon overthrew the revolutionary republican government and made himself a dictator, calling himself consul, first consul, then emperor. While he institutionalized many reforms of the revolution, he betrayed the fundamental idea of the revolution, that people could govern themselves in freedom and equality.

One can argue that both militarism and authoritarianism have had devastating effects on civilization in the two centuries since Napoleon's time. Militarism zoomed ahead in the century after Napoleon so that by 1914, all the great powers had poured massive fortunes into military preparations, on the Napoleonic assumption that problems between nations could be settled on the battlefield. Every power in the world financed detailed historical studies of the Napoleonic wars as if to unlock the keys to his brilliance. This took all the great powers straight into the First World War. However, WWI was to be entirely different than the Napoleonic wars because of technology. Airplanes, submarines, tanks, machine guns, flame throwers, poison gas etc. were things N could not have imagined. The new militarism was far more deadly. Whereas at least 3m people died in the Napoleonic wars, some 20m died in WWI, and 60m in WWII. 

The authoritarian model has also been inordinately impressive since 1815 even though the main thrust of western civilization has been toward democracy. The Twentieth Century was the age of the ideological dictators, every one of which looked back to Napoleon. Hitler spent a long time standing at Napoleon's tomb on his triumphant visit to Paris in 1940. As we see in the world today, the urge toward authoritarianism is a major problem. This will be a large part of the American national elections next year. One of the parties is about to nominate a candidate who promises an authoritarian, that is, anti-democratic, state.

I would like to think the world has outgrown Napoleon and his legacy of militarism and authoritarianism. Aggressive wars do not solve problems and often only lead to more. The glory is not on the battlefield. It is in the making of the peace. Likewise, dictators do not know better than the communal spirit of the people. Sovereignty rests in the people as a whole and they have the right to decide collectively what they will do. Democracy is the best way to preserve liberty, equality, and fraternity.

 

AWAITING THE ARRIVAL OF "NAPOLEON"

I suppose we have all seen the trailers and ads on television about the upcoming theater movie, "Napoleon." This two-and-a-half hour "epic" is set to debut on the big screen at Thanksgiving. It has already been hyped a great deal in the media. I plan to see it at my earliest convenience. Find an announcement about the new movie HERE .

I am actually looking forward to it although I expect the film-makers have taken great liberties with actual characters and events. In graduate school at Florida State, I was fortunate enough to be allowed to specialize in the period of the French Revolution and Napoleon. FSU was then, and still is, one of the few universities in America that offered intense study in this particular period of history. My major professor was a world-renowned scholar of Napoleonic military history and amassed the largest library in the country on this period of history.

Over the years I have published several books and numerous articles on the French Revolution and Napoleon. I spent six years scouring the major libraries of Europe and America to compile a comprehensive bibliography of the books, articles, and other writings on the age of Napoleon, 1799-1815. This was something that had never been done before. I published a massive two-volume work in 1991 to great reviews. It listed 48,000 items. With the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln, more books have been written about Napoleon Bonaparte than any other character of modern history. He has always fascinated people, historians and lay people alike.

The new movie is certainly not the first movie made about Napoleon, far from it. There have been dozens of them starting back in the silent era. In fact, the groundbreaking film came with Abel Gance's 1927 masterpiece, "Napoleon." Unfortunately, no actor has ever embodied the Napoleon we know from history. The worst attempt ever was Marlon Brando in "Desirée."

Awful. He played, well, Brando. From the new trailers, Joaquin Phoenix, who plays Napoleon, sounds a lot like Brando. Not a good sign.

Nevertheless, there were some very good parts of the movies that are still worthy of viewing. When I was a teenager, I was enthralled by the 1956 movie, "War and Peace," with Henry Fonda and Audrey Hepburn. I watched it, mesmerized, on the huge screen of the Saenger theater in Pensacola. I can still feel the agony of the retreat from Russia. In my opinion the greatest Napoleonic battle scene ever put on film was in the 1966 Soviet six-hour version of "War and Peace." The Battle of Borodino used 100,000 actors and took forty-five minutes of the movie. The 1971 movie, "Waterloo" also did a good job of recreating that fatal battle. Unfortunately, most of the  movies and television production on Napoleon are forgettable junk. 

Of course, Hollywood movies have been all over the place in depicting history. In my mind, the greatest characterization of Louis XVI came in the 1938 movie, "Marie Antoinette." Robert Morley was the very reincarnation of Louis. I used to show the movie in my classes for that reason. On the other hand, the worst movie about history was actually one of the greatest movies ever made, 1939's "Gone With the Wind." It conjured up a fictional view of a past that never existed of rich white southerners and happy black slaves. The movie has had a huge and negative effect on southerners around the issue of race. An awful lot of white people still cling to the myth perpetuated by that movie that blacks were well off and well treated as slaves and that the white people were the victims. In my opinion, "Gone With the Wind" has done tremendous damage to race relations in the south. This is the power of what a movie can do.

I am already having troubles with some of the things in the trailers, little things that are wrongly portrayed. And why they threw in Marie Antoinette, I cannot imagine. Napoleon had nothing to do with her execution. I also have a lot of doubt about Joaquin Phoenix. He is too old for the part. Napoleon was very young, and youthful. He was only 19 when the Revolution began, and just 23 when he won his first big battle and became a brigadier general. He was just 30 when he came to power. 

The moviemakers promised to center the story on the relationship between N and Josephine. Good, except it would take a lot longer than two and a half hours to deal with that. It was passionate, but also highly complicated, and it was about a lot more than sex. 

So, I am trying to keep an open mind and see what the movie has to offer without prejudice. We are told the battle scenes alone are worth it. It includes the Battle of Austerlitz, N's "perfect" battle of 1805 that solidified his reputation as a great military genius. It also shows Waterloo, the last battle when the genius had lost his magic. Modern technology should be able to show these battles in a far more realistic way than in the films of old. We shall see.

I shall return with my thoughts about "Napoleon" after I have seen the new movie. Perhaps you will see the movie and share your thoughts with me. 

