EPISCOPAL CHURCH WINS

IN SAN JOAQUIN, 4th Edition (14 May)

Original post, April 6:     The Episcopal Church Diocese of San Joaquin has completely prevailed in the California Fifth District Court of Appeals. The court handed down its decision on April 5. See the posting of March 3, "San Joaquin Hearing in Appeals Court, March 9."

The Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin appealed a lower court decision.

The appeals court affirmed the lower court's finding, particularly that the Episcopal Church is hierarchical.

The defendants have 30 days to ask for a rehearing. Afterwards they may appeal to the California Supreme Court.

See the article at the Episcopal Café website.

See the court decision at www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/F070264.PDF .

With this decision, the Episcopal Church has won the court contests in California between the competing dioceses. If the defendants appeal, there is little likelihood they will reverse the heavy weight of the body of opinion already entered by the California courts.

I will return soon with more thoughts on the April 5 decision.




SECOND EDITION, April 10:     For background, see the post of January 1, 2016, "Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin---Court Victory at Hand."


Thoughts on the April 5, 2016, decision of the Appeals Court. Here are what I see as the most important points of this decision vis à vis South Carolina:


1-The CA court applied neutral principles and found all in favor of the Episcopal Church, and without getting involved in the internal matters of the Church. Obviously this means following neutral principles does not necessarily help the secessionist party.


2-The court issued its opinion "de novo." This is something the TEC lawyers asked the SC supreme court to do, rather than remanding to the lower court.


3-The decision said, as all California courts have consistently ruled, the Episcopal Church is hierarchical. A diocese must accede to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. The Church is governed by the General Convention. The court ruled this although they followed neutral principles. Thus, in SC the justices could both follow neutral principles and judge TEC to be hierarchical.
The secessionist lawyers in SC argued that the diocese was always an autonomous and self-governing unit and free to disregard the Episcopal Church at will and to disassociate from TEC. The CA appeals judges directly rejected this argument in their view of hierarchy.


4-The appellate judges said the Quincy case, in Illinois, had no bearing on the case in California. The Anglican side had argued that the Quincy case set the standard for the whole country to follow. The Illinois state courts had ruled entirely in favor of the schismatic diocese and against TEC. The CA appeals court said the Quincy case involved Illinois law only and had no bearing on California law. It stands to reason the SC justices could follow the same view, that state law in one state is not necessarily applicable to another state. This kills a primary argument on the secessionist side, that the pro-schismatic Quincy decision set the precedent for the nation.


5-The CA courts ruled that Schofield was subject to TEC's Constitution and Canons, and once inhibited (Jan. 11, 2008) and deposed (Mar. 12, 2008), he had no right to act as the bishop of the diocese. All official acts of his after then were ultra vires, that is, illegal.
This is a problem for TEC in the SC case. The most controversial actions, Mark Lawrence's issuance of the quit claim deeds, occurred while he was the legal bishop of the Episcopal Church diocese. They also occurred after the diocesan convention had voted to end accession to the canons (but not the constitution) of TEC. Thus, whether Lawrence had the authority to do what he did is a problematical issue, as Chief Justice Toal expressed so well in the Sept. 23 hearing. San Joaquin was a simple case; Schofield had no authority after his removal when he tried to retitle the properties.
This will all return to the question of whether the Episcopal Church is hierarchical. If the SC justices rule it is, then they can judge the unilateral diocesan and bishop's actions to be in violation of TEC's C and C and therefore to be ultra vires. CA courts consistently ruled TEC to be hierarchical.


What happens next?
The Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin has 30 days to request a rehearing in the appeals court. To get this, they would have make a compelling case that something earlier was in error. After 30 days, ADSJ may appeal to the CA supreme court. Again, to get that court to take the case, they would have to make a good argument for review. It is unlikely either the appeals court or the state supreme court will take up this case again since it has been heard four times in CA state courts already and every outcome was virtually the same, completely in favor of the Episcopal Church and diocese. 
A stay is in place now freezing most of the properties and assets in the hands of the Anglican side. If they do not appeal, or if the high courts refuse to accept the appeals, the Anglican side will have to hand over the properties and assets forthwith to the Episcopal diocese.
On April 5, in announcing the appeals court decision, the Anglican diocese made no comment about what it would do next. They have until May 5 to do so.


What direct effects will the San Joaquin judgment have on South Carolina? It is hard to tell coming as late in the SC matter as it does. The hearing in SC was last September 23. As a usual practice, the justices meet in a couple of weeks afterwards and arrive at a choice by majority vote. Then one in the majority writes a decision for publication but all justices in the majority may have input. This may take awhile. Also, the dissenting justice or justices, if any, have the right to issue their separate opinions. This also takes time. Only after all the justices are satisfied with the finality of the written decision are they released to the public. No doubt this is where the SC supreme court is now, in the composition stage. This case is very large, complicated, and important. Surely the justices will be in no rush and will want to get it right. They know the significance of this decision, on SC and on the country. The California court cases may have some bearing on the final written orders, but I imagine the SC decision in the Church case was made months ago.


State court decisions in the issue of the relationship of Episcopal Church and the dioceses are all over the place. Pennsylvania and California were entirely favorable to the Episcopal Church side. They are probably settled for good. On the other end of the spectrum, the Diocese of Quincy case, in Illinois, was entirely in favor of the secessionist diocese and against the Church. Fort Worth has been mixed, but is still in the works and appears to be leaning to the schismatic diocese. This leaves South Carolina in an even more important place as, in a sense, the decider. It will be the first time a state supreme court will rule on this issue.




THIRD EDITION (April 21):  On 20 April, the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin filed a "Petition for Rehearing" with the CA Fifth District Court of Appeals on the grounds the lower court did not follow neutral principles properly.


FOURTH EDITION (May 14):  On May 4, the Appeals Court denied the Anglican diocese's petition for a rehearing. On May 13, ADSJ filed a petition with the California Supreme Court on appeal of Judge Black's 2014 order deciding all in favor of the Episcopal Church side. The supreme court has until July 14 to announce whether it will accept the petition. If it refuses, Black's decision will be left standing as the law and ADSJ will have to turn over all rights and assets to the Episcopal diocese. It is unlikely the state supreme court will take the case that has already been rejected by the appeals court. Regarding Episcopal Church cases in the state, the CA Supreme Court has ruled time and again in favor of the Church diocese. 
  

