Since it is 4:00am where I am, I think I will refrain from commenting on this, for now.
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release ~ Friday, April 4th, 2008
Victoria – The Anglican Diocese of British Columbia (Vancouver Island & the Gulf Islands) has asserted its ownership of buildings at 4125 Metchosin Road, in the District of Metchosin, by securing the property with a change of locks and the installation of a monitored alarm system. The property is known as St. Mary of the Incarnation Anglican Church.
The Parish of St. Mary, Metchosin is an historic parish of the Diocese of British Columbia, serving the District since 1862. In 1873 the present “heritage” church in the village was consecrated, and in 1991 services began at the newly built site known as St. Mary of the Incarnation. Members of the parish, who did not join ‘The Network’, have continued to worship in the old St. Mary’s Church in Metchosin Village. Now that the Diocese has asserted ownership of the 4125 Metchosin Road property, these parishioners of the Diocese will return to using it.
The Bishop of British Columbia, James Cowan, in announcing this action, stated, “While I am conscious of the need to protect and preserve the people and the property of the institution in my care, I am sorry that events have brought us to the necessity of this measure.”
The Bishop’s need to “protect and preserve” people and property is a result of the Episcopal and the synodical make-up of Anglicanism in Canada. Dioceses (designated geographic territories) under the leadership of a bishop are established and parishes are formed by the diocese. Parishioners, members of the diocese but attending a specific parish, exercise the Church’s ministry through that parish and in outer ways in the life of the diocese. The Synod, appointed and elected members of every congregation and parish in the diocese, holds title to all diocesan property “in trust” for the use of members of the Anglican Church of Canada in the Diocese.
Former members of St. Mary of the Incarnation, Metchosin, left the Diocese of British Columbia and the Anglican Church of Canada in February of this year after passing a motion (February 17th, 2008) to join with ‘The Network’, a group of conservative Canadian Christians endorsing the leadership of former Anglican Bishop Donald Harvey of St. John, Newfoundland, and Archbishop Gregory Venables, Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone of South America. Archbishop Venables lives in Olivos, Argentina, where he is bishop of the Diocese of Argentina. They had continued to worship at the St. Mary of the Incarnation site even though they were fully aware that the property belonged to the Synod of the Diocese of British Columbia, and that this action would be taken at some point. Bishop Cowan decided to allow them use of the site until after the Easter weekend.
Members of ‘The Network’ have left the Anglican Church of Canada over issues of authority, human sexuality, and the interpretation of Scripture, as well as a variety of other concerns which have been before the Church over the past several decades.
Assuming the Diocese wins in the end, how many people are we talking about as ACC devotees?
Also, how long before the Diocese has to sell the property because it can no longer afford to maintain it?
I really do not believe that the Gospel is best served by adding yet another twee restaurant in a former church to the world’s supply of mediocre eateries.
WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) in this situation? Well, it appears that Bishop Cowen thinks He would throw out the congregation, change the locks, and install an intrusion alarm system. Given the “new theology” of the ACoC, why am I not surprised by his response?
“I really do not believe that the Gospel is best served by adding yet another twee restaurant in a former church to the world’s supply of mediocre eateries.”
Really Matthew, such negativity! There’s no reason to believe St. Mary of the Incarnation will suffer such a fate. I’m sure it will be a most excellent restaurant!!
Looks to me like Bsp. Cowan is expecting the Priests and those who followed them to take this to Court. I do pray that this will not happen. Please people of St. Mary’s, walk away from this building with your heads held high and your hands raised up to the Lord in Praise.
The followers of Bsp Cowan, Ingham, Bird, and the rest will all have to answer to a much Higher Authority in the end and they will be the ones who (according to what I read in the Scriptures) will be severely dealt with by Jesus on that Judgement Day.
Buildings are just that, Buildings…..nothing more.
Loyalty to God cannot be locked up by some Bishop.
I encourage the Bishops, Archdeacons and Priests who follow Bishop Cowan’s thinking to read Matthew 23 (The seven woes) and see just where it is that they think they fit in.
What will they serve? Sour grapes?
I agree with Gerry. It is best to walk away in the faith that God will provide. In the end we can take nothing with us so wiser to start practising that now.