I will go over then my views of the place of Napoleon Bonaparte in history, a least a little summary of them. Meanwhile, let's enjoy (hopefully) the movie about one of the most fascinating characters in all of history.

 

OF HEROES AND CHRONICLERS

As the schism winds down and its loose threads are being tied off, it is appropriate to reflect on the near past before we move on, as we should, into the future. Of course, the schism can never, and should never, be removed from the memory of the past. It is now, and will be forever, in the DNA of the Diocese of South Carolina. The diocese of today has been forged in the fire of this unwelcomed conflagration. The character of the diocese today is the result of the events visited upon it in the past few decades. The loyal Episcopalians of lower South Carolina did not ask for what happened to them, and neither did they shy away from the challenge of the moment.

Therefore, it was appropriate for the diocese to pause last week and remember the heroes of the hour and the chroniclers who wrote about them. The greatest heroes were those faithful Episcopalians who refused to follow the erring crowd, who kept the faith and who fought the good fight even when it was hard to do. Frances Elmore, of Florence, was one of those. At the break in late 2012, she and Dolores Miller gathered up the dozen or so faithful Episcopalians of Florence and formed a church. I know firsthand because my daughter Elizabeth was in that little band. At first they met in living rooms, then in an old rural school and in borrowed quarters of a Lutheran church. Finally, they settled in a repurposed shoe store. By the time of Miller's death, a few years ago, St. Catherine's Episcopal Church was a strong and vibrant congregation. It was highly fitting last week for Bishop Woodliff-Stanley to recognize Elmore with the high honor of Bishop's Cross. Find a video of the Bishop's Cross presentation HERE.

It was appropriate too for the bishop to recognize the work of the "chroniclers," including Steve Skardon and Minerva King. For a decade before the break of 2012, Skardon single-handedly related information and challenged the various maneuverings of the old diocesan leadership which for years worked to remove the majority of the diocese from the Episcopal Church. His blog, scepiscopalians.com , was the only source of information available to the public that was not controlled by the schism-bound diocesan authorities. The Episcopal Forum tried also to promote reason but it was swept aside by the diocesan powers of the day. Without Skardon, the schismatics would have had complete control of the public message and a free run of the public perception of the issues of the day. He refused to concede the stage to them. This makes him both a hero and a chronicler. Find a video of the Chronicler awards HERE . The bishop recognized my work on history too, but I was not able to be present. I appreciated her kind words and look forward to receiving the award at some future time.

Meanwhile, let us enjoy the grandeur of the season. Ride down any country lane in the south these days and you are likely to be surrounded by the beauty of God's creation. The seasons change. Life goes on. And we must go with it. But we do so much better because of the heroes and their story-tellers who lead the way. 

 

ELIZABETH DUFOUR RIVERS (1929-2023)

LET LIGHT PERPETUAL SHINE UPON HER

Elizabeth (Betty to her friends) Dufour Rivers died yesterday, October 14, 2023, at the age of ninety-five (b. Dec. 28, 1929). Her husband of seventy-three years, Dr. Charles Ford Rivers, Jr. died last year.

Since this blog focuses on the schism, we must remember today the eloquent and moving letter she sent to her home parish, Church of the Holy Communion, on November 12, 2012, a few days before a diocesan convention was set to affirm the claimed secession of the diocese from the Episcopal Church. Under the courageous leadership of the Rev. Dow Sanderson, the parish remained in the Episcopal diocese. The letter is well worth a re-reading today. No one encapsulated better the truth of the moment at that painful time.

Dear Friends,

I am writing this letter because I do not feel comfortable, at this stage of my life, speaking in public about delicate and emotional topics and thus chose not to speak at the meeting Sunday morning. But I do want to share with you how delighted I am at the announcement that our parish [Holy Communion] will continue to be a full and faithful participant in The Episcopal Church of the United States of America. I have often said, in the midst of the recent troubles: "I was born and Episcopalian and I intend to die an Episcopalian." The knowledge that I will be able to do so in the very church where I was confirmed and married, where all four of my children were baptized and confirmed and from which both my mother and daughter were buried fills me with a joy and gratitude words cannot express.

I would also, at this very happy time, like to express why I am so firmly supportive of this decision. While I understand there are multiple  issues at play in the conflict between the former leadership of this diocese and the national church, the historical record clearly suggests that at the heart of that conflict are differing theological views concerning homosexuality. In fact, the very first document produced under the new name "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina," (dated June 15, 2012) deals exclusively with the topic of homosexuality and how it has been handled by the national church. The breakaway diocese is thus, in a sense, founded on its opposition to the ordination of homosexuals and to same-sex blessings.

Point #3 of this document says that the signatories (the Standing Committee of The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina) have "compassion" for "those who struggle with and act upon same-gender attraction" and says that "the Lord calls us all, equally, to repent of sin that we might receive forgiveness and cleansing [...], restoration [...] and transformation." Whatever my other sins may be, I clearly do not have to ask for forgiveness, cleansing and transformation for the loving, monogamous, life-sustaining relationship I have had with my husband for the past sixty-three years. But according to this document, my son, who is in an equally loving, monogamous, life-sustaining relationship of twenty-six years with his partner, does. I do not agree.

Point #4 says that the signatories "repudiate, denounce and reject any action of the Episcopal Church which purports to bless what our Lord clearly does not bless." Again, I disagree with this view. There has been unambiguous evidence of the blessings of the Lord in the relationship between my son and his partner, many, many times over, during the course of many, many years. This is not an abstract notion on my part; it is something I have seen with my eyes and ears and that I know in both my head and my heart. And it is something for which I am profoundly grateful to God. My son and his partner's relationship has been a blessing not just to them but also to my husband and me, to my son's partner's parents, to both families and to their many friends. My son's partner, whom I love as a dear son and who has unfailingly treated both my husband and me with all the affection, devotion and respect of a dear son, would not have come into our family if he and my son had not entered into union with each other.

People who would deny these gracious blessings of our Lord simply have a different view of who God is and how he works than I do: what I know to be a blessing, they consider a sin. Fortunately for me, the denomination into which I was born and to which I intend to remain faithful agrees with me! The Episcopal Church and the decisions of the General Convention are in keeping with my belief that our Lord calls some people to loving, monogamous union with a partner of their own sex, that he blesses such relationships and that our Church should do so as well.

