THE WORLD IS ON THE RAZOR'S EDGE

What happens in the next several weeks may well determine the rest of the Twenty-First Century. Humankind is facing a crisis the likes of which it has not seen since the end of the Second World War in 1945. What comes out of this moment will no doubt shape how the world functions for the rest of our lifetimes, our children's, our grand-children's. I have studied history, in earnest, for the past 68 years, and I must confess, I see plenty of reason why we should be alarmed today.

On 24 February, the government of Russia launched an unprovoked armed invasion of a peaceful neighbor, Ukraine, in an effort to take control of the country and install a friendly (puppet) government. In other words, the Russian goal was to seize Ukraine, a sovereign and independent nation-state. 

The Russians have not achieved their goal even though they have inflicted massive death and destruction on the victim country. The question is, what will the Russian government do now?

As I see it, President Putin has three broad choices: 1-continue the war as is, 2-negotiate a peace, 3-escalate the war. 

Since the first option has not gone well, its future is problematical for the Russians. Russia certainly has the military power, and so far the free hand, to terrorize the people, destroy the cities and infrastructure, and kill countless civilians. By bombs, missiles, and artillery, it could go on laying waste to Ukraine. The end result would be for Russia to gain physical control over land but not the people.

As for the second option, negotiated peace, we will return momentarily.

The third option is for Putin to escalate the war. It is clear that the war has not gone well for Putin. Many fear that as he is cornered, he will double down and expand the war to justify his original action. There are several worrying signs of this. One is a new report that he has turned to China for military assistance. Another is that he is charging Ukraine with developing "weapons of mass destruction," aka chemical and biological warfare. This is flatly false and is probably projection of his own intent. Yet another is that on yesterday, the Russians launched a massive attack on a Ukrainian military base only a dozen miles from the Polish border. Poland is a member of NATO. Bringing in China, using gas attacks on civilians, and attacking NATO would move the world at least to the brink of a world war. Putin certainly knows this. A world war would smother the truth of his failed campaign in Ukraine.

The obvious solution to the problems of the first and third options is a peace settlement. To say this will be difficult is a gross understatement. It will be extremely difficult, but still in the realm of possibility. We have to try. We must try.

Do not get me wrong now. In no way would I ever defend Putin. He should be charged, arrested, and tried for war crimes. However, I do think we have to look at Russian history that goes far, far back before Putin. Deep in the Russian psyche is a visceral fear of invasion from the west, and for very good reason. Twice in recent history, not once but twice, Russia bore the brunt of massive attack from the great power of the west, and twice at tremendous cost to herself, Russia absorbed the assault, repulsed and defeated the invader. The Russians have plenty of reason to fear any military force to their west.

The first of these came from Napoleon, the second from Hitler. Both times, the Russian government started out trying to deal in peace with the new rising power of the west. As for Napoleon, the Tsar Alexander I met him in 1807 and made a supposedly permanent peace treaty. Five years later, Napoleon assembled the largest army known up to that time and launched an unprovoked invasion of Russia. The Russians lost battle after battle and hundreds of thousands of soldiers, scorched their own earth, burned their own cities, and refused to surrender. As winter bore down, Napoleon called for a hasty retreat from Moscow. This turned into one of the great military disasters of history. Ten percent of his army survived. Three years later, Napoleon was shipped off to St. Helena under house arrest for the rest of his life. His greatest mistake was invading Russia.

Hitler, a corporal in WWI, thought he was a better general than Napoleon (he was not). He was sure he could win where N had failed. As N, Hitler signed a peace treaty with Russia, the Non-Aggression Pact of 1939. Stalin relaxed as the Germans rolled across western Europe, 1939-41. Again, as N, Hitler threw out the peace treaty and launched the largest invasion in history against Russia, some three million soldiers (more than three times N's army). Caught off guard and unprepared, the Russians could only fall back at first. As with N, they absorbed the fierce blow, and in time launched a counter-attack and, at staggering cost, drove the western invaders out and to defeat and destruction. As the Russians closed in on Berlin, Hitler committed suicide. This was after some 24,000,000 people had been killed in the Soviet Union in WWII, by far the most of any country in the war. 

My point is that the Russian people have good reason to fear the predominate military power to their west. In the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries, they were victims of unprovoked and vastly destructive wars by the great powers of the west and suffered losses that are now almost impossible to fathom. Let us bear that in mind today.

NATO is a defensive alliance. It was set up to defend its member states from attack from an outsider. It was, and is, no threat to Russia, or any other country. In the context of history, however, we should understand if the Russian people are wary of NATO. Here, the great power of the west, the United States this time, has assembled a coalition of countries to the west of Russia. Both Napoleon and Hitler at first claimed they were no threat, and look at what happened. They were really the worst threats imaginable.

So, when Putin talks about a neutral Ukraine, he is drawing from a certain place in Russian history and I think we should be sensitive to that. This, of course, in no way excuses what he is doing, but it does raise what seems to me to be the core of any settlement in the present crisis. If there is to be an "off ramp" for Putin, it has to involve Russian security along its western borders. Somehow, someway, the world has to assure Russia that it will not be invaded by the great power of the west in the Twenty-First Century.

We must find a peaceful solution to the insane disaster occurring in Ukraine today. I see tiny glimmers of hope today. Otherwise, continuing on the war as it is or expanding it will only compound, to whatever degree, the already colossal evil at hand. 

As everyone says, Putin must have an "off ramp" to end this war. I think that ramp is tied in with world history. It is certainly tied in with Russian history. Any settlement has to be done in the context of history.

As matters stand now, the next couple of weeks will be pivotal in world history. The worst war in seventy-five years could well devolve into World War III. Let us hope and pray for a negotiated peace that will be truly a peace on which everyone can rely. The alternative could be armageddonesque catastrophe.

EDGAR CONSECRATED;

YOU ARE PLANTED TO PRODUCE

"You are planted to produce," shouted the preacher from the pulpit of St. Luke and St. Paul, in Charleston, this morning. According to him, God plants his people to bring souls to Christ. Curious point given the history of the schismatic diocese in South Carolina. So, what is the report on the productive work of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina? How well are they doing God's work "to produce"?

