From the March 3rd ANiC newsletter, wherein are many other illuminating items:
The appeal of Mr Justice Kelleher’s decision involving Vancouver-area ANiC parishes is proceeding. Please pray for their legal counsel, Geoff Cowper and Stanley Martin, as they prepare the appeal on behalf of the congregations.
I fully agree and support the appeal. The fact is that the entire proceedings would not have been necessary if the Primate and the House of Bishops appropriately disciplined the apostates within their group. Even at this date I am confident the Primate could step in and direct an end to the actions of the Diocese of New Westminster. Failure to do so is nothing less than aiding and abetting a bank robber. The action is nothing less than the diocese attempting to steal from the parishioners that have paid for and maintained these properties. We know who drives the apostates but we have yet to see if they are to face any opposition within the House of Bishops.
Should the Diocese succeed in their fraudulent action, all members of parishes in the ACoC should cease any and all payments for maintenance and/or mortgages. If the Dioceses are found to own properties, let them pay for maintenance costs, etc. The ACoC can hardly expect persons to support building costs and expenses if they are determined to steal the properties at some future date.
One could look at the closure of 13 churches as a serious threat. What has been shown unequivocally is the interest in propagating the Gospel of Christ is not very high on the agenda, certainly not as high as money in the bank! I am sure glad I am no longer a Warden in a ACoC Parish. I mentioned in an earlier blog that the time may come when Wardens cannot be found, but heck, isn’t that just more money in the bank? Hmmm, I wonder….. in the event of such a Diocesan decision could the parishoners petition to purchase the property, less the amount of personal investment already made? It would seem to me the Diocese would be hard pressed to refuse. Or am I blowin in the wind.
Frank #1
I have noted in this and in many other of your posts what I perceive to be a view that there are still some orthodox bishops within the ACoC House of Bishops who are somehow being held hostage by the “apostates” and who could, should they decide to do so at some time in the furure, step up and turn things around. If I have misread your posts I appologize, However, If I have not misread them and if this is indeed your view, I must respectfully disagree.
It is my contention that there are no orthodox bishops left in the ACoC. The HoB is, in my view, now made up solely of revisionist bishops who are promoting the current agenda or institutionalist bishops who value their acceptance by society, the security of their positions and the internal unity of their institution over the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I acknowledge that I may be wrong but have seen much evidence to support this conclusion and little evidence to refute it. I would welcome the views of others on this preposition.
For Winter Traveller
From the lack of any action by any of the claimed orthodox bishops in the House of Bishops, I would have to agree with your statement. However, I am and will continue to try and wake up those who claim to be orthodox and I am only giving them credit because of previous statements they have made. That is despite of the fact they have taken no action whatever to defend the faith and seem content to simply sit back and allow the “wolves in sheep’s clothing” to decimate the Church and proclaim a false gospel. In reality persons such as Michael Ingham and Michael Bird should be defrocked but the evidence shows they will be allowed to bring the ACoC into the abyss of apostasy and irrelevance. Tragically they will take many parishioners with them. There have been many postings concerning unity and being in communion with ABC but the basic requirement for any church that claims to be Christian is to be in communion with our Lord and Saviour. That is definitely not the case in the Diocese of New Westminster and in other dioceses within the ACoC. Apostasy and orthodoxy cannot live in the same house.
I sincerely pray that those bishops who have, at least in the past, claimed to be orthodox will understand this fact and act accordingly.
Frank #4
” I am and will continue to try and wake up those who claim to be orthodox and I am only giving them credit because of previous statements they have made.”
While I admire your perserverance, I don’t think they’re asleep. Rather, I believe that they’re wide awake and fully aware what is going on around them. For selfish reasons they may not be taking part directly, but their their inaction is enabling the revisionists to succeed and they know it. Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words. In my view, their inaction speaks volumes.
While I agree with Frank that the Diocese should lose, I think it highly probable that the Diocese will win in court. I have no confidence that the courts will make the just decision, but so it is, and I think we need to be honest and realistic about that probability.
