JULY 13 - LETTER TO THIS EDITOR

We are fortunate to have another outstanding letter to this editor. As many of the previous ones, this one too focuses on reconciliation in the old diocese. This is particularly apropos at this time as we prepare for the three conversations next Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.

__________________________________________

LETTER TO THIS EDITOR

There has been much discussion, written and oral, about the recent refusal of the United States Supreme Court to hear an appeal by the Diocese of South Carolina (diocese) from the decision of the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Mostly this discussion centers around the diocese refusing to accept that the legal proceeding that it brought against The Episcopal Church has been finally determined. While there were different opinions issued by the Justices of the South Carolina Supreme Court, the majority of the court (three out of five) came to the same conclusion - the diocese is free to leave The Episcopal Church but only seven can take their properties with them. The South Carolina Supreme Court did not rehear the case and the United States Supreme Court, by deciding not to hear an appeal, has confirmed that there was no compelling reason to not accept the South Carolina Supreme Court decision. The claim that there is more litigation on the issue of ownership of the 29 parishes is just plain wrong. That decision is final and there are no more avenues to change that direction.

There is, however, a pending action for the implementation of the South Carolina Supreme Court's decision. This action cannot and will not alter the Court's decision regarding the ownership of the church properties. The Episcopal Church and The Episcopal Church in South Carolina have requested the appointment of a Special Master to oversee the transition and have petitioned the 1st Circuit Court of Common Pleas to order a full accounting of all assets held by a group that broke away from the church in 2012. The accounting would "allow this Court to equitably proceed in this matter" to restore property to The Episcopal Church and The Episcopal Church in South Carolina and compensate them for any loss in value of property since the split occurred in October 2012. The Chief Administrative Judge of the circuit, has scheduled a status conference, typically held to set a schedule for disposing of the case, for July 26. It could be several months before this matter is settled. It is true that this is a complex matter and covers new territory, but there is every reason to believe that action on the implementation can and will take place in the next few months.

Another suit that is pending is the one in the Federal District Court to regain the name of our diocese, its trademarks and the affirmation that Bishop Adams is the legitimate Bishop of The Episcopal Church in our diocese. The case will most likely be decided in our favor given the opinion of the South Carolina Supreme Court that these belong to us and not to those who broke away from The Episcopal Church.

We have read and heard all kinds of misinformation (to borrow the President's term "fake news"), some of which has some truth, but mostly is wishful thinking. We need to keep in mind that these letters and statements are likely given for two reasons: one, to frame the discussion by the diocese in terms of their being the victims in the court of public opinion, and, two, to give them hope of prevailing against The Episcopal Church. In reality, neither matter as the court will implement the South Carolina Supreme Court's decision.

We all should keep in mind that the goal of The Episcopal Church is reconciliation - to regain a commonality of worship with those who were disaffiliated - to welcome one another again as friends, neighbors, brothers and sisters, and open a whole new chapter in our Christian faith together in the churches where we and our ancestors have worshiped for generations. We need to remember that we are all God's people and should love each other as Christ loved us. 

Louis Gentry,

Edisto

__________________________________________

Mr. Gentry is the senior warden of the Episcopal Church on Edisto. Another big Bravo, and thank you, to Louis Gentry, for this generous letter.

Again, all of us have been most impressed by the letters to this editor that I have posted on this blog. We all have something to say; and you do too. Send me your two cents' worth, or maybe more. We need to hear from you.

BISHOPS PASS AMENDED A068
(with update)

This afternoon, the House of Bishops rejected the House of Deputies' Resolution A068 by passing their own heavily amended version of the resolution, virtually a new resolution.

The HOD version authorized the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to undertake comprehensive revision of the Book of Common Prayer 1979. It asked nearly $2 million for the project.

The HOB version of today (find it here ) ignored the Standing Commission and said nothing about comprehensive revision of the prayer book. Instead it would set up a "Task Force on Liturgical and Prayer Book Revision" to be appointed jointly by the presiding bishop and the president of the House of Deputies. Moreover, the amendment said any prayer book revision would have to adhere to the historic rites of the church as seen in the 1979 prayer book. The bishops did not actually declare the 1979 prayer book as the only official prayer book but came close: "this Convention memorialize the 1979 Book of Common Prayer as a Prayer Book of the church preserving the psalter...ensuring its continued use."

The HOB amendment had wide support among liberal and conservative bishops and passed easily by voice vote. There appeared to be overwhelming agreement on it and virtually no objection to it. In fact, it was announced that the proposed church budget had no funding for the $2m cost of the HOD version.

It appears to me that the bishops essentially killed immediate prayer book revision and kept the status quo. The new Task Force seems to be a pale imitation of what the HOD had in mind. I suppose this means on a practical level that same-sex blessings and marriage will continue as supplemental liturgies not integral in the prayer book.

The two houses still have to agree on a resolution.


UPDATE:   July 11, 7:00 a.m.     How does the bishops' resolution appear now, the day after? Some Internet voices are interpreting this as a victory for prayer book reform. I does not look that way to me.

It was obvious yesterday that the bishops had spent a great deal of time and effort behind the scenes to make a unified stand on A068, and one against the core idea of the House of Deputies' version. Some of the most progressive and some of the most conservative bishops went to the microphone yesterday to hail their amended resolution. It passed virtually unanimously. This was no accident. This kind of solidarity takes a lot of work. And, it was remarkable that the bishops stood up this way against the overwhelming wish of the House of Deputies.

In my view, the bishops killed the core idea of the Deputies' resolution, immediate work on comprehensive prayer book reform, particularly to make the book gender neutral. For instance, the marriage rite would be equally open to opposite sex and and same sex couples. The bishops did this by consigning BCP revision to a "Task Force" that would consider revision. There is a big difference between making revision and looking into revision. In effect, the bishops ended the idea of prayer book revision in the near future. Far down the road, who knows?

