As part of a negotiated settlement between St. Hilda’s congregation and the Diocese of Niagara, the diocese took possession of St. Hilda’s rectory in 2012 and sold it in December for $650,000.
As is common in this area of Oakville, the new owner of the house tore down the rectory to build a new, much larger house.
The new resident of what used to be St. Hilda’s rectory is Daniel Freedman, owner of PinkCherry Sex Toys, Canada’s largest vendor of…. well, all sorts of interesting items.
Not that the diocese is interested in such things.
Perhaps the diocese leadership received a lifetime ecclesiastical discount on all environmentally friendly products.
Where there is no Light there is only darkness.
What a fitting symbol for the Anglican Church of Canada.
It hard not to see 30 pieces of silver being slipped into the greasy hand of the Betrayer.
Bigger pink barns. + Luke 12:16 ff.
Let’s pray for Daniel Freedman.
There are few depths that the diocese will not plumb, it seems. How very, very FUNNY!
And thank you very much for highlighting this gem. The destruction of St Hildas – out of spite – has this benefit, that those who did it ruined themselves. For who will ever give them a penny again? Who will willingly be associated with such pond-life? Who on earth would take any lesson in morality from a bunch of people who grab the property of others by means of dodgy lawsuits and then try to rub their victims’ noses in it? Other than the lesson of “woe to you, hypocrites, Pharisees”?
Aren’t you *glad* that you are not associated with this pond-life any more? Nobody need touch this kind of dirt.
David – Your post in November 14 said that the property was sold to the Region of Halton/Oakville, not to Daniel Freedman. Can you clarify?
The church was sold to the town; the rectory was sold to Daniel Freedman.
Thanks for the clarification David.
Now to stir the pot a bit….
Some of the comments are quite clear that it was immoral for the diocese to sell the property to Freedman. If the argument is that a diocese should never sell this land (or does not have the right to sell it), this is one issue.
But some appear to suggest that selling to Freedman himself was immoral and wrong (eg Jason’s or Biffo’s comments). I’m curious why? Freedman is a businessman just like most of us. Yes, he sell sex toys but this does not make him immoral or illegal…unless you are suggesting that it is. While many of the “toys” listed on the pinkcherry site do not appeal to me at all, I see no scriptural evidence that a consenting, married (and hetererosexual) Christian couple can’t use them. In fact, check out “Covenant Spice” which claims to be selling “Christian Sex Toys For Couples!”
We have a responsibility to demonstrate righteousness in all our doings, including where we spend our money, and from whom we buy or sell goods. The issue largely rests on whether a purveyor of “sex toys” is doing something sinful.
I, along with my fellow Reformed Protestants, and other orthodox Protestants (and even, for gosh sakes, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox), would almost to a man claim that it is. That claim would be made on the basis that sex is created as a loving expression of unity between a husband and wife but must be channelled in a manner that is according to holiness, according to the principles of the Spirit and not of the flesh. Sexual pleasure in all its forms – even within marriage – is not an unalloyed good, despite what our culture might teach.
I am past being distressed that someone who has affiliated himself with Christianity is incapable of seeing this – is incapable of identifying a seller of sexual toys as a person who profits from immorality and perversion, and one who not only profits from but also aids and abets the generation of lust in all its degrading forms. I am past being distressed at the inability of such feeble-minded, knock-kneed “Christianity” to see such behaviours as God’s own judgement upon a society that refuses to acknowledge him: “he gave them over to degrading passions”.
Your response is what one would expect from the biblical Nicolaitans who believed that sexual immorality was somehow completely compatible with Christianity. Christ’s words to them in the opening of The Revelation are hardly cause for optimism. Back then, the Nicolations justified their activities with the claim that it was only the body – the spirit was free! For in their thinking, the spirit was not affected by what was done in the body, or vice versa. They were the original libertines, condemned by Jude in the strongest possible terms (“those for whom the blackest of darkness is reserved forever”). They, of course, have re-emerged in our times. The spiritual progeny of those libertines have concentrated themselves in the ACOC.
