NOON TODAY

15 Oct., 5:30 a.m.     This is a reminder to consider stopping at noon today (12:00 p.m. EDT) for a moment of prayer and reflection on the seventh anniversary of the schism in the Episcopal diocese of South Carolina.

The schism officially occurred at 12:00 p.m. on 15 October 2012.

Here is a suggested prayer (find it here):

God of compassion, you have reconciled us in Jesus Christ who is our peace: Enable us to live as Jesus lived, breaking down walls of hostility and healing enmity. Give us grace to make peace with those from whom we are divided, that, forgiven and forgiving, we may ever be one in Christ; with you and the Holy Spirit reigns for ever, one holy and undivided Trinity. Amen.

Here is a suggested Bible reading:

I Corinthians 12:25-27 (KJV)

"That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular."

Perhaps you would like to recall Verse 3 of the great hymn, "The Church's One Foundation":

Tho' with a scornful wonder, 

men see her sore oppressed,

by schisms rent asunder,

by heresies distressed,

yet saints their watch are keeping, 

their cry goes up, "How long?"

And soon the night of weeping

shall be the morn of song.

Seven is the sacred number. The Bible and Jewish and Christian traditions are replete with references to and images of seven to represent God, the divine presence, the Divine Will, the sacred mysteries, righteousness, and the like. The Bible gives hundreds of examples of the number seven from the first of Genesis to the end of Revelation.

Seven also represents completion, closure, and finality, as in the seven days of creation and the seven days of the week.

Will seven be a fateful number for the schism in SC, or at least its attendant legal war? Time will tell.

So, I suggest you find your favorite place at noon today and reflect on your life in the last seven years. Weather permitting, I will be in my favorite place in my garden. There, enveloped by the magnificent fruits of the seven days of creation, I will lift up in thanksgiving the heroic saints of South Carolina who, for seven years, have sacrificed of themselves to defend the dignity and worth of all of God's creation.

THE IDES OF OCTOBER

Tuesday, October 15, 2019, will mark seven years since the schism in the old Episcopal diocese of South Carolina. To be exact, the split happened at 12 noon on Monday, 15 October 2012. I suggest that everyone pause for a moment at noon on this Tuesday, Oct. 15, to remember this event. Right now, the anniversary is a convenient time to reflect on what happened seven years ago and what has happened since. Where does the schism stand now all these years later? What about the future?

WHAT HAPPENED ON OCTOBER 15, 2012?

Space here permits only a brief summary of events. See my history of the schism for exhaustive (or exhausting) details. 

At noon, on 15 October 2012, the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, telephoned the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence, bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina. Also on the call were the members of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops and Wade Logan, chancellor of DSC. Jefferts Schori telephoned from the church headquarters in New York. Lawrence was in the diocesan house, on Coming Street, in Charleston.

Jefferts Schori told Lawrence that on Oct. 10 she had received a certificate of abandonment from the DBB finding that Lawrence had abandoned the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. She announced she was placing a restriction on him as of 12 noon of Oct. 15. He was not to perform any ministerial function until the matter was resolved.

The presiding bishop asked Lawrence to keep this confidential as she was to meet him in person seven days later in NYC. She, Lawrence, Bishop Waldo of Upper SC, and the two chancellors were scheduled to talk on October 22. Jefferts Schori wanted a private, and peaceful, end to this problem.

Under the canons, a bishop under restriction remains a bishop, at least for the time being. The DBB is only a sort of grand jury bringing charges that others have to process. A restricted bishop has two ways to remove the restriction. In one, he or she can write a letter of explanation to the presiding bishop who then has the discretion of restoring the bishop. In the other, he or she may plead his or her case to the next meeting of the House of Bishops whereupon the bishops would vote whether to depose or restore the restricted bishop. Lawrence chose neither of these.

Why did Lawrence not choose one of these options? He knew something the presiding bishop did not know. He knew what her action on restriction meant. It meant schism. 

Why did it mean schism? It meant schism because the leaders of the diocese had set a hidden trap. On October 2, the DSC Standing Committee adopted a secret plan to disassociate the diocese from the Episcopal Church if TEC took "any action of any kind" against Bishop Lawrence. Lawrence did not mention this to Bishop Waldo. Lawrence did not mention this to Jefferts Schori when he met with her, and Waldo, the next day in NYC (Oct. 3). Lawrence did not mention this when Jefferts Schori was on the phone on the 15th. In fact, Jefferts Schori tried two times to meet with Lawrence between Oct. 10 and 15 but Lawrence refused. On one occasion she was in Atlanta, a five hour drive from Charleston. Lawrence refused to go.

The evidence suggests Lawrence listened quietly to Jefferts Schori in the call. He did not argue against the charges. Apparently he did not dispute the request for confidentiality. However, as soon as he hung up the phone he sprang into action.

The hidden trap snapped shut. Lawrence immediately called Logan, who had been in on the call. Under the terms of the Standing Committee resolution of Oct. 2, the chancellor had to certify that "any action of any kind" had been taken against Lawrence. Evidently Logan did that and a conference call was set up with the diocesan Standing Committee, at 1:30 p.m. Jeffert Schori's confidentiality lasted less than an hour and a half. Obviously, the Standing Committee and the others in on the 1:30 call agreed to put into effect the Oct. 2 resolution that provided for disaffiliation. Appartently, all agreed that the diocese was now independent of the Episcopal Church. The moment of the break was officially set as 12 noon, October 15, 2012. 

One should bear in mind that Lawrence had made this oath at his ordination as bishop in 2008:  I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church.

Now came the task of how to relay the news of the separation to an unsuspecting diocese and the world.

THE SECRET PLAN OF OCTOBER 2

The secret plan of Oct. 2 was a unanimous resolution of the diocesan Standing Committee to remove the diocese from the Episcopal Church if and when the Church took any action against Bishop Lawrence. Since Lawrence had flagrantly and openly disregarded the Dennis Canon of TEC, it was widely suspected that he could well be charged with abandonment of communion (even though he had been cleared of this by the DBB in 2011). The Committee would not have passed such a statement if they had thought Lawrence was safe from charges.

