The Vancouver-area Anglican diocese is trying to recoup more than $100,000 in court costs from a bitter dispute with conservative dissidents over four church properties.
The diocese, led by Bishop Michael Ingham, recently applied to the B.C. Appeal Court to retrieve a portion of the soaring court costs in a case rooted in a battle over same-sex blessings and how to interpret the Bible.
A thoroughly nasty and Un-Christian behaving man who has wrecked a diocese. But these Gaddafi-types never seem to have to face the consequences of their actions, just leave the mess for someone else to clear up.
One would think they’d have compensation in the form of all these empty properties.
#1: He was Yorkshire’s “gift” to the Canucks, eh?
I’m amazed there is any diocese left.
If those who were dissatisfied with the direction of the Anglican Church in Canada had simply left and founded new congregations in new quarters, this would not be an issue. I see nothing un-Christian or Gadafi-like about property owners defending their rights and, if the Canadian court system customarily awards costs to the prevailing party (unlike the practice generally prevailing in the United States), recovering the costs of asserting those rights. If someone tries to occupy my pastureland and I have to expend funds by going to law to get them moved out, I don’t know why I’d feel “compensated” (re No. 2) when they’re gone, or why I should forego being made whole for my trouble.
“your” pastureland? Perhaps you know nothing of how these churches were built and maintained over the decades.
kmh1, NoVA Scout never acknowledges the role of parishioners in building up churches over the years.
Anyway, it doesn’t matter. The “victory” of ACiC will turn to ashes in their mouth – it is already happening. Let them crow if they want – they are headed for oblivion.
No. 6, quite the contrary. I think I always acknowledge that point. My objection has been that those who feel that a group may leave a church (I assume for purposes of discussion that their reasons for leaving are impeccably correct) but claim the buildings disregard those who built and maintained the churches over the decades (in some cases centuries), but who have either decided not to leave or who have not expressed a view on the issues that led to the departing group’s decision. I do not see how one can take a snapshot of a parish on a given day and say “these people” “own” the property and they’re taking off with it, as opposed to “those people” who are staying put and losing it. If the fact patterns in any of these situations showed that all those who had built and maintained the church over the life of the parish (or diocese) were of a mind to leave, I would favor their being given possession of the physical plant. To my knowledge, that has yet to happen in any of the situations I’ve heard about in the United States or Canada.
NoVA Scout,
Nice argument – “you can’t take the property with you unless you get the agreement of every person who has ever been a member of this parish, including the dead ones. Oh, and if you can pass that criterion, then I will add in that you have to get the permission of everyone who has ever been a member of the diocese”!
Very amusing, but please can we be serious about this?
Furthermore, you know perfectly well that in almost all cases, the percentage of parishioners wanting to stay has been very very small. But lets not let facts get in the way of a good story!
My comment was in response to your assertion (no. 6) that I have no care for those who built and maintained the church over time. Of course I do. In all the situations of which I’m aware, there are such people on both sides of these property disputes. However, to the later point that you now raise, I have not found any support in law or scripture for the proposition that a person determining to leave a church for another has property rights in the church he departs. The converse thought is that I do not know how a decision by a person to leave a church can extinguish the rights of access or possession of a person who decides to stay. These notions strike me as radical ideas more worthy of anarcho-syndicalist labor theory of the late 19th and early 20th centuries than they do a rational basis for transferring property rights in either a church or secular context. That the numbers are often lopsided in these situations does not change my view. Usually the decision to depart reflects the views of the clergy, many of whom are quite influential with a congregation, and a process of decision that is anything but objective. Having said that, I very much respect a decision of conscience to change churches, but again submit that the story in the post, as well as similar stories in North America, is a very avoidable issue if people who determine to transfer their affiliations, in whatever numbers or proportions, simply leave and pool their resources to buy or build new quarters. I have not yet found the flaw in this proposition. I think this is a serious point of view, and, while being amused is often a good thing, I do not advance it for its amusement value. If you think that on any given point of controversy in the life of a parish one should poll the members to determine where property rights lie, I respectfully disagree and suggest that the danger of that approach is that it encourages a kind of internal political conventioneering that detracts from the worship and mission intended to be provided by a church. In any event, I am unaware of any canonical support for such an approach and am glad it has not caught on outside of this recent flare up in the North American Anglican context. I think reason will ultimately prevail, but, in the meantime, a good deal of treasure that could have been spent advancing the Gospel will have ended up in the hands of the legal profession, as was the case described in the post.
NoVA Scout,
[blockquote] “Usually the decision to depart reflects the views of the clergy, many of whom are quite influential with a congregation, and a process of decision that is anything but objective.” [/blockquote]
Of course clergy are influential with a congregation. The New Testament says that they are to be so! We can’t simply write the scriptures out of this debate – they are the touchstone of our existence. The clergy are appointed to *lead* the congregation.
