Now we know what the response from the HoB to Bp Harvey and ANiC was:
Bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada, at their April 14-18 meeting, declined a request for national-level negotiations over church property from the Anglican Network in Canada, a small group of parishes that have decided to leave the church over issues that include offering blessing ceremonies to married gay couples.
“As we discussed the proposal, we came to the conclusion that it is just the norm in the Anglican Church of Canada that issues of that nature are always resolved within dioceses. I don’t hold any title to property. General Synod (the national office in Toronto) doesn’t hold any title to property,” said Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Canadian church.
In a letter to former Anglican Church of Canada bishop Don Harvey, moderator of the network, the bishops said “any meetings need to occur with the appropriate parish and diocesan leadership.”
In the Canadian church structure, the primate functions as chief executive officer of the national office, a national pastor and international representative of the church, but has no legislative authority over dioceses.
The April 11 letter from Bishop Harvey, who is now affiliated with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone in South America, called for a meeting with Archbishop Hiltz, a certain number of bishops and legal counsel that would “discuss pursuing alternate dispute resolution instead of civil litigation which is destructive to the mission of the church.”
In a newsletter released April 15, the network, which represents 15 out of the 2,800 parishes in the Canadian church, said it hoped “to seek an amicable agreement regarding employment issues and disputed property and asset claims, rather than resorting to the secular courts.”
As reported earlier in the Anglican Journal, two dioceses – Hamilton, Ont.-based Niagara and Victoria-based British Columbia – are in civil litigation concerning access to churches that voted to leave, employment issues concerning their clergy and questions of property ownership.
Noting that “our hope has been that we would be able to resolve our differences outside of court,” Archbishop Hiltz also pointed out the difficulty of commencing talks while court cases are ongoing. “We can’t be weighing in once the processes are started,” he said.
All of the bishops’ discussions on the sexuality controversies within the Canadian church and worldwide Anglican Communion were closed to the public. In a statement released at the end of the meeting, the bishops noted that they earlier agreed on a process that would allow diocesan bishops to invite their colleagues to minister to disaffected churches.
“In the midst of these challenges, we repeat that we have put in place a process for shared episcopal ministry,” the statement said.
“We created the model and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s panel of reference looked at it and commended it. Regardless of how they (the parishes) feel about the Anglican Church of Canada, you don’t have to leave,” said Archbishop Hiltz.
In Montreal, “four or five” parishes are exploring shared episcopal ministry, said Bishop Barry Clarke in an interview outside the session. He and the area archbishop, Bruce Stavert of Quebec, are working on a list of bishops who might come in to the diocese. Montreal voted last fall in favour of offering same-sex blessings, but none of its parishes have joined the network.
Several bishops said that in the closed session, members expressed regret at seeing church disputes in court.
Bishop James Cowan of British Columbia said there is a sense among the bishops that “this is not what we ought to be about.”
“I feel sad. Why does this need to happen?” said Bishop Don Phillips of Rupert’s Land. A bishop, he said, “finds it very difficult to be assertive without being combative or aggressive. You almost don’t have that choice.” When there are property issues, he said, “it seems to get nasty.”
It was the bishops’ first meeting since 10 churches in February voted to split from the Canadian church and join the Southern Cone.
The conservative Anglican Essentials Federation wrote to the bishops prior to the meeting expressing distress that they had not challenged diocesan actions that resulted in “de facto changes in the church’s theology.” Communicating to its supporters, the Federation (a parallel group to the Essentials Network that has not left the Canadian church) called for prayer “for the orthodox bishops who will be taking a stand at this meeting.”
Outside the sessions, Bishop William Anderson of Caledonia, in northern British Columbia, who is episcopal visitor to the federation, said “the orthodox bishops continue to try to take a stand. What people mean is they want to know orthodox bishops will faithfully represent orthodox positions on the faith both in what we say in this house and how we vote and also when we are back home in our own dioceses.”
Bishop Larry Robertson, suffragan (assistant) bishop of the Arctic, said his stated position is that “if I believe homosexual behaviour is wrong and that any form of sin leads us away from God, then the loving, caring pastoral way is to say ‘You have to change your ways.’ The pastoral way is to make a person whole.”
Bishops who support greater inclusiveness have a different interpretation of the Bible concerning homosexuality and the bishops’ joint statement at the end of their meeting noted that “we continue to be a church to which all are welcome.”
Bishops from dioceses most seriously affected by the split gave updates at the meeting of their situations. Parishes in Niagara, British Columbia, Ottawa, Toronto and New Westminster have voted to leave. In Brandon and Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador, retired bishops have left the Canadian church and joined the Province of the Southern Cone.
The dioceses of Niagara, Ottawa, Montreal and New Westminster have approved offering same-sex blessings, but only New Westminster has implemented them. The other three bishops are continuing to consult with their colleagues and intend to continue the consultation at the summer Lambeth Conference in England, said Archbishop Hiltz.
The bishops also heard in a closed session that a Canadian church task force feels that the second draft of a proposed international Anglican covenant is a great improvement, but there are still concerns.
The Anglican Communion Working Group, which met in early February, said in a report that the new draft acknowledges the covenant process will be “slow and careful,” provides a clearer recognition of the “role of laity and of the synodical decision-making processes” and recognizes diversity throughout the worldwide communion.
However, the Canadian group said it is not clear how the covenant could be changed in the future, nor how it might affect ecumenical dialogue; the group also expressed concern about an appendix that, among other things, “casts the Archbishop of Canterbury in a quasi-judicial role.”
Bishops also received updates on the work of the Primate’s World Relief and Development Fund, which celebrates its 50th anniversary next year, and the International Anglican Women’s Network. They discussed aspects of attending the decennial Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops, scheduled for July 16 to Aug. 4.
The national native bishop, Mark MacDonald, also updated the house on the March church leaders’ tour that highlighted the upcoming Truth and Reconciliation Commission concerning the former native residential school system.
I note the quote from Bishop William Anderson “the orthodox bishops continue to try to take a stand. What people mean is they want to know orthodox bishops will faithfully represent orthodox positions on the faith both in what we say in this house and how we vote and also when we are back home in our own dioceses.” That is good to hear, but personally I can’t help feeling that we need more than that. That is to say, representing a position behind closed doors, voting a certain way in General Synod and maintaining positions in a diocese is not enough. A Bishop is a Bishop of the whole church, and if parts of that church are wanting to proceed with an unscriptural innovation, then orthodox Bishops actually need to publicly stand up and be counted, to say that this is wrong and call the whole church back in repentance. That wouldn’t be nearly as smooth as what was released in the HoB statement, and would undoubtedly lead to conflict, but IMHO it would be the right thing to do.
I agree Peter. The pattern is the same as the TEC Orthodox Bishops. The leadership is in total denial. I wish they would come out with membership figures so we can see the real numbers in the ACoC. The Network will go onto strength while ACoC diminishes.
Pauline according to the diocese and the Canadian census things are pretty bad. They only have one out of ten “Anglicans” attending in Niagara. http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6155
That was back in 2001. How many have fled since? I’d say they are down a lot, perhaps as many as 50% since the “controversy”
That would leave nine thousand people in Niagara of whom a large number is still there but angry, saddened and mostly not tithing. No wonder churches are closing, baptisms are way down and confirmations are held in the cathedral to make things look active. No wonder they are going ballistic that three of their best have pulled out and stopped paying the diocesan assessment. (Which BTW is an enormous percentage of the take, can someone let us know just how much the Niagara franchise fees are?)
No “ ignore the problems and they will go away” has been the mantra of the bishops and leaders for years on all sorts of things never mind property disputes. Sadly they don’t go away but fester and eventually become huge problems for everyone.
So goes the ACoC into the night.
Do not know how to start a new Blog so throwing this in here.
Words for thought.
When it comes to property and processions you are talking about business (personally I hate to thank of Church this way). If Widget Company A, has 2800 plants and been running for Centuries and 15 (or .005%) of these plants decide they would rather work for a new company, Widget Company N. Do you think Widget Company A would want to just give 15 of their Plants to Widget Company N, or keep them to support the other 99.995% of the Company, or should Widget Company N be planning and building their own Plants and resources expanding the industry? (Both produce quality widgets)
As for the 15 Parishes I speak on one, In the last few years I know of at least about 40 members or a third of the people from about seven years ago who felt they had to leave because of the Network (several with multi generations in the Parish, that is not easy). The mortgage was paid long before a good precent of the present members came to the parish. Do you break up a congregation to start a new one or do you start a new congregation and expand the Christian world?
I am not looking for an argument, these are words for thought.
“We can’t be weighing in once the processes are started,” said Absp Hiltz.
This is rather ridiculous: surely it is possible for two parties to drop a case if they come to an agreement amiccably outside of court? I guess the Primate doesn’t think that such an agreement over property is possible, or even worth striving for. This is an irresponsible and inadequate response to Bsp Harvey’s statement that litigation is detrimental to the mission of Christ’s Church. Perhaps Hiltz wants to make a hobby of it, like Schori.
Sorry .5% and 99.5%
It seems to me that ABp Hiltz is admitting he is no leader at all and is willing to whistle blindly unawares while his castle of sand crumbles from beneath him.
Re: Gerry’s post and comments:
“When you are talking about property and possessions, you are often talking about FAMILY MATTERS. If a COUPLE has 2800 ACRES OF LAND and its been part of the family for years, what happens if, FOR EXAMPLE, the husband, the head of the family, Partner A, does not keep the original marriage vows, forgets his first love, is unfaithful, and the family is broken up? During the separation process, the head of the family does not want to give any of the property to Partner B, but rather keep it all for himself to support his liberal lifestyle, and expects the other just to quietly go on their way. Mind you, Partner A, has lots of land, property and houses, more than Partner A needs; in fact, many of his houses are half-vacant or closed up. Now is this fair to Partner B who has worked hard, paid for and looked after the family home, and contributed to a large extent to the finances, labour, and upkeep of the land to get nothing? To Partner A, it is just another piece of property, one they might sell off for a profit if they can kick out Partner B and the children. To Partner B, who has lovingly cared for the home and who has been a faithful bride to the spirit of the original builder, it is a place to worship God in Spirit and in Truth.
Jenna
Remember we are looking at it from a business point of view at this time.
The Anglican Church has always been a Hierarchy from day one, with one entity at the top, not like a marriage with more then one entity at the top. The Church also has safeguards from the top of the pyramid down in case one step tries to get out of line with the others coming down the ladder.
Like any company if a plant stops supporting itself chances are it will be closed and SOLD.
It appears that the Archbishop hasn’t read Matthew 5:25-26 lately
“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.”
Gery,
If you really want to view the ACoC as a business, then it is a business that has lost its way, has nothing to market, is bleeding red ink and, were it actually a private sector business, would have folded years ago; as it is, short of Divine intervention, it seems it may continue in its death throes for a few more decades. The CEO and other officers of such a business would have long ago been fired for their bungling incompetence; instead, Fred Hiltz and his minions are – regrettably – accountable to no earthy authority, so they blunder on.
If only it were a business.
David
The AcoC has not lost its way and has lots to market. The AniC has chosen a slightly different path and has lots to market also, but is trying to bleed from the AcoC’s resources to help it get kick started, instead of working together while they build their resources to move out on their own.
As for Divine Intervention, it must have had a reason to intervene till now, maybe it will continue for centuries.
I could keep going but I better stop now, I just wanted to try and open your eyes wider to get other prospectives on the situation.
YIC and Good Luck, there is lots of market unclaimed to share.
Walter — you asked what the Diocesan fees are for Niagara. St Hilda’s 2007 assessment was for $46,000 and for 2008 – $43,000.