Bishop Michael Ingham desperately seeking a postmodern balance

Michael Ingham is going to give a talk called “The Postmodern Balance: Evangelical, Catholic, Liberal” at St. Matthew’s Abbotsford on January 29th.

St. Matthew’s Abbotsford is one of the parishes whose property was seized by the Diocese of New Westminster when the congregation joined ANiC. The ejected congregation was predominantly evangelical, an irony that probably won’t be explored in Ingham’s talk.

Ingham’s choice of St. Matthew’s from which to convince his listeners that he is interested in maintaining balance is undoubtedly based on the principle that if a lie is sufficiently outrageous, people will think it impossible to be emanating from the hallowed lips of a bishop – and so will be conned into believing it true.

15 thoughts on “Bishop Michael Ingham desperately seeking a postmodern balance

  1. Anglican Samizdat, get it straight once and for all. The property was not seized. A group of reactionary Anglicans – a sect if you like – tried to take over a number of buildings they did not own. They tried to betray the legacy of Anglicans who came before them. As with all Anglican churches, the current congregation holds the property in trust – they steward it for a time and them pass it on to future generations. They have no more right of ownership than those who came before or who will come after.

    The Supreme Court ruled on who legally owns the buildings. That reactionary sect is still bitter given the courts did not interpret the law of the land they way they thought they ought to have.

    I’ve said it before, get over it.

    • And were the issues of constructive trust and unjust enrichment properly claimed and argued? Are they mentioned in the decisions?

    • Why lie? The property was seized, and you know it. The court records show it. Playing games with words is for children and liars and thieves. Into which category do you fit?

      Still, no wonder you post anonymously. Most people are ashamed to lie under their own name and evidently you feel the same.

  2. The legacy of Anglicans who came before them would be horrified by Ingham, I’d wager. It is ANiC who are faithful to the trueAnglican legacy.

  3. Eph

    Is that buzzing I hear a mosquito? No! It’s Eph stamping his feet and proclaiming the righteousness of the ACoC again.
    One thing’s for sure: the stewardship of the apostates over seized buildings will not be a long one.

    • Stolen property never prospers.

      Amusing to learn that the creep is lying about it all as hard as he can. Still, the wicked priest who cares not for God but only for himself is a biblical figure. I wonder if he cares that everyone, Christian and not, laughs at him when he lies?

  4. With Eph’s logic, ACoC should be seized by ANiC following a judgement from the Supreme Court. Orthodox congregations ”betrayed” their allegiance to the ACoC because they changed affiliation, and their property were seized. Then how come does the ACoC still have rights over those properties when they changed their theology? If no change is allowed (whether it be affiliation change to remain true to Scriptures and Tradition or theological heresy), then the ACoC cannot hold trust of the congregations’ property.
    It doesn’t make sense eh? Well, that’s how weird the postmodern balance of evangelical/catholic/liberal (shallow concept) appears to orthodox Christians.

  5. The ACoC has a high ecclesiology only when it comes to secular decisions concerning financial and physical assets. Because of its theological drift it has become a “sect” (yes Eph I’m referencing you) and has no part, in any sense, in the Church catholic.

  6. Anglican Samizadat missed it. I can’t vote for A DYKE. There is no info here on the Ontario election. I am perplexed and beside myself because I am a liberal and I can’t vote for a dyke.

    • Homosexual marriage is non-Christian and non-negotiable, Eph. But I’m curious what other process you envision might have been pursued? ‘Get over it,’ I don’t consider a genuine alternative.

      • Lawrence Auster at VFR writes,

        “In the entry, “Why liberals believe that Muslims and Western homosexuals can get along,” our Canadian leftist reader Ken Hechtman explains that liberals believe it because it is demonstrably true. Some years ago, Canada’s most orthodox Muslim leader came out in support of the homosexual “marriage” bill, and one of the reasons was that he and other Muslims figured that when the legalization of polygamy, backed by Muslims, was proposed, Canada’s liberals would, in a tit for tat, support it.

        In short, homosexualists and Muslims cooperate in their common aim, which is to destroy what remains of Western Civilization. Or, more precisely, their common aim is to destroy Western Civilization 1.0 and replace it by Western Civilization 2.0.”

    • From Wikipedia, Ontario Muslim Liberals (now with a visible homosexual leader!)

      - Yasir Naqvi – Member of Provincial Parliament (Ontario) for Ottawa Centre (2007-). President of the Ontario Liberal Party
      - Shafiq Qaadri – Member of Provincial Parliament (Ontario) for Etobicoke North (2003-). Member of the Ontario Liberal Party

      To quote Arte Johnson, Very interesting, but ….

  7. 8 Eph

    As a professing Christian it is absolutely disgusting for you to use a gutter term to describe a complex human being. Love the sinner (all of us); hate the sin.

Leave a Reply