Unfortunately, conservatives in both TEC and the ACoC need to realize that every dime they give to their church or diocese is, in effect, giving that money directly to Ingham and the National Church. What needs to be done (for those still in the ACoC or TEC) is to carefully and realistically examine the canons and secular law, and then very carefully construct ways to divert as much money away from the diocese or national church as possible.
If the Diocese wins this case, and you are a conservative church within the ACoC, your church should INSIST on retitling the legal deed in the name of the Diocese so that they are the legal owners and would bear full liability in case of any lawsuits (remember the native schools lawsuits). You should also do only the minimum of upkeep to the buildings. Most importantly, you should construct independent non-profit agencies to handle most of the cash flow of the parish.
There is one way, and one way only to stop the insanity, and that is to for the dioceses and national churches to run out of money (in Canada especially, they are well on their way). So conservatives in the ACoC and TEC need to ensure that THEIR money isn’t going to support these institutions. Also, note that even though losing your properties is difficult, maintaining empty properties is VERY EXPENSIVE for the diocese. If the diocese seeks to set up a fake congregation in your building, before you get too angry, remember that these fake congregations are costing the diocese dearly. Also, even if the diocese tries to sell the building, they might not get all that much for it.
The only thing now that will “discipline” Michael Ingham and his cronies is the marketplace. It’s too late for those who have already left and who will lose their buildings. It’s not too late for those still in the ACoC to make a difference.
#6 James; Given the political direction of our country I suspect your first paragraph is correct. I will however continue to pray and give to the defence fund. your second paragraph is wrong. It places such action in the same ball field as the trapped. Your third paragraph has some merit but given the corner that ACoC has wedged itself don’t you think that a parish that takes such action would soon find itself on the outside looking in? Perhaps standing beside the for Sale sign?
There is a vibrant Spirit led Anglican body called ACNA, if it where a race horse it would have won the Triple Crowns. On three legs (Pun intended) no less. When sufficient Anglicans have opened their eyes and moved to orthodoxy, The only future for other Anglicans in North America will be to repent and God willing Anglicans will be once again be united to the glory of God. With or without some of our once fine traditions.
JamesW (#6), property ownership isn’t the real issue. If the ACoC were to change course due to fear of losing property rather than fear of the almighty God, that change of course would be worthless.
The overall point I was trying to make is that nobody in the ACoC nor the ABC will ever move to discipline Michael Ingham and similar bishops. The only “discipline” these false bishops will ever receive is from the marketplace – i.e. fewer and fewer people will attend their churches, which will cause more ACoC parishes to close their doors, and dioceses to eventually go bankrupt. It is in the interest of both orthodox Anglicans in North America, and also for global orthodox Anglicanism for the liberal western bureaucracies to run out of money sooner than later. My next points flow from that premise.
If you are now in the ACNA, you are no longer in the ACoC, and thus there is nothing you can do (you already did it, you left!). But if you are a “conservative” and still in either the ACoC or TEC, you can’t just keep going on “business as usual”. I am addressing these folks in my comments. And yes, I have little doubt that the liberals will exercise clever political responses to effective conservative action. However, if you claim to be conservative and still in either the ACoC or TEC, I think that you are morally bound to take intelligent and thougtful action to prevent your money from getting into the hands of people like Michael Ingham.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
In our collective Anglican past we failed to see the havoc that certain changes would bring. As these changes took place a certain number of our company were blessed to see and some of them just left the traditional communion, some left Anglicanism all together. The right or wrong of these circumstances can be argued ad-infinitem. What cannot be argued is the continuing weakening of the body in our failure to see the great importance of unity. Then comes the clarity of heresy and the traditional church was sent spinning out of control on a path that left no choice in North America but the great Requiem Emeritus which has become the ACNA. She now holds the keys to the once and future Anglican Church in North America, and is in the discerment process of finding the right locks. To God be the honour and glory.