MY GARDEN, May 11, 2016

On April 9 and 23, I posted photos of my botanical garden. We are continuing to enjoy a beautiful springtime in the South. Now, in early May, the roses are in full bloom. They are the stars of the garden. Although they flower all the way until frost, usually in early November, they are never as full, lush, and colorful as in early May. I have numerous kinds of roses, but not many of the cultivated hybrid varieties. These require a great deal of care and really do not thrive otherwise in the hot and humid South where they are susceptible to all sorts of diseases, as black spot. In my opinion, the best rose garden in the world is in Portland, Oregon, the home of the American Rose Society. A couple of years ago, I spent five days on the train to get there. I enjoyed the ride (I am also a train enthusiast, also called a "foamer"--- one who foams at the mouth at the sight of a train), but was really blown away by the unbelievably spectacular and vast rose garden atop a high hill overlooking Portland. All gardeners should have it on their bucket lists. Take Amtrak's California Zephyr from Chicago to Sacramento, then Coast Starlight to Portland.

Here is some of what is in bloom in my garden now:

Red Knock Out Roses edge the central lawn. The two uprights are Italian Cypress. Behind them are two clumps of Japanese Silver Grass (Miscanthus sinesis condensatus "Cabaret'). The large tree is elm.

Red Knock Out Roses. Louisiana Palmetto. Grass on right is Zebra Grass (Miscanthus sinesis 'Zebrinus').

Spirea is one of the best families of shrubs for the South. Right now they rival the roses in color. This one is Spirea japonica 'Anthony Waterer.' I have more than a dozen kinds of spirea placed around the garden.

In the smaller garden, looking toward the central lawn. Japanese Silver Grass. Tall uprights are Italian Cypress. Ground cover on left is Japanese Garden Juniper (Juniperus procumbers 'Nana').

A hidden refuge in the larger part of the garden. Delightful, especially in early morning and late afternoon.

 Along the edge of that seating area is Rose "Coral Drift," a shrub rose.

Along the lawn on the larger side of the garden. The uprights are Skyrocket Junipers.

A spreading groundcover rose, Each bloom is about an inch across.

Among the other plants in full flower now, the most eye-catching is Clematis 'Polish Spirit.'

Now is the time to enjoy the beauty of the living things all around you. March, April and May are the best months for gardens in the South. June and July will bring the intense sun, heat, and humidity that put so many plants to the test (not to mention people).





THE ANGLICAN CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL AND THE 'CONSEQUENCES'

The Anglican world is in a bit of a turmoil now about what the recent Anglican Consultative Council did and did not do regarding the "consequences" imposed on the American Episcopal Church (TEC) by the January gathering of the Anglican primates at Canterbury.

Mary Frances Schjonberg has summarized it well in her post yesterday "Group of ACC Members, Secretary General Dispute Meaning of Resolution," http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/2016/05/09/group-of-acc-members-secretary-general . Everyone should read this.

The problem boils down to whether or not the ACC supported the primates' punishment of TEC. It seems perfectly clear to me they did not.

On January 27 I posted a note "Chaos in the Anglican Communion" pointing out the confusion resulting from the vote in the primates' meeting to impose "consequences" on TEC.

On April 11 I made a post "The Collapse of the Anti-Episcopal Church Movement in the Anglican Communion" showing how the AC as a whole had rejected the GAFCON move to replace TEC with the Anglican Church in North America as the legitimate Anglican province in the U.S.

On April 16 I posted an article "Breaking News--Anglican Consultative Council Rejects Primates' 'Consequences.'" This brings us to the crux of the problem today. In the ACC meeting last month, the delegates accepted Resolution C34 which was the Archbishop of Canterbury's report on the primates' gathering in January. Then, Resolution C35 was withdrawn. That resolution would have endorsed the "consequences." In other words, the ACC accepted delivery of the ABC's report but refused to endorse its treatment of TEC.

It seems to me we are arguing over the meaning of the word "accept." The ACC accepted delivery of the ABC's report but did not accept the conclusions of the report. This leaves both sides to claim a different interpretation of what happened. The anti-TEC party can claim the ACC accepted the "consequences." The pro-TEC people may claim the ACC rejected the "consequences."

The second is the actuality. The ACC made it very clear it did not agree with the punishment for TEC. In effect, then, the ACC did not really "accept" the decision of the primates' gathering.

The ACC is not required to "accept" anything of the primates. The Anglican Communion has no central government. It has "Four Instruments of Communion" (1-ABC, 2-primates, 3-ACC, 4-Lambeth conference) that are separate and equal. One Instrument does not have authority over any other one Instrument or over any province of the AC, all of which are independent and self-governing. The ACC was perfectly within its rights to reject an imposition from the primates, or from the ABC for that matter.

The ABC and the General-Secretary are insisting the ACC agreed with the primates' consequences. It seems to me this is stretching the case beyond reality.

See also Steve Skardon's post of May 8, "Welby's Stumbling..." ( Click here.  )

In my view, the bottom line is that the Anglican Communion continues "walking together" as 38 independent churches with widely differing views on homosexuality. It is not a "confessional" church that demands one "orthodox" position to the exclusion of all others. The ACC made this abundantly clear in its acceptance and non-acceptance of the ABC's report last month. The fact that 35 of the 38 provinces of the AC were present at the ACC and in full agreement should end the confusion.

The Episcopal Church prevailed in the Anglican Communion. The GAFCON/ACNA side collapsed.   

TEN REASONS

 WHY THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA SHOULD RETURN

 TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH

The independent Diocese of South Carolina (DSC) is now in "discernment" about affiliation. Most of the leadership and communicants left the Episcopal Church (TEC) in 2012 then announced an unclear oversight scheme with some of the primates of Global South. Now the independent diocese is considering whether to join the Anglican Church in North America. The diocese should not join the ACNA. It should return home to the Episcopal Church. Here are ten reasons why:

1---SCHISMS AND LAWSUITS ARE UNCHRISTIAN.

