Diocese of South Carolina statement on holy matrimony following SCOTUS same sex "marriage" decision

STATEMENT FROM THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

“We stand firm under the authority of Holy Scripture”

CHARLESTON, SC, JUNE 24, 2015 – On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that "all states must license marriage between two people of the same sex" and "recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state." Despite this change, the Diocese of South Carolina continues to affirm the historic position of the Christian Church: that God has ordained two states of life for His people, singleness or Holy Matrimony – the joining together of one man and one woman into a holy union. By affirming this position, we stand firmly under the authority of Holy Scripture, in continuity with the two thousand year history of the church, and in accord with the vast majority of Christians around the world. Therefore, it is clear that while the Supreme Court may be changing the civil definition of marriage, it has no authority over Holy Matrimony and the Church’s blessing of the union between husband and wife.

The Bible envisions Holy Matrimony as the life long, exclusive union of one man and one woman. While Christians, like others, experience failure in realizing this vision, it is nevertheless the standard we profess and toward which we strive. We believe that marriage, like all areas of life, can be redeemed, and that by God’s grace all married people can be enabled to live into its unique calling.

The full consequences of the Supreme Court’s cultural and legal innovation have yet to be seen, and will be tested over time. It is our strong belief that this same Constitution, to which they have appealed, must protect the rights of all people to the free exercise of religion. In the light of this conviction, the Diocese of South Carolina will faithfully conduct its ministry in accordance with our beliefs, trusting that this freedom will be upheld.

Diocese of South Caroina files response to TEC appeal

CHARLESTON, SC, JUNE 16, 2015 – After the Episcopal Church publicly announced an illegitimate settlement offer to parishes of the Diocese of South Carolina, the Diocese filed its brief responding to the denomination’s appeal documents.

The Diocese of South Carolina filed its brief with the South Carolina Supreme Court. The Diocese’s brief supports the Feb. 3 decision by Judge Diane Goodstein, who ruled that the Diocese, its trustees and parishes are "the sole owners of their real, personal and intellectual properties" and that TEC has "no legal, equitable or beneficial interest" in any properties of the Diocese.

TEC had appealed the ruling and the state Supreme Court agreed to consider the appeal. The Diocese’s brief supports Judge Goodstein’s ruling on the basis of state and federal precedent, as well as established church history.

After first filing its own appeal brief with the State Supreme Court , TEC sent parishes in the Diocese letters offering to stop its legal action if – in exchange – the Diocese would give up the symbols, trademarks, assets and property protected by Judge Goodstein’s decision. Recognizing this as a way to try and create dissension among Diocesan churches, distract attorneys and as a publicity ploy, the illegitimate offer was turned down.

National Church Founded as ‘Voluntary’ Association

After the Revolutionary War, the former American colonies were averse to anything that even appeared to be “top down” control, such as the hierarchy of the Church of England. That aversion was expressed first in parish governance, but later in the initial rejection of bishops and the avoidance of all language of hierarchy. The Episcopal Church was founded as a "voluntary association" of dioceses. It has always been inherently possible for a diocese and its parishes to leave TEC. It happened during the Civil War, and those dioceses that separated from TEC when the South declared its independence were welcomed back when they chose to return after the conflict. That essential nature of voluntary association has never changed.

The Legal Nature of the Issues

TEC’s essential legal arguments can be distilled down to one proposition: TEC claims to be a "hierarchical" church, with complete, top-down control of the entire organization.

“There are multiple and significant problems with these assertions in this case as detailed in this brief,” said the Rev. Jim Lewis, Canon to the Ordinary. “First, TEC's organizational structure is irrelevant to this case. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled clearly and repeatedly that in property matters of this sort courts not only can, but should decide them based upon 'neutral principles of law' if that can resolve all the issues. That means questions of ownership can be settled on the same basis as in any secular case.”

An example of this point is the 2009 decision of the All Saints case by the South Carolina Supreme Court. As in any litigation involving churches, doctrinal issues are often involved. However, if the court can decide the matter applying the customary laws of property ownership, it may do so. That occurred in All Saints.

“A second problem with TEC’s position is that South Carolina law prevents a party from re-litigating issues in which a court of final authority has already rendered a decision,” Lewis said. “The Illinois court has already affirmed at its highest level that TEC is not hierarchical in the way asserted in this case. Thus TEC is precluded from re-litigating the issue of whether a hierarchy exists above the level of a diocese.”

TEC litigated whether it was a hierarchy in a case between TEC and a Diocese in Illinois and lost on that issue.

Under neutral principles of law, several further crucial legal principles apply. The reason that TEC has no interest in the real, personal of intellectual property of the parish churches is that an express trust requires a written declaration, signed by the party conveying that interest. No such instrument was ever executed by the Diocese or any of its parishes to convey anything to TEC.

The only real issue, using the principles of law in South Carolina that affect all organizations not just religious ones, is who has the rights to control the Diocese, TEC or those who have continuously been its leadership, in unbroken succession, all the way back to 1785.

The whole case is well summarized in the conclusion of the brief, said Lewis.

"Six years ago two parties in this case were also parties in All Saints. They were on the same side then. This court disagreed with their legal arguments,” Lewis said. “One of them accepted this court's ruling; one of them has not. That is why the same issues are before this court again."

The full brief as filed with the Court can be found here.

Diocese of South Carolina not fooled by disingenuous "settlement offer" from TEC

Statement from The Rev. Jim Lewis, Canon to Bishop Mark Lawrence, Bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina

On June 3rd, Mr. Tom Tisdale, legal counsel for The Episcopal Church in South Carolina, sent letters to attorneys representing all Diocese of South Carolina churches in the litigation, an offer of settlement proposal. It essentially proposed that if the Diocese and Trustees relinquished their names, identities, and all assets (including the St. Christopher Camp and Conference Center), then The Episcopal Church (TEC) would relinquish its claim to all parish properties.

After careful consideration of this proposal it was quite clear that it was not a legitimate offer of good faith negotiation and never was intended to be. Thus, the proposal has been unanimously rejected by all parties to the litigation for the Diocese of South Carolina.

Reasons:

1. First, if it had been legitimate, it would have come from someone with authority to bind all the parties on the Episcopal Church side. The Presiding Bishop, though referenced in the letter, does not have that authority for TEC. It would - at minimum - require an action by TEC's Executive Council, if not General Convention. Tisdale’s letter doesn't even have the signature of legal counsel for TEC. Counsel for TEC was contacted to request that they provide the necessary proof of authority, along with THEIR signature on this offer. There has been no response.

2. Equally important, a valid proposal should have come to the Diocese’s lead counsel for this litigation, not to a parish representative. After nearly two weeks from the time of the original "offer" that contact has still not been made. A good faith offer has still not been properly presented .

3. Along these same lines, it should have been done entirely in confidence, and not presented as a kind of mass public statement. On Friday (6/12) it was publicly announced by a TECinSC blogger that Bishop vonRosenberg had sent a written notice to all his parishes, informing them this offer had been made. Both communications represent a serious breach of confidentiality. Today's announcement from them further emphasizes this dynamic. If some kind (any kind) of good faith negotiation is what they were really interested in, this certainly was not the way to conduct it.

