Diocese of Huron can’t demolish St. Barnabas

As I mentioned here, St. Barnabas’s congregation was moved to St. Aidan’s because the Diocese of Huron won St. Aidan’s property from the congregation in a lawsuit, ousted the congregation and now needs create the illusion that it needed the building for its own congregation.

The diocese’s plan, since it couldn’t sell St. Aidan’s without appearing ridiculously hypocritical, was to demolish the now vacated St. Barnabas. Unfortunately for the diocese, St. Barnabas is in the process of being designated a heritage property, so it can’t be demolished. Such a pity.

From here:

The city’s heritage committee voted Monday to deny the Anglican Diocese’s application to demolish the main church, at 2115 Chilver Road, which was built in 1955. Instead, the committee wants the city to designate the structure a heritage building — which would prevent demolition in the future.

24 thoughts on “Diocese of Huron can’t demolish St. Barnabas

  1. The Diocese of Huron is currently in the real estate business. Not buying………..just selling or so it seems. Soon, there will be housing development shooting up where churches used to be. Half or one quarter full actually is representative of the current state of Anglicanism. The philosophy of a church on every corner was promoted as a model of doing ‘church’ back in the ’50’s to about the mid-sixties. Then cars and other modes of transportation loomed on the horizon and the days of the horse and buggy were over.
    And sadly, so was the Anglican Church!
    It is pretty much a failed experiment. Too bad the ‘mandarins’ at Church House don’t know that.

    • Real Estate is the only asset they have. Brand-loyalty is gone, membership is evaporating, faith in God among the leadership is at an all-time low. Their sinecure relies on being able to sell those buildings.

  2. People had cars and other modes of transportation before the 1950s, even if not on the scale prevalent today. The “church on every corner” idea predated the 1950s by many decades. It worked well when churches were providing something people wanted and needed.

  3. I am curious though, while the AcoC held strong to the philosophy of a ‘church on every corner’ my Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends trotted off to larger complexes.
    I think if you check even mainline Protestant denominations, the rule was ‘build ’em larger and spread ’em out’. Of course with the Catholic expression all but dead within Anglicanism, just what is the point. Wait…………..Luthercan! Now, that’s the answer.
    Tongue in cheek……….!

  4. The church is not a building. Jesus is the builder of the church (Matthew 16:18). He makes use of all His followers to build His church. It is God who has brought the church into being. It is God who keeps it alive. It is God’s church. The church of a false god will not survive in the long run.

    • I think you are spot on. I don’t understand why people care so much about physical buildings. With the movement in many denominations towards being missional churches, I would think that many physical buildings will become less important.

      • The physical buildings are important to the Anglican Church of Canada because they are worth money and money is important to the ACoC. Thus, the ACoC has no hesitation in seizing buildings from congregations that have a use for them – just in order to demolish them and sell the land.

        It is true – and a tired Christian cliché at this point – that the people not the building are the church. Nevertheless, as any congregation that has lost its building to a greedy diocese can attest, having a building in which to worship is a lot more convenient than not having one.

        Michael and Ed, if you really believe what you say, present a proposal to your vestries to give away your buildings to an organisation that could put them to better use.

        • Hi David
          Thanks for your thoughts. Perhaps strangely to you, I have suggested getting rid of our church building. Maybe I’m safe in saying this because I am in the minority and perhaps I’d be singing a different tune if I were in your shoes. But from my own vantage point, I do think that many churches spent too much time focusing on their own building to the detriment of other more important things.

          • But from my own vantage point, I do think that many churches spent too much time focusing on their own building to the detriment of other more important things.

            I wouldn’t disagree. A short while ago I was chatting to a member of a congregation (not Anglican) that had recently built a new church costing millions of dollars. They now find themselves in a position where they are wearing themselves out trying to raise money to fully pay for it.

            Perhaps strangely to you, I have suggested getting rid of our church building.

            I expect your rector keeps a wary eye on you 😉

            In spite of the the potential hazards building ownership entails, here are a few practical examples of ministries that had to stop when St. Hilda’s lost its building:

            We had a weekly ministry to high school children where we we would feed them a free lunch every Friday and share the Gospel with them. Over 100 children attended.