Let's look at the statistics from the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina. According to the official reports, the fifty churches that went along with the schism had 21,993 communicants in 2011, just before the schism. In 2020, those same churches reported 11,337 communicants. Thus, since the schism, the ADSC has lost almost half its active members. Although artificially inflated, "baptized members" of ADSC also show decline, from 23,455 in 2012 to 19,597 in 2020. Following the preacher's logic, we would have to conclude that the ADSC is not favored of God.

The whole service of ordination/consecration today struck me as a big festival of vertical religion. It was all about me and Christ. There was no interest at all in my neighbor. The war in Ukraine was never mentioned. The sins of society all around us never gained a nod. Praise to Christ that I am saved repeated endlessly and selfishly. 

(Memo to the good people of ADSC---God is God. He/she does not rely on or even need humans' "praise." A human being's connection to God, essential that it is, is the starting place, not the ending place of religion. God created humans in God's own image to be his/her representatives in the world. Our mission is to do God's work in the world around us. Vertical religion is immature until it reaches its mature horizontal manifestation: faith without works is dead.)

I was a bit put off too by the egregious parading of women and African Americans in the service today. This struck me as obviously cynical by the white men in control. Let us remember that the schism of 2012 was caused by opposition to equality and inclusion of non-celibate gays and of women in the life of the church. The Anglican Church in North America was set up in 2009 explicitly to keep gays out of the church and women in submission. The very reason for being of ACNA is to oppose the God given human rights due to all people.

In ADSC/ACNA, women are made submissive and excluded from authority over men. Women cannot be bishops in ACNA. African Americans are allowed but there are very few. Today I counted 17 bishops present, two of whom were black. ADSC and ACNA were set up to preserve white male power structures. So, putting women and blacks into the service today was not fooling anyone. However, it does suggest that the power structure knows what they are doing.

Another point that stuck me in today's service was the prominence of Steve Wood, the bishop of the ACNA Diocese of the Carolinas. This is the diocese of which Chip Edgar was the dean of the cathedral, in Columbia. Wood is also rector of St. Andrew's, in Mt. Pleasant, a suburb of Charleston. I would not be surprised to see the two ACNA dioceses, ADSC and Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas, merge at some point in the near future. I expect much depends on the upcoming SC Supreme Court decision. If the SCSC rules in favor of TEC, the ADSC will be left with six parishes, none in Charleston. Indeed, the Cathedral Church of St. Luke and St. Paul, the site of today's event, is one of the 29 parishes to be returned to the Episcopal diocese.

Some scenes from the livestream today:

"Chip" Edgar prepares for consecration. The presiding officer is "His Grace," Foley Beach, the "Archbishop" of ACNA. 

The candidate lies prostrate before the altar as a sign of humility and obedience. Note that Mark Lawrence is on Beach's left and Steve Wood is on his right.

The laying on of the hands by the bishops. I counted 17 bishops, 2 African Americans. Most of the bishops here gained apostolic succession through the Episcopal Church. As Episcopal bishops they all took vows to submit to the discipline of the Episcopal Church. Obviously they did not hold those vows very seriously. Since ACNA is not in the Anglican Communion, none of the bishops in this picture will be invited to the Lambeth conference this year, the gathering of all Anglican Communion bishops.

The bishops' wives. In ACNA, women are valuable as help-mates to the men, not as equals.

So, the denomination that broke off from the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of South Carolina, in 2012, goes on with a new bishop into an uncertain future. The first problem it will have is the pending decision of the state supreme court. Either way the court goes, the leaders of ADSC will have a lot of work to do. If they lose, their very existence moving into the future will be in doubt. If they win, they will confront declining membership and resources. Either way, merger with Wood's diocese is a real possibility. The prominence of Beach and Wood today perhaps foreshadows this. All in all, the contingent that left TEC in 2012 has not fared well. In the long run, it is not likely to fare well either. A religion devoted to discrimination against gays and women does not have a bright future in a society that is increasingly repudiating that discrimination. 

BISHOP LAWRENCE'S SWAN SONG

The Anglican Diocese of South Carolina is holdings its annual meeting today, 11 March 2022. This is its tenth annual session. The ADSC was formed in 2012 when the majority of clergy and laity of the Diocese of South Carolina left the diocese, and the Episcopal Church, to form a new denomination resolved to keep non-celibate gays and women from equality and inclusion in the life of the church. By federal court order and injunction of 2019, the ADSC is not allowed to claim to be in any way the pre-schism diocese. The Episcopal diocese is the only legal and legitimate heir of the old diocese.

I can find no mention of a livestream on the ADSC website of today's meeting, so I assume there will be none. 

The highlight of today's conference will be Bishop Mark Lawrence's swan song address, his last as bishop. This address will be posted on the ADSC website at some time. Afterwards, I will return with comments on it. I expect it to be a review of his fourteen years as bishop, nine as head of the breakaway contingent. It will be interesting to get his take on the monumental events of these years and what he sees as his legacy and the future of the new denomination.

On tomorrow, "Chip" Edgar will be ordained and consecrated a bishop by ADSC's parent, the Anglican Church in North America. This will be a self-generated event since the ADSC and ACNA are not in the Anglican Communion and are not recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Tomorrow's event will be livestreamed. I expect to make a report on it here.

Apparently, Lawrence will resign as bishop by the end of this month and Edgar will become the diocesan bishop of ADSC. This makes Lawrence's address of today all the more germane.

NOTE. 12 March, 6 p.m.   Lawrence's address still has not been posted on the ADSC website. I expect we will have to wait a few more days until we have it. I will return with comments after it appears. Interesting to note that Lawrence played only a minor role in today's consecration and said nothing on his own. He stepped aside and allowed Edgar to take the bishop's throne. I did not hear the word "coadjutor" once in today's proceeding. 

