From The Windsor Star
The battle over scripture is escalating between two factions of the Anglican Church, with each claiming ownership of St. Aidan’s on Wyandotte Street East.
Rev. Tom Carman represents the 109 church members who voted Sept. 28 to break away from the Huron diocese of the Anglican Church of Canada and join the conservative, breakaway Anglican Network in Canada.
That leaves up to 50 members who have no place to go, and who want their building back.
I don’t think we can take these numbers at face value: the St. Aidan’s vote to join ANiC was unanimous. Where were these 50 people during the vote? Since St. Aidan’s is still meeting in their building and, presumably conducting services whose content has not changed, why don’t these “50 people” continue to attend?
The split is over the ANIC’s views that human sexuality is between a man and woman within marriage.
The Anglican Church of Canada was plunged into the debate when a church in New Westminster, B.C., agreed in 2002 to perform same-sex marriages, and a year later an openly gay bishop was ordained in Vermont. Since then, the church has been split worldwide.
St. Aidan’s was the first in Windsor-Essex and the first in the Huron diocese, but the seventh in Ontario and 11th nationally, to join the ANIC.
Carman said he is interested in an “amicable separation” but wants to remain in the building. The two groups are to meet next month to discuss ownership of the church, which was built in 1924 but has been renovated.
“We believe that it belongs to the congregation,” Carman said. “The canons of the diocese say that the diocese simply holds it in trust for the parish or congregation.”
He said the chancellor of the diocese confirmed that in a letter several years ago.
But Right Rev. Robert Bennett, bishop of Huron, said the issue could land in court.
“Our contention is that St. Aidan’s still exists under the umbrella of the Anglican Church of Canada,” Bennett said.
“The people who are presently in there have realigned their allegiances to another jurisdiction, so we’re inviting them to leave our building.”
Such a finely honed ACoC euphemism. Inviting them to leave our building = kicking them out of their building.
Bennett said some of the other affected churches in Canada have gone to court, and so far decisions on building ownership have gone in favour of their dioceses.
In the meantime, the church has appointed Rev. Canon Steve Harndek, rector of St. Matthews in south Windsor, to be interim priest in charge of the St. Aidan’s loyalists. An information meeting and Eucharistic service was held Tuesday night at St. Michael and All Angels on Jerome Street.
Another Anglican church will be found to temporarily accommodate them and the church hopes to rebuild the congregation, Bennett said.
There are about 25 Anglican churches in Windsor-Essex with congregations ranging from 30 to 200, he said.
Bennett said the negotiations will be like a tennis match, with both sides lobbying arguments at each other.
“We want to negotiate with them to ask them to leave the building – which we don’t expect that they will,” he said.
“Congregations just can’t vote to leave that way.”
Carman agreed a legal battle could be shaping up.
“If they’re going to maintain their claim, and we have no intention of going anywhere … they may have to do that.”
Congregations just can’t do that – Um, many of us have. Repetition doesn’t equal truth. I wonder how many people showed up at that information meeting?
Even if these purported 50 dissidents actually exist, they won’t likely keep the place running for long. I see another church closure in the near future. But the diocese can always sell the church and pocket the dough. They’ll need that money to sue the next congregation that realigns. . .
Why get involved in legal battles where the winners most often end up being the lawyers. Take the money you would have to spend for legal services rent or lease a building and get on with worship and your mission. Why continue the turmoil ? Let them have the building . The new congregation in Pembroke did just that . Now they only have to look ahead and with God’s help things will work out just fine. Peace will never dominate if conflicts continue . Seek His Grace and go forward. God Bless.
The money being used for legal battles was donated to the legal defense fund, specifically to be used for lawyers’ fees. It isn’t available for any other purpose, and no general funds donations to ANiC are being used for legal fees. In the case of St. Hilda’s in Oakville, they have site specific ministries that would cease if they gave up the building, because they wouldn’t be able to afford another building in the same neighbourhood. Every parish has to prayerfully decide what the best thing to do is if they are brought to court.
Kate, I agree that each parish has to prayerfully decide what to do but I think it would be wrong and frankly unbiblical to get bogged down in materialistic things. The building where church is held is just that a building . I don’t want to get naive here, obviously we need a structure to worship in and conduct missions all I am saying is lets not get tied down in legal battles that could drag on for years. Is that the proper place to put monies whether donated or not ? Why keep the ” Them ” and ” Us ” conflict going ? The humanistic urge would be to fight to the end over principal ie: ” It’s our building.” That is not the approach I would take.
