The latest Niagara Anglican has an article on the diocesan squatters . To read it all, go here and scroll down to page 9; there is a similar article by Martha Tatarnic on page 1. Here is some of it:
St. Hilda’s, Oakville: A church that is just a church
LUCINDA LANDAU
In the midst of a break-up, something new is being born. A church community without a budget, committees, staff or even an altar guild is beginning to grow at St. Hilda’s in Oakville. “A church that is just a church,” is the approach of the newly appointed Priest-in-charge, Reverend Martha Tatarnic. “At this moment in time,” said Rev. Martha, “we have the unique opportunity of gathering simply as Church to worship and to be a community.”
When Lucinda tells us that the diocese has not allocated a budget for this political occupation masquerading as a church, she is correct. Poor Rev. Martha has not been given a cent by the diocese; but then, neither have we (the real ANiC St. Hilda’s) even though the court has ordered the diocese to share the cost of running the building. Now, to be fair, the diocese, in a moment of what I can only assume was feeble-minded magnanimity, offered to cover one seventh – 14.29% – of the cost.
Since the diocese is occupying the building when we would normally have our Sunday service and is there for no particular reason at other times of the week, we said, no, you should pay more. The diocese refused; in the case of such disagreement, the court ruled that an arbitrator should be appointed; the diocese refused. So the diocese is in contempt of court and we are paying all the bills. This is chronicled here and here. Since that was posted, the furnace that heats the sanctuary broke (we no longer use the sanctuary). Guess who leapt in like a flash to offer to pay and fix it? Correct, not the diocese; we couldn’t let Martha’s poor lambs freeze, so we paid (well, my teeth were gritted somewhat).
The invitation to attend Sunday worship at St. Hilda’s 8:30 a.m. service is open to everyone, with a particular invitation to those who are members of St. Hilda’s but have not agreed, or felt comfortable, with the decision to split. Right now the service is also supported by parishioners from St. Jude’s, Oakville.
I’ll say it again: the vote at St. Hilda’s to join ANiC was unanimous; there was no-one who disagreed with the decision to realign. None; zero; nil; zip; zilch; naught; zippo; n/infinity. Got it yet?
This paragraph does clear up one little mystery, though. During the tenure of the adorable Rev. Dr. Brian Ruttan, there were actually no people attending the diocesan service; none; zero; nil…. Well, you get the point. Martha on the other hand pulls in around 15 cars each Sunday. Who are these people? I have always suspected that this massive influx was not a result of the New Evangelism . The more likely explanation was that Martha brought people with her from St. Jude’s (her last parish) a few miles away in downtown Oakville. And this, it seems is indeed the case.
Which leads me to the obvious question: what is it that these stalwart St. Jude’s parishioners do in St. Hilda’s – by now – musty, damp, faux-50s, threadbare-orange-carpeted sanctuary that they cannot do in the plush, warm and handsome St. Jude’s? Why, make a political statement, of course! I am sure that, at the next court appearance – which could be as early as December - the diocese will want to point to something that has the appearance of a viable congregation even though this was said by one of their own.
We are compelled to do the majority of our community building outside the church walls – ironically,the limitations imposed by the court on our access to the church buildings may turn out to be our finest asset.
I have a way of enhancing your finest asset; stop occupying the building and leave it for those who paid for it – and continue to pay for it.
We gather in a building that is at the centre of intense legal scrutiny and unchristian argument.
That quote is from Martha’s article. Martha, the ‘unchristian argument’ is taking place in the courts; it is your employer, the Diocese of Niagara who initiated the court proceedings. Moreover, your diocese has repeatedly rejected requests by ANiC to negotiate outside the courts.
So, if you find the idea of church without bureaucracy appealing, if you are looking for “eckleisa” in its simplest form, come out and experience a fresh approach to worship at St. Hilda’s in Oakville.
This is a Diocese of Niagara church, right? The diocese has no bureaucracy? They’ve all been fired? They must be more broke than I thought.
In dealing with power, I don’t expect truth and fairness. The diocese of Niagara has not disappointed me on either count.
Peace,
Jim
Whether the people from St Jude’s currently occupying the pews at St Hilda’s on Sunday mornings agree with our theology or not, what about common decency. The congregation of St Hilda’s has paid (and continues to pay) all of the bills. Not one cent has ever been received from the diocese. However, St Hilda’s has always – up until the past year, paid its full assessment plus extra amounts to help the shortfall of the diocese caused by others (including St Judes) who regularly disregarded, or could not meet, their responsibilities. We also gave every time the diocese asked for extra donations for other reasons. Whatever the feelings about the situation, what about ethics. And as far as being open to dissenting St Hilda’s members, what don’t you get about “unanimous”. I would ask that all who are blindly following Martha and the diocese into St Hilda’s and other ANiC Churches – look at where the diocese and ACoC is really leading you. Ask questions about their theology – don’t just assume it is Christian. You might be surprised at the answers you receive.
