THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

AT THE CROSSROADS
(with Addendum, Mar. 1, 2017)

ADDENDUM, March 1, 2017:
In 10 days, the Diocese of South Carolina will hold its annual meeting. The proposed resolutions have not yet been posted but it is expected that the delegates will vote on joining the Anglican Church in North America (the first of two required votes). Steve Skardon and I will not be allowed to attend again this year. We were banned last year too. The meeting is closed to anyone outside of the diocese. Secrecy is a common element in the history of this organization. 

The delegates have a lot to consider. For starters, let's look at some of the commonly repeated claims of the diocesan leadership.

1-DSC tried to stay in the Episcopal Church but was attacked by TEC. 

FALSE. The DSC leaders did nothing to try to make a settlement with TEC. For many years, they denounced and attacked TEC at every turn. In fact they planned in secret well before the schism to break away.


2-DSC had to leave TEC because of its theology and polity.

FALSE. The great driving issue in making the schism was opposition to the full inclusion of homosexuals and transgendered persons in the life of TEC. This was the direct cause of the schism.


3-TEC no longer believes in the uniqueness of Christ and the authority of the Scriptures.

FALSE. Any such changes would have to be made by the General Convention which has not happened and certainly will not happen. Certain bishops made controversial remarks and writings, then DSC wrongly implied that these spoke for the whole Church. In fact, they spoke only for themselves. 


4-TEC treated Bishop Lawrence unfairly.

FALSE. Lawrence flagrantly violated the Dennis Canon of TEC. The Constitution and Canons of TEC were fairly applied to him. He had every opportunity to make easy amends with TEC. After the pre-arranged schism, he rejected every appeal to meet with the Church leaders for reconciliation.


5-The schism was the will of the people.

FALSE. The "disassociation" was planned in secret by no more than 20 diocesan leaders. They self-enacted it on Oct. 15, 2012. They suddenly announced it as a fait accompli to TEC on Oct. 17 and to the clergy and members of DSC. The special convention in St. Philip's on Nov. 17, 2012 was called to change the constitution and canons after the fact.


6-The DSC is the Episcopal Church in lower South Carolina and is part of the Anglican Communion.

FALSE. Soon after the schim, DSC leaders dropped the absurd claim of being the Episcopal Church, except in the legal context, but continued and still continues to claim to be part of the Anglican Communion. DSC is not in the Anglican Communion. In the U.S., only TEC is part of the AC.


7-TEC tried to force pro-homosexual policies on the dioceses.

FALSE. When the blessing of same-sex unions was approved in 2012 and same-sex marriage in 2015, TEC allowed local dioceses to opt out. Many dioceses did so. No person is forced to support any policy with which he or she disagrees. DSC would be perfectly free to refuse s-s blessings and marriages. No other diocese in the entire SE U.S. went along with SC.


8-By joining the Anglican Church in North America, DSC will be in a province of the Anglican Communion.

FALSE. The Archbishop of Canterbury has made it clear ACNA is a separate denomination, not part of the AC. In their Jan. 2016 meeting, the primates agreed that if ACNA wanted to join AC it would have to go through the Anglican Consultative Council. Moreover, they recommended that ACC not admit the ACNA to AC. The idea of admitting ACNA to AC is dead. ACNA is not now and will never be in the Anglican Communion. It is not a "province" of anything.



9-The Anglican Realignment movement is moving the majority of the Anglican Communion into a new conservative/fundamentalist Anglicanism.

MISLEADING. The AR movement started in 1997 to form an anti-homosexual rights majority of the AC. GAFCON and Global South were parts of this. In 2009 GAFCON formed the anti-homosexual-rights ACNA to take the place of TEC in the AC. In the Jan. 2016 primates' meeting, the movement showed AR's failure by keeping unity in the AC and imposing only token punishment on TEC. GAFCON/GS failed to break up the AC into two hostile camps on the issue of homosexuality. the AR movement is now in decline in the AC.


10-DSC will be better off by joining ACNA.

HIGHLY DOUBTFUL. ACNA is a church of intolerance against homosexuals and of discrimination against women. It is a rigidly authoritarian regime ruled by archbishops/bishops, all male. Women and all laity are relegated to the sidelines. In future, any bishop chosen by DSC will have to get two-thirds approval of ACNA bishops. DSC will lose a great deal of independence to ACNA (as the Ang. Dio. of Pittsburgh did).


11-DSC has been better off since leaving TEC.

FALSE. DSC has lost communicant numbers every year steadily since the schism of 2012. In 2008, when Mark Lawrence became bishop, DSC had 27,670 communicants. In 2015, it had 15,556. This is a loss of 44%. DSC is only slightly more than half its size when Lawrence became bishop.
Meanwhile, parishioners are paying fortunes for lawyers for both the diocese and the local parishes that were coerced into the lawsuit. DSC communicants have paid well more than $2m for a lawsuit that DSC initiated.

The DSC leaders refused TEC's offer of an out-of-court settlement in June of 2015. TEC would recognize local property ownership in return for the diocesan rights and assets. This showed DSC's motivation was not local ownership of the properties as it had claimed.

The legal future is bleak. If DSC wins in the SC supreme court, TEC is all but certain to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the federal court case returns to Charleston with a second direct order from the appeals court for adjudication in the district court. There will be millions more for lawyers.

The intolerant DSC leaders have forced conformity on the whole diocese which now has to sign oaths rejecting marriage equality. However, all studies show a sea-change in South Carolina favoring marriage equality as well as all equal rights for and inclusion of homosexual and transgendered persons. This is particularly true among people under the age of thirty. They are highly unlikely to be attracted to an anachronistic church whose raison d'être is to discriminate against gays and women. Future demographics of DSC will only escalate the decline that has happened in just the three years after the schism.

For statistics showing the effects of the schism on DSC membership see my blog post "The Continuing Decline of the Diocese of South Carolina" of Jan. 4, 2017.


The good people of DSC are indeed at a crossroads. They should think long and hard about how they got to where they are and where they go from here. Sadly, they have been misinformed and misled. There is no good reason why they have to continue this. The diocese belongs to its people. The sooner they regain control for themselves, the better. The schism has been a terrible mistake and a failure by almost every measure. The results are obvious. However, there is still time to salvage what is left of a once great diocese and do the right thing. Home is defined as the place where you go and they take you in no questions asked because you are family. Sometimes families are dysfunctional, but they are still families. Whatever they say, whatever they do, the people of DSC know in their heart of hearts their true home is in the church of their forefathers and mothers.