The plan was not a sudden event. It was several months in the making. For the first half of the year 2012, the diocesan leadership had carried on a concerted campaign around the diocese against the expected approval of the blessing of same-sex unions at the General Convention, of July 2012. In the Convention, Lawrence had staged a dramatic walk-out from the House of Bishops in protest of the GC's adoption of the blessing. Back in SC, diocesan leadership began preparing for a separation. 

On August 21, an ultra secret meeting of the diocesan leadership was held. No word of this gathering has ever leaked out. To this day, the discussion remains absolutely sealed. However, circumstantial evidence suggests this was the point at which the leadership finally resolved to break the diocese away from the Episcopal Church. The problem now was the best way to effectuate this. The leaders agreed to go through the Standing Committee rather than having a public discussion as in a diocesan convention or other open venue.

At the next meeting of the Standing Committee, the committee secretly asked the bishop for a statement on how the diocese could disassociate from TEC. A sixteen-page letter was drawn up with all the signs of having been written by lawyers. It was signed by Lawrence. The letter gave permission to the committee to disassociate the diocese from TEC. An earlier diocesan convention had given to the bishop the sole right to interpret the constitution and canons. The letter was delivered to the Standing Committee on Oct. 2. With this, the committee adopted a resolution for conditional separation. Meanwhile, all of this remained secret, known only to the tightly bound leadership of the diocese. No more than two dozen people were in on the plan, the bishop, the chancellor, close associates and advisors, and the standing committee. There was never an open and public discussion in the diocese about whether they should secede from the Episcopal Church. 

The very next day after the committee's vote, Lawrence went to NYC, to meet with Waldo and Jefferts Schori. He failed to mention the resolution. Nothing came of the meeting. Afterwards, Lawrence refused to meet in person with them.

PUTTING THE SECRET PLAN INTO ACTION

The schism was a pre-meditated event. Even so, it required a great deal of work to effectuate and so the leadership went at it immediately. The separation would have to be announced in the strongest possible way to the diocese and the public.

Two days later, on 17 October, the leadership was ready to move into action. Lawrence called Jefferts Schori and told her the diocese had disaffiliated from the Episcopal Church. That afternoon, the diocesan office posted on its website a slew of documents announcing to the world that the diocese had left the Episcopal Church. They also announced a diocesan convention meeting on 17 November to make the necessary changes in the diocesan canons. At that point, the clergy and laity of the diocese were given a fait accompli and therefore had two choices, go along with it or stay behind with the Episcopal Church. The majority choose to go along. When the convention assembled on 17 November, Lawrence told them the break had already occurred and the purpose of the convention was only to alter the canons to reflect this. This was a revolution from the top down. It did not arise from the pews.

SUMMARY OF THE SCHISM

Although the break occurred on 15 October 2012, it was thirty years in the making. The diocesan divergence from the mainstream of the Episcopal Church started in 1982 under the episcopacy of Bishop Fitz Allison, a devoted and outspoken Evangelical theologian and writer. Criticism of the church's social reforms built up after that. More and more the diocese moved to differentiate itself from the Church. This ratcheted up in 2003 with the Church's confirmation of an open and partnered homosexual bishop. In 2006 and 2007, a search committee and standing committee hostile to Church reforms on sexuality chose as the next bishop a man who had written two essays defending diocesan departure from TEC and the submission of TEC to the wider Anglican Communion (his own diocese voted to leave TEC in 2006 and 2007). In 2009 and 2010, the diocesan convention declared the diocese sovereign and self-governing. In 2011, Bishop Lawrence issued quit claim deeds to the local parishes surrendering any claim the diocese might have in the properties. This was in blatant disregard of TEC's Dennis Canon. This gave the national church an offer it could not refuse. 

The trajectory of the diocese from 1982 to 2012 was away from the mainstream of the Episcopal Church. No evidence of a written agreement among the diocesan leadership to make a schism has ever surfaced, but circumstantial evidence suggests an attitude, perhaps an understanding, among them of continued differentiation from TEC the logical outcome of which would be schism. In fact, the schism of 2012 was the third division of the old diocese. The first was the breakaway of All Saints of Pawleys Island, in 2004. The second was the separation of St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant, in 2011. A pattern of schism was well-established before 2012.

THE STATUS OF THE SCHISM

The old diocese has split into four parts: All Saints, St. Andrew's, ADSC, and EDSC. 

By federal court order, the Episcopal Church diocese is the legal and legitimate heir of the historic diocese. It is in fact the Diocese of South Carolina and the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina with all the legal rights this entails. The Episcopal diocese was started in 1785.

At the schism, the breakaway group seized (illegally as we now know) the names, emblems, and rights of the historic diocese. In 2019, the federal court ruled they had no right to do so. The breakaway organization is an entity separate from the old diocese. The new diocese chose to name itself the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina. The ADSC is now appealing the federal decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals which almost certainly will uphold the lower court.

The direct cause of the schism was social policy, particularly equality for and inclusion of homosexuals, the transgendered, and women in the life of the church. After the schism, both sides developed policies and procedures along their preferred lines. The Episcopal diocese adopted the blessing of same-sex unions, then same-sex marriage. The Anglican diocese established a Statement of Faith and made it a blanket requirement in the diocese. It banned same-sex marriage in the diocese. The Anglican diocese joined the Anglican Church in North America which discriminates against both homosexuals and women. Women are not allowed to be bishops and are therefore excluded from power. Both dioceses have institutionalized their social policies.

