The Stepford diocese

In the latest synod of the Diocese of Niagara, the diocese’s dealings with ANiC parishes – which have taken place mainly in the courts – were enumerated for the benefit of the synod delegates:

  • Litigation with ANC – these comments are on public record
  • Feb 08 – 3 congregations withdrew
  • Preliminary Court hearings took place in Feb and then in March 08
  • She ruled on the sharing the buildings by D of N and ANC – costs to be paid by withdrawing congregations.  Application for appeal was denied and costs were awarded.  The wardens of the withdrawing congregations are the defendants
  • St. Peter’s later passed a motion to withdraw in June of 08
  • Costs have been adjudicated in one case – in favour of the diocese 20,000.  This has been paid.  Our request was for 180,000.  The justice was looking at whether these costs are to be assumed personally by the wardens.  We do not have a decision yet from the judge.
  • There is a provision if there is a difficulty in the interim arrangements – this can go before an arbitrator.  We have given a list of things that need to go before the arbitrator.
  • The network lawyer has an application to move the court case from Hamilton to Milton.  This application is to be heard on Apr 5.  We oppose this.
  • There is a case in the Diocese of New Westminster.  In our case we applied for our right to hold these parishes.  In their case the network are plaintiff and the diocese is the defendant.  That matter is to be heard in May.
  • We continue to work with the people of St. Peter’s to bring them into the main body of the litigation.
  • If we get a decision on costs in a reasonable period of time – there would be a possibility that we will be in court in the fall of 2009 – on the main action.  That is optimistic.
  • Everything in this report is on public record.
  • No questions

There is nothing much new in this; the unnerving part is that there were no questions. After a litany of institutional persecution of Christian brethren at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, no-one could think of anything to say.

Perhaps there was something in the water.

The Diocese of Niagara Synod: Same-sex blessing timetable

From the Bishop’s charge to the 134th synod that took place on March 28, 2009:

Following up on the commitment which I made just prior to the first session of Synod in November, and in light of various conversations which have taken place since, especially my meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury in January, I have asked the Dean to facilitate the work of a small group of laity and clergy from across the diocese in bringing to me suggested rites for the Blessing of Civilly Married Same-Sex Couples.  You will recall that Synod in 2007 asked the Bishop to allow clergy, whose conscience permits, to bless the marriages of civilly married same-sex couples, where at least one of the partners is baptized.   I anticipate that these rites will be prepared by later this spring, and that I will be able to present them to the clergy of the diocese at the Annual Clergy and Licensed Layworkers Conference in May.  I will be giving my permission to proceed shortly thereafter.

and a little further down we have:

I invite you all to join with me in lifting up your voices and shouting out for joy because I believe that a light is dawning upon the Diocese of Niagara and that that light is allowing us to see the beginnings and the glimpses of a new and exciting path ahead.

Which brings to mind Matt 6:22-23:

The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

The status quo is not an option

I have worked for large companies for over 40 years and during that time I have had the pleasure of listening to every cliché ever devised by the fevered imaginations of overpaid motivational consultants. I have participated in vacuous group discussions – run by oily management facilitators – to come up with Mission Statements; I have listened to seminars exhorting me to Pursue Excellence and have been indoctrinated on the techniques of inspiring commitment in others by pop-psychology spouting spalpeens wearing an excess of smelly underarm deodorant.

In the long and dismal succession of attempts to elevate my enthusiasm for making my employer more profitable, the only one that captured 30 seconds of my interest was a seminar by Tom Peters – the Pursuit of Excellence merchant. One of the directors in the company I worked for at the time was booked on a Peters’ seminar and couldn’t go; in desperation, he decided to inflict the unique learning experience on someone else – me. As expected, Tom Peters spent 4 hours expounding the obvious: for a company to do well, the people in charge have to like what they do. After a couple of hours of this, my self-induced somnambulant state was interrupted by the only interesting question I heard that day: if the solution to a successful company is so simple, why do companies not act on Peters’ advice – employ people who are interested in the work? The answer: the question was too hard. That was the only part I enjoyed.

So when I read things like this: The Status Quo is not an Option, Excellence in Ministry, Prophetic Justice Making, Cultures of Innovation, Effective Leadership, Life Changing Worshiping Experiences, Effective Resource Management, I know exactly what is going on.

We are hearing the death rattle of an organisation that no longer has any idea of what its purpose is, why it exists or what to do to extend its miserably short and squalid life. The organisation is the Diocese of Niagara.

