Members of an Anglican church in Abbotsford are expected to become the second local congregation in a week to split from Vancouver-area Bishop Michael Ingham over his support for same-sex blessings.
And two more Anglican churches — St. Matthias/ St. Luke and The Church of the Good Shepherd — in Vancouver are poised to fill out similar ballots later this month as orthodox followers openly challenge Ingham’s liberal vision for the church.
“We are prepared to act on our faith,” said Rev. Trevor Walters of St. Matthew’s Anglican parish in Abbotsford, whose members will cast their votes Sunday.
“”Congregations are free to leave if they choose to do so. But they can’t take property with them,”
This man can’t be a Christian because his quoted comment is all about “worldly goods” which Christ taught us are meaningless and it ignores Salvation about which Christ taught us about again and again.
Uh, by that logic the congregations are unchristian because they’re concerned to take “worldly goods” with them. Surely they should be willing to leave despite not being able to take the church property with them.
Please pray for St. Mary’s Metchosin today located on Vancouver Island in Canada. Their meeting to decide about accepting episcipoal oversight from the Southern Cone is scheduled for Sunday, Feb 17. I have heard today that the Bishop of Vancouver Island, James Cowan has been threatening to fire clergy, restrict them from their church premises, and even trying to put a stop to the meeting. He is in the process of making good on his threats outlined in a letter, that can be found on the Diocise of New Westminster web site. Please pray for them.
What’s this about property moving? The buildings and land will stay rught where they are. They’re too heavy to move! Now +Ingham and his ilk, that’s another matter. They left the Christian faith a long time ago!
You can’t say these parishes haven’t given this a lot of time for consideration. The whole mess began simmering in New Wesminster before Lambeth ’98, isn’t that correct?
StCyprian (#2 .), please note the phrase “… is all about…” in my remark.
For the congregation it may turn out that it is not “… is all about…” property and they may leave the bishop with a ‘hollow shell’ to maintain or more likely ‘sell off’ since he isn’t trying to keep the congregation with the same fervor that he is trying to hold onto ‘his’ property.
Whether or not the departing parishes are able to keep their property, the western dioceses of the CofCanada are in sharp decline. If, as has been commented above, the bishop of Vancouver Island must be desperate indeed if he is trying to stop and congregational meeting!
These parishes are not being forced to conform in any way, so why leave? But if leaving is the Christian thing to do, why is it necessary to to take the buildings? Jesus taught us to shake the dust from our feet – not to hire expensive lawyers.
There seems to be a persistent criticism of those churches leaving that focuses on their desire to maintain their church buildings. If this was just warehouse space, the criticism might stick. However, it’s their worship space and worth defending.
The parishoners, who paid for their own church, might be concerned that the money that they gave in support of “the Faith once given” might be misused by people who are unfriendly to “the Faith once given.”
My deceased mother-in-law and her sister made gifts to both the Washington Cathedral and to St Columba’s parish in Washington, DC. If they were alive today, they would be horrified at what Chane and the other radical-progressive-revisionists have done to the Diocese of Washington, DC. I am sure that they would be in deep grieve regarding what Chane and his henchmen have done to ECUSA.
AF, don’t get me wrong here- I’m playing devil’s advocate, and I think you may have called my bluff.
What is at the heart of this issue is what the bishop said: that the congregation is free to leave, but may not take the property. It would be a completely different situation if the bishop were to argue that no congregation is entitled to leave, but that individuals are (of course) entitled to withdraw and meet up in a different place and call themselves a congregation. The property issue resides in that the bishop allows that a congregation (as a legitimate congregation) has the right to leave, but in practice he restricts their ability to do so. It seems really weird and coercive to me.
Reply to StC (#11.)’
Sorry if I misinterpreted. Sometimes ‘blogging’ presents a very one-dimensional format that hinders more subtle and complex conversation.