WHAT'S THE MATTER 

WITH JUDGE DICKSON?

Judge Edgar Dickson, of the first circuit court in South Carolina, has had the Episcopal church case before him since January 10, 2018. That's a total of 21 months if you are counting. What's happened in those 21 months in Judge Dickson's court? Very little of consequence. Thus, we turn to this fair question: What's the matter with Judge Dickson?

What is Judge Dickson supposed to be doing? He is supposed to be implementing the South Carolina Supreme Court decision of August 2, 2017. That decision listed three majority conclusions on its last page:  1-8 local parish entities independent of the Episcopal Church, 2-28 local parishes property of the Episcopal Church, and 3-Camp St. Christopher property of the Episcopal Church diocese. (A clarification on numbers: 8 entities wound up as 7 parishes; 28 parishes really meant 29 because one of the official plaintiff parishes was accidentally omitted from the list on the front page.)

For more info on Judge Dickson, see the SCCourts website. Find it here .

Let us begin with a brief chronology of the case before Judge Dickson:

2017

Nov. 17 --- SCSC denied a rehearing and issued a Remittitur of its 2 August 2017 decision to the SC First Circuit Court (the court of origin).

Nov. 19 --- Diocese of South Carolina (the breakaway diocese) entered its Betterments suit claiming reimbursement for improvements on properties owned by TEC.

Dec. 15 --- TEC/TECSC (the Episcopal Church side) filed a motion to dismiss the Betterments suit.

Dec. 27 --- DSC filed a motion to establish a complex case (to be handled by one judge).

2018

Jan. 10 --- Judge Dickson assigned to handle the church case.

Mar. 23 --- DSC filed motion for clarification of jurisdiction asking the court to decide issues in the SCSC decision.

May 8 --- TEC/TECSC filed motion for implementation of the SCSC decision and the appointment of a special master.

May 14 --- Judge Dickson announced a hearing on May 30. He cancelled this on May 22.

July 11 --- TEC/TECSC filed petition for an accounting.

July 26 --- Judge Dickson held status conference with the lawyers and asked for lists of the issues they wished him to consider.

Aug. 2 --- Both sets of lawyers presented their lists to Judge Dickson.

Sept. 24 --- Each side filed 3 memoranda in support of their positions.

Oct. 5 --- TEC/TECSC filed 3 responses to DSC while DSC filed 2 responses to TEC/TECSC.

Oct. 12 --- TEC/TECSC filed an omnibus reply to DSC while DSC filed one reply to TEC/TECSC.

Nov. 19 --- Judge Dickson held a hearing on DSC's motion (Mar. 23) for clarification. He said he would rule on this first. He set aside the other 5 motions/petitions. He told the lawyers he would gather more information via email.

2019

Jan. 8 --- Judge Dickson sent an email to lawyers asking them to show how the SCSC decision supported their positions.

Jan. 14 --- Judge Dickson sent an email to lawyers asking for documents on how the local churches had voted on the Dennis Canon.

Mar. 19 --- Judge Dickson set a hearing on the Betterments suit for Mar. 27.

Mar. 20 --- TEC filed petition for writ of mandamus with the SCSC asking the justices to order Judge Dickson to implement the SCSC Aug. 2 decision.

Mar. 26 --- Judge Dickson cancelled the hearing he had set for Mar. 27.

June 28 --- SCSC denied TEC's petition for a writ.

July 2 --- Judge Dickson set a hearing on the Betterments suit for July 23.

July 23 --- Judge Dickson held a hearing and issued two decisions: 1-to implement the first ruling of the SCSC decision to recognize 7 parishes as independent owners of their property, and 2-to order mediation. He made no decision on Betterments.

Aug. 28 --- Judge Dickson announced he would deny TEC/TECSC's motion to dismiss the Betterments suit (he did so on 9 Sept.).

Sept. 11 --- TEC/TECSC filed a response to the Betterments suit.

