Bishop Michael Ingham has told his Diocesan Council that he feels he has no option but to protect the property and assets of the Diocese of New Westminster and the Anglican Church of Canada, and warned that the diocese may find itself in the civil courts to do so.
“If a congregation leaves, then it is the responsibility of the diocese to see that the parish continues, and is available for future generations of Christians,” he told the 45-member body that with the bishop governs the diocese between Diocesan Synods.
So, according to the goo bishop those leaving must not be Christians.
I meant “good” not “goo”. Sorry.
By all means, protect the property and assets, but the true and faithful proclamation of the Gospel and even the very immortal souls of the congregations? Leave them to the wolves, +Ingham says, of whom he is (a) chief!
Would that he had the same principled seriousness about protecting the deposit of faith. Or doesn’t that fall under the purview of bishops any longer?
Very interesting story this is. Ingham makes a very public statement acknowledging numerous demands from within the Diocese to just let the departing congregations keep the property, publically declares that he rejects that advice, acknowledges that if he lets the property go without a fight the Anglican Church of Canada will lose many more parishes, then the Council goes into closed session for a “full and frank” discussion, the results of which were not discussed.
Lots of interest here. First, since Ingham mentions it, there must be significant calls for him to let the congregations keep their property and these calls must be coming from prominent liberals in the diocese. Otherwise, he would have never mentioned it.
Second, why was Ingham compelled to make a public statement – apparently for the sole purpose of putting it on the public record – just prior to a closed door meeting of the Council at which there was a “full and frank” discussion of the subject. Why wouldn’t Ingham let the Council speak for itself?
Third, after you cut through Ingham’s “bull you-know-what” regarding the nasty brainwashing Network wolves who will trick the simpleton “Anglicans don’t need to leave their brains at the door cuz they don’t have any” laity into leaving the Anglican Church of Canada, you see that his ONLY reason for not letting the parishes leave is intimidation. Ingham fears that if he lets these congregations keep their property without a fight, many more parishes will leave both in Canada and in the USA.
Fourth, the Diocese of New Westminster is a diocese in financial trouble and one that has been closing parishes at an alarming rate. The lead seperating parish is St. John’s Shaughnessy that counts many prominent lawyers and wealthy folks in its congregation. If any parish is capable of giving Ingham a run for his money, it is St. John’s. There are no deep pockets in the Anglican Church of Canada as there is in TEC. Note Ingham’s concern of precedent being set outside of Canada (i.e. in TEC).
So the question is just who was his public statement intended for and what was the result of the “full and frank” discussion??? I’d really like to know.
5. jamesw
Great synopsis! Interesting question.
I dunno, goo bishop seemed appropriate to me.
Those of us in conservative parishes that are still hanging on within the Diocese are simply not going to finance any pursuit of Christians who have departed on theological principle. And the very many small and struggling parishes belonging to the ‘muddled middle’, some of whom are responsible for our three roughly two-thirds votes in favour of the public promotion of same-sex vice, are unable to support costly legal action in addition to paying one cleric and keeping the roof on. There are endowments of course. I suspect that this statement is preliminary to dipping into those.
Amazingly candid comments from Ingham:
He said he had received messages from some in the diocese who urged the diocese to “do the Christian thing and do what the Bible says and settle out of courtâ€â€”hand over land and property to just “get on with our lives.â€
“I’ve heard these messages, I understand them, I sympathize a great deal with them, but I have to say tonight it is not a course I believe we should pursue.â€
– Well, sure, Mike, we never thought you’d let THE BIBLE be your guide!
“If we were to do this in order to avoid scandal or public controversy, as sure as day follows night, we would be complicit in destabilizing hundreds of parishes across the Anglican Church of Canada. They would instantly be targeted for political action by the Anglican Network,†he said.
– And we can’t have that, can we? Note the frank admission that *hundreds of parishes (and more likely, the younger and more solvent ones) would up and leave in a shot. Doesn’t say much for Ingham’s confidence in the sensus fidelium, does it?
“If there is no consequence for occupying buildings that belong to the Anglican Church of Canada after you have disaffiliated from the Anglican Church of Canada, then the Church would surrender its claim to ownership and to the mission of the Church.â€
– Well, I think you passed up on the second thing a long while back. Anyone remember ‘Mansions of the Spirit’?
“Far from resolving controversy and scandal, it would multiply it exponentially—we would be subjecting parishes right across the country to years of divisiveness and division.â€
– So instead we’ll have years of lawsuits ‘cos we know how good that will be!
Ingham overstepped when he drove out the best and the brightest of his diocese. He has only a rump left. I smell fear in the man …
Mr. Ingham is quoted: “Any action we take will impact far away from British Columbia.â€
It got him his own mention in the Windsor Report, for example.