The Anglican Church in Canada is undergoing a schism:

A parallel national Anglican church was launched yesterday amid charges by a leading theologian that the Anglican Church of Canada has been poisoned by liberalism and is to blame for the schism now under way.

"Schism means unwarranted and unjustified separation from the rest of the Church (structure), causing an indefensible breach of unity," said J.I. Packer, a Canadian described by Time magazine as one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in the United States. "Those who are unfaithful to the heritage are the schismatics. It is not we who are the schismatics."

Mr. Packer said the Anglican Church of Canada has been "poisoned" by a liberal theology that "knows nothing of a God who uses (the Bible) to tell us things and knows nothing of sin in the heart and in the head."

Officials said yesterday a new North American Anglican province, which would include Canadian and American parishes, is now being discussed. The Anglican Network has 16 parishes that have been aligned with the group.

But the parishes will now have to formally decide whether to separate from the Canadian church and put themselves under the new authority of the Southern Cone. There are 600,000 Anglicans in Canada in almost 2,000 parishes.

The parallel Anglican Church will organize itself under the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, an eccliastical province that covers much of South America. Interestingly, this province is easily one of the most thinly populated despite the broad area under its control. Picking up parishes in Canada will do much to increase its size and ultimately its influence.

But any changes like that could take time to be felt.

What is likely to be immediately discussed is ownership of property and payroll issues.

Normally parishes send money in trust to the diocese that is then processed for payroll and used to cut cheques to staff. Presumably parish staff would start receiving pay from a new source, but that would require moving money from the Canadian diocese to a new organization, money that might not be quickly handed over.

And then who owns the parish assets -- buildings, books, vehicles, and so forth? The parish or the diocese? Not surprising, both sides have laid claim.

And that means the secular civil courts might get involved, and that could mean revisiting the whole same-sex marriage thing all over again.

Here's what I fear will happen. The two sides in the fight over the property will show up in court, armed with arguments about who rightfully owns the property, based on documentation, deeds, tradition, and so forth.

But then some groups will demand to be heard. Gay activists looking to cause trouble for people and organizations with conservative religious beliefs will present arguments on who should own the property. People who believe same-sex marriage is wrong ought not to be given the benefit of the doubt, nor should they be allowed to profit by their actions clearly motivated by hate of people with a particular sexual orientation.

The argument is specious -- the right to own property ought not to be used to punish people because of their personal beliefs -- but it will make life difficult for conservative religious people.

But I expect that it won't stop there. The question of what standing these interveners have is likely to come up. Typically busybodies who have no direct interest in a legal fight are shown the door when they show up in the court room. But get a cluster of homosexual Anglicans arguing that their Church will be impoverished if the other Church diverts funds away from Canadian diocese, and this could get very complicated.

Imagine the judge who might have to decide if one Anglican is more Anglican than another Anglican, which means making a legal determination on the what is true Anglican doctrine and so who is following it more faithfully. Indeed the argument of those aligning themselves with the Southern Cone is that the liberal Canadian Anglican Church is the true schismatic in this situation.

Or imagine a Human Rights Tribunal being asked to determine if the conservatives keeping the parish property illegally infringes on the ability of gay Anglicans from practising their religion by impoverishing their church.

I figure this potential nightmare is the one thing that will keep the two sides at the table for as long as possible to hammer out a deal.

Check out other entries from the Anglicanism category
Results will open in a new window.