_____________________________ 

ORIGINAL POST OF Dec. 5, 2016:

Four years have passed since the schism of October 15, 2012. It is time to take a hard and cold look at the state of the independent entity legally known as the Diocese of South Carolina, the majority part of the old diocese that broke away from the Episcopal Church and retained (so far) the property and legal rights of the pre-schism diocese. Last March the diocesan leaders announced they would probably call a diocesan convention in the autumn of 2016 for a vote to join the Anglican Church in North America. They have not called such a meeting. This indicates there is significant resistance in the diocese to joining ACNA. If there were sweeping support, they would have called a rubber-stamping convention. Two convention votes are required for DSC to join ACNA. This means DSC probably cannot join ACNA in the year 2017 as earlier planned.

We already know that the internal state of DSC is not strong. The 50 local churches that make up DSC lost 26% of their active membership in the two years after the schism. The DSC now stands at 61% of what it was when Bishop Lawrence arrived in 2008. It is sinking under burdensome legal costs. The state supreme court should rule any day now on whether the Episcopal Church and its diocese actually own the properties and the legal rights of the pre-schism diocese. It has been 14 months since the court hearing. The longer this goes on, the more likely the outcome will favor the Church side. If the court were going to affirm Goodstein's ruling in favor of DSC, they probably would have done so by now.

Joining ACNA brings with it numerous problems communicants in DSC may not even see now. ACNA was created by eleven independent units in 2009 (there are over 60 independent "Anglican" denominations in the U.S.). These range from high Anglo-Catholic (no women clergy) to low Evangelical (no ritualism). The only bond of this group was hatred of the Episcopal Church because of its stand for equal rights for homosexuals. It was built on a negative that will disappear. As time goes by and the anti-homosexual hysteria abates, as it is already doing, the common bond will weaken and the internal contradiction in this very disparate coalition will take over. ACNA is a house of cards that is bound to collapse in time. There are already clear signs of this.

Communicants of DSC should be wary of the provisions of the ACNA Constitution and Canons (readily available on the Internet). It is a top-heavy system controlled by the Archbishop/bishops. There are 30 dioceses and 50 bishops. There are 4 governing bodies, all controlled or dominated by the bishops: The Provincial Council (laws), Executive Council (executive), Assembly (recommends resolutions), and College of Bishops (elects Archbishop, confirms new bishops in all dioceses by 2/3 approval). All bishops have to swear personal allegiance to the Archbishop. This means DSC will lose control of the selection of its new bishops, as happened recently in the bishop's election in Pittsburgh when the local favorite was tossed out in favor of a candidate acceptable to the ACNA Archbishop/bishops.

The big picture is no more promising than the small one for ACNA. It is part of a broad movement call "The Anglican Realignment." This started in 1997 in the work of a right wing PAC in the U.S. that had created the American Anglican Council (financed by deep-pocket right wing foundations and activists) to defeat/destroy "liberalism" (i.e. homosexual rights) in the Episcopal Church. In 1997 the AAC hosted a convention of anti-homosexual Episcopalians and equatorial African bishops to form an Anglican anti-homosexual-rights movement. The next year, this coalition got through the Lambeth conference a resolution condemning homosexuality. In 2000, Rwanda opened a missionary movement in the U.S. with Chuck Murphy's Anglican Mission in America. This began incursions into TEC. This stepped up greatly after TEC affirmed Gene Robinson as a bishop in 2003. The Anglican Realignment group, led by AAC, planned a schism (Chapman Memo) in the Episcopal Church to peel off the anti-homosexual rights minority with the help of equatorial African Anglican primates. In July of 2008, the Global Anglican Futures Conference (GAFCON) met in Jerusalem and drew up the Jerusalem Statement that 1-condemned homosexuality, and 2-rejected the authority of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. By this time, Bishop Lawrence and the diocesan leadership had started a concerted campaign to move DSC into this "Realignment." By 2012, they had succeeded in transferring the identity of the diocese from the Episcopal Church to the Anglican Communion. (In the circuit court trial, one DSC witness after another testified they had never been in the Episcopal Church,) 

In 2009, the American anti-homosexual coalition and their African allies created ACNA. Its expressed goal was to replace the Episcopal Church as the legitimate Anglican province in the U.S. GAFCON and its overlapping group, Global South, sought to split the Anglican Communion and carry the majority into an anti-homosexual-rights union. The pro-homosexual minority of Anglican provinces would be left behind as irrelevant to a new worldwide confessional Anglicanism. ACNA would be the new presence of Anglicanism in the U.S. and Canada. ACNA and GAFCON styled ACNA a "province."

This replacement stratagem collapsed and died in 2016 as the GAFCON coalition fell apart in the face of the Archbishop of Canterbury's irresistible call for all of the 38 Anglican provinces to "walk together." In January, the primates' gathering in Canterbury, the GAFCON primates could not round up a majority to throw TEC out of the Anglican Communion, even for three years. They settled on minor punishment. The GAFCON/GS primates, actually the majority of Anglican primates, abandoned ACNA. The primates agreed that if ACNA wanted to become a province of the Anglican Communion, it would have to go through the Anglican Consultative Council. In addition, they discouraged the ACC from accepting ACNA. When the ACC met in April, it ignored the ACNA. When Global South met, it too disregarded the issue of the membership of ACNA in the Communion. There is no chance ACNA will ever be a province of the Anglican Communion. The big movement of "Anglican Realignment" is dying away. 

As another part of the big picture, the issue of homosexuality has changed. It rose to a peak in 2015, and has been on the down slope ever since. At that time the U.S. Supreme Court and TEC legitimized same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, numerous other provinces of the Anglican communion have either taken steps toward this or have shown clear signs of moving toward equal rights for homosexuals. The trend in the Anglican Communion is to follow in the footsteps of TEC in granting equal rights for homosexuals. The equatorial African bishops, however, are still fighting their two decades long war. At the recent Global South conference they issued a loud and shrill communiqué, a denunciation of rights for homosexuals, as if it were the last, desperate rear-guard action in a war they know they have lost.

What happened in South Carolina was that the Trinity Gang and their close allies seized control and virtually monopolized all of the apparati of the diocese after Lawrence's arrival in 2008. The Trinity Gang were the clergy alumni of Trinity School for Ministry including many of the well-known diocesan functionaries. They gradually "differentiated" the diocese from the Episcopal Church at the same time as making the bishop the equivalent of a local pope. The diocesan convention resolved that he alone could interpret the constitution and canons, and his decision could not be appealed (infallibility). The Standing Committee and Trustees, arms of the Trinity Gang, gave Lawrence virtually rent-free the million-dollar diocesan-owned bishop's residence until the year 2020, whether or not he was bishop, and gave him a lifetime employment contract at full salary regardless of whether he were bishop. His current compensation package equals a quarter of a million dollars a year. Later the Board of Trustees declared that Lawrence personally, not just as bishop, was the head of the Trustees. By 2012, the power structure of DSC was thoroughly solidified under the Trinity Gang and its entourage. The ruling clique set up a schism in a secret vote of the Standing Committee on October 2, 2012 (I counted 17 people who were in the cabal at this time). This was enacted on October 15 and then announced to the DSC clergy and the world.