A schism is a man-made and willful rupture in the Body of Christ. DSC made a schism in 2012 against TEC. Lawsuits of Christians against Christians are scandals and should be avoided according to St. Paul. DSC sued TEC in state court in January of 2013. DSC acted wrongly in both cases. DSC can now make it right.

2---MOST CONSERVATIVE EPISCOPALIANS HAVE REMAINED IN TEC.

DSC was one of 12 ultra-conservative dioceses in TEC. Ultra-conservatives were those who refused to accept the legitimacy of TEC's reforms for the equality of women and homosexuals. About a third of TEC was conservative, that is, in opposition to the reforms but eventually accepting of them. The "ultras" were about a third on the far right of the conservatives. The dozen ultra dioceses formed the Anglican Communion Network in January of 2004 and demanded alternative primatial oversight. Five of the 12 make schisms against TEC (San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, Quincy, and South Carolina). The majority of the ultras remained in TEC: Central Florida, Springfield, Dallas, Albany, Northern Indiana, Rio Grande, and Western Kansas. If the majority of like-minded Church people could stay in TEC, the minority could too.

3---THE REASONS GIVEN FOR THE SCHISM OF 2012 WERE NOT VALID.

DSC leaders gave misleading reasons to their followers to justify their decisions to break away from TEC. They said TEC had abandoned orthodox Christianity by denying the uniqueness of Christ and turning against Holy Scriptures. In truth, the General Convention of TEC has never done any such thing and never would. In actuality, the DSC leaders took the remarks of certain leaders of TEC, and took them out of context, as evidence. Classical Anglicanism/Episcopalianism has never been a "confessional" religion with a fixed "orthodox" viewpoint to the exclusion of all others. The assertion of the "ultras" that they were the true Anglicans and the others were in error is itself outside the bounds of Anglicanism. Anglicanism is a broad and tolerant religion balancing differing viewpoints as equally valid. 

DSC leaders opposed the blessings of same-sex unions under the sincerely held belief that God assigned gender. No problem. In 2012, TEC gave option to all dioceses and clergy on whether or not to allow the blessings. DSC was always free to ban the blessings within its own diocese if it wished. The leaders gave the false impression that TEC was cramming down the throats of all communicants the acceptance of homosexuality. In fact, it was a delegate from DSC at the 2012 General Convention who got the GC to accept the local option; and this was repeated in 2015 when GC voted to change the canons to allow same-sex marriage and kept the option. Ironically, it was DSC that was responsible for TEC toleration of all views on homosexuality.

Historical facts show that TEC did not initiate the schism by an "attack" Bishop Lawrence or the DSC. By issuing the quit claim deeds, Lawrence ignored the canons of TEC giving the Church no choice but to charge him with abandonment of the communion. Facts also show the DSC leaders conspired to make a schism from TEC at least several weeks beforehand.

The schism of 2012 was premeditated and unjustified.

4---DSC SHOULD NOT JOIN ACNA.

When digging oneself into a hole, the first rule is to stop digging. Joining ACNA would be digging a bigger hole.

Every communicant of DSC should read the Constitution and Canons of ACNA, available on the ACNA website.

ACNA is a top-heavy authoritarian system that will deprive DSC of much of its freedom. Power is controlled by the archbishop and the College of Bishops. The clergy control every part of the ACNA structure. The laity control nothing.

DSC will lose its freedom to choose its own bishop. DSC can elect a bishop, but he must be confirmed by two-thirds of the ACNA bishops. That means only one-third plus one of the bishops can block any choice. This gives the ACNA bishops virtual dictatorial power over the choice of bishops. A case of this just occurred in Pittsburgh where the convention wanted to choose a local candidate (Millard) but was told he would be rejected by the College of Bishops because he was (gasp) divorced. The convention wound up choosing the one the bishops wanted rather than the one the delegates really wanted. This will happen in DSC too.

ACNA C and C also discriminate against women and homosexuals. DSC might not care about the homosexual part, but the women in DSC should care about how they will be treated. ACNA is a male-controlled regime. Women are excluded from authority. Do the women in DSC really want to be treated as second-class citizens in this day and age?

Another problem with ACNA is that it already has a diocese called the Diocese of the Carolinas under Bishop Steve Wood, rector of St. Andrew's in Mt. Pleasant. No one has yet explained how the DSC is to mesh with the ACNA diocese.

5---TO BE IN THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION, DSC MUST RETURN TO TEC.

TEC is the only province of the Anglican Communion in the United States. When DSC left TEC in 2012 it also left the AC. It remains outside of the AC.

Joining ACNA will not put DSC in the Anglican Communion. ACNA is not in the AC and will never be in the AC. ACNA was created in 2009 by an alliance of anti-homosexual-rights African prelates and anti-homosexual former and present Episcopal bishops in the U.S. GAFCON "recognized" ACNA. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the AC have never recognized the ACNA. In last January's primates' gathering in Canterbury, the GAFCON/Global South primates (the majority of the 38 primates) abandoned the ACNA on the spot. They refused to press for ACNA to be admitted to the AC. In fact, the primates adopted a communiqué stating that should ACNA desire admittance to AC it would have to apply to the Anglican Consultative Council and also stating that ACC should not admit ACNA if they applied. In street parlance, GAFCON threw ACNA under the bus. This abandonment continued in the ACC meeting in Lusaka last month. Only 3 of the 38 provinces boycotted the meeting which treated the American delegates as stars. GAFCON made no mention of the ACNA in that meeting. This virtually guarantees that ACNA will never be in the AC.

ACNA's original goal was to become the replacement church to take the place of TEC in the AC. It is all but certain now that this will never happen. Even most of the conservative prelates who set up ACNA have abandoned it.

6---REUNIFICATION WILL END LITIGATION.

Only God knows how much money has been spent on legal expenses. And, just think of all the good that fortune in money could have done. Everyone knows the litigation has been very expensive. Millions have been spent. For what?