CHRISTIAN LEADERS AND THE EVIL OF WAR,

Part II

On Feb. 25, 2022, I posted a piece on this blog, "Christian Leaders and the Evil of War." Eleven days have elapsed now since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It is time to revisit the topic. How are Christian leaders doing in their reactions to this war?

First, before we talk about "the evil of war," it is useful to go back to the concept of good and evil and its corollary, moral and immoral. What do we mean by these terms? When we call something such as war "evil," what are we saying?

In my view, in its most simplistic sense, "good" is what was defined and described in the first chapter of Genesis. The word "good" appears in the KJV  chapter a total of seven times. At the end of each day, God looked around and called creation "good." At the end of the sixth day, in Verse 31, we read, "And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." Each day was "good," but the totality was "very good."

Two points about this. Firstly, the term, "very good," in Verse 31, is unqualified. It is unconditional. Secondly, the concept of evil does not appear in the story of the creation in the first chapter of Genesis. God's creation is entirely and purely good.

So, when does evil appear and why does it appear? The word evil first appears in Genesis 2:9 in the description of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Evil does not come from God but rather from humans who know the difference between good and evil and choose to do evil.

Now, for definitions. Following Genesis, I would describe "good" as that which defends, enhances, and promotes God's creation, all of it. "Evil" I would describe as the opposite, that is, whatever threatens, diminishes, and destroys God's creation.

Enacting these forces comes from moral and immoral behavior. Moral behavior would be acts that strive for the good. Immoral behavior would be choosing to do acts that promote evil.

War is a dilemma in the context of good and evil. Not all wars are evil. Since people have a right of self-preservation, a defensive war is not evil and waging it is not immoral (although there can be a fine line between what is defensive and what is offensive; e.g., was dropping two atomic bombs on Japan defensive?). All other kinds of war are evil because they are the wanton destruction of God's creation.

The choice to do good and evil is just that, choice. Even Jesus had to make the choice as we read in Sunday's Gospel lesson. Satan tempted him as much as he could and offered him all sorts of worldly benefits if he would follow evil. Every time, Jesus spurned the devil and rejected evil. Every one of us has to choose every day between good and evil.

Russia's present war on Ukraine is a flagrant, blatant case of an evil and immoral war. It is an unprovoked, unjustified, aggressive, and vicious war against a peaceful neighbor. It is evil in its most naked form because it is wholesale destruction of God's creation.

There is no need to describe here the events of this satanic war. We all see the sickening horrors on our televisions and computers. We all see in graphic detail the murderous attacks and the heartbreaking sufferings of the innocent people. Anyone with a shred of decency longs to help the helpless and innocent victims. In sum, the evil (so far) is: unprovoked and aggressive war, indiscriminate attacks on civilians, refusal to honor safe passages, and the shelling of nuclear power plants. These are all war crimes punishable under international law.

Having described good and evil, moral and immoral, and shown the Russian war against Ukraine to be evil, the question turns to how people who want to do good should react to evil. What should people of faith do now? I see two possible categories of reactions, passive and active. Passive would be a person calling on God to intervene and bring an end to the immoral acts of other people. Active would be a person taking direct action to defeat the evil and aid the good. The Scriptures give us both of these.

In the Gospels, the first active response that jumps to mind is Jesus' cleansing of the temple in Jerusalem. Seeing that money changers and merchants had made the temple "a den of thieves," Jesus made a whip of cords, poured out the money of the changers, overturned their tables, and cast out the pigeon sellers. John 2:13,16, Matthew 21:12-13. In other words, Jesus did not stand passively bewailing this evil and calling on God to change the hearts of the wrongdoers. He took upon himself to get rid of evil. This was active morality. Interesting to note that this was such an important event that it was recounted in all four Gospels. In fact, there is some speculation that this was so powerful that it stirred up opposition that led to Jesus' execution.

Thus, in regard to the war in Ukraine, good people can act passively and actively. We have had plenty of passive with countless prayers for "peace." The problem I see with calling on God to intervene is that God is not a puppeteer pulling the strings of human action. That would negate free will that is a central tenet of ethical religion. People must be free to make their own choices between good and evil and be held accountable for their choices. This is the lesson of Adam and Eve. If we put every event as God's choice, we would have to blame him for the Holocaust. God did not make the Holocaust, immoral human beings making evil choices on a colossal scale did.

While we are praying for "peace," what can we do actively to counter evil? Hard to tell since the situation is rapidly changing drastically. I would start by sending material aid directly to the victims of evil in Ukraine. Every bit of humanitarian goods should be rushed in by train and truck to wherever the deliverers can take it. The people who are suffering the most need our help the most. I am sure you can think of other ways of direct action for good.

As for direct action to make the Russian government stop the war, I cannot see it at this point. Diplomacy should be pursued as much as possible, of course. However, President Putin has shown absolutely no interest in scaling down or stopping this war, quite the opposite. The very heavy sanctions western countries have put on Russia will likely not move Putin.

So, back to the point of how Christian leaders are doing in response to the evil of this war. Overall, I would give them a "B," good but not great. The pope, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Archbishop of Canterbury have all spoken out forcefully condemning the war. Find the latest from the pope here , the Patriarch here , and the Archbishop here . Each is finding passive and active roles to play. The three leading figures in the Christian world today have been remarkably strong in their condemnation of this war, and for that we should all be proud.

Adding to the complication of the day is the fact that the church in Ukraine has a peculiar history and is now divided into three unfriendly parts. More than a thousand years ago, the people of Ukraine adopted the Eastern Orthodox version of Christianity from Constantinople. The Patriarch of Moscow came to control the church. Along the way, some Ukrainian bishops transferred their allegiance to the pope in Rome while keeping the Orthodox forms of worship becoming "Uniates," or Ukrainian Catholics. This remains an important force. After Ukraine became an independent country some thirty years ago, the Orthodox church pushed to gain independence from Moscow. In 2018, the Patriarch of Constantinople, head of the Eastern Orthodox churches, recognized the independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This is now the largest of the three branches. However, Kirill, the Patriarch of Moscow, refused to go along. He insisted on his primacy in Ukraine and recognized his own church under the Moscow patriarchy.

