Category Archives: Diocese of Toronto

Eight stewardship myths

Posted on by
7

You can read about the other seven, predictably prosaic, myths in an article by the Diocese of Toronto’s Director of Stewardship here (page 4).

The eighth myth is much more interesting:

Myth: You can expect parishioners to pay for and maintain the buildings they worship in.

Truth: In every case where congregations have had sufficiently strong theological differences with their dioceses that they realigned with another Anglican province while still hoping to use their buildings, the dioceses have gone to court to establish that they, the dioceses are the legal owners. So far the dioceses have been largely successful.

Yet, even though they claim to own the buildings, Anglican dioceses contribute nothing to their maintenance or the initial cost of building them. You can only con people for so long: no amount of weeping and wailing by stewardship directors is going to squeeze more cash out of people who have already forked out millions of dollars to pay for something they thought was theirs but, according to a spiteful, hypocritical, grasping national church can be taken from them at any time.

Welcome to the Anglican Church of Canada, the Ponzi religion.

Toronto bishops don’t want more prisons

Posted on by
Reply

From here:

Dear Mr. Harper,

Our diocese, which represents 300,000 Anglicans in southern Ontario, [a little exaggeration: there are only 320,00 church attending Anglicans in all of Canada] is committed to building communities of compassion and hope through nurturing healthy, vibrant congregations. We are deeply concerned that in a time of economic downturn the government is proposing to build more prisons rather than fund lower cost alternatives that enhance community health and build restorative relationships and stability………..

The Canadian government has regrettably embraced a belief in punishment-for-crime that first requires us to isolate and separate the offender from the rest of us. That separation makes what happens later easier to ignore: by increasing the number of people in jail for lengthier sentences you are decreasing their chance of success upon release into the community.

So if criminals are not to be separated “from the rest of us”, where will they go? As the Anglican Church of Canada drives Christians out of its denomination, it finds itself with a growing number of empty church buildings: if the bishops really meant what they said, they could rehabilitate criminals by housing them in empty churches. The bishops could be in “relationship” with the offenders, fostering “healing and community building”; I get warm and sentimental just thinking about it.

This could be the result:

Having approved same-sex blessings, Toronto Bishop Colin Johnson calls for Charity

Posted on by
2

Bishop Colin Johnson has sent a letter to the clergy of the Diocese of Toronto explaining his decision to allow the blessing of same-sex unions in his diocese.

It contains the expected boilerplate, including this section which exhorts its readers to exercise Christian charity towards one another:

Not all will welcome this development: some because it goes too far, some because it is not nearly enough. You will note that there are strong affirmations in these guidelines assuring a continued and honoured place in all aspects of diocesan life for those who do not agree with this response.

All of us need to extend to each the most generous Christian charity that our Redeemer calls us to exercise as we, together, seek to discern and live out God’s will.

Charity – or agape love –  is explained by St. Paul in 1 Cor 13. It includes this:

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

And here we have the problem: charity “Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth”. What Johnson means by charity is not what St. Paul meant: charity does not require compromise on revealed truth. How can clergy who oppose same-sex blessings, out of charity, “rejoice in the truth” when they are being compelled to be an accessory to the lie that man can bless something that God has forbidden?

What Johnson means by “charity” is a mushy mealy-mouthed liberal feel-good moral relativism that wants us all to grin and nod inanely at one another as we  sink together into a morass of antinomian depravity. That isn’t charity.

Diocese of Toronto publishes Pastoral Guidelines for the Blessing of Same Gender Commitments

Posted on by
3

Read it all here:

The following guidelines are presented in order to offer a generous pastoral response to stable committed same gender relationships in our diocesan family seeking a blessing of their commitment. The guidelines were formed after consultation with a Commission of clergy and laity across a variety of theological perspectives and opinions seeking to recognize the sensitivity of the issue while being pastorally appropriate. In our discussions, we have seen that there is great diversity among parishes that are opposed to same gender commitments, similar to the diversity found in parishes that are in favour. Recognition of this diversity affirms that parishes which hold similar viewpoints on this subject are not to be painted with one brush, and represent the rich breadth of life in parishes, with parishioners who are theologically astute and deeply committed Christians. The diversity of our diocesan community demonstrates that we are called to witness to the faith in a variety of ways, and though such witness is rooted in differing interpretations and understanding of holy scripture and the tradition, they are recognizably Anglican.

The exercise is obviously being undertaken as an experiment to see how it goes. Or, to put it less kindly, to see how vehement the opposition is (not very, most of those who still care have already left), whether it is likely to provoke sanctions from on high (unlikely, since it uses the weasel designation of “pastoral”) and whether, by hammering the wedge in a little further, the opposition is worn down a little more (probably):

Permission to be given to a few selected parishes – The diocesan bishop will designate a limited number of parishes to be given permission to bless people in same gender commitments.