The South Carolina Supreme Court will render a written decision in the foreseeable future. That is not likely to be the end of litigation. There is the possibility of appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. More millions. The Church side has the insurance program on which to rely but DSC has to pay its own way. It has two sets of lawyers to pay, those for the diocese and those for the 35 individual parishes involved in the lawsuits. Who is paying? That is a good question. DSC keeps its accounts secret. The ordinary DSC communicants-in-the-pews have probably been maxed out on contributions.

Much more than the money is the personal cost of the schism. People have had to leave almost every one of the 70-odd parishes and missions of the old diocese. I cannot tell you the number of e-mails I have received from the sad people who were victims of this needless division. It has been especially hard on the people outside of Charleston who may not have convenient alternatives. The people who made this schism ought to know the harm they have done to so many of the good people of the old diocese for whom they were supposed to be caring. Enough. End the litigation and end the divisions.

7---TEC AND THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN SOUTH CAROLINA WANT RECONCILIATION.

They have even offered a compromise in which TEC would give the local deeds to the parishes for the return of the legal rights of the old diocese. The leaders of DSC refused offhand. It is not TEC and its diocese that have blocked reconciliation.

8---RECONCILIATION WILL BE EASY.

In many ways, DSC has kept itself an Episcopal diocese. This is particularly true in form and substance. For instance, only the TEC prayer book may be used in DSC services even though ACNA has a separate prayer book. Although DSC left the institution of TEC, it could not pull itself away from the religion of TEC.

Bishop Mark Lawrence voluntarily left the Episcopal Church by telephone announcement to the presiding bishop on October 17, 2012, retroactive to Oct. 15. Upon his announcements of abandonment of TEC in the special convention of 17 November the presiding bishop accepted Lawrence's renunciation of Holy Orders in TEC and granted him an official Release and Removal on Dec. 5. She "released" Lawrence from his office. Lawrence was not removed by the House of Bishops. He was not "deposed" by the authorities of TEC. This would make it easier for Lawrence to be reconciled with his old Church. Lawrence must think of his legacy. Does he really want to be remembered in history as the bishop of the schism?

Likewise, when Bishop vonRosenberg dealt with the 103 DSC clergy who had abandoned TEC, he granted them a release and removal rather than deposing them. This will make it easier for them to return to the Holy Orders of TEC.

TEC has the door wide open for the return of the clergy and laity of DSC who left TEC.

9---THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IS THE ANCESTRAL CHURCH OF DSC.

South Carolina was one of the nine founding states that established the Episcopal Church in 1789. SC sent delegates to Philadelphia with the intent that they help draw up the Constitution of the Church and adopt it for SC by signing it. Done. SC has reaffirmed its adoption of the TEC Constitution and Canons numerous times since then.

SC played an important role in the growth and development of TEC in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. For instance, it was a key backer of the General Theological Seminary in NYC.

SC has had two schisms, both of which were resolved. After the Civil War started, SC helped set up the Episcopal Church in the Confederate States out of necessity. This ended promptly after the War. Again, in 1887, white racists demanded a whites-only diocese and made a schism to get it. The schism ended when the diocesan leaders agreed to keep the black members apart. This wrong-headed segregation ended in the 1950's and 60's when long-suffering African American communicants were fully integrated into the diocese. Since the diocese has worked through its differences twice before, they can do it again.

The Episcopal Church has been the home of the planter-professional-commercial elite of the Lowcountry forever. Many a generation of the old families have been proud to call themselves Episcopalians. Many churches in SC have graveyards filled with these ancestors who must have turned over in their graves in 2012 when their descendants decided to abandon their ancestral church.

DSC has only one home. It is the Episcopal Church.

10---REUNIFIATION WILL RESTORE THE HEALTH OF THE DIOCESE.

The data published by DSC in its annual journals of the convention show that DSC lost a quarter of its communicants in the first two years after the 2012 schism. That was after 10,000 members fled from DSC in the schism.

Decline has been apparently true in all of the five schismatic diocesan cases. For instance, figures show that in Pittsburgh, the old diocese had about 19,000 members. Now the Church diocese has about 10,000 while the breakaway diocese lists about 8,000, some of whom are actually outside the boundaries of the diocese.

Loss of members also means loss of income. Balancing budgets is a problem. This is magnified by the rising cost of the litigation.

The membership and income figures of DSC show ill health. Reunification would restore good health.

Demographic studies show a dim future for DSC. SC society is moving rapidly to full equality and inclusion for homosexual persons. Long ago, SC as well as the rest of American society accepted the principle of equal rights for women. A religion founded on discrimination against gays and women is doomed to decline, even in conservative South Carolina.

It is time for DSC to reconcile with the Episcopal Church. Schism may have seemed like a good idea to most people at the time, but hindsight shows us something else. It was not a good idea. It was not justifiable. It was not necessary. It has broken a one grand and great prime diocese. It has brought immeasurable harm and hardship to many innocent victims. It has divided friends, neighbors, and parishes. It has led to decline, even of its own body. It has accomplished nothing good.

In a broken and hurting world, it is our job as Christians to bring healing, reconciliation, and peace. The best place for that to begin is in South Carolina.

Let us end with a prayer for reconciliation (taken from the ECSC website):

Gracious and loving God of justice and compassion: We pray for your church caught in a crushing schism in South Carolina. We believe that you favor reconciliation in all situations; and we ask you to be with all parties involved in the case...Give all of us strength and courage to act and pray in ways that can lead toward reconciliation. Help us to be agents of your reconciliation with our friends on both sides of this dispute. We ask all this in the Name of the Holy Reconciler. Jesus your Son. Amen. 

   

 

 

    

A CAUTIONARY NOTE FOR

THE DSC

The schismatic diocese of South Carolina (DSC) is supposedly in "discernment" about whether to join the Anglican Church in North America. A special convention is expected to be called this autumn to pass the first approval. The second and last vote will come in the regular convention of March 2017. Since the committee on affiliation is recommending joining ACNA, and the committee was personally named by Mark Lawrence, it is a foregone conclusion that DSC will join ACNA. (See my post of March 23, 2016, "South Carolina and the Anglican Church in North America.")

