In the ANiC Newsletter, received via email:
St Aidan’s (Windsor, ON) has decided, after much prayer and thought, to appeal the loss of their church building and funds to the Supreme Court of Canada. Please remember the congregation, leadership, legal counsel, and judges in your prayers.
St. Aidan’s appealing the loss of its building to the Ontario Court of Appeal was not only unsuccessful but resulted in the reversal of an earlier ruling that each side should pay its own legal fees: St. Aidan’s was ordered to pay $100,000 of the Diocese of Huron’s legal costs, in addition to their own costs.
The Supreme Court of Canada may choose, like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear, not to hear the appeal; that was the case in the New Westminster appeal. Even if it does, in human terms, a reversal seems unlikely. Still, God has more influence than even the Supreme Court of Canada, so we should pray.
Good luck but I don’t know if it’s worth it putting all that money into legal fees
Either just:
Stay for a while or just stay
Or:
Eventually move
The shepherd feeds the sheep
That is the essential purpose
From the experience with the Diocese of New Westminster I am convinced that the ACoC will use any lawyer that will pervert or distort the truth simply to win their case. The Scriptures clearly state we should not being our disputes before unbelievers but the ACoC totally ignores this directive. If the ACoC were true to the Scriptures and fully accepted the two mandatory requirements to be Christian there would never have been a problem. Tragically we have seen and continue to witness so-called bishops who believe their word is superior to THE WORD. Further the so-called Primate has decided to follow in their footsteps.
Just to clarify, isn’t it ANIC ,not ACoCthat is pursuing the legal fight further this time?
As some have stated here and in prior posts, it is never a good move when Christians (ACoC or ANIC) pursue the courts to solve issues. I really liked a message that John K said on April 21, 2013 when he referred to 1 Corinthians 6 and asked…
“How can anyone who is a believer, or claims to be, or pretends to be, misunderstand, “Why not rather be wronged?” even if he feels terribly wronged? Is it just me, or isn’t that fairly clear?”
Like others on this thread, I don’t see much value in pursuing this any further.
I don’t know who started the suit.
EdmontonAnglican,
There were two initial actions, one when the Diocese of Huron was the defendant and one where it was the plaintiff.
While I think the “Why not rather be wronged?” view can be legitimate and defensible, it is one I do not subscribe to in this case.
However, if you do, then consistency would require you to apply it to your denomination at least as enthusiastically as you seek to apply to someone else’s. You can write to the Diocese of Huron’s Bishop Bob Bennett to straighten out his understanding of 1 Corinthians 6 here:
bbennett1@huron.anglican.ca
Disappointment in life is not uncommon. I put my faith in God, not the courts.
When considering the arguments with respect to the direction of Scripture one must first need to ask if indeed it is a matter of Christians versus Christians. As stated previously this entire ugly affair would never have arisen if it were not for the actions of apostates such as Michael Ingham and other so-called bishops who have used and continue to use their purple shirts and white collars to direct people away from the truth. One need to ask what you would do if you had paid for your home and someone came along and stole it from you simply because you do not agree with them.
I fully expect the Supreme Court of Canada will refuse to hear the appeal as they are not in any way knowledgable on the issues. The ACoC has abandoned any real claim to be Christian and any argument to the contrary is without merit.
The Supreme Court of Canada is certainly knowledgeable about the legal issues. Further, the Chief Justice was raised in a strongly Christian household (“fundamentalist” she said) so she can’t help but be aware of the position of conservative Christians on many issues. She may not agree with them, but that is a different matter. The question is, were all the relevant issues raised in the lower court so those can now be reviewed by the SCC. I don’t know if things like unjust enrichment were argued there and in the Ontario Court of Appeal.
David – I think that my comment above is clear that I think both ANIC and ACoC are wrong to be pursuing the courts to settle these disputes. I’m singling out BOTH groups, not just one.
However, I am very curious as to why you think ANIC’s actions are exempt from the 1 Corinthians 6 directive. Can you please explain?
I went into that at some length in a post a year or so ago. Unfortunately, the post is no longer available because it is one of the 30 items over which bishop Michael Bird is suing me. I am not going to repeat myself for the obvious reason; I imagine the irony of this is not lost on you.
James Packer, who is obviously much better qualified to give an opinion on the issue than me, addresses it here.
Thanks for the context and link. I don’t fully agree with everything in the Packer article but it helps me to understand your point of view. In any case, I’m sure that there is agreement that courts are the least preferable option for Christians to solve their disputes.
No argument from me on that.
Just further clarification on the matter. As stated in my previous submissions this is NOT an issue of Christians versus Christians. By reason of the actions of apostate clergy the ACoC has abandoned its faith by accepting political expediency superior to the Scriptures. To be a Christian one must fully accept:-
1. the authority of Scripture; and
2. the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.
The entire matter of disputes of this nature is the fault of so-called bishops who seem to believe their word is superior to THE WORD.