Tag Archives: ANiC

ANiC loses appeal in BC

Posted on by
Reply

The legal battle between ANiC and the Diocese of New Westminster reached another milestone today. The appeal was against the last ruling in favour of the diocese; the whole appeal ruling is here.

A lot of it seems to be a rehash of what has already been said. Some parts of interest included the following sentence where the judges seemed keen on displaying their perceptual acuity:

I could not help but feel that counsel’s respective submissions were like two ships passing in the night, as were the legal authorities on which they relied.

Imagine that: no indabas going on here.

This next section is an illustration of why a secular court is probably never going to side with the theologically conservative. From a secular perspective, doctrine is changeable – ephemeral – and it is up to the officially recognised Anglican Church in Canada to set doctrine as it pleases: doctrinal change is a matter for the General Synod. The conservative view that some doctrine is unchangeable, having been instituted by God, is not even believed by the Anglican Church of Canada, so it’s never going to wash with a secular judge.

And clearly, the judges recognise only one official Anglican Church in Canada – the one recognised by Lambeth – and that body has control of all the diocesan Mammon:

I am not convinced that Anglican worship or ‘Anglicanism’ can be separated in Canada from the notion of the ACC’s episcopal authority.  As Mr. Dickson observed, the Anglican Church of Canada is a “quintessentially hierarchical” body.  It sends bishops to international conferences and its members accept certain creeds and beliefs shared by other Anglicans around the world, but in terms of substantive decision-making power, the organizational structure in Canada is clear: the ACC is autonomous and doctrinal change is a matter for the General Synod.  That body has chosen to permit same-sex blessings, albeit in the rather unenthusiastic wording of the 2007 resolution, and the Bishop and Diocesan Synod of New Westminster have chosen to pursue the matter to the extent they have – despite the opposition of many of their parishioners.

I prefer to rest my conclusion that the appeal must be dismissed, however, on the basis that the purpose of the trusts on which the parish corporations hold the church buildings and other assets is to further Anglican ministry in accordance with Anglican doctrine, and that in Canada, the General Synod has the final word on doctrinal matters.  This is not to say that the plaintiffs are not in communion with the wider Anglican Church – that is a question on which I would not presume to opine.  I do say, however, that members of the Anglican Church in Canada belong to an organization that has subscribed to “government by bishops.”  The plaintiffs cannot in my respectful opinion remove themselves from their bishop’s oversight and the diocesan structure and retain the right to use properties that are held for purposes of Anglican ministry in Canada.

One small consolation is the recognition that Michael Ingham will find himself ministering to empty churches; he could become – as we like to say in business – a free floating apex:

Presumably the Bishop and the Synod have chosen to take the risk that the policy allowing same-sex blessings will indeed prove to be ‘schismatic’; or that clergy in the Diocese will for the foreseeable future find themselves ministering to vastly reduced or non-existent congregations.  That, however, is their decision to make in the structure that the Anglican Church takes in Canada.  Anglican ministry in Canada is “as defined by the ACC.”

Diocese of Niagara litigation costs

Posted on by
11

For the first time that I’m aware of, the Diocese of Niagara has included the cost of suing ANiC parishes in a financial statement.

You can find the statement here and the relevant line shows that in 2009 the diocese, while not preoccupied with distributing free hugs, spent $395,895 on lawsuits:

Where did this money come from? It wasn’t budgeted – and it still isn’t. It presumably came from the diocese’s primary source of income: the diocesan assessment. That means that with a total assessment in 2009 of $3,044,139, 13 cents out of every dollar contributed by Diocese of Niagara parishioners was used to sue fellow Christians.

The financial statement goes on to declare that the diocese was the defendant in the 2009 legal action; it was actually the plaintiff – the instigator of the suit – as can be seen here. In addition, even if the diocese does finally win all the litigation, it will not recover its legal costs; of the $395,895, only around $80,000 of  was recovered.

The Diocese of New Westminster does a flag plant in St. Matthew's, Abbotsford

Posted on by
4

Not a church plant.

