A group of dissidents who split from the Anglican Church of Canada over same-sex marriage blessings has appealed a court decision awarding their Vancouver-area houses of worship to the mainstream church.
Members of the breakaway Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) filed an appeal Friday to the Supreme Court of Canada, after two lower courts ruled their churches– St. John’s, Church of the Good Shepherd, and St. Matthias and St. Luke’s in Vancouver, as well as St. Matthews in Abbotsford — belonged to the Anglican Church in Canada. The properties are worth more than $20 million combined.
Cheryl Chang, special counsel to the ANiC, said allotting the properties to the Diocese of New Westminster means they may sit empty or be vastly underused.
What happened to “If they take your coat, given them your shirt too”? I’m fully in support of the struggle against heterodox like +Ingham, but why sustain the soul-destroying fight to hold on to stuff? Why not walk away and start over in a school gym or non-Anglican-owned worship space? No matter how the argument is shaped, we always must be confronted by St Paul’s teaching on the shamefulness of Christians opposing each other in civil court and our Lord’s admonition to “give him your tunic as well.”
PS: Just trying to set the cat amongst the pigeons, to see what others’ thoughts are.
Paul didn’t say not to defend yourself when dragged into court by non-Christians – and that is how I see the Ingham-ites – more secularists or universalists in pseudo-Christian accoutrements. Paul certainly defended himself in court and saw it as a way to provide witness. And this is what the defendants are doing – differentiating themselves as banner-holders of traditional Christianity.
Good point. There’s the difference: Paul defended himself against non-Christians. But in the orthodox Christian view, the Inghamites are Christians by virtue of God having adopted them as his own children through baptism. As far as we know, God has not “unadopted” or disowned them. C.S. Lewis says, their bad behaviour and heterodoxy doesn’t make them somehow no longer Christian; it just means that they are bad Christians. So it’s still a domestic/familial dispute between Christians. It’s only the view promulgated by certain Protestant groups that bad behaviour or heterodoxy makes one no longer Christian.
Fr Ian, Is someone who is baptized and subsequently rejects Christian teaching and practice still a Christian?
According to Lewis, and the ancient teaching of the Church, yes, but a very bad Christian. It’s only when one renounces Christ altogether that we begin to have to think about whether they are no longer Christian. The analogy is to human families: How does one cease to be a child of his mother and father? He can say he’s no longer their son, but does that make it so? God has adopted each of us in baptism– all the versions of the Book of Common Prayer are very clear on that. It’s not some sort of homey analogy to human adoption, but the reality on which human adoption is based, the same way that the ultimate marriage, the one of which a man and a woman are only a pale image, is the one between Christ and his Church. For any one of us to declare that so-and-so is no longer a Christian because he believes gay marriage is now OK or, like Bp Ingham of New Westminster, that there are other paths to eternity, is a very grave judgment indeed, and one that we should be terrified to make because we don’t know the mind of God beyond what he has revealed of himself and we can’t fathom the breadth of his mercy.
In the history of the Church, a lot of people were denounced as heretics, but very few of them were declared ‘not Christian’, even thought what they believed and taught was certainly not Christian. And many were excommunicated because by their living and teaching they were “guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ” (1 Cor 11). But the aim of the Church in doing so was, when doing it in true humility, to bring them to repentance and reconciliation.
So it seems to me that those being sued by +Ingham should show true humility by handing him the keys and walking away from the disputed properties. In doing so, they would heap buckets more burning coals on their opponents’ heads and probably stand a much better chance of leading their opponents to repentance and reconciliation.
These are not Ingham’s churches, or for that matter, ANiC’s churches. They belong to Jesus Christ; and are to be used for His purposes. There is no problem with those wishing to witness by defending Christ in court against the claims of heretics like Ingham who have managed to get themselves made bishops but who disobey Christ.
Prayers for these congregations.
Nonetheless, it’s Christians taking Christians to court. I’d love someone to present a solid justification for that simple fact as applied to the mess in Vancouver.
Paul said Christians should not take other Christians to court. He did not address whether Christians should defend themselves from pseudo-Christians. I don’t buy your “We were baptized.”
The Ingham-ites are corrupters of the Church. They are the proverbial wolves in sheep’s clothing. They are leading people away from the narrow gate. It is the Christian duty of the orthodox to fight them in every way possible. Handing them expensive parcels of land is giving money to those who lead people to Hell. (Can I put it more forthrightly?)
You make a good point. Thanks. I’m not playing the devil’s advocate in this discussion, just stating my own understanding in hope of hearing a reasonable counterpoint. But I’m still not convinced. However, the Anglican Communion needs some sort of mechanism whereby bishops like this one can be dethroned. So many of them seem to forget, once enthroned, that they are to reign like Jesus who left his throne and sacrificed all for the good of his Church.