Ragamuffin [#5],
If this were simply a question of getting ‘bogged down in materialistic things’, I would agree. But it isn’t.
At the ANiC Synod Cheryl Chang made the point that the fight for the buildings is worth fighting because is is an evangelistic outreach and a stewardship issue.
Each parish has to assess whether it is worth the fight. I am at St. Hilda’s and, personally, I would like to walk away from the building; but I know that if we do, godly ministries will cease and the church building will at best, be turned into a condominium, the proceeds of which will be used to fund the spreading of an anti-gospel.
There is a “them and us” conflict in progress; however, I think a better nomenclature is a “good and evil conflict” – one in which I am proud to participate.
Bishop Bob used to be the rector at my parish. He’s a very faithful man, and a good preacher at that. It’s really sad to see how he’s dealing with this, though. I do hope that he comes to his senses soon.
Ragamuffin (#5)
You are right in saying that it is unbiblical to get bogged down in materialistic things. BUT, it is very biblical for Christians to find themselves in court (in Acts, it is a very frequent venue).
However, the important issue is not the outcome of the court case, but that we are being faithful as witnesses (which also means martyrs) to our Lord. If we believe that we are using the facility in the way that the Lord (and those who built it) intended, and that the ACoC would not, it would seem appropriate to resist these apostates.
Please note that at the present (as far as I know) there have been no efforts on the part of the ACoC to negotiate with ANiC about the buildings, inspite of ANiC’s offers to do so. (It appears that property is non-negotiable, but cross-border interventions are).
Evangelistic outreach? I don’t think the scandal of Anglican rivals beating each other up in court is a very Christian witness, especially when our side’s legal position is so weak. Do we really expect to persuade a secular court that the correctness of our theology somehow changes who owns the property? Get real.
Cheryl Chang describes it as a stewardship issue because the value of the properties we hope to win far exceeds the legal costs of the case. I do agree that it’s a stewardship issue: every dollar hazarded on this long-shot gamble is a dollar that isn’t being invested in actual mission, church planting, etc!
Noli [#9],
Is your assessment of ANiC’s legal position an expert legal opinion based on facts or your inexpert, layman’s opinion?
There is no scandal on the ANiC side. For a biblical perspective, go here. For the most part, the coverage by the MSM has focussed on the fact that there are Christian Anglicans who are prepared to stand up for what they believe in spite of the possibility (yes, there is a possibility) of losing their buildings; and rectors their livelihood. So, yes, I believe it has been an evangelistic outreach.
It has been said over and over that the legal funds have been specifically allocated, so there is no robbing of the mission pot to fight the legal battle. If you go here and look at the parish presentations at synod, you will see the many outreach programs and church plantings that the ANiC parishes are involved in.
NA (#9), I am interested in hearing your thoughts on what constitutes a positive Christian witness (and supporting Scripture would be helpful). I agree that the courts likely won’t pay attention to theology in rendering property-related decisions (nor should they). With respect to your use of the word “scandal”, Paul uses the word in reference to the gospel:
The same idea also appears elsewhere in the Bible. Although Christians are called to live in peace with all men as much as is possible (Rom 12:18, Heb 12:14), this by itself will not soften hearts that are in rebellion against God.
All this business about bishops and the ACoC having geographical boundaries, is redundant in light of the fact that we have just appointed an Indigenous Bishop, to serve the interests of a culturally diverse section of Christians in North America. In England there is talk of a seperate bishop to serve the needs of those opposed to the ordination of women. Therefore why not a Bishop or Bishops (Malcom & Don) to serve the needs of Orthodox Christians within the Anglican Church. Why can be do things for one group, but not for another? Who owns the buildings on a Native Reserve? I would like to see a Diocese try to take control of one of these.
A Metis church did join ANiC, but I believe that they walked away from their building.
#9, #10
Thanks for you thoughtful responses, David and Warren. We are entertaining guests for dinner this evening so I can’t reply properly today but will get back to you later this weekend. In the meantime, I don’t want you to think that I’m ignoring you. God bless.