The Diocese of New Westminster is determined to hold a service in St. Matthew’s Abbotsford – a parish that has joined ANiC and whose building is in dispute – not because a diocesan congregation is needed there or to create a new outreach, but to stake a claim in the building. Considering the diocese is busy closing, consolidating and selling buildings, and it will almost certainly not have a viable congregation at St. Matthews, it is doing little more than playing dog in the manger; except dogs are more friendly.

From here:

On Sunday, August 29th at 8am in the Parish Hall of St. Matthew’s Abbotsford there will be a service of Holy Communion celebrated by the Reverend David Price, a priest licensed by Bishop Michael Ingham.

All are Welcome

On June 11th, 2010 counsel for the Diocese of New Westminster appeared before Justice Stephen Kelleher of the BC Supreme Court in the case concerning church properties seeking an Order as to costs arising from the Judgment [sic] granted November 25, 2009, as well as further Directions as to compliance by the trustees of the Parish Corporations with the Orders granted at that time.

St. Matthew’s Abbotsford is one of the contested church properties.

The Plaintiffs (Trustees) have appealed that earlier decision and this will be argued in the BC Court of Appeal commencing September 13, 2010.
In supplementary Oral Reasons for Judgment issued on June 29, 2010, Justice Kelleher awarded costs to the Diocese of New Westminster (the Defendants) and upheld the directions sought by the Diocese. In doing so, Justice Kelleher reiterated that trustees are required to exercise their powers in accordance with the Diocesan Constitution and Canons. This means that, pending the election of new trustees, the trustees at St. Matthew’s Abbotsford must respond to the Defendants’ request to hold one service per week celebrated by a priest chosen by the Bishop of the Diocese of New Westminster.

In mid-July, 2010 Bishop Michael Ingham and Officers of the Diocese of New Westminster stated their intention to offer Anglican Church of Canada worship at St. Matthew’s Abbotsford beginning August 29th, 2010 and informed the Counsel for the Plaintiffs (the ANiC clergy and trustees).

In response they applied for a “Stay of Execution” of Justice Kelleher’s June 29th, 2010 direction and a hearing was scheduled to take place in front of the Chief Justice, Friday, August 27th.

Early in the week of August 22nd Counsel for the Diocese sent a letter to Counsel for the Plaintiffs suggesting that the diocesan service take place in the Parish Hall of St. Matthew’s Abbotsford and not in the sanctuary.

On August 26th Counsel for the Plaintiffs advised the registry that they are not proceeding and that the application for the “stay” is adjourned generally.

The Diocese of New Westminster, Anglican Church of Canada worship service will take place as scheduled Sunday, August 29th in the Parish Hall of St. Matthew’s Abbotsford.

Having experience the joys of sharing a building – in our case it was reversed, we had the hall – with a diocese that we felt compelled to part from, I feel considerable sympathy for the real St. Matthew’s and trust that Col 1:11 will apply.

ANiC loses buildings in New Westminster court battle

Posted on by
3

The judgement is here

No doubt lawyers will be dissecting the judgement over the next few weeks, but the following statement from the judgement seems fairly clear:

A parish does not have authority to unilaterally leave the Diocese, and it is consequently ultra vires for it to pass a resolution purporting to do so. Additionally, while parish corporations may hold title to real property, the effect of s. 7(4)(a) is that that property effectively remains within the Diocese unless the Executive Committee and Bishop agree to mortgage, sell or otherwise dispose of it. In using the church properties for purposes related to ANiC, the parish corporations are using them outside the jurisdiction of the Diocese, and, indeed, the ACC. In my view, this is sufficient to bring the properties within the ambit of s. 7(4)(a) such that the consent of the Executive Committee and Bishop is necessary. As that consent is obviously not forthcoming, the properties remain with the Diocese.

A not particularly surprising view by a secular judge.

Another section says:

The evidence is clear that the ACC remains in communion with the Anglican Communion: the ACC remains in Communion with the See of Canterbury; it was invited to send its bishops to the Lambeth Conference in 2008 and those who were able to attend, did; it continues to participate as a full member in the Anglican Consultative Council; and, it continues to participate in Primates’ meetings. I observe, as well, that the Archbishop of Canterbury affirmed in February 2008 that his “office and that of the Anglican Communion recognize one ecclesial body in Canada as a constitutive member of the Communion, the Anglican Church of Canada”.

