The Diocese of British Columbia’s predictable spin – wherein the “swearing of oaths” has more import than following Jesus – on St. Mary, Nanoose Bay. For reality go here.
From VOL
Dear Colleagues in Ministry:
Yesterday, February 11, 2009, as Commissary to the Bishop, I received the resignation of the Rev. Guy Bellerby as Rector of the Parish of St. Mary, Nanoose Bay. He has surrendered his license in order to take up a new one from Donald Harvey of the Anglican Network in Canada. He has stated his opinion that the Diocese of British Columbia and the Anglican Church of Canada have departed from “historic, orthodox Anglican teaching and practice”; this, despite having sworn the usual oaths and accepted the jurisdiction of the Bishop of British Columbia and doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada in October 2007 and reaffirmed it as recently as December 2008.
On the previous Sunday parishioners of St. Mary, Nanoose met in a library in Parksville in a Special Meeting of Parishioners and, after addresses from the Chancellor of the Network and other advocates for the Network, passed a motion that the “congregation” should affiliate with the Network and come under the jurisdiction of Harvey and the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. Despite the written requirement of the Bishop to Mr. Bellerby that he ensure that no parish organizational structure be used for “the convening, advertisement, and holding of any such meeting for the promotion or discussion of establishing an ANiC congregation in your area” Mr. Bellerby approved of and called just such a meeting, and did not think it important to notify the Bishop’s office or any other diocesan official that the meeting was taking place.
The motion is, of course, ultra vires, contrary to canon law, and thus has no juridical force. Individuals may leave parishes, but as is explicitly stated in our canons, “no parish has the competence to separate itself from the Diocese of British Columbia.” The Parish of St. Mary, Nanoose Bay, with its parishioners who wish to remain faithful to the Bishop and Diocese and doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Church of Canada, still exists as part of the Diocese. The property and assets of the parish are all in the name of the Synod of the Diocese of British Columbia. The ordained and lay leadership of the parish who allowed and encouraged this to happen are in gross violation of the solemn oaths and declarations made when they assumed their respective offices. While differences of opinion in the Diocese are respected, and even celebrated, this does not extend to acceptance of uncanonical and unlawful activities that are now coming to light in the Parish of St. Mary, Nanoose Bay.
I will be meeting later today with the Officers of Synod to determine the next steps for the ensuring that the witness to the Anglican faith is restored and continued in the parish. I have allowed the Network congregants at least one further Sunday in the buildings, and expect that in due course and in an orderly fashion they will vacate the buildings and hand over all property and records of the parish. Mr. Bellerby has indicated to me that the Network has already found a number of alternative locations to which the former parishioners can move for worship. While I am open to discussions about any matter that members of the Network might wish to bring to our attention, I am not prepared to agree to any proposal which would “strike a blow to the authority of the Bishop . . . and pose a serious threat to the hierarchical structure of the Anglican Church of Canada.”
I find all of this very sad. This kind of thing only results in the diminishment of the proclamation of the gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Most groups that have split off from the Diocese in the past either disappear in a matter of one or two years, succumb to further division, or carry on with a handful of people. I count at least five small separate groups now on Vancouver Island besides the Diocese of British Columbia who each claim to be carrying out the “true” Anglican tradition.
Yours sincerely in Christ,
Bruce +
Where is the much trumpeted mediation in this? The mediation that Abp Hiltz has already agreed to?
‘as is explicitly stated in our canons, “no parish has the competence to separate itself from the Diocese of British Columbia.”‘ An oft repeated mantra that demonstrates a denial of reality so perverse that it deserves a special mention in the pathology of abnormal psychology.
The paranoia continues: the ACoC has been infiltrated: “after addresses from the Chancellor of the Network and other advocates for the Network”
“The property and assets of the parish are all in the name of the Synod of the Diocese of British Columbia” At least the diocese makes its priorities clear
The last paragraph is particularly misleading:
ANiC is steady growing, whereas the ACoC is steadily diminishing. Which one is doing the disappearing act?
How could a parish that is willing to sacrifice for the Gospel possibly diminish it?
I wonder if Bruce + can hear how what he wrote actually sounds? The anger at losing control is palpable. I read:
And I think probably Rev Bellerby actually thought it important NOT to notify the Bishop’s office or diocesan official! After all, “that’s nice, you go right ahead” would unlikely be the response.
This isn’t my diocese, but it does appear that there is a lot of fear, anger and control there. Defections from said diocese are hardly going to be done in an overt way in such a climate.