I do not see how the deputies can resist the bishops' guidance on this. The two houses will have to come to agreement and I expect it will be the bishops who prevail. This is, after all, an episcopal church.

Bottom line---the Episcopal Church keeps a status quo on the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. Same-sex marriage will continue in the church but as extra-BPC liturgies, that is, not actually written in the BCP. I think this is the right way to go at this particular moment in church history. It is best to have stability now, digest the great reforms of the last half century, and decide in the future how to proceed with necessary changes. The Episcopal Church will be better off with this.

THOUGHTS ON PRAYER BOOK REFORM

Many moons ago, back in the 1960's, when I was doing my graduate work in history at Florida State, I specialized in the French Revolution and Napoleon under a world-renown scholar. I wrote my doctoral dissertation on an aspect of the political history of the Revolution. I came to appreciate the causes, events, and aftermaths of great revolutions of modern history. I saw why people rise up against the past, what they can achieve, and what can go wrong. The French Revolution was all that in abundance. It found it endlessly fascinating and enlightening about the human condition. I still do.  

The take-away from my studies was this in a nutshell:  institutions had better make reforms, and there can be too much of a good thing. The Revolution broke out because the Old Regime was hopelessly incompetent and corrupt. Once the dam broke, an enormous tsunami of reforms poured out, so intensely that it swept away the very people who were trying to guide it. After awhile, most people began to long for stability and order over more reforms. Along came a young and ingenious general who took full advantage, seized control of the situation, and rode its glory to the inevitable end.

So, what does this possibly have to do with Episcopal Church and its prayer book? Here is what I think:

The Episcopal Church has had its French Revolution. From the 1950s to today we have seen waves of sweeping and dramatic democratic reforms:  civil rights for racial minorities, equality and inclusion for women in the church, a democratized prayer book, and equality and inclusion for non-celibate homosexuals in the church. That is an lot of jarring change in a short period of time (and I am not arguing that the reforms were not necessary). Having made these great and necessary changes, it is time to stop the flood and allow people to absorb what has happened. We need a breathing space. After these reforms, we are at the stage where we must have order and stability. If not, we run the risk of going over the edge of institutional excess into disorientation. We have already seen the painful cost of backlash (counter-revolution), particularly in South Carolina.

This is the time to put the revolution on pause. Unless there is a compelling reason for new prayer book change, we should hesitate to take it up. People need rest and reassurance that what they have done is right. 

I have not seen any compelling evidence that we need prayer book reform; and so I favor the defeat of A068 and the passage of B012 in the General Convention. Down the road, we will need more reform, and we must have it, but now is not the time. The French Revolutionaries could not control their excesses and they paid a terrible price. Let's not repeat that. 



The HOB legislative session resumes this afternoon at 2:15 CDT. It is expected that the bishops will vote on A068. Before that, there is bound to be more debate and amendments. (To me, this is the great moment in the National Convention in that sweltering Parisian summer of 1794 when the bone-weary but passionately committed deputies wrestled, in literally life and death earnestness, with the problem of building up or scaling down the thrust of the revolution. Hint-the scale down side won but only after decapitating the leaders of the other side. Fortunately, I do not think the guillotine waits outside the HOB hall today.

Incidentally, I am cheering for France today in the World Cup. Allez Les Bleus. And, note in the picture of the HOD in the GC, the tricolour hangs next to the U.S. flag.)


UPDATE, July 10, 2:55 p.m.   Final score:

FRANCE - 1,     Belgium - 0 

JULY 10 - LETTER TO THIS EDITOR

Today we have yet another outstanding letter to this editor, this one from a person in a parish that went along with the schism. He chose to stay with his church family and now looks forward to his parish's return to the Episcopal Church.
_________________________________________


Letter to this editor.

My spiritual life for me has been a life long learning experience.

Upon meeting my future wife who was a life long Episcopalian, I found the Episcopal Church to be an easy transition due to the knowledge I had gained thru my Christian development.

On my wedding day my wife and I were married in the beautiful "little red church" The Episcopal Church of the Resurrection in Surfside Beach, SC. Years later a parishioner donated land to construct a new church in a more prominent location that allowed for growth and expansion. Even though we loved our dear "red church" we moved with our fellow parishioners to our new church home.

During 2012 when the Diocese of South Carolina left the Episcopal Church we made the decision to remain with our home church. After the schism began we witnessed many of our fellow parishioners leave to find other church homes. Steadfastly we remained at our church home, even thru today.

A long legal battle has ensued over the years between DSC and The Episcopal Church as to who is right and who is wrong. Again we remained steadfast to our home church while praying that God's will be done.

The Episcopal Church will soon regain control of 28 parishes here in Eastern South Carolina, including our home church, The Church of the Resurrection. We will be returning to The Episcopal Church of the Resurrection.

The Episcopal Church will be holding open forums for returning parishes/parishioners beginning on July 16th in Conway, SC. Two other forums will be held on July 17 in Charleston, SC and the last on July 18 in Bluffton, SC. I plan on attending the Conway forum on the 16th.

My prayer is many other parishioners will attend one of these meetings in their area. All that is required is to bring any questions or concerns, but more importantly, an open heart. We are not required to leave the church buildings we have grown to cherish.

However we will have a grand opportunity to begin anew again. While remaining in our beloved church homes, we can grow spiritually, while together expanding the body of Christ.

Randolph Wilson,
Myrtle Beach
_______________________________________

Thank you, Mr. Wilson, for sharing your experience with us. All I can say after that is: I am lost in admiration for such an honest and courageous Christian, an innocent victim who ultimately refused to be a victim. This letter should be an inspiration for thousands of other people out there who also have open, and maybe hurting, hearts. As Mr. Wilson, you do not have to leave your church homes.


I know there are many more people out there with stories to tell. You need to share then with us. It will help you. It will help us. I have been most impressed by the letters to this editor, and so have my readers. Nearly 6,000 people have accessed the letters since I began posting them two weeks ago. Go on, write down your experience in the schism and send it to me:

ronaldcaldwell1210@gmail.com 

BATTLE LOOMING

AT GENERAL CONVENTION
(with updates)

A struggle is emerging at the Episcopal Church's 2018 General Convention, in Austin TX, over prayer book reform. It centers around two dissimilar resolutions, A068 and B012. The fundamental issue is prayer book revision. I am not attending the convention, but am trying to keep up via the live streaming and printed information and commentary.

July 9.     Here is the situation this morning:

---On Saturday, the House of Deputies adopted by about a two-thirds vote, a slightly revised version of Resolution A068. As I read it, this will start the process of revising the Book of Common Prayer to make it gender neutral. For one thing, the marriage liturgy will be equally applicable to different-sex and same-sex couples. A068 is now in the House of Bishops for their consideration. Both houses have to agree on a resolution for its final passage. Find A068 here

---Several bishops have proposed a considerably different resolution, B012. They tout it as a compromise. As I see it, this will essentially leave a status quo in the Church's use of marriage liturgies. Same-sex couples will still have the same access to marriage in the church but under the continuation of the present "trial use" services. This leaves same-sex marriage as a supplemental service and not within the range of the present marriage liturgy of the prayer book. To get this, the conservative bishops agreed to open their dioceses for alternative oversight in regard to s-s marriage. Find B012 here . 

Since HOD has already passed A068, and by a wide margin, the HOB will have to consider it. Reports are that there is a considerable movement in HOB for major amendment or possibly rejection. The HOB may take up this today, or perhaps tomorrow.

The legislative sessions are live streamed. Find the streaming here .

Today's legislative sessions are scheduled for 10:30 a.m. and 2:15 p.m. CDT. 

It will be fascinating to watch how the two competing resolutions work their ways through the two houses. Right now, the onus is on the bishops. They have to respond to A068, but also have their own B012.

The Living Church has an enlightening article on the battle. Find it here .



UPDATE, July 9, 1:00 p.m.       The House of Deputies just voted to approve an amended version of Resolution B012:

Yes         clerical, 96     lay, 97

No          clerical, 10     lay, 8

Divided clerical, 4       lay, 5

Unfortunately, I missed the wording of the amendment(s). I will return as I have more information.


UPDATE, July 9, 5:00 p.m.     The House of Bishops has adjourned for the day. It will reconvene in legislative session tomorrow at 2:15 p.m. This afternoon, bishops discussed whether to approve A068 (passed by HOD on Saturday), that is, to adopt comprehensive prayer book reform. Bishop Skip Adams spoke eloquently against A068. He said the 1979 prayer book is the basic common tie of the two sides of the split in SC and the best hope for reconciliation. No one could disagree with that. It is fair to say feelings ran high on both sides of the debate. The bishops are expected to vote tomorrow afternoon on A068. My best guess at this point is---toss up. I expect if it does pass it will have major amendments. HOB still has to take up B012 which HOD passed today with amendment.

JULY 9 - LETTER TO THIS EDITOR

Today is Monday, July 9, 2018. The letter today focuses on GAFCON (Global Anglican Futures Conference), a group of dissident Anglicans which the independent Diocese of South Carolina and its new denomination, the Anglican Church in North America, strongly support. The one factor that ties together all of these groups is opposition to human rights for homosexual persons in the context of Anglican religion. In fact, GAFCON was created in 2008 to oppose equal rights for homosexuals in the Anglican world. ACNA was created in 2009, primarily by GAFCON, to be the replacement church for the homosexual-rights-friendly Episcopal Church. For years, GAFCON has worked to expel TEC from the Anglican Communion and to replace it with the ACNA. The "Letter to the Churches" issued by the recent GAFCON conference demanded that TEC be excluded from the 2020 Lambeth Conference and replaced by ACNA. If not, they threatened boycott.

_______________________________________

LETTER TO THIS EDITOR

Recently in The Post and Courier, some leaders of Charleston churches affiliated with the breakaway Diocese of South Carolina referred to Nigerian Archbishop Nicholas Okoh as an example of Christian "orthodoxy." Okoh is one of the most powerful Anglican leaders in Africa, and presides over a political movement known as GAFCON.

Okoh is a prominent advocate for the criminalization  of homosexual acts in Nigeria. According to one source: "Peeved by the growing malaise of sexual immorality in the country, Primate, Church of Nigeria, the Anglican Communion, Most Rev. Nicholas D. Okoh, has described the practice of homosexuality, lesbianism and gay marriage as great evils that must neither be condoned nor allowed to further exist in our society." (find it here ). 

Today in 34 African countries, members of the LGBT community can be legally imprisoned and tortured. In some countries, courts can give them life sentences or have them stoned to death. In Nigeria, LGBT people can be arrested for simply trying to have a meeting. The Anglican bishops of Nigeria are on record supporting harsh laws against homosexuals.

"Orthodox" Anglican leaders not only tolerate this, they encourage it, suggesting that LGBT Christians are outside the Kingdom of God and deserve persecution and death. They justify this by using the usual Biblical "clobber passages" typically invoked to condone hatred against this community.

It is curious how some Biblical passages are highlighted, while others are ignored. Members of the breakaway Diocese of South Carolina that uphold Okoh's view on same-sex marriage seem to have evolved on other (formerly) strict "Orthodox" Biblical interpretations concerning opposite-sex marriage. For example, they now allow divorce and remarriage, even amongst priests and deacons.

Similarly, they no longer condemn astronomers who understand that the earth revolves around the sun. It seems that in these cases, at least, the Bible may have said it, but that did not quite settle it. I rejoice that grace, generosity, and love has been extended to these Christians while questioning why such compassion is withheld from their siblings who are called to same-sex marriage.

Most of us cherry-pick scripture to justify our prejudices. But when we do so we ignore The Gospel of Jesus, which is the Good News for ALL.