The thought, in recent weeks, that a separation from this place might become necessary has caused me nearly unbearable pain. The knowledge that that will not be necessary after all fills me not only with overwhelming joy but also with hope, gratitude and pride.

With love to you all.

Betty

(Elizabeth Dufour Rivers)

November 12, 2012

--------------------------------------------------------------

The issue of homosexuality was indeed the direct cause of the schism. In fact, in 2015 the breakaway diocese institutionalized homophobia in its mandatory "Statement of Faith."

It is gratifying to know that Betty Rivers lived long enough to see the federal court rule that the schismatics did not take the diocese with them but created a whole new body with no claim whatsoever to the pre-schism diocese. The Episcopal diocese is the one and only continuation of the old Diocese of South Carolina. The breakaways formed a new church and entered a new denomination beyond the bounds of the Anglican Communion. They have gone a long way to keep gays from having blessings in church. 

Betty Rivers saw truth a long time ago and shined a light on it. This should be her epitaph. 

 

WE MUST STAND WITH THE ISRAELIS---AND WITH THE PALESTINIANS

War has broken out, yet again, in the Middle East. How many times have we seen this awful movie? What should we Americans do now, if anything?

First and foremost, we must defend Israel. Given the catastrophic events of the Twentieth Century, the world owes it to the Jewish people to defend their Biblical homeland. That is a given.

However, there are other people involved here who have a great stake in what is going on in Israel. Beyond this, there are numerous countries in the region that would love to destroy the Jewish state, not the least of which is Iran. Thus, the matter is highly complicated and multi-layered.

Over the weekend, some of the iconic monuments around the world lit up in support of Israel. An especially poignant one was the Brandenburg Gate, in Berlin. Note the large crowd assembled.

In my opinion, the bottom line is the issue of human rights. Everyone on every side has the same claim to human rights. No one has privilege to a higher level than the others. So, we Americans should hold that in mind. We stand for the equal rights of all people, the Jews and the Arabs. This is why I think a two-state solution is the right way to go.

Much of the problem in the seventy-five year war in the area is that too many people were looking for military solutions. This has not worked and will not work. Peace will be the result of understanding, acceptance and compromise, not of killing.

Next to the carnage of this new attack, the most shocking thing of the weekend was the abject failure of the supposedly expert Israeli intelligence service and the impenetrability of the "Iron Dome" over Israel. Both of these proved to be false walls. The Israelis should realize there is no absolute military protection. History is littered with cases of failed defenses. Two that come to mind right off are the Maginot Line and the walls of Constantinople. The French spent an incredible fortune and worked for years to construct the greatest system of fortifications imaginable, the Maginot Line. It was to defend the border with Germany and prevent a recurrence of the First World War. When the invasion came in 1940, the Line was completely useless. The Germans simply went around the end of it and easily captured it from the rear. Likewise, the walls of Constantinople were thought to be absolute, and they were for a thousand years. Then, in 1453, the Ottoman Turks hauled up huge cannons that blasted away at a weak point and the wall broke. The Turks streamed into the great city killing thousands and selling thousands more into slavery. Like the Maginot Line, the walls proved to be a catastrophic failure of imagination. Perhaps this is what has happened in Israel, a failure of imagination.

Anyway, the question is what we Americans should do now. In the first place, we must recognize that what goes on in all the world affects us too. All of our lives are interconnected on this fragile earth, our island home as the BCP says. This is why the people who want to cut off aid to Ukraine are dead wrong. If the Russians prevail there, we Americans will be worse off.

In my view, we must defend Israel and protect their right of self-determination. However, we should also defend the human rights of the Arabs in the region. The people who speak Arabic have the same claim to freedom, equality and justice as those who speak Hebrew. If we Americans stand for the equal rights of all people, and I maintain that we do, we must use whatever influence we have to press this point in the Middle East.  

 

ALBANY AFFIRMS HUMAN RIGHTS

Something important happened last month that slipped under my radar but must be pointed out now. On September 9, 2023, a convention in the diocese of Albany (New York) elected as the next bishop a strong advocate of the rights of same-sex couples. The Rev. Jeremiah Williamson was elected on the Fourth Ballot, 65-22 in laity and 56-54 in clergy. Note the vote---the laity were far more favorable to Williamson than the clergy who had actually backed a conservative candidate until the last ballot.

Find news articles about this HERE and HERE .

Albany has been much in the news in the last few years. The previous bishop, William Love, refused to allow a rule of the nation church, B012, of 2018, to be followed in the diocese. B012 required that every diocese provide for same-sex liturgies even if substitute clergy were necessary. Love resigned as bishop in 2021 after he was charged with disciplinary action. He subsequently joined the homophobic and misogynist Anglican Church in North America. Several clergy of Albany followed Love out of TEC. The Albany Standing Committee has functioned as the ecclesiastical authority since Love's departure.

On the local level, Williamson's election tells us that the people-in-the-pews of the diocese of Albany want to be a part of the consensus of the Episcopal Church on human rights even if many of the clergy are reluctant. This is a huge turnaround in the trajectory of the diocese since the days of Bishop Love.

On the national level, Williamson's election is another manifestation of the resolute commitment of the Episcopal Church to human rights. In the past thirty years, TEC has removed sexuality as an impediment to ordination, affirmed an open and partnered gay man as a bishop, then several other open homosexuals as bishops, adopted church blessings of same-sex unions, adopted a marriage liturgy for same-sex couples, adopted and enforced B012 in 2018, a resolution that requires dioceses to provide liturgies for same-sex couples. Just this year, the nation church rejected a bishop-elect, from Florida, on suspicions to his commitment to the church's advocacy for equality and inclusion of gays. Now, the people of Albany have signaled very clearly that they agree with the national church's stand for the human rights of all people.

All of this tells us the Episcopal Church is firmly committed to enacting reforms to right the wrongs of the past. There is a lot more work to do but the road is laid out clearly and the momentum is irresistible. The people of Albany have shown us that.

