A battle over scripture has become a war over bricks and mortar at St. Aidan’s Anglican Church.
The Diocese of Huron is taking its former parishioners at the Windsor church to court to evict them from the property at the corner of Wyandotte Street East and Westminster Boulevard.
Monday is the first day of trial in a dispute that dates back to 2008 when the majority of St. Aidan’s members voted to break away from the Anglican Church of Canada and join the more conservative Anglican Network in Canada.
The linked story provides an interesting novel twist on the usual accounts of these situations. If the story is accurate, it appears that the Diocese disclaimed property interests in the parish facilities when it appeared that judgement creditors might be coming after assets. Of course, under the laws of Canada or Ontario, such an informal disclaimer might have no effect. But, whatever its impact on the ultimate outcome, that information indicates that, at a minimum, the Diocese’s view of its property rights is highly situational.
This is indeed a “battle over scripture”. The article well summarises the root of the issue:
[blockquote] “The rift in the Anglican church began in 2002 when a church in B.C. agreed to perform same-sex marriages and widened to include arguments over scripture interpretation of other issues as well.” [/blockquote]
We see the same trend in this parish in Canada as everywhere – a church with orthodox teaching thrives, and a church with liberal teaching withers away:
[blockquote] “The ANiC service attracts about 120 parishioners on a given Sunday. The Anglican Church of Canada service might have six or eight.” [/blockquote]
It is also good to read that the network in Canada appears to be growing:
[blockquote] “St. Aidan’s was the first parish in the Huron Diocese to split with the Anglican Church of Canada. There are now 17 churches and seven “congregations in formation” in Ontario under ANiC, which boasts parishes from British Columbia to Newfoundland.” [/blockquote]
We remember these faithful congregations in our prayers.
We pray also for those in the ACoC that they will see the error of their ways, and have the courage to stop tolerating apostasy. If they did, this dispute would be over in a day.
I suppose it is possible that a party in error about scriptural interpretation could also have a superior legal right to the property. I gather, however, that in this case, neither side believes itself to have departed orthodoxy.
What I find interesting in the linked account is the reference to the Anglican Diocese having, at some previous point in time, communicated its view that ownership rights rest with the parish. This may distinguish (at least atmospherically, if not legally) this particular dispute from the run of other disputes that we’ve heard about in the United States in Canada. I know nothing of Canadian law, so I have no idea whether such a statement, conveyed at another time in another context, would have any controlling impact in this instance. However, it does seem to indicate that the Diocese’s view of its own property rights is highly situational.