I think that every dollar you make churces that condone and promote homosexual lifestyles spend is worth going to court for. My goal would be to destroy such homosexual promoting churches financially so that they could not continue and would have to shut down. If I had to spend my last dollar to accomplish that…I would.
Paul says that church members should not sue each other but should take matters us with the church leaders, etc. However, I do not consider anyone who promotes homosexual conduct to be a member of Christ’s church. Just because someone claims to be a christian doesn’t mean that they are one. And I believe that it is wrong to refuse to kick such people out of the church and remove them from membership. Especially when they are church leaders. Soooo…I do not believe that it is wrong to sue them for church buildings. Even if I lose…if I can destroy them financially so that their fake religion has to close its doors…thats fine with me. I’d rather have the lawyers get everything than churches that are profaine enough to claim to be of the christian religion while they promote the worst kinds of sins.
I have a lot more tolerance for people who promote homosexuality but who do not claim to be christian than I do for people who claim to be christians and try to destroy the church and its reputation from within. If you don’t believe in the teachings of a church…leave it. It can’t change right teaching to accomodate you.
Take action, I agree with what you said in #17. I know I harp on this a lot, but it is worth repeating. There is a huge difference between being a gay Christian who is trying to follow Christ and stay chaste, and someone who is trying to get the church to change the definition of what chaste is. Let’s all of us be careful not to lose sight of that.
TA (#15,16 & 17)
My Take on your proposed Action is:
1) It won’t work if we lose: they will not suffer financially – they can sell the buildings that we have been evicted from.
2) It won’t work if we win: they will cut back on valid high profile ministries (mission work, church in the north, inner city ministries etc.) and make it look like we are to blame. The SSB will probably continue.
I note that you have correctly opposed the lifestyles and not the homosexual persons. That said, I think that your aggressive position will prove to be an obstacle to those in the congregations of ACoC who have not yet abandoned biblical Christianity (and there are very many of these believers still in ACoC): We need to be careful that we neither are NOR appear to be judgemental and unloving (as the apostates are trying to make us so appear).
19Jack (Vancouver)
I have to disagree with your assessment of TA’s position.
With respect to #1, WE/VE ALREADY WON! The media coverage is now in our favour and , at the diocese level, the double whammy of losing assessment dollars and the high cost of litigation has radically altered the way at least one diocese is treating our new ANiC breakaways (Niagara).
And, in many cases, no-one wants expensive old buildings. In some cases, the cost of demolition is equal to the property value.
With respect to #2, nothing short of divine intervention will stop the ACoC from moving ahead with SSB’s.
And we cannot be concerned with the heretics’ approach to ministry and we are certainly not responsible for it.
If we win our buildings, it gives us stability now and bases to move out of in our ministry. Either way we’ve won.
Peace,
Jim
#10 David asked:
“Is your assessment of ANiC’s legal position an expert legal opinion based on facts or your inexpert, layman’s opinion?”
I’m not a lawyer but I strategize with lawyers in my professional life to apply a body of law. I take advice from in-house counsel, weigh our options in consultation with my professional colleagues, and direct our lawyers on how to act in court.
When we’re making decisions on how (or whether) to proceed, our lawyers always encourage us to pay very close attention to what judges have to say along the way. Even when ruling on narrow interim motions, judges often make comments or identify relevant case law. They do this to set the stage for arguments in trial, but also to give parties a sense of the strength or weakness of their legal arguments. Often my agency changes tack or withdraws completely when we find that the judicial winds are blowing against us.
So, early in the Niagara proceedings, Mr. Justice Ramsay wrote:
“As a rule, where a church organization is formed for the purpose of promoting certain defined doctrines of religion, the church property which it acquires is impressed with a trust to carry out that purpose, and a majority cannot divert the property to inconsistent uses against the protest of a minority however small: see e.g. Anderson v. Gislason (1920), 53 DLR 491 (Man. CA). The defendants [ANiC] have a serious argument that the plaintiffs and the Anglican Church of Canada are diverting the property from the purposes of Anglicanism.”