The schism has been fought out for almost seven years in the courts. The Episcopal side won the entity of the historic diocese as well as the bulk of the local parishes. Both the highest state court and the federal court ruled on the side of the Episcopal Church diocese. This has come at a heavy cost to both sides. The total amount we cannot know, probably never will know. However, it appears as if the total legal costs are in excess of ten million dollars.

Was the schism and the subsequent legal war necessary? No. The diocese had the local option to block the blessing of same-sex unions. The diocese could have stayed in TEC and kept its socially conservative attitudes. TEC left participation in its social reforms up to individual conscience. Nor was the legal war necessary. On at least three occasions, the breakaways had opportunities to make compromise settlements and refused. In June of 2015 they could have swapped the parishes for the diocese. Moreover, they had two chances at mediation. Now, after millions of dollars and years in court, which they initiated, they have six parishes and a few missions. 

OUTLOOK FOR THE FUTURE

Having won back the entity of the diocese and 29 parishes, it is just a matter of time before the Episcopal diocese repossesses the assets of the old diocese and the local parishes. The breakaways can stall temporarily but not indefinitely.

The Anglican diocese has adopted a deny and delay strategy in the legal war. This is buying time but will inevitably play out. They have lost the old diocese and the bulk of the local parishes.

The Anglican diocese faces two possible choices: 1-merge what is left into the ACNA Diocese of the Carolinas, under Bishop Wood, of St. Andrew's in Mt. Pleasant; 2-rebuild itself as a separate diocese in ACNA with a dozen or so local churches. The second will depend somewhat on how many people leave the 29 parishes after reunion with the Episcopal Church. The ADSC leadership has been working hard to establish an "Anglican," i.e. anti-Episcopal, identity in the diocese (as the recent African prelates' appearance in Charleston). If they can extract enough parishioners from the 29, they may be able to create enough new Anglican congregations to sustain a viable diocese. This remains to be seen. At this point, no one can know how many communicants will remain in the 29 parishes.

In the near term, as one awaits the wrap-up of the litigation, one may expect the Episcopal side to prepare for an expeditious return of the diocese and parishes. The Anglican side will delay this as long as possible. Eventually, they will exhaust all possibilities. Then, the remaining Anglicans will have to decide where they go from there. 

After seven years, it is not too soon to start thinking about success and failure in the schism. Evaluating this depends on how one looks at various factors. In terms of empirical evidence, the schism has been a failure. The breakaways lost the diocese and most of the parishes. After the schism, they lost a third of their communicants. All quantifiable indicators show relentless decline in ADSC. Meanwhile, the Episcopal diocese has gained members steadily, now at twenty percent growth. 

However, looking at it another way, the schism has been a big success. The original goal of the anti-TEC movement in the 1980's and 1990's was political. Conservative PACs set out to destroy or diminish the Episcopal Church in order to neutralize its "liberal" influence in American life. On that level, the schism has succeeded to some degree. It has certainly done great damage to the old Episcopal Church in South Carolina, arguably the most important religious institution in the Low Country. It will take many years, perhaps generations, before the Episcopal Church returns to its pre-schism place in the life of lower South Carolina. 

The schism, or schisms, in SC have also created a significant parallel, rival "Anglican" presence in the region. All Saints, St. Andrew's, and now the ADSC are all connected to GAFCON which is a shadow government in the Anglican world challenging the traditional structure of the Anglican Communion. Its aim is to coalesce the majority of Anglicans in a new fundamentalist alliance devoted to social conservatism, particularly against the rights of homosexuals and women. One must recognize that this anti-TEC Anglican presence in SC will continue.

The general outlines of the legal resolution have been determined. For both sides now, the really hard work begins. For EDSC, the enormous challenge will be to restore the diocese and rebuild the parishes. Some communicants will stay. Some will leave. Only time will tell how many of each.

For ADSC, the challenge will be to decide whether to join other local Anglican entities or to go it alone. Going it alone will present a host of difficulties.

Thus, the schism has been going on for seven years, after brewing for thirty. All signs indicate a very long process of recovery for both sides in the future. 

Was the schism worth it? I know what I think. You, dear reader, have to decide for yourself. So, I suggest you stop at noon on Tuesday, Oct. 15 and reflect on what the schism has meant to you.

Then, we must turn our eyes to the future.

ANGLICAN DIOCESE APPEALS 

JUDGE GERGEL'S DECISION

The lawyers for the newly named Anglican Diocese of South Carolina filed a "Notice of Appeal" with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today, October 7, 2019. Find the Episcopal diocese's press release about this here .

The bishop, the diocese, and the trustees of the Anglican diocese have appealed the 19 September ruling of United States District Judge Richard Gergel. That decision found all in favor of the Episcopal Church, declared the Episcopal diocese to be the heir of the historic diocese, recognized the names and emblems as property of the Episcopal diocese, and banned the breakaway side from using them. The next day, the schismatic diocese changed its name to Anglican Diocese of South Carolina and proceeded to remove the Episcopal names and emblems of the historic diocese from their identifications.

Several comments on today's news:

---This is not the appeal itself. It is only a notice that an appeal will be submitted to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Richmond. The appeal itself will come later.

---Interesting to note that ADSC immediately complied with the judge's 19 September order on names and emblems. They did not ask for a stay of the order pending an appeal.

---It seemed to me that Gergel's order of 19 September was written to be appeal proof. He referred to the Fourth Circuit twenty times in his text and gave voluminous evidence for his decisions. A good deal of his work was addressed to the Fourth. The judges of the Fourth already have they work done for them.

---The Fourth has already shown itself to be favorable to the Episcopal Church side in this controversy. Twice the court considered appeals from the Episcopal Church side, and twice the court agreed ordering the U.S. District Court Judge Weston Houck in Charleston to proceed with the case. Houck died soon after the second order.

---This appeal is a risky maneuver. If the Fourth denies the appeal, it will write an explanation that is certain to boost the importance of Gergel's already landmark decision. The only court above the Fourth is the United States Supreme Court. The justices there have already made it perfectly clear they will not consider an appeal of an Episcopal Church case. No doubt, this is to preserve the First Amendment. Thus, the word of the Fourth is likely to be the final word on the relationship between the Episcopal Church and its dioceses.