“No church will dare oppose the Bishop now.”
“The more you tighten your grip, Bruce, the more churches will slip through your fingers”
With all due apologies for wrecking that quote….
The Anglican Church of Canada has apparently been infiltrated by Christians. No wonder the top brass are horrified!
How dare they disobey their vows to the bishop in favour of their vows to God! The ACoC is on shaky ground when pointing fingers and accusing others of diminishing the message of the gospel. The last time I heard Fred Hiltz speak he could not answer a direct question as to what he believes the gospel to be.
David posted:
‘as is explicitly stated in our canons, “no parish has the competence to separate itself from the Diocese of British Columbia.”‘ An oft repeated mantra that demonstrates a denial of reality so perverse that it deserves a special mention in the pathology of abnormal psychology.
I don’t understand what you mean. Is he hallucinating a line in the diocesan canons that isn’t actually there? Or do you mean that it’s madness to believe parishes are subject to governance and regulation by bishop and synod as established by provincial statute?
Henry VIII didn’t seem to think that much of the “governance and regulation” of the Pope. . .
Noli, I think you’ll find the parish did just seperate, which is the point David made. Sure, the diocese will maintain the legal entity is intact, perhaps they will be right, but it hardly matters.
Depends on what is seen as important, the legal entity / propery, or the people? I know where my primary definition of church / parish lies.
#6 Peter
“Sure, the diocese will maintain the legal entity is intact, perhaps they will be right, but it hardly matters.”
In terms of who controls the property and assets of the parish, it matters a great deal. One might disagree with the archdeacon’s position in law, but it’s absurd to describe it as “a denial of reality so perverse that it deserves a special mention in the pathology of abnormal psychology.”
I could easily hold a family meeting to pass a motion unilaterally disaffiliating our unit from the condominium corporation to which it belongs. Would it be paranoid and irrational for the condo board to respond by asserting its legal right to collect maintenance fees and regulate the complex?
NA (#7), maybe I’m missing something, but I think the point Peter was trying to make was that you can move your family out of the condo and there is nothing the corporation can do to stop you or to break up your family. You may end up living in a mobile home, but the family is still a unit.
Noli,
As others have said, the separation of the parish is a fait accompli, so for the diocese to assert that the parish does not have the competence to do it is simply daft. This nonsense has been intoned by every diocese that has had parishes leave for ANiC.
As I said Noli, it depends on what you consider of greatest significance about a parish.
I don’t really consider the property and assets to be that.
The parish, as comprised of the people have left. I understand the diocese would wish to extend control and prevent that, but they cannot, so they are left contending for the legal rights / property, which is really no more than the empty shell IMHO.
You may differ on what is of primary import, but I’ll take the saints over the building anytime!!
#9 David
“As others have said, the separation of the parish is a fait accompli, so for the diocese to assert that the parish does not have the competence to do it is simply daft. This nonsense has been intoned by every diocese that has had parishes leave for ANiC.”
Hmmm. Perhaps we’re just butting heads because you’ve misunderstood what they mean by competency, which is defined in law as “the quality or condition of being legally qualified to perform an act.” In that sense, they’re most likely correct. In theory, at least, ACoC parish corporations are creatures of their dioceses with no more competency to secede than I have to withdraw my home from the condo corporation to which it belongs.
Congregationalists are free to contest this theory in court, but dioceses have traditionally been viewed as the fundamental church entity in Anglican ecclesiology, so the civil statutes and ecclesiastical canons are generally stacked against parish autonomy.
My personal position (for the record) is that the Bible doesn’t strictly mandate one type of church organization over the other, so both congregational and episcopal forms are valid, although one can certainly prefer one over the other.
Peter’s point is well taken, though: an abandoned parish corporation is just an empty shell… in ANY ecclesiology!
Although my sympathies are with the people of St. Mary’s who have left the ACoC to join the ANiC, their situation with regard to the land and buildings is very different from all of the other parishes that I know which have left the ACoC. In the case of St. Mary’s the land was given to the Diocese by a member of St. Edmund’s, Parksville long before St. Mary’s, Nanoose came into existence. The land was donated in the 1980′s to be a healing centre. I walked the property with the gentleman who gave the property who also shared his vision for the ministry and the purpose of his gift to the Diocese. The Church building was moved from Errington which is near Parksville to Nanoose Bay with out proper consultation with some of the people in Errington even though the Church had been closed down a couple years previous to being moved. There was an addition put on by the people of the new parish of St. Mary’s, Nanoose Bay with a loan from the Diocese, which I believe there is still a few thousand still owed on that loan. The parish hall was moved from Parksville when St. Edmund’s was relocated on the property where St. Anne’s is located and a new hall was built there. The old parish hall had an addition made to it a few years ago, which also has a loan with the Diocese for this addition. The only cost to the Parish for the original church and hall was the cost of moving them to their location.