We live in degraded times with a degraded church, and the proliferation of “Christians” who do not know the Lord Jesus Christ – indeed, do not have even the most basic and elementary spiritual sensitivities – and are far too enamoured with the world; far too much in love with worldliness, with its principles and culture, and its sins. This, I believe, is how we know that we live in the last times (however much time we may yet have).
The salacious glee that you seemingly take in “Covenant Spice”, as if stamping the name of “Christian” upon any such practice brings it in line with Christ, is part of the aforementioned mindset. The idea that if we affix the label “Christian” upon every item and practice in the world, we thereby claim it as our own, or bequeath the Lord’s favour upon it, is spiritual madness. Although it does speak volumes when such ideas are articulated (seemingly sincerely) by those who claim to know the Lord – him who is Holy.
Thanks for the response Jason.
While I acknowledge that some Christians have your viewpoint, I think that many Christians would disagree with you and say that it is not a black and white discussion.
Rather than create a lengthy post, I’ll provide a link to a magazine article that I recently read in one of Christianity Today’s magazines. Question #3 is most relevant to our discussion but the other ones are also useful….
http://www.todayschristianwoman.com/articles/2013/october/christian-sex-guidelines.html?start=1
Thank you for the link. Unfortunately, ChristianityToday magazine has gone somewhat down the tubes over the last ten to fifteen years. I have browsed the article, and it runs afoul of some of my criticisms above.
It’s written by a person who is clearly neither a theologian nor a historian, who has chosen to blend their professional knowledge with the mores of the culture, and somehow squeeze the text to come up with something that largely tells people exactly what they want to hear. Yet at the same time, avoiding the really tough work of wading through first principles and systematic theology to come up with a theology of the body that is not, like Frankenstein’s creature, cobbled from bits and pieces.
Frankly, when someone comes out with a statement like:
“I want to emphasize that God’s desire is for you and your husband to experience great pleasure! His standards are not to limit your enjoyment, but to heighten it.”
Or,
“God is the greatest proponent of your pleasure…”
I cannot accord them respectability. These are presumptuous claims to know the mind and will of God, but are disconnected from the revealed will and mind of God.
Nonetheless, I certainly acknowledge that the majority of alleged Christians in the West would agree with your libertine position. I very much doubt that the majority of Christians in the East or in the developing world would. And as far as Christianity is concerned over the next century or so, they are the future.
I have always found it a wise spiritual principle – in general – to be found among the few not the many.
When I read the book of Song of Songs, it appears to me that pleasure is certainly something that God encourages and promotes within the confines of a Christian marriage. Yet like anything, an extreme view can lead to problems like hedonism and counterfeit pleasures.
The opposite viewpoint of denying pleasure or much of the material world, which you appear to lean towards, can also lead to extreme views such as gnosticism or ascetism.
Neither extreme is supported by the Bible so we must find our balance somewhere in the middle… which makes this discussion a grey issue rather than a black and white one.
My theology is Reformed (Westminster Confession) and leans very strongly toward the Puritan view on many things, unsurprisingly since I have great admiration for the Puritans. I would agree that a balance is necessary, and at the same time, I would be the last to deny pleasurable sexual expression within marriage.
To me, however, the issue is not about balance but about what constitutes a degrading passion. Paul uses this reference clearly of homosexuals (arsenokoitai), and homosexuals would staunchly oppose the idea that they are engaging in degrading passion. Clearly, then, what is degrading from the objective moral viewpoint of God may indeed be pleasurable and even “normal” to the spiritually depraved mind, in the sense that it does not seem aberrant.
I believe the use of “sex toys” falls into this category. They are an unnatural addition to sexual activity; they function solely to magnify pleasure; they are alien to the concept of primitive marriage as defined by Christ (Adam and Eve in Eden) which focusses on procreation; and they bring the gospel into disrepute insofar as it shows that Christian lusts imitate those of the fallen world.