But while both Mr. Justice Ramsay and Madam Justice Milanetti acknowledged that we have a “serious” case that ACoC is seeking to divert the parish properties from “the purposes of Anglicanism,” Justice Milanetti observes that the threshold of seriousness is low. In the end, I highly doubt that we’ll be able to meet the legal test of Anderson v. Gislason that requires us to prove that the ACoC has departed grossly and substantially from the purposes of Anglicanism. In an earlier thread, somebody was looking for examples of verifiable ACoC apostasy, authoritatively expounded, and all we could come up with were some vague television ramblings by the Dean of Niagara, and Bishop Ingham’s heretical book.
When it comes to doctrines articulated by General Synod and official acts of the Diocese of Niagara, though, we haven’t much to go on. The presenting issue, same sex blessings, is theologically incorrect (as are the remarriage of divorced persons and women’s ordination, in my opinion), but these are secondary issues that don’t cut to the core of Anglican identity and therefore wouldn’t meet the A v. G test any more than ANiC’s own habitual neglect of the psalm-pointing system specified in the Solemn Declaration of 1893. We might have argued that the BAS is an egregious departure from the BCP, but unfortunately the BAS was recently authorized for use in ANiC churches.
My opinion is reinforced by Mr. Justice Ramsay, who wrote:
“Is the Anglican Church of Canada bound by a trust set up in 1863? The decisions of Dorland v. Jones [1886] O.J. No. 13 (C.A.), affirmed (1887), 14 S.C.R. 39, at both the appellate and the Supreme Court of Canada levels were most instructive and interesting in this regard. In Dorland, supra, the defendants made somewhat of a similar argument as the Defendants [i.e. ANiC] in the case before me. The defendants in Dorland, supra, argued that the identity of the existing “Monthly Meeting” had been lost due to the departure from the principles which governed the Society of Friends at the time the trusts were created, with respect to discipline, and practice as in points of faith and doctrine. Therefore, the defendants argued that consequently the plaintiffs were no longer entitled to the use and possession of the lands. However, the Ontario Court of Appeal, [1886] O.J. 13 at para 33 (C.A.), which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, held that the society had the authority to alter its discipline and forms, and that dissentiates from such a change could not insist that the right to the enjoyment of property was thereby forfeited.”
Regarding the “scandal” of Anglicans beating each other up in court, I was using that word in its modern and prosaic sense: “a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc,” rather than its biblical sense of “a stumbling block.”
Certainly there are some situations where Christians are obliged to take other Christians to civil court in order to resolve differences, but Jesus himself encourages us to avoid going to court (Lk 12:58) lest “the judge turn you over to the officer and the officer throw you in prison.”
Likewise, St. Paul takes an extremely dim view of Christians taking one another to the court, contrary to Jim’s view that “either way we’ve won:”
“The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.” (1 Cor 6: 7-8).
We may try to justify our unholy means by our holy ends, but I’m sure the monks of rival denominations who brawled recently in Jerusalem’s Church of the Holy Sepulchre use much the same logic. If we had a sound case in law to defend our possession of parish properties in court, I might feel differently. But in fact, we don’t. Even though orthodox parishioners paid to build and maintain the disputed church properties, the sad truth is that they belong to the diocese. As Justice Milanetti quoted from Religious Institutions and the Law in Canada, Second Edition (Toronto: Irwin Law Inc., 2003):
“Essentially, each diocese [of the Anglican Church of Canada] is incorporated pursuant to provincial legislation, usually by private act, and all the property in the diocese is vested in the bishops as trustee who holds and manages it as provided by the legislation, bylaws, and the constitution and canons and their bylaws, if any, of the diocese.”
As for my idea of true Christian witness: “Love one another.”
Noli [#21],
When we’re making decisions on how (or whether) to proceed, our lawyers always encourage us to pay very close attention….
It seems that you listen to the legal advice of your lawyers, so you would understand why we listen to the legal advice of ours.
Incidentally, your quote that you said was from Ramsay, that begins Is the Anglican Church of Canada bound by a trust set up in 1863….., was actually from Milanetti.
Ramsay said pretty much the opposite:
#22 David,
Yes, absolutely: listen to your lawyers, but don’t be bullied by them. Weigh their advice against common sense and what the judges are saying and ask your counsel pointed questions about your real chances of ultimate success. Sometimes they go barking up the wrong tree with misplaced enthusiasm. You may well decide to proceed with a doubtful case on principle (sometimes we do that where I work), but for the sake of Christian stewardship, make it an informed decision. Remember that they’re acting on your behalf and are obliged to take your directions, not vice versa.