Although I would like to see the people who have voted to leave the ACoC and join the ANiC from St. Mary’s, Nanoose Bay retain the use and eventually have the ownership of the Building and Land in this particular case, I believe the people would have to enter into an agreement to purchase the Building and Land from the Diocese of B. C.
I have not concured with the way the Executive Archdeacon has done a number of things when it comes to dealing with Parishes which desire to leave the ACoC and join the ANiC. At the same time I know of some people who voted in favour of the move to the ANiC and yet will stay at St. Mary’s and the ACoC. The reason they voted in favour was because of friends who asked them to vote in favour. I don’t think anyone should vote for or against something because a friend asks us to, but rather we should vote how we feel God is leading us and what we are personally prepared to do based on the outcome. As Clergy we must always be open and honest with our parishioners and with those in authority over us and we must not do our own thing. I may disagree with a Bishop, but I am not an island unto myself.
When we sign our oath of allegiance it is to all things canonical and to the authority of Scripture. I have always stated quite openly and forthrightly to my Bishops that I will be obedient to them unless what they ask me is contrary to the Word of God. I have never had a problem with any Bishop when I have made that assertion. However, now adays we sometimes feel that we can do whatever we want and not come under any person’s authority, we just say I am doing what God wants me to do. If everyone of us said that and did what we want then even our beloved ANiC would have great difficulty. We all need to come under authority while ensuring what we have been asked does not go against Scripture. If it does then we need to sit down and discuss why we cannot do what we have been asked. We need to take the higher road and set the example, which we believe the ACoC is not adhering to as a witness to them and to others that Jesus Christ truly is our Lord and Saviour.
God Bless
Brian
We are not congregationalists. We have chosen to put ourselves under the authority of a different Anglican bishop because the current church structure has become apostate. Mince words all you like, the reality is we have left, and all the nay saying on the part of the ACoC leadership will do nothing to change that. Whether this decision will ultimately mean that we have to leave our properties behind remains to be seen.
#13 Kate
Your competency to withdraw personally or as a group from ACoC is not in dispute, just as my family and I are free to move out of our condo town house if we don’t like the rules here. As Warren points out, we’d still be a family, no matter what or where. But only in congregationalist systems are parish corporations able to come and go with their property as they please, and that’s exactly what the breakaway congregations are attempting to do. Congregationalism isn’t a dirty word. Wear it proudly. It suits you well.
Noli [#14],
Whether parishes that leave the ACoC get to keep their buildings is yet to be tested in court as you well know.
“Congregationalism isn’t a dirty word. Wear it proudly. It suits you well.”
What on earth are you talking about?
#15 David
I mean that congregationalism isn’t something to be ashamed of or deny. It’s not unbiblical to assert that local congregations are free to affiliate or disaffiliate with whomever they please.
Definition of congregational:
“pertaining or adhering to a form of Protestant church government in which each local church acts as an independent, self-governing body, while maintaining fellowship with like congregations.”
Yes, I know what congregational means and I know there is nothing wrong with it.
The problem with the comment is that you have ascribed congregationalism to Kate when she is an Anglican which is not congregationalist. You seem to have done this because she thinks – as do I – that an Anglican parish can leave a diocese, something that is empirically demonstrable regardless of the alleged legal implications. And then you told her to wear it and that it suits her.
How can being a congregationalist in an Anglican church suit someone? In the same way as it would suit a vegetarian to work in a butcher’s shop?
The word doesn’t suit at all, because we are remaining Anglican. If we were trying to affiliate with a different denomination, the term would be accurate. We are not.
#17 David and #18
Okay. I see the problem. You assume that I’m referring to Congregationalism with a capital “C,” which is the name of a specific denomination. Actually, I’m referring to congregationalism with a small c, which is the principal of church governance where local congregations are autonomous with freedom to affiliate or disaffiliate with wider church bodies as they see fit.