It is important to note that what happened in SC was a counter-revolution from the top down. It was not a popular uprising of the people. Note that not one other diocese in the entire southeastern U.S., not one other bishop, went along with or even approved of DSC's schism. That is because no other diocese was controlled by a Trinity Gang. The good people of the DSC were forced to go along with their leadership or leave. Most communicants naturally wanted to trust and follow their priests and bishops in whom they had implicit faith. Most went along with the schism. Now it appears that support for that idea may not have been as solid as we thought. There is obvious resistance to the Trinity Gang's insistence on joining ACNA. Even Bishop Lawrence is busy talking it up in the parishes.

There are four levels of the membership of DSC:

1-The Trinity Gang and their allies. This amounts to perhaps two or three dozen people who monopolize the power structure of the diocese and have since at least 2008. As the core that made the schism, these people have an emotional investment in their choices. They are unlikely to change their minds. However, many of them are in their 60's and will be facing retirement soon. Lawrence will be 67 in March.

2-Diocesan clergy. 101 priests and deacons of the old diocese abandoned the Episcopal Church and refused to return (3 of 104 returned). Without Holy Orders in TEC, these people are completely dependent on Bishop Lawrence. They have no where else to go. They are bound to the Trinity Gang (and many of them are themselves alumni of Trinity).

3-Parish leaders/active communicants. This is the "core" of any parish/mission: wardens, vestry, Sunday School teachers, choir, youth leaders, youth groups, women's groups, Daughters of the King, etc. Most of this lineup faithfully followed their bishop in the schism. Typical was the senior warden of St. John's of Florence who testified on the stand in the circuit court trial that she believed what her bishop and rector said (although the parish had misused an endowment). The tendency was to go along with whatever they were told.

4-Casual church attendees. These people go to church for a variety of reasons are usually disinterested in issues of politics.

The crux of the matter is that the future of the diocese hangs on # 3, the parish leaders/active communicants. The Trinity Gang and the clergy appear to be committed to making the schism last. It is the parish leadership that must do the thinking now for the whole diocese. They are the ones who must decide whether it is a good idea to join ACNA. They have a lot of experience now in dealing with the diocesan leadership. They are in a different place than they were 4 years ago when they enthusiastically went along with the rebellion.

By nearly all measures, the schism has been a failure. The basic failure came from the Trinity Gang's lack of vision for the future. All of their attention went into making a schism. They did not think ahead of that. For four years now they have failed to give meaning and identity to the independent diocese. DSC is not part of the Anglican Communion. Joining ACNA will not make it part of the Anglican Communion. 

The future is bleak; and this is not to mention the declining membership, income, and ever-rising costs for legal action (which the diocese initiated). Parish leaders should not forget too that the Trinity Gang flatly rejected a very generous offer in June of 2015 of an out-of-court settlement from the Episcopal Church to give the local parishes their independence and properties. This would have given the parishes what they wanted and ended all legal actions. This revealed, really for the first time, that the Trinity Gang's goal was to diminish or destroy the Episcopal Church by pulling DSC into the Anglican Realignment, not to win the independence and properties for the local parishes. Parish leaders can see that very clearly now.

Parish leaders now have to choose the future of their diocese. It is, after all THEIR diocese. The clergy are their hired hands.

There are three choices, keep going it alone, join ACNA, and return to the Episcopal Church. The easy way is just keep going along with the Trinity Gang and join ACNA. The future for the diocese will be dismal. The hard choice is to swallow hard and return to the Episcopal Church and to the Anglican Communion. As one clergyman said before the schism, you cannot divorce your mother. If anyone is opposed to rights for homosexuals, no problem. TEC and her dioceses allow all local clergy to choose whether to have s-s blessings and marriages. In the Episcopal Church in South Carolina this is true, and some clergy have not gone along as they have every right to do this without question. Homosexuality is not the issue the Trinity Gang made it out to be before the schism. They used it as a wedge to pry the diocese away from the Episcopal Church in support of aiding the Anglican Realignment and diminishing the Episcopal Church.

The Diocese of South Carolina is at a crossroads in its journey of faith. The choice must be made by the parish leaders. The fate of their own diocese is in their own hands. 

One suggestion I have for the parish leaders is to keep stalling and wait for the state supreme court ruling. They have already allowed the Trinity Gang to keep them from getting clear ownership of the local properties once. They might not want to do that again. If they really want what is best for their parishes, they must start to think beyond the bounds of what has happened to them. My thought and prayers go out to the parish leaders. They are the real core of the life of the church. They have enormous decisions to make for the future of their churches' journeys of faith.       

THE FEDS STRIKE ONCE AGAIN

The judges of the United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, have ruled, unanimously, again. And, once again, as before they have remanded the case to the U.S. District Court in Charleston with directions to proceed. See the article in scepiscopalians.com here . See also the article from ECSC, here .

Yesterday, February 21, 2017, three judges of the 4th Circuit issued a decision. Two of the three had sat on the first appeal, Motz and Gregory. Yesterday's decision, as the first, was written by Judge Motz. The judges said very clearly that the U.S. District court must adjudicate this case:  "Because the state and federal cases involve different parties and different claims, the district court abused its discretion under Colorado River by abstaining in favor of the state court proceedings." The elderly judge C. Weston Houck could not help but get this message of reprimand from his superiors. The three judges also reiterated the principle that federal law is superior to state law. They have ordered the district court in Charleston to reopen the case and proceed with it.

It remains to be seen how the district court will proceed. It is hard to imagine that the judges in Charleston would defy direct orders of their superiors a second time.

If the proceedings do return in federal court, the Episcopal Church side will have the stronger hand. Federal courts have consistently sided with the national church and its dioceses. 

In the federal case, Bishop vonRosenberg sued Mark Lawrence under the terms of the federal Lanham Act. Lawrence claimed to be the Episcopal bishop even though he had left the Episcopal Church and the Church had recognized vonRosenberg as the legitimate Episcopal bishop. Interesting to note that at the time of the schism in 2012 and immediate thereafter, Lawrence made a major effort to project himself as the Episcopal bishop and his organization as the Episcopal diocese. Soon, however, he and his aides dropped the word Episcopal, except in legal contexts, and now always refer to themselves as "Anglicans." Actually, they are Anglican in self-designated name only. They are not now and almost certainly never will be in the Anglican Communion. The Diocese of South Carolina is really neither Episcopal nor Anglican.

So, it is back to the U.S. District court in Charleston.

IF WINTER COMES...

This has been an unusually mild and short winter here in the South. Today was in the 70's and sunny as it has been for weeks now. My garden is lovely although it will probably never be as beautiful as it was before last year's "exceptional" drought. I lost dozens of shrubs and trees. I am still grieving over my row of grand wax myrtles, full grown at 20', now all gone. Nevertheless, early Spring is here (although the calendar still says winter), and just when I needed gardening therapy the most. I fully intend to make the most of it. As age and health creep up on me, I do not have the stamina I used to have, but that is alright because it makes me rest more and take in the soul-refreshing beauty all around me. I am better for that.  