There has been speculation that Kirill encouraged President Putin to invade Ukraine as a way of his (Kirill) regaining control over the Orthodox church there. We do not know yet how much truth there may be in this. What we do know about Kirill does not dampen the speculation. Find a his recent statement here . In my opinion, any church official who would incite, or even encourage, a war for his own benefit would forfeit his right to represent the Prince of Peace.

The independent Orthodox patriarch in Ukraine has spoken out very strongly against the Russian invasion. Find his statement here . There has been a report that he called President Putin the "anti-Christ." Although the emotion is understandable, I do not think we need go that far while we condemn Putin's actions.

Interesting to note that Kirill's patriarch in Kyiv has also condemned the Russian invasion in no uncertain terms. Find his address here . If Kirill aims to restore his authority in Ukraine, he is not getting much help from his own people there.

The farther away from Ukraine one gets, the less interest there seems to be in addressing the war. I have been disappointed by the lackluster response of the Episcopal Church. An institution that has devoted its life to human rights for decades now seems lukewarm toward a most violent assault on human rights. To be sure, Bishop Woodliff-Stanley has issued appropriate statements in support of Ukraine. 

The Anglican dissidents seem even less interested in what is happening in Ukraine. I have seen no response at all from GAFCON which claims to be founded on principles of morality. There has been a mild response from the Anglican Church in North America. Find it here . I have seen no response at all from Bishop Lawrence or bishop-elect Edgar of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina. Thankfully, someone among the beakaways is speaking out. The Rev. Al Zadig, of St. Michael's, Charleston, condemned the war as "evil." Find it here .

It has been gratifying to see practically the whole world uniting to condemn this war and support the victims. In a recent vote in the United Nations General Assembly, only 4 of the 193 nations voted with Russia against a resolution on the war. NATO and the European Union are resolutely united in support of Ukraine. Along with the Americans, they have imposed harsh sanctions on Russia for this war.

And in the midst of the horrors of this war we see amazing acts of grace, mostly from ordinary, everyday people who know the difference between good and evil and are choosing to do good. Just look at the countless thousands of average citizens in neighboring countries who have rushed to the borders to welcome in the desperate refugees. They are offering food, drink, clothing, rides, jobs, housing, you name it. If this does not warm your heart, nothing will. And, what about the heroic doctors and nurses staying behind to tend the sick and dying, at their own peril? God is with them. Too, as a big railroad fan, I want to give a shout out to the RR staff in Ukraine who are keeping the trains running 24/7 taking out thousands of people free of charge. Without the trains, these people would be left to suffer and die in this war. Anyone who thinks we do not need trains anymore should think again. Moreover, what about the thousands of ordinary Russians who are braving persecution and prison by speaking out against the evil of this war? Plus, what about the diminutive president Zelensky of Ukraine, "the Jewish Churchill"? He has arisen to the occasion.

All in all, we should all be inspired by the vast moral reaction to the egregious horror of immorality now transpiring in Ukraine. People all around the world are arising to denounce and oppose evil. In this dark hour, amazing grace abounds. 

CHRISTIAN LEADERS AND THE EVIL OF WAR

The Christian church in general had two major moral failings in the Twentieth Century world. One was inadequate response to the evils of the totalitarian regimes, including aggressive war and the Holocaust. The other was child abuse and its cover up. There are two general categories of sin identified in the prayer book: the sin of omission and the sin of commission (by what we have done, and by what we have left undone). The church managed to commit both of these sins in the Twentieth Century. Failure to condemn the perpetrators of evil aggressive war was the sin of omission. Abusing children and covering it up was the sin of commission. If the church is to survive and thrive in the future, it must accept, repent, and atone for these enormous sins. Whether the church has actually done so, or will do so, remains to be seen. 

In the face of the monstrous and deadly aggression now being directed by the Russian President against the innocent and independent nation-state of Ukraine, it is appropriate to revisit the first item. How should the Christian church respond today to Putin and the unprovoked Russian attack on Ukraine?

On September 1, 1939, Nazi Germany launched an all-out attack against its innocent neighbor, Poland, in a move to gain control over the country (thus starting WWII). Within a month, the ferocious blitzkrieg killed countless thousands of military and civilian Poles and all but destroyed the great cities, as Warsaw. How did the leaders of the Christian churches respond to this evil? Tepidly. The pope, and others, issued generic calls for peace but failed to lay the blame where it was, on Germany and Hitler. They refused to confront and condemn the national and personal perpetrators of the most heinous crimes against humanity. They failed in their moral duty. This was to continue through the Second World War. The Catholic Church did not reprimand arguably the most evil man in modern history, Adolf Hitler, let alone excommunicate him. He had been baptized and reared in the Catholic Church.

So, the question now is, how are the Christian leaders of the world responding to the monstrous evil of our day? Will this be September 1939 all over again? Will the church commit another colossal sin of omission? 

So far, the leaders of the three largest branches of the Christian church have responded decisively and forcefully to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Pope Francis used the word evil,  "war is...a stinging defeat before the forces of evil." He even took the unprecedented measure of going personally to the Russian ambassador to the Vatican and pleading with the Russians to keep the peace.

Even more blunt was the Archbishop of Canterbury. He denounced the Russian attack as "an act of great evil."

Bartholomew, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and prime leader of the Eastern Orthodox churches condemned the acts of Russia against Ukraine. Find his remarks here . 

Curiously enough, the response from America has been much more reserved that that of the Europeans. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Michael Curry, participated in an online vigil with other church leaders on 23 February. They made a generic call for peace, but I have seen no direct condemnation of Putin, or Russia. Even more tepid has been the reaction of Foley Beach, the archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America. The only response I could find from him was a general prayer for peace posted on Facebook. Find it here . As far as I can tell, neither Curry nor Beach has publicly condemned Russia, or President Putin. The same is true of GAFCON. If this continues on indefinitely in the face of such obvious evil, it would be indeed the sin of omission, just like that of 1939.