[blockquote] Having said that, I very much respect a decision of conscience to change churches, but again submit that the story in the post, as well as similar stories in North America, is a very avoidable issue if people who determine to transfer their affiliations, in whatever numbers or proportions, simply leave and pool their resources to buy or build new quarters. I have not yet found the flaw in this proposition. [/blockquote]
The flaw is obvious – if a congregation does not wish to continue to be affiliated with ACiC or TEC, it should not have to be. Scripture tells us that the basic unit of christianity is the congregation. TEC itself is supposed to be a confederation of churches, not a hierarchy. There is NO justification for those who try to prevent a congregation that chooses to leave from doing so. That includes taking the congregation’s property with it – it does not include a minority of parishioners who are out of step with the congregation as a whole trying to take the congregation’s property from it.
[blockquote] If you think that on any given point of controversy in the life of a parish one should poll the members to determine where property rights lie, I respectfully disagree and suggest that the danger of that approach is that it encourages a kind of internal political conventioneering that detracts from the worship and mission intended to be provided by a church. [/blockquote]
Its not a matter of “polling”, its a matter of the congregation making a decision. That’s what congregations do. And congregations can make decisions even though not every single person in the congregation may agree with them.
[blockquote] In any event, I am unaware of any canonical support for such an approach and am glad it has not caught on outside of this recent flare up in the North American Anglican context. [/blockquote]
I am unaware of any canconical support for TEC’s or ACiC’s approach. And in fact, many congregations do leave peacefully with their property, in other Anglican churches. Look at for example, the leaving of a diocese of APA to the REC in 2008. TEC and ACiC are the odd ones out in this regard – their resort to litigation to solve a spiritual issue puts them well outside the mainstream.
[blockquote] I think reason will ultimately prevail, but, in the meantime, a good deal of treasure that could have been spent advancing the Gospel will have ended up in the hands of the legal profession, as was the case described in the post. [/blockquote]
Which is a very good reason why ACiC and TEC should cease and desist from their law suits against the orthodox – TEC and ACiC can’t replace their “treasure”, whereas the orthodox can, and quite easily. Why on earth do the leadership of ACiC and TEC squander their remaining members’ incomes and assets in a battle that they cannot win?
Particularly when the tiny bit of success they have seen so far (as most of these cases have not been finally decided) only result in them being lumbered with properties that they cannot maintain.
Michael A – I generally don’t wander back to these after they drop below the e-fold, but you seem to have given this a great deal of thought and I wanted to acknowledge that effort. My reaction is that I suppose a group of Christians could organise themselves along the lines you suggest (and some unaffiliated one-off churches may do so routinely), but, if someone were to ask my view in advance, I would discourage an organizational structure in a Christian setting where property rights moved back and forth according to majority votes in a parish or congregation. It seems to me that it has the risk of politicising things dramatically and might have the effect of encouraging plebiscites on everything from women’s ordination to whether we like the Vicar’s wife. In any event, in churches like the Church of England and other Anglican churches (or the Roman Catholic Church) this simply is not the way we have organised ourselves and I am, frankly, glad of it. I have not ruled out that there may be circumstances where a Bishop might agree (on whatever terms and conditions) to a group of people who leave the church purchasing the property, but I would think they would be rare and would almost never be possible where any proportion of the parish does not agree with the decision to leave and decides to stay. The merits of simply leaving and pooling the resouces of the seceding group to start/build a new church are so markedly superior to grasping at property that I would think it the favored approach in virtually every case.
[blockquote] “you seem to have given this a great deal of thought” [/blockquote]
You know that I am hardly exceptional in that regard. Every time you go on Stand Firm, several commenters make the same points to you.
[blockquote] “My reaction is that I suppose a group of Christians could organise themselves along the lines you suggest…” [/blockquote]
Nice attempt to shift the goalposts. The issue is why TEC is taking action to sue departing congregations for their physical assets. You yourself raised three aspects to this: the legal, the practical and the scriptural.
In so far as the legal aspect goes, why are we even bothering to discuss it? Virtually none of these cases have been finally decided in the courts, but it is the courts that will decide, not you or I.
As far as the practical goes, I simply don’t understand why Katherine Schori and her cronies are spending vast sums of TEC parishioners’ money on chasing properties that they cannot support, if and when they do win the cases.
In so far as the scriptural aspect goes, I have gone into in detail on that, and I will await your response with interest.
[blockquote] “I have not ruled out that there may be circumstances where a Bishop might agree (on whatever terms and conditions) to a group of people who leave the church purchasing the property, but I would think they would be rare and would almost never be possible where any proportion of the parish does not agree with the decision to leave and decides to stay.” [/blockquote]
In almost every case where that has occurred, the bishop has understood the spiritual dilemma in which the apostasy of the leadership of TEC has placed the departing congregation. On the other hand, where bishops have opposed congregations leaving and taking their property with them, in most cases that has been because the bishop agrees with or tolerates Schori’s apostasy. This is fundamentally a moral and spiritual issue, brought on by 815’s promotion of the consecration of practicing homosexuals as bishops, and by 815’s open endorsements of the false doctrines espoused by e.g. John Spong.
[blockquote] “The merits of simply leaving and pooling the resouces of the seceding group to start/build a new church are so markedly superior to grasping at property that I would think it the favored approach in virtually every case.” [/blockquote]
You are entitled to your *opinion*, of course. But the *decision* is not yours or mine to make – its up to each congregation. Many have chosen to leave and to defend TEC’s law suits against them (i.e. it is TEC that is “grasping at property”).