North American Lutherans, for example, are not Congregationalists with a capital C, yet most of their churches are organized congregationally with local parishes free to withdraw from one synod and join another (e.g. St. Paul Lutheran Church on Wilbrod Street in Ottawa was once affiliated with the Missouri Synod, but some years ago the congregation voted to withdraw from that organization and affiliate instead with the Wisconsin Synod).
ACoC, however, is not organized along congregational lines, which is why they don’t recognize the “competency” of parish corporations to vote themselves out from under the authority of one bishop to realign with another. In contrast, the draft ACNA constitution proposes congregational autonomy as a general rule, albeit with exceptions:
ARTICLE IV
“The fundamental agency of mission in the Province is the local congregation.”
Article XII
“All church property, both real and personal, owned by each member congregation now and in the future is and shall be solely and exclusively owned by each member congregation and shall not be subject to any trust interest or any other claim of ownership arising out of the canon law of this Province. Where property is held in a different manner by any diocese or grouping, such ownership shall be preserved.”
Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary actions. To not recognize that something has happened does not mean that it hasn’t happened. To stubbornly insist that we haven’t done what we have in fact done reminds me of a three year old who thinks I can’t see him because his eyes are closed.
Furthermore, the wider Anglican communion has declared the ACoC to be in impaired communion to it – so really, all we have done is to remain Anglican.
#20 Kate
“To stubbornly insist that we haven’t done what we have in fact done reminds me of a three year old who thinks I can’t see him because his eyes are closed.”
Or Abraham Lincoln, who stubbornly refused to recognize the Confederacy and insisted that secession of southern American states was “legally void.”
Oh please. That’s not exactly comparing apples to apples.
I think where the discussors are at odds in this post is over the definition of a church. Is a church defined by administrative or political structure (Noli 11; Noli 21 etc.) or is it defined by being a Christian entity, in our case, of the Anglican order (Peter, David, Kate, Warren)?
In order to be true Anglicans one needs to be both
1. Truly Christian, that is, saved, through the merits of Jesus Christ, from the rebellion into which we are born in the flesh and from the coming wrath which is coming upon the world; reborn, by the indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit, into God’s heavenly family (Warren #8) and
2. Willingly submissive to the authority of Christian bishops.
The first point is where we in ANiC have diverged from the administrative entity called ACoC.
The second point defines us as non-congrationalist and is the reason that, before separating from the ACoC, ANiC churches (and others who left earlier) sought a Christian Anglican bishop who was willing to give us oversight.
Oops! Didn’t mean to include the emoticon! I was trying to reference Warren’s comment in 8!! I assumed that and fixed it – admin
Irena (#23), Article XIX (1959) says this about the Church (big C)
Holding to a certain political or administrative structure defines a church (little c) or denomination. I’ve attended several churches over the course of my life – and there were many differences between them – but I’ve only ever been part of one Church.
For some reason, my quote in #25 didn’t show up properly (I probably forgot a “>” somewhere). Hopefully it can still be understood. fixed – admin
I think I must have confused everyone, including myself, with my post in #23. In it, I was just trying to point out that, though the ANiC churches have separated from their ACoC bishops, they have not become “parish corporations [who are] able to come and go with their property as they please” (Noli’s definition of a congregationalist church #14). We continue to submit to an Anglican bishop; we continue to uphold the historic teachings of the Anglican Church. We are therefore Anglicans both by structure and by faith.
The raison d’etre of any church is its belief system. To define the church as a purely administrative entity–like Noli’s condominium complex (#7)–is ludicrous. As Kate (#22) says, this is not comparing apples with apples.
Irena (#27), I agree that a church’s belief system should be very important in how it is defined, but, alas, this is increasingly not the case within evangelicalism. Many churches seem fixated on defining themselves by their music, programs, comedic style of their pastor, etc. The church I’m currently attending is not immune from this and I know the senior pastor is under considerable pressure to move in this direction.
Hey folks:
I agree that there’s only one invisible Church universal under Christ consisting of all the saints both living and dead. And I’m not suggesting that visible churches here on earth are defined ONLY by their administrative form: theology and liturgy are also hugely important.
However, there ARE different ways of structuring earthly church organizations. In some denominations (e.g. Roman Catholic), the basic administrative unit is the diocese, which creates or uncreates parish sub-units. In other denominations (e.g. North American Lutheranism), congregations are the basic unit and they come together to create synods which elect bishops. The ACoC is organized according to the former, not the latter, so that ACoC parish sub-units are subsidiary to and unable to legally separate from their dioceses. Spiritual secession of the people is another thing, but at least in theory, ACoC parish corporations can’t legally secede. We’ll see whether the courts agree.