Particularly to the point, the letters from Mr. Tisdale should not have been presented in the midst of the appellate briefs being filed. It must be noted that the expiration date of this offer was the same day our reply brief was due to be filed with the State Supreme Court. That is obviously no accident.

4. Finally, a serious offer (the specifics of this one entirely aside) would have given adequate time for discussion and consideration, given the nature of the proposal and the number of parties involved. This proposal failed to do so. The attorney receiving Mr. Tisdale's original offer asked that it be withdrawn and resubmitted after the June 15 deadline for our reply brief to be filed. The fact that our reasonable request was rejected points to the essential question.

Why was this really done? There are likely four motives at play here.

The first and primary intention of all this was to disrupt the preparation of our reply brief for the South Carolina Supreme Court. The timing here is not coincidental. The time and energy devoted to dealing with this non-offer was significant. That cannot be overstated.

Secondly, and of similar importance, this was an attempt to create division between the Diocese, Trustees and the Parishes. By structuring their "offer" in this way it tries to set what is good for one against what is good for the other. Our unity in this case has been, and continues to be, essential to its success. To falter now, when our case is so strong and the end so near, would be foolish. But that is what counsel for TEC would desire.

Additionally, there is always publicity. Not even the smallest legal proceeding in this case has been too small to merit a press release. Mr. Tisdale has alluded, frequently, to their willingness to negotiate, while never once making a proposal over the last two years. This "offer" gives the appearance of being reasonable and conciliatory while offering nothing of substance. What the parishes would get, if accepting this proposal would be their property. What they would lose, would be their historical heritage, their place in a diocese, St. Christopher and all the ministry it makes possible, all the assets of the Trustees, the Diocesan House and the legal protections carrying this case to conclusion would guarantee. This is no bargain! Their offer gives the Diocese of South Carolina nothing the court hasn’t already said is rightfully ours, while asking us to relinquish the identity we’ve held since 1785.

Finally, TEC would like to mitigate their loss at the S.C. Supreme Court level. Having lost in Illinois and being on a similar track in Texas (with a further loss there this past week), they are desperate to avoid another precedential ruling. It is worth remembering that this issue is not just about our individual parishes or even the Diocese of South Carolina. We are part of a larger conflict in which the outcome here may significantly benefit other parishes and Dioceses wishing freedom from TEC. This is not a request for reconciliation but rather for capitulation.

It should be noted that TEC has never, in the 90+ cases litigated nationwide, agreed to a settlement – even when it was requested. In the Virginia case, for instance, the local diocese was close to settlement with the local departing parishes when the Presiding Bishop’s office intervened to prevent any such action. There was, as the court testimony later revealed, "a new sheriff in town." Not once, in the two and a half years of our own litigation, has there ever been a proposal made for settlement. (That's what we were trying to pursue when they attempted to remove the Bishop, as some may recall.) The Presiding Bishop's chancellor is on record as saying they would never settle. In that, they have been utterly consistent up until now. This is not an attempt to end the litigation but rather to disrupt it - and to do so when we are only one hearing away from its final conclusion.

The only factors that appear to have changed for our case that would prompt this proposal are that:
a) TEC appears to be facing imminent loss at the state Supreme Court level and
b) the Presiding Bishop, who launched the scorched earth policy leading to an estimated $40+ million in litigation, will be replaced this fall.
Negotiation requires a “good faith” partner. For all the reasons cited above, this alleged "offer" was shunned for the deceitful imposter it is.

Bishop Zavala visits Diocese of South Carolina

CHARLESTON, SC, May 21, 2015 – Repeating the reassurances spoken by a stream of visiting Anglican bishops during the past three years, the Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Province of South America told Bishop Mark Lawrence and others from the Diocese of South Carolina, “My brothers and sisters, you are not alone. You continue being part of the Anglican Communion.”

The Most Rev. Hector “Tito” Zavala, Bishop of Chile and Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Province of South America, made his comments in clear English during a meeting at the Cathedral Church of St. Luke and St. Paul, Charleston, May 20. He said that, despite the Diocese’s separation from the Episcopal Church in 2012, the Diocese continues to be recognized as Anglicans by the majority of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

“I'm here with you with the consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury," said Bishop Zavala. He told those gathered that Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was with the Global South Primates "Steering Committee" in a meeting in Cairo, Egypt in 2014 when "we decided to establish a Primatial Oversight Council to provide pastoral and primatial oversight to some dioceses in order to keep them within the Communion" said Bishop Zavala.

Bishop Zavala is one of 40 primates of the 80 million member worldwide Anglican Communion. His province is made up of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay.

The Global South, which makes up 75 percent of the Anglican Communion, emerged as a way for bishops and primates of the Southern Hemisphere to encourage one another for mission. Though it is recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, it is not an official structure of the Anglican Communion.

During his first South Carolina visit, Bishop Zavala met with the Diocesan Council and the Anglican Communion Development Committee. He also participated in meetings that were open to the public at St. Matthias, Summerton and the Cathedral, Charleston.

Bishop Zavala came to the United States to receive a Doctorate of Ministry from Trinity Seminary in Ambridge, PA.

During his comments, he repeatedly reassured the Diocese that it has the support of Anglican leaders from around the world.

“Behind me is the Primate of Egypt and the Middle East, the Primate of the Indian Ocean, the Primate of Myanmar, the Primate of Southeast Asia, the Primate of Nigeria, the Primate of Burundi and others. We are supporting you,” he said. “In the Global South we do not want to interfere with any dioceses … (But) If a diocese has a problem with the Primate or House of Bishops who do not respect Lambeth resolutions we are ready and willing to support them, realizing it’s a temporary not permanent oversight.”

Bishop Zavala also shared at length the remarkable growth and missionary spirit of his home Diocese of Chile. As both the first native-born diocesan bishop of Chile and Primate of South America he continues to be an inspiring pioneer for Anglicanism.

“We’re grateful for the strong support we’ve received from Anglicans around the world and are especially thankful for this time we’ve had with Bishop Zavala,” said Bishop Lawrence.

Bishop Zavala will continue as a guest of the Diocese through the end of the week.

More photos here.

South Carolina, ACNA leaders meet

Bishop Lawrence

Leaders from the Diocese of South Carolina and the Anglican Church in North America, led by Bishop Mark Lawrence and Archbishop Foley Beach, came together at St. Christopher Camp and Conference Center, South Carolina on April 28-29, 2015 for prayer, fellowship, and conversation.

The Diocese of South Carolina was represented by Bishop Mark Lawrence, Mr. Wade Logan, Mr. Alan Runyan, The Rev. Craige Borrett, The Rev. Kendall Harmon, The Rev. Jeffrey Miller, Mrs. Boo Pennewill, and The Rev. Jim Lewis.

The Anglican Church in North America was represented by Archbishop Foley Beach, Bishop Ray Sutton, Bishop John Guernsey, Bishop Bill Atwood, Bishop Terrell Glenn, The Rev. Phil Ashey, The Rev. Jack Lumanog, Mr. Scott Ward, and Mr. Tad Brenner.

Our conversations reflected the mutual respect and sincere affection that we share as fellow Anglicans, and we appreciated the opportunity to speak candidly together about topics that affect our common life.