            We have a lot of artists at St. Hilda’s. A few times a year we would hold an “Artists for Africa” weekend where the proceeds of the art sales went to World Vision.

            We held a “Garage sale Giveaway” a few times a year where all the items were free. It allowed us to share the Gospel with our local community: just as the items were free, so is God’s love and offer of salvation.

            We had free car washes, again as a symbol of God’s free gift of salvation through Christ Jesus.

      • This is something that I have a hard time understanding. Old buildings being declared “historical” and thus protected from not just demolition but pretty much any changes at all. But if these buildings are not being used, especially in any manner that is at all historic, than why are we protecting them? The only reason I can think of is that they are old. That they are no longer being used tells me that what was going on in them before is no longer important. And if the function is no longer important than why is the building?

  5. With all due respect in terms of how the ACoC conducts ‘business’ the church is actually the Bishop’s. Not mine, not yours. One of the glaring problems that I have encountered over the years is that there is a disproportionate number of Anglicans who actually think it is ‘their’ building. In fact, we are only paying a franchise fee. And the ACoC is one of the worst franchise holder’ ever imagined.

    • I wonder if the ACoC conducted its fund raising to build that church with that slogan: “all this belongs, not to you, but to the bishop”? I have my doubts.

    • AS I have been reminded of lately, when using the term “my Church home”-a couple members of the clergy in Edmonton pointed out (rudely) “It’s not YOUR Church home”- now give us and extra $50k this year for our REACH program-good luck with that

  6. The ACoC is totally apostate and that has been proved by the actions in various dioceses to legally steal properties from orthodox Christians solely in an attempt to force said believers into accepting their apostate beliefs. The time has long since past for members in the ACoC to refuse to make any donations or contributions to church buildings or maintenance since the Diocese can eject you without any consideration for the donations or contributions you have made. Any clergy person within the ACoC – bishop or otherwise – has either turned his back on the vows made at this ordination and/or consecration or is simply holding his/her position for financial gain.

  7. One of the failures of Anglicanism is to translate the faith past ‘the building’. There are numbers of Anglican’s who equate ‘their’ church building as the defining edifice to Anglicanism. Absolute silliness. One church should not be in competition with another.

    • You are totally correct that one church should not be in competition with another. However, in the Anglican Communion we have witnessed the ACoC and the TEC descend into the pit of apostasy with the full support of so-called bishops. There is no competition between the ACoC and the ACNA or ANIC as the latter is orthodox and believes in the Gospel.

  8. No doubt, church buildings can be useful for doing ministry. It is interesting to note that in Cuba, “aging cathedrals are empty, but new house churches are full” (Christianity Today, March 2015, p. 24). Perhaps house churches, cells of the body of Christ, can be an excellent evangelistic tool to reach out into their neighbourhoods and community. House churches are to disciple new people, grow in size, and then divide, producing new life in the body of Christ.

  9. Another question that has perplexed me as well and that has to do with the nature of Anglicanism. In ways to many to count, it sort of reminds me of what Baptists do. They multiply by division…….if you get my meaning. In Canada, we also have the Independent Anglican Church. There may be pockets of growth…..somewhere….but I doubt that disenfranchised Anglican’s attend in mass numbers in any configuration. I have noticed also that the more angered and hurt the disenfranchised have become, when they meet, its almost a ‘slagging match’ rather than a community or fellowship.
    For what it is worth, my suggestion would be to leave the whole ‘ethos’ Difficult as that may seem.

  10. There was a previous post in regards the use of historical designated buildings. A good use was accomplished many years ago locally. A developer approached the United Church of Canada and negotiated a deal in which a local unused building was converted into apartment complexes. Part of the deal was to keep the front of the building as a ‘church’. Looks terrific when doing a drive by and apparently the apartments are well maintained.

    • Hello Jim,
      Not sure if you have any experience with a historically designated building, but from your post I think not. Once a building is designated an historic building it is virtually impossible to anything to it. You can’t even put up new wallpaper without the approval of the local historical board.

  11. To AMPisAnglican………….you are correct in that I haven’t much experience dealing with historically designated buildings. I do know however know that the particular building in question was ‘grandfathered thru’ all the hoops usually associated with the local historical board. For what it is worth.

Leave a Reply