At its monthly meeting of the Diocesan Council, held on January 29, 2009, the bishops outlined their proposal. The bishops plan to engage in a consultation process in order for the pastoral care of all Anglicans to be strengthened. They will implement their response when the bishops discern that it is appropriate.
The bishops’ proposal in offering a pastoral response is as follows:
* Episcopal permission be given to a limited number of parishes, based on Episcopal discernment, to offer prayers and blessing (but not the nuptial blessing) to same-sex couples in stable, long-term, committed relationships, as an extension of the current pastoral norms.
* Episcopal guidelines on the nature of the prayers/blessing will be established. A particular rite will not be authorized.
* Episcopal permission for blessings will be required.
* Evaluation of this pastoral response will be undertaken after one year.
* No parish or clergy will be required to participate.
* A Bishop’s Commission will be formed to create the guidelines, monitor activity and review.
Bishop Johnson said that it is too early to say what form the proposed prayers or blessings in the diocese will take. However, he emphasized that the bishops’ pastoral response does not include the provision for a marriage rite. He was clear in saying that any movement towards the recognition of same-sex unions as marriage or the approval of authorized liturgical rites would fall under the purview of General Synod and not diocesan authority. The Bishop emphasized that no parish or priest would be asked to act contrary to their conscience, and that pastoral generosity must also be extended to those who would oppose this proposal.
Please take the time to read it all and the accompanying link.
I remain at a loss as to why this is being proposed NOW, and being made public NOW, just as the Primates meet. I am grateful for the openness and desire for discussion around the concrete proposals (unlike some dioceses with which I am familiar). And in the spirit of such discussion, I included the following in a letter I sent yesterday to two of the Toronto bishops.
It is hard to escape the fact that the process you have now set in motion — one that involves public proposals, discussions, synodical actions, and all dealing with a way of ordering a particular “pastoral response†that involves episcopal oversight and particular permissions, following directives that involve the nature of prayers – cannot avoid being seen as one of ecclesial “authorization†of liturgical matters surrounding same-sex unions. The following words of the Archbishop of Canterbury were given at the end of the recent Lambeth Conference:
One of the problems around this is that people in different parts of the world clearly define ‘public’ and ‘rites’ and ‘blessing’ in rather different ways. I’d refer I think to what I said in the address this afternoon. As soon as there is a liturgical form it gives the impression: this has the Church’s stamp on it. As soon as that happens I think you’ve moved to another level of apparent commitment, and that I think is nowhere near where the Anglican Communion generally is. In the meeting of Primates at Gramado in Brazil some years ago, the phrase ‘A variety of pastoral response’ was used as an attempt to recognise that there were places where private prayers were said and, although there’s a lot of unease about that, there wasn’t quite the same strength of feeling about that as about public liturgies. But again ‘pastoral response’ has been interpreted very differently and there are those in the USA who would say: ‘Well, pastoral response means rites of blessing’, and I’m not very happy about that. (Final Press Conference, August 3, 2008)
I would underline two things in this response by Archbishop Williams. First, the key character of putting the “Church’s stamp†on same-sex unions somehow, simply by there being a publically permitted or authorized form of prayer (“liturgical form†– which is a deliberately vague phrase), is crucial. Second, the fact that “pastoral response†was always understood among the Primates at least – and even here with a great deal of trepidation – as involving no more than “private prayersâ€. Although you and your colleagues may feel that you are proposing something that would fall within this realm of only informal acknowledgments of private prayer, the very process you are following will make this very difficult to sustain in the judgments of many others around the Communion. The fact is that, among other things, your proposal includes the following:
• Episcopal permission be given to a limited number of parishes, based on Episcopal discernment, to offer prayers and blessing (but not the nuptial blessing) to same-sex couples in stable, long-term, committed relationships, as an extension of the current pastoral norms.
• Episcopal guidelines on the nature of the prayers/blessing will be established. A particular rite will not be authorized.
• Episcopal permission for blessings will be required.
• Evaluation of this pastoral response will be undertaken after one year.
• No parish or clergy will be required to participate.
• A Bishop’s Commission will be formed to create the guidelines, monitor activity and review.
All of this represents formal, episcopal, diocesan, public, liturgical prayers of blessing. And while it is true that the Archbishop’s remarks above do not carry any kind of formal authority in determining how the Church of Canada and her bishops will define “pastoral responseâ€, I think it fair to say that his rather moderate definitions will be shared by, and even defined more strictly by, many others among our Communion partners. I believe, in short, that it will be very difficult indeed to make the case and persuade others of the fact that the Diocese of Toronto is not moving forward with a contravention of the informal moratorium articulated at Lambeth (and before), not to mention moving in a way that simply does not defer to the general concerns of many Anglicans around the world.