Jesus said we are to love our neighbors as we love ourselves; he didn't place any qualifications on that love. I can understand how loving people can disagree on matters of theology. But I cannot understand how any prayerful Christian could point to Archbishop Okoh and see a manifestation of Jesus' love worthy of emulation.

Wayne Helmly

_________________________________________

Bravo, bravo, and thank you, Wayne Helmly, for submitting this letter. There are two great commandments. One is to love your neighbor as yourself. Need we say more?

Okoh has been widely reported and quoted in his strong hostility to rights for homosexuals. Perhaps the best source is Okoh himself. If you have the endurance, you can watch the video of his hour long "sermon" denouncing homosexuality here . Other revealing sources on Okoh are here and here . 

I encourage everyone to send me your letters. You may think you have nothing to say, but I disagree. We all have something worthwhile to say whether you have been a part of the schism or just an observer. We need to hear your voice.

The "Letters to This Editor" feature on this blog has turned out to be enormously popular. Thousands of people have accessed them. So, there you are. People want to know what you have to say just as much as I do.

ronaldcaldwell1210@gmail.com

GENERAL CONVENTION DEPUTIES VOTE FOR PRAYER BOOK REVISION

The House of Deputies of the Episcopal Church General Convention voted at 12:35 p.m. CDT today to proceed with a "comprehensive revision" of the Book of Common Prayer. It did so by passing Proposed Resolution A068 "Plan for the Revision of the Book of Common Prayer."

The resolution passed by majority vote:

Clerical order     63 yes;     30 no;     17 divided

Lay order            69 yes;     26 no;     15 divided

The resolution must now be approved by the House of Bishops to become final. The resolution would set into motion a process for revising the prayer book through the Standing Committee on Liturgy and Music. As I understand it, the language of the prayer book will be changed to become gender neutral. This will mean, for instance, that marriage liturgy will be equally available for same sex or opposite sex couples. It is to have "inclusive and expansive language."

The Committee is to have a budget of nearly $2m and is to present its revisions at the next General Convention, 2021, for approval.

This is a major victory for marriage equality in the Episcopal Church and is in line with other great reforms: 2003 approval of Robinson, 2012 adoption of same-sex blessings; and 2015 adoption of same-sex marriage.

Today's vote is a setback for the counter-movement to keep the existing alternative liturgies that were separate from the official prayer book. However, there is a competing proposal in the House of Bishops, B012, that would essentially preserve the status quo. The HOB will take up this issue soon, perhaps Monday or Tuesday. It seems to me HOB has three choices: 
1-pass A068 as is. This would finalize it.
2-make revisions to A068 and send back to HOD. Both houses would have to agree on the final resolution.
3-vote down A068, pass their own resolution B012 and send it to HOD.

GC sessions are being live streamed here . For the HOD, click on "Deputies." For the HOB, click on "Bishops."

"THIS IS THE MOMENT 

FOR A DRAMATIC REACHING OUT"

"This if the moment for a dramatic reaching out to those brave conservatives who have stayed with the Episcopal Church" says Dr. Ian Markham, dean and president of the Virginia Theological Seminary. Would anyone in his or her right mind disagree? I certainly would not. 

Markham's remarks appeared in Center Aisle, General Convention Opinion, on July 5 as "It's Time for a Dramatic Reaching Out." Find it here . I found his remarks particularly apropos for South Carolina; and so I obtained the author's permission to repeat his article here:

____________________________________________

How will this General convention be judged by history? This is a difficult, perhaps impossible, question to answer. Yet, as we busy ourselves with the minutiae of resolutions and debates, it is worth trying to stand back and see the big picture.

One way to think about this question is to locate the Episcopal Church within the historical trajectories of our age. Secularization is on the rise; skepticism abounds. Populist movements are rising here in the United States and around the globe, some with sinister racist propensities. Social media is growing. More locally, within the history of the mainline and the Episcopal Church, it looks clear that ACNA lost in the courts and is going to be seen, when compared to the 1979 Prayer Book division, as one of the smaller splits from the Episcopal Church. Smaller churches continue to struggle, while larger churches are just about holding their own. Dioceses are heavily dependent on the small number of strong congregations and are often having to cut program to survive. We still have not turned around the membership and attendance decline.

In one area, I am sure this conference will be attentive. With respect to the political, the concerns around immigration, racism and the environment will be given prominence. The Episcopal Church will offer an appropriate witness for our time. This is a moment when deep moral seriousness is needed. It is entirely necessary, for example, that we should take some time to think and articulate our abhorrence of the creeping and visible racism of our age.

In other areas, I am less confident this Convention will seize the challenge of the moment. With ACNA increasingly irrelevant, this is the moment for a dramatic reaching out to those brave conservatives who have stayed with the Episcopal Church. For some dioceses, they are often the ATM of the diocese, yet are hardly ever accorded respect. We need to all say---thank you for your witness, your congregational vibrancy and your presence in our midst. May Prayer Book revision leave plenty of options for conservative congregations to feel comfortable inside the Episcopal Church.

The challenge facing congregations needs imaginative and enterprising responses. We need to lift up those imaginative clergy and dioceses who are finding ways to connecting. From "Missional Voices" to "missional communities" to eformation, there are ideas out there that are making a difference.

The Episcopal Church is a deeply serious "trust," which we inherit from those who served in the past and we are obligated to pass to those who are going to come after us. Every single one of us is a steward, with temporary responsibility for our tradition. We should take our duties as stewards very seriously. Let us leave the future a stronger Episcopal Church. This is our task at this General Convention.

(the Very Rev. Dr.) Ian Markham,

Dean & President, Virginia Theological Seminary

_______________________________________

What are your thoughts about this? Do you think conservatives in SC were "hardly ever accorded respect"? What might "respect" for conservatives mean for the coming reconciliation in South Carolina? Here is a great topic for discussion in the three "conversations" to be held in SC soon.

If you would like to submit a "Letter to This Editor" to be posted on this blog, send it to me:

ronaldcaldwell1210@gmail.com 

JULY 7   NOTES

It is Saturday, July 7. I want to being to your attention a couple of items of interest.