What happened to the idea of Archbishop Terry Buckle going in to mediate between the Bishop and parish? He is their Metropolitan. Anyone out there know the answer to that?
Archbishop Terry did meet (three weeks ago) with the parish leaders (Sharon and Andrew) and the diocesan representatives (I imagine Bishop Cowan and Archdeacon Bryant-Scott). I understand they explored alternatives to litigation. I guess this is the answer.
Thanks so much, Jim, for your reply.
This comment is from Kelvin – he tried to post earlier when the feed was down, and emailed it to me instead:
Since the diocese of Niagara attempts to assert ownership of property do not appear to be going well, it looks like a new tactic is being tried. Maybe the strategy here is that possession is 9/10ths of the law. Also as Gerry O’Brien suggests, maybe the diocese of B.C. is hoping that the ANiC congregation will walk away from the building.
On the issue of fighting for the building, I would like to share what one of my fellow St. George’s parishioners told me. After having a discussion with a friend about how the building is really not the issue, this parishioner returned home. That night she received a very clear message from God; “I care about the buildings”.
Though I agree that the church is not the building, and the physical property is secondary, if God is asking us to fight for his building, then we must stand up and fight. After all these buildings were dedicated to be used for the glory of God.
Yes, Michael Daley has linked to an emailed memo about the negotiations that are supposed to happen, at “Not the Lambeth” blog – there’s a link on the sidebar.
Meanwhile, we in Ottawa wait and hold our collective breaths. +Chapman has promised not to act precipitously; let us all pray that he keeps his word (he has so far…)
Gerry (4)
Our churches are more than buildings, they are places of worship. In many cases hundreds of thousands of prayer hours have been seeped into their sanctuaries. As wayward as the custodians of the Temple were in His day, Christ still valued the Temple.
I believe the test should be not to let the fight for the sanctuaries jeoparize the spirit of those engaged in it.
I think Kelvin has a point in #10.
Whether to fight or not for the buildings really isn’t an easy decision; but if it is what God wants us to do, then that is what we should do.
Network congregations don’t want the buildings simply for the sake of owning them or for their monetary value: they want to use them for ministry – God’s ministry. I don’t believe the same can be said for the Dioceses who are changing locks or taking congregations to court.
With respect to “messages from God” (#10), I would be most surprised if there aren’t people on the other side of the fence who are justifying their actions on the basis that they have had a clear message from the God that He cares about buildings. My Pentecostal upbringing has made me wary of claims about words from the Lord and the leading of the Holy Spirit.
“Network congregations don’t want the buildings simply for the sake of owning them or for their monetary value: they want to use them for ministry – God’s ministry. I don’t believe the same can be said for the Dioceses who are changing locks or taking congregations to court.”
And using church buildings to promulgate false doctrines that mislead the faithful. The revisionist faction freely admits that their teachings are “new” and represent “change”. The onus therefore should be on them to demonstrate that they are still practising Christians and therefore entitled to historically Christian properties, instead of being a new breakaway religion.
Jim:
“I believe the test should be not to let the fight for the sanctuaries jeoparize the spirit of those engaged in it.”
I agree with your statement (above) and I do understand all of the statements supporting why the buildings are important and I accept those reasons. My statement is supported by Jim’s statement above and that is really the reasoning behind my comments.
I really believe that the Province, The Metropolitans and the Dioceses think that if they drag these land and building battles out long enough, it will impair or destroy the will of the people who have broken away. I think we can all agree that the Primate and the liberals really give no thought to the idea of not embroiling the things in civil courts…..as Scripture tells us not to do…..they could care basically less…..they don’t care because they have turned away from God and The Scriptures so it matters not to them.
I really despise the attitudes of them and I really do pray that our ANiC and Southern Cone people will not fall too deeply into their trap and the trap of the monetarily motivated lawyers.
Please, please fight for your buildings! A congregation in North Vancouver walked away and the church now hosts winter solstice celebrations, philosophers cafes, and has petitioned Bishop Ingham for permission to bless same sex marriages.
I agree with Gerry. Just as we have been held in the “conversation” that got us nowhere for too long so we might be held in by legal battles that will take their toll on us spiritually, mentally and monitarily. I’d love to keep our buildings but I don’t agree with fighting over them.