The recent election of a new bishop in the schismatic diocese of Pittsburgh should be a cautionary note for the folks in South Carolina. See the excellent description in EpiscopalCafé: www.episcopalcafe.com/holy-spirit-stirring-in-acna-pittsburgh-diocese/ and the comment of blogger Mark Harris: www.anglicanfuture.blogspot.co.nz/2016/04/let-this-be-sign-unto-youacna-and.html .

On April 23, the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh (ADP) (of the Anglican Church in North America, ACNA) held an election for a bishop to replace retiring Robert Duncan. Originally eight candidates were presented but three dropped out leaving five, all from outside the diocese. Another candidate was nominated from the floor, the Rev. Jonathan Millard, a popular rector in the diocese. He was obviously the first choice of the clergy and laity of the diocese, but just before the election, Duncan issued a dire warning to the assembly that Millard might not get approved by the College of Bishops of ACNA because he was divorced. (Ironically Duncan had been elected bishop of Pittsburgh after being nominated from the floor). On the first ballot, Millard led the field with clearly the highest votes in both clergy and laity. The Rev. Jim Hobby, rector of an Anglican church in Thomasville GA, trailed. The same was true on the second ballot as Millard remained the clear favorite among both clergy and laity. On the third ballot, three candidates remained and votes shifted toward Hobby. By the fourth ballot, Hobby was ahead and Millard dropped away. Hobby was elected on the fifth ballot. In the end, the diocesan convention elected a person who was not the leading favorite of the assembly.

Under the Constitution and Canons of ACNA, power is concentrated at the top, in the archbishop and the College of Bishops. A bishop is nominated by election in the diocese but must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the College of Bishops. In TEC, bishops are normally approved by a majority of the Standing Committees of the dioceses. The ACNA C and C also spell out the approval of sexual relations only within a permanent and lifetime matrimonial union of one man and one woman. This sets a very high bar indeed as it would presumably disqualify anyone for bishop who ever had any kind of sexual relations outside of legal, heterosexual marriage as well as divorced men (only men can be bishops in ACNA). Even so, the delegates in Pittsburgh wanted to elect, and almost did elect, a man outside the narrow bounds as laid out in the ACNA C and C.

Before the good people of DSC go headlong into the ACNA, they should be aware of what joining will mean to their selections of their own bishops. They will have to follow out-of-date and very narrow guidelines that will eliminate many good candidates, as Millard. They will also have to submit to near-dictatorial rule of the ACNA hierarchy. A two-thirds vote is tantamount to a veto among the bishops of ACNA. This will leave DSC, as it has ADP, at the mercy of the ACNA archbishop (who alone can convene the College of Bishops) and bishops. DSC will be very highly constricted in whom it can choose as its own bishop. This is a cautionary tale for a "diocese" that for years before the schism of 2012 railed long and hard against the supposed tyranny and dictatorship of the Episcopal Church. In reality, ACNA is far more undemocratic than TEC ever was. DSC may have to learn this the hard way, as the good people of Pittsburgh have just learned.


The schism in Pittsburgh has not gone so well for the planners, not only in the defiant vote mentioned above. State courts ruled entirely in favor of the Episcopal diocese. Some local churches that initially broke away, returned to TEC. The Episcopal diocese now lists 36 local churches and about 10,000 members while the Anglican diocese lists 40 churches and 7,937 members with many in these numbers being beyond the geographical boundaries of the old diocese. 


  

 

  

MY GARDEN, APRIL 23, 2016

Two weeks ago (April 9), I posted photos of my garden. Since many people appreciated seeing the garden, I am posting more photos showing what is blooming in the garden today, Saturday, 23 April. As any gardener knows, plants change daily, and show off at different times in different ways. This year is providing an unusually beautiful springtime here in the South. As one sees I am fond of trees, shrubs, and perennials. My motto is: "Low Maintenance." One will also see weeds. My philosophy is a garden that does not grow good weeds is not much of a garden. I pull the weeds as I can but do resort to Round-Up although I hate putting poison in my garden.


I hope you enjoy this garden as well as the gardens in different forms all over the place. They are everywhere if one will only look. Every now and then it is best to forget about everything else and just soak in the incredible beauty of God's creation all around us.

 Deutzia (Deutzia gracilis) is an old fashioned Southern favorite shrub. You can see why.

Chinese Fringe Tree (Chionanthus retusus) is covered with white "fringe." It is nearly full grown at about 15'. The star of the garden at the moment (Snowball bush is fading out).

Clematis is one of the most common vines anywhere, and for good reason. This is 'Polish Spirit.'

Red Knockout Rose is my favorite rose because it is low care and blooms prolifically from frost to frost. Japanese beetles arrive in late May early June but do not last as they are favorite food for some of the birds that inhabit my garden. I have 32 Red Knockout Rose bushes. I prune them in winter, give them a little fertilizer and then leave them alone. They reward me in abundance.

Blue Wild Indigo (Baptisia australis 'Purple Smoke') is another favorite perennial shrub.

Blue Wild Indigo with banana trees in foreground. Every southern garden should have banana trees.

Eve's Necklace (Sophora affinis) is a small tree, eventually to 15'. It has long blooms resembling necklaces. This is one of the most unusual plants in my garden. In fact, I have never seen one growing anywhere else. I ordered this as a seedling from a nursery in Texas.

Clematis 'Duchess of Edinburgh'.

Bananas on left. Foreground is Bluestar (Amsonia hubrichtii). Middle ground is Wild Indigo, yellow (Baptisia 'Screaming Yellow'). Large bush in background is a camellia.

Weigela is another common southern shrub. This one is an unidentified cultivar. It is also quite large, over 7'.

Crossvine (Bignonia capreolata var. atrosanguinea). The vine is on a trellis but I let it tail as it likes. In gardening, as in life, I am a democrat. I believe society should incorporate Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. I give the plants freedom as long as they are not invading other's spaces (BIG exception=poison ivy). I treaty them equally. and I give them an environment of brotherhood and harmony, hundreds of very different species living together happily. I suppose my garden is my own little metaphor for my worldview. Crossvine is one of many plants feeding the many hummingbirds in my garden.

Spiderwort (Tradescantia virginiana 'Concord Grape') in foreground. Back is Louisiana Palmetto (Sabal minor "Louisianaises"), my favorite bush-type palmetto, very cold hardy and producing large blue-green fronds. The weeds are evident.