 

POPE SAYS ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS CAN BE A SUBJECT OF STUDY

An historic synod began at the Vatican yesterday. In this year and next the assembly will discuss a wide-ranging set of issues facing the Roman church today. For the first time, laity, including women, among the 450 participants, will have equal vote with the cardinals. The pope is encouraging a collegial, communal approach, rather than the top-down authoritarian method followed in the past. They have even installed round tables to make the participants talk with each other in small groups. How up to date!

In the run up to the meeting, a group of five highly conservative cardinals asked the pope to comment on certain issues important to them. Pope Francis responded in a letter to the five on 11 July that has since been released to the public. The five were trying to box the pope into reiterating the traditional stands on sexuality and on gender. He did not fall for the trap.

Actually, the ploy backfired on the conservatives as the pope opened the door for reconsideration of three important issues. One was on the blessings of same-sex unions. A second was on the ordination of women. Then, buried in the text was one line that apparently slipped under the radar of most readers:

"No one can publicly contradict it [women's ordination] and nevertheless it can be the object of study, as in the case of the validity of ordinations in the Anglican Communion." (Find the letter HERE . See p. 5)

What? The pope says the question of Anglican orders can be reexamined? This has the potential of being a huge turning point for the entire Christian church.

In 1896, Pope Leo XIII directed that Anglican orders were "null and void." This has been the official Vatican position ever since.

The recent Ordinariate movement kept this attitude. Anglican clergy adhering to Rome must go through Confirmation and ordination since the Vatican does not recognize the validity of Anglican ordinations, and therefore the sacraments they may perform. 

So, the five cardinals gave the pope a large platform to declare open three issues that they absolutely and flatly oppose: same-sex blessings, women's ordinations, and acceptance of Anglican orders. Now, what roles these three will play in the present synod remains to be seen but one may safely assume they will be discussed even if it is private and not released to the public. Of course, approval of Anglican ordinations would give de facto acceptance to women's ordination and same-sex marriage.

Conservative Catholics have long viewed Francis with a dim and suspicious eye. They want an absolute and fixed continuation of traditional Catholic stands. They are "strict constructionists." Francis favors a "loose construction" to make the ancient institution more responsive to the needs of an evolving world. This is a tall order.

So, in a way, the Roman church is having its own version of a culture war, certainly defined by the parameters of that crusty old top-heavy institution. The conservatives are the Verticalists and the pope and his allies are the Horizontalists. So, American Episcopalians need not think their institution is the only one embroiled in the culture war of the contemporary age. The biggest institutional religion on the globe is wrestling with it too.

It is too soon to tell where all of this is going for the RC church. The pope is 86 years old and rather feeble. He often uses a wheel chair. One might assume the conservatives are biding their time for the day that cannot be too far off when a new pontiff will be elected by the cardinals. By that point, perhaps the consensus will be to retreat into traditionalism and Francis's work will fade into the past. On the other hand, the consensus might be to follow in Francis's path.

Still, it must be pointed out that the pope has raised the issue of reconsidering the Vatican's stand on Anglican ordinations. We will just have to wait and see how the synod responds to this, as well as the other two controversial issues. Meanwhile, Anglicans around the world should thank the pope for at least opening the possibility of reconsidering a position that has been a major stumbling block to the ecumenicism that is sorely needed in today's world.  

 

ST. JOHN'S ANGLICAN BUYING PROPERTY

On yesterday, 3 October 2023, clergy of St. John's Anglican Church, on Johns Island, announced the parish had entered into an agreement to buy 20 acres of land at 1643 Main Road, Johns Island. The purchase price was $1.6m, or $80k per acre. This site is near St. Johns High School. Main Rd. is a main artery running north-south from Maybank Hwy. to U.S. 17. The site is about a mile from the St. Johns parish church.

Find the announcement HERE .

St. Johns parish returned to the Diocese of South Carolina in 2022 and the first Episcopal services were held there in July of that year. By that time, the clergy and majority of the congregation had left to adhere to the new Anglican diocese and to meet in a local school. The separatists continued calling themselves St. Johns parish church even though St. Johns parish church was legally owned by the Episcopal diocese. The parish is one of the oldest in the diocese. The actual parish has had a revival under the vicar, the Rev. Callie Walpole, formerly the archdeacon of the Episcopal diocese.

The announcement says the separatist congregation raised the entire $1.6m in three months. Apparently the property is undeveloped, so the congregation will now have to find money for improvement and construction.

The SC supreme court finally ruled that 8 of the original 36 parishes in the lawsuit of 2013 were property of the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal diocese sold one, St. Matthew's., of Ft. Motte, to the Anglican occupants. One has been announced for sale, Holy Trinity, on Folly Rd., Charleston. One other, Good Shepherd, in West Ashley, Charleston, has not been designated publicly by the diocese. This leaves five that returned to the Episcopal diocese as functioning churches: St. Johns, of Johns Island; St. James, of James Island; St. David's, of Cheraw; St. Bartholomew's, of Hartsville, and Christ Church, Mt. Pleasant. Ironically, the Episcopal diocese offered to relinquish claim to these and all local churches that had gone along with the schism to the separatist diocese in June of 2015. The Anglican leadership curtly rejected the offer. If they had taken it, all 8 of the churches that have been returned to the EDSC would now be safely in the ADSC. In the end, courts ordered that the historic diocese, Camp St. Christopher, and 8 local churches had all been illegally seized by the separatists and must be returned to the rightful owner, the Episcopal diocese.

 

THE TWO DIOCESES AND THE CULTURE WAR

The 2012 schism in the Episcopal diocese of South Carolina was a local manifestation of the overall culture war in contemporary America. To recap, the culture war is the clash between two great historical forces, revolution and counter-revolution. The revolution developed in post-Second World War America. It brought democratic reforms of equality and inclusion for many social elements that had been marginalized or powerless, most importantly blacks,  women, and homosexuals. The social and cultural elements that felt most threatened by this, mostly white men who had virtually monopolized power in American history, created a counter-revolution aimed at preserving as much as possible of the pre-revolution white patriarchy. To simplify, the revolution promoted democratic reforms while the counter-revolution resisted democratic reforms. Adding to the white patriarchy's urgency in opposing democracy was the looming reality that American was becoming a multi-cultural society, that is, one in which white people would be another minority.