Sept. 19 --- Federal court judge Richard Gergel issued a decision emphasizing the validity and importance of the SCSC decision of Aug. 2. 

Sept. 19 --- TEC/TECSC filed a motion to Judge Dickson for reconsideration of his denial of the motion to dismiss (Sept. 9).

Sept. 26 --- Mediation meeting resulted in declaration of impasse.

Oct. 4 --- Church lawyer Tisdale sent letter to Judge Dickson requesting a hearing on the implementation of the SCSC Aug. 2 decision.

SUMMARY

Dickson was assigned the Remittitur of the Aug. 2, 2017 SCSC decision on January 10, 2018. He has had the case before him since then.

His original task was to implement the SCSC decision. Once the SCSC refused rehearing and the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert, the SCSC decision became the final law of the land.

Six motions/petitions were presented to Judge Dickson. DSC: 1-Betterments, 2-Complex case, 3-Clarification of jurisdiction; TEC/TECSC: 1-dismiss Betterments, 2-implement the SCSC decision and appoint a special master, 3-accounting of the breakaway side.

Judge Dickson has ruled on 1 of the 6. He denied TEC's motion to dismiss the Betterments suit. This leaves 5 motions/petitions now before him, 3 from DSC and 2 from TEC.

Judge Dickson has made two rulings in this case: 1-to deny TEC's motion to dismiss Betterments, and 2-to implement the first majority order in the SCSC decision (independence of the 7 parishes).

Judge Dickson has held two hearings, one on the DSC motion for clarification of jurisdiction and one on the Betterments suit. He has made no ruling on either issue (except to dismiss TEC's motion for discarding Betterments).

I have counted 22 separate court filings on Judge Dickson's desk. These run to hundreds of pages. This is not counting the material presented in the two hearings. It is impossible to imagine Judge Dickson needs any more information about this case.

The two rulings that Judge Dickson has made are in the interest of the DSC side. He has made no order supporting the TEC side.

BASICALLY, WHAT DO THE TWO SIDES WANT 

FROM JUDGE DICKSON?

The Episcopal Church side simply wants Judge Dickson to implement the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017. He has enforced the first of the three majority conclusions (for the 7 independent parishes). The Church wants him to implement # 2 (28 [29] parishes property of the Episcopal Church) and # 3 (Camp St. Christopher property of the Church diocese).

The breakaway side wants Judge Dickson to declare the SCSC decision unenforceable and to rule himself on the issue of property ownership of the 28 parishes. This would give the independent diocese a new shot at keeping these parishes away from repossession by the Episcopal Church.

I suspect the fondest hope of the breakaways is to get this case back to the SCSC. Of course this would have to be in the guise of a new case since the old one has been closed. The SCSC now is different than it was in 2017. Two justices have retired (Toal, Pleicones) and two new ones have been added. (Thanks to scepiscopalians we know that one of the new ones, John C. Few, was just married in St. Philip's Church, in Charleston. This raises questions of his impartiality.) Conservatives have a majority on the present SCSC. 

Then, what is all this business on Betterments? This is a curiosity since DSC is claiming that TEC does not own the 28 properties. The Betterments suit is based on the assumption that TEC owns the properties. Betterments says if TEC does own the properties, the parishes are due reimbursements for the improvements they made on the properties. The catch is they want the whole value of the property, all the way back to the start. TEC contends that the parishes have no standing to make this suit because they cannot sue the beneficiaries of their own trusts (sort of like suing oneself).

DSC's Plan A is to keep the 28 away from TEC. Their Plan B is to soak TEC of money to pay for regaining the 28 properties.

In order for the Betterments suit to proceed, the court will have to recognize the Episcopal Church as the owner of the properties. 

DSC is presenting Judge Dickson with a dilemma. They want him to declare the parishes own their properties outright (against the SCSC decision), but if he does not do that, they want him to force TEC to pay, and pay enormously, for the properties. It is no wonder Judge Dickson wished this whole thing would go away when he sent them to mediation. Of all people, he must be the most disappointed that mediation failed. In fact, it was DOA. It is too bad he could not see what I, and many others, knew would happen.