“if they drag these land and building battles out long enough, it will impair or destroy the will of the people who have broken away.”
I hope not. If the fight for the building meant a spiritually weaker congregation, then it wouldn’t be worth it. So far, though, at St. Hilda’s, the reverse seems to be the case.
Warren #14,
Since we are fallen, sinful and see through a glass, darkly, I am naturally wary about messages from God – and I didn’t even have a Pentecostal upbringing. That doesn’t mean they don’t happen, though.
Also, I would be surprised if there were not similar claims from the other side of this issue. That is why we are told to test the spirits – we might still get it wrong, of course.
#17 – yup… see http://www.stclareinthecove.org & this used to be St Simons under Ed Hird+ until they saw the benefits of leaving rather than $$helping the lawyers. Sad as it was (& still is at a new location ) a very strong renewal parish. Any churches taken over by their respective bishops will no doubt reemerge as the St Clare template. A winter solstice as the big December event … groovy.
#18 – “the buildings” a very hard thing for parishoners to come to grips with and a cold hearted act by the powers that be , however as we see in today’s news like in the Olivet discourse we must press on doing the Kingdom’s business.
ps Also I have the highest regard for +Terry Buckle & am sure he tried his best despite the opposition
“St Clare-in-the-cove offered the winter Solstice Event because of our commitment to honoring diversity and inviting inclusivity. By gathering with the diverse traditions in our wider community we are able to explore the many facets of spiritual life. Our goal is to connect with people who wish to be spiritual, even if they don’t consider themselves religious, to offer opportunities where we can explore and foster our spiritual journeys together. “What is so wonderful about the solstice is that it allows so many people — of different faiths and beliefs to welcome the coming of light and to celebrate the Sacred Presence.”
http://www.stclareinthecove.org/StClareInTheCove/Solstice.html
This is a church??
By their fruit shall you know them. Sneaking about changing the locks and installing alarm systems? Lord have mercy.
As a parishioner at St George’s Lowville, I struggled with the whole idea if taking the diocese of Niagara to court. Thankfully we are only defending ourselves at this time. I would be quite uncomfortable taking another Christian to court. First Corinthians makes it clear that we should not take our brother and sisters in Christ to court.
As I think about it now the situation is not as clear as some of you make it out to be. It could be easily argued that many of the leadership in the ACoC have clearly abandoned that faith by incorporating ideas, practices and ritual that are counter to sound Christian teaching. It then is no longer a case of one Christian taking another to court, but of one Christian talking a formerly Christian organization to court. If that is the case I no longer think that the directives in I Corinthians apply. Now before you all jump down my throat, let me say that I recognize that there are still some loyal Christians in the ACoC trying to return the Church to Orthodox Christian faith from within.
I do not envy those who will be deciding if they should seek an injunction against the diocese of B.C. so that they can again use the church building that they built and paid for. On one hand I Corinthians does say in reference to court cases, “Why not rather be wronged, why not rather be cheated”. On the other hand this is God’s property that we should be taking care of as good stewards. Allowing the diocese to use it for pagan solstice rituals is not good stewardship. We need to pray for wisdom for all those who must make these decisions at St. Mary’s (ANiC).
Following Post#22. It is interesting how far the church, if you can still call it that, has gone. It clearly seems that the “New ACoC” is interested only in helping its members on there own spiritual journeys. There is no longer any commonality in method or direction. From what I can tell they are forming a new type of Unitarian Church, an environment where you go to “explore and foster our spiritual journeys together”. All faiths, and even the atheists I would wager, are welcome. It is definitely not Christian. If you haven’t read it already please see my comments on Niagara synod where pagan symbology were clearly evident. http://www.lambethconference.net/canada/?p=165
I attended a Unitarian church once with a humanist friend of mine. It was a strange environment with poetry readings and the like. From what I can tell its main purpose was to reinforce whatever your view was independent of its truth or basis. I attended a discussion afterwards where people were given opportunity to share while other listened. There was absolutely no correction or comment. A perfect environment for the current winds of thought, to spread like gangrene. It is all about re-enforcing the current deception that the attendees are buying. It is complete bunk as far as I am concerned.
Kelvin: Sounds like you’re talking about the ACoC, TEC, The United Church of Canada and the Church of Oprah, all in one paragraph at that.. AND …You didn’t even have to mention their names. Cool.
To Ellie M. – Brrrrrr! cold shivers……inclusivity, all welcome..yup, sounds like the ideals of Ingham, Robinson, Hiltz and Rowan alright.
Brrrrrr……..
David Jenkins:
I do hope that you folks at St. hilda’s, St. George’s (Lowville) and The Good Shepherd in St. Catharines? are given a sensible and proper decision from the Supreme Court of Ontario Lady Justice that is hearing the cases. The thing we must remember is this…If this goes the way WE want it to, the Diocese will appeal to the Appelant Court of Ontario and if they lose there, they will take it to the Supreme Court of Canada……Do you have any idea how much time this chews up?
I empathize with all of the Network Churches because I think we are right in this battle, but I am not of the mindset that we should be diverting time, monies and focus to buildings for too long a time period……better for us to focus on moving on out and up, up and away from the ACoC as quickly as reasonably possible.
So long as we are not the ones taking Churches to Court, I guess I’m ok with it for a little while. I just do not like to see the corporate lawyers (ACoC ones) sitting there licking their chops at all of the thousands and thousands and thousands of $$$’s they are going to take out of churches and into their own bank accounts.
Gerry,
The expending of time and money by the ACoC I don’t find terribly upsetting since it is time and money that can’t be put to pernicious use elsewhere. Our hope is that it won’t consume too much of our time, but we will have to see.
Something to bear in mind too, is that result of the court case that we are in will set a precedent for future cases. One of the arguments put forward by the Diocese was that if the judge rules for the congregations, the ACoC will have no way to enforce discipline for any other congregations that may be fomenting revolt (my paraphrase). The Diocese correctly sees that if we do win the battle for the buildings it would be an encouragement to other parishes that might be wavering on whether to join the Network.
David:
I agree about the precedent setting court case but likely will not be an “airtight” precedent dependent upon each parish’s paperwork and age of buildings, etc. Each one will be a bit different, however the precedent would be a strong helper to other cases.
We are all in the same lifeboat, just that our ships are different sizes I guess. Have a great weekend.
Blessings,
Gerry
As a member of St. Mary’s (ANiC) I thank you all for your insightful comments and assure you that we, as a parish, are grappling with all of the points you have collectively made regarding our buildings and to what extent congregations should fight for them or not. To Kelvin (#24) thank you for your request for prayers of “wisdom for all those who must make these decisions”. We appreciate all the prayers being said on our behalf.
A subtle, but important, point of clarification to Gerry (#4) where you refer to “the Priests and those who followed them” — over the years, our clergy made sure we were informed, and they challenged us to question and learn. At no time did they ever tell us which way we should vote on the question of whether or not to join ANiC — indeed, at the time of the actual vote they were forbidden to have any contact with us, their parishioners. It was only after our vote that they relinquised their licenses under the Diocese of BC and came under Bishop Harvey. In essence, they followed us! PTL!
#28 Yes! You are setting a prescedent. I’m convinced that the result of your court case is the reason why +Ottawa is so willing to negotiate.
The congregation has won a court injunction to stop the Diocese.
http://www.cfax1070.com/newsstory.php?newsId=5000
Liz, too: Point made….now I’ll state my reasoning for my subtle statement tht can be taken exactly as you have….
I am a member of a Diocese where the Bishop made it very clear three years ago that Essentials was not to be discussed in any of his parishes by any of his priests. This is the same Bishop who, just this year required all of the Priests in His Diocese to come and get relicenscend by Him and to renew their vows to Him even though the licences were more than valid.
So you can see now where I was coming from. Our parish Priest could not talk about essentials in a Parish context because he knew that the bishop had his spies in the parish who would report to him as soon as they could get to a telephone after church.
You were fortunate that even Ingham wasn’t (at that point) that stone-fisted.
Sorry ~ Bishop Cowan not Ingham….
Thanks, Gerry. Now I see your comment with a new understanding!