One is the letter to the editor of the Rev. Rob Donehue in today's Charleston Post and Courier. Find it here . As we all know, the P & C has a history of publishing editorials and letters favoring the secessionist side and criticizing the Episcopal Church. Therefore, this letter is something of a surprise, and a welcomed one. I have no idea what this says about the P & C. Readers of this blog will note that today's letter to the editor is a condensed version of the one I posted on this blog, "A New Letter to This Editor," July 2. This posting has been accessed 2,625 times in the five days since then, making it one of the most popular items on this blog in the past few weeks.  

Another is the report from the General Convention of the Episcopal Church that is meeting now in Austin, Texas. Find the daily blog entries of the SC diocesan delegates here . Be sure to view the video of SC deputy Lonnie Hamilton III. Everyone in Charleston knows Mr. Hamilton or knows about him. He is a longtime icon in the city and in the Episcopal Church and has played an important role in the life of the diocese from well before the time of the terrible schism. He has been deputy to several general conventions going back to 2003. The diocesan convention last year celebrated his ninetieth birthday. The video of Hamilton's poignant remarks is on the blog mentioned above. It can also be found on YouTube here .

I also want to remind everyone to prepare for the reconciliation conversations that will occur soon: Monday July 16 in Conway; Tuesday July 17 in Charleston; and Wednesday July 18 in Bluffton. See my blog posting "Reconciliation Begins," June 29.

JULY 6 - LETTERS TO THIS EDITOR

The "Letters to This Editor" feature on this blog has turned out to be amazingly popular. So far, 4,700 people have accessed these letters in just the few days they have been online. They have made the rounds on Facebook and probably on other social platforms. I am delighted that so many people have found them of interest. 

Today we have two letters. The first is not brand new. I have had it for a few weeks waiting to see if it would appear in another venue. It has not. The Charleston Post and Courier is quick to publish pieces critical of the Episcopal Church but very slow to offer anything favorable to the Church. (Hint---watch out for letters to the editor in Saturday's paper). The letter here is outstanding and should be offered to everyone to read, so I will do just that: 

_____________________________________

Letter to the editor.

While I could not agree more that it is a shame that congregations have had to endure years of uncertainty and anguish ("No 'winners' in bitter Episcopal church dispute" [Post and Courier, June 13, 2018]), that is precisely why the Episcopal Church offered each congregation the opportunity to retain its property prior to the matter being argued at the South Carolina Supreme Court. The offer was called "spurious" and was summarily rejected by the breakaways. Throughout the course of this unfortunate matter, the Bishop of the Episcopal Church in South Carolina (affiliated with the Episcopal Church) has constantly spoken and written of reconciliation. One would be hard pressed to find any mention of reconciliation from the breakaways; in fact, leadership of the breakaways have already undermined and rejected any reconciliation efforts.

By declining to hear the matter, the U.S. Supreme Court did take a stand on freedom of conscience and the value of worshipping in a community of shared beliefs. For years before the schism, the breakaway congregations governed themselves pursuant to the requirements of the Episcopal Church, which requires real property to be held in trust for the local diocese of the Episcopal Church. Thousands of loyal Episcopalians observed those rules; what is to become of their legacy and the sacrifices they made to the religious tradition and affiliation they observed, held dear, and expected to continue?

The ruling by the South Carolina Supreme Court is consistent with rulings in North Carolina, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, California, Virginia, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Georgia. To suggest that the South Carolina Supreme Court's ruling is surprising or an outlier ignores the legal history and precedent of such disputes.

The Free Exercise of religion ensures that religious organizations can create and govern themselves as they see fit, and also ensures that we as a people can decide, and not be interfered with, whether we believe in one God, or many, or none at all, whether we eat meat and cheese together, whether we drink wine or grape juice at communion, or whether we take communion at all. To some, the rules of governance of religious organizations seem peculiar and nonsensical. Others may find dripping water on an infant's head as a symbol of religious birth equally as peculiar and nonsensical. Nevertheless, holding such sincere beliefs, free of government interference, is one of our most fundamental rights as Americans.

The true threat to religious freedom would have been if the South Carolina Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court had ruled differently.

J.P. Lee

________________________________________

Once again, Bravo! Bravo! to Mr. Lee and many thanks for these words of wisdom.
________________________________________

________________________________________

The next letter to this editor refers to a letter in the Post and Courier of June 28, "No Shared Beliefs," by Susanne L. Lemke:
________________________________________

The misunderstanding Susanne Lemke has of the scriptures she quoted in John I believe is due to a lack of understanding of the dual nature of Jesus. Before all else Jesus is the Word of God. "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among man." In the language of the computer age we might say Jesus was an email from God to humanity declaring us God's plan of salvation. We know that email as the gospel message and it is easily read in any red letter edition of the four gospels. So, when Jesus says no one comes to the Father but through me, we must remain open to the possibility (I think probability) that he is referring to "I the Gospel email" and not just the flesh and blood incarnation we call Jesus. So, yes, former P.B. Katharine is absolutely correct. God may very well have ways of communicating that gospel message to those who are not as fortunate as we, who have had the opportunity to experience it through a personal knowledge of and relationship with the flesh and blood form of Jesus. To deny that God may choose to do that is indeed confining him to a box limited by human understanding, unworthy of comparison to his infinite power and wisdom.

Steve Price
___________________________________


And another big "thank you" to Steve Price for this thoughtful insight. All of us have something to say about the schism. And, I will guarantee you there is a big audience out there waiting to read what you have to say. They want to hear from you. Send me your thoughts:

ronaldcaldwell1210@gmail.com

FACTS AND ALTERNATIVE FACTS ABOUT THE STATE SUPREME COURT DECISION

The Diocese of South Carolina is still busy spreading "alternative facts," i.e., untruths, about the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of August 2, 2017. They are saying the decision is meaningless because it is divided, has no clear-cut majority opinion, and thus cannot be enforced. They claim this will lead to a great deal of further litigation that will, in effect, forestall any possible enactment of the decision indefinitely. In short, they are telling their people the Episcopal Church will not be repossessing the buildings in the foreseeable future. 

