From the ANiC Newsletter:
ANiC chancellor Cheryl Chang has written to the four Vancouver-area churches involved in the recent court proceeding reporting on a meeting held November 30 with the leaders of the four churches and their legal counsel. She says that while there are clear grounds for appeal, no decision has been made. “There were views expressed on both sides of the equation and everyone agreed to pray about it and try to discern what God is calling us to do. Unfortunately, this decision has come at the beginning of the busiest month in our church calendars, making it very difficult to properly consult with all the congregations on the long-term implications of such a major decision. The Trustees agreed to consult as widely as possible over the following 2 weeks and they will meet again on December 14 to discuss the matter further and, ideally, make some decision as to whether or not to file an appeal before the end of the expiry of the 30 day time limit… It is important to remember that should we choose to file an appeal, we can later discontinue that appeal, but if we do not file within the 30 day time limit, our decision will be final… I am recommending that we file an appeal… to give the congregations more time to… seek a consensus so that we [can] act in unity… ”
Many interesting points in the Chancellor’s letter but I will concentrate on #3. I can’t copy it from PDF for some reason but the question is whether the decision whether or not to appeal be made for themselves only, or considering others who will be impacted by the proceedings.
Ontario ANiC is the obvious latter group. But the fate of the original-fundamental-principles trust doctrine is of relevance to every denomination in Canada (as Cheryl indicated earlier to the National Post) and is a protection for the orthodox everywhere. So if an appeal is made, the argument on that point better be good. Unfortunately there seems to be no mechanism to get orthodox across Canada to pony up a share of the cost. I was amazed by a comment by the counsel for a national evangelical group (can’t find it now; intend to blast it on my blog eventually) that the decision was good because courts should not be pronouncing on the orthodoxy of doctrine. He did not seem to be able to distinguish between the law as it is and the law as he wants it — a seeming occupational hazard with orthodox lawyers across North America.
I believe they should not appeal, but I also pray for and urge the granting of prudence and wisdom on those deciding.
Ultimately, I don’t know whether the appeal should proceed or not, but I do agree with the recommendation to file the notice to appeal. If the decision is still “maybe”, then filing the notice will give everyone enough time to properly debate the issue.
I’m with you in praying for wisdom for the decision makers on all sides.
There is a possibility that the Diocese could appeal those parts of the rulings that went against them.
This will backfire big-time. I know of many parishes that exist and are maintained because of pride and love for the building. (like the joke about, what do mean change that lightbulb – my grandmother donated that lightbulb.) The circumstance of recognizing that “your church” can be taken away at the whim of the diocese will shake-up many a parish council, were SSB’s couldn’t even make a dent.
As we use to say in the “Ninth” – stand by for incoming!!!
If the decision in the diocese’s favour stands, I would make it abundantly clear to diocesan officials that since they “own” the properties they must now pony up 100% of the maintenance costs. They can’t have it both ways.
The Solicitors for the ANiC churches have done a noteworthy and most admirable job in representing us. I feel the Cheryl has done wonderful work as a legel representative and Chancellor for ANiC.
It is now time to move past this. The Churches involved have had ample time, yes, more than ample time to determine whether or not the BC Supreme Court ruling should be appealed. Do they now again have to depend on Lawyers to make that decision for them.
I truly believe that our legal justice system, being run by the Supreme Court of Canada and the affiliated Courts are so engrained into the fabric of big money, big government and big everything that we will not now n’or ever get a fair ruling on behalf of Orthodoxy. Our Social systems are past such things. We are now in a Country that believes in the idea that “if it feels right, then do it”……not……What would God Do or what would Jesus Do?
I believe enough funds have been spent on this effort that it is now time to move on.
Gerry #5, I totally agree. Looking at our situation from another perspective, perhaps our buildings have become an actual impediment to our ministries. I can’t imagine how we could get along without them, but in every instance I’ve read about, where congregations just walked away from or were forced out of their buildings, their ministries are not only surviving but actually flourishing. Come to think of it, buildings were not a part of the ministries of the Apostles and their ministries certainly didn’t suffer from not having them. On the contrary, perhaps our ministries should be following their example. Perhaps the losses ACNA parishes are experiencing in the secular courts is God’s way of telling us to let go and trust in Him. Something to think about, anyway.