OUTLOOK FOR THE FUTURE

So, what happens now?

First we have to bear in mind that all judges and justices in SC are elected by the state legislature, after a committee clearance process. This makes all of them in a way political appointees. As we have seen in the history of the litigation of this schism, judges and justices can differ vastly on the same issue, same case. The local pressures on the local judges in SC must be heavy and their decisions may bear on their futures one way or the other. And, since we are talking about South Carolina, we are talking about a relatively conservative and traditional social and culture milieu. Judges who dare to challenge the establishment status quo may be subject to harsh treatment indeed (think Judge J. Waites Waring). Remember too the despicable character assassination campaign against Justice Kaye Hearn after the SCSC issued the August 2, 2017 decision that was shattering, even shocking, to the local conservative order. Even the chief justice, Donald Beatty has come under a lot of criticism. So, one can only imagine what pressures from local powerful, conservative forces Judge Dickson must be facing.

It may be revealing to note that Judge Dickson's two decisions so far were both in support of the anti-TEC side. However, this does not necessarily mean he will continue this favoritism.

Second, we have to keep in mind that this church fight in SC is fundamentally about social issues. The Episcopal Church, and its local diocese, have granted equality and inclusion to blacks, women, homosexuals, and transgendered in the church. The secessionists refused equality and inclusion for women, homosexuals, and transgendered. They felt so strongly about this they were willing to tear up the grand old diocese and plunge everyone into years of destructive and expensive legal war. The battle lines are clear. This is a culture war, for and against sweeping social change. Of all the states of the union, historically speaking, SC has been the most resistant to social and cultural reform. It remains overall a relatively conservative state socially and culturally. The prevailing popular attitudes in SC favor the breakaway side. Every judge would know this. 

What are Judge Dickson's options now?

I see three choices:

1-Do nothing. Judge Dickson is 69 years old and has had a distinguished career in the law. He can ignore this case and retire soon leaving the whole matter to his successor. If I were Judge Dickson, I would be tempted to take this road. This church case is highly complex, complicated, contentious and deeply entwined with life in SC. Ruling on all this mess would take a great deal of courage and wisdom, such as Judge Richard Gergel just showed. Gergel, however, as a federal judge, was not subject to the same local pressures and entanglements as a state judge.

2-Order the implementation of # 2 and # 3 majority decisions on the last page of the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017. This would mean the complete judicial victory of the Episcopal Church side having already won the entity of the diocese in the federal court. One could expect the breakaway side to react furiously appealing to the SC Court of Appeals. The appeals court, however, certainly will defend the integrity of the SCSC decision. Nevertheless, Judge Dickson may find himself enduring personal attacks from local conservative forces as Hearn and Beatty did. One big factor to help Judge Dickson is the Sept. 19 order of Judge Gergel that strongly promoted the validity of the SCSC decision.

3-Declare the SCSC decision unenforceable and rule anew on property ownership for the 28 parishes in question. This would satisfy the secessionist side but infuriate the TEC side. There are two immediate problems with this approach. In the first, Judge Dickson would have to discard a final decision of the SCSC. It is impossible to imagine this would hold up under appeal. In the second, Judge Dickson would have to wade through vast quantities of documents from 29 parishes to determine himself if each had acceded to the Dennis Canon. This itself would be in defiance of the SCSC Aug. 2 decision. In that decision, the justices of the SCSC considered the evidence, in the voluminous court record from the circuit court, on accession to the Dennis Canon. After considering the evidence, four of the five justices agreed the 28 (29) had indeed acceded to the Dennis Canon. It is difficult to imagine that a circuit court judge would discard the opinion of the state supreme court and impose an order in opposition to it. The state appeals court would never uphold such.