Noli [#23],
Each parish makes it’s own decision whether to fight for their building or walk away, based on ministry and various other factors. The only bullying going on is from the dioceses.
The team of lawyers are Christians, working for less than the going rate and, for Cheryl in particular, see this as a call from God.
Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
With all due respect, Noli, you and I don’t have access to all the information that Cheryl and her legal team do. We don’t know what the truth in that regard is yet, because it hasn’t been decided in court. Lets not second guess the lawyers and let them do their jobs, ok?
Kate (#25), I don’t think NA’s opinion is out of keeping with the nature and character of the blog. It was presented respectfully and addressed the issue rather than criticize the players. Most here may not agree, but I don’t think it hurts to get a different view point.
NA (#25), here is my different viewpoint on what a Christian witness is. Although I in no way diminish the importance of Christian love and acknowledge that loving one’s neighbour is God’s second greatest commandment, I do not believe that love by itself constitutes a sufficient Christian witness. Despite the famous maxim attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, I believe that the Bible clearly teaches that the gospel must be both preached and heard to be effective. By the gospel I mean the good news that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and was raised again (1 Cor 15:1-4). A church may seem incredibly loving in the eyes of the world, but, if the gospel is absent (or only present in an anemic form), I don’t believe that church is an effective witness.
I wonder if the requirement that God imposes on us to be loving isn’t as much for our personal sanctification as it is for the benefit of the people receiving that love? As with the Mosaic law, it is a powerful and continual reminder of our inability, in our own strength, to satisfy God’s law.
#22 David wrote:
“Incidentally, your quote that you said was from Ramsay, that begins Is the Anglican Church of Canada bound by a trust set up in 1863… was actually from Milanetti. Ramsay said pretty much the opposite.”
I apologize for misattributing the quote. Thanks for the correction.
I was wrong, too, last summer when I wrote that fuel prices will only go higher. I hope that I’m also wrong about ANiC’s legal prospects. The payoff would be huge because not only would we be able to keep the properties currently in dispute, but many other parishes would feel free to join. Does Cheryl have an ace up her sleeve that she hasn’t shown yet? If so, play it. This isn’t euchre.
It is my understanding that not all dioceses in Canada have taken over the “trust” of parish properties, and that not all parishes in Canada have passed the deeds to their respective dioceses. Is this correct?
Yes. Many parish deeds say that the building is owned by the rector and wardens in trust.
Noli, I just thought I would weigh in briefly to make 3 points in response to your comments above.
1. I don’t claim to have an “ace” up my sleeve which I can “play” at will. I merely have an unshakable faith in God and that He has a plan. Our job is to discern His call to each of us at this time. I am not ANIC’s lawyer – I am part of ANiC (as I was a founding director among other roles over the past number of years) and see myself as the client – who with the leadership of ANiC, listens to our retained lawyers, weighs the risks and, unlike a secular company, prayerfully tries to discern what the scripture is telling us and where the Holy Spirit is trying to lead us. Each church is fully aware of the fact the “judicial winds are blowing against us” and they each make their own decision whether or not to participate in potential litigation. I can assure you, no one is being “bullied” by me or our retained lawyers, all of whom are godly and wise, and they have been a great blessing to us.
2. This point has been made before but I would like to reiterate – Paul talks about lawsuits “among you” and between believers. For many, there is a major question about whether we are in any lawsuits with “believers”. I do believe there are “believers” in the ACoC, but that doesn’t mean everyone is. I take great encouragement from Phil 1:12-14, where Paul says:
“Now I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel. As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly.”
