The fate of what is described as the largest congregation in the Anglican Church of Canada hangs in the balance tonight.
Members of St. John’s Shaughnessy Anglican Church, a neo-Gothic landmark in the heart of the city’s wealthiest neighbourhood, are gathering for an expected vote on breaking with Vancouver-area Bishop Michael Ingham over the issue of same-sex blessings and trying to take the church property with them.
Ingham has warned St. John’s Shaughnessy that what it is considering is “schismatic.” If members of the large parish at the corner of Granville and Nanton try operating under the authority of a South American Anglican bishop or anyone else, Ingham said, they will not be legally able to hold onto the church property.
This is getting to be very interesting indeed.
Will the Canadian church go the litigious way of the States?
[size=2][color=red][url=http://resurrectiongulfcoast.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
[i]”No parish or congregation in the diocese . . . has any legal existence except as part of the diocese, and any attempt by any person to remove a parish from the jurisdiction of the bishop and synod would be schismatic,” Ingham said in a statement on the official website of the Diocese of New Westminster.
“Any attempt to betray that trust through schismatic action is a ground for immediate termination of licence or removal from office and may well subject those same individuals to civil proceedings also,” wrote Ingham[/i]
Civil proceedings? What would that be? Theft of a building? ratcheting up the stakes a little…
Hopefully the bishop will end up having to sue every single parish in his diocese.
[blockquote]Ingham has warned St. John’s Shaughnessy that what it is considering is “schismatic.” [/blockquote]
And acting contra to 2000 years of received teaching and the expressed will of the entire Anglican Communion is not schismatic?
The whole “heresy is worse than schism” routine is getting very tired. Heresy [b]is[/b] schism. To hold and act on heretical beliefs – particularly in the face of universal condemnation – is to be schismatic and to cause schism. Do you think the people of St. John’s Shaughnessy would be looking to come under the authority of an a different bishop if Bishop Ingham were orthodox?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I am a Trustee at St. John’s Shaughnessy in Vancouver and would ask for your prayers today. Tonight at 7:30 PST we will gather at our annual vestry meeting to vote on this crucial issue. We are blessed with great unity in the gopsel at St. John’s. Please pray that God will oversee our meeting, and that His peace, and His love would rule there.
Krista, as you know, our Diocese of San Joaquin has left The Episcopal Church for the Province of the Southern Cone, and we know what you and your people are going through. My wife and I are praying for you all.
There are votes happening soon in Eastern Canada, as well. Please pray for all the votes, that God would keep away from the meetings people he doesn’t want to be there, and that the meetings would be characterized by Christian charity, unity and love.
MAYBE…JUST MAYBE if the bishops would remember their office is a trust rather than a prerogative we wouldn’t be in this sad mess to start with. It’s going to take this kind of revolt for a larger cleansing.
Bring it on. The movement to give this North American hemisphere a shake-up won’t stop no matter what canons are passed, threats are made, and no matter how many millions are spent. The ECUSA HOB should be in crisis mode, but they won’t be until the Church has droped by about 500,000. One of the classic characteristics of post-Reformation Anglicanism is that its leaders are inpeccably late to the light. Lost the Methodists (now 70+ million) Yawn. Losing the pillars of the Church. Yawn. Losing money. Yawn. Selling buildings off….huh…wha…? Sprinkles of people left in the churches…ah..what?! Down to 1.7 million and 600,000 ASA. TIME TO MEET. Down to 1.2 million and 450,000 ASA. This is getting serious…. you get it.
I have had the privilege of spending several days in close company with Michael Ingham, he is (IMHO) a real Anglican, a devout Christian and a faithful bishop. God Bless his ministry.
You are asking God to bless his suing believing Christians? Sounds kind of contradictory to me.
Those who can’t inspire loyalty will take it by force rather than give it up.
Two notes:
1. Regarding Krista’s post, Americans note that Canadians refer to the annual parish meeting as the “vestry meeting”. So Krista is referring to the annual meeting of all the parish, not just the parish council.
2. Regarding Martin Reynold’s post – I grew up in the Diocese of New Westminster and have personal, first-hand knowledge of Michael Ingham treating a vulnerable priest in a shocking, unconscionable, and illegal manner (prior to the Troubles starting and completely unrelated to them). This is not just my personal opinion but also the opinion of labor lawyers consulted and a Canadian gov’t agency. But bishops are very hard to hold accountable in a court of law, and it is often best to just walk away. There are very few people in this world that I have less personal respect for then Michael Ingham.
#9: Yes, well, you also think ‘devout Christians’ can take part in homosexual acts (with numerous people, too, should they wish), so there’s a certain bias IYHO that puts you at variance with the Bible and Christian tradition.
People familiar with Ingham’s ‘Mansions of the Spirit’ know that he has very little in common with the Trinitarian Catholic faith of Anglicanism. Now that his diocese – which he’s packed with gays – is in steep decline, he’s trying to bully orthodox Anglicans into handing over the buildings.