What about the Betterments suit? If Judge Dickson agrees that TEC owns the 28 properties, he could allow the Betterments suit to continue. This would open up a host of problems which would be very difficult and time-consuming to solve. He would have to rule that the parish had standing to bring suit, in opposition to the TEC position. Then he would have to decide when they started occupying the property they did not own. And then he would have to figure up all of the "improvements" that had been made. I expect he would be retired before all of that enormous amount of work would be finished.

At any rate, it makes no sense for a judge to recognize the Dennis Canon and turn around and discard the Dennis Canon. Under the Canon, a parish owns its property but does in trust for two beneficiaries, the Episcopal Church and its local diocese. It owns the property as long as the parishioners remain in the Episcopal Church. If they leave the church, the property moves to ownership of the Episcopal Church. Thus, parishioners never own the property outside of the confines of the Episcopal Church. Moreover, since the Dennis Canon was well-known, the parishioners could not have believed they owned the property outright. 

Bottom line----#2 is the best choice.



Judge Dickson is in a difficult situation. We can all appreciate that. However, this matter is his responsibility. Often we do not get to choose what lands on our plates. Those in positions of public responsibility have to deal with all of it, the good, the bad, and the ugly. I should know. My father was the chief of police in Pensacola FL in the civil rights era. He never, ever even considered shirking his duty even under the threat of  harm to himself and his family. Goodness knows, over my years of college teaching I had numerous students, colleagues, and administrators I had rather have lived without. I dealt with them anyway; and I did the best I could even when it was not easy. I am sure in your life you have encountered the same situations.

Judge Dickson has a job to do. He has to face his original assignment, to implement the SCSC decision of Aug. 2, 2017. He has already enforced the first of the three majority orders of the decision. There is no good reason why he should not now move on to enforce the other two. 

The U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington D.C. has two large seated figures majestically presiding over its front steps, "Law" and "Justice" (find them here ) . Judge Dickson can serve both of these by doing his duty to implement the SCSC decision. In the end, I believe he knows it is the right thing to do; and as a good Presbyterian, he knows it is his duty and God-given destiny to do it.

IN THE GARDEN, 15 OCTOBER 2019

At noon today, I did go out into my garden to spend awhile in quiet and prayerful meditation in remembrance of the seventh anniversary of the schism in South Carolina. I hope you too found a moment at mid-day to pray and reflect on the events of the past seven years.

It is a cool and overcast day here in eastern Alabama, and threatening rain. The cool and the rain are most welcome as relief from a long, hot summer and a drought. Even though I have mostly neglected my garden in the past few weeks, I found beauty all around me and it buoyed my somber spirit greatly.

Since you could not be with me in my garden today, I thought I would walk you around it.

This bench is my favorite place to sit in the garden. From a slight rise, I can see most of the garden. I sat there a long time at noon today reading my prayers and Bible verses as the birds sang, butterflies fluttered and a sweet aroma filled the air. I soon discovered the tea olive shrub was in full bloom a few yards away. I think this is the nearest to heaven I will reach on earth. And of all days, I needed it the most today.

I walked around to get solace from ever present St. Francis, everybody's favorite medieval lover of nature. He is about to be enveloped by this Fall blooming camellia.

It is unusual to see a banana tree bearing fruit in this part of the South because frost always kills the tree to the ground, but here it is. Unfortunately these little bananas will not mature as we are likely to have frost within a month.

This akebia vine has more than devoured its trellis. It is flourishing but some plants are not as the drought has caused many to shed their leaves.

On the walkpath in the smaller part of the garden looking toward the central lawn.

The last rose of summer. "Coral Drift," a shrub rose, will bloom until frost.

The palm tree that thrives best in this part of Alabama is "Windmill Palm." These are on the south side of my little retirement house. The larger one is about full grown at nearly twenty feet. There are several of these in my garden to give it a tropical feel. The shrub is gardenia.


A garden serves to remind us that whatever is happening in our lives, creation goes on, and does so wonderfully and beautifully, even without our attention or interference because it comes from a force infinitely greater than ourselves. Let's take that thought with us as we enter the eighth year of the schism in South Carolina.

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.