Prof. Radner,
Could there be the sense among those who support the revisionistic drift of TEC and ACoC that there really is no block now nor will there be a serious block in the future for their agenda given the current state of the Anglican Communion? I know that sounds dire, and I do support your work at the ACI for the covenant. However, PB Schori and others like her keep pushing forward without delay, eg the Bishop of Colorado’s recent decision to ordain a non-celibate homosexual. Perhaps the question in the Toronto bishops’ collective mind is not so much “Why do this now?”…. but rather “Why not do this now; what is stopping us?”
Thank you for your ministry to the Communion, Prof. Radner, and your insights shared here.
All I can say in response to this proposal is “Yes! Please! Make my day!” Overreaching by Revisionist North Americans is always a helpful thing to do when the Anglican world are seeking clarity on decisions. If they had not have done this, and pulled away the curtains on the “moderate” gradualist stealth approach, they might have somehow been able to get away with things a bit longer. If I had been Prof. Radner I would have counseled neither discretion nor moderation, but full steam ahead. Why ask the opposition to NOT stick their heads above the parapet unless you want to help them achieve their ends? But that couldn’t possibly be the case.
#2 Calvin:
I think rather the “sense” on our side is that this is a justice issue — reasserters of course disagree, but this is how we see it — and justice delayed is justice denied. It was only with great reluctance and argument amongst ourselves that some of us were able to agree to any delay — and then only with the understanding that it would be delay for a short term only. Since the people on the other side of the Windsor report understood that the “moratoria” would be permanent, it’s not hard to see why the WR couldn’t hold in the long run.
I can’t speak for the people in Toronto, but it may well be that they feel that they did wait, reluctantly, in deference to the Communion and against their own consciences, and waiting didn’t do any good and now they’re done with it.
Speaking generally again of reappraisers, many of us also value being part of the Anglican Communion, and if it eventually winds up that these two things cannot be held together — being in the AC, and standing for justice for LGBT people — then of course we will have to choose which is more important to us. Quite likely not everyone on our side will make the same choice, any more than everyone on your side would in the parallel situation. But I hope you can understand that we, just as much as you, would prefer not to have to make that choice in the first place; so if there’s a way to keep both of these things then naturally we’re going to press for it.
It might seem strange, Ross, but I have respect for the justice card as trumping other considerations. It’s just not my religion, and it isn’t the Christian faith as received from the Apostles. It is unquestionably a modern innovation. I really do think it is best for everyone if there were two happy, healthy Anglican jurisdictions in North America, not two entities fighting each other to the death as the hurtle downward, downward. KJS and DBB just don’t seem to get it that their ‘fiduciary duty’ excuse just isn’t credible to anyone but the most gullible. All the while their public credibility is being utterly destroyed by the orthodox (and the media) as KJS and her group seek to exclude the people they consider dangerous to TEC’s sole Anglican distributorship from the AC and rub out the orthodox by ethically dubious legal strategies. This sad lose-lose situation wasn’t necessary.
Well. Episcopal *permission is required*. My my, what an odd thing for an organization that is intent on making up rules every week or so to say. Permission. And what happens if you don’t get it? Something realllly bad? What if you decide to do it yourself, do your own eucharist, and ordain yourself? Do the bishops *do* something to you? Like excommunicate you? Isn’t disobeying a bishop in ECUSA a bit impossible? It’s like saying you just got a date with the person everyone in town gets a date with, and acting surprised when the person is “Unfaithful”. How dumb do you have to be?
Another interesting point. “No parish or clergy will be required to participate”. Are there actually people so stupid as to believe that? Ask anyone who recalls 1976 and the “Conscience clause” about women’s ordination. Suckers.
A particular rite will not be authorized. That is, anything you want to say or do is OK. And anything will be done, depend on it. And the suckers will come back for more.
A few years ago there was an odd Pentecostal thing I think was called the “Toronto Blessing”? It was a little embarrassing to read about, but nothing nearly as silly as this Toronto Cursing.
Part of the problem, speaking pastorally if nothing else, is that the Toronto diocese, despite being located in a big-city with all the euro-rights culture, is also a rather conservative diocese in many ways: it has a large number of vibrant immigrant congreations (Chinese, West Indian, and so on) and several thriving evangelical congreations, not to mention simply a large number of traditional Christians. This is going to trouble — perhaps deeply trouble — waters that until now have been more or less calm in North America’s largest Anglican diocese. Perhaps the “diversity” has simply become too great to maintain in symbiotic relation. That would be too bad. As for the substantive issue of justice, it is odd (to me) that the church’s common life could be potentially sacrificed to practices and permissions that are, after all, readily available in the surrounding culture of Toronto, to say the least. This is Canada, for heaven’s sake; it is not as if church, through this kind of action , is taking some risky standon behalf of the marginalized.
Ephraim+ writes,
[blockquote] I remain at a loss as to why this is being proposed NOW[/blockquote]
Any parent would say the answer is obvious. This is simply boundary testing. The only opportunity for restraint was tossed away. Canon Kearon stated that Lambeth invitations would be un-conditional and Rowan did not publicly refute this. +Tom Wright stated that there would be pre-Lambeth letters but Rowan Williams apparently did not want paper trail, so perhaps there were pre-Lambeth phone calls as promised. Did the bishop of Toronto get such a phone call? Who knows? What was said? Who knows? No accountability and no reason for restraint.
