Via email:
Anglican Network in Canada NEWS RELEASE
Parishes initiate appeal to Supreme Court of Canada
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 12 December 2010
Vancouver, BC – After several weeks of consultation within the parishes, the Trustees of four Vancouver-area churches have instructed their legal counsel to file an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada of a BC Court of Appeal decision (November 15, 2010) which removed their right to use their church buildings. In 2008, the churches voted to affiliate with and come under the episcopal authority of the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) in order to maintain their faith in line with the majority of global Anglicans while the Anglican Communion was in the midst of a worldwide split. The four churches are St John’s (Shaughnessy), St Matthews (Abbotsford), Good Shepherd (Vancouver), and St Matthias & St Luke’s (Vancouver)
While the Court of Appeal agreed with the Trustees’ submissions that the trial judge was wrong on 4 significant points of law in the November 2009 BC Supreme Court decision, and it awarded an approximately $2.2M bequest to the ANiC Church of the Good Shepherd, the court awarded beneficial ownership of the church properties to the Anglican Church of Canada Diocese of New Westminster.
“Once again, this decision to appeal was taken only after much prayer and internal consultation within the parishes,” said Cheryl Chang, special legal counsel to the churches. “When the time came to make a decision, we found there was tremendous unity among the parishes and a strong desire to continue to walk together. As churches, we believe that we are being called to stand firm for our faith, seeking to be faithful to Scripture and follow Jesus as this historic trial continues, even if it ultimately means we lose our church properties. The precedent of this case will affect many faithful Christians throughout Canada and there was a general consensus that this was not yet finished. The principles at stake are far too important to abandon.”
Appended below is the statement given in each of the four parishes today.
[...]
Joint Statement from the Trustees of St John’s (Shaughnessy), Church of the Good Shepherd, St Matthew’s, and St Matthias & St Luke,
Sunday, 12 December 2010
Since the BC Court of Appeal issued its decision on 15 November 2010, the four congregations involved in litigation with our former diocese have been engaged in a time of prayer, consultation, reflection and discernment.
This discernment time has involved many meetings within and between the four parishes, where we heard from our legal team, listened to many points of view, searched Scripture and prayed together.
We are all committed to seeking and obeying our Lord’s leading and acting in accordance with His Holy Word. All of us are fully prepared to walk away from our church properties if that is the path God has chosen for us. We know that everything we have is a gift from God and we hold it in open hands.
Earlier this week, the leadership of the four churches met to report the results of the discernment and consultation processes within each parish and to decide on a course of action.
We were blessed by the gracious sharing, humility and mutual submission that was demonstrated as we came to this decision. Recognizing that unanimity in large congregations is virtually impossible, we are grateful to God for the strong majority support in each of the parishes for the decision to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Please pray for and care for our brothers and sisters who may not agree with this decision.
The Trustees of the four parishes are moving forward in unity and have now instructed our legal counsel to prepare an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. This application must be submitted by January 14th.
This is not the path any of us would have preferred; however, we initiated court proceedings when threats to replace trustees began to be carried out and when the Diocese caused banks to freeze two parishes’ bank accounts. The Trustees of the four parishes sought the court’s direction and clarification as to their status and responsibilities. The courts have agreed that the bishop did not have the lawful authority to fire or replace the Trustees.
Our differences with the Diocese of New Westminster stem back to the 1990s when the theological position of the diocese began to shift markedly away from established Anglican teaching and practice. This has always been about the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the authority and interpretation of Scripture. We are seeking to continue our biblically faithful and historic Anglican tradition and witness in church buildings that were founded and built for that purpose.
Thank you for your prayers and support – and for participating in this important decision. Please continue to pray for this next stage of our journey together.
This is the season of Advent, the start of the Christian year, and the celebration of Christmas. Let’s turn our focus fully to the joy of this season and the Good News of God’s great gift of Jesus Christ.
We would like to wish all, including members of the Diocese of New Westminster, a Merry Christmas, and we invite everyone to join us at our services this Christmas season as we celebrate the birth and mission of Jesus Christ.
Litigate till your head falls off. How disengenuous that you preach that the ACC is too litigious with Essentials and then you turn around and advance things to the highest court in the land. This is like Quebec Sovereignty… keep on pursuing it until you get your way. The irony is not lost.
It is an appeal. The parishes are not sueing New West.
For Eph 3:20:-
From your comments one would have to assume you are either not aware of the history of facts of the matter or are simply convinced that the so-called bishop of the Diocese of New Westminster is a Christian. The Diocese of New Westminster started this action by issuing an edict to remove both the trustees and clergy from the four parishes. That action was found to be illegal and precipitated the further push by Michael Ingham to have his demands met. The laity and clergy of the parishes involved stand firmly for the faith and are determined to continue in orthodox Anglican ministry. Two things are mandatory for a person – laity or so-called bishop – to claim to be either an Anglican or a Christian.
1. Full acceptance of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ – He himself states I am THE way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me. (John 14:6) – and;
2. Full acceptance of the authority of Scripture which means said authority is not subject to any majority vote at Synod or elsewhere, and definitely not subject to the whims of any so-called bishop.
It is worse than tragic to see the Primate and the orthodox members of the House of Bishops failing to stand up for the faith. Had they done so persons such as Michael Ingham and Michael Bird would be removed from office. I can only thank the clergy and laity of the four parishes for standing for the truth despite the costs involved.
To the best of my knowledge, the ACoC has either provoked or instituted all the legal proceedings in every diocese that has them. Having been forced to go to court, it is only reasonable that the parishes should pursue every recourse available to them.
Unlike Michael Ingham, who just claims he didn’t start it, the parishes really didn’t start it.