 Forsythia "Lynwood." The glory of late winter, it is covered with tiny bright yellow flowers before the green leaves appear. A "must have" shrub in the South. The never-failing brilliant herald of spring.

 Camellia japonica, "Professor Sargent." Every self-respecting southern yard and garden has camellia, "the winter rose." Prof. Sargent is a favorite. To me camellia is the "king" of the garden. Southern gardens typically also have lots of azaleas but they are often frail and fussy. All of my expired last year.

Spiraea thunbergii ("Baby's Breath spiraea"). Covered with tiny white blossoms in late winter. 

Many other plants are also blooming in my garden: loropetalum, winter honeysuckle, winter jasmine, and of course the bulbs, as daffodils.

We are having another strange season of a sort in our national government, and it is not a good one. Donald Trump has been president for one month. It has been chaos. We have 47 months to go. Actually, some bookies are giving odds he will not last the four years, either removed by impeachment or voluntarily quit. Personally, I find both of these far-fetched. The Republicans have control of Congress. They would be in no rush to remove a president of their own party. Impeachment would require a really shocking crime, such as being an agent of Putin. As far as voluntarily quitting, can anyone see Trump ever doing that? Certainly not with his ego.

There is so much wrong, one hardly knows where to start. I have been bothered by his war against the intelligence community. This is a mystery to me. I cannot figure why he is doing this unless he knows they have incriminating information on him and he is trying to intimidate them. I am concerned too with his bizarre foreign "policy." And what about his frightening attacks on the independent judiciary? I am most bothered by his war against the free press. He called it the enemy of the people. He could not be more wrong and dangerous. 

Trump has not settled into a presidential mode. He is still campaigning and playing to his base, the angry white working-class man. He is an ego-maniac who filters everything through the lens of self-image. He has the maturity of a second grade bully in the school yard. He has not changed. Why should we think he will? He is the founding fathers' worst nightmare. They knew that a democratic republic has an achilles heel. The majority can elect anyone, even a dangerous demagogue who could reverse democratic rights and principles. This is how Trump seems to me. However, the saving grace is that he is a minority president. The majority of voters did not choose him and still do not support him. His "unfavorability" ratings are over 50%. Most American do not want him to be president.

We have a constitutional crisis in this country. It is still too soon to tell how it is going to play out, but there is a rising consensus among the majority of Americans that this cannot go on as is for four years. What to do? If he will not quit on his own or if Congress will not remove him from office, we are stuck with him. He does not understand, let alone respect our constitutional system of government. Fortunately, there are other centers of power: Congress, the courts, the military, the bureaucracy, and the media. Even within his own administration there are views in conflict with the President's. It may be that a consensus will emerge that the government must go on by disregarding his antics. By common agreement among the other power centers, he could become irrelevant, that is, marginalized and ignored. Maybe, but there are several problems with this. Congress needs the president to sign their bills into law. The media also "need" him because his wild rants drive up ratings. We are fascinated by watching this "train wreck." The problem is we are all on the train. 

Still, I think it is a possible that the rest of the government could push Trump aside and go on although it will not be easy. I get the sense that they are beginning to coalesce around an understanding that Trump is "unhinged, unmoored and unglued," as the conservative columnist David Brooks said a couple of days ago (NY Times, Feb. 17, 2017: "What a Failed Trump Administration Looks Like." Find it here .) Other conservative spokespersons and outlets are joining in the chorus, perhaps most importantly that bastion of right-wing Republicanism, the Wall Street Journal. Democrats already consider Trump a dangerous lunatic. If the conservative Republicans continue on with this, a consensus will develop that he is too unstable to govern and must be disregarded for the sake of the nation. If so, the rest of the government must take over and run the country leaving our "Mad King George" out of the picture. 

CHURCH OF ENGLAND 
REJECTS BISHOPS' REPORT

In a stunning move today, the General Synod of the Church of England voted "not to take note" (read: to reject) the Bishops' Report on Marriage and Same-Sex Relationships. The bishops' had said that marriage in the church could only be between a man and a woman. This is a significant victory for marriage equality.

The vote to "take note" required majorities in each of the three houses. The House of Bishops voted 43-yes, 1-no. The House of Clergy voted 93-yes, 100-no, 2 abstentions. The House of Laity voted 106-yes, 83-no, 4-abstentions. The rejection in the Clergy meant the failure of the vote. The pro-homosexual rights parties declared victory. Interesting enough, some conservative elements did too. In their view the Report had not gone far enough to defend traditional marriage.

In the end, it was the ordinary boots-on-the-ground vicars who stood up for the people against the lordly bishops. Hooray for democracy, says this American cousin. 

The Church of England appears to be in disarray concerning the issue of homosexuality. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

We Americans can empathize. The Episcopal Church went through turmoil from 1976 to 2015 trying to come to grips with this issue. The matter really had/has three parts: the question of morality, the issue of the ordination of openly homosexual persons, and the Church's blessing of same-sex relationships. The second and third, of course, evolved from the first. Thus, the great question was whether homosexual behavior is immoral, as the conservatives insisted, or morally neutral, as the liberals said. The Episcopal Church never really had a great debate on this question because it was simply too disruptive. The second part, on ordination, was much easier to address. And, this is what happened in TEC. At first General Convention said the ordination of open homosexuals was "not appropriate." This was the stand through the 1970's and 1980's. By 1990, however, the bishops of Newark were ordaining open homosexuals. This forced the issue onto the General Convention. The 1991 GC was the most contentious in memory, tempers flared in the House of Bishops. The Church was roughly divided into thirds, one against ordination, one for, and one neutral. The war was for the neutral middle. In 1994 GC resolved that homosexuality could not be an obstacle to ordination. In 1996, an ecclesiastical court ruled that there was no Church doctrine to impede the ordination of homosexuals. This broke the back of the anti side which made a last stand in the 1997 GC. The next year, 1998, the ultra conservatives joined with the equatorial African bishops to push through the Lambeth Conference a resolution against marriage equality. Having lost the fight in America, they were going over the heads of TEC to try to get the Anglican Communion to make TEC back off. The ploy failed.

The third part, the Church's blessing for homosexual couples derived from the victory on ordination. The defeated conservative minority was too weak to block this. In 2012, TEC adopted a liturgy for the blessing of same-sex couples. In 2015, it adopted same-sex marriage. 