Diocese of Niagara: conning for Jesus

Bishop Ralph Spence only put in an appearance at St. Hilda’s when he wanted money. His last social call was to scrape up support for the Anglican “Survive and Thrive” campaign.

The bishop, in the slightly lowered tones of someone revealing clandestine plans that others are not privy to,  confided to us that some of the money would be used to lay off priests who were no longer up to preaching the gospel to an online – although not yet tweeting – generation. We needed new blood and some of the old would have to be disposed of to make room for the new.

We were naively sympathetic to the plea since we were attempting to use liturgy and music in ways that could attract the un-churched while keeping the gospel message intact; we assumed the bishop’s intent was similar. At the time Ralph didn’t bother to share the plan that was undoubtedly fermenting in his mind: to appoint priests that would further the diocese’s liberal agenda and to remove those who would not. We are seeing the fruit of this labour in Ralph’s successor’s determination to forge ahead with same-sex blessings.

Today, an evangelical priest will not find employment in the Diocese of Niagara unless he first states his support for Michael Bird’s schemes to proceed with same-sex blessings; the diocese tells us that this is the epitome of diversity. The diocese is no stranger to the well tested technique, “tell a lie often enough, loud enough, and long enough, and people will believe you.”

This brings me to the Diocesan financial statement and budget, wherein you will see:

Personnel Transition and Severance (a diocesan euphemism for lay-off), 2008 actual of $660,178 and 2009 budget of $265,000. One wonders what the exit interviews are like: “Sorry to have to let you go, but you’ve been reciting the Creed too often on Sundays; here’s your money; keep your mouth shut”.

Also, there is a 2008 actual legal expenses of $30,717 and 2009 budgeted expense of $14,000. The diocese is attempting to relieve ANiC of over $200,000 to cover its lawyers’ costs in 2008; where are these lawyers’ costs reflected in the budget? Similarly, since the diocese is still unwilling to negotiate and eager to litigate, the $14,000 budget for 2009 appears a little meagre.

Could they be hiding these costs to pull the wool over the eyes of ACoC members who might otherwise be questioning why their offerings are being used to sue fellow Christians?

The connected Anglican

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who talk in restaurants in loud voices and those who don’t. Rev. Ian Dingwall is in the former category: I know – I’ve heard him.Add an Image

He also is someone who is offended by those in ANiC who have left the Anglican Church of Canada because they can no longer countenance being associated with an organisation that is going in the wrong direction. In the Niagara synod when this was plainly stated, Ian loudly declared, “that means you are saying I am not a Christian.” Very astute.

Being Connected is Ian’s latest article in the Niagara Anglican:

Begin with yourself. How well are you connected with your inner and outer self?

I have to admit, over the years, my outer self has expanded somewhat and consequently, so has the distance between the inner and outer selves. The connection, although more tenuous, is undoubtedly still there, since the outer self visibly wobbles in concert with the agitations of the inner self.

Connect with our Environment. No need to say more really but, if you wish to find direction, all you need is a newspaper or magazine to find out what we are suffering from its evil potential and, perhaps, what we can do about it: if only we’d connect with the problem and others who are concerned.

I am so connected with our Environment. Really. Although I have no idea what you mean by the environment’s evil potential. Are you referring to poison ivy?

Surely “to connect” is an invitation for us to critique our own lives as well as our fellow journeyers in Inter-Connectedness

Now this I understand. You obviously are referring to the Internet and blogs. I will do my best to critique my “fellow journeyers in Inter-Connectedness”. This article is proof.

Choose two people to engage with in a profoundly different way than simply being casual.

OK. So far I have my wife and my dog.

In both cases there will be much that you can do together as you search for some answers to the world’s dilemmas as well as how you can deepen your personal connection with each other.

My dog’s dilemmas consist mainly of selecting a pooping spot in the Environment that we are all so connected with. He tells me it does deepen his personal connection.

Ian, in the spirit of critiquing “fellow journeyers in Inter-Connectedness , next time you are in a restaurant, disconnect and shut up.

The Cuddly Christianity of the Anglican Church of Canada

In the latest Niagara Anglican, Michael Burslem has written an article which contends that every person is saved through Jesus atoning death whether he wants to be or not:

But even those of more ‘orthodox’ persuasion, I also believe, are wearing blinkers; both Catholics and Evangelicals. Catholics see no salvation outside the church; but means of salvation seems to be some pious action around the Eucharistic elements, which have some atoning value of their own, quite apart from the death of the Lord Jesus and His resurrection. Also Evangelicals, who see no salvation without a personal faith in Jesus, tend to make the act of believing a ritual to earn their personal salvation. Neither, I feel, see the total picture, and neither of them “get it.”