Paul was willing to go to prison for standing up for Christ. Some of us are willing to be evicted from our churches for standing up for Christ. I have seen many people across the country who have been encouraged by the bold stand taken by faithful congregations willing to risk being kicked out of their churches, and some actually being evicted (at least for the time being). Look at the recent parish votes after the interim court decisions in BC and Niagara. Because of their witness, many have been encouraged to “speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly”. As to mission and evangelism, I think it says a lot to our culture and to other denominations in Canada, that we are willing to risk being kicked out in the street for this faith, that this is a faith worth suffering for. If we were not in litigation, if we all merely walked away, do you actually think any newspapers would be interested in our stand? Would we make front page news in the secular press? The gospel demonstrates, and we see today, that the word of God spreads where Christians are persecuted and suffering. We are called to suffer for the gospel. In some cases, moving down the street is suffering – in others, staying in a court battle is suffering. Regardless of which path each congregation has chosen, I have seen the suffering and felt the pain of their decisions. Regardless of which path you take, we are all called to do what is best to advance the gospel in that place and at that time. ANiC supports the decision of each individual congregation and we are extremely grateful for the financial support that comes in for the legal defence fund, which we encourage to be “over and above” your normal giving so that mission will not be hindered.
As I listened to the parish presentations at the Synod last week, my heart was filled with joy that the mission is going forth in all our parishes, no longer impeded by contradictory and false teaching in local dioceses, or threats and intimidation by hostile bishops. Also, to my great joy, no mission or ministry was impeded by the litigation (except to the extent that the loss of the building inhibited the space available to do the work!). To God be the glory!
3. Finally, I just want to say that if David had sought legal advice before approaching Goliath, I’m sure he would’ve been told “you don’t have a hope – don’t do it – you’ll be killed”. His chances of success seemed pretty unlikely too. However, as I said in point one, I have an unshakeable faith, and as long as we are faithful and honestly trying to fulfill God’s call, He will honour that. In the end, He can do – or not. As Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego said to King Nebuchadnezzar, “But even if He does not. . .”
Sorry, the last sentence got cut off. It should’ve said:
As Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego said to King Nebuchadnezzar, “But even if He does not. . .” fixed – Admin
Matthew Henry’s commentary has some interesting things to say about 1 Cor 6 (the “why not rather be wronged” passage):
The ESV passage says in part:
I would argue that this is not a trivial case.
#30
Thanks for taking the time to comment, Cheryl. I’m relieved to hear that “each church is fully aware of the fact the ‘judicial winds are blowing against us.’” When I’ve commented on the weakness of ANiC’s legal case here before, people responded by suggesting that their lawyers are of a different opinion. I was afraid that they might be making decisions without appreciating the true David and Goliath odds they face. I appreciate your willingness to set the record straight.
To say that judicial winds are blowing against us is not the same as saying ANiC has a weak legal case. We could have a strong legal case that is up against the Zeitgeist, for example.
Exactly, David. I am also of the opinion that public chat on a blog about the strength or weakness of a legal case can’t be helpful, first of all, because none of us (save Cheryl and the lawyers) have all the pertinent facts; even if we did, would we want to be airing them here, since we know that the powers that be in Niagara and elsewhere have paid pretty close attention to the blog in the past? We don’t have to be wary of our leadership anymore; we can trust them to do what is right.
#21 NA
and I’m still “looking for examples of verifiable ACoC apostasy, authoritatively expounded”
It is refreshing th read different points of view that do not contain disrespectful comments. I believe that we have to be very careful here. I have already heard from people whom oppose ANiC and who read this website commenting that we can/t even get along with ourselves . So please speak ypur opinion but remain respectful of others viewpoints and ultimate decisions.
Thank you David for pointing out that I did not intend “judicial winds blowing against us” to reflect on the strength or weakness of our case. I was merely using Noli’s phrase to affirm that the decisions of Judges Milanetti (Ont) and Allan (BC) went against us and that is public information. In fact, Judge Ramsay’s “judicial winds” blew for us.
All the judges who have looked at this case have agreed there is an issue to be tried as to the Trust, and that trial is still ahead of us. Obviously, we feel we have a case worth arguing or we would not waste money on the pursuit of this. As with any litigation, neither side can claim any guarantee of victory at the end (at least we don’t provide any guarantees), which is why we have continued to seek a negotiated settlement. Unfortunately, all such offers have been rebuffed.
I also want to agree with Ragamuffin that it is very important to be respectful of one another in all we say or do. Remember Paul’s admonition, “Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ”. This is particularly important as this matter continues to be watched by many people across the country and around the world. Whether we disagree among ourselves or with those in the ACoC, I pray we reflect Christ’s love, so that others may turn to Him and accept His grace and salvation. I also pray that none of us become a stumbling block for others.