The schism in South Carolina was sparked by local resistance to the democratic reforms favoring homosexuals, and to some degree women, that had been championed by the national Episcopal Church. By 2012, TEC had affirmed an open and partnered gay man as a bishop, had elected a woman as the presiding bishop, and had adopted church blessings for same-sex couples. This was more than the leadership of the diocese would tolerate. They planned and carried out a schism and brought along the majority of the laity of the diocese. They established a new diocese that went on to institutionalize the counter-revolutionary agenda. In 2015 they adopted a Statement of Faith that condemned homosexuality. Then they joined a denomination devoted to opposing equality for women as well as gays. It forbade women from being bishops, that is, in having authority over men. The new diocese sealed its place in the counter-revolution of the culture war.

The victory of the white patriarchy in the new diocese can be seen clearly in the clerical make up of the Anglican diocese today. According to the ADSC website, by my count, there are 92 priests attending the 53 or so parishes and missions. Looking at the active clergy in the local churches: 

white male priests - 82 (89%)

black male priests -  4 (4%)

white female priests - 5 (5%)

black female priests - 1 (1%)

Thus, nearly nine out of ten priests in the ADSC are white men. 

What about deacons? 

white male deacons - 18 (67%)

black male deacons - 0

white female deacons - 10 (33%)

black female deacons - 0

Once again, white men dominate. They account for two-thirds of diocesan deacons. There are no black deacons at all in the ADSC.

Women have never been allowed to chair a major committee (as the Standing Committee) of the ADSC, nor have they ever had a majority of the seats of a major committee. Moreover, no woman and no African-American has ever been head of a large or medium parish. As of now, the only black woman priest is a chaplain at Porter-Gaud. Among the white female priests, one is associate at Holy Cross, two are heads of small parishes, and one is vicar of a mission.

Of the 4 African-American male priests of ADSC, three serve small, dependent, missions. One, the Rev. Fred Onyanyo, a native Kenyan, is listed as a priest at St. Paul's, of Summerville. His work is described as a liaison of local parishes in ADSC with the Global South.

In short, the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina is a bastion of the old white patriarchy. This is a not so insignificant victory for the counter-revolution in the culture war.

As one would expect, the picture is quite different in the continuing Episcopal diocese of South Carolina. There, blacks, women, and gays have found a far greater degree of equality and inclusion. This is to be expected in a denomination that long ago embraced the great democratic revolution of post-WWII America. Unfortunately, the EDSC lists only names of CLERGY of the diocese on its website. Anyway, from this, it appears that there are 68 priests of the diocese. Of these, 11 (16%) are women. Among the vocational deacons, 7 (50%) of the 14 are women.

At the time of the schism, most of the women clergy and most of the African-American clergy remained with the Episcopal diocese. They knew discrimination when they saw it. In fact, the only two historically black parishes stayed with the diocese as did numerous historically black missions. 

Women have excelled in the leadership of the ongoing diocese. Of course, everyone knows the diocese elected a woman as the new bishop. This was after the diocese had appointed a woman as archdeacon. Today, one of the large parishes, ALL SAINTS, of Hilton Head, lists an all female priestly staff, the rector and two associates. This is a first for South Carolina. There is another sizeable parish, ST. JOHN'S, of Johns Island, led by a woman. 

Thus, the Episcopal diocese has a far larger percentage of women priests and deacons than does the Anglican side. (Nevertheless, EDSC has a long way to go considering that 40% of the clergy in the national TEC is female. 16% is not even half-way there.)

As the Anglican diocese has secured its place in the counter-revolution, the Episcopal diocese has gone a long way in embodying the democratic reforms of the revolution. 

There are still some people who want to insist that the schism was about theology and not culture. Nonsense. The historical record is very clear. If one still needs convincing, I direct you to my 500 page history of the schism. (This is not to say there are no theological differences between the two dioceses. There certainly are. The new diocese has veered into a highly vertical quasi-fundamentalism removed from the mainstream of classical Anglicanism.)

Given the overall conservatism of South Carolina, I find it somewhat surprising that the counter-revolutionary diocese has declined so rapidly since the schism. It has seen a steady decline in membership, a third of active members since the break. Obviously the public is not racing to join this new church.

Where the culture war goes from here God only knows. The center of gravity has turned to politics. What is going on in Washington today and what will happen over the next year and a half will tell us where the culture war is going. The clash between the revolution and the counter-revolution is about to get a lot more serious. It may be all but over in the old diocese of South Carolina, but it is far from over in the rest of the country.

Diversity in the Episcopal Church. Presiding Bishop Michael Curry, the first African-American PB of TEC. Bishop Ruth Woodliff-Stanley, the first female bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina. Of the 280 active and retired BISHOPS in TEC, 46 are women and 53 are people of color or open homosexuals.

Diversity in the Anglican Church in North America. How many women bishops? None. How many bishops of color? I count 3 of the 41 in the picture. How many white males? 38. 

 

CHANGES AT ST. JAMES'S ANGLICAN

The previous rector of St. James's Anglican Church, on James Island, Charleston, has apparently been removed from the parish. Last month, the vestry of St. James's asked the Rev. Toby Larson to resign as rector. On today, the parish WEBSITE  , deleted references to the Rev. Larson, and to the temporary priest-in-charge, the Rev. Timothy Surratt, of St. Michael's, Charleston. The only clergyman now listed for St. James's is the Rev. Richard Grimball, the associate rector. 

On last Sunday, Bishop Edgar visited St. James's to preside over the 10 a.m. Eucharist. The only priest attending him was the Rev. Grimball. Edgar told the congregation there would be more information about the parish situation "later." He refrained from saying anything more on camera. There was to be a parish luncheon after church, so perhaps Edgar talked with the crowd then about the changes in the clergy of the parish. It is hard to imagine what other purpose would explain his visit. A video of the church service is available on St. James's Facebook page.

