Here is Rev. Andrea Budgey sprinkling onlookers from her aspergillum. As Chris Ambidge (the one in the tiara) declared: “Who woulda thought evangelism could be this much fun?”
What continues to puzzle me is why a church thinks its participation in an exhibition of debauchery makes it anything other than a preposterous laughing stock.
You can see the whole sorry spectacle here.
Sorry, I meant indaba. Rowan Williams introduced indaba groups into Lambeth 2008. Indaba purports to be “a gathering for purposeful discussion”. What it is when practised by Anglicans is a gathering aimed at building relationships, particularly with those with whom one disagrees. In order to do this, you have, at all costs, to avoid “purposeful discussion” for fear of damaging the relationship.
Consequently, at Lambeth 2008, no-one really argued, nothing was decided and nothing was achieved. Moreover, the relationships that emerged were the emasculated affectations that you would expect from a gathering of people who lack the conviction that if a proposition is true, its negation must be false.
The Diocese of Toronto, undeterred by the fact that they don’t work, is still using indaba groups:
Anglicans from the Diocese of Toronto who participated in the Anglican Communion’s one-year indaba process believe it can have a transforming effect upon the church if it is used more broadly.
[….]
The Diocese of Toronto participated with Jamaica and Hong Kong in three eight-day meetings that took place in Toronto in May, 2011, Hong Kong last September and Jamaica this February. There were three topics for discussion: social justice and advocacy, youth alienation and homosexuality. An important part of the meetings was immersion in the life of the host diocese, so that participants could understand the context for decision-making.
[….]
Mr. Graves notes that it’s tempting when people think differently from the way we do to let them go their own way. When he has thoughts like that, he looks at a photograph in his office that was taken of all the indaba participants in Hong Kong.
“The easy answer is to have a divorce,” he says. “But when you’ve built relationships with people, that’s not so easy. I look at those people and ask, ‘Can I do without that person in my life?’ and I don’t believe I can.”
From here (Page 12):
The Occupy movement began as—and, fundamentally, continues to be—a protest against the growing gap between rich and poor, the increasingly appalling concentration of wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of many.
And here is Bishop Philip Poole giving his pictorial illustration to the occupiers in St. James Park on the increasingly appalling concentration of wealth in the hands of bishops who earn over $100,000 per year. While the poor soul puffing on – well, whatever he is puffing on – can’t even afford a chair to sit on.
This time from the Diocese of Toronto which is busy “consolidating” churches and wants to turf a daycare out of one of them so it can be sold “tenant-free”.
It sounds like the action of a profiteering capitalist landlord to me. Where are those occupiers when you really need them.
From here:
In its eagerness to combine four south Scarborough churches into one, the Anglican Diocese of Toronto is inconveniencing another local institution, a daycare.
That, at least, is how employees and parents with children at St. Crispin’s in Cliffside see it.
Church services at the red brick building on Craiglee Drive ceased this fall, and in July a letter informed the non-profit, parent-run daycare it would have to leave by Dec. 31.
Its management found a new home for the children at Highway Gospel Church on Midland Avenue, but municipal permits are taking longer than expected.
Several times, board members have asked the diocese for another month.
“They adamantly said no,” daycare supervisor Debbie Humphreys said this week, “because they want to sell this place tenant-free.”
The parents are aware an offer has been made for the property of the former St. Crispin’s.
[….]
“I’m surprised they would rather have it vacant than help us out,” said Julie Leiper, a board member who added parents have been told the daycare, which has seven employees, will temporarily close Jan. 1 and be “kind of homeless for a while.”
The editor of the Diocese of Toronto’s paper, Stuart Mann, thinks that the Ten Commandments are too judgemental: they are not there to keep us on the “straight and narrow” but are there to make us “free.’
The problem is, if God is not “judgemental”, if he doesn’t pass judgement on evil and sin, then there was no reason for Jesus to take our punishment by dying a horrible death on the cross. There is no reason to believe that we need Jesus in order to be saved, no reason to call ourselves Christians and no reason to attend a Christian church.
If a church teaches this, then people will stop attending and the church will die. And that is what is happening to the Anglican Church of Canada.
From here (page 5):
“You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol.
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
Honour your father and your mother. You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness.
You shall not covet your neighbour’s house, your neighbour’s wife or anything that belongs to your neighbour.”
When I was younger, I would have recoiled at such a passage. It seems so harsh and judgemental, like a parent scolding a child. But I’m beginning to look at it in a different way. Rather than keeping his people on the straight and narrow, perhaps God is telling them how to be free.
When you add up all the complications that arise from some of the things God is warning us about—greed, envy, false gods, lust, lying— is it any wonder people are stressed out these days? Even if we kept half of God’s commandments, we would lead simpler—and happier— lives. It would free us up to think and dream and enjoy each other’s company—in short, to be closer to God.
The 10 commandments have been much maligned and ridiculed over the years, but there is great wisdom in them. Can we keep some of those commandments?
I think we can. You could probably cross a few off the list right now.
I thought it was, but apparently, it isn’t. As Bishop Colin Johnson tells us in this address to synod, it’s also about things like Occupy Toronto
slogans and living simply.
This is not just about recycling or composting, although that might be a good start for some people. Most of us need to learn to live simply, so that others can simply live. The Occupy movement’s slogan, I think, might be more useful: “A few might be guilty, but all of us are responsible.” And so we spend time at this synod considering our environment, our place in it, our responsibility, how it is part of God’s mission.
Now he has inspired us with his address, I would like to encourage Bishop Colin to simplify his life by moving into a one room tent in St. James’ park where he will be able to continue his “long-standing work of advocacy and direct service regarding poverty, [and] homelessness” unfettered by the constraints of ecclesiastical bureaucracy.
Bishop Colin astutely notes that Occupy Toronto has managed to achieve something that has eluded the Diocese of Toronto for decades. It has:
touched something real and deep in the psyche of our world today, an anxiety and a disenfranchisement and a sense of huge loss, but what they also touched was really an active hope. That the world as it is, is not the world as it should be. One of the slogans that I saw at one of the tents really struck me. It said: “As you look around the world, does it feel right?”
The slogan was quite true, of course, although it would have been less so had the occupiers made more use of the toilets instead of the grass.
Those who guessed James Joyce’s Ulysses are probably correct, but the more relevant answer is…… The Bible.
I was delighted to discover that, since it explains much of what appears in the rag.
But, fear not! This summer, Stuart Mann decided to read all the New Testament; the newspaper is in danger of becoming unrecognisable.
From here (page 5):
This summer I decided to read the New Testament. I’ve read the gospels and Acts before but never Paul’s letters and the other epistles. This time would be different, I told myself. I would read it all the way through.
I read and pondered the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Then I decided to take a break. I knew Paul’s letters were coming up and I just couldn’t face them. Something about his letter to the Romans had always stopped me from reading further.
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:
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.
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.