Clearly Rowan Williams’ reluctance to discipline heretical Canadian and TEC dioceses has not helped ANiC’s case. It will be interesting to note how far this judgement is seen as a green light for the ACoC to chart new waters of apostasy in its General Synod of 2010.

I imagine this does not bode well for any of the ANiC parishes who are legally contending for their buildings.  But, as Primate Bob Duncan says, “And we’ll have the souls and they’ll get the stuff. We’ll get the future, they’ll get the past. I’d rather have the souls and the future.”

For my part, I think that is not such a bad deal; if – as seems not unlikely – my parish family ends up being thrown out of its building, as far as I am concerned it will be a time to stiffen the spine, be firmly united, look to the future, trust in God, and rejoice in the reality of the salvation that Jesus offers through his atoning sacrifice on the cross.

Coincidentally, this Sunday is St. Hilda’s 50th anniversary celebration; I have a feeling that it is going to be a wonderful time of worship because, regardless of the plans of man, God will be there.

St. Hilda's Free Carwash

Posted on by
4

St. Hilda’s Anglican Church, ANiC has a Free Car Wash!

It is an outreach to the community to illustrate the love, grace and salvation of God which is offered to us free through Jesus Christ. For all photos, go here.

The Bait:

Add an Image

The Wash:

Add an Image

Chief Wheel Scrubber:

Add an Image

Sharing the Gospel:

Add an Image

The Mastermind behind it all:

Add an Image

Telling moments in the ANiC vs New Westminster trial

Posted on by
Reply

In the final argument, the diocesan lawyer said this:

If the Solemn Declaration sets up a trust so defined, “Churches would be forced into rigorous conservatism,” Macintosh said. “Adapting their doctrines and practices to changing social realities would bring the risk of schism and dissolution. They would be forced to stick with old practices and old understandings.”

The unstated assumption on the part of the diocese is that adapting church doctrine to contemporary cultural mores is what God calls the church to do. This is at the heart of the disagreement: the diocese believes that culture contributes to the determination of doctrine, whereas ANiC believes doctrine has been revealed by God through the Incarnation and propositionally in the bible; it is not subject to the vagaries of shifting temporal conditions. Orthodox Christians view culture in the light of Scripture, revisionists view Scripture in the light of the contemporary culture.

The day before, the diocesan lawyer had this to say:

Different theological positions within a “big tent” denomination like Anglicans are “hardly surprising,” Macintosh argued. But most Canadian Anglicans—including many conservatives opposed to the blessing of same sex unions—feel they can remain in the Anglican Church of Canada.

The account of the trial on the New Westminster site repeatedly refers to ANiC members as dissidents, a euphemism for troublemakers, one assumes. The diocese contrasts this with conservatives who feel they can remain in the Anglican Church of Canada, a number of whom were named. What we see here is a distasteful parading of tame evangelicals to press home the diocesan attempt to squash orthodox Christians in ANiC.

I know there are faithful and well-meaning Christians who believe they are called to remain in the ACoC and I am not in a position to question what they consider to be their calling. But the fact that they do remain is being used by the ACoC to further its revisionist agenda.

Crisis in the Anglican Church of Canada? I think not!

Posted on by
2

On February 26th, 2008, the Right Rev. Colin R. Johnson, Bishop of Toronto had this to say:

Anglican Church is doing just fine
Crisis in the Anglican Church of Canada? I think not! While it is always a matter of great regret when anyone chooses to leave, surely recent reports of schism in Canada need some context. Of the approximately 2,300 parishes in Canada, about 15 have voted to “walk apart.”

Well, Colin, ANiC now has 3 bishops, 68 priests, 12 deacons, and 30 parishes with average Sunday attendance of around 3500  –  larger than 13 ACoC dioceses.

The Diocese of new Westminster is 2 weeks into the trial that will determine ownership of ANiC parish buildings, the Diocese of Niagara has been awarded $95,000 costs even though they were seeking $320,000, leaving them $225,000 in the hole – a deficit that is conspicuously absent from their published financial statements.