Grimball is still listed as "Associate Rector" on the church website. Who has become, or will become rector, has not been publicly revealed.

So, from this bit of circumstantial evidence it appears that the vestry won its tug-of-war with the former rector. The issues and the handling of the matter have been equally covered in secrecy. I doubt that either of these will ever be publicly revealed. 

MEMBERSHIP TRENDS IN THE TWO DIOCESES

The Episcopal Church recently released its membership statistics for the year 2022. In the last decade, the baptized membership of the national church declined from 2,009,081 in 2013 to 1,584,785 in 2022. This is a fall of 424,279, or 21%. Find TEC's latest statistics HERE .

What about South Carolina? Let us look at membership in the two dioceses that emerged from the schism of 2012 as related in the official parochial reports.

THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

Baptized membership in the churches of the Episcopal diocese:

2013 - 5,781

2014 - 6,387

2015 - 6,706

2016 - 7,053

2017 - 7,309

2018 - 7,587

2019 - 7,763

2020 - 7,467

2021 - 7,254

2022 - 7,476

The figures show that in the decade after the schism, the Episcopal diocese gained membership of 1,695, or +29%. Unfortunately, the figures do not tell us how many of these people were new arrivals from off, refugees from schismatic parishes, or new local people.

To be sure, the South Carolina low country has boomed in population growth, particularly the Charleston, Myrtle Beach, and Hilton Head areas. The population of Charleston County grew from 361,815 in 2013 to 425,644 in 2023, a rise of 63,829, or +17%.

Thus, the growth of the Episcopal diocese is favorable to the overall population growth of lower SC.

THE ANGLICAN DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

Baptized Membership.

2013 - 23,181

2022 - 18,130

A decline of 5,051, or -22% in the decade after the schism.

Communicants.

2013 - 17,798

2022 - 11,673

A decline of 6,125, or -34%.

Average Sunday Attendance.

2013 - 9,292

2022 - 8,353

A decline of 939, or -10%.

The ADSC has seen a severe fall in "communicants," or active members, less so in overall membership and ASA. Still, the ADSC suffered relentless decline in every metric in the decade after the schism of 2012.

CONCLUSION. 

The Episcopal diocese of SC has enjoyed a 29% rise in membership since the schism of 2012. Thus bucks the trend in the Episcopal Church of the serious decline in membership nationwide. Meanwhile, the new Anglican diocese has suffered significant decline in membership, made even more problematical in view of the booming population of coastal South Carolina.

Unfortunately, the statistics do not reveal the reasons for the steady decline of the ADSC. Surely it would benefit the diocese to make a study of its membership problem which percentage-wise is actually much worse than that of the Episcopal Church. At the rate the ADSC is falling, it will soon face an existential crisis. Where that would lead, no one knows. There is always the possibility the future remnant of the ADSC could melt into ACNA's Diocese of the Carolinas, based in Mt. Pleasant, a Charleston suburb.

Finally, the relentless decline of the ADSC membership makes one wonder about the connection of the schism and God's will. The ADSC leadership has always claimed that what they were doing was favored by God. Every time the ADSC won anything in court (but, not when they lost), their spokespeople proclaimed it as God's will. If the schism and the new diocese were God's will, would not there be some positive manifestation of that by now? Would not God's favor be tangible in some way? One certainly does not see such in the empirical data of the new diocese and given the clear trends, one should not expect to see such in the future.

 

ANGLICAN DIOCESE BUYING NEW CAMP SITE

On September 15, 2023, the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina announced it had entered into a contract to buy 80 acres of land for the development of a camp. The site is on "the north end of Lady's Island, in Beaufort County," and has a mile of waterfront on Broomfield Creek. Find the announcement HERE .

Lady's Island is just east of the town of Beaufort. No purchase price was given although one would imagine a multi-million dollar figure. Since the land is undeveloped, the diocese will have to raise, or borrow, a great deal of additional funds for the construction of camp buildings and infrastructure. Thus, the ADSC will have to tap its members to pay twice, for the land and for the buildings. The name ADSC has chosen is "Camp Jubilee."

Not too far away stands the Episcopal Diocese's Camp St. Christopher with its 314 acres and oceanfront expanse on Seabrook Island. The new Anglican diocese had occupied this property from the time of the schism, in 2012, until they vacated it, under court ruling, last year. Apparently, the ADSC did not pay any rent for the decade-long use of the Camp (nor for any of the other Episcopal property they occupied, as the bishop's residence). Nevertheless, they are expecting the Episcopal diocese to pay them for improvements in the properties of the seven parishes (the eighth parish was sold to the Anglican occupants) returned to the EDSC. This is the "betterments" suit in circuit court.

 

ARE BIDEN AND TRUMP TOO OLD TO BE ELECTED PRESIDENT NEXT YEAR?

The talk of the day on the national scene, at least in politics, is the issue of age, specifically whether Biden and Trump are too old for the presidency. Biden would be 82 when sworn in as president in January of 2025 and would be 86 at the end of his term. Trump would be 79 and serve until he age of 83. If age is an issue for Biden, it would have to be for Trump too since he is only three years younger than Biden. 

Only once before in American history was age a significant issue in a presidential race, that was with Reagan's election in 1980, at age 69. He easily beat Jimmy Carter. When Reagan ran for reelection, in 1984, at age 73, age was rarely mentioned and he went on to one of the greatest landslide victories in American history. Obviously no one thought age mattered then. He was the oldest president in office up to that time. Ever since Reagan, conservatives have promoted him to iconic stature. Interestingly enough, many of the people who worship Reagan are now loudly protesting that Biden is too old to be elected.

In retrospect, whether Reagan was too old to be reelected is a matter of debate but he did the job until the end although there were rumors of mental decline. In fact, he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's a few years after he left office and died of complications of the disease.

Then, of course, South Carolinians would be well aware of Strom Thurmond who served as senator until his late 90's and died at age 100. Age was often mentioned but obviously was never a serious issue in his repeated landslide reelections.