We had frank exchanges that examined the possible compatibility of the ecclesiologies of the Anglican Church in North America and the Diocese of South Carolina.

Archbishop Beach

There is a wide spectrum of polities in the provinces of the Anglican Communion and these differences affect the ways in which dioceses relate to their respective provinces. Provinces such as Nigeria are more hierarchical, while provinces such as South America are more conciliar. Our conversations began exploring the practical dimensions of how a diocese and province relate in the structure of the Anglican Church in North America.

Together we openly addressed the challenges posed by the overlapping jurisdictions in South Carolina. In some cases the reasons for this overlap extend from circumstances that are less than a couple decades old, and in other circumstances the reasons reach back over a hundred years. All expressed a desire to take steps towards addressing these relational barriers with the recognition that this work is a necessary precursor to ecclesial order.

We committed to further prayer and conversation together as we seek to share the Gospel as fellow Anglicans in North America. We understand that this is only the beginning of a process, the full nature of which, and the full outcome of which, we do not know. We entrust ourselves to the mercy, protection, and guidance of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Diocese of South Carolina website

State Supreme Court takes jurisdiction of South Carolina appeal

Today, April 15, 2015, the South Carolina Supreme Court agreed to take the appeal of Judge Goodstein's February 3rd ruling in favor of the Diocese of South Carolina and its parishes. We are grateful that the South Carolina Supreme Court acted so promptly to take jurisdiction of this case, just as it did when requested during the attempted procedural delays prior to the trial. The more quickly the case is resolved, the more beneficial it will be for all parties, allowing us to get about the work of ministry without the incessant distraction of courtroom proceedings.

“We’re delighted that the SC Supreme Court is taking the appeal now and that it won’t have to go through the state court of appeals before it could be heard by the state’s highest court,” said the Rev. Canon Jim Lewis. “Our aim all along has been to protect the Diocese, its identity and properties from The Episcopal Church, which has sued more than 80 other churches and dioceses which sought to leave. We’re grateful that the South Carolina judicial system has expeditiously moved this case forward.”

[REPOST] Of breakaways, remnants, and Jezebels . . . and getting the terminology right

[ADMINISTRATOR'S NOTE: I am seeing too many media reports referring to the Diocese of South Carolina​ as a "breakaway" group. This is an egregious error on the part of journalists who are either ignorant of the facts or willfully negligent in reporting them. This article, written shortly after last year's Diocesan Convention, is reposted at this time in the hope that it will be a useful resource in refuting the false narrative generated by the national church and perpetuated by an uninformed and incurious media. --JAG]

Peter Leithart expounds on the significance of Jezebel to the history of Israel and why John's invocation of her name in reference to the "prophetess" in Thyatira was precisely on the mark.

Jezebel’s appearance in 1-2 Kings is part of a continuing story of Israel’s relationship with Tyre and Sidon. During the days of David and Solomon, Hiram king of Tyre was an ally of Israel. This is the ideal relationship between Jew and Gentiles, Israel and the nations.

Jezebel represents an inversion of that. As I argue in my 1-2 Kings, Ahab is an anti-Solomon, a Solomon without a period of faithfulness. He is the son of a David-like king Omri, builds a temple in Samaria, and takes a foreign wife, as Solomon married the daughter of Pharaoh.

It’s all backward. Ahab’s temple is a temple to Baal, and his wife is an idolater, even a sorceress (as Jehu says) and a leader of a band of Baal prophets. Ahab and Jezebel have an agenda to reunite the two kingdoms, but instead of placing Yahweh and His house at the center, they want to make Baal worship the center. This inverts the proper relation between Jew and Gentile. Instead of the Gentiles assisting in Israel’s project, Israel is enlisted to pursue a Baalist agenda.

Under Ahab and Jezebel, Israel is in bed with the Gentiles, but they aren’t united properly. They are united in a bed of prostitution, at an altar of spiritual adultery.

This is what the Jezebel of Thyatira is doing too. She is a prophetess, as the first Jezebel was the high priestess of a band of prophets. She leads the saints astray, as Jezebel did. She leads them into Baalamite sin, eating meat sacrificed to idols and committing acts of fornication, porneia. There is a false community here, a false family, with Jezebel and her children united in idolatry and immorality. Jezebel assembles an anti-church, as the first Jezebel joined with Ahab in forming an anti-Israel.

The perpetually apostate northern kingdom, moreso than the erstwhile faithful southern kingdom (Judah, where David's house continued on the throne until the Babylonian exile) periodically took an interest in Israel's reunification but, as with Ahab and Jezebel, such an interest was always of human (even pagan), not divine, origin. Judah outlasted Israel by several generations not because all of its kings were righteous (some were, some weren't) but because of God's promise to David. A reunited Israel under rule of one of the northern tribes would simply not do as part of God's plan for the redemption of the world. The faithful remnant, out of which the true Israel would eventually be reconstituted under Jesus and the Apostles, would emerge out of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, then expand well beyond the boundaries of even David's old empire, grafting in the Gentiles from the ends of the earth.

It is an irony of tragic proportions that some of the most loathsomely divisive figures in the history of both Israel and the church have so often cloaked themselves in the mantle of "unity" and "reconciliation" while abandoning the very faith which unites Jew and Gentile and reconciles the world to God. As it would not do for David's throne to be usurped by the apostate house of Ahab, so it will not do for the Church of Jesus Christ, Great David's greater Son, to be consolidated under the present apostasy of Katharine Jefferts Schori and her minions.

Terminology matters. It is a most egregious error to refer to the Diocese of South Carolina, having liberated itself from Schori's apostasy, as a "breakaway diocese." It is equally erroneous to refer to the handful of low country parishes which have remained with the national denomination as a "remnant group."  Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of how God has worked throughout history can see how upside down and backward the picture painted by such references is.

To use Leithart's words, the national denomination under Schori is following the way of Jezebel, forming a false community and a false family united in idolatry and immorality. In other words, the national denomination is an anti-church, a "breakaway" from the faith once for all entrusted to the saints.

Meanwhile, as was so richly illustrated at its recent convention, the Diocese of South Carolina is gathering into one so many of the disparate elements of the far flung Anglican Diaspora while also being grafted in to the larger family of faithful Anglican provinces of the Global South. The "remnant" is always that small but faithful group that perseveres through trial, is finally vindicated, and goes forth rejoicing in the new work God has begun through it.

Bishop Lawrence calls for Diocesan-Wide Prayer for the Persecuted Church, September 14

Dear Friends in Christ,

Many of us have been following with alarm the persecution of Christians in various countries of the Middle East and Africa. Concern has been expressed within our diocese by priests and laity of the need for us to have a diocesan response to this current crisis.

At our Diocesan Council Meeting last week all concurred that as Bishop I would appoint an upcoming Sunday to be set aside for specific prayer and intercession for our brothers and sisters in Christ who are in the midst of this persecution as well as a day for fasting on their behalf. I have appointed September 14th as a Sunday for such diocesan wide intercession. It is the Sunday nearest to Holy Cross Day which is transferred this year to be observed on Monday, September 15th.