At the very same time, the DSC leaders are also promoting a far different message: get ready to evacuate the buildings. They have been preparing congregations to leave their church homes and relocate in other quarters since last December. This obvious contradiction of messages is lost on no one. It seems to me the deliberate confusion is part of the game here.

Thus, it is useful at this point to revisit the real facts about the state Supreme Court decision and what it means for the 13,000 communicants in the 29 parishes. So, I will simplify the legal steps that have occurred:

1-On August 2, 2017, the South Carolina Supreme Court issued its decision on the church case. Find it here . 

There were, in fact, five separate opinions, one by each of the justices. Former Chief Justice Jean Toal presided over the case from the start. One will recall that she completely dominated the hearing of September 23, 2015. She also wrote the longest opinion in the Aug. 2 document. At the end, she summarized what the decisions of the court were. This came on the last two pages, in Footnote 72. I present it here verbatim:

As I stated at the outset, this is unfortunately a difficult case leading us to five different, strongly-held opinions. Because we all write separately, my summary of my undestanding of the Court's holdings is as follows. A majority of the Court---consisting of Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Kittredge, and me---agree that Pearson and All Saints (and their progeny) remain good law in this state, and that in secular church disputes, our state courts should apply neutral principles of law to resolve the case. As it relates to this particular case, the same majority would find this is a secular church dispute, and the Court must therefore apply longstanding trust law to resolve the questions before us. I would find the parties' actions did not comply with the formalities required to create a trust in this state. In short, I believe the parties did not embody their intentions to create a trust in favor of the defendants in a "legally cognizable form." Justice Kittredge would find the parties created a revocable trust in favor of the national church, but t5he plaintiffs later took steps to revoke their accession to the trust. Therefore, both Justice Kittredge and I would declare all of the disputed titles in favor of the individual plaintiffs, with no trust formed in favor of the defendants. However, we are in the minority, because a different majority of the Court---consisting of Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Hearn, and Acting Justice Pleicones---would reverse the trial court and transfer title of all but eight of the plaintiffs' properties to the defendants. While Justice Hearn and Acting Justice Pleicones would do so because they believe this is an ecclesiastical dispute and the Court must therefore defer to the national church's decision on the matter. Chief Justice Beatty would do so because he believes all but eight of the plaintiffs acceded to the Dennis Canon in a manner recognizable under South Carolina's trust law. Thus, the result reached on title is:  1) with regard to the eight church organizations which did not accede to the Dennis Canon, Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Kittredge, and I would hold that title remains in the eight plaintiff church organizations;  2) with regard to the twenty-eight church organizations whcih acceded to the Dennis Canon, a majority consisting of Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Hearn, and Acting Justice Pleicones would hold that a trust in favor of the national church is imposed on the property and therefore, title is in the national church; and 3) with regard to Camp St. Christopher, Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Hearn, and Acting Justice Pleicones would hold title is in the trustee corporation for the benefit of the associated diocese, whereas Justice Kittredge and I would hold that the trustee corporation holds title for the benefit of the disassociated diocese.

As to the second issue on appeal, involving the plaintiffs' claims for service mark infringement, Chief Justice Beatty, Justice Kittredge, and I would find the marks are validly registered under state law, but leave the ultimate resolution of the parties' conflicting claims to the pending federal case.


Thus, Toal's summary of the court's decisions is clear. It is concise and precise. There is no doubt about what the court said and meant. To make this crystal clear, Toal numbered the four majority decisions:

1-the 8 churches are outside TEC control. (Toal enunerated the 8 in Footnote 49.)

2-the 28 churches are under TEC control.

3-Camp St. Christopher is under TEC control.

4-the circuit court order on ownership of the old diocese in favor of DSC is confirmed, but this is pending the ultimate ruling of the federal court.

So, DSC's alternative fact that the state supreme court decision does not say what it says is ridiculous on its face. The real fact is that the decision is as clear as possible.


OTHER REAL FACTS:

1-Appeal to SCSC for rehearing.
On Sept. 1, 2017, DSC appealed to the SCSC for a rehearing on the Aug. 2 decision. It also asked for Justice Hearn's opinion to be vacated, for her to be recused from the case, and for her to be replaced by another justice.
On Nov. 17, 2017, SCSC denied DSC's Sept. 1 petitions.


2-On Nov. 20, 2017, SCSC issued a "Remittitur" remitting its Aug. 2 decision to the circuit court of Dorchester County:  

Dear Clerk of Court:

The above referenced matter is hereby remitted to the lower court or tribunal. A copy of the judgment of this Court is enclosed.

"Remitted" meant the SCSC sent its decision back down to the lower court of origin for enforcement. "Remand" is another term; it means a decision is sent back down to the lower court to be changed. It is important to note the SCSC issued a Remittitur (cannot be changed) and not a Remandment (must be changed).

The lower court must enact the 4 decisions of the SCSC. It cannot ignore, discard, or alter the SCSC decisions. The notion that DSC can throw up roadblocks in the circuit court to keep the SCSC ruling from being enforced is false. The lower court cannot refused the supreme court order.

3-On Feb. 9, 2018, DSC petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, that is, to review the SCSC decision. On June 7, 2018, SCOTUS denied DSC's request. This left standing the SCSC decision as the final law of the land.

4-On May 8, 2018, the Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Church in South Carolina submitted to the circuit court a petition for the execution of the SCSC decision. In it, they asked for a Special Master:

The relief requested herein involves the transfer of a substantial amount of real and personal property, involving many parties. Petitioners believe that the orderly transfer of the property and the resolution of any disputes and controversies that might arise in the execution of such matters will be greatly enhanced by the appointment of a Special Master who will be able and authorized to enhance an orderly and expeditious resolution of all such issues. Accordingly, the appointment of a Special Master, with experience in complex property matters and with the capacity to dedicate the necessary time and attention to this matter, is appropriate.

