A Letter to the Anglican Journal: Simply un-Christian
Jan 2nd, 2010 by David
A letter-writer to the Journal has a radically Christian proposal for the Diocese of New Westminster:
The bishop and other diocesan officials in New Westminster claim to be tolerant and gracious [Anglican Journal News: Court rules properties remain with diocese of New Westminster]. In light of the B.C. Supreme Court’s recent decision, the diocese’s leaders should now show grace by offering to turn over the buildings in dispute to the four congregations that have left the diocese for the Anglican Network in Canada. There is no point in the diocese holding onto property for which it has no use. It’s simply un-Christian.
“There is no point in the diocese holding onto property” I would agree if the writer had said “moral” point. His statement rests on the issue of whether one believes in the God of Love or the god of mammon.
“I think it is best said that nobody should “hold their breath”! Stuck in Toronto has said it with three words “god of mammon”. The Diocese of NW will try to come out of this looking good and Ingham is very good at that, but, greed is greed, no matter how it is sliced.
Quite. In Michael Ingham’s place, I would regard being held to have acted illegally as a disgrace (and resigned immediately). He seems to see it as a mark of honour.
What surprises me is that the journal printed the letter.
your fellow unworthy servant in Christ,
Brian DeVisser
Agreed in spades!
I’ll be the contrarian and suggest that while the letter writer’s suggestion is novel, it is not in the best interest of the Diocese of New West. There are many options availabe to Ingham’s lot: plant a new church, sell the property to the highest bidder (and use the funds for an appropriate outreach endeavour), sell the property to another church party (i.e. the Network), convert them into low rental housing, turn them into concert halls, etc.
I suspect however that turning the keys over to the Network is not in the cards. And I do not think there is anything immoral about this. It may not be the most charitable option, but it’s business.
Exactly. It’s business, and it shouldn’t be.
Eph3:20:
Proverbs 3:5-8 (New International Version)
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make your paths straight. [a]
7 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
fear the LORD and shun evil.
The diocese of New Westminster is acting in a Christian manner towards its Anglican members so that others living in the neighbourhoods of those disaffected churches will once again be able to go back to their parishes and worship God in the historic manner of their faith.
To call others immoral without looking for the log in your own eye is a bit sad.
Gillian,
The letter writer said he thought New Westminster’s attempt to hold on to the properties “un-Christian”, not immoral.
Do you really think the diocese is behaving in a Christian manner by displacing around 1500 worshippers to make room for what is probably going to be 3 very small, perhaps even non-existent, congregations? The diocese is already combining and closing parishes; why do they need more buildings other than perhaps to sell them in order to prolong their decline?
I agree with Gillian. The ACiC owes nothing to the Network. It can’t be both ways. You can’t on one hand claim to be authentically “Anglican” but on the other walk apart from the Communion. Either your in all of it or none of it. Personally I think there is room for all dispositions in the Anglican Church. Afterall, Romans would claim the Anglicans are too Liberal. Funny that some Anglicans would now turn around and say that their brothers and sisters are now too Liberal for them. It serves no one any good to splinter the church. And I feel that ultimately the Network will become a rump in much the same way the Anglican Catholic Church has become.
David,
The buildings are the property of New West. They can do with them as they please. How judgemental one is to suggest how they might use what is lawfully theirs.
Eph 3:20 [#12],
The legality of the building ownership won’t be finally settled until either an appeal goes through or the parishes decide not to appeal.
However, if we assume that the diocese does end up as legal owner of the buildings, their entitlement to do what they like with them is a secular rather than a Christian one.
In case you are in any doubt about how judgemental I am on this issue: if the diocese’s intention is to sell the buildings - and it probably is - I believe that they will have acted in a thoroughly un-Christian - and despicable - manner.
Eph3:20 [#11],
The splintering took place long before the New West parishes joined ANiC. It occurred when the diocese chose to ignore the majority of the Anglican communion and go its own way.
Whether or not ANiC becomes a “rump” only time will tell. Even if it does, for my part, I would rather be a member of a rump that is Christian than a diocese that is not.
Gillian,
I think your concern, both for displaced Anglicans and ‘the historic manner of [the] faith,’ is misplaced. Time will tell, however. For all of us face a reckoning:
…the rending pain of re-enactment
Of all that you have done, and been; the shame
Of motives late revealed, and the awareness
Of things ill done and done to others’ harm
Which once you took for exercise of virtue.
#11 You would have a point if the structure of the Anglican Church of Canada was still authentically Christian (Note, I am saying structure, not individual people). I don’t believe that it is, or else why hasn’t +Ingham been disciplined for saying that Jesus isn’t the only way to the Father?
I’ve always had difficulty with the phrase “no one gets to the Father except through me.” Can someone tell me definitively what this means? Does this reference salvation? Getting in to heaven? Experiencing pure bliss? If someone is not a Christian can they get to the Father? I think it highly presumptive and offensive to definitively assume that you know the mind and will of God. Nothing is impossible with God. To suggest there is only one way to God is eschtologically (sp) weak, naive and contrary to the history of mysticism that has engulfed the church for centuries. One may only get to the Father through Jesus but there are penultimate ways to do that.
I’m glad you brought this up. We are too often distracted by issues such as same-sex blessings, when the the real issue - the one that has deeply corrupted western Anglicanism - is the trustworthiness of the Bible. Is it truly God’s inspired and infallible Word, or was it written by a bunch of well intentioned but fallible men? Is Jesus really God? Are all His words, as recorded in the Bible, to be trusted, or can we pick and choose as suits our personal world view? Are we the judge of whether or not God’s Word is true and to be wholly trusted, or do we humbly bow before it - as much as it may hurt our fleshly natures?
To suggest that the Bible is not the inspired and infallible Word of God is eschtologically (sp) weak, naive and contrary to the history of mysticism that has engulfed the church for centuries.
Eph3:20,
You recognize, I hope, that your declamation — that “One may only get to the Father through Jesus but there are penultimate ways to do that” — is itself a truth claim, as exclusive and dogmatic as the orthodox Christian claims you (apparently) reject?
Can you see how you’ve done the very thing you accuse others of, which by your own definition is “highly presumptive and offensive,” by making a definitive claim to know the mind and will of God?
As for your claim that the history of mysticism somehow contradicts Christian teaching, I beg to differ. No less an authority on the matter than Evelyn Underhill distinguishes between the ‘direct intuition or experience of God’, unmediated and available to everyone because this aspect of God is inherent in creation, and ‘Mystic Union’, which is Christocentric and historically achieved only by faithful and orthodox sons and daughters of the Church. Underhill further distinguishes mystical union from soteriological union.
I’d like to recommend Timothy Keller’s book (and website) to you, *The Reason For God*:
http://www.thereasonforgod.com/
I second Redcrosse Knight’s recommendation of Tim Keller’s book. Although aimed at skeptics and doubters, it’s a worthwhile read for mature Christians as well.
I’ve read all his books, they are marvelous.
This morning, our pastor observed on the world’s reaction to Christianity’s exclusive truth claims - including Christ being the only way to the Father - by pointing to the hostile reaction to Brit Hume’s recent comments on Fox News. Our society will tolerate almost anything; except that which it perceives to be intolerance. The idea of an all powerful and holy God, who created the universe, and who sets the terms by which His creation can be in right relationship with Him, is repugnant to the post-modern mind.