Although it is technically a “feast” day, I am suggesting that we use it as a called fast day for personal and corporate self-denial and intercession whether corporately or individually observed depending upon the constraints of parish and personal schedules. I believe there is virtue in many within the diocese banding together in prayer, self-denial and offering in solidarity with fellow Christians around the world.

Those who desire to assist in monetary ways may I suggest Anglican Relief and Development (ARDF) or Voice of the Martyrs as appropriate ministries to assist those in need. Included in this email is a link for a bulletin insert to be used in your parish on Sunday, September 14th which includes a collect and prayer as well as a suggested Psalm according to the Book of Common Prayer.

Yours in Christ,

+Mark J. Lawrence
XIV Bishop of South Carolina

Global South welcomes Diocese of South Carolina

August 21, 2014

My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ Jesus,

As you will recall the 223rd Diocesan Convention of the Diocese of South Carolina meeting at Christ Church in Mt. Pleasant on March 14-15, 2014 unanimously accepted the offer of the Global South Primates Steering Committee for Provisional Primatial Oversight.

Now this morning we receive with gratitude this letter from the Global South Primatial Steering Committee. It is their acceptance of our request for this gracious relationship. I trust you will be heartened as I have been by their welcome of us “… as an active and faithful member within the Global South of the Anglican Communion, until such time as a permanent primatial affiliation can be found.” It is my joy to share it with you.

Faithfully yours in Christ,

The Right Reverend Mark Joseph Lawrence
XIV Bishop of South Carolina

21 August 2014

Announcement regarding the Diocese of South Carolina

My dear Brothers and Sisters,

Greetings in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ!

The Global South of the Anglican Communion welcomes the unanimous request of The Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence, XIV Bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina, and the Convention of the Diocese of South Carolina to “accept the offer of the newly created Global South Primatial Oversight Council for pastoral oversight of our ministry as a diocese during the temporary period of our discernment of our final provincial affiliation.”

The decision of the Diocese of South Carolina was made in response to the meeting of the Global South Primates Steering Committee in Cairo, Egypt from 14-15 February 2014. A recommendation from that meeting stated that, “we decided to establish a Primatial Oversight Council, in following-through the recommendations taken at Dar es Salam in 2007, to provide pastoral and primatial oversight to dissenting individuals, parishes, and dioceses in order to keep them within the Communion.”

Recognizing the faithfulness of Bishop Mark Lawrence and the Diocese of South Carolina, and in
appreciation for their contending for the faith once for all delivered to the saints, the Global South
welcomes them as an active and faithful member within the Global South of the Anglican Communion,
until such time as a permanent primatial affiliation can be found.

Yours in Christ,

+Mouneer Egypt

The Most Revd Dr. Mouneer Hanna Anis
Primate of Jerusalem & the Middle East
Bishop of Egypt with North Africa and the Horn of Africa
Chairman, Global South Primates Steering Committee

+Ian Mauritius

The Most Revd Ian Ernest
Primate of the Indian Ocean
Bishop of Mauritius
Hon. General Secretary, Global South Primates Steering Committee

One Daughter's Perspective: Response to Ronald Caldwell

Cathedral of St. Luke and St. Paul, Charleston

The first in a series of articles rebutting the misleading timeline of Ronald Caldwell, who claims to be an expert on the "schism" in South Carolina:

Recently, Ronald Caldwell, retired history professor has decided that the truth of why the schism in the Diocese of South Carolina happened would be the focus of his blog The Episcopal Church Schism in South Carolina. That is fine but he really needs to restrain himself to actual facts and not partake in a bit of revisionist screed.

He has written a couple of posts dealing with the split in the diocese. I will start with his post about the timeline of how the Diocese of South Carolina split into two separate entities, one that remains the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and the other which is a group of parishes that have decided to remain loyal to The Episcopal Church. This other group has taken the name, The Episcopal Church in South Carolina. Just an FYI. Mr. Caldwell has a very different position of the timeline as he is not a South Carolinian and did not live in the diocese during the timeline of any of these events. As far as I know, Mr. Caldwell still does not live in SC. Ok with that bit of background let's get to the actual post and my response to it.

Read the entire post here.

As Caldwell and other cheerleaders for The Empty Church in South Carolina (TECSC) have invoked the word "schism," it is important to remember the distinction between the popular (and incorrect) understanding of this term and the biblical (correct) understanding. As a former Methodist, I continue to defer to lifelong Anglican John Wesley on this matter, that schism is separation within a church, not separation from a church. That being the case, the schismatic body in this episode is the national church, which has embraced divisive doctrines contrary to the faith once for all entrusted to the saints, and not the Diocese of South Carolina, which continues to pursue relationships which promote unity with the wider Anglican Communion.

Haley analyzes the South Carolina trial

A.S. Haley offers an insightful post-mortem on the South Carolina trial, including this observation about the contrast between the two camps, similar to what I had noted shortly after the trial ended last week.

First, the trial was a clash of diametrically opposed camps. Bishop Lawrence, his parishes and his Diocese were focused on going forward with their evangelical mission; the lawsuit was a drag on their ability to do so. Bishop vonRosenberg and his Episcopal Church (USA) were obsessed with looking back – to what they viewed as a hierarchical structure from the outset; to the prerogatives of national power that are concomitant to such a structure; and especially to the power wielded collectively by the House of Bishops, and by the Presiding Bishop in their absence.

Read the whole analysis here.

Read the official press summary from the Diocese of South Carolina here.

Message from Bishop Lawrence at the close of the trial

Dear Friends in Christ,

“… suffering produces endurance and endurance produces hope and hope does not disappoint us for the love of God has been poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit….” Romans 5:3-4

Having spent much of the last three weeks at the Dorchester Courthouse in St. George, South Carolina it is rather serendipitous to be sending this from a Starbucks in St. George, Utah (a gateway to Zion National Park). Allison and I will be traveling during the next few weeks in Utah, Nevada and California on vacation. She’ll have some much needed time for relaxation and fun and I’ll be climbing the mountains and hiking the trails. Nevertheless, I want to send you this report on the last three weeks.

Firstly, I’m glad to say our legal team led by Mr. Alan Runyan and Ms. Henrietta Golding, supported by a stellar cast of attorneys from the various congregations across the diocese, presented a strong case and did so in a professional, forthright, and convincing manner. The teamwork was marvelous to observe and was only exceeded by what seemed to be the outstretched arm and the mighty hand of God moving again and again in a most timely manner. I was proud to have them representing us from the Diocese of South Carolina. Frankly, having sat through all fourteen days I have to say it was a trial of tediously presented evidence by TEC fortunately punctuated during cross-examination by our attorneys with moments of sheer drama and stunning admissions.

Secondly, the diocesan team of Canon Jim Lewis, Nancy Armstrong, Beth Snyder, Joy Hunter and Jan Pringle worked tirelessly and with a remarkable esprit de corps. It so often put me in mind of Psalm 133—“How good and pleasant it is when the brethren live together in unity.”

Then there was the strong cast of witnesses on behalf of the Diocese. Chancellor, Wade Logan, painted for the court a most helpful background of what a diocese is and how it functions both corporately and ecclesially. Canon Lewis reported on the various Diocesan Conventions and canonical changes which brought us to the place of dissociation from TEC. Mr. Robert Kunes testified on behalf of the Trustees of the Diocese. These three witnesses presented the foundation of our diocesan case. They were followed by a representative witness from every congregation participating in the law suit. I could hardly be more proud of them. Some endured quite vigorous cross-examination. It was moving (and at times for me a heavy burden) to hear parish witnesses again and again testify that they “…wanted to stay in communion with the Diocese of South Carolina and Bishop Lawrence.” I wished their fellow parishioners could have seen the courage and clarity with which they represented them.

We also had witnesses in rebuttal to the case made by TEC attorneys. Our diocesan administrator, Nancy Armstrong, combed through centuries of diocesan records to contrast monies that have come into the diocese from TEC and its various related agencies with monies sent by the diocese to TEC. This was in rebuttal to the one-sided presentations given by witnesses from the National Church (including UTO grants which any woman from our DCW can tell you are from contributions from the pews in congregations around the country and not from some National Church budget). In summary the court learned that for every 81 cents given by The Episcopal Church and its various entities to us in South Carolina and our congregations for ministry; the diocese sent $100 to TEC ($100 to 81 cent ratio), therein undermining the defendants’ one-sided presentation of the “facts”. In fifteen minutes of testimony she undermined hours of tedium and an endless parade of documents from so-called experts for the National Church. When Mr. Runyan called to the stand the renowned professor and historian, Dr. Allen Guelzo, author of some 16 books and a foremost historian of the Civil War era and 18th and 19th centuries of American intellectual history we were treated to a breath-taking tour de force disputing the alleged hierarchical assumptions of the national Episcopal Church. Others in this rebuttal stage of the trial were Fr. Robert Lawrence from Camp St. Christopher, the Rev. Greg Kronz, who chaired the Bishop’s search committee and Chancellor Wade Logan who once again punctuated our case. On the last day, I was called finally to the stand.

But I need to say, and can hardly say it enough, undergirding it all—felt at times in palpable ways—the prayers and intercessions from tens of thousands of the saints within the diocese and around the world upholding us in prayer. Some of these intercessors came to the courtroom to pray while testimonies and cross-examinations were taking place. Others of you prayed from home, perhaps on a lunch break, or while driving to and from your work place. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

After the final written submissions by the attorneys this case will lie in the careful judgment of the Honorable Diane Goodstein, who from my novice perspective was astonishingly competent, cheery and at times appropriately stern. This was not an easy case to try—yet she did it with aplomb. It may be several months before her judicial order is made. So please pray for her as she and her clerks sort through the testimonies and lengthy documents presented to the court and as she subsequently renders her ruling.

I have learned much about the diocese during this process—its structure and history—as well as the rich heritage of our parishes and missions. All is more firmly rooted in my mind and has awakened in my heart a deeper gratitude to God for calling me to serve among you. I am eager to put this knowledge to good use. My prayer is that our Lord will use this season to prepare us for the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead as we seek to reach our communities for Jesus Christ— Making Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age here in South Carolina and around the world.

Gratefully yours in Christ,

The Right Reverend Mark Joseph Lawrence
XIV Bishop of South Carolina

Official diocesan report on final day of South Carolina trial

ST. GEORGE, SC, JULY 25, 2014 – On the 14th and final day of the trial of the Diocese of South Carolina vs. The Episcopal Church and its local subsidiary, The Episcopal Church in South Carolina, the bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina testified that, contrary to TEC’s allegations, he had tried to keep the diocese within the denomination.

The Right Rev. Mark J. Lawrence, 14th bishop of the Diocese of SC, whom TEC supporters have accused of plotting to lead the Diocese out of the denomination, was the only witness called during the final day of the trial. Diocesan attorneys asked him several questions about TEC’s authority and the process followed to punish him.

When asked if he had planned to lead the diocese out of TEC, he said, “Absolutely not.” He explained that no one had ever asked him to lead the diocese out and said it only decided to leave after TEC had taken steps to remove him as bishop – violating its own process for doing that.

The bishop also contradicted testimony from earlier in the week, in which TEC witnesses claimed that the denomination has supreme authority over its dioceses and congregations. The bishop said that he shared the opinion of 14 other bishops that TEC has no actual authority over its member dioceses.

Judge Diane S. Goodstein ended the 14th day of the trial saying she will decide the case later this year. At stake is the future of diocesan property, including its parishes. The diocese is trying to prevent TEC from seizing more than $500 million in property held by the diocese and those parishes that left the national church in 2012.

Diocese of Quincy wins over TEC

Ironically, as the South Carolina trial ended, today the Illinois Court of Appeals came out with an opinion in favor of the Diocese of Quincy (Ill.). The case was decided on neutral principles of law and the law determined the non-profit incorporated diocese can leave The Episcopal Church. The case in Quincy is almost identical to the one in South Carolina. The disassociated Diocese of Quincy had won its case, but TEC appealed, freezing the diocese’s bank accounts and other resources.

South Carolina: The end of the trial, and the end of the national church illusion

Bishop Lawrence

The final day of the trial to protect the assets of the Diocese of South Carolina featured relatively uneventful testimony from Bishop Mark Lawrence. The authentic bishop was much better prepared to take the stand than his faux counterpart, Charles vonRosenberg, who testified earlier this week and was exposed on cross examination as a violator of his own church canons. Cross examination of Bishop Lawrence by David Booth Beers ended abruptly after the bishop refused to be baited by a question about his episcopal responsibilities. Beers implied that certain responsibilities were defined only in the canons of the national church. Bishop Lawrence, however, reminded the aging barrister that they were likewise defined in the canons of the diocese and the Holy Scriptures.

The decision not to engage in a lengthy cross-examination of Bishop Lawrence may be indicative of the national church legal team's pessimism about the outcome of the trial. Throughout the three week ordeal, the contrast in energy level between the two sides has been apparent. Attorneys for the diocese have presented their case with clarity and conviction. Their counterparts on the other side of the aisle have floundered in legal minutiae, been knocked off their game by unexpected responses from witnesses, and engaged in questionable tactics which have tried the patience of Judge Diane S. Goodstein.

The generation gap between the observers on opposing sides has also been telling. Supporters of the national church and its local rump affiliate have invariably been graying baby boomers for whom institutional preservation is of paramount concern. Conversely, supporters of the diocese have been more youthful in appearance and more passionate in outlook. Their paramount concern is the advancement of the church, under whatever name it may operate, and the vindication of the truth which cannot be bound by institutional adiophora.

The facade so often put up by the national church, that strange doctrines like same sex marriage and religious pluralism are the wave of the future, simply cannot be sustained in the face of the reality which has been on display in plain sight for the last three weeks. The vast majority of the national church's courtroom cheerleaders care little, if at all, about the innovations and aberrations being imposed upon their parishes by Katharine Jefferts Schori and her New York cabal. They are simply dear old souls living under the tragic delusion that the church of their youth is still the church of their riper years.

So ends the trial; and so ends any illusion that the unincorporated national entity which insists it owns the exclusive right to the name "Episcopal" has any future beyond the lifetime of its rapidly fading constituency.