We haven’t seceded. We have made a lateral move.
#29 Noli: I’m glad you now admit that a church is more than its administrative structure because this is what my argument is depending on.
If a church is, by definition, more than its administrative structure, we have to discuss whether the ANiC churches broke up the legal (if we have to talk ‘legal’) unit or the Dioceses who contradicted the very reason for the church’s existence as a legal unit; that is, the gospel of the one Lord Jesus Christ.
Back to the old question: Who moved first?
#31 Irena
It will be interesting to see how much weight the courts give to ANiC’s theological arguments in deciding who controls the outward parish structures. Perhaps despite everything in the canons and incorporating statutes, they’ll rule that orthodox congregations are competent to withdraw from ACoC dioceses with their properties after all.
If not, the withdrawing congregations will no doubt continue as reconstituted church entities. Parish buildings, memorials, financial assets, and historic identity are all precious things that help enable ministry. In the end, though, it only takes some bread and wine, two or three people, and the Word of God to make a church in Jesus’ eyes.
#32 Noli: Amen to your post!! Alleluia!!
#28 Warren: You have now given me another reason to pray for your pastor. May he be strengthened through all these trials and may the Gospel go forth from him. (Psalm 126:6)
The Church (capital ‘C’) is always under threat, either from within or from without and, really, we shouldn’t be surprised. The Gospel, which is forgiveness and eternal life to us, no doubt seems a fearful thing to the Enemy in the spiritual realm.
I guess this is why we are commanded to pray for our leaders and to always ‘be filled with the Spirit’.
NA (#32), do you think the courts will give any weight whatsoever to theological arguments? I’m certainly not a lawyer, but it would surprise me if they did. Given what the Bible has to say about how the things of God are viewed by the unbeliever (i.e., foolishness), I would think that both parties to the dispute would be best served by leaving theological issues at the courtroom door. Note that I am using the term theology in the following sense:
Reconstituted – that’s an interesting mental image. Even if we have to leave our building, we are the same parish we always were – still part of the worldwide Anglican communion, still a parish family. It’s the ACoC that is busy reconstituting itself. That is the root of this whole mess, and that is why the ACoC insistence that a parish can’t leave reminds me of a three year old “hiding” with his eyes closed. The parishes have left – there is no ACoC St. Hilda’s, despite their attempt to manufacture one. The buildings are relevant to us only as a tool for ministry. We may ultimately get to keep them, we may not. That won’t change the fact that the parishes, as a group, have left.
#35 Warren
Well, the courts have already agreed that ANiC’s cases are at least “tryable” based upon an argument that where a church organization is formed for the purpose of promoting certain defined doctrines of religious faith which are set forth in its corporate articles or constitution, the church property which it acquires is impressed with a trust to carry out that purpose.
So, for example, in the Canadian case of Anderson v. Gislason, the Manitoba court of appeal ruled in 1920 that the property of an Icelandic Lutheran congregation belonged to the minority who still adhered to the confessional Lutheran beliefs of those who founded the congregation in 1894 , rather than to the majority who had voted to amalgamate in 1919 with a Unitarian group which denied the Holy Trinity.
The Manitoba judge who decided Anderson v. Gislason looked to an earlier British ruling of 1904 for guidance, Free Church of Scotland v. Overtoun (one of the cases cited in the Niagara interim ruling). In Free Church v. Overtoun, Lord Halsbury remarks:
“Now, in the controversy which has arisen, it is to be remembered that a Court of law has nothing to do with the soundness or unsoundness of a particular doctrine. Assuming there is nothing unlawful in the views held… a Court has simply to ascertain what was the original purpose of the trust. My Lords, I do not think we have any right to speculate as to what is or is not important in the views held. The question is what were, in fact, the views held and what the founders of the trust thought important.”
It’s worth noting that ACoC’s founders found neither marriage nor homosexuality important enough to specifically mention in the Solemn Declaration of 1893.
Hello Noli (#37)
You raise some very interesting legal history to the situation/discussion. It is appearent that you have done some homework on these court rulings, and I will take what you have posted at face value. It does after all give us hope that their is a strong legal case for the truly Faithful.
Of course the Solemn Declaration of 1893 does not specifically make reference to marriage nor homosexual behaviour. What it does state is a commitment to remain in Communion with the then Church of England and all its parts throughout the world. It also states a commitment to the 39 Articles of Religion, and the Divinity of Jesus Christ.
