 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 362 posts |
 |
Posted Dec 20, 2009; 6:34 pm |
|
Lorne-
Bringing up the ownership of BC churches in this context raises a very delicate question- and linking it to this discussion is problematic, at best. When the BC Conference, in session, agreed to allow churches to own their property, it was emphatically stated that this was not a precursor to secession. Any hint of that at this time, even as a veiled threat, would justify the charge that the administrative reasons given for that request were completely disingenuous.
I appreciate the frustration of churches in the Anglican fellowship and earlier in the United Church of Canada, wanting to secede due to irreconcilable theological differences- however I think the church property issue is inappropriate to raise it in our context. |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| |
Posted Dec 21, 2009; 10:39 am |
|
I never brought up church properties as a threat. And I know of no MB church intending to secede nor even contemplating secession. But if you recall I started this thread (some of it since accidentally deleted) with a reference to news reports of the BC Anglican court case over church property. And the crux of their controversy is the authority of scripture, and its correct application to life and to church doctrine and practice.
James, you are the one who introduced to this thread the idea that denominational structures could have a big part in this topic, and as I reflected on that, I could see that point. So I wrote about similarities and differences in structures and property holdings, as this was one of the starting points of this thread.
I think it is appropriate to consider these for our denomination and also to consider where these paths have been leading for several other denominations. As far as I am concerned, if we don't like where it seems to lead for others, we should take great care before choosing our paths. And that includes talking about possible outcomes long before they ever become a threat.
However, if Forum administrators think mentioning British Columbia MB church property in this thread is in appropriate, I am OK with it being moved. Or perhaps you are saying it is not OK to look at the sad experiences of other denominations and ask how the same things might affect us?
Actually, I will start another thread myself to respond to James' points about why the BC Conference agreed to churches having separate legal existence and holding their own titles, so that it is not mixed with this topic, because as far as I know, that decilion had nothing to do with future acceptance of homosexuality. |
|
|
|
| roadrunning Member Joined May 9, 2008 315 posts |
| |
Posted Dec 21, 2009; 11:47 am |
|
Hello Lorne - Westcoast asked you two relevant questions in an earlier post. I am looking forward to your response. | Quote: |
I think it would be helpful if you could more fully address two areas.
i) Please present as clearly as you can the hermeneutical shift you are seeing. I assume you are talking about a method in biblical exegesis / interpretation which opens MB's up to the acceptance/endorsement of same-sex relationships. Just what is this method you are seeing?
ii) In your view, where is this shift present within Canadian MB's?
|
|
|
|
|
| James Toews Member Joined Mar 31, 2006 362 posts |
| |
Posted Dec 21, 2009; 6:39 pm |
|
Hi Lorne
Your point about having begun the topic with the issue of Anglican Churches having property battles is well-taken. That being said, I still think it is inappropriate to link it to the issue of the “slippery slope” and the homosexuality debate, in the BC MB context. And it is very specifically a BC issue.
The arguments used in our specific BC MB debate [allowing churches to incorporate as separate legal entities]- are what make it a “delicate” topic. Given this it is hard for me, given that discussion, not to see references like yours, as a veiled threat [even if it is unintended]. If you raise that as a topic I am happy to elaborate more than I have already. Unfortunately such a debate would be for discussion only since, having made the decision to allow for separate legal entities- it is not realistic entertain a reversal of that decision.
I want to be clear that I am NOT suggesting that this topic is inappropriate for discussion on the Forum. I am just pressing you on this very specific piece of your argument. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| BC Anglicans and the legal system (courts) |
Posted Dec 21, 2009; 7:54 pm |
|
| I've been wondering how the conservative Anglicans navigate 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 while using the legal system to deal with property issues. What hermeneutic are they using? |
|
|
|
|
|