Where did you get your plants? I have heard that a lot. I have over 800 individual plants representing over 300 different species ranging very widely. Most of my plants came from nurseries local to me, others from my travels, or other people's trips. For my readers in South Carolina, I can tell you my two favorite nurseries in SC. One, Woodlanders, in Aiken, is primarily a mail-order business. They have a huge variety of native and unusual plants. For a walk-through nursery, my favorite in SC is Nurseries Caroliniana in North Augusta. It is vast but well organized, presenting an enormous variety (for instance the Chinese Fringe Tree pictured above came from there), and reasonably priced. Of course, every city in SC has its share of fine nurseries too. 





FORT WORTH

IN APPEALS COURT TODAY ---
with Addendum (20 Apr.) and
Second Addendum (21 Apr.)

Original post, 19 April:     The Texas Second Court of Appeals, in Fort Worth, is hearing the Episcopal Church case today, Tuesday, 19 April, at 1:30 p.m. To my knowledge, there is no audio or video streaming of today's hearing. The judges will be hearing arguments from the competing dioceses concerning the Episcopal Church's appeal of the "Final Judgment" of Judge John Chupp, of the 141st Judicial Court, of Tarrant County, Texas, dated July 24, 2015. The Judgment awarded everything in question to the breakaway diocese.

Of all five secessionist dioceses, Fort Worth has had the most curious history of litigation. Three of the five cases were completely one-sided, Pittsburgh and San Joaquin entirely in favor of the Episcopal Church while Quincy was the opposite, completely in favor of the secessionist diocese. Fort Worth, however, has been on both sides.

The original court judgment in Fort Worth awarded all to the Episcopal Church side. That was Judge Chupp's order of 21 January 2011. The breakaways then appealed that decision directly to the Texas Supreme Court which held oral arguments on 16 October 2012, and rendered a written decision on 30 August 2013. In a 5-4 split, the supreme court ruled that the case must be remanded to the Judicial Court with direction to follow "neutral principles." The minority of the court held that the case was not appealable to the state supreme court. The Church side then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 but that court refused to accept the case for judgment, perhaps because it had not been decided by the highest court in the state of Texas. The case then went back to the original judge, John Chupp, in the 141st who held a new hearing directed by the state supreme court order for neutral principles on 20 February 2015 and issued a terse written order on 2 March 2015 with a short "Final Order" on 24 July 2015. Chupp awarded all to the breakaway diocese, the exact opposite of his 2011 ruling. It is this "Final Order" that the Church side appealed to the Appeals Court and is being heard today.

There is plenty here for the appeals court judges to consider. The Church side is essentially arguing for hierarchy, that is with sovereignty in the central authority, while the secessionist side is arguing for local rights, that is, with sovereignty in the local entity.

On December 3, 2015, the Episcopal Church diocese and the Episcopal Church both filed briefs (written arguments) with the appeals court, 202 p. and 49 p. These may be found at: http://episcopaldiocesefortworth.org/episcopal-parties-file-appellate-briefs-in-the-fort-worth-court-of-appeals . The breakaway (also known as the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth) side then filed a response brief of 95 pages on 4 March 2016: www.fwepiscopal.org/downloads/AppelleesResponsetoLocalParties-030416.pdf .  

Since we cannot see or hear the hearing today, we can only hope for a detailed description from the two sides involved asap. I will pass these along as I receive them.


ADDENDUM, 20 April. The hearing was held yesterday in the Second Court of Appeals, in Fort Worth. Three judges heard the oral arguments: Anne Gardner, Lee Gabriel, and Bonnie Sudderth. The courtroom was packed to capacity for a hearing that lasted 39 minutes.


An audio recording is available at:  http://episcopaldiocesefortworth.org/court-of-appeals-hears-arguments/ . This also has a report from the Episcopal Church diocese.


The schismatic diocese also has a report on the hearing at: http://www.fwepiscopal.org/news/courtofappeals.html .




SECOND ADDENDUM, 21 April. 


Having heard the audio of the hearing on 19 April, these are my thoughts:


The plaintiff (Episcopal Church diocese) lawyer spoke first. He argued basically that the Episcopal Church was hierarchical and that when the diocese was created (in 1983) it gave unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church with the force of an irrevocable contract. The diocese had no right to unilateral independence or to secession from TEC. In Fort Worth there were two entities: 1-the Corporation (incorporated under Texas law) that held title to the deeds and 2-the unincorporated diocese. The corporation held the property in trust for the Episcopal Diocese of Ft. Worth which itself is part of the national Church. In sum, this property issue was really an ecclesiastical issue that must be left to the Church under the First Amendment.


The defendant (secessionist diocese) lawyer countered that the diocese was an independent entity free to amend its rules under state law. The Corporation was an independent entity under state law and governed by the diocesan convention. Courts must follow "neutral principles" and settle the property issues under state property laws.
A judge interrupted the defendants' lawyer to speak twice: 1-are not we getting into ecclesiastical issues (referring to the structure of the diocese)? and 2-the Texas Supreme Court did not make a decision in the case, only remanded to lower court with direction for neutral principles.


The Church lawyer then offered a rebuttal. He said only the Church, not the courts, may decide which is the rightful diocese. He also pointed out that the 55 property deeds state explicitly the property was held in trust for the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Ft. Worth. He asked the court to enforce the deeds.


The fundamental issue in Ft. Worth was the same as in South Carolina, sovereignty. The Church's position is that ultimate power rests in the national Church, specifically in the General Convention. All dioceses must recognize that. As for property, all local properties are held in trust for the Episcopal Church and its diocese. On the other hand, the secessionist side argued for local sovereignty, that the local diocese governed itself and existed as an independent legal entity under state corporate law, and that the national Church had no right over the local properties.


It is impossible at this point to predict how the Texas Second Appeals Court will rule. It is dealing with contradictory decisions from the same judge (John Chupp), the first giving all to the national Church side, the second giving all to the secessionist side, and a direction from the state supreme court that the case be heard under "neutral principles." (The appeal before the court is Chupp's second decision). A judge asked only two questions on Tuesday, both of which suggested reluctance to interfere in an ecclesiastical matter. As we have seen, neutral principles does not necessarily mean the secessionist side will win. In California, the court followed neutral principles and found all in favor of the national Church; and this was affirmed by the appeals court. 