Not surprisingly, Kirill, the Patriarch of Moscow and head of the Orthodox church in Russia pointedly refused to condemn Russia or Putin. He is the lonely outlier here. Apparently, Kirill has not accepted the fact that the Ukrainian Orthodox church became independent of the Russian church by recognition of the Patriarch of Constantinople in 2019. Find Kirill's statement here .

In conclusion, 2022 is not 1939 all over again. The most important Christian leaders in the world have condemned in no uncertain terms Russia for its evil war on its neighbor Ukraine. This is a step in the right direction of reestablishing the church's moral authority after the battering of its failures of the Twentieth Century. 

However, as a word of caution, this war could very well get much uglier and deadlier and the church could have a much greater challenge on its hands. According to news reports, the Russians have some new fearsome weapons, as the fire agent that vaporizes human bodies; and of course, as Putin has just reminded everyone, Russia has nuclear weapons. 

NEW BISHOP OF UPPER SOUTH CAROLINA CONSECRATED

"We are all in this together," exclaimed the Presiding Bishop, Michael Curry, as he looked back and forth today to the bishops of the upper and lower dioceses of South Carolina. We, together, indeed. South Carolina is a small state but it is split roughly west and east between two dioceses which, although they separated in 1922, remain closely tied in many ways. In fact, on Curry's right today sat Ruth Woodliff-Stanley, bishop of lower SC, and on his left, Andrew Waldo, bishop of upper SC. How fitting.

The ordination and consecration of Daniel Richards today as the next bishop of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina was a joyous festival of the modern Episcopal Church at its best, the place for all people. The scene was in Trinity Cathedral, Columbia SC. 

The Rt. Rev. Daniel Richards will replace the Rt. Rev. Andrew Waldo as diocesan bishop of Upper South Carolina. Other shots from the livestream:

The bishop-elect stands before the Presiding Bishop to make the oaths. Bishop Woodliff-Stanley is on PB Curry's right.

The new bishop lies prostrate before the altar as a sign of humility and obedience to God. Bishop Waldo is on Curry's left.

The Very Rev. Rebecca McClain, of Trinity Cathedral, in Phoenix AZ, delivered the homily tracing Richards's extraordinary journey of faith and giving hints at what the people of SC may expect as he continues his journey.

A crush of bishops provides the Laying on of Hands bestowing the Apostolic Succession to the new bishop, a succession of nearly two thousand years.

A gospel choir lifts everyone's spirit.

The new bishop celebrates his first Eucharist as bishop before the packed house. If he were nervous, he certainly did not show it. He was cool, calm, and collected. This speaks volumes about what kind of bishop he will be.

At the conclusion, the new bishop gives his first blessing as bishop.

Upper SC and the whole Episcopal Church are fortunate to have this new bishop, a young and dynamic man of faith and vision. He will certainly guide the diocese along the right path.

Episcopalians everywhere should rejoice. Ours is the church of, by, and for the people, all the people, white, black, men, women, gay, straight, young, old. All are included, all are welcomed at the table, and all treated as equal children of God.

Yet, I could not help being struck by the poignancy of the last hymn, "The Church's One Foundation,"  Tho' with a scornful wonder the world sees her oppressed, by schisms rent asunder...

A few blocks from Trinity Cathedral in Columbia stands another "cathedral" that is a product of a schism of the Episcopal Church. In a few days, the dean of this cathedral will be consecrated as the bishop of the new schismatic diocese in South Carolina. One may expect this to be a very different kind of service then we witnessed today in Columbia.  

Regardless of oppressions and schisms, the Episcopal Church still stands, still fights for human rights, and still has much to offer for all of us. True enough, it lies badly wounded and bleeding from the slings and arrows of those who wish to destroy it. Doing the right thing is sometimes, often, costly, but we do it anyway because it is the right thing and in the long run right prevails. Today's festival was confirmation of the vibrant spirit of the Episcopal Church.

MARK LAWRENCE TO RETIRE IN FLORENCE SC

Mark Lawrence, bishop of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina for the past nine years, revealed in a recent interview he has bought a house in Florence, South Carolina, presumably for retirement. Find the interview here . One  might have thought he would go off to Pennsylvania, where he served for years and where he keeps ties to Trinity seminary, or to Bakersfield CA, his home. Apparently, the Lawrences will retire in the Pee Dee of SC. Make of this what you will. [Lawrence's son-in-law the Rev. Jason Hamshaw is rector of All Saints, in Florence, a parish that is one of the 29 to be returned to TEC.]

He also confirmed that he will resign as bishop next month, certainly after Edgar is consecrated on March 12.

I found this interview to be quite interesting because we really have not heard much from Lawrence about the schism since it happened. For instance, he confesses that from 2008 to the schism of 2012, he led the diocese in "a resistance movement" within the Episcopal Church. At the time, leaders of the diocese painted a picture that he was the innocent victim of aggression from the national church, particularly the presiding bishop, and that the PB tried to remove him while he was trying to make peace.

His interpretation of the litigation is also interesting. He fails to mention, for instance, that it was his organization that initiated the lawsuits when they sued the Episcopal Church on Jan. 4, 2013. He also does not mention that TEC offered a compromise settlement in June of 2015 in which he would have gotten all of the parishes if he had agreed to hand over the entity of the diocese. Imagine how much that deal would have saved everyone.

He calls the SC Supreme Court ruling of 2017 "very confusing." Au contraire, it was as clear as possible. It spelled out very explicitly three majority decisions.

He calls TEC the "threatening adversary" trying to move "our people back into the Episcopal Church." Nonsense. TEC did not threaten anyone. It was, and is, simply trying to enforce the Dennis Canon, which, incidentally, Lawrence's predecessor had worked long and hard to do in regards to All Saints of Pawleys Island. Under the Canon, the church properties, not the people, belong to the Episcopal Church.

I was a bit surprised at Lawrence's tone about the future of the litigation. He did not sound at all sure that the breakaways would wind up with the properties.