They haven’t had ample time to study the court decision. It makes sense to file an appeal. They don’t have to go through with it, but if they don’t file, an appeal will cease to be an option.
Enough money has been spent on this. Leave the buildings and spend what would be paid to lawyers on church planting. “Farther up and further in.”
Thy kingdom come
Thy will be done
“While God waits for His Church to be built of love, men bring stone.”
Stuck (#9), what is the source of the quote?
#8 The money that would be paid to lawyers isn’t available for church planting. Lawyers fees have come out of the legal defence fund – people who donated to it, donated for the specific purpose of legal defence. We haven’t been spending general funds on lawyers, in order to ensure that the wishes of people who didn’t want their money to go to the court case were respected.
I can’t help but think that we have not yet spent a fraction of the value of the buildings that are involved, never mind the value of those that will be effected by the precedent that this sets. I realize that the amounts spent can seem massive, but you are talking about buildings that in some cases are not replaceable. I know of two ANiC parishes in Ottawa who would have a fairly difficult time (one more then the other) in finding suitable replacement facilities to meet in which are located in the areas they feel called to minister.
That being said, I have been more impressed by a family from Faith Anglican Church who walked away from a building (in tears mind you) where their Grandparents had attended, their parents were baptized and married and where they had been baptized and married and their children baptized. But in their case, to be honest, outside of the memories, the building wasn’t all that useful.
Just a couple of thoughts,
your fellow unworthy servant in Christ,
Brian DeVisser
#11 Kate,
You are right. However, the purses that opened up for the legal defense fund are in most cases the same purses that could have opened up for other fund-drives. You can only get so much out of the same purses. 1.1 million has already been spent on the New West cases…and that is a lot to tap from these purses.
Brian De Visser #12
You are absolutely right Brian, the buildings cannot be replaced and neither can the memories that are held dear to the hearts of those parishioners who have left them or will leave them BUT just how important we let those things (buildings) become will inevitably lead us into a direction that $$$$ usually takes us.
We do need buildings or space in which to gather, nobody disputes this BUT do we need old stone and brick buildings with giant steeples and multitudes of beautiful stained glass windows and row upon row of solid oak pews (with brass plates with names on them) indicating that this is where such and such a family sits. Do we need all those useless and expensive trimmings or do we just need space to gather.
Some of our parishes that have broken from the ACoC will go in one direction with their funds and others will go in the opposite with theirs.
Which ones will do the most evangelizing?
Which ones will have more funds to support missions?
Which ones will split into new cells when they grow too large for their space?
St Hilda’s does a lot of ministry in the area in which it is located. To leave and try to find affordable accommodations, while trying to do the same outreach, would be extremely difficult (although our God is a God of miracles). We know the diocese has no intentions of carrying on the ministries that would be impacted because they are only interested in bulldozing the building and selling the land.
Muriel #15 – I hear you and that is the point and the only point to me which makes sense.
“To leave and try to find affordable accommodations, while trying to do the same outreach, would be extremely difficult ”
It’ll be a lot more difficult after losing and having to pay $500K in legal fees (with your wardens personally liable in the short run for anything that can’t be paid immediately, and then being entitled to be indemnified by you in the long run).
Should St. Hilda’s abandon their outreach to the local high school, then, Toral? That’s the alternative.
Would there be no high schools around the area of their new location? No people in need of outreach and ministry?
Brian #12 said “I know of two ANiC parishes in Ottawa who would have a fairly difficult time (one more then the other) in finding suitable replacement facilities to meet in which are located in the areas they feel called to minister.”
I agree with you Brian. I worship in one of them when I’m not traveling.
However, I don’t know of anyone in our congregation who wasn’t aware at the time of the very real possiblity that we might lose our building when they took a stand for orthodox Christianity and voted to leave the ACoC. I believe that we are mentally prepared to move on, if/when it becomes necessary and we certainly don’t expect it to be a cakewalk. With God’s help we will manage, and hopefully we will grow to be a more faithful and more thankful congregation as a result of the experience.