In time, we should get the full appeal document from the Anglican lawyers. If there is a hearing, it will be live streamed by audio. 

Bottom line:   It is most unlikely the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will overturn Judge Gergel's decision. As they uphold it, Gergel's enormously important work will become even greater as a definitive point in American jurisprudence. Courts from now on will respect the Episcopal Church as an hierarchical institution entitled to govern itself.   

A RETURN TO MEMBERSHIP NUMBERS

On 25 September, I posted the entry below on the new membership data from the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina.

With all the interest in recent legal news, this information may have been overlooked by some readers. It is worth a second read, especially in light of the Episcopal diocese's move to repossess the 29 parishes and Camp. It is just a matter of time before the Episcopal bishop returns to the 29 and the Camp. This means the people in these 29 parishes will have a choice between staying at home, with the properties, or leaving home.

The data below speak to the credibility of the ADSC leadership. Before, during, and after the schism, the handful of people who made the schism promoted certain claims that have since been disproven. The major one was that the diocese and the parishes could leave the Episcopal Church intact and take the property with them. After spending millions of dollars of the people's money, this claim has been demolished by the courts. 

Another assertion concerned membership. The diocesan leadership reinterated the notion that "liberal" religion (TEC) would decline and "orthodox" churches would swell in membership. The data below show this to be untrue. Now, nearly seven years after the schism, the communicants of the ADSC have clear evidence questioning the credibility of their diocesan leadership. This is important to bear in mind as they face the choice of staying or leaving.   

Original posting of 25 September 2019:

THE LATEST MEMBERSHIP DATA 
FROM THE ADSC

The newly named Anglican Diocese of South Carolina has just released its parochial statistics for the years 2017 and 2018. Find them here . These figures will help us get a better picture of the growth and decline of the ADSC since its formation in the schism of 2012. We now have the parochial membership numbers for six years after the schism, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. So the overall question is, How is the breakaway diocese doing since the schism?

In terms of budget, the total revenue of ADSC went from $25.6m in 2013 to $27.8m in 2018. This reached a peak in 2016 and has declined since. We do not know how the revenues and expenditures for legal costs are being handled in the budget. We do know that in the last couple of years, ADSC has allocated around $1m/yr for legal expenses.

DIOCESE AND MEMBERSHIP

The annual membership statistics show decline in every category of quantification. The claim of "baptized members" went from 23,181 in 2013 to 20,763 in 2018, a decline of 10%. However, the numbers for "baptized membership" are not reliable indicators as some local churches have continued to keep on their rolls of baptized members people who have left. As we will see, there is a vast gap between the numbers of baptized members and communicants (communicant is a person who attends church at least once a year). The most important point about "baptized membership" was its trajectory. It fell every year from 2013 to 2018.

A good measure of church activity is Average Sunday Attendance (ASA). These numbers show virtually the same trajectory as baptized membership in ADSC. ASA of the ADSC:

2013 --- 9,292

2014 --- 9,325

2015 --- 9,085

2016 --- 9,014

2017 --- 8,905

2018 --- 8,875

This is an overall decline of 4% in 6 years.

The best measure of local church membership is the category of "communicant" numbers. These are the people who are actually active in the parishes and missions, even if marginally.

Here the numbers show an alarming decline in the diocese. In 2013, ADSC listed 17,798 communicants. In 2018, it listed 12,126 confirmed communicants. This is a decline of 32% in just six years. In other words, the secessionist diocese has lost a third of its active membership since the schism.

However, there is a problem in the statistics of this category. Starting in the year 2014, ADSC changed the classification in its annual parochial report from "Communicants" to "Confirmed Communicants," not exactly the same. So, if we take the figures of just the "Confirmed Communicants" in ADSC for the years of 2014-2018 what do we find? 

2014 --- 16,361

2015 --- 15,556

2016 --- 14,694

2017 --- 13,291

2018 --- 12,126

Thus, in Confirmed Communicants, ADSC declined steadily, losing 26% in 5 years. This is the same downward trajectory as baptized membership and ASA.

The statistics of baptized membership, ASA, and communicants all show a relentless and significant decline in ADSC in the years since the schism.

LOCAL CHURCHES AND MEMBERSHIP

How about individual local churches? How have they fared in terms of membership since the schism? There were 50 parishes and missions of the old diocese that went along with the secession. ADSC has established several missions since then.

Here we find the same picture as the diocesan statistics revealed with a few exceptions. By far the brightest spot for ADSC has been the Church of the Cross, in Bluffton, a booming area near Hilton Head. In fact, it is the only parish in ADSC that has shown significant growth. Its ASA from 2013 to 2018 shot up from 987 to 1,354, a whopping 37%. Actually, in the last decade (2008-2018) its ASA soared from 784 to 1,354, an impressive 74%. Unfortunately for ADSC, Church of the Cross's rate of growth has not been been replicated, even remotely, in any of the other 52 local churches.

In fact, the story is the opposite in many of the parishes and missions of ADSC. Most parishes have remained about the same in membership and attendance, but numerous well-known places have experienced significant decline. 

ASA

Looking at the Average Sunday Attendance of large parishes in the six years after the schism (2013-18) we find:

St. Philip's, Charleston --- 582-442 (-24%)

Holy Cross, Sullivans Island --- 925-744 (-20%)

Trinity, Myrtle Beach --- 316-227 (-28%)

St. Johns, Johns Island --- 263-232 (-12%)

St. Paul's, Summerville --- 464-376 (-19%)

St. James, James Island --- 289-232 (-20%)

Resurrection, Surfside --- 294-253 (-14%)

Prince George Winyah, Georgetown --- 245-212 (-13%)

St. Luke's, Hilton Head --- 359-298 (-17%)

St. John's, Florence --- 182-166 (-9%)

Most of the other large parishes stayed about the same in the average number of people attending church. St. Michael's, of Charleston went from 478 to 452 (-5%). St. Helena's, of Beaufort, went from 638 to 614 (-4%).

Among the small parishes and missions, Good Shepherd, in Charleston fell from 168 ASA in 2013 to 114 in 2018, a decline of 32%. St. Jude's, in Walterboro declined in ASA from 85 to 64, down 25%. Trinity in Pinopolis decreased from 92 to 68 (-26%). St. Matthias, in Summerton, went from 72 to 54 (-29%). Trinity, on Edisto, declined from 148 to 125 (-16%) people on an average Sunday.

COMMUNICANTS

In terms of Confirmed Communicants, most local churches did not experience significant changes between 2014 and 2018, but many did. Among the large parishes, some of the most famous saw serious, even shocking, reductions:

St. Philip's, Charleston --- 2,135 to 1,092 (-49%)

Christ Church, Mt. Pleasant --- 775-338 (-56%)

St. Luke's, Hilton Head --- 664-338 (-49%)

St. Helena's, Beaufort --- 964-808 (-16%)

Resurrection, Surfside --- 360-200 (-44%)

St. Paul's, Summerville --- 750-488 (-35%)

Trinity, Myrtle Beach --- 338-247 (-27%)

Prince George Winyah, Georgetown --- 625-445 (-29%)

St. John's, Johns Island --- 620-541 (-13%)

St. Michael's, Charleston --- 1,015 to 976 (-4%)

Many small parishes and missions also experienced serious declines in numbers of Confirmed Communicants:

St. David's, Cheraw --- 106-51 (-52%)

Holy Cross, Stateburg -- 81-52 (-36%)

Good Shepherd, Charleston --- 256-152 (-41%)

Trinity, Pinopolis --- 166-99 (-40%)

Trinity, Edisto --- 145-119 (-18%)

CONCLUSION

The overall picture of the membership movement in the ADSC is clear. The diocese is declining in its numbers relentlessly and significantly. It has lost about a third of its membership since the schism and continues to spiral downward. 

My first observation is that the statistics disprove the myth that conservative religion is bound to grow while liberal will certainly decline. Since the schism of 2012 in South Carolina, this has not been true. The Episcopal diocese has grown significantly, about 20% while the Anglican diocese has declined precipitously. The largest parish now among all of the local churches of the pre-schism diocese is Grace Church Cathedral which has replaced St. Philip's in numbers of parishioners.

Will the ADSC turn around the numbers and begin to grow? This is most doubtful. This diocese was founded to keep homosexuals and women from having full equality and inclusion in the life of the church. These issues are generational, even in a relatively conservative place as South Carolina. Surveys show that Americans under the age of 30 are nearly unanimous in favor of rights and equality for all people. The likelihood that a socially reactionary institution as ADSC will attract young people now and in the future is extremely remote.

Moreover, the recent events in the legal war will multiply problems for the separate diocese. In fact, with just a handful of local churches and no diocesan infrastructure left, it faces a highly daunting task of recovery and rebuilding.   

The decline of many of the local churches in South Carolina is not good news for either the Episcopal or the Anglican dioceses. Before the schism there were approximately 27,000 communicants in the diocese. Now the combined number of  active members of the two dioceses is around 20,000. That means around 7,000 people fled from the churches involved in this schism and ensuing legal war. Why did they flee? Why did so many thousands leave the breakaway churches? The statistics do not reveal the reasons for the changes so we can only speculate and consider anecdotal evidence. But, it just makes common sense that people are not drawn to churches in turmoil and conflict. People go to church for peace, not for war.

Now that the basic structure of the settlement in the litigation has appeared, the two sides can prepare in earnest for a vast transfer of property. The 29 parishes listed by the South Carolina Supreme Court as property of the Episcopal Church will be returning to the care of the Episcopal bishop. Presumably, the Anglican diocesan leadership will try to move congregations out of at least the large parishes to form Anglican churches somewhere else. Parishioners will have to choose between staying in their buildings and leaving to join the departing congregations. In divided groups of already diminished numbers of parishioners, both sides will be pressed to make viable, self-sufficient congregations once the dust has settled. 

There are great challenges ahead for both dioceses involved in this sad story, and they are made only worse by the decline in membership of the local secessionist diocese. 

EPISCOPAL CHURCH MOVES TOWARD REPOSSESSION OF THE PROPERTIES

The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina is asking the circuit court for a hearing on the repossession of the 29 parishes and the Camp.

Yesterday, 4 October 2019, the Diocese posted a news release about this. Find it here .

EDSC chancellor, Thomas Tisdale, sent a letter to circuit court Judge Edgar Dickson asking for a hearing on EDSC's May 2018 motion for implementation of the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of Aug. 2, 2017 and the appointment of a special master to oversee this.

Dickson has held two hearings in this case, one on the Anglican diocese's petititon for clarification of jurisdiction, asking the court to decide on the property ownership. The other was on the Betterments suit. He made no decision on either one.

The federal court ruling has changed the landscape of the circuit court motions (there are 5 before Dickson now). U.S. District Court Judge Richard Gergel ruled, on 19 September, that the Episcopal diocese is the heir of the historic diocese, and ordered the titles and emblems returned to the Church diocese. In his ruling, Gergel explicitly recognized the SCSC decision and said the orders therein were the essential points of the decision. Parsing of the words behind the orders was irrelevant.

The SCSC gave three orders on the last page of its Aug. 2 decision. Judge Dickson has already given implicit recognition of these orders as he implemented the first in his last hearing. That one recognized the independence of 7 parishes. The Church diocese is now asking Dickson to implement the other two: 28 parishes property of the Episcopal Church and its diocese, and Camp St. Christopher property of the Church diocese.

The Anglican diocese argued that the 28 parishes should not be returned to the Church because they did not accede to the Dennis Canon. According to the SCSC order, they did accede to the Dennis Canon. Four of the five justices of SCSC said the 28 acceded to the Canon. At any rate, the question of whether they did or did not accede to the Dennis Canon is moot. The SCSC explicitly ruled they did. This is the law of the land.

The Dennis Canon holds that a local church may own its own property by deed but it does so in trust for two beneficiaries, the Episcopal Church and the Church diocese. The parish owns the property under the condition it remains in the Episcopal Church. If the officers and people fo the parish leave the Episcopal Church, the beneficiaries of the trust automatically become the owners of the property.

In the Church view, the people of the 29 parishes forfeited their ownership of the parish properties at the schism. That meant, TEC and its diocese became the owners of the properties. Thus, the 29 never left the possession of the Episcopal Church. After the court officially recognizes this, as I understand it, the Episcopal Church will remove the clergy and vestries that are not loyal to the Episcopal Church and will install clergy and vestries loyal to the Episcopal Church. The 29 will function as parts of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina.

What Tisdale is now asking Judge Dickson is to enforce the SCSC decision. The Church side is in a much stronger position now to achieve this since Judge Gergel has all but ordered such.

Judge Dickson has before him the Remittitur of the SCSC decision. It is his task to implement this. He does not have the choice to alter or discard the SCSC decision. It is the law of the land. It is his job to see to it that the SCSC decision is carried out. 

The Episcopal Church is much closer now to recovering the 29 parishes than it was a few weeks ago.

Next, we await Judge Dickson's response to Tisdale's letter of yesterday. 

A MOMENT OF GRACE

The video of the day is a much needed moment of grace for all of us to share. Is not it true that the people in the most pain often show the most compassion? We cannot watch this video without recalling the families of the Charleston massacre and their transcendent moments of God's love. They took a time of unimaginable suffering and turned it into a lesson in redemption. They taught all of us how to be good Christians.

See the video from yesterday here . Brandt Jean forgives Amber Guyger for killing his brother. It will break your heart and warm it at the same time. I think Jean gives us a very important life lesson here. We need to love each other in words and deeds even, and especially, in the worst of times.

LEGAL NEWS UPDATE

There is an item of legal news to report that readers might find of interest. Somehow this flew under the radar. I learned of it only today from a vigilant and generous reader (see, this blog is really a community project, so keep in touch). It occurred on Thursday, 19 September, the day Judge Gergel released his Order declaring all in the interest of the Episcopal Church.

On that same day, the Church diocese filed with Judge Edgar Dickson, of the circuit court, "Notice of Motion and Motion for Reconsideration." This 15-page paper asks Dickson to reconsider his denial of TEC/TECSC motion for dismissal of the breakaways' Betterments suit.

You will recall that, on 28 August, Dickson informed the two sets of lawyers he would deny TEC/TECSC's motion to dismiss the Betterments suit and asked the Plaintiffs' lead lawyer, Alan Runyan to compose an order for the judge to use.

On 9 September, Dickson issued his written order denying TEC/TECSC's motion. Apparently Dickson used Runyan's proposed order. The Defendants, TEC and TECSC had ten days to respond to the judge's order.

Ten days later, 19 September, TEC/TECSC did indeed reply to the judge's order in their "Notice of Motion..." 

As the Church lawyers clearly pointed out, the judge's order of 9 September was attorney Runyan's interpretation of the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of 2 August 2017. It was his opinion of the SCSC decision, not the factual explanation of it. Runyan has consistently denied that the SCSC decision is clear on the 29 parishes and the Camp. In fact, he maintains the three majority decisions on the last page are not definitive and the circuit court should decide property ownership.

The Church lawyers pointed out in this paper that the SCSC decision is clear and final. It is the law of the land. They went on to insist the Betterments suit should be dismissed because the Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring such a suit for several reasons. Under the Dennis Canon, the parishes that purported to leave TEC transferred the property to the trust beneficiaries, the Defendants (TEC/TECSC). Under the law, the Plaintiffs have no standing to sue their own beneficiaries.

What all this boils down to is the SCSC decision. Does it mean what it says on its last page, or does it stand too ambiguous to implement leaving the circuit court to retry the issues involved? The Episcopal Church says it means what it says in the majority decisions and now is the law of the land. It cannot be changed or appealed. It is the job of the circuit court under Remittitur to implement the SCSC decision. The separatist diocese says the SCSC decision does not mean what it says because it is conflicted, ambiguous, and directionless. So, in a nutshell, the difference between the two sides here is whether or not the SCSC decision means what it says.

I do not know, but I suspect that this was the sticking point that ended the mediation last Thursday. The Church side insists the SCSC decision is clear and final and the Church is the owner of the 29 and the Camp. The secessionist side insists the Church is not the owner of the properties and that the ownership should be determined by the circuit court. They are asking Judge Dickson to do just that.

Next, we may expect the Anglican diocese to file a response to the Episcopal Church motion for reconsideration within a few days. Then, Judge Dickson will have to consider the arguments of the two sides and make a decision whether to rescind his denial of TEC's motion to dismiss. In other words, he has to say whether he will dismiss the Betterments suit or allow it to proceed. The catch of this suit is that its proceeding depends on whether the circuit court implements the SCSC decision on the 29 parishes. Now, more than two years after the SCSC decision, we are still waiting on the courts to implement that decision.

The federal court of Richard Gergel very clearly sided with the Episcopal Church position on the state supreme court decision. Gergel made what appeared to me to be a not too subtle direction to Dickson to implement the SCSC decision. This should influence Dickson in the days ahead.

For the umpteenth time, here is the SCSC opinion and its three majority decisions on the last page. Since the SCSC statement of Aug. 2, 2017 is the heart of the dispute between the sides, it is important to keep studying what this SCSC opinion says. What do you see here, clarity or ambiguity? I know what I see. When I retired from college teaching, I calculated that I had graded 50,000 test papers, every one with an essay. I know clarity when I see it. (Click on for enlargement.)