We respectfully request that the parties be given the opportunity to propose available, qualified, and impartial candidates for the Court to consider as it selects and appoints a Special Master for these purposes.


Bottom line:  DSC's charges against the state supreme court decision are false. In fact, the SCSC decision is clear and enforceable. The Episcopal Church has regained control over 28 of the 36 parishes involved in the lawsuit. It is just a matter of time before the circuit court enacts the decision.

It is fair to ask, then, why is DSC putting out contradictory messages to its people (the SCSC decision will not enforced v. the SCSC decision will be enforced)? I think one has to look at what people do rather than what they say. Talk is cheap. Action is another story. What DSC is saying is that TEC will not repossess the buildings. What DSC is doing is preparing people for the time when TEC will regain control over the buildings. What they are doing trumps what they are saying. Then, if they are preparing people to leave, why are they telling the people TEC will not regain the buildings? My theory is that this is part of a concerted campaign on DSC's part to demonize the Episcopal Church as a way of discouraging people from remaining in their church homes. Fundamentalism is based on an oppositional dualism of good and evil. That is the worldview DSC is now promoting, and has been promoting all along, in its community. They are trying to force people into a binary choice, us or them. If so, this is most regrettable, not surprising, but still unfortunate for the 13,000 communicants.

The people caught in the middle of this mess would be well to review the facts of the case at hand. As hard as it may be, it is best to know the truth. 

(As a personal aside, I can attest to the importance of truth. Last year my doctor told me bluntly, you have cancer and it is about to spread. Believe me, a diagnosis of cancer is about the most shocking fact anyone can hear. But in the next breath, he told me here is what we are going to do about it... New tests this year showed the treatments were completely effective. If I had not been told the truth to begin with, I would probably now be dead [at age 12, I watched my beloved grandfather die of this kind of cancer]. Moral of the story---it is best to know the truth no matter how hard it may be to take.)

JULY 5 - LETTER TO THIS EDITOR

This morning we have a new letter to the editor that I everyone will find of interest:

_________________________________________

LETTER TO THE EDITOR---

In Myrtle Beach (SC) there is one Episcopal Church which meets in the fellowship hall of St. Philip Lutheran Church. We have a close and expanding relationship with our Lutheran sisters and brothers sharing  missional outreach and liturgies.

Soon, we are told, we will resume the stewardship of the buildings of Trinity (formerly Episcopal) Church. There has been little contact between these two churches.

A few weeks ago, one of the founding matriarchs of our church died. It was her wish to be buried from what she considered to be her church. Not only did she consider the buildings at Trinity Church to be her church home, some of the land upon which the church sits was donated by her family.

An inquiry was made with the pastor and vestry of Trinity Church. After some discussion, an invitation was given for the Burial Office for Veanna James Talbot to be read in the chapel, the original home of the Episcopal congregation in 1939. I was the officiant and, with the permission of our bishop, the deacon from Trinity Church assisted. Attending the service were people from both churches.

When we become the stewards of this sacred space, we promised to remember the hospitality of the pastor and vestry of Trinity ACNA Church. The vestry of the Episcopal Church of the Messiah will look kindly on any request from the leaders of Trinity when they have need of a place for weddings and funerals. Those liturgies are times for unity and not division.

We, the people of the Episcopal Church of the Messiah, are grateful. Little moments of peace and grace can, it is hoped, lead to greater reconciliation.

[the Rev.] Randy Ferebee,

Myrtle Beach

__________________________________________

I say a hearty "thank you" to the Rev. Mr. Ferebee for sharing that poignant moment of grace with us. I wonder how many other "little moments of peace and grace" have happened in the long and hard experience of the schism. I have always believed that, if left to the people-in-the-pews, there would not have been a schism.

The letters to this editor have been very popular with readers. The Rev. Donohue's letter got 2,300 hits in two days and went viral on Facebook. 

I encourage everyone to share your thoughts, opinions, and experiences of the schism, whatever they are. We need to hear from you. Send letters to:

ronaldcaldwell1210@gmail.com

MUST READ!

If you have not read it already, you must read Steve Skardon's latest blog entry "Setting the Record Straight." Find it here . He thoroughly demolishes DSC's "Frequently Asked Questions" which is the biggest repository of misinformation DSC has ever put forth, and that is saying a lot. DSC is coming to the end of its road of credibility. It is one thing to trash the Episcopal Church, it is something very different to misrepresent the courts and the law. The judges do not care what DSC thinks. They are going to do what the law requires regardless. 

The "Letters to this editor" entries here have turned out to be wildly popular. The Rev. Donehue's letter got 1,000 hits overnight. It is also running viral on Facebook. So, again I say a big "Thank You" to the letter writers. And, I encourage everyone to speak up. You do not have to be a great writer. Just put down your thoughts and send them to me. If appropriate, I will post then with your permission, with or without name. I think people are hungry for truth and goodness. We are all exhausted by this long war and are longing for peace; and we all have something to say about how we get there. Let me hear from you:

ronaldcaldwell1210@gmail.com

A NEW LETTER TO THIS EDITOR

I received a wonderful new letter to the editor today. The author did not know it, but today is my birthday, so I am regarding this letter as an unexpected and most welcomed gift. It is a gift for you too; and I am happy to share it with you: 

______________________________________

Church buildings are symbols of our trust in God. They are more than just bricks and mortar. They are prayers written in stone that give voice to our deepest desire to offer our best to God. The walls (and floors and windows and doors and halls and classrooms and towers and pews and kneelers and much else besides) are saturated with prayer. When we come together in church buildings as the people of God, we bring with us all of our joys, all of our pains, all of our doubts and fears, all of our hopes and longings. And we offer all of these things to God in the hope that our lives will be transformed by him

And while it is true that the church is not the building (it is the people), it is nonetheless true that by the church being the church in a certain place, in a sense the buildings in which the church meets absorb the church's prayers and come to symbolize the existence of the people of God.