Now, the revisionists see a green light and want to test whether Rowan Williams will continue his enabling ways. In fact, the timing of this most recent action follows the same principle of the “marriage” at St. Bart’s just before Lambeth. That action was a partial but near total success where the priest got away with it with only the slightest of hand slap for such an obviously baiting action. Now, O’Neil and Toronto follow the same pattern just before the primates meeting. Look for the same before the next Anglican Consultative Council meeting, etc.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
I’m with Calvin. I’m not certain why the Toronto bishops [i]wouldn’t [/i] do what they have done? Is there any reason at all not to move forward with the same sex blessings deal and more?
They got their invitation to Lambeth. Lambeth doesn’t occur for another ten years, and by then, most likely the current ABC as well as the Toronto bishops will be gone.
It seems like perfect timing to me, from a revisionist perspective.
The ardency of certain revisionists is beyond doubt, to be sure. And if that ardency is simply wedded to a desire to avoid Communion “consequences”, perhaps all this makes sense. But it is still irrational at a local level.
The Diocese of Toronto is not like many a TEC diocese in this respect. To a degree that is far more advanced than in TEC, many of the Anglican Church of Canada’s institutions and much of its infrastructure is decayed and decaying. There is hardly any endowment money in most congregations and dioceses, seminaries have atrophied tremendously in terms of numbers and finances and so on. What Toronto has, by contrast to some areas, is a (as I said) vibrant set of more conservative churches, and the most successful seminary, in terms of numbers and structural health (among other things), in all of Anglican North America (Wycliffe College — although Wycliffe is an independent school that is not affiliated with the diocese; I also leave aside some of the thriving conservative churches of the aboriginal north). There are, to be sure, some thriving liberal congregations as well. But the present and future of the church clearly does not lie in that direction, from a simple numbers standpoint. As I said, this is far more obvious in Canada than it is in the US. This really is cutting off your nose to spite your face in many ways. It may be “perfect timing” for a convicted martyr of sorts, but it doesn’t really add up according to most kinds of rational calculus.
I realize that there is a certain satisfaction in all this on the part of some here on the blog, a kind of “I told you so” attitude. It may be well-founded, I don’t know. But there is human rationality — clearly a weak reed — and there is divine rationality. I continue to trust in and learn from the latter, and to use and appeal to the former as best I can.
Ephraim, surely you know enough of Girard to know that institutional Anglicanism in NA is in a contagious mode in which no amount of rational calculation will suffice to exorcise its demons.
I imagine those that have made this decision are the liberals ideologues that shut their eyes to the consequences of their actions (or realize them quite well) and blithely press onward over the cliff.
Dr. Radner: Having been raised in Canada, and having come to Anglicanism in the Diocese of New Westminster (first under a priest and then under a parish, both of whom/which left the ACoC to join Don Harvey’s Southern Cone group), I am perhaps better aware then most commentators here of the differences between the ACoC and TEC.
I think that you are making the mistake of expecting rational and logical decisions from ideologues. In the Diocese of New Westminster, the diocesian ideologues were very willing to let some of the largest and most active congregations leave, despite the diocese being in pretty dire financial straits. Why is this?
Let me bring up an analogy. Four weeks ago, my elderly mother-in-law, who has severe short term memory loss suddenly lost her vision. We had brought her to the hospital and she was seriously disoriented, scared, confused, etc. She kept asking us why we were making her sleep outside, go to the bathroom outside, change outside, etc. She was also propped up in a hospital bed, with belts, tubes, etc., and had been wheeled about to various tests. When we tried to lower the bed so she could sleep, she became very agitated and told us that she did not want to sleep in the car. The nurses thought she had full scale dementia. It seemed so illogical and so irrational. I decided to put myself into her shoes and when I did so, her reactions became quite understandable and logical and rational from her perspective. Why did she think she was outside? Well, throughout her whole life, when you opened your eyes and it was dark, and nobody turned on a light, it meant you were outside. Why did she think she was in a car? She was sitting up, had belts on, and was experiencing motion, and she had not exited the vehicle yet.
So, we need to think why these liberal activists think that pushing ahead makes sense. They have very strong beliefs in the following:
1) Everyone will eventually come to see the correctness of their position;
2) Once people get used to SSM’s, etc., their opposition will cease;
3) It is only a small band of radical ultra-conservative rabble-rousers that are leading the opposition to SSM;
4) Once the Anglican or Episcopal Church fully embraces the new “inclusive” theology, and eliminates the troublemakers, the growing progressive segments of society will flock through the doors.
So it makes perfect logical and rational sense for the liberals to move now. The only question in the ACoC is the short-term financial situation. And on that score, most people do not believe (i.e. they cannot concieve) that the ACoC could go bankrupt or disappear.