Criteria for selection:

a. The Diocesan Bishop will select the parishes to be considered for permission

b. Parish will have demonstrated a process of prayer, education, consultation, discernment and consensus development that widely engages the parish community.2

c. When the Priest, Churchwardens, and Advisory Board/Parish Council feel that consensus has been reached, the Churchwardens will write a letter to the Diocesan Bishop outlining the process and decision reached and request permission be granted.

d. The Priest will separately communicate his/her support of such a decision and concurrence that the parish is ready to participate in accordance with these guidelines. If either the priest or Churchwardens do not concur then the process ceases.

e. The Diocesan Bishop, at his discretion, may grant permission to one or more of these parishes.

f. Permission will be given for a two year period. At the end of that period, permission may be renewed or withdrawn after review.

g. Permission is granted for the clergy/parish relationship at that time. When a cleric leaves a designated parish the designation will be revisited with the Diocesan Bishop upon the appointment of a new cleric.

h. The Area Bishop will be kept informed through the process and consulted prior to a final decision.

i. The parish will be expected to report annually to the diocesan bishop through the office of the Area Bishop indicating the number of blessings and offering evaluative remarks on the significance of the practice for the mission of the parish.

Those in a same-sex relationship don’t have to be civilly married to receive a blessing:

Same Gender Blessings – This pastoral response is extended to couples in our midst who seek to live in mutual love and faithfulness in a stable, long-term committed relationship. A blessing may be made available to couples who are not civilly married as the blessing is not considered to reflect, or to be understood as, marriage.

a. The blessing of any same gender relationship is expected to be part of an existing pastoral relationship with a priest and local congregation.

b. At least one of the couple should be baptized.

Clergy who disagree with same-sex blessings are still required to implicitly condone them through referrals:

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.

And let’s be sure we all understand that this has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. Nothing at all. One step at a time.

In order to be clearly distinguished from a marriage liturgy, the act of worship will NOT include the following:

i. An exchange of consents. It is presumed that participation in this service is sufficient consent.
ii. Opportunity for public legal or canonical objections. However the officiating priest may not bless the couple if either is legally married to someone else.
iii. A declaration of union.
iv. No rite of civil marriage will be conducted in the context of the blessing act of worship.
v. No signing of a marriage register will take place.
vi. A nuptial blessing – understood as any of the prayers found on page 567 of the Book of Common Prayer (1962) or on page 534-535 and 548 – 549 of the Book of Alternative Service (1985) or any blessings found in the marriage liturgies of other provinces of the Anglican Communion.

h/t to my underpaid research assistant.

Bishop Colin Johnson eats Kraft Dinner to help the hungry

Posted on by
Reply

When I was young and didn’t want to eat, my grandmother used chide me with the reproach that “children in India are starving”. Being a smartass even then, I suggested she send my parsnips to them. I remain unconvinced that stuffing myself with food I don’t want will be the solution to the problem of world hunger.

Like my grandmother, Anglicans in the Diocese of Toronto – led by the doughty Bishop Colin Johnson – probably mean well, even if their endeavours suffer from the same ignorance of cause and effect as my grandmother’s. They have come up with what appears to be the obverse of my grandmother’s scheme: help hungry people by making yourself hungry too. It’s a bit like throwing yourself in the water next to a drowning man, pretending to drown with him for a while and then getting out and drying yourself off while he sinks. Why simply help someone when you can embark on a noble campaign of Social JusticeAdd an Image and Advocacy instead?

From here:

A woman flees an abusive situation and is left with nothing, not even a can opener. A disabled couple cannot work, have trouble getting around, and can barely afford to pay their bills. A boy comes to school hungry, because his father cannot afford to give him breakfast.

These are the people Ted Glover, a member of the diocese’s Social Justice and Advocacy Committee and a parishioner at St. George Memorial in Oshawa, will have in mind in October, when he lives for three days on food that would typically be handed out in a food bank hamper. They are all people he has met through his extensive volunteer work with social service organizations and his job as a teacher. The three-day diet is part of the Do the Math Challenge, a campaign that will see Anglicans, along with community leaders and other concerned citizens, calling on the government to bring about an immediate increase of $100 a month in social assistance rates, and in the longer term, revise social assistance rates based on actual local living costs….

Archbishop Colin Johnson, area bishops, and Evangelical Lutheran bishop Michael Pryse will also participate in the poverty diet.

The Diocese of Toronto responds to Canada’s Anglican crisis

Posted on by
9

The Diocese of Toronto has recognised that the Anglican Church of Canada is in trouble:

The Anglican Church of Canada has been experiencing decline in its membership for some time. A report to its House of Bishops in 2005 showed that between 1961 and 2001, Anglican parish membership dropped from 1.36 million to 642,000, a decline of 53 per cent. The decline was quickening. Membership fell by 13% between 1981 and 1991 and by a further 20% from 1991 to 2001. The report

warned the House that the Anglican Church was currently losing 2% of its members per year and that ‘if you take that rate of decline and draw a line in the graph, there’ll be only one person left in the Anglican Church of Canada by 2061. The Church is in crisis. We can’t carry on like its business as usual.’……

The diocese of Toronto faces a stark reality: grow or die.