Anyway, this interview is worth one's time to read because it gives us some entry into the mindset of the man who headed the largest schism in the Episcopal Church in modern history. I will return later with reflections on the Lawrence years.

NOTES ON 2-22-2022

Greetings blog reader. It is the 22day of the 2nd month, of the year 2022. Numerologists are having a field day, as are the astrologers. Along the Gulf coast none of this matters because they are in the midst of Mardi Gras fun. They have a week to go and will make the most of it. It's too bad we uptight Protestants above the coast never learned to join in the levity of the pre-Lent period. I think a little silliness might do us good especially now in this day and age of darkness.

I really have nothing new to report today. Since I have not made a posting in nine days, this is just to let you know I am still here and keeping an eye on things and will relay significant news as it occurrs.

As for the plague, the fourth great surge seems to be over. There has been a big decline in new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the last two weeks. The nation is slowly edging back to "normal" even though the pandemic is still going on. In the U.S., there have been 78m cases and nearly 1m deaths. In the country as a whole, 65% of the people are fully vaccinated, in SC 56%, and in AL 50%. Barring a new variant, there is good reason to hope the pandemic is finally waning.

As for the South Carolina Supreme Court, I remain mystified at their doings. It has been 13 days since the Episcopal lawyer Utsey asked for guidance from the SCSC on how to respond to Runyan's opposition to the submission of the 1987 diocesan convention journal. In the 13 days, there has been no reply from the SCSC on the sccourts website. Your guess at what is going on in the SCSC is as good as mine. I am still trying to wrap my head around that strange hearing last December 8, and I am not getting very far.

The new diocese that split off from the Episcopal diocese of SC is about to put on a big show. On 12 March at 10:00 a.m., they will hold an ordination and consecration of a bishop coadjutor. It will be livestreamed. Foley Beach will preside at the Cathedral of St. Luke and St. Paul, in Charleston. "Chip" Edgar is set to become the II bishop of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina upon the retirement of the first diocesan bishop, Mark Lawrence. Interesting to note that Steve Wood, the bishop of the ACNA Diocese of the Carolinas, and rector of St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant, will be prominent in the service. Since Edgar is dean of the cathedral church of Wood's diocese, there has been speculation of a merger of Lawrence's and Wood's dioceses. They are overlapping units of the ACNA.

According to the ADSC proposed 2022 budget , Mark Lawrence will be on the diocesan payroll until March 31, 2022. Edgar began drawing bishop's salary on February 1, 2022. Perhaps one may assume from this that Lawrence will retire and Edgar will become the diocesan bishop in the month of March, a very brief coadjutor period. This means double salary for only two months. Last year, the talk was that Lawrence would retire by the end of 2022. Apparently, Lawrence is resigning as bishop next month. This may explain the mystery of why the ADSC public relations people have been refusing to call Edgar bishop coadjutor when, in fact, he was elected bishop coadjutor. The "coadjutor" period will be so short as to be insignificant. Lawrence's address to the diocesan convention on March 11, will, apparently, be his farewell address. It appears that he will exit the stage as bishop shortly thereafter. (I will have much more to say about the Lawrence years later.)  

Perhaps symbolizing the state of the pandemic, there are signs of spring in the south. The bulbs are blooming in my garden. Rainy weather has kept me from making pictures in the last few days, but here are two from last year at this time. Peace.

   

GABRIEL JOHN BATARSEH (1932-2022), R.I.P.

The sad news was released on 9 February of the death of Gabe Batarseh, a mainstay of St. Catherine's Episcopal Church, in Florence SC. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his widow, Lillian, and the family. The good people of St. Catherine's, and the world beyond, will miss his lively presence. I did not know him very well, but I did know him, and every time I visited my daughter, Elizabeth, in Florence, I made my way to talk with him at St. C's. He was full of fascinating information and views of life in the Middle East, and especially Israel where he still had a large extended and important family. He was born in Jaffa which was then (1932) in the British Mandate of Palestine. He had seen a great deal of history and he was eager to share it with me and many others. I am grateful that he shared his thoughts with me. 

Find an informative obituary here .

WHAT'S THE DEAL 

WITH THE SC SUPREME COURT?

A popular comedian of the 1990's, Jerry Seinfeld, was fond of starting his stand-up routines with the question, "What's the deal with...?" This was his lead-in to a moment of hilarity about some absurdity or other of daily life. This is the question I am now asking myself about what is going on with the South Carolina Supreme Court, "What's the deal with the SCSC?" The difference is, this is no laughing matter. A huge amount of highly serious business rests on what the SCSC does in the future. Yet, signs coming from the court make me wonder whether the justices get the deal. They should get the deal; they must get the deal to make this case wind up properly.

First, let's review the basic facts on how we got to where we are:

---in 2017, the SCSC issued an opinion holding that 1) 28 of the 36 parishes in question were property of the Episcopal Church, 2) 8 of the parishes owned their own property, and 3) Camp St. Christopher belonged to the Episcopal diocese. The majority of justices also agreed that the Episcopal Church was hierarchical and the Episcopal diocese was the heir of the pre-schism diocese.

---the 2017 decision became the final law after the SCSC denied a rehearing and the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert.

---in November of 2017, the SCSC issued a Remittitur Order to the circuit court (a remittitur is a direction to implement a decision).

---in a separate case, the U.S. District Court, in Charleston, ruled in 2019 that the Episcopal Church was hierarchical and that the Episcopal diocese was the only legal heir of the historic diocese. Judge Gergel issued an Injunction barring the breakaway contingent from claiming to be the historic diocese. This decision is now on appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Richmond.

---in 2020, circuit court judge Dickson issue an order that all local properties belonged to the local churches and the Camp belonged to the Anglican diocese.

---in 2020, the Episcopal Church and its local diocese filed an appeal of Dickson's order with the SC Supreme Court.

---on Dec. 8, 2021, the SC Supreme Court held a hearing on the appeal.

---on Feb. 3, 2022, the Court requested, unless a party objected, the text of the 1987 journal of the diocesan convention that showed the diocesan adoption of a Canon declaring that all property was held in trust for the Episcopal Church and its diocese.