This is not to say that age should never be a factor in politics. Senators Mitch McConnell (age 81) and Diane Feinstein (age 90) are painful to watch on the news. McConnell has blanked out twice on camera and Feinstein sometimes has to be told what is going on. These two should collect their gold watches and ride off into the sunset.

Age by itself should not be the deciding factor in any election. There are people who function quite well into their 80's and even 90's. What should be considered is the condition of the person. Do Biden and Trump have the mental and physical health and stamina necessary for the position of president? That is the question of the day, and a fair one, but unfortunately it is addressed in the context of politics. 

Time is of the essence. The first caucus is only four months away and shortly afterwards will come a torrent of primaries. So far, no one has seriously challenged Biden or Trump, and neither man has shown even a glimmer of hesitation. Unless a strong contender appears very soon, both Biden and Trump will win their nominations.

Mainly thanks to Republicans, age has been injected into the campaign. As an issue, it will not go away. If nothing else, Fox News will see to that. Many Democrats are terrified that Biden's age could become the focus of the race rather than Trump's vast record of alleged criminality. It is possible that the Republicans will succeed in making Biden's age the overriding question of the election.

To assess whether Biden is too old, one should consider his record in his present term. In fact, he led the country out of the worst pandemic in a century. His list of accomplishments is long and impressive. Age has not been a factor since his election except in the eyes of his opponents. In fact, his long history of experience has paid off in major ways. This is what people ought to consider before they vote. Consider the man before the age. 

The presidential election of 2024 is lining up to be the most important since the Civil War, more than a century and a half ago. The two candidates are very well known. With Biden we get a continuation of the evolution of the egalitarian democratic republic. With Trump we get a fascist dictatorship and the end of the Constitution and the American experiment in democracy. So, the impending election is fundamentally not about a man's age. It is about something far, far more important, the future of the country.

 

THE TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF THIS BLOG

Today, September 11, 2023, marks the tenth anniversary of this blog. The first entry was on Sept. 11, 2013. My original purpose was twofold: to inform the public of interactions of the two entities post-schism, and to update the public on my progress in writing a history of the schism. I had never had a blog before, and I really had no idea of how things would unfold. Still, I felt it important enough to play it by ear and see how matters occurred after the "divorce" of 2012. Looking back, I am astonished at what happened after the schism, how it happened, and its effects.

It has been a wild roller coaster ride, and one I could never have imagined beforehand. I have always said it is best that we do not know the future. There were two big issues coming out of the schism: who owned the old diocese and who owned the local churches. On the diocese, at first the breakaways insisted they owned it. They got a ruling and injunction from the circuit court to support this. Then, six years later, the federal court said no, the old diocese was the exclusive property of the Episcopal Church. The judge even issued an injunction against the separatists and then twice found them in contempt of court over their violations. On the second issue, local churches, 36 went to court against the Episcopal Church claiming the local properties. The circuit court agreed. Then, the state supreme court said no, 29 of the 36 in question actually belonged to the Episcopal diocese. And then, the lower court said no to that, all local churches owned their own properties. A couple of years later, the state supreme court said no both to itself and the lower court and ruled that 15 of the 36 actually belonged to the Episcopal Church, and then turned around and said on third thought, only 8 of the 36 really belonged to TEC. Perhaps Mr. Toad's Wild Wide would be a good analogy. 

As we know now, the diocesan leadership planned the schism. It was not a spontaneous accident. In fact, they had been laying the groundwork within the diocese for many years. In that time, the anti-Episcopal leadership had a virtual monopoly over the public message in the diocese and it was unrelenting in its criticism of the national church. Nevertheless, the pro-Church party in the diocese, although a nearly ignored minority, did not remain silent. Two forces fought back against the increasingly obvious aims of the leadership. The Episcopal Forum tried its best to defend loyalty to the Episcopal Church. The indomitable Steve Skardon provided the only exposure of the shenanigans of the anti-Church leadership. For years, his blog was the sole source of information not controlled by the diocesan leadership. He has not received enough credit for his hard and long work for truth. The next time you see him, give him a big "Thank You."

Slow to catch on at first, my blog gradually became the second favorite read on the ongoing status of the schism, after Skardon's. In the ten years, there have been over a million hits on its one thousand posts. It proved to be in such demand that after I published my history of the schism, in 2017, I decided to continue the blog to help people stay informed of the still unfolding saga of separation. Here are then ten most popular blog posts:

1-CHRONOLOGY. 15,200 hits. A detailed listing of significant events concerning the schism in time order. 

2-CERT DENIED. 12,400 hits. June 11, 2018. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to accept the appeal of the separatists challenging the SC Supreme Court ruling of 2017.

3-THE BEGINNING OF THE END. 6,850 hits. Aug. 26, 2017. I, along with everyone else, assumed the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017 was final. 

4-A REMARKABLE BISHOP, A REMARKABLE THREE AND A HALF YEARS. 5,310 hits. Sept. 1, 2016. Showing the strength of the Episcopal diocese in the first few years after the break.

5-A NEW LETTER TO THIS EDITOR. 2,710 hits. July 2, 2018. The Rev. Rob Donehue won the blue ribbon with the most popular letter to the editor.

6-BREAKING NEWS!! SC SUPREME COURT RENDERS DECISION. 5,310 hits. Aug. 2, 2017. After five years of litigation, the SCSC handed down a "decision." No one could know this was not a final decision. 

7-SEPTEMBER 10, 2018--LETTER TO THIS EDITOR. 2,240 hits. Sept. 10, 2018. Wayne Helmly's eloquent letter was the second most popular letter to the editor.

8-SOURCES. 2,240 hits. 2017+. A bibliography of the primary and secondary sources of the schism in SC.

9-SPIN CYCLE. 1,800 hits. Aug. 1, 2018. Compilation of first hand accounts of Bishop Lawrence's talk in Sumter. At the time, everyone assumed 29 of the 36 local churches would be returned to TEC.

10-GOING OUT. 1,640 hits. Mar. 14, 2018. Report on Bishop Lawrence's somber address to the diocesan convention when everyone thought 29 parishes were to be returned to TEC.

