St John's Shaughnessy will vote on staying in Anglican Church of Canada

Related post here.  I have a few longtime friends at SJS.  I'm hoping to talk with them for a bit over the weekend.  While from one point of view there will be some cheering, this morning's daily office had this in it:  "For as long as there is jealousy and quarrelling among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving according to human inclinations?" 

Update:  results of their vote is here, along with a few links.

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.

From the Victoria Times Colonist

St John's Shaughnessy parish website

New Westminster diocesan website has an excerpts from Bishop Ingham's letter to parishes:

“Any attempt to betray that trust through schismatic action is a ground for immediate termination of license or removal from office, and may well subject those same individuals to civil proceedings also,” he wrote.

The letter was directed to clergy, wardens, and trustees of St. John’s Shaughnessy, Church of the Good Shepherd, and St. Matthias/St. Luke, all in Vancouver, and to St. Matthew’s Abbotsford.

The four parishes are listed on the website of the Anglican Network in Canada as being member parishes. Leaders of the Network are engaged in establishing a separate Church in Canada under the jurisdiction of an Anglican Church in South America, the Province of the Southern Cone.

Bishop Ingham’s letter followed a similar epistle issued by a neighbouring bishop, James Cowan, who is Bishop of British Columbia, which covers Vancouver Island. On January 30, Bishop Cowan sent a letter to all his parishes, also warning any attempt to transfer episcopal and synod jurisdiction to another Anglican Province.

Both bishops wrote that if a resolution to leave the diocese came before any parish’s annual meeting, the chair of the meeting is obliged to rule it out of order as “ultra vires”–beyond the powers of any parish or congregation.

“There may be clergy and laity who, in good conscience, feel they can no longer remain members of the Diocese of New Westminster or the Anglican Church of Canada. Resignation of office and the seeking of a spiritual home elsewhere is the honourable and appropriate course of action for such persons,” wrote Bishop Ingham, echoing a similar passage in Bishop Cowan’s earlier letter.

Comments

[Tom]

May I correct your byline Joseph to "St John's wishes to remain to be an Orthodox parish within the ACoC"
Here we are since 2002 with +Ingham's activism, 1994 Essentials in Montreal, 1980ish Baltimore Declaration in the USA and well summed up by the Rev George Eves book "Two Religions - One Church" in the mid 90's.
We are looking for some leadership & appropriate Episcopal oversight so we can carry on as a very alive parish. Where is ++Fred ?? Who knows?? Does he get it ??

[joseph]

Tom - thanks for your input. I will keep you, your parish, Bishop Ingham & all the leadership involved in my prayers.

Draw your church together, O Lord,
into one great company of disciples
together following our Lord Jesus Christ into every walk of life
together serving him in his mission to the world, and
together witnessing to his love on every continent and island.
We ask this in his name and for his sake. Amen.

[Leslie]

“There may be clergy and laity who, in good conscience, feel they can no longer remain members of the Diocese of New Westminster or the Anglican Church of Canada. Resignation of office and the seeking of a spiritual home elsewhere is the honourable and appropriate course of action for such persons,” wrote Bishop Ingham

An interesting statement. Almost as if he's calling for obedience to the words Christ when he sent out the twelve, "if anyone won't welcome you or listen to your words shake the dust off your feet..." A teaching strategy you don't see every day.

[Tom]

Good point Leslie & as the dust settles out here after last nights vote there is much Kingdom work to be done whether we are together or scattered elsewhere. We will be keeping the Edmonton & Yukon Dioceses in our prayers.

[Leslie]

Our church took a similar step many years ago (different denomination over similar issues) property wasn't a factor for us though, we had neglected to sign over land and church to our head church after a merger made it our 'head'. I have to say that the revival that followed for our community is a factor when I ponder unity. The most unexpected souls turned to Jesus after our church took a scary leap of faith. We left having no southern cone to join.

There is lots of merit in staying to work it out, and then there comes a point. Anyway...

