to unidentified recipient(s)

re attached

Not trying to resurrect the property appeal, it is history, but despite the United Church of Canada walking away there remains:

i. the only Manual authorized person is precluded from interpreting United Church of Canada v. Anderson as authority per "...based on my interpretation of church polity as set out in The Manual" and "...matters of civil law are beyond my role as General Secretary"; ii. the United Church of Canada is precluded from disputing the static disposition of property having similarly refused status to appeal; iii. the deficiencies of bylaw section 266(a), formerly 261(b), 112(b), 77(a), 78(a), 34(a), recited from an early date so as to be constructive to the thought, interpretation, directives, and history of the church were not dismissed;

and "that important issues are raised by the appeal" as expressed by the judicial committee executive were apparently just words without intent...

The appeal was like [hesitant about using analogies as the appeal was seen as neither a chess game nor a poker game by myself]

i. a chess game in which the United Church of Canada made expedient moves without consideration of how those moves might affect it in the future; and ii. a poker game in which bylaw section 076 (v) implied all personal assets including my house were on the table, but having played poorly and lost the United Church of Canada is now simply walking away;

leaving me with question of the integrity of this church.

I believe the basis for what each of us does is trying to honor God, or a different way of expressing that is "...whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" [ROM 14:23b]. In the context that follows two things are evident:

i. the perfect church has a membership of one -- and even within it there exists some conflict [biblically think the word is "sin"]; and ii. the reality is not everyone honors God the same way;

so if corporately we are to honor God one of the things we need to learn is "how to play together in the same sandbox".

"Is it acceptable as a christian to coerce?"

The property appeal was about using property to coerce - "the vesting of property should not be used as an instrument of power in relating with the congregations" - and went to the extent of appeal only because the abuse was repetitively denied with less formal process [similar to dealing with denial in an abusive marriage].

Cynthia's response to my e-mail, though expressing interest if presbytery uses authority improperly, avoids both