Day 13: Expert witness rebuts TEC's nonsensical historical claims

Guelzo

ST. GEORGE, SC, JULY 24, 2014 – On the 13th day of the trial of the Diocese of South Carolina vs. The Episcopal Church and its local subsidiary, The Episcopal Church in South Carolina, a director of The Historical Society of the Episcopal Church testified that the denomination has no supreme control over its dioceses or parishes, countering TEC claims to the contrary.

Dr. Allen C. Guelzo, who is also a professor of history at Gettysburg College, an expert on the history of religious organizations including TEC and the author of 16 books, said that TEC’s authority is “prescriptive,” which means the denomination can advise its dioceses but cannot order them to do anything.

He also testified that TEC was formed by dioceses, including the Diocese of South Carolina, and that it did not form those dioceses. He said there was no evidence in its formation in 1789 or today that it controlled the dioceses that are in union with it. He also testified that nothing associated with TEC’s formation suggests that dioceses that formed it could not leave it as voluntarily as they joined it. “History shows that authority flows from bottom up,” Guelzo said.

Guelzo, who was called by the plaintiff diocese to respond to reams of documents TEC had entered into the court record suggesting the denomination has ultimate control over its dioceses and congregations, testified for nearly 90 minutes.

At one point, when Mary Kostel, an attorney for TEC referred to documents written by Francis Vinton and A. C. Coxe, members of TEC’s clergy during the 1800s, and asked Guelzo if he would agree that their work was known in the 19th century, Guelzo said “Yes they were known, but so was Jesse James.” Guelzo then equated taking the commentary of Vinton and Coxe as authoritative on the power and control in the Episcopal Church would be like taking commentary from the Tea Party as authoritative on the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Diane S. Goodstein has repeatedly told TEC attorneys that the South Carolina Supreme Court will not permit her to consider their arguments that TEC is a hierarchical institution that has the authority to prevent dioceses from leaving the denomination. However, because TEC has introduced evidence claiming the denomination effectively dictates policies and behaviors to its dioceses, she permitted Guelzo to address the issue as a rebuttal witness.

Rebuttal witness - Camp St. Christopher

To provide further rebuttal of TEC’s witnesses, the Diocese also introduced Bob Lawrence (no relation to Bishop Mark Lawrence). He is executive director of Camp St. Christopher, a camp and conference center operated by the Diocese. Lawrence responded to an allegation made by TECSC provisional bishop Charles vonRosenberg that none of his parishioners who chose to remain with TEC have been permitted to use the camp. In fact, Lawrence said that vonRosenberg’s parishioners are permitted to use the camp – and that many have used it, served as Camp staff and are using it today.

Rebuttal witness - Funds in and out

The diocese also called Nancy Armstrong, assistant treasurer of the diocese, to respond to suggestions that TEC has provided the diocese and its parishes with significant financial support. In fact, she said that TEC provided the diocese with approximately 80 cents for every $100 the diocese and its parishes voluntarily contributed to TEC. In other words, the denomination returned to the diocese approximately 0.8 percent of the local contributions to the national church.

Rebuttal witness - Chancellor Wade Logan

Chancellor to the Diocese of South Carolina, Wade Logan’s rebuttal testimony revealed multiple areas in which the disciplinary process with Bishop Mark Lawrence, the duly elected bishop to the plaintiff diocese, did not comply with TEC’s own canons.

Day 12: TEC fauxilliary bishop eviscerated on cross examination; claims ignorance of significant disciplinary Canon

Charles vonRosenberg and unidentified canine cohort

Things went from bad to worse for The Empty Church in South Carolina (TECSC) during the twelfth day of the trial to protect the assets of the legitimate Diocese of South Carolina. Charles G. vonRosenberg, fauxilliary bishop of the rump diocese was exposed for the ecclesiastical non-entity he is when, upon cross examination by diocesan lawyer Alan Runyan, he claimed to have no knowledge of the Canon, adopted by General Convention in 2009 when he was still an active bishop, which prohibits any lay or ordained member of the national church from asking a secular court to interpret church law.

Ironically, the Canon in question was specifically adopted so as to prevent the Right Reverend Mark J. Lawrence, the legitimate bishop of the legitimate diocese, from seeking judicial relief from the contrived disciplinary action brought against him by the national church. It was a classic "gotcha" moment which produced audible gasps in the courtroom.

In another bizarre twist in vonRosenberg's testimony, the make believe bishop said he had "re-confirmed" several persons originally confirmed by Bishop Lawrence in order to make sure they were "confirmed in The Episcopal Church." The implication was that since Bishop Lawrence, in the estimation of the national church, is an "unworthy" minister, any confirmations performed by him would not be considered legitimate. This is contrary to Article XXVI of the Articles of religion, which states in part:

Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.

Furthermore, confirmation is not a rite unique to "The Episcopal Church." While it may be called by different names in different denominations, it is a rite of the whole church and transferable from one ecclesiastical body to another. The concern that a person's confirmation be specifically "in The Episcopal Church" is indicative of the fact that "The Episcopal Church" is behaving more like a cult than a legitimate branch of the Church of Jesus Christ.

David Booth Beers, the national church's haughty legal counsel, attempted to rehabilitate his discredited witness by trying to introduce some kind of context to the Canon of which vonRosenberg claimed not to be aware. However, his question was shot down by an objection on the grounds that it lacked foundation since the "bishop" had already said he was not familiar with the provision.

Judge Diane S. Goodstein also re-emphasized, for the umpteenth time, that she would not be swayed by the national church's repeated attempts to introduce arguments pertaining to its supposed hierarchical nature, going so far as to say she was not convinced that such was the polity of the church, as nothing to that effect has been put in writing.

Here is the full report on the day's proceedings from the diocesan press office:

ST. GEORGE, SC, JULY 23, 2014 – On the 12th day of the trial of the Diocese of South Carolina vs. The Episcopal Church and its local subsidiary, The Episcopal Church in South Carolina, TEC attorney David Beers attempted to introduce the concept of church hierarchy once again into the trial, ignoring Judge Diane S. Goodstein’s repeated rulings that church hierarchy plays no role in this case.

Beers asked the first provisional bishop of TECSC, Charles vonRosenberg, to tell the court why the Bishop of San Joaquin, Ca., the Rt. Rev. John David Schofield had been removed as bishop of that diocese.

Judge Goodstein said, “It’s not relevant. For this reason: I don’t know what [that] state’s position is regarding the analysis of church disputes. I don’t really care. What I care about is the state of South Carolina. My Supreme Court tells me what I do when I analyze church disputes.’

She added, “In terms of whether or not the parishes in SC and the Diocese in SC were allowed to leave the national church – I’m going to make that determination on the basis of neutral principles of law under South Carolina law. I don’t care what happened any where else.”

Beers disagreed with the judge, saying that hierarchy is part of TEC’s polity or organization and the judge responded, “I’m not sure that’s your polity. I watched very carefully when Bishop [Clifton] Daniel testified and Mr. Runyan (attorney for the Diocese) popped up with the Constitution and Canons. There was nothing written that says, “You here forever.”

In response to her last statement coming out somewhat like Scarlet O’Hara, some in the courtroom laughed, drawing a reprimand from Judge Goodstein.