BREAKING NEWS ---

ANGLICAN CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL REJECTS PRIMATES' "CONSEQUENCES"

The Anglican Consultative Council voted today to reject the "consequences" imposed on the Episcopal Church by the primates in their January 2016 gathering in Canterbury.

According to the Episcopal News Service report just posted, the ACC today passed Resolution C34 which recognized the Archbishop of Canterbury's report on the primates' gathering and affirmed the decision to "walk together." Then, the ACC tabled (withdrew without a vote) Resolution C35 which would have accepted the primates' statement. The ABC himself wanted C35 to be withdrawn. For EpiscopalCafé's report see: www.episcopalcafe.com/intentional-discipleship-in-a-world-of-differences-acc-2016-declines-to-enforce-consequences-issued-by-primates .

For the long story by ENS see: http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/2016/04/18/anglican-consultative-council-declines-to-go-along-with-consequences .

Passing C34 and killing C35 speaks loudly and clearly that the ACC rejected the primates' directive to the ACC to impose punishment (using the euphemism of "consequences") on the American Episcopal Church.

Two points to emphasize here: 1-the Anglican Communion has no central government. It has "Four Instruments of Communion" that are separate and co-equal. No one Instrument has any authority over any other. No one has any right to interfere in any of the 38 independent churches (provinces) of the AC. The primates' had no right to direct the ACC to do anything and the ACC has now told the primates' that in no uncertain terms.

2-More evidence to support my contention that the movement to drive the Episcopal Church out of the AC and replace it with the Anglican Church in North America is dead (see my postings of April 11, "The Collapse of the Anti-Episcopal Church Movement in the Anglican Communion" and of Feb. 1, 2016, "The Failure of the Replacement Strategem"). The ABC and the ACC rallied to save the Episcopal Church's place in the AC. The anti-TEC hardliners have now been reduced to a marginalized handful of the most fiercely anti-homosexual-rights primates of equatorial Africa. In one case, Kenya, even the delegates rejected their archbishop's wish and attended the ACC meeting anyway.

THE COLLAPSE OF THE ANTI-EPISCOPAL CHURCH MOVEMENT IN THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION

After three days of the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Lusaka, Zambia, it is not too soon to draw the conclusion that the movement to drive the Episcopal Church (TEC) out of the Anglican Communion (AC) has ended in a fizzle. Death occurred in Lusaka, Zambia.

The movement actually started in 1997 in a conference hosted by the newly-formed right-wing political action committee called the American Anglican Council that brought together anti-homosexual-rights' forces in the Episcopal Church with anti-homosexual-rights' Anglican leaders from equatorial Africa. In 1998, this coalition pushed through the Lambeth Conference a statement condemning homosexuality. From there, equatorial African primates began incursions in America, in violation of a longstanding principle in the AC against cross-border actions. In 2000, the primate of Rwanda sponsored the Anglican Mission in America, under Chuck Murphy, of Pawleys Island, SC. Peter Akinola, primate of Nigeria, was in the U.S. on the eve of the vote on Gene Robinson in 2003 to help unify the anti-homosexual forces. Soon, Rwanda, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda were all making links among the anti-homosexual forces leaving TEC. The Chapman Memo in December of 2003 outlined a blueprint for schism from TEC. The Barfoot Memo in March of 2004 laid out a scheme for dissident Episcopalians to unite with African bishops. By 2004, when the Anglican Communion Network formed, the goal of the anti-homosexual American dissidents was to create a replacement church to take the place of TEC in the AC.

In July of 2008, GAFCON (Global Anglican Futures Conference) formed from Third World, highly evangelical, Anglican provinces and drew up the Jerusalem Declaration that purported to set up a "confessional" Anglicanism which explicitly condemned homosexuality and rejected the authority of Anglican provinces (i.e. TEC and Anglican Church of Canada) that supported rights for homosexual persons. The next year GAFCON "recognized" the new Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), the outcome of the 10-year movement in TEC against the reforms favoring homosexuals. GAFCON and its allied group, Global South, supported ACNA as the replacement church to take the place of TEC. Global South was an organization of 24 Anglican provinces (of the 38 in AC), with a Steering Committee headed by Mouneer Anis, primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East. He has been a very strong advocate for Mark Lawrence, even before the schism of 2012. In 2014, GS announced an "oversight" plan for the schismatic diocese of South Carolina.

In 2015, TEC adopted same-sex marriage and changed its canons to reflect this, the first province in the AC to do so. The equatorial African bishops responded with strong protests against the destruction of "the godly order" of the AC. By late 2015, the movement to drive TEC out of the AC seemed stronger than ever and on the brink of success.

The unknown problem was that much of the anti-TEC movement was an overblown illusion and had been all along. Neither GAFCON nor GS had the unity or resolve they tried to project. This became starkly and surprisingly clear in the primates' gathering in Canterbury in January of 2016 when the GAFCON/GS coalition put everything to the test. Stanley Ntagali, primate of Uganda led the attack on TEC. No doubt he was upset by TEC's General Convention resolution supporting pro-homosexual groups in Africa. Ntagali presented a crisis to the primates on the first day of the gathering demanding that TEC be expelled. Put on the spot, GAFCON/GS, which actually counted the majority of the primates, collapsed. Ntagali stormed out of the gathering in protest, alone. This drew back the curtain revealing the actual disarray of the anti-TEC coalition. Next, the anti-TEC party tried to get TEC expelled from AC for three years. That failed too, the second blow to GAFCON/GS. Then the primates drew up a communiqué with two landmark provisions: a slap-on-the-wrist for TEC (called consequences), and the rejection of the ACNA for admission to AC. This ended the "replacement" scheme. In retrospect, the Archbishop of Canterbury's (ABC) "walking together" theme saved the day for TEC. He insisted the AC would remain the same. This was the important point that saved TEC; the "consequences" were really inconsequential.