Dear brother JamesW. make no mistake on this; you, I and many many others have been fooled much more than once. In fact, dating back to the time of the Ascension when our Lord and Saviour told us of the coming of the prince of this world is when it all began. So brother, go gentle and with love into prayer for those who are still being fooled.
Luke 21:34-36
2 Timothy 2:25-26
and now to God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be all Might, Majesty, Dominion, and Power, for ever and ever. Amen
JamesW is one of the few who apparently, like Daniel, has seen the writing on the wall.
What is wrong with some of us that we just cannot see that court cases are taking away from ACNA and ANiC……. The liberal minded Justice system is not going to hold in favour of ANiC on the west coast or in Ontario or anywhere else. All those $$$’s going to support the legalists is doing just that…. supporting the legalists and not supporting ministries where it should be going.
I think The late Hank Williams had it right in his song “I Saw the Light”.
Gerry (#11), I know this is totally off topic, but is the expression “the late” the right one to use for someone who’s been dead for over half a century?
How about the extremely late?
According to the orthodox people that have chosen to litigate, this choice was not as much to keep the ministries, the communities, the buildings, this would have been prideful. It was to defend “the light”. Are you gentlemen sure you wish to measure the cost of this defence in dollars? Using Brother Gerry’s comparison with Hank’s “I saw the Light”. Are you aware that by just “walking away” many would be abandoned to the darkness. Gerry I return to you, your own words from many blogs ago – “Who is on the Lord’s side, who will fight the foe” one of your favorite hymns If memory serves.
Although I can’t speak for the Vancouver parishes that are appealing, I believe a major factor in their deciding to go ahead with the appeal is that the final outcome will set a precedent for all of Canada.
Not only will this result affect all Anglican parishes, it has the potential to affect parishes of any denomination that might find themselves in a similar predicament in the future.
For the Windsor parish in litigation, it has provided them with breathing room, since the judge has agreed that it makes sense to wait for the outcome of the appeal before the diocese proceeds. In Niagara, we are hoping for the same delay in litigation – this could give us 2 hassle free years in our buildings.
I haven’t said that the ACNA parishes shouldn’t appeal the lawsuit, but I do say that they need to be realistic and honest about their chances.
For JamesW
As a member of one of the parishes involved in this appeal, I must say I have full confidence in Ms. Cheryl Chang, Chancellor, and believe she would not have recommended an appeal if she knew there was little chance of success. Indeed the legal costs are high but I believe it would be a travesty to simply walk away. We know who is leading the apostates within the ACoC and we have to stand up against him. From the lack of action by the House of Bishops or the Primate, one can only conclude the ACoC is no longer Christian but worships the gods of expediency and social acceptance. The authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ have been either discarded entirely or placed in a pigeon hole to be brought out when necessary despite their clear rejection of both. Satan is clearly tempting the ACoC by suggesting they fall down and worship him.
#16: JamesW
Re: honesty: Although the leadership believes that we have a strong and just case, they have been realistic and honest about the possible outcomes in the courts. Whatever the outcome, we, the people, feel the appeal is something we need to do anyway.
Re: “chances”: If Christian decision-making was determined by chance, the gospel would never have gone further than First Century Palestine.
Folks, don’t misunderstand what I am saying here. There have been lots of congregations and dioceses down here in the USA who I believe had very strong cases to keep their properties, but who eventually lost in the courts. Their attorneys were confident, their cause was just. But they lost. And they often lost as the result of very poorly reasoned judgments (look at last year’s court decision re: the Diocese of Pittsburgh for one that is on its face illogical).
Yes, sometimes it is right to appeal, and sometimes it is right to appeal even if the expectation is another loss. Sometimes you need to make your point, sometimes it is worth the chance of a surprise victory. Clearly, anytime you apply for a new job, the odds are that you won’t get the offer, but you apply anyway. So it may be here.