Very hard. God bless you as you move forward.

[alex]

Okay, I'm really confused. There is a comment that:

However, St. John's Shaughnessy walked out of the diocese after the vote in 2002. It tried to maintain its ties with the national organization, the Anglican Church of Canada. At the request of the diocese, the national organization refused.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080215.wbcanglican15/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080215.wbcanglican15

But the current primate stated that appropriate arrangements for episcisol oversight have been made:

Archbishop Hiltz, in his letter, reiterated his previously-stated view that actions seeking alternate jurisdiction are unnecessary, noting that Canadian Anglican bishops have approved a plan for “shared episcopal ministry,” under which a diocesan bishop may ask another Canadian bishop to minister to disaffected congregations.
http://www.anglicanjournal.com/100/article/vancouver-church-votes-to-leave-canadian-church/

What am I missing here? It sounds like the Primate is saying "There is a process to get help" but when a church comes asking for help, he says "No, you don't need it".

[Neale Adams]

To try to clear up Alex's confusion (at the risk of getting bombed with nasty emails and comments because I work for the Diocese), let me attempt an explanation.

When St. John's Shaughnessy clergy and lay delegates walked out of the 2002 Diocesan Synod, the parish still canonically remained part of the Diocese of New Westminster. However they did not pay their assessment to the Diocese as a protest of the decision on the blessing of same sex unions. Normally, a portion of the Diocesan assessment (26%) is sent on to the national Church. St. John's attempted to pay this 26% directly to the national Church. The Diocese objected, reasoning that for the national Church to accept money directly from a parish would be improper and set a dangerous precident; in a diocesan Church, parishes relate to the national Church through the diocese, not directly. The leadership of the Anglican Church of Canada agreed.

In the meantime, the national Church's House of Bishops developed a scheme for Shared Episcopal Leadership, which is quite complicated (available at http://www2.anglican.ca/primate/tpo/sem-text.html). St. John's objected to the scheme because it left authority within a diocese in the hands of the diocesan--it is "shared" not "alternative." They argued before a "Panel of Reference" appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury that the scheme was inadequate; the Canadian Church argued it was. The panel, after sending representives to Vancouver and speaking with all parties, basically accepted the view of the Canadian Church (For the report see http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/reference/docs/report_october.pdf)
Despite the recommendation of the panel's report (which the AB of C received), shared episcopal ministry was not tried. Personally, I wish it had been.

[joseph]

Neale - thanks for your input. One of the things I have discovered over the past several years is that we, as a church, are generally not as well versed in what is happening on the ground in other dioceses as perhaps we should be. BTW, I followed your blog (albeit briefly) during General Synod in Winnipeg. I had followed some of the Panels doings for several months a few years back, but as you point out, the two parties had different views on what was adequate in terms of episcopal oversight. We're in a bit of mess now, but I maintain hope that God's desire for our branch of the Church will be accomplished.

Given that St John's and now potentially several other parishes are considering severing their ties with your diocese, I do pray you God's guidance in the days to come.

And if anyone threatens you with nasty emails, just tell them I'll plaster them with bad hebrew tattoos... (long story)

[Leslie]

I would debate the adjective "bad". You seem to have developed a reputation as quite a tattoo authority...

[joseph]

Leslie, it all comes from spending too much time at places like this.

[Leslie]

Yes well, we all have skeletons in our closet, don't we?

:D

[alex]

Neale,

Thanks for clarifying. But now it seems like the following is going on:
"Here, take this rose" as he holds out a flower
"Um, it's a daisy"
"Well, maybe, but let's call it a rose, okay?"

From all the discussion on 'Alternative' oversight, it sounded like the parish would receive pastoral care exclusively from the other bishop. Perhaps it should have been tried, but perhaps it should have been called what it is. This continues to erode my confidence in the senior leadership. See my comments:

http://joewalker.blogs.com/felixhominum/2008/02/primate-fred-hi.html

Thanks anyway. At least I am more informed....

Alex