How about ANiC offer to buy the property for a fair price. Than offer the use of the building, with the only obligation being that the Parishioners cover the maintenance costs. If they want to remain part of ACoC, than say “OK”. If they want to be independant, than say “OK”. If they choose to become part of ANiC, than say “OK”.

At the very least it would show “good will” on the part of ANiC for other Christians. With the only obligation being cover the maintenance costs, no-one would be able to accuse ANiC of “poaching”.

Was this “Survey” done like the infamous, manipulative “straw pole” done in 2007 before GS in order to send the memo from D of B.C.? If it wasn’t conducted by the Synod Office it has a chance of being accurate.

And finally, if this next session of the Synod of BC decides to go ahead with SSB’s they will be violating a motion which was passed in 2008 which stated that the D of BC would do no such thing until GS had decided the issue. (No date was appended to that motion). And that was representative with more “conservatives” there who had not left yet for ANiC!

This bishop should respect the will of synod and not allow Rev Harold Munn’s parish’s motion to come to the floor. Harold Munn should respect the will of Synod too. That was a pretty definitive motion that was passed overwhelmingly, and he only has to wait until GS decides the SSB issue…whenever that happens to be. Perhaps the idea of INDABA process at GS is frightening the liberals in D of BC. Maybe they figure they gave away too much in that motion they voted for almost two years ago now. I’m sure they thought that GS would decide the matter once and for all in 2010.

Oh the ironies of messing about with “process” and doing the INDABA instead of “I second that MOTION!” Rowan, Rowan, what have you done to the poor liberals in B.C.? Now their precious Synod process of motions and amendments from the floor has been derailed, and they may have to pretend they never passed that motion in 2008. I wonder if they’ll manage it?

As far as the Diocese of British Columbia goes though, I think this attempt to stop the tide is like using a finger to stop a leak in the damn. It is too little too late. Furthermore it does nothing to address the real problem. Only when they give up their sinful ways(homosexual marriages and clergy, easy divorce and remarriage rules, woman ordination, etc.) and return to following God will they have any hope of reversing their decline.

As the ACNA proceeds with Agnlican1000 the idea of using twitter (and other present day technologies) may provide some opportunities. Let’s not discount this approach simply because it is already being employed by a Diocese of the ACoC.

Muriel # 20 said “This is a Ministry” One of those positive turns of phrase that ends the argument, thanks.

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.