“I don’t say that to be humorous. It is a very serious matter,” she said. “You want to tell me this is the polity of the church? It’s not written. Seems to me it ought to be written. But it isn’t. It obviously happened to some folks. I’ve got that. But I’m not going to be bound by that. I’m just not. I’m going to be bound by South Carolina law.”

When cross-examined by Diocesan attorney Alan Runyan, Bishop vonRosenberg affirmed that he was familiar with that portion of the TEC canons commonly referred to as “the Dennis Canon,” which seeks to impose a trust in favor of TEC. He admitted, however, he was not familiar with the Canon which states “No member of the Church, whether lay or ordained, may seek to have the Constitution and Canons of the Church interpreted by a secular court, or resort to a secular court to address a dispute arising under the Constitution and Canons.”

“That is precisely what TEC has sought every time it has prosecuted this kind of litigation,” said the Rev. Canon Jim Lewis, Canon to the Ordinary. “Its what Judge Goodstein emphasized today that she is prevented from doing under the law.”

Plaintiff calls rector as witness to dispute Rickenbaker testimony

The Rev. Gregory Kronz, rector at St. Luke’s on Hilton Head Island testified today that he was head of the search committee to find a bishop to replace Bishop Salmon.

Kronz said that he and another member of the committee, Paul Fuener, interviewed the Rev. Thomas Rickenbaker, one of about a dozen candidates that had made it to the interview stage. Henrietta Golding asked Rev. Kronz if he ever inquired as to whether or not Rev. Rickenbaker would be willing to take the diocese away from the national church, or if there were any indirect questions in that regard. Rev. Kronz said, “no.” Asked if Rickenbaker had removed his name from the search list, Kronz again said, “no.”

The rest of the afternoon was spent going over documents TEC sought to enter into evidence, relating to each of the individual churches involved in the dispute.

When Diocesan attorney Alan Runyan objected to the relevancy of one document, Judge Goodstein overruled him and added, “On documents, I understand why they’re being offered by the defendant (TEC). (However) They have relevance that also shows a very close relationship between parish and Diocese. How many times have I heard testimony say, ‘The diocese is important to us. We want to stay with the Diocese’... I heard time and time again, ‘the end of the road is the Diocese. We want to stay with Bishop Lawrence.’”

Day 11: More irrelevant testimony from TEC witness

Looks like The Empty Church in South Carolina (TECSC) tried to pass off some more testimony that didn't pass the smell test with Judge Goodstein.

ST. GEORGE, SC, JULY 22, 2014 – Attorneys for The Episcopal Church and its local subsidiary, The Episcopal Church in South Carolina, spent the eleventh day of a trial to prevent their seizure of local church property attempting to introduce testimony that the Circuit Court has repeatedly dismissed as irrelevant.

The entire morning was spent with TEC’s lead attorney, David Beers, asking Mark Duffy, Canonical Archivist and Director of Archives for the national church to identify documents discussing TEC’s financial contributions to the Diocese, the denomination’s hierarchical structure that does not permit diocese to withdraw and other topics, attracting repeated objections from diocesan attorneys.

Judge Diane S. Goodstein sustained most objections to the TEC documents, repeatedly stating that they bore no relevance to the case.

In the matter of hierarchy, she again explained that South Carolina is not a jurisdiction that recognizes hierarchy in such cases.

For the second day in a row, the witness admitted that he had not been shown any documents on contributions by the Diocese to TEC for the same period that TEC was claiming it had made contribution to the Diocese and its parishes.

The rest of the day was spent reading the deposition of Thomas M. Rickenbaker from Spartanburg, South Carolina, who was interviewed for Bishop of South Carolina but did not make it to the second round of finalists. Rickenbaker was not present for his testimony.

Rickenbaker, who was baptized by Tom Tisdale, Sr., father of TECSC’s lead attorney, said that when he was interviewed for the job of bishop that the first question he was asked in his interview was “can you lead us out of TEC?” Richkenbaker had never provided that information to anyone in five years and then only recalled the conversation after being contacted by a representative of TECSC. His statements are in dispute by those who interviewed Mr. Rickenbaker in 2006.

Eyewitness report from Day 10: Walter Edgar's not so expert testimony does little for TEC's specious argument

Walter Edgar

The trial to protect the assets and properties of the Diocese of South Carolina entered its third week today and I was finally able to witness the proceedings firsthand. The experience was a bit underwhelming, but that is most likely attributable to the dullness of the day's only witness, Dr. Walter Edgar, retired professor of history at the University of South Carolina.

Most of the morning was spent arguing an objection brought by the diocesan legal team against Dr. Edgar's testimony. As a "lay witness," the professor had no background in canon law, church history, and church finances. Yet, the national church had paid him handsomely to pour over the journals of diocesan conventions from the late eighteenth century until 2010 and offer his "expert" opinion on the historical nature of the diocese's relationship with the national church. Ultimately, Judge Diane Goodstein limited the professor's testimony to summaries of his "research" of pertinent materials.

On direct examination by defendant's attorney Thomas Tisdale, Dr. Edgar offered a long and very boring lecture on the history of the relationship between the diocese and the national church, revealing nothing of particular legal relevance. The fact that the Diocese of South Carolina was once affiliated with a national body variously known as The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, The Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and The Episcopal Church is, of course, not in dispute. Nothing in Dr. Edgar's testimony did anything to bolster the specious claim that once a diocese has voluntarily affiliated with the national church, it cannot, likewise, voluntarily disaffiliate.

On cross examination from diocesan attorneys Henrietta Golding and Alan Runyan, Dr. Edgar conceded his lack of expertise in religious history and church canon law and admitted he had not considered in his "research" the possibility that the diocese had been relatively self-sustaining with minimal financial assistance from the national church through most of its history.

A good portion of Dr. Edgar's testimony focused on financial assistance given to the diocese in the years 1866-67. As an historian of the Civil War era, Dr. Edgar would certainly have recognized the need for outside aid to churches in the old Confederacy after that bloody conflict (in which a number of churches were burned to the ground) would have been great. Yet, he made no mention of such an obvious historical anomaly during his testimony. That glaring omission, along with his admitted lack of knowledge of actual diocesan finances and his imperious boast that he and his wife always made sure they worshiped in a church "that is in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury," made his testimony less than credible.

Attorneys for the national church continued to engage in dilatory tactics, failing to provide the diocesan attorneys with documentation necessary for cross-examination. The courtroom behavior of these bandits in bow ties is truly mind-boggling. One wonders if the whole strategy of the national church is simply to plan an appeal of what seems to be an inevitably unfavorable decision on grounds of incompetent counsel.

Judge Goodstein, it must be said, is a particularly interesting character. Hardly the stern taskmaster that I expected, she was a jovial and affable presence, often engaging in lighthearted banter with counsel and witness. It was clear, however, that she has every intention of following long standing precedent in matters of South Carolina law, giving the Diocese and its legal team every reason to be optimistic about the final outcome.

Here is the official diocesan press release from today's proceedings:

ST. GEORGE, SC, JULY 21, 2014 – An attorney for The Episcopal Church on Monday acknowledged that – despite TEC’s repeated claim that dioceses may not leave the denomination – there is nothing in the group’s constitution that specifically prohibits such a disassociation.

“It’s true it doesn’t say whether a diocese in the U.S. can or cannot [leave],” said Mary Kostel, attorney for TEC. “It’s arguably ambiguous.”