Is it any wonder then that there is such a strong feeling of attachment to our houses of worship? Our church buildings are the places where we have praised God with songs of joy and sought solace with floods of tears. Our church buildings are the places where we mark the most momentous occasions of our lives: baptism, confirmation, marriage, and burial (to name but a few). For many of us, our church buildings are the places where we first came to know the grace of God in our lives, first heard the message of salvation, and first learned to seek God. As faithful Christians on both sides of this schism can attest, such places are not and should not be set aside lightly.

It is understandable, then, that our church buildings have become focal points for all of our anxiety over what it means to be the church. Sadly, the argument over what it means to be the church has devolved to an exercise of mudslinging where accusations of heresy, apostasy, and betrayal are spoken with such bitterness that it's a wonder any of us can in the next breath turn our hearts and minds to the worship of God.

And so, to our brothers and sisters who have been told that they must choose between their buildings and true religion, I offer the following:

You may have come to believe the half-truths, exaggerations, and in some cases flat out lies that you have heard about the Episcopal Church. You may have come to believe that the Episcopal Church has abandoned the Christian faith and replaced it with a kind of syncretistic unitarianism. But this is simply not true. We believe in one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is still Lord, and we hope by his cross and passion to be brought to the glory of his resurrection.

Reread your Book of Common Prayer and find exactly what in its pages represents a departure from orthodox faith. Pray the Daily Office, recite the creeds, take part in the eucharist, and rediscover the heritage---your heritage---that some say we have abandoned. You will find that the rhetoric does not stand up to scrutiny. Our common prayer is all the evidence needed.

If what you have been led to believe about the evils of the Episcopal Church is true, and should you abandon your church buildings, then you will come to see your church buildings either as empty shells or as symbols of a false religion. And if that is the case, then I whole heartedly agree that such buildings deserve nothing more than to be razed to the ground and replaced with structures more befitting the decadent, consumerist culture against which the church of Jesus Christ has ever borne witness. But if what you have been led to believe is not true, then your church buildings will remain as they ever have been: houses of prayer and places where you can still encounter the living God.

My guess if that you intuitively appreciate that fact that your buildings are symbols of your love for God. My guess if that the real reason you fought for those buildings is that you feel closer to God when you are gathered in them, and you don't want to lose that sense of closeness. My guess is that your fear is rooted in the idea that your buildings will lose their sense of being sacred places.

If my guesses are correct, then I hope that you will consider the reality that the church buildings you call home are still very much your home, and that the prayers and tears which have sanctified those spaces sanctify them still and will go on sanctifying them as long as there is a community of the faithful gathering in them. The only way your church buildings will lose their holiness is if you abandon them.

So if you are an Anglican who feels comfortable worshipping according to the rites found in the Book of Common Prayer, then the message is clear: stay where you are. Continue to make those places holy. Keep saying your prayers and singing your songs and reading your Bible and praising God. That is what the Episcopal Church wants you to do.

Pax, 
[the Rev.] Rob Donehue
________________________________________

Bravo! Bravo! Thank you very much to the Rev. Mr. Rob Donehue for those eloquent remarks.

Please send me your thoughts if you would like to have a letter to this editor posted on this blog. We need to hear your voice too. I welcome one and all:

ronaldcaldwell1210@gmail.com

ANOTHER LETTER TO THIS EDITOR

The current talking point being promoted by the DSC leadership is that DSC is true religion while the Episcopal Church is false religion. Therefore, the 13,000 communicants in the 29 parishes that the courts have returned to TEC have to make a binary choice between good and evil. Two recent letters to the editor in the Charleston Post and Courier have exemplified this propaganda. One was from Clark Thomson (find it here ). Another was from Susanne L. Lemke (find it here ). Lemke accused TEC of being heretical and apostate: "TEC therefore has left the most basic of the tenets of the Christian faith." That is obviously a serious, sweeping charge that she supports with a single piece of evidence, one remark of Katharine Jefferts Schori.

Yesterday's letter to this editor turned out to be highly popular, with hundreds of hits right away, even going viral on Facebook. We now have a second letter to this editor about the DSC campaign of the demonization of TEC. I present it here:

________________________________________

Dr. Caldwell---

Good thoughts in that letter that you shared with us today [June 30]. I have one comment on the letter to the editor in yesterday's P & C to which the letter referred.

Not being---in even the broadest sense of the term---a "biblical scholar," I opened up my old Bible to look up the two verses from John to which the letter writer referred. And I was AMAZED!

There is nothing---nada, zilch, zero, nil, O---in those two passages to which The Episcopal Church, and Episcopalians all, do not wholly subscribe.

Note to P & C letter writer: If you're going to cite Scripture to make a point, you should dig a little bit and find some Scripture that does, indeed, make your point.

In my view, Ms. Lemke was being downright disingenuous and dishonest to cite the Holy Scriptures to support her point of view. If that's the best you can do, Ms. Lemke, if that's the best you've got, then shame on you!

Last point---

I'm waiting for that letter to the editor that cites all of the Biblical references that support discrimination against gay people and women within the church. You know it'll come. And then, maybe someone will ask how about divorce? Seems to me that the Scriptures are pretty clear on that as well, but...Oh well, never mind.

Thanks for what you do. It's great to be alive and able to worship God and enjoy his wondrous kingdom.

Bill Bates (Fifth generation Episcopalian)

Daniel Island

______________________________________

Thank you Bill! Bravo! Bravo!

I encourage everyone to make your voice heard in this highly important moment in the history of the schism. We need to know what you think, whatever views you have of the matters before us all. Send your letters to the editor to me via email and I will post them, if they are appropriate. I will omit your name if you wish. Let me hear from you whatever your thoughts are.

ronaldcaldwell1210@gmail.com