Together with you on the journey …….
WT
Of course there would, that is no excuse for abandoning the people they are serving now.
Congregants will soon lose (if they haven’t already lost) their will to fight these legal battles. ANiC must be extraordinarily careful that it does not become the “Anglican Network in Court”… the whole excitement of realignment could quicklly dissolve in legal briefs. Is this really who we are and who we want to portray ourselves as to the world?
I know many of the faithful who are already uncomfortable being in court…add to that the likelyhood of consistent losses in court…you’re left with a pretty lame situation.
Those who are concerned about continuing in the litigation should ask their wardens to ask our lawyers (not the Chancellor, but our hired counsel), for a written opinion stating the likelihood of success in the litigation, and the likely total legal costs of taking this matter to trial, then as high as the Court of Appeal.
Lawyers are under a professional obligation to provide a written opinion as to litigation success when asked. They don’t like to do so, and so usually don’t, unless asked. It’s long past time they should be asked. There may be sensitive matters in the opinion (things we don’t want our adversaries to know), but at a minumum the gist of it should be made available to Parish Council.
Oh, and if we should proceed with litigation, you should advise your wardens that they are entitled to independent advice at the congregation’s expense about their responsibility for legal costs — not by our counsel, who would have a conflict of interest, but by counsel with some experience in advising charitable trustees. Our lawyers aren’t the right folks anyway, since they were apparently caught off guard when faced with the clear legal fact that the wardens, as named defendants, were responsible for legal cost awards if we lose.
I wish you all had been at the discernment meeting at St. John’s this past week! While the leadership is pushing no position over any other there was such a sense of God’s undergirding as we prayerfully considered how to proceed. The leadership is very aware that making knee-jerk decisions (either side of the issue) in these next two months could put members of the flock at risk.
As David Short said last week: “There is no panic in heaven.” So the plan is: No sudden changes of direction. No pooh-poohing of anyone’s point of view. We all have opinions but we need to prayerfully submit our reasonings to the light of the Gospel.
It’s the mind of Christ we are seeking. With a large group of people this requires time, which is why filing for an appeal is a wise move at this point. This will allow us to find the mind of Christ on the matter so we can all move together where he leads.
Yes. The Chancellor is right, of course, that we need to file a notice to appeal before the limitation period ends if we need more time to consult.
You aren’t implying that our Chancellor would lie, are you Toral? I must say I don’t like your tone.
#20 Winter Traveler, I have never doubted that in both cases the majority of the folks in these two Ottawa parishes would walk away from buildings, but that doesn’t change the fact that it would make it difficult to continue to minister in the areas that they feel called to minister. The point I was trying to make is that sometimes the battle isn’t just over memories or stain glass windows, but actually useful space in areas where there isn’t any.
Your fellow unworthy servant in Christ,
Brian DeVisser
I hear you, Brian (#27). I’m thinking of a bunch of university students who contribute a great deal, and who may be unable to find convenient or affordable transportation if their church home has to relocate to a facility a considerable distance from where most of them live. Few (if any) of them would view the ACoC parishes in the area as a viable alternative.
Kate 26: I don’t like your tone either. But I dislike more your aggressive stupidity. Your persistent stupid comments on legal issues about whicb you know nothing.
I call on the blogmasters to revoke Kate’s thread-starting privileges,
Thus had better be cleared up by the New Year.
Toral,
Let’s calm down.
Kate is one of the admins and is unlikely to revoke her own privileges – nor are the other admins likely to revoke them.
Thus had better be cleared up by the New Year.
I presume you mean “This”. If so, it is a rather fatuous implied threat – particularly for a lawyer.
Right. So we need different admins — Kate and probably you to be squlched.
We may see how fatuous this threat is. We are committr
ed to tithe to ANiC. Unless Parish Council decides otherwise. I can count on the support of my rector, and almost half of the PC is in one of my fwsp groups.
So, Marilyn J. : Close it down.
Toral,
You ruin the genuine insights that your profession affords by this kind of irrational outburst. Give it a rest.
Oh I am definitely giving it a rest, David. deleted by admin You have revealed yourself.
As to the future of this blog— “Let those who have ears to hear. hear.”