Since the SCSC decision of 2017 turned out not to be final, I thought about compiling a second volume of the history of the schism to bring the story up to date over the past six years or to revise the original history to add new material. However, I doubt seriously that I will be able to do either. Age is catching up with me and my eyesight is probably not up to the hours of pouring over small print that would be required. In a way this is a shame because I have faithfully collected all the public documents of events all these years. My house is bulging with stacks of paper. However, I am not closing the door. Perhaps the Holy Spirit has other ideas.

Meanwhile, my history of the schism is still in print and easily available on Amazon. So far, the publisher has kept the book in print, for six years, but they could take it out of print at any time. If anyone else wants a copy he or she would be wise to go ahead and get it.

Likewise, I have no control over the existence of the blog. This blog space is provided free to me by Google. They own the space, not I. I suppose at any time Google could decide to eliminate my blog. It would be their right. Therefore, people who are seriously interested in the events of the schism should print out "Chronology," at least from Aug. 2, 2017 (the end of the book) because it is a detailed listing of litigation, and other matters, up to the present day. If Google should remove my blog they would be removing Chronology too.

"Sources" is a bibliography of the source material of the schism. It needs to be edited and brought up to date since it is six years old. I will work on that the next time I go to the duPont library at Sewanee. It has been a while since I have driven the couple of hours to "the mountain."

It is interesting to note that readership of my blog has fallen off sharply in the past few months. This is understandable since the bulk of the schism has been settled. I suspect the general feeling among the public now is to accept the reality and move on. Most people passed the point of exhaustion with the schism long ago. I have considered discontinuing the blog but there are still people who want to read what I have to say and, besides, I cannot resist a "classroom." I signed my first contract to teach in college when I was 22 years old.

Too, the schism is not over. There are still loose ends to be wrapped up, and who knows when all of this will occur? There is still an active court case, the separatists suit against TEC for payments for "betterments," that is, improvements the occupants made on the properties returned to the Episcopal diocese. It is not a strong case and I expect it to be tossed out, but this has not happened yet. Moreover, the circuit court is sitting on the Remittitur from the SCSC to effectuate the SCSC ruling on the local parishes and the other decisions.

Then there is the question of what is to happen to the Church of the Good Shepherd, in West Ashley, Charleston. The separatists there appealed to the SCSC but the court rejected the appeal and ordered the property to be handed over to the Episcopal diocese. The breakaways have left the property. On yesterday they started meeting at the Northbridge Baptist Church, on Sam Rittenberg Blvd. I have not seen any announcement from the Episcopal diocese about what they plan to do with the now vacant property. I have seen nothing about an Episcopal clergyperson to develop a congregation. In fact, the original worshiping group of West Ashley, that went by the name of St. Francis, has dissolved as the members have moved into nearby Episcopal parishes. These people were mostly refugees from Old St. Andrew's. So, we are all awaiting word from the diocese about what is to happen to the Good Shepherd buildings. It is a desirable location, near the entrance to Charles Towne Landing.

In looking back over the last decade, it would be easy to despair. The ruins of a once great diocese, one of the original nine that founded the Episcopal Church in the 1780's, are still smoldering. The original goal of the anti-Episcopal movement in the 1990's was political. Deep-pocket right wing forces resolved to destroy, or at least severely wound, the Episcopal Church in order to diminish its "liberal" influence in American life. In South Carolina, they found willing allies in the diocese who were pushed by evangelicalism and its parallel socio-cultural conservatism. Spurred on by homophobia and misogyny in defiance of the general movement of the national church, the leaders of the Diocese of South Carolina resolved to remove the bulk of the diocese from the errant larger church. They told their followers they could take the diocese with them, they could keep their local properties, and they could remain in the Anglican Communion. None of this was true. But,  that did not matter to most people in the new diocese either.

Not only did the promises turn out to be false, but it quickly became evident that the schism would not be popular. Every metric of church membership in the separatist diocese has shown significant decline in the decade of the schism. Baptized membership dropped from 23,187 in 2013 to 18,130 today. Active members fell sharply from 17,798 in 2013 to 11,637 today. Average Sunday Attendance has declined from 9,292 to 8,353. All of the large parishes, except Church of the Cross in booming Bluffton, have witnessed falling numbers of active members. St. Philip's, of Charleston, went from 2,677 communicants before the schism to 1,249 today. At nearby St. Michael's, the numbers fell from 1,847 before the schism to 747 now. Budgets in the new diocese struggled to keep even, actually declining significantly accounting for inflation. The new diocese joined the Anglican Church in North America which, in spite of its name, is not in the Anglican Communion. It is a separate and independent Christian denomination, and one explicitly formed to keep women and gays from equality and inclusion.

The human and other cost of all this is something even I do not want to contemplate today. I estimate the cost of the litigation has been in the neighborhood of $10m. We will probably never know the true amount since neither side is forthcoming.

So, after all is said and done, what good came from the schism? How is anyone better off? It is imperative the we find some good or we will simply drift off into endless despair. I suppose the good we see will depend on where we stand. Just speaking for myself, I see an Episcopal diocese that is brimming with a remarkable zest for human rights. Such a thing was unthinkable in the diocese before 2012. All around I see good church people fighting for the rights all all, gays, women, blacks, the handicapped, you name it. We are called to love one another, not to stand in judgment on them. This I see in wonderful abundance in the new flowering of one of the oldest of all dioceses. This is a new day. This is a new birth. This is the good legacy I see of the schism.

Where do we go from here? We go on doing what we believe is the right thing to do. I regret deeply the choices of the majority of the clergy and laity of the diocese in 2012. They brought needless pain and disruption in the Body of Christ. However, I do not question their motives. One can never know what is in another's heart. I question their choices. We can all see the destruction they have caused.

What will happen in the next ten years? God only knows. It is best we do not. We are called to go on to the end keeping the faith and fighting the good fight. The Episcopalians of South Carolina did not ask for the schism, did not deserve it, but when the hour came, they did not shrink from doing the right thing even when it was very hard to do. They are my heroes and this blog is for them.