i. coercion is initiated by general council and presbytery is only the henchman to enforce its policies;
effectively denying
taking Dover Centre to the civil court and seizing properties were primarily to intimidate other dissenting congregations [where previously offer to purchase the properties had been made and afterwards two of the properties were immediately sold back to the congregations for a modest seventy thousand dollars]; using property to silence legitimate dissent, with questions of property keeping congregations within the denomination and in line with the church's policies: - ignoring "the freedom of worship at present enjoyed in the negotiating Churches shall not be interfered with in the United Church" [basis 8.6.2 (1) (c)] with mandatory inclusive hiring policies including threat of legal reprisal and using property as a non-escape clause; - ignoring "in the management of their local affairs the various churches, charges, circuits or congregations of the negotiating Churches shall be entitled to continue the organization and practices...enjoyed by them at the time of the union" [basis 5.1] by requiring participation in the centralized payroll system [with statement "at this point, any concern about the General Council's authority is a moot issue"] and using property as a non-escape clause; - ignoring "it shall be the duty of the session to have the oversight of...the order of public worship, including the service of praise and the use of the church edifice" [basis 5.10.1 (5)] [until remit otherwise] and "the freedom of worship at present enjoyed in the negotiating Churches shall not be interfered with in the United Church" [basis 8.6.2 (1) (c)] with statements and policies trespassing the constitutional prerogative of sessions - most recently requiring congregations move towards inclusivity invigilated by each triennial review [though advised of question of constitutionality] - and using property as a non-escape clause; and - the policies and public statements of general council respecting human sexuality have left congregations with questionable defense before the human rights commission while using property as a non-escape clause; where congregations feel the abuse of property as "if you don't like it you can leave, but you leave your church behind"; and
ii. statements made for specific ends in the ruling and refusal of status to appeal as subsequently binding on the United Church of Canada;
estoppel
"... a rule of evidence which precludes a person from denying the truth of some statement previously made by himself"; the only Manual authorized person is precluded from interpreting United Church of Canada v. Anderson as authority per "...based on my interpretation of church polity as set out in The Manual" and "...matters of civil law are beyond my role as General Secretary": - prerequisite for inclusion in the Manual is approval by the general council or, alternatively before 1976 by the executive of general council, where bylaw 266 (a) used as the only authority for ruling 06-009-R was last approved in 1968 and could not have considered a court decision which was delivered in 1991; and "matters of civil law are beyond my role as General Secretary" [ruling 06-009-R] was used to avoid considering the Supreme Court of Ontario and Supreme Court of Canada decisions as they might apply to the United Church of Canada and to the request for ruling: - the only Manual authorized person disqualified the general secretary and hence the United Church of Canada from interpreting civil law; where the above response ignores estopple as subsequently binding on the United Church of Canada by continuing to interpret civil law: "consistent with the civil law as established in the Dover Centre case"; and "...our official understanding...of...law relating to congregational property"; the United Church of Canada is precluded from disputing the static disposition of property [whether property is held under the provisions of section 5.3 or 5.4 of the basis] having similarly refused status to appeal, where property is not directly affected by
static disposition; question of static disposition being ultra vires; the future implications of static disposition;
the United Church of Canada is then not directly affected if congregations of the former Presbyterian Church in Canada simply choose to hold property under the provisions of section 5.4 of the basis
"Any property or funds owned by a church, charge, circuit or congregation at the time of the union solely for its own benefit, or vested in trustees for the sole benefit of such church, charge, circuit or congregation, and not for the denomination of which the said church, charge, circuit or congregation formed a part, shall not be affected by the legislation giving effect to the union or by any legislation of The United Church without the consent of the church, charge, circuit or congregation for which such property is held in trust."
based on interpretation "...for the sole use and benefit of the said congregation" in the Model Trust Deeds used by the Presbyterian Church in Canada [Rules AND Forms of Procedure IN THE CHURCH COURTS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN CANADA, Toronto, The Westminister Co., Limited 1909, pp. 128, 130, 132, 138], where - section 5.4 of the basis is the interpretation passed by those who legislated The United Church of Canada Act; - section 5.4 of the basis relates to how the former Presbyterian Church in Canada and not how the United Church of Canada interpreted property "at the time of the union"; - the provision "shall not be affected by the legislation giving effect to the union" removes real and personal property from the United Church of Canada argument based on interpretation of The United Church of Canada Act ["...and in which the denomination to which such congregation belongs has no right or interest, reversionary or otherwise" {articles 6 and 8 of the provincial and dominion acts respectively}]; and - the provision "or by any legislation of The United Church" removes real and personal property from any Manual requirement or ruling; where the above response ignores estopple as subsequently binding on the United Church of Canada by continuing to cite the ruling: "the original ruling [06-009-R] still stands as the General Secretary's interpretation of polity"; and "...our official understanding...of policy...relating to congregational property";
or as concluded, "decisions are two edged swords, cutting both ways, leaving the question of property with different rules than those of appeal ...straightforward and quite simple";

where the obvious avoidance questions further conversation.

The problem is not whether dissent exists, but rather how we deal with it.

The property appeal was not about leaving, though it considered the possibility of leaving might be required to initiate learning a different way to deal with controversial issues... that the valuing of individual church members - what the reformation understood as the 'priesthood of all believers' - and simple justice require dialogue without intimidation. Otherwise the disaffection experienced in the last two decades will find us increasingly in separate sandboxes practising functional congregationalism.

--
Don Anderson
rev@magma.ca
http://www.axz.ca/

Subject: RE: appeal
From: "Gunn, Cynthia" <cgunn@united-church.ca>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:12:55 -0400
To: <rev@magma.ca>, "Sanders, Nora" <nsanders@united-church.ca>
CC: "McDonald, Kathy" <kmcdonal@united-church.ca>, "John H. Young" <john.young@queensu.ca>, "Bulloch, Wendy - Bay of Quinte" <execsec@bayofquinteconference.ca>, "Karen McLean" <mclean79@sympatico.ca>, "Bronwen Harman" <bharman@horizontech.ca>

Hello Don,

You asked "where do we go from here" in relation to this matter, and I am responding on Nora's behalf.