Toral I to have been threatened by kate – deleted by admin. However the opportunity to participate in cross country discussion with all manner of Anglicans but particularly the “new/old” orthodox far out weights the odd petulance that occurs. This Blog is the not the best, but it’s the best we have. Besides you really can’t do anything seriously can you? I mean you are a christian.
Toral, you leave me speechless (although I may recover).
Stuck [#34],
I to[o] have been threatened by kate
Oh please, this is a blog not a knife fight on a street corner.
Toral [#34],
All Kate did was ask you a question. All you had to do was say something like “no, I don’t think the chancellor is lying, but in my opinion, she is overly optimistic” – which is I assume what you meant.
How about answering my question, Toral? Were you implying that the Chancellor is incompetent, or lieing? All I did was ask a question.
Wow! This was a very interesting thread that suddenly and unnecessarily plummeted – demonstrating once again the dangers of blogs (and email) where comments are often made in haste without sufficient thought to how others might (mis)interpret them.
May I suggest we simply choose to place the best possible construct on others words and, when uncertain of another commenter’s meaning, ask for clarification rather than make assumptions. As fallen human beings interacting with fallen human beings, forgiveness and humility will be needed by all.
And while I follow and enjoy the AEC blog, Toral, I certainly don’t have authority over it. It is the AEC blog, (not ANiC blog) founded by one of the current bloggers, who subsequently invited the rest of the blogging team to join.
On the matter of civility on blogs, I’ve found Dr John Stackhouse’s most recent blog (found at stackblog.wordpress.com) instructive – and a little convicting – even though I, like others, disagreed with him on his previous blog.
I also have to agree with Toral and with Stuck in Toronto…..
Deleted by admin
Marilyn #40 -
I think J.I. Packer said it best somewhere when I read a comment he made about blogs. I cannot quote him, but he did leave little doubt that he finds the time wasted ‘blogging’ is just too much. Perhaps it is time that we all took some of his advice a little more to heart.
I must comment a bit more about our Chancellor and clarify that I have said nothing and have not passed an agreement with any statements made on this or any other blog concerning Her.
I think that what Toral was saying was – Go to counsel outside of the Chancellor on some things…..and that is only what I think He/she (Toral) said.
35 stuck — I took a bit of a walk to think about this — and I had to ladd with Godly pleasure at how exactly you expressed have my mind. I mean right down to th last sentence — you can’t do anything, right, cuz yer a Christian.
But OTOH I like David, but he really probably should be in jail, Deleted by admin
Re Kate 23 .. you get a written opinion from your hired counsel not becauase you think your in-house counsel is a lawyer but becuz fired counsel will be arguimg the case. Deleted by admin
So, my comments which were not near as malicious as those of Stuck in Toronto or Toral have been deleted by admin. In the name of fairness, why?????
Toral [#44],
But OTOH I like David, but he really probably should be in jail
That makes me feel warm all over.
I guess Jack Nicholson said it best in “A few Good Men” when he said some people “Can’t Handle the Truth”.
Sorry folks, I am closing the comments on this thread until everyone cools off. Also, much as I am a proponent of free speech, I – me, David, not Kate – have edited a number of comments; may I remind you of the blog rules that include:
As the ‘blogmaster’ or ‘blog founder’ mentioned in #30 and #40, I am in agreement with David on the need to close this thread. It seems a fairly interesting line of thoughts just got derailed and has become a good example of why these blogs things are sometimes not so good.
Stop and think that words in cyberspace count just as much as words that come out of your mouth. Pray for each other, even (especially) those that irritate or anger you. You can be anonymous on the blog, but you are not before God. So a little bit more kindness and gentleness can go a long way.
There are tons of blogs out there that just become flame wars. We do not wish for this blog to become another one. It’s not necessarily an easy or fun job to allow free speech and disagreement without things turning like this thread did. So cut the admins some slack please.
This blog might not be the best, as Gerry pointed out, and very probably we are not the best either. However, the direction it takes is much to do with those who comment as evil thread closing admins (actually, that’s David….but I digress)
. So please bear more kindly with each other. Thanks,
Blessings,
Peter