I think that the fact that most of the decisions at synod were unanimous speaks more to how we get along with each other than a blog where anyone from anywhere can comment. The decision of whether or not to go to court if attacked (ok, strong word, I can’t think of a better one) is very touchy and difficult. I think that the comments here have been pretty respectful, on the whole.
#38
Sorry for the confusion, Cheryl. I think it arose because, when I wrote of the “judicial winds” in my earlier post, I wasn’t referring to the interim decisions themselves, but to the judges’ comments in passing and the case law they identified which frame the arguments for trial and give the parties an early sense of the strength or weakness of their arguments. I assumed you were referring to the same things. Also, you commented that David’s victory over Goliath “seemed pretty unlikely too,” and I assumed this means you likewise find our chances of success slim without divine intervention.
After re-reading post #30, I acknowledge your point that the ANiC leadership is not just making cold-blooded decisions about litigation based upon rational cost-benefit analysis as the secular agency that employs me tries to do, but that you prayerfully try to “discern what the scripture is telling us and where the Holy Spirit is trying to lead us.” This means that your decision-making paradigm includes non-rational considerations that just aren’t applicable in my workplace.
[#40],
I assumed this means you likewise find our chances of success slim without divine intervention.
We have had 2 judges who seemed antipathetic and 1 sympathetic. I don’t think that necessarily means our chances are slim. I imagine the David and Goliath remark was intended as an encouragement, not a premature admission of defeat which only Providential intervention could avert.
This means that your decision-making paradigm includes non-rational considerations
True, since we are all praying; but that does not diminish the rational component: “Obviously, we feel we have a case worth arguing or we would not waste money on the pursuit of this”
Noli,
If you are trying to get me to say that I think our chances are “slim without divine intervention”, that is not going to happen. That is not the same as saying we could lose – I admit that is the reality – we could lose. If the ACoC thinks they cannot lose, then they need better advice. Anyone with litigation experience knows that when you go to court, it can go either way and no lawyer should ever provide guarantees to their client. David and Goliath illustrates the extreme end of the spectrum, and still he won. If David could do it, how much better are our chances? I do not purport to put odds on it nor do I intend to say what I think those odds are here.
“This means that your decision-making paradigm includes non-rational considerations that just aren’t applicable in my workplace.”
As an educated lawyer, family law mediator and business consultant, I consider myself quite rational. As a former atheist who is now a biblically faithful Christian, I do not feel I had to abandon my common sense or rationalism when I accepted Christ. In fact, I find the Christian faith quite rational, as have a number of other very articulate and highly educated people. The fact a secular organization doesn’t take certain (Christian) values and considerations into account in their decision-making does not make Christians “irrational” for doing so. I certainly hope you are not suggesting that everyone who believes the bible is the inspired word of our living God and creator, is irrational. There are “irrational” people on both sides of the dispute, and among non-Christians. We cannot paint everyone with the wide brush of those who might be on the fringes.
I am prepared to “make a defence” for what I believe, and I am prepared to take risks for doing so. I do not believe that any of us can, by our good works or talent, determine the outcome of any of this. In the end, God will determine the outcome, and he will use it for His purposes. We are called to be faithful no matter what happens. That is what we focus on and pray about when we make decisions. Far from being irrational, I believe it is the only rational thing to do.
“Nonrational” isn’t pejorative. It just means that something isn’t based upon reason, like for example, falling in love, or the leap of faith which leads people to believe in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity without fully comprehending it.
“Irrational” is different:
1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
4. not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.
If the discussion has devolved into the distinction between non-rational and irrational – much as we might find such niceties enthralling – perhaps the time has come to give this a rest.
Although I will just note that the original comment, This means that your decision-making paradigm includes non-rational considerations does insinuate a weakness in the rational components, an assertion that Cheryl has vigorously refuted.
Noli, I find little distinction between your definition of “non-rational” and “irrational”. (“isn’t based upon reason” sounds a lot like “deprived of reason” and “not in accordance with reason” to me). But, I agree with David on this matter and, while it has been nice blogging with you all, I must sign off and return to work.
Thanks again to the Blog Administrators. You guys are doing a great job and I’m glad to see the lively debates that are taking place across the country. Open respectful dialogue is necessary at such a time as this.
Without understanding both sides of the debate, we cannot truly make an informed decision about our own actions.