NA (#37), the writers of the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed didn’t mention marriage or homosexuality either. Let’s not forget context! I think your last paragraph is a red herring.
It wouldn’t have occurred to them that anybody would question that marriage was between one man and one woman, and I think you know that.
Warren (#37) – but the Creeds DO mention Creation – in the words: “God . . . Maker of heaven and earth.” Apostle’s & Nicene Creeds.
And “Through whom all things were made” referring to Jesus in the Nicene Creed. In the 1962 BCP
Interestingly, in the 1662 BCP it is “By whom all things were made.”
The last General Synod’s motion that said ‘it’ was not a creedal matter was really ‘straw’.
Humanity (first), then men and women, are the work of the Creator.
Margo (#41), did you mean to refer to my comment in #39? NA made the comment in #37. I referred to the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds in #37, but didn’t mention creation. Did I miss something?
Margo (#41), now I’m doing it. I referred to the Creeds in #39.
#39 Warren: Noli’s mention of homosexuality (practice of, I need to add) and marriage in #37 would be a red herring if he weren’t talking about the courts. However, his mention of them is appropriate here as the courts will not take into account a full biblical view of these subjects but will look at the basic documents of the Anglican Church. Of course, we in ANiC have not left our diocese’s merely because we’re opposed to homosexual unions; we’ve done it because the dioceses, in taking steps towards sanctifying the unsanctifiable, have denied the authority of God and his Word and put themselves outside the world-wide Anglican Church as defined by its creeds, articles and other documents of religion. This authority and this Word have been denied creepingly over the last number of years, but, as far as I know, has only come to a ballot in the area of sexuality.
I think the liberal church with whom we are now in court understands the legal danger of their stand all too well and are now noticeably endeavouring to make themselves ‘look like’ a traditionally Christian organization. Hence the great protests in the Niagara court affidavits that, of course, they haven’t rejected the Bible. And, of course, they haven’t rejected the creeds. Recently (in the last three or so weeks?) one large liberal church in Burlington has begun to reintroduce into its morning service the Apostles’ Creed and the Confession, both of which had been screamingly absent for quite some time.
Irena [#44],
Interestingly, the Niagara affidavits which are still linked to here, have actually been missing for some time. When they were available you could see clear evidence of coaching in the wording.
In a clericus meeting around a year and a half ago, the Niagara rectors were openly joking about how almost none of them (there were a few exceptions – guess where they are now) believed the creeds any longer.
#39 Warren
“I think your last paragraph is a red herring.”
Most likely true because the Solemn Declaration isn’t an incorporating article and doesn’t seem integral to ACoC and diocesan constitutions. The courts will pay more attention to the provincial laws by which dioceses are incorporated, which don’t really address theology but do tend go on at length about bishops’ property rights. Also to the diocesan canons, which state that parish properties are held in trust for the dioceses pursuant to the incorporating statutes.
Incidentally, one of the “important principals” upon which the Free Church of Scotland case hinged was more organizational than theological: establishment as a state church.
Irena (#44) & NA (#46), although various theological arguments will doubtlessly emerge in the court proceedings, I still hold that the fundamental doctrinal issues will not be spiritually discerned by the court, nor can the court be expected to have any understanding of the two kingdoms. That said, God can certainly, in His gracious providence, guide the hands of the civil magistrates and use them in achieving His purposes just as He used Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus.
Warren – back in #’s 42 & 43 – yes you are right – I meant #39.
Creation is in the Creeds.
#47 Warren: You are surely right that we cannot count on the courts to have spiritual discernment over this matter and you will still be right even if we were blessed with all Christian lawyers/judges. The law by nature is a clumsy tool for righteousness; it’s like a club when we need a scalpel.
My main point above is that, in the courts, our dispute cannot be considered like, say, an argument over a condominium or a parking lot (cf. Judge Milanetti in the last Niagara ruling). Our church relationships and now division need to be treated more like a family dispute, with the complexities of promises, rights, trust and faithfulness which a normal business dispute cannot model.
A divorce is not treated like a business dispute. And I think our situation is much more like a divorce than anything else in law.
David (#45) can you point me to a web site or document where this incident at the clericus meeting occurred, or the names of some eye witnesses? I am currently writing a document which I am hoping to present at a meeting in a couple months in which I want to be able to give specific examples of another gospel being preached in the church. If you would like to read the document as it currently stands you may contact me at songinheart17atyahoo.ca.