Anon says:
“2. Regarding Martin Reynold’s post – I grew up in the Diocese of New Westminster and have personal, first-hand knowledge of Michael Ingham treating a vulnerable priest in a shocking, unconscionable, and illegal manner (prior to the Troubles starting and completely unrelated to them). This is not just my personal opinion but also the opinion of labor lawyers consulted and a Canadian gov’t agency. But bishops are very hard to hold accountable in a court of law, and it is often best to just walk away. There are very few people in this world that I have less personal respect for then Michael Ingham.”
This is the evil of the internet and of these type of blogs – any person can come here and defame another without giving their name.
Wicked and evil! Wicked and evil!
Martin: I have documented evidence to support what I have said. I will not share it here. The relevant evidence has been reviewed by both labor attorneys and a Canadian gov’t agency and their conclusions were as I have stated. I would respect a decision of the Elves to delete these postings. I cannot post my name, because I can not let an innocent victim be victimized all over again. But what I say is true and is not defamation. And I cannot keep silent when I hear people praise Ingham as a “devout Christian” and a “faithful Christian.” I stand before my God with a very clear conscience in making these charges.
And in respect of Kendall and this site, that is all I will say about this.
St. John’s has a lot of lawyers, judges, and “important people” amongst its congregants, and I doubt that Ingham will get his hands on the property without a fight.
Anonymous for a Reason,
Thank you for sharing your personal experience, as Martin Reynolds did his.
It’s important to get these experiences out there — and thank God for great gift of blogland, which allows such experiences to be shared far far wider than one’s parlor or parish hall.
Is there any news on how the vote went?
I believe an anonymous and (by it nature unsubstantiated) post alleging illegal action is completely unacceptable in any medium of communication, but particularly a Christian one. I am sad others do not agree with this.
RE: “he is (IMHO) a real Anglican, a devout Christian and a faithful bishop. . . . ”
Well, this is also “by it nature unsubstantiated” . . . merely a shared personal experience.
Now we have another personal experience, also unsubstantiated.
Why anonymity should matter in the relating of equally unsubstantiated personal experiences, I can’t imagine.
I will admit one thing. Knowing the stances and gospel and theology of the person detailing the first unsubstantiated personal experience of Bishop Ingham makes me very unlikely to believe that experience at all.
We don’t share the same gospel, so we certainly don’t have the same definitions of “real Anglican”, “devout Christian” or “faithful bishop”.
At the end of the day, unsubstantiated personal experiences will be believed or not based on the person sharing them. I don’t necessarily believe the unsubstantiated personal experience of Anonymous for a Reason, and I sure as the dickens don’t believe the unsubstantiated personal experience of Martin Reynolds.
Thank God for the great blessing of blogland, where not merely Martin Reynolds may share his unsubstantiated personal experiences.
The commentator identified as “Sarah†claims knowledge of my “stances and gospel and theologyâ€.
I have no idea who this person is and how they know me is a mystery but let me see:
STANCES
Might they know that I am an indissolubilist?
GOSPEL
Are they aware that I believe the good news that Holy Scripture contains all that is necessary for salvation?
THEOLOGY
Having come to FAITH through a dramatic personal experience from a very Catholic background perhaps they have been told that my Catholic friends find my “personal Christ†theology unorthodox – while my Protestant colleagues have deep concerns because of my devotion to the Sacred Heart of Mary the Mother of God.
But if they believe in their conscience that openly publicly praising the life and work of a fellow Christian is the same as anonymously accusing him of illegality – then we are indeed polls apart.
[i] This is off topic. If you wish a private discussion with “Sarah’, the elves are willing to help you with the email addresses. [/i]
RE: “The commentator identified as “Sarah†claims knowledge of my “stances and gospel and theologyâ€.”
The commentator identified as “Sarah” has actually read Martin Reynold’s copious and freely offered blog comments about a variety of issues. ; > )
RE: “But if they believe in their conscience that openly publicly praising the life and work of a fellow Christian is the same as anonymously accusing him of illegality – then we are indeed polls [sic] apart.”
So the only kind of unsubstantiated personal experience that should be allowed about progressive activists is . . . [drum roll] [i]positive[/i] unsubstantiated personal experiences. LOL.
But yes . . . we are indeed poles apart, as I indicated earlier.
My regret that I have added to taking this thread off topic.
In my view by not removing the anonymous accusation of lawful wrongdoing – as I believe both the poster and I believed would happen – you (with responsibility for the content) have the major fault.
Martin Reynolds – I also have had experience in the Diocese of New Westminster under Michael Ingham. I can say that he is widely percieved there (even amongst clergy that support him) to be a bully. Back before 2002 when the diocese split, he had been known to deliberately provoke conservative churches during his bishop visitations, such that even before 2002, large numbers of people refused to be confirmed until they could have it done by somebody other than Ingham. You may like Ingham’s political stances, but I think that unless you have lived in the diocese under Ingham’s rule, you have no qualification to judge whether he is a good bishop.