The nearest TEC ever came to a thoughtful, deliberate approach to the issues of homosexuality came in March 2003 with the House of Bishops' Theology Committee report called "The Gift of Sexuality: A Theological Perspective." This was a monumental compilation of careful considerations of Church leaders and academics. In conclusion, the report asked for time for the Church to reach consensus before legislative action. Unfortunately for the Report, it came out just before Gene Robinson was elected bishop. The vote to confirm would have to be taken up in the General Convention of 2003. This trumped the Report's recommendation. The cumulative effect of the various Church measures opening up ordination to open homosexuals and the landslide affirmation of Robinson as a bishop was to recognize homosexual behavior as morally neutral. The liberals won the war. They got both this and the ordinations. We all know what happened next. Five dioceses voted to leave TEC. 

The full inclusion of women and homosexuals into the life of the Episcopal Church came by action, by civil disobedience. The issues were presented to the Church which acted on them, and in the moment of crisis decided to approve both. 

In an ideal world, reasonable people can reach reasonable consensus agreements. Unfortunately, too often this cannot and does not work. Read Martin Luther King's Letter from the Birmingham Jail. So, good luck to the Church of England in reaching a consensus on marriage equality. At this point all the pro party is asking for is the blessing of same-sex unions in the Church. I am certain they will get at least this in time.

Civilization is moving toward full inclusion and rights for homosexual persons. GAFCON and Global South know they have lost the war. The GS and GAFCON primates' shrill denunciation of marriage equality of October 6, 2016, was just a desperate rear guard action. Same in the Diocese of South Carolina and the ayatollahs-of-Coming-Street's new Draconian decrees requiring everyone to sign oaths against marriage equality. Numerous Anglican provinces are moving inexorably toward marriage equality. Scotland appears to be next.

I especially recommend to you the Archbishop of Canterbury's eloquent statement on today's vote. Find it here . The Archbishop, who had just been humbled by his upstart clergy, conceded We need a radical new Christian inclusion in the Church. Amen. (South Carolinians will remember Bishop Lawrence's pre-schism crusade against "indiscriminate inclusivity.")

For the C of E official report on today's vote, find it here . For newspaper reports see here and here . 

Thinking Anglicans has the best guide to today's action. Find it here .   

THE INCONSEQUENTIAL CONSEQUENCES

The so-called "consequences" imposed on the Episcopal Church by vote of the primates of the Anglican Communion in the January gathering in Canterbury were inconsequential. This is much to the chagrin of the anti-Episcopal Church party in the Communion. It is also in the "Alternative Facts" put out a few days ago by the Anglican Communion News Service. Why ACNS felt it was necessary to twist the truth on the consequences remains a mystery. Surely they knew they could not get away with it.

On 1 February 2017, ACNS posted an article, "Archbishop of Canterbury Sets Out Vision for 2017 Primates Meeting." Find it here . The article said: "Members of TEC participated in ACC-16 [the Anglican Consultative Council meeting of 2016] in Lusaka, but none took part in formal votes on issues of doctrine and polity." This was untrue.

The three TEC representatives in the ACC immediately issued a statement correcting the ACNS's misrepresentation. Find it here . The article was entitled: "Updated: Archbishop of Canterbury Sets Out Vision for 2017 Primates Meeting: Episcopal Church Anglican Consultative Council Members Issue Statement on ACNS Story's Claims." First, the three (Ballentine, Douglas, and Jennings) point out that the ACC accepted but neither endorsed nor affirmed the "consequences" against TEC voted by the primates. Then they made very clear they had voted on every resolution: "Each of us attended the entire ACC-16 meeting and voted on every resolution that came before the body, including a number that concerned the doctrine and polity of the Anglican Communion." So there, ACNS.

The next day, ACNS tied to backtrack by adding an addendum to their article: "all matters of doctrine and polity were agreed by consensus and no formal vote was necessary." This was an attempt to muddy the waters in order to hide their mistake. It did nothing to change the essential fact that the three representatives of TEC fully participated in every vote of the ACC in direct contradiction of the stated "consequences" sent over from the primates meeting of January 2016.

The fundamental reason why the "consequences" were inconsequential is the nature of the Anglican Communion. See the Wikipedia article on the Anglican Communion, particularly the section on the Instruments of Communion.

The AC is a set of 38 independent churches, called provinces, separated geographically. The essential requirement for being in AC is to be in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. The AC has no overall governing authority, neither executive, nor legislative, nor judicial. It has no written constitution, contract, or other binding document. It does have Four Instruments of Communion that evolved separately over time. 

The first Instrument is the most important, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Although a figurehead without the right to intervene in any local province he does have the power to call the Lambeth Conference and to issue invitations to the bishops to attend (he sometimes refuses to invite some bishops), and has the power to convene the meetings of the primates. Since a church has to be in communion with the Archbishop, he ultimately gets to choose who can be in the Anglican Communion (technically done by the ACC). For instance, he recently declared that he was not in communion with the Anglican Church in North America. He said it was a separate church not in the Anglican Communion. The ABC remains the essential power center of the AC, albeit a weak one.

The second Instrument is the Lambeth Conference. It can express the opinions of the majority but, as ABC, has no right to interfere in the local churches. In 1998 the LC passed a resolution rejecting marriage equality. The anti-homoseuxal party of AC has promoted this as the law of the AC, one of which TEC is in violation. In fact, the AC has no laws that can be enforced on the 38 independent churches. The 1998 resolution was only an agreement of the majority and cannot be forced on any province of the AC.

The third Instrument is the primates' meeting, an assembly called by and presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The 38 primates discuss and vote their opinions on various issues facing the AC, but again, they cannot impose anything on the individual churches. The primates have no authority to impose anything on the other three coequal Instruments of Communion since the AC has no constitution or other compact. This was the fallacy of the "consequences" voted by the January 2016 primates' gathering. The set-up of the AC gives no way a resolution of the primates can be forced on any other Instrument or on any province.

The fourth Instrument is the Anglican Consultative Council that is made up of representatives of all the 38 provinces, roughly proportional. It usually meets every three years. It is the only one of the four Instruments that has a written constitution. However, as the others, it can express opinions but cannot rule over or interfere in any province. It too is only an advisory body. In last April's ACC meeting, in Lusaka, the representatives "received" but did not endorse the primates' resolution on the "consequences" against TEC. As the TEC delegates said, they fully participated and voted on every measure in the meeting. In short, ACC rejected the primates' call for punishment against TEC. They could do such as a separate and constitutional entity of the AC beholding to no one. They did not have to obey anything the primates' said since there was no constitutional or legal requirement to do so. The ACC had every right to operate on its own, as it did.

In sum, the nature of the Anglican Communion means that each one of the 38 provinces is independent. The Instruments of Communion have only advisory powers. The Four Instruments are separate. No one rules over the others. Thus, the primates had no right to impose punishments on TEC in the other three Instruments of the AC. The ACC made this plain in its meeting last April.