In terms of church court processes, there is no further action that can be taken with respect to the General Secretary's ruling on the property issue. The General Council's decision on the review of the Judicial Committee's decision was the last step in that process.

The original ruling [06-009-R] still stands as the General Secretary's interpretation of polity. It is consistent with the civil law as established in the Dover Centre case.

I understand that you disagree with both the ruling and the civil court's decision in the Dover Centre case, but they are our official understandings of policy and law relating to congregational property.

I also know of your concern that Presbyteries will use their authority in relation to property to intimidate congregations. To be frank, this does not seem to be a concern currently shared by others in the church, as it has not been brought to our attention either informally or through a proposal to the General Council except by you.

If a Presbytery acts improperly on a property matter, there is recourse. Those directly affected by the decision may appeal it, or they may seek to resolve the matter through the United Church's conflict resolution policy, or they may launch a formal complaint, or the Conference may initiate action under its oversight of Presbyteries.

Don, I know that this is an area of church life about which you care passionately. If you become aware of a situation where Presbytery is using authority improperly, I invite you to bring it to my attention personally. While I could not intervene, I would be interested to learn how these various church court processes play out in the situation. In my experience, they work well to hold church courts accountable to due process and fairness in their decision-making, even if those involved do not agree with the decisions themselves.

All the best,
Cynthia

Cynthia Gunn
Legal/Judicial Counsel
The United Church of Canada

From: Don Anderson [mailto:rev@magma.ca]
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 10:47 AM
To: Sanders, Nora
Cc: Gunn, Cynthia; McDonald, Kathy; John H. Young; Bulloch, Wendy - Bay of Quinte; Karen McLean; Bronwen Harman
Subject: appeal

71 Blackburn Road RR6
Renfrew, Ontario
K7V 3Z9
613-433-8227
rev@magma.ca
August 17, 2009

Nora Sanders
General Secretary
The United Church of Canada
3250 Bloor Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M8X 2Y4

Nora

re http://www.axz.ca/vesting.htm

The General Council by refusing status to appeal has exhausted the procedural means available to me within the church to address "the vesting of property should not be used as an instrument of power in relating with the congregations", including
. informal dialogue since 1998;
. a friendly abstract petition in 2003;
. a non-abstract proposal requesting apology in 2006;
. request for alternative means to ruling in 2006;
. request for ruling followed with definitive legal appeal and request for review in 2006; and
. offer to withdraw my appeal in 2007 if without reference to who owns property the United Church of Canada either apologized to Dover Centre or alternatively disavowed and repudiated the use of property to intimidate.

So while there is basis for

Ruling 06-009-R
i. estoppel
"... a rule of evidence which precludes a person from denying the truth of some statement previously made by himself"; precludes the only Manual authorized person from interpreting United Church of Canada v. Anderson as authority per "...based on my interpretation of church polity as set out in The Manual" and "...matters of civil law are beyond my role as General Secretary";
Review
ii. estoppel
"... a rule of evidence which precludes a person from denying the truth of some statement previously made by himself"; properties of former congregations of the Presbyterian Church in Canada were held "for the sole use and benefit of the said congregation" at the time of union [Rules AND Forms of Procedure IN THE CHURCH COURTS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN CANADA, Toronto, The Westminister Co., Limited 1909, pp. 128, 130, 132, 138] and may thereafter be held under the provisions of section 5.4 of the basis without dispute by the United Church of Canada which is not directly affected simply by reason of the static disposition of property; and
iii. the deficiencies of bylaw section 266(a), formerly 261(b), 112(b), 77(a), 78(a), 34(a), recited from an early date so as to be constructive to the thought, interpretation, directives, and history of the church were not dismissed;

preferred is recognition "that important issues are raised by the appeal" as expressed by the Judicial Committee Executive, though not within my rights to initiate.

Where do we go from here?

--
Don Anderson
rev@magma.ca
http://www.axz.ca/