Thus, what the SCSC justices have on their desks at this moment is TEC's appeal of Judge Dickson's Order of 2020.

As I see it, they have 3 choices:

1-Affirm all of Dickson's order.

2-Deny all of Dickson's order.

3-Affirm and/or deny parts of Dickson's order.

If they affirm all of Dickson's order, they would be rejecting the set law of the SCSC decision of 2017. If they deny Dickson's order, they would be upholding the 2017 decision. Picking out parts of Dickson to affirm and parts to deny would be problematical since there is no plausible way to divide the assets in question. Either the Episcopal Church or the breakways own the properties. It would not make sense to give part(s) to one and part(s) to another.

From my view, what the SCSC justices should not do is to re-litigate the issues that were settled in the 2017 decision. That decision clearly spelled out three majority decisions of the high court. Any claim that the SCSC published opinion of 2017 was indecisive is disingenuous. It is as clear as can be.

This is what was so bothersome about the Dec. 8 hearing. Some justices spent a good deal of time musing over whether certain parishes had acceded to the Dennis Canon when that had been settled in 2017.

Whether a parish acceded to the Dennis Canon is not the issue before the court. It is irrelevant. The issue now is whether to affirm or deny the Dickson order. Dickson directly contradicted the majority of the state supreme court. The majority had ruled, in a final decree, that 28 parishes had acceded to the Canon. Dickson ruled that no parish had acceded to the Canon and therefore they owned their local properties, and the ADSC owned the Camp.

If re-litigating who owned the property was irrelevant and distracting in the hearing, the justices' seeking documentation on property ownership is also questionable. The issue of the property is no longer open. I do not see how the justices can reopen a closed case. A case finally closed cannot be re-litigated.

As I see it, Judge Dickson had no right to 1-deny a Remittitur that had been issued to him by the state supreme court, and 2-re-litigate the issues that had been settled by the state supreme court. Yet, he apparently did both.

What all this matter boils down to is the integrity of the state court system and the authority of the SC supreme court. A majority opinion of a state supreme court has to be final unless it is reheard or taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court. A lower court cannot be allowed to overrule a final state supreme court decision. If Dickson is affirmed, the precedent would be set that no SC supreme court decision would ever be final and no litigation would ever come to an end. 

Let us reconsider the real issue at stake today. Judging from the chaotic hearing and the strange request for the journal, I am concerned that the SCSC has lost its focus of the case. The South Carolina Supreme Court must deny all of Dickson's order in order to defend the principle of the rule of law in South Carolina. The issue is not whether a parish adhered to the Dennis Canon. The issue is whether the SC supreme court is supreme. We should hope this is what the justices of the SCSC also see as the matter at hand. A great deal rests on it.

BERT UTSEY RESPONDS TO RUNYAN'S LETTER

On yesterday, February 9, 2022, Bert G. Utsey, III, lead lawyer for the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina in its appeal before the SC Supreme Court, issued a letter to the SCSC Court Clerk of the Court responding to Alan Runyan's letter of objection dated 8 February. Utsey asked for direction from the court on whether he should present arguments opposing Runyan's claims:

We disagree with Mr. Runyan's position but do not know whether the Court desires additional argument on that topic. Please advise whether the Court would like for us to respond.

Thus the wording of the letter from the Clerk of the Court of February 3, 2022, has set up a peculiar situation. The letter started out, "Unless either party objects..." This was an invitation for one party to object; and it did, obviously the party that had the most to lose by the documentation requested. Does that phrase, and Runyan's objection, now close the court's request?

However, the letter also revealed that the court record included references from both sides about the 1987 journal in the hearing before Judge Dickson of November 26, 2019. So, obviously the journal was an issue raised in the lower court. What the justices of SCSC were asking in their letter of 3 February was the actual content of the journal that had been cited in Dickson's court. This is what Utsey provided and Runyan objected to. Any claim that the 1987 journal was not brought up in earlier court proceedings is manifestly untrue. The SCSC justices know it was mentioned in a hearing of 2019. What they wanted was the specific wording of the journal that is, after all, entirely germane to the issue at hand.

Now, the SCSC will have to decide whether Runyan's objection is sufficient to close the court's request for the 1987 journal (which they now have anyway) or Utsey is allowed to argue against the assertions Runyan made in his letter of objection in hopes of having the court overrule the objection.

This is yet another strange twist in a long, long strangely twisting legal war that never should have happened in the first place.

Stay tuned. We shall see if the SCSC will clarify this mess.

ALAN RUNYAN OBJECTS

C. Alan Runyan, lead lawyer for the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina, has officially objected to the submission to the South Carolina Supreme Court of the proceedings of the diocesan convention of 1987. He sent a letter to the SCSC yesterday, 8 February 2022, that was posted on the sccourts website this morning. Runyan concluded:

In summary, the documentation [1987 journal] by counsel for Appellants was: 1) not admitted into evidence and is not in any appellate record; 2) expressly not referenced by Appellants as part of any argument to Judge Dickson to bind any parish; 3) was not an issue on appeal by Appellants of the rulings of Judge Dickson; and 4) the significance, if any, of its presence and then removal 2 years before the Respondents withdrew from TEC was not considered by Judge Goodstein or Judge Dickson on the issue of accession by any parish to a trust. For all these reasons, Plaintiffs-Respondents [ADSC] respectfully object to its consideration in this matter.

Thus, Runyan argues that the 1987 journal was not part of the record of the case and should not be introduced now.

One should wonder at the timing of the objection. Why did not Runyan object immediately instead of waiting until after TEC submitted the requested documentation?

The ADSC's goal in this case is to get the SCSC to affirm Judge Dickson's order that awarded all to the breakaway contingent.

We will see if the Episcopal Church side responds to Runyan's letter of objection.

Much of the discussion in the hearing of last 8 December in the SCSC centered on whether the parishes had acceded to the Dennis Canon. TEC argued that 29 of them had. ADSC countered that none of them had. So, the question of accession to the Dennis Canon is central to the case as framed by the justices two months ago.

