Diocesan Diversity ”“ The Diocese of Toronto honours and appreciates the diversity represented in its parishes and clergy. This diversity will continue to be reflected in the selection and appointment of clergy, and in the membership of committees and councils of the diocese. We recognize there are theological and cultural differences across our diocese and within parishes which are strained by both the limits and permission represented in blessing same gender relationships.
–All congregations and individual Anglicans are called to exercise pastoral generosity one to another.
–Permission to participate in blessings of same gender commitments will be extended only to those parishes and clergy who fulfill the requirements noted above and are granted permission by the diocesan bishop.
–No clergy nor parishes will be required to participate in the blessing of same gender relationships.
–Clergy who object to blessing same gender relationships will be asked to exercise pastoral generosity by referring same gender couples seeking a blessing, if requested, to the Area Bishop.
–Clergy who support blessing same gender couples will be asked to exercise pastoral sensitivity to those in their parish who are not in agreement with the parish designation.
Unglaublich!
Carl, over at standfirm, pointed out that there is no real place for conscientious objectors – you either bless same sex unions or you MUST refer them to someone who does. The illiberal liberals have tried to do the same thing with abortion: you either perform abortions or you MUST facilitate abortions by referring patients to someone who does do them.
Rule number one: There is no common standard and no common identity. In short, everyone does his own thing. (Yet another leftover from the Boomers and the sixties. TEC is not at the leading edge; it is way behind.) Larry
#3: wiccan rede:
[blockquote] An it harm none, do what ye will.[/blockquote]
Very Olde Englishe sounding, no?
This error is much older than the love generation.
I’m eager to hear from the ACI guys at Wycliffe College in Toronto. It sure looks as if it just got significantly harder to stay inside the ACoC and work for change from within.
As I said over at SF, I’m particularly troubled by provision 4a, which certainly seems to undercut any ability to fence either the table or the font. The stark contrast between this essentially antinomian policy in Toronto and the strictness of the early pre-Christendom church could hardly be greater. Just take a look at chapters 15-20 of the [b]Apostolic Tradition[/b] that sets forth the amazingly high standards for admission to the catechumentate (not baptism, mind you, but just the prepatory catechumenate), and you will immediately see the stunning difference between the high bar set in Rome in the early 3rd century, and the total lack of any moral boundaries in early 21st century Toronto, is like day and night. Converts from paganism in the early church knew they had passed “out of error into truth, out of sin into righteousness, out of death into life” (to quote the Apostolic Tradition again, familiar from TEC’s 1979 Eucharistic Prayer B). The early Christians knew they had been called out of the world to be salt in a morally decaying society, and bright and shining lights in a dark and gloomy pagan world.
That is precisely the biblical self-understanding that we Christians must rediscover and reclaim in our neo-pagan North American context.
Somehow, we must recapture the willingness to restore boundaries and discipline within Anglicanism. To quote the shocking words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, in glaring contrast with the policy announced in Toronto, we must relearn the wisdom in the Master’s harsh words:
“[i]Don’t give what is holy to the dogs. Don’t cast your (sacramental) pearls before swine[/i]” (Matt. 7:6).
The early 2nd century Didache quotes that disturbing passage in partial justification for its strict policy of forbidding access to communion to the unbaptized (Didache 9:5). I know it’s shockingly abrasive, but I think we need to be shocked out of our smug complacency.
Sacramental integrity must be restored. Toronto is doing the exact opposite of what needs to happen.
May the Lord have mercy upon us all.
David Handy+
Wycliffe College is as strong as it has ever been, both in terms of student enrolment and also standing within the U of Toronto. Obviously our students come from all over the world (including S American; Africa; Korea; mainland China; the US) and not just from the Diocese of Toronto. In addition, Toronto anglicans have major constituencies of Asians and West Indians, whose Christianity is more conservative. The conservative churches and clergy are not a minority in the same way that happens in TEC dioceses. They have been in prayer and have been discussing their response over the past months, as this seemed to be emerging. Please do pray for the Diocese and for the clergy who will need to respond.
Do guidelines like this ever mention the couples who have zero interest in any “union” whatever beyond the shacked up stage? It’s another example of blindness on the part of the hierarchy. There certainly are those who want to pretend to be married but there are so many more who don’t. I get the impression that this is so completely common that it isn’t even mentioned. Or, do policies like this ever envision a pastor approaching a same or other sex couple and *suggesting* or *telling* them they ought to get union-ed? It might cause some high octave screaming. It hasn’t been done in 30 or so years, has it?
Thanks for chiming in, Dr. Seitz (#6). May the Lord uphold and guide you all at Wycliffe College. Your school has a crucial and strategic place in the future of orthodox Anglicanism, and not just for North America, as you noted.
David Handy+
When does the liberal world, still in control of the American ethos, grasp the dichotomy between inclusiveness and the existence of standards. They are, at last, mutually exclusive. Inclusiveness, like tolerance, is not a virtue; it is simply pragmatic response to certain kinds of problems that cannot be solved by compromise or negotiation. The common left wing response is that inclusiveness IS a standard, another word game from the left side of the mouth. No, it is not a standard because a standard must have boundaries, and inclusiveness denies their necessity or desirability. Larry