WHAT NOW?

Mediation started, and ended, yesterday. No deal. So, where does that leave the schism now? Where do the two sides go from here?

In the immediate picture, the matter returns to Judge Edgar Dickson, of the circuit court. He is the one who ordered the mediation in hopes the two sides would settle their differences so he would not have to do so. Dickson has two big issues before him 1) the disposition of the 29 parishes and Camp St. Christopher, and 2) the Betterments suit. The parishes and the camp are covered in the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of Aug. 2, 2017. The SCSC recognized these as property of the Episcopal Church side. The SCSC remitted its decision to the circuit court for implementation in November of 2017. Dickson has not implemented the SCSC decision on these two points. Obviously he hoped mediation would settle these. It did not. 

As for the Betterments suit on Dickson's desk, this can proceed only if the breakaways recognize that the property in question belongs to the Episcopal Church side. So far, they have adamantly refused to do so. So, it seems counter-intuitive for the ADSC to demand reimbursements on property they insist they own.

When I awoke this morning I was feeling a little disappointed at the quick and complete collapse of the possibility of a compromise settlement. Then, as I was running through my usual website check list, I burst out laughing when I reach one. I needed the levity. The headlines blared: "Mediation between the historic Anglican Diocese of South Carolina and the new TEC Diocese results in Impasse." After I stopped laughing, I turned a bit sad and wondered just how far from reality the secessionists had gone and just how uninformed they think their readers are. If I have learned anything from having a blog it is that my readers are very well informed and often know more of what is happening than I. So, memo to all bloggers:  On September 19, 2019, the United States District Court in Charleston declared the Episcopal Church diocese to be the historic diocese, founded in 1785, and the holder of all the titles and emblems of it. The breakaway side can make no claim to being the historic diocese. In fact, what is now called the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina came into being at the schism, in 2012. My advice to Internet bloggers: do not insult the intelligence of your readers. 

Speaking of the federal court decision, this should change the picture for the circuit court judge. The federal judge made it very clear that the SCSC decision was the law and must be followed. He also made it very clear that the Episcopal diocese is historic. This would negate the breakaways' outlandish claim in the Betterments suit that they deserved reimbursement for the entire value of the parishes. When the circuit court returns to work on this case, Dickson will be under the shadow of the federal court that has ruled very strongly and clearly in favor of the Episcopal Church. Maybe this will spur him on to implement the rest of the SCSC decision.

Another issue out there is the return of the properties and other assets of the old diocese. The federal court only addressed the ownership of the historic diocese, not the assets. As an aftermath of the failure of mediation, I imagine the Church side will now take action to recover the pre-schism diocesan buildings, lands, accounts, furnishings, and archives. For instance, Bishop Lawrence, now officially not the Episcopal bishop, continues to reside in the multi-million dollar Episcopal bishop's residence in downtown Charleston. I expect the Church will move to effectuate the Sept. 19 decision in regards to diocesan properties.

I imagine a lot of people join me in being disappointed at the failure of mediation. However, none of us should be surprised. The secessionists have rejected time after time offers of compromise settlement, most famously the June 2015 offer to swap the diocese for the parishes. So, the question at hand is, Why is it seemingly impossible for the two side to agree on a settlement?

Part of the answer is baked into the nature of the schism. The break of 2012 was an audacious event of huge import. The people who made the schism did not do so lightly. They were deeply committed to their perceived cause. Apparently, they remain so. Even when a cause fails, it is against human nature to admit a mistake, to assume blame, and to accept defeat (my own theory is this is particularly hard for men as society still presses on them never to show weakness). And, so it appears the breakaways may be retreating into ever more unreality as a defense against the obvious. The question I have is how much longer will the ordinary people-in-the-pews keep supporting the failing choices of their leaders? How long will they fund this floundering cause? How long will they put up with their leaders intransigence against a compromise settlement? That is up to the 12,000 communicants still in the secessionist churches. I think the leaders of ADSC would make a big mistake to underestimate the intelligence and awareness of their own people. They are also taking a big risk in continuing this war of attrition. ADCS has lost a third of its active members since the schism and continues to decline steadily. EDSC on the other hand has added members steadily.

Too, we have to understand the emotional commitment of each side to its "cause" in the schism. The breakaways are committed to Biblical truth which they understand as condemning homosexual behavior and keeping women under men's authority. The Episcopal side is committed to rights for and inclusion of open homosexuals, the transgendered, and women in the life of the church. Thus, each sides sees this as not just an institutional disagreement, but a full cultural war for fundamental truths. Deeply entrenched as this, each side is naturally averse to concessions to the other.

Another part of the answer is the nature of the religion held by the secessionist side. I grew up in a thoroughly fundamentalist church. If I know anything at all it is the mindset of fundamentalists. I would characterize the ADSC as fundamentalist-leaning, or near-fundamentalists. Fundamentalism sees the universe in Manichean terms of clashing dualities. Everything is oppositional black and white. It is God or Satan. It's the saved or the unsaved. There are no shades of grey. It is either right or wrong. So, if we are right, then everyone who disagrees with us is wrong. If we are good, our opponents must be evil. In a world of black and white, there is no room for compromise. It is better to go down fighting for good than to give in anything to evil. These were the messages I heard in the first 21 years of my life. So, I understand where the officers of ADSC are coming from. We should expect them to fight on to the bitter end, not giving in an inch. Mediation was always a non-starter.

Now, it is back to court. Judge Dickson did not get his wish, that the two sides would settle things on their own. Now it is up to him to implement the SCSC decision. As I have said, whatever he decides will probably be appealed to the SC Court of Appeals. There, we can expect the SCSC decision to be upheld without hesitation. 