Another layer of the case concerns whether the Episcopal Church is hierarchical. The majority of the SCSC justices ruled, in their 2017 opinion, that it was. Federal court judge Richard Gergel declared it was. (Even the Texas supreme court held TEC to be hierarchical as they handed over all to the breakaways.) If TEC is hierarchical, which is the near universal opinion, the national church has authority over the local dioceses and the diocese has authority over the local parishes. 

If the Episcopal Church is hierarchical, the Dennis Canon is effective over all the church. It does not matter if a diocese, or a parish, accedes to the Canon because it is automatic. The Diocese of South Carolina bolstered the Canon when it adopted an explicit version of the Dennis Canon in 1987. The breakaways now claim that the diocese revoked its accession to the canons of the Episcopal Church by vote of the diocesan convention in 2010. If TEC is hierarchical, the diocese had no right to do that and its action was null and void. Likewise, a parish had no right to reject the 1987 canon. 

Thus, if the SCSC justices are now trying to sort out who owns the local properties, it is entirely appropriate for them to consider all the evidence available. Ironically, it was the Anglican side that sought long and hard to get the case back to the SC Supreme Court. They succeeded. Therefore, it rings a bit hollow at this point for the ADSC lawyers to oppose the justices' request for documentation. Of course the material is detrimental to the ADSC side, but it is a bit late to cry foul. 

SURPRISE DEVELOPMENT IN THE CASE BEFORE THE SC SUPREME COURT

There has been a sudden and unexpected development in the case of the Episcopal Church's appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court of Judge Dickson's order. This may well signal a crucial turn in the attitudes of the justices considering this case.

On last Thursday, 3 February 2022, the Clerk of the Court sent a letter to the lawyers on both sides:

Unless either party objects, the Court would like the parties to provide to the Court the minutes of the 1987 Annual Convention of the Lower Diocese in South Carolina, or any other documentation showing the proceedings of that Convention. Both parties referenced the 1987 Annual Convention and the actions that took place at the Convention at a hearing in front of Judge Dickson on November 26, 2019. See (App. 4911-12; 4956). If the request cannot be fulfilled within ten days of receipt, then the parties should inform the Court of the status of the request.

Thus, the justices of the SCSC sought the original documentation showing that the Diocese of South Carolina had adopted its own version of the Dennis Canon. That Canon, adopted by the national church in 1979, had declared that all local church property was held in trust for the Episcopal Church and its local diocese, and that if a local church left the Episcopal Church, it would forfeit its property to the trustees, the national church and its local diocese.

On today, 7 February 2022, Bert G. Utsey, III, sent an e-mail and a letter to the Clerk of the SCSC Court, providing the requested material. Utsey was the primary attorney representing the Episcopal Church side in the hearing before the SCSC on December 8, 2021. 

Utsey forwarded the entire Journal of the convention meeting of 1987. Pages 90-91 give the proposed resolution on Canon XXVIII of the diocesan constitution and canons. 

Page 91 of the Journal states:

All real and personal property held by and for the benefit of any Parish, Mission, or Congregation is held in trust for the Episcopal Church and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina. The existence of this trust, however, shall in no way limit the power and Authority of the Parish, Mission, or Congregation existing over such property so long as the particular Parish, Mission or Congregation remain a part of, and subject to, the Episcopal Church and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina.

This resolution was approved by two-thirds vote of both orders in the meeting.

Thus, the Diocese of South Carolina explicitly adopted a canon recognizing that all local church property was held in trust for the Episcopal Church and the local Episcopal diocese.

The justices' request for the information may well indicate their concern about hierarchy and legal accession to the Episcopal Church's Dennis Canon. If so, this would indicate a shift of the focus from whether a local parish had acceded to the Dennis Canon to whether the entire diocese had acceded to the Canon. Much of the discussion in last December's hearing concerned whether the local churches had actually acceded to the Canon. Justice Few, for instance, spent a great deal of time on this point.

Judge Richard Gergel, a U.S. District judge in Charleston, ruled in 2019 that that Episcopal Church was hierarchical and that the diocese affiliated with the national Episcopal Church remained the one and only legal heir of the historic diocese. He even issued an Injunction forbidding the breakaway contingent from claiming to be in any way the historic diocese. In 2017, the majority of the justices of the SC Supreme Court had also ruled that the Episcopal Church was hierarchical and that the Episcopal Church diocese was the historic diocese. 

If the present SCSC justices agree 1-that the Episcopal Church is hierarchical (the national church has authority over the local dioceses), and 2-that the Diocese of South Carolina adopted its own Dennis Canon in 1987, twenty-five years before the schism, the reasonable conclusion would have to be that the properties of the 29 parishes in question unquestionably belong to the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of South Carolina.

Without jumping to any premature conclusions, one would have to see that the surprise developments of the past few days may very well signal a new focus on the SCSC that would probably improve the chances of the Episcopal Church side. Hierarchy and the Dennis Canon are the aces in the hands of the Church side. Now, it may well be that the justices agree these win the game over the cards played by Goodstein and Dickson. We shall see.

All of the documents above are readily available on the Internet. Go to www.sccourts.org/ACMS/  .  The Appellate Case # is 2020-000986.  

__________________

UPDATE. Feb. 9, a.m.     As of late yesterday, the sccourts website had not posted any response from the Anglican diocese. Note that the letter of 3 Feb. from the Clerk of the Court said "unless either party objects." There has been no word that the Anglican side has objected. Neither has there been any word from them about the contents of the 1987 journal of the convention. The Episcopal Church lawyer submitted the requested material to the Court on 7 Feb., so there is really no need for the Anglican lawyers to respond. Anyway, it is not in the new diocese's interest to show that the Diocese of South Carolina officially incorporated the Dennis Canon in its own constitution and canons long before the schism occurred.

So far there has been no response at all from the Anglican side to the letter of 3 Feb. We shall see what happens within the ten-day window the letter states.