Crisis? What crisis?

Michael Ingham just doesn’t get it

Posted on by
2

Some more interesting comments from Michael Ingham in court yesterday:

Turning to Bishop Ingham’s insistence that no one is being asked to leave any parish except priests who are still in place after having relinquished the bishop’s license, Cowper asked how—not from a legal but “a human point of view”—the bishop could expect members of the dissident parishes to remain in the diocese if they fail to win the lawsuit?

“It’s not likely they will stay, is it?” the lawyer asked.

“I’m not convinced of that,” replied Bishop Ingham. “One should never underestimate the attachment of Anglicans to their buildings.” The reply elicited groans from some in the court supporting the dissident congregations.

The bishop went on to suggest that some people will want to remain where they have been baptized, married, or where relatives are buried. He said it was his understanding that members of dissident congregations had been told by their leaders they could have the Anglican Church of Canada and take their buildings with them. However, he admitted he had not been at any of the meetings of these congregations where these matters were discussed.

Ingham’s belief that ANiC parishioners would return to the ACoC just to keep their buildings can only mean:

Ingham hasn’t read Proverbs 26:11 recently;
He  is judging Christians by his own – rather dim – moral lights;
It hasn’t occurred to Ingham that for some people, principle is more important than a building;
He radically underestimates the level of disagreement he is facing both in Canada and world-wide;
He thinks ANiC leaders have lied to their parishioners;
He has completely lost touch with reality and just doesn’t get it.

Perhaps all of the above.

The Diocese of Niagara’s bishop, Michael Bird seemed to suffer from a similar delusion: he invited ANiC parishioners to return (well, except for me). Not much came of it, though: the diocese is occupying ANiC parish buildings on Sunday mornings, but there are no congregations. Even one of their own priests declared in a flash of uncharacteristic insight that the Diocese of Niagara parishes are not viable.

What is the difference between Jesus Christ and Superman?

Posted on by
1

When I was but a callow youth I went to see the original “Jesus Christ Superstar” in London. I enjoyed it immensely; but, then, I also went to see “Hair” and enjoyed it just as much – I was not a Christian at the time.

The association of Jesus with a super-something is a beguiling notion but, actually, he is 100% human, 100% God and 0% Superman. As God he could have chosen to bring down fire from heaven, decimate his enemies and vindicate his followers. I confess there is a part of me that would like to see that but, instead, he knew his calling was to be that of the suffering servant, the Redeemer of mankind. By accepting the path that was laid before him he has shaped history and civilisation in a way that he could not have as Superman –  and  he has redeemed those of us that choose to accept him.

And so it is has been for the last 2000 years: those who have truly influenced the course of history have not been celebrities, winners of Britain’s Got Talent or even people who have been apparently successful; the real shapers of history have been people who have been prepared to sacrifice themselves for what they believe.

Interestingly, an evolutionary anthropologist has noticed this:

WHAT is the difference between Jesus Christ and Superman? The content of religions and popular tales is often similar, but only religions have martyrs, according to an analysis of behavioural evolution published this week.

When religious leaders make costly sacrifices for their beliefs, the argument goes, these acts add credibility to their professions of faith and help their beliefs to spread. If, on the other hand, no one is willing to make a significant sacrifice for a belief then observers – even young children – quickly pick up on this and withhold their own commitment. “Nobody takes a day off to worship Superman or gives money to the Superman Foundation,” points out Joseph Henrich, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.

Although I would not place the aggravation that ANiC parishes have been subject to at the hands of the ACoC in the same category as martyrs who have died or otherwise suffered for their faith, nevertheless, it is instructive to note the difference in ANiC and ACoC supporters. Those who support ANiC are often not paid and do so because they are passionately convinced of the rightness of its cause; those who are paid have placed their conviction above financial security. In contrast, ACoC bishops support their employer rather than the truth because their career, salary and pension are at stake; the moribund Federation are at home in the comfort of a familiar institution and the rest just follow like sheep.

And therein lies the difference that I believe will determine the final outcome of the current struggle.