The anti-homosexual coalition in the Anglican Communion is trying to stop the rising tide of rights, equality, and inclusion of homosexuals in the provinces of the Anglican Communion. For years after the anti-homosexual Lambeth resolution of 1998, and especially after the Robinson affair of 2003, they tried to impose a unified authoritarian force over the individual churches, as the Windsor Report and the Anglican Covenant. All failed. Numerous Anglican provinces are now following in the footsteps of Canada and TEC toward full human rights. GAFCON and its overlapping ally Global South have tried their hardest to stop this movement by changing the nature of the Anglican Communion. They wanted to unify the AC under a covenant rejecting rights for homosexuals. They failed. The tide is still rising against them. Nothing displayed this more clearly than their disunion and disarray in last January's primates' gathering. They failed to expel TEC. They failed to put in the Anglican Church in North America to replace TEC in the Anglican Communion. Their replacement strategem is now dead. The old Anglican Communion survived intact.

The ACNA is not now and will almost certainly never be in the Anglican Communion. The communicants of the Diocese of South Carolina who about to vote in favor of union with ACNA would do well to recognize this inconvenient fact.

GAFCON/GS's denial of human rights and attacks on TEC failed. Their scheme of Anglican Realignment is fizzling out. ABC, the real power center of the AC, has called the new meeting of the primates this year under the same motto of unity. ACNS's strange twisting of the truth about the "consequences" does not help. Recognizing the reality of the nature of the Anglican Communion would help.   

"GOD PUSHES PEOPLE 

TO BUILD BRIDGES"

"God pushes people to build bridges," says Presiding Bishop Michael Curry. Amen.

Last Sunday, Curry wrapped up a three-day revival in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. By all accounts it was a roaring success. His last stop was at the packed house of St. Stephen's of McKeesport. See the report here . May have been a coincidence, but St. Stephen's was the parish of Mark Lawrence from 1984 to 1997. In the trauma of division as the majority of the diocese of Pittsburgh voted to leave the Episcopal Church in 2008, St. Stephen's congregation finally resolved to remain Episcopal while still fondly recalling the young man from California who had led their flock so well.

Curry is famous as an electrifying preacher. He is just the one to lead the new "Jesus Movement" revival of the Episcopal Church. Surely, now is the moment for this.

The Presiding Bishop is to make five more stops on his year-long circuit of evangelism across America. Interestingly enough, the last stop will be in the Diocese of San Joaquin, November 17-19. Let's hope he holds his last revival meeting in St. Paul's of Bakersfield. That would be fitting. Lawrence was rector there from 1997 to 2007. DSJ was the original schismatic diocese, voting the second and last time in December of 2007 to leave the Episcopal Church. The majority of St. Paul's went along. However, the court returned the property of St. Paul's to the Episcopal diocese in 2013. The majority of the congregation moved out as Trinity Anglican Church.

Too bad that Curry did not include South Carolina in his circuit this year (he will be in Georgia). But then he did make a great and wonderful visit to Charleston last April when South Carolinians needed him the most in the wake of schism and the Mother Emanuel massacre. When he left, hearts did not ache quite so much.

Bridges: love, compassion, healing, reconciliation, brotherhood and sisterhood. That is what we should be about, not schisms, walls and separations. Presiding Bishop Curry's message is exactly what we all need to hear now in McKeesport, Bakersfield, Charleston, and everywhere.   

A DECADE OF SCHISM

This year, 2017, marks the tenth year since the first of the diocesan votes to leave the Episcopal Church (TEC). The Diocese of San Joaquin was the first to resolve to leave, in December of 2007 (the first of the two votes was the year earlier). Then followed Pittsburgh, Quincy, and Fort Worth, all voting to transfer to the Anglican province of the Southern Cone (South America). In 2009, these four joined in the start-up of a new church called the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). On October 15, 2012, the diocesan leadership of South Carolina declared a "disassociation" from TEC  making the fifth schismatic diocese.

After ten years, it is appropriate to look back, review, and assess the five schisms. What caused the schisms? How have the departing groups fared since they left TEC? How has TEC fared? What is the outlook for the future?

CAUSES.

A summary of the causes of the schism is in order. The basic cause was a disagreement over the philosophy of religion. After the 1950's, TEC moved into a new phase of its history, into a horizontally oriented social activism. The majority of TEC championed equal rights and inclusion of African Americans, women, and homosexuals. A traditionalist minority, however, objected to this demanding that religion must remain vertical, that is to devote itself to salvation of the soul, one person and one God. They declared faith unchanging "the faith once delivered." As God controls the universe, we must preserve the social order. 

The traditionalist minority (they called themselves the "orthodox") was first enraged over the ordination of women. Three of the five later schismatic diocese refused to ordain women to the priesthood. This was mild, however, in comparison to their reaction to the equality and inclusion of homosexual and transgender persons. TEC's affirmation of the first openly gay bishop in 2003 lit the fuse for the ultra-conservatives' explosion. The election of the first female presiding bishop in 2006, and first woman primate in the Anglican Communion, added to it.

The American ultra-conservatives (people who refused to accept the legitimacy of the ordination of openly gay people) and equatorial African primates united to form a movement called the Anglican Realignment. This was meant to split off the anti-homosexual majority of the old Anglican Communion leaving out TEC, Canada and anyone else favoring equal rights for all. In 2008, this coalition formed GAFCON and signed the Jerusalem Declaration that rejected equality for homosexuals and denied the authority of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. In 2009, the ultra-conservative-GAFCON coalition formed the Anglican Church in North America. Its aim was to replace TEC as the legitimate Anglican province in the U.S. and Canada. American ultras saw the Anglican Realignment as the viable alternative to TEC. They believed the majority of the Anglican Communion was conservative enough to maintain vertical religion and overcome the hated social reforms. They sought to change fundamentally the Anglican Communion.

SAN JOAQUIN.

The Diocese of San Joaquin was one of the three that refused to ordain a woman to the priesthood. Its highly conservative bishop, Schofield, began leading the majority away from TEC by the early 2000's, well before Jeffert Schori's election. Mark Lawrence was rector of one of the largest parishes of this diocese, St. Paul's of Bakersfield. This was a relatively small diocese, of about 6,000 active members.

In 2008, the House of Bishops deposed Schofield. 

Ironically, the first schism resulted in the greatest legal victory for the Episcopal Church. Eight years in the state courts found all in favor of the Church. Judges ruled the Church to be hierarchical. In the end, the entire chain of state courts agreed that the breakaways had to return all the assets and properties of the old diocese to the rightful owners, TEC and its diocese. The Anglican diocese is now in the process of complying with the court orders. This was a complete legal victory for TEC.

The Anglican diocese's website lists 40 local churches, about half outside the old diocesan boundary. This diocese does not reveal membership numbers. The Episcopal diocese lists 19 local churches. The 2016  Episcopal Church Annual gives 2,131 active members. Apparently, roughly two-thirds of the old diocese went along with the schism and one-third remained with TEC. Without sufficient statistics, it is impossible to know membership trajectories.

