From the ANiC newsletter:
Mr Justice Kelleher today ordered the Trustees of four Vancouver area ANIC parishes to pay “costs” to the Bishop and Diocese of New Westminster resulting from the trial approximately one year ago. The amount of “costs” is still to be determined, but does not cover actual legal expenses of the diocese. Generally, 30-35% of actual legal expenses are recovered.
The trial judge also ordered the parish of St Matthews to allow the diocese to hold one service per week at St Matthews in Abbotsford. Counsel for the parishes had argued that the trial judge did not have the jurisdiction to make any orders as to what should happen in the church properties pending the outcome of the appeal as those are terms that only the Court of Appeal can decide.
“What is very surprising about these supplemental decisions is that the judge chose to ignore all the case law in respect of costs and the issue of indemnification of Trustees for their costs in similar trust cases”, said Cheryl Chang, Chancellor for ANiC. “Although the judge in his trial judgement found, “…The plaintiffs are also trustees of their respective parish corporations, and bring the current proceedings in that capacity”, he decided today that the Trustees were not acting as Trustees “in the ordinary sense”. Therefore, in his oral reasons, he said this was an exception to the case law involving costs.”
This supplementary decision will be appealed as part of the greater appeal. The matter is set to be heard in the BC Court of Appeal commencing September 13, 2010.
It is worth noting that, in what seems to be a gratuitously vindictive ruling, the costs have been awarded against the parishes’ Trustees – against parishioners who are volunteers.
Perhaps conservatives who remain in the Anglican Church of Canada might like to ponder this: the attacks by the church of which you are members are against individual brother and sister Christians who are trying to stand up for what they believe to be right. Has the time not come for you vigorously to oppose these tactics by the Anglican Church of Canada, to make it known that – even by secular standards – this is wrong and something you are not prepared to put up with?
I agree with your call to conservatives in ACoC, David. Perhaps withholding tithes would be an option….
That’s only going to hurt your local parish. Getting your parish to withhold its apportionment (or whatever the money that goes to the diocese is called these days) would be more effective.
One can only ask where are the claimed orthodox bishops and why have they not taken a position to counter this attack by the enemy. The same could be said about the priests that claim to be orthodox. Michael Ingham and his group clearly know their actions are a clear attack against the Gospel and it is obvious they are soldiers of another army – no explanation is required.
I would not be in the least surprised if Michael Ingham shows up to take the first service just to show his arrogance.
I sincerely hope that the members of the parishes involved work and cooperate fully with the trustees and church council in dealing with this despicable judgement. Justice Kelleher could not possibly know the facts of the matter which is the main reason for the Diocese to proceed in the fraudulant manner they have done.
We need to be vigilant about praying for the appeal.
Amen to Muriel!
Sad, perhaps they could claim 8 years of maintaining the buildings for the Diocese?
An elegantly simple thought about withholding tithes. If you are in an ACoC church but do not agree with this ruling, why not send your tithes to the ANiC Legal Defense Fund? The money will go to the same place in the end anyway (i.e. to the ACoC) but this bad judgement will lose its effect!
I could not attend or be a member of a church where I could not tithe without caveat. I prefer to tithe without designation, and want to be confident that those in leadership will properly steward what is God’s for God’s work.
It seems to me that ANiC is spending money, whilst the cause is good, the outcome seems to always be bad.
I wonder if the Courts will ever come down with a judgement that is in favor of the ANiC Churches that are involved in litigation? I just cannot seem to rid myself of the idea that all of these funds would have been better if directed to the Argentina efforts presently underway or in finding new land and starting new buildings if that is what is so urgently required.
seems that our justice system (note the word system) doesn’t want to work in favor of justice but rather in favor of long established although totally irrelevant and forever lost religious organizations ie: ACoC
I predicted earlier in the year in this blog that the ACoC would eventually experience great difficult in finding personnel to man voluntary “officer” positions within its ranks. With kelleher’s findings I conclude that they are well on their way
From what I’ve seen, BC courts — like BC society — are rabidly political and biased in favour of left-wing causes. Don’t forget it was a BC judge who let Svend Robinson off the hook for stealing on the grounds that his history of gay rights activism cancelled out any wrong he had done. You will never get a BC court to rule in favour of ANiC when they are that politically skewed.
ANIC should walk away from their former churches and get on with it. Both sides have further destroyed what credence Anglicism has left over this issue and harmed the forwarding of the Great Commission.
#11 Ellie M., #12 Obituary;
Right You are! Finally, a few people are starting to expound on the truth about the Courts (I don’t think that it is common to British Columbia Courts only).
The funding of these Court Cases in the Provincial justice? systems should be halted by ANiC immediately. Enough is enough…. and we talk about the blind leading the blind!
ArchBishop Greg Venables and the Argentinian Churches could much better use these funds.
They can buy back the churches when the diocese is forced to close them. It shouldn’t be a very long wait.
Obit you have a good point however I’m not sure the great commission should be our immediate focal point, although it definately should be a goal. There is much to do in cleaning up old ways and preparing ourselves through new catachisma and faith restructuring as well as a complete re-examination of what we were originally called to be as a church.
There are two reasons for this
1. Dark clouds are gathering and the time to prepare to “stand fast” is approaching.
2. In this post-modern time which I believe has ushered in considerable evidence of “end times”, the “world” is under greater satanic influence than ever before; consequently, the purpose of the Great Commission needs a faith based approach greater than we have here-to-for achieved.
(For instance) We historically have understood that apostolic succession was necessary to validate the office of Bishop. I disagree with this premise and see apostolic succession in the “Laying on of Hands” as a progression of the empowerment of the Holy Spirit ie; Pentecost continuation.
….I apologize for the length but I just can’t help myself.
ellie M. 14 -
Well, if the ACoC have the same attitude here as the TEC in the USA, they won’t sell them back to ANiC Churches. They would prefer to sell them to Muslim factions and have done so in the USA.
I wouldn’t hold my breath Ellie M.
It must be remembered that the actions in British Columbia arose from an illegal and brazen order from the Diocese for the trustees and clergy to leave. This left the orthodox parishes no choice but to defend themselves. It is ludicrous for anyone to suggest we should simply walk away from the properties. If they made themselves aware of the facts they would agree. We are dealing with unbelievers whose sole aim is to destroy whatever might be left of the ACoC and the bishops who claim to be orthodox are simply sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing. Attempts were made to mediate a settlement with the Diocese of New Westminster but all such attempts were met with complete refusal to consider anything.
Anyone suggesting we should simply walk away should ask themselves what they would do if they were faced with a similar situation with their personal properties.
If nothing else this ruling and the actions of New Westminster should be a warning to anyone holding the position of trustee in any ACoC parish. If I were in that position I would resign immediately and also stop any and all offerings to the church. If the Diocese is going to steal the properties – and that is the right terminology whether legal or otherwise – let the diocese cover all costs and hazards associated with the parish.
Right on! It is time for all who make every effort to serve a “True God” to stop paying into something that is certailny not of God and is not true to His Word. Why wait to eventually see the denise of the ACOC and at the same time keep paying the heritics that are leading people astray. Wake up traditional Anglicans and get with it and leave all the ACOC unorthodogy and commence to follow Jesus in the way He would want us follw Him, He is the way, the truth and the life.
Gerry O’Brien (#13) and Ellie M (#14), I disagree totally. Why allow more property to fall into the hands of these people? When they destroy the ministry there, and as the Diocese continues to bleed money, they will sell off each church, each property. And it’s a lot of money. Now, don’t misunderstand me – I’m not driven by buildings or money. But if these assets pass uncontested into the hands of these people, then they will use these resources to further the nonsense that they peddle – they will continue to lead people astray, but with greater resourcing. I would make the case that if people care about biblical truth, then there is every reason to fight the current ruling so that more funds won’t be available for promulgation of error.
It was said by a West Coast Priest involved in this litigation that (and I paraphrase) the root reason for litigation was the “defence of Christ” I understood the motives from this perspective and therefore agree with OZ on his expansion of this paradigm.
On the other hand …………..
These churches are not the property of the parishioners. They are held in trust perpetually by successive generations. For a majority of the current members to presume that they can do whatever they want with the property is naive at best and mob rule at worst.
You do not own these churches. Get over it. They are the property of the diocese in which that are georgraphically found. If you want to worship in a building that looks like a traditional church you have two options: build your own or buy one.
The issue is held in trust for whom? And that has not yet been decided in the courts. I think OzAnglican in comment #19 has it right.
Eph 3:20
If you want to speak about mob rule, consider the illegal action by Michael Ingham that precipitated this entire matter. Further the reference to the properties being held in trust must carry with it a minimum of the understanding that the faith would be maintained. That is clearly not the case. Apostasy has taken over the reigns of the ACoC and it is the ANiC that continues to hold the banner high.
If one is to accept your position then I trust you would agree with the diocese disposing of the properties when they find they can no longer maintain them. Certainly you must see that the ACoC has abandoned any claim to be Christian and has traded the God of Scripture for the gods of political expediency and political acceptance.
Frank said:
“If one is to accept your position then I trust you would agree with the diocese disposing of the properties when they find they can no longer maintain them. Certainly you must see that the ACoC has abandoned any claim to be Christian and has traded the God of Scripture for the gods of political expediency and political acceptance.”
Dioceses dispose of property all the time largely as a result of shifting demographics and a decline in parish membership. It makes very good sense to merge three small congregations into one critical mass and sell the remainder to be reinvested into local ministry – don’t you think?
I cannot speak of the experience in NW except to say that Ingham clearly views your attempts as hostile, regardless of whether you consider him to be an apostate. It is the ACiN that has broken ranks with the ACC, not the other way around.
In Toronto, where I reside and attend church (well actually in Oshawa) we have a much different experience. No church has left the ACC – even the most ardent evangelicals. The DoT frequently sells property with a priority to sell to other Christian denominations first.
Frank, I must take exception with your last sentence:
“Certainly you must see that the ACoC has abandoned any claim to be Christian and has traded the God of Scripture for the gods of political expediency and political acceptance.”
This has not been my experience in Toronto. I worship at a vibrant and growing parish that is active in the life of diocese. Our mission is extremely Christ focused as are all the resources we receive from the diocese. As an RC who worships with Anglicans (which is to say I would consider myself Anglican but have never full declared in some sort of service), I would say I learn more about how to authentically live out my life on a day to day basis and feel more drawn into a loving Christian community than ever before. My children are more engage then ever and I feel deeply connected to Christ.
If this is apostacy I’d hate to hear the label you’d give to the other place I was at.
In #24 Eph 3:20 said:
My first reaction is to say that speaking of ardent evangelicals in the ACC is like speaking about ardent socialists in the Tea Party; the creature doesn’t exist. But, I should give you opportunity to explain what these evangelicals really believe. To say that “Our mission is extremely Christ focused” is easy if the meaning of Christ focused is not explained. Would you care to explain?
Eph 3:20
You may well take exception to my comment with respect to the ACoC having abandoned any claim to be Christian. However, I would ask if your bishop took any position at the recent Synod to support orthodoxy or did he simply fall in line with the apostates. As I have stated in previous postings, there are two mandatory conditions for anyone claiming to be Christian:-
1. Full acceptance of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ who is the Way, the Truth and the Life. If we are to accept the position of Michael Ingham and others, we would say that Christ is a way and represents only one of the many ways to God. Believing that makes a mockery of Christ’s death and resurrection and makes God, the Father, very unjust in putting His son through the torture of the crucifixion. Also such a position destroys the entire meaning of the Eucharist.
2. The acceptance of the authority of Scripture. That authority is not subject to any democratic vote at Synod or elsewhere and is definitely not subject to the will or decision of so-called bishops.
You are undoubtedly aware that the problems in New Westminster are being replicated in many other dioceses and to date no corrective action has been taken by Fred Hiltz or others in the House of Bishops. Michael Ingham has by both his words and actions denounced both requirements.
If your bishop were to make a public stand for the truth I could accept your claim that you are in a vibrant church but you will certainly agree that even an apostate church can be referred to as vibrant but that, in itself, does not mean it is Christian.
Eph 3:20 Says
“This has not been my experience in Toronto. I worship at a vibrant and growing parish that is active in the life of diocese.”
Take a look at this Eph
http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2010/07/all-you-need-to-know-about-anglican.html
Do you actually know what IS the life of the diocese of Toronto? If indeed “pride goweth before a fall” don’t you think a second look with eyes open is called for?