The hardliners refused to throw in the towel. As a last gasp in the anti-TEC movement, certain equatorial African primates turned to the upcoming Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Lusaka, Zambia, 8-19 April, 2016. They insisted that TEC had rejected the "consequences" and demanded TEC be restricted in the meeting.


As a protest against TEC, 5 primates announced they were opposed to their provinces participating in the Lusaka meeting (the equatorial provinces of Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, Nigeria, plus Mouneer Anis' (chair of GS) Jerusalem and the Middle East). A strange case happened in Kenya when the primate claimed a forged letter allowed his delegation to attend. The three delegates from Kenya did attend in spite of their archbishop's opposition. (The official attendance roster showed that only three provinces actually boycotted the meeting: Uganda, Nigeria, and Rwanda. Kenya was in fact represented by its 3 delegates and Jerusalem/Middle East by its 1, the Rt. Rev. Michael Lewis.) The reality that only 3 of the 24 GS provinces actually boycotted the meeting showed the dying weakness of the anti-TEC movement among the GAFCON/GS caolition. Obviously the vast majority of the GAFCON/GS churches in the AC were no longer willing to act against TEC.

Before the ACC meeting, the chair, James Tengatenga, of Malawi, made it clear that TEC had every right to attend and participate. The ABC sent a letter to all 37 other primates on March 16 urging them to support the meeting. This was a scarcely veiled rebuke of the equatorial primates who had announced their (anti-TEC) boycott. In his opening address to the ACC meeting on 8 April, the ABC made it clear that all proper actions had been taken regarding TEC and the meeting should proceed. All three TEC delegates were present and ready to participate fully. 

Then, on 11 April, Josiah Idowu-Fearon, General-Secretary of the Anglican Communion, of Nigeria, issued a blistering rubuke to the equatorial primates, particularly that of Kenya. ( www.anglicannews.org/news/2016/04/a-statement-from-the-anglican-communions-secretary-general.aspx ). He listed nine points strongly defending TEC, and the ABC, and taking to task the anti-TEC side. He minced no words. One should read it to get the full effect that a second-hand description would lack. It appears to me that Idowu-Fearon's statement of today is the nail in the coffin of the anti-TEC movement.

In the end, the reality of the AC remains unchanged. It is essentially a friendship circle of 38 independent churches that adhere to a religious and cultural heritage from the English Reformation. It has no central government of any kind. There are four "Instruments of Communion" (ABC, primates, ACC, and Lambeth meetings), but not one has any right to interfere in any one of the 38 churches (called provinces). Moreover, the four Instruments are separate and equal, and no one Instrument has power over any other. Thus, the primates had no right last January to impose any requirement on the ACC. The ACC is an independent body with its own constitution.

TEC survived. Her enemies failed. The AC survived. Classical Anglicanism survived. I do not think it is too early to declare that the storm has passed. GAFCON/GS proved to be only an angry house of cards. Life goes on. But it goes on with greater justice, freedom, and equality because the American Episcopal Church had the courage and resolve to lead the way and the ABC, and other Anglican leaders had the wisdom to defend the Anglican Communion.




(Footnote. Time, events, and greater knowledge have compelled me to alter my original impressions of the primates' gathering of Jan. 2016. In hindsight, we can see that there were two dangers lurking by 2016: the Anglican Communion was about to split up into two hostile groups, and the Episcopal Church was close to being expelled and replaced. Either would have been a tragedy. It was the deceptively wise, calm, and resolute leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury that kept both of those from occurring. We can now see that what he did in the secrecy of that primates' meeting was really a stroke of genius. He saved the Anglican Communion. He saved the Episcopal Church's place in the Anglican Communion. What more could we ask?
Time has also revealed to us the ABC's biological father. Somehow I think the father, Sir Anthony Montague Browne, a noteworthy public servant in his own right, would have been proud of what his son did this year.)          

MY GARDEN, APRIL 9, 2016

Let's take a break from church business and just enjoy this most beautiful springtime for a moment. There is nothing more glorious than Spring in the South. These are pictures of my garden I took this morning, April 9, 2016. I live in a small subdivision in Jacksonville, Alabama, where I have my retirement home. I bought the vacant lot next to my house a dozen years ago and developed from scratch my dream garden. Planning, planting, and tending it has been my therapy as well as my joy for all these years. I have hundreds of plants, mostly trees and shrubs but also perennials, vines, groundcovers, palms etc. There are walk paths and seating areas. One will notice no bird feeders. Instead I planted an abundance of natural bird food; and now I have a garden filled with happy birds that sing to me every day. I live on the line of zones 7/8 so have a great variety of plants, some tropical and some northern (as apple trees). In the landscape, there is a lawn in the middle with two garden areas flanking it. Most of the plants are common southern ones, but I do have some rare and unusual ones I collected between Florida and California. You are welcomed to visit! 


"The kiss of the sun for pardon,
     The song of the birds for mirth,--
 One is nearer God's heart in a garden
     Than anywhere else on earth."
Dorothy Frances Gurney, "God's Garden."

The trellis is White Chocolate Vine (Akebia quinata 'alba'). The arching trellis forms an entrance. Flanking the trellis are boxwoods. The tall conifers in the background are Japanese Cedar (Cryptomeria japonica). Along the lawn are Red Knockout Roses (pruned in winter). In a month, they will be in full bloom providing a blanket of red along the lawn. The small tree to the left of the trellis is Corkscrew Willow. The palm is a dwarf palmetto (sabal minor). To the left of it is Spartan Juniper.

The larger side of the garden. Red Knockout Roses along the lawn.

My favorite view. From the top of a slight slope, I can see most of the garden. Camellias on left, hydrangea on right. Small tree is crabapple. Large trees on left, maple.

Yellow Lady Banks Rose (Rosa banksiae). Small tree is Grancy Graybeard (Chiomanthes virginicus). The ground cover on left is Blue Rug Juniper (Juniperus horizontalis 'wiltonii'). Shrub on right is forsythia.

Purple shrubs=Loropetalum Chinese. Yellowish shrubs on right=Abelia grandiflora 'Francis Mason'







Japanese Snowball (Viburnum plicatum 'Sterile'). The crowning glory of the garden at the moment. 15' tall. Hundreds of "snowballs."