Lawrence's parish, St. Paul's of Bakersfield, went along with the schism (Lawrence was conveniently absent for the vote; he had just won consents to be the next Episcopal bishop, of DSC). From 2007 to 2013 St. Paul's was Anglican. By court order, the Episcopal diocese regained the property in 2013. The majority of the old congregation moved out to become Trinity Anglican Church. The assistant rector there is Joseph Lawrence, a son of Mark Lawrence. This congregation raised $2.7m to build a new campus on the west side of town. According to its website, Trinity has an Average Sunday Attendance of around 180 and an annual budget of $572,000. The old church, St. Paul's Episcopal, has an ASA of 110 and a budget of $235,000. Again, about a 2-1 split.

The Anglican diocese has the majority of the members of the old diocese. However, they lost all of the assets and properties.

PITTSBURGH.

As San Joaquin, Pittsburgh began moving away from TEC in the early 2000's under Bishop Duncan. After the Robinson affair of 2003, he became the leader of the alternate primatial oversight movement that formalized into the Anglican Communion Network of a dozen ultra dioceses. Unfortunately for him, he agreed to a legal "Stipulation" in 2005 that all property would remain with the Episcopal Diocese. 

In 2008, the House of Bishops deposed Duncan and the diocesan convention voted a second time to leave TEC. Three years of litigation followed in which the chain of state courts agreed that the Stipulation meant all assets and properties would remain with TEC and its diocese. However, some parishes owned their own properties; and a few refused to vacate returned facilities. 

The Episcopal diocese rebounded as the majority. In 2015, it listed 34 local churches and 8,688 members. The Anglican diocese declined. In 2014, it listed 7,937 members (with a large share outside the old diocese); in 2015 it listed 6,929 members, of which 5,765 were in the territory of the old diocese. Since the schism, the Episcopal side has grown and is now much larger than the breakaway side which seems to be declining.

Mark Lawrence was rector of St. Stephen's of McKeesport, Diocese of Pittsburgh from 1984 to 1997. At the schism, the parish wrestled with its choices but finally resolved to remain with TEC. To this day Lawrence is warmly remembered in the old parish he served well.

The people who made the schism in Pittsburgh wound up losing both the assets and the majority.

QUINCY.

TEC and its dioceses won complete legal victories in San Joaquin and Pittsburgh, but this was not to be the case in the Diocese of Quincy, in fact, the opposite. 

This was one of the smallest dioceses in TEC, with just 2,200 members before the schism. It was also highly Anglo-Catholic and one of the three dioceses that refused to ordain women. 

In 2008, a majority vote in the diocesan convention resolved to leave TEC for the Southern Cone. Keith Ackerman, a friend of Lawrence's from Pittsburgh days, was bishop. The Presiding Bishop accepted his resignation and granted a formal Release and Removal from the office of bishop. He was not deposed by the House of Bishops the way Schofield and Duncan had been. She was to do the same for the next two bishops to leave TEC, Iker and Lawrence. They too were granted Release and Removal rather than being deposed.

The case between the two dioceses went up the chain of state courts which ruled consistently under strict construction. They said that since TEC did not explicitly forbid a diocese from seceding, it could do so, and keep the assets to boot. They found that legal rights remained in the local party and that TEC was not hierarchical (the California courts ruled the exact opposite).

The split of the old diocese was again about 2-1. Of the 22 local churches, 18 followed the schism with about 1,400 of the original 2,200 members. Four congregations remained with TEC, the largest being St. Paul's of Peoria. Afterwards, nine congregations made up the Episcopal side. Owing to its small size, the Episcopal party resolved to merge with the Diocese of Chicago in 2013. The Anglican diocese of Quincy does not release its membership figures; therefore, it is impossible to know its size or development. However, according to its website, it has 16 churches in the old diocese and another 20 beyond, as far away as Hawaii. By all appearances, the Anglican diocese is doing well. It wound up with the assets and the majority.

FORT WORTH.

Another decidedly Anglo-Catholic diocese that adamantly refused to ordain women was Fort Worth, under its formidable bishop, Jack Iker. In fact, immediately after Jeffert Schori's election in 2006, he arose to demand alternate primatial oversight, by a foreign primate, in the House of Bishops. He did not get it, but he did get a schism in 2008. 

The litigation went to both sides. The early judgment found for the Church side, but on appeal this was overturned. The court then reversed itself and found for the Iker side. This is now in the state court of appeals. We are awaiting a judgment at any time. One interesting point was that the state supreme court, in remanding the case, declared that the Dennis Canon could not be enforced since it did not contain a provision that it could not be revoked (if this principle were followed invariably, few laws could ever be enforced).

In this instance, both sides use the identical titles and marks. 

As with Quincy and San Joaquin, the Anglicans of Ft. Worth refuse to give their membership and financial statistics making it impossible to judge their size and growth. We do know that there were 55 local churches before the schism and that the majority went along with Iker. As of last year, the schismatic diocese listed 40 of the 55 and another dozen churches beyond. In 2016, the TEC diocese named 17 local churches and 36 missions and stations with around 8,000 members (the number in the Church Annual for the year 2014 was 4,617).

SOUTH CAROLINA.

The experience of the Diocese of South Carolina was considerably different than the first four cases. 

In the first place, the schism was made in secret by a small clique of bishop-lawyers-aides-standing committee. On Oct. 17, 2012, it was presented as a fait accompli to the clergy and laity to be rubber-stamped by a diocesan convention. In the second place, DSC had aggressive lawyers who took the initiative and established the advantage in court. Through this chosen court, they quickly seized control over the names, marks, rights, and property before the Church side could get organized. They also bound most of the parishes into the lawsuit making it impossible for them to act independently. In 2015, when TEC offered to give the parishes their property in return for the diocesan assets, DSC instantly and disdainfully rejected the offer. The local court later rendered a sweeping verdict in favor of the local diocese over TEC. This was appealed to the state supreme court. We are awaiting their decision, now for 16 months and counting. This will be the first time that a state supreme court will rule on the issue of the relationship between TEC and her dioceses. If the Church loses, the decision is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. So far, the federal courts have been reluctant to get involved even though the TEC side has appealed to them.

DSC claimed that their schism had nothing to do with homosexuality. They insisted it was all about theology and polity. However, post-schism DSC, of all the five, has been the strongest in opposing rights for homosexuals and transgender. It has adopted strict policies rejecting marriage equality even requiring diocesan bodies, parishes, employees, and anyone wanting to use church property to sign written oaths of this. It has declared marriage to be a lifetime commitment between one man and one woman (but it still allows remarriage in the church---consistency has never been a strong point of DSC). 