“We are seeking to continue our biblically faithful and historic Anglican tradition and witness in church buildings that were founded and built for that purpose.”
Also……Dedicated and given to the Glory of God in fine Anglican tradition. Spiritual Ownership?…………… I’d Say
Eff – #1 Your second sentence (accusation) needs some references. Also to compare this with Quebec separtists is ironically incorrect on two fronts. First there is no where else to go after the Supreme Court and secondly Separtists would never go there in the first place.
Finally your first sentence is an interesting turn of phrase. Our head, as in “The body of Christ”, is Our Lord and Saviour and you should Know that He is going nowhere.
Gordon [#4],
Yes, I believe that is true. It is not the story the ACoC is telling, though; in one of their New West court documents they say:
In Niagara, that is what is being fed to congregations from the pulpit too.
Thank you for posting Cheryl Changs’ interview. It is the best explanation of the issues so far. I couldn’t help get the feeling , that we are looking at a future justice.
Prayers for you all at this time of Advent remembering the waiting for the birth of the Saviour; for that is what He does for His people – saves, redeems and protects those who acknowledge His Name.
How dare the Network pretend they are keeping the Anglican Faith..tney have happily incorporated liberal changes such as wpomens ordination and easy divorce and re-marriage.
Apologies for typos…but I really do think that you should repent of entering into endlesss litigation. That money would be better spent on a building fund, rather than lining the pockets of lawyers.
Yes Bishop Ingham and the ACC are very wrong, but so is that gross litigation. Cheryl Cheng gives an effective spin, but fails to point out that Anglican network have gone along with previous innovations of the liberals..and indeed still countenance them.
Innovations which are as disobedient to the will of the Lord they seek to serve.
Its a question of motes and beams. I beg you in the name of our Blessed Lord, to rethink your unbiblical attitude to stewardship.
The Supreme Court of Canada are not going to set a legal precedent, whereby any one can engineer a church split, by their persona opinion as to what is orthodoxy.
Really? Where do you get your information? From ANiC’s canons:
and
Concerning the ordination of divorced and remarried people:
.
Robert [#9] do you have any first-hand information about what’s going on here, or are you relying purely on media reports?
While I was living in Britain, I did not have nearly enough information to make such a judgment. When I moved to Canada, and saw what was actually happening, I started to see things rather more clearly.
Pastoral qualifications effectively undermine the fine sounding rhetoric. In pre 1962, there were no exceptions, as with the Mother Church of England re-marriage after divorce was adultery.
this was in the Anglican canons from the beginning.
Indeed re-married divorcees were not even allowed in the Royal enclosure at Royal Ascott ( a notable racing event).
In 1936 the King of Canada was forced to abdicate because he married a divorcee.
The qualifications to the initial paragraph, make it a subjective free for all..as it is in the wider Anglican Church in North America.The whole denomination in the evangelical and Anglo catholic expressions of it, is riddled with it top to bottom.
The canons aren’t worth the paper they are written on…..but one has to admit that this is a departure from the high standards of pre 1960s Canandaian Anglicanism…which took its stance on divorce and re-marraige from the Church of England.
I see no mention of the innovation of women priests either.
Reply to Gordon….furthermore Doctor Packer, a leading figure in your network justified the English Reformation in 16th century as not a schism , but a righteous separation from false beliefs.. he then placed himself under a Bishop who follows practices outlawed at the Reformation and alien to historic Anglicanism. His new Bishop prays to Mary and claims to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He also prays for the dead. All of which are denigrated in Doctor Packer’s previous writings.
You can’t reason with such a roundabout theology.
#13 Robert Ian Williams: I’m not sure how much credibility you’ve gained by quoting the royal family’s antics and the guest list of a horse race!!
Your unsubstantiated criticisms of ANiC do not seem to me to be in any way constructive and I sense an angry undercurrent: Do you have an axe to grind here?
A google search on his name is instructive. Looks like a troll to me, let’s not feed him. The mods will no longer be responding to him.
I have no axe to grind, but hope I am pointing out a flaw in the attempted appeal which could be injurious to the ANIC.
You cannot say , we are the true Anglicans because we have not changed…the whole history of Anglicanism since the 16th century has been an evolution and change of ideas and attitudes. granted these changes have sppeded up in the past 50 years.
To say ANIC is biblical on homosexuality ( is correct ) but in other areas there has been serioius departures as regards heterosexual morality. I mentioned the Royal cases to show the previous high standard set forth by the Church of England and the ACC which have been abandoned by not only the liberals.
So the next of King of Canada is married to his former Mistress and a divorcee. A union which was blessed by the Archbishop of Canterbury! this all withion living memory of the 1936 abdication.
Irena , do you belive you are being faithful to Our Lord if you you have compromised in other areas, which you quietly wallpaper over by cleverly worded canons and provisos? God is not mocked.
What is a troll? I thought it was a legendary Scandanavian elf!
Just read about the six million war chest to be lavished on the real winners.. the lawyers.
Is that honouring our Blessed Lord?
Robert Ian Williams,
Remember, by casting aspersions on your fellow bloggers on this list: judge not lest ye be judged.
Peace,
Jim
18 Jim; “casting asperations” ? references for this statement would be helpful.
RIW – trolling in the context of blog operations is the same as fishing with outriggers. The purpose of a troll therefore is to jump in and see what they can catch. I don’t think you were fishing or are angry at all. perhaps frustrated at the blindness around you.
Stuck: Click the link on the word “instructive” in comment 15, and see if you change your opinion. As far as Jim’s comment is concerned, read the thread, it is perfectly obvioius what he is talking about.
Kate thank you for your direction I shall study this closely. In the mean time Kate, I have read the blog and I am still waiting for some reference perhaps you could help?