Everyone is tired of this long-running schism and ensuing legal war. Nearly seven years is a long time to stay in battle. Combat fatigue is a common malady in SC. Nevertheless, the good church people of South Carolina are called to keep on going. Back in the courts, time drags. Who knows how long it will take Judge Dickson to act again? He is under no time constraint. What is more, the SCSC refused to lean on him to act.

So, we can be disappointed that the two sides did not settle their differences and bring peace and closure of this scandal. Alas, this was not to be. Both sides now move on propelled by what they think God would have them do. I still believe the end of the legal war is in sight, it is just a bit more distant on the horizon that I had hoped it would be this time yesterday.

______________________________

A NOTE TO READERS. I need your help. I cannot find a single South Carolina newspaper mention of Judge Gergel's ruling of September 19, 2019. To my knowledge, there has been nothing about it in the Post and Courier and The State. This was a landmark ruling as the first federal court decision on the relationship between the Episcopal Church and its dioceses. Moreover, it was handed down in Charleston. Yet, I cannot find one South Carolina newspaper that even mentioned this enormously important court ruling. The news blackout is both mysterious and troublesome. Why would all SC newspapers refuse even to mention one of the most important court decisions ever concerning church and state?

If anyone has seen any item in any SC newspaper about Gergel's decision, please let send link or address to me. This apparent news self-censorship should not be left unexamined. 

MEDIATION ENDS IN IMPASSE

Sept. 26, 4:30 p.m.   I have just been officially informed that the mediation today has ended in an impasse. An impasse is a point at which the two sides become intransigent. That means a compromise settlement is impossible and negotiations are suspended.

After day long talks, the mediator, attorney Thomas Wills declared an impasse, that is negative conclusion of the negotiations. Presumably he will convey that to the circuit court judge, Edgar Dickson, who ordered the mediation. 

There is no expectation of another meeting or any future mediation. 

Under the confidentiality rule, we cannot know what was discussed today or what made the impasse. However, it seemed to me in the run-up to mediation that the biggest difference between the two sides was the disposition of the 29 parishes. EDSC insisted the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017 meant the return of the 29 to the Episcopal Church. The ADSC lawyers never agreed with that and insisted that the SCSC decision was ambiguous and unenforceable. Judge Dickson did not implement the SCSC decision on the 29, even as he did implement the SCSC order on the 7 independent parishes. This left an opening for the ADSC lawyers to hold out hope their diocese could keep the 29 in question. At least, this is the way I saw it. The other major issue between the sides was the Betterments suit in which ADSC claimed huge payments for the 29 that might be returned to EDSC. Whatever the fatal disagreements were, they must have been profound to bring an impasse in just one session. The previous period of mediation (Oct. 2017-Jan. 2018) saw three meetings over 4 months and a formal report to the judge.

So, mediation has ended in  complete failure. I for one am disappointed that the legal war has to go on, for who knows how much longer. However, I am not really surprised at the collapse. This fits right into the history and character of the schism. I have thought all along it will take the courts to settle this war. So now, the matter goes back to Judge Dickson. We return to the waiting game.

As for the federal court, I am wondering if the Episcopal diocese will now move in court to recover the assets of the Episcopal diocese, that is, the diocese at the moment of the schism in 2012. Last week's ruling only gave the entity of the diocese to EDSC. It did not address the property of the old diocese.

TODAY IS THE DAY

It is Thursday, 26 September. At long last, the day has arrived, the day for mediation to begin.

The meeting is to be guided by attorney Thomas J. Wills, in Charleston. Find Wills's website here . Wills is well-known as an expert in mediation. He certainly has his work cut out for him. Everyone can only wish him well. Bear in mind that, in mediation, any agreement is voluntary on both sides. Mediation is not a forced arbitration. The two sides will have to reach mutually agreeable terms in order to finalize a written settlement. Considering everything, this will be a monumental task. 

As far as I know, the chancellors of the two dioceses will be present and probably accompanied by assisting lawyers. They are well-known and highly regarded lawyers themselves:  Thomas S. Tisdale for the Episcopal diocese and Alan Runyan for the Anglican side. No one knows the history of the litigation better than these two. They have been there from the very beginning. They are tough, battle-scarred veterans of this long and hard war.

The mediation will be private and confidential. The public will be informed either after a mutual agreement is signed, or the mediation fails. The lawyers will not be allowed to talk about what went on in the meetings otherwise. So, do not expect to know anything today.

The last round of mediation did not go well to say the least. There were three meetings from October of 2017 to January of 2018. Each one was very brief. The only issue revealed to the public was Bishop Adams's request to meet with each of the 29 parishes to be returned to the Episcopal diocese. The Lawrence side refused. End of mediation. Under confidentiality, we cannot know if the sides discussed anything else, but there is no evidence of any other discussion. The last round of mediation accomplished absolutely nothing.

Under the privacy rule, we are likely to know nothing new at the end of the day. However, we may know if a new date has been set for a second meeting of the mediation. If a second day is announced, that would likely be a positive sign. If no new date is announced, we may fear the worst.

The best outcome would be a settlement across the board. The worst would be a complete breakdown and return to the camps on the smoldering battlefield. Everyone living and breathing longs for the former (except possibly the lawyers). Everyone is exhausted and past ready for peace. Nearly seven years of legal warfare have taken an awful toll on the thousands of people on both sides. It is time for this scandal to cease.

So, hold in mind your thoughts and prayers that a presence greater than everyone may descend onto Broad Street today and soften hardened hearts and bring clarity of human reason to do the right thing. Both bishops have called for prayers. Bishop Lawrence may be found here . Bishop Adams here . I will go out into my garden, now in its autumnal beauty, and say a little prayer. I suggest you find your favorite spot and do the same. 

I will post news on this blog as I receive it. Peace.

This morning's sunrise illuminates Zebra Grass (Miscanthus sinensis 'Zebrinsus') in my garden. Ornamental grasses are in their glory at this time of the year.