See my posting of Jan. 4, 2017, "The Continuing Decline of the Diocese of South Carolina" for details of the impact of the schism on each side's membership. In short, when Lawrence became bishop in 2008, DSC had 27,670 communicants (active members). 50 of the 71 local churches went along with him in the schism. Just before the schism they had 21,993 communicants. After the schism, in 2013, the number was 17,998. In 2014 this fell to 16,361; in 2015 to 15,556. DSC churches lost 29% of their membership as a result of the schism. Almost all of the large parishes endured double-digit declines. Overall, DSC lost 44% of its membership under Bishop Lawrence. Its trajectory is clearly downward. Meanwhile the TEC diocese is up 16 % to about 7,000 communicants. As in the earlier cases, South Carolina was about a 2-1 split. However, DSC is suffering a rapid rate of decline. The seriousness of this fall is magnified by the rising need to pay between 40 and 50 lawyers for the ongoing litigation in both state and federal courts. DSC has had a number of fund-raising campaigns, even going so far once as having Lawrence call his courtroom opponent evil ("the spiritual forces of evil"). It has been an expensive, not to mention ugly, course of litigation.

SUMMARY.

Three of the five schisms have been settled in court: San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, and Quincy. The Episcopal Church and its dioceses won in San Joaquin and Pittsburgh. The secessionist diocese won in Quincy. So far, the schismatics have had their greatest success in Quincy. Two cases are still hung up in state courts, Fort Worth and South Carolina. Of all the five cases of litigation, South Carolina is the most important because it will be the first decision by a state supreme court. No court has made a definitive ruling on the Dennis Canon in the context of Church/diocese. 

The five schisms had mixed results. For the breakaways, the Diocese of Quincy was most successful winding up with the majority of the communicants, local churches, and properties. Pittsburgh was the least successful. The secessionists there wound up losing in court and losing the majority of the old diocese. In San Joaquin, the Church won the property but lost the majority of the people. Fort Worth and South Carolina are to be determined, but the majorities of the communicants are remaining with the secessionists.

Four of the five are in the ACNA with South Carolina about to join them. ACNA is a separate Christian denomination that is not now and will never be in the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church is rebuilding the five dioceses hit by schism. The Anglican Communion has reaffirmed its commitment to its unity with the Episcopal Church.

Sooner or later the U.S. Supreme Court will have to make a definitive ruling on the question of the sovereignty of the Episcopal Church, that is, whether the Church has the right to control its local dioceses or not. Thus, the issues involved in the schisms will remain for years to come. 

AFTERMATH.

All five of the secessionist dioceses left TEC because they believed they had a viable alternative. The Anglican Realignment movement had started in 1996 as the ultras in TEC formed a union with the anti-homosexual-rights Anglican primates of equatorial Africa. The goal was to coalesce a majority of the Anglican Communion around an anti-homosexual rights agenda. This movement gained great momentum in 2003 at the Robinson affair. An immediate result was an ultra scheme to peel away the far-right dioceses from TEC to join with the anti-homosexual-rights overseas primates. This produced the first four schisms in 2007-08. After GAFCON and its Jerusalem Declaration appeared in 2008, the American ultra-equatorial African union created the Anglican Church in North America expressly to be the replacement province to take the place of TEC in the Anglican Communion. The first four secessionist dioceses promptly joined. ACNA was recognized as a "province" by the GAFCON/Global South faction, whose provinces actually counted the majority of the members of the Anglican Communion. The ACNA archbishop was made a member of the primates' councils of GAFCON/GS. After this, it looked as if this movement would succeed in dividing the Anglican Communion into majority anti-homosexual-rights and minority pro-homosexual-rights hostile parts. 

In South Carolina, the diocesan leadership counted on this Anglican Realignment movement as they planned their schism. They believed they would be leaving the corrupt minority and joining the "orthodox" majority part of the old AC.

The DSC leadership miscalculated, however. The AR movement did not turn out as they thought it would. In the January 2016 primates' gathering in Canterbury, the Archbishop of Canterbury guided the primates into "walking together" and away from schism. The majority of the primates abandoned ACNA, even as its archbishop looked on. They agreed to minor "consequences" (punishment) for TEC as retribution for its pro-homosexual/transgender reforms. In later meetings in 2016, the GAFCON primates grumbled but also backed away from the replacement scheme for ACNA as well as any other talk of schism or other division of the old AC. With this, the original aim of ACNA died. ACNA will not become a part of the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Realignment will not divide the old Communion into majority/minority camps. The South Carolina diocesan leadership's gamble to leave TEC for a rising "orthodox" majority failed. DSC is now in nowhere going nowhere. With nowhere to go, it is moving to do the next best thing, join ACNA, even though they know they will still be out of the Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury has declared ACNA to be a separate Christian denomination. It is not now and, in all likelihood, will never be in the Anglican Communion. It is "Anglican" in name only.

Thus, the majorities of the five schismatic dioceses will wind up together in the ACNA self-declaring themselves to be "Anglican." Other anti-homosexual-rights Anglicans will welcome them as friends but they cannot make them part of the Anglican Communion. The five departed ones are consigned to live just beyond the edge of the Anglican Communion. Perhaps they will be content with that. Perhaps not.

As for the Episcopal Church, there is no denying the schisms have hurt. For an international institution, division and loss are not good things. I do sense a slight turning back toward a more balanced horizontal/vertical trajectory. It is too early, however, to judge how the schisms may affect TEC's institutional integrity. It depends on how the courts rule on the question of where sovereignty lies, particularly on the strength of the Dennis Canon. In a way, though, even if the Church winds up "winning" it has also "lost" a lot. This is regrettable.

It is hard to see much good to come of the five schisms. There is plenty of bad, the brokenness, the hard feelings, the deadly competitions in civil courts, the human and monetary costs. And, for what? If the "orthodox" sincerely objected to the ordination of women and the inclusion of open homosexuals, they would have been allowed to continue under the tolerant policies of TEC. Ordination is now and always has been at the discretion of the local bishop. At both the blessings of same-sex unions and same-sex marriage, TEC took pains to allow local dioceses to refuse these. All five of the departing groups could have remained in TEC and peacefully practiced their own sincerely held understandings of religion. After all, most of the dozen ultra dioceses did remain in TEC and they have done this. Therefore, I have to conclude that the schisms were both unnecessary and harmful for both sides.

A personal note.

I have finished my manuscript of the history of the schism in South Carolina. At present it is 500 pages with 50 pages of footnotes. I condensed it from 600+ pages. I am negotiating with publishers for a paper book. The length is a problem. It would be an expensive book. If all else fails, I would publish it as an e-book on Amazon. This could be done instantly. One could buy it for a low price and have it on a Kindle reader. At any rate, it should be available in the foreseeable future.

I am beginning a course of medical treatments that may last for several months. They have a high rate of success, but along the way may cause me to fall behind in my posts on the history of the schism. This site has had 172,461 hits in its three and a half years of life. Hundreds of readers consult it regularly. I do not want to disappoint anyone. I will try my best to keep up this little blog. It means a lot to me, and I hope it does to you whether you agree with my interpretations or not.