To defend a universal atonement I would have to say from the start that there is no other way to God than through Jesus, and His atoning death and resurrection. Nobody can claim to be saved by any other means. The work of salvation is done, finished and complete, not by us, nor by any other deity but the one and true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Apostles boldly proclaimed the Good News, “You have been saved by the precious blood of Jesus Christ.” Whether we acknowledge that fact by believing it, or not, is up to us, but I think it does not change our state of salvation, which is a gift from God. This indeed is Good News.

[…..]

We may have to rethink our cherished, entrenched positions, going right back to the Sermon on the Mount. Lent is that time of year when we assess, and re-assess, what we really and truly believe. I don’t claim now to see the picture any more clearly than I did forty years ago, but I shall never, ever, again tell anyone that they’ll go to hell unless they believe in Jesus as saviour.

At least the author, to his credit, does hold to the orthodox Christian idea that salvation comes through Jesus alone – but it comes to everyone: this is a Universalist position. It is one that fits conveniently with the ACoC’s preoccupation with other faiths: after all, if everyone is saved, following Jesus in this life isn’t a very compelling or necessary calling, particularly once it becomes a little inconvenient.

Universalism seems on the face of it to be appealing – it is nice, Canadian, even; but is it true? There seem to me to be a number of problems:

Jesus spent quite a lot of time discussing Hell: verses like this would be needless scaremongering if no-one is going to end up there:

“If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. [30] And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.” Matt 5:29ff

I had a long discussion with a theology student – who is a Universalist – on this subject. His main arguments were: God is too loving to consign people to Hell and, once confronted by God after death, no person would be able to reject Him. On the first point, Clark Pinnock, a Canadian theologian who is not a Universalist, opts for the final destruction of the wicked rather than their eternal torment. I’m not sure he is entirely convinced of this, but either way, I personally don’t wish to be snuffed out or tormented. On the second, if when a person finally meets his maker he has little choice but to accept the gift of salvation – it is thrust upon him – God will have removed his free will, one of the main characteristics of being made in His image. He might just as well have done this in the first place and not allowed us to sin at all. Whether we will all be given one last chance to accept or reject God is arguable; if we are, we will still be free to reject Him – and, after a lifetime of practice, I think some will. For it to be otherwise would render all that went before meaningless. God is loving; is removing a person’s ability to turn God down – to expunge that part of God’s image within us – a loving thing to do? I believe not.

The willingness of members of the early church to endure a gruesome death for the sake of holding fast to the Gospel makes little sense if all are saved. They were not Universalists, they believed that decisions made in this life effect one’s predicament in the next; this is why they had to tell others the Good News. If all are to receive the benefits of the Gospel, why did they have the urge to enlighten others in this life when there is an eternity for all to ponder it in the next?

Although Universalism may be a comforting idea, in the end it won’t be much comfort if it isn’t true – and I fear it isn’t.

Diocese of Niagara: what are the "priests in charge" in charge of exactly?

The diocese of Niagara has appointed “priests in charge” of the three ANiC parishes that have left the diocese. But, since there are almost no people left in the diocesan version of the parishes, just what are the priests in charge of?

Bruce Willis provides the clue:

The Diocese of Niagara, Desperately Seeking Someone to Sue

On March 11th, the three ANiC parishes that used to be in the Diocese of Niagara were once again in court. The diocese is seeking the legal expenses squandered by the extravagant pettifogging of the diocesan lawyer, John Page.

The only problem is, the diocese can’t decide who to sue! It could be the parishes or it could be the wardens of the parishes; in the courtroom, after a period of diocesan dithering, the judge finally lost patience and told everyone to submit more documentation once the diocese has made up its mind.

Of course, if the diocese does decide to sue the wardens, the “priests in charge” at the three parishes also become fair game: a fact that may explain the high turnover of “priests in charge“.

The question is, why would the diocese even consider a suit against the wardens, considering they don’t have any money to speak of? The only explanation is as an act of intimidation and object lesson to the wardens of other parishes who may be considering a move to ANiC.

In the Diocese of Niagara, All You Need is Love.

Diocese of Niagara: A tribute to bishop Michael Bird

Michael, I realise that you are under the misapprehension that the deviant, maniacal,  hyper-liberal, neo-pagan, sub-Christian clap-trap which you are foisting upon your unwilling victims in the Niagara diocese is courageous, but I beg to differ.

This is how courageous I think it is. I will not be surprised or offended If you don’t get it: