ANIC press release:
A B.C. Supreme Court judge, Madam Justice Allan, has ordered the congregation of St. Mary of the Incarnation in Metchosin (St. Mary’s), to hand over their church building to the diocese of B.C. in the Anglican Church of Canada, pending the resolution of a trial over who is entitled to ownership of the building.
Like the two judges in the previous Niagara diocese’s hearings, Mdm Justice Allan found that “the beneficial ownership of Church property is indeed an issue for future determination”, and she was only deciding the issue of who should have interim use of the property while that process was ongoing.
Although there are two church buildings in the parish of St. Mary’s, the larger building which houses up to 230 people and the smaller heritage building that houses 90 people and has a parish hall, Mdm Justice Allan decided that the diocese should have exclusive possession of both properties. St. Mary’s congregation, which has a membership roll of 225 people, voted overwhelmingly (105 for / 14 against) to realign with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, something the judge acknowledged was “unprecedented in the history of the Church”. St. Mary’s has an average Sunday attendance of about 130 to 150 people and use their church building throughout the week for mission and ministry. The small number of those who voted against the realignment could easily have continued to meet in the smaller heritage church and parish hall while the issues of ownership were being determined. Now, that building will remain empty as some 14+ people meet in the larger church and the larger congregation is completely displaced.
This will cause hardship to the congregation, as they will be forced to find alternate accommodations for Sunday services and to support their weekly ministries in the Metchosin area. “It is a great disappointment that the judge did not feel it appropriate to allow both congregations to continue meeting in the two church buildings while the issue of ownership was being determined”, said Bud Boomer, spokesman for St. Mary’s. “Many of us have paid for the building of this larger church and all of us have certainly maintained and supported it for many years. Now, we are being asked to hand it over to the Anglican Church of Canada, which in our view and the view of majority of global Anglicans, has left Anglicanism and abandoned the historic faith once delivered to the saints”.
Rev Andrew Hewlett, associate priest of St. Mary’s, said “We know that the secular courts do not understand or appreciate the deep and profound theological differences that have brought us to this point. Our Christian beliefs are at stake in all this and we have felt no protection within the Anglican Church of Canada. We are saddened that our ministries will be disrupted as we try to find accommodations for worship and mission while we know one building will sit empty and another will be under-utilized”.
Full judgment here.
I was pleased to see a more comprehensive arguemrnt made here than in Ontario. Although this is a setback from a wordly perspective (property), this is not over yet.
Prayers for the legal team and the parishoners.
Peace Jim
Just a thought process of mine going on. What if the Holy Spirit is trying to get our attention by saying that our focus should be outward looking and not being concerned with the material “things”. If we weren’t so concerned about worldly “things” think of the time and effort we could put forth to the mission field right outside of our door. OOPS we don’t even have a door what more could we ask for?
Often the Holy Spirit prods us out of our comfort Zone. Maybe He is asking whether the decision made to leave the ACoC is real or whether we will truly “forsake all to follow Him.”
No, we can’t and shouldn’t expect secular courts to understand the theological issues here. The blame for this situation lies squarely with the apostate dioceses, which understand only too well.
#2 Reg Netterville, and #3 ML
I agree with both of you. I believe we are directed in the bible to forsake all and follow Him. We don’t need those buildings. We need to let go of them. They are THINGS! We only need to trust God to provide what we need to carry on His ministry. PEOPLE are the Church that Christ started, NOT buildings. Let’s all use the gifts God gave us and serve Him; get out there and infiltrate the community. Shine His light on those around us with His grace.
I also agree that the buildings are unimportant. Why waste money on legal bills when the church could be putting it to good use for God? I don’t think court cases will vindicate Network churches as our church is hierarchical and the parishes seem to be held in trust for the diocese. It seems like a waste of energy and money, but I guess letting go is difficult.
I am not convinced that letting go of the buildings is virtuous and fighting to keep them isn’t.
First, it is easy for those who are not responsible for organising and planning the operation of a parish to declare that we should abandon the buildings and use the gifts God has given us to ‘infiltrate the community’: easy to say as a theory, less easy to put into practice. What if one of the gifts God has given is the building? In St. Hilda’s case, we have a number of location sensitive ministries that would cease if we completely leave the building: God could be calling us to leave those ministries – or the devil could be working to destroy them.
I doubt that any North American Anglican routinely worships exclusively in the open air, so we need some kind of building; we don’t really care who owns it, we simply want to use it for ministry. If there were an empty building next door to the current one, we could use it – but there isn’t.
Yes, I know the church is the people not the building, but let’s not be naïve and discard the buildings with cavalier abandon.
That being said, principle is more important than property, which is why the Niagara ANiC churches have found alternative worship locations on Sundays and why we voted to join ANiC in the first place – knowing that we could lose the building.
Thank you David for your comments. It is true that priciple is more important than property, and it is also true that in Canada churches need buildings. Wether it is someone’s house, a rented facility, or a church property, it is naive to think we don’t need them for Ministry. How many of you would like to meet in a park in mid-January in Saskatoon? My prayer is that God would see us through these building crises and that adversity would not fragment us, but keep us strong and united in the Gospel.
David (#7) and Krista (#8), I don’t think that all parties to the current court actions are brothers and sisters in Christ, thus I don’t believe that 1 Cor 6 applies and I agree that it may be necessary to use the courts to fight for justice. One must bear in mind, however, that the judge will see the case through natural eyes and shouldn’t be expected to understand the spiritual battle underlying the issue. That said, I can also see Charles’ point in comment #6. If I was searching for a new church (something my wife and I have done several times), I would almost certainly avoid one where I knew significant resources (money, time and energy) were being expended on a law suit.
I don’t have any brilliant suggestions, but, as someone who has “done church” in the basement of a private residence, in a school gym, in a hotel meeting room, and in a College auditorium, I would like to offer you hope that there are other options that can work. May God’s will be done in all of the property cases, and may He receive all the glory; whatever the outcome.
My comfort comes from the thought that a ‘higher court’ is watching over us. Let’s not lose heart but procede obediently day by day.
Just over a year ago we were involved in what we thought was an unavoidable court case. It seemed wrong to be spending money on lawyers. It seemed wrong to just give up because we were dealing with bullies, who would continue to bully others and would feel no compunction in doing so. All the while we prayed that we would not disgrace Christ in whatever action we took; also that the opposing party would somehow see God’s grace at work. Some people kept telling us it wasn’t worth the money or the grief.
In the end, when everything looked most bleak, the Lord came through with an incredible and totally unforeseen help which accomplished over and above all the things we were hoping for, even an opportunity to offer grace to the opposing party.
It sounds weird, maybe, to see all these troubles as coming from the Lord’s hand for his glory but this is what I see at this point, though I’m open to the Lord leading otherwise.
Job lost everything just so God could prove a point and the Lord restored to him way more than he had in the first place. The Lord often works that way and I am sure that we shall yet praise Him for the wonderful way He will work all this out. (See also Matt 5:40)
#7 David, I wasn’t trying to be cavalier about it. And of course the church needs buildings, I would never suggest that pursuing the case of the buildings is sinful, just unwise. If the case goes all the way to the Supreme Court, which it might well do, the cost of the case will resemble that of several buildings! I don’t think a favourable judgement can reasonably be expected because of the nature of our church organization, but I would be pleasantly surprised if you got one.
Many of the older parishes have deeds that say that the buildings belong to the rector and wardens. I don’t think it is a done deal yet.
#12 Charles,
The case probably will go to the supreme court and through multiple appeals; the costs, however are actually unlikely to exceed the value of even one building (St. Hilda’s alone is sitting on land that is would worth multi-million $).
For us, this isn’t about the monetary value of the property, it is about the value of the property in so far as it can be used for ministry. I think the reverse is true for the diocese.
The lawyers believe that a positive final outcome for the parishes is possible; the first judgment was in our favour and a judgment depends very much on the particular views and biases of the judge. Which goes to show that Mr. Bumble’s opinion of the law is accurate.
As for the wisdom of the whole exercise – it may take history to have the final say, but, speaking from the thick of things, the current course seems to me to be right. Remember that the cases now being tried will set precedents for the whole of Canada. A positive outcome for the parishes will be a great encouragement for wavering congregations to join ANiC. The diocese knows this very well; it was a significant part of their argument.
12 Kate
The Milanetti decision in Ontario also caused us problems in BC. It was so comprehensive, that it couldn’t be ignored.
Although I agree that this is a fight that needs to be made, it is not a victory that we can count on moving the church forward.
Peace,
Jim
#14 I stand rebuked, David. I’m sure you know far more about the probable cost of the case than I do, though have you considered the possibility that Network will have to pay for the Diocesan lawyers as well if it loses? I remember reading last year in the paper that the Supreme Court legalized swingers clubs, so I don’t think they will be very understanding of Biblical Christians. A favourable judgement certainly would spur on parishes getting fed up with their national leaders to take the plunge, so we can pray for it together. In Christ, Charles
Charles, no rebuke intended.
Where is St. Mary’s going to meet this week? I’m praying for an hospitable place for them, especially for those who are less hardy (elderly, families with little ones, the disabled).
If the weather stays good, maybe outside in a park would be the best place!
Considering the first Anglican service in Canada was held out in the cold of Frobisher Bay on Baffin Island we should be just fine. God gave Canadians cold and snow to make us hardy and tough. Those in B.C. will survive anything.
19 Obituary
There is no doubt in my mind that God will provide.
Peace,
Jim
But obituary, they don’t real get cold and snow in B.C….
Kate, ducking a few virtual rotten tomatoes, perhaps… ?