The comment came during the 10th day of trial in suit to prevent TEC from seizing the property of the Diocese of South Carolina and its parishes. Much of the morning was spent in a discussion between attorneys and Judge Diane S. Goodstein about the admissibility of testimony by historian Walter Edgar, a professor at the University of South Carolina.

Though Edgar was not identified as an expert witness, TEC wanted him to testify about his expertise and provide opinions on the hierarchical nature of TEC and to demonstrate that it has authority over its dioceses and parishes. But Judge Goodstein denied that he would be allowed to.

This is the second time in this trial that TEC failed to follow the rules on the use of witnesses. “When he shifts from saying ‘this is what it says,’ to ‘this is what it means’ we’ve crossed into expert testimony,” she said.

Judge Goodstein acknowledged that she understands TEC’s attorneys want to introduce the idea of a hierarchical denomination in order to pave the way for an expected appeal. However, she made clear that the claim is irrelevant to the case under South Carolina law.

“Let me be very clear that in every way the defendants [TEC attorneys] have done everything within their ability to establish the hierarchal nature of this church. I accept that,” she said. “Our courts have said we will not enforce the hierarchical decisions. We’re a neutrality state.”

The afternoon was spent with Edgar literally reading highlighted excerpts from numerous journals of the Diocese of South Carolina, showing that the Diocese participated in TEC activities and adhered to its rules while the Diocese was a member of the denomination. The diocese has never disputed that fact.

In fact, during the morning discussion before Edgar even began his testimony, Diocese of South Carolina attorney Henrietta Golding said, “If you’re a member of a club or fraternity, you abide by the laws. …There’s no relevance that the Diocese followed the Constitution and Canons. They were together at that time. There’s no significance because a party to this action followed the rules. We were members then.”

Edgar also spent some time testifying about individual financial contributions TEC had sent to the diocese and its parishes through the years. While he never mentioned a total number, after reading page after page of excerpts, it was clear that the denomination had provided several thousands of dollars.

However, when asked in cross-examination by Alan Runyan, lead attorney for the Plaintiff, Dr. Edgar testified that he had not been asked to, nor did he attempt to, see how much money the diocese had voluntarily given to TEC during the same time TEC says the Diocese received grants and loans "It could even be 900 percent more than you testified TEC has given over the same period and you do not know because you did not ask?" Runyan said.

Day 9: Another TEC witness undermines TEC's argument

A brief day in court today, and apparently another bad one for the national church and its local rump affiliate.

The Rt. Rev. Clifton Daniel, III the Provisional Bishop of Pennsylvania, was the first of two witnesses called by the defense today,(July 18) the ninth day of the trial of the Diocese of South Carolina v. TEC and TECSC.

Bishop Daniel, had been Bishop Coadjutor of East Carolina, was vice-president of the fourth Province (a group of dioceses in the southeast), served on the Presiding Bishop's Counsel of Advice and chaired that group.

He testified regarding the General Convention and the fact it is held every three years, who attends and how voting is handled.

During cross-examination by Diocesan attorney Alan Runyan, Daniel was asked about the duties of a Bishop. Daniel stated that for a Bishop to go into another’s jurisdiction he or she would have to obtain consent (from the Bishop of that Diocese.)

Runyan asked if, in General Convention voting, Daniel could overrule his own delegation, simply because he was the bishop, and Daniel said he could not.

When Runyan asked if the witness would agree that no provincial synod has the power to regulate internal affairs of a Diocese, Daniels replied, “ Yes.” He further testified that a diocese did not need to get permission from TEC to amend its own constitution and canons.

Before asking his final question, Runyan placed the Constitution and Canons of TEC for 2006 and 2009 on the edge of the witness stand and asked Daniel to identify them.

Runyan asked the witness to turn to the page in those documents where it says the diocese cannot withdraw from the Episcopal Church and read it to the court. “Is there a page or a phrase, or a sentence, in either of those that says, quote, a diocese may not leave the Episcopal Church without the consent of the general convention?” asked Runyon. “I don't believe so,” answered Daniel. “But I may be wrong.”

“I'm sure it will be pointed out if you are.“ answered Runyan.

The second and final witness for the day, Patricia Neuman was a former member of Trinity, Edisto, who had been a part of that parish’s vestry, but when they voted to disassociate from the national church she left the church.

Court is adjourned until Monday, July 21 at 9:30 a.m.

Day 8: Judge Goodstein lowers the boom on lawless TECSC attorneys

Was this supposed to be TECSC's "expert witness?" Hey, anything's possible with this bunch!

It's hard to imagine what kind of "expert" testimony a legendary stand-up comedian could have provided, but the lawless tactics of the attorneys for The Empty Church in South Carolina (TECSC) were no laughing matter for Judge Diane Goodstein.

ST. GEORGE, SC, JULY 17, 2014 –A normally unflappable South Carolina Circuit Court judge stopped the trial initiated by the Diocese of SC to prevent the seizure of local diocesan and parish property, to scold the defendants for their intentional disregard of three court orders dealing with disclosure of expert witnesses. The defendants, the Episcopal Church (TEC) and The Episcopal Church in South Carolina (TECSC) tried to present an expert witness, Robert Klein, into the trial without having followed court’s orders.

After reminding TEC attorneys that she had bent over backwards to provide them ample opportunity to identify expert witnesses, Judge Diane S. Goodstein said, “You have violated this court three times with regard to experts and now you think you’re going to bring in his (Klein) testimony through the back door? This is not a game! Court’s orders are to be followed! You are an officer of the court. I trust we will not have any more discussion about this witness.”

Goodstein then asked the TEC counselor when Klein was hired as an expert witness. The defense attorney admitted they had communicated with Klein prior to the last court order in June. Judge Goodstein, waving a sheet of paper without Klein’s name on it, said it was “unbelievable,” “remarkable” that his name was not on it and therefore ruled Klein’s testimony excluded. Further, Goodstein said she believed the many efforts to postpone and delay the proceedings of the trial had been a tactical decision by the defendants.

Attorneys for the defense argued at length about the propriety of excluding their witness and threatened to appeal her ruling. Goodstein finally ended the discussion by saying, “I want the courts to assume that I have done what I have done because the defendants failed to comply with not one, not two but three of this court’s orders.”

After the judge’s scolding, TEC presented another expert witness, Leslie Lott, a trademark attorney from Coral Gables, Fla., who had a portion of her testimony excluded because she had based her opinions on the work of Klein, the earlier excluded witness.

Lott was ill prepared to testify because the defendants had only provided her with their side of the case. She had been given no information, factual or legal, about the plaintiff, Diocese of South Carolina. It was apparent through cross examination that Lott’s defense attorney had only presented their side so that she could not render an informed opinion and she simply lacked the necessary information to testify credibly.

Her testimony was interrupted when an irritated Judge Goodstein adjourned for lunch after she realized during cross-examination that Lott had not brought her documents to court.

The other witnesses were parish witnesses who had left and formed other churches, and are now part of TECSC. Each witness testified that proper notice had been given to the congregation to vote as to whether their church remained with the Diocese of South Carolina or go with TEC and its newly formed TECSC.