It is about to adopt the same solution as the Diocese of BC:

A report from the diocese of British Columbia, which faces similar issues to Toronto and is also seeking to stimulate new growth, notes that: ‘The Achilles heel of organizational transformation is resource allocation’ and so ‘the Diocesan Council will need to demonstrate fierce resolve if the Diocese is to shift financial resources from marginal activities to mission-critical initiatives’.

The italicised section is easily recognised for what it is: a euphemism for closing marginal parishes, selling the buildings and using the money to prop up more promising – or diocesan compliant – specimens. As this admits:

There has been a general welcome within the diocese for the sustainable and strategic policy. The diocese has been applauded for finally doing something about the subsidy of declining parishes and there was widespread acceptance that ‘growth requires pruning’.

Perhaps foreseeing a future exodus to more orthodox pastures, the diocese has pronounced by fiat:

° All church property in the diocese is held for the purposes of the whole Church, irrespective of the name of the registered owner, and the proceeds realized from any sale or other disposition of surplus property or any land by any parish are to be shared with the diocese for the purposes of the Church.

° On disestablishment of a parish, all proceeds are designated as diocesan share.

° It is inappropriate to use proceeds for ongoing operating expenses of the diocese.

° The diocesan share of any sales proceeds shall be placed in the Ministry Allocation Fund.

So, no matter what the deeds say, the diocese is laying claim to building ownership.

My favourite part is:

The conclusion is that self-funding Churches are essential. St Paul was self-funding and the primitive Churches were largely financially independent.

Who could argue with that? Bishops, you had better take some tent-making classes.

Just as in any secular enterprise, there is a great deal of tergiversation about “mission”, but entirely absent from the document is any recognition of the importance of bringing people to salvation and reconciliation to God the Father through Christ: it is all about surviving as an institution – somehow – anyhow.

Is a church that is so preoccupied with its own welfare worth preserving?

A letter to Bishop Colin Johnson from a parishioner concerned about diocesan participation in the Toronto Pride Parade

Posted on by
1

The letter:

Dear Bishop,

I am writing as a concerned Anglican who would like to bring to your attention a float that was present at this past Sunday’s Gay Pride Parade, a painted up double-decker bus with a banner from end to end which read PROUD ANGLICANS and which featured a great number of people semi-attired waving the gay flag about. To see this float for yourself, assuming you weren’t in attendance, please visit the youtube posting at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOnefx4zg8A&

First of all, I would like to know if this float met with Diocesan approval, and if so, why? I am aware that our church is struggling with the issue of the blessings of same sex marriage and the consecrating of gay and lesbian bishops and that a lot of people within the church are struggling in earnest with these questions. But I would suggest that most would have no problems with their reservations on either issue after seeing this display of licensed exhibitionism and decadence and I for one would like to both see and hear the Bishop of my Diocese stand up and say so publicly in order to protect the church from further embarrassment.

Secondly, I have noticed since my return from Prague, Czech Republic, (where I have spent the last 15 years) that a lot of Anglican Churches in the Toronto Diocese have the gay rainbow insignia either on their church doors or sign fronts. I would like to know if this practice too has met with Diocesan approval and the reasons, if so, why? Surely the only insignia or iconography that belongs on either a church door or sign front should be that of the particular Saint to which the church is dedicated?

From my year back in Canada I am very disappointed at all of this, and after what I witnessed this weekend my fear is that the Anglican Church is preoccupied with sharing the gospel of Church Street and not with the gospel of the Church.

Respectfully,
John McKillop

Bishop Colin’s response:

Dear John,

The focus for the diocese of Toronto is building Christian communities of hope and compassion through healthy, vibrant and life-giving congregations.  We believe that the good news of Jesus Christ is at the heart of that.  We are fully engaged in being a missional church, strengthening both the traditional ways of being church that have nurtured countless people through the centuries as well as seeking to respond where God’s Spirit is leading us in mission to those who are not in church in creative new ways.  At Synod last year, we recognised that our focus needs to be missional, and that while issues of sexuality were important, they were secondary.  We agreed by consensus that issues of same sex blessings, etc. were better dealt with pastorally than legislatively.  The diocese of Toronto is a richly diverse body representing the wide spectrum of theological, spiritual and liturgical expressions that lie within the Anglican tradition.  Some people are more intensely engaged in the sexuality issues (on the many sides of the discussion) than others or than I am.  I can think of other things that offend me more.  I said in my sermon at my installation that I wish all of us would expend as much energy on alleviating poverty and injustice as fighting about sex.

In answer to some of your comments: the float (which I did not see and to which your link did not connect me – although my children attended the Pride parade) was not diocesan sponsored, and I have no comment to make about it; the official policy of the Anglican Church is that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are welcome; those parishes which choose to use the rainbow on the sign to signify they are specifically gay-friendly can do so by their own decision processes – I could not dictate otherwise in any case, even of I were so inclined.

Welcome home from Prague.  I’m looking forward to my first visit there this summer.

The Most Rev’d Colin R. Johnson,

Archbishop of Toronto
and Metropolitan of Ontario
Anglican Diocese of Toronto
135 Adelaide St., E.,
Toronto, ON  Canada  M5C 1L8