My original points, however, were twofold. First point, to those in the ACNA parishes that are appealing, I say, go ahead, appeal, but don’t expect to win and don’t be surprised if you lose. But also I would suggest that you pick your battles carefully. Listen, courts have ruled that gay “marriage” is mandated by the Canadian constitution even though there is historical proof that back in 1980-82 the politicians explicitly left any concept of homosexual “rights” out of the constitution. The Canadian courts over the last 30 years have a near unanimous record of ruling AGAINST any conservative point of view and in FAVOR of liberals. I would suggest to you that regardless of the legal merits of the case, the ACNA (as a conservative entity) is starting out with one hand tied behind its back. I am not saying don’t appeal. All I am saying is don’t count on winning and don’t just see litigation as your only field of battle.
Second point, to those conservatives still in the ACoC, you have the power to do your part in cutting off Michael Ingham’s financial spiggot. It is your moral duty to do your part.
There is always concern (and rightly so) about the money being spent on these cases. No money is used unless it is specifically given for legal costs. There are some who believe very strongly that this case needs to be heard as high as the Supreme Court for all the right reasons (not defending properties but defending the gospel). To this end they have put their money where their hearts are and have generously given to this cause. I am very grateful to those who do not want to just slip out through the back door and leave quietly but who feel the importance of making this stand. There are some who would say this money should be used for ministry but I feel this is a very important ministry.
Brother James #16 said, “but I do say that they need to be realistic and honest about their chances.” With due respect JW, considering that faith is both substance and evidence, when factoring this, realism and honesty take a back seat. Perhaps the Lord our God does not want us to win but we cannot know that. What we have in faith, is Joy, regardless of the outcome.
Muriel # 20 said “This is a Ministry” One of those positive turns of phrase that ends the argument, thanks.
Who cares if 50 years is a long time, the man is dead…… Dead.. Dead. Doesn’t that apply to the phrase “The late”.
Warren, don’t you think you are being just a tad picky????
David….You too.
I’m glad I give you all cause to pick, otherwise what would you do?
Blog? Blog? Blog?
JamesW. has been correct with ALL of his analysis about these appeals. Whatever happened to “don’t take things to court?” When will all the people learn that righteous judgement DOES NOT come in the Courtrooms of Canada…… Get with the program folks and get the funds going to the places where they can do some good rather than lining the pockets of solicitors and wasting time.
Gerry (#22), I would say I’m be exceptionally nit picky. Your turn of phrase just struck me as humorous. No slight was intended.
Jerry; define your term “righteous judgement” please.
Stuck – give me yours!! PS>>>> my name is spelled with a “G”
I’m sorry about that Jerry – just not paying attention. Righteous judgement in the context of our God is not available to any of us. It is why we are instructed to judge not. In the overall situation of the courts, Righteous or “correct” judgement is possible although in the climate of our post-Christian country, and with matters of Christian understanding, it is not likely. This is similar to the climate of our Lord’s apostles, but that never stopped them. The actions being taken in our courts are not between Brothers and Sisters of the Church but in fact, are our “legal” defence against principalities and powers.
As I read of the atrocities taking place against christians around the globe I cannot help but cry. The word “Crusade” time and again, demands to be heard. But it weakens and dies in the voice of our Lord Jesus Christ. ……. or does it?
I can’t believe I did it again, Gerry – OK you can call me Jary
Jary or Stuck – I’ll just say that you cannot spell or type !
Righteous Judgement —- My thought…….
We cannot n’or are we allowed to “judge” those who are NOT our Brothers or Sisters in Christ, However, we are called (I’m trying to find it in the Scriptures) judge our Brothers and sisters in Christ if we find them to be in error or going in the wrong direction or in sin… then we are called into “righteous judgement” and are directed to ‘gently correct’ them if necessary in order to bring them back into line with the Scriptures.
I’m sure all of you scholars out there will find fault with my analysis of this, however, there it is and that’s my understanding. Perhaps Peter can give some direction on this when he finds a few minutes.