Jason
How would your argument fit if we applied it to other areas of life besides sex?
Let’s use food for example. We use food for sustenance and it is also an enjoyable act (most of the time). Using your argument, I should never partake of the following because they are unnatural additions that serve primarily to magnify the pleasure of eating.
– Sweenters (nutrisweet, sucralose, aspartame).
– pop (Coke, Pepsi, Sprite).
– Chocolate bars
– some spices
– whipped cream (the artificial kind)
– food coloring
– extra salt
The pleasure of eating can lead to gluttony. So based on your argument, I should never eat any artificial food lest I enjoy food too much and become fat or over-indulge.
Sex toys to sex are as a vomitorium is to eating.
And, after all, we wouldn’t want to stifle anyone’s gastronomical eccentricities, would we?
I had to look up the definition of what vomitorium was (a series of entrance or exit passages in an ancient Roman amphitheatre or theatre).
I don’t understand your comment but I think this thread has had its use. I would have never thought that I’d spend so much time defending the right of Christians to use sex toys. It’s such a minor issue and there are much more useful discussions worth having. I enjoyed the banter but let’s move on to something else.
Anxiously awaiting David’s next provocative post…. (how about the press release yesterday about Imago Dei and Focus on the Family taking a softer stance on gay rights).
However, you have not applied my argument regarding sexual morality to eating. You have instead selectively chosen a part of my argument, presumably because you felt that was the easiest to overturn.
Sexuality and eating are two different activities, and there are different moral principles that apply to each. To engage in what I call “parallel-o-mania” – the simplistic search for parallels where congruence is weak – is folly indeed. To assume than an argument applicable to sex can equally be applied to eating is stretching the boundaries of good sense, not to mention, reason.
We are taught that the only moral sexual expression is between a husband and wife. Are we to believe that the only moral pattern of consumption likewise exists between a husband and wife, and that all others must be excluded from their dinner table?
We are taught that pre-marital sex is wrong. Are we also to believe that snacking before meals is a moral evil?
Evidently not. A sound mind recognises that different principles govern both activities.
An unnatural addition to sexuality is not the same as an unnatural addition to food. Unnatural sexuality is condemned in scripture: bestiality, transvestism, homosexuality, incest and so forth. Unnatural additions to food are not condemned.
Food, as the Apostle Peter was taught by vision, is indifferent. That is to say, one food or another is not possessed by moral distinctions. Our Lord himself taught that food, which goes into the body through the mouth, does not render a man unclean. It is what arises from his heart.
This is where we begin to approach the reality of sexual derangement that has become the new normal in our culture. It is not merely a matter of maximising bodily pleasure – as you, in common with some variants of ancient gnosticism, seemingly think – but a matter of heart, mind and soul. What is done with the body in sex, both arises from the true contents of the heart and influences the heart. It both arises from a person’s morality, and impacts his morality.
The Apostle Paul condemns those who “left the natural use of the woman” and burned in lust for each other. The Apostle constructs an argument on the basis that there is something “natural” about moral sexual expression and that “unnatural” sexual expressions are ipso facto immoral. He further comments that these unnatural sexual expressions constitute “degrading passions”. They are passions which degrade the nobility of what man was created to be.
Therefore, what is “unnatural” in sexual expression must be regarded as having moral force. What is “unnatural” in eating, does not have moral force. For all food is alike – both morally and essentially – but not all sexual expression is alike.
The point to me is not to whom the property was sold, but that it was stolen (de facto if not de jure) and sold to anyone. The fact that those who did it seem to feel no shame is just a very sad head-shaker.
If I remember correctly, some people in Toronto were upset by an unholy transaction in January 1976. The Avenue Road Church was sold by the Missionary & Alliance Church for $400,000 to the Hare Krishna Temple of Toronto.