Turn the furnace off. Yes, you heard me. Turn. It. Off. If this is a diocesan church, then let the diocese pay for it. There is no earthly reason for you to do so. These people are squatting without permission in your home. You don’t have to make it comfy for them. By paying for their light and heating you are actually financing their invasion of your property! Think about it, folks: it’s insane.
This will be hard for you because you think of these interlopers as other Christians, and want to be in kinship with them. But the plain fact is these people are not at St Hilda’s as witnesses for Christ. They are there to make a political point, like students sitting-in at a campus building, and to express their disdain for you.
You don’t have to foot their bills on top of everything else.
By occupying the building, and than not paying what the secular courts have said they should, the Diocese has slapped the Parish of St. Hilda’s in the face. So what do we as good Christians now do? We obey the teachings of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and we turn the other cheek. Let the Diocese slap us in the face, over, and over, and over, and over, again, and again, and again, and again… At least until the secular courts rule on who actually owns the property. ANiC will likely loose this legal fight. So be it. On Judgement Day, when we are in the presence of God, Jesus will say “these are my sheep, and I know them”. That’s more than can be said for the Diocese!
Walk away.
John (#5)
If we could walk away we would, however where could we go. The rents in Oakville are very high. We are paying a high rent just for the use of a building for Sunday mornings. To continue the outreach that we do we need a base and would have to rent something full time – at this point that is not financially possible – short of someone donating the use of a building temporarily (and yes, I do believe in miracles).
Paula (#6)
Be resolute in your Faith. One of two things will happen.
1. The courts will rule in our favour and you will have your building.
2. The courts will rule that the building is owned by the Diocese, in which case the ANiC congregation should immediately apply to the court for re-imbursement of the money it paid that the Diocese should have paid. As this payment arrangement was issued by the court, you should have no problem with getting a ruling in your favour, and the resulting refund of money can be used as a down payment on a new building. Of course the Diocese will refuse to pay, but with a court ruling you will be able to take the money from the Diocese bank account, or even put a lean on one of the Diocese buildings, perhaps the very building that the Diocese is fighting you over.
We the Faithful already know that God provides for those who keep His Holy Word, especially in times of adversity.
Thank you for your encouragement. We know that God is in charge – He is faithful and He will do it!
“The courts will rule that the building is owned by the Diocese, in which case the ANiC congregation should immediately apply to the court for re-imbursement of the money it paid that the Diocese should have paid.”
Actually they should demand back *all* the money they ever spent on the place, if it was always the diocese’s to begin with.
Copy of my E-mail to the new website http://www.sthildaoakville.ca
Attn:Martha T.
I appreciated your inquiring about my presence at St.Hilda’s on Sunday.Having just returned to Oakville I was unaware of your newly acquired responsibilities .After reading your article ” a rollercoaster of a ride”in the Anglican along with the other article by L.Landau it is obvious you know very little about St.Hilda’s or its history of outreach in the community and beyond.Since you represent the Diocese your topic on “truth”for a sermon to my ears could not have been more poorly choosen.
In addition,you and Ms.Landau have given the impression your method of operation is to demean the efforts ,endeavors and accomplishments of others to bring attention to yourselves.Many young people have left a trail of carnage including their own using that approach.Your article offended and insulted many good christian people who have served this and other communities with time and finances for many years longer than you are old.
For me to attend St.Hilda’s on Sunday was difficult simply because of my long association as a parishioner( early 1960′s).My children were baptized and confirmed there.During the early years as a parishioner I spent a great deal of time organizing and supervizing social functions to pay off the mortgages. This was accomplished without any help from the Diocese.
As we all know in February of this year St.Hilda’s along with St.Georges and the Church of Good Shepard decided to leave the Diocese.You stated in your article if a member of St.Hilda,s feels uncomfortable or unhappy about leaving to come back.I can assure you anyone who personally witnessed the degree of twisted truth and deceitful manner in which information was put forth by the Diocese leadership during and after the two court appearances and since would only want to further distance themselves from such leadership.
Hopefully,in the future you will do a more through job of research prior to appointments before going to the media.I would suggest you might want to consider writing a further article apologizing to those good christian people who have and continue to do meaningful unpublized christian outreach.
Ellie [#9],
There is still some optimism that we could end up winning the battle for the ownership of the building. Should we lose, what you are suggesting does make sense.
Ellie #9 & David #11
There is a legal term in property seperations called “unjust enrichment” that provides parties to recoupe their capital and expense costs
Having been sorting endless papers for months now and figuring out just how much money we have given the Dio over the years – they could not possibly reimburse us. To do so they would have to give us many church properties – and why not, there are many that they have closed and are trying (unsuccessfully) to sell. Now they want to do the same with St Hilda’s. I wonder if Martha knows that she is just being used until the way is cleared for the bulldozers.
Paula [#13],
A Face Down the Bulldozer Event might be in order. Like this:
Paula.It is my understanding that unjust enrichment covers only the capital costs and any major expenses incurred to improve or operate the church.How the increase in equity over time figures into the equation is a legal issue.Any monies